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

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Sure feel free to sign up again and PM me the info. It doesn’t have to be public.

I can then announce here that I was wrong and that you saw a number of trans profiles.

Very happy to help you with this.

Also you’ll be sent a text with a sign up code. Please screenshot this as proof.

Gatling

Cestmoi 111

The lenihan chap proved your point very publicly you don't owe anyone on here anything

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think the lying issue comes from the fact that you responded to the post when I originally posted the abusive threats against trans people months ago.

So to claim you haven’t seen a post you responded to....

I occasionally click View Post on people i have on ignore. Such as now for example.

If it was a reply from months ago you may not yet have made it to my ignore list.

I cannot recall what death threat you posted that was made against trans people at all.
Can you post it again?
It is possible I have forgotten as I have a very busy work life which means I cannot remember everything all the time.

So far on this thread if people have posted really nasty things about trans people I have objected to it and called it out. And I have already said today I would be eager to condemn any death or rape threats made against trans gender people and that they should be seen as hate crimes. As they should be seen if made against anyone - including against the ''TERFs'' you so despise.

Cestmoi 111

LLMMLL wrote: »

Also you’ll be sent a text with a sign up code. Please screenshot this as proof.

Well Im not going to sign up again, but don’t mind sending you something to show I already did...as long as it doesn’t identify me irl.

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

Cestmoi 111

The lenihan chap proved your point very publicly you don't owe anyone on here anything

Lenihan proved nothing other than some trans women use the app Her.

Cestmoi is claiming it’s an unusable app. There are 4.5 million women on the app. There would want to be at least a million trans women on the app for it to become unusable for a lesbian only interested in cis women.

Gatling

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

Well Im not going to sign up again, but don’t mind sending you something to show I already did...as long as it doesn’t identify me irl.

I'd report it

LLMMLL

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

Well Im not going to sign up again, but don’t mind sending you something to show I already did...as long as it doesn’t identify me irl.

Ok swipe through 100 women (it doesn’t take long) and see how many identify as trans. You can PM me screenshots.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Lenihan proved nothing other than some trans women use the app Her.

Men are claiming to be lesbian to meet women .....

That's exactly what he did

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

Men are claiming to be lesbian to meet women .....

That's exactly what he did

Linehan is trying to meet women on Her? I thought he was married?

Cestmoi 111

LLMMLL wrote: »

Lenihan proved nothing other than some trans women use the app Her.

Cestmoi is claiming it’s an unusable app. There are 4.5 million women on the app. There would want to be at least a million trans women on the app for it to become unusable for a lesbian only interested in cis women.

But if women are being reported for replying to transpeople that they don’t date anyone except females, then that really invalidates it as a dating tool.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Linehan is trying to meet women on Her? I thought he was married?

And

LLMMLL

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

But if women are being reported for replying to transpeople that they don’t date anyone except females, then that really invalidates it as a dating tool.

No it doesn’t. They don’t have to reply. If they feel the need to reply then they can say “sorry not my type”. To claim this makes it unusable is nonsense.

Gatling

I think there's an attempt to get the thread closed

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

And

We both know he is not trying to meet women. He’s trying to prove a point.

You are trying to use someone doing something solely to prove a point as evidence that cis Herero men do this to actually trick women into sleeping with them. It’s a bizarre line of argument.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

. He’s trying to prove a point.

.

Yes and he did prove a point

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

Yes and he did prove a point

What point do you think he proved?

ingalway

LLMMLL wrote: »

Lenihan proved nothing other than some trans women use the app Her.

Cestmoi is claiming it’s an unusable app. There are 4.5 million women on the app. There would want to be at least a million trans women on the app for it to become unusable for a lesbian only interested in cis women.

"for a lesbian only interested in cis women"

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

It’s a bizarre line of argument.

It's there in black and white and colour .

It's more bizarre claiming men with beards are women and lesbians at the same time

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

It should be known for the historical record that Rachel Levine is very supportive of puberty blockers for children and cross sex hormones for under 18s. In some cases they also support surgical procedures on people under 18. Rachel Levine is a grown adult who was a husband, fathered children, and did not transition until they were 53 years old, in 2011. Just so it is known where they stand when this experimentation they promote on young children is rationally evaluated in years to come.

Bit confused as to how Gruffalux saw my post if I am blocked ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Necro

Gatling wrote: »

I think there's an attempt to get the thread closed

Mod:

Gatling, you have been given multiple warnings about this sort of posting.

It does not belong here, if you have an issue with a post as you have been told repeatedly, report it.

One too many times though you want to drag the thread off topic.

Don't post in this thread again

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

No it doesn’t. They don’t have to reply. If they feel the need to reply then they can say “sorry not my type”. To claim this makes it unusable is nonsense.

That's transphobic.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Not sure why its universally accepted that gay and lesbian people are born that way, but for a lot of people they can't seem to understand that the same is true for transgender people.

Well, being gay, lesbian or bisexual can be physiologically demonstrated, just like being straight can. Sexual arousal to various stimuli can be easily proven. That’s quite straightforward.

Could you suggest a way to physiologically prove or disprove somebody saying they are transgender? Like I’ve said before, people can identify any way they want. None of my business or anyone else’s unless there’s a clash with the rights of another cohort. That’s where problems with self-ID come in. How would you suggest we ascertain whether somebody is truly transgender or just taking advantage of the situation? By self-ID tenets, one’s word is all we need. Of course, people don’t have to prove they are gay or straight either but a gay man is male and a gay woman is female so it has nothing to do with the issue people have with self-ID anyway. The comparison is glib.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalux wrote: »

For me, it is an important issue. Very important. Be sure about that.

For me too. I’m completely serious and worried about this.

chopperbyrne

LLMMLL wrote: »

I honestly don’t believe you. Every lesbian I know who uses dating apps has said it’s rare to encounter a trans woman on them. From my own use of gay Male dating apps it’s also extremely rare to see a trans person on them.

Yet according to your friends there are so many trans women on the apps that they find it unusable? Give me a break.

Can you clarify which app your friends use? I’d like to do a little more digging.

"My anecdotal story is the truth. Your anecdotal story is TERF lies."

Everything you say in this thread is in bad faith.

Gruffalux

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OecPhwPto40

Disclaimer - I have zero idea who the person or people are who run this channel. They may be Satan's spawn - I have not checked. The reason I picked this video is it shows the relevant excerpt from a 55 minute address that Rachel Levine gave at Franklin and Marshall College in 2017. The video is 3 minutes long and covers their essential points.
The full interview is here, and the part about younger people and children starts at 22 minutes - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4zk4KLkYII&t=1436s&ab_channel=Franklin%26MarshallCollege

Rachel Levine talks about the ''new guidelines''. They are specifically referring to the model from the Netherlands (which is being challenged actively now in places like the UK and Sweden, countries that have both suspended treatment of minors pending further research and on the basis that minors cannot consent to such drastic treatment.)

Dr Levine has themselves treated children under the age of 18 with CROSS SEX HORMONES. That is they have prescribed high doses of testosterone for a girls body, and high doses of estrogen for a boy's body. The children they reference were 16 and 17.

In the snippet video they advocate to halt puberty first. Note - puberty begins between 8 and 14 years old, with the average onset age for females at 11, and boys at 12. So Levine advocates medical treatment of children on average from the ages of 11 and 12. But as young as 8 if necessary, is the logical conclusion. The child must be stopped from going through ''the wrong puberty''. And growing ''tentacles'' - this is a joke from them. It refers to a client of theirs who thought testicles were called tentacles - and yet a child with that level of thought would be suitable for radical medical treatment that will cause them infertility and impotence.

Then they advocate that at the age of 14 the child is given cross sex hormones. Remember Levine was fully functioning as an adult male until 9 years ago - and had a full sex life including fathering children. The children they treat will never be able to do that.

Just so people are clear for what it is exactly that the new assistant Health Secretary of the US actively advocates.

My opinion is that it is necessary that this happens. It is better that an issue is brought out to its logical conclusion in practice so that it meets the light of day . It means that there will be suffering and irreversible harm caused to children and for that I am incredibly sad and sorry. But I cannot see how to stop this ideological juggernaut other than have it unfold and let the consequences manifest.

Vic_08

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

Yikes no, no terf ideology in that comment.
It was purely in response to Joeytheparrot’s comment to Gruffalux that they should
“make this into a back and forth list of every single nasty comment on the internet”.
I thought that was clear because I posted him before commenting.

Also just to reply to your last query to me LLMMLL, yes I’ve heard complaints from lesbian friends and acquaintances about trans identified males in lesbian dating apps. Apparently it makes it nearly impossible to navigate the app as a lesbian. And they often get screenshotted and reported for transphobia if they try to explain that they don’t date transpeople.

To Joeyparrot; This is what harassment looks like.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, being gay, lesbian or bisexual can be physiologically demonstrated, just like being straight can. Sexual arousal to various stimuli can be easily proven. That’s quite straightforward.

At birth? No it can’t. And crude sexual arousal experiments a la Kinsey wouldn’t prove or disprove anything one way or the other either. It’s anything but straightforward, quite the opposite - it’s far more complex than crude sexual arousal experiments were able to demonstrate. That being said, the idea of universal acceptance of a biological basis for sexual orientation isn’t straightforward either, there’s sufficient scientific evidence to challenge the theory of sexual orientation being biologically determined, as though people are or ever were “born this way”. The same applies to people who are transgender - there’s insufficient evidence to suggest a purely biological cause, and sufficient evidence to suggest psychological and sociological factors contribute to the development of gender identity.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Could you suggest a way to physiologically prove or disprove somebody saying they are transgender? Like I’ve said before, people can identify any way they want. None of my business or anyone else’s unless there’s a clash with the rights of another cohort. That’s where problems with self-ID come in. How would you suggest we ascertain whether somebody is truly transgender or just taking advantage of the situation? By self-ID tenets, one’s word is all we need. Of course, people don’t have to prove they are gay or straight either but a gay man is male and a gay woman is female so it has nothing to do with the issue people have with self-ID anyway. The comparison is glib.

How do we determine anything? On the basis of what the evidence suggests is how. And you’re presenting a false dilemma in suggesting there is any inherent conflict between women’s rights and everyone’s right to their gender identity. That’s just not how conflicts in rights are assessed in any given individual circumstances. Never mind “by Self-ID tenets”, it doesn’t matter what any individual thinks, what matters are the rights which are recognised in accordance with Irish law, not what any individual perceives are their legal rights, rights which they imagine are absolute, and not given equal weight in law with the competing interests of either the State, or Irish society, or the individuals in question. There was an interesting case in the Court of Appeal recently where a woman tried to claim that because her husband was gay and had mental health issues, he lacked the capacity to consent, and she says the marriage took place without her full consent. The Court of Appeal rejected her claims, which she failed to establish there was any evidence for in her original case -


In a 2019 judgement, Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds dismissed the woman's application on the basis there was no evidence to support her claims.

The woman had fallen well short of establishing her claims and was aggrieved that her former partner got custody of their children in the judicial separation proceedings, Ms Justice Reynolds said.


Appeal Court dismisses bid by woman to annul marriage to man she claimed was gay

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalux wrote: »

My opinion is that it is necessary that this happens. It is better that an issue is brought out to its logical conclusion in practice so that it meets the light of day . It means that there will be suffering and irreversible harm caused to children and for that I am incredibly sad and sorry. But I cannot see how to stop this ideological juggernautother than have it unfold and let the consequences manifest.

No, I don’t accept that personally. I think we know enough to know that giving such potent medications is wrong and unethical. We actually had a live experiment with cross sex hormones on minors from the ‘70s and ‘80s. That would be the coerced East German female athletes who were fed T from very young ages (preteens, some of them) and the older teens years for others. They suffered myriad health problems.

With puberty blockers, these are cancer drugs that make grown men weep. Cancer patients take these drugs incredibly reluctantly and that’s with the goal of killing off out-of-control cells that will overwhelm bodily organs if not stopped. To give them to physically healthy minors makes me want to cry. It really does. I’m currently dealing with an incredibly harsh cancer treatment myself right now and it makes me angry to think of minors being given such powerful medication when they are physically healthy. These medications are no joke.

There are some things that I’m okay with the world being exposed to. For example, biological males competing with biological females in NON-CONTACT sports on a world stage. The absurdity can be highlighted without serious injuries to females* being risked. But I’m not okay with minors having their bodies permanently damaged and altered when we do know that cross sex hormones can cause many health problems and that there are harbingers of permanent health problems with puberty blockers. I am not okay with using minors as guinea pigs to learn more about the long-term effects of blockers.

I really do think we know enough to apply common sense here. Minors don’t have to be sacrificed.

*I really wish I could just say ‘women’ rather than ‘females’ here. But, alas. In order to make my point with clarity, the word ‘females’ and ‘males’ must be used.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

Disclaimer - I have zero idea who the person or people are who run this channel. They may be Satan's spawn - I have not checked.

I did check - they’re a private liberal arts college in Pennsylvania.

Gruffalux wrote: »

The reason I picked this video is it shows the relevant excerpt from a 55 minute address that Rachel Levine gave at Franklin and Marshall College in 2017. The video is 3 minutes long and covers their essential points.
The full interview is here, and the part about younger people and children starts at 22 minutes - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4zk4KLkYII&t=1436s&ab_channel=Franklin%26MarshallCollege

Rachel Levine talks about the ''new guidelines''. They are specifically referring to the model from the Netherlands (which is being challenged actively now in places like the UK and Sweden, countries that have both suspended treatment of minors pending further research and on the basis that minors cannot consent to such drastic treatment.)

Dr Levine has themselves treated children under the age of 18 with CROSS SEX HORMONES. That is they have prescribed high doses of testosterone for a girls body, and high doses of estrogen for a boy's body. The children they reference were 16 and 17.

In the snippet video they advocate to halt puberty first. Note - puberty begins between 8 and 14 years old, with the average onset age for females at 11, and boys at 12. So Levine advocates medical treatment of children on average from the ages of 11 and 12. But as young as 8 if necessary, is the logical conclusion. The child must be stopped from going through ''the wrong puberty''. And growing ''tentacles'' - this is a joke from them. It refers to a client of theirs who thought testicles were called tentacles - and yet a child with that level of thought would be suitable for radical medical treatment that will cause them infertility and impotence.

Yes, it was a joke from them, because the patient they were speaking of was an adult who had already transitioned who used the wrong terms to refer to their balls. Everyone should use proper language, regardless of whether they’re the Physician General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Professor of Paediatrics and Psychiatry at the Penn State College of Medicine, having graduated from Harvard College and the Tualane University of Medicine and completed their training in Paediatrics at Mt. Sinai with a Fellowship in Adolescent Medicine... or they just don’t know their arse from their elbow. Proper language, that’s what matters, not the actual condition itself or how anyone tries to express themselves, especially children - they really ought to be able to have a scientific basis to explain how they feel.

As for the idea that any treatment will inevitably lead to infertility and impotence, it’s neither an inevitable nor foregone conclusion in any case, and there are numerous ways to mitigate the effects of any treatments in order to overcome these considerations. Up until 2012 in order to qualify for medical treatment, people who are transgender in Sweden had to undergo mandatory sterilisation, which it was determined was in breach of a person’s fundamental human rights. The reason they have chosen to halt treatments in Sweden isn’t because of the numbers of children presenting with gender dysphoria, it’s due to politics.

Gruffalux wrote: »

Then they advocate that at the age of 14 the child is given cross sex hormones. Remember Levine was fully functioning as an adult male until 9 years ago - and had a full sex life including fathering children. The children they treat will never be able to do that.

Not as children they won’t, no, but it would be false to conclude that the children being treated will inevitably be infertile as adults, but then you’ve argued that as adults they should be excluded from participating equally as adults of the sex they identify with, and now you’re concerned about their fertility as adults? Forgive me if I begin to think you’re throwing everything but the kitchen sink at this one in an attempt to scare people into submission, when what little evidence there is to support your numerous claims regarding any threat to women’s rights and women’s safety, just doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny. Abigail Shriver got a whole book out of it all the same and made a bit of money for herself from exploiting people’s paranoia.

Gruffalux wrote: »

Just so people are clear for what it is exactly that the new assistant Health Secretary of the US actively advocates.

My opinion is that it is necessary that this happens. It is better that an issue is brought out to its logical conclusion in practice so that it meets the light of day . It means that there will be suffering and irreversible harm caused to children and for that I am incredibly sad and sorry. But I cannot see how to stop this ideological juggernaut other than have it unfold and let the consequences manifest.

The consequences are manifesting, and have been for decades now, certainly since the 60’s anyway, although the concepts are nothing new, in other cultures they are ancient, hell even in Biblical theology Eve was said to have been fashioned from Adam’s rib (I did have a chuckle at the idea that people wouldn’t understand transubstantiation, it’s hardly a new concept being thrown out there).

I do wish people would watch the full version of the clip you posted (and to your credit you did link to the full version of the talk being given), they would have seen the Q&A session at the end where the college Chaplain asks about the spiritual aspects of transgender medicine, explaining that her mother was an electrologist who specialised in hair removal, and her mother explained to her that she was helping people to become who God had created them to be. It was the only time that I’d seen Dr. Levine reach for an answer that just wasn’t coming, likely because medicine doesn’t concern itself with spirituality and culture so Dr. Levine was understandably reluctant to wade into unfamiliar territory.

But in the context of people’s rights, especially in the US, many of the opponents of the juggernaut you refer to are clamouring aboard a juggernaut of their own in claiming that Federal recognition of the rights of people to their gender identity is is a direct impediment upon their rights to manifest their religion. These people have clearly never watched Ru Paul’s Drag Race, where the participants often refer to their God whom they credit for being born who they are. The suffering people experience is primarily the result of people who choose to perpetuate unjust discrimination founded upon their beliefs, which have no scientific basis, and what little scientific evidence there is, just doesn’t stand up to the weight of scientific, academic and medical evidence which suggests the opposite - that when people are supported and their gender identity is affirmed and they are not subject to discrimination, their quality of life and their mental health improves significantly. I hardly needed any scientific studies to determine that for myself though, it’s rather stating the bloody obvious.

suicide_circus

Levine not so skillfully avoiding the question

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V82oXKf83Pw