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

LLMMLL

Bambi wrote: »

Indeed, weirdos on Twitter who live for victimhood just havent the time to document abuse

Fool yerself if you want, wont full anyone else with that.

Oh the weirdos on twitter are documenting their abuse alright. They even curate web pages to record it. Very strange.....

Gatling

But most of the aggression and name calling comes from one side , even on here name calling and labeling people who are then play the victim using the repot button but yet the discussion has been civil on one side ,
It's pretty obvious it's supposed to be an echo chamber discussion ,

ceadaoin.

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think someone saying Elliott page should have all of his holes filled with dicks is pretty specific personal abuse......

Awful stuff.The misogyny of that comment is striking and similar to what women regularly receive on twitter without penalty. Guess if you're a female you cant identify out of that.

And yes the other comment directed at trans people in general that you posted was also awful.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

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.

How odd that when you talk about women, the women who aren’t transgender are relegated to “otherwise” by you. By far the largest cohort of women (and the only ones who still face oppression and violence worldwide precisely because of their biological sex) are not even named. That’s like an article in the Guardian this week referring to “non-transgender girls”. It’s very revealing.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

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.

Gruffalux wrote: »

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.

Uh huh. Couldn’t be more transparent. It’s the whole faux-naif act. Every so often, there’s a pretty obvious attempt made to shut this thread/topic down (and the people involved think we’re all dopes and won’t notice). The tactics can differ but the intent is always obvious. Don’t fall for it, people. And look on it as a compliment. Things are getting said here that are making people uncomfortable. Good.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

How odd that when you talk about women, the women who aren’t transgender are relegated to “otherwise” by you. By far the largest cohort of women (and the only ones who still face oppression and violence worldwide precisely because of their biological sex) are not even named. That’s like an article in the Guardian this week referring to “non-transgender girls”. It’s very revealing.

Actually it’s a feature of language that comes about by people who object to the word “cis”. If someone considers trans women to be women and they don’t want to use the word “cis” (as many people who follow TERF ideology insist they do not use), then referring to cis women is very difficult.

They don’t want to say women or trans women as the “or” implies that trans women aren’t women. They don’t want to say “cis women” as they’re trying to engage with you and not use a word you don’t like.

It only leaves them with one other option. Saying trans women or non trans women. Or saying trans women or otherwise.

It’s not that they don’t value cis women (I’m perfectly happy to use that word). It’s that you don’t leave them many linguistic options to describe their opinions while engaging with you.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Uh huh. Couldn’t be more transparent. It’s the whole faux-naif act. Every so often, there’s a pretty obvious attempt made to shut this thread/topic down (and the people involved think we’re all dopes and won’t notice). The tactics can differ but the intent is always obvious. Don’t fall for it, people. And look on it as a compliment. Things are getting said here that are making people uncomfortable. Good.

It’s very conspiracy theoryish to think anybody is trying to get this thread closed down. If it hasn’t been closed by now I think we all know it’s not going anywhere.

km991148

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Uh huh. Couldn’t be more transparent. It’s the whole faux-naif act. Every so often, there’s a pretty obvious attempt made to shut this thread/topic down (and the people involved think we’re all dopes and won’t notice). The tactics can differ but the intent is always obvious. Don’t fall for it, people. And look on it as a compliment. Things are getting said here that are making people uncomfortable. Good.

One of those comments was directed at me. I don't know what I'm supposed to be feeling uncomfortable about, nor what conversation I'm trying to shut down tbh. I'd thank you not to throw such accusations at me (I've not even been commenting on this thread for s number of weeks).

Why do you feel attacking you or I'm trying to shut you down? If I have said something offensive or something you don't agree with, please either point it out and we can discuss (as has happened already, it's a discussion!) or report it and keep the thread on topic, but adding an extra layer of FUD isn't really helpful.

I'd also like to know why is making people uncomfortable 'good' - is that the goal to do so? Please explain (as without explanation, it could be assumed to be 'very revealing' indeed).

Edit: both were directed at me, so please, answers to the above would be appreciated as I don't particularly understand or want to framed in that light. If you can't answer I would ask that you withdraw your false accusation.

