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

km991148

Gruffalux wrote: »

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.

It seems that way, but you cannot possibly deduce that from Twitter. How many people quietly disagree with (in this case JK, but could be anything) but don't want her dead or sexually assaulted and killed or anything else horrible - How many trans people just want to get on with their lives? How many of them are actually represented by (again an example from this thread) people allegedly lying to prisons and (actually) committing horrible crimes against women. How many trans people (MtF) want to interfere with womens rights, or take anything away - we don't know because they are generally just quietly getting on with it.

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.

Again, its hard to say from a small sample size of what mainly looks like kids on Twitter (Looking at the imagery posted above). There could be all sorts of reasons, but I suspect (and I cannot verify) its a lot of immaturity, expressed by young people who happen to be more tech enabled. It could also be representative of the fact a lot of these people (as pointed out in the puberty blocker debate) are suffering from other trauma and underlying conditions, which means they haven't grown up in a particularly healthy environment and therefore don't have the skills or ability to express themselves in a less abusive way (this does not excuse vile remarks, just trying to understand).


One thing for sure - when I see someone raging on the internet on a particular issue, I don't assume they are representative of the entire issue. The more they rage the more I see someone troubled.

RWCNT

Gruffalux wrote: »

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.

Quick one first - I've edited my post so the huge image with offensive language is hidden behind the URL, maybe you'd like to edit the quote as well, just for the benefit of anyone reading in work etc. Edit: Ah, you beat me to it, good stuff.

I'm glad you condemn it. I wasn't aware of this incident you're referring to, that's awful - only strengthens my feeling that a bucket of water needs to be thrown on this somehow. I'm not sure if people themselves can really be trusted to not be awful to one another, particularly on anonymous online forums. Twitter, from my personal experiences on it, is a poorly moderated hellscape. Maybe cleaning that up to some extent could be a start. I received a death threat myself on it not long ago and I've barely got 100 followers.

Gruffalux

km991148 wrote: »

It seems that way, but you cannot possibly deduce that from Twitter. How many people quietly disagree with (in this case JK, but could be anything) but don't want her dead or sexually assaulted and killed or anything else horrible - How many trans people just want to get on with their lives? How many of them are actually represented by (again an example from this thread) people allegedly lying to prisons and (actually) committing horrible crimes against women. How many trans people (MtF) want to interfere with womens rights, or take anything away - we don't know because they are generally just quietly getting on with it.




Again, its hard to say from a small sample size of what mainly looks like kids on Twitter.. Looking at the imagery posted above, there could bee all sorts of reasons, but I suspect (and I cannot verify) but its a lot of immaturity, expressed by young people who happen to be more tech enabled. It could also be representative of the fact a lot of these people (as pointed out in the puberty blocker debate) are suffering from other trauma and underlying conditions, which means they haven't grown up in a particularly healthy environment and therefore don't have the skills or ability to express themselves in a less abusive way (this does not excuse vile remarks, just trying to understand).


One thing for sure - when I see someone raging on the internet on a particular issue, I don't assume they are representative of the entire issue. The more they rage the more I see someone troubled.

I don't follow and read any Trans activists online but I follow and read a good many transgender people so I am well aware they feel themselves terribly misrepresented by the public debate. They simply do not agree with the direction it has gone.
That debate however is not just on Twitter. Organisations like Mermaids and Stonewall and TENI here have had influence on school curricula. TENI after all supported and promoted the letter seeking to disenfranchise those who argue against gender theory ideology. These people act in the real world.

One very prominent promoter of radical trans activism in the public domain has been Rachel McKinnon aka Veronica Ivy who has put their views into practice by taking sports achievements in female competitions, in spite of them being fully male bodied. They also publicly asked minors to reach out to them privately online and become part of their glitter family. I am sure you have heard of them - they are a well known activist. Their life partner has recently been arrested for soliciting a minor online. McKinnon wished women who disagreed with them would die in a grease fire. They are 38 years old.

