A Modest Proposal for the Twenty-First Century

This essay is written in the style of Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal (1729) and uses irony to explore contemporary debates around belief, public policy, and gender. The views expressed are those of a fictional narrator.

For relieving the State of the burden posed by those who do not adhere to the prevailing doctrine of gender identity, while simultaneously improving public harmony, economic productivity, and national wellbeing.

2026

It is a matter of frequent complaint, particularly on social media, that a certain portion of the population continues to express unease about contemporary understandings of gender. These individuals concern themselves excessively with such matters as sex-based rights, childhood development, and the long-term effects of medical interventions. In doing so, they contribute little of value to the collective project of social affirmation and inclusion, and instead generate division, anxiety, unkindness, and administrative inconvenience.

I think it will be agreed by all reasonable people that the growing number of such persons who describe themselves as ‘sex realists’ or ‘gender critical’ constitutes a burden upon the state. Whoever could devise a fair, humane, and efficient method of rendering this group socially useful would deserve not only public gratitude but lasting commemoration.

This proposal is not intended to solely deal with dissenters, but to also take account of all citizens, from birth onwards, and ensures that no individual, whether believer or non-believer, fails to contribute meaningfully to the economy, the healthcare system, and the wider social good.

The population of Ireland is currently estimated to be over five million souls and welcomes around fifty thousand new infants each year. It is estimated by respected advocacy bodies that a substantial proportion of the population now identifies as LGBTQ+ and within this cohort, a sizeable and important minority identifies as transgender or gender diverse. Although numerically small, this latter group requires an exceptional level of care, attention, and affirmation.

Despite recent legislative advances permitting individuals to change their legal gender with commendable ease and efficiency, it has become apparent that this alone does not generate sufficient social harmony or adequately stimulate economic growth in key sectors such as pharmaceuticals, specialist healthcare, and psychological services.

I have been reliably informed by experts of unquestionable commitment to progress that individuals who remain content with their sexed bodies place minimal demands on endocrinology, surgery, or long-term pharmaceutical provision. While this may appear admirable, it represents a regrettable underutilisation of human potential, commercial opportunity, and technological advances.

I shall therefore now present my humble proposal, which I hope will be greeted with the calm rationality appropriate to such a serious matter.

I propose that no child born in Ireland should be assigned a gender at birth, and that all children be raised in a state of carefully managed gender neutrality until reaching the age of nine, at which point they shall be invited to declare their gender identity. This approach would ensure maximum openness while allowing the State to intervene supportively at the ideal developmental moment. This approach also allows the State to move beyond unproductive disputes over terminology.

Those children whose declared gender does not align with their sexed body should be promptly offered puberty blockers, thereby sparing them the distress of unwanted physical and emotional development and ensuring their engagement with specialist medical services. These interventions, it has been reliably explained to me, are completely reversible, whilst remaining highly effective in practice.

In place of outdated religious rites, children shall participate in a formal Gender Affirmation Ceremony, along the lines of a Christening, during which they announce their preferred name and pronouns which they will have chosen under the guidance of appropriately trained facilitators and psychological experts. This ceremony could conveniently be hosted in the many underused ecclesiastical buildings presently scattered across the country, thus restoring these spaces to public relevance.

The economic benefits of this system are considerable. A child prescribed gonadotropic-releasing hormone agonists may reasonably be expected to generate between one hundred and one hundred and fifty euros per month in pharmaceutical revenue. When multiplied across several cohorts, this would amount to many millions annually, not including follow-on treatments, consultations, and ancillary services such as blood tests.

After a suitable period, those on puberty blockers would ideally progress on to cross-sex hormones, and where appropriate, surgical interventions. The removal or alteration of healthy sex organs would ensure lifelong dependence on medical provision, thereby securing stable employment for healthcare professionals and predictable growth for the pharmaceutical sector. Research might also be commissioned into the possibility of reallocation of biological resources, thus reducing waste and encouraging innovation.

Some resistance to these measures must be anticipated, particularly from those already inclined to question the prevailing consensus. In order to reduce friction and prevent distress, I recommend the introduction of a digital identification system granting access to public online platforms only to those who demonstrate adherence to gender identity belief. Those excluded from such spaces may take comfort in the knowledge they have already expressed their views and may now enjoy a well-earned period of quiet reflection.

To further encourage unity, symbols of shared belief such as the Progress Pride flag should be prominently displayed across all public institutions, educational settings, cultural venues, and official communications. Employees of the State would be required to include their pronouns in all correspondence, thus modelling good practice for the wider population. They should also be encouraged to do business with commercial outfits who signal their inclusivity through branding and display of the flag.

Concerns occasionally arise regarding single-sex sports and spaces such as changing rooms and prisons. These difficulties may be easily resolved by rendering all such institutions gender neutral, thereby eliminating confusion and the possibility of offence. Language referring to ‘men’ and ‘women’ should be gradually removed in favour of more precise and inclusive descriptors better suited to contemporary understanding.

The advantages of this proposal are manifold. It would foster social cohesion through shared belief, eliminate sex-preferential abortion by rendering all foetuses gender neutral, revitalise redundant religious infrastructure, restore competitive excellence in sport, and generate vast and reliable income streams for the State.

I acknowledge that a small number of citizens may continue to object. In recognition of their sincerity, and to preserve public order, I propose that such individuals be offered a reasonable financial allowance in exchange for regularly submitting their objections and concerns which may prompt the State to re-examine, define, and defend its approach, provide clarification on ambiguities, and strengthen official dogma. The payments should be made on the condition of public silence, thus minimising the risk of protest or disruption. Given the revenues outlined above, this should present no difficulty whatsoever.

I profess, with the utmost sincerity, that I have no personal interest in advancing this proposal, having no children of my own whose futures might be affected, and seeking only the public good of my country.