J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

ProfessorPlum

suicide_circus wrote: »

The Sex Police? You mean biology?

Go away with your hate speech!

Dyr

I see the only Irish source that told us that the troubled female psycho in Tulsas care was actually a man is being threatened by Tusla now to take down their reports about the case

We're moving to situation like Rotherham in England or this state during the Catholics Churchs prime where there will be no need for cover ups because the press are in cahoots with the authorities about whats the public should or should not know.

suicide_circus

Bambi wrote: »

I see the only Irish source that told us that the troubled female psycho in Tulsas care was actually a man is being threatened by Tusla now to take down their reports about the case

Comical stuff.

Tusla threatening Gript saying the case is subject to a gagging order.

Gript took the story from records published for public consumption by the courts service.

One arm of the state threatening a journalist for publishing details already published by another arm of the state. Gobshytes.

One eyed Jack

Gervais08 wrote: »

By not allowing “self appointed” men to pretend to be women would be job one.

You don’t have any control over that though? This is my point - there is nothing anyone else can do to prevent any man from pretending to be a woman. It’s also still not going to prevent men from committing rape. It’s also still not going to have any impact on making anyone else safer. The only practical measures I can think of would be to harass and intimidate people (or try to, anyway!) who don’t share their ideas for society, and even then I don’t see that one working out in their favour.

Sittingpretty wrote: »

You do see the irony dripping from this statement yes?

No? I might if I thought I had the authority to impose my ideas for society on other people who don’t share my ideas, but I don’t. I have no interest in telling women they aren’t women or telling men they aren’t men. You do you and all that. I expect the same courtesy in return.

I’m not going to do Graham Linehan or JK Rowling on it - “someone was mean to me on Twitter? I’ll show them by being equally spiteful and taking my frustration out on a whole section of society”. I’d see that kind of attitude towards others as completely irrational and unjustifiable. I wouldn’t support anyone who engages in that sort of behaviour, but I wouldn’t tar everyone who has characteristics or beliefs in common with them, with the same brush.

Sittingpretty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You don’t have any control over that though? This is my point - there is nothing anyone else can do to prevent any man from pretending to be a woman. It’s also still not going to prevent men from committing rape. It’s also still not going to have any impact on making anyone else safer. The only practical measures I can think of would be to harass and intimidate people (or try to, anyway!) who don’t share their ideas for society, and even then I don’t see that one working out in their favour.





No? I might if I thought I had the authority to impose my ideas for society on other people who don’t share my ideas, but I don’t. I have no interest in telling women they aren’t women or telling men they aren’t men. You do you and all that. I expect the same courtesy in return.

I’m not going to do Graham Linehan or JK Rowling on it - “someone was mean to me on Twitter? I’ll show them by being equally spiteful and taking my frustration out on a whole section of society”. I’d see that kind of attitude towards others as completely irrational and unjustifiable. I wouldn’t support anyone who engages in that sort of behaviour, but I wouldn’t tar everyone who has characteristics or beliefs in common with them, with the same brush.

The only thing mildly surprising about this response is its brevity.

Small mercies I suppose I’ll take what I can get

One eyed Jack

Dunno how brief this is going to be, but after reading that the American Cancer Society is going with the terms “individuals with a cervix”, it occurred to me that the organisation which JK initially mocked for using the terms “people who menstruate”, may have been using what’s known as “people first” language, as opposed to “identity first” language -


Person-First vs. Identity-First Language


It’s been around since the mid-80’s in the US apparently to refer to people with disabilities. I first came across it in the mid-90’s when homosexuals were also commonly referred to as “the gays”, not even pejoratively, but it never sat right with me in any case (I was working with the Red Ribbon Project at the time, and then the Church abuse scandals broke and I remember thinking “fcuk this, I’m outta here before they discover I’m Catholic” :pac:), and when I started working with people with disabilities (later referred to as people with special needs, additional needs, etc by some people), I came across the idea of people first language, which just made more sense. There was nothing more to it than that, and even today I’ll refer to people who are transgender, because the “LGBT” acronym, as though people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender are, or ever were, actually a homogeneous group, has never sat right with me either.

