Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

Quantum Erasure

Omackeral wrote: »

Are we to infer from this that Page’s wife was in a lesbian relationship when marrying then Ellen but then straight when the divorce happened? How can someone changing their name make someone else’s orientation change?!

it doesn't, hence the divorce, I presume. Although it could be grounds for annulment also, not sure what the laws are, or if it makes a difference who is divorcing who...

Gruffalux

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

it doesn't, hence the divorce, I presume. Although it could be grounds for annulment also, not sure what the laws are, or if it makes a difference who is divorcing who...

Annulment is an interesting possibility. If one married a woman who later says they are a man can it be said one was married with a lack of consent due to misrepresentation?

Sir Oxman

20 minutes long - argues why extreme illogical activists (inc organisations) really, really, really need everybody else to adopt the word 'cis'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMG3T_euWO4

OMM 0000

Baggly wrote: »

Mod

Do yourselves a favour and read back over this thread before posting again.

I did. Your opening thread asks this question:

What is your opinion on gender identity?

My comment shows my opinion, and includes an example so there is context for my opinion.

If you look at my comment again, you'll see:

• I don't believe women who claim they're men are actual men.
• I do not think society should be playing along with their game.
• Sexuality should not be connected to gender.

Gruffalux

Just going to link to Abigail Shrier's Twitter page and not to the actual tweet of the email she got some hours ago from someone. Which she has screenshot and you can see after the pinned tweet on her feed if you look at her page.
There are some very very disturbed people on the right side of history.
https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier

Gatling

Sir Oxman wrote: »

20 minutes long - argues why extreme illogical activists (inc organisations) really, really, really need everybody else to adopt the word 'cis'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMG3T_euWO4

Some with a little sense but this will be labelled as anti something propaganda ,
It's nothing more than a twitter ideology with people jumping on the bandwagon to push it for nothing more than attention it garners ,cis why not keep it simple Women or woman .
As of the other story posted in the latest news breaking ,this was always going to happen , lesbian's marry then one claims to be a man , you then go from a gay woman to a straight woman based one half of the couple deciding they are a straight man ,or bi sexual , you can't be gay woman ,man and something while being a committed lesbian ,
It's nothing but game of attention for some people

Baggly

Gruffalux wrote: »

Just going to link to Abigail Shrier's Twitter page and not to the actual tweet of the email she got some hours ago from someone. Which she has screenshot and you can see after the pinned tweet on her feed if you look at her page.
There are some very very disturbed people on the right side of history.
https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier

Gatling wrote: »

Some with a little sense but this will be labelled as anti something propaganda ,
It's nothing more than a twitter ideology with people jumping on the bandwagon to push it for nothing more than attention it garners ,cis why not keep it simple Women or woman .
As of the other story posted in the latest news breaking ,this was always going to happen , lesbian's marry then one claims to be a man , you then go from a gay woman to a straight woman based one half of the couple deciding they are a straight man ,or bi sexual , you can't be gay woman ,man and something while being a committed lesbian ,
It's nothing but game of attention for some people

Mod

This is barely relevant to the topic of the thread. If you need to, please reread the OP.

Gruffalux

I really don't understand.
Abigail Shrier has written a book called Irreversible Damage which is very topical at the moment. It is about the captivating effect of gender identity ideology on especially young girls via social networks which is driving many to pursue affirmative gender treatment procedures which have devastating irreversible effects on their bodies.
She is presently on the interview circuit and has been interviewed by many prominent platforms. In response to that she is having severe abuse hurled at her publicly from anonymous trans activists.
I have written previously about the abuse that people get if they go public with their gender theory criticism and opinions, which is why many - including myself - feel they can only speak out anonymously. I have been told on this very thread that there is no threat to people speaking out.
Therefore I posted an example of a prominent publicly- identified person receiving terrible abuse for speaking out on gender identity ideology. I cannot see how that is not relevant to the discussion, especially as it contradicts earlier assertions by other posters that one ''has to go looking for'' the abuse and that it is not ''real life''. It is very much real life in that Abigail Shrier is a publicly identified person now subjected to death and rape threats for expressing her opinion.

I did not link directly in order not to be offensive. But it is wholly relevant to the wider context of the discussion.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

I really don't understand.
Abigail Shrier has written a book called Irreversible Damage which is very topical at the moment. It is about the captivating effect of gender identity ideology on especially young girls via social networks which is driving many to pursue affirmative gender treatment procedures which have devastating irreversible effects on their bodies.
She is presently on the interview circuit and has been interviewed by many prominent platforms. In response to that she is having severe abuse hurled at her publicly from anonymous trans activists.
I have written previously about the abuse that people get if they go public with their gender theory criticism and opinions, which is why many - including myself - feel they can only speak out anonymously. I have been told on this very thread that there is no threat to people speaking out.
Therefore I posted an example of a prominent publicly- identified person receiving terrible abuse for speaking out on gender identity ideology. I cannot see how that is not relevant to the discussion, especially as it contradicts earlier assertions by other posters that one ''has to go looking for'' the abuse and that it is not ''real life''. It is very much real life in that Abigail Shrier is a publicly identified person now subjected to death and rape threats for expressing her opinion.

I did not link directly in order not to be offensive. But it is wholly relevant to the wider context of the discussion.

Most likely sent by someone from mumsnet to generate controversy.

Vic_08

LLMMLL wrote: »

Most likely sent by someone from mumsnet to generate controversy.

Yeah, sure.

Because vicious threats of sexual violence against actual women they disagree with is so out of character from radical trans rights activists.

LLMMLL

Vic_08 wrote: »

Yeah, sure.

Because vicious threats of sexual violence against actual women they disagree with is so out of character from radical trans rights activists.

Yeah, trans people have never experienced threats against them......

TomTomTim

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yeah, trans people have never experienced threats against them......

How did you get that from that post? It doesn't even imply anything of the sort.

LLMMLL

TomTomTim wrote: »

How did you get that from that post? It doesn't even imply anything of the sort.

I didn’t claim the post said anything.

Trans people also face online abuse.

Vic_08

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yeah, trans people have never experienced threats against them......

So it's just payback then? Or are you just using that as a handy deflect to avoid straight out defending the undefensible?

Go on then, have the guts to stand up for what you are clearly unwilling to denounce; what is the justification for any threats of violence, rape, murder against any one, let alone an identifiable individual?

Has anybody disagreeing with you here at any point justified personal attacks against trans people? I know I haven't and wouldn't.

LLMMLL

Vic_08 wrote: »

So it's just payback then? Or are you just using that as a handy deflect to avoid straight out defending the undefensible?

Go on then, have the guts to stand up for what you are clearly unwilling to denounce; what is the justification for any threats of violence, rape, murder against any one, let alone an identifiable individual?

Has anybody disagreeing with you here at any point justified personal attacks against trans people? I know I haven't and wouldn't.

Where did I say it was justified?

Abuse against Shrier is unacceptable just as abuse against trans people is.

But both happen and either they both are indicative of a problem on both sides of the debate, or both are confined to abusive people and no indication of the general tone of the debate.

Gatling

A bit like the cancellation culture ,or calls to strip people of public and political representation because they don't agree with certain ideologies

AllForIt

One thing Abigail Shrier is right about is that trans activists are particulary aggressive.

Just like our own Queen of Ireland
https://twitter.com/PantiBliss/status/1352691951418675200

And our neighbour
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1353042627667648512

The latter being a reference to Suzanne Moore liking C4's "It's a Sin" drama series.

And isn't it odd that the most agresssive ones are trans allys.

Oh, and some are making a big deal of the "whole generation" comment. She didn't say everyone in the young generation (god forbid) is presenting as trans. All she was doing was emphasizing the spike in cases. Think that's a case of nit-picking in lieu of anything else to validly complain about. And isn't the Queen of Ireland and Owen Jones promoting themsleves as well, if no book.

46 Long

LLMMLL wrote: »

Where did I say it was justified?

Abuse against Shrier is unacceptable just as abuse against trans people is.

But both happen and either they both are indicative of a problem on both sides of the debate, or both are confined to abusive people and no indication of the general tone of the debate.

Not indicative of the general tone of the debate, eh? Shall we take a look at some of the abuse meted out to another women for questioning trans ideology?

km991148

I haven't commented on this thread for some time, but it looks like it's reached a new low.

Now we are so far away from the topics at hand there is arguments over who is meanest on Twitter.. this represents what exactly?

What are people trying to prove exactly? Is adding to the noise of a few extremists (or arseholes) helping anything? Or we all just happy to argue about sh!t on the internet forevermore?

Gatling

km991148 wrote: »

Or we all just happy to argue about sh!t on the internet forevermore?

Welcome to boards , what were you expecting

km991148

Gatling wrote: »

Welcome to boards , what were you expecting

Yeah I know! Sorry, my mistake.. I was hoping for some level of consensus, common understanding, getting to learn about a new topic and why it's so controversial (despite my sometimes misguided comments, crap sense if humour, I am interested in trying to understand topics from all sides).

Apologies, I'll disappear for a bit :pac:

Gatling

km991148 wrote: »

Yeah I know! Sorry, my mistake.. I was hoping for some level of consensus, common understanding, getting to learn about a new topic and why it's so controversial (despite my sometimes misguided comments, crap sense if humour, I am interested in trying to understand topics from all sides).

Apologies, I'll disappear for a bit :pac:

Why go , speak up and be heard ,sense of humour in all once lines are drawn it's hard to break from it

Gruffalux

km991148 wrote: »

I haven't commented on this thread for some time, but it looks like it's reached a new low.

Now we are so far away from the topics at hand there is arguments over who is meanest on Twitter.. this represents what exactly?

What are people trying to prove exactly? Is adding to the noise of a few extremists (or arseholes) helping anything? Or we all just happy to argue about sh!t on the internet forevermore?

What has been at a low for quite some time is the whole social discourse on this topic - when Colm O Gorman the CEO of Amnesty Ireland can endorse the removal of political and media representation from people (who are largely women) who argue in favour of biological reality, then no wonder assholes feel empowered to insult and threaten people.

The discourse has long been appalling. JK Rowling was subjected to non-stop death and rape threats. I remember reading through her threads where she was complimenting children on the beautiful drawings they had sent in of her recent children's book and the whole place was absolutely flooded with savage sexual threats and insults.

To pretend squeamishness at a new low is disingenuous. Magdalene Berns, a well-known gender theory critic, was viciously insulted and threatened right up to the time she died in her 20s of a brain tumour because she dared to question the TRA narrative as a lesbian. Her death was celebrated publicly by these people.

So this ''new low'' claim is really a continuation of your earlier contributions when you wondered what was there to say on this matter. You wanted it stopped from the start. I have been following this story for years as I think it is very important and the level of vile abuse is constant and astonishing. And that is before one even considers the terrible harm that has been caused to children and traumatised young teens. I am not going to back down at false claims of ''new lows''.

LLMMLL

46 Long wrote: »

Not indicative of the general tone of the debate, eh? Shall we take a look at some of the abuse meted out to another women for questioning trans ideology?

How is selecting a group of abusive tweets indicating anything about the general tone of the debate?

km991148

Gruffalux wrote: »

What has been at a low for quite some time is the whole social discourse on this topic - when Colm O Gorman the CEO of Amnesty Ireland can endorse the removal of political and media representation from people (who are largely women) who argue in favour of biological reality, then no wonder assholes feel empowered to insult and threaten people.

The discourse has long been appalling. JK Rowling was subjected to non-stop death and rape threats. I remember reading through her threads where she was complimenting children on the beautiful drawings they had sent in of her recent children's book and the whole place was absolutely flooded with savage sexual threats and insults.

To pretend squeamishness at a new low is disingenuous. Magdalene Berns, a well-known gender theory critic, was viciously insulted and threatened right up to the time she died in her 20s of a brain tumour because she dared to question the TRA narrative as a lesbian. Her death was celebrated publicly by these people.

So this ''new low'' claim is really a continuation of your earlier contributions when you wondered what was there to say on this matter. You wanted it stopped from the start. I have been following this story for years as I think it is very important and the level of vile abuse is constant and astonishing. And that is before one even considers the terrible harm that has been caused to children and traumatised young teens. I am not going to back down at false claims of ''new lows''.

People are bickering over arseholes on Twitter (Edit to clarify - The bickering is the new low - the comments themselves are of course absolutely disgusting and I don't see what gain there is getting into a one-upmanship battle of who can write the most vile things on Twitter). From what I see this thread is all about the extreme cases and not much about anything in between. That does not invalidate those extreme cases, but it does make conversation a little more difficult.

Incidentally, I don't want anything stopped (Why would I? - I do genuinely seek some understanding on the topic). Also we have discussed before my entry to this thread and my sincere apology for the offense caused by my assumptions (but I guess that is not accepted).

EDIT - One more to add - You raise a serious point RE Amnesty - but I am more interested in trying to understand why people feel "Empowered to insult and threaten". This a very complex and emotive subject that obviously deeply impacts a lot of people. Copy and pasting Tweets wont really do much to further any debate or understanding. That's why I have mostly kept back from this thread as it really does seem to be quite circular (yes, I know, good morning welcome to boards etc..).

Gruffalux

km991148 wrote: »

People are bickering over arseholes on Twitter. From what I see this thread is all about the extreme cases and not much about anything in between. That does not invalidate those extreme cases, but it does make conversation a little more difficult.

Incidentally, I don't want anything stopped (Why would I? - I do genuinely seek some understanding on the topic). Also we have discussed before my entry to this thread and my sincere apology for the offense caused by my assumptions (but I guess that is not accepted).

Recently I explained why I believe the idea that twitter is not ''real life'' is false. It is part of the modern public square where people seek to bring influence to bear. It also has emotional effect and impact. If a person is threatened on twitter with rape or death it is still shocking to that person, and I think would or at least should be viewed by police as a crime. Especially when it is to a person who is named.

I found it horrible that Abigail Shrier was threatened but she has claimed to experience it regularly. In conjunction with that she had her book temporarily removed from the main supermarket chain in the US because of two complaints on Twitter.

It is horrible and frankly disgusting and makes me very uncomfortable to see theses threats and insults, but that does not mean it is not real.
If it is only extreme assholes, how come there are so very many of them? One would imagine these should be very occasional, very sad, very sick people - but the evidence appears bizarrely otherwise.

That in itself makes it an unusual and very pertinent facet of the gender identity debate. Why? Why does this subject especially attract such dreadful expression? Why do people feel permitted even entitled to speak this way to people with whom they disagree? Is there some kind of specific narcissistic rage that is an undercurrent in this area? What is going on? And why ignore or suppress the reality of it? In other areas of identity politics disagreement one does not see this highly sexualised vicious level of attack.

Sir Oxman

Tavistock, Irish kids either sent here or treated/assessed in Ireland by these people, found 'inadequate', health speak for performing badly.

"CQC deputy chief inspector of hospitals Kevin Cleary said his team continued to monitor the trust "extremely closely" and inspected the service again because "we were extremely clear that there were improvements needed in providing person-centred care, capacity and consent, safe care and treatment, and governance"
Furthermore, it was not possible to clearly understand why clinical decisions had been made.
"After reviewing 35 care records, the CQC found there was "no clearly defined assessment process" and "many records did not demonstrate good practice".
The records also appeared to be "insufficient" in considering the needs of young people with autism spectrum disorders.
In a sample of 22 records, the CQC found more than half mentioned autistic spectrum disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but "records did not demonstrate consideration of the relationship between autistic spectrum disorder and gender dysphoria".
Significant variation in the clinical approach of different staff members was also noted. Assessments of young people ranged from "two or three sessions" in some cases to over 25, or even more than 50."

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55723250

Fingers crossed the affirmation-led (only??) theory used by this crowd is coming to an end.
"The Tavistock and Portman Trust also plan to recruit “a range of clinical and operational experts from outside the service, and in most cases from outside the Trust to increase our capacity to manage and deliver change at pace.
This current job advert to work in GIDS highlights that job will see applicant offering psychological treatment and therapy “for issues relating to a range of mental health conditions.”
https://twitter.com/hannahsbee/status/1353986641136939008

RWCNT

Gruffalux wrote: »

To pretend squeamishness at a new low is disingenuous. Magdalene Berns, a well-known gender theory critic, was viciously insulted and threatened right up to the time she died in her 20s of a brain tumour because she dared to question the TRA narrative as a lesbian. Her death was celebrated publicly by these people.

Just because she dared to question the TRA narrative? God that's terrible, I mean if she was just making her points in a civil and reasonable manner then...wait, hang on, do you mean this Magdalene Berns?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOyrKSyWAAE-nJn.jpg

What's disingenuous is to pretend that either side of this debate has a monopoly on gutter-level discourse.


With that said, I really hope this societal discussion can become much more civil and soon. I'm actually quite fearful that the tensions that seem evident through online discourse may result in real life violence at some point, whether it's against a journalist considered a "TERF" or some doctor at the Tavistock in retaliation for "child abuse". As if the violence faced by women, trans or otherwise, around the world isn't enough to worry about.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

That in itself makes it an unusual and very pertinent facet of the gender identity debate. Why? Why does this subject especially attract such dreadful expression? Why do people feel permitted even entitled to speak this way to people with whom they disagree? Is there some kind of specific narcissistic rage that is an undercurrent in this area? What is going on? And why ignore or suppress the reality of it? In other areas of identity politics disagreement one does not see this highly sexualised vicious level of attack.

Vicious attacks have always been part of the trans debate. Trans people are constantly viciously attacked.

Gruffalux

RWCNT wrote: »

Just because she dared to question the TRA narrative? God that's terrible, I mean if she was just making her points in a civil and reasonable manner then...wait, hang on, do you mean this Magdalene Berns?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOyrKSyWAAE-nJn.jpg

What's disingenuous is to pretend that either side of this debate has a monopoly on gutter-level discourse.


With that said, I really hope this societal discussion can become much more civil and soon. I'm actually quite fearful that the tensions that seem evident through online discourse may result in real life violence at some point, whether it's against a journalist considered a "TERF" or some doctor at the Tavistock in retaliation for "child abuse". As if the violence faced by women, trans or otherwise, around the world isn't enough to worry about.

I never saw that or anything like it before from Magdalene and I think it was very wrong to write like that. She should never have written that. And i condemn it.

There has already been violence. A woman was punched in the face and knocked flat in a park in the UK.
I don't know why you put child abuse in quotes - it is terrible what has been done. If they were getting other irreversible damage for any other condition I would not out child abuse in quote marks.