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

TomTomTim

Mic 1972 wrote: »

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

That's the biggest issue, with or without being trans, many of these people aren't mentally well. It's a big taboo to even point it out, but it must be done.

TomTomTim

RandRuns wrote: »

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.

I'm not even sure. I was watching the Night Stalker the other night and Zoey Tur popped up. The last time I seen Zoey she was identifying as a woman, yet in the documentary she was presenting herself as a man, even though her name is Zoey. It's beyond confusing.

Gruffalux

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.

Natal or biological woman if an extra word is needed, or just woman, does me. Non trans is kind of silly, like would you say oh there goes a non trans woman...

Gruffalux

RandRuns wrote: »

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.

:pac: True, it could have been great.

RandRuns

TomTomTim wrote: »

I'm not even sure. I was watching the Night Stalker the other night and Zoey Tur popped up. The last time I seen Zoey she was identifying as a woman, yet in the documentary she was presenting herself as a man, even though her name is Zoey. It's beyond confusing.

Never heard of that person. I'm confused enough by the whole Ellen/Elliot Page thing.

Gatling

Gruffalux wrote: »

Natal or biological woman if an extra word is needed, or just woman, does me. Non trans is kind of silly, like would you say oh there goes a non trans woman...

Imagine that so simple

Women ,men , boys and girls ,

Non trans ,cis and non cis women why because a small cohort want to label anyone as to single them out , imagine claiming you have always called women cis or non cis .

I've 99 genders but a woman's ain't one

TomTomTim

RandRuns wrote: »

Never heard of that person. I'm confused enough by the whole Ellen/Elliot Page thing.

I know her purely from this incident

RandRuns

TomTomTim wrote: »

I know her purely from this incident

Jaysus. Great jawline though.

conorhal

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.

'Born in the wrong body' and adherence to ID Pol leads to some very strange pretzel thinking.
If you want to really see it's proponent's stutter, ask them to explain how a 'brain can be biologically female and a person is in the wrong body', but a vagina is not determinate of being female.
The whole 'born in the wrong body' is Schrodinger's biological facts. Being trans is both a biological reality from birth or an identity you can adopt depending on what's being argued about.

Gruffalux

Gatling wrote: »

Imagine that so simple

Women ,men , boys and girls ,

Non trans ,cis and non cis women why because a small cohort want to label anyone as to single them out , imagine claiming you have always called women cis or non cis .

I've 99 genders but a woman's ain't one

We do not refer to everyone who is not schizophrenic as non schizophrenic or everyone who has not got haemochromatosis as non haemochromatosis people, or people who have not been to Timbuktu as Non travelers to Timbuktu, or short people as non tall people, or people who have not had Covid as the blessed sanctified...oh hang on, we do do that!

Gatling

conorhal wrote: »

'Born in the wrong body' and and adherence to ID Pol leads to some very strange pretzel thinking.
If you what to really see it's proponent's stutter, ask them to explain how a 'brain can be biologically female', but a vagina is not.

But a penis and testicles can be a vagina as long as you say it is ,

km991148

Gatling wrote: »

Imagine that so simple

Women ,men , boys and girls ,

Non trans ,cis and non cis women why because a small cohort want to label anyone as to single them out , imagine claiming you have always called women cis or non cis .

I've 99 genders but a woman's ain't one

But this is a thread about gender identity, context is sometimes required, funny comments aside (although I now have an earworm, thanks!!).

km991148

Nice to see we've reached the dick jokes part of the discussion at least.

And I'm accused of not taking this thread seriously. Ah well suppose it's all one big laugh isn't it?

God help anyone struggling with their gender identity reading this thread or looking for a serious viewpoint on understanding what issues are present. There are some answers in here, but you need to dig deep.

Gatling

km991148 wrote: »

Nice to see we've reached the dick jokes part of the discussion at least.

What joke

km991148

Gatling wrote: »

What joke

I took your post above as mockery, a form of humour. Did I get that wrong as well?

Gatling

km991148 wrote: »

I took your post above as mockery, a form of humour. Did I get that wrong as well?

It's not a joke ,it's being claimed as by self identifying women that there penis is a vagina because they put lady in front of it as in lady penis = a vagina .
Science , medicine , biology says no .

Akesh

km991148 wrote: »

Nice to see we've reached the dick jokes part of the discussion at least.

