More from Roderic O'Gorman (MOD NOTE IN OPENING POST)

Gruffalux

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I first met Peter Tatchell as part of the Stop the Clause campaign in 1987. There are even photos of us 'together' - we look deep in conversation but I'm actually telling him to f right off.

I had no idea about this letter. I was far too busy in the late 1990s to be keeping track of what anyone wrote in the letters pages of a British newspaper, plus the internet was in it's infancy and not yet geared up to fuel pitchforks so unless it was brought directly to my attention there is no way I would have known.

Until I read what he has actually written rather than some one on the internets interpretation of what what he has written I make no comment on his views about anything.

If, imo, he condones sex with anyone under the age of consent in anyway I will utterly condemn him and those views.

If I believe his words have been taken out of context I will not condemn him for other people twisting his words.

Glad you were telling him to f right off. It was prepayment on the account of all the f rights off you might like to send his way when you do get around to reading about him. Julie Bindel, lesbian founder of Justice for Women has had Tatchell to her back teeth and you might find her summary of his activities useful https://www.thearticle.com/peter-tatchell-dismisses-feminists-like-me-as-transphobes-but-he-has-his-own-skeleton-in-the-closet

I don't know if she even mentions Tatchells glowing obituary for Ian Campbell Dunn in the Independent (UK) in 1996 where he omits to mention Dunn cofounded PIE and was convicted of child abise.

Gruffalux

seamus wrote: »

I'm not going to try and tell you what you should think about it. But having read the letter as well as some other contributions he made on the topic to ill-advised publications, my personal interpretation is that he fell into the same honeytrap that David Norris did.

That is, he made the cardinal error of putting intellectual, hypothetical thoughts about the matter to paper. When everyone knows that unless you talk about sexuality and people under 17 in anything but a hypercritical tone, then you will be labelled a paedophile enabler.

I'd recommend you read it tbh, if for no other reason than to satisfy yourself in terms of what everyone is talking about.

Gosh that is a generous and even sympathetic interpretation of Tatchells pro paedophilia flirtations over long years. If I ever decide to go down those dark roads and suggest some children might find some sex with some adults to be enjoyable I will have you on my PR Team.

AllForIt

Newbie20 wrote: »

Fair play to him for admitting he was wrong before it dragged on longer but I rolled my eyes when I was reading through and he mentioned that his mental health had suffered recently. I’m sick of this being used as an excuse for everything, just own your mistake.

I think it completely obvious that in making a public apology that would be accepted he had to included in it that he was influenced by this online 'far right' group. Any explanation as to why he fell for it was entirely up to him and he used his mental health and family bereavement as the excuse.


Surely no one thinks Connors had a personal change of heart all of a sudden after giving an impassioned speech at the rally one week ago. To be giving him any credit at all is to wilfully misread this development. I think he'll be lying low for quite some time.

jammiedodgers

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Quite courageous I think. Its difficult to admit you are wrong.

Courageous my hole. He either received a solicitors letter or is thinking about his upcoming movie.

Bannasidhe

Gruffalox wrote: »

Glad you were telling him to f right off. It was prepayment on the account of all the f rights off you might like to send his way when you do get around to reading about him. Julie Bindel, lesbian founder of Justice for Women has had Tatchell to her back teeth and you might find her summary of his activities useful https://www.thearticle.com/peter-tatchell-dismisses-feminists-like-me-as-transphobes-but-he-has-his-own-skeleton-in-the-closet

I don't know if she even mentions Tatchells glowing obituary for Ian Campbell Dunn in the Independent (UK) in 1996 where he omits to mention Dunn cofounded PIE and was convicted of child abise.

I told Peter to F off because I was trying to organise things and he was distracting me. I was also hung over and his enthusiasm was melting my head.

I don't need to Read Bindel's opinion on Tatchell, I am perfectly capable of reading his words, using my personal experience of him, and deciding for myself.

I have little time for Radical Feminists tbh - I have been telling them to F right off since 1981. They always struck me as thought policing holier than thou kill joys.
I especially have no time for radical feminists who use their platform against transgender people.

