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

Cestmoi 111

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Oh, nothing new.
You see it here with the insistence of using 'cis' and 'terf' - it's part of the pattern of extreme activists to give a glimmer of hope that the illogicalities can pass some weak-minded members of the public and make it sound legit and 'acceptable' They really, really need 'cis' to take off so watch out for that one.

When 'born in the wrong body' was marked as the utter nonsense it is - at least in the UK - extremist organisations (many in workplaces and schools 'educating' people with this crud) and activists scrambled to disown that particular one.
Now? Never hear it.



Hilarity note:
Here they are currently 'editing' Wikipedia (that'd be where a lot of search engines automatically link to at the top of your search result query) to erase their eh, missteps.
It's a con, a long con but a very devious one.

Seems to be a little internal ideological b*tchfight going on.
While wondering what the new definite definitions will be tomorrow, I'm pretty sure I know who Intl Women's History Month will be all about...


https://twitter.com/xx_chromosomes_/status/1366745844528132098

I’m trying but I just can’t get there. So the word ‘women’ contains the word ‘men’ and we are told that trans identified males are not men, but yet excluding the word ‘men’ is somehow excluding the TiMs? Ah jaysis I don’t know. Can someone puzzle it out for me please.

Aleece2020

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I completely agree, and it’s equally as cruel (or rather unethical) to withhold treatments from anyone on the basis of people’s ignorance. Evidence-based medicine is based upon just that - evidence, not on suggesting that anyone use their imaginations while presenting them with only the negative outcomes involved in any hypothetical scenario to prey on people’s individual moral reservations. Empirical evidence informs ethical considerations in relation to best practices in medicine.

There's a huge double standard in medicine and healthcare in this country. Not just that, but if we follow your argument then it's clear that the healthcare system here is unethical towards everyone; but particularly women.

I am a 27 year old woman who would like to be sterilized and yet I am "too young" for it. I cannot find a surgeon who is willing to perform the procedure and my GP won't take me seriously even though I keep bringing it up. If a 27 year old woman is too young to decide if she wants her reproductive ability removed then why are people almost a decade younger than I am considered old enough to go for sex change operations?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Parental disagreement is often encountered in paediatric patients experiencing gender dysphoria or incongruous gender identity, and the evidence supporting an affirmative approach to their gender identity and recognition of children’s autonomy in terms of their healthcare leads to superior outcomes in terms of their quality of life and overall healthcare, by far outweighs the evidence to the contrary

Conclusions

Despite the absence of clear clinical guidelines for transgender minors seeking medical treatment in the absence of parental consent, there is sufficient ethical precedent and clinical data to conclude that treatment should not be withheld when a minor is at risk of undue suffering. Because there is evidence to suggest dysphoria and associated comorbidities would be relieved by treatment, this logic aligns with Diekema’s criteria for over-riding parental consent and Mill’s Harm Principle. Although guidance is not law, the capacity of a transgender minor should be strongly advocated for in a matter consistent with a provider’s general treatment of adolescents in any other medical decision-making settings such as STI services and contraception. The clinician should consider the decision to pursue hormone therapy or surgery in relation to current guidelines, risks to the individual patient and the child’s decision-making capacity.


Medically assisted gender affirmation: when children and parents disagree

You have to be over 16 to consent to medical procedures in Ireland. Gender reassignment is a medical procedure. There are only rare exceptions in the case of mature minors under this age. When you say "child" and "children" in the context of gender reassignments are you referring to 16 and 17 year olds or are you suggesting the law regarding consent to medical procedures ought to not apply to people who proclaim they are transgender?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

political analyst wrote: »

The barrister representing the defendant in that case says that the defendant and the other trans woman who is in prison are kept separate from the rest of the prison population.

Well, then, isn’t that an acknowledgement that there’s a difference there? And couldn’t that separation be classified as transphobic?

Cestmoi 111

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, then, isn’t that an acknowledgement that there’s a difference there? And couldn’t that separation be classified as transphobic?

Are they housed separately because they’re trans males or because they’re extremely violent individuals and perhaps more violent than the women in there?

Gentlemanne

Seems to me like well-meaning but entirely misguided people are trying to promote this term "womxn".
Seems like both trans people and those who promote their rights actually agree with the kind of people that are not so keen on trans rights on this.

I spoke to my friend (who is transgender) about this (the terms womxen and latinx) and she says its the "woke" version of "seperate but equal".

Gruffalux

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Seems to me like well-meaning but entirely misguided people are trying to promote this term "womxn".
Seems like both trans people and those who promote their rights actually agree with the kind of people that are not so keen on trans rights on this.

I spoke to my friend (who is transgender) about this (the terms womxen and latinx) and she says its the "woke" version of "seperate but equal".

