Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Would you allow your sons to be feminine?
Comments
-
drunkmonkey wrote: »I'd hope not a few have tried, but you are trying to make me feel that I'm doing something wrong by not indulging in my sons cross dressing fantasy in public, joeytheparrot(I can see how he got his name) has 3 times in the last 24hrs put the blame of transgender suicides at my door all because I won't let my son out in the dress.
Nope. You're completely misrepresenting my position.
I put the blame for suicides and mental health problems at the door of people like you who are parents and choose to
A) Stigmatise lesbians, gay men, bisexual people and trans people
Disown their sons and daughters for being lesbian or gay or bisexual or trans
C) Refuse to accept that their sons or daughters are lgb or t
D) Attempt to force their children to be heterosexual or cisgenderIt was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
Joeytheparrot wrote: »Nope. You're completely misrepresenting my position.
I put the blame for suicides and mental health problems at the door of people like you who are parents and choose to
A) Stigmatise lesbians, gay men, bisexual people and trans people Disown their sons and daughters for being lesbian or gay or bisexual or trans
C) Refuse to accept that their sons or daughters are lgb or t
D) Attempt to force their children to be heterosexual or cisgender
Ah I didn't do any of that and I didn't say I would if it happend so you've completely got it wrong.
I said I don't want a transgender child so I won't encourage cross dressing in public as there's a chance parents can play a role in sexuality.0 -
-
Joeytheparrot wrote: »Nope. You're completely misrepresenting my position.
I put the blame for suicides and mental health problems at the door of people like you who are parents and choose to
A) Stigmatise lesbians, gay men, bisexual people and trans people Disown their sons and daughters for being lesbian or gay or bisexual or trans
C) Refuse to accept that their sons or daughters are lgb or t
D) Attempt to force their children to be heterosexual or cisgender
I think you're assuming that drunkenmonkey has a more extreme viewpoint than the one he's putting across.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
I didn't take it literally. The message behind it is hyperbole too.
No, they want boys to be whoever they want to be.
The message behind it is FAR from hyperbole. As a demonstration you only have to read this thread to see how people who want society to allow for boys to appear effeminate, have admonished posters with nonsense like "I hope your hypothetical children are this, that and the other". I'm paraphrasing obviously, but what's that if it's not using children that don't even exist as a means to ram their opinion down people's throats who disagree with them.
That's an insulting and cruel thing to wish on anyone, but please, reach for the tolerance paradox quote again if you must, because it justifies that ignorant attitude about as much as the Stephen Fry quote about offence. Is there an ignorance paradox soundbite too?
What they want, is to reject social and cultural norms, but they don't want to start with themselves and lead the change and set an example for children to follow. No, what they want is for children to go first, hence the "using other people's children against them as a battering ram for their opinions" metaphor. I'm not going to quibble with you over whether it was a metaphor or hyperbole as you appear at least to have understood the idea.Where-as I don't think there's very many political candidates suitable for role models.
I only mentioned Hillary, that's one politician, and she isn't just a politician, but she is also one hell of a woman that with a set of cojones that she's demonstrated she's well able to play with the big boys!
And yet how do things become social norms? The concept of social norms being applied to individuality is, through its very nature, ridiculous.
And yet that is exactly what you expect to happen by suggesting that by changing the social norm, individuals who do not conform to social expectations now, will be able to change social norms... somehow.
I have no doubt you're familiar with the term "critical mass", but as it refers to sociology, in simple terms - there aren't enough boys want appear effeminately to effect the social change you're hoping for -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass_(sociodynamics)
You're absolutely right, the idea of society changing to suit individuals is ridiculous, which is why it is always the other way around - individuals change society. Individuals for instance who take a leadership role, such as Harvey Milk -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk
Another politician and role model for both young boys and girls. Not sure about the size of his cojones though, didn't help his cause when he threw a man under the bus to promote his own political agenda -On September 22, 1975, President Gerald Ford, while visiting San Francisco, walked from his hotel to his car. In the crowd, Sara Jane Moore raised a gun to shoot him. A former Marine who had been walking by grabbed her arm as the gun discharged toward the pavement. The bystander was Oliver "Bill" Sipple, who had left Milk's ex-lover Joe Campbell years before, prompting Campbell's suicide attempt. The national spotlight was on him immediately. On psychiatric disability leave from the military, Sipple refused to call himself a hero and did not want his sexuality disclosed. Milk, however, took advantage of the opportunity to illustrate his cause that public perception of gay people would be improved if they came out of the closet. He told a friend: "It's too good an opportunity. For once we can show that gays do heroic things, not just all that ca-ca about molesting children and hanging out in bathrooms." Milk contacted a newspaper.
