Both government and Opposition MPs yesterday warned that the Gender Identity Bill could pose legal difficulties and be in conflict with other pieces of legislation.

Speaking during the debate in second reading, they urged for a fine-tooth comb examination of certain clauses of the Bill in committee stage.

Clyde Puli (PN) said that the Opposition would vote in favour of the Bill, but it  still had some reservations and expressed concern about what had been left out.

For someone to change sex one could do this legally simply by going through a notary. Yet, he pointed out, there was no reference to the need for any psychological report, or any multi-disciplinary team counselling the person. Sometimes, after counselling, there were cases where the person either did not go through with it or wanted to reverse the operation.  

He asked whether any studies had been made to ascertain how many were vulnerable and at risk of suicide.

While stressing the need for data protection to shield the person from humiliation, Mr Puli asked what would happen in single-sex schools. Would the head of school be informed?

When it came to children who had not yet decided on their gender, which (single sex) school would they be sent to? Which bathroom would they use? Had the minister discussed these implications with the Education Minister? Had she discussed it with sports organizations? These were all very crucial issues especially with cases where the person had not yet made the transition to a different gender, he said.

What about marriage banns: would there be a way of protecting someone from being deceived?

If a married person decided to change his or her gender, would this become a same sex marriage? If in the affirmative, would this not be creating an anomaly?

This Bill, he said, could have implications which were not yet apparent. What would become of the rights and obligations of the parent over the child? Would the state now be taking over this role?

Mr Puli said that he had spoken to people who were concerned about the introduction of a “gender ideology” in society.

Concluding, he asked whether the protocol regarding surrogacy would now be changed?

After explaining certain clinical terms and terminology, former Health Minister Joe Cassar said it was clear that ignoring the clinical aspect in this Bill was a mistake. While it was true it had many social implications, one could not ignore the clinical aspect.

He said that if one focused solely on the social aspect, it was inevitable that loopholes would exist. These persons wanted the law to offer them protection, so it was important to ensure that only persons who genuinely had this problem could make use of it.

Dr Cassar said he had already heard of people cracking jokes about it, and therefore hoped the committee stage would iron out any loopholes to ensure no further unnecessary suffering.

One had to acknowledge that cross-sex hormone therapy and sexual reassignment surgery forming part of the national health service were whole packages, not solely an operation, and had to be budgeted for as such.

Furthermore, there would be others such as eczema and osteoporosis sufferers, who would question why they too weren’t receiving alleviation from their suffering.

Government back-bencher Luciano Busuttil said it was crucial to examine the effect such a law would have on the general public because it meant that a person’s gender could change in the eyes of the law by a simple declaration before a notary.

If a married man was recognised as a woman, would this effectively mean recognising same-sex marriage?

While he was fully in favour of same-sex marriage, he believed this should come about officially, rather than through the back door through another law.

He also suggested appointing a medical expert to assess a person’s gender identity.

Turing to the legal aspects, Dr Busuttil said there could also be effects where contracts and wills were involved, as the question of whether a will remained valid when one person had changed their gender identity arose. Even in genuine cases, there would still be effects, he said, adding that the question was how to cushion these effects to avoid repercussions.

A fact few considered was that one might be physically a man, but genuinely feel like a woman, and also be an athlete. In such cases should the individual compete against other men or other women?

The aim was to create a law which protected those it was targeted and a collective effort and amendments in committee stage would ensure this.

Claudette Buttigieg (PN) said the Bill needed more clarity on a number of points.

One aspect which hadn’t yet been sufficiently clarified was the distinction between adults wanting to change their gender and the psyche aspect, as well as the social aspect. There existed conflict between the medical, psychological and social aspects.

Dr Buttigieg said she believed this Bill could help such people “normalise” their lives. One had to be very cautious of repercussions, she said. It was important not to confuse people on something so important.

It was true that one could never be 100 per cent sure when it came to medical decisions on the matter, but she suggested that perhaps parents shouldn’t have to register a name straight away in case of uncertainty at birth. Though some people say they could choose a gender neutral name, lawmakers should consider this lacuna.

Winding up the debate, Minister Dalli said that one had to look at this Bill in the light of the constitutional amendment that no discrimination against gender identity could take place.

She said that she could not understand Mr Puli’s empathy with trans gender persons while adhereing to the Gender Ideology which negated the possibility of being trans gender.

Dr Dalli said that trans gender persons should not be forced to undergo medical or psychological examinations to declare themselves as such. The government had chosen the human rights model over the medical model. 

There was no issue on marriage because Malta already recognised overseas same sex marriages and also allowed same sex civil unions.

It was important not to exclude or humiliate trans and intersex persons even in sports activities.

The government had opted for co-education in public schools while not obliging others to follow this model. It was important however that children learnt about equality in practice and not just academically.

Education Minister Evarist Bartolo and Labour MPs Deborah Schebri and Etienne Grech also took part in the debate. Mr Bartolo pointed out that he had presented a private member's bill on the same subject in the last legislature, but the then government had been reluctant to put it on the agenda of the House.