''the kind of people who are not so keen on trans rights''?
I don't know who those people are - maybe the odd troglodyte. Where others rights clash with sex based rights (eg for women) defending those rights is not being against the rights of trans people. Plus speaking out against the experimental treatment of children that causes irreversible damage is not being against trans rights. Plus rationally countering irrational gender theory ideology is not against trans rights. It is being framed that way, but that is a political tactic and a lie.

Plus ''well meaning but entirely misguided'' is a very dangerous combination in an activist, many of whom are ideologically fanatical and act like cult members. These are the same people that call for others to lose their jobs or be deplatformed from speaking engagements or have their books removed from the shelves or campaign for education curricula to reflect their bullsh!t ideas and so on. They should take time out to move away from their emotive insensible conditioning and have a good proper think about things and their inherent contradictions for themselves. It is a pain in the hole to have such ''well-meaning'' people leach common sense out of the world.

Gentlemanne

Honestly that is me being charitable.

I think it's a fair way to describe the people who are very adamantly against what they deem "Trans Rights Activists". Its practically a tautology.

Gruffalux

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Honestly that is me being charitable.

I think it's a fair way to describe the people who are very adamantly against what they deem "Trans Rights Activists". Its practically a tautology.

How do you cope with the many transgender people who are against Trans Rights Activists?

Gentlemanne

There are plenty of people who are against their own interests.
Besides, I know for a fact that there are not many. There is maybe a handful of noteworthy and most of them are pals with that Chap that spends all day being an asshole on his blog.

By the way, there's something very very familiar about the framing of being totally for a minorities rights and then completely contradicting yourself in the followup. It's really like "I'm for gay rights, I just think that marriage is between a man and a woman".

Gentlemanne

Gentlemanne wrote: »

There are plenty of people who are against their own interests.
Besides, I know for a fact that there are not many. There is maybe a handful of noteworthy and many of them are pals with that Chap that spends all day being an asshole on his blog.

By the way, there's something very very familiar about the framing of being totally for a minorities rights and then completely contradicting yourself in the followup. It's really like "I'm for gay rights, I just think that marriage is between a man and a woman".

I support trans people to live how they want, once people are not compelled to deny biology.

There is something very familiar about the framing. A lot of people do it. For example, "I support the rights of all people to protest, just once I agree with them"

Gruffalux

Gentlemanne wrote: »

By the way, there's something very very familiar about the framing of being totally for a minorities rights and then completely contradicting yourself in the followup. It's really like "I'm for gay rights, I just think that marriage is between a man and a woman".

Oh right... the not so subtle slipping in of the homophobic equivalence accusation thing now... :rolleyes:

Just so we are clear, not so Gentlemanne, I am completely in favour of transgender people having full protection and rights and living in a democratic civilised fashion like everyone else. Because they are just like everyone else.

At the very same time I will not acquiesce to believing in any a-scientific bullsh1t that attempts to subvert reason. I will not permit the erasure of the biological reality of the female (or male) state of existence. I will not support the butchering of language ''to be kind''.

I will defend the rights of women to continued sex based privacies and protections, such as not being forced to share jails or refuges with male-bodied violent offenders, not having to defer in intimate spaces to the intrusion of people who are expressing themselves as cross dressers for example, not having their sporting arenas ruined by completely irrational and unfair advantage.
And I will argue forever against the experimentation and irreversible damage being done on children.


That does not make against trans rights.

Sir Oxman

Gentlemanne wrote: »

By the way, there's something very very familiar about the framing of being totally for a minorities rights and then completely contradicting yourself in the followup. It's really like "I'm for gay rights, I just think that marriage is between a man and a woman".

No. No, it isn't.
At all.

Cestmoi 111

It’s ok to fight for the rights of women and children, and to disagree with things that impede those rights. This is being pro the rights of women and children, not anti anything.

suicide_circus

Gentlemanne wrote: »

It's really like "I'm for gay rights, I just think that marriage is between a man and a woman".

A man and a woman? What are they then?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

Are they housed separately because they’re trans males or because they’re extremely violent individuals and perhaps more violent than the women in there?

Well, as far as I know, there are now three male inmates incarcerated in the women’s estate in Ireland. One is a child sex offender. Whether this inmate is violent is unknown. The other two inmates have convictions related to violence. I’m sure there are violent female inmates. There’d just be statistically far fewer violent female inmates than there would be in male prison populations. AND rather crucially, it’s not just about an inmate being violent, it’s the fact that your average male inmate who is violent will do a lot more damage to your average female than your average violent female.

The argument for incarcerating transgender women is that they are at greater risk in men’s prisons. That might well be the case. But I have to ask, why are their safety concerns taken seriously whilst women’s are dismissed? Why can’t a solution be found that takes seriously all safety concerns? Because I gotta say, if I was a female inmate, I would not feel reassured that somebody housed in the same building as me needs extra guarding and that person is likely to be far stronger than me. Do we have to wait for something bad to happen? Can we not think preventatively?

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, as far as I know, there are now three male inmates incarcerated in the women’s estate in Ireland. One is a child sex offender. Whether this inmate is violent is unknown. The other two inmates have convictions related to violence. I’m sure there are violent female inmates. There’d just be statistically far fewer violent female inmates than there would be in male prison populations. AND rather crucially, it’s not just about an inmate being violent, it’s the fact that your average male inmate who is violent will do a lot more damage to your average female than your average violent female.

The argument for incarcerating transgender women is that they are at greater risk in men’s prisons. That might well be the case. But I have to ask, why are their safety concerns taken seriously whilst women’s are dismissed? Why can’t a solution be found that takes seriously all safety concerns? Because I gotta say, if I was a female inmate, I would not feel reassured that somebody housed in the same building as me needs extra guarding and that person is likely to be far stronger than me. Do we have to wait for something bad to happen? Can we not think preventatively?

I saw someone write today that ''calibrated responses'' are needed. That is a good phrase.
Not this stupid guff that if women say - Oi! Why do you think this person who self identifies as a woman is automatically let in here - means the women responding thusly are some kind of slack-jawed bigot swho can be called insults.
Calibrated responses ARE needed so that EVERYONE's needs and safety and dreams and hopes and privacy are met.

I was also thinking earlier about why this has fallen so heavily on women's shoulders. And one of the reasons it has is actually a real life demonstration of why women needed special protections in the first place.
And a lot of it boils down to very simple biological reality of sex differences. That is the irony. It is because we are in need of protection and privacy and when we do not have it, such as in undeveloped countries or in war situations or throughout almost all of history due to weird ways of going on, things are really terrible for female bodies. (Yes, I know things are also terrible in war for men!)

We are not hearing of trans men appropriating men's spaces because if a trans man says to men I will use your loo, use your shower, use your prison, enter your sports, etc most men are likely to say knock yourself out love - because what IS IT TO THEM.
It is almost zero threat.
Purely because a female body will not win their sporting awards (or very very rarely), and female bodies in male spaces are almost zero threat.

That is not to say there are not some mad dangerous bad bitches out there - of course there are. And it is not to deny that men should have their own private spaces - of course they should.
But the very reason this is a flash point for women actually centres on the very reasons why women needed sex based protections in the first place.
And yes, I know that trans women are not going to be harmful in general. But self ID means there is ZERO gate keeping possibility.
Anyways Jesus I am babbling. It is just so blindlingly obvious to me how stupid all this gaslighting is that I cannot express it sometimes. I saw someone else say a lot of this post modern ideological rubbish is about demoralising people. And I tend to agree.

LLMMLL

A transgender woman is being hailed as a hero after she stepped in to pay for a cancer patient’s treatment.

[URL] https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/02/trans-woman-lauded-hero-stepping-help-cancer-patient-no-one-else/#click=https://t.co/pIIX94aoKe[/URL]

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

A transgender woman is being hailed as a hero after she stepped in to pay for a cancer patient’s treatment.

[URL] https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/02/trans-woman-lauded-hero-stepping-help-cancer-patient-no-one-else/#click=https://t.co/pIIX94aoKe[/URL]

What in the name of the little baby Jesus does this have to do with anything?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What in the name of the little baby Jesus does this have to do with anything?

It adds some counterbalance to the negativity of this thread.

Gatling

Deleted User wrote: »

What in the name of the little baby Jesus does this have to do with anything?

I'd can't wait for the gender reveal to be labelled transpobic

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

It adds some counterbalance to the negativity of this thread.

A trans person does something good. Wow.

It adds nothing.

Gatling

Case before the UK courts after a Female Prisoner was sexually assaulted By a trans person in prison

Trans prisoners 'shouldn't be allowed on female wings because they are disproportionately likely to commit sexual assaults on women', High Court hears


She said that a 'disproportionate' 45% of trans prisoners in 2017 had convictions for sexual offences, including a significant amount for rape, compared with 4% of female prisoners in the same year.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9316145/amp/Trans-prisoners-disproportionately-likely-commit-sexual-assaults-women-High-Court-hears.html

Aleece2020

Gatling wrote: »

I'd can't wait for the gender reveal to be labelled transpobic

Now if only we could get baby showers and christenings labelled as transphobic too, it’d be a great way to avoid going to them.

AllForIt

LLMMLL wrote: »

A transgender woman is being hailed as a hero after she stepped in to pay for a cancer patient’s treatment.

