Irish state now will now accept a trans persons own declaration of their gender

Trent Houseboat

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Not at all at all. Sure tis all about impressin them 'mericans from over beyond with their MTV dancing and their hip-hop president and their wicked ways. Won't be long now till they are offering happy gay marriage meals, and offering drive thru abortions in the McDonalds and all them transgenderederedered staff taking the jobs away from all the good Catholics.

PC Brigade gone mad brigade

Memnoch

Ironically the people who most require and invoke the protection of political correctness are racists and bigots. Because they want to be able to say what they like, but don't you dare point out the racism or bigotry inherent in their world view.

andrew

andrew wrote: »

Between this and someone else mentioning 'what if criminals change their gender to get into female prisons'....jesus wept

I was the one who made the point about prisoners potentially changing their genders without any real gender dysphoria but I was using it as an argument to suggest that without any checks or any kind of monitoring, people will make a mockery of this system.

If people change their gender in order to get access to a specific club/ organisation/ facility etc. that is single sex it makes a mockery of genuine transexuals. It would devalue the struggle of real trans people if others used gender determination to their own advantage without any intention of living as another gender.

If I change address, I have to provide proof, if I take a sick day, I have to provide proof, etc. there are checks in place for a reason, people will use any loophole that they can get.

I can't speak for trans people but as a cisgendered person, a simple system to verify that a person really does intend to live their life in a different gender needs to be put in place to ensure that this doesn't become a farce

I fully support people who are trans and want to have their gender identity recognised, I don't support cisgenders who could make a mockery of self determination

jank

Memnoch wrote: »

Therefore any and all public systems that have any potential to be abused by unscrupulous and dishonest individuals should be abolished or abandoned? You know, rather than trying to construct a society that is fair, equal and provides the greatest opportunity and benefit to its citizens and prosecutes and sanctions those who would misuse or abuse these processes?

Where did I mention that this system should be abandoned or abolished?

The point was made that this proposal could be abused for other aims, not yet realised. The laws of unintended consequences, if you will. If you cannot even argue with that basic point instead of hyperventilating in some manic hysterical manner then it shows how weak the actual counter arguments are.

Clearlier

jank wrote: »

Where did I mention that this system should be abandoned or abolished?

The point was made that this proposal could be abused for other aims, not yet realised. The laws of unintended consequences, if you will. If you cannot even argue with that basic point instead of hyperventilating in some manic hysterical manner then it shows how weak the actual counter arguments are.

I would have said that it illustrated a misunderstanding. There does appear to be some holes with the idea of just showing up and making a declaration. It's worth discussing whether those holes are worth plugging and if so how. It doesn't follow that a long term psychiatric evaluation report by the local serious mental health team is required. It would be somewhere in between.

KomradeBishop

Memnoch wrote: »

Therefore any and all public systems that have any potential to be abused by unscrupulous and dishonest individuals should be abolished or abandoned? You know, rather than trying to construct a society that is fair, equal and provides the greatest opportunity and benefit to its citizens and prosecutes and sanctions those who would misuse or abuse these processes?

i.e. Libertarianism. Think you're asking the wrong person

Clandestine

Any support for our trans-ethnic brethren out there?

http://i.imgur.com/vECpBzQ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/VcPMnv3.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ReM5CxX.jpg

KomradeBishop

This isn't a debate I've frequented often, so some things are not clear to me: Are there any posters who take issue with anything that has been posted (in the last 5 or so pages in particular), as risking being insensitive in any way, towards transgender folk?

I can't tell if anything like that has been posted in the thread, or whether posters are just being unduly defensive, thinking that what they've said may be interpreted that way.
Or whether people are just pulling out the "PC brigade stop oppressing me!" nonsense, when nobody is actually doing that, just to try and stir up a controversy or manufacture a reason to be contrarian.

It's a good thread and a discussion that needs to be had more often, but I'm having trouble figuring out whether there is actually any remaining controversy, or whether it's all just a non-controversy where people are just being overly prematurely defensive.

Clandestine

On the subject of prisons, I've never understood the major aversion to mixed-gender prisons anyway. I don't seriously think anything will come of it, but it would be no harm if it did lead to greater equality between male and female prisoners.

Clandestine wrote: »

Any support for our trans-ethnic brethren out there?

http://i.imgur.com/vECpBzQ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/VcPMnv3.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ReM5CxX.jpg

I understand you're probably joking, but people really do make that point: why stop at transgender, why not transracial?

Well, lets say I am a transethnic Nigerian woman named Independence.

What next?

I've heard this point about transethnicity before, but I don't understand the comparison. Government really can restrict people's lives along gender lines, especially prior to the marriage referendum. I can't think of any way the government officially restricts behaviour along racial lines. In my own life, I can't even think of anywhere it's recorded, except a college-application questionnaire a zillion years ago.

So if anyone wants to identify as a trans-ethnic Japanese geisha girl, go ahead!

aaakev

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Or whether people are just pulling out the "PC brigade stop oppressing me!" nonsense, when nobody is actually doing that, just to try and stir up a controversy or manufacture a reason to be contrarian.

Mostly this really

The Diabolical Monocle

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

On the subject of prisons, I've never understood the major aversion to mixed-gender prisons anyway. I don't seriously think anything will come of it, but it would be no harm if it did lead to greater equality between male and female prisoners.

but getting sent to a place where theres free food and accommodation and a you're surrounded by a mix of the opposite sex available doesn't really act as much of a deterrent.

Delirium

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

but getting sent to a place where theres free food and accommodation and a you're surrounded by a mix of the opposite sex available doesn't really act as much of a deterrent.

by that reasoning, there's not much of a deterrent for gay/lesbian/bisexual not to break the law :P

The Diabolical Monocle

SW wrote: »

by that reasoning, there's not much of a deterrent for gay/lesbian/bisexual not to break the law :P

well the stakes are certainly lowered. Not like you're going to get turned.

The Diabolical Monocle

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

but getting sent to a place where theres free food and accommodation and a you're surrounded by a mix of the opposite sex available doesn't really act as much of a deterrent.

By that logic, the criminal underworld must be jammed stuffed full of homosexuals at present...

jank

KomradeBishop wrote: »

... people are just being overly prematurely defensive.

By overly defensive do you mean people responding to a very valid point made with "Nice. Let's dehumanise trans people" or when a poster gets on a soap box and opines that people who have the audacity to look at potential issues with the proposal are well, basically bigots.... do you mean these people are overly defensive?

RayM

frostyjacks wrote: »

This seems a bit like an April fool's joke tbh. With the smoking ban and the gay marriage thing, it's like we're falling over ourselves to be the most hip nation on earth, without actually checking to see if what we're legislating for makes any sense.

Only an idiot would think the workplace smoking ban, marriage equality and recognition of transgender people were anything other than perfectly sensible pieces of legislation.

b_mac2

I know what I'm gonna do, if I ever get a custodial setence...

jackofalltrades

RayM wrote: »

Only an idiot would think the workplace smoking ban, marriage equality and recognition of transgender people were anything other than perfectly sensible pieces of legislation.

To paraphrase, "So agree with my opinion or you're an idiot".
Seems very similar to the definition of a bigot: a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
You can agree with the general purposes of legislation but still disagree that it is not "perfectly sensible legislation".

Posters by and large have been very supportive of transgender rights.
The vast bulk of the posts criticising the new Gender Recognition Bill have been critical of one particular aspect of it.

And for having the gaul to get involved in a debate have been branded bigots or accused of hating/disliking transgendered people.
I think this thread is a good example of the worrying trend in shutting down debates when people don't agree with the popular narrative.

jobbridge4life

jackofalltrades wrote: »

To paraphrase, "So agree with my opinion or you're an idiot".
Seems very similar to the definition of a bigot: a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
You can agree with the general purposes of legislation but still disagree that it is not "perfectly sensible legislation".

Posters by and large have been very supportive of transgender rights.
The vast bulk of the posts criticising the new Gender Recognition Bill have been critical of one particular aspect of it.

And for having the gaul to get involved in a debate have been branded bigots or accused of hating/disliking transgendered people.
I think this thread is a good example of the worrying trend in shutting down debates when people don't agree with the popular narrative.

To paraphrase 'oh crow crow crow... me no bigoty... me right wing parrot... crow crow fado fado'. Schtick a briquette on quick or we'll be frozhen sholid.

RDM_83 again

jackofalltrades wrote: »

To paraphrase, "So agree with my opinion or you're an idiot".
Seems very similar to the definition of a bigot: a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
You can agree with the general purposes of legislation but still disagree that it is not "perfectly sensible legislation".

Posters by and large have been very supportive of transgender rights.
The vast bulk of the posts criticising the new Gender Recognition Bill have been critical of one particular aspect of it.

And for having the gaul to get involved in a debate have been branded bigots or accused of hating/disliking transgendered people.
I think this thread is a good example of the worrying trend in shutting down debates when people don't agree with the popular narrative.

This +1000 I support the bill as it was and can see how the previous requirements were possibly two strict (it was two psychaitrists AFAIK or a medic involved in the physical transition), having an issue with the change to its present form with no consultation at all isn't a reactionary position not supporting the bill in its previous iteration might have well been.

Tombi!

Knock it off with the sly digs

darkpagandeath

Glad to see some are keeping their heads and looking at the bigger picture. Legislation to give Genuine people a better life good. Legislation that gives anyone without oversight that's open to massive abuse bad. All it takes is a precedent in court and bang, And with the cries of Equality a good piece of legislation could be cynically abused.

KomradeBishop

jank wrote: »

By overly defensive do you mean people responding to a very valid point made with "Nice. Let's dehumanise trans people" or when a poster gets on a soap box and opines that people who have the audacity to look at potential issues with the proposal are well, basically bigots.... do you mean these people are overly defensive?

Ok, I saw the 'dehumanize' accusation - which I didn't think was explained/well-backed at all, and don't think that poster has returned to the thread to clarify - so yes, that's something that people have legitimately taken issue with.

I've just seen one post like that though - so I don't get where the last 4-5 pages of 'PC gone mad!' type spin have come from; it seems a bit disproportionate as if people are being overly defensive or over-reactive.

HardenendMan

This thread shows that conservatism is interpreted as bigotry by liberals.

I am happy to see that this legislation means so so much, albeit to a tiny minority of people. I'm talking about the people it really affects (trans and their family)

But the cynic in me thinks it's a ploy for votes. The government are saying hey look how we value everybody. Aren't we great.

But the people affected probably won't care about that. They get a benefit from it.

But also let me say this - do not think this type of change means you won't meet a lot of dcikheads that will cause you trouble because of who you are. Let's not forget that about a third of our people did not want marriage for homosexuals. That's a lot of people!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I understand you're probably joking, but people really do make that point: why stop at transgender, why not transracial?

Well, lets say I am a transethnic Nigerian woman named Independence.

What next?

I've heard this point about transethnicity before, but I don't understand the comparison. Government really can restrict people's lives along gender lines, especially prior to the marriage referendum. I can't think of any way the government officially restricts behaviour along racial lines. In my own life, I can't even think of anywhere it's recorded, except a college-application questionnaire a zillion years ago.

So if anyone wants to identify as a trans-ethnic Japanese geisha girl, go ahead!

Sure why stop there?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJH5AR0CuRI

IrishTrajan

MrWalsh wrote: »

It doesnt make sense to record gender on the birth cert at all. Only to record "sex at birth".

Gender and sex were synonyms until relatively recently (1955), where it was appropriated to having two different meanings by John Money.

Vojera

My friend is adopted and as such she has no legal right to possess or use her own birth certificate. Instead she has an adoption certificate. It's no big deal, but every time she needs to use that cert in place of her birth cert she feels "outed" and awkward. It's no one's business but her own that she's adopted, and yet she's forced to explain it to strangers.

Can you imagine if instead of an adoption cert, you had to hand over a gender cert? Imagine how that would feel, being forced to disclose information that is no one else's business, wondering if the person on the other side of the desk is searching your face for evidence of a slightly stronger jawline or trying to guess what's between your legs or judging you on how well you "pass". That is inhumane, in my opinion.

I get the argument that there is nothing to be ashamed of and trans people shouldn't have to hide their past, but it's not for society to place that burden on individuals. Not everyone wants to fight a cause. Not everyone wants to mark themselves as being different. No one should force that on anyone. For example, I'm a lesbian but I don't 'look' like a lesbian. I don't choose to tell everyone that I'm in a relationship with a woman because it's no one's business. I'm not ashamed, but it can get very tiring. It's my choice who to tell.

It's easy to argue about paperwork, but try to think of the person who actually has to deal with it. Why make someone's life harder if you don't have to?

nokia69

I more or less agree with McInnes

http://takimag.com/article/trans_fixed_gavin_mcinnes#axzz3cEgiX6Pk

he wrote this article which is worth a read

the nullo link in the article is a new one for me, when will we see SJWs asking more rights for nullos

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, we’re still driving headlong into a world where the people who went to med school are quacks and the lunatics on the fringe of society are experts

no end in sight to the madness it pythonesque at this stage

Wibbs

Vojera wrote: »

it's not for society to place that burden on individuals. Not everyone wants to fight a cause. Not everyone wants to mark themselves as being different.

That's a very good point V and I agree with you.

nokia69 wrote: »

I more or less agree with McInnes

I would agree with some of his points and disagree with others, but the shítstorm visited upon him for a contrary opinion is worrying. To question the new Dogma, is to be branded a heretic of many titles and ultimately if no repentance is seen, excommunicated. Literally in yer man's case.

nokia69

nokia69 wrote: »

What I find most odd about 'right-wing' libertarian sites like that, and similarly McInnes, is the internal clash of their politics.

These guys want to be 'let alone'. Their individualistic outlook demands low taxation, a small state, and nobody sticking their nose across the garden gate (PRIVATE PROPERTY).

But when it comes to other the most private property of all, our own bodies, everything gets turned on its head.

In matters of personal liberty - abortion, transgender identity, or simply men who want to wear dresses - they suddenly have permission to stick their oar in? Suddenly they are interventionists?

What the fcuk gives McInnes a say in this? I'd like to see a little more consistency with these libertarian nutters.