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

Stark

chopperbyrne wrote: »

What has been said is that allowing self gendering to be legally binding in law is open to abuse by people who are not transgendered, but actually just want easy access to same sex spaces that women and girls use.

Much in the same way for generations, people used the priesthood to gain access to young boys and girls, and not because they were devout Catholics.

Is anyone actually able to back up this claim that there is "easy access" to legally changing your gender? There is a process of medical and psychiatric evaluation needed to prove that someone is legitimately transgender before someone can legally change their gender. It's not a simple matter of "I want to go the women's bathroom, give me my certificate".

Neyite

Stark wrote: »

Is anyone actually able to back up this claim that there is "easy access" to legally changing your gender? There is a process of medical and psychiatric evaluation needed to prove that someone is legitimately transgender before someone can legally change their gender. It's not a simple matter of "I want to go the women's bathroom, give me my certificate".

No, no evaluation is required:

On July 15, 2015, Ireland passed the Gender Recognition Act of 2015 that allows legal gender changes without the requirement of medical intervention or assessment by the state.[6] Such change is possible through self-determination for any person aged 18 or over resident in Ireland and registered on Irish registers of birth or adoption. Persons aged 16 to 18 years must secure a court order to exempt them from the normal requirement to be at least 18.[7] Ireland is one of four legal jurisdictions in the world where people may legally change gender through self-determination.[8]
By May 2017, 230 people had been granted gender recognition certificates under the 2015 law.[9]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_Ireland

StupidLikeAFox

chopperbyrne wrote: »

What has been said is that allowing self gendering to be legally binding in law is open to abuse by people who are not transgendered, but actually just want easy access to same sex spaces that women and girls use.

Just think that one through though - if you are a man with these types of perversions, is it not a bit convoluted to go through a whole government process to get a piece of paper that says you are now a woman so you can head into a womans toilet and carry out some abuse? Surely if you were that way inclined you would just head in there anyway without the hassle and bureaucracy? Maybe throw on a dress if you felt like putting in a bit of effort.

You seem to be implying that this piece of paper is somehow encouraging abuse or making it easier for someone to abuse. For an abuser, the certificate is not going to save you when you are caught - its still an offence - so what is the point? Your scenario, while technically possible, seems extremely unrealistic

Stark

Also that piece of paper that apparently makes sneaking into women's toilets for a bit of peeking under the stall a little easier is probably going to **** up your life in every other regard if you're someone who still outwardly presents as your biological sex. Imagine every time you have to show your driver's license/passport and it says female while the person checking it is staring back at a man. Living life as a transgendered person isn't that much fun.

Neyite

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Just think that one through though - if you are a man with these types of perversions, is it not a bit convoluted to go through a whole government process to get a piece of paper that says you are now a woman so you can head into a womans toilet and carry out some abuse? Surely if you were that way inclined you would just head in there anyway without the hassle and bureaucracy? Maybe throw on a dress if you felt like putting in a bit of effort.

You seem to be implying that this piece of paper is somehow encouraging abuse or making it easier for someone to abuse. For an abuser, the certificate is not going to save you when you are caught - its still an offence - so what is the point? Your scenario, while technically possible, seems extremely unrealistic

To self-ID in Ireland you make a formal declaration to the Dept of Social Protection. That's it. It's actually a very simple and straight forward process.

MoonUnit75

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Just think that one through though - if you are a man with these types of perversions, is it not a bit convoluted to go through a whole government process to get a piece of paper that says you are now a woman so you can head into a womans toilet and carry out some abuse? Surely if you were that way inclined you would just head in there anyway without the hassle and bureaucracy? Maybe throw on a dress if you felt like putting in a bit of effort.

You seem to be implying that this piece of paper is somehow encouraging abuse or making it easier for someone to abuse. For an abuser, the certificate is not going to save you when you are caught - its still an offence - so what is the point? Your scenario, while technically possible, seems extremely unrealistic

If you are a male rapist/murderer/child abuser facing life in prison, would you prefer to be bottom of the pile and a prime target for beatings in a male prison or would you sign a form that lets you go to a female prison instead?

volchitsa

Stark wrote: »

Is anyone actually able to back up this claim that there is "easy access" to legally changing your gender? There is a process of medical and psychiatric evaluation needed to prove that someone is legitimately transgender before someone can legally change their gender. It's not a simple matter of "I want to go the women's bathroom, give me my certificate".

No there is no such process in Ireland, that's the point about self declaration.

You're not allowed to declare yourself entitled to a disabled parking space, but you can declare yourself entitled to use a women"s bathroom.

And the real problem is that since trans gender women can present with a beard and wearing jeans, how is a woman supposed to challenge anyone who looks like a man coming into the women's bathroom? It might be a man, or it might be a transgender woman who will take offence - and the woman will be in the wrong for having challenged them.

Or in extreme cases, she could be attacked for having queried his presence:

Man, transgender, punches woman for questioning his presence in women's restroom, knocking out five teeth.


Some more examples (the first one is the same incident)
Reddit This never happens

One eyed Jack

chopperbyrne wrote: »

You again miss the point completely, probably intentionally, given how often you do.

Nobody has said that transgender people present a risk to women and children.

What has been said is that allowing self gendering to be legally binding in law is open to abuse by people who are not transgendered, but actually just want easy access to same sex spaces that women and girls use.

Much in the same way for generations, people used the priesthood to gain access to young boys and girls, and not because they were devout Catholics.

I get the point of the argument alright, but surely you can see that affording people who are transgender legal recognition, has nothing to do with enabling people who are not transgender, to commit abuse? There are already other laws that exist which proscribe that sort of behaviour by anyone, and anyone who is convicted, is punished for their behaviour.

Yours is the same argument that some people used against affording people who are gay and their children the same rights and protections in law as people who are straight and their children, for fear that some people would use the new laws as an opportunity to abuse others. I even heard some people say that they were fully supportive of marriage equality, but wouldn’t support legislation allowing people who are gay to adopt children. I politely reminded them at the time that they had no say in the matter and that people who are gay were already eligible to apply to adopt children.

They didn’t like the idea that they didn’t have the power to stop people who are gay from adopting children, in much the same way as some people here don’t like that they don’t have the power to stop people who are transgender from being recognised in law as their preferred gender, and are clutching at straws to make an argument which has nothing to do with the law itself.

Fear of what someone else might do is simply not a reasonable justification to continue to deny people who need it protection from discrimination in law. On the basis of your argument, we would have to rewrite family law as it exists because some people use it as an opportunity to abuse others.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I get the point of the argument alright, but surely you can see that affording people who are transgender legal recognition, has nothing to do with enabling people who are not transgender, to commit abuse? There are already other laws that exist which proscribe that sort of behaviour by anyone, and anyone who is convicted, is punished for their behaviour.

Yours is the same argument that some people used against affording people who are gay and their children the same rights and protections in law as people who are straight and their children, for fear that some people would use the new laws to abuse others.

Except nobody made that argument about marriage equality.

The fact that (non trans) perverts may take advantage of women's inability to distinguish a trans woman from a man coming into a female-only bathroom is not the same argument as saying that gay men are likely to be child abusers.

The former is just a simple observation. The latter is a long disproven myth.

Stark

volchitsa wrote: »

Except nobody made that argument about marriage equality.

The whole "danger to children" thing was used many times during the marriage equality debate and was used to deny rights to gay people for decades. (And still is).

As soon as the opponents of gay marriage realised that 80% of the Irish population were "live and let live" as regards what grown adults get to up between themselves in their bedrooms, they distorted the agenda to make it about children.

Thankfully most people have gay friends in their social circles these days and can see through the hate rhetoric to realise that gay people are just people and no more a potential threat to anyone than the average member of the population. Don't need to painstakingly go through and refute the hate rhetoric point by point. Far fewer people have someone trans who is close to them so they're more likely to accept falsehoods like trans people are more likely a threat to women/children than the average non-trans person.

volchitsa

Stark wrote: »

The whole "danger to children" thing was used many times during the marriage equality debate and was used to deny rights to gay people for decades. (And still is).

As soon as the opponents of gay marriage realised that 80% of the Irish population were "live and let live" as regards what grown adults get to up between themselves in their bedrooms, they distorted the agenda to make it about children.

That's not the argument I was referring to, or rather I was disagreeing with the claim that it was my argument here. It isn't.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I get the point of the argument alright, but surely you can see that affording people who are transgender legal recognition, has nothing to do with enabling people who are not transgender, to commit abuse? There are already other laws that exist which proscribe that sort of behaviour by anyone, and anyone who is convicted, is punished for their behaviour.

Yours is the same argument that some people used against affording people who are gay and their children the same rights and protections in law as people who are straight and their children, for fear that some people would use the new laws as an opportunity to abuse others. I even heard some people say that they were fully supportive of marriage equality, but wouldn’t support legislation allowing people who are gay to adopt children. I politely reminded them at the time that they had no say in the matter and that people who are gay were already eligible to apply to adopt children.

They didn’t like the idea that they didn’t have the power to stop people who are gay from adopting children, in much the same way as some people here don’t like that they don’t have the power to stop people who are transgender from being recognised in law as their preferred gender, and are clutching at straws to make an argument which has nothing to do with the law itself.

Fear of what someone else might do is simply not a reasonable justification to continue to deny people who need it protection from discrimination in law. On the basis of your argument, we would have to rewrite family law as it exists because some people use it as an opportunity to abuse others.

Can they not obtain legal recognition having gone through hormone therapy and required surgeries? Would that not be a good compromise in your opinion?

Stark

Full transition including genital surgery/uterus removal etc. isn't the right option for a lot of transgender people for quite a few reasons. That has to be left up to individual choice. And given that in day to day life, most people are not going to be looking at your genitals, should be no-one else's business.

Annasopra

volchitsa wrote: »

Except nobody made that argument about marriage equality.
.

Thats not true

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/12/10/anything-good-in-the-kilkenny-journal/

CtevenSrowder

Stark wrote: »

The whole "danger to children" thing was used many times during the marriage equality debate and was used to deny rights to gay people for decades. (And still is).

As soon as the opponents of gay marriage realised that 80% of the Irish population were "live and let live" as regards what grown adults get to up between themselves in their bedrooms, they distorted the agenda to make it about children.

Thankfully most people have gay friends in their social circles these days and can see through the hate rhetoric to realise that gay people are just people and no more a potential threat to anyone than the average member of the population. Don't need to painstakingly go through and refute the hate rhetoric point by point. Far fewer people have someone trans who is close to them so they're more likely to accept falsehoods like trans people are more likely a threat to women/children than the average non-trans person.

This is not the argument being made. Again, this has to be pointed out. And regardless, a biological male is more of a threat to women and children then a biological female when it comes to violent and sexual crimes, even if the number of these men is small. So the point doesn't even stand up to scrutiny.

Trying to compare the arguments here with the arguments used against gay marriage or gay people in general are non-sequiturs.

Annasopra

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Can they not obtain legal recognition having gone through hormone therapy and required surgeries? Would that not be a good compromise in your opinion?

No

Many trans people cant go through surgery for medical reasons.

CtevenSrowder

Stark wrote: »

Full transition including genital surgery/uterus removal etc. isn't the right option for a lot of transgender people for quite a few reasons. That has to be left up to individual choice. And given that in day to day life, most people are not going to be looking at your genitals, should be no-one else's business.

Allowing biological men into women's spaces isn't the right option for a lot of women, yet here we are.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Except nobody made that argument about marriage equality.

The fact that (non trans) perverts may take advantage of women's inability to distinguish a trans woman from a man coming into a female-only bathroom is not the same argument as saying that gay men are likely to be child abusers.

The former is just a simple observation. The latter is a long disproven myth.

Nobody with an ounce of common sense used it, but the argument was presented to me on several occasions by people who overlooked the reality that most abuse of others is committed by members of their own families anyway.

The fact that perverts may take advantage of women’s inability to distinguish between a man and a woman is still not a rational justification for denying anyone protection from discrimination, which is the purpose of self ID legislation. All you’re doing there is saying that men are likely to abuse women, and in reality they don’t need self-ID to do what they can do already. I can walk into women’s bathrooms, I do quite a bit, it has nothing to do with being visually impaired or any intention to abuse women, it’s simply that I need to use the bathroom for it’s intended purpose.

I’m not violating any existing laws by doing so, and in my experience nobody except myself has ever given a shìt when I see a woman emerging from one of the stalls and I realise I’m after going into the wrong bathroom again. At least I think it’s a woman, could easily be another man too, I wouldn’t know unless I requested to see their ID. I don’t do that though, because apart from it just being rude and humiliating to another person, I simply don’t have that authority.

Annasopra

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

This is not the argument being made. Again, this has to be pointed out. And regardless, a biological male is more of a threat to women and children then a biological female when it comes to violent and sexual crimes, even if the number of these men is small. So the point doesn't even stand up to scrutiny.

Trying to compare the arguments here with the arguments used against gay marriage or gay people in general are non-sequiturs.

Its not really though. Its the same fear mongering about abuse that was used and is now being used again.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody with an ounce of common sense used it, but the argument was presented to me on several occasions by people who overlooked the reality that most abuse of others is committed by members of their own families anyway.

The fact that perverts may take advantage of women’s inability to distinguish between a man and a woman is still not a rational justification for denying anyone protection from discrimination, which is the purpose of self ID legislation. All you’re doing there is saying that men are likely to abuse women, and in reality they don’t need self-ID to do what they can do already. I can walk into women’s bathrooms, I do quite a bit, it has nothing to do with being visually impaired or any intention to abuse women, it’s simply that I need to use the bathroom for it’s intended purpose.

I’m not violating any existing laws by doing so, and in my experience nobody except myself has ever given a shìt when I see a woman emerging from one of the stalls and I realise I’m after going into the wrong bathroom again. At least I think it’s a woman, could easily be another man too, I wouldn’t know unless I requested to see their ID. I don’t do that though, because apart from it just being rude and humiliating to another person, I simply don’t have that authority.

How is that the purpose of self id legislation exactly?

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Can they not obtain legal recognition having gone through hormone therapy and required surgeries? Would that not be a good compromise in your opinion?

In any case I’m against advocating for hormone therapy and surgery in the first place as I don’t agree that it achieves the desired outcomes for most people in alleviating their mental distress.

On that basis, advocating that only on having gone through unnecessary medical and surgical procedures should people be eligible to apply for protection from discrimination in law, would be unethical. That’s the sort of Hobson’s choice is “offered” to people in Iran. Homosexuality is prohibited, but people are “free” to avail of surgery to present themselves as either man or woman, which leads to Iran being known as the country which carries out more surgeries of this type than anywhere else in the world -

Transgender rights in Iran

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In any case I’m against advocating for hormone therapy and surgery in the first place as I don’t agree that it achieves the desired outcomes for most people in alleviating their mental distress.

But what, a piece of paper that says your Gender is now that as to which you want it to be does? Yet you advocate for that.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

On that basis, advocating that only on having gone through unnecessary medical and surgical procedures should people be eligible to apply for protection from discrimination in law, would be unethical. That’s the sort of Hobson’s choice is “offered” to people in Iran. Homosexuality is prohibited, but people are “free” to avail of surgery to present themselves as either man or woman, which leads to Iran being known as the country which carries out more surgeries of this type than anywhere else in the world -

Transgender rights in Iran

You've yet to show how trans people are discriminated in law. And again, what about women's Hobson's choice? Shut up and accept these changes or be labelled a bigot and a transphobe.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

How is that the purpose of self id legislation exactly?

Before the gender recognition act was introduced, there was nothing to protect people who are transgender from discrimination on the basis of their being transgender. People who were transgender had no protection against discrimination because they were not recognised in Irish law.

The introduction of the gender recognition act meant that from that point on, people who are transgender were protected by equality legislation which already existed and applied only to people who were recognised in Irish law.

The way the act is worded means that when someone is successful in applying for and being granted a gender recognition certificate, they are granted the same legal protection from discrimination as they are now recognised in law as their preferred gender, and have the same protection from discrimination as someone of their opposite sex - if they were previously recognised in law as a man, they are protected from discrimination as though they are female. If they were previously recognised in law as a woman, they are protected from discrimination as though they are male.

What the act does not do, is give anyone carte blanche to intrude on the rights and protections of others.

It does not erase anyone else’s rights as they are determined in Irish law. Everyone maintains the same rights as they had before. It simply affords people who didn’t have rights before, the same rights as everyone else.

It does not compel anyone to refer to another person by their preferred pronouns. If someone is engaging in harassing or intimidating another person, or causing another person to feel distressed, then there are existing laws against those kinds of attitudes and behaviours towards others. That’s why I have to make it crystal clear to anyone who imagines they have a right to cause another person to become distressed by intruding on their privacy in the confines of a public space - what they’re doing could easily constitute harassment. So much as communicate with another person in any way which causes them distress, the person could find themselves being charged with having committed a criminal offence -


10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—

(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and

(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.


Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997


I hope that helps clear up some misunderstandings?

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

But what, a piece of paper that says your Gender is now that as to which you want it to be does? Yet you advocate for that.

I do, yes, because the important point is that the only reason for it is recognition in Irish law. It doesn’t compel anyone to agree with them that they are who or what they say they are or portray themselves as.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You've yet to show how trans people are discriminated in law. And again, what about women's Hobson's choice? Shut up and accept these changes or be labelled a bigot and a transphobe.

If anyone is labelled a bigot or a transphobe, they have legal recourse to make a complaint against the person causing them distress. Nothing in Irish law grants anyone the right to intimidate, harass or cause alarm or distress to another individual or group of individuals, and that’s why women or men or anyone who disagrees with self ID legislation is perfectly free to voice their objections as long as they too are complying with Irish law which exists as much to protect them, as it does to protect people from them.

suicide_circus

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

This is not the argument being made. Again, this has to be pointed out. And regardless, a biological male is more of a threat to women and children then a biological female when it comes to violent and sexual crimes, even if the number of these men is small. So the point doesn't even stand up to scrutiny.

I'll say it again.

By making this issue about women's safety you play into the hands of TRAs.

The reason biological males shouldn't be allowed in women's spaces is that they are not women.

It's a truth issue, not a safety issue.

CtevenSrowder

suicide_circus wrote: »

I'll say it again.

By making this issue about women's safety you play into the hands of TRAs.

The reason biological males shouldn't be allowed in women's spaces is that they are not women.

It's a truth issue, not a safety issue.

The insinuation made by the OP was that people are claiming that

trans people are more likely a threat to women/children than the average non-trans person.

However, on this thread, that is not the claim being put forward.

suicide_circus

ok fair enough but you see the general point i'm making; the safety issue is a side show, a distraction.

Now if people want to argue about the nature of truth and objective reality i'm all ears but that's never the angle taken.

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

I'll say it again.

By making this issue about women's safety you play into the hands of TRAs.

The reason biological males shouldn't be allowed in women's spaces is that they are not women.

It's a truth issue, not a safety issue.

They’re not even playing into the hands of TRA’s.

The argument that solely by virtue of their biology, males are inherently predisposed to violence, is the argument that doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny.

It’s mixing biological and sociological contexts to make the argument that males are biologically predisposed to violence and the sociological statistics are evidence to prove it.

The argument has wider implications in that it justifies discrimination against males and lends further credibility and legitimacy to ideas like rape culture.

You’re right, it absolutely is a truth issue, and fudging the lines between biology and sociology gets further away from the truth of either one or the other.

Then there is the law - and it is the law which determines who is or isn’t permitted or prohibited from being in women’s spaces, men’s spaces, space cadets spaces, etc. That’s why I don’t care for the protected spaces argument as though women and children are a protected species. I suggest that everyone has the right to advocate for their own space, and the law will determine who does or doesn’t have a right to be in that space, and who has the authority to remove people who shouldn’t be in there, from that space.

Anyone claiming that they are concerned for the welfare and safety and “sex based protections” of women and children certainly aren’t doing so on either my wife’s or my child’s behalf, because doing so suggests that my wife and child need protecting from me.

(There’s quite possibly a good argument to be made that they do, but not solely on the basis that either I or my son present as a threat to my wife or his mother as a direct consequence of biology :pac: )

Stark

suicide_circus wrote:

Now if people want to argue about the nature of truth and objective reality i'm all ears but that's never the angle taken.

suicide_circus wrote:

Now if people want to argue about the nature of truth and objective reality i'm all ears but that's never the angle taken.

Sex and gender are distinct concepts that just happen to be used interchangeably in common speech. This is de facto accepted in the medical community by people who deal with gender dysphoria.

This whole debate reminds me of the abortion debate where you have shrill fanatics shouting loudly from both sides, but behind it all there is long established medical best practice and people who know exactly what they're talking about as they deal with the issues on a regular basis. And they accept the reality of gender dysphoria/transgender experience and the distinction between biological sex and gender identity.

You can ignore the gender studies twits with their glorified arts degrees for sure. I do also. But I do respect the opinions of real professionals who deal with this stuff.

Gruffalux

suicide_circus wrote: »

ok fair enough but you see the general point i'm making; the safety issue is a side show, a distraction.

Now if people want to argue about the nature of truth and objective reality i'm all ears but that's never the angle taken.

It is often the angle taken. Biological denial is a bit issue for me. The bare faced controverting of reality.
It is just people who disregard the rights of women or men to sex based protection always keep throwing the line - so ya think all trans people are rapists, do ya, do ya, do ya!! Ya do! Ya do! We all knew it!