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
Ridiculous Moderation on Current Affairs/IMHO
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
[
Warning
So go get a brew or 2 and make yourselves very comfortable.
This one is 1,000,000 words or less ( I think??) ]
Title
The joys of ageing, when bathroom wakes lead to insomnia
Executive summary
Short Case overview
Yes the NI cake is there
Pronouns are politics and activism
The undocumented self ID does not give legal rights nor protection.
"Gender" (only) is not a legally protected word nor a protected right, it's sex/gender.
Don't be deliberately rude
Pronouns are not legally protected
If you are rude I can chose to be rude back
Links
The Constitution
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons.html *
The Equal Status Act as amended
http://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/2000/act/8/revised/en/html
The Gender Recognition Act as amended
http://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/2015/act/25/section/18/revised/en/html
* Whut?? God exists because Bunreacht na hÉireann says so ? Ohhh so the male is the one with the big(?) fig leaf!
Time for tae
The litigant has self IDed as a woman, the current ideology is that other people must accept that as a valid "choice" to publicly transition from a 'male' gender to a 'female' gender and that trans women are women. It is acceptance without exception.
I am not and will not deny that this is the current as ideology but others may. I will object to anyone attempting to deny that Acceptance without exception is why this issue exists. IMO It's a queer theory as applied to transgender theory.
IMO anyone who can not accept that we (as a society) have to maintain some form of gate-keeping regarding this; can not try act in good faith. IMO they can not ignoring this dilemma, or dismiss it as scaremongering or transphobia. I acknowledge that gate-keeping may be at the very real expense of those individuals who just want to get on with their lives who do not and would not accept the "acceptance without exception"
If a person ( transgendered or not ), attempts to deny that there is a conflict of rights, I will not abide by good manners nor be bound by any unconscionable law. I fully reserve the right to call them any pronoun or noun which I myself choose.
I have come to believe the current queered transgendered ideology is being used as a fundamental and base attack on women as a sex. (and note I can expand on that as and when required :) )
I do not believe that this was what people campaigned for or continue to campaign for here in Ireland.
I freely acknowledge that most (if not all) Irish activists themselves strongly object to the actions of this individual. I would hope that the activists/trans people would accept that for most other people the 'idea/concept ' of being transgendered is difficult to understand.
I believe we will all need to work to establish a new base line of acceptable behaviour. And I would hope that challenging coercive behaviour will never be socially unacceptable.
If the women in the centre of the case had submitted to the coercion from this individual and applied wax to her male genitalia or arm/leg we would not be debating this issue.
If the women in the centre of the case had submitted to the coercion of attending mediation and paid damages to this individual for not submitted to the coercion from this individual we would not be debating this issue. It would have cost them in the region of $CAD 2,500 each and their livelihood.
They are currently trying to defend their right not to be coerced into unwanted contact with another human. If they loose they will potentially have to pay the litigant $CAD 500,000 and loose not just their livelihood but their financial existence.
IMO This was a targeted attach by a trans woman who up until now mainly expressed a fetish on menstruation by targeting prepubescent and pubescent girls. The litigant has extended this abusive fetish behaviour by targeting women in a specific niche market.
The ladies cultural heritage , religion, and personal belief system which are core to their sex/gender identity have come under attack.
This attack is by an individual who claims that the cases are about the legal protections offered to a person as a result of the recognition of 'gender' and the derecognition 'sex'.
This person has openly published that the objective is the removal of the rights the ladies currently enjoy in respect of the ladies cultural heritage , religion, and personal belief system.
This activism is political. It is being used by the litigant in a campaigning to bring about
A) political change in the way transgender ideology is legislated for and
social change in the way undocumented self IDing transgendered and documented transgendered people are treated by the general public.
Most if (not all will) agree the litigant is by no shape or form a person a reasonable transgendered person would wish or choose to be the "public face" of any politically motivated court action.
This can be compared to the NI baker case, where people were making value judgements based on the religious believe and sexual orientation of the parties involved. There the judge balanced the right of individuals to engage in employment (a necessary evil ! ) and have a strongly held belief system against the denial of service as a result of these belief to a member of a protected class. The judge parsed the judgement on the application of the wax sorry icing ( manly snort / girlie giggle ).
Irrespective of this litigant, the case itself will clarify the extent to which the body of trans identified person is recognised as the gender of their choice under Canadian law. And will the judge pars the judgement between different body parts?
My take on the Irish position on pronouns.
First point to note IMO the litigant is not recognised as a woman/female under Irish law.
We do not recognise undocumented self ID as being a valid method of changing sex(gender).
As pointed out the State has enacted the Gender Recognition Act 2015.
As a result of this, only persons with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) can legally be recognised as having changed sex(gender).
The Constitution only recognises "sex" not "gender".
EgARTICLE 16
1 1° Every citizen without distinction of sex[h] who has reached the age of twenty-one years, and who is not placed under disability or incapacity by this Constitution or by law, shall be eligible for membership of Dáil Éireann.
1 2° i All citizens, and
ii such other persons in the State as may be determined by law,
without distinction of sex who have reached the age of eighteen years who are not disqualified by law and comply with the provisions of the law relating to the election of members of Dáil Éireann, shall have the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann.
1 3° No law shall be enacted placing any citizen under disability or incapacity for membership of Dáil Éireann on the ground of sex or disqualifying any citizen or other person from voting at an election for members of Dáil Éireann on that ground.
Until such time as someone can point to the legistation where the State interprets "gender" being defined as other than "sex" (per the Equality Acts) I will argue that "gender" (as opposed to "sex") has no independent protected characteristics and is not recognised (and can not be recognised) in law as being other than "sex".EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000
3 2 ( a) that one is male and the other is female (the “gender ground ” ),
No GRA 2015 case has yet been appealed to the Supreme Court(?).
Therefore IMO only persons with a GRC can lawfully be given any rights and protections that their "new" sex has been granted.
To highlight the importance of this recognition I reference where a non-citizen although resident was excluded from employment protections by virtue of the interaction of employment law and the Constitution. (google Asian/Indian chef underpayment of wages).
See below that the State grants non-citizens the right to obtain a GRC.
Further more the recognition is only legal on and after the date the GRC is issued.PART 3
Gender Recognition Certificate
Effect of gender recognition certificate generally
18. (1) Where a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person the person’s gender shall from thedate of that issue become for all purposes the preferred gender so that if the preferred gender is the male gender the person’s sex becomes that of a man, and if it is the female gender the person’s sex becomes that of a woman.
(2) The date of issue of a gender recognition certificate shall be—
(a) the date on which the Minister decides to issue the certificate under section 8 (3)(a), or
(b) the date of an order of the court under section 17 (2)(a).
As a non-resident the litigant would be obliged to apply under section 8 and the Minister has a right to grant or refuse a gender recognition certificate.
The recognition would only apply after the cert is issued to qualify the litigant.PART 2
Applications and Appeals Relating to Gender Recognition
Application for a gender recognition certificate
8. (1) A person referred to in section 9 may apply to the Minister for a gender recognition certificate.
(2) An application under this section shall be in writing in the form, including electronic form, as may be prescribed, and no fee shall be charged by the Minister for considering the application.
(3) The Minister shall consider an application under this section and shall decide to either—
(a) issue a gender recognition certificate, or
(b) refuse to issue a gender recognition certificate.
>>>> I can only see the next paragraph on my phone if yiz want I can add a 2nd post<<<<<
To date approximately 400 GRC's have been issued between 2015 and 2019
Between 2015 and 2017 only four applications were received under section 9.
http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/GRA%20Review%20Report.pdf
Unless there has been a large shift in the demographic applying under this section it would not be unreasonable to extrapolate that the total number of these successful applicants would be less than 20 persons.
Is there even a remote possibility that the litigant has applied and been issued with a gender recognition certificate under section 9 1 a? I would argue that based on the evidence in the public domaine that to suggest this would be a nonsense.
Further as there is ample evidence to support the litigant's ordinary residence is in Canada, she would not legally have qualified under section 9 1 b either.
“ordinarily resident” in sections 9 and 10 means ordinarily resident in the State throughout the period of one year ending on the date that a person applies for a gender recognition certificate;Persons who may apply for a gender recognition certificate
9. (1) This section applies to a person who satisfies the conditions specified in subsection (2) —
(a) who may or may not be ordinarily resident in the State and—
[ has a right to Irish Citizenship by birth or decent ]
...
(b) who is ordinarily resident in the State, whose birth did not take place in the State and whose birth—
The wider application of recognising undocumented self ID is only good manners.
It offends a persons personal dignity to not recognise a persons name. Unless the speaker has a mental/speech disability to continue to misname a person after introductions are made is just rude. In a lot of cases (most) to continue do so is a abusive in the way all controlling behaviour is abusive.
However the use of pronouns when referring to someone or something have now become subjective when applied in the Sex V Gender word war.
From a cultural perspective the Irish language did not recognise "it" everything basically is "male" or "female" and non-sex and/or inanimate objects derived a "sex". So from a philosophical view point we may sex/gender a car while recognising the material reality of the car being inanimate.
Why can we not do the same when applying a sex/gender specific pronoun to a person who's biology (as a material reality when it comes to acts of sexual reproduction) is not matched by their preferred pronoun or GRC?
Do we as citizens have a right to a protected pronoun?
Do we as citizens have a right to force others to use that protected pronoun?
I would argue that we do not have a right to protected pronouns nor the right to force other to use them.ARTICLE 40
1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.
....
3 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.
3 2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.
I would argue that the State has not legislated to protect pronouns within the GRA.
IMO as it expressly limited the personal recognised right to marry, the State it's self differentiates between birth sex and GRC sex.Gender Recognition Certificate
Effect of gender recognition certificate generally
18. (1) Where a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person the person’s gender shall from the date of that issue become for all purposes the preferred gender so that if the preferred gender is the male gender the person’s sex becomes that of a man, and if it is the female gender the person’s sex becomes that of a woman.
...
(3) A person issued with a gender recognition certificate may only—
(a) marry a person of the opposite gender to the preferred gender and reference in section 2(2)(e) of the Act of 2004 to “same sex” includes a reference to the same sex as the preferred gender,
(b) be a party to a civil partnership registration with a person of the same gender as the preferred gender and reference in section 2(2A)(e) of the Act of 2004, to “not of the same sex” includes a reference to not of the same sex as the preferred gender.
The current ideology of gender and transgender is no longer limited to people who suffer from a clinically recognisable dysmorphia about the sex of their body.
IMO It has extended out so far as to become a dangerous nonsense.
Further to this, it has extended so far as to become a threat to the recognition of women as a sex.
It has extended so far that I have to define women as a person born only with X chromosome and exclude persons who's genetic makeup contains any number of Y chromosome.
It has extended so far that people will actually argue that the exclusion of persons with any number of Y chromosome is biologically inaccurate and/or transphobic.
It has extended so far that people will call me a bigot and accuse me of causing the death of someone by saying that.
IMO the ideology has deliberately targeted women as a sex and the words used to define and describe women as a sex.
Women as a sex are being redefined using such words as "Ciswomen".
The inclusion of the word "cis" is being used to validate undocumented self IDing males as women/female.
The forced speech; by insisting that I use of a pronoun to describe an individual who is not legally recognised as being the sex/gender of that pronoun, is in my view contrary to the rights all citizens under Article section 6 of the Constitution to freely my convictions and opinions in respect of the difference between a sex and having the rights and protections afforded that sex.
[ edit ]
As such I point out that I have right to protection under the Equal status act section 3 2 (a) on the grounds of sex* under section 3 2 (e) on the grounds of religious belief and section 3 2 (j) (iv) on the grounds I can opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act.
* And to avoided the erasure/kill argument I fully acknowledge that the 400 aprox GRC may all have been issued to males who are now recognised as female irrespective of being pre or post op people.EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 (as amended)
Discrimination (general).
3.— F9 [ (1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur —
( a ) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation F10 [ on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B) , ] (in this Act referred to as the ‘ discriminatory grounds ’ ) which —
(i) exists,
(ii) existed but no longer exists,
(iii) may exist in the future, or
(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,
( b ) where a person who is associated with another person —
(i) is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and
(ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph ( a ), constitute discrimination,
or
( c ) where an apparently neutral provision F10 [ would put a person ] referred to in any paragraph of section 3(2) at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. ]
(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:
( a) that one is male and the other is female (the “gender ground”),
( b) that they are of different F11 [ civil status ] (the “ F11 [ civil status ] ground”),
( c) that one has family status and the other does not or that one has a different family status from the other (the “family status ground”),
( d) that they are of different sexual orientation (the “sexual orientation ground”),
( e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (the “religion ground”),
( f) subject to subsection (3), that they are of different ages (the “age ground”),
( g) that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (the “disability ground”),
( h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the “ground of race”),
( i) that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not (the “Traveller community ground”),
( j) that one—
(i) has in good faith applied for any determination or redress provided for in Part II or III,
(ii) has attended as a witness before the Authority, the F12 [ adjudication officer ] or a court in connection with any inquiry or proceedings under this Act,
(iii) has given evidence in any criminal proceedings under this Act,
(iv) has opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act, or
(v) has given notice of an intention to take any of the actions specified in subparagraphs (i) to (iv),
and the other has not (the “victimisation ground”).
F9 [ (3) (a) Treating a person who has not attained the age of 18 years less favourably or more favourably than another, whatever that person ’ s age shall not be regarded as discrimination on the age ground.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply in relation to the provision of motor vehicle insurance to licensed drivers under that age.
(3A) In any proceedings statistics are admissible for the purpose of determining whether discrimination has occurred by virtue of subsection (1)(c) .]
F13 [ (3B) For the purposes of section 6(1)(c) , the discriminatory grounds shall (in addition to the grounds specified in subsection (2) ) include the ground that as between any two persons, that one is in receipt of rent supplement (within the meaning of section 6(8) ), housing assistance (construed in accordance with Part 4 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 ) or any payment under the Social Welfare Acts and the other is not (the “ housing assistance ground ” ). ]
(4) The Minister shall, not later than two years after the commencement of this section, review the operation of this Act to assess whether there is a need to add to the discriminatory grounds specified in subsection (2).
Annotations:
Amendments:
F9
Substituted and inserted (18.07.2004) by Equality Act 2004 (24/2004), s. 48(a) and (b), commenced on enactment.
F10
Substituted (1.01.2016) by Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015 (43/2015), s. 13(a)(i) and (ii), S.I. No. 610 of 2015.
F11
Substituted (1.01.2011) by Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 (24/2010), s. 103(3), S.I. No. 648 of 2010.
F12
Substituted (1.10.2015) by Workplace Relations Act 2015 (16/2015), s. 84(1)(c), S.I. No. 410 of 2015, subject to transitional provision in subs. (2).
F13
Inserted (1.01.2016) by Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015 (43/2015), s. 13(b), S.I. 610 of 2015.
And the extract
Posting on main and mod threadFUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
PERSONAL RIGHTS
ARTICLE 40
1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.
....
3 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.
3 2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.
......
6 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: –
i The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.
The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.
The publication or utterance of seditious or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.
ii The right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms.
Provision may be made by law to prevent or control meetings which are determined in accordance with law to be calculated to cause a breach of the peace or to be a danger or nuisance to the general public and to prevent or control meetings in the vicinity of either House of the Oireachtas.
iii The right of the citizens to form associations and unions.
Laws, however, may be enacted for the regulation and control in the public interest of the exercise of the foregoing right.
2° Laws regulating the manner in which the right of forming associations and unions and the right of free assembly may be exercised shall contain no political, religious or class discrimination.
If you got this far:
Thanks for reading0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement