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

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

You’re making this more Cathy Newman-like than it needs to be. What I’ve said is very simple and doesn’t require any forensic analysis. On the other hand you no doubt will choose to believe whatever you wish, which is fine, I don’t need to tell you to piss off as it’s absolutely no skin off my nose whatever you choose to believe. You do you and all that, nobody is compelled by Irish law to believe something they don’t, nor is anyone compelled to behave as though they believe anything someone says just because they say it.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re making this more Cathy Newman-like than it needs to be. What I’ve said is very simple and doesn’t require any forensic analysis. On the other hand you no doubt will choose to believe whatever you wish, which is fine, I don’t need to tell you to piss off as it’s absolutely no skin off my nose whatever you choose to believe. You do you and all that, nobody is compelled by Irish law to believe something they don’t, nor is anyone compelled to behave as though they believe anything someone says just because they say it.

No but they are compelled to act as if they do.. remember self id Jack? You are in favour of it.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re making this more Cathy Newman-like than it needs to be. What I’ve said is very simple and doesn’t require any forensic analysis. On the other hand you no doubt will choose to believe whatever you wish, which is fine, I don’t need to tell you to piss off as it’s absolutely no skin off my nose whatever you choose to believe. You do you and all that, nobody is compelled by Irish law to believe something they don’t, nor is anyone compelled to behave as though they believe anything someone says just because they say it.

No I'm not.

There were no words put in your mouth, there were no "gotcha" questions and there certainly isn't any Cathy Newman style analysis of your words.

You, by yourself, and by your own admission said that you would have no issue telling people who you felt were being dishonest about their gender identity to "piss off".

This means that you don't agree with self ID just on the basis that someone says they are a certain gender. You would need to be convinced or have no suspicion of deceit.

This is a position which flies in the face of the basic concept of self identification, which you claim to support.

I'm not even talking about law at the moment. I'm talking about whether or not you agree in the basic concept of people choosing their own identity and whether people should respect it.

You tied yourself in knots here.

Gatling

So trans is a what exactly now .

Anyone can claim to be one of the other and can take part in sports events , access one or the others spaces and very few will ever get any kind surgeries others will revert back to their own gender,
And yet people are being attacked online ,sacked from their jobs not for doing something wrong in their work place but not agreeing with someone's opinion on socia media ,calls for cancellation ,calls to remove political representation for not agreeing with this ideology ,and vulnerable children and adults being experimented on by so called medical professionals ,under the guise of helping them.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No but they are compelled to act as if they do.. remember self id Jack? You are in favour of it.

No they’re not? Nobody is compelled by Irish law to act as though they believe anyone else is who they are purporting to be. One of the most basic examples is the requirement for proof of identity when opening a bank account. The teller doesn’t just have to take anyone’s word that they are who they say they are or they are what they say they are without documented evidence to support their claims. It’s one of the reasons I am in favour of the gender recognition act, because it prohibits discrimination on the grounds of gender identity. I couldn’t care less what anyone chooses to identify themselves as when it has no material bearing on anything.

If that’s what you mean by being in favour of self-ID as it is not applicable in Irish law, but rather a social context, I really couldn’t care less. I’d have to care about something in order to determine whether it’s something I support or not. I don’t care much for being expected to use people’s preferred pronouns on a site where everyone uses a pseudonym for example which means it’s sometimes difficult to determine a person’s gender, never mind their preferred gender, and that would be fine if it wasn’t the case that posters can be infracted for it, which is why I don’t support that kind of thing, but I also know that Boards as an organisation are perfectly entitled to make up their own rules within the confines of Irish law, terms and conditions which I agreed to and which I adhere to even though I don’t support the idea. I don’t care much for the pronoun police in any case, or the attempt to limit people to definitions which they are expected to adhere to in how they should define themselves.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No I'm not.

There were no words put in your mouth, there were no "gotcha" questions and there certainly isn't any Cathy Newman style analysis of your words.

You, by yourself, and by your own admission said that you would have no issue telling people who you felt were being dishonest about their gender identity to "piss off.

No, that is not why I would tell anyone to piss off, I’d have no need to? I said I’d tell someone to piss off if I thought they were taking the piss. That’s the reason right there. The rest of it follows on from your own purposely misrepresenting or genuinely misunderstanding what I’ve said. I said nothing about telling anyone to piss off because I just didn’t believe they are who or what they say they are. That would be an over-reaction IMO for no reason. It would take a lot more than that before I’d tell someone to piss off.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I am in favour of the gender recognition act, because it prohibits discrimination on the grounds of gender identity. I couldn’t care less what anyone chooses to identify themselves as when it has no material bearing on anything.

But that's a pure contradiction , you said you would stop someone taking part in an event if you believed that they were taking the piss, but if a bloke turned up and said I'm a woman you could not stop them thanks in part to gender recognition legislation , and anti discrimination legislation because you could only base your decision on their appearance

volchitsa

I see Joey the Parrot cleared off sharpish without even trying to defend his views of self declaration here. I wonder why.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, that is not why I would tell anyone to piss off, I’d have no need to?

That would be an over-reaction IMO for no reason. It would take a lot more than that before I’d tell someone to piss off.

You literally said you would tell this person, who was taking part in a fun run, to "piss off" because you claim that you could have known by his demeanor that he wasn't a genuine trans person.

I used that bar as the standard for what it would take you to tell someone to piss off.

I also take that statement as you deciding that you think you are able to decide that a person's self identification is not valid unless you agree with it.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

But that's a pure contradiction , you said you would stop someone taking part in an event if you believed that they were taking the piss, but if a bloke turned up and said I'm a woman you could not stop them thanks in part to gender recognition legislation, and anti discrimination legislation because you could only base your decision on their appearance

And that’s where you’re wrong. There is nothing in Irish legislation which suggests anyone is protected from discrimination on the basis that they’re taking the piss. I could stop them from participating in an event, if I was the organiser of an event, and then they could pursue a fruitless legal action in much the same way as Jessica Yanniv or Maya Forstater did, and they wouldn’t get very far with it. I’d have based my decision upon their behaviour, not their appearance.

Your example reminds me of a chap who wanted to go home early before everyone else with 10 minutes to go before the end of his shift. He asked “is it because I’m black?”. I told him I couldn’t care less if he was purple with blue spots, he’s still not getting off earlier than everyone else. He could claim discrimination based upon his appearance if he wanted, I didn’t care.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And that’s where you’re wrong. There is nothing in Irish legislation which suggests anyone is protected from discrimination on the basis that they’re taking the piss. I could stop them from participating in an event,

I’d have based my decision upon their behaviour, not their appearance

So if Joe runner walks in and says I'm here to take part and declares he identified as female ,and he sits down awaiting the start of the event you have nothing to go by but there appearance,
There protected under law your not

Annasopra

volchitsa wrote: »

I see Joey the Parrot cleared off sharpish without even trying to defend his views of self declaration here. I wonder why.

Nah. I didnt clear off. My views on this are quite simple. The guy was undertaking a stunt in order to gain himself some notoriety and build up his own political career and to mock trans people. There is no gotcha moment here just a load of posters trying to make something out of nothing.

suicide_circus

A house of cards built on sand with blueprints written in jelly.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Nah. I didnt clear off. My views on this are quite simple. The guy was undertaking a stunt in order to gain himself some notoriety and build up his own political career and to mock trans people. There is no gotcha moment here just a load of posters trying to make something out of nothing.

I agree. No gotcha moment at all. Just inconsistencies in your outlook on self id.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

So if Joe runner walks in and says I'm here to take part and declares he identified as female ,and he sits down awaiting the start of the event you have nothing to go by but there appearance,
There protected under law your not

And that’s where you’re wrong again. We’re all protected by Irish law. Nevertheless that’s not what happened in the circumstances under discussion. If the chap decides to declare he has been discriminated against on the basis of his gender identity because I told him to piss off for taking the piss, then the worst that would likely happen is as you suggested I’d be labelled a transphobic bigot by himself because I saw right through his engineered stunt. It’s as if you imagine a chap like that wouldn’t be known around campus already.

Never mind your hypotheticals, basically anyone could have been prevented from competing in the event, and the event would have gone ahead without them, and they would have an uphill legal battle to prove they had been the victim of unlawful discrimination. That’s how things work in the real world.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And that’s where you’re wrong again. We’re all protected by Irish law. Nevertheless that’s not what happened in the circumstances under discussion. If the chap decides to declare he has been discriminated against on the basis of his gender identity because I told him to piss off for taking the piss, then the worst that would likely happen is as you suggested I’d be labelled a transphobic bigot by himself because I saw right through his engineered stunt. It’s as if you imagine a chap like that wouldn’t be known around campus already.

Never mind your hypotheticals, basically anyone could have been prevented from competing in the event, and the event would have gone ahead without them, and they would have an uphill legal battle to prove they had been the victim of unlawful discrimination. That’s how things work in the real world.

The real world; where men can be women and women can be men, once you don't think they are talking the piss.

Laughable

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gatling wrote: »

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

I mean, are we surprised? Self-ID is based on woolly logic.

Gatling

suicide_circus wrote: »

A house of cards built on sand with blueprints written in jelly.

It really was ,

And yet were getting is the whole but ,but but ,speeches

This is social constructs at work ,

Gatling

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I mean, are we surprised? Self-ID is based on woolly logic.

Yes wolly logic and marshmallow for foundation of said wolly logic.

Am I suprised no not one bit ,it was always going to happen

CtevenSrowder

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Nah. I didnt clear off. My views on this are quite simple. The guy was undertaking a stunt in order to gain himself some notoriety and build up his own political career and to mock trans people. There is no gotcha moment here just a load of posters trying to make something out of nothing.

Since you 'haven't cleared off', any chance of you backing up the following claim.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I always think its fascinating how people speak for lesbians on here but when actual lesbians did engage in the discussion - they were dismissed because they didnt agree with all the laughable constructed myths that the existence of trans women is somehow homophobic.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Who here has said the existence of transwomen is homophobic? We both know I'm wasting my time because noone has, and you'll just run away anyway now anyway, as you also know this is false.

See you ina few weeks Joey. Keep safe.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I agree. No gotcha moment at all. Just inconsistencies in your outlook on self id.

This was the attempted gotcha moment -


“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.”


On what basis are you trying to claim those circumstances are consistent with self-ID which is basically anyone choosing to identify themselves as their preferred gender, without any nefarious intent? You can surely understand that it’s the nefarious intent which makes the circumstances inconsistent?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The real world; where men can be women and women can be men, once you don't think they are talking the piss.

Laughable

That’s you saying that, not me.

Gatling

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

and to mock trans people.

You said this numourus times today he was mocking trans people he wasn't mocking anyone ,and there is nothing to suggest he was mocking trans people ,
He did high light the whole idea of self Identity ideology , anyone can claim to be a man or woman from a drop down menu because that's what people want , woman or women reduced to nothing but a tab on a drop down menu ,
If gender is only a social construct so is trans ideology.

Wake up on Monday as and , decide your a woman on Tuesday , c cat on Wednesday ,a unicorn on Thursday and back to man on Friday and go to a club on Saturday as a woman ,take off Sunday because it's a long week

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This was the attempted gotcha moment -

“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.”

But there is no gotcha moment in self identifying ideology you just have to say that you identify as nothing more no questions ,no physical checks just select from a drop down menu.

Get the feeling we will see more and more of these situations

volchitsa

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Nah. I didnt clear off. My views on this are quite simple. The guy was undertaking a stunt in order to gain himself some notoriety and build up his own political career and to mock trans people. There is no gotcha moment here just a load of posters trying to make something out of nothing.

That may well be, but until he says so (he didn't, until after the race) how would that enable the poor person taking the registrations to work out who was real and who was just doing a stunt?

One eyed Jack thinks he would easily know who was for real and who wasn't by the person's appearance and demeanor and that he'd tell the person he decided was just taking the piss to get lost - do you think that's fair enough?

