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

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

This was a stunt to draw attention to himself, his political career and to mock trans people. Therefore I have no problem insulting him.

He followed the rules and was allowed to run. Isn’t that the problem?

Gatling

Girly Gal wrote: »

Well if there's zero attempt at transition then that's absolutely ridiculous, it's not only ridiculous it's actually damaging to genuine trans people

This is a prime example of what people have been talking about but when they try to discuss it they are labelled Transpobes and bigots .

But no we have a massive about face and the same people labeling people as bigots are now saying they can stop people calling themselves man or woman and taking part in respective events and enter spaces and somehow they are not transpobic bigots .

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If that’s your understanding, then you clearly haven’t read what I wrote -





I was wondering where the question was coming from or what was I missing, because ‘Yes’ is the obvious answer, and you would know that ‘Yes’ is the obvious answer, and that’s not just an opinion, it’s enshrined in Irish equality legislation that there are circumstances in which discrimination is permitted and perfectly lawful.

Yes, one can discriminate, is what I am presuming you are saying. Although it can be hard to decipher your intent.
If yes be the answer then under law being enacted in Scotland (and likely eventually elsewhere as this is the way with such things in similar jurisdictions) you would be committing hate speech/hate crime.

, 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 The terms ‘transsexualism’ and ‘transvestitism’ are also widely understood to be outdated and are therefore also removed from the definition of “transgender identity” included in the Bill, helping to ensure that the definition is up-to-date.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.

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

One eyed Jack

Girly Gal wrote: »

Well if there's zero attempt at transition then that's absolutely ridiculous, it's not only ridiculous it's actually damaging to genuine trans people

They are genuinely transgender though, as genuinely transgender as anyone else who is transgender. How are those people damaging to anyone else who is transgender?

I’d like to know what you think because it’s something of a bitter argument between some people who declare that only people who experience gender dysphoria are truly transgender, then there are other people who declare that only people who have completed surgical procedures are genuinely transgender, and there are all sorts of groups all claiming different standards (which they meet), are “genuinely transgender”.

Irish law doesn’t require that anyone declare they are transgender in any case, it simply states that people cannot be unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of their sex or gender identity.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They are genuinely transgender though, as genuinely transgender as anyone else who is transgender. How are those people damaging to anyone else who is transgender?

I’d like to know what you think because it’s something of a bitter argument between some people who declare that only people who experience gender dysphoria are truly transgender, then there are other people who declare that only people who have completed surgical procedures are genuinely transgender, and there are all sorts of groups all claiming different standards (which they meet), are “genuinely transgender”.

Irish law doesn’t require that anyone declare they are transgender in any case, it simply states that people cannot be unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of their sex or gender identity.

You are a satirical act, I think - you have spent the afternoon posing like an edge-lord saying you would call out the ''prick'' who identified as female for a race based upon you using your ''experience'', and yet here you are now saying nobody has to do anything beyond identify as a gender identity to be genuine and qualify for protection against discrimination.

CtevenSrowder

Vic_08 wrote: »

He self-declared as a woman, isn't that the very thing you're arguing for?

Or are you finally admitting the whole concept is lunacy?

This is precisely why he carried out this stunt.

Gruffalux

Gruffalux wrote: »

You are a satirical act, I think - you have spent the afternoon posing like an edge-lord saying you would call out the ''prick'' who identified as female for a race based upon you using your ''experience'', and yet here you are now saying nobody has to do anything beyond identify as a gender identity to be genuine and qualify for protection against discrimination.

He argues against himself all the time.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

Yes, one can discriminate, is what I am presuming you are saying. Although it can be hard to decipher your intent.
If yes be the answer then under law being enacted in Scotland (and likely eventually elsewhere as this is the way with such things in similar jurisdictions) you would be committing hate speech/hate crime.

And there’s the hypothetical extension I was referring to which underlay your question. Of course a person can still be discriminated against, especially if their intent is to coerce another person into facilitating the acting out of their sexual fantasies? Yes is still the answer to your question.

Hate crimes come under different legislation, and we already have similar legislation in Ireland, and yes there is talks of making it more specific, and STILL someone telling anyone to piss off because they didn’t want to be coerced into facilitating that person’s sexual fantasies is unlikely to see the person either found liable for discrimination, cautioned or convicted of a hate crime.

CtevenSrowder

Gruffalux wrote: »

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.

I mean honest to God. Amazing how quickly it all unravels, oh wait no it isn't at all is it because the majority of us saw it for the big illogical crock of ****e that it is from day 1.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

You are a satirical act, I think - you have spent the afternoon posing like an edge-lord saying you would call out the ''prick'' who identified as female for a race based upon you using your ''experience'', and yet here you are now saying nobody has to do anything beyond identify as a gender identity to be genuine and qualify for protection against discrimination.

It’s like they’re two completely different circumstances, isn’t it?

One is that people can identify themselves as whatever they wish, I really couldn’t care less, but under Irish law there are circumstances where they are protected from discrimination.

And the other is some smartarse acting the prick which some people here are prepared to accept as legitimate when it suits their purposes?

Now if I was eyeballing hypocrites...

CtevenSrowder

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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..

If he identifies as a women again will he suddenly become one again... or?

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hate crimes come under different legislation, and we already have similar legislation in Ireland, and yes there is talks of making it more specific, and STILL someone telling anyone to piss off because they

Don't fit your idea of self identifying women would likely to be found to be discriminatory ,

I'd wonder if that was the case would there be blowback professionally ?

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s like they’re two completely different circumstances, isn’t it?

One is that people can identify themselves as whatever they wish, I really couldn’t care less, but under Irish law there are circumstances where they are protected from discrimination.

And the other is some smartarse acting the prick which some people here are prepared to accept as legitimate when it suits their purposes?

Now if I was eyeballing hypocrites...

Noone is saying he is legitimate. But you know this. You can't accept that the absurdity and hypocrisy of your position has been fully reflected back to you with what has gone on here.

The point is you'd have no idea if he was legitimate or not at the time of him signing up, but are suggesting you'd tell him to piss off, laughably, based off your own 'experience'.

The only reason you are saying you'd tell him to piss off is because it is now known that he was not serious, you have information now that you didn't at the time. Everyone likes to place themselves on the right side of history.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Don't fit your idea of self identifying women would likely to be found to be discriminatory ,

Wait now, who said anything about fitting my idea of a self-identifying woman? I thought I had made it explicitly clear that I would have no issue whatsoever with telling someone to piss off if they were acting the prick. I also made it explicitly clear that I didn’t care whether they were a man or a woman or however they preferred to identify themselves. Telling someone to piss off on the basis that they’re acting the prick is perfectly lawful, and has nothing to do with equality or anti-discrimination legislation.

Gatling wrote: »

I'd wonder if that was the case would there be blowback professionally ?

Thought you were suggesting offering something else there for a minute :pac:


Maybe for someone else there might be, it would depend on the circumstances in each and every individual case when there is a conflict of rights between parties.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They are genuinely transgender though, as genuinely transgender as anyone else who is transgender. How are those people damaging to anyone else who is transgender?

I’d like to know what you think because it’s something of a bitter argument between some people who declare that only people who experience gender dysphoria are truly transgender, then there are other people who declare that only people who have completed surgical procedures are genuinely transgender, and there are all sorts of groups all claiming different standards (which they meet), are “genuinely transgender”.

Irish law doesn’t require that anyone declare they are transgender in any case, it simply states that people cannot be unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of their sex or gender identity.

Except the ones who you decide are taking the piss. You can just tell them to piss off because you don't believe them.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s like they’re two completely different circumstances, isn’t it?

One is that people can identify themselves as whatever they wish, I really couldn’t care less..

And the other is some smartarse acting the prick which some people here are prepared to accept as legitimate when it suits their purposes?

You’ve contradicted yourself. Again.

These are the exact same circumstances. The inevitability of self declaration, in law or by laws or rules in a sporting organisation is that anybody can self declare a gender. There’s no restriction on smartarses acting the prick in the laws.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Wait now, who said anything about fitting my idea of a self-identifying woman? I thought I had made it explicitly clear that I would have no issue whatsoever with telling someone to piss off if they were acting the prick. I also made it explicitly clear that I didn’t care whether they were a man or a woman or however they preferred to identify themselves. Telling someone to piss off on the basis that they’re acting the prick is perfectly lawful, and has nothing to do with equality or anti-discrimination legislation..

Sorry, you are being deliberately incoherent here. There’s no way to tell if someone is “taking the piss” beforehand. Is there? Unless they had announced their intention beforehand.

suicide_circus

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry, you are being deliberately incoherent here.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Noone is saying he is legitimate. But you know this. You can't accept that the absurdity and hypocrisy of your position has been fully reflected back to you with what has gone on here.

You can only attempt that by pretending he’s legitimate? I know that’s exactly what people here are trying to do, I know it’s what the guy in question tried to have the organisers do - either allow him to participate in the women’s category, or he could claim he was being discriminated against because they wouldn’t allow him to participate in the women’s category. Anyone would see that coming a mile off, and I’d fail his test of wokeness because I’d tell him to piss off and let him claim he was discriminated against, he’d only be making an even bigger fool of himself.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The point is you'd have no idea if he was legitimate or not at the time of him signing up, but are suggesting you'd tell him to piss off, laughably, based off your own 'experience'.

You say that, based upon your own limited experience of what you think I would or wouldn’t do, so you can form conclusions about people based upon your experiences of other people, but I can’t form conclusions about other people based upon my experiences of other people?

How does that double standard work exactly? Because it looks to me like it’s based entirely upon your judgement which is shockingly, biased in your favour! How incredibly convenient for you that it just works out like that? No coincidence at all of course.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The only reason you are saying you'd tell him to piss off is because it is now known that he was not serious, you have information now that you didn't at the time. Everyone likes to place themselves on the right side of history.

Mate it was a fun run at Trinity, not the Spanish Inquisition. Perspective like. The reason I’d have told him to piss off is simply because I’d have been able to tell from his demeanour that he wasn’t being serious, especially when he’d feign offence as if he were genuinely offended. I don’t have to have laid eyes on a person to know when they are pretending to be offended, it happens online quite a lot.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Except the ones who you decide are taking the piss. You can just tell them to piss off because you don't believe them.

It’s not a question of whether I believe that they’re a female or not, it’s a question of whether or not they’re taking the piss. It’s on that basis I’d tell anyone to piss off. I’ve clarified this numerous times already yet you still choose to pretend I’m saying something I’m not just so you can continue to argue against that instead. That’s not what I’ve said though, that’s your attempting to put words in my mouth.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Anyone would see that coming a mile off, and I’d fail his test of wokeness because I’d tell him to piss off and let him claim he was discriminated against, he’d only be making an even bigger fool of himself.

How does that double standard work exactly? Because it looks to me like it’s The reason I’d have told him to piss off is simply because I’d have been able to tell from his demeanour that he wasn’t being serious, especially when he’d feign offence as if he were genuinely offended. I don’t have to have laid eyes on a person to know when they are pretending to be offended, it happens online quite a lot.

Captain hindsight of course can discern between feigning offence and real offence. Without fail .

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sorry, you are being deliberately incoherent here. There’s no way to tell if someone is “taking the piss” beforehand. Is there? Unless they had announced their intention beforehand.

No need to apologise for anything you haven’t done? Of course there are numerous ways to tell when someone is taking the piss, like when they feign offence and it’s pretty clear they are feigning offence. I care less about their reasons for doing so than I do the fact they think people are actually that stupid.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not a question of whether I believe that they’re a female or not, it’s a question of whether or not they’re taking the piss. It’s on that basis I’d tell anyone to piss off. I’ve clarified this numerous times already yet you still choose to pretend I’m saying something I’m not just so you can continue to argue against that instead. That’s not what I’ve said though, that’s your attempting to put words in my mouth.

No jack. No words being put in your mouth.

You believed they were taking the piss.

And feel it's ok to tell them to piss off.

The reason you don't believe them is because you claim that you wouldn't have believed they were serious about being a female.

You therefore agree that if you don't believe that a man who says he is female is indeed a female, it is fine to tell them to piss off.

Dig up.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Captain hindsight of course can discern between feigning offence and real offence. Without fail .

Well, yes? As only in hindsight after they’re done pretending would I know that they are pretending. That’s less Captain Hindsight and more Captain Obvious though.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not a question of whether I believe that they’re a female or not, it’s a question of whether or not they’re taking the piss. It’s on that basis I’d tell anyone to piss off.

But you don't get to decide they are taking the piss ,all you would have is there appearance ,
Which if that's the basis of telling them to piss off your discriminating against them based on their appearance ,

Cestmoi 111

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

This was a stunt to draw attention to himself, his political career and to mock trans people. Therefore I have no problem insulting him.

To mock trans people or to mock the current situation of self-ID and people being afraid to challenge anyone who says they are the opposite sex? I would think it’s the latter.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can only attempt that by pretending he’s legitimate? I know that’s exactly what people here are trying to do, I know it’s what the guy in question tried to have the organisers do - either allow him to participate in the women’s category, or he could claim he was being discriminated against because they wouldn’t allow him to participate in the women’s category. Anyone would see that coming a mile off, and I’d fail his test of wokeness because I’d tell him to piss off and let him claim he was discriminated against, he’d only be making an even bigger fool of himself.

Yes, thereby exposing the nonsense of the whole idea of if you simply identify you are. No doubt Joey, LLMLL and co. would be decrying the horrible transphobic TCD had he carried on his little act.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You say that, based upon your own limited experience of what you think I would or wouldn’t do, so you can form conclusions about people based upon your experiences of other people, but I can’t form conclusions about other people based upon my experiences of other people?

You are the person in favour of self id. If this man decides to change gender officially there is near nothing stopping him. Which is why the whole idea of it is absurd.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How does that double standard work exactly? Because it looks to me like it’s based entirely upon your judgement which is shockingly, biased in your favour! How incredibly convenient for you that it just works out like that? No coincidence at all of course.

haha oh Jack. You are the person in favour of self id. It's highly convenient how you seem to have some sort trans lie-detector were you can tell whose genuine and who is simply a 'prick'. Very convenient how you just know you'd see through this, yet the organisers of the event weren't able to. Clearly you think very lowly of them, and very highly of yourself.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Mate it was a fun run at Trinity, not the Spanish Inquisition. Perspective like. The reason I’d have told him to piss off is simply because I’d have been able to tell from his demeanour that he wasn’t being serious, especially when he’d feign offence as if he were genuinely offended. I don’t have to have laid eyes on a person to know when they are pretending to be offended, it happens online quite a lot.

You have no basis to say this at all. Especially considering as it was a fun-run in a University, full of the very people who'd jump all over the 'it's transphobic bandwagon'. So it's possible an element of fear was involved, or someone not arsed having to have themselves labelled a TERF and transphobe incessantly by the likes of one of our good friends on this thread, an alumni of TCD if memory serves me correct, who no doubt exist in the hollowed walls of Trinity..

Secondly, you've no idea what his demeanour was, maybe his feigned offence was very convincing. As I said, everyone wants to put themselves on the right side of history, very convenient for yourself that you'd manage to see through his bull**** safe in the knowledge that he was indeed bull****ting... after the fact of course.

alan partridge aha

Deleted User wrote: »

No jack. No words being put in your mouth.

You believed they were taking the piss.

And feel it's ok to tell them to piss off.

The reason you don't believe them is because you claim that you wouldn't have believed they were serious about being a female.

You therefore agree that if you don't believe that a man who says he is female is indeed a female, it is fine to tell them to piss off.

Dig up.

100%, if he told that person to piss off because he was organiser, he would be immediately relieved of his duty. How intolerant of you to say they can't compete because you've decided not to believe them.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No jack. No words being put in your mouth.

You believed they were taking the piss.

And feel it's ok to tell them to piss off.

You got that much right at least.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The reason you don't believe them is because you claim that you wouldn't have believed they were serious about being a female.

You therefore agree that if you don't believe that a man who says he is female is indeed a female, it is fine to tell them to piss off.

It’s not about whether I believe they believe they are male or female, it’s quite obvious that they don’t, and it’s on that basis I would conclude that they are taking the piss. It’s like you imagine all this stuff happens in a vacuum, or that people don’t interact with other people or something. It’s weird, frankly. As far as I’m concerned it’s fine to tell anyone to piss off if I believe they’re taking the piss. I wouldn’t limit myself to whether or not they are man, woman or child, especially children, can’t stand the little fcukers :pac:

Seriously though, I do know too there are times when I have to be civil to people and resist the urge to tell them to piss off. In the case of that runner, no problem. In discussions on here... well...

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You got that much right at least.





It’s not about whether I believe they believe they are male or female, it’s quite obvious that they don’t, and it’s on that basis I would conclude that they are taking the piss. It’s like you imagine all this stuff happens in a vacuum, or that people don’t interact with other people or something. It’s weird, frankly. As far as I’m concerned it’s fine to tell anyone to piss off if I believe they’re taking the piss. I wouldn’t limit myself to whether or not they are man, woman or child, especially children, can’t stand the little fcukers :pac:

Seriously though, I do know too there are times when I have to be civil to people and resist the urge to tell them to piss off. In the case of that runner, no problem. In discussions on here... well...

So you agree with my assertion that YOU feel that it's ok to tell people who YOU don't believe are being honest about their gender to piss off.

I did not put any words in your mouth.