Gruffalux

RWCNT wrote: »

Quick one first - I've edited my post so the huge image with offensive language is hidden behind the URL, maybe you'd like to edit the quote as well, just for the benefit of anyone reading in work etc. Edit: Ah, you beat me to it, good stuff.

I'm glad you condemn it. I wasn't aware of this incident you're referring to, that's awful - only strengthens my feeling that a bucket of water needs to be thrown on this somehow. I'm not sure if people themselves can really be trusted to not be awful to one another, particularly on anonymous online forums. Twitter, from my personal experiences on it, is a poorly moderated hellscape. Maybe cleaning that up to some extent could be a start. I received a death threat myself on it not long ago and I've barely got 100 followers.

You would have to talk to @Jack about that. He permits all manner of vile abuse, rape threats, death threats, death to TERFs slurs, child porn, talk of paedophilia, fetishes, kinks, etc etc, but if a person disagrees with the mantra that any man who self identifies as a woman is a woman, they will be banned.

CtevenSrowder

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:

You will never get a consensus when people simply deny biological reality and refuse to accept a male cannot become a female and as such a man cannot become a women. When one starts from such an absurdist position, were there is no ontological basis for a discussion to happen, no real debate can occur.

If you are interested in knowing why it's controversial, you could maybe start with researching the controversy surrounding Tavistock and Abigail Shrier.

Also if you've something to say then say it, don't just disappear!

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

I don't follow and read any Trans activists online but I follow and read a good many transgender people so I am well aware they feel themselves terribly misrepresented by the public debate. They simply do not agree with the direction it has gone.
That debate however is not just on Twitter. Organisations like Mermaids and Stonewall and TENI here have had influence on school curricula. TENI after all supported and promoted the letter seeking to disenfranchise those who argue against gender theory ideology. These people act in the real world.

One very prominent promoter of radical trans activism in the public domain has been Rachel McKinnon aka Veronica Ivy who has put their views into practice by taking sports achievements in female competitions, in spite of them being fully male bodied. They also publicly asked minors to reach out to them privately online and become part of their glitter family. I am sure you have heard of them - they are a well known activist. Their life partner has recently been arrested for soliciting a minor online. McKinnon wished women who disagreed with them would die in a grease fire. They are 38 years old.

What has this one individual got to do with anything? There are nasty trans people. There are nasty cis people. There are nasty people who follow the TERF ideology. There are nasty TRAs.

We could all easily pick out one nasty person from each of these groupings and list their sins. Most of us don’t though as we know it’s completely irrelevant.

km991148

Gruffalux wrote: »

One very prominent promoter of radical trans activism in the public domain has been Rachel McKinnon aka Veronica Ivy who has put their views into practice by taking sports achievements in female competitions, in spite of them being fully male bodied. They also publicly asked minors to reach out to them privately online and become part of their glitter family. I am sure you have heard of them - they are a well known activist. Their life partner has recently been arrested for soliciting a minor online. McKinnon wished women who disagreed with them would die in a grease fire. They are 38 years old.

I don't actually know who you are talking about but you are talking about "Radical" trans activism. If I am following you correctly tho you are using the example of an alleged sexual predator as an example of someone representative of trans people. I mean - what better example of someone who clearly has issues?

The extremists on any debate tend to attract.. well extremists? That in itself is a problem, but I don't really think their views should be given much as much credence (which is what you are saying in regarding some of the organisations) when it comes to a healthier conversation on a topic.

Gruffalux

Rachel McKinnon is very well known.
This is also what they posted when hearing Magdalene Berns had died of a brain tumour

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

You would have to talk to @Jack about that. He permits all manner of vile abuse, rape threats, death threats, death to TERFs slurs, child porn, talk of paedophilia, fetishes, kinks, etc etc, but if a person disagrees with the mantra that any man who self identifies as a woman is a woman, they will be banned.

What? Twitter is full of people disagreeing ”that any man who self identifies as a woman is a woman” and they don’t get banned. This is just made up.

km991148

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You will never get a consensus when people simply deny biological reality and refuse to accept a male cannot become a female and as such a man cannot become a women. When one starts from such an absurdist position, were there is no ontological basis for a discussion to happen, no real debate can occur.

If you are interested in knowing why it's controversial, you could maybe start with researching the controversy surrounding Tavistock and Abigail Shrier.

Also if you've something to say then say it, don't just disappear!

I am well aware of the issues around both of those topics. But I find it hard to discuss when people want to simplify it to something over simplistic like "people are just wanting to deny biological reality". It's far more complex and the ones who believe it is that simple just keep repeating the same points over and over. That's why I kept away for a while, it's head wrecking.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Rachel McKinnon is very well known.
This is also what they posted when hearing Magdalene Berns had died of a brain tumour

She is one person. What relevance does her nasty posting have to this debate?

RWCNT

Gruffalux wrote: »

You would have to talk to @Jack about that. He permits all manner of vile abuse, rape threats, death threats, death to TERFs slurs, child porn, talk of paedophilia, fetishes, kinks, etc etc, but if a person disagrees with the mantra that any man who self identifies as a woman is a woman, they will be banned.

I believe the things you list are theoretically "banned" - I had a search out of grim curiosity for a few of the accounts pictured in the JK Rowling abuse megamix and many were suspended. However, the striking thing about it to me is that half of the moderating work seems to be passed on to it's users via the "Report" function, which then takes time to go through a process. If offending material is up there for any amount of time then damage has already been done to some extent. You'd think in this age of algorithms and automation there would be away of filtering this kind of content for approval. I'm what the kids call a "Boomer" though and wouldn't be so clued up on how it all works. I'd value input from people that do.

Your last sentence doesn't seem to be correct. There are loads of self professed-Gender Critical people on twitter.

km991148

Gruffalux wrote: »

Rachel McKinnon is very well known.
This is also what they posted when hearing Magdalene Berns had died of a brain tumour

All I am seeing here is "There are dickheads on the internet" - very little to do with gender identity in modern Ireland, but it seems we are determined to keep digging for examples of who is worst. That to me stops any serious conversation or understanding of any of the other issue that have been raised on this thread.

km991148

RWCNT wrote: »

I believe the things you list are theoretically "banned" - I had a search out of grim curiosity for a few of the accounts pictured in the JK Rowling abuse megamix and many were suspended. However, the striking thing about it to me is that half of the moderating work seems to be passed on to it's users via the "Report" function, which then takes time to go through a process. If offending material is up there for any amount of time then damage has already been done to some extent. You'd think in this age of algorithms and automation there would be away of filtering this kind of content for approval. I'm what the kids call a "Boomer" though and wouldn't be so clued up on how it all works. I'd value input from people that do.

Your last sentence doesn't seem to be correct. There are loads of self professed-Gender Critical people on twitter.

Side debate - Twitter don't care about moderation, if they were to moderate more content they would loose money. Their entire business model indirectly hinges on promoting controversy. i.e. they need people to see sh!t - and what gets seen the most - controversy of any sort.


But thats a topic for another thread - this one has enough going on :pac:


Edit - actually - its directly related to what we are discussing. Many aspect of our society seem to get "over represented" due to these systems. Trans issues, arguments over Brexit (both sides), Trumps politics for example and millions of other things - and a lot of it is directly caused by a lack of need to moderate..

Gruffalux

km991148 wrote: »

I don't actually know who you are talking about but you are talking about "Radical" trans activism. If I am following you correctly tho you are using the example of an alleged sexual predator as an example of someone representative of trans people. I mean - what better example of someone who clearly has issues?

The extremists on any debate tend to attract.. well extremists? That in itself is a problem, but I don't really think their views should be given much as much credence (which is what you are saying in regarding some of the organisations) when it comes to a healthier conversation on a topic.

Well if you can find a way to rid the whole debate arena of all the dreadful people who have infiltrated it, like the rape threateners, like the 600 academics who sign letters to have Dr Kathleen Stock stripped of her OBE, like mcKinnon and their threats, like all the terrible organisations that have wholly pushed affirmation therapy for traumatised children, like the educators pushing gender confusion on small kids, like the people who disguise their contempt for women under the uniform of a new ''rights'' movement, calling them old and worn out etc, like the people who have brought in laws as in the US which will destroy girls and women's sport, and so on and so forth ad infinitim, let me know and then I will gladly take off the battle armour.
But given the abuse that can be meted out even here with persistent name calling such as ''TERF'' etc, etc I will stay in striking stance for the moment until I see it is not required.

Gruffalux

km991148 wrote: »

All I am seeing here is "There are dickheads on the internet" - very little to do with gender identity in modern Ireland, but it seems we are determined to keep digging for examples of who is worst. That to me stops any serious conversation or understanding of any of the other issue that have been raised on this thread.

Rcahel Mc Kinnon is brought onto national TV to offer their opinion on the subject. They are not just a dickhead on the internet.
I don't know what serious point of view you bring besides transparently trying to shut down conversation. If you want my understanding or contributions I have covered many aspects of this whole debate in detail from my point of view over hundreds of posts and you can read them if you want to engage.

km991148

Gruffalux wrote: »

Well if you can find a way to rid the whole debate arena of all the dreadful people who have infiltrated it, like the rape threateners, like the 600 academics who sign letters to have Dr Kathleen Stock stripped of her OBE, like mcKinnon and their threats, like all the terrible organisations that have wholly pushed affirmation therapy for traumatised children, like the educators pushing gender confusion on small kids, like the people who disguise their contempt for women under the uniform of a new ''rights'' movement, calling them old and worn out etc, like the people who have brought in laws as in the US which will destroy girls and women's sport, and so on and so forth ad infinitim, let me know and then I will gladly take off the battle armour.
But given the abuse that can be meted out even here with persistent name calling such as ''TERF'' etc, etc I will stay in striking stance for the moment until I see it is not required.

That's a lot of issues blended together there, but ultimately it comes down to nuclear war style politics and two wrongs don't make a right.

At some point someone has got to make space for healthier debate, otherwise it truly is a race to the bottom.

Gruffalux

km991148 wrote: »

That's a lot of issues blended together there, but ultimately it comes down to nuclear war style politics and two wrongs don't make a right.

At some point someone has got to make space for healthier debate, otherwise it truly is a race to the bottom.

There has been lots of various kinds of debate on here, on multiple complex aspects of the subject, over a very long time and on many different threads. You are jumping in now gung ho to attempt to apply one narrow frame in time to the debate and claim it all falls within that frame and that, frankly, is completely false representation.
And not without purpose.
If you actually wish to engage on the substantive issues then have at it.

CtevenSrowder

km991148 wrote: »

I am well aware of the issues around both of those topics. But I find it hard to discuss when people want to simplify it to something over simplistic like "people are just wanting to deny biological reality". It's far more complex and the ones who believe it is that simple just keep repeating the same points over and over. That's why I kept away for a while, it's head wrecking.

The fact that a man cannot be a woman is quite simple. It is not 'over-simplistic'. What layers of complexities are there to that statement?

km991148

Gruffalux wrote: »

Rcahel Mc Kinnon is brought onto national TV to offer their opinion on the subject. They are not just a dickhead on the internet.
I don't know what serious point of view you bring besides transparently trying to shut down conversation. If you want my understanding or contributions I have covered many aspects of this whole debate in detail from my point of view over hundreds of posts and you can read them if you want to engage.

I'm sorry - I have genuinely never heard of them.. I don't watch national television.

I am not trying to shut down conversation at all - and I would ask that you stop repeating that. I would love to get into some of the finer points mentioned on this thread, but it gets drowned out with typical responses about "All trans people are mental" (or some variation on gender based around genitals), or disproportionate amount of time given to extreme points such as some bad actors in the prison system or elite athletes and sport or people being needlessly vile or aggressive on the internet.