Gruffalux

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I told Peter to F off because I was trying to organise things and he was distracting me. I was also hung over and his enthusiasm was melting my head.

I don't need to Read Bindel's opinion on Tatchell, I am perfectly capable of reading his words, using my personal experience of him, and deciding for myself.

I have little time for Radical Feminists tbh - I have been telling them to F right off since 1981. They always struck me as thought policing holier than thou kill joys.
I especially have no time for radical feminists who use their platform against transgender people.

Lucky I am not a feminist of any description so!

And I thought you would have been interested in a summary of Tatchells activities since you are collaterally involved in some kind of a soft defense of him along with other people here who even though we often disagree I would otherwise think are grand sorts. And yet here they are being morally relativistic about paedophilia.
But since you are not really interested in knowing about him at all I suppose this may partially answer my earlier question as to why on earth anyone with his seedy background could possibly have been elevated to legendary status in any rights movements. The people in the movement simply chose to look away.
It is a pity because there are such great people available in that movement who could legitimately be called legendary.
Not him. He is a bloody disgrace. Full stop.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Until I read what he has actually written rather than some one on the internets interpretation of what what he has written I make no comment on his views about anything.

If, imo, he condones sex with anyone under the age of consent in anyway I will utterly condemn him and those views.

If I believe his words have been taken out of context I will not condemn him for other people twisting his words.

Gruffalox wrote: »

you are collaterally involved in some kind of a soft defense of him along with other people here who even though we often disagree I would otherwise think are grand sorts. And yet here they are being morally relativistic about paedophilia.

Well now. What a telling response.

I rejected the idea of filtering my opinion through the lens of a radical feminist with her own agenda, made it clear that any suggestion of condoning any kind of sexual activity with anyone below the age of consent is anathema to me, but suddenly I am accused of defending paedophilia.

Anyone here who has refused to immediately climb aboard the Pitchfork Express based on what it says on d'internet, and has instead said we wish to read what Tatchell wrote before deciding for ourselves is being categorised as "morally relativistic about paedophilia".

And that is how witch hunts start.

1800_Ladladlad

To be honest, I'm not surprised by him coming out and issuing an apology. He's not the brightest. The excessive groveling & the victimhood shows that he must've been coercively pressured or threatened legally. What I find funny is the usual progressives smugly forgiving him. The use of words like brave and courage being used in response to his so-called apology is equally as funny. Alot of people using it as a victory on twitter like children. It's in their best interests to be seen as having empathy for a traveler since O'conner used discrimination in his own community as a key reason for acknowledging what he had done etc

This was damage control under the guise of self-reflection and other PR sh*te. Its all very strange.

DelaneyIn

What was John Connors threatened with?

From "dying on this hill", to "sorry, Mr O'Gorman, sir. My grandfather died, sir.” In the space of two week. It doesn't make any sense.

Annasopra

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

To be honest, I'm not surprised by him coming out and issuing an apology. He's not the brightest. The excessive groveling & the victimhood shows that he must've been coercively pressured or threatened legally. What I find funny is the usual progressives smugly forgiving him. The use of words like brave and courage being used in response to his so-called apology is equally as funny. Alot of people using it as a victory on twitter like children. It's in their best interests to be seen as having empathy for a traveler since O'conner used discrimination in his own community as a key reason for acknowledging what he had done etc

This was damage control under the guise of self-reflection and other PR sh*te. Its all very strange.

Perhaps he doesnt really mean it - time will probably tell. As I said - right now I take it what he says face value. It's interesting that people who thought nothing wrong occurred now believe damage limitation is necessary.

Gruffalux

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well now. What a telling response.

I rejected the idea of filtering my opinion through the lens of a radical feminist with her own agenda, made it clear that any suggestion of condoning any kind of sexual activity with anyone below the age of consent is anathema to me, but suddenly I am accused of defending paedophilia.

Anyone here who has refused to immediately climb aboard the Pitchfork Express based on what it says on d'internet, and has instead said we wish to read what Tatchell wrote before deciding for ourselves is being categorised as "morally relativistic about paedophilia".

