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

ronivek

Gruffalox wrote: »

Thanks for Info.

Regardless of any ghouls floating at the edge of this story - and I have read none of that kind of stuff from the weirdos mentioned in this thread, honestly my brain hurts with what some people conjure as worthy argument - the matters involved remain open for public debate in all respects as issues of public concern.

Yep; and the line from the Programme for Government is very telling:

Commence research to examine arrangements for under children under 16.

I don't think they have any intentions of legislating for under 16s at any point in the near future.

Gruffalux

ronivek wrote: »

Yep; and the line from the Programme for Government is very telling:


I don't think they have any intentions of legislating for under 16s at any point in the near future.

I think we may disagree as to who the ghouls are, I am referring to the people with republican symbols in Twitter accounts, but not people on this thread. Doesn't matter, we can all have our pet demons.

Gruffalux

Hmmm. The Sara Philips on the committee bit is an unexpected layer.

Tokyo

Mod: @sabat - don't post in the thread again.

Fleetwoodmac

ronivek wrote: »

That's clearly nonsense. Any medical professional with experience treating those with Gender Dysphoria or any other condition which causes them to question their gender is going to be fully aware of the provenance of a Gender Recognition Certificate.

But this is one of the cruxes of the issue, there are very few clinicians practising in Ireland who have sufficient experience in the area of assessing and diagnosing gender dysphoria and in identifying comorbid issues. This issue has been well recognised. The Tavistock Clinic has been beset with issues, and yet this is considered the gold standard of care in this domain.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj_7-rg_L3qAhVQZxUIHVyCCNMQFjAGegQIBxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2019%2F12%2F12%2Fchildrens-transgender-clinic-hit-35-resignations-three-years%2F&usg=AOvVaw2XlYPhlYxtP0iMfXecoRPL

blanch152

ronivek wrote: »

Yep; and the line from the Programme for Government is very telling:


I don't think they have any intentions of legislating for under 16s at any point in the near future.

The problem with the under-16 issue is that under-16s cannot agree to get married, have sex, make medical decisions, vote, drive, smoke, drink alcohol etc. Why would they be any more able to decide to change gender?

Mr E

mike_ie wrote: »

Mod: We've been down the Tatchell road before in the other thread and it didn't end well. Considering some of the tenuous links being presented above, not to mention downright conspiracy theories, I can't see it faring any better here. Either way, as it's unrelated to the actual topic of the thread, drop it, and get back on topic.

Mod: Reminder. Drop the Tatchell discussion please. Last warning.

Bannasidhe

blanch152 wrote: »

The problem with the under-16 issue is that under-16s cannot agree to get married, have sex, make medical decisions, vote, drive, smoke, drink alcohol etc. Why would they be any more able to decide to change gender?

You would honestly have to ask FG that question as it is their policy proposal.
Unless I missed it (which I may have) I don't think anyone here are specifically argued for it.

wildeside

Why not just change the legal status of adulthood to 16 years of age and let adults do what they want (more or less)? I mean if you're mature, informed, cognitively developed, level-headed, emotionally stable and wise enough to the degree that you want to initiate the process of something as fundamental as an identify change, then surely that qualifies you as an adult, no? If this doesn't qualify you then what does? And what then is the argument against lowering the age of consent to 16? Anyone?

Bannasidhe

wildeside wrote: »

And what then is the argument against lowering the age of consent to 16? Anyone?

Enda was against it.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/the-age-of-consent-debate-where-does-ireland-stand-264694.html

freshpopcorn

wildeside wrote: »

Why not just change the legal status of adulthood to 16 years of age and let adults do what they want (more or less)? I mean if you're mature, informed, cognitively developed, level-headed, emotionally stable and wise enough to the degree that you want to initiate the process of something as fundamental as an identify change, then surely that qualifies you as an adult, no? If this doesn't qualify you then what does? And what then is the argument against lowering the age of consent to 16? Anyone?

I think around 2014 or sometime 16 and 17 year old could married with parental consent and they had to go to court but this is no longer possible!

ronivek

blanch152 wrote: »

The problem with the under-16 issue is that under-16s cannot agree to get married, have sex, make medical decisions, vote, drive, smoke, drink alcohol etc. Why would they be any more able to decide to change gender?

Well I think one important distinction here is that under-16s already have sex, make medical decisions, smoke, drink alcohol, etc.

So one question to consider: should under 16s be allowed to seek treatment for medical conditions? Allowed to seek treatment for Sexually Transmitted Disease? Access contraception? Seek treatment to stop smoking? Seek treatment for alcohol or drug addiction? I would argue they absolutely should be allowed do all of those things.

So take that a little further: should under 16s be allowed to seek treatment for depression, anxiety, or any other issues with their mental health? Again I would argue they absolutely should.

So I think for me it comes down to what the medical consensus would be around one particular question: does allowing children who identify as a particular gender to be legally recognised as that gender improve their mental health or quality of life?

Personally I don't know the answer to that question and haven't looked into it to any great degree: but I would much rather our medical professionals make that determination in conjunction with the parents of individual children rather than our legislators.

(Also I'm not talking about gender reassignment treatment here; just legal recognition as per the recommendations and legislation mentioned in this thread)

wildeside

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Enda was against it.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/the-age-of-consent-debate-where-does-ireland-stand-264694.html

My point (which I used the age of consent to illustrate) was that surely if we can entrust 16 yr olds to make decisions on something as fudamental as an identity change we can entrust them to make many other adult like decisions and like when to have sex, whether to smoke, drink, take drugs, drive a motorbike etc, no? I'm not sure I see a difference in principle. We can say you're not old or wise enough to do all these other things but you are when it comes to changing identity? Why not legally treat 16 yr olds as adults?

wildeside

ronivek wrote: »

...but I would much rather our medical professionals make that determination in conjunction with the parents of individual children rather than our legislators.

100% agree with this. I think any truly compassionate person would want the best for any child in this scenario. I think any child self-diagnosing what they think the root of their problems is no less dangerous than self-diagnosing a medical condition.

Calhoun

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

This is nothing to do with dropping the age of consent to 12. Stop making things up.

Of course not right away Joey, has to be eased into bit by bit.

Annasopra

Calhoun wrote: »

Of course not right away Joey, has to be eased into bit by bit.

Nah. You are making it up.

Edgware

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think around 2014 or sometime 16 and 17 year old could married with parental consent and they had to go to court but this is no longer possible!

They want to do away with our culture Boss

Calhoun

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Nah. You are making it up.

Its an opinion based on what we see going on internationally, the optimal goal for allot of these groups is to start the transition before puberty.

It's the same strategy we have seen for other campaigns it will be bit by bit move and will more than likely end with more hyperbolic ****e a out how we are killing them by forcing them to go through medical professionals.

Annasopra

Calhoun wrote: »

Its an opinion based on what we see going on internationally, the optimal goal for allot of these groups is to start the transition before puberty.

Ah right you are not talking about the age of sexual consent.

TomTomTim

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Nah. You are making it up.

How confident are you? Can we bookmark this and you can write an apology and admit how wrong you were if it eventually happens? Or would you maybe be willing to make a bet about it? I'll stake a good chunk of money that you'll be wrong as usual; a state you must be well used to by now. After all, I've saved a fortune by dumping my rubbish near travellers, so I've plenty of spare money.

Bannasidhe

wildeside wrote: »

My point (which I used the age of consent to illustrate) was that surely if we can entrust 16 yr olds to make decisions on something as fudamental as an identity change we can entrust them to make many other adult like decisions and like when to have sex, whether to smoke, drink, take drugs, drive a motorbike etc, no? I'm not sure I see a difference in principle. We can say you're not old or wise enough to do all these other things but you are when it comes to changing identity? Why not legally treat 16 yr olds as adults?

16 year olds already have sex.

There are direct health implications of smoking, drinking, and taking drugs (which if you are referring to illegal drugs... is illegal for all ages) but 16 years olds do all of those anyway.
Ditto drive motorbikes...and I swear over half the tractors on our roads are driven by 12 year olds (it's actually 13 in fields etc and allowed on the road legally aged 16).

16 year old can consent to medical procedures.
They can leave school and enter employment - including full-time 40 hr week - and fully liable for tax/USC.
They can babysit.
Drive motorbikes up to 125cc
Drive a work vehicle including a JCB.
Drive a jet ski and motorboat.
Apply for a firearms certificate.
Get a tattoo or piercing.

I have to say, driving a tractor on the public highway, owning a firearm, consenting to a surgical procedure, and working a full-time job are all fairly adult in my book.




In Scotland and Wales they can vote.

We have one of the highest ages of consent in Europe, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, France and Greece are all 15 — the most common in the Union. The Germans and Italians have opted for a year lower at 14 while the British, Dutch, Portuguese and Belgians lie an equal distance the other side of the median, at 16.

Calhoun

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ah right you are not talking about the age of sexual consent.

No sorry, this thread is getting confusing. Too many topics at once. To clarify I haven't seen anyone in Ireland even hint at lowering sexual age of consent.

wildeside

Pg3 of the Irish Governments "Review of the Gender Recognition Act 2015 - 2018 Report to the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection" report shows the expert group involved, serious lack of gender diversity ironically enough.

P14 states "The majority of submissions were broadly supportive of a simplified and more flexible arrangement for children aged 16/17 years; and were also supportive of extending provision for gender recognition to children under 16
years and persons who are non-binary"

I can't possibly see where this might be going, can you?

My major concern with this entire issue is that it's been politicised, framed in terms of "identity politics" i.e. a marginalised minority group who's differentiation factor in this case just happens to be gender identity rather than say something like skin colour or sex.

Rarely do I hear this discussion framed in terms of the (neurological/psychological/sociological) science behind the arguments. That's when you know some people (often clueless NGOs) are out to pick a fight and win at all costs, even if the cost is the actual welfare of children.

And you know something is up when you see how ideologically charged a topic like this is online, how much trouble questioning the orthodoxy can get you in.

wildeside

Bannasidhe wrote: »

16 year olds already have sex.

There are direct health implications of smoking, drinking, and taking drugs (which if you are referring to illegal drugs... is illegal for all ages) but 16 years olds do all of those anyway.
Ditto drive motorbikes...and I swear over half the tractors on our roads are driven by 12 year olds (it's actually 13 in fields etc and allowed on the road legally aged 16).

16 year old can consent to medical procedures.
They can leave school and enter employment - including full-time 40 hr week - and fully liable for tax/USC.
They can babysit.
Drive motorbikes up to 125cc
Drive a work vehicle including a JCB.
Drive a jet ski and motorboat.
Apply for a firearms certificate.
Get a tattoo or piercing.

I have to say, driving a tractor on the public highway, owning a firearm, consenting to a surgical procedure, and working a full-time job are all fairly adult in my book.




In Scotland and Wales they can vote.

We have one of the highest ages of consent in Europe, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, France and Greece are all 15 — the most common in the Union. The Germans and Italians have opted for a year lower at 14 while the British, Dutch, Portuguese and Belgians lie an equal distance the other side of the median, at 16.

It could be argued that some of those things (e.g. owning a firearm, driving a JCB, jetski, getting tattoo's) shouldn't be done by 16 year old bags of hormones (particulary testosterone) but that's another story.


My point is still this, what is the substantive difference between a 16 yr old deciding to change their identity and making any other major adult like decision like who to marry, for example? Surely if a child says that the source of their anguish is their gender identity then equally we should listen to a child that says the source of their anguish is the fact they they're not married to person X and let them marry person X and support them in that decision?


Shouldn't granting this level of autonomy and respect to a 16 yr old not automatically grant them all the rights, respect and autonomgy of an adult? If not, why not?

Bannasidhe

wildeside wrote: »

It could be argued that some of those things (e.g. owning a firearm, driving a JCB, jetski, getting tattoo's) shouldn't be done by 16 year old bags of hormones (particulary testosterone) but that's another story.


My point is still this, what is the substantive difference between a 16 yr old deciding to change their identity and making any other major adult like decision like who to marry, for example? Surely if a child says that the source of their anguish is their gender identity then equally we should listen to a child that says the source of their anguish is the fact they they're not married to person X and let them marry person X and support them in that decision?


Doesn't granting this level of autonomy and respect to a 16 yr old not automatically grant them all the rights, respect and autonomgy of an adult? If not, why not?

I honestly cannot answer what the thinking is behind this - all I know is that the suggestion came from FG and as part of the PfG it will be 'discussed'.

Just looking at what 16 year olds can legally do you have to admit some of that stuff is very adult so in some ways they are treated as adults and in others not.

Some of the age stuff looks very arbitrary - a 16 in Spain/Germany/UK can get married, but they would have to wait until they are 18 in Switzerland and Sweden.

A 16 year old can get married in Derry but not in Donegal.

If an 19 year old male and a 16 year female got legally married in Limavady and went to Bundoran for their honeymoon could the 19 year old could be arrested for statutory rape?

ceadaoin.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I honestly cannot answer what the thinking is behind this - all I know is that the suggestion came from FG and as part of the PfG it will be 'discussed'.

Just looking at what 16 year olds can legally do you have to admit some of that stuff is very adult so in some ways they are treated as adults and in others not.

Some of the age stuff looks very arbitrary - a 16 in Spain/Germany/UK can get married, but they would have to wait until they are 18 in Switzerland and Sweden.

A 16 year old can get married in Derry but not in Donegal.

If an 19 year old male and a 16 year female got legally married in Limavady and went to Bundoran for their honeymoon could the 19 year old could be arrested for statutory rape?

Do you honestly that a 16 year old has the mental capacity to consent to marriage though, now matter how mature or "in love" they think they are? And should this be allowed legally?

Germany raised the marriage age to 18 btw. England is 16 with parental consent. Spain was previously 14 before they raised it to 16, thats shocking tbh!

Fleetwoodmac

Little consideration appears to have been taken in terms of decision making and critical thinking from a neurological and developmental point of view, the marked absence in terms of clinicians on the review committee shows a flaw from the outset. it is well known and acknowledged that while a teenager can perform as well as an adult on say, standardised cognitive tests, when emotion comes into the equation, the decision making becomes heavily influenced by emotion and not logic. Adolescence is that crucial period where identity is explored, where mistakes are made and made again, where we tease out where we fit and where we don't. This is a crucial phase of development, borne from neurological and developmental research on frontal lobe (the decision making part of the brain) research. The issue with the age is there is considerable variation between that developmental stage in one 16 year old over another. That variability narrows somewhat as we get older.
Citing that a 16 year old can vote, etc etc is really irrelevant in this scenario. It really is imperative that we have clinicians working with teenagers, who are not swayed by societal or political ideology and remain true to the robust neurological and developmental research.

This article gives a useful critique in terms of Tavistocks experience and in the absence of such a facility in Ireland should be referenced.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjxnZDKmb7qAhXZVRUIHQ0RAM4QFjAAegQICBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fquillette.com%2F2020%2F01%2F17%2Fwhy-i-resigned-from-tavistock-trans-identified-children-need-therapy-not-just-affirmation-and-drugs%2F&usg=AOvVaw2f7zafXG6w_J6g6iI8990s

AndrewJRenko

Gruffalox wrote: »

Hmmm. The Sara Philips on the committee bit is an unexpected layer.

Unexpected because?

Calhoun wrote: »

Of course not right away Joey, has to be eased into bit by bit.

TomTomTim wrote: »

How confident are you? Can we bookmark this and you can write an apology and admit how wrong you were if it eventually happens? Or would you maybe be willing to make a bet about it? I'll stake a good chunk of money that you'll be wrong as usual; a state you must be well used to by now. After all, I've saved a fortune by dumping my rubbish near travellers, so I've plenty of spare money.

Ah, the old 'slippery slope' argument. Nice to see you again. It's been a while. I haven't seen you since you told us that we couldn't have marriage equality because people would want to marry their horse.

Good old scare tactics on some very sensitive matters - I suppose we should be grateful that you're not threatening fire and brimstone and eternal damnation.

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Its about exposing children to sexuality at an early age, a creeping, gradual sexualisation of kids. Then inevitably a lowering of the age of consent. A lowering the bar of what is considered Paedophilia.
In this clip we see Mr Tatchell asking who has the right to judge whether a 9 year old child was abused if the grown adult (in later years) says he enjoyed it?

https://twitter.com/RebBarrettNP/status/1280598710074986497




This is where they want to bring us. I don't care if any Homosexuals are uncomfortable with that, couldn't give a flying fcuk to be honest.

What the likes of Mr Tatchell consider to be Paedophilia (which he says he's against) is an adult molesting a child, as in the child does not want it to happen.
But in the eyes of Mr Tatchell, if the child consents well then thats not a problem in his eyes.

Why do people think they're planning on teaching consent classes in primary schools?
At that age there is no consent

Interesting Twitter account to quote there - is that Justin 'anti-divorce' Barrett's 2nd missus?

But anyway, given your concern for early sexualisation of children, wait till you hear about the strange ritual that involves dressing eight year old girls up as brides and parading them in front of men in embroidered gowns. You'd be against that sort of thing, right?

Bannasidhe

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Do you honestly that a 16 year old has the mental capacity to consent to marriage though, now matter how mature or "in love" they think they are? And should this be allowed legally?

Germany raised the marriage age to 18 btw. England is 16 with parental consent. Spain was previously 14 before they raised it to 16, thats shocking tbh!

I honestly think 20 year olds don't have the mental capacity to understand marriage but that's beside the point.
I'm not proposing anything, I just pointed out that even on this island 16 year olds can marry. Do 16 year olds in Armagh have a greater mental capacity than one's in Galway?

We will have to wait and see what emerges from the discussion within government to get a handle on where they are going, if anywhere, with this. Once I see what they Actually propose I'll decide whether or not I agree.
Until then it's an unknown so I'm not invested in it either way.

wildeside

Fleetwoodmac wrote: »

Little consideration appears to have been taken in terms of decision making and critical thinking from a neurological and developmental point of view, the marked absence in terms of clinicians on the review committee shows a flaw from the outset. it is well known and acknowledged that while a teenager can perform as well as an adult on say, standardised cognitive tests, when emotion comes into the equation, the decision making becomes heavily influenced by emotion and not logic. Adolescence is that crucial period where identity is explored, where mistakes are made and made again, where we tease out where we fit and where we don't. This is a crucial phase of development, borne from neurological and developmental research on frontal lobe (the decision making part of the brain) research. The issue with the age is there is considerable variation between that developmental stage in one 16 year old over another. That variability narrows somewhat as we get older.
Citing that a 16 year old can vote, etc etc is really irrelevant in this scenario. It really is imperative that we have clinicians working with teenagers, who are not swayed by societal or political ideology and remain true to the robust neurological and developmental research.

This article gives a useful critique in terms of Tavistocks experience and in the absence of such a facility in Ireland should be referenced.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjxnZDKmb7qAhXZVRUIHQ0RAM4QFjAAegQICBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fquillette.com%2F2020%2F01%2F17%2Fwhy-i-resigned-from-tavistock-trans-identified-children-need-therapy-not-just-affirmation-and-drugs%2F&usg=AOvVaw2f7zafXG6w_J6g6iI8990s

That linked article should be mandatory reading for anyone who even thinks about discussing this topic. Then again, if you're some morally superior virtue signalling 'ally' then how good you feel about yourself is way more important than facts, science or any damage your blind ideological thinking might inflict on other people.

amdublin

Hey OP, you really have a bee in your bonnet about O'Gorman don't you.

Gruffalux

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Unexpected because?

/quote]

Because you missed a deleted post where Sara was in a group of 5 presenters on the podium in 2018 at a side event discussion at Dublin Pride with Peter Tatchell.

AndrewJRenko

Gruffalox wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Unexpected because?

Because you missed a deleted post where Sara was in a group of 5 presenters on the podium in 2018 at a side event discussion at Dublin Pride with Peter Tatchell.

So anyone who's ever been in the same room as him is now tainted for life and can't be considered for any relevant position?

Gruffalux

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So anyone who's ever been in the same room as him is now tainted for life and can't be considered for any relevant position?

Sara was not just in the same room as him.

And yeah, I think he is a creep. I would not share a platform with him. Or anyone I think is that kind of a real creep, no matter if I shared different aims with them. Just would not be able to get past their previous.

Calhoun

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Ah, the old 'slippery slope' argument. Nice to see you again. It's been a while. I haven't seen you since you told us that we couldn't have marriage equality because people would want to marry their horse.

Good old scare tactics on some very sensitive matters - I suppose we should be grateful that you're not threatening fire and brimstone and eternal damnation.

Oh dear this coming from the poster linking a twitter post about how people are being "killed".

Nice touch comparing it to the same sex marriage, nice little strawman to try and confuse the argument. The difference is internationally we can see where the trans activism wants to go with it, the end goal is pretty evident.

Its pretty formulaic how these things work at this stage, needle away at them bit by bit before finally having a campaign about how people are being "killed" because of the lack of services.

political analyst

https://gript.ie/toibin-children-who-cant-vote-drive-or-drink-can-make-decision-to-changer-gender/?fbclid=IwAR3a9NvAaEajVxvmatNm2AjrvDjtZjqgkDgSWw1gBdVuVW4cm6lwsBBLvMA

Aontú Leader Peadar Tóibín TD has called on the government to allow children their childhood, and not drag children as young as 5 years old into adult gender politics.

“The new Children’s Minister Roderic O’Gorman seeks to change the law to allow for 16- and 17-year olds self-declare their gender possibly without parental consent. The Minister is also looking legalise the self-declaration of gender for children as young as 5 years old,” he said.

“The Minister is seeking to legalise what is a massive, complex, life altering decision for children who are too young to vote, drive, take an alcoholic drink or decide even to use a Sun Bed,” the Meath West Deputy said.

https://gript.ie/revealed-expert-advice-behind-kids-changing-gender/

The review group that gave the "expert advice" and set-up by Regina Doherty has no medical professional in it.

How can a government think it's OK to let anyone under 18 years self-declare gender - especially when people under 18 years are not allowed to vote or consume alcohol and those under 17 are not allowed to learn to drive motor vehicles?

PS: Whatever anyone thinks of Gript or Aontú, this is a concern that must not be brushed off.

Quantum Erasure

What's the current stance on gender reassignment surgery / hormone therapy / puberty blockers for under 18s?

Ten of Swords

Threads merged

oyvey

Home schooling is starting to look more and more necessary.

The_Brood

How did voters choose this direction?

Sir Oxman

Deleted User wrote: »

Makes sense, the civil rights movement is part of history classes. Can't see why significant events such as the Stonewall riots or closer to home, decriminalisation of homosexuality. They're significant cultural events.

I would not want any activist organisation to be part of any school curriculum.
Since the post was about part of the UK, I'd suggest the revisionist history of the gay movements beginnings at Stonewall 1969 (to facilitate the narrative now that T has always been integral and actually LED the poor, stupid gays and lesbians and bi's to liberation) promoted by 'official' orgs -> Stonewalluk + the myraid of other affiliated orgs, political figures and their parties, the bloody police(!) -> media (mainstream and not) -> onboard celebrities -> is a perfect example of why they should have no part in educating anyone from children to adults in history.

AndrewJRenko

Sir Oxman wrote: »

I would not want any activist organisation to be part of any school curriculum.
Since the post was about part of the UK, I'd suggest the revisionist history of the gay movements beginnings at Stonewall 1969 (to facilitate the narrative now that T has always been integral and actually LED the poor, stupid gays and lesbians and bi's to liberation) promoted by 'official' orgs -> Stonewalluk + the myraid of other affiliated orgs, political figures and their parties, the bloody police(!) -> media (mainstream and not) -> onboard celebrities -> is a perfect example of why they should have no part in educating anyone from children to adults in history.

That would include any organised religion, right? So we need to wrestle control of our schools back from the Catholic Church.

AndrewJRenko

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

What's the current stance on gender reassignment surgery / hormone therapy / puberty blockers for under 18s?

Dunno - what's the current stance on puberty blockers for precocious puberty?

drunkmonkey

Seemingly we've nobody to blame but ourselves for this situation after giving Emmet Stagg a free pass when he was caught in the Phoenix Park according to Justin Barrett.

Full Disclosure, never even heard of him until someone mentioned him here, still don't know if I'm after watching a d'Unbelievables sketch or this is real life.

Yellow_Fern

There is an explosion of girls who are being told and are telling others that they are really boys. It is a due to a peer contagion effect. There is a lot of evidence that this category has very regrets later in life.

wildeside

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That would include any organised religion, right? So we need to wrestle control of our schools back from the Catholic Church.

People knowingly send their kids into a school that has a religious foundation (or not). Parent's, even if they disagree, know the philosophy and can challenge and deal with many aspects they might have a problem with.

What parents do not knowingly do is send their kids to a school who's teachings are influenced by one or more radical political movements. They often do not know or understand the philosophy being espoused by such movements/groups and so are ill equipped to challenge it. It doesn't help that often these groups don't want to be challenged lest it out their philosophy as a radical ideology.

I'm a lefty and an atheist and at this point I would now actually consider sending my kids to a catholic school if it protected them from
the (willful?) ideological blindness on display from trans activists and the contempt they display for any countervailing narrative.


It's a case of which 'religion'/orthodoxy do I think would do the least damage to my kids and personally I don't think the answer is all that clear.

Dravokivich

wildeside wrote: »

People knowingly send their kids into a school that has a religious foundation (or not). Parent's, even if they disagree, know the philosophy and can challenge and deal with many aspects they might have a problem with.

What parents do not knowingly do is send their kids to a school who's teachings are influenced by one or more radical political movements. They often do not know or understand the philosophy being espoused by such movements/groups and so are ill equipped to challenge it. It doesn't help that often these groups don't want to be challenged lest it out their philosophy as a radical ideology.

I'm a lefty and an atheist and at this point I would now actually consider sending my kids to a catholic school if it protected them from
the (willful?) ideological blindness on display from trans activists and the contempt they display for any countervailing narrative.


It's a case of which 'religion'/orthodoxy do I think would do the least damage to my kids and personally I don't think the answer is all that clear.

What are you suggesting here?

Bannasidhe

Sir Oxman wrote: »

I would not want any activist organisation to be part of any school curriculum.
Since the post was about part of the UK, I'd suggest the revisionist history of the gay movements beginnings at Stonewall 1969 (to facilitate the narrative now that T has always been integral and actually LED the poor, stupid gays and lesbians and bi's to liberation) promoted by 'official' orgs -> Stonewalluk + the myraid of other affiliated orgs, political figures and their parties, the bloody police(!) -> media (mainstream and not) -> onboard celebrities -> is a perfect example of why they should have no part in educating anyone from children to adults in history.

The 'stupid gays and lesbians' thank you for your concern about attempts to do a spot of revisionism of our history and kindly ask you to stop doing so.

Rarely have I seen such agenda driven, biased, complete and utter BS in a post.

VillageIdiot71

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Again, this seems to me to be only the legal aspects. Not medical.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/children-under-16-could-legally-change-gender-under-new-proposals-from-lgbt-committee-1002933.html

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/new-law-in-republic-may-allow-kids-to-alter-gender-39252332.html

And, fine, at some level I can appreciate there's a difference between a law that says anyone can declare themselves to be a certain gender, and a law that says a person of a certain age can undergo life changing surgery.

But can the legal framework just float in the clouds like this? Does it not need to relate to real life, in some way? If a boy turns up demanding legal recognition as a girl, and the legal framework passively accepts that (subject to parental consent), is it a bit like curing the problem of childhood obesity by having a law that says fat children weigh less than they do (subject to parental consent to the recognition of the legally mandated lower weight).

Which all seems harmless and pointless, until the fat kid goes bungee jumping.

oyvey

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

I can see this being on the list for Roderic

https://twitter.com/lewisdandrews/status/1280195932831862785

Is it going to be a separate subject? Or it will be added to an existing subject?