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

Sir Oxman

And of course, how can 'radical feminism' be exclusionary when transmen are included.
So the first two letters are illogical while the last two don't apply to swathes of gender critical people which includes women and men - men, who no matter what they wibble on about at stoodent meetings or in their profiles cannot be feminists and if they say they are, RUN!:pac:

LLMMLL

Sir Oxman wrote: »

And of course, how can 'radical feminism' be exclusionary when transmen are included.
So the first two letters are illogical while the last two don't apply to swathes of gender critical people which includes women and men - men, who no matter what they wibble on about at stoodent meetings or in their profiles cannot be feminists and if they say they are, RUN!:pac:

The debate almost never includes trans men. Those who follow the TERF ideology usually bring this up as a sign of “misogyny” without realising that they are the ones who constantly centre the debate around cis women and, as a result, transwomen.

I’ve also no clue where people get this idea that men can’t be feminists.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Those who follow the TERF ideology

It's a slur and it's been used as slur and your the only one who uses the term there is zero context except for trying to have a sly dig then using the excuse well look at the mod post - case and point the mod is wrong your using the term as weapon naaaaan nana you can't get me or I'll cry to the mod .
Bollix

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

It's a slur and it's been used as slur and your the only one who uses the term there is zero context except for trying to have a sly dig then using the excuse well look at the mod post - case and point the mod is wrong your using the term as weapon naaaaan nana you can't get me or I'll cry to the mod .
Bollix

It’s not an insult. I always use the term in a respectful manner so I’m afraid you’re just going to have to learn to live with it.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

It’s not an insult. I always use the term

It's an insult you have been repeatedly asked not to ,and yet you repeatedly Keep doing it only you ,
It's a slur but as I said some one says something you don't like it's run to mod time ,

I get the feeling I'm not the only one who agrees

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

It's an insult you have been repeatedly asked not to ,and yet you repeatedly Keep doing it only you ,
It's a slur but as I said some one says something you don't like it's run to mod time ,

I get the feeling I'm not the only one who agrees

It’s not a slur. And editing my post won’t change that.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

It’s not a slur. And editing my post won’t change that.

Lol

Gatling

See -

Those referred to with the word TERF typically reject the term or consider it a slur; some identify themselves as gender critical.[4] Critics of the word TERF say that it has been used in an overly-broad fashion, in insults, and alongside violent rhetoric.

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

See -

Those referred to with the word TERF typically reject the term or consider it a slur; some identify themselves as gender critical.[4] Critics of the word TERF say that it has been used in an overly-broad fashion, in insults, and alongside violent rhetoric.

That does not say it is a slur. It says some people consider it to be so. That’s pretty obvious from this thread. I consider these people to be wrong.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

That does not say it is a slur

Claimed by those who use it ........

volchitsa

LLMMLL wrote: »

That does not say it is a slur. It says some people consider it to be so. That’s pretty obvious from this thread. I consider these people to be wrong.

So when a black person says that they find the word n..... to be offensive, you would think it was fair enough for the person using the term to decide for themselves whether the black person was right or not?

You wouldn't think that the person being addressed in that way is the best placed to decide what they find offensive?

Or is it only women you don't extend that courtesy to?

LLMMLL

volchitsa wrote: »

So when a black person says that they find the word n..... to be offensive, you would think it was fair enough for the person using the term to decide for themselves whether the black person was right or not?

You wouldn't think that the person being addressed in that way is the best placed to decide what they find offensive?

Or is it only women you don't extend that courtesy to?

I never said anything about women. Don’t know where you’re getting that.

Not everyone gets to claim a word is an insult. If I decide the word “gay” is an insult will you stop using it in your general vocabulary?

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Not everyone gets to claim a word is an insult.

Yes they do when the word is being used as an insult ,how many people have to say it exactly .

Not everyone so who gets to decide you ?

Vic_08

LLMMLL wrote: »

I never said anything about women. Don’t know where you’re getting that.

Not everyone gets to claim a word is an insult. If I decide the word “gay” is an insult will you stop using it in your general vocabulary?

If you alone decide then no, if most of the people being referred to as gay do then yes, that is very much in line with how an ever increasing list of terms both slang and descriptive have become considered offensive to those they were used to label.

Does this stupid tangent really have to descend to the point we are posting lists of now taboo words and phrases?

Even in this context you would be off to squeal offence to a mod in a hot second.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sir Oxman wrote: »

And of course, how can 'radical feminism' be exclusionary when transmen are included.
So the first two letters are illogical while the last two don't apply to swathes of gender critical people which includes women and men - men, who no matter what they wibble on about at stoodent meetings or in their profiles cannot be feminists and if they say they are, RUN!:pac:

Excellent point. I had already clocked that the ‘radical feminist’ part didn’t make much sense but of course transgender men are included in feminism as they are female. So yeah, none of it makes sense. It’s not trans-exclusionary to want to preserve female spaces and radical feminists are in reality pretty thin on the ground.

LLMMLL

Vic_08 wrote: »

If you alone decide then no, if most of the people being referred to as gay do then yes, that is very much in line with how an ever increasing list of terms both slang and descriptive have become considered offensive to those they were used to label.

Does this stupid tangent really have to descend to the point we are posting lists of now taboo words and phrases?

Even in this context you would be off to squeal offence to a mod in a hot second.

There is no way if a majority of gay people said they find the word “gay” offensive that it would be accepted to be the case by the rest of society. That’s just nonsense.

Wider society would take a look at the history of the word, the reasons gay people made the claims, it’s common usage etc and make a call based on that.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

There is no way if a majority of gay people said they find the word “gay” offensive

But randomly calling someone gay who's not gay is a slur , calling someone gay who's straight repeatedly despite asking not to be called gay is slur and abusive

volchitsa

LLMMLL wrote: »

There is no way if a majority of gay people said they find the word “gay” offensive that it would be accepted to be the case by the rest of society. That’s just nonsense.

Wider society would take a look at the history of the word, the reasons gay people made the claims, it’s common usage etc and make a call based on that.

I mean, it's exactly what happens: "coloured people" was used as being less offensive than previous terms like the N word I mentioned before, and in fact black people used it about themselves (the NAACP). But when a number of "coloured people" decided they didn't want to be called that, and preferred other terms like "people of colour", that was enough for people who didn't want to be offensive to stop using it.

Same with American Indians (meant to be less offensive than Red Indians) being replaced by terms like Native Americans or First People.

It began to be considered inappropriate simply because the people the term was used about didn't like it. Wider society didn't make a decision (how would they? Who would they ask? Should there be a poll or something to decide if it was a majority view?

How do you think these terms change, if not because the people they designate tell others they dislike that particular expression?

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

But randomly calling someone gay who's not gay is a slur , calling someone gay who's straight repeatedly despite asking not to be called gay is slur and abusive

I don’t agree. A slur is a slur. “Gay” is not a slur so it’s not a slur when a straight person is called gay. They may find it insulting but such is life. And if wider society agrees that it’s insulting then the person who said it may or may not face consequences.

LLMMLL

Anyway that’s my last word on this. Don’t want to get banned for debating a point that’s already been settled by mods.

I will continue to use the term in a respectful manner to aid in the debate and maybe someday you will be able to accept that you cannot control other people’s language.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

“Gay” is not a slur so it’s not a slur when a straight person is called gay. They may find it insulting but such is life. And

They may find it insulting yes because it's been used a slur which is why they find it insulting.

Sir Oxman

Sometimes, posters who hold quite illogical, irrational, fantasy positions should really resist the temptation to hit reply.
But then again, I have to thank them for peaking a few more readers (and another acquaintance of mine)
Merci beaucoup.

suicide_circus

LLMMLL wrote: »

They may find it insulting but such is life.

Get dead named? Wrong pronoun used? Insulted? Such is life.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

They may find it insulting yes because it's been used a slur which is why they find it insulting.

If I’m understanding you correctly, which I hope I am, then it’s not actually the word which is insulting, but the way it is being used?

That seems perfectly reasonable, and it’s at least consistent in that people who see themselves as truth tellers and defenders of science, women’s rights and free speech see themselves as having the right to insult people, while holding a double standard where people who also see themselves as truth tellers, defenders of science and women’s rights, are committing a grave sin of some sort, against language.

It certainly seems like a double standard when some people knowingly insult others and still regard themselves as being civil, while if they feel insulted, they demand people stop using terms which are offensive to them, trying to prevent people from exercising their right to freedom of expression, because they find such expressions offensive.

Reminds me of the title of one of my favourite Manics albums -

This Is My Truth Tell Me Yours

Which includes this rather curious little ditty which, I’ll admit, I didn’t fully understand at the time -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUpv38xtn1A

Kinda occurred to me yesterday as I watched Disclosure on Netflix that here were people who didn’t need anyone else’s permission to be who they are, or to refer to themselves as they wished, and if others were insulted or offended by this fact, that wasn’t their problem, it was a problem for the people who felt it was insulting that anyone should identify themselves as someone that person who is offended feels they are not, as if anyone actually has a copyright on language!

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If I’m understanding you correctly, which I hope I am, then it’s not actually the word which is insulting, but the way it is being used?

That seems perfectly reasonable, and it’s at least consistent in that people who see themselves as truth tellers and defenders of science, women’s rights and free speech see themselves as having the right to insult people, while holding a double standard where people who also see themselves as truth tellers, defenders of science and women’s rights, are committing a grave sin of some sort, against language.

It certainly seems like a double standard when some people knowingly insult

Exactly people knownly insulating people despite being asked not to while everyone else is been civil and respectful .
It's definitely not a double standard ,the double standard is when someone crying about being insulted because they have well and truly caught by the testicles

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Exactly people knownly insulating people despite being asked not to while everyone else is been civil and respectful.
It's definitely not a double standard ,the double standard is when someone crying about being insulated because they have well and truly caught by the testicles

Are they? I don’t think it’s particularly civil or respectful to refer to anyone or address anyone in a way in which the person addressing or referring to them knows they don’t wish to be referred to in that way.

Hence the double standard.

Gruffalux

I do not know how those who defend reason, biological reality and sex based rights and protections are automatically associated with "insulting" people. It is not true to say so.

On another note I see Joanna Cherry has been removed from the SNP front bench. She has been defending sex based rights against self ID into spaces etc. And yesterday evening she reported that an unknown man issued vicious threats to her safety on the basis of her opinions re the conflict of trans and women's right and due to her being a "Terf". She has had to report the threats to police and has felt obliged to relocate to somewhere "safe". This gender ideology rights movement seems to provide cover and motive for quite a number of violent misogynists to act out.

nolivesmatter

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Are they? I don’t think it’s particularly civil or respectful to refer to anyone or address anyone in a way in which the person addressing or referring to them knows they don’t wish to be referred to in that way.

Hence the double standard.

It's not, not wanting a slur used against you is nothing like "refer to me with the exact words I want you to refer to me with".

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think it’s particularly civil or respectful to refer to anyone or address anyone in a way in which the person addressing or referring to them knows they don’t wish to be referred to in

Maybe you can have a word with the person for not addressing or referred to someone who doesn't wish to be referred to something they don't identify as .

It's been said often enough

Gatling

Gruffalux wrote: »

This gender ideology rights movement seems to provide cover and motive for quite a number of violent misogynists to act out.

That's exactly is what's going on just look at there cancel culture , unfortunately there is plenty of people willing to say no this nothing but a charade being used as a way for other's to abuse , threaten and try to get people sacked for not agreeing on your opinion on social media ,
All the while crying about fighting for women's rights as men