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

Speaking during the debate in its second reading, they called for a careful examination of certain clauses of the Bill at the committee stage.

The first salvo was fired by Clyde Puli (PN) who said the Opposition still had some reservations over the Bill and expressed concern about what had been left out.

One could change sex legally simply by going through a notary. Yet there was no reference in the draft law to the need for any psychological report or any counselling to be offered to the person by a multidisciplinary team. There were sometimes cases following counselling of people not going through with the operation or wanting to reverse it.

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 organisations?

If a married person decided to change his or her gender - if a married man was recognised as a woman – would this become a same-sex marriage? If yes, would this not be creating an anomaly?

This Bill, Mr Puli said, could have implications that were not yet apparent. What would become of the rights and obligations of the parent vis-a-vis the child? Would the State now take over this role?

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

After explaining certain clinical terms and terminology, former health minister Joe Cassar, a psychiatrist, said it was clear that ignoring the clinical dimension was a mistake. If the law only focused on the social aspects, 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 resort to it.

It was clear that ignoring the clinical dimension was a mistake. If the law only focused on the social, loopholes were inevitable

Dr Cassar said he had already heard of people cracking jokes about it, and therefore hoped that at committee stage any loopholes would be ironed out to avoid further unnecessary suffering.

Government backbencher Luciano Busuttil said it was crucial to examine the effect of such a law on the public since it meant that a person’s gender could change in the eyes of the law by a simple declaration before a notary.

While he was fully in favour of same-sex marriage, he believed this should come about officially, rather than through the back door. He also suggested appointing a medical expert to assess a person’s gender identity. The question arose of whether a will remained valid when a person had changed gender. Also, should male athletes who switched gender compete against other men or other women?

Claudette Buttigieg (PN) said she believed the law could help some people “normalise” their lives. One however had to be very cautious of the repercussions. 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 perhaps parents should not register a name straight away in case of uncertainty at birth.

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 could not understand Mr Puli’s empathy with transgender persons while adhering to a gender ideology which negated the possibility of being transgender.

These 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, she said.