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 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
Calls for Graham Linehan to be removed from Prime Debate on transgender issues!
Comments
-
I'm not playing around with language. You described the person presenting at a Garda station as being a victim of sexual assault. They are not a victim of sexual assault until their sexual partner is convicted.
That’s utter nonsense. In a previous thread you tried to use the number of women on social media who claimed to have experienced sexual assault as evidence of the prevalence of sexual assault in society, and when it doesn’t suit your purposes then, you try and claim they aren’t victims of rape and sexual assault until the person who raped or sexually assaulted them is convicted? Whether or not a person is convicted of sexual assault or rape doesn’t mean they didn’t commit sexual assault or rape, and if a person walks into a Garda station claiming to have been the victim of sexual assault or rape, their complaint will be taken seriously.You then presented whether they were convicted of sexual assault as being based on a potential jury verdict alone. I pointed out the error there.
You didn’t point out any error. Whether or not a person is convicted of sexual assault or rape is based upon the verdict of the jury in any case upon hearing the evidence presented in the case.Now you're implying that the prosecution decision to prosecute is based on where they think they can get a conviction. But there are other reasons why the prosecution may not prosecute. They may believe themselves that there has been no breach of the law even if they believe they could get a conviction by jury.
I’m not just implying it, I’m stating it as a fact that one of the factors in whether or not the DPP decides to proceed with a prosecution is whether or not they are confident they can secure a conviction. I never said there weren’t other reasons they would decide to proceed with a prosecution, but being confident that they can secure a conviction is the foremost reason. The reasons for not proceeding with a conviction are a different matter entirely.
I’m even being polite enough with you to ignore the stupidity of your assertion that the DPP may not proceed with a case if they decide that there has been no breach of the law in spite of the fact that they are confident they could secure a conviction. If they are confident they could secure a conviction, then obviously they are of the belief that the accused committed an offence.There is no word play here. Just the realities of the legal process
The reality of how the legal process should be according to you, because that’s certainly not the reality of any legal process I’m aware of, especially the bit about if a person is not convicted of rape or sexual assault, then their victim was never raped or sexually assaulted.0 -
Seeing as you are still ignoring the submissions of the children's organisations, here are some of their recommendations which oppose your view and others here. There are no negative views from children's organisations.
Ombudsman for Children
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub053A-GRA2015.pdf
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub053B-GRA2015.pdf
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub053C-GRA2015.pdf
National Youth Council of Ireland
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub059B-GRA2015.pdf
Children's Rights Alliance
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub085-GRA2015.pdf
Union of Students of Ireland
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub078-GRA2015.pdf
Spunout.ie
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub065-GRA2015.pdf
I’m not ignoring them. I’ve told you already I read them. I’m aware that I’m opposed to their views. What’s your point? The point still stands that the review process was nothing more than a crock as the chair of the review group is also the executive director of the organisation which came up with the proposals! An objective review would have employed an independent review group such as the Citizens Assembly or the Law Reform Commission conduct a review of the legislation, not the actual stakeholders who were pushing for the proposals to be introduced.
Is it any surprise that the people who introduced the proposals would be gushing over how great they were?0 -
Will I Am Not wrote: »You don’t need money to stage a photo if you... I don’t know... wanted to push immigration?
Indeed, but you do need money, large amounts of money to get your photo to appear in people's news feeds.0 -
Absolutely but in those cases it is clear that if the incident happened as the complainant stated then a rape or sexual assault did occur. The issue there is whether it can be proven.
In the case of a trans person not disclosing that they are trans it is not clear that the law applies here.
It's two completelt different situations and everything I say should be taken in the context of the trans situation.
It’s absolutely clear that the law applies equally to everyone regardless of their gender.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Indeed, but you do need money, large amounts of money to get your photo to appear in people's news feeds.
Don’t know about you but my Facebook newsfeed was polluted with both repeal and save the 8th sponsored posts for months in the lead up to the referendum.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I’m not ignoring them. I’ve told you already I read them. I’m aware that I’m opposed to their views. What’s your point? The point still stands that the review process was nothing more than a crock as the chair of the review group is also the executive director of the organisation which came up with the proposals! An objective review would have employed an independent review group such as the Citizens Assembly or the Law Reform Commission conduct a review of the legislation, not the actual stakeholders who were pushing for the proposals to be introduced.
Is it any surprise that the people who introduced the proposals would be gushing over how great they were?
The point is that the Children's organisations who actually work with children are more qualified to have an opinion than a random boards poster who opposes their view.0 -
The point is that the Children's organisations who actually work with children are more qualified to have an opinion than a random boards poster who opposes their view.
They’re not any more qualified than anyone else to have an opinion. I’ve worked with a number of them and I’m aware of the politics and the collective bargaining and backslapping and political lobbying that they do.
Using your rationale, the heads of religious organisations have the most experience of anyone when it comes to children, and they have the most experience of how children should be educated, because they too work with children and have done for decades before any of these groups were ever even heard of, and that includes GLEN who recently had to shut down due to the misappropriation of HSE funds to support the founder of the organisations campaign to become a Senator :pac:
See how stupid your attempt to argue from authority sounds now?0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »They’re not any more qualified than anyone else to have an opinion. I’ve worked with a number of them and I’m aware of the politics and the collective bargaining and backslapping and political lobbying that they do.
Using your rationale, the heads of religious organisations have the most experience of anyone when it comes to children, and they have the most experience of how children should be educated, because they too work with children and have done for decades before any of these groups were ever even heard of, and that includes GLEN who recently had to shut down due to the misappropriation of HSE funds to support his campaign to become a Senator :pac:
See how stupid your attempt to argue from authority sounds now?
