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

seamus

Gradius wrote: »

If you have something of merit to counteract my point, by all means do it.

Your 1 in 33 number has no basis. The entirety of your calculations are based on the assumption that all politicians are picked out of a hat from the general population at random.
And then you make a gigantic leap from your nonsense calculations to assert that only a conscious bias could result in the difference observed.

Like I say, conspiracy theories 101. You've built a house of cards.

Gradius

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What if I can see the tattoo and the artist admits to putting it there?



Inrrelevant to any trans analogy, unless your clam is transgender doesnt' actually exist..?

You just keep on trotting, say hello to the leprechauns.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gradius wrote: »

You just keep on trotting, say hello to the leprechauns.

I see. Can't answer or debate, make wild accusation.

We're done here.

Hector Savage

Gradius wrote: »

No, man, you're talking bollix.

If you have something of merit to counteract my point, by all means do it.

Simply stating "that's no good" followed by zero reasoning is crap. Using words like "fantasy" with zero grounding is also crap.

Crap.

Also nice bit of dishonesty in there by throwing in a flat earth comparison !!

Christ

Gradius

seamus wrote: »

Your 1 in 33 number has no basis. The entirety of your calculations are based on the assumption that all politicians are picked out of a hat from the general population at random.
And then you make a gigantic leap from your nonsense calculations to assert that only a conscious bias could result in the difference observed.

Like I say, conspiracy theories 101. You've built a house of cards.

Incorrect. My 1 in 33 absolutely has basis, it's assuming that 3% of the population is gay. If you don't like that number, change it to 5%, or 1%, whatever you like. See what difference it makes to the calculation.

Next, thank you for re-enforcing my point. I did indeed make the generous assumption that "all else being equal..."

And then I concluded by correctly stating, like you assert, that these decisions are NOT random...implying deliberate choice and decision.

So, to restate my excellent point, a normal person is left with the prescient question "why?"

You're getting tangled up in your efforts to escape raw numbers.

Maths is a "conspiracy theory"...go back to bed

drunkmonkey

Is this thread not related to gender change bill in 15yr olds and younger? Why is the age noted by management 18 and younger.
Are there two proposals?

New Children's Minister to make it easier for under-16s to change their gender.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/new-childrens-minister-to-make-it-easier-for-under-16s-to-change-their-gender-39346464.html

Maybe this should be clarified what age the discussion is about to allow posters to stick within mod guidelines.

Gradius

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I see. Can't answer or debate, make wild accusation.

We're done here.

I don't debate with people who see things that don't exist. Correct.

Gradius

Hector Savage wrote: »

Also nice bit of dishonesty in there by throwing in a flat earth comparison !!

Christ

A statement of nothing, with zero defence or reasoning.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gradius wrote: »

I don't debate with people who see things that don't exist. Correct.

Well why didnt just say you don't believe transgender people don't exist when I asked?! Would have actually saved more face!

Hector Savage

Gradius wrote: »

A statement of nothing, with zero defence or reasoning.

Im referring to the poster that was equating your reasoning with flat earthers...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hector Savage wrote: »

Im referring to the poster that was equating your reasoning with flat earthers...

He did that himself. Apparently the point was that believing in something was the same as being something.

Gradius

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Well why didnt just say you don't believe transgender people don't exist when I asked?! Would have actually saved more face!

If "face" implies the product of reasoning, science, logic, sense and understanding, then I have the face that has inspired sculpture of unequalled magnificence. Whereas your "face" would have the solidity and structure of amorphous snot

It's entertaining tearing down entire belief structures over lunch, but alas, lunchtime is at an end, and seeing as the "attempts" at defence against my onslaught of reality are as likely to have the success of a droplet of piss landing on the surface of the sun, I must go now.

Gradius

Hector Savage wrote: »

Im referring to the poster that was equating your reasoning with flat earthers...

I made that absolutely correct comparison. It stands, much to the frustration of make-believers.

And I know your statement wasn't directed at me, it's cool

Tokyo

Gradius wrote: »

I just had a look there and the guy is gay. And the last minister for children was gay.

What's that about? I mean the odds of such a coincidence are significantly outlandish.

Gradius wrote: »

The problem is probability, or, more to the point, improbability...
So, you either believe that it's all a crazy coincidence, or you question how such long odds happen, and why.

Lastly, the factors involved are linked. This isn't about two albino's becoming minister for children. It would be more like 2 albino's becoming minister for hair, and then being involved in controversial "hair" issues.

Mod: You arguing with ridiculous bad faith here. Don't post in the thread again.

VillageIdiot71

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

He did that himself. Apparently the point was that believing in something was the same as being something.

That very clearly wasn't the point.

The point is more that Creation Scientists exist, and have certain beliefs. However, they are not scientists, even if they believe themselves to be.

castle2012

Gradius wrote: »

I just had a look there and the guy is gay. And the last minister for children was gay.

What's that about? I mean the odds of such a coincidence are significantly outlandish.

I don't really care if he's gay transgender whatever. I voted Green myself and I have a big problem with letting kids under 16 change gender, after all there kids. What happens if the kid regrets it. As far as I'm concerned he's not suitable to be a children's minister with policy's like that. I won't be voting Green again

suicide_circus

Rod has increased parental leave during covid.
Maybe should have opened with that one

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

That very clearly wasn't the point.

The point is more that Creation Scientists exist, and have certain beliefs. However, they are not scientists, even if they believe themselves to be.

I got that. The problem is he didn't seem to understand the difference between believing something and being something

suicide_circus

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I got that. The problem is he didn't seem to understand the difference between believing something and being something

they are now one and the same

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

suicide_circus wrote: »

they are now one and the same

That was his point. You can not be a flat earth and believe in a flat earth.

Why am I even having to explain this?

Quantum Erasure

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I got that. The problem is he didn't seem to understand the difference between believing something and being something

You're being wilfully obtuse here... you're the one who brought up tattoos, you can believe you are a tattooed person all you like, but unless you have a tattoo.....

ronivek

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

You're being wilfully obtuse here... you're the one who brought up tattoos, you can believe you are a tattooed person all you like, but unless you have a tattoo.....

Surely the correct analogy here is that you believe for all intents and purposes that you’re a tattooed person: whilst also being aware of that fact you’re not physically tattooed. So you go and get a tattoo because you’re an adult and it’s your choice what to do with your own body; and hey presto not only do you believe you are a tattooed person but any outside observer will also believe it.

Phil.x

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Leo varadkar mention this before the last election.

AndrewJRenko

castle2012 wrote: »

I don't really care if he's gay transgender whatever. I voted Green myself and I have a big problem with letting kids under 16 change gender, after all there kids. What happens if the kid regrets it. As far as I'm concerned he's not suitable to be a children's minister with policy's like that. I won't be voting Green again

I guess if the kid regrets it, then they change back.

What happens if the kid isn't allowed change gender and regrets not being allowed change gender?

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

You're being wilfully obtuse here... you're the one who brought up tattoos, you can believe you are a tattooed person all you like, but unless you have a tattoo.....

Can you just clarify if you're saying that transgender people don't exist please?

Bannasidhe

castle2012 wrote: »

I don't really care if he's gay transgender whatever. I voted Green myself and I have a big problem with letting kids under 16 change gender, after all there kids. What happens if the kid regrets it. As far as I'm concerned he's not suitable to be a children's minister with policy's like that. I won't be voting Green again

It's not a Green Policy.
It's an FG policy that FG put into the PfG for discussion.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

You're being wilfully obtuse here... you're the one who brought up tattoos, you can believe you are a tattooed person all you like, but unless you have a tattoo.....

Another poster brought up painting blue as an analogy of seeing/believing.

This is getting silly - let's cut to the chase: do you believe transgender is something people believe in the isn't true, or something that people are?

ronivek

I did run through the origins of the proposals but a moderator decided to delete the post; let me try it again without mentioning anything too 'controversial':

The Gender Recognition Act 2015 was driven by Joan Burton of Labour as Minister of Social Protection since as early as 2011 (https://merrionstreet.ie/MerrionStreet/en/News-Room/Releases/minister-burton-announces-legislation-on-gender-recognition-and-publishes-the-report-of-the-gender-recognition-advisory-group.html) and in summary it is: "An Act to recognise change of gender; to provide for gender recognition certificates; to amend the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, the Civil Registration Act 2004, the Passports Act 2008 and the Adoption Act 2010; and to provide for matters connected therewith."

One part of the act required that a review be undertaken within 2 years to evaluate the operation of the act and propose and further changes; and also committed the Oireachtas to acting upon those review findings within 12 months. That review group was established by Regina Doherty of Fine Gael as Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection; and duly furnished to her in 2018 once completed. You can find the full review here: http://www.dsfa.ie/en/downloads/GRA%20Review%20Report.pdf

That review made a number of recommendations; chief amongst them the following:

A system of gender recognition should be introduced for children of any age, subject to the following key principles:
• Parental consent required (with an appropriate legal process to address cases where there is not consent from both parents or it is not possible or safe to obtain same),
• Process would be administrative,
• Straightforward revocation process,
• Third party support for the child and family involved.

Minister Regina Doherty subsequently published her own report on the review in November 2019 (https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/43aef0-minister-doherty-publishes-her-report-on-the-review-of-the-gender-re/) with the following notable points:

• Simplifying the path to legal gender recognition for children aged 16/17 years by introducing an arrangement for self-declaration, with parental consent; a simple revocation process; and by making family mediation support available on a voluntary basis.

• There are no plans to change the arrangements for children aged under 16 years; however, the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection will, in conjunction with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, commission research to examine issues of concern relating to under 16 year olds.

• In order to bring greater clarity to the fact that legal gender recognition is separate and distinct from any question of medical intervention, it is proposed to identify clearly on a gender recognition certificate for 16 and 17 year olds that it is awarded on the basis of self-declaration only.

The Programme for Government (https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/2020/06/draft-programme-for-govt.pdf) subsequently contained the following blurb which corresponds almost exactly with what was already committed to by the FG Minister:

• Remove the need for a person aged 16 and 17 years to have two specialist reports before they can apply for legal gender recognition, by providing for self-declaration, with parental consent and by making mediation available on a voluntary basis. These improvements will include the provision of a gender recognition certificate providing proof of change of name as well as gender. Make any necessary changes to the law to allow legal name change be part of the gender recognition process.
• Commence research to examine arrangements for under children under 16.

Nowhere has anything been directly attributed to Roderic O'Gorman w.r.t. any other changes that may be made; or any changes that are currently in progress. This includes for under 16s. The ONLY quote from O'Gorman on the issue which doesn't even mention under 16s is the following which appears to have come from a completely separate interview about certain allegations made over Social Media recently (https://www.herald.ie/news/ogorman-backs-gender-changes-for-under-16s-39346188.html):

"If they want to initiate a gender change they have to get high-level medical consultants to sign off on that. Whereas the recommendation is to make that easier to allow a GP basically to sign off to say yes."

He said he supported implementing the review findings.

"In an area like this you should be led by expert advice," he said.

That's it. Another storm in a teacup and absolutely nothing to do with O'Gorman or the Green Party until this point. Whatever he may do in the future; who knows.

castle2012

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I guess if the kid regrets it, then they change back.

What happens if the kid isn't allowed change gender and regrets not being allowed change gender?



Can you just clarify if you're saying that transgender people don't exist please?

It's not that straight forward to change back as some procedures can go to the point of no return. Just to be clear we are talking about children here under 16. Most people don't nature till 18, that's why children can't drink/smoke etc. I have no problem with adults changing. This is a step to far. A children's minister should be protecting children. For that reason alone O Gorman should go..

AndrewJRenko

castle2012 wrote: »

It's not that straight forward to change back as some procedures can go to the point of no return. Just to be clear we are talking about children here under 16. Most people don't nature till 18, that's why children can't drink/smoke etc. I have no problem with adults changing. This is a step to far. A children's minister should be protecting children. For that reason alone O Gorman should go..

What procedures are you talking about that can't be reversed, and are these included in the plans for supporting transgender children here?

And what happens if the child regrets NOT transitioning?

VillageIdiot71

ronivek wrote: »

... The Programme for Government (https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/2020/06/draft-programme-for-govt.pdf) subsequently contained the following blurb which corresponds almost exactly with what was already committed to by the FG Minister:..... absolutely nothing to do with O'Gorman or the Green Party until this point.

I think you are absolutely right to set out the origins of this.

Because, absolutely, its like noticing that Government has a serious intention to put Creation Science on the curriculum, and then finding out "what, FG did this?" and wondering how such nonsense gets legs without anyone really challenging the proposition.

Now, obviously this is a global phenomenon. But its all part of that feeling that, in some sense, we're being told the limits of reasonable comment.

So like, last year the WHO removes gender dysphoria from its classification of mental illness, and this is meant to signal that no-one can say "Hey, wasn't this just seen as a mental illness at some point? Like, what do you call an illness that has no physical manifestation?"