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

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

No - now I am interested in you question lol!!

:pac:

You can boil down my whole reply as - no I don't believe it would be an assault because I think the hospital would have a policy in place to not make the patient feel uncomfortable/assaulted in the first place.

Now you're just flogging my dead dobbin, on his way to the glue factory. We'll just let the stinking corpse off on the knackers truck.

km991148

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Now you're just flogging my dead dobbin, on his way to the glue factory. We'll just let the stinking corpse off on the knackers truck.

ah come on.. after all that? We cant continue the core point??

I feel like something special happened here tonight

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

ah come on.. after all that? We cant continue the core point??

I feel like something special happened here tonight

You hurt my feelings
I just need some time.

IAMAMORON

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Let's use the much ventilated example - sports

No, we have been over this. Citing 50 persons in the world who are involved in one sport or another is not a good enough reason to raise a debate on gender inequality or gender preference.

Yes I agree it is pertinent to each specific scenario, but that is the role of each sporting governing body to adjudicate. It is not a big enough example to use as an example of how non transgenders' rights are being infringed by transgendered persons wishing to be accepted as transgendered.

Rodin

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I am male. I don't have any issues with being referred to as cis-gendered or biological or whatever. I certainly have no issue with a transman being a former woman who has transitioned to being a male. That transman's gender identity is really none of my business.

There is nothing nonsensical about it. The only nonsense is non transgenders who refuse to accept it as a reality.

It is a biological impossibility for a human female to become a human male.

Annasopra

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

At what point along the process does the man become a trans woman do people accept ?

Questioning their "birth assigned sex"
Coming out
Passing - (Behaving/dressing/styling etc.) as their preferred gender
At self ID via GRA
Hormone therapy?
Sex reassignment surgery?

(Notwithstanding everyone's different!)

For me probably when the person comes out. My friend came out as a trans male in an all girls school run by Nuns when he was 16. I met one of the Nuns at the time who was his teacher and she was just amazingly supportive and straightaway accepting. Even nuns can accept at the stage of coming out.

km991148

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

You hurt my feelings
I just need some time.

:pac:

now I am hurt.. I never meant to hurt anyone

IAMAMORON

Rodin wrote: »

It is a biological impossibility for a human female to become a human male.

Maybe, but that has nothing to do with their human right to transition to and exist and live as a male.

I don't need patronising on biology within this particular debate. There are plenty of men out there with vaginas and plenty of women out there with a penis.

Can you not accept that?

excludedbin

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Let's use the much ventilated example - sports

Let's. The IOC, for example, has allowed trans athletes to participate for over a decade (since 2004). Plenty enough time for them to dominate literally every podium if we're to believe the claims of transphobes, especially on these threads. And yet that isn't the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/03/sports-stars-weigh-in-on-row-over-transgender-athletes

“There is no debate to be had over whether trans women athletes have an unfair advantage: it’s clear that they don’t,” McKinnon wrote. “Since the Nov 2003 IOC policy openly allowing trans women to compete, not a single trans athlete has even qualified for the Olympics, let alone won a medal.”

Annasopra

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I am male. I don't have any issues with being referred to as cis-gendered or biological or whatever. I certainly have no issue with a transman being a former woman who has transitioned to being a male. That transman's gender identity is really none of my business.

There is nothing nonsensical about it. The only nonsense is non transgenders who refuse to accept it as a reality.

I agree with the points you are making

But the terminology you are using isnt quite right

Cisgendered isnt quite the right term that would be like if you were gay saying you were homosexualised - Its Cis/Cisgender. And also when you refer to transgenders or non transgenders thats not really a correct way of putting it either - You dont call a person with a disability "a disabled" or "a disability" when referring to the person- it would be more correct to say trans people, trans persons, non trans people etc. If you were trans or disabled and I was speaking about you I would not say "I was speaking with a disabled" or "I was speaking with a trans". I would say I was speaking with a person with a disability or I was speaking with a trans person.

IAMAMORON

IAMAMORON wrote: »

How?

youve been asked a few times to set out what rights you think are being denied (or anything like a majority in this thread are calling to be so denied) to transgender people and you havent once responded with an answer that wasnt "respect and their human rights" or some other evasion

this is a direct continuation of the other thread, pattern as follows:

i. dont specify what rights are denied to transgender people, just avoid the question

ii. specify some rights so vaguely that its no answer at all- "respect. to be recognised" etc

iii. set out some actual specific requested rights, which turn out to look a lot like "i define what others think" as opposed to "i get to self define"

iv. when anyone raises an instance where one set of rights requested/asserted has the potential to conflict with the rights of others- they are a terf, they arent worthy of debating, they cannot be serious

v. responses like the above one-word response, for hundreds of posts, with no engagement or discussion save that which will disrupt the elements of the thread you dont wish to see aired


and im saying this as someone who thinks a lot of the examples thrown up in the thread are, frankly, quite silly and unrealistic, and would seem easily enough negotiated. and who believes in using peoples preferred pronouns as a matter of courtesy if it arises, who respects the steps ive seen non-binary people i know take.

all that.

but ive directly asked you twice now about actual, specific rights you want transgender people to have that they dont already have, and i got pap back.

and the problems people (rightly, imo) have with the half-thought self id laws are similarly batted aside.

if the only things in the thread you want to actually address are the dafter issues raised, and everything else gets ignored, personally i dunno it just looks like a spoiler campaign by the twentieth page of you doing it tbh

excludedbin

excludedbin wrote: »

Let's. The IOC, for example, has allowed trans athletes to participate for over a decade (since 2004). Plenty enough time for them to dominate literally every podium if we're to believe the claims of transphobes, especially on these threads. And yet that isn't the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/03/sports-stars-weigh-in-on-row-over-transgender-athletes

Not sure should I bother.
I'll do one... test the waters...

Rachel McKinnon.

IAMAMORON

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I agree with the points you are making

But the terminology you are using isnt quite right

Cisgendered isnt quite the right term that would be like if you were gay saying you were homosexualised - Its Cis/Cisgender. And also when you refer to transgenders or non transgenders thats not really a correct way of putting it either - You dont call a person with a disability "a disabled" or "a disability" when referring to the person- it would be more correct to say trans people, trans persons, non trans people etc. If you were trans or disabled and I was speaking about you I would not say "I was speaking with a disabled" or "I was speaking with a trans". I would say I was speaking with a person with a disability or I was speaking with a trans person.

Thanks for the etiquette lesson Joeytheparrott, I do appreciate it. But I hope you understand that my heart is in the right place in this debate, despite my poor elocution of terminology.

Rodin

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Maybe, but that has nothing to do with their human right to transition to and exist and live as a male.

I don't need patronising on biology within this particular debate. There are plenty of men out there with vaginas and plenty of women out there with a penis.

Can you not accept that?

Patronising on biology? Male/Female are biological terms... they have specific definitions. Those can not be changed.

Ted_YNWA

Closing thread for a short while. Emotions are running high. It will give everyone a chance to relax & collect their thoughts for a civil discussion.

Thread will be re-opened in due course.

Baggly

Thread reopened. Please read (or reread) the OP. Improve the standard of posting and take this as a warning as to future posting in this thread. Cards and bans to follow for those that do not.

Wibbs

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Maybe, but that has nothing to do with their human right to transition to and exist and live as a male.

As a Trans male certainly. I have no issue with that.

I don't need patronising on biology within this particular debate.

Medical and scientific facts only appear to be patronising if one chooses to deny them, or one seeks to ignore realities.

There are plenty of men out there with vaginas and plenty of women out there with a penis.

Can you not accept that?

Because it is a demonstrable nonsense. Male vagina and female penis are biological and factual contradictions based on a recent and self indulgent vocal identity politic(almost all of it coming from M-F Trans). And not just at the level of the obvious genitals. A woman could loose her breasts, ovaries, uterus and vagina because of illness, but she's still a woman and again provably so down to the DNA in every cell in her body.

Wishes, the trappings of gender(which I thought were all cultural....), exogenous hormones and surgery to fashion a simulacrum of the other sex won't change that basic fact.

Take me to task if I don't extend courtesy to a Trans individual, or deny them the right to live their lives, certainly, but if you want me to go along with obvious nonsenses, untruths and newspeak and lambaste me for not agreeing with those delusions, then no way.

CtevenSrowder

km991148 wrote: »

Surely the prison situation has to be taken on a case by case basis.

At one end of the extreme you have someone convicted of a crime (sexual or otherwise) and literally the next day decide to identify as a gender more appropriate to the opposite sex.
At the other end, someone who has done so for years (taken hormones the lot).

In the male to female case, surely then the strength argument etc doesn't apply (in the later case)?

I would have thought this much is obvious, hence why I was talking about the difference between individual cases and generalisations earlier.

Taking it on a case by case basis isn't good enough for the trans lobby. By putting one trans-women in with women and another in with men you are 'denying the existence' of the second transwomen. Secondly, we have self-id, so it can't be taken on a case by case basis.

Essentially, taking it on a case by case basis is transphobic in their view. It's why TRA's are so desperate to never answer questions re prisons because it is a massive quagmire for them.

km991148

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Taking it on a case by case basis isn't good enough for the trans lobby. By putting one trans-women in with women and another in with men you are 'denying the existence' of the second transwomen. Secondly, we have self-id, so it can't be taken on a case by case basis.

Essentially, taking it on a case by case basis is transphobic in their view. It's why TRA's are so desperate to never answer questions re prisons because it is a massive quagmire for them.

ye - I don't know tbh - I would have to look into these generalisations about the TRAs - I'm not even sure who they are.

There are a wide range of people. Some are possibly not genuine, but most are and I think each case needs to be treated fairly.

On one side (It seems) you are saying TRAs wont go case by case, but many in this thread are also willing to generalise by saying someone transgendered should never be allowed in a prison opposite to the sex they were born with.

Neither of these opinions would be right in my view.

CtevenSrowder

km991148 wrote: »

Should be put in jail if you ask me :pac:


My imaginary 16 year old hasn't got back to me yet. If I don't get an answer tonight shes getting imaginary grounded for two weeks. The problem these days is a lack of discipline in hypothetical teenagers.

Why is it that something awful has to happen for things to change. Imagine using hypotheticals (and ofcourse many examples of things that aren't hypothetical) to point out potential consequences of a bad law!

It's like abortion, change only came because Savita Halappanavar died before people really woke up to the issue of the 8th amendment. Many people (women mostly) had to suffer behind the scenes for years before change occurred.

Gruffalux

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Thanks for the etiquette lesson Joeytheparrott, I do appreciate it. But I hope you understand that my heart is in the right place in this debate, despite my poor elocution of terminology.

Having a heart in the right place is insufficient in an important debate. Though it does reflect the present age where sentimentality always trumps reason.

You have also very obviously from the get go not really looked into this subject matter deeply. You blithely embarked upon the thread with phrases such as transsexuals, which is very out of date, the transgendered, non-transgenders, and so on, which indicates a serious lack of familiarity with the subject.

Then you want people who have been engaged in the debate to rehearse the million old arguments for your benefit - to which you employ the usual hand waving against every argument - which basically amounts to a rehash of acceptable collateral damage.

You, a man, have posted basically instructing many women on this thread - me, ODB, Jam mac jam, Gervais, ingalway and others - to basically pipe down and suck it up that sex-based spaces, categories, privacies and protections can now be self identified into without exception, which though it sounds super modern is ironically very reminiscent of a more old fashioned time.

Women have been raped in prisons by trans identifying males. This is a failure of elementary safe guarding.

Barbie Kardashian almost clawed the eyelids off the unfortunate woman who was assigned to be her carer, most likely because it would have been politically incorrect for Barbie, a male bodied sex offender with an avowed hatred of women, to be assigned a male carer as that would contravene their ''rights''.

2% of all prisoners in the UK identify as transwomen, which is so far beyond the background level of transgenderism as to be either completely taking the piss or indicative of a serious inclination towards crime in trans people (which I do not believe is true, by the way). 1 in 10 travelers in prison in the UK identify as transwomen- easy evidence that self ID is completely open to abuse.

Women have been injured and defeated in sports by transwomen.
Andraya Yearwood and Cece Telfer took first and second place in high level student competitions in Connecticut which has garnered them interest from Universities like Harvard who may offer them scholarships that would otherwise go to female athletes. All Telfer and Yearwood have done is grow ponytails. Neither has had any puberty blockers or cross sex hormones. They are but one example among others, and they prove that this issue results in patent unfairness and will continue to do so.

Biden has promised to immediately reinstate the ''right'' of self identifying 'girls' to participate in all female sports at all levels and thus deprive girls and women of their scholarships and victories.

Transwomen have taken the place of women in political representation. Lily Madigan, a nasty misogynistic youth, was Constituency Labour Party Women's Officer, having been elected in November 2017 by the Labour Party in the constituency Rochester and Strood. There are many and increasing examples of this occurring.

But even without all of this factual stuff any ideology that claims the power of mere thought changes physical reality must not be allowed to thrive.

You go on and on about the rights of trans people - everyone I know and support in this thread has consistently been in favour of trans people having all rights and every respect. As I have said before safe secure protected spaces for everyone, men, women and trans people, do not have to be hewn out of the primordial rock with our bare fingers. It is easy enough to do.

And then when it comes to things like sports, prisons, refuges, common sense and logic must prevail. Male bodied people cannot compete with females in sport. Male bodied people cannot be imprisoned with trapped women. Male bodied people cannot sleep in refuges in dormitories beside women who are fleeing rape and domestic violence. There can be separate spaces that are respectful to both. A male bodied doctor cannot say to a Muslim women who wishes for religious reasons to be examined by a female doctor that they are a woman. Nor can a male bodied doctor or prison officer say to a woman who has been raped and avoids male intimacy that she must be examined or searched by them. These things are common sense.

Hector Savage

Gruffalux wrote: »

When the other thread was closed I was responding to a post from ingalway re recent Swedish news. I saved the post.

Quote: ingalway
Some good(ish) news:

The Swedish U-Turn on Gender Transitioning for Children:
https://genderreport.ca/the-swedish-u-turn-on-gender-transitioning/

End quote.


People should read that. The comorbidity between gender dysphoria and other serious mental health issues is huge in the children who were flocking in their droves to clinics in Sweden until they called a halt. It was due to pressure from transactivists and gender theorists that gender dysphoria stopped being framed as any kind of mental health issue (even though other body dysmorphias continue to be) and therefore and thereafter gender dysphoria stopped being treated in certain clinical ways such as counselling.

Affirmation became the only game in town, because it was the only game allowed by the politically correct. Affirmation has not been shown to decrease either dysphoria or comorbid mental health issues. A lot of young people have been left with irreversible damage to their bodies as a result of people who push this agenda, including those who are providing back up in the trenches by insisting upon such ideological tenets as transwomen are women because they claim self ID has an actual transubstantiation effect on physical reality. This lie has been part of the bigger mirage that has been fed to these disturbed young people via social media enclaves.

Great post !
Douglas Murray latest book The madness of crowds has a good chapter on trans.

CtevenSrowder

MynamesColm wrote: »

I'm not any kind of activist mind, I just think there is a lot of silliness going on in this thread. One person getting hurt in a combat sport isn't surprising or noteworthy to me.



I don't know what that list of trans sports people was supposed to prove, except that trans people play sports. Very few were at anywhere near an elite level.


And to be honest, that cricket joke was pretty silly, but I'm sorry you felt offended by it.

Are you interested in sports in general?

km991148

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Why is it that something awful has to happen for things to change. Imagine using hypotheticals (and ofcourse many examples of things that aren't hypothetical) to point out potential consequences of a bad law!

It's like abortion, change only came because Savita Halappanavar died before people really woke up to the issue of the 8th amendment. Many people (women mostly) had to suffer behind the scenes for years before change occurred.

Its nothing like abortion. That is entirely separate with all sorts of complexities (and very real examples of trauma suffered).

A persona of a hypothetical transgendered 50 year old who also happens to be a sexual predator was used to make some point about transgendered issues in Ireland.

I could throw in something like "Its like suicide, why do we have to wait for people with gender issues to kill themselves before we make changes in society.." it's never ending if we start playing that game..

CtevenSrowder

km991148 wrote: »

EDIT: fopr clarity - here is the original post where the straw was set:



The handling of the situation would be checking with the patient that it was ok to proceed BEFORE the examination (or sexual assault in your terminology) took place - but its hard to know how exactly this would be handled because the doctor, the patient nor the hospital actually exist.. do you see the trouble we get to when you start going off piste?

That's trans-phobic.

CtevenSrowder

IAMAMORON wrote: »

As I said earlier, it astonishes me how it is only non transgenders that suffer with the concept so much.

Transsexuals are only asking for respect and to be allowed be who they want to be. I don't understand people holding any adversity towards it. At the end of the day it is no one elses' business anyway.

It is if they are gaining, for example, sports scholarships over biological women due to the inherent advantage they have in being male.

Or the women who were sexually assaulted by a trans-inmate in a women's prison in England.. It became their business.

It becomes your business when you are told you are a 'transphobe', 'anti-trans' or a 'TERF' (always reserved for the female posters ) for refusing to deny biological reality.

The whole crux of the issue is that it has become other peoples business.

mohawk

I will focus on gender identity for a moment. If a person says they are opposite gender to their sex. I would use whatever name etc that they prefer. In fact this is how I behaved when I had a transgender acquaintance.

When it comes to gender I would be of the opinion that much of what we mean when we say gender are social and cultural norms or you could go as far as stereotypes in some cases. Such a girls like pink and wear dresses and boys are good at science. If a parent stays home it should be the mother etc.
Many women and men have rejected those gender norms. Why shouldn’t men stay home to mind children while their partner goes to work. Who cares what anyone wears.

Transgender for some people is where they feel their gender identity doesn’t match their sex. I personally don’t feel that I have a gender identity. How do I know I am a woman? For me it is based on my biology.

(Now before anyone says I am denying the existence of transgender people I am not. There is clearly people who have gender dysphoria and for some of them the best outcome is transition. This is well documented in the scientific literature.)

My point is that gender dysphoria is no longer required to be considered transgender. For some people it’s based on a concept of gender identity and not gender dysphoria.

There are those who will dismiss me as a TERF because I am not onboard with gender identity defining whether a person is a man or woman.

km991148

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

That's trans-phobic.

Doubt it. Not in my made up hospital it isn't.

CtevenSrowder

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I agree with the points you are making

But the terminology you are using isnt quite right

Cisgendered isnt quite the right term that would be like if you were gay saying you were homosexualised - Its Cis/Cisgender. And also when you refer to transgenders or non transgenders thats not really a correct way of putting it either - You dont call a person with a disability "a disabled" or "a disability" when referring to the person- it would be more correct to say trans people, trans persons, non trans people etc. If you were trans or disabled and I was speaking about you I would not say "I was speaking with a disabled" or "I was speaking with a trans". I would say I was speaking with a person with a disability or I was speaking with a trans person.

:pac::pac: You can never be pious enough. I expect an apology IAMMORON.

CtevenSrowder

km991148 wrote: »

ye - I don't know tbh - I would have to look into these generalisations about the TRAs - I'm not even sure who they are.

There are a wide range of people. Some are possibly not genuine, but most are and I think each case needs to be treated fairly.

On one side (It seems) you are saying TRAs wont go case by case, but many in this thread are also willing to generalise by saying someone transgendered should never be allowed in a prison opposite to the sex they were born with.

Neither of these opinions would be right in my view.

TRA is a trans-rights activist. They tend to be extreme and the terminology is used to distinguish people who have genuine concerns for trans-rights but are still somewhat moderate and those who are extreme, constantly insult, label people TERFs continuously, deny biological reality, demand respect and never give it in return. There are 1 or 2 on this thread.

I have previously stated on other threads that the only compromise I could envision is if one has fully 'transitioned' to the opposite sex, so including reformulation of genetalia, then they be placed in prison with their 'new' sex. Though even this doesn't fully sit well with me.