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

Gruffalux

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1361296123575599104?s=19

I did not know of Joanna Cherry before recently or the SNP really although I believe it is the biggest party in Scotland. A fewcweeks ago a young member of the SNP was arrested for issuing rape threats against Cherry simply because of her opinions on women's rights. And now she has more threats and has to up her security. It is quite similar to religious fatwa I find.

Gatling

Gruffalux wrote: »

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1361296123575599104?s=19

I did not know of Joanna Cherry before recently or the SNP really although I believe it is the biggest party in Scotland. A fewcweeks ago a young member of the SNP was arrested for issuing rape threats against Cherry simply because of her opinions on women's rights. And now she has more threats and has to up her security. It is quite similar to religious fatwa I find.

It shows you's how one group is showing extreme and dangerous views against women who speak up .

Gruffalux

I was looking at some replies to Joanna |Cherry and I saw this tweet which really is stark (in my opinion). I would say I was surprised but then again I don't know why I would say that. Where I live is extremely isolated. The men in our house have never hesitated to exercise alone on the roads. The women and girls have, even though we do go out all the time. But there is an undoubted subconscious risk evaluation going on. I choose to carry a stick. For cattle, mostly. And because I have been stopped in lonely places several times over the years by unknown men insisting they would like to give me a lift.

https://twitter.com/drrachelhewitt/status/1323616305187033089?s=20

I am not going to tease out the implications of that finding for same sex safe spaces - just to hear it is enough. The implications are automatic.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Men and women aren't equal though. There are huge differences.

Men are discriminated against in family matters. Do you deny this?

Cestmoi 111

Gruffalux wrote: »

I was looking at some replies to Joanna |Cherry and I saw this tweet which really is stark (in my opinion). I would say I was surprised but then again I don't know why I would say that. Where I live is extremely isolated. The men in our house have never hesitated to exercise alone on the roads. The women and girls have, even though we do go out all the time. But there is an undoubted subconscious risk evaluation going on. I choose to carry a stick. For cattle, mostly. And because I have been stopped in lonely places several times over the years by unknown men insisting they would like to give me a lift.



I am not going to tease out the implications of that finding for same sex safe spaces - just to hear it is enough. The implications are automatic.

How sad. Why wouldn’t a teenage girl want to be a boy really?

Cestmoi 111

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

How sad. Why wouldn’t a teenage girl want to be a boy really?

I hope that's a joke? Hard to tell on here.

Gatling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I hope that's a joke? Hard to tell on here.

I'd go by post count

Gruffalux

Whoa there. The poster has pointed out a valid fact that for some young girls certain aspects of life as a female can make them want to disappear into being a boy. The pervasive hypersexualisation, the pornographication of everything, the social media frenzies, the pressures re appearance, sexual availablity, being used and discarded, feeling unsafe, and so on. That is what they meant.

Gruffalux

Gruffalux wrote: »

Whoa there. The poster has pointed out a valid fact that for some young girls certain aspects of life as a female can make them want to disappear into being a boy. The pervasive hypersexualisation, the pornographication of everything, the social media frenzies, the pressures re appearance, sexual availablity, being used and discarded, feeling unsafe, and so on. That is what they meant.

I disagree.

They said: "Why wouldn’t a teenage girl want to be a boy really?"

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

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

We have indeed, and we’ve seen how some people have been celebrated for standing up and speaking out and all the rest of it, so to say there is only one inevitable outcome in any particular circumstances is patently a falsehood or a misrepresentation of reality. There are a small minority of people who are making quite a good living for themselves from all this standing up and speaking out, particularly journalists, lobbyists and politicians whom nobody would have heard of before they stood up and spoke out and were congratulated and elevated for taking a stand or standing up for the real victims of what Gruffalox likened to a fatwa.

You’re well aware of the fact that there are people who have something of a hard-on for demonising people who are transgender and portraying them as sexual deviants (in the case of men) or victims (in the case of women and children), and you’re also aware that there are extremists among that cohort who don’t really do reason, who don’t feel they have an obligation to society to respect the fact that other people have rights too, who think they have some God given right to harass other people. Nobody has that right, so when people do feel they are the victims of harassment, they have a right to make a complaint to the authorities. Nobody has the right to take the law into their own hands, no matter how stunning and brave they think they’re being in standing up or speaking out or anything else.

It’s no different than the fact that I have a thing about people engaging in public displays of affection in public, it’s nauseating, frankly. If I’m in a restaurant and there’s a couple in front of me putting me right off enjoying my dining experience, I’ll make a complaint to management, and it’s up to them how they choose to deal with it. If I’m not satisfied with how my complaint is dealt with, then I absolutely maintain the right to take my custom elsewhere. In the same way, any woman or man has that same right to make a complaint, or take their custom elsewhere. They can even do both if their complaint is not dealt with to their satisfaction.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Men and women aren't equal though. There are huge differences.

Men are discriminated against in family matters. Do you deny this?

This is what I was referring to, in Irish Law -


FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

PERSONAL RIGHTS

ARTICLE 40

1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.


The law of course takes into consideration all circumstances in regarding all citizens as equal in upholding their legal rights (as opposed to individuals perceived rights that they think they have as a consequence of disappearing up their own fundament).

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Men are discriminated against in family matters. Do you deny this?

Deny it? I wouldn’t even entertain it, because it’s nonsense. Men aren’t discriminated against in family matters. The Courts base their decisions on taking all circumstances into account in any particular case, and if there are children involved, the best interests of the children take precedence over the feelings of their parents that they are the ‘real victims’.

Cestmoi 111

Gruffalux wrote: »

Whoa there. The poster has pointed out a valid fact that for some young girls certain aspects of life as a female can make them want to disappear into being a boy. The pervasive hypersexualisation, the pornographication of everything, the social media frenzies, the pressures re appearance, sexual availablity, being used and discarded, feeling unsafe, and so on. That is what they meant.

Thanks Gruffalux, you’ve articulated nicely what I should have said.

Apologies if my post came across as flippant.
To expand on it, what I meant is: if you look solely at the info in the message I was responding to, that a teenage girl’s world shrinks til it’s 1/3 of the size of a boy’s, coupled with the anecdote from the poster about the experiences of the females in her own family compared to the males, and throw in my own lived experiences and those of my female friends and family, then maybe it’s understandable that some teenage girls would prefer to identify out of it all and go for the vaster world and the extra confidence around safety.

Re post count, I guess we all have to start somewhere.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are a small minority of people who are making quite a good living for themselves from all this standing up and speaking out, particularly journalists, lobbyists and politicians whom nobody would have heard of before they stood up and spoke out and were congratulated and elevated for taking a stand or standing up for the real victims of what Gruffalox likened to a fatwa.



It’s no different than the fact that I have a thing about people engaging in public displays of affection in public, it’s nauseating, frankly. If I’m in a restaurant and there’s a couple in front of me putting me right off enjoying my dining experience,

I agree with fatwa analogy , imagine calling for women to to raped as punishment for standing up for women's rights,
Where's the authorities now ,some tra feels offended on twitter and people are get calls from the police to check their thinking ,
Yet the same tra's are calling for sexual violence against women who stand up to there ideology .

That's purely sickening .

And here come on public affection and your making complaints to management some people !

Vic_08

Gatling wrote: »

I agree with fatwa analogy , imagine calling for women to to raped as punishment for standing up for women's rights,
Where's the authorities now ,some tra feels offended on twitter and people are get calls from the police to check their thinking ,
Yet the same tra's are calling for sexual violence against women who stand up to there ideology .

That's purely sickening .

And as usual it's being dismissed as irrelevant or brushed off as just twitter silliness. As if ANY threats to kill or sexually assault people are acceptable, I guess in the minds of some if those people have views they don't like and are women it is.

Gatling wrote: »

And here come on public affection and your making complaints to management some people !

Did he really post that! (I have long since put him on ignore, life is way too short to be reading all of that) I suppose it's not really surprising that on top of everything else he is the sort that would complain to a waiter about having to witness happy people.

Personally if I am in a public place being subjected to a continuous stream of utter BS spouted from some loud voiced twat is what gets my goat, if I have a problem with the behaviour of someone in public it is the offending person I would have a word with, not some unsuspecting staff member trying to do their job.

One eyed Jack

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

Thanks Gruffalux, you’ve articulated nicely what I should have said.

Apologies if my post came across as flippant.
To expand on it, what I meant is: if you look solely at the info in the message I was responding to, that a teenage girl’s world shrinks til it’s 1/3 of the size of a boy’s, coupled with the anecdote from the poster about the experiences of the females in her own family compared to the males, and throw in my own lived experiences and those of my female friends and family, then maybe it’s understandable that some teenage girls would prefer to identify out of it all and go for the vaster world and the extra confidence around safety.

Re post count, I guess we all have to start somewhere.

Do people who are transgender experience a vaster world of confidence around safety? I don’t think they do. No, the idea that anyone would wish to become a part of an even more socially marginalised group makes no sense whatsoever unless one considers the possibility that a minority of people (of both sexes) have a victim mentality.

The author of the tweet makes various claims based upon single studies from various societies around the world, linking to none of them and cherry picking conclusions which suit their purposes (it’s simply called confirmation bias, people do it with horoscopes - reading a vague claim and relating it to their own circumstances reinforces their beliefs). One doesn’t even have to engage their critical faculties in order to understand the implications of what the author is suggesting, they spoon feed the reader the idea -


The shrinking of teenage girls’ access to public space correlates to reduction in girls’ ability to exercise. In Texas, teenage girls do 65% less physical activity than boys. Girls drop out of sport clubs in adolescence at far higher rates than boys. This sets a trend for life.

Numerous factors influence girls’ shrinking access to public space. Some are to do with gender roles in families. A study in rural Australia found that boys tend to be given outdoor chores (mowing the lawn), whereas girls are given indoor ones (washing up etc).

Girls in larger families are less likely to visit parks – probably because parents are less able to chaperone them, and there is a stronger expectation that girls, rather than boys, require chaperoning around public space

But the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR that deters teenage girls from public places is... the presence of men. Teenage girls in western Australia say openly that ‘they’d use [public] spaces more if boys weren’t around.’

But the principal reason is FEAR. Australian teenage girls describe parks as the LEAST safe public space, followed by streets, then public transport. 60% of 13yo girls in Stockholm say they are scared in their own neighbourhood.

I find this heart-breaking & enraging. I knew from my own experience that women have different responses to public space than men, but I thought I’d become hardened. But reading these studies, in which adolescent girls experience their world & possibilities contracting, is Broken heart

But many deal with these constraints by simply avoiding public space altogether.Many girls explicitly avoid parks & courts. Many retreat to their bedrooms, where girls spend much more time than boys. One girl refers to her room as ‘the only place in the world where she felt safe’

I used to be a bit jokey about the question, ‘women, what would you do if there was a curfew for men?’ But reading this material has made me realise how women are ourselves operating under a curfew. I’m sure many of us feel similarly to teenage girls retreating to our bedrooms.


The author is attuned to soaking up this sort of nonsense because it confirms their own biases and feeds into their victim mentality. They ignore the mountains of evidence which contradicts their beliefs in favour of regarding cherry picking from studies which reinforce their worldview.

Don’t get me wrong though, I’m in favour of single sex schools for example. I’m also aware of the mountains of evidence which suggests that single sex schools are detrimental for society because they reinforce gender stereotypes and rigid gender roles all the rest of it, and they aren’t beneficial to women’s equality. Then there’s the other side of the coin which argues that girls perform better academically in single sex schools; essentially it boils down to what type of education parents wish for their children, because it is ultimately the parents values which matter in how they choose to raise their children.

Some lobby groups argue against sex segregation, claiming it has detrimental outcomes for society. I personally don’t have any issue with anyone who wishes to separate themselves from society in their safe spaces, work away, but trying to argue that they should be able to separate themselves from society, and participate in society when they want to, on their own terms, and expect everyone else should make themselves scarce so that person feels safe... that’s the very definition of someone imagining that the world should revolve around them.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Deny it? I wouldn’t even entertain it, because it’s nonsense. Men aren’t discriminated against in family matters. The Courts base their decisions on taking all circumstances into account in any particular case, and if there are children involved, the best interests of the children take precedence over the feelings of their parents that they are the ‘real victims’.

Ah well then no point in engaging with you regarding that so.

The very fact that you would even pretend that men are highly disadvantaged when it comes to family law matters means I have no reason to believe you are discussing in good faith.

Let's not take it off topic though.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

I agree with fatwa analogy , imagine calling for women to to raped as punishment for standing up for women's rights,
Where's the authorities now ,some tra feels offended on twitter and people are get calls from the police to check their thinking ,
Yet the same tra's are calling for sexual violence against women who stand up to there ideology .

That's purely sickening .

And here come on public affection and your making complaints to management some people !

Did you not read Gruffalox’s post? There was no mention of anyone calling for women to be raped, the author of the offensive communication was arrested for threatening to commit rape. Pretty cut and dry case of an issue being brought to the attention of the authorities, and something being done about it.

And as regards public displays of affection, it’s no different than making a complaint to management because you object to having to share a space with someone who makes you feel uncomfortable for whatever reason. The right to make a complaint hasn’t been removed from anyone.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah well then no point in engaging with you regarding that so.

The very fact that you would even pretend that men are highly disadvantaged when it comes to family law matters means I have no reason to believe you are discussing in good faith.

Let's not take it off topic though.

It’s not off topic, it’s very much on-topic when the conversation is about gender identity in modern Ireland and the claim is that men are discriminated against in family law, an argument based upon the idea that it’s solely because of their sex or gender identity. It’s very much relevant to the discussion.

I gave you an explanation for what appears to be a discrepancy when you’re only looking at one aspect of a particular phenomenon, disregarding all evidence which doesn’t fit the narrative you appear so keen to believe is true, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

I know you’re not interested in links, but I don’t know how to present evidence without... presenting evidence (copyright laws prohibit me from copying and pasting the whole article), but this was a landmark decision in Ireland related to Family Law a couple of years back, before the marriage equality referendum (which is relevant, because in Irish Law there is no recognition of the concept of ‘de facto family’ outside of marriage) -


Sperm donor wins landmark case over access to son


The Supreme Court overturned an earlier High Court decision that the man was not entitled to access to the child.

In her judgment, Ms Justice Susan Denham found that the sperm donor has rights as a natural father and added that he had formed a bond with the child when he was born.

“There is benefit to a child, in general, to have the society of his father,” she said.

“I am satisfied that the learned High Court judge gave insufficient weight to this factor.

“The basic issue is the welfare of the child,” she added.

The judge urged the parties to agree to terms of access before the case is dealt with back in the High Court.

Ms Justice Denham also found the lesbian couple were not a family under the Constitution of Ireland and said their relationship may not be weighed as such in the balance against the father.

Gatling

Vic_08 wrote: »

And as usual it's being dismissed as irrelevant or brushed off as just twitter silliness. As if ANY threats to kill or sexually assault people are acceptable, I guess in the minds of some if those people have views they don't like and are women it is.



Did he really post that! (I have long since put him on ignore, life is way too short to be reading all of that) I suppose it's not really surprising that on top of everything else he is the sort that would complain to a waiter about having to witness happy people.

Yes and there is usually an attempt to explain it away ,or make excuses,
And yes they did say that ,

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Yes and there is usually an attempt to explain it away ,or make excuses,

How was there any attempt to explain anything away or make excuses for it? I pointed out that someone had made an offensive communication, threatening to commit rape, and a complaint was made to the authorities, and the person was arrested. It’s no different to your point earlier in relation to sham marriages - we have existing legislation regarding that kind of behaviour. We have legislation regarding the kind of behaviour Gruffalox described too -

Hate crime

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not off topic, it’s very much on-topic when the conversation is about gender identity in modern Ireland and the claim is that men are discriminated against in family law, an argument based upon the idea that it’s solely because of their sex or gender identity. It’s very much relevant to the discussion.

It's not.

It's not relevant at all.

It has nothing to do with gender identity. It's got to do with actual biology and the courts propensity to automatically favour the mother in the vast majority of instances.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's not.

It's not relevant at all.

It has nothing to do with gender identity. It's got to do with actual biology and the courts propensity to automatically favour the mother in the vast majority of instances.

Your claim is that men are discriminated against in the family courts, a claim based solely upon the idea that it’s because they are men. That specifically relates to gender identity or discrimination on the basis of their sex.

In the vast majority of cases, the children’s mother is their primary caregiver, that’s why the decision is made that the mother should remain the children’s primary caregiver, because it is in the best interests of the children. The fact that their mother is their primary caregiver in the vast majority of circumstances has nothing whatsoever to do with biology, and everything to do with the fact that the decision was made by the couple themselves that the mother would be the primary caregiver. In Ireland, 98% of people working in the home are women. 2% are men. That’s nothing to do with biology.

The Courts certainly do not automatically favour the mother in any case. The Courts consider all the circumstances in any case and base their determinations on the best interests of any children involved in accordance with Irish Law (not biology).

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your claim is that men are discriminated against in the family courts, a claim based solely upon the idea that it’s because they are men. That specifically relates to gender identity or discrimination on the basis of their sex.

In the vast majority of cases, the children’s mother is their primary caregiver, that’s why the decision is made that the mother should remain the children’s primary caregiver, because it is in the best interests of the children. The fact that their mother is their primary caregiver in the vast majority of circumstances has nothing whatsoever to do with biology, and everything to do with the fact that the decision was made by the couple themselves that the mother would be the primary caregiver. In Ireland, 98% of people working in the home are women. 2% are men. That’s nothing to do with biology.

The Courts certainly do not automatically favour the mother in any case. The Courts consider all the circumstances in any case and base their determinations on the best interests of any children involved in accordance with Irish Law (not biology).

Ah for **** sake. Unless you are saying that, in the vast majority of cases, where "cis" couples have a child together, you can "identify" as the mother or the father of a child, gender identity has nothing to do with this.

The mother, in almost every case, is the person who gave birth to the child. The father is the person who fathered the child. But with self id are you happy to concede that the "person who impregnated the womb of the other person" can identify as the mother?

It's absolute bull****.

If that is your position, consider the fact that you would tell someone in a fun run to piss off if you didn't think they were genuine about being a woman, yet you'd be happy to refer to a person who gave birth from their vagina as a father.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah for **** sake. Unless you are saying that, in the vast majority of cases, where "cis" couples have a child together, you can "identify" as the mother or the father of a child, gender identity has nothing to do with this.

Gender identity has of course got everything to do with the claim that it’s because a person is a man, they are the victim of discrimination. You want to narrow the context down what suits you and ignore the circumstances where it doesn’t. Irish Law doesn’t have the luxury of regarding only circumstances which suit your argument. It’s more objective than that, and like I said the Courts have to regard ALL the circumstances in any particular case in their application of Irish Law.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The mother, in almost every case, is the person who gave birth to the child. The father is the person who fathered the child. But with self id are you happy to concede that the "person who impregnated the womb of the other person" can identify as the mother?

It's absolute bull****.

Well no, and that’s one of the common misunderstandings about what the gender recognition act does or doesn’t do. Some people have claimed that it means the person is to be recognised as their preferred gender in all circumstances, but that’s simply not true, there are exceptions, and this is one of those exceptions - in Irish Law only the person who gives birth can be described as the mother of the child. There was a case in the UK recently where Freddie McConnell sought to challenge the law, and lost their case, and lost the appeal too. I don’t imagine the Courts here would allow for a child’s father to be identified as their mother, though it’s never been tested in Court. So while a person is free to identify themselves however they please, it has no legal recognition whatsoever and certainly wouldn’t be supported by the limitations in the application of the gender recognition act in Irish Law.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If that is your position, consider the fact that you would tell someone in a fun run to piss off if you didn't think they were genuine about being a woman, yet you'd be happy to refer to a person who gave birth from their vagina as a father.

That’s not the reason I gave for telling someone in those circumstances to piss off. I would tell them to piss off because they were taking the piss, and it would be obvious a mile off if they were talking the piss when they were pretending to be genuine. I wouldn’t know for an absolute fact of course whether they were genuine or not, but if the evidence I would have is enough to suggest they’re taking the piss, then, y’know, jog on.

That’s not the same circumstances as someone who has given birth, and in any case I’d refer to anyone how they wish to be referred to, that’s just basic manners IMO, like the way we refer to people by their name, or their title (though I do have a habit in casual conversation of referring to medical professionals as ‘Doc’ most of the time, even when they’re not a doctor but a consultant and their proper title is Mr. or Ms.), or I’ll often refer to a group of girls I’m speaking to as “Lads!” when I need to get their attention.

I treat people as I would wish to be treated myself, regardless of whether they’re a father, mother, man, woman, etc, and I detest the idea of ordinary people who imagine they have the authority or the right to declare how other people should identify themselves, when they simply don’t have that authority. I detest the language police whose intent is so obvious and yet they attempt to couch their intent in virtue or biology or any of the rest of that nonsense.

Their intent is quite clear - an attempt to violate other people’s rights, while claiming that those people want to violate their rights, and their intent in attempting to violate other people’s rights is to protect their rights. If people don’t validate their self-appointed authority, then they play the victim.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Gender identity has of course got everything to do with the claim that it’s because a person is a man, they are the victim of discrimination.

No it doesn't. Unless of course, there is an intrinsic link between sex and gender (which I thought people claimed there wasnt)

Men (fathers) undeniably are at a disadvantage the majority of the time I'm in family court settings.

Or is your opinion on self id that trans people actually become the other sex/gender by virtue of saying so (unless of course you use your super power to decide they are "taking the piss")?

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not the reason I gave for telling someone in those circumstances to piss off. I would tell them to piss off because they were taking the piss, and it would be obvious a mile off if they were talking the piss when they were pretending to be genuine. I wouldn’t know for an absolute fact of course whether they were genuine or not

What are you basing your claim off it would be obvious a mile off,
All you would have is there appearance,you would have zero authority to challenge them if they declared themselves as female.

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not the reason I gave for telling someone in those circumstances to piss off. I would tell them to piss off because they were taking the piss, and it would be obvious a mile off if they were talking the piss when they were pretending to be genuine. I wouldn’t know for an absolute fact of course whether they were genuine or not, but if the evidence I would have is enough to suggest they’re taking the piss, then, y’know, jog on.

I think most people's idea, particularly a womans idea, of taking the piss are very different to yours. I, as a woman, think that any biological male taking part in sports with biological females is taking the piss, regardless if they have signed a form or chosen female on the race entry form.


Is this taking the piss?

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

What are you basing your claim off it would be obvious a mile off,
All you would have is there appearance,you would have zero authority to challenge them if they declared themselves as female.

Apparently it's because they "feigned offense". Jack claims that it's blatantly obvious to tell when someone is taking the piss if they feign offense.

There was me thinking that a bigger sign of "taking the piss" would be...I dunno... Men claiming they are women... Women claiming they were men.... people demanding to respect their personal pronouns they can change whenever they want...

But no... It's the feigning of offense.

Gatling

[QUOTE=Deleted User;116301098

]Apparently it's because they "feigned offense". Jack claims that it's blatantly obvious to tell when someone is taking the piss if they feign offense.




But no... It's the feigning of offense.[/QUOTE]

But in this case there was no feinging of offence the person said they were female when asked .
There was nothing else , there's no real reason to speculate or hypotheticalise what could have happened in his mind if they were there ,but alas they were not and there is no claims he feinted offence when he declared he was female ,

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

But in this case there was no feinging of offence the person said they were female when asked .
There was nothing else , there's no real reason to speculate or hypotheticalise what could have happened in his mind if they were there ,but alas they were not and there is no claims he feinted offence when he declared he was female ,

Jack would disagree

One eyed Jack wrote: »

He said himself he only did it to make a point. At no point did he ever claim to be transgender. He pretended to be offended at the suggestion that he was a man -


“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.”

So yeah, apparently people being triggered by being misgendered is a big sign of "piss taking". Good thing the "genuine" trans people never reacted to misgendering in a triggered manner.