I do understand how it’s jarring for a lot of people, but I don’t imagine there was ever any suggestion of being inclusive of biological males, or any intention to offend JK when the organisation used the term “people who menstruate” in their literature. JK just wasn’t familiar with the language is all. Had JK actually taken the time to read the article, it would have cleared up any confusion she experienced -


An estimated 1.8 billion girls, women, and gender non-binary persons menstruate, and this has not stopped because of the pandemic. They still require menstrual materials, safe access to toilets, soap, water, and private spaces in the face of lockdown living conditions that have eliminated privacy for many populations.

RWCNT

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Dunno how brief this is going to be, but after reading that the American Cancer Society is going with the terms “individuals with a cervix”, it occurred to me that the organisation which JK initially mocked for using the terms “people who menstruate”, may have been using what’s known as “people first” language, as opposed to “identity first” language -


Person-First vs. Identity-First Language


It’s been around since the mid-80’s in the US apparently to refer to people with disabilities. I first came across it in the mid-90’s when homosexuals were also commonly referred to as “the gays”, not even pejoratively, but it never sat right with me in any case (I was working with the Red Ribbon Project at the time, and then the Church abuse scandals broke and I remember thinking “fcuk this, I’m outta here before they discover I’m Catholic” :pac:), and when I started working with people with disabilities (later referred to as people with special needs, additional needs, etc by some people), I came across the idea of people first language, which just made more sense. There was nothing more to it than that, and even today I’ll refer to people who are transgender, because the “LGBT” acronym, as though people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender are, or ever were, actually a homogeneous group, has never sat right with me either.

I do understand how it’s jarring for a lot of people, but I don’t imagine there was ever any suggestion of being inclusive of biological males, or any intention to offend JK when the organisation used the term “people who menstruate” in their literature. JK just wasn’t familiar with the language is all. Had JK actually taken the time to read the article, it would have cleared up any confusion she experienced -


An estimated 1.8 billion girls, women, and gender non-binary persons menstruate, and this has not stopped because of the pandemic. They still require menstrual materials, safe access to toilets, soap, water, and private spaces in the face of lockdown living conditions that have eliminated privacy for many populations.

Very interesting info, thank you for that. I originally interpreted the language as making an effort to be inclusive of female born trans-men rather than an attempt to not offend trans-women though. I suppose it could be either, or you could be correct.

I'm personally not in favour of language like "People with a cervix" as I don't think it's clear enough. Another poster pages ago mentioned that they'd been in touch with the HSE to suggest "women, trans-men and non-binary people" instead and I did the same immediately at their suggestion as it seemed the perfect balance of clarity and inclusivity. My job is tangentially related to medicine and I've spoke to plenty of women who don't know what a cervix is, plenty of men that don't know what a urethra is etc. Clarity is key when it comes to this stuff.

Justin Credible Darts

what is wrong with the language, "men" , "women", "trans men", "trans women"

because trans men are not real men
trans women are not real women

Gruffalux

Yesterday I noticed on a very busy boards thread - perhaps the busiest on this site - that a user had the following statement displayed in large bolded script in their signature -

"Theory of mind generally asserts that in the absence of objective evidence, the emotions, desires and motivations we ascribe to others, are merely projections of our own. The "if it was me" fallacy which assumes that other minds are the same as ours.
The root of most transphobia is the belief that trans people - transwomen in particular - are merely deviants with no self-control, who are attempting to access sex through deception, subterfuge or violence. And therefore are a threat to society.

Since we can assume that this belief is a projection of the self, it therefore stands to reason that transphobes harbour desires to commit sexual violence but consider themselves to have it under control. It then reasonably follows that statistically - if not through sheer numbers - that transphobes represent a far greater threat to society, women in particular, than transgender people ever will."



It is I think a statement of their own opinion rather than a quote from elsewhere.

Theory of mind is subject to criticism in and of itself. It is one among other cognitive theories. Also, theory of mind as is does not limit itself to 'if it were me" idea but specifically includes the recognition that humans understand that others do NOT think as they themselves do.

But leaving that aside there are many fallacious leaps made in this signature statement which seek to fundamentally disrespect people who argue honestly against ideological gender theory.

Number 1 is the use of the word transphobe or transphobic which is now a slur almost as meaningless as repeatedly used and thus degraded words like Nazi, fascist, racist etc. It is intended to impugn the moral character of another person with opposing views to one's own. I am not afraid of nor disgusted by transgender people. I believe transgender people should be respected and afforded all due rights. My argument is that we should not subvert biological reality and scientific fact in order to accord rights to anyone. Rights can be afforded while remaining truthful and precise.

