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

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why? On what grounds would you have told them to piss off?

Because he was obviously a male?

Either it is perfectly acceptable for people to self declare as whatever they choose or it isn't.

Yet you say you'd tell someone to piss of and deny them that right and not believe them?

Inconsistent.

It’s perfectly acceptable for people to self declare as whatever they choose, and it’s perfectly acceptable for me to tell them to piss off when I think they’re acting the prick. They have the right to pursue a legal case if they believe they are the victim of unlawful discrimination. That’s not me denying anyone anything, everyone still has the right to self declare how they wish and to apply for a gender recognition certificate to be recognised by the State as their preferred gender, and nobody has the right to compel anyone to believe them.

It’s only inconsistent when you try to present a false narrative equating two very different circumstances.

Gatling

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

He admitted himself he's not serious. Why are you taking him seriously when he said himself hes not serious?

Excuse after excuse .

Again he identified as female ,

But he's getting abuse from the same people dishing it out to those who don't agree with this ideology

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

He admitted himself he's not serious. Why are you taking him seriously when he said himself hes not serious?

This was an attention seeking stunt in order to draw attention to himself, draw attention to his political causes and mock trans people. So yeah I agree with OEJ he is a prick.

What you think of the person is irrelevant. I'm asking why OEJ said he would have told the person to piss off. I'm asking you whether or not you would have accepted this person was a female before he admitted he wasnt being serious?

As a mod of the LGBTQ forum, I assume your position is that you believe that, when it comes to gender identity, every person should be believed, respected and recognised as however they choose to live their life?

Until this person said they weren't serious, would you have recognised them as a woman?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s perfectly acceptable for people to self declare as whatever they choose, and it’s perfectly acceptable for me to tell them to piss off when I think they’re acting the prick. They have the right to pursue a legal case if they believe they are the victim of unlawful discrimination. That’s not me denying anyone anything, everyone still has the right to self declare how they wish and to apply for a gender recognition certificate to be recognised by the State as their preferred gender, and nobody has the right to compel anyone to believe them.

It’s only inconsistent when you try to present a false narrative equating two very different circumstances.

So you have no problem telling someone you think is obviously a man but is claiming to be a woman to piss off?

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s perfectly acceptable for people to self declare as whatever they choose, and it’s perfectly acceptable for me to tell them to piss off when I think they’re acting the prick. They have the right to pursue a legal case if they believe they are the victim of unlawful discrimination. That’s not me denying anyone anything, everyone still has the right to self declare how they wish and to apply for a gender recognition certificate to be recognised by the State as their preferred gender, and nobody has the right to compel anyone to believe them.

It’s only inconsistent when you try to present a false narrative equating two very different circumstances.

Eh, no it's not. The law is quite clear there. He said afterwards that he'd been messing, but until he said that (after the race) you would have had no right to tell him to piss off.

On what grounds would you have made that judgment, before he said it himself?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

But he did claim to be transgender, long enough to register for and then run the race.

A bit like the guy in Credit Suisse who claims to be a woman a few days a week and a man the rest of the time. Do you think they're being a prick too?

No he didn’t, he claimed to be female, and he admitted himself he feigned offence when the lady sought to clarify that he was male -


“I registered online and clicked a box saying I was female. When I came to collect my race number from the Trinity Sports Centre, the lady there said “So you’re male?” as she went to make an adjustment to her spreadsheet. In a slightly triggered tone I said “No, I am female”, and that solved the matter.

“Seeing as it was a once off I don’t think Trinity Sport would risk incurring the wrath of the woke in their very heartland.”


I don’t think the Credit Suisse guy is being a prick because there’s no indication he’s setting out to get a rise out to test anyone else or to humiliate anyone else or to deceive anyone else. And we’ve addressed this one before when you pointed out that a women’s organisation awarded him with business woman of the year. They’re perfectly entitled to give awards to whomever they like, in the same way as the organisers of the event in Trinity are entitled to decide to give medals to whoever they like, whereas if I had been one of the organisers I would have said he should be disqualified for unsportsmanlike behaviour.

Gruffalux

Speaking of people who ''identify'' as women, and to continue providing as broad a picture of the different aspects of the reality as possible, I link here to several interesting articles on the subject of pornography and trans identity. Specifically sissy hypno porn which has grown in popularity a lot of the past few years. It is all over Tumblr, and pornhub and accessible by children.

First to Andrea Chu who wrote a book called Females.
Andrea is lauded as an up and coming major thinker on the subject and specifically by Sandy Stone who is themselves credited with having founded Transgender Studies as an academic category https://lgbt.wikia.org/wiki/Sandy_Stone_(US_Artist)

Chu has been credited with launching the trans movement’s second wave by no less a figure than Sandy Stone, the academic widely considered to be the founder of transgender studies.

Andrea Chu specifically claims that

“Sissy porn did make me trans”

https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/january-2020/sissy-porn-and-trans-dirty-laundry/

When a porn-obsessed writer can be lauded as a feminist prophet for describing the “barest essentials” of “femaleness” as “an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes” we should wonder how on earth we got to this point. Chu’s writing may be funny, engaging and thought-provoking, but this is not a feminist book in any meaningful sense of the term.

The next two articles go into generally looking at the influence of porn in the broader area for a percentage of people who claim to be transgender. Remember that the definition of trans includes specifically cross dressers. The Scottish parliament aims to make it hate speech to say anything about the ''rights'' of such paraphiliacs.

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2020/11/29/why-isnt-anyone-talking-about-the-influence-of-porn-on-the-trans-trend/

(Author Genevieve Gluck says) this is not written with the intention of denying the existence of gender dysphoria, but to call attention to the phenomenon of pornography-induced dysphoria that simultaneously promotes extreme sexual objectification and the degradation of womanhood.

I won't quote further from it in order not to transgress boards content guidelines. Read if interested.

And this article by Dr Em, who has written extensively on the whole area, and was banned from Medium for doing so. Now hosted as a result of the ban by UncommonGroundMedia.

https://uncommongroundmedia.com/agp-males-domestic-abuse-part-iv-sissyfication-submissive-women/

Annasopra

volchitsa wrote: »

Eh, no it's not. The law is quite clear there. He said afterwards that he'd been messing, but until he said that (after the race) you would have had no right to tell him to piss off.

On what grounds would you have made that judgment, before he said it himself?

What are you on about. Ticking a box in a form in Trinity does not have some specific legal standing.

Annasopra

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What you think of the person is irrelevant. I'm asking why OEJ said he would have told the person to piss off. I'm asking you whether or not you would have accepted this person was a female before he admitted he wasnt being serious?

As a mod of the LGBTQ forum, I assume your position is that you believe that, when it comes to gender identity, every person should be believed, respected and recognised as however they choose to live their life?

Until this person said they weren't serious, would you have recognised them as a woman?

He wasnt serious. He was acting like a prick. End of story.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No he didn’t, he claimed to be female, and he admitted himself he feigned offence when the lady sought to clarify that he was male -


“I registered online and clicked a box saying I was female. When I came to collect my race number from the Trinity Sports Centre, the lady there said “So you’re male?” as she went to make an adjustment to her spreadsheet. In a slightly triggered tone I said “No, I am female”, and that solved the matter.

“Seeing as it was a once off I don’t think Trinity Sport would risk incurring the wrath of the woke in their very heartland.”


I don’t think the Credit Suisse guy is being a prick because there’s no indication he’s setting out to get a rise out to test anyone else or to humiliate anyone else or to deceive anyone else. And we’ve addressed this one before when you pointed out that a women’s organisation awarded him with business woman of the year. They’re perfectly entitled to give awards to whomever they like, in the same way as the organisers of the event in Trinity are entitled to decide to give medals to whoever they like, whereas if I had been one of the organisers I would have said he should be disqualified for unsportsmanlike behaviour.

But you don't know any of that unless he tells you. And he hadn't said anything until after he ran the race. So if someone didn't say anything, collected the prize money for a women's race and then just went back to wearing men's clothes etc most of the rest of the time, you agree that, like Credit Suisse guy, you'd just accept that they deserved the prize money?

You're basing your rejection of him on him being honest enough to say so. If the prize money was high enough, that might not happen. Let's say he won a (female) sports scholarship like they have in US universities?

Smacruairi

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

He admitted himself he's not serious. Why are you taking him seriously when he said himself hes not serious?
.

So when someone male comes up to you and says they are female, are you going to search through all their twitter and Facebook postings to see if they were ever, in your terms a prick before you accept them as a woman? Only then will you believe what they say?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No he didn’t, he claimed to be female, and he admitted himself he feigned offence when the lady sought to clarify that he was male -


“I registered online and clicked a box saying I was female. When I came to collect my race number from the Trinity Sports Centre, the lady there said “So you’re male?” as she went to make an adjustment to her spreadsheet. In a slightly triggered tone I said “No, I am female”, and that solved the matter.


I don’t think the Credit Suisse guy is being a prick because there’s no indication he’s setting out to get a rise out to test anyone else or to humiliate anyone else or to deceive anyone else.

Jesus that is some goalpost moving.

Does someone need to declare themselves as trans to be trans? I thought they need only to declare themselves as the opposite gender to which they were born?

What indication of this person "being a prick" was there until their admission that he wasn't serious?

Seems that you only think they were acting the prick because they expose the glaring flaws with self id.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Eh, no it's not. The law is quite clear there. He said afterwards that he'd been messing, but until he said that (after the race) you would have had no right to tell him to piss off.

On what grounds would you have made that judgment, before he said it himself?

It’s because the law IS quite clear there, that I or anyone else would have been perfectly within their rights to tell him to piss off.

I’d have made the judgement on the grounds that he was acting like a prick. You must imagine people were born yesterday that they cannot form judgements based upon their experiences, yet that is essentially how people form judgments.

Gatling

volchitsa wrote: »

Eh, no it's not. The law is quite clear there. He said afterwards that he'd been messing, but until he said that (after the race) you would have had no right to tell him to piss off.

On what grounds would you have made that judgment, before he said it himself?

This is exactly what's been said since day on this ,a small cohort want to make the decision of who is and who isn't ,
all men who self identify as women are real women and anyone who disagrees is a bigot but here someone wants it both ways to call people bigots and transpobes while calling others idiots and pricks and they would decide who's male or female .

Massive contradiction and about face

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s because the law IS quite clear there, that I or anyone else would have been perfectly within their rights to tell him to piss off.

I’d have made the judgement on the grounds that he was acting like a prick. You must imagine people were born yesterday that they cannot form judgements based upon their experiences, yet that is essentially how people form judgments.

By ''based upon their experiences'' you actually mean based upon the evidence of their eyes and senses, which has been argued time and time again on here to be deeply transphobic.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s because the law IS quite clear there, that I or anyone else would have been perfectly within their rights to tell him to piss off.

I’d have made the judgement on the grounds that he was acting like a prick. You must imagine people were born yesterday that they cannot form judgements based upon their experiences, yet that is essentially how people form judgments.

Nope, the law says if someone they are a woman, then they are. You're confusng the fact that he then said he
wasn't serious with the idea that someone else could have decided he wasn't serious. They can't.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

He wasnt serious. He was acting like a prick. End of story.

It would be handy for you if it was the end of the story Joey, but unfortunately for you, that's not how life works.

I can understand that people don't like their hypocrisy and inconsistencies being held up in front of a mirror but, much like self id, just because you say "end of story", doesn't make it so.

So I ask again, as a mod of the LGBTQ forum, I assume your position is that you believe that, when it comes to gender identity, every person should be believed, respected and recognised as however they choose to live their life without question?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s because the law IS quite clear there, that I or anyone else would have been perfectly within their rights to tell him to piss off.

I’d have made the judgement on the grounds that he was acting like a prick. You must imagine people were born yesterday that they cannot form judgements based upon their experiences, yet that is essentially how people form judgments.

That makes zero sense. Until his admission, you would have absolutely no grounds to form the opinion that he was "acting like a prick"

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s because the law IS quite clear there, that I or anyone else would have been perfectly within their rights to tell him to piss off.

I’d have made the judgement on the grounds that he was acting like a prick.

No ,no you would not have been within your rights by denying them their rights to self identify as a woman .

You wouldn't have been able to make any judgement of what or who they were ,they would have still lined up to race and went to the the media /social media Calling out bigots for trying to stop them taking part

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Jesus that is some goalpost moving.

Does someone need to declare themselves as trans to be trans? I thought they need only to declare themselves as the opposite gender to which they were born?

What indication of this person "being a prick" was there until their admission that he wasn't serious?

Seems that you only think they were acting the prick because they expose the glaring flaws with self id.

No, nobody has to declare themselves as trans in order to be trans, either they are or they aren’t, but that’s irrelevant in this case because the guy didn’t declare himself to be trans as you suggested, he declared himself to be female.

The reason I think they were acting the prick is because they’re quite clearly acting the prick, or are you another poster who imagines people were born yesterday?

They didn’t expose any glaring flaws with self-ID as it is written in Irish law, because it wasn’t even remotely relevant in this case. It was simply that the organisers chose to allow him to participate in the race in the female category, which could have happened in any case, and nothing to do with self-ID. The guy chose to cheat, that’s entirely on him. The organisers of the race were acting in good faith.

Gruffalux

''Good faith''. It's almost like a contestant for Miss World breathlessly saying ''I want world peace.''

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, nobody has to declare themselves as trans in order to be trans, either they are or they aren’t, but that’s irrelevant in this case because the guy didn’t declare himself to be trans as you suggested, he declared himself to be female.

The reason I think they were acting the prick is because they’re quite clearly acting the prick, or are you another poster who imagines people were born yesterday?

They didn’t expose any glaring flaws with self-ID as it is written in Irish law, because it wasn’t even remotely relevant in this case. It was simply that the organisers chose to allow him to participate in the race in the female category, which could have happened in any case, and nothing to do with self-ID. The guy chose to cheat, that’s entirely on him. The organisers of the race were acting in good faith.

If a person came up to you and you assumed they were a man due to their physical features, and were told by that person
that they were in fact female, would you accept it without question or would you assume they were "acting like a prick"?

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

No ,no you would not have been within your rights by denying them their rights to self identify as a woman .

You wouldn't have been able to make any judgement of what or who they were ,they would have still lined up to race and went to the the media /social media Calling out bigots for trying to stop them taking part

I didn’t say I would try to deny anyone their right to be recognised by the State as their preferred gender. I said I would be perfectly within my rights to tell the particular individual in the circumstances we’re talking about to piss off, if I had been one of the organisers. And they would then have the right to pursue legal action.

Off they go, more than welcome to try anyway.

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

That makes zero sense. Until his admission, you would have absolutely no grounds to form the opinion that he was "acting like a prick"

I agree with absolutely with that position, I think we should be able to tell any man who claims to be a women that they're acting like a prick.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn’t say I would try to deny anyone their right to be recognised by the State as their preferred gender. I said I would be perfectly within my rights to tell the particular individual in the circumstances we’re talking about to piss off, if I had been one of the organisers. And they would then have the right to pursue legal action.

Off they go, more than welcome to try anyway.

You would verbally abuse someone you didn't believe was the gender they said they were?

Topsy turvy world we live in.

Annasopra

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It would be handy for you if it was the end of the story Joey, but unfortunately for you, that's not how life works.

I can understand that people don't like their hypocrisy and inconsistencies being held up in front of a mirror but, much like self id, just because you say "end of story", doesn't make it so.

So I ask again, as a mod of the LGBTQ forum, I assume your position is that you believe that, when it comes to gender identity, every person should be believed, respected and recognised as however they choose to live their life without question?

The guy was a prick carrying out a stunt to get attention. The inconsistencies here are coming from those who suddenly want him recognised as a woman. Not me.

Smacruairi

No, no one wants him as a woman because he isn't one. But you are basically saying we can call anyone we don't believe a prick. Thanks for that expert analysis to avoid facing the flaw in self id that everyone copped 49 pages ago joey.

suicide_circus

Neither being a prick nor having a prick is any barrier to being a woman

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn’t say I would try to deny anyone their right to be recognised by the State as their preferred gender. I said I would be perfectly within my rights to tell the particular individual in the circumstances we’re talking about to piss off, if I had been one of the organisers. And they would then have the right to pursue legal action.

No sorry you wouldn't they would have still have entered the race and you would have been utterly powerless to stop them ,you would have been labelled as a transpobic bigot

Annasopra

Smacruairi wrote: »

No, no one wants him as a woman because he isn't one. But you are basically saying we can call anyone we don't believe a prick. Thanks for that expert analysis to avoid facing the flaw in self id that everyone copped 49 pages ago joey.

Nope. I didnt say that. I said this particular man is a prick because of this attention seeking stunt. There is lots of hopping up and down above saying he should be taken seriously as a woman..