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

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

They do but presenting cancer patients as somehow privileged or indirectly suggesting that the death risk is similar for cancer patients and transgender men who want gender reassignment procedures is just not the way to go about it.

There is also the very real possibility that many breast surgeons aren’t comfortable with the idea of removing healthy breast tissue. Like I said earlier, breast surgeons are sometimes not even keen on performing preventative mastectomies on women with cancer gene mutations. Maybe some surgeons just don’t agree ethically with elective mastectomies and don’t want to perform them.

Gruffalux

A month or so back I brought up the subject of cross dressing, and the idea that transgender Self ID includes those with this paraphilia. Cross dressing is a paraphilia - or, as paraphilia is more commonly known, it is a sexual fetish.

This broadens the basis of transgenderism considerably from those who feel intense gender dysphoria to include those who feel intense sexual arousal and excitement at wearing clothing belonging to the opposite sex. In fact it populates the trans umbrella considerably given that less than 0.5% are estimated to feel they are transgender, but yet about 3% of men cross dress, it is said, for sexual pleasure.

I see that the Hate Crime Bill in Scotland will include cross dressing as a protected characteristic under the proposed Act - one will not be allowed to ''stir up hatred'' against cross dressers. This word has been inserted with transgender definitions because cross dresser is a more acceptable word now than the older term transvestite.

Stir up hatred is a very vague term - they are trying to append ''intentionally'' to the wording to somehow refine the definition of stirring up hatred. I don't think it will work as I am (for example) intentionally writing this post and it could be considered to be stirring up emotions, if one applied very vague interpretations. Thus intentionally doing something one feels justified to do should not materially prejudice the act of argumentation, even if the arguments offered are considered politically incorrect.


Under the proposed Act the cross dressing paraphilia will be a protected characteristic, and to state publicly that people entering female intimate spaces during an enactment of a sexual fetish is not on would likely be considered hate speech.

Other paraphilias include voyeurism and exhibitionism.

Something has been bothering me - it is another one of those contradictions inherent in taking the enshrinement in law of this ideology to its logical conclusion.
If cross dressing becomes a paraphilia with protected characteristics under Hate Speech Laws, why should there not be a charter of rights for men who like to lie on their bellies in women's shoe shops beside the fitting area, if they have a helpless foot fetish? And what about the poor voyeurs? It seems a shame to have to prevent them up-skirting in public conveniences when other people can fulfil their sexual fetishes and be legally protected from opprobrium?

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Under the proposed Act the cross dressing paraphilia will be a protected characteristic, and to state publicly that people entering female intimate spaces during an enactment of a sexual fetish is not on would likely be considered hate speech.

There isn’t a hope in hell of anyone being prosecuted for saying cross dressers shouldn’t enter female spaces. No idea where you’re getting the idea that it is likely.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

There isn’t a hope in hell of anyone being prosecuted for saying cross dressers shouldn’t enter female spaces. No idea where you’re getting the idea that it is likely.

https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/factsheet/2020/04/hate-crime-bill-what-it-will-do/documents/hate-crime-bill-transgender-identity-and-variations-in-sex-characteristics/hate-crime-bill-transgender-identity-and-variations-in-sex-characteristics/govscot%3Adocument/Hate%2BCrime%2BBill%2B-%2BInformation%2BNote%2BPdf%2B-%2BTransgender%2BIdentity%2B%2526%2BVariations%2Bin%2BSex%2BCharacteristics%2B-%2BRevised%2BAugust%2B2020.pdf

Furthermore, the Bill will also extend the protection provided against hate crimes, through introducing new offences criminalising the stirring up of hatred against people of any existing or new characteristics, including transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics.
The terms ‘transsexualism’ and ‘transvestitism’ are also widely understood to be outdated and are therefore also removed from the definition of “transgender identity” included in the Bill, helping to ensure that the definition is up-to-date. Cross-dressing people are included in the definition within the Bill to ensure the protection provided by the word ‘transvestitism’ is not lost.
The Bill’s definition of ‘transgender identity’ includes trans men, trans women, non-binary people and cross dressing people.

Impact

The current protection afforded by the existing definition of transgender identity within hate crime legislation is not lost, with updated language provided and the creating of a new category for variations in sex characteristics. This will ensure that the language used in the Bill reflects changes over time in wider society and that the individuals who are afforded protection by the law recognise themselves in the terminology used.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/factsheet/2020/04/hate-crime-bill-what-it-will-do/documents/hate-crime-bill-transgender-identity-and-variations-in-sex-characteristics/hate-crime-bill-transgender-identity-and-variations-in-sex-characteristics/govscot%3Adocument/Hate%2BCrime%2BBill%2B-%2BInformation%2BNote%2BPdf%2B-%2BTransgender%2BIdentity%2B%2526%2BVariations%2Bin%2BSex%2BCharacteristics%2B-%2BRevised%2BAugust%2B2020.pdf

I understand cross dressing people are included. But there is no chance the statement you made would be prosecuted.