And I'm accused of not taking this thread seriously. Ah well suppose it's all one big laugh isn't it?

God help anyone struggling with their gender identity reading this thread or looking for a serious viewpoint on understanding what issues are present. There are some answers in here, but you need to dig deep.

People don't have an issue with a person's right to self-identify. The problem for the majority are those who are trying get exclusive legal privileges' based solely on their current identity.

The argument for additional legal rights is based on the fact that gender is merely a social construct but there is a serious lack of realisation in the transgender community that if gender is a social construct then so too is transgenderism.

km991148

Gatling wrote: »

It's not a joke ,it's being claimed as by self identifying women that there penis is a vagina because they put lady in front of it as in lady penis = a vagina .
Science , medicine , biology says no .

I don't think people literally think their "lady penis" is literally an actual vagina, do you?

I'm also not sure what point you want to make here regarding what other people label their genitals. That's why it comes across as juvenile mockery (to me it sounds like that, please clarify and I will stand corrected).

Gruffalux

km991148 wrote: »

Nice to see we've reached the dick jokes part of the discussion at least.

And I'm accused of not taking this thread seriously. Ah well suppose it's all one big laugh isn't it?

God help anyone struggling with their gender identity reading this thread or looking for a serious viewpoint on understanding what issues are present. There are some answers in here, but you need to dig deep.

So now the reason there should not be a thread is because people who struggle with their gender identity are being let down by it?
I took a quick look at the front page of current affairs as is now.
Internal Abuse in Green party - God help Green TDs.
Views on Multiculturalism - God help immigrants
NIMBYS complaining about Housing Crises - God help NIMBYs and those with no houses
Mother and Baby Homes - God help all of those affected in any way
Donald Trump and Joe Biden threads - God help us all
Dee Forbes banging a drum - God help Dee Forbes whoever she is
Northern Ireland a Failure - God help the Nordies
Will Britain piss off and Brexit - God help the British and incontinent people
The consequences of buying fish - God help fish, fishermen and mer-people everywhere

I mean...ya know. That's the nature of things.

The subject is current. The subject is eminently suitable for discussion. The subject will be discussed and aught to be discussed. You won't like some angles of the discussion, or avenues it goes down, or the points raised or not raised, but that is life.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

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.

I know, right? Christ, imagine if people only ever cared about things that affect them directly? Nothing would ever change. Guess I shouldn’t have voted Yes to marriage equality, I’m straight. Nothing to do with me. :rolleyes: (well, in the interest of honesty, I didn’t get to vote in that referendum as I was focusing on not dying and not being in severe pain on that particular day. But I would have voted yes).

Probably shouldn’t have voted in favour of the legalisation of abortion either. I’ll never have one myself so who cares, right?

People thinking that somebody needs personal experience of something to care about it either haven’t thought about it at all or are hopelessly self-absorbed.

km991148

Akesh wrote: »

People don't have an issue with a person's right to self-identify. The problem for the majority are those who are trying get exclusive legal privileges' based solely on their current identity.

The argument for additional legal rights is based on the fact that gender is merely a social construct but there is a serious lack of realisation in the transgender community that if gender is a social construct then so too is transgenderism.

I think people do have a problem with self ID (I would be of the opinion there dues seem to be some problems with the system that may need to addressed, the concept doesn't seem that bad).

I'm not sure if we can make that statement generally about the transgender community because a lot of what has been posted here is from Twitter or a few disproportionately vocal groups that form only a subset of that community.

Gatling

km991148 wrote: »

I don't think people literally think their "lady penis" is literally an actual vagina,

Yes ,yes they do which then makes them a woman ,a man can have a vagina just by saying it .
People take this seriously ,and if you challenge it your a far right bigot , transpobic and woman hater

km991148

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I know, right? Christ, imagine if people only ever cared about things that affect them directly? Nothing would ever change. Guess I shouldn’t have voted Yes to marriage equality, I’m straight. Nothing to do with me. :rolleyes: (well, in the interest of honesty, I didn’t get to vote in that referendum as I was focusing on not dying and not being in severe pain on that particular day. But I would have voted yes).

Probably shouldn’t have voted in favour of the legalisation of abortion either. I’ll never have one myself so who cares, right?

People thinking that somebody needs personal experience of something to care about it either haven’t thought about it at all or are hopelessly self-absorbed.

Lol.. I was curious about a person's background, I didn't say anything about it stopping them from an opinion. If I remember correctly tho, I think In that post something did smack of attacking for the sake of it. But hey don't let me stop you taking something out if context several months ago if it helps you make a point!


Incidentally, care to answer why you seem to want to take delight in making people uncomfortable? And why that is 'good'?

Gruffalux

km991148 wrote: »

I think people do have a problem with self ID (I would be of the opinion there dues seem to be some problems with the system that may need to addressed, the concept doesn't seem that bad).

I'm not sure if we can make that statement generally about the transgender community because a lot of what has been posted here is from Twitter or a few disproportionately vocal groups that form only a subset of that community.

Okay you do seem to have opinions that would not be acceptable to those seeking unqualified ''trans rights''.
Since you want straight-forward discussion I have a straight question.

My recall of all the swimming pool complexes I have been to is that the ladies showering area is an open plan space with those buttons you whack that give you a great shower for 30 seconds and then you have to whack them again for more. Everyone is in a line in their togs, groaning and squealing and lathering.

Do you think it is right that a fully male-bodied adult person who identifies as a woman should be in that line in those showers with girls and women from all ages, toddlers to young girls and teens to women and elderly ladies?

km991148

Gatling wrote: »

Yes ,yes they do which then makes them a woman ,a man can have a vagina just by saying it .
People take this seriously ,and if you challenge it your a far right bigot , transpobic and woman hater

I really don't think any of that is true. Sure a person who has male genitals can identify as female, but I don't think anyone claims to have a literal vagina.

It really is simplifying a topic down to parody.

Gatling

km991148 wrote: »

I really don't think any of that is true.

Well your wrong .

Omackeral

km991148 wrote: »

I don't think people literally think their "lady penis" is literally an actual vagina, do you?

It’s honestly hard to tell. Many say that people with a penis are actual women. Where do you draw the line? Is everything open to interpretation?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

RWCNT wrote: »

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.

So your solution was to not even name us? We’re just “otherwise”. THAT’S better? Women and transgender women. That’s all you need to say. If the sloganeering says “transgender women are women!” why would that be offensive? That slogan already acknowledges the difference.

And yes, I will point out utter dreck when I see it. Thank you. You’re going for condescension there but I’m very glad to highlight the nonsense.

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 as they are so few and far between.

I’d love for more people to get involved. However, most of our questions go unanswered. People run away when they can’t give a response. There’s not much to be done with that.

Now, you can posture loftily about our questions not being answered because people won’t stoop to that. But lots of us HAVEN’T been threadbanned and have only been given minor cards or none at all. So we’re doing something right. Many of us have made good points and that’s the usually the point where people opposing us scarper. That’s not our problem. Why don’t they respond? If they have such a strong position, why do they flee? Weird, huh?

Also, you suggest that the only reason we are escaping sanction is because we have remained civil. Sneaky.

km991148

Gruffalux wrote: »

Okay you do seem to have opinions that would not be acceptable to those seeking unqualified ''trans rights''.
Since you want straight-forward discussion I have a straight question.

My recall of all the swimming pool complexes I have been to is that the ladies showering area is an open plan space with those buttons you whack that give you a great shower for 30 seconds and then you have to whack them again for more. Everyone is in a line in their togs, groaning and squealing and lathering.

Do you think it is right that a fully male-bodied adult person who identifies as a woman should be in that line in those showers with girls and women from all ages, toddlers to young girls and teens to women and elderly ladies?

I haven't been in a swimming pool where it has been separate showers for over 30 years. Additionally everyone is fully clothed in these scenarios.

But it's a tricky question all right, and there is just enough reality about it to cause pause for thought. It really depends on the person. It's easy to say 'man'. If it's someone identifying as female and is respectful then I am tempted to say fair enough (and I expect the appropriate pitchforks to come out too). Equally I understand your earlier point about potentially sensitive scenarios involved a heavier than expected bleed or other situations, but I would assume (probably incorrectly) that this is less likely having a quick shower after a swim.
If it's a man who is not actually identifying as female at all, that's different all together.

I am really not sure there is as big an issue in this scenario as some may assume (happy for the corrections to come, thick and fast).

One thing for sure, it was suggested earlier in this thread that this sort of scenario would give rise to some kind of underhand seedy sexual element. I don't buy that angle at all.

km991148

Gatling wrote: »

Well your wrong .

Often, yes.

Also "you're" wrong too :pac: