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

Gruffalux

km991148 wrote: »

Ah finally I'll bite again.. this is a very confused post and it doesn't really reflect a reality outside the one in your head. For a start.. what has the pregnancy discussion over the last couple of days got to do with men or transwomen? Who is crying about period talk? The same random types on twitter that get easily triggered over every little thing? Who is saying that women are being erased? No one is looking at a mother and baby together and thinking - oh look adult human with baby human.

There really is a lack of coherence, it's frankly pretty hard to counter point after point in this way.

I'd also be really curious as to what actions you have taken in real life to ensure this equality that you claim to care about. Ranting of forums doesn't count tbh

(And why do I now feel like I've just fed the trolls?)

This ideological modification of language is not just being done to assuage the gender dysphoria of trans men - which in itself is not sufficient reason to alienate the 99.5% of birthing mothers who need their own comfort and support - but is also done to alleviate the gender dysphoria of trans women.
The womanly things that are outside the remit of trans women are triggering to some trans women re their dysphoria, it seems. Not all, not even many. The trans women who I read know perfectly well they do not have the same biological reality as women and that they are males who have identified as their preferred gender. They know that women have exclusive experiences and needs and vulnerabilities that are not theirs to appropriate.

Here is a recent survey published on the wishes of trans women to have female functions and how it affects their gender dysphoria.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2775302#247540599

JAMA Network Open is a monthly open access medical journal published by the American Medical Association covering all aspects of the biomedical sciences.

Objective

To investigate the reproductive aspirations of transgender women and their perceptions of uterus transplant.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional survey study used a 27-item electronic questionnaire to investigate the reproductive aspirations of 182 transgender women older than 16 years, including their perceptions of and motivations for uterus transplant, between May 1 and November 1, 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Perceptions of and motivations for uterus transplant, including perceived significance of the ability to gestate, menstruate, and have a physiologically functioning vagina.

Results

A total of 182 transgender women completed the questionnaire; most women (109 [60%]) were aged 20 to 29 years. Most did not have children prior to transitioning (167 [92%]) and expressed a desire to have children in the future (171 [94%]). In addition, most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the ability to gestate and give birth to children (171 [94%]) and menstruate (161 [88%]) would enhance perceptions of their femininity. Similarly, high proportions strongly agreed or agreed that having a transplanted, functioning vagina would improve their sexual experience (163 [90%]), improve their quality of life (163 [90%]), and help them to feel like more of a woman (168 [92%]). Nearly all respondents (180 [99%]) believed that uterus transplant would lead to greater happiness in transgender women. More than three-quarters of the respondents (140 [77%]) strongly agreed or agreed that they would be more inclined to cryopreserve sperm if uterus transplant became a realistic option.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study provides insights into the reproductive aspirations of transgender women and reports on their multifaceted motivation to undergo uterus transplant. The survey responses suggest that transgender women would choose to have female physiologic experiences, such as menstruation and gestation, as well as potentially having a physiologically functioning transplanted vagina. If proven feasible and safe in this setting, uterus transplant may facilitate the achievement of reproductive aspirations, improve quality of life, and further alleviate dysphoric symptoms in transgender women.

Gatling

km991148 wrote: »

I guess agree to disagree, but I am not really contradicting myself every 2nd or 3rd post ,

But I'm not contradicting myself not on this thread or other threads ,

More passive aggressive nonsense ,nice try but not buying it

km991148

Gruffalux wrote: »

This ideological modification of language is not just being done to assuage the gender dysphoria of trans men - which in itself is not sufficient reason to alienate the 99.5% of birthing mothers who need their own comfort and support - but is also done to alleviate the gender dysphoria of trans women.
The womanly things that are outside the remit of trans women are triggering to some trans women re their dysphoria, it seems. Not all, not even many. The trans women who I read know perfectly well they do not have the same biological reality as women and that they are males who have identified as their preferred gender. They know that women have exclusive experiences and needs and vulnerabilities that are not theirs to appropriate.

Here is a recent survey published on the wishes of trans women to have female functions and how it affects their gender dysphoria.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2775302#247540599

JAMA Network Open is a monthly open access medical journal published by the American Medical Association covering all aspects of the biomedical sciences.

Your usage of the word ideological aside (and yes, I know you can post page upon page of justification, let's not go back there) I'm not entirely sure what your point is? On one hand you say transwomen are not pushing for this, then link to some survey that some other trans women have a want to have female functions?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalux wrote: »

The human CHEST extends from the neck to the abdomen, and round to the sides, it contains the heart, lungs, ribs and sternum.

The Brighton and Sussex NHS hospital Trust have decided to stop referring to the unit as the Maternity Services Unit and to call it the Perinatal unit.
Because God forbid that most fundamental of all words ''Mater'' should be included anywhere in modern life. Every single living creature has come from a female mother - that is just a fact.


Breast feeding should be swapped for chest feeding, the Trust says, even though as I have explained above a chest does not produce milk - that is not what a chest does. Breasts contain mammary glands which produce milk.

The Trust decries what it calls ''biological essentialism''. This is so fcuking ridiculous for an organisation that manages biological medical care. The essence of the biological reality of things underpins everything medics do.

For the moment the Trust says midwives (soon to be midpersons, surely!) can still call a woman a woman - thanks ever so much. But should start broadening their terms to include person, and calling breast milk human milk, and calling the father the co-parent. Etc.

I mean can they not just issue guidance that says if a transgender person shows up pregnant then you should address that person as they wish to be addressed. But for the other 99.5% of people who are pregnant you should openly and shamelessly still talk about their breasts, fannies, womanhood, motherhood, breastmilk, and so on.

I have to link the daily mail as the times and Telegraph are behind paywalls

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9241217/Hospital-tells-midwives-use-terms-like-birthing-parents-human-milk.html

[sarcasm]Wow. That. Is. Big. Of. Them.[/sarcasm]

I don't really understand how a transgender man is deemed to not be able to hear the word 'woman' but can go through the very womanly experience of pregnancy and labour. I guess some of the pregnancies won't have been planned like with any female cohort but some will very much have been planned. How can that very womanly experience be bearable? I don't get it. My spidey senses are telling me that the word 'woman' is being avoided to spare the feelings of a certain cohort that will never experience pregnancy and labour. Just a hunch.

And I agree. More fanny talk, please.

km991148

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

[sarcasm]Wow. That. Is. Big. Of. Them.[/sarcasm]

I don't really understand how a transgender man is deemed to not be able to hear the word 'woman' but can go through the very womanly experience of pregnancy and labour. I guess some of the pregnancies won't have been planned like with any female cohort but some will very much have been planned. How can that very womanly experience be bearable? I don't get it. My spidey senses are telling me that the word 'woman' is being avoided to spare the feelings of a certain cohort that will never experience pregnancy and labour. Just a hunch.

And I agree. More fanny talk, please.

Exactly.. just a hunch (I am assuming you mean transwomen and men here btw, I don't know why we can't just say that?).

Gruffalux

km991148 wrote: »

Your usage of the word ideological aside (and yes, I know you can post page upon page of justification, let's not go back there) I'm not entirely sure what your point is? On one hand you say transwomen are not pushing for this, then link to some survey that some other trans women have a want to have female functions?

I will go back to whatever I want, km, as often as I wish, on this particular subject. In fact I feel compelled to repeat on this matter as often as necessary so that more and more people wake up to the realities of what is happening under this ideological imposition. I will keep posting new incursions into irrationality in this area as often as they arise day by day.

As for points, I have read your question several times and I cannot see the point in it|. ''Some other'' would be a recognised way of differentiating between people or things and has been used in that fashion in this case.

km991148

Gruffalux wrote: »

I will go back to whatever I want, km, as often as I wish, on this particular subject. In fact I feel compelled to repeat on this matter as often as necessary so that more and more people wake up to the realities of what is happening under this ideological imposition. I will keep posting new incursions into irrationality in this area as often as they arise day by day.

Sigh. Of course you can, let me rephrase. I respectfully disagree with your usage of the word ideology and in this particular instance I'm asking if we need to post the same definitions of ideology that you did the other day. If you want to of course you can! I certainly wouldn't want to be accused of shutting down conversation, that is most definitely not my style.

Gruffalux wrote: »

As for points, I have read your question several times and I cannot see the point in it|. ''Some other'' would be a recognised way of differentiating between people or things and has been used in that fashion in this case.

What question would that be? I don't think I asked one?

km991148

Gruffalux wrote: »

so that more and more people wake up to the realities of what is happening under this ideological imposition.

More and more people?

You think this thread is seen by any more than the dozen or so people who post on it! There isn't really much happening on it. I think if you want to campaign there are probably more productive ways of doing so (if you don't already).

Same with some of the males pretending to give a damn about womens rights, there would be far more useful ways of doing so. I suspect it's more like some kind of phobia than actually caring. But that's just my hunch and not really able to back it up.

Gruffalux

km991148 wrote: »

Sigh. Of course you can, let me rephrase. I respectfully disagree with your usage of the word ideology and in this particular instance I'm asking if we need to post the same definitions of ideology that you did the other day. If you want to of course you can! I certainly wouldn't want to be accused of shutting down conversation, that is most definitely not my style.

Sighs longer and much more dramatically.



Your phrase

and yes, I know you can post page upon page of justification, let's not go back there

is not respectfully disagreeing. It is snarky hand waving when you cannot argue the substance. All of this irrationality that is happening is completely connected to gender theory ideology.

km991148 wrote: »

What question would that be? I don't think I asked you one?

Your own question was the one in question.

Gruffalux

km991148 wrote: »

More and more people?

You think this thread is seen by any more than the dozen or so people who post on it! There isn't really much happening on it. I think if you want to campaign there are probably more productive ways of doing so (if you don't already).

Same with some of the males pretending to give a damn about womens rights, there would be far more useful ways of doing so. I suspect it's more like some kind of phobia than actually caring. But that's just my hunch and not really able to back it up.

I think it is seen by more than a dozen people, yes

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

km991148 wrote: »

Exactly.. just a hunch (I am assuming you mean transwomen and men here btw, I don't know why we can't just say that?).

Well, you knew what I meant, didn't you? And others will too. I didn't dumb down what I wanted to write. I was intentionally being facetious and trusted that people reading my post would be able to read between the lines.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

McFly85 wrote: »

In the majority of general social situations it just wouldn’t come up. There’s no reason to differentiate between a biological woman and a trans woman.

But there’s lots of situations where it will matter, when it comes to medical practices, dating/relationships, some work situations etc.

It’s fair to say that trans women shouldn’t expect that the fact they’re trans should dominate their lives, but also accept that there’s some situations that the distinction is important.

All true. There is no reason to interrogate a transgender woman or man who is your company.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

km991148 wrote: »

Your usage of the word ideological aside (and yes, I know you can post page upon page of justification, let's not go back there) I'm not entirely sure what your point is? On one hand you say transwomen are not pushing for this, then link to some survey that some other trans women have a want to have female functions?

She said not all transgender women are pushing for this. That means that some are. It was very clear.

km991148 wrote: »

Sigh. Of course you can, let me rephrase. I respectfully disagree with your usage of the word ideology and in this particular instance I'm asking if we need to post the same definitions of ideology that you did the other day. If you want to of course you can! I certainly wouldn't want to be accused of shutting down conversation, that is most definitely not my style.

To paraphrase a post I made a few hours back, that's mighty big of you.

Nabber

T

km991148

Guess Ill be getting told to fu(k off again if I continue at this rate!

Now *that* is snark :pac:

Nabber

To be honest I don't care what people identify as once it's under their own free will. If a woman dressed as a woman says they identify as a man, perfectly fine for me.
But one of the issues I have is when some one is misidentified by how they look then takes offense.

If you are a woman who dresses as woman, expected to be treated as a woman. Offense should only take place if the person refuses to acknowledge your choice.
If you walk around with a Cork jersey on expect people to assume you're from Cork.

ingalway

https://twitter.com/TheCurran73/status/1359552991628587015?s=20

Gatling

ingalway wrote: »

https://twitter.com/TheCurran73/status/1359552991628587015?s=20

Just shows the the mentality around the idea of s small cohort of men demanding the deletion of woman , womanhood , motherhood

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Just shows the the mentality around the idea of s small cohort of men demanding the deletion of woman , womanhood , motherhood

Nah, it’s more like it’s a question which presents a false dilemma on two fronts - nobody has ever suggested that someone who does not identify themselves as a woman does not experience dysphoria during pregnancy and childbirth, and nobody has ever suggested that everyone who does not identify themselves as a woman experiences dysphoria upon hearing or seeing the words ‘breast’ or ‘breastfeeding’,

As for the idea that it just shows the mentality of a small cohort of men demanding the deletion of ‘woman’, ‘womanhood’ or ‘motherhood’, that’s just another falsehood as the evidence suggests that it is primarily a small cohort of women who are not only demanding these changes in terminology, but they are actively using what to them, is called ‘inclusive language’.

Language itself of course is not being erased, nor are terms like ‘woman’, ‘womanhood’ or ‘motherhood’ being erased, nor are women and girls being physically erased. That sort of paranoid, dramatic rhetoric too, is thankfully limited to only a small cohort of individuals who are trying to convince people that society is being torn apart at the seams. It’s silly fearmongering rhetoric that illicits not much more than a rolleyes reaction from most people in my experience. Other people will look upon such propagandists more sympathetically.

Ted_YNWA

km991148 wrote: »

Several times you have tried to claim being baited (with 'nice try' comments and the like), while also doing the same to others. This is very troll like behaviour. Normally I would report it instead of dragging the thread off in some other tangent but (a) people seem to be happy with the tangents and (b) people fair get moaney when posts are reported.

Gatling wrote: »

I totally agree , your very troll like behaviour not for the first time either not second or third time at that and yet again ,

Report away so

Kinda funny

Mod

If both of you want to continue posting here, STOP winding each other up & calling each other trolls.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nah, it’s more like it’s a question which presents a false dilemma on two fronts - nobody has ever suggested that someone who does not identify themselves as a woman does not experience dysphoria during pregnancy and childbirth,



Language itself of course is not being erased, nor are terms like ‘woman’, ‘womanhood’ or ‘motherhood’ being erased, nor are women and girls being physically erased. That sort of paranoid, dramatic rhetoric too, is thankfully limited to only a small cohort of individuals who are trying to convince people that society is being torn apart at the seams. I

We've gone from gender dysmorphia to motherhood or pregnancy dysmorphia ,
Inclusive language doesn't mean you take the word's
Woman, Women ,Girls , and reduce them to , adult human female/s , female child , womb owners ,breasts to chests that's not inclusive language , that's the language of exclusion and expulsion , claiming rhetoric this and rhetoric that ,and it falls even further apart claiming propaganda , actually it reminds of the Kremlin misinformation playbook when something happens or people start to question the ideology your labelled (Russophobe) (Russiaphobic ) (it's not happening no nobody seen us you cant prove it )canceled ,and in cases threatened for not agreeing with a small cohorts ideology ,
This is not being pushed by women certainly not by any stretch of the imagination ,the rest are men who have an obvious hatred of women and don't see themselves as equal but sit above them looking down at them saying we took your rights that were fought for and incases today still fighting for them rights and now being told that word woman and woman's rights is no offensive to a cohort of men and social warriors because they are not women ,they can't carry a child to term and they don't have a vagina , cervix and ovaries ,

Propaganda no it's hated masquerading as rights of those who self identify as something and anything

Annasopra

dysphoria not dysmorphia

Gatling

It's amazing we saw claims of oh they don't give out puberty blocker's ,
They did actively prescribe puberty blocker's medications ,as well as suggesting freezing girls eggs and finding sperm donors,


After a legal battle The Mail on Sunday has published what it called “shocking evidence” about transgender medicine which led a High Court judge to ban a government gender clinic from prescribing puberty-blockers.

The Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) clinic in London, also known as the Tavistock Centre, began prescribing these for children under 16 in 2011. In December the clinic was forced to stop after the Court ruled that it was “very doubtful” that youngsters could give informed consent.

Swedish psychiatrist Christopher Gillberg testified that the use of puberty blockers is basically “a live experiment” on vulnerable children. “In my years as a physician,” he wrote, “I cannot remember an issue of greater significance for the practice of medicine. We have left established evidence-based clinical practice and are using powerful life-altering medication for a vulnerable group of adolescents and children based upon a belief.”

According to the newspaper, the evidence of Gillberg and other experts was that:

Puberty-halting drugs can harm a patient's brain and bone development;
Clinics are urging gender-changing teen girls to choose sperm donors to fertilise eggs before freezing them;
Medics are failing to warn about the infertility risks posed by puberty blockers;
Children who regret treatment find themselves “locked” into new bodies;
Internet sites persuade autistic children that they are transgender when they simply have “identity issues”.


https://www.bioedge.org/mobile/view/london-newspaper-reveals-shocking-evidence-about-transgender-treatments/13664

ceadaoin.

Gatling wrote: »

Just shows the the mentality around the idea of s small cohort of men demanding the deletion of woman , womanhood , motherhood

If mothers have to become birthing people to avoid offense, where is the campaign to rename fathers as "inseminating people" ? Men as "people with a penis"? I haven't seen any suggestion of this. This erasure is only ever targeted at women. Says it all

Gatling

ceadaoin. wrote: »

If mothers have to become birthing people to avoid offense, where is the campaign to rename fathers as "inseminating people" ? Men as "people with a penis"? I haven't seen any suggestion of this. This erasure is only ever targeted at women. Says it all

It's not gone unnoticed but it's been claimed this is been driven by women who want to be more inclusive of their gender apparently ,
In support of a cohort of men ,very Vocal Men demanding the wiping out of woman , women , motherhood under the guise of inclusiveness ,
Inclusive doesn't mean you erase women or push a belief that woman , women , motherhood is nothing but a felling in some men

ingalway

ceadaoin. wrote: »

If mothers have to become birthing people to avoid offense, where is the campaign to rename fathers as "inseminating people" ? Men as "people with a penis"? I haven't seen any suggestion of this. This erasure is only ever targeted at women. Says it all

You are way behind the times there! Women can have a penis, a lady penis and the daddy of all penisis is of course the lesbian penis.

Gruffalux

ingalway wrote: »

You are way behind the times there! Women can have a penis, a lady penis and the daddy of all penisis is of course the lesbian penis.

I think I speak for both me and Nancy Pelosi when I say we will be having none of this gendered language in this chamber. Daddy! I'm scarlet for you.

Gatling

ingalway wrote: »

You are way behind the times there! Women can have a penis, a lady penis and the daddy of all penisis is of course the lesbian penis.

But if a lesbian turns down a lady penis they are bigots and transpobic,

ingalway

Gatling wrote: »

But if a lesbian turns down a lady penis they are bigots and transpobic,

There is no greater evil on earth than a lesbian that refuses a penis. In the 'good' old days lesbians just hadn't met the right man/penis but now of course they just need to stop being so transphobic, stop being genital fetishists and welcome the lesbian penis into their lives.

Gatling

ingalway wrote: »

There is no greater evil on earth than a lesbian that refuses a penis. In the 'good' old days lesbians just hadn't met the right man/penis but now of course they just need to stop being so transphobic, stop being genital fetishists and welcome the lesbian penis into their lives.

It's like a weird gay conversion therapy ,it's ok honey your not lesbian ,your just attracted to self identifying trans women with a penis ,
See honey told you your not lesbian