Calls for Graham Linehan to be removed from Prime Debate on transgender issues!

klaaaz

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

In your eyes, to look out for the welfare of children and implementing a proper children's policy is based on ideology. And all the children's organisations are involved in said conspiracy! :rolleyes:

Again, the submissions from said children's organisations full of qualified professionals disagree with your ideology so you just diss them with zero evidence to back you up. In other words, you're spouting without any basis.

Slutmonkey57b

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

So, your judgement is that he has no expertise, and it's also your judgement that the same questioning of someone else's expertise isn't valid, but your questioning his is valid.

The fact of the matter is that no, a transwomen has no expertise in women's experiences and is therefore not qualified to speak about or act on behalf of women. You're dodging that question because you know the truth and don't want anyone to hear it.

As to your earlier dodge, yes a debate is (just about) taking place despite all the violent, dishonest, intimidatory tactics being used by the extremist lobby and the misogynistic grifters who have started to use the bandwagon. That's in no small part down to people like linehan who have refused to back down from speaking in the face of it.

First it was the case that he was a horrific bigot who shouldn't be allowed to speak because of his views. Then, that tactic having failed, people just shouldn't watch it. Then, having appeared on the programme and not been exposed as a raging lunatic he was painted as, now the argument has fallen back on "he's not qualified".

Well he's more qualified to talk about issues with fringe activism then a transwomen is to define what womanhood is on behalf of women. He has experience of it, whereas I have yet to see a trans definition of gender that isn't an ancient, damaging stereotype based on some idea pulled out of nowhere helpful.

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

In your eyes, to look out for the welfare of children and implementing a proper children's policy is based on ideology. And all the children's organisations are involved in said conspiracy! :rolleyes:

Again, the submissions from said children's organisations full of qualified professionals disagree with your ideology so you just diss them with zero evidence to back you up. In other words, you're spouting without any basis.

Yes, in their eyes too to look out for the welfare of children and implementing a proper children’s policy is based upon ideology. I never said all the children’s organisations are involved in any conspiracy, you said that, while you ignored the fact that by your own standards, religious organisations are experts in looking out for the welfare of children and implementing a proper children’s policy based upon their ideology.

I don’t know what evidence you think is required to tell someone they’re spouting nonsense when I don’t agree with their ideology. I simply choose not to entertain their nonsense. They can carry on their cosy little quango and pat themselves on the back for producing reams of nonsense to keep the funding coming from the HSE all they want. It’s when they try to inflict their policies on society that I will object to their ideological nonsense.

AndrewJRenko

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

So, your judgement is that he has no expertise, and it's also your judgement that the same questioning of someone else's expertise isn't valid, but your questioning his is valid.

The fact of the matter is that no, a transwomen has no expertise in women's experiences and is therefore not qualified to speak about or act on behalf of women. You're dodging that question because you know the truth and don't want anyone to hear it.

As to your earlier dodge, yes a debate is (just about) taking place despite all the violent, dishonest, intimidatory tactics being used by the extremist lobby and the misogynistic grifters who have started to use the bandwagon. That's in no small part down to people like linehan who have refused to back down from speaking in the face of it.

First it was the case that he was a horrific bigot who shouldn't be allowed to speak because of his views. Then, that tactic having failed, people just shouldn't watch it. Then, having appeared on the programme and not been exposed as a raging lunatic he was painted as, now the argument has fallen back on "he's not qualified".

Well he's more qualified to talk about issues with fringe activism then a transwomen is to define what womanhood is on behalf of women. He has experience of it, whereas I have yet to see a trans definition of gender that isn't an ancient, damaging stereotype based on some idea pulled out of nowhere helpful.

Once again, it's not a judgement or opinion that he has no expertise. It's a simple statement of fact. He has no expertise on this topic - no qualification, no professional experience, no personal experience.



He has lots of opinions, which he is most entitled to share on Twitter or on opinion shows like Niall Boylan. The problem (as stated originally, not a 'fallback tactic' as you suggest) is that he should never have been invited on Prime Time - a news/current affairs show about transgender rights, not about 'fringe activism' as you suggest.

rgodard80a

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

Absolute rubbish.

That sort of lie of omission would be as morally corrupt as not telling someone you were married or had some history of sexual disease.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The problem (as stated originally, not a 'fallback tactic' as you suggest) is that he should never have been invited on Prime Time - a news/current affairs show about transgender rights, not about 'fringe activism' as you suggest.

The programme in question wasn’t just about transgender rights though, it was about the rise in the number of children in society who are identifying as transgender, and given that Linehan has a high public profile and has experience of dealing with the more radical elements of trans rights activism, the producers of Prime Time identified him as someone who they felt could offer a unique perspective. If people had wanted an echo chamber of their own opinions, then the programme for that was not Prime Time, it was their own channels on YouTube or similar media.

klaaaz

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, in their eyes too to look out for the welfare of children and implementing a proper children’s policy is based upon ideology. I never said all the children’s organisations are involved in any conspiracy, you said that, while you ignored the fact that by your own standards, religious organisations are experts in looking out for the welfare of children and implementing a proper children’s policy based upon their ideology.

I don’t know what evidence you think is required to tell someone they’re spouting nonsense when I don’t agree with their ideology. I simply choose not to entertain their nonsense. They can carry on their cosy little quango and pat themselves on the back for producing reams of nonsense to keep the funding coming from the HSE all they want. It’s when they try to inflict their policies on society that I will object to their ideological nonsense.

As said, you're just a random anonymous poster with an opinion while the people in the children’s organisations are more qualified than you. Your critical answer as to why the professionals disagree with you is that it's all in some ideology regarding money, that's conspiracy nonsense. Perhaps you(and fellow posters) have an ideology yourselves regarding this issue as you keep dismissing the opinions of qualified professionals without any basis?

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

As said, you're just a random anonymous poster with an opinion while the people in the children’s organisations are more qualified than you. Your critical answer as to why the professionals disagree with you is that it's all in some ideology regarding money, that's conspiracy nonsense. Perhaps you(and fellow posters) have an ideology yourselves regarding this issue as you keep dismissing the opinions of qualified professionals without any basis?

I haven’t made you aware of my qualifications, I don’t need to either as that to me would just be a pissing contest seeing as I don’t care for your qualifications either, nor do I care for their qualifications which you rely so heavily upon to support your argument from authority.

You’re correct in that I do have an ideology, and I have an agenda, and my ideology and agenda conflicts with yours. I at least have the balls to admit I have an agenda, do you?

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The programme in question wasn’t just about transgender rights though, it was about the rise in the number of children in society who are identifying as transgender, and given that Linehan has a high public profile and has experience of dealing with the more radical elements of trans rights activism, the producers of Prime Time identified him as someone who they felt could offer a unique perspective. If people had wanted an echo chamber of their own opinions, then the programme for that was not Prime Time, it was their own channels on YouTube or similar media.

Linehan's 'unique perspective' is just pub talk - no more valuable that your or my 'unique perspective'. It is not based on research or evidence or professional expertise or personal experience.



Again, this is not an 'echo chamber' issue. There is no difficulty with the inclusion of Stella O'Malley, who has personal experience and some relevant professional qualification. There is no difficulty with the inclusion of the UK academic (though it would have been reasonable to get a response from his university on the claim of being blocked).


The issue is about bringing a London comedy writer onto a current affairs programme.

Franz Von Peppercorn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Linehan's 'unique perspective' is just pub talk - no more valuable that your or my 'unique perspective'. It is not based on research or evidence or professional expertise or personal experience.

Up to a few short years ago gender dysphoria was considered a mental disorder. It was political pressure that changed the DSM not any new facts about the brain. What’s the fetishing about prime time anyway - it’s just a TV show.

Again, this is not an 'echo chamber' issue. There is no difficulty with the inclusion of Stella O'Malley, who has personal experience and some relevant professional qualification. There is no difficulty with the inclusion of the UK academic (though it would have been reasonable to get a response from his university on the claim of being blocked).


The issue is about bringing a London comedy writer onto a current affairs programme.

Linehan is part of the story, in the UK he was one of the few celebs who opposed self id over there. This stalled the passage of the act to a certain extent.

Annasopra

sophiexyz wrote: »

I sure you are well aware of the Man Identifying As Woman who Sued Female beauticians For Refusing To Give Him A Lady’s Genital Wax, on his fully intact dick & balls, how can anyone in their right mind support this?
This JY chancer is involved in many more controversy, a google will show you how depraved this man is, periods,tampons, young girls, absolutely disgusting individual who is getting support from the SJW mob.
Japan has the right idea.

So you support torture?

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Linehan's 'unique perspective' is just pub talk - no more valuable that your or my 'unique perspective'. It is not based on research or evidence or professional expertise or personal experience.

Again, this is not an 'echo chamber' issue. There is no difficulty with the inclusion of Stella O'Malley, who has personal experience and some relevant professional qualification. There is no difficulty with the inclusion of the UK academic (though it would have been reasonable to get a response from his university on the claim of being blocked).

The issue is about bringing a London comedy writer onto a current affairs programme.

Linehan’s perspective was valuable enough that the producers of the programme thought his opinions were worth an airing in a public forum. It’s not true to say he has no experience of the issues involved when it’s been evidenced that he actually does, particularly given his warning from the police in the UK in relation to his social media spat with a radical transgender activist.

He wasn’t appearing on Prime Time to give his opinions on comedy, he was appearing on Prime Time as part of an investigation into why there is a rise in the numbers of children in the UK identifying as transgender, and he gave his opinions on that subject.

There are a number of different perspectives involved in the discussion of transgenderism, from the medical and scientific aspects to the social and political aspects, and the individual perspectives and case histories that inform that discussion. Some trans advocates appear to want only their perspective represented. I asked klaaaaz earlier were they aware of the term truscum which is how some trans advocates refer to people who identify as transgender who do not feel any need to medically transition... not a peep out of them.

That’s fine, they aren’t obligated to answer anything they don’t want to, but they shouldn’t expect to be taken seriously when they try and shut down anyone who doesn’t share their opinions. The parents on the programme weren’t experts in science and medicine either, and before their child identified themselves as transgender, they had no experience of the condition either. They were as much experts as Linehan, yet there were no calls for them to be excluded from the programme on the basis that they were giving their perspective based on their personal experience.

That’s who the programme was aimed at, informing people about the complexity of the issues involved without overwhelming them with information and trying to exclude anyone who didn’t have 20 years experience in child psychology and all the rest of it. Overall I found it a fairly balanced programme which examined the issues from a few different perspectives while resisting the temptation to repeat the Jeremy Kyle style screaming matches that had been seen on UK television regarding the issues involved which really only appeared to be designed to wind people up.

AndrewJRenko

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Up to a few short years ago gender dysphoria was considered a mental disorder. It was political pressure that changed the DSM not any new facts about the brain. What’s the fetishing about prime time anyway - it’s just a TV show.

Linehan is part of the story, in the UK he was one of the few celebs who opposed self id over there. This stalled the passage of the act to a certain extent.

Not so much 'fetishising' as 'speaking to the topic of this thread'.



There was nothing about the stalling of UK legislation in the programme, so again, I'm not seeing the relevance of the UK comedy writer on transgender rights in Ireland. Linehan didn't speak about his activism iirc - he just raised the same old tired issues that he's been raising on Twitter - the 'bogeyman' cases that haven't happened in three years of self-identification here in Ireland.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not so much 'fetishising' as 'speaking to the topic of this thread'.



There was nothing about the stalling of UK legislation in the programme, so again, I'm not seeing the relevance of the UK comedy writer on transgender rights in Ireland. Linehan didn't speak about his activism iirc - he just raised the same old tired issues that he's been raising on Twitter - the 'bogeyman' cases that haven't happened in three years of self-identification here in Ireland.

Prime Time were investigating the issue in the UK and asking why there appears to be no debate on the issues in Ireland. I could simply have answered the question and said not too many people actually give a shìte.

Slutmonkey57b

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Once again, it's not a judgement or opinion that he has no expertise. It's a simple statement of fact. He has no expertise on this topic - no qualification, no professional experience, no personal experience.



He has lots of opinions, which he is most entitled to share on Twitter or on opinion shows like Niall Boylan. The problem (as stated originally, not a 'fallback tactic' as you suggest) is that he should never have been invited on Prime Time - a news/current affairs show about transgender rights, not about 'fringe activism' as you suggest.

Is he more, or less, qualified than Aimee challenor?

If you want to bring an objective standard of qualification into things, then you are going to have to also accept that a lot of people are going to be disqualified on the basis of personal incompetence, violent misogyny, disingenuousness, or inexpertise.

So on that basis, are you willing to cede that transwomen don't have any right to define womanhood, given their (entirely factual) lack of expertise and personal experience of it?

klaaaz

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I haven’t made you aware of my qualifications, I don’t need to either as that to me would just be a pissing contest seeing as I don’t care for your qualifications either, nor do I care for their qualifications which you rely so heavily upon to support your argument from authority.

You’re correct in that I do have an ideology, and I have an agenda, and my ideology and agenda conflicts with yours. I at least have the balls to admit I have an agenda, do you?

I prefer to follow guidance from qualified professionals, people who have studied and worked all their working lives on the subject matter. How on earth is that an agenda or an ideology is beyond belief.

One eyed Jack wrote:

There are a number of different perspectives involved in the discussion of transgenderism, from the medical and scientific aspects to the social and political aspects, and the individual perspectives and case histories that inform that discussion. Some trans advocates appear to want only their perspective represented. I asked klaaaaz earlier were they aware of the term [url=https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Transmedicalism[/url] which is how some trans advocates refer to people who identify as transgender who do not feel any need to medically transition... not a peep out of them.

You had originally said "truscum" which was discussed earlier in the thread. I think you have the meaning of that term transmedicalism which was made up by some teenage twitter/name that platform kid, backwards. I thought it referred to trans who have medically transitioned hence "Transmedicalism".

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Linehan’s perspective was valuable enough that the producers of the programme thought his opinions were worth an airing in a public forum. It’s not true to say he has no experience of the issues involved when it’s been evidenced that he actually does, particularly given his warning from the police in the UK in relation to his social media spat with a radical transgender activist.

It is 100% true to say that he has no personal or professional experience of the issue - that's a simple fact.


And was it really his 'perspective' that they wanted? If they wanted that perspective, they could have just gone into any pub in Donnybrook any day of they week, and they'd find no shortage of lads giving the same cliched perspective. Why did they need to spend public money on sending a crew to London for a day for a 20 second clip of his furious typing.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s fine, they aren’t obligated to answer anything they don’t want to, but they shouldn’t expect to be taken seriously when they try and shut down anyone who doesn’t share their opinions. The parents on the programme weren’t experts in science and medicine either, and before their child identified themselves as transgender, they had no experience of the condition either. They were as much experts as Linehan, yet there were no calls for them to be excluded from the programme on the basis that they were giving their perspective based on their personal experience.

Yes, that's how experience works. Before the parents got the experience, they had no experience. But now that they've got the experience, they have the experience. That's why they were relevant.


They're not 'as much experts as Linehan'. They have lived with the issue of parenting a transgender child. Linehan has not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s who the programme was aimed at, informing people about the complexity of the issues involved without overwhelming them with information and trying to exclude anyone who didn’t have 20 years experience in child psychology and all the rest of it. Overall I found it a fairly balanced programme which examined the issues from a few different perspectives while resisting the temptation to repeat the Jeremy Kyle style screaming matches that had been seen on UK television regarding the issues involved which really only appeared to be designed to wind people up.

There is no attempt to exclude anyone who didn't have 20 years experience. They should have excluded anyone who didn't have experience or expertise - specifically Linehan.

AndrewJRenko

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Is he more, or less, qualified than Aimee challenor?

If you want to bring an objective standard of qualification into things, then you are going to have to also accept that a lot of people are going to be disqualified on the basis of personal incompetence, violent misogyny, disingenuousness, or inexpertise.

So on that basis, are you willing to cede that transwomen don't have any right to define womanhood, given their (entirely factual) lack of expertise and personal experience of it?

I've never heard of Aimee Challenor, so I'm not really the right person to comment on her qualifications. If she has experience or expertise in transgender, she could be a good candidate for Prime Time. If, like Linehan, she has no experience in this issue, she wouldn't make a good candidate for Prime Time.

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

I prefer to follow guidance from qualified professionals, people who have studied and worked all their working lives on the subject matter. How on earth is that an agenda or an ideology is beyond belief.

Qualified professionals are still people at the end of the day, and people always have an agenda which is propelled by their own idelogical beliefs. It’s not at all beyond belief, it’s simply a matter of who you choose to believe, and you choose to believe ideologues who support your opinions, whereas I choose to question their opinions on the basis that their opinions are based on their political and social ideology. There is no consensus among health professionals or scientists in relation to transgenderim. There is no consensus among social care professionals in relation to transgenderism.

There is plenty of discussion relating to the political and social aspects of transgenderism, and many of the organisations involved in the review of the Gender Recognition Act are basing their opinions on their political and social beliefs as opposed to basing their opinions on any medical or scientific evidence. It’s still a relatively new area of psychology and medicine and we’re learning more about it, which is why your dismissal of anyone who doesn’t share your ideological beliefs comes as no surprise to anyone really.

You had originally said "truscum" which was discussed earlier in the thread. I think you have the meaning of that term transmedicalism which was made up by some teenage twitter/name that platform kid, backwards. I thought it referred to trans who have medically transitioned hence "Transmedicalism".

My point was that even among themselves, transgender activists can’t agree on who is or isn’t qualified to identify themselves as transgender, as though only they are qualified to make that determination according to their standards. The point is that they claim anyone who doesn’t want to go through medical transition is not transgender, as though they are the experts on transgenderism in the same way as the organisations you pointed to are experts in children’s welfare. They aren’t. What they are quite skilled in, is the language of identity politics.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It is 100% true to say that he has no personal or professional experience of the issue - that's a simple fact.

It’s not fact though, as we have documented evidence of his dealings with radical trans activists on social media.

And was it really his 'perspective' that they wanted? If they wanted that perspective, they could have just gone into any pub in Donnybrook any day of they week, and they'd find no shortage of lads giving the same cliched perspective. Why did they need to spend public money on sending a crew to London for a day for a 20 second clip of his furious typing.

Those lads you mention are not public figures living in the UK where Prime Time were investigating the debate in the UK and questioning why there appeared to be no debate on the issues in Ireland. They said as much in every advertisement for the programme, which was heavily advertised. They could simply have phoned the Tavistock Institute too, or any of the participants in the programme. I’m not sure why they had to travel to the UK either but I suppose on-location is always better than over the phone.

Yes, that's how experience works. Before the parents got the experience, they had no experience. But now that they've got the experience, they have the experience. That's why they were relevant.

They have as much experience as Linehan in that case because in just the same way as he was giving his perspective based upon his experiences, they were giving their perspective based upon their experiences.

They're not 'as much experts as Linehan'. They have lived with the issue of parenting a transgender child. Linehan has not.

If the programme was simply about raising a child who identifies as transgender, you’d have a point. The programme wasn’t just about that though, it was about an in-depth look at transgender issues -

Prime Time: An in-depth look at transgender issues

In recent years there has been a huge increase in the number of young people in Ireland who say they are transgender - and who want to change the gender they were born with.

A Prime Time programme broadcast last night, examined the exponential growth in the number of young people seeking to change gender, and the implications of the proposed new law allowing them to do so without their parents' consent.

RTÉ said it was a fair and responsible examination of an issue of considerable public importance, the programme, nevertheless, provoked strong reaction from activists.

There is no attempt to exclude anyone who didn't have 20 years experience. They should have excluded anyone who didn't have experience or expertise - specifically Linehan.

But he does have experience of the issues involved, he just doesn’t share your opinions on the issues involved. That’s every reason to include him in the programme if you’re trying to present a fair and balanced view of the issues involved as opposed to a party political broadcast on behalf of a handful of trans advocates.

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not fact though, as we have documented evidence of his dealings with radical trans activists on social media.

So tell me, when a member of your family is facing a challenging physical or mental health problem, will you bring them to a doctor, or to someone who has dealt with activists on social media?

Honestly, if you can't see the difference between a parent living with this issue for years and Linehan having some rows on social media, I feel quite sorry for you.

Slutmonkey57b

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've never heard of Aimee Challenor, so I'm not really the right person to comment on her qualifications. If she has experience or expertise in transgender, she could be a good candidate for Prime Time. If, like Linehan, she has no experience in this issue, she wouldn't make a good candidate for Prime Time.

Amazing. You actually expect anyone to believe you know all about why Linehan is an "unqualified inexpertise bigot" AND that people are trying to "drag over controversies from the UK"

BUT

You've never heard of Challenor?

Never?

Unbelievable levels of bull**** on display there. But then, I suppose that's necessary to pretend that there aren't any issues with self id, or that "children's rights" to have surgery or take hormone blockers are being impinged.


(Children don't have those "rights" now and that's the next Nirvana on the list I suppose? "Yeah children of 4 years old can't get a tattoo or vote, and by definition they're malleable and easily manipulated, but we should definitely force these damaging stereotypes on them, tell them they're required to "fit in" to a box we've defined and then tell them they've the "right" to medical intervention to get into the outdated, nonsensical, imaginary box we want their behaviour to be classified into")

AndrewJRenko

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Amazing. You actually expect anyone to believe you know all about why Linehan is an "unqualified inexpertise bigot" AND that people are trying to "drag over controversies from the UK"

BUT

You've never heard of Challenor?

Never?

Unbelievable levels of bull**** on display there. But then, I suppose that's necessary to pretend that there aren't any issues with self id, or that "children's rights" to have surgery or take hormone blockers are be impinged.

I don't think I used the word 'bigot' so I'm not sure who you're quoting there. But I am amazed at the obsession some people have with how this issue has been addressed in the UK and elsewhere. Maybe you'd be better off studying how things have gone here, with three years of self-identification and no issues arising?

Slutmonkey57b

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I don't think I used the word 'bigot' so I'm not sure who you're quoting there. But I am amazed at the obsession some people have with how this issue has been addressed in the UK and elsewhere. Maybe you'd be better off studying how things have gone here, with three years of self-identification and no issues arising?

Hmmm.

Should I take the word of someone who "hasn't heard of Aimee Challenor" that there *haven't* been any issues?

Because clearly, you've kept your ear to the ground, haven't you? Nothing gets past you! Totally on the ball about this whole thing!

Or is it that you're hoping that nobody will look for anything? Because that's the only way they're not going to find anything.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So tell me, when a member of your family is facing a challenging physical or mental health problem, will you bring them to a doctor, or to someone who has dealt with activists on social media?

Honestly, if you can't see the difference between a parent living with this issue for years and Linehan having some rows on social media, I feel quite sorry for you.

Andrew the last thing anyone needs is your pity.

When someone in my family is faced with mental health issues, the options you present aren’t my only two options, but to ground your hypothetical scenario in some sort of reality - I have a 14 year old son. If he came to me one day and told me he was struggling with his identity and had read on social media that the only way to allieviate his distress was to transition to his preferred gender, I’d plug out his laptop and tell him get on with his homework.

AndrewJRenko

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Hmmm.

Should I take the word of someone who "hasn't heard of Aimee Challenor" that there *haven't* been any issues?

Because clearly, you've kept your ear to the ground, haven't you? Nothing gets past you! Totally on the ball about this whole thing!

Or is it that you're hoping that nobody will look for anything? Because that's the only way they're not going to find anything.

So what issues have arisen in Ireland?

klaaaz

Just over 900,000 pupils who are probably aged 18 and under in Irish schools in 2017. (https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Statistics/Key-Statistics/key-statistics-2017-2018.pdf)
From Primetime (https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0123/1024917-transgender/ ) , about 35 of them were referred to the Tavistock gender clinic in 2017. Overall in the entire pupil population of that 900,000, 12 have obtained gender recognition certs, 10 of these were girls who now identify as boys as Primetime described it.

Hardly an explosion? It's not even hundreds or thousands, it looks very suspicious that there is sensationalism involved here.

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

Hardly an explosion? It's not even hundreds or thousands, it looks very suspicious that there is sensationalism involved here.

There’s sensationalism involved alright, and plenty of it is coming from the chair of the review group of the Gender Recognition Act who is also the executive director of an organisation which made the proposals for the bill in the first place -

“We’re seeing a huge increase in the numbers of people coming out as transgender since the marriage equality referendum and the Gender Recognition Act, and that’s a really positive outcome. There’s been a 100 per cent increase in people accessing our youth groups and support services. We work with hundreds of trans people and we see that with the right support, they go on to live wonderfully fulfilled, happy and amazing lives.”

Ireland’s trans children: ‘I didn’t know what ‘trans’ meant. I just felt that I was a woman’

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

You are posting what I'm saying but your assessment of what I am saying is completely false, so the fact that you quote my posts isn't actually helpful.

The complainant (not victim) was not misled as to the nature of the act or identity of the person, and they were not raped or sexually assaulted.

There is little or no case law and thankfully Jack, you dont get to decide the interpretation of an untested law.

For instance, I don't get to decide that a woman who sleeps with a man she thinks is Scottish has been raped when she discovers he is actually Irish just because I believe it falls under the interpretation of misleading identity. And someone telling me they don't believe the woman was raped in that case is not denying that a woman who is forcefully raped is a victim. They would simply be saying they dont agree with my interpretation of an untested law.

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.

They are irrelevant to whether a case is taken, and whether it is succesful. That is all I'm considering. And its not the feelings of a person who has been sexually assaulted. Its the feelings of a person who feels they have been sexually assaulted.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

You are posting what I'm saying but your assessment of what I am saying is completely false, so the fact that you quote my posts isn't actually helpful.

The complainant (not victim) was not misled as to the nature of the act or identity of the person, and they were not raped or sexually assaulted.

There is little or no case law and thankfully Jack, you dont get to decide the interpretation of an untested law.

For instance, I don't get to decide that a woman who sleeps with a man she thinks is Scottish has been raped when she discovers he is actually Irish just because I believe it falls under the interpretation of misleading identity. And someone telling me they don't believe the woman was raped in that case is not denying that a woman who is forcefully raped is a victim. They would simply be saying they dont agree with my interpretation of an untested law.

The law is not untested? It applies to everyone equally, regardless of their gender. The victim was clearly misled as to the nature of the act if the person they assumed was a woman, turns out that the person does not agree that they are a woman. The Gender Recognition Act doesn’t apply here as it only applies in how a person is recognised in law. Even if they were legally a woman, it wouldn’t matter to a person who does not consider them to be a woman, and considers that they were misled by the nature of the act, thereby vitiating consent.

Your red herrings about national identity aren’t relevant to what we’re discussing here which is gender identity, but you feel free to argue that in front of a jury too. I’ve heard worse arguments.

They are irrelevant to whether a case is taken, and whether it is succesful. That is all I'm considering. And its not the feelings of a person who has been sexually assaulted. Its the feelings of a person who feels they have been sexually assaulted.

They’re irrelevant to you perhaps, but they aren’t irrelevant to me, and they aren’t irrelevant to anyone I’ve ever met who works in the legal profession. The feelings of the victim aren’t irrelevant to a jury either, and can often sway a case one way or the other. And it is the feelings of a person who has been sexually assaulted or raped, and your attempts to downplay the severity of the impact that being sexually assaulted or raped can have on a person are noted.

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Andrew the last thing anyone needs is your pity.

When someone in my family is faced with mental health issues, the options you present aren’t my only two options, but to ground your hypothetical scenario in some sort of reality - I have a 14 year old son. If he came to me one day and told me he was struggling with his identity and had read on social media that the only way to allieviate his distress was to transition to his preferred gender, I’d plug out his laptop and tell him get on with his homework.

Is it any wonder that trans people have such poor mental health issues and high suicide rates?

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is it any wonder that trans people have such poor mental health issues and high suicide rates?

I can’t see the gif you’ve posted (doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist though, amirite? :pac:), but no Andrew, my actions in that hypothetical situation do not explain why trans people have such poor mental health issues and high suicide rates. There are an infinite number of reasons why anyone would have poor mental health issues and high suicide rates among whatever particular demographic you choose in support of your argument. I could point out to you that the highest suicide rates recorded are consistently among middle aged males, but the recent trend among young girls and women of suicide has caused a lot of concern for people. In previous years young girls and women had higher rates of self-harm than males, and now they are increasingly likely to take their own lives. There have been a number of reasons put forward as to why this trend is happening, particularly from various lobby groups with a vested interest in funding, but nobody appears to be able to offer a sufficient explanation.

So no Andrew, I don’t wonder why it’s just trans people have such poor mental health issues and high suicide rates, and your attempt to credit me with responsibility for the phenomenon is at best misguided, and at worst downright sinister. I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt though that your intentions weren’t downright sinister and were instead simply misguided.

rgodard80a

LLMMLL wrote: »

There is little or no case law and thankfully Jack, you dont get to decide the interpretation of an untested law.

Maybe not in Ireland.... but in the UK a woman was jailed for pretending to be a man to have sex with another woman.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/29/woman-pretended-man-two-years-trick-female-friend-sex-found/

klaaaz

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There’s sensationalism involved alright, and plenty of it is coming from the chair of the review group of the Gender Recognition Act who is also the executive director of an organisation which made the proposals for the bill in the first place -

Ireland’s trans children: ‘I didn’t know what ‘trans’ meant. I just felt that I was a woman’

That's from their perspective dealing with percent increases rather than actual numbers. We knew already that there was a few hundred adults switching genders(the GRC), nothing new there. And they deserve their rights.

It's sensationalism on part of Prime Time and some posters here when only 12 children have legally changed gender, that's 12 out of 900,000 plus. Hardly an explosion!

The Bishop Basher

rgodard80a wrote: »

Maybe not in Ireland.... but in the UK a woman was jailed for pretending to be a man to have sex with another woman.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/29/woman-pretended-man-two-years-trick-female-friend-sex-found/

I linked to this before, it was dismissed because the rapist wasn’t a transsexual.

But there are huge parallels that can’t be ignored in the context of this discussion.

She was found guilty twice by 2 different jury’s so it’s cut and dried.

“The jury was told the “real issue” of the case boiled down to consent: did the complainant really know she was having sex with her friend, or did she honestly think her sexual partner was a man she had met on the internet?

In the end the jury decided the complainant had no idea that her lover was Gayle Newland and so could not have consented.”

Hector Savage

What I don't get is why they are so so sensitive ? - any sort of critisism or doubt is just met with shutting down,
de-platforming etc...
And I'm not talking about abuse here, take for example a documentary on biology by that "Science Guy" Bill Nye, it's from 1990s
and the segment that talks about XX XY chromosones to determine gender - is just cut.
Why do they need to cut it ?
Even if the Science is dated , the doc is 20 years old - leave it in.
Plenty of dinosaur docs from years back that view them as great big dumb scaly skinned lizards, most recent discoveries
indicate they actually were feathered and were more like giant birds (birds are modern day dinosaurs)
Would these be just cut tho ?
Don't think so, people would still merit them even if the science is dated and has since been proved wrong - It's secure enough
to trust the new data rather then just remove old data like some George Orwell novel.
Same with Pluto (now I am aware this is a classification issue) don't think they will be deleting docs that
have it as a planet.


It's almost as if they know it's an absolute crock of sh*t and they know it needs protecting in order to survive.

Zorya

There is no point in arguing with trans allies as to whether or not sex with a transwoman when the partner does not know they are biologically male is rape because amongst themselves trans allies cannot figure this out as, on this issue like so many others, the ideological incoherence threatens to consume itself.

Is it ''rude'' not to tell your gender history, I have seen some trans activists wonder.
Some say, of course you should tell, otherwise it is stealth sex, sex where one partner is under very fundamental misapprehensions as to the reality of the event.
Some say, why should one tell because a transwoman is REALLY a woman, so therefore there is no subterfuge.

That's the split.

Perhaps it boils down to this - is a transwoman a woman?

The ideology is pushing for there to be zero distinction between biological women and trans women. Zero. They are to be accepted as one and the same thing, and therefore there could be no subterfuge in the case of sex .

I believe that a woman is an adult human female, and that a transwoman is a transwoman. For that I am considered to be a transphobe, but am willing to accept the existence of that slur as being a consequence of my publicly wishing to uphold empirical biological reality against false ideology.

It is up to the courts and wider society to decide as time goes on what they think is the truth. It is difficult at the moment due to the censorship of academic research and open debate. Time will tell.

rgodard80a

Zorya wrote: »

I believe that a woman is an adult human female, and that a transwoman is a transwoman.

+1
It's nearly akin to religion.

The law allows for religious equality, but that doesn't mean that I have to subscribe to other religious interpretations.

The best the trans community can hope for is that legally they are treated equally as women, but that's nowhere near the same as all of society believing they are women.

Zorya

rgodard80a wrote: »

+1
It's nearly akin to religion.

The law allows for religious equality, but that doesn't mean that I have to subscribe to other religious interpretations.

The best the trans community can hope for is that legally they are treated equally as women, but that's nowhere near the same as all of society believing they are women.

I agree on the cultic quality of ideological adherence.

The legal system should treat trans people equally as humans. If trans women are to be legally treated equally as women then they will have free reign as self ID MfF persons within all female spaces. Though the defenders on here are saying show me the problems in Ireland, this invasion of female only spaces by trans identifying males has caused serious problems in other jurisdictions, eg rape in shelters and prisons, law suits, assaults.

klaaaz

Zorya wrote: »

Some say, why should one tell because a transwoman is REALLY a woman, so therefore there is no subterfuge.

That's the split.

Perhaps it boils down to this - is a transwoman a woman?

The ideology is pushing for there to be zero distinction between biological women and trans women. Zero. They are to be accepted as one and the same thing, and therefore there could be no subterfuge in the case of sex .

I believe that a woman is an adult human female, and that a transwoman is a transwoman. For that I am considered to be a transphobe, but am willing to accept the existence of that slur as being a consequence of my publicly wishing to uphold empirical biological reality against false ideology.

It is up to the courts and wider society to decide as time goes on what they think is the truth. It is difficult at the moment due to the censorship of academic research and open debate. Time will tell.

Over a thousand Irish feminist activists reject your radical view, as well as the legal, medical community and children's rights organisations. The only ones who agree with you are the misogynistic males and the religious extremists.
https://feministire.com/2018/01/22/an-open-letter-to-the-organisers-of-the-we-need-to-talk-tour-from-a-group-of-feminists-in-ireland/

over a thousand Irish feminists wrote:

However, their motives remain clear to us, and we write this letter to show that their exclusionary, discriminatory attitudes to trans people – in particular trans women – are not welcome here in Ireland. We will not sit in silence while the organisers of this meeting peddle ideas and opinions that are actively harmful to the well-being and safety of our comrades.

Trans women and men in Ireland have the legal right to self-declare their gender. Trans people and particularly trans women are an inextricable part of our feminist community. The needs of trans people are part of our campaigns. There is no difference between ‘feminists’ spreading transphobic and transmisogynist ideas or spreading racism or homophobia.

We can see from your social media posts about your tour and its contents, that your opposition to the GRA is based on the idea that feminist organising and women’s rights will somehow be harmed through trans inclusivity and organising with our trans sisters. We know this is not true. We, the signatories of this letter, organise hand in hand with our trans sisters. Together, cis and trans, we are Irish feminism. Trans women are our sisters; their struggles are ours, our struggles theirs. They were our sisters before any state-issued certification said so and will always be no matter what any legislation says, either now or in the future.

In the south of Ireland*, trans women have been able to declare themselves women and have the state change their documentation to reflect that declaration since 2015. The sky has not fallen. Cis women have not lost anything whatsoever from this. If anything, all of Irish feminism has gained: our struggle for bodily autonomy gains in strength and momentum through this victory for our trans sisters. There are few things as feminists in Ireland we can say we have been pleased to see passed by the state. This, although flawed in its lack of recognition of trans children and non-binary people, is one.

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

The only ones who agree with you are the misogynistic males and the religious extremists.

You are incorrect. There is a huge ground swell of movements actively beginning to protest

the trans-orthodox view that biological sex is a social construct while gendered identities are fixed and innate.

https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/the-gender-wars-academic-freedom-and-education

(just one tiny example. Am not going to fill pages with links to ongoing protests, discussions, meetings, etc)

Slutmonkey57b

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So what issues have arisen in Ireland?

Tell you what, you answer the question I've asked twice

"Does a transwomen have any meaningful experience that allows them to speak on behalf of women, or put themselves forward as women's representatives"

If you're prepared to answer a straightforward question about experience and credibility then I'll do "Let me Google that for you".

But since I suspect your position on both "I've never heard of Aimee Challenor" and "I'm not answering whether transwomen are qualified" is entirely disingenuous I'm not convinced you'd listen anyway if you didn't get the answer you were looking for.

Zorya

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Tell you what, you answer the question I've asked twice

"Does a transwomen have any meaningful experience that allows them to speak on behalf of women, or put themselves forward as women's representatives"

If you're prepared to answer a straightforward question about experience and credibility then I'll do "Let me Google that for you".

But since I suspect your position on both "I've never heard of Aimee Challenor" and "I'm not answering whether transwomen are qualified" is entirely disingenuous I'm not convinced you'd listen anyway if you didn't get the answer you were looking for.

Just for anyone not up to speed on that issue - 2 people on the ruling council of the Green Party UK KNEW in advance that Aimee Challenor's father had kidnapped, held hostage in his attic and repeatedly raped and electrocuted a 10 year old child while he was acting out his sick fantasy of identifying as a minor and wearing a nappy during the rapes - and still the Green Party UK went ahead and appointed Aimee Challenor, who had retained their father as their election agent after the rapes, as their Equality Spokesperson in the UK.

klaaaz

Zorya wrote: »

You are incorrect. There is a huge ground swell of movements actively beginning to protest

https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/the-gender-wars-academic-freedom-and-education

(just one tiny example. Am not going to fill pages with links to ongoing protests, discussions, meetings, etc)

Again, you're quoting a single person's blog from the UK. This is Ireland which is not the UK.

Over a thousand Irish feminists disagree with you, where are the Irish feminists who agree with your radical views?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Should be put to a public vote.

suicide_circus

klaaaz wrote: »

where are the Irish feminists who agree with your radical views?

probably cowering in fear lest their opinions get them in trouble

Franz Von Peppercorn

klaaaz wrote: »

Over a thousand Irish feminist activists reject your radical view, as well as the legal, medical community and children's rights organisations. The only ones who agree with you are the misogynistic males and the religious extremists.
https://feministire.com/2018/01/22/an-open-letter-to-the-organisers-of-the-we-need-to-talk-tour-from-a-group-of-feminists-in-ireland/

You may want to look at women’s forums online. I linked to mumsnet earlier. Don’t see what misogynist men have to do with it. In fact these women cheer on Linehan and consider the woke men misogynistic

I don’t know how representative these groups are but they are clearly a strong cross section of society.

Sir Oxman

Zorya wrote: »

Just for anyone not up to speed on that issue - 2 people on the ruling council of the Green Party UK KNEW in advance that Aimee Challenor's father had kidnapped, held hostage in his attic and repeatedly raped and electrocuted a 10 year old child while he was acting out his sick fantasy of identifying as a minor and wearing a nappy during the rapes - and still the Green Party UK went ahead and appointed Aimee Challenor, who had retained their father as their election agent after the rapes, as their Equality Spokesperson in the UK.

And on top of that (and after the above story broke)
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/trans-advisory-group


The bearded bloke below Challenor's entry on this board says he's a lesbian.

This board issue guidance to schOols, unis and police etc in the UK (the UK police adopted their guidance word for word - ie copy and paste)

Zorya

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You may want to look at women’s forums online. I linked to mumsnet earlier. Don’t see what misogynist men have to do with it. In fact these women cheer on Linehan and consider the woke men misogynistic

I don’t knle how representative these groups are but they are clearly a strong cross section of society.

It's growing into a huge kick back movement. And Klaaaz knows this, most likely. Even last night all over the UK ''ReSisters'' put Woman - Adult Human Female tee-shirts on public monuments. I am not part of any movement, feminist or otherwise, nor do I ever intend to be, but I am glad to see the movement against irrational ideology grow legs.

Zorya

suicide_circus wrote: »

probably cowering in fear lest their opinions get them in trouble

That's a genuine fear. Even my husband asks me not to speak up as he is worried I will be abused or attacked. A lot of people are being silent because they are afraid.