Questions open to those that thanked the post as well of course as I can only assume you share that opinion.

km991148

Gatling wrote: »

But most of the aggression and name calling comes from one side , even on here name calling and labeling people who are then play the victim using the repot button but yet the discussion has been civil on one side ,
It's pretty obvious it's supposed to be an echo chamber discussion ,

Yes, I agree completely. It's very difficult to have a discussion when you are being called a liar (for example) at every turn. It's almost like if you do not share the exact same opinion as a few vocal posters, then you are assumed to be the absolute epitome of the complete opposite in every regard. Full on super extremist TRA m that wants to abuse children before they can speak and take every right away from every woman. Even the very language used is being picked upon in very obvious attempts to frustrate and hinder discussion. With the assumption that they are bad actors at every turn.

Please don't see this as an attack but just simply look at some of the posts and see that not everyone (anyone even?) is out to shut conversation down or attack or even use name calling here.

Gruffalux

km991148 wrote: »

Is this something that personally impacts you or someone you know (Genuine question, if you don't want to answer, I understand)?

I am not saying that people shouldn't care about the individuals that have been affected in these cases. But it just seems that people are willing to go deep on all sorts of hypothetical individualised/isolated situations and extrapolate them out as if each of them are happening over and over (i.e. as generalisations).


If someone presents (at any age) as having gender identity issues and are encouraged to make some life long changes (which doesn't happen overnight btw) and then regret or discover the original solution wasn't the correct one, of course its a horribly devastating and tragic situation.
But really unless anyone has direct experience of this or has seen it close up, then I am sorry, but it just sounds like a bunch of fear mongering generalisations.

Your first post wondered if people had been affected personally and unless so it was just fear-mongering generalisations. People could not have valid, genuine opinions on a subject unless it had happened to them.

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?

2 months later you are wondering again why are people bothering to have any opinions on this subject - we are just arguing forevermore on the Internet.

So, yes, I do think you would prefer the subject was not discussed.
If I went to the football forum - a thing I cannot understand or hardly abide - and jumped into a main thread and said repeatedly has this stuff affected you personally, do any of you actually play for Ireland, what's your fitness level, or are we just here to argue sh!t forevermore on the Internet, I think I would be rightly called up for attempting to stop the football discussion on boards for frankly lame reasons.

km991148

Gruffalux wrote: »

Your first post wondered if people had been affected personally and unless so it was just fear-mongering generalisations. People could not have valid, genuine opinions on a subject unless it had happened to them.



2 months later you are wondering again why are people bothering to have any opinions on this subject - we are just arguing forevermore on the Internet.

So, yes, I do think you would prefer the subject was not discussed.
If I went to the football forum - a thing I cannot understand or hardly abide - and jumped into a main thread and said repeatedly has this stuff affected you personally, do any of you actually play for Ireland, what's your fitness level, or are we just here to argue sh!t forevermore on the Internet, I think I would be rightly called up for attempting to stop the football discussion on boards for frankly lame reasons.

Two months ago, which was discussed two months ago (and even an apology on my part)... Have you never said something and changed your mind? Or phrased something regrettably? There has been a lot of engagement and discussion since then, has that to be ignored? Conversation, by it's nature, evolves.

Then I commented yesterday because people were copy and pasting Twitter posts of insults at each other. I stand by that comment. That's not an attempt to stop discussion, but rather aim for something of a higher standard than the playground he said she said nonsense.

I'm happy to discuss anything, but I'd rather not waste my time on the trivial, which now includes this meta-discussion on my motivations. If you think I'm acting in bad faith or going off topic, use the report button. It's what it is there for (there has now been way more posts on my alleged attempts to stop discussion than my comments on the thread... If you don't want a discussion to go off topic... Then don't drag it off topic).


Edit: you also seem to agree with the assertion that it's good to make people uncomfortable. Care to elaborate on that?

km991148

If I state clearly that I do not want to shut down conversation and that I am genuinely interested in seeing discussion can this be accepted?

If any of us feel a topic is wondering down some rabbit hole, please report and not drag it off further. I won't take offence to that, it's how a discussion board should work.

@mods sorry if this crosses a line but I don't see any other way to continue?

Gruffalux

km991148 wrote: »

If I state clearly that I do not want to shut down conversation and that I am genuinely interested in seeing discussion can this be accepted?

If any of us feel a topic is wondering down some rabbit hole, please report and not drag it off further. I won't take offence to that, it's how a discussion board should work.

@mods sorry if this crosses a line but I don't see any other way to continue?

And yet you completely fail to address any posts on the substantive issues. Such as the solutions I offered recently. You glide past such posts.
Plus say you have no idea what gender theory ideology means in the context of the thread when it is obvious what people intend it to mean in their various different ways. You put it in quotes like you did child abuse. To imply it is made up. If you wish to read on the matter Judith Butler is useful and a more pop culture deconstructionist, as a passing example, with recent work would be Sophie Lewis who argues that birthing and family rearing is a form of labour that should be collectivised. But you can pick up what people mean by it by reading the thread. An example would be describing people who "defend biological reality" as hateful alt right bigots deserving of no political or media representation (cf Colm O Gorman). That is gender theory ideology.

km991148

Gruffalux wrote: »

And yet you completely fail to address any posts on the substantive issues. Such as the solutions I offered recently. You glide past such posts.
Plus say you have no idea what gender theory ideology means in the context of the thread when it is obvious what people intend it to mean in their various different ways. You put it in quotes like you did child abuse. To imply it is made up. If you wish to read on the matter Judith Butler is useful and a more pop culture deconstructionist, as a passing example, with recent work would be Sophie Lewis who argues that birthing and family rearing is a form of labour that should be collectivised. But you can pick up what people mean by it by reading the thread. An example would be describing people who "defend biological reality" as hateful alt right bigots deserving of no political or media representation (cf Colm O Gorman). That is gender theory ideology.

Not commenting on your posts doesn't mean I disagree. I acknowledged then with a thanks.

I don't think we can make assumptions on what gender theory ideology means. It probably means different things to different people and at a time where things are obviously getting heated, then sure being accurate is to be favoured? I don't want a feel for it, I want to understand what you mean, and understand what your assumptions are.

Incidentally, please help me out here, I can't find where I put child abuse in quotes? I know one poster did, and got pulled up on it. If I've done it, please make me aware of it.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

Not commenting on your posts doesn't mean I disagree. I acknowledged then with a thanks.

I don't think we can make assumptions on what gender theory ideology means. It probably means different things to different people and at a time where things are obviously getting heated, then sure being accurate is to be favoured? I don't want a feel for it, I want to understand what you mean, and understand what your assumptions are.

Incidentally, please help me out here, I can't find where I put child abuse in quotes? I know one poster did, and got pulled up on it. If I've done it, please make me aware of it.

But there you go, let's start on one of those 'substantive issues'.

Is it child abuse to force puberty blockers on all children expressing gender identity issues child abuse... Well yes, especially if all and forced are included.

Is it child abuse to deny all treatment, including puberty blockers to children expressing gender identity issues.. probably.

Are all usages of puberty blockers bad.. possiblity not/probably not.. but it would depend on a number of factors including the age of the child (a mature 15 year old or a very young 10 year old), the amount of psychology or psychiatry prescribed, the patients particular situation. All of which (as far am I aware) none of us are qualified to comment on.

Should questions be asked, absolutely. Medical science exits because of a system of scrutiny, but the science should be understood and ethically undertaken.

Should those involved (medicine and patients) be held accountable to extremists on either side of the debate? No, I don't think extreme views shouted from Twitter or the like should influence policy on medical science.

km991148

Gruffalux wrote: »

An example would be describing people who "defend biological reality" as hateful alt right bigots deserving of no political or media representation (cf Colm O Gorman). That is gender theory ideology.

And do we have many proponents of such ideology here? Or their counterpart 'alt right bigots'?

km991148

And talking about gliding over questions.. I am still seeking some understanding on why we want to make people feel uncomfortable.

RWCNT

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

How odd that when you talk about women, the women who aren’t transgender are relegated to “otherwise” by you. By far the largest cohort of women (and the only ones who still face oppression and violence worldwide precisely because of their biological sex) are not even named. That’s like an article in the Guardian this week referring to “non-transgender girls”. It’s very revealing.

I actually went through a few different wordings when writing that. The intention of that wording was to avoid responses of "Please don't use cis" (if I'd said cis or trans women) or "Trans women ARE women!" (if I'd said women and transwomen, which I think you would have preferred) and the done-to-death side arguments that generally follow both. I did wonder if someone going out of their way to look for an issue would pick those three words out of the post while ignoring the wider message, and I suppose that's you! Brilliant work.

Gatling wrote: »

But most of the aggression and name calling comes from one side , even on here name calling and labeling people who are then play the victim using the repot button but yet the discussion has been civil on one side ,
It's pretty obvious it's supposed to be an echo chamber discussion ,

You have to have weapons-grade blinkers on to think this assessment is even close to reality. Firstly, this thread largely IS an echo chamber discussion. If you wanted to divide posters up into a "Gender Critical" and "Non-Gender Critical" side then I could probably name all of the non-GC side from memory as they are so few and far between. Multiple posters on the GC side have been carded and threadbanned in both this thread and it's predecessors focused on JK Rowling and Sports due to an apparent inability to post in a constructive manner, not to mention the puerile garbage that has just been deleted outright. Of course this is all conveniently handwaved away as censorship and silencing of the GC position, conveniently ignoring that the vast majority of posters in the thread continue to voice GC opinions without sanction as they're capable of articulating themselves with the required level of civility.

Twitter is a cesspit of digusting statements from both sides. Examples of each have been shared in thread already. Any judgement on who's responsible for "most" of it or which side is "worse", besides being a complete waste of time, will also inevitably be hampered by the confirmation bias of the person doing the quantifying and muddied by their standards for what constitutes abuse anyway.

Gruffalux

km991148 wrote: »

But there you go, let's start on one of the issues mentioned.

Is it child abuse to force puberty blockers on all children expressing gender identity issues child abuse... Well yes, especially if all and forced are included.

Is it child abuse to deny all treatment, including puberty blockers to children expressing gender identity issues.. probably.


Are all usages of puberty blockers bad.. possiblity not/probably not.. but it would depend on a number of factors including the age of the child (a mature 15 year old or a very young 10 year old), the amount of psychology or psychiatry prescribed, the patients particular situation. All of which (as far am I aware) none of us are qualified to comment on.

Should questions be asked, absolutely. Medical science exits because of a system of scrutiny, but the science should be understood and ethically undertaken.

Should those involved (medicine and patients) be held accountable to extremists on either side of the debate? No, I don't think extreme views shouted from Twitter or the like should influence policy on medical science.

I agree to a large extent with most of that. Puberty blockers however would not be much good to a 15 year old. In the US dictors like that Irish one at LA paediatric gender hospital is doing govt sanctioned tests on children from 8 years old.
I think counselling is best, not pushing the suicide risk lie that is used to strong arm policy makers and parents, and waiting til the child has processed puberty and has full brain development. A child given puberty blockers does not experuence sexual maturing - which is a huge factor in resolving gender dysphoria. They are prepubescent while their peers nature even to the point of having stunted genitals. How can that possibly help a child?
The extremists are the ones who have pushed affirmation therapy and all the terrible harm it causes. The ones who have cried loudly for it to stop, from whatever platform, are correct on this issue and are not extremists. They are often parents or grand parents of gender dysphoric children.

Gruffalux

km991148 wrote: »

And talking about gliding over questions.. I am still seeking some understanding on why we want to make people feel uncomfortable.

I dont mind making people uncomfortable by them having to face biological reality.
Such as 25% of all miscarriages happen in public toilets, elderly women have to deal with their prolapses in public toilets, young girls have to clean up menstrual flooding in public toilets . People who want these spaces open to anyone who simply self identifies as female should be made uncomfortable by hearing the reality of why females need single sex protected spaces.

km991148

Gruffalux wrote: »

I dont mind making people uncomfortable by them having to face biological reality.
Such as 25% of all miscarriages happen in public toilets, elderly women have to deal with their prolapses in public toilets, young girls have to clean up menstrual flooding in public toilets . People who want these spaces open to anyone who simply self identifies as female should be made uncomfortable by hearing the reality of why females need single sex protected spaces.

Yes, but that's not what was implied in the post when it was mentioned, was it? I'm well aware of why people may feel uncomfortable when they feel their space is invaded, that wasn't even close to the topic. It was having conversation shut down based on some assumption that is what I wanted. Unless we are also assuming it's because I'm uncomfortable talking about the menstrual cycle, or other such business (we can say that if you like, but I'm pretty sure that's not what was meant - I guess user ODB can clarify).

When it comes to such topics, I have no issues, and I don't think there should be problems discussing them.

Like I said regarding 'gender theory ideology'.. it's best not to make assumptions. What may seem obvious to one, may not be to another.

CtevenSrowder

RWCNT wrote: »

snipped

Whilst I do think ODB overreacted on this one, you can always just say non-trans.

RWCNT

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Whilst I do think ODB overreacted on this one, you can always just say non-trans.

I'm fine with "non-trans" as well, though I had a hunch some wouldn't be. This hunch seems to be correct based on the reference to some Guardian article or other in the response. Oh well, you can't keep all the people happy all the time. I trust that most people know that I neither meant offence or am being a cultural marksman slyly trying to erase women through clever linguistics or some other very normal interpretation.

km991148

RWCNT wrote: »

I'm fine with "non-trans" as well, though I had a hunch some wouldn't be. This hunch seems to be correct based on the reference to some Guardian article or other in the response. Oh well, you can't keep all the people happy all the time. I trust that most people know that I neither meant offence or am being a cultural marksman slyly trying to erase women through clever linguistics or some other very normal interpretation.

I really hope the last few pages on this thread will lead to a lot less assumption (myself included) and a bit more understanding. Looking at most posts here, I don't get the impression of any bad actors or malevolence or any trickery.

Sometimes language is hard, but the intention behind it isn't necessarily bad.

Gatling

RWCNT wrote: »

You have to have weapons-grade blinkers on to think this assessment is even close to reality. Firstly, this thread largely IS an echo chamber discussion. If you wanted to divide posters up into a "Gender Critical" and "Non-Gender Critical" side then I could probably name all of the non-GC side from memory,

Of course this is all conveniently handwaved away as censorship and silencing of the GC position, conveniently ignoring that the vast majority of posters in the thread continue to voice GC opinions without sanction as they're capable of articulating themselves with the required level of civility.

It's more likely we've one side reporting posts and one side when report post's they seemed to be ignored ,As seen in feedback people claiming whats being posted and what's actually posted completely different ,

As I said multiple times one side Is weaponised were the victims ,it's ok for us to attack anyone who questions our ideology under the umbrella of some phobe or ist label but then cry persecution when they get Called out ,
And it's a cohort or male posters trying to tell us it's womens rights they fighting for ,
No they trying to dehuminse women and womens rights by attacking any woman who says this is wrong ,
They are calling for women to be sacked from their jobs or people be cancelled for not agreeing with their ideology .
That's trying to create an echo chamber , that's censorship and ,then claiming the far right and alt right have infiltrated various discussions as an excuse to close down the topic

Mic 1972

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?

These are truly disturbed people.
Changing gender will do nothing to help these people resolve their personal issues. Needless to say twitter will apply the usual double standards when it comes to banning unappropriated behavior

RandRuns

AMKC wrote: »

No it is not.

Transsexual is not the same as Transgender.

A Transgender person is a person born into the wrong body and assigned the wrong sex from birth.
They are not some social construct that someone can just decide either does or does not exist.

Apologies if this has been asked before, but based on the bolded part above, if that statement is true, shouldn't we have people who should have been born in the bodies of other races, people in other geographical locations, times, species etc?

How, exactly does this work? Is there a soul that is assigned to each body, that has gotten accidently mixed up, or is it like a computer programme that got copied to the wrong drive?

Sir Oxman

RandRuns wrote: »

Apologies if this has been asked before, but based on the bolded part above, if that statement is true, shouldn't we have people who should have been born in the bodies of other races, people in other geographical locations, times, species etc?

How, exactly does this work? Is there a soul that is assigned to each body, that has gotten accidently mixed up, or is it like a computer programme that got copied to the wrong drive?

The 'born in the wrong body' shtick was article of faith #1 until late last year, promoted by overreaching and distinctly dodgy orgs like MermaidsUK and StonewallUK (UK and Ireland are pretty much intertwined) until well, let me put it this way - shedding light on under-the-radar crazy theory is a great sanitiser.
No wonder they pushed 'no debate' like their theory depended on it or something.

suicide_circus

RandRuns wrote: »

How, exactly does this work?

It dosnt.

RandRuns

Sir Oxman wrote: »

The 'born in the wrong body' shtick was article of faith #1 until late last year, promoted by overreaching and distinctly dodgy orgs like MermaidsUK and StonewallUK (UK and Ireland are pretty much intertwined) until well, let me put it this way - shedding light on under-the-radar crazy theory is a great sanitiser.
No wonder they pushed 'no debate' like their theory depended on it or something.

So is the whole born into the wrong body thing gone now?

Pity, I would have found that interesting to persue in a metaphysical sense.

Utterly unbelievable, obviously, but interesting nonetheless. Like musing about how ghosts or time travel would work.