You'd want to reread how silly your post is. According to you we should just discard qualification for any job in the land and allow unqualified people take the helm.
Have a look at the Children's ombudsman for example. https://www.oco.ie/about-us/the-ombudsman/My background is as a clinical psychologist and I’ve worked in the area of child protection for almost 20 years
Why are you One Eyed Jack the random poster on boards not in his position instead as you say you have equal if not more qualifications? :rolleyes:0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »That’s utter nonsense. In a previous thread you tried to use the number of women on social media who claimed to have experienced sexual assault as evidence of the prevalence of sexual assault in society, and when it doesn’t suit your purposes then, you try and claim they aren’t victims of rape and sexual assault until the person who raped or sexually assaulted them is convicted? Whether or not a person is convicted of sexual assault or rape doesn’t mean they didn’t commit sexual assault or rape, and if a person walks into a Garda station claiming to have been the victim of sexual assault or rape, their complaint will be taken seriously.
That thread was about whether the women were telling the truth or not. Completely different situation. I think we would have both agreed in that thread that if things occurred as the women said they had occurred, the they were victims of rape/sexual assault, regardless of whether their assaulter was convicted or not.
In the case of a complainant not being told that their sexual partner was trans it is not clear that the law you've pointed to applies here at all. It is not clear what the intent of the legislators was, it is not clear whether a prosecution case would even reach a jury.
In that case it is crucial whether a conviction takes place to determine whether someone is a victim of sexual assault/rape or not.
You didn’t point out any error. Whether or not a person is convicted of sexual assault or rape is based upon the verdict of the jury in any case upon hearing the evidence presented in the case.
IF a case makes it to court. If I made a complaint that I had been raped, based on the fact that I couldn't consent as my partner had misrepresented his identity by telling me his name was Bob when it was actually Mike, a potential jury verdict would be irrelevant. The case would never get that far.I’m not just implying it, I’m stating it as a fact that one of the factors in whether or not the DPP decides to proceed with a prosecution is whether or not they are confident they can secure a conviction. I never said there weren’t other reasons they would decide to proceed with a prosecution, but being confident that they can secure a conviction is the foremost reason. The reasons for not proceeding with a conviction are a different matter entirely.
I’m even being polite enough with you to ignore the stupidity of your assertion that the DPP may not proceed with a case if they decide that there has been no breach of the law in spite of the fact that they are confident they could secure a conviction. If they are confident they could secure a conviction, then obviously they are of the belief that the accused committed an offence.
Sorry Jack but you have no idea what the foremost reason the DPP do not proceed with a complainant's potential case is. The idea that they would not first assess a complaint on its own merits regardless of which way a jury might decide on it is simplistic nonsense.
The reality of how the legal process should be according to you, because that’s certainly not the reality of any legal process I’m aware of, especially the bit about if a person is not convicted of rape or sexual assault, then their victim was never raped or sexually assaulted.
I've explained above what I meant by that. When the definition of rape and sexual assault are expanded in legislation, and some randomer (yourself) gives their opinion on the interpretation of that legislation, and there is little or no case law to aid in forming an opinion, then yes, a compaint does not equal a crime.0 -
Advertisement
-
You'd want to reread how silly your post is. According to you we should just discard qualification for any job in the land and allow unqualified people take the helm.
Have a look at the Children's ombudsman for example. https://www.oco.ie/about-us/the-ombudsman/
I didn’t say that.Why are you One Eyed Jack the random poster on boards not in his position instead as you say you have equal if not more qualifications? :rolleyes:
I didn’t say that either.
How about you address what I actually did day?0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »It’s absolutely clear that the law applies equally to everyone regardless of their gender.
Except they are different laws. If a trans person forcefully rapes someone, or assaults them as they sleep then they will face the same legal consequences as a cis person.
But your interpretation of the term identity in a law as it applies to trans people is a separate issue from the above.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I didn’t say that.
I didn’t say that either.
How about you address what I actually did day?
You said in relation to the submissions made by the children's organisations like the Children's OmbudsmanOne eyed Jack wrote:They’re not any more qualified than anyone else to have an opinion
No point backtracking now, you just said that your opinion is just as equal or more in weight than the Children's Ombudsman himself!0 -
Except they are different laws. If a trans person forcefully rapes someone, or assaults them as they sleep then they will face the same legal consequences as a cis person.
But your interpretation of the term identity in a law as it applies to trans people is a separate issue from the above.
What are different laws? They all come under the same Act? Never mind your trans and cis nonsense, the point is that if a person, regardless of their gender, makes a complaint of rape or sexual assault against another person, regardless of their gender, their complaint is taken seriously, and the person whom the victim claims to have committed the offence, could find themselves facing criminal charges. From that, they could then find themselves convicted of a criminal offence.
I didn’t use the term identity solely as it applies to people who are transgender, I used the term as it is used in law and applies in law both to people who are legally recognised as their preferred gender, and to people who don’t need legal recognition of their gender.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Except they are different laws. If a trans person forcefully rapes someone, or assaults them as they sleep then they will face the same legal consequences as a cis person.
But your interpretation of the term identity in a law as it applies to trans people is a separate issue from the above.
What are different laws? They all come under the same Act? Never mind your trans and cis nonsense, the point is that if a person, regardless of their gender, makes a complaint of rape or sexual assault against another person, regardless of their gender, their complaint is taken seriously, and the person whom the victim claims to have committed the offence, could find themselves facing criminal charges. From that, they could then find themselves convicted of a criminal offence.
I didn’t use the term identity solely as it applies to people who are transgender, I used the term as it is used in law and applies in law both to people who are legally recognised as their preferred gender, and to people who don’t need legal recognition of their gender.
Whether you want to call it different laws or different subsections of the same act is irrelevant to me. Clearly, prosecuting someone for a forceful rape is different to prosecuting someone for rape where the complainant is incapable.of.consent and both are different to this untested notion of lack of consent due to misrepresented identity.
And since it's an interesting notion which you are interesting a certain way then you have no idea if it applies equally to cis and trans people.0 -
You said in relation to the submissions made by the children's organisations like the Children's Ombudsman
No, I said in relation to your point that they are more qualified to have an opinion on the basis that they work with children, that they are no more qualified to have an opinion on children than anyone else, and they aren’t. You also ignored my pointing out that using your rationale, religious organisations are more qualified than anyone to have an opinion on children given that they have worked with and educated children for a lot longer than any of those organisations have been around.No point backtracking now, you just said that your opinion is just as equal or more in weight than the Children's Ombudsman himself!
Who’s backtracking? I’m just pointing out to you that I didn’t say what you claim I said, and suggesting that you address what I actually said, instead of making fallacious appeals to authority and ad homs. You don’t need to see my cv in order to be able to counter my opinion if your points had any merit.0 -
Advertisement
-
Whether you want to call it different laws or different subsections of the same act is irrelevant to me. Clearly, prosecuting someone for a forceful rape is different to prosecuting someone for rape where the complainant is incapable.of.consent and both are different to this untested notion of lack of consent due to misrepresented identity.
Nope, it isn’t, and it’s not an untested notion of consent either, in fact the very reason it exists is to provide clarity in cases where consent was contested. That’s why it also includes the provision that the circumstances it lists are not an exhaustive list and consent is not limited solely to those circumstances.And since it's an interesting notion which you are interesting a certain way then you have no idea if it applies equally to cis and trans people.
I do, because I know for a fact that it applies equally to everyone regardless of their gender.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »No, I said in relation to your point that they are more qualified to have an opinion on the basis that they work with children, that they are no more qualified to have an opinion on children than anyone else, and they aren’t. You also ignored my pointing out that using your rationale, religious organisations are more qualified than anyone to have an opinion on children given that they have worked with and educated children for a lot longer than any of those organisations have been around.
Who’s backtracking? I’m just pointing out to you that I didn’t say what you claim I said, and suggesting that you address what I actually said, instead of making fallacious appeals to authority and ad homs. You don’t need to see my cv in order to be able to counter my opinion if your points had any merit.
They are far more qualified to speak on children's issues than a random boards poster, as they are qualified for the job. Let that sink in. Their qualified opinion holds more weight than an unqualified opinion like yours and others who oppose children's rights on gender, you can disagree all you want but that fact is insurmountable.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Whether you want to call it different laws or different subsections of the same act is irrelevant to me. Clearly, prosecuting someone for a forceful rape is different to prosecuting someone for rape where the complainant is incapable.of.consent and both are different to this untested notion of lack of consent due to misrepresented identity.
Nope, it isn’t, and it’s not an untested notion of consent either, in fact the very reason it exists is to provide clarity in cases where consent was contested. That’s why it also includes the provision that the circumstances it lists are not an exhaustive list and consent is not limited solely to those circumstances.And since it's an interesting notion which you are interesting a certain way then you have no idea if it applies equally to cis and trans people.
I do, because I know for a fact that it applies equally to everyone regardless of their gender.
You really don't know. I don't know either because it is relatively untested. For example it might apply to a cis person who completely fakes their gender to target a person, but not apply to a trans person as it could be argued they have not misrepresented their identity. It could apply to both. It could apply to.neither. Until there's more case law around the subject, or until we have access to the number of.complaints made and how the DPP deals.with them then we really don't know.0 -
They are far more qualified to speak on children's issues than a random boards poster, as they are qualified for the job. Let that sink in. Their qualified opinion holds more weight than an unqualified opinion like yours and others who oppose children's rights on gender, you can disagree all you want but that fact is insurmountable.
You have no idea of the identity or qualifications of random posters on Boards, nor do I have any interest in yours. Let that sink in for a minute. I didn’t ask you whether or not you have children, or your experience of working with children, or your academic qualifications or anything else pertaining to your identity. Because all of that is simply irrelevant. I’m interested in your opinion.
I’m already aware of the opinions of people working in organisations which claim to represent the welfare of children, and you can point to as many executive directors as you need to make your point, it still won’t strengthen your position any more than it’s being as weak as it already is, because your opinions are based upon your own ideological beliefs for what you believe are in the best interests of children. You’re ignoring the fact that there are numerous people working with children, and numerous parents, who do not share your political and social ideology, and those are the facts that appear to be insurmountable to you as you wish to challenge them.
Good luck with that.0 -
All the attention seems to be going on how to handle the effects at the moment: law changes, rights, protocol, etc. Which is fine in a short term management/containment sort of way.
But is there any real research, debate, or action going on to get to the root of this issue and deal with that ? The debate seems to be all around the symptoms, not the cause, treatment or can it be sorted out before it becomes a coping situation after the fact, in the upsurge in transgender cases since it became a thing.0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »You have no idea of the identity or qualifications of random posters on Boards, nor do I have any interest in yours. Let that sink in for a minute. I didn’t ask you whether or not you have children, or your experience of working with children, or your academic qualifications or anything else pertaining to your identity. Because all of that is simply irrelevant. I’m interested in your opinion.
I’m already aware of the opinions of people working in organisations which claim to represent the welfare of children, and you can point to as many executive directors as you need to make your point, it still won’t strengthen your position any more than it’s being as weak as it already is, because your opinions are based upon your own ideological beliefs for what you believe are in the best interests of children. You’re ignoring the fact that there are numerous people working with children, and numerous parents, who do not share your political and social ideology, and those are the facts that appear to be insurmountable to you as you wish to challenge them.
Good luck with that.
Your opinion is less qualified than the children's organisations, they are qualified people working with children and represent the welfare of children. You have allegedly read their submissions to the review, they wholeheartedly disagree with your unqualified opinion on how to handle the gender issue with children. This is what you ignore, I'd prefer the qualified opinion of qualified professionals than an anonymous poster on boards on such an important issue.
Who are these "numerous people working with children, and numerous parents, who do not share your political and social ideology", more anonymous boards posters spouting off from the sidelines? Do they have an organisation in the public eye or are they some underground organisation? :rolleyes:
They are certainly not organisations who work with children, not a single childrens organisation has supported your view on the gender issue with children. That is the insurmountable fact, let that sink in.0 -
You really don't know. I don't know either because it is relatively untested. For example it might apply to a cis person who completely fakes their gender to target a person, but not apply to a trans person as it could be argued they have not misrepresented their identity. It could apply to both. It could apply to.neither. Until there's more case law around the subject, or until we have access to the number of.complaints made and how the DPP deals.with them then we really don't know.
You’re willing to admit you don’t know, grand, but you don’t get to admit I don’t know on my behalf. I do know, as it applies to cases where a person misrepresents their identity, then consent is not present, and their only defence is that their belief that consent was present is reasonable, which is a determination made by a jury, which is why I said you are more than welcome to argue that a person who is transgender could be of the reasonable belief that a heterosexual man would want to have sex with them.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »You really don't know. I don't know either because it is relatively untested. For example it might apply to a cis person who completely fakes their gender to target a person, but not apply to a trans person as it could be argued they have not misrepresented their identity. It could apply to both. It could apply to.neither. Until there's more case law around the subject, or until we have access to the number of.complaints made and how the DPP deals.with them then we really don't know.
You’re willing to admit you don’t know, grand, but you don’t get to admit I don’t know on my behalf. I do know, as it applies to cases where a person misrepresents their identity, then consent is not present, and their only defence is that their belief that consent was present is reasonable, which is a determination made by a jury, which is why I said you are more than welcome to argue that a person who is transgender could be of the reasonable belief that a heterosexual man would want to have sex with them.
Actually I do get to say you don't know. If you think your layman interpretation of a law would stand up through an entire legal process then you really have zero idea of how the law works.
I could easily claim that someone who gives a fake first name could be prosecuted under the law because my laymans interpretation of misrepresenting identity encompasses ridiculous notions.
The law is very open to interpretation given the term used "identity" which encompasses so many things that one would have to look at what the legislators intended and what the DPP were willing to go to trial over (and not just because hey think they might win).
For example, identity could cover sexual identity. So if a bi man doesn't tell a woman he is bi until after sex, was there no consent? It could apply to national identity. If an American woman presumes an irishman is Scottish and finds out after that he is Irish, was consent absent?
You could make a silly laymans interpretation argument for any of these cases. None of them will ever go to court, and you deciding that you know exactly how to interpret an ambiguous law clearly does not change that.0 -
Your opinion is less qualified than the children's organisations, they are qualified people working with children and represent the welfare of children. You have allegedly read their submissions to the review, they wholeheartedly disagree with your unqualified opinion on how to handle the gender issue with children. This is what you ignore, I'd prefer the qualified opinion of qualified professionals than an anonymous poster on boards on such an important issue.
You simply prefer the opinions of people who agree with you. There’s nothing unusual or unreasonable about that.Who are these "numerous people working with children, and numerous parents, who do not share your political and social ideology", more anonymous boards posters spouting off from the sidelines? Do they have an organisation in the public eye or are they some underground organisation? :rolleyes:
They don’t get more in the public eye than numerous religious organisations who work with children, and of course numerous parents who have children of their own. They’re more in the public eye than some quango of tiny organisations funded which receive public funding from the HSE to lobby Government to further their own political and social ideology.They are certainly not organisations who work with children, not a single childrens organisation has supported your view on the gender issue with children. That is the insurmountable fact, let that sink in.
You keep ignoring the fact that I pointed out to you the organisations which already exist which have worked with children and educated children for a lot longer than any of the children’s organisations you mentioned, which using your rationale would make them far more qualified experts worth listening to than the people who agree with your opinion. You’re just a random poster on Boards too btw, seems a bit pointless trying to make the point that I’m a random poster on Boards as though that’s supposed to mean something? I’m interested in the arguments with regards to policies, I couldn’t care less for individuals waving their e-penis about the place as though they are an authority on anything and nobody else can have an opinion.0 -
They are far more qualified to speak on children's issues than a random boards poster, as they are qualified for the job. Let that sink in. Their qualified opinion holds more weight than an unqualified opinion like yours and others who oppose children's rights on gender, you can disagree all you want but that fact is insurmountable.
You keep on banging this drum about the super qualified people in jobs where they oversee children's issues, as if they are some kind of incontestably righteous people, as if you are making an indestructible point.
But your point is unconvincing, on several grounds. One, for example, is that they are human beings like the rest of us and therefore subject to fallibility. Another would be the existence of ideologues within these organisations themselves. Another, for example, would be the known history of organisations charged with overseeing issues regarding children in Ireland and their absolute failure to protect children. See for example, industrial schools.
The truth is not confined to the scope of only certain assigned people - we do not (yet) live in a dictatorship where only appointed bureau lackeys and politicos can give opinions on matters of societal concern and importance.0 -
Actually I do get to say you don't know. If you think your layman interpretation of a law would stand up through an entire legal process then you really have zero idea of how the law works.
I could easily claim that someone who gives a fake first name could be prosecuted under the law because my laymans interpretation of misrepresenting identity encompasses ridiculous notions.
The law is very open to interpretation given the term used "identity" which encompasses so many things that one would have to look at what the legislators intended and what the DPP were willing to go to trial over (and not just because hey think they might win).
For example, identity could cover sexual identity. So if a bi man doesn't tell a woman he is bi until after sex, was there no consent? It could apply to national identity. If an American woman presumes an irishman is Scottish and finds out after that he is Irish, was consent absent?
You could make a silly laymans interpretation argument for any of these cases. None of them will ever go to court, and you deciding that you know exactly how to interpret an ambiguous law clearly does not change that.
You could make silly layman’s arguments all you like. I was talking about the circumstances where a man makes a complaint against another person accusing them of rape or sexual assault. Their complaint would be taken as seriously, and the other person could find themselves facing charges of rape or sexual assault. It’s the same if a woman makes a complaint of rape or sexual assault - the person they’re accusing could find themselves facing charges of rape or sexual assault.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Actually I do get to say you don't know. If you think your layman interpretation of a law would stand up through an entire legal process then you really have zero idea of how the law works.
I could easily claim that someone who gives a fake first name could be prosecuted under the law because my laymans interpretation of misrepresenting identity encompasses ridiculous notions.
The law is very open to interpretation given the term used "identity" which encompasses so many things that one would have to look at what the legislators intended and what the DPP were willing to go to trial over (and not just because hey think they might win).
For example, identity could cover sexual identity. So if a bi man doesn't tell a woman he is bi until after sex, was there no consent? It could apply to national identity. If an American woman presumes an irishman is Scottish and finds out after that he is Irish, was consent absent?
You could make a silly laymans interpretation argument for any of these cases. None of them will ever go to court, and you deciding that you know exactly how to interpret an ambiguous law clearly does not change that.
You could make silly layman’s arguments all you like. I was talking about the circumstances where a man makes a complaint against another person accusing them of rape or sexual assault. Their complaint would be taken as seriously, and the other person could find themselves facing charges of rape or sexual assault. It’s the same if a woman makes a complaint of rape or sexual assault - the person they’re accusing could find themselves facing charges of rape or sexual assault.
That's a little more reasonable. Sure they could find themselves charged with sexual assault. The lack of any cases makes it seem a little unlikely. Just as it's unlikely that Mike will find himself charged with rape for saying his name is Bob. Regardless, their complainant cannot be assumed to be a victim of rape or sexual assault.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »You simply prefer the opinions of people who agree with you. There’s nothing unusual or unreasonable about that.
Nope, I'd prefer the qualified opinions of qualified professionals.One eyed Jack wrote: »They don’t get more in the public eye than numerous religious organisations who work with children, and of course numerous parents who have children of their own. They’re more in the public eye than some quango of tiny organisations funded which receive public funding from the HSE to lobby Government to further their own political and social ideology.
You keep ignoring the fact that I pointed out to you the organisations which already exist which have worked with children and educated children for a lot longer than any of the children’s organisations you mentioned, which using your rationale would make them far more qualified experts worth listening to than the people who agree with your opinion. You’re just a random poster on Boards too btw, seems a bit pointless trying to make the point that I’m a random poster on Boards as though that’s supposed to mean something? I’m interested in the arguments with regards to policies, I couldn’t care less for individuals waving their e-penis about the place as though they are an authority on anything and nobody else can have an opinion.
So your mysterious statement of "numerous people working with children, and numerous parents, who do not share your political and social ideology" is just spouting and not based on qualified expert opinion, that's fine. The children's rights organisations are not spouting, they are qualified experts.0 -
There was this case where the rapist received 6 and a half years following a retrial so there is precedent.
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/wtf/gayle-newland-used-bizarre-male-disguise-and-fake-penis-to-trick-female-friend-into-sex/news-story/d4583c90e93072b9a03d4e6101605d35
I know if I slept with a post op trans woman without knowing she had been a he, I would feel that I had been raped.
That’s the reality of it..0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Not being invited to speak on a flagship current affairs programme is not 'censorship'. If that's censorship, then I'm being censored every day. This is a news programme. It's supposed to be based on facts.
You're really contradicting yourself here. If everyone is so afraid to speak up, then how come there is any 'debate on Twitter' or any backlash? It's a contradiction in terms.
I'd be very interested to know how you worked out that Linehan represents 'a substantial portion of the population' given that he hasn't lived here for decades and has no expertise or experience in the topic.
If you thought I wasn't going to notice that you've refused to address a single point, you're mistaken.
Once again you've suggested linehan has "no expertise" so I'll repeat one of the questions:
Does a transwomen have any expertise which allows them to comment on women's issues, or put themselves forward as women's representatives?0 -
Advertisement
-
There was this case where the rapist received 6 and a half years following a retrial so there is precedent.
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/wtf/gayle-newland-used-bizarre-male-disguise-and-fake-penis-to-trick-female-friend-into-sex/news-story/d4583c90e93072b9a03d4e6101605d35
I know if I slept with a post op trans woman without knowing she had been a he, I would feel that I had been raped.
That’s the reality of it..
The reality is that the woman was not trans. She was a cis woman pretending to be male to have a sexual relationship with a woman.
Your feeling that you had been raped would be irrelevant legally. I personally would not feel that I'd been raped or assaulted if it happened to me. That's irrelevant too.0 -
That's a little more reasonable. Sure they could find themselves charged with sexual assault. The lack of any cases makes it seem a little unlikely. Just as it's unlikely that Mike will find himself charged with rape for saying his name is Bob.
What makes it more likely that a person who is transgender could find themselves facing charges of rape or sexual assault is that the criteria for whether or not consent was present includes these criteria (and is not limited to these criteria) -
(e) he or she is mistaken as to the nature and purpose of the act,
(f) he or she is mistaken as to the identity of any other person involved in the act,
(3) This section does not limit the circumstances in which it may be established that a person did not consent to a sexual act.
(4) Consent to a sexual act may be withdrawn at any time before the act begins, or in the case of a continuing act, while the act is taking place.
(5) Any failure or omission on the part of a person to offer resistance to an act does not of itself constitute consent to that act.Regardless, their complainant cannot be assumed to be a victim of rape or sexual assault.
Yes they can. The same would apply whether the victim was a man or a woman, and that’s why I had an issue with seamus’ claim that if a man walked into a Garda station to complain that they had sex with a woman, they would be laughed at. That’s why I pointed out that nobody would be walking into a Garda station to complain that they had sex. They would be walking into a Garda station to make a complaint that they had been raped or sexually assaulted, and their complaint would be taken seriously, regardless of their gender, because the Gardaí tend to take those kinds of claims seriously, because if someone walks into a Garda station claiming to have been the victim of sexual assault or rape, the Gardaí believe them, regardless of their gender, whereas your belief as to whether or not a person is telling the truth appears to be predicated upon their gender. You said yourself in the case of a woman it’s different, but it’s not.
The DPP doesn’t try to tell a victim of rape or sexual assault that they aren’t a victim of rape or sexual assault, and the victim is not on trial.0 -
The reality is that the woman was not trans. She was a cis woman pretending to be male to have a sexual relationship with a woman.
Your feeling that you had been raped would be irrelevant legally. I personally would not feel that I'd been raped or assaulted if it happened to me. That's irrelevant too.
It absolutely would not be irrelevant legally. It would form the basis for a complaint against the accused. If you don’t feel you were raped or assaulted in those same circumstances that’s entirely your own business, you’re unlikely to make a complaint then. Your feelings have no bearing on how someone who is not you should feel, and if they make a complaint, they are going to be taken seriously by the Gardaí, even if you wouldn’t take them seriously.0 -
The reality is that the woman was not trans. She was a cis woman pretending to be male to have a sexual relationship with a woman.
Yes and the deception was on a number of levels. One of them was that the rapist duped the victim into believing they were a different gender.Your feeling that you had been raped would be irrelevant legally.
Nonsense. That feeling would result in a formal accusation being made which would be followed up with an investigation and potential charges being brought. All based on that feeling.I personally would not feel that I'd been raped or assaulted if it happened to me. That's irrelevant too.
No it’s not irrelevant. The fact that you feel differently would mean no charges would ever be brought. That’s your perogative. I have no issue with that. But it’s not irrelevant.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »What makes it more likely that a person who is transgender could find themselves facing charges of rape or sexual assault is that the criteria for whether or not consent was present includes these criteria (and is not limited to these criteria) -
(e) he or she is mistaken as to the nature and purpose of the act,
(f) he or she is mistaken as to the identity of any other person involved in the act,
(3) This section does not limit the circumstances in which it may be established that a person did not consent to a sexual act.
(4) Consent to a sexual act may be withdrawn at any time before the act begins, or in the case of a continuing act, while the act is taking place.
(5) Any failure or omission on the part of a person to offer resistance to an act does not of itself constitute consent to that act.
Reposting the "criteria" is irrelevant because what is at issue is your laymans INTERPRETATION of the criteria.
One could quite easily argue that with self id that the complainant was not mistaken about the nature, purpose, or identity of the act. They thought they were having sex with a woman, and indeed they were.
In the absence of case law, neither of us know if consent was absent or not. You can pretend that you know your interpretation is correct all you like. But its still simply your interpretation.
Yes they can. The same would apply whether the victim was a man or a woman, and that’s why I had an issue with seamus’ claim that if a man walked into a Garda station to complain that they had sex with a woman, they would be laughed at. That’s why I pointed out that nobody would be walking into a Garda station to complain that they had sex. They would be walking into a Garda station to make a complaint that they had been raped or sexually assaulted, and their complaint would be taken seriously, regardless of their gender, because the Gardaí tend to take those kinds of claims seriously, because if someone walks into a Garda station claiming to have been the victim of sexual assault or rape, the Gardaí believe them, regardless of their gender, whereas your belief as to whether or not a person is telling the truth appears to be predicated upon their gender. You said yourself in the case of a woman it’s different, but it’s not.
The DPP doesn’t try to tell a victim of rape or sexual assault that they aren’t a victim of rape or sexual assault, and the victim is not on trial.
No that's not what I said at all. I said that in terms of the traditional, well-established notions of sexual assault and rape, if a woman, or indeed a man, makes a complaint, then if its assumed to be true, they are indeed a victim.
It is not clear at all that someone be it a man or woman, who has sex with a trans person that they did not know was trans has a legal case, even if its 100% proven they have told the truth.
I have never suggested that one complainant should be believed over another, or that gender comes into it at all.
And while you are correct that if someone does not feel they have been raped or assaulted, they will be unliekly to make a complaint and there is unlikely to be a trial, that does not mean that someone feeling they have been assaulted will lead to any legal consequences.0 -
Yes and the deception was on a number of levels. One of them was that the rapist duped the victim into believing they were a different gender.
Nonsense. That feeling would result in a formal accusation being made which would be followed up with an investigation and potential charges being brought. All based on that feeling.
No it’s not irrelevant. The fact that you feel differently would mean no charges would ever be brought. That’s your perogative. I have no issue with that. But it’s not irrelevant.
And in your case, the fact that you feel that you have been raped does not mean any charges will be made. Though I agree with you its more likely that you will make a complaint than me. But your feelings will onlt get you as far as a complaint.0 -
And in your case, the fact that you feel that you have been raped does not mean any charges will be made. Though I agree with you its more likely that you will make a complaint than me. But your feelings will onlt get you as far as a complaint.
Agreed. That’s why I said charges may be brought. I suppose it would be up to the investigating Gardaí and / or the DPP whether it would go any further or not..
With transsexualism exploding the way it has and boundaries being pushed ever further by the extremists on all sides, it’s bound to be tested in a court somewhere at some point in the not too distant future..0 -
-
Nope, I'd prefer the qualified opinions of qualified professionals.
Of course you do, the qualified professionals who agree with you of course. You’re ignoring the numbers of qualified experts who disagree with your opinions.So your mysterious statement of "numerous people working with children, and numerous parents, who do not share your political and social ideology" is just spouting and not based on qualified expert opinion, that's fine. The children's rights organisations are not spouting, they are qualified experts.
They’re spouting, and what they’re spouting is not based upon any medical or scientific evidence, because the medical and scientific experts have reached no consensus on the issues involved, so what we have to work with are people’s opinions regarding what should become policy in treating children with gender dysphoria, and those people’s opinions are based upon their ideological beliefs.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Slutmonkey57b wrote: »If you thought I wasn't going to notice that you've refused to address a single point, you're mistaken.
Once again you've suggested linehan has "no expertise" so I'll repeat one of the questions:
Does a transwomen have any expertise which allows them to comment on women's issues, or put themselves forward as women's representatives?
I haven't "suggested" that Linehan has no expertise. I've stated the fact that he has no expertise. He has no expertise. He has no qualifications. He has no professional experience.
He has no expertise.
And no, I'm not going to be led down a rathole with another hypothetical question about a hypothetical scenario - another problem that hasn't happened with two years of self-identification.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Of course you do, the qualified professionals who agree with you of course. You’re ignoring the numbers of qualified experts who disagree with your opinions.
They’re spouting, and what they’re spouting is not based upon any medical or scientific evidence, because the medical and scientific experts have reached no consensus on the issues involved, so what we have to work with are people’s opinions regarding what should become policy in treating children with gender dysphoria, and those people’s opinions are based upon their ideological beliefs.
Nice twisting inventing a conspiracy!
Where are the qualified experts who disagree with the Irish qualified experts who are part of children's organisations? The Children's Ombudsman is a clinical psychologist himself and worked in child protection for over 20 years, perhaps he and the rest of the medical community are part of your imaginary ideology?0 -
Reposting the "criteria" is irrelevant because what is at issue is your laymans INTERPRETATION of the criteria.
One could quite easily argue that with self id that the complainant was not mistaken about the nature, purpose, or identity of the act. They thought they were having sex with a woman, and indeed they were.
Self-ID on the part of the assailant does not absolve them of any liability if they commit a criminal act. If the complainant is making a complaint, and the basis for their complaint is that they were unaware of the nature of the act, then that would vitiate consent. They thought they were engaged in a sexual act with a woman, and it turns out the person they were engaged in a sexual act with is not a woman, but a man, then indeed they were not having sex with a woman, no matter how that person chooses to identify themselves. That’s why I said that the gender of the accused is irrelevant from the point of view of what charges they could face.In the absence of case law, neither of us know if consent was absent or not. You can pretend that you know your interpretation is correct all you like. But its still simply your interpretation.
Yes, of course it’s my interpretation, and it’s a far more reasonable interpretation than your interpretation that a heterosexual male would simply be told that they had sex with a woman, what are they complaining about? We don’t need case law to determine what constitutes consent when it’s written right there in black letter law.No that's not what I said at all. I said that in terms of the traditional, well-established notions of sexual assault and rape, if a woman, or indeed a man, makes a complaint, then if its assumed to be true, they are indeed a victim.
You didn’t say that. I’m not selectively editing here. This is exactly where you picked up yesterday -The question is whether that person was actually a victim of rape.or.sexual assault.
Your interpretation of the clauses that involve being mislead about "identity" and "the nature" of the sexual act do not hold up in relation to sex with trans people.
And this clanger today -I'm not playing around with language. You described the person presenting at a Garda station as being a victim of sexual assault. They are not a victim of sexual assault until their sexual partner is convicted.It is not clear at all that someone be it a man or woman, who has sex with a trans person that they did not know was trans has a legal case, even if its 100% proven they have told the truth.
It’s perfectly clear. You’re just trying to weasel a way out of holding people who identify themselves as transgender to the same standards as everyone else in society.And while you are correct that if someone does not feel they have been raped or assaulted, they will be unliekly to make a complaint and there is unlikely to be a trial, that does not mean that someone feeling they have been assaulted will lead to any legal consequences.
So what? What are you pointing that out for? Who said it would? I said that it could, for people who commit rape and sexual assault against another person. It leads to far more significant consequences for their victims.0 -
Friend works in a busy pub, a transgender m-f was drinking there , about twice a month for 3 months, the owner was getting told that if he did not bar the transgender from using the womens toilets, that "we won't be drinking here, as long as he is here" every complaint was from women, regular customers, who's numbers where many, and so spent much more in the pub than the transgender.
The owner was left with no choice but to bar the transgender.
Now before you jump to conclusions, it was a purely commercial decision, there where many complaints, and my friend said not one was from a man, in fact the men fought it was funny, it was the female customers who blew a fuse.
(a busy, very nice pub)
Yeah, that's a true story that didn't end up in court.
Don't think so. :rolleyes:0 -
Nice twisting inventing a conspiracy!
Where are the qualified experts who disagree with the Irish qualified experts who are part of children's organisations? The Children's Ombudsman is a clinical psychologist himself and worked in child protection for over 20 years, perhaps he and the rest of the medical community are part of your imaginary ideology?
There’s no inventing any conspiracy? Those organisations which claim to represent children’s interests are supporting a particular ideology which is not based upon either medical or scientific evidence, but purely on ideological beliefs. There’s no imaginary ideology either when it’s quite clear that if you want to influence public policy, you instill yourself at the head of the review committee on the legislation instead of allowing an independent review.
The people who disagree with that ****ty little quango have simply walked away from working in those organisations.0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »Self-ID on the part of the assailant does not absolve them of any liability if they commit a criminal act. If the complainant is making a complaint, and the basis for their complaint is that they were unaware of the nature of the act, then that would vitiate consent. They thought they were engaged in a sexual act with a woman, and it turns out the person they were engaged in a sexual act with is not a woman, but a man, then indeed they were not having sex with a woman, no matter how that person chooses to identify themselves. That’s why I said that the gender of the accused is irrelevant from the point of view of what charges they could face.
Nope still just your fringe interpretation of an ambiguous law. I never said self id would absolve a trans person of a crime. If they rob a bank they will be prosecuted like anyone else. The question is whether not revealing being trans and proceeding to have sex is a crime, or at least "vitiates" consent.
Until you can show through case law that self id would not apply in this case, then your interpretation holds no more weight than mine. My interpretation is that a trans person who does not reveal that they are trans has not mislead anyone about their identity, any more than an irish person not revealing they are irish has.
Yes, of course it’s my interpretation, and it’s a far more reasonable interpretation than your interpretation that a heterosexual male would simply be told that they had sex with a woman, what are they complaining about? We don’t need case law to determine what constitutes consent when it’s written right there in black letter law.
I don't think a heterosexual male would be told "what are you complaining about". But that doesn't mean a case will be taken over his complaint, nor does it mean it would succeed if done so.You didn’t say that. I’m not selectively editing here. This is exactly where you picked up yesterday -
And this clanger today -
It’s perfectly clear. You’re just trying to weasel a way out of holding people who identify themselves as transgender to the same standards as everyone else in society.
Absolutely not. You are manipulating what I said. To repeat: A trans person will be held to the same standards as everyone else. They will be prosecuted for forceful rape. They will be prosecuted for raping a sleeping person. But a trans woman is not misrepresenting her identity when sleeping with a man who thinks she is a cis woman. So she is being treated equally to other women.
I'm all for equality.So what? What are you pointing that out for? Who said it would? I said that it could, for people who commit rape and sexual assault against another person. It leads to far more significant consequences for their victims.
I pointed it out because Rennaws raised his/her feelings as being relevant. Legally they're not (apart from the fact that those feelings might lead him/her to making a complaint).0 -
Will I Am Not wrote: »Don’t know about you but my Facebook newsfeed was polluted with both repeal and save the 8th sponsored posts for months in the lead up to the referendum.
Personally, I think I saw more save than repeal, but your mileage may vary. The real issue is that there is little or no regulation - have all those who funded the adverts reported their spending through SIPO as they're supposed to?0 -
Absolutely not. You are manipulating what I said. To repeat: A trans person will be held to the same standards as everyone else. They will be prosecuted for forceful rape. They will be prosecuted for raping a sleeping person. But a trans woman is not misrepresenting her identity when sleeping with a man who thinks she is a cis woman. So she is being treated equally to other women.
I'm all for equality.
I’m not manipulating what you said, that’s a pretty shìtty accusation when I went to the effort of citing you directly so you couldn’t accuse me of misrepresenting your opinion or anything else, and yet you still do. She is being treated equally to other women, but how she is treated is not the point. The salient point is that her victim was misled as to the nature of the act and the identity of the person who sexually assaulted or raped them. Your claim was that a person is not the victim of sexual assault or rape unless their assailant is convicted is nonsense.
You want different standards to apply to people who other people do not recognise as their preferred gender, which would enable them to commit rape and sexual assault with impunity.I pointed it out because Rennaws raised his/her feelings as being relevant. Legally they're not (apart from the fact that those feelings might lead him/her to making a complaint).
I don’t know where you’re getting this idea that the feelings of a person who has been raped or sexually assaulted would be legally irrelevant when we’re aware of things like the victim impact statement in sentencing, and during a trial of course the victims feelings are taken into account, and every effort is made by the Courts to make them feel as comfortable as possible in giving testimony against the accused.0 -
In the UK the shadow minister for Women and Equality, don't recall her name, has been advocating more lenient sentences for women. I think one of the reasons if not the reason for that is that they have shown that their crimes were associated with men in some way.
If I ever get into criminality it would be handy to self-ID as a woman when arrested. What a mess.
So don't talk to me about men and women being treated the same in the criminal justice system.0 -
Amazing how this 'handy way' hasn't come up in two years of self-ID here though? There was one case of a criminal cross-dressing as a disguise, at the Regency Hotel shooting, but no-one has tried this 'handy way' to reduce their sentence, amazingly enough.In the UK the shadow minister for Women and Equality, don't recall her name, has been advocating more lenient sentences for women. I think one of the reasons if not the reason for that is that they have shown that their crimes were associated with men in some way.
If I ever get into criminality it would be handy to self-ID as a woman when arrested. What a mess.0 -
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement