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

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

This is bizarre. Where is the inconsistency in what Joey has said?

The guy is clearly taking the piss.

But he presented as female to the race organisers and was allowed to run as a female. Joey didn’t say he should be prevented from doing so.

Where’s the contradiction?

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

Oh right, so not because he looked like a guy but because you suppose he'd be giggling and acting the maggot?

If a girl came in giggling and carrying on a bit with her mates, would you also tell her she was taking the piss and refuse to register her?

And if he came in looking really serious and not acting oddly at all, presumably you'd have no way of suspecting anything, right?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

You’re choosing to misrepresent people’s opinions though. People supporting self-identity is absolutely not the same as supporting people who choose to take the piss? They’re two very different things.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

The Campus did have a choice, and it was a choice they made due to this chap trying to put them in a position where he could point out the inconsistency no matter what they chose - they chose to let him compete, validating his idea that transsexuals had an unfair advantage competing against women (clearly they do not, or he would have romped home in first place), or choose not to let him compete, and he could claim he was being unfairly discriminated against.

If I had been in their position, I wouldn’t have let him compete. That’s not inconsistent with my view that men should be able to compete with women and vice versa, as they do in every other aspect of society, and it’s not an issue for most people who grow up in families and among friends of both sexes. This idea that men are a threat to “adult human females” or children solely on the basis of biology is simply not borne out by science.

Whatever anyone identifies themselves as, it’s simply in and of itself an identity label, like a name. It means more to some people than others, while to some people labels mean nothing at all and in and of themselves don’t elevate anyone’s opinions to the point where anyone else is required to take them seriously.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

This is bizarre. Where is the inconsistency in what Joey has said?

The guy is clearly taking the piss.

But he presented as female to the race organisers and was allowed to run as a female. Joey didn’t say he should be prevented from doing so.

Where’s the contradiction?

If the same guy presented as a woman tomorrow, should he be allowed do the same thing?

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The Campus did have a choice, and it was a choice they made due to this chap trying to put them in a position where he could point out the inconsistency no matter what they chose - they chose to let him compete, validating his idea that transsexuals had an unfair advantage competing against women (clearly they do not, or he would have romped home in first place), or choose not to let him compete, and he could claim he was being unfairly discriminated against.

LOL, he isn't a transsexual, so clearly his speed shows nothing about the advantage or not that trans athletes might have!

Nobody denies that an unfit man may be beaten by a woman who's been in training. That's not the question here.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If the same guy presented as a woman tomorrow, should he be allowed do the same thing?

Yes. Our knowledge that he’s taking the piss shouldn’t affect general policy.

volchitsa

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes. Our knowledge that he’s taking the piss shouldn’t affect general policy.

So if there's a big prize at stake, or a sports scholarship, like they have in the US, would you say that knowing or suspecting that a guy is taking the piss shouldn't stop them from being allowed to take the prize anyway?

Or os this only where there are no possible consequences from him winning?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Whatever anyone identifies themselves as, it’s simply in and of itself an identity label, like a name. It means more to some people than others, while to some people labels mean nothing at all and in and of themselves don’t elevate anyone’s opinions to the point where anyone else is required to take them seriously.

When people are compelled to allow men to compete against women in a women's event, that's more than allowing someone to identify as they want.

Define as you want to, but don't expect others to respect or adhere to your demonstrably false perspective

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Oh right, so not because he looked like a guy but because you suppose he'd be giggling and acting the maggot?

No, because it would be obvious he was feigning offence when I would have clarified with him that he was registered as female and offered to correct it for him.

volchitsa wrote: »

If a girl came in giggling and carrying on a bit with her mates, would you also tell her she was taking the piss and refuse to register her?

No, I’m well used to lads giggling like schoolgirls too. If she had feigned offence as I sought to clarify that she was registered as male though (y’know, comparing like for like at least), then I’d treat her no different than a guy taking the piss.

volchitsa wrote: »

And if he came in looking really serious and not acting oddly at all, presumably you'd have no way of suspecting anything, right?

I wouldn’t have cared, what’s there to be suspicious of?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes. Our knowledge that he’s taking the piss shouldn’t affect general policy.

Thank you. That says it all.

alan partridge aha

Deleted User wrote: »

Thank you. That says it all.

Ha ha its bat sh1t crazy.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

When people are compelled to allow men to compete against women in a women's event, that's more than allowing someone to identify as they want.

Define as you want to, but don't expect others to respect or adhere to your demonstrably false perspective

Are you prepared to apply that standard to your own worldview? That you don’t expect other people to adhere to what to them is your demonstrably false narrative? Expecting anyone to do so is more than allowing people to identify as they want.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, because it would be obvious he was feigning offence when I would have clarified with him that he was registered as female and offered to correct it for him.

How would it be obvious?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I’m well used to lads giggling like schoolgirls too. If she had feigned offence as I sought to clarify that she was registered as male though (y’know, comparing like for like at least), then I’d treat her no different than a guy taking the piss.

No, I'm asking exactly how you'd tell out of these two people, both acting in the same way that raises your suspicions, which one was a girl just being a bit silly with her pals and the other was a male taking the piss trying to fake a registration as a female?

I mean, without judging by their physical appearance?

And the other question is similar - I'm trying to get you to explain what behaviour would raise your suspicions, and why you're so sure that the guy would necessarily display that behaviour. And you're not giving a straight answer.

LLMMLL

volchitsa wrote: »

So if there's a big prize at stake, or a sports scholarship, like they have in the US, would you say that knowing or suspecting that a guy is taking the piss shouldn't stop them from being allowed to take the prize anyway?

I’d say that should be completely determined by law. I have no strong moral feelings on it.

So the organisers are free to allow him or bar him. If they bar him he is free to take a discrimination case. That case may be successful or unsuccessful given that the judge can weigh the fact that he tweets about taking the piss.

volchitsa

LLMMLL wrote: »

I’d say that should be completely determined by law. I have no strong moral feelings on it.

So the organisers are free to allow him or bar him. If they bar him he is free to take a discrimination case. That case may be successful or unsuccessful given that the judge can weigh the fact that he tweets about taking the piss.

But they're not free. Not in Ireland. If he doesn't say (or tweet) that he was faking, then there's no procedure by which they can call him out. They'll lose the case. It's that simple.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Thank you. That says it all.

Why do you think gay marriage was brought in? Was it so straight people could marry their carer for inheritance benefits?

Because there was a famous case following gay marriage being brought in of two straight men marrying.

Is that a good reason to invalidate gay marriage?

An extreme minority of people will abuse laws for their own benefit.

That should not invalidate the law.

LLMMLL

volchitsa wrote: »

But they're not free. Not in Ireland. If he doesn't say (or tweet) that he was faking, then there's no procedure by which they can call him out. They'll lose the case. It's that simple.

If it’s not super clear that he’s faking then I don’t think he should be prevented.

The race organisers did the right thing in this case.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

LOL, he isn't a transsexual, so clearly his speed shows nothing about the advantage or not that trans athletes might have!

Nobody denies that an unfit man may be beaten by a woman who's been in training. That's not the question here.

You’re right of course, it’s always been the claim that men have biological advantages over women. Clearly there’s a lot more to it than just biology alone can account for. That’s always been one of the questions here which in this particular case has been answered anyway - clearly neither the fact that he is a man, nor the fact that as some people were at pains to point out, the fact that he is 6’5” gave him enough of an advantage over the woman who beat his time.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Are you prepared to apply that standard to your own worldview? That you don’t expect other people to adhere to what to them is your demonstrably false narrative? Expecting anyone to do so is more than allowing people to identify as they want.

If I have a view which is patently and unequivocally incorrect (ie that a man can be a woman or that biology wouldn't give men an advantage in most sports) then absolutely. I have no problem applying that standard to my own life.

volchitsa

LLMMLL wrote: »

If it’s not super clear that he’s faking then I don’t think he should be prevented.

The race organisers did the right thing in this case.

So you've no strong moral feelings about a female being cheated out of a prize or a scholarship by a man? I'm betting you're male, right?

Do you feel the same about athletes losing because their opponent has taken performance enhancing drugs?

alan partridge aha

Its going to take a big money sport to be affected like tennis. Then hopefully something will be done about it. When its clear that Serena is been hammered by a man in a grand slam final.

timeToLive

I've only seen the word TERF be used online and by what I regard as nutjobs

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Why do you think gay marriage was brought in? Was it so straight people could marry their carer for inheritance benefits?

Because there was a famous case following gay marriage being brought in of two straight men marrying.

Is that a good reason to invalidate gay marriage?

An extreme minority of people will abuse laws for their own benefit.

That should not invalidate the law.

I'm with you. I think the college had no choice, and would have no choice if he applied again.

Conflating homosexuality with transgenderism is not a valid comparison.

There is a huge difference between being sexually attracted to the same sex and believing you are a different sex but I accept your point about people abusing the system.

LLMMLL

volchitsa wrote: »

So you've no strong moral feelings about a female being cheated out of a prize or a scholarship by a man? I'm betting you're male, right?

Do you feel the same about athletes losing because their opponent has taken performance enhancing drugs?

Well if you want my honest opinion I don’t care about the use of PEDs in sport and never have. Not a subject I’m passionate about at all. And sport is rife with them anyway.

I don’t believe women will be cheated out of scholarships by cis men faking being trans.

There may be a case or two of assholes trying to prove a point, but I don’t think laws should be made on the basis of a case or two.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

But they're not free. Not in Ireland. If he doesn't say (or tweet) that he was faking, then there's no procedure by which they can call him out. They'll lose the case. It's that simple.

This simply isn’t true. They could easily have said that he could not compete in the women’s category, and there is nothing stopping them from doing so. Whether he would have won or lost his case would have been determined by the facts surrounding the case, in which the organisers could simply have said that they had a legitimate aim of being fair to the women competing in the women’s race. Now before you bring up the three girls in the US again, they are trying to claim they should have the right to see that competitors are excluded on the basis of their gender identity, in contravention of State and now Federal law (since Biden’s Executive Order).

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm with you. I think the college had no choice, and would have no choice if he applied again.

Conflating homosexuality with transgenderism is not a valid comparison.

There is a huge difference between being sexually attracted to the same sex and believing you are a different sex but I accept your point about people abusing the system.

In this case I’m not conflating the two. I’m conflating the legal complexities that surround the two.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

I’d say that should be completely determined by law. I have no strong moral feelings on it.

But your opinion is any man who self identifies as a woman is a real woman ,so you would have to support this persons choice to self identify for what ever reason be it for an advantage in sports , access to women's spaces and so on

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

In this case I’m not conflating the two. I’m conflating the legal complexities that surround the two.

I'm not sure it should even be complex. I don't see how it it is even in doubt that Biological men shouldn't be allowed compete against biologcal women in sex segregated sports or even why it should be considered.

There are huge biological differences between the two.

One eyed Jack

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Its going to take a big money sport to be affected like tennis. Then hopefully something will be done about it. When its clear that Serena is been hammered by a man in a grand slam final.

I wouldn’t have thought of Tennis as a big money sport tbh, both men and women are pretty much on the same levels in terms of their pay. Now if you’d said soccer, where the top women players earn 1/20th of the men’s pay, I’d have agreed with you that a major shakeup is on the cards.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not sure it should even be complex. I don't see how it it is even in doubt that Biological men shouldn't be allowed compete against biologcal women in sex segregated sports or even why it should be considered.

There are huge biological differences between the two.

Well that debates been done to death. All I’m saying is there is no contradiction between supporting self id, and having personal opinion or knowledge that someone is taking the piss out of self Id laws.