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

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

From your post it was obvious you don't or didn't know .

I perfectly well know about and how and why you no

How do you make that out?

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How do you make that out?

The whole just shoved up statement ..


Pretty obvious you had no idea ,but a lot of men don't know alot about nothing to be shamed of ,some men just happened to know more .

Gatling

Actually if all women's getting a smear are examined and samples taking while using a speculum ,
Why would they effect self identifying women who identify as men ,
There is no physical differences

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

The whole just shoved up statement ..


Pretty o

Ahh right, my use of language, that’s fair enough. I’ll keep it in mind the next time a woman tells me she doesn’t want to go for a smear test because “they shove a thing like a pliers up your gooch!” Far more important apparently to focus on the fact that she isn’t using the correct terminology, completely overlooking an attempt to convey the point that her last experience was incredibly painful for her and she would rather not repeat the experience in spite of knowing the risk of developing cancer. All in her head of course, in your opinion.

Unlike the language police, I don’t get too hung up on whether or not someone is using the correct terminology, I’ll still understand them perfectly.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ll keep it in mind the next time a woman tells me she doesn’t want to go for a smear test because “they shove a thing like a pliers up your gooch!”

Nothing is shoved up or into .

This is what causes irrational fear , people claiming something was just rammed in without any consideration for the woman,
Add several generations of women being told anything touching you below the neck was dirty and a mortal sin.

Some women have even claimed they had involuntary orgasms during exams

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

The reason why woman cannot be referred to as cis to supposedly correspond to trans is that it attempts to set up a falsity. Falsity is not ignorance - it is purposeful opposition to truth. It is deceit. The use of cis is an intentional ideological device that I believe is subversive. To reason and more broadly as a political tool.

The device attempts to prove or insist that the single indivisible category of woman can be subdivided into subcategories. Those purported sub categories are actually male and female though ideologues do not want to even admit that much because it echoes the reality of sex.

Woman cannot be subdivided as an ontological category. Woman means an adult female of the human species, female being irrefutably that sex which produces large gametes.

This ideological device to divide the category of woman into cis and trans, or trans and non trans, or any other political manoeuvre, cannot be permitted out of an excess of kindness or political correctness. Simply because it is false.

We are a civilisation that has moved past faith-based irrational beliefs and we seek scientific rigour. Personally I am a helpless metaphysicist by emotional nature but my reason still cannot and will not jettison proven fact. It is an odd combination, and everyone has their struggles , but no matter what I will never be able to deny empirical reality and embrace politically-motivated ideology.

For these reasons I refer to woman and trans woman. Both are equal as human beings. But different.

If someone really struggles and needs to somehow separate woman from trans woman I will accept natal woman because it eases their fret and most importantly does not function as an ideological device to subdivide the single category of woman.

All the above applies to man equally.

People divide the categories of men and women up all the time. Short women, tall women, blonde women, brunette women, strong men, weak men, men with blue eyes etc.

Of course the categories can be subdivided.

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

She's a woman .

The thing your trying to reduce to non existent to suit a cohort of men who are a subset of men who self identifies as women .

Typical male approach

I get that she’s a woman. But her tragic medical circumstances did not arise out of anything to do with trans people. Unless she did not understand the HSE medical literature which is the only way trans issues could have influenced her circumstances.

ingalway

LLMMLL wrote: »

People divide the categories of men and women up all the time. Short women, tall women, blonde women, brunette women, strong men, weak men, men with blue eyes etc.

Of course the categories can be subdivided.

Short women, tall women, blonde women, brunette women = All biological women, not a subset of women.
Strong men, weak men, men with blue eyes etc.= All biological men, not a subset of men.
Trans women = all biological men.
Trans men = all biological women.
Gender identity can be anything you like.

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is just clutching at straws. If a woman doesn’t know she has a cervix, it’s unlikely she would happen upon the HSE page about cervical cancer. I couldn’t even manage it from google without considerable effort, and if I weren’t searching for the terms in English, I wouldn’t come across it at all, because my regional settings are in my first language! That’s notwithstanding the many thousands and thousands of websites there are in any number of languages for women whose first language is not English.

It’s fair to say that a small minority of women will be unaware of their cervix, not unusual at all that people generally have a poor education in biology, but the idea of women not being able to understand what is being referred to when they read the HSE entry on cervical cancer as it was written then?

You have a really low opinion of women that you imagine they’re that stupid.

In a recent study, only 44 percent of women were able to correctly identify the cervix:
https://integrisok.com/resources/on-your-health/2019/may/everything-you-need-to-know-about-your-cervix

"...not unusual at all that people generally have a poor education in biology"
Oh, the irony.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

I get that she’s a woman

It's was a cowardly attack on her because she's a woman

Gatling

ingalway wrote: »

In a recent study, only 44 percent of women were able to correctly identify the cervix:
https://integrisok.com/resources/on-your-health/2019/may/everything-you-need-to-know-about-your-cervix

"...not unusual at all that people generally have a poor education in biology"
Oh, the irony.

There was a case in the US where a obgyn (obstetrician gynecologist) who had a smear and found it uncomfortable realised that most of the training was done on medical dummy's and cadavers , rather than on living breathing women ,
She began getting the training regime changed to only doing exam on living women but also on themselves as in they were all examined by others obgyn's in training they were able to get not only valuable training ,but they could listen to each other concerns and give tips make it easier on women having intimate examinations.

I had a catheter fitter by a doctor who learnt how to do it in a text book , seriously painful experience but you can't learn medical exams or intrusive exams just reading a text book

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

In a recent study, only 44 percent of women were able to correctly identify the cervix:
https://integrisok.com/resources/on-your-health/2019/may/everything-you-need-to-know-about-your-cervix

"...not unusual at all that people generally have a poor education in biology"
Oh, the irony.

What irony? You even quoted the link in my post which supports the link in your post suggesting that there are a significant proportion of women who have a poor education in biology. Or is it that you’re suggesting my understanding of biology is poor?

Here’s the thing - an understanding of biology isn’t necessary for anyone to explain their feelings in their own words. Might take a bit of effort on your part to understand them, but you can do it if you really, really, want to, without expecting that they should have a PhD in biology in order to be worthy of your consideration.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

There was a case in the US where a obgyn (obstetrician gynecologist) who had a smear and found it uncomfortable realised that most of the training was done on medical dummy's and cadavers , rather than on living breathing women ,
She began getting the training regime changed to only doing exam on living women but also on themselves as in they were all examined by others obgyn's in training they were able to get not only valuable training ,but they could listen to each other concerns and give tips make it easier on women having intimate examinations.

I had a catheter fitter by a doctor who learnt how to do it in a text book , seriously painful experience but you can't learn medical exams or intrusive exams just reading a text book

Would that not demonstrate to you the importance of physicians listening to their patients rather than dismissing their concerns as irrational and all the rest of it?

I’ve had catheters fitted too a few times, and it’s true that experiences will vary. I wouldn’t say it was incredibly painful for me personally, but I can certainly understand how for a lot of people it is, and I wouldn’t dismiss their concerns as irrational or suggest that because they’re not using the correct terminology, they don’t know what they’re talking about when their point is that their previous experience was enough to turn them off the idea even if it means a risk of developing cancer. That’s not just someone else telling them a story, it’s them telling their story of their experience.

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What irony? You even quoted the link in my post which supports the link in your post suggesting that there are a significant proportion of women who have a poor education in biology. Or is it that you’re suggesting my understanding of biology is poor?

Here’s the thing - an understanding of biology isn’t necessary for anyone to explain their feelings in their own words. Might take a bit of effort on your part to understand them, but you can do it if you really, really, want to, without expecting that they should have a PhD in biology in order to be worthy of your consideration.

What on earth have feelings got to do with biology?

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

It's was a cowardly attack on her because she's a woman

Where was she attacked? Can you quote a post in which you think she was attacked?

LLMMLL

ingalway wrote: »

What on earth have feelings got to do with biology?

All feelings have a biological basis. So there’s that.

LLMMLL

ingalway wrote: »

Short women, tall women, blonde women, brunette women = All biological women, not a subset of women.
Strong men, weak men, men with blue eyes etc.= All biological men, not a subset of men.
Trans women = all biological men.
Trans men = all biological women.
Gender identity can be anything you like.

The above makes no sense.

You’re saying since short women are biological women they’re not a subset of women?

Do you know what the word subset means?

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn’t say it was incredibly painful for me personally, but I can certainly understand how for a lot of people it is, and I wouldn’t dismiss their concerns as irrational or suggest that because they’re not using the correct terminology,

I ended up with needing my ballder repaired oh he relieved the bladder build it straight into my abdomen , rather than bottle .
But yes irrational fears is exactly what it's passed off as , from Gp's dentist , psychology ,to cardiac and oncology they say the exact same thing , people ignore pain , bleeding , chest pain and other symptoms due to irrational fear is blamed ,
There is no physical differences between a woman and a transman they both have to have smears and both have to be examined using a speculum , there's currently no real alternative in Irish hospitals and there is a lot worse than a speculum women can be examined with

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

What on earth have feelings got to do with biology?

I can’t understand why you would ask that question when I specifically said that an understanding of biology isn’t necessary for anyone to explain their feelings in their own words. The point I was making is that a person doesn’t actually need an education in biology to express their feelings, such as the feeling of not being female or male, etc.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Do you know what the word subset means?

Clear they are saying transwoman are a male subset and transmen are female subset as has been pointed out from the start

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

I ended up with needing my ballder repaired oh he relieved the bladder build it straight into my abdomen , rather than bottle .
But yes irrational fears is exactly what it's passed off as , from Gp's dentist , psychology ,to cardiac and oncology they say the exact same thing , people ignore pain , bleeding , chest pain and other symptoms due to irrational fear is blamed ,

Yep, I get where you’re coming from, and that’s poor medical practice which leads to poorer outcomes for patients in terms of their overall health, such as being put off smear tests as just one example. If a patient has a bad experience, they’re less inclined to risk the chances of a repeat experience, and are more inclined to prefer the alternatives, even if it means a risk of death.

Gatling wrote: »

There is no physical differences between a woman and a transman they both have to have smears and both have to be examined using a speculum , there's currently no real alternative in Irish hospitals and there is a lot worse than a speculum women can be examined with

Depending upon what point a transgender man is at in their transition of course, there may well be numerous differences in how they are treated. Did you not read the article I linked to earlier with regard to cervical cancer screening for transgender men? That’s why there are alternatives being developed, which, although they may not be as effective or reliable as a pap smear (like a blood test for men is not as reliable as a finger up the bumhole to test for prostate cancer), they’re also not as invasive and may be more amenable not just for women who don’t identify themselves as men, but for all women. That’s precisely how medicine develops, by understanding the importance of patient care, as opposed to this sort of thing which, frankly I’m surprised hasn’t gotten more media attention, because it emerged around the same time as the cervical cancer screening scandal -


Vaginal mesh implants: Women complain of delay in aftercare for severe complications

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Depending upon what point a transgender man is at in their transition of course, there may well be numerous differences in how they are treated. Did you not read the article I linked to earlier with regard to cervical cancer screening for transgender men

Very few people , possibly less than 20 getting some form of surgery and average of 4 per year in 25 years ,
most trans people do not go through gender reassignment surgery at all ,
The mesh issue was a huge scandal more so in the UK but we had the Symphysiotomy scandal too which is totally barbaric made the news for a short period .

The most painful part of the internal exams aren't just the one tool ,the scraping of the cervix to get cells using a long cotton bud is painful the same applies to removing a piece of the cervix for biopsy ,
Every woman is different some have conditions where they suffer painful vaginal spasms which cause it to clamp shut but cervix cells are needed to be extracted ,dryness , tearing and other painful conditions ,and there is other exams involving bigger tools being used for scans and such .

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

Clear they are saying transwoman are a male subset and transmen are female subset as has been pointed out from the start

I disagree with them on that but then they are saying that the “category” of women can be broken up. Which is what I was saying.

y0ssar1an22

earlier on, i did my PB on the bench, i think it beats all women's records.

you guys cool for me to be a woman to beat the record?

FileNotFound

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

earlier on, i did my PB on the bench, i think it beats all women's records.

you guys cool for me to be a woman to beat the record?

Why not, sure that jenner lad was only a woman a few weeks and won woman of the year.

Let's face it everyone has a set of chromosones that they cannot change. Biological fact.

That's said if someone wishes to identify I will happily change the way I address them etc. And fully support whatever makes them feel happy, it would be wrong if me to impose my view on the world.

For me, sport and a few other bits are better staying chromosones based. Otherwise someone's sport is being imposed upon due to the decision and views of another. Unfair again.

There has to be a non conflict, sensible way to approach this convo. This thread is Definitley not finding it though..

y0ssar1an22

FileNotFound wrote: »

Why not, sure that jenner lad was only a woman a few weeks and won woman of the year.

Let's face it everyone has a set of chromosones that they cannot change. Biological fact.

That's said if someone wishes to identify I will happily change the way I address them etc. And fully support whatever makes them feel happy, it would be wrong if me to impose my view on the world.

For me, sport and a few other bits are better staying chromosones based. Otherwise someone's sport is being imposed upon due to the decision and views of another. Unfair again.

There has to be a non conflict, sensible way to approach this convo. This thread is Definitley not finding it though..

all seems reasonable. define by having XX or XY chromosomes seems fine. thats pretty binary expect in a few edge cases coming in at about .000005%.

lets trust the biology

at least that way there is no ambiguity.

does anyone actually have a problem with that? is there any better alternative anyone can offer up?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

all seems reasonable. define by having XX or XY chromosomes seems fine. thats pretty binary expect in a few edge cases coming in at about .000005%.

lets trust the biology

at least that way there is no ambiguity.

does anyone actually have a problem with that? is there any better alternative anyone can offer up?

Well, there are problems with the XX and XY thing in sports because people with intersex conditions have more unusual combinations of sex chromosomes but are still either male or female. However, that has nothing to do with allowing transgender athletes with the normal chromosome profiles into the sports teams of the opposite sex. An intersex athlete might also be transgender. But even then, their being transgender wouldn’t be relevant, it would be because they have an intersex condition.

One eyed Jack

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

all seems reasonable. define by having XX or XY chromosomes seems fine. thats pretty binary expect in a few edge cases coming in at about .000005%.

lets trust the biology

at least that way there is no ambiguity.

does anyone actually have a problem with that? is there any better alternative anyone can offer up?

You couldn’t be more wrong. Apart from that, I’d have massive problems with some nobody requesting I submit to a sex test just to appease them, they’d need a damn good reason beyond just their own satisfaction.

No, I’ll go with Irish law on this one, I don’t actually give a shìt about biology. I’ve never asked anyone to submit themselves to sex testing before now and I’ve never had an issue with treating anyone according to how they choose to present themselves.

And that’s apart from the complete impracticality and expense of your suggestion. I don’t imagine you’ll be willing to pay for testing.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You couldn’t be more wrong. Apart from that, I’d have massive problems with some nobody requesting I submit to a sex test just to appease them, they’d need a damn good reason beyond just their own satisfaction.

There is only ambiguity in a tiny number of cases. And it is not to 'appease' one individual. It's to ensure the fairness of the competition, similar to how athletes are drug tested. This is all a conflation of the intersex issue with the trans issue anyhow.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I’ll go with Irish law on this one, I don’t actually give a shìt about biology.

That's been self-evident for a long time Jack!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ve never asked anyone to submit themselves to sex testing before now and I’ve never had an issue with treating anyone according to how they choose to present themselves.

The poster was referring to a sporting body asking for a sex test if there is due reason. It is a rarity for such a thing to be required, and again, is somewhat removed from the trans-issue, as it is really only pertains to those who are intersex.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And that’s apart from the complete impracticality and expense of your suggestion. I don’t imagine you’ll be willing to pay for testing

Due to the rarity of it being required, it would be neither of those things. Regardless, all of this, as I've alluded to, doesn't really concern the issue of trans-people (women in particular) in sport.

mcgragger

FileNotFound wrote: »

Why not, sure that jenner lad was only a woman a few weeks and won woman of the year.

Let's face it everyone has a set of chromosones that they cannot change. Biological fact.

That's said if someone wishes to identify I will happily change the way I address them etc. And fully support whatever makes them feel happy, it would be wrong if me to impose my view on the world.

For me, sport and a few other bits are better staying chromosones based. Otherwise someone's sport is being imposed upon due to the decision and views of another. Unfair again.

There has to be a non conflict, sensible way to approach this convo. This thread is Definitley not finding it though..

Spot on.