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

But there is no gotcha moment in self identifying ideology you just have to say that you identify as nothing more no questions ,no physical checks just select from a drop down menu.

Get the feeling we will see more and more of these situations

Yep, that’s pretty much it, and in and of itself it has absolutely no bearing on how anyone else chooses to live their lives. Like the fact that I’m a man has no bearing on your identity as a man, nor has it any bearing on anyone else who identifies themselves as a woman. The same is true of any identity - in and of itself an identity has no bearing on anyone else. It’s precisely why I don’t care when someone prefaces their opinions with “As a man”, or “As a woman”, or “As a same gender loving non-binary...”, y’know, whatever you’re having yourself... because that fundamentally is the basis of identity politics, and often the kind of people who start their sentences like that, they imagine they represent the views and opinions of everyone who shares their identity. It’s clearly not true, and it’s basically their way of imagining themselves as the centre of their own universe. Which is fine, and completely harmless to anyone else. That’s why I argue that such people should absolutely have their own safe space too, and I would support them in doing so, especially if it means i wouldn’t have to listen to them.

As for whether we’ll see more of it, well that’s a given when there are people who are so desperate to prove people are a danger, that they will actually go out of their way to prove people are a danger by engineering circumstances where they are able to claim people are a danger, in this case as the person tried to make out - that transsexuals had an unfair advantage in sport. Well, we know he isn’t transsexual for a start. We also know he’s a shìt runner. We also know that most people didn’t think too much about it, and we also know that the guy himself cared enough about it that he posted a tweet about it TWO YEARS LATER!!

Most are perfectly capable of using their common sense when it comes to their interactions with other people in society. Other people who are not will often claim to be victims of the society in which they live. People who don’t think of themselves as woke or any of the rest of it are just as susceptible to victimhood narratives and playing the victim as the people who they would wish to deprive of their equal rights.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This was the attempted gotcha moment -


“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.”


On what basis are you trying to claim those circumstances are consistent with self-ID which is basically anyone choosing to identify themselves as their preferred gender, without any nefarious intent? You can surely understand that it’s the nefarious intent which makes the circumstances inconsistent?





That’s you saying that, not me.

The fact that he was allowed to run as a female competitor proves how ****ing stupid self id is. Nefarious? Hardly. Jesus. A tad hyperbolic

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

One eyed Jack thinks he would easily know who was for real and who wasn't by the person's appearance and demeanor and that he'd tell the person he decided was just taking the piss to get lost - do you think that's fair enough?

Minor quibble - I never said anything about determining whether or not a person was taking the piss based upon their appearance.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The fact that he was allowed to run as a female competitor proves how ****ing stupid self id is. Nefarious? Hardly. Jesus. A tad hyperbolic

Now you’re complaining because Trinity Campus were consistent in the application of their rules!

Earlier you were complaining about inconsistency. It’s as though you’re desperate to find problems no matter what people do!


And yes btw, nefarious, because that’s what some people here are claiming is the intent of men participating alongside women in society. Men’s appendages apparently have a distinct biological ability to disconnect from their male bodied owners and attack women and children, of their own volition!

Jordan Peterson may well have been on to something with his starfish analogy :pac:

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now you’re complaining because Trinity Campus were consistent in the application of their rules!

Earlier you were complaining about inconsistency. It’s as though you’re desperate to find problems no matter what people do!

Nice try jack.

I was complaining about the inconsistency of posters who support self id for all when it suits, but then throw in a caveat that "only if I am sure they aren't taking the piss", when its needed to not make you look hypocritical.

I have no issue with the campus allowing him to run as a woman. They had no choice because of advocates like a handful here who want to virtue signal and declare their support for everything trans.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now you’re complaining because Trinity Campus were consistent in the application of their rules!

Earlier you were complaining about inconsistency. It’s as though you’re desperate to find problems no matter what people do!

But isn't that just another excuse to get out of it ,the idea and one can self identify as either just by selecting it on a menu ,it's nothing more than a personal choice on any given day .

nothing trinity or you could do to stop it no matter what you claim about piss takes ,you would have zero say and choice in the matter,
It's one of the core issues