And that is how witch hunts start.

You would not even bother to research him and yet here you are on a thread about O Gorman and Tatchell.

Edgware

jammiedodgers wrote: »

Courageous my hole. He either received a solicitors letter or is thinking about his upcoming movie.

"his upcoming movie"
That's a laugh

It's great to see all the crew that jumped on the O Connor bandwagon caught out the same way as the Gemma luvvies

Gruffalux

If I heard for the first time about some randomer being a pro paedophile apologist and especially if they are in the public eye I would read up about it and them BEFORE going on a website to say - hey his words might have been twisted or taken out of context. I would actually like to know the truth of it BEFORE making any attempt at situational or contextual allowances.
All the more so if this randomer was someone I had met for the first time 33 years ago, thus suggesting I had shared their company during other times over those 3 decades. I would be like Whoa what did this fcuker I have met actually do and say...

Tokyo

Gruffalox wrote: »

And I thought you would have been interested in a summary of Tatchells activities since you are collaterally involved in some kind of a soft defense of him along with other people here who even though we often disagree I would otherwise think are grand sorts. And yet here they are being morally relativistic about paedophilia.

Mod: You're smart enough to know that one does not equate to the other. Choose your next line of debate more carefully please.

hetuzozaho

Anyone got a link to the unedited letter he speaks of?

Right here.

Gruffalux

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/obituary-ian-dunn-1151494.html%3famp

Peter Tatchell wrote the above obituary for Ian Campbell Dunn.

Dunn co founded the Paedophile Information Exchange.

From wikipedia
"Dunn co-founded the Paedophile Information Exchange in 1974. The organisation campaigned to legalise sex between adults and children, and to promote acceptance and understanding of adults having sex with children, with Dunn considered to be an influential member of the campaign. A number of key PIE figures were jailed in 1984 and the group was closed down shortly afterwards.

Dunn organised and advertised openly pro-paedophile meetings in both Glasgow and Edinburgh. He stated of the subject: “I am not one of those homosexuals who get cross or nervous when the subject of love between men and boys is raised.” He also allowed his home in Edinburgh to be used as the contact address for paedophile magazine Minor Problems."

Minor Problems was a magazine whose stated theme was intergenerational and child sexuality.

AllForIt

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

To be honest, I'm not surprised by him coming out and issuing an apology. He's not the brightest. The excessive groveling & the victimhood shows that he must've been coercively pressured or threatened legally. What I find funny is the usual progressives smugly forgiving him. The use of words like brave and courage being used in response to his so-called apology is equally as funny. Alot of people using it as a victory on twitter like children. It's in their best interests to be seen as having empathy for a traveler since O'conner used discrimination in his own community as a key reason for acknowledging what he had done etc

This was damage control under the guise of self-reflection and other PR sh*te. Its all very strange.

The more I think of it this has been a right screw up by Connors. I wouldn't know much about him if it wasn't for the dedicated thread on him here, but he has been lauded in the media, especially by RTE, as a traveller rights poster boy. From what I observe he talks about traveller discrimination at every available opportunity which is what I hear from them all my life - but there he was last week doing exactly the same thing to other minority groups that he has been fighting against for his own minority group - by his own admission.

How can he possibly ever run on that ticket again, and how could RTE ever have him on the LLS giving him a platform to tell us how racist we all are towards travellers? This incident has shown he's full of guff, isn't very bright and prolly shouldn't represent the travelling community ever again the way he has done till now, because how can he be taken seriously after this! If he wasn't an actor but had some public service job he'd have to resign.

But you get the feeling RTE will find a way to bring him back into the fold - because of his minority status. The doesn't sound like equality to me.

AndrewJRenko

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think everyone can agree ...

I think everyone can agree that you're not a spokesperson for everyone.

paw patrol wrote: »

I though he was a wanker who had redeemed himself

And after stating he wouldn't back down on this , he did.


clearly somebody got to him. maybe those precious state funds were threatened. cos i don't believe in this road to Damascus conversion.

What state funds are you referring to?

paw patrol

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I think everyone can agree that you're not a spokesperson for everyone.

What state funds are you referring to?

any state funds....pick one.. unless you are suggesting he isn't state (or quango ) funded in any way?

cardboard gangster was funded by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland which is state funded...so lets start with that.

walshb

Not at all buying this Connors apology..

Utter attention seeking more than anything..

Is it just me, or are all these incessant protesters (protesting about everything and anything) the most insincere and far from engaging and warm people you could meet? Combative, divisive, aggressive, narcissistic, immature and all around mouth pieces!!

BattleCorp

walshb wrote: »

Not at all buying this Connors apology..

Utter attention seeking more than anything..

Look at the wording of John Connor's apology.

There's no fcuking way he wrote that. He doesn't use language like that. Not remotely close to something he would say.

Someone else wrote that for him for sure.

walshb

BattleCorp wrote: »

Look at the wording of John Connor's apology.

There's no fcuking way he wrote that. He doesn't use language like that. Not remotely close to something he would say.

Someone else wrote that for him for sure.

I don’t believe that he wrote it. But he stands over it!

And still there are spelling and grammatical errors..

And the owl get out of jail mental health card thrown in for good measure!

BattleCorp

walshb wrote: »

I don’t believe that he wrote it. But he stands over it!

And still there are spelling and grammatical errors..

And the owl get out of jail mental health card thrown in for good measure!

It was probably read out to him what to type.

Beechwoodspark

I watched the YouTube speech last week and while I had reservations, John Connors passion and absolute sense of vindication came shining through.

He seemed to believe in the issue 200%.

I must say, it was an impressive speech

He seems to have backed down very quickly - I wonder was there a potential legal case on the horizon

Beechwoodspark

BattleCorp wrote: »

It was probably read out to him what to type.

By who ? The greens? ROGs legal team?

Galwayguy35

Wouldn't mind Connors making peace with O Gorman but he seems to have backtracked about Tatchell as well.

AndrewJRenko

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I watched the YouTube speech last week and while I had reservations, John Connors passion and absolute sense of vindication came shining through.

He seemed to believe in the issue 200%.

I must say, it was an impressive speech

He seems to have backed down very quickly - I wonder was there a potential legal case on the horizon

You know he's an actor, right?

walshb

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I watched the YouTube speech last week and while I had reservations, John Connors passion and absolute sense of vindication came shining through.

He seemed to believe in the issue 200%.

I must say, it was an impressive speech

He seems to have backed down very quickly - I wonder was there a potential legal case on the horizon

Seriously, I am baffled how people fall for a lot of these social values protesting crusaders all over the shop.

It’s attention seeking ego driven insincere sh1te with pretty much all them.

Do people really think Conor’s gives a flying fiddlers about this?

generalgerry

jammiedodgers wrote: »

Courageous my hole. He either received a solicitors letter or is thinking about his upcoming movie.

Very very unusual turn of events. When I saw him taking the stage that day I sort of grimaced and hid behind the couch. This is the man who called the Guards "scum" live on The Late Late Show, so I was tentative about how he would be fixed legally after his presentation. But I was very surprised how well he spoke. His points were coherent, and he was very clear, and he didn't defame anybody. It actually had me thinking he must have had help or put a lot of time in to writing and learning the speech - he spoke for quite a few minutes without referring to any notes. Probably the best speaker on the day.

He also specifically made the point that he was told "don't go to this protest, it will be the end of your career", but Connors said that he had been told the same thing when he came out against repealing the 8th Amendment, and he was still here. And that he would survive taking this stance as well. He was adamant that he would not back down because the position that he was taking was unpopular. And now he just backs down, says he was wrong and apologises? The only context in which this makes any sense is that he must have been leaned on.

AndrewJRenko

generalgerry wrote: »

And now he just backs down, says he was wrong and apologises? The only context in which this makes any sense is that he must have been leaned on.

Or maybe he just worked out that he was wrong?

Rodney Bathgate

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You know he's an actor, right?

A pretty sh1t actor who only plays parts where his character is a gangster traveller.

Mad_maxx

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Wouldn't mind Connors making peace with O Gorman but he seems to have backtracked about Tatchell as well.

he marched all the way up the hill and now straight back down

that fellas mouth is always miles ahead of his brain

Mad_maxx

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

A pretty sh1t actor who only plays parts where his character is a gangster traveller.

ive seen far worse actors in this country , hes no anthony hopkins but i wouldnt begrudge him a living at it

not a fan of him generally , especially on twitter

Hector Savage

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I watched the YouTube speech last week and while I had reservations, John Connors passion and absolute sense of vindication came shining through.

He seemed to believe in the issue 200%.

I must say, it was an impressive speech

He seems to have backed down very quickly - I wonder was there a potential legal case on the horizon

Was probably told his acting career would be over if he didn't apologise.

Golf is my Game

suicide_circus wrote: »

It's not shocking at all. This is how things are now.

If this gives you pause for concern, you are simply on the wrong side of history.

The definition of a man/woman is any person who sees themselves as such.

Id agree with this to be fair but also that its also fair going that anyone else is just as entitled to see them as the gender they want to see them as too. So like, a person born with a mans bits can change and call themselves a woman which is fine out, but another person whether a man or a woman or what ever can still see them as a man even though they see themselves as a woman. Thats fair all round. Its all just a question of perspective now and that no two people see things the same way is just the modern way of seeing gender. Both how the person sees themsleves sexually and how someone else does is fairly fluid. Theirs still a lot of people stuck in the old mindset though but theyl get it in time.

SoupMonster

Golf is my Game wrote: »

Id agree with this to be fair but also that its also fair going that anyone else is just as entitled to see them as the gender they want to see them as too. So like, a person born with a mans bits can change and call themselves a woman which is fine out, but another person whether a man or a woman or what ever can still see them as a man even though they see themselves as a woman. Thats fair all round. Its all just a question of perspective now and that no two people see things the same way is just the modern way of seeing gender. Both how the person sees themsleves sexually and how someone else does is fairly fluid. Theirs still a lot of people stuck in the old mindset though but theyl get it in time.

It's not an issue of "be kind, it doesn't affect anyone else". It affects everybody.

The GRA 2015 already allows anyone to swear an oath that they have "a settled and solemn intention of living in the preferred gender for the rest of his or her life" and then a certificate is issued making the "person’s gender ... become for all purposes the preferred gender so that if the preferred gender ... is the female gender the person’s sex becomes that of a woman".

The Act does not define "gender" or "sex". Legally, they are synonyms.

A Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) is a legal sex change, recognized by the state for all purposes (except one, sexual assault/rape ... the penis makes him male only if he uses it non-consensually).

"For all purposes" means it applies to you and me. We are required by law to treat the individual as the opposite sex, or we may be breaking anti-discrimination laws. We don't get a decide that a man is really a man, the state has already decided for us that the man must be treated as a woman.

A woman cannot complain that there is a man in the changing room watching her undress (assuming the room is open/communal), etc etc. I assume you are male and can imagine all the handy way this can be used to perv on women or just annoy women and make them feel unsafe.

Roderick has a number of program for government items on his LGBT rights list that he intends to champion.

a. Allow under 16's to change their sex.
Your young teen daughter may now be bunking with a boy on her school trips and teachers told NOT to tell you.
She may be kicked off the school sports team to make room for the boy.
She is not allowed to complain.

b. Hate crime will be extended to include gender identity.
You now cannot purposely misgender (refer to them by their actual sex) anyone, you commit a "non-crime hate crime", as UK police call it, if it causes the individual distress. This legalises compelled speech as in Canada.

c. Recognition of non-binary people (legally neither male or female).
Seems to me that this is just a trick to appear more interesting and possibly get laid (usually by a person of the opposite non-binary sub-category)

d. Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity education from 4 years upwards.
This will indoctrinate small kids to believe that they might be non-binary or trans. This is grooming, plain and simple.

e. A ban on "conversion therapy".
Forget gay conversion therapy, nobody does that any more. This is really a ban on any professional suggesting to a girl that she is really a girl and there is nothing wrong with that.

There is no prohibition on anyone persuading a girl that because she hates ribbons and bows that she is really a boy and should take testosterone, grow a beard, become infertile, cut her breasts off, have a hysterectomy and reach for that unattainable goal of being a happy man.

f. Access to cross sex hormones and intrusive medical procedures without any professional assessment or counselling.
You GP (who has zero expertise) must sign off on it. Naturally, grifters will set themselves up as specialists and do all the signing off. Every teenager who claims to be trans is already told which doctors to go to and are coached on what to say. This will remove even that ineffective gate-keeping.

All-in-all, this is a package that has no value. It is not a positive step, it's completely regressive nonsense. It's indoctrination, grooming and abuse.

My daughter identified as male when she was 16. He/him pronouns, a stereotypical male name, binder, boxer shorts and clothes from the boys section of the shop, an appointment with Loughlinstowm for testosterone injections. She thought she was a gay man. She was a fully paid-up member of the cult. She was on the train and totally committed, fully intent on destroying herself.

Today she is quietly desisting, still a fit and healthy female, just a plain, ordinary lesbian girl. As far as I'm concerned every single person who called her "he" or "him" was doing harm.

The number of people to suffer dysphoria to such an extent that they really need to transition is less that 0.1%. All those older people who have suffered all their lives and can now find relief by living as their authentic selves, they are so few in number you could memorise all their names.

Trans is a youth phenomenon, a fad, a cult, cultivated by a ideological LGBT political machine that everyone is afraid to criticize and has captured all policy making bodies. It's cheered on by a fawning, amoral media that just loves to destroy boundaries, sow division, create tension and get clicks.

Every item on Roderick's agenda should be summarily dismissed. The existing GRA should be repealed and then we can return to the place you suggest where individuals can present how they like, make whatever body modifications they like, make whatever claim they want and we are free to accommodate them if we see fit.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

SoupMonster wrote: »

It's not an issue of "be kind, it doesn't affect anyone else". It affects everybody.

Doesn't effect me.

"For all purposes" means it applies to you and me. We are required by law to treat the individual as the opposite sex, or we may be breaking anti-discrimination laws. We don't get a decide that a man is really a man, the state has already decided for us that the man must be treated as a woman.

The law requires you to do a lot of things you might not like doing.

A woman cannot complain that there is a man in the changing room watching her undress (assuming the room is open/communal), etc etc. I assume you are male and can imagine all the handy way this can be used to perv on women or just annoy women and make them feel unsafe.

THIS is the ONLY issue I can see with the problem, and I don't see how it can't be fixed by gender-neutral batrhrooms and changing rooms. Most changing rooms on the continent are cubicles by this stage anyway.

Also, I don't see how this effects kids consdiering changing gender.

Roderick has a number of program for government items on his LGBT rights list that he intends to champion.

a. Allow under 16's to change their sex.
Your young teen daughter may now be bunking with a boy on her school trips and teachers told NOT to tell you.
She may be kicked off the school sports team to make room for the boy.
She is not allowed to complain.

All assumption.

b. Hate crime will be extended to include gender identity.
You now cannot purposely misgender (refer to them by their actual sex) anyone, you commit a "non-crime hate crime", as UK police call it, if it causes the individual distress. This legalises compelled speech as in Canada.

While I agree, calling it a hate-crime is a bit silly, you'd be a dick (if you'll pardon the expression) is you insisted on deliberately misgendering someone. What, exactly, do people try to achieve with this?

c. Recognition of non-binary people (legally neither male or female).
Seems to me that this is just a trick to appear more interesting and possibly get laid (usually by a person of the opposite non-binary sub-category)

How does it effect you?

d. Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity education from 4 years upwards.
This will indoctrinate small kids to believe that they might be non-binary or trans. This is grooming, plain and simple.

"indoctrinate
You being unfomfortable with a child learning something is not "indoctrination"

Also "grooming"
How the **** is this grroming?! What sexual act are they trying to coerice said 4 year old to enact?!

e. A ban on "conversion therapy".
Forget gay conversion therapy, nobody does that any more. This is really a ban on any professional suggesting to a girl that she is really a girl and there is nothing wrong with that.

Source? (Not disagreeing with you, more curious than anything else: your example does not sound like "conversion therapy")

There is no prohibition on anyone persuading a girl that because she hates ribbons and bows that she is really a boy and should take testosterone, grow a beard, become infertile, cut her breasts off, have a hysterectomy and reach for that unattainable goal of being a happy man.

Scaremongering. Your assuming this actually happens.

f. Access to cross sex hormones and intrusive medical procedures without any professional assessment or counselling.
You GP (who has zero expertise) must sign off on it. Naturally, grifters will set themselves up as specialists and do all the signing off. Every teenager who claims to be trans is already told which doctors to go to and are coached on what to say. This will remove even that ineffective gate-keeping.

Bollocks!
How do you know my GP has "zero expertise"?
Why do you assume all teenagers are coached and told where to go?

All-in-all, this is a package that has no value. It is not a positive step, it's completely regressive nonsense. It's indoctrination, grooming and abuse.

If it was even close to what you described it to be, I might agree with you, but you've had to exaggerate it to almost hysterical proportions to even create an issue in the first place.

My daughter identified as male when she was 16. He/him pronouns, a stereotypical male name, binder, boxer shorts and clothes from the boys section of the shop, an appointment with Loughlinstowm for testosterone injections. She thought she was a gay man. She was a fully paid-up member of the cult. She was on the train and totally committed, fully intent on destroying herself.

Today she is quietly desisting, still a fit and healthy female, just a plain, ordinary lesbian girl. As far as I'm concerned every single person who called her "he" or "him" was doing harm.

The number of people to suffer dysphoria to such an extent that they really need to transition is less that 0.1%. All those older people who have suffered all their lives and can now find relief by living as their authentic selves, they are so few in number you could memorise all their names.

Trans is a youth phenomenon, a fad, a cult, cultivated by a ideological LGBT political machine that everyone is afraid to criticize and has captured all policy making bodies. It's cheered on by a fawning, amoral media that just loves to destroy boundaries, sow division, create tension and get clicks.

So, the whole notion of trasngender, for you, is "to get clicks"?
Also, just because it was in your case, does not mean it's the case worldwide. ANd 0.1% of the Irish population under 18 is still in the region of 1,500. That's a big enough group to warrant attention.

Every item on Roderick's agenda should be summarily dismissed. The existing GRA should be repealed and then we can return to the place you suggest where individuals can present how they like, make whatever body modifications they like, make whatever claim they want and we are free to accommodate them if we see fit.

What place is that? THe place you get to decide for everyone what you're comfortable with, and not have to obey laws you don't agree with?

TLDR - this is not about YOU. Your objections are purely because YOU can't handle an idea and pretty much every objection is a slippery slope fallacy.

BattleCorp

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

By who ? The greens? ROGs legal team?

Does he have a manager/agent/PR person? Who knows, but I can't see him coming up with that wording.

Bannasidhe

SoupMonster wrote: »

Roderick has a number of program for government items on his LGBT rights list that he intends to champion.

There are a number of items in the PfG dealing with Transgender rights that were included by Fine Gael. Not the Green Party.

Item one:
Simplify process for 16/17 year olds to legally change gender. Proposed by FG following a review.

Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection Regina Doherty said the review had found that the current legislation is “too onerous” for children aged 16 and 17 years, as it involves a court process and certification by two medical practitioners.

She now plans to introduce new legislation to lessen the burden on teenagers who wish to change gender.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/new-legislation-to-make-it-easier-for-teenagers-to-change-gender-1.4099892

Item 2:
Gender recognition under 16 years old - Policy document introduced onto PfG by FG.

Children under the age of 16 would be able to legally change their gender under plans being discussed by Fine Gael.

A Fine Gael policy paper drafted for the government formation talks recommends changing laws to allow all children change their gender.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fine-gael-seeking-law-change-to-let-under-16s-legally-change-gender-39252644.html

There are legacy issues around same-sex marriage and parenting that are finally being sorted to bring them in line with the rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Theses issues are a throw back to previous governmental inaction in the depts of Justice and Social Protection.

All of the above are to deal with legal recognition issues and, regardless of your rather hysterical post, do not even mention medical.

Strange that you insist on calling Fine Gael inclusions in the PfG Roderic's list when he had neither had nor part in them.

osarusan

SoupMonster wrote: »

d. Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity education from 4 years upwards.
This will indoctrinate small kids to believe that they might be non-binary or trans. This is grooming, plain and simple.

Can you or anybody else explain this bit?


I don't see how it follows logically at all.

blanch152

Wonder will any of the posters on here follow the example of John Connor and issue a grovelling apology?

Will I be waiting long?

Dravokivich

walshb wrote: »

Not at all buying this Connors apology..

Utter attention seeking more than anything..

Is it just me, or are all these incessant protesters (protesting about everything and anything) the most insincere and far from engaging and warm people you could meet? Combative, divisive, aggressive, narcissistic, immature and all around mouth pieces!!

Got people up my way protesting a roundabout they claimed didn't get put through proper planning stages, acting out on facebook like it's a major conspiracy and wanting a "second lane back," when there was only ever 1 lane in the first place!

SoupMonster wrote: »

Every item on Roderick's agenda should be summarily dismissed. The existing GRA should be repealed and then we can return to the place you suggest where individuals can present how they like, make whatever body modifications they like, make whatever claim they want and we are free to accommodate them if we see fit.

When I lived in D15, he was very active in community development. Didn't even know he was gay until all these things started getting pushed around over the last couple of weeks. What is his agenda, where is it, where can I look over it and see the same issues you appear to have come to?

blanch152 wrote: »

Wonder will any of the posters on here follow the example of John Connor and issue a grovelling apology?

Will I be waiting long?

They were a mob, nothing more. They'll try to excuse their behaviour, I doubt they'd consider being accountable for it.

CrankyHaus

Dravokivich wrote: »

Got people up my way protesting a roundabout they claimed didn't get put through proper planning stages, acting out on facebook like it's a major conspiracy and wanting a "second lane back," when there was only ever 1 lane in the first place!

Is that the one on Monastery Road, D22?


I passed the protest the other day. While it did not previously have two lanes it did previously have ample space to enable easy passage around; which the alteration narrows enormously as a crude traffic control measure.



It's not a big deal to me. But the redesign is very stupid. HGVs will all just pass over the island and banjax the surface in a few short years.



It's part of a trend of Local Authorities slavishly following unrealistic theories to over-engineer simple road design in a way that ignores the human factor and increases cost and risk for no real benefit.



For a similar example see the Roundabouts on the dual carriageway connecting Tyrellstown to the N2.


I think the people whose taxes pay for this nonsense have a right to express their dissatisfaction without being tarred as some Alt-Right rabble.

Dravokivich

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Is that the one on Monastery Road, D22?


I passed the protest the other day. While it did not previously have two lanes it did previously have ample space to enable easy passage around; which the alteration narrows enormously as a crude traffic control measure.



It's not a big deal to me. But the redesign is very stupid. HGVs will all just pass over the island and banjax the surface in a few short years.

It is. They are complaining they can't go up the hill as 2 lanes now as a result. And that they weren't informed directly about it.

Hotblack Desiato

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Is that the one on Monastery Road, D22?

I passed the protest the other day. While it did not previously have two lanes it did previously have ample space to enable easy passage around; which the alteration narrows enormously as a crude traffic control measure.

Each road used to have two lanes entering the roundabout which greatly helped traffic making left turns. This hasn't been thought through at all and will cause a massive bottleneck. Cllr Francis Timmons admitted he didn't look at the plans when it was being approved, talk about asleep at the switch...

StarryPlough01

Update

There's a recent legal Judgment: Bell ~ v ~ Tavistock Judgment and Bell ~ v ~ Tavistock Clinic and ors Summary.

Search judiciary dot uk website.