[URL] https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/02/trans-woman-lauded-hero-stepping-help-cancer-patient-no-one-else/#click=https://t.co/pIIX94aoKe[/URL]

Nigeria has no history whatsoever of being anti-trans. In the same way some African states are particularly anti-gay, like Uganda, but really couldn't care less about trans issues.

Transgender people have to stop pretending that the plight of gay people currently and historically is the same of their own.

Of course, that's why they latch onto gay rights, to hide under the umbrella of gay causes, as if their cause is the same. Couldn't be more different, aside from the general cause of rights which is a very loose connection.

There are no transgender ppl being thrown off buildings in Islamists states, there are no transgender ppl being disowned by their parents, there are no transgender ppl being murdered because they are transgender, or anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

Transgender ppl really have to stop claiming that their experience is 'exactly' the same as those gay people who went though hell in the past.
Basically Transgender activists are 'stealing' the experience of gay people, making it their own, as if noone would notice. They steal the language i.e. queer this queer that queer the other, they steal the look and feel of the gay world, (rainbow flags etc), they steal the flamboyance, they steal the daring, they steal the history, they steal whatever gay person of note did, anything any historical gay person did, like Oscar Wilde or ppl of his ilk. There is no transgender history there. None at all.

That is what the collaboration between transgender and gay rights is about. To make it one as if it's all the same. It's not. It's no wonder there are splinter groups because the fundamental idea behind it is flawed. Transgender activism is HIDING under the cover of gay rights. And always have.

If I was ever in a position to pay for someones cancer treatment I'd be loath if it was reported in the press "GAY PERSON PAYS FOR CANCER TREATMENT".
I mean this identity politics thing has gotten completely out of hand.

CtevenSrowder

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Seems to me like well-meaning but entirely misguided people are trying to promote this term "womxn".
Seems like both trans people and those who promote their rights actually agree with the kind of people that are not so keen on trans rights on this.

I spoke to my friend (who is transgender) about this (the terms womxen and latinx) and she says its the "woke" version of "seperate but equal".

So spelling woman with an x is misguided but proclaiming that men are women is completely correct..Righty so.

suicide_circus

Gruffalux wrote: »

I saw someone write today that ''calibrated responses'' are needed.

It's funny because nature has already done the calibrating.

Cestmoi 111

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, as far as I know, there are now three male inmates incarcerated in the women’s estate in Ireland. One is a child sex offender. Whether this inmate is violent is unknown. The other two inmates have convictions related to violence. I’m sure there are violent female inmates. There’d just be statistically far fewer violent female inmates than there would be in male prison populations. AND rather crucially, it’s not just about an inmate being violent, it’s the fact that your average male inmate who is violent will do a lot more damage to your average female than your average violent female.

The argument for incarcerating transgender women is that they are at greater risk in men’s prisons. That might well be the case. But I have to ask, why are their safety concerns taken seriously whilst women’s are dismissed? Why can’t a solution be found that takes seriously all safety concerns? Because I gotta say, if I was a female inmate, I would not feel reassured that somebody housed in the same building as me needs extra guarding and that person is likely to be far stronger than me. Do we have to wait for something bad to happen? Can we not think preventatively?

I ponder over this a lot too. Why is it only trans people who can choose to avoid sharing loos, showers, changing rooms and prisons with people of a particular sex? The irony is mind blowing that male bodied people can choose to avoid other male bodied people by literally inserting male bodied people into women’s spaces.

Re prisons, there is a judicial review of transgender prison policy taking place in the UK and apparently the Ministry of Justice have no central data on how many trans identified males are in women’s estates. This can’t be good for either the trans people or women concerned. If it were to be shown that there were enough males identifying as females in the women’s estates then it could prove a need for a separate prison/estate for transpeople which would surely be beneficial to all concerned. (Sorry I’m not sure if this bit about a review was already posted.)

Gentlemanne

Deleted User wrote: »

What in the name of the little baby Jesus does this have to do with anything?

Deleted User wrote: »

A trans person does something good. Wow.

It adds nothing.

Literally every other page has someone posting whatever negative news story they can find about trans people and I've never seen you have an issue with it.


Shocking hypocrisy..

Cestmoi 111

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Literally every other page has someone posting whatever negative news story they can find about trans people and I've never seen you have an issue with it.


Shocking hypocrisy..

Very easy to find negative news stories on this issue and the vast majority are not being posted here, it would take over the thread if they were all to be posted.

I, for one, have no issues with a nice news story being posted, even if it’s not related to the wider discussion of identity politics or clashes of rights.

Cestmoi 111

Gatling wrote: »

I'd can't wait for the gender reveal to be labelled transpobic

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/demi-lovato-supports-message-saying-gender-reveal-parties-are-transphobic-225807477.html