Those who argue on this basis do not assume that transgender people are sexual deviants as is claimed in the public signature. This is a massive and illogical leap presented as if it is reasonable. It is not reasonable at all. It is offensive.

Then we must proceed, according to the signature, from this "assumption" to believe that "transphobes" are the actual sexual deviants and a public threat. These are farcical leaps presented as being some kind of rational logic as they are couched in the initial context of the theory of mind proposition and the posters absurd and subjective interpretation thereof.

Such public and repeated declarations via use of signature impugning the character of others with different opinions as being sexual deviants who are a threat to society must be open to equally public challenge.

Gervais08

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

what is wrong with the language, "men" , "women", "trans men", "trans women"

because trans men are not real men
trans women are not real women

And non binary/gender fluid is just bollocks and offensive to transsexual people and the often painful journey they’ve been on.

One eyed Jack

RWCNT wrote: »

My job is tangentially related to medicine and I've spoke to plenty of women who don't know what a cervix is, plenty of men that don't know what a urethra is etc. Clarity is key when it comes to this stuff.

Surely there though, the issue is one of a lack of education? If they don’t know what a cervix is, they’re unlikely to seek out information related to the cervix such as cervical or urethral cancer? Essentially, they’re unlikely to seek out information which they imagine doesn’t relate to them. I’m thinking of the example of my mam who had a pacemaker fitted recently. She had no idea women are at slightly higher risk of developing cardiovascular health issues than men, or that she was at risk of developing heart disease at all. I’d consider my mam to be a very well educated woman, but even then it was difficult to explain to her about the cause of her hypercalcemia due to her hormones essentially going into overdrive and how that will have affected her heartbeat regulation.

As much as I too find euphemisms tiresome and prefer clarity, far more important for me is the perspective of the person themselves when it comes to understanding these conditions. I don’t think bamboozling my own mam with statistics and science would have been in any way helpful. Context, as far as I’m concerned, is key.

With public health information, it’s best to write in plain English and avoid using medical terminology that people aren’t generally familiar with. That’s why I suggested that using terms like “people with a cervix” is a clanger, because most people aren’t familiar with language used in that way, and it is undoubtedly controversial. I get that it is intended to appeal to as broad an audience as possible, but I think they definitely considered the possibility that it would alienate people. I think it came down to a balancing act between appealing to as broad an audience as possible in terms of educating the general public about cervical cancer, at the risk of offending a minority of people.

It doesn’t get more pointedly accurate than referring to people with a cervix when informing people about cancer of the cervix.

Gruffalux wrote: »

My argument is that we should not subvert biological reality and scientific fact in order to accord rights to anyone. Rights can be afforded while remaining truthful and precise.

I’d more or less agree with everything you said, except this bit. It reminds me of the Victorian attitude to human rights based upon Darwinism. Naturally enough, it was women at the time who got the shìtty end of that stick, and they would today if rights, which are moral prescriptions, were solely based upon the idea that we must not subvert biological reality and scientific fact. Western society has long since moved away from the idea of affording people freedoms and protection from discrimination based solely upon biological reality and scientific fact, towards the idea of addressing social inequality.

Before it’s pointed out yet again that it appears as though the rights of people who are transgender are trumping women’s rights, or they are in conflict, this simply isn’t true. Remaining truthful and precise would mean having to acknowledge that rights determined by biological reality and scientific fact rather than addressing social inequality and discrimination has been done before, and it didn’t work out well for women. In modern Western society women still have women’s rights, men still have men’s rights, and now people who are transgender have rights too.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’d more or less agree with everything you said, except this bit. It reminds me of the Victorian attitude to human rights based upon Darwinism. Naturally enough, it was women at the time who got the shìtty end of that stick, and they would today if rights, which are moral prescriptions, were solely based upon the idea that we must not subvert biological reality and scientific fact. Western society has long since moved away from the idea of affording people freedoms and protection from discrimination based solely upon biological reality and scientific fact, towards the idea of addressing social inequality.

Before it’s pointed out yet again that it appears as though the rights of people who are transgender are trumping women’s rights, or they are in conflict, this simply isn’t true. Remaining truthful and precise would mean having to acknowledge that rights determined by biological reality and scientific fact rather than addressing social inequality and discrimination has been done before, and it didn’t work out well for women. In modern Western society women still have women’s rights, men still have men’s rights, and now people who are transgender have rights too.

Incorrect.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

Incorrect.

Naturally.

Biological reality and scientific fact in Victorian times -


Victorian Men, Women and Menstruation

Menstrual Fictions: languages of medicine and menstruation, c. 1850–1930

The Higher Education of Women in the Victorian Era


When I said that your perspective reminds me of Darwinism in the Victorian era, I wasn’t referring to Darwin himself, but rather how his ideas were used to support the ongoing subjugation of women in Victorian society. Darwin himself was a bit more... selective, without a hint of irony -


Darwin’s women

Gruffalux

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1316930139830341632?s=19


See this vague feel-good ascientific waffle-speak.
All reasonable people know transgender people deserve protection and rights. But this lumping in of a "transgender" 8 year - old with murdered transwomen is wholly emotive and ideological. For a start it ignores the enormous harm that puberty blockers will cause that small child when male puberty starts to come on and is suppressed. I saw a graph yesterday re bone density. 2 years on puberty blockers makes mush out of bones. It is frightening. Why can that child not simply express himself however he wishes without being frog marched by his mother into an illusion where he is a girl? He is a child. Let him grow up and as an adult decide if he wishes to be a transgender person. Then the hard decisions that create life long medical dependency can be made by the person who will endure that suffering.
Also the stats on murder - first of all there is zero reason to put the two subjects into direct conjunction with each other beyond manipulative reasons. And very importantly transwomen are by far mostly murdered by their intimate partners or people known to them. This cannot be transphobia - it is situational. The message should be loud and clear - stop murdering your transgender lover or sexual service provider, not 'look at all the transphobic murders'.

Gervais08

Gruffalux wrote: »

Incorrect.

How the f**k can someone not see that some transgender rights are at best incompatible and at worst in direct violation of women’s rights ????

And that bat crap nuts woman is not the mother of an eight year old transgender child; she’s a woke nightmare with a perfectly normal son who might be gay; might be straight or bi; might just like wearing dresses or might just love his mother so much he wants to be just like her.

But no, let’s get the progressive brownie points and put the kid on meds.

Gruffalux

Gervais08 wrote: »

How the f**k can someone not see that some transgender rights are at best incompatible and at worst in direct violation of women’s rights ????

And that bat crap nuts woman is not the mother of an eight year old transgender child; she’s a woke nightmare with a perfectly normal son who might be gay; might be straight or bi; might just like wearing dresses or might just love his mother so much he wants to be just like her.

But no, let’s get the progressive brownie points and put the kid on meds.

I don't even know if she is crazy. She might have been told by her doctor. As I said before one of my lads wore dresses regularly all through young childhood and spent most of their playtime with the girls doing their games. We did not mention it. We did not even think to mention it. He was just adorably doing his thing. A small child should not be hooked into gender stuff. Fcuk it a grown person should not be either. There is no costume particular to a gender. There are however biological facts.

Gervais08

Gruffalux wrote: »

I don't even know if she is crazy. She might have been told by her doctor. As I said before one of my lads wore dresses regularly all through young childhood and spent most of their playtime with the girls doing their games. We did not mention it. We did not even think to mention it. He was just adorably doing his thing. A small child should not be hooked into gender stuff. Fcuk it a grown person should not be either. Their is no costume particular to a gender. There are however biological facts.

Exactly - the nearest I got to that nonsense was a relative thinking cheering on Martina Navratilova would make me a lesbian.

We ignored her!!!

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

See this vague feel-good ascientific waffle-speak. All reasonable people know transgender people deserve protection and rights. But this lumping in of a "transgender" 8 year - old with murdered transwomen is wholly emotive and ideological. For a start it ignores the enormous harm that puberty blockers will cause that small child when male puberty starts to come on and is suppressed. I saw a graph yesterday re bone density. 2 years on puberty blockers makes mush out of bones. It is frightening. Why can that child not simply express himself however he wishes without being frog marched by his mother into an illusion where he is a girl? He is a child. Let him grow up and as an adult decide if he wishes to be a transgender person. Then the hard decisions that create life long medical dependency can be made by the person who will endure that suffering.

Your perspective is equally wholly emotional and ideological. I doubt you would appreciate being told how to raise your own children according to someone else’s ideology, so why would you think other parents should raise their children according to yours? Essentially what makes you right and them wrong? And whose opinion do you imagine should carry more weight in those situational circumstances?

Gruffalux wrote: »

Also the stats on murder - first of all there is zero reason to put the two subjects into direct conjunction with each other beyond manipulative reasons. And very importantly transwomen are by far mostly murdered by their intimate partners or people known to them. This cannot be transphobia - it is situational. The message should be loud and clear - stop murdering your transgender lover or sexual service provider, not 'look at all the transphobic murders'.

But that’s what’s being done in arguing that rights and protection from discrimination afforded to people who are transgender, are in direct conflict with women’s rights. They aren’t. It’s dependent upon the circumstances in any given case what rights are or aren’t in conflict, but the idea that rights are directly in conflict is no more true than suggesting that women’s rights are in conflict with men’s rights. They’re just not.

Protecting women from discrimination and promoting positive discrimination which favours women in order to elevate women to equal status in society with men has never been based upon biological truths and scientific fact. It was precisely because of what were argued to be biological truths and scientific fact that women were actually discriminated against and denied equal opportunities as men, because women were thought to be intellectually inferior as a consequence of their biology, and thinking might hurt their brain.

I do agree that talking about criminal statistics is hyperbolic nonsense, but when you suggest that all reasonable people agree that people who are transgender deserve rights and protections (no true Scotsman fallacy aside), it doesn’t seem reasonable to assume that everyone agrees with what you imagine is reasonable. In reality, they don’t, and if we just take the example of protection from discrimination in employment in the US, up until recently it was perfectly acceptable to discriminate against people who are transgender because Title 7 was previously interpreted as only being relevant to protection from discrimination on the basis of sex, and did not apply to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity -


Supreme Court Decision Expands Title VII Protections to LGBTQ Employees*


It would at least be more accurate to acknowledge that rights are determined by politics as opposed to “biological reality and scientific fact”, because a phrase like that is utterly meaningless and open to broad interpretation.

As an aside, while watching that Twitter video, I was reminded of how Joe Biden constantly likes to remind people that “I’m the guy”, as though he’s the guy “responsible for all the good in the world” as Tucker Carlson put it -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHri9pmJFwA

An equally meaningless phrase. Obama was the guy who by Executive Order changed the law when he was in office. Trump is the guy who by Executive Order changed the law when he was in office. It stands to reason that Biden will change the law by Executive Order if he gets into office. Not because he’s the guy, but simply because that’s how politics works in determining rights in law, feckall to do with “biological reality and scientific fact”.


*More on the Judgment here -

Bostock v. Clayton County

Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda

R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Vic_08

One eyed Jack wrote: »

<Edit - Nope, Not reading that>

Does anyone bother to read your drivel anymore?

I couldn't care less what point you are trying to make, life is way to short to bother with the torrent of off-topic diarrhoea you constantly post.

Oh and whatever point you think you are making, the only thing a Tucker Carlson video proves is that Tucker Carlson is a grade 1 retarded fool that in any sane country wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a broadcast studio.

Gervais08

Vic_08 wrote: »

Does anyone bother to read your drivel anymore?

I couldn't care less what point you are trying to make, life is way to short to bother with the torrent of off-topic diarrhoea you constantly post.

Oh and whatever point you think you are making, the only thing a Tucker Carlson video proves is that Tucker Carlson is a grade 1 retarded fool that in any sane country wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a broadcast studio.

You forgot the links to things no one asked about and the posturing mansplaining.

keano_afc

Gruffalux wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1316930139830341632?s=19


See this vague feel-good ascientific waffle-speak.
All reasonable people know transgender people deserve protection and rights. But this lumping in of a "transgender" 8 year - old with murdered transwomen is wholly emotive and ideological. For a start it ignores the enormous harm that puberty blockers will cause that small child when male puberty starts to come on and is suppressed. I saw a graph yesterday re bone density. 2 years on puberty blockers makes mush out of bones. It is frightening. Why can that child not simply express himself however he wishes without being frog marched by his mother into an illusion where he is a girl? He is a child. Let him grow up and as an adult decide if he wishes to be a transgender person. Then the hard decisions that create life long medical dependency can be made by the person who will endure that suffering.
Also the stats on murder - first of all there is zero reason to put the two subjects into direct conjunction with each other beyond manipulative reasons. And very importantly transwomen are by far mostly murdered by their intimate partners or people known to them. This cannot be transphobia - it is situational. The message should be loud and clear - stop murdering your transgender lover or sexual service provider, not 'look at all the transphobic murders'.