What solutions have been offered? What is the answer to understanding what issues are caused by trans people (or societies attitude toward trans) and why are people threatened by them (the issues)? What are reasonable expectations to have around what are "female" spaces and what that really means.

Even with the extreme cases - I don't see anyone discussing what should be done to stop the few absolutely disgusting acts committed by those abusing the system. Or what can be done to protect and or help children in the system who are struggling with some sort of internal crises related to their gender and/or sexuality.

Posting links to twitter or news articles showing how "wrong" these people are doesn't count much towards a conversation - not without bringing some solutions to the table.

km991148

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The fact that a man cannot be a woman is quite simple. It is not 'over-simplistic'. What layers of complexities are there to that statement?

Ok then - so there is no issue - no such thing as trans and therefore no need for a thread on gender identity?

It's an insanely complex (and little understood) issue touching all areas of psychology (and probably biology as well) and if you cannot even allow room to think about that then what else can we talk about?

RWCNT

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The fact that a man cannot be a woman is quite simple. It is not 'over-simplistic'. What layers of complexities are there to that statement?

By the looks of it you're going for a live rendition of exactly what km is referring to. A quick look at your posting history shows you've been discussing this topic for just over a year. Is this really the extent of understanding you've gained of what one side of it is saying? If so, that's really not a very good reflection on you.

CtevenSrowder

km991148 wrote: »

Ok then - so there is no issue - no such thing as trans and therefore no need for a thread on gender identity?

It's an insanely complex (and little understood) issue touching all areas of psychology (and probably biology as well) and if you cannot even allow room to think about that then what else can we talk about?

Ofcourse trans is a thing. Trans being a thing doesn't change the fact that a male cannot be a female though.

CtevenSrowder

RWCNT wrote: »

By the looks of it you're going for a live rendition of exactly what km is referring to. A quick look at your posting history shows you've been discussing this topic for just over a year. Is this really the extent of understanding you've gained of what one side of it is saying? If so, that's really not a very good reflection on you.

It's actually even longer, as I'm on my second account. See post above. The issues surrounding the trans debates on boards have at times centred around other topics such as self-id, the problem of high level sports, women's spaces amongst other things.

I'm aware of the complexities involved in the above issues.. However the point I am talking about is quite simple.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gruffalux wrote: »

Rcahel Mc Kinnon is brought onto national TV to offer their opinion on the subject. They are not just a dickhead on the internet.
I don't know what serious point of view you bring besides transparently trying to shut down conversation. If you want my understanding or contributions I have covered many aspects of this whole debate in detail from my point of view over hundreds of posts and you can read them if you want to engage.

That doesn;t make you a good or knowlegeble person - it just means that the network wants someone to bak up theeri opnion and she agrees with them.

What are her credentials and qualifications that justify her as somoene who knows what she's talking about?

km991148

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ofcourse trans is a thing. Trans being a thing doesn't change the fact that a male cannot be a female though.

Define either. Are we talking about genital sex? Chromosomes? Both? or femininity and masculinity? What about masculine biological women? What about transsexuals, are they never to be called women? What does it mater anyway - i.e. if there is a man living in your street and you found out one day they were born a girl, what's that got to do with anything really?

I mean - you keep repeating that "A man cannot be a woman" - but you don't seem to add much more than that? So I am not sure what I am supposed to engage with? You hold that opinion, fair enough - but we live in a society that does have:

feminine men, transsexuals, masculine women, men who want to be women (even if it contradicts their physical biology) and on top of that we also have system that try to accommodate that (That are sometimes problematic, such as Self ID), people who abuse the systems, people suffering from other metal conditions that result in them getting caught up with gender related issues, people who feel threatened by the some or all of the above, and many, many other complex situations - hence why I said you cannot simplify it all to one statement about men not being women or something.

ingalway

km991148 wrote: »

That's a lot of issues blended together there, but ultimately it comes down to nuclear war style politics and two wrongs don't make a right.

At some point someone has got to make space for healthier debate, otherwise it truly is a race to the bottom.

I think/hope that most people know the right from wrong when we are told;

• That biological sex does not exist.
• That men can sign a form and magically become a woman. No medical or psychological assessment needed - a simple self declaration on an A4 form.
• That trans women ARE women in exactly the same way as all biological women. Even though sex does not exist - keep up bigots!
• That trans identifying males, who have undergone absolutely no transition - medical or hormonal, are fully entitled to enter female spaces with women and young girls - toilets, showers, dorms, hospital wards, prisons.
• That trans identifying males who have gone through a male puberty are perfectly safe to compete against females in all sports.
• That Eddie Izzard is a woman and Elliot Page is a man because they say so and everyone must agree to that.
• That drugs that block a natural puberty are desirable and safe.
• That children are born in the wrong body.
• That lesbians are transphobic bigoted TERFs for not accepting that biological males can be a lesbian and that there is no such thing as a lady penis.

I'd be interested in what space you can find here that leads to a healthier debate.

Gruffalux

km991148 wrote: »

I'm sorry - I have genuinely never heard of them.. I don't watch national television.

I am not trying to shut down conversation at all - and I would ask that you stop repeating that. I would love to get into some of the finer points mentioned on this thread, but it gets drowned out with typical responses about "All trans people are mental" (or some variation on gender based around genitals), or disproportionate amount of time given to extreme points such as some bad actors in the prison system or elite athletes and sport or people being needlessly vile or aggressive on the internet.

What solutions have been offered? What is the answer to understanding what issues are caused by trans people (or societies attitude toward trans) and why are people threatened by them? What are reasonable expectations to have around what are "female" spaces and what that really means.

Even with the extreme cases - I don't see anyone discussing what should be done to stop the few absolutely disgusting acts committed by those abusing the system. Or what can be done to protect and or help children in the system who are struggling with some sort of internal crises related to their gender and/or sexuality.

Posting links to twitter or news articles showing how "wrong" these people are doesn't count much towards a conversation - not without bringing some solutions to the table.

I have offered lots of solutions where rights conflict.

Third spaces. That is a big one. Neutral spaces where everyones privacy, desires and rights are protected.

Recognising that reality and biology persist regardless of ideological tenets. Language has meaning. Sex based reality cannot be erased to be kind. Mothers breastfeed. Women bleed. Fathers sire. A penis is a male organ.

Counselling for children.
Waiting til the brain matures before radical physical harm is caused to a developing body.

Recognition that homosexuality is sex based attraction.

Recognising that where rights conflict one group does not have to acquiesce, there can be parallel accommodations eg right to sex based privacies and at the same time equal rights for trans.

Right to choose eg a same sex gynaecologist or strip searcher etc. Right to be recorded as the gender one desires.

Stopping gender theory ideology which is a deconstructionist philosophy from dominating policies or invading education.

Genital preference is real and valid and normal.

Adults can change their bodies however they wish. They are deserving of protection, funding, health services, all equal human rights.

There are huge degrees of commitment in the transgender world. Those who feel a bit gender non binary and whimsically change. Those who cross dtess as a sexual paraphilia. Those with crippling gender dysphoria who need compassion and medical help. Those who have made huge and painful changes to adjust their gender presentation. They do not all deserve equal access to intimate sex based spaces. Women have always accommodated transsexual women in their spaces and always will I hope - I do not believe we must be compelled to do the same to every male who self identifies as some variation under the trans umbrella.

Gruffalux

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That doesn;t make you a good or knowlegeble person - it just means that the network wants someone to bak up theeri opnion and she agrees with them.

What are her credentials and qualifications that justify her as somoene who knows what she's talking about?

They are a Professor of Philosophy and a taker of international female cycling awards.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gruffalux wrote: »

They are a Professor of Philosophy and a taker of international female cycling awards.

Neither of which qualifies her to talk about moral ehtics and who is and is not good or should or should not deserve to die.