It’s like if I said “well under this new bill, saying that cross dressing men are lovely would be an offense”, and you said “um that’s silly” and to prove it I just sent a summary of the law.

I’m afraid you’ll have to go a bit further to show that particular statement would be prosecutable.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

I understand cross dressing people are included. But there is no chance the statement you made would be prosecuted.

It’s like if I said “well under this new bill, saying that cross dressing men are lovely would be an offense”, and you said “um that’s silly” and to prove it I just sent a summary of the law.

I’m afraid you’ll have to go a bit further to show that particular statement would be prosecutable.

Okay. How about I clearly state then that all the cross dressing men under the trans umbrella (by far the majority of trans identifying male people considering the percentages I mentioned earlier) should never, ever be allowed to self ID into female spaces.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Okay. How about I clearly state then that all the cross dressing men under the trans umbrella (by far the majority of trans identifying male people considering the percentages I mentioned earlier) should never, ever be allowed to self ID into female spaces.

Are you asking me if that’s a hate crime or are you just stating that as your opinion?

Either way you’re not getting prosecuted anytime soon....

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Are you asking me if that’s a hate crime or are you just stating that as your opinion?

Either way you’re not getting prosecuted anytime soon....

It will be up for consideration as a hate crime.

But given your previous remark...

There isn’t a hope in hell of anyone being prosecuted for saying cross dressers shouldn’t enter female spaces. - LLMMLL

....what exactly are you saying LLMMLL? Are you saying people should not be prosecuted for saying transgender people should be barred from single sex spaces? In other words people are permitted to argue for the protection of sex based rights and protections? Have you become a... gulp :eek: ....TERF? Blink twice if you are being held hostage

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

It will be up for consideration as a hate crime.

But given your previous remark...



....what exactly are you saying LLMMLL? Are you saying people should not be prosecuted for saying transgender people should be barred from single sex spaces? In other words people are permitted to argue for the protection of sex based rights and protections? Have you become a... gulp :eek: ....TERF? Blink twice if you are being held hostage

Since you’ve descended into silliness I assume you know well that nobody will be prosecuted for saying cross dressers shouldn’t enter female spaces.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Since you’ve descended into silliness I assume you know well that nobody will be prosecuted for saying cross dressers shouldn’t enter female spaces.

Tut tut tut. You have a line in the sand it seems.
Not defending a category protected by law.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Tut tut tut. You have a line in the sand it seems.
Not defending a category protected by law.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

Since when do you post gifs. Are you ok?

Sir Oxman

LLMMLL wrote: »

Since you’ve descended into silliness I assume you know well that nobody will be prosecuted for saying cross dressers shouldn’t enter female spaces.

<Call an ambulance, I've choked on me cornflakes>

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

Since when do you post gifs. Are you ok?

Are you kidding...I LOVE GIFS!! I am the Queen of Gifs. I am still mourning the death of Vines for goodness sake! they were the best thing the Internet ever gave us.

AllForIt

Some of the posts on this thread are gobbledegook to me, admittedly though my lack of knowledge in this subject area but what Gruffalux said made total sense to me.

On the subject of cross-dressing it has been a real eyeopener to me when I came across an app for gay/bi men that caters to this demographic. I'm not sure it ever meant to be exclusively for them and a lot of general gay men use it as just another dating app, but anyway there are scores of people on it in my locality showing off in full crossdressed mode.. That is in contrast to the transgender visibility which you could count on 1 hand. Apart from all the fake transgender profiles popping up on Grindr of late but that's a different issue whatever the hell that's all about.

So I think Gruffalux's point is a valid one.

LLMMLL

AllForIt wrote: »

Some of the posts on this thread are gobbledegook to me, admittedly though my lack of knowledge in this subject area but what Gruffalux said made total sense to me.

On the subject of cross-dressing it has been a real eyeopener to me when I came across an app for gay/bi men that caters to this demographic. I'm not sure it ever meant to be exclusively for them and a lot of general gay men use it as just another dating app, but anyway there are scores of people on it in my locality showing off in full crossdressed mode.. That is in contrast to the transgender visibility which you could count on 1 hand. Apart from all the fake transgender profiles popping up on Grindr of late but that's a different issue whatever the hell that's all about.

So I think Gruffalux's point is a valid one.

What does the above have to do with hate crimes?

Gruffalux

AllForIt wrote: »

Some of the posts on this thread are gobbledegook to me, admittedly though my lack of knowledge in this subject area but what Gruffalux said made total sense to me.

On the subject of cross-dressing it has been a real eyeopener to me when I came across an app for gay/bi men that caters to this demographic. I'm not sure it ever meant to be exclusively for them and a lot of general gay men use it as just another dating app, but anyway there are scores of people on it in my locality showing off in full crossdressed mode.. That is in contrast to the transgender visibility which you could count on 1 hand. Apart from all the fake transgender profiles popping up on Grindr of late but that's a different issue whatever the hell that's all about.

So I think Gruffalux's point is a valid one.

Thanks AllForIt.

My basic point in this case, though couched in some levity and absurdity (as I find many of the fundamentals of the ideology absurd anyway), is that biological sex as a protected characteristic for the purposes of maintaining sex based rights and protections is being challenged by the enactment of hate speech law to prevent discussion of the clash of rights and protections, in favour of the rights of a group, the statistical majority of whom as prescribed in the legislation which will be enacted in Scotland, are paraphiliacs. What I write now about cross dressers would be considered hate speech under the law soon to come into effect in a jurisdiction very close to us.

AllForIt

LLMMLL wrote: »

What does the above have to do with hate crimes?

The issue is are cross-dressers, who may or may not come under the umbrella term of transgender dependant on jurisdiction, afforded the same rights as either current or proposed laws enacted specifically for transgender people. Hate crime being one aspect I suppose.

LLMMLL

AllForIt wrote: »

The issue is are cross-dressers, who may or may not come under the umbrella term of transgender dependant on jurisdiction, afforded the same rights as either current or proposed laws enacted specifically for transgender people. Hate crime being one aspect I suppose.

Your post only talked about the number of cross dressers you saw on a dating app though......

AllForIt

LLMMLL wrote: »

Your post only talked about the number of cross dressers you saw on a dating app though......

Well I just thought it was worth mentioning. I mean if the state enacts laws specially for transgender people and cross-dresser are then included in that minority group, that would widen the demographics the laws apply to by a factor of 100 or much more. I just think it's an interesting development. In the same way more and more girls are presenting as transgender in the states as Abigail Shrier says is an interesting development.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Your post only talked about the number of cross dressers you saw on a dating app though......

Which is relevant as to numbers and percentages. As I wrote previously 3% at least of males have the cross dressing paraphilia at some point in their lives (it is estimated). Actually figures vary between 1 - 10%, more reliably 2 - 5%, and so 3% is a steady low estimate. Transgenderism as in gender incongruence manifests it is estimated in 0.5% of people, let us be generous and say 1%. And this includes people who identify as both genders and non-binary gender fluid people. So yeah, cross dressers are a big part of your target demographic as an ally protecting rights.

LLMMLL

AllForIt wrote: »

Well I just thought it was worth mentioning. I mean if the state enacts laws specially for transgender people and cross-dresser are then included in that minority group, that would widen the demographics the laws apply to by a factor of 100 or much more. I just think it's an interesting development. In the same way more and more girls are presenting as transgender in the states as Abigail Shrier says is an interesting development.

It’s one state and one law. Has nothing to do with female spaces no matter how much those who follow the TERF ideology would like to pretend it does.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Which is relevant as to numbers and percentages. As I wrote previously 3% at least of males have the cross dressing paraphilia at some point in their lives (it is estimated). Actually figures vary between 1 - 10%, more reliably 2 - 5%, and so 3% is a steady low estimate. Transgenderism as in gender incongruence manifests it is estimated in 0.5% of people, let us be generous and say 1%. And this includes people who identify as both genders and non-binary gender fluid people. So yeah, cross dressers are a big part of your target demographic as an ally protecting rights.

I still have no idea what you’re talking about with “target demographics” and “ally protecting rights”. Very strange.

Gatling

Only 10 mins but worth a watch

https://www.channel4.com/news/children-have-been-very-seriously-damaged-by-nhs-gender-clinic-says-former-tavistock-staff-governor


More on the damage puberty blocker

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9218463/Puberty-blockers-impair-height-growth-bone-density-data-reveals.html

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

I still have no idea what you’re talking about with “target demographics” and “ally protecting rights”. Very strange.

Sorry about your confusion. I think most readers will understand the implications, however. Thus the points are worth making even if you persist in being bewildered.

Gatling

Gruffalux wrote: »

Sorry about your confusion. I think most readers will understand the implications, however. Thus the points are worth making even if you persist in being bewildered.

It's quite simple stuff ,

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Sorry about your confusion. I think most readers will understand the implications, however. Thus the points are worth making even if you persist in being bewildered.

Please explain.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Please explain.

Read back. I do not dance to your tune.
Oh helll....here have a tiny dance... :pac:

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Read back. I do not dance to your tune.
Oh helll....here have a tiny dance... :pac:

I have read back and what you say makes no sense. It’s complete fabrication.

Gatling

Gruffalux wrote: »

Read back.

Your looking at a tail chasing excercise ,

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gatling wrote: »

Only 10 mins but worth a watch

https://www.channel4.com/news/children-have-been-very-seriously-damaged-by-nhs-gender-clinic-says-former-tavistock-staff-governor


More on the damage puberty blocker

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9218463/Puberty-blockers-impair-height-growth-bone-density-data-reveals.html

And just to point out, because many people will dismiss a Daily Mail link, the Times UK also reported this.