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

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

Men can be feminists but the TERF slur defines radical feminists. Plenty of people opposed to self identification are not feminist, and definitely not radical feminist whether they be male or female.

Invidious

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I don't think it's that simple. A lot of women don't see it as an issue. They are happy to share spaces with trans women. There are differences in opinion on this.

But these "differences of opinion" see some women labeled as allies while others (e.g., J. K. Rowling) are viciously attacked and canceled as "TERFs."

There's definitely groupthink here, and I believe that many women who have private reservations about male-bodied trans individuals in women's changing facilities etc. are simply too cowed to speak up honestly about the issue.

political analyst

Gruffalux wrote: »

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.

That's because of the Salmond-Sturgeon feud, not gender identity.

https://news.sky.com/story/joanna-cherry-abrupt-sacking-of-high-profile-mp-threatens-to-inflame-the-snps-civil-war-12205908

jam_mac_jam

Invidious wrote: »

But these "differences of opinion" see some women labeled as allies while others (e.g., J. K. Rowling) are viciously attacked and canceled as "TERFs."

There's definitely groupthink here, and I believe that many women who have private reservations about male-bodied trans individuals in women's changing facilities etc. are simply too cowed to speak up honestly about the issue.

Yes I agree. But some women don't see it as an issue. So not everyone has the reservations.

Or may have reservations on some issues and not others.

Gatling

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Or may have reservations on some issues and not others.

But those with reservation are afraid to speak up or openly about it for fear of facing a backlash from followers of the self identity ideology ,

jam_mac_jam

Gatling wrote: »

But those with reservation are afraid to speak up or openly about it for fear of facing a backlash from followers of the self identity ideology ,

Oh I agree. I have only spoken about this with family and one or two other people. And with much caution with one of my sisters as I would be fairly sure of her opinions in advance.

Invidious

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Yes I agree. But some women don't see it as an issue. So not everyone has the reservations.

Or may have reservations on some issues and not others.

True, not everyone has reservations ... but a significant number of women evidently don't want male-bodied individuals in their bathrooms, changing facilities, and the like, regardless of what they identify as. Why are these women fobbed off with "Not everybody has a problem with it"?

There are also women who have reservations that they don't dare express, due to the fear of being labeled transphobic, being canceled, having their jobs threatened, you name it. It's not surprising that many stay quiet due to fear of retaliation.

Sir Oxman

political analyst wrote: »

That's because of the Salmond-Sturgeon feud, not gender identity.

https://news.sky.com/story/joanna-cherry-abrupt-sacking-of-high-profile-mp-threatens-to-inflame-the-snps-civil-war-12205908

There is also her work for defending women's rights including the right to organise and publicly speak which has her done for with Sturgeon and her ilk.


"For her part, Ms Cherry has infuriated the first minister and her allies by claiming gains for women's rights over decades could be swept away by the proposed Holyrood legislation allowing a person to self-declare themselves as a woman."

Gruffalux

Sir Oxman wrote: »

There is also her work for defending women's rights including the right to organise and publicly speak which has her done for with Sturgeon and her ilk.


"For her part, Ms Cherry has infuriated the first minister and her allies by claiming gains for women's rights over decades could be swept away by the proposed Holyrood legislation allowing a person to self-declare themselves as a woman."

Yes, recently some younger SNP members resigned and Sturgeon delivered an impromptu video to Twitter on the subject of trans, then a few days later Cherry is gone. It is relevant. Mostly however, as I know little about the SNP, I was interested in the threats sent to her that have required her to go somewhere safe. That is the level of shyt we are at - I should not be surprised really after Colm O Gorman's addition to the debate. It is all very odd.

political analyst

Sir Oxman wrote: »

There is also her work for defending women's rights including the right to organise and publicly speak which has her done for with Sturgeon and her ilk.


"For her part, Ms Cherry has infuriated the first minister and her allies by claiming gains for women's rights over decades could be swept away by the proposed Holyrood legislation allowing a person to self-declare themselves as a woman."

However, as the article says, MPs believe that her support for Salmond is the main reason for her dismissal from the front bench.

Gruffalux

political analyst wrote: »

However, as the article says, MPs believe that her support for Salmond is the main reason for her dismissal from the front bench.

The article never mentioned Cherrys tweet immediately following the sacking about a vicious threat made to her and having to report it to police and go to a safe location. Seems strange and even political to omit such a strong detail. The article does include the following. It is obviously relevant..

"Ms Cherry has also clashed with Ms Sturgeon over transgender rights, opposing the first minister's plans for legislation on gender recognition reform. In comments interpreted as being aimed at Ms Cherry, Ms Sturgeon has claimed transphobia is unacceptable in the SNP.

For her part, Ms Cherry has infuriated the first minister and her allies by claiming gains for women's rights over decades could be swept away by the proposed Holyrood legislation allowing a person to self-declare themselves as a woman."

One eyed Jack

nolivesmatter wrote: »

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".

That’s exactly what it is! It’s exactly the same. People want to control how other people refer to them or address them, that’s why they’re demanding that other people refer to them as they wish to be referred to, and not in terms which are offensive to them. Anything else is just disrespectful and uncivil, no matter how it’s justified, that doesn’t excuse it.

Gruffalux wrote: »

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.

Anyone can say that much and pretend that they don’t understand how the language they use is insulting. They know they’re pretending, because they wouldn’t use the language they do if they didn’t know it was deliberately insulting to other people. Pretending otherwise is just disingenuous, insincere and transparent af. It’s absolutely not being civil or respectful towards it’s intended target.

Gruffalux wrote: »

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.

Seems that way alright, as long as you’re prepared to ignore any evidence to the contrary in order to associate a group of people who are innocent of any wrongdoing, with abusive twats on social media who would agree with a lot of these ‘free speech’ types as it means they too could say what they like about other people or to other people and be free of any consequences for their behaviour towards others. Posie Parker the other day encouraging men to go into girls bathrooms in schools carrying guns, because nothing says it’s a safe space like an idiot who is dumb enough to do just that (I don’t think anyone is that dumb, not to mention there are a whole host of other reasons why they couldn’t). But not every gender critical feminist is like Posie, in fact the vast majority of GCF’s are nothing like Posie, which is a good thing for everyone in society.

See? It’s easy to weed out the nut jobs if you want to rather than associate the behaviour of a minority with the majority of people in any given groups. You don’t have to do guilt by association and claim that there are clashing rights, when really the only time when a clash of rights is relevant is in the Courtroom, and it’s the role of the Courts to act as arbiter in any dispute where rights are in conflict in any given scenario, depending upon the circumstances involved in each case.

political analyst

Gruffalux wrote: »

The article never mentioned Cherrys tweet immediately following the sacking about a vicious threat made to her and having to report it to police and go to a safe location. Seems strange and even political to omit such a strong detail. The article does include the following. It is obviously relevant..

"Ms Cherry has also clashed with Ms Sturgeon over transgender rights, opposing the first minister's plans for legislation on gender recognition reform. In comments interpreted as being aimed at Ms Cherry, Ms Sturgeon has claimed transphobia is unacceptable in the SNP.

For her part, Ms Cherry has infuriated the first minister and her allies by claiming gains for women's rights over decades could be swept away by the proposed Holyrood legislation allowing a person to self-declare themselves as a woman."

Well, there is the small matter of the risk of prejudicing an ongoing investigation.

McFly85

I've been trying to get my head around the whole thing for a while.

I think, if someone wants to appear a certain way and have society generally accept them as the gender they are presenting as, fine. That person should be able to walk down the street looking however they like and be responded to as such.

But I cannot agree with removing a distinction between biological, transsexual and transgender women. Self Identification seems strange to me, like some people want to avoid the question of why exactly they are uncomfortable in their own bodies, terrified that they may be told they aren't what they think they are. But the idea isn't to deny that persons identity, or the idea of trans peoples existence, but to help that person be comfortable in the long run.

Trans women do have the right to a safe space(as every person should), but biological women have the right to a place where the male sex is not allowed. These ideologies clash, and similar to self identification, some don't want to hear it.

Gruffalux

political analyst wrote: »

Well, there is the small matter of the risk of prejudicing an ongoing investigation.

Sub judice rules happen after arrest and until conviction.

Gatling

Well well well tavistock in the news again

From yesterday gript interesting reading

The Management Board of the Tavistock Clinic’s Gender Identity Development Services (GIDS), which specialized in the treatment of children, has been disbanded following “growing scrutiny and controversy.” 124 Irish children have been sent to the clinic for assessment or treatment over the past 3 years, with 7,883 British children, some as young as 4, being seen in that time. The numbers being seen by the Clinic have increased at a dramatic rate over the past number of years.

According to documents released by the Board the move came after a string of failures. A recent report by the British health regulators, CQC, which had rated GIDS as “inadequate” and had highlighted wide ranged failures within the service, was noted as being the catalyst for the change in management. That report had found, amongst other issues, that the clinic had failed to consistently record “the competency, capacity and consent of patients referred for medical treatment before January 2020.” A review of a random sampling of patient records showed that only 30% of patients could be shown to have “a completed consent form and checklist for referral.”


https://gript.ie/management-board-at-sex-change-clinic-for-kids-removed/

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

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.

Can you post a source to confirm this bolded part?

Necro

Tom O Neil wrote: »

You should reclaim terf. Like how gay people reclaim queer. Bullies are impotent when you take their insults from them.

Mod:

Don't post in this thread again

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Urge to kill: rising.

A tweet by a high profile Irish transgender activist (or at least lives in Ireland).

https://twitter.com/TarynDeVere/status/1356920859999555584?s=20

This is in such poor taste. I cannot get over it.

Firstly, I had a bowel operation around a decade ago. I was physically in pain but my health issue was chronic and not going to kill me. I badly needed the operation but naturally cancer patients, trauma patients and others with acute illness came ahead of me. That’s just how it is. And someone wanting a double mastectomy because they are transgender doesn’t have a physical problem. In a country where over 2000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, it’s easy to understand how it’s hard to find room for those who are not at physical risk. It’s a long, complicated operation. Some surgeons are even reluctant to give preventative mastectomies to women with gene mutations that mean they are at a very high risk of getting cancer.

Secondly, I can’t get over how tone-deaf this tweet thread is (there’s more than one tweet). It’s in such poor taste. Those women would give anything to not have to have that barbaric operation. Expressing envy or resentment or whatever you want to call it towards them is unfathomably self-absorbed.

Gatling

But yet the government has funds available for gender surgeries .
And he would likely want to keep all of his female reproductive organs so he can carry a baby while crying about it.


Went very quite in here after the tavistock story in the news

ingalway

Gatling wrote: »

But yet the government has funds available for gender surgeries .
And he would likely want to keep all of his female reproductive organs so he can carry a baby while crying about it.

Went very quite in here after the tavistock story in the news

The ONLY stories you ever see about trans men are about men being pregnant and men who have periods. I can never understand how trans men are so dysphoric that they must have a double mastectomy but then they can go on to get pregnant and give birth.

Gatling

ingalway wrote: »

The ONLY stories you ever see about trans men are about men being pregnant and men who have periods. I can never understand how trans men are so dysphoric that they must have a double mastectomy but then they can go on to get pregnant and give birth.

And then they want to go to court to have their mother changed to father on the child's birth cert ,
All very much one way traffic

Gruffalux

In the US (California) recently

This was part of a legal opinion to secure funding by health insurance companies for people under 18 to have radical mastectomies.

, in an individual diagnosed with gender
dysphoria, who is born with female characteristics and identifies as male, the presence of a female chest is an abnormal body structure caused by gender dysphoria, which is a medically recognized condition within the meaning of Insurance Code section 10123.88.
Consequently, male chest reconstruction surgery for treating gender dysphoria is performed to “correct or repair abnormal structures of the body caused by congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors, or disease” in order to “create a normal appearance, to the extent possible” in an individual transitioning from female to male.

http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0250-insurers/0300-insurers/0200-bulletins/bulletin-notices-commiss-opinion/upload/Gender-dysphoria-male-chest-surgery-CDI-GC-opinion-letter-12-30-20.pdf

In response to the legal advice above

Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara directed the Department of Insurance to issue a General Counsel Opinion Letter clarifying that under existing California law, health insurance companies may not deny coverage for male chest reconstruction surgery for female-to-male patients undergoing gender-affirming care for gender dysphoria based solely on a patient’s age.

Gatling

Gruffalux wrote: »

In the US (California) recently

This was part of a legal opinion to secure funding by health insurance companies for people under 18 to have radical mastectomies

No child should be allowed to have elective surgery to correct what they believe to be an irrational belief of a having a gender defect

LLMMLL

Timely piece from the Independent:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/it-s-a-sin-russell-t-davies-lgbtq-trans-rights-b1795943.html

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Timely piece from the Independent:

Woke is the word alright.

Hopefully the likes of tavistock and others like are shown up for they are shysters selling snake oil

Sir Oxman

Ah, the upstanding Michael CASHman - still has the aul dramatic chops.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

But yet the government has funds available for gender surgeries .
And he would likely want to keep all of his female reproductive organs so he can carry a baby while crying about it.


Went very quite in here after the tavistock story in the news

There’s no defending the attempt to make a comparison that Noah Halpin made, nothing excuses that sort of divisive rhetoric. Having said that, healthcare for people who are transgender is woefully underfunded so they have as much right as any other lobby groups to campaign for more funding and better standards of healthcare, education, housing, employment and so on. They also campaign for reproductive rights so that they too have choices in the same way as anyone else when it comes to family planning and reproductive healthcare, so I’m not quite sure the point you’re trying to make as though there’s any contradiction between their reproductive rights, parental rights, family law and transgender healthcare. They’re all intertwined.

As for the bold part of your post, did you read the 116 page report yourself, or did you just read the article in gript? I didn’t want to give gript the clickbait revenue myself, so I went to the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust site and downloaded the document which is available to the public (not as if gript were getting their grubby mitts on any secrets, these documents are all in the public domain already) -

Board of Directors Part One - Agenda and papers of a meeting to be held in public


The CQC Inspection report was critical of the services provided, for a number of reasons, but the main reason was the waiting times, as well as the shoddy record keeping. There was high praise for frontline and clinical staff, but the reality is that they are trying to deal with huge caseloads in an underfunded and badly managed system, with management at loggerheads point blank refusing to budge or even acknowledge the multitude of failures which are affecting the service users who are already on ever growing waiting lists and waiting for their first appointment, never mind a second one, while other service users are having as many as 100 consultations (one couldn’t accuse that clinician of not being thorough!).

You’ll have read too how families and children have high praise overall for the service and the staff and the treatment they receive, while also noting that yes, there have been incidents of suicide, violence and other concerns which were noted but not fully recorded properly and in accordance with the guidelines the Tavistock and Portman clinics are expected to adhere to. Overall the services are largely ineffective and inadequate and that’s why an interim Board of Management were drafted in, with the aim of turning things around within a six month time frame.

It actually would be interesting to see what progress an interim Board of Management can make in six months with things the way they are at the moment in the UK.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There’s no defending

The place it's nothing but an abusive social and science experiment, it should be permanently closed,.
I'm sure certain woke parents sing it praises ,of course they would , cult like behaviour.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

The place it's nothing but an abusive social and science experiment, it should be permanently closed,.
I'm sure certain woke parents sing it praises ,of course they would , cult like behaviour.

It’s nothing to do with being “woke” or any of the rest of that nonsense. I have no tolerance for “woke” identify politics. If you genuinely were interested in doing a modicum of research beyond tabloid headlines and social media spats you might have a better understanding of how it can devastate individuals who experience gender dysphoria and their families when someone they love is experiencing gender dysphoria. It’s not as though individuals and their families don’t know how people who experience gender dysphoria are generally regarded in society.

That’s not even accounting for the fact that the medical model used in the UK is very different from the social model used in Ireland which was the basis of the gender recognition act. In Ireland at least people who are experiencing gender dysphoria don’t have to jump through medical hoops to have their preferred gender recognised in Irish law so their gender dysphoria is more likely to be alleviated by the fact that they don’t have to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria in order to be recognised in Irish law as their preferred gender. It’s a very different system in the UK where there are huge waiting lists just to be seen. That’s why the opening of more clinics was a priority for people who are transgender as opposed to any legislation regarding preferred pronouns.

If you actually read the report it demonstrates that parents, social workers, clinicians are all involved in the care of children and young adults experiencing gender dysphoria and it’s not at all as you might assume based upon clearly not having read the report, that it’s just woke parents being led by their children. I get a pain in my face when I hear that narrative being spouted by certain clinicians and lobbyists with a vested financial or political interest. It’s not just lobbyists who engage in ‘cult-like’ behaviour either. There’s demonstrably cult-like behaviour coming from the “But the science!” crowd too, as well as the “identity politics when it suits them” crowd. To pretend otherwise while claiming to represent the truth is an obvious example of prejudice and bias specifically against people who are transgender, as opposed to actually caring for the people they claim to represent or say they care for.