Several days later Herb Caen, a columnist at The San Francisco Chronicle, exposed Sipple as gay and a friend of Milk's. The announcement was picked up by national newspapers, and Milk's name was included in many of the stories. Time magazine named Milk as a leader in San Francisco's gay community. Sipple, however, was besieged by reporters, as was his family. His mother, a staunch Baptist in Detroit, now refused to speak to him. Although he had been involved with the gay community for years, even participating in Gay Pride events, Sipple sued the Chronicle for invasion of privacy. President Ford sent Sipple a note of thanks for saving his life. Milk said that Sipple's sexual orientation was the reason he received only a note, rather than an invitation to the White House.
Bit of a cnunty thing to do really.As has been said over and over, it's NOT creating a society wear boys wear dresses. You just said you understood this, and then you go and write the above! It's about creating individuality and allowing individuality. If someone doesn't want to wear a dress, fine. If someone does, fine. What you propose, as has been explained over and over, will not work as it's not what anyone is suggesting!
I do understand it, and to be fair to you, I should have been more explicit in saying that it's about creating a society where it is acceptable for boys to appropriate femininity as they understand the concept. Not only is that perpetuating gender stereotypes, but they're stereotypes that women have fought for decades to shake off!
Since you appear to be having some difficulty with googling the term 'SJW', I did you a favour and googled the term "princess boys". Before clicking on the link though, I will warn you - there isn't enough eye bleach -
https://www.google.ie/search?q=princess+boys&sa=X&rlz=1C1CHWA_enIE597IE597&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=685&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ved=0ahUKEwiBuvvVydfLAhXBkQ8KHddNC34QsAQIGw
As I stated at the very beginning of this thread - my son would look ridiculous in that get-up.You're going to have to explain to me how random friends of yours trying to diagnose your son with random conditions is in any way relevant to allowing your son to be feminine.
Well, the fact that after spending five minutes with him they could claim he could be either homosexual, transgender, that he could be on the ASD spectrum, etc, was a bit more telling of their own issues with themselves, than any issues my son has with himself. In this thread we have had posters who claim to be able to know the minds of people they've never even met. I mean, it's amusing that they think they're so well informed about "issues" and all the rest of it, but when they think they can project their issues onto other people, that's when funny becomes just that bit more sinister, and when they try to project their issues onto my son, that's when I have to practice that whole patience thing I've been working on.A bunch of Show-Jumping links came up, and I presume they weren't what was been mentioned. The peer-review system is under scrutiny in every science, for every topic. However, to dismiss it completely when it's currently the best we have, is beyond ridiculous. Learning to read journal articles and knowing which ones are actually valid by being able to pick each one apart, is a skill in itself and one many people demonstratably lack, as they have not learned.
I didn't dismiss it completely, I said it was under scrutiny for it's lack of objectivity. Clearly not even close to being the same thing in fairness. I'll come to that knowing which articles are actually valid (by your interpretation, and which articles are actually relevant, by my interpretation), in a minute.How on earth is scoffing at the idea that being horrid to people causes mental issues anything other than sticking your head in the ground?
It isn't, which is why I made the point earlier about some posters in this thread who think they can say what they like, when they like, and treat people like shít, as though they appear to make no connection between the fact that these posts don't appear by themselves, and the fact that there is an actual person behind the keyboard. I guess causing, or exacerbating mental health issues are only a concern when the people on the other end of the keyboard agree with you. Otherwise it appears to be full-on scoffing at people who don't agree with you, because their welfare is not your concern. Now that's not directed at you personally, but it's directed at anyone who thinks it's ever acceptable to shoot their mouth off just because they want to get their opinion across and they don't care for your opinion.
The "tolerance paradox" is an excuse to behave like a dick.I presume by ironic, you mean hypocritial. In which case, nobody arguing your argument has yet to produce a single shred of evidence for any "facts" they have presented.