The worst thing about this is the fact that its staged to look like a random question. He must be taking lessons from Elizabeth Warren.

Abel Ruiz

Vic_08 wrote: »

Does anyone
Oh and whatever point you think you are making, the only thing a Tucker Carlson video proves is that Tucker Carlson is a grade 1 retarded fool that in any sane country wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a broadcast studio.

In Ireland, we have Joseph Duffy so to speak!

Gruffalux

Emma Kelly wrote a fact-free opinion piece in the Independent yesterday. In it she says sex is assigned at birth, as opposed to observed at birth, and said of the group LGB Alliance Ireland

These hateful groups are always going to be there to prey on the fears of the vulnerable and push their baseless agendas. But we cannot let the seed of hate begin to grow. These transphobes do not stand for me and, in Ireland, all LGB and their allies must continue to stand with the T. Transphobes, your hate is not welcome here.

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/lgb-must-stand-with-t-in-the-fight-against-transphobia-39688679.html

Not only did she not consult LGB Alliance Ireland before writing it for their point of view, they have yet to be offered a right of reply for which they are asking. Being called a hate group on a major Irish newspaper warrants an immediate right of reply in my opinion.

https://twitter.com/Ire_LGBAlliance/status/1322553175199698944?s=20

patnor1011

Infighting.
How (un)expected...

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

Emma Kelly wrote a fact-free opinion piece in the Independent yesterday.

I don’t agree with everything she wrote, but she was factually correct about one thing at least. The lobby group concerned meet the definition of a hate group - their ideology and their “manifesto”, specifically targets people who are transgender -


A hate group is a social group that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society. According to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a hate group's "primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization."

Gruffalux wrote: »

Not only did she not consult LGB Alliance Ireland before writing it for their point of view, they have yet to be offered a right of reply for which they are asking. Being called a hate group on a major Irish newspaper warrants an immediate right of reply in my opinion.

Nobody needs to consult with them for their point of view, it’s right there on their Twitter -


https://mobile.twitter.com/Ire_LGBAlliance/status/1320714860058025989


They have the same opportunity to exercise their right of reply as anyone else -


Letters to the Editor

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t agree with everything she wrote, but she was factually correct about one thing at least. The lobby group concerned meet the definition of a hate group - their ideology and their “manifesto”, specifically targets people who are transgender -


A hate group is a social group that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society. According to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a hate group's "primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization."





Nobody needs to consult with them for their point of view, it’s right there on their Twitter -


https://mobile.twitter.com/Ire_LGBAlliance/status/1320714860058025989


They have the same opportunity to exercise their right of reply as anyone else -


Letters to the Editor

Stop that Jack. They do NOT "target" any one. They represent lesbians, gay and bisexual people who hold to same sex attraction as being foundational to homosexuality.
I have often seen LGB Alliance call for parallel support and advocacy groups for trans.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

Stop that Jack. They do "target" any one. They represent lesbians, gay and bisexual people who hold to same sex attraction as being foundational to homosexuality.
I have often seen LGB Alliance call for parallel support and advocacy groups for trans.

By their own admission, this is who they claim to represent -


We are here to draw a line against the imposition of gender identity theory, which prioritises subjective “gender” over biological sex. This undermines the rights of people whose sexual orientation is towards others of the same sex.


It doesn’t do any such thing, but their actions have a direct impact on people who are transgender. If they were only interested in campaigning for rights for people who are lesbian, gay or bisexual, I’d say fair enough, they’re entitled to do that much, they can claim to represent whoever they want. But, when their entire raison d’etre appears to be solely concerned with campaigning against any policies which are aimed at recognising the rights of people who are transgender, then they’re no longer just campaigning for rights for people who are lesbian, gay or bisexual; they’re just campaigning to uphold discrimination against people who are transgender, and lying about it while they’re at it -


We note that the Gender Recognition Act was passed in the South without public debate or examination of the impact of such a law on the wider community, women or LGB people. We seek an open debate on the issue and we call on our media to facilitate this without censorship.


That’s simply a lie, not even gonna sugar coat it. It’s just a straight up lie which has been debunked in this thread alone numerous times already.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By their own admission, this is who they claim to represent -


We are here to draw a line against the imposition of gender identity theory, which prioritises subjective “gender” over biological sex. This undermines the rights of people whose sexual orientation is towards others of the same sex.


It doesn’t do any such thing, but their actions have a direct impact on people who are transgender. If they were only interested in campaigning for rights for people who are lesbian, gay or bisexual, I’d say fair enough, they’re entitled to do that much, they can claim to represent whoever they want. But, when their entire raison d’etre appears to be solely concerned with campaigning against any policies which are aimed at recognising the rights of people who are transgender, then they’re no longer just campaigning for rights for people who are lesbian, gay or bisexual; they’re just campaigning to uphold discrimination against people who are transgender, and lying about it while they’re at it -

We are here to draw a line against the imposition of gender identity theory, which prioritises subjective “gender” over biological sex. This undermines the rights of people whose sexual orientation is towards others of the same sex

The LGB Alliance manifesto as quoted by you. Then you say that impacts on transgender people. It does not. It impacts perhaps on radical gender theory. It could only ever possibly impact upon the transgender person who seeks to claim ''bigotry'' or ''hate'' if a lesbian chooses not date a male-bodied transwoman or if a gay man is never open to having sex with a female-bodied transman.
But regardless of who it supposedly impacts in another person's imaginary world full of bigotry, the LGB Alliance are entitled to campaign on the retention of same sex attraction as a foundational tenet. If I have an organisation that advocates on behalf of frogs, to which end I fight to retain the natural occurrence of waterways, you cannot call me a hate group simply because I thereby impact the feelings of dam-builders everywhere. I am concerned with frogs, not dam-builders.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

The LGB Alliance manifesto as quoted by you. Then you say that impacts on transgender people. It does not. It impacts perhaps on radical gender theory. It could only ever possibly impact upon the transgender person who seeks to claim ''bigotry'' or ''hate'' if a lesbian chooses not date a male-bodied transwoman or if a gay man is never open to having sex with a female-bodied transman.

One of the things they advocate against is the GRA, which affords people who are transgender recognition in law. To say that it doesn’t have any impact on people who are transgender is demonstrably false. The ideology which they claim undermines the rights of people who are attracted to people of the same sex does no such thing. It would be like similar arguments that tried to claim extending marriage equality to people who are not heterosexual undermines the rights of people who are heterosexual. It doesn’t. Everyone still has the right to refuse to have sex with anyone, and they don’t even have to give a reason. It’s been taught to them since they were children themselves. Extending rights to people who are transgender doesn’t mean that anyone will suddenly be forced to have sex with anyone they didn’t want to before.

Gruffalux wrote: »

But regardless of who it supposedly impacts in another person's imaginary world full of bigotry, the LGB Alliance are entitled to campaign on the retention of same sex attraction as a foundational tenet. If I have an organisation that advocates on behalf of frogs, to which end I fight to retain the natural occurrence of waterways, you cannot call me a hate group simply because I thereby impact the feelings of dam-builders everywhere. I am concerned with frogs, not dam-builders.

Of course they are, and like I said if that’s all they were doing I wouldn’t care less. It’s like people thinking they need a straight pride parade - off with them. It’s silly, but they’re perfectly free to do so. But if they were campaigning against people who are lesbian, gay or bisexual being granted equal rights or equal recognition in society, then they’re not just campaigning to retain the right to be attracted to people of the opposite sex any more - they’re actively campaigning for a social group in society to be denied rights.

In order to fit your analogy - nobody is arguing that anyone shouldn’t be permitted to campaign for frog conservation, but if their campaign involves perpetuating discrimination against otters, then they’re not just campaigning for frog conservation any more, but actively trying to perpetuate discrimination against otters. It’s on that basis it would be determined they have something against otters, based upon nothing more than otters make them feel uncomfortable. Their feelings of discomfort with otters are not sufficient justification to suggest that the waterways should be solely reserved for frogs and otters should just go somewhere else or set up their own waterways.

Annasopra

Gruffalux wrote: »

Stop that Jack. They do NOT "target" any one. They represent lesbians, gay and bisexual people who hold to same sex attraction as being foundational to homosexuality.
I have often seen LGB Alliance call for parallel support and advocacy groups for trans.

Thats absolute and utter rubbish. The entire raison detre of lgb alliance uk and their "Irish" group based in the UK is hatred of trans people and dismantling legislation of transgender recocgnition in law. They dont give a sh it about LGB people at all. They only give a sh it about dismantling state granted trans tights.