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

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

GRC has seen very little take up much like the numbers who have surgeries or have sought referrals for gender services especially with children ,it's like it's going out of fashion

It is, isn’t it? Like you’re making a big deal over nothing.

Gatling

Seems like another diversion to the topic being honest

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It is, isn’t it? Like you’re making a big deal over nothing.

No and not for the first time you claimed something.

I've made no big deal unlike the twisting and turning we witnessed today to get out of a discussion

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, just like the GRC if you actually wanted to equate them then -

Apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate / Revised Birth Certificate

I only had to put my signature to a piece of paper was the extent of any effort required, just like ingalway’s claim that all that is required for a GRC is a signature. It’s even easier now than it was before to apply for a marriage certificate -


Marriage certificate

LOL, what an old fraud you are! That's the HSE providing a copy of a marriage certificate they already hold - completely different from getting married FFS. Applying for a marriage certificate to be created for you, when you get married, takes far more than a signature, and if you think you just rocked up and signed, then all I can say is someone else did all the work for you - so I hope you appreciate her! (Bet you don't/didn't)

Gatling

volchitsa wrote: »

LOL, what an old fraud you are! That's the HSE providing a copy of a marriage certificate they already hold - completely different from getting married FFS. Applying for a marriage certificate to be created for you, when you get married, takes far more than a signature, and if you think you just rocked up and signed, then all I can say is someone else did all the work for you - so I hope you appreciate her! (Bet you don't/didn't)

It's just another roundabout on the road to.keep the topic away from a little situation in trinity which seemed to have caused more than a little stir

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

LOL, what an old fraud you are! That's the HSE providing a copy of a marriage certificate they already hold - completely different from getting married FFS. Applying for a marriage certificate to be created for you, when you get married, takes far more than a signature, and if you think you just rocked up and signed, then all I can say is someone else did all the work for you - so I hope you appreciate her! (Bet you don't/didn't)

I’m well aware it’s completely different to getting married, but what I was talking about was applying for a marriage certificate in comparison to applying for a GRC. The GRC would have to have someone else fill it out too if a person is unable to fill it out for themselves, and still requires nothing more than a signature if we were comparing the ease with which one can apply for either certificate.

As Gatling said, there’s a lot more to it, I know there’s a lot more to it, but ingalway’s point was that obtaining a GRC only required a person to sign a one page form and that Self-ID laws were wide open for the piss to be taken out of. Using the standard of laws which are wide open for the piss to be taken out of, my point was that there are plenty of laws like that which require nothing more than a person’s signature.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

No and not for the first time you claimed something.

I've made no big deal unlike the twisting and turning we witnessed today to get out of a discussion

You said it looks like it’s going out of fashion, I only agreed with you? I thought it was an odd way to put it for something that was never in fashion in the first place, but given you’d been giving it welly about the Tavistock and everything else you could throw at it like gay men trying to control women, that it wasn’t about inclusive language but erasing women, and your latest effort some idiot boasting about how they made a fool of themselves two years earlier... I’d suggest you were running out of things to discuss rather than anyone actually twisting and turning to get out of a discussion?

In fact, it was your post this morning I chose to respond to -

Gatling wrote: »

Cowards not men ,

Imagine not having the testicles to make a stand or say what you think due to being afraid of cancellation agenda crowd ,
It's not about inclusive language it's about erasing women

Not sure testicles are required to make a stand, but I figured that was just a figure of speech and not to be taken literally. Instead I agreed with you then too that there are cowards who make all sorts of excuses as to why they claim they can’t speak up, instead preferring to play the victim game as though they are the ‘real’ victims of discrimination that they can’t lawfully discriminate against other people on the basis of their gender identity.

No, they can’t, that’s the whole reason why the Gender Recognition Act was enacted in Irish Law in the first place, because before then people did discriminate against people on the basis of their gender identity. Not a lot mind, but enough that a few people spent nearly 20 years campaigning to have the law changed.

LLMMLL

ingalway wrote: »

Self ID is wide open for the piss to be taken out of. The person signs a one page form. They don't need to see a doctor, they don't need to take any medication, they don't need to see a counselor or a psychiatrist. Absolutely nothing other than their signature. It's ridiculous, dangerous, and in the case of sports, extremely unfair.

Sounds like marriage.

Do you think marriage should be adjusted so that people who aren’t in a couple could be prevented from using it for their own financial gain?

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Do you think marriage should be adjusted so that people who aren’t in a couple could be prevented from using it for their own financial gain?

There is already legislation in place ,sham marriages are quite common

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

There is already legislation in place ,sham marriages are quite common

That wasn’t the question that was asked.

Apart from that, no, sham marriages aren’t quite common with 0.1% of all marriages in Ireland being investigated as sham marriages.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Apart from that, no, sham marriages aren’t quite common with .

Quite common but as you well know that's whole different thread.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Quite common but as you well know that's whole different thread.

You brought up the sham marriages thing? I was only pointing out that sham marriages aren’t that common in Ireland given they’re an estimated 0.1% of all marriages in Ireland.

I will admit though I wasn’t thinking of sham marriages when I was thinking of how laws were open to abuse, I was thinking of the kind of abuse that takes place within families up and down the country on an almost daily basis, which is far more common than sham marriages or lads entering marathons in the women’s category.

Like this is why I suggested you were making a big deal out of nothing, a couple of posters here are doing it, and it does remind me somewhat of the marriage equality referendum threads where people made claims about children of homosexual couples and so on, or commented that they were ok with gay marriage but as long as they weren’t permitted to adopt children, and I’m sure you can see the obvious flaws in that logic?

It was similar to the way in which it was initially thought that people who were transgender if they wanted to obtain a gender recognition certificate, they would have to apply for a divorce first, but that idea didn’t make it into the Act and people who were transgender and married didn’t have to get a divorce in order to apply for a GRC, and as for the idea of people who are transgender raising their own children? Some people act like it’s unusual that people who are transgender would have children and families and all the rest of it like most people.

There’s this constant portrayal of people who are transgender in sexualised terms and scenarios where they are portrayed as a threat, and that fiction, because it is a fiction, couldn’t be further from reality for the vast majority of people who are transgender in my experience who are just as ordinary or as out there as anyone else. Being judged solely on the basis of their gender identity is to ignore the fact that they are a whole person, with their own shìt going on, without constantly being thought of as though they’re some sort of deviant sexual predator. That’s a fiction which isn’t based upon any scientific evidence, it’s simply based on the prejudiced opinions of a very small minority of wilfully ignorant adults who one would expect should really know better.

JamesFlynn

LLMMLL wrote: »

Sounds like marriage.

Do you think marriage should be adjusted so that people who aren’t in a couple could be prevented from using it for their own financial gain?

Signing a marriage certificate doesn't give power to a biological male to enter women's dressing rooms and shared showers against women's wishes.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You brought up the sham marriages thing?

Like this is why I suggested you were making a big deal out of nothing,
a couple of posters here are doing it,

I responded to a claim about marriages which is covered by legislation here covering sham marriages which number in the thousands
Made no big deal out of it or GRC .

Your the one making big deals but when you spend the day contradicting your whole contribution along with others it's no surprise that you would want to drag the thread elsewhere and bringing stuff up that has little or nothing to do with self Identity

One eyed Jack

JamesFlynn wrote: »

Signing a marriage certificate doesn't give power to a biological male to enter women's dressing rooms and shared showers against women's wishes.

A gender recognition certificate doesn’t give anyone that power either, in just the same way a marriage certificate doesn’t entitle a man to have sex with his wife against her wishes.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

I responded to a claim about marriages which is covered by legislation here covering sham marriages which number in the thousands
Made no big deal out of it or GRC .

We’re all aware that legislation exists governing marriage, that’s still not answering the question that was asked, which was do you think marriages should be adjusted so that people who aren’t in a couple could be prevented from doing it for their own financial gain?

The number of sham marriages investigated here btw is about 2,000, out of nearly 1 million marriages. 0.2%, I’m being generous and rounding up this time. You claimed sham marriages were common in Ireland. A percentage of 0.2% of ANYTHING, is no indication that it is in any way, shape or form, common.

Gatling wrote: »

Your the one making big deals but when you spend the day contradicting your whole contribution along with others it's no surprise that you would want to drag the thread elsewhere and bringing stuff up that has little or nothing to do with self Identity

You wanted to keep the discussion going about the idiot who entered a women’s category and came second, excuse me if I don’t really give a shìt when the thread is not just concerned with self-ID, but rather it is concerned with the topic of gender identity in modern Ireland. One idiot entering a women’s category in a Trinity Campus race just doesn’t lend itself to a whole lot of discussion. There’s no-one is trying to avoid it, it’s simply about as noteworthy as your claim about sham marriages being common in Ireland, in spite of the fact that they are only 0.2% of all marriages in Ireland. It’s just bizarre that you would then accuse anyone else of making a big deal of anything or claiming that they are trying to wriggle their way out of a discussion when there’s just not much to discuss about numbers like that in a country with a population of 7 million people? Perspective like.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You wanted to keep the discussion going about the idiot who entered a women’s category and came second, entering a women’s category in a Trinity Campus race just doesn’t lend itself to a whole lot of discussion.

This is the current topic of the conversation and by the sounds of things it's still the topic of conversation ,
Despite piss poor attempts to bypass or derail the thread due to the blatant contradictions of several posters running around in circles trying get out it

CtevenSrowder

Gatling wrote: »

There is already legislation in place ,sham marriages are quite common

Another own goal.

JamesFlynn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A gender recognition certificate doesn’t give anyone that power either, in just the same way a marriage certificate doesn’t entitle a man to have sex with his wife against her wishes.

I'm a man but were I to self-id as a woman, obtain a gender recognition certificate and therefore become legally female in the eyes of the law, I do gain a power to enter women's spaces.

After I take that power, what legal right does any woman have to object to the presence of my male appendages in, for example, the women's dressing room in Dunnes Stores, or in a refuge home for battered women?

By self-id, as a man I take the power to be moved to a female prison, or to participate in an athletics event and take medals from women in TCD. I take that power away from women.

One eyed Jack

JamesFlynn wrote: »

I'm a man but were I to self-id as a woman, obtain a gender recognition certificate and therefore become legally female in the eyes of the law, I do gain a power to enter women's spaces.

After I take that power, what legal right does any woman have to object to the presence of my male appendages in, for example, the women's dressing room in Dunnes Stores, or in a refuge home for battered women?

By self-id, as a man I take the power to be moved to a female prison, or to participate in an athletics event and take medals from women in TCD. I take that power away from women.

Well there’s a couple of things.

First you wouldn’t need a gender recognition certificate to do any of the things you’ve described above, and second - a gender recognition certificate wouldn’t entitle you automatically to do any of the above. Thirdly, you’re expecting that anyone should have a legal right they never had in the first place - anyone is still entitled to complain about your presence, but it’s a matter for management of the premises in how they choose to deal with a person who makes a complaint about your presence. No different than anything it was before when anyone would make a complaint when they felt someone was invading their space.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well there’s a couple of things.

First you wouldn’t need a gender recognition certificate to do any of the things you’ve described above, and second - a gender recognition certificate wouldn’t entitle you automatically to do any of the above. .

Actually they would as they could not by discriminated against based off their gender which the GRC confirms your living full time as a female or male

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Actually they would as they could not by discriminated against based off their gender which the GRC confirms your living full time as a female or male

No, they wouldn’t. A GRC would give them no automatic entitlement to do anything. If they were to pursue a case claiming that they were the victim discrimination, that’s another matter entirely.

But no, of itself a GRC doesn’t give anyone power over anyone else, nor does it give anyone extra rights or any of the rest of that nonsense, it’s simply a certificate which says that the State recognises the person as their preferred gender. They can still be denied entry into anywhere they think they should be automatically entitled to enter.

Mostly though they would still be reliant on people not behaving like knobs in their presence.

Gatling

The trinity race just shows how messy self identifying can get and there has been other cases where men have entered woman's sports to prove they have and advantage and how the system is flawed you cannot challenge someone who says they are female even when they are male as long as they say they identify as female,they can't be excluded ,they can't be prevented from entering women's events .

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, they wouldn’t. A GRC would give them no automatic entitlement to do anything. If they were to pursue a case claiming that they were the victim discrimination, that’s another matter entirely.

No by law they would be considered female and therefore cannot be challenged or stopped under discrimination laws ,you cannot be discriminated against based off gender, marital status, family status, age disability, sexual orientation, race, religion, and membership of the Traveller community..

There would not be a court case because the laws are there and clearly states what you can't be discriminated against .dispite you claiming you could easily have stopped someone from taking part in a event based off your own opinion and nothing more

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

The trinity race just shows how messy self identifying can get and there has been other cases where men have entered woman's sports to prove they have and advantage and how the system is flawed you cannot challenge someone who says they are female even when they are male as long as they say they identify as female,they can't be excluded ,they can't be prevented from entering women's events .

No, the Trinity race showed nothing of the sort. What was messy about it? He ran in the women’s category, came second, big woop? Nobody cared when his name was called out and he went up for his medal, and he says himself he was a bit disappointed. I can imagine alright it was fairly anti-climactic for him when nobody gave a shìt.

Secondly, women have been banned from competing in women’s sports because they were accused of not being women, other women did challenge their identity as women and they were excluded from competing against women following an investigation which was supposed to be a private matter, but “somehow” the results of their sex tests were “leaked” to the international media, effectively ending their careers and their participation in public life.

It’s entirely and perfectly legal and the international sporting organisations who make the rules and decisions as to who can or can not compete in any event, is determined by the organisers of the events. If an organisation chooses to allow people to participate whether they are a man or a woman, who wishes to compete in either the men’s or women’s category, then that’s completely up to the organisers, and has nothing to do with the GRA in Irish law.

JamesFlynn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If they were to pursue a case claiming that they were the victim discrimination, that’s another matter entirely.

No, that's exactly the matter under discussion. It gives the power to a born man to pursue that case and win.

It takes away the power of a born woman to object to being in the presence of a person with male genitalia, because under the law that person has the power to claim they are female.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Mostly though they would still be reliant on people not behaving like knobs in their presence.

Indeed, it's all about knobs.

But jokes aside, some men will abuse this new power they have been granted over women. It's already happening.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, the Trinity race showed nothing of the sort. What was messy about it? He ran in the women’s category, came second, big woop?

Terrible isn't it ,

But it shows how easy the system to self identifying ideology works be a man Monday ,a woman on Tuesday (getting very Craig David)
And back again ,
And now the GRC is nothing but a piece of paper with no meaning or legal recognition,

Makes you wonder

Gatling

Not only has it shown people to be both hypocritical and contradictory ,
All that's left is the name calling to start again but that got no traction or response ,

One eyed Jack

JamesFlynn wrote: »

No, that's exactly the matter under discussion. It gives the power to a born man to pursue that case and win.

They can pursue a case if they imagine they actually have a case, but there are absolutely no guarantees they would win. See Maya Forstater and Jessica Yanniv for just two examples of people who pursued legal actions claiming they had been the victim of unlawful discrimination, and lost. Those are just two cases, among many, many more cases where the person thought they had a case, and lost.

JamesFlynn wrote: »

It takes away the power of a born woman to object to being in the presence of a person with male genitalia, because under the law that person has the power to claim they are female.

It doesn’t though. A woman can still object to being in the presence of a person with male genitalia, hell they can complain about whatever and whomever they like, anyone can still do that. It’s still down to management how they choose to deal with that situation. Earlier I gave the example of the guy shaving his balls in the sink at the local swimming pool. I told him he was well out of order, and I didn’t have to make a complaint to management. Grand, no big deal. I’ve also been in women’s shelters (horrible places, I wouldn’t subject any woman to that form of incarceration as I saw it), but there were women refused entry for turning up drunk, for abusing the other people staying there, all sorts of shìtty behaviour which made people feel like they never wanted to go back there again. With the new system in place hopefully domestic violence “shelters” will become a thing of the past.

JamesFlynn wrote: »

Indeed, it's all about knobs.

But jokes aside, some men will abuse this new power they have been granted over women. It's already happening.

It’s not any new power anyone has been granted over anyone else. It’s simply recognition of a legal right everyone has to their gender identity. It offers people who would normally be discriminated against on the basis of their gender identity, recognition in law and legal protection on that sole basis. It doesn’t mean a person won’t still experience discrimination on the basis of their gender identity, and it doesn’t mean they will automatically have a case for discrimination on the basis of their gender identity just because they feel they have been discriminated against on that sole basis, usually in employment or equal access to goods and services.

What you’re essentially arguing is akin to the idea that because women gained equality with men, they were taking something away from men or men didn’t have the same rights as they used to, or the usual one that’s trotted out - men are discriminated against in the family courts and women are winners. It’s simply not true, as much as some men have a need to portray themselves as victims. The law applies to all people equally and the only thing the gender recognition act actually did, was recognise the right of every person to their gender identity. There are all sorts of competing rights in any given circumstances and it’s the role of the Courts to identify which rights are applicable in each case. No individual has the right to decide that their rights are more important than someone or anyone else’s, and no individual has the right to determine that someone else’s rights are irrelevant.

Some people will abuse the laws, any laws, which is why I pointed specifically to family law where people are known to use the law to abuse and exploit other people, and that’s far, far more common, and far more likely to happen to women than some lad strolling into the women’s changing rooms with his balls hanging out. In that tiny number of cases, women can still make a complaint to management, or make a complaint to Gardaí should they wish to do so. That has not been taken away from women, men or children for that matter.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A woman can still object to being in the presence of a person with male genitalia, hell they can complain about whatever and whomever they like, anyone can still do that.

Ah yes the good old sure you can complain about it love but they are legally entitled to be here and they won't be asked to leave but if your not happy your free to leave the space ,
And then the person would be abused for being a exclusionary , transpobic , homophobic , bigot

Previously known as a "woman"

We all seen how that works