In case you hadn't noticed, nobody else speaks for me, but me. So nobody else is arguing my argument, but me, and I've got 39 years of evidence, and 11 years of evidence, that backs up my opinion, that you, nor anyone else has, or will ever, be able to provide an argument against. The fact that you dismiss my evidence as irrelevant, doesn't make it go away. Those are the facts. What you've got, or at least what you have presented so far, are studies and statistics. Those studies and statistics do nothing for your argument, trust me on that much.
People relate to people through shared experiences. You could be Stephen Hawking (another role model), and you're still a human being. You can present all the statistical data, and all the studies, and everything else you have on paper (or in digital format even), and people will still be able to relate better to, and to connect with people better, through shared experiences. I was going to say "that's a fact", but you know what people say about facts on the internethttps://books.google.ie/books?hl=en&lr=&id=H3PDBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA39&dq=bullying+and+mental+health&ots=unOxthICTX&sig=MjlGNi3z-cLnWiaplWyGOD6ONaA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bullying%20and%20mental%20health&f=false
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14623730.2003.9721892
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.3/abstract;jsessionid=E474737AB9B875A71D03B9A9ADC554EC.f01t02
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josh.12050/abstract?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301241
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/ajph.91.11.1869
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X14006934
https://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/3/488.full
Yeah, about those links. I won't ask you to google, but rather I'll provide for you some reading material that's actually relevant in an Irish context, to Irish society, about mental health and children and the programmes that are being introduced in Irish schools to promote positive mental health in children -
Well-Being in Primary Schools
Well-Being in Post-Primary Schools
Or you could just not bother your arse reading them and dismiss them as irrelevant. All the same to me really at this stage one way or the other.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »The message behind it is FAR from hyperbole. As a demonstration you only have to read this thread to see how people who want society to allow for boys to appear effeminate, have admonished posters with nonsense like "I hope your hypothetical children are this, that and the other". I'm paraphrasing obviously, but what's that if it's not using children that don't even exist as a means to ram their opinion down people's throats who disagree with them.
That's an insulting and cruel thing to wish on anyone, but please, reach for the tolerance paradox quote again if you must, because it justifies that ignorant attitude about as much as the Stephen Fry quote about offence. Is there an ignorance paradox soundbite too?
What they want, is to reject social and cultural norms, but they don't want to start with themselves and lead the change and set an example for children to follow. No, what they want is for children to go first, hence the "using other people's children against them as a battering ram for their opinions" metaphor. I'm not going to quibble with you over whether it was a metaphor or hyperbole as you appear at least to have understood the idea.
Where? Where have I done that?
Have you even attempted to research the tolerance paradox? Because for all your sneering at it, you're coming across incredibly ignorant of it.
How many times does it have to be repeated that you cannot start with yourself if that is not who you are? It. Doesn't. Work. Like. That. They don't want children to go first. However, children are the next generation.I only mentioned Hillary, that's one politician, and she isn't just a politician, but she is also one hell of a woman that with a set of cojones that she's demonstrated she's well able to play with the big boys!
We shall have to agree to disagree here.And yet that is exactly what you expect to happen by suggesting that by changing the social norm, individuals who do not conform to social expectations now, will be able to change social norms... somehow.
I have no doubt you're familiar with the term "critical mass", but as it refers to sociology, in simple terms - there aren't enough boys want appear effeminately to effect the social change you're hoping for -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass_(sociodynamics)
You're absolutely right, the idea of society changing to suit individuals is ridiculous, which is why it is always the other way around - individuals change society. Individuals for instance who take a leadership role, such as Harvey Milk -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk
Another politician and role model for both young boys and girls. Not sure about the size of his cojones though, didn't help his cause when he threw a man under the bus to promote his own political agenda -
The same argument could be made for every minority :rolleyes:
Also, you've completely misunderstood what I meant about society and individual. Social pressures and "rules" should not extend to things that affect an individual.I do understand it, and to be fair to you, I should have been more explicit in saying that it's about creating a society where it is acceptable for boys to appropriate femininity as they understand the concept. Not only is that perpetuating gender stereotypes, but they're stereotypes that women have fought for decades to shake off!
Since you appear to be having some difficulty with googling the term 'SJW', I did you a favour and googled the term "princess boys". Before clicking on the link though, I will warn you - there isn't enough eye bleach -
https://www.google.ie/search?q=princess+boys&sa=X&rlz=1C1CHWA_enIE597IE597&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=685&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ved=0ahUKEwiBuvvVydfLAhXBkQ8KHddNC34QsAQIGw
As I stated at the very beginning of this thread - my son would look ridiculous in that get-up.
There is absolutely no need for the condescending attitude. I am sure you are aware of how cookies work in browsers. Yes, I could have deleted my cookies and then searched, but I had thought it quicker and easier to ask here. Oddly enough, I'm very much regretting that decision if it's met with that kind of crap.
I see nothing but children playing dress up.
Can you really not see the difference?Well, the fact that after spending five minutes with him they could claim he could be either homosexual, transgender, that he could be on the ASD spectrum, etc, was a bit more telling of their own issues with themselves, than any issues my son has with himself. In this thread we have had posters who claim to be able to know the minds of people they've never even met. I mean, it's amusing that they think they're so well informed about "issues" and all the rest of it, but when they think they can project their issues onto other people, that's when funny becomes just that bit more sinister, and when they try to project their issues onto my son, that's when I have to practice that whole patience thing I've been working on.I didn't dismiss it completely, I said it was under scrutiny for it's lack of objectivity. Clearly not even close to being the same thing in fairness. I'll come to that knowing which articles are actually valid (by your interpretation, and which articles are actually relevant, by my interpretation), in a minute.
Which you have failed to do.It isn't, which is why I made the point earlier about some posters in this thread who think they can say what they like, when they like, and treat people like shít, as though they appear to make no connection between the fact that these posts don't appear by themselves, and the fact that there is an actual person behind the keyboard. I guess causing, or exacerbating mental health issues are only a concern when the people on the other end of the keyboard agree with you. Otherwise it appears to be full-on scoffing at people who don't agree with you, because their welfare is not your concern. Now that's not directed at you personally, but it's directed at anyone who thinks it's ever acceptable to shoot their mouth off just because they want to get their opinion across and they don't care for your opinion.
The "tolerance paradox" is an excuse to behave like a dick.
Ah yes, back to the tolerance paradox which you have displayed a complete lack of understanding for.In case you hadn't noticed, nobody else speaks for me, but me. So nobody else is arguing my argument, but me, and I've got 39 years of evidence, and 11 years of evidence, that backs up my opinion, that you, nor anyone else has, or will ever, be able to provide an argument against. The fact that you dismiss my evidence as irrelevant, doesn't make it go away. Those are the facts. What you've got, or at least what you have presented so far, are studies and statistics. Those studies and statistics do nothing for your argument, trust me on that much.
People relate to people through shared experiences. You could be Stephen Hawking (another role model), and you're still a human being. You can present all the statistical data, and all the studies, and everything else you have on paper (or in digital format even), and people will still be able to relate better to, and to connect with people better, through shared experiences. I was going to say "that's a fact", but you know what people say about facts on the internet
I don't think you understand science.Yeah, about those links. I won't ask you to google, but rather I'll provide for you some reading material that's actually relevant in an Irish context, to Irish society, about mental health and children and the programmes that are being introduced in Irish schools to promote positive mental health in children -
Well-Being in Primary Schools
Well-Being in Post-Primary Schools
Or you could just not bother your arse reading them and dismiss them as irrelevant. All the same to me really at this stage one way or the other.
It's all relevant! An Irish Transgender is no different to an American one. I'm going to guess you haven't actually read the links either, as you have researched anything. I have to say, I'm rather surprised at you. Generally, I've found you open to information, even if you disagree.
If those programmes were successful, why is there still such a problem with mental health in this country, particularly mens?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Joeytheparrot wrote: »Says a lot really:pac: would you like a tinfoil hat?
At any rate, seeing as you post as though you have a fanastic insight into the world of science, it's interesting that yet again, you have failed to produce references after demanding them from others. You even took it out of the quote.
The trans lobby is mental. Who in their right mind would want to put up with this? It's just not worth it. And the way everyone jumps in to justify violence in a debate is astonishing.
Another question, when has a woman every said something like that?0 -
The trans lobby is mental. Who in their right mind would want to put up with this? It's just not worth it. And the way everyone jumps in to justify violence in a debate is astonishing.
Another question, when has a woman every said something like that?
Your references, if you please.0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgQy70_LPS4This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement