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

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Yes, the cultural devaluation of females affects all females who enter that culture and specifically because they are female. It will not affect someone who has been socialised as a male in the same way.
I lived in India for 2 years and experienced a lot of sexual assaults and harassment due to this commonplace cultural perception and devaluation of women and girls. It is not generally a safe place for girls to travel alone in. There are many many fantastic and noble and good Indian people and it is an amazing place, but there is also significant amounts of cultural backwardness in the villages and there are cultural difficulties for women (from anywhere) due to ignorant misogynistic religious misinterpretation, especially re Islam in the North of the country, that devalues women specifically based specifically on their immutable sex.

If you consider someone to fall under the definition of female that is based on chromosomes and gametes, and they haven't lived in India or another country which has issues with aborting female foetuses and the level of sexual assaults you have experienced in India, do you still consider them to be a woman?

LLMMLL

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

F*cking hell this is exactly my issue with trans stuff. You’re only ever a click away from the most bloody offensive thing you could imagine.

Like here we’ve gone from highlighting foeticide, gang rape, denial of education, killing of widows, all as a direct consequence of being female, to one click later...but what about transwomen.
We had one afternoon, maybe 3 posts, of positive stories about trans people, to the same posters now trying to dilute the horrific violence meted out to females in India because won’t someone please think of the poor transwomen.
You honestly couldn’t make it up.

I never said anything of the sort. In fact I explicitly said that what many women face in India is horrific. I won't say all Indian women as I have an cis woman Indian friend who had a grand time and I know is very offended when it's assumed she has experienced aggravated assaults etc.

All I said was that the current issues facing women in India as enumerated by Gruffalux has nothing to do with trans women.

It's like if someone said it was all Japanese women's fault that Indian women face these issues. Pointing out that that is nonsense does not minimize the issues many Indian women face.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

If you consider someone to fall under the definition of female that is based on chromosomes and gametes, and they haven't lived in India or another country which has issues with aborting female foetuses and the level of sexual assaults you have experienced in India, do you still consider them to be a woman?

I am just going to quote this because it is indecipherable demoralising gobbledegook, and then put you back on ignore. It is too frustrating to attempt any debate with you, not least because of your infinite contempt for the wrong kind of women.

LLMMLL

Vic_08 wrote: »

Who do you think it is getting these abortions? Women, actual, real, pregnant women. Do you really think they all want to abort their babies because they are girls? It's a cultural and economic pressure or often the choice of the husband/family not their own free choice to have the procedure.

Your complete blindness to the simple truth that girls and women have a fundamentally different life from boys and men from birth right through life is actually offensive. Your indifference to any of the aspects of what makes the sexes fundamentally different in order to promote this trans ideology is not a nice inclusive rainbow worldview. It is in fact deeply misogynistic in your willingness to wave away all the injustices and challenges actual women uniquely face across the world as well as completely denying the simple truths about the physical identifiable differences, mental developmental differences and societal differences in the way they are treated and experience the world around them.

Only on boards could I write "
I agree with you that women in India have different experiences than men in India and many of these experiences are horrifically negative. "

And be accused of "blindness to the simple truth that girls and women have a fundamentally different life from boys and men "

This is so absurd it's funny.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalux wrote: »

Sibling stories trending it seems . Andrea and Sinéad Watson talk about the friendship and support between them as Sinéad transitioned and then years later became that mythical creature - a detransitioner..

https://www.transgendertrend.com/transition-detransition-conversation-between-sisters/

Sinead, who has been through a double mastectomy and severe mental trauma, advocates for the affirmation model to be revised and especially because of the frequency of underlying mental health issues in transitioning young people.

Cestmoi 111

LLMMLL wrote: »

Only on boards could I write "
I agree with you that women in India have different experiences than men in India and many of these experiences are horrifically negative. "

And be accused of "blindness to the simple truth that girls and women have a fundamentally different life from boys and men "

This is so absurd it's funny.

Nope, nothing funny here.

Vic_08

LLMMLL wrote: »

If you consider someone to fall under the definition of female that is based on chromosomes and gametes, and they haven't lived in India or another country which has issues with aborting female foetuses and the level of sexual assaults you have experienced in India, do you still consider them to be a woman?

Several thousand posts into this thread it is pretty fukking obvious that Gruffalux, myself, ODB, Gatling, Cestmoi and the others you argue with consider all actual natal women to be women because they are women, every single one of them.

Stop asking stupid questions.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

I am just going to quote this because it is indecipherable demoralising gobbledegook, and then put you back on ignore. It is too frustrating to attempt any debate with you, not least because of your infinite contempt for the wrong kind of women.

Oh I think you can decipher it just fine. You often wrote about the "dividing the ontological category of woman" so if you can make sense of that I'm pretty sure you understand what I wrote.

The issue is of course that you are on extremely shaky ground by tryin to propose that the experience of many women in India is a universal female.experience. Because it's clearly not and spending 2 years in India doesn't change that.

LLMMLL

Vic_08 wrote: »

Several thousand posts into this thread it is pretty fukking obvious that Gruffalux, myself, ODB, Gatling, Cestmoi and the others you argue with consider all actual natal women to be women because they are women, every single one of them.

Stop asking stupid questions.

And I consider trans women to be women because they are women

LLMMLL

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

Nope, nothing funny here.

You're right. That level of misrepresentation of my views is quite serious.

Vic_08

LLMMLL wrote: »

Only on boards could I write "
I agree with you that women in India have different experiences than men in India and many of these experiences are horrifically negative. "

And be accused of "blindness to the simple truth that girls and women have a fundamentally different life from boys and men "

This is so absurd it's funny.

The absurd is that you will then seamlessly go on to insist that men can BE a women, fully, completely, just as if they had been born one, just by the process of declaring themselves so. Any man. Even one of those gang rape Indian men.


Edit: in the time I posted that you had written this:

LLMMLL wrote: »

And I consider trans women to be women because they are women

It is not me who is misrepresenting anything.

You just cannot say two entirely contradictory things and claim it is anyone but you being absurd.

LLMMLL

Vic_08 wrote: »

The absurd is that you will then seamlessly go on to insist that men can BE a women, fully, completely, just as if they had been born one, just by the process of declaring themselves so. Any man. Even one of those gang rape Indian men.

More misrepresentation. I have always said that the declaration of gender identity is not what makes someone a man or a woman. I could declare I'm a woman right now. It wouldn't make me a woman.

LLMMLL

Vic_08 wrote: »

The absurd is that you will then seamlessly go on to insist that men can BE a women, fully, completely, just as if they had been born one, just by the process of declaring themselves so. Any man. Even one of those gang rape Indian men.


Edit: in the time I posted that you had written this:



It is not me who is misrepresenting anything.

You just cannot say two entirely contradictory things and claim it is anyone but you being absurd.

Where's the contradiction? Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it a contradiction.

Vic_08

LLMMLL wrote: »

More misrepresentation. I have always said that the declaration of gender identity is not what makes someone a man or a woman. I could declare I'm a woman right now. It wouldn't make me a woman.

More shifting goalposts, what makes a trans woman a woman other than self-declaration? The subjective belief in something that there is not one scintilla of objective proof for is literally based on nothing other than self-declaration.

Make some bloody sense, I dare you.

LLMMLL

Vic_08 wrote: »

More shifting goalposts, what makes a trans woman a woman other than self-declaration? The subjective belief in something that there is not one scintilla of objective proof for is literally based on nothing other than self-declaration.

Make some bloody sense, I dare you.

The issue is that you associate being a woman with your ability to know someone's sex/gender. The declaration is irrelevant.

It's a shockingly egocentric viewpoint to think that the important aspect of womanhood is your ability to be able to identify or be informed about it. Women are women regardless of whether they tell you they are or.not.

Vic_08

LLMMLL wrote: »

The issue is that you associate being a woman with your ability to know someone's sex/gender. The declaration is irrelevant.

It's a shockingly egocentric viewpoint to think that the important aspect of womanhood is your ability to be able to identify or be informed about it. Women are women regardless of whether they tell you they are or.not.

Nope, try again.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

I could declare I'm a woman right now. It wouldn't make me a woman.

That's totally contradicting everything you posted in this thread claiming exactly that any man that self identifies as a woman is a real woman ,
But now you can claim to be a woman but it wouldn't make you a woman .
Not only only contradictory but hypocritical too

Sir Oxman

Gruffalux wrote: »

I am just going to quote this because it is indecipherable demoralising gobbledegook, and then put you back on ignore. It is too frustrating to attempt any debate with you, not least because of your infinite contempt for the wrong kind of women.

It's virtually impossible to have a conversation with a critical queer theorist. Believe me.

The whole murky hypothesis is an assault on intelligence.

Vic_08

Sir Oxman wrote: »

It's virtually impossible to have a conversation with a critical queer theorist. Believe me.

The whole murky hypothesis is an assault on intelligence.

Intelligence, reason, logic, sanity.

Welcome to the 21st century version of religion. No holy book or saviour, just youtube prophets, twitter evangelists and crucified TERFs.

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

That's totally contradicting everything you posted in this thread claiming exactly that any man that self identifies as a woman is a real woman ,
But now you can claim to be a woman but it wouldn't make you a woman .
Not only only contradictory but hypocritical too

No Gatling you are completely incorrect. You have just misunderstood what I've posted in the thread. I've explicitly said many times before that self declaration is not a deciding factor.

That's what you believe I believe. It's not what I believe. You are aware of the difference right?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Is it? Do you go out of your way to look for this stuff, or do you just come across is often? If it's the former, that is very strange, if its the latter, then you are probably following or know people who are deterimined to influence your view on trans people in a negative way.



What exact spaces did you visit?
I have trans friends, I follow trans content creators, and this isn't my experience at all. The only time I see this is when right-wingers go out of their way to invade spaces just to mock people.

Ah, ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy, how are ya?

Cestmoi 111

LLMMLL wrote: »

You're right. That level of misrepresentation of my views is quite serious.

Speaking of misrepresentation, your post smacks of this:
https://youtu.be/2E4F0cDN-rQ

Ten of Swords

Vic_08 wrote: »

Several thousand posts into this thread it is pretty fukking obvious that Gruffalux, myself, ODB, Gatling, Cestmoi and the others you argue with consider all actual natal women to be women because they are women, every single one of them.

Stop asking stupid questions.

Vic_08 do not post in this thread again

Gentlemanne

The woman behind the channel "badgeOfShame", a classic public interview YouTube series, formally known as JoeGoes, just released a YouTube video after being gone for years

https://youtu.be/cGgVoqr78gk

It's a very lovely video!

One eyed Jack

Aleece2020 wrote: »

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.

You’re not following my line of argument if that’s the conclusion you’re coming to. I’ve tried to think about how you could possibly have drawn that conclusion from what I’ve said, and the only reasonable explanation is that you’re conflating a couple of different things as though they are actually comparable on the basis that they require the patients informed consent.

I do agree with your point though that historically speaking, women (and I would include children and people of both sexes living in poverty or people with disabilities) have suffered the shìtty end of the stick in relation to their healthcare.

Aleece2020 wrote: »

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?

I could’ve been flippant and dismissive, and pointed out the most obvious difference is that the compulsive desire not to become pregnant, is not regarded as a psychological or medical condition that requires treatment. But I didn’t want to do that because apart from the fact that it’d have been flippant and dismissive, it’d also be incredibly patronising. I do actually take your position seriously, and I’m well aware of how difficult your position is to maintain in a society where there is an overbearing social pressure placed upon women from childhood that their sole purpose or ultimate goal in life is the role of motherhood and providing care to vulnerable people. You’re as likely to find a medical professional who will support your decision and provide you with the necessary means to achieve your aims as a person who is transgender is likely to find a medical professional who will support their decision and provide them with the necessary means to achieve their aims. That’s where the comparisons between what are two different circumstances with two very different aims end.

That’s not to say I don’t see where you’re coming from in claiming that the medical profession in this country are unethical in not providing the treatment for patients who are adamant that they must not become pregnant, I don’t agree that not providing the means to be voluntarily sterilised could immediately be recognised as unethical (could definitely argue it though), but the purpose or objective of providing treatment for gender dysphoria or resolving the mental distress caused by gender incongruence is not to leave the patient sterile or without the ability to reproduce. It’s exactly why the preference among medical professionals is that children at least begin puberty so their eggs or sperm can be stored should they decide to become pregnant or to impregnate someone at some point in the future. Well, that’s just one reason among many, but it’s one of the main reasons.

The decision by medical professionals not to provide services they don’t want to provide is not unethical. It would be considered unethical if they were to pretend they could provide a service they weren’t qualified to provide and had no experience in providing, or if they were to withhold material information from a patient which would have allowed the patient to make an informed decision which is the basis of informed consent. Long before the recent Kiera Bell case this was decided by the Supreme Court in the UK when they overturned Sidway in favour of Montgomery -


Supreme Court reverses informed consent ruling: Sidaway is dead


People a decade younger than you are aren’t being treated any differently to how you would be treated in the same circumstances. Medical professionals would have to be able to demonstrate informed consent, as opposed to the Courts just taking their word for it should any issues ever arise. It’s one of the reasons why the Tavistock and Portman were so heavily criticised, not just by the Supreme Court, but the CQC long before that, for not keeping proper records, among other issues. The Kiera Bell case didn’t decide that children were incapable of giving informed medical consent. It decided that because it was unlikely that they could, the Courts would have to review each case, essentially making themselves the ultimate arbiter of any decision regarding the child’s welfare, their standard being determining what was in the best interests of the child in every case.

The barrier in your circumstances isn’t informed medical consent, it’s simply that the medical profession have never been keen in the first place to sterilise people. Their intentions in performing any procedures are quite the opposite - to maintain fertility. It’s why when the mandatory sterilisation requirement to undergo medical treatment to alleviate gender dysphoria in Sweden was removed as it was considered a violation of people’s human rights, the numbers of people in Sweden presenting with gender dysphoria skyrocketed. It wasn’t that people experiencing gender dysphoria didn’t exist before then, it was that they didn’t fancy the idea of being forced to undergo mandatory sterilisation in order to receive treatment for an unrelated psychological or medical condition.

Aleece2020 wrote: »

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?

You’re again conflating a couple of different things there but yes, I’m referring to anyone under the age of 18 as a child, because that’s what they are. However, I’m not suggesting that anyone under the age of 18 should be considered incapable of making decisions for themselves which will undoubtedly affect the course of their lives. Nor are the Courts, and there are numerous circumstances where a child’s opinions are given the greatest weight in terms of any decisions being made regarding their future. Often they are represented by a guardian ad litem, or another independent representative who advocates for their welfare, could be a social worker or child psychologist or a medical professional of some description, point being anyway that their opinions are taken into consideration rather than being considered irrelevant or that children are incapable of understanding the complexity of any decisions regarding themselves or their welfare or how the consequences of their decisions may impact upon their future.

That’s why while I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court in the Kiera Bell case, I disagree with the way some people are choosing to interpret the decision. The case was never about whether or not children could or couldn’t receive puberty blockers, it was about whether or not medical consent in those circumstances could be considered to be informed medical consent. The only people in a position to make that determination are the Courts, and IMO it’s not a bad thing that they did, because one of the most eyebrow raising aspects of the talk given by Dr. Levine was their almost cavalier attitude to treating emancipated minors who present with gender dysphoria. It wasn’t entirely unlike the sentiments expressed by Dr. Veronica Ivy in suggesting that children experiencing gender dysphoria whose parents are not supportive of their decisions should “find their glitter family”, which evokes a cult identity based entirely upon their politics, and shows that they really have no regard for the welfare of children they claim to care about that they would try to drive a wedge between children and their parents in those circumstances just to further their own political aims and objectives.

LLMMLL

Gentlemanne wrote: »

The woman behind the channel "badgeOfShame", a classic public interview YouTube series, formally known as JoeGoes, just released a YouTube video after being gone for years

https://youtu.be/cGgVoqr78gk

It's a very lovely video!

Very nice. Thanks for sharing.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the purpose or objective of providing treatment for gender dysphoria or resolving the mental distress caused by gender incongruence is not to leave the patient sterile or without the ability to reproduce. It’s exactly why the preference among medical professionals is that children at least begin puberty so their eggs or sperm can be stored should they decide to become pregnant or to impregnate someone at some point in the future. Well, that’s just one reason among many, but it’s one of the main reasons.

Of course the same thing can be done in case someone later decides to reverse their sterilisation procedure. So that's not a real difference between the two procedures.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The barrier in your circumstances isn’t informed medical consent, it’s simply that the medical profession have never been keen in the first place to sterilise people. Their intentions in performing any procedures are quite the opposite - to maintain fertility. It’s why when the mandatory sterilisation requirement to undergo medical treatment to alleviate gender dysphoria in Sweden was removed as it was considered a violation of people’s human rights, the numbers of people in Sweden presenting with gender dysphoria skyrocketed. It wasn’t that people experiencing gender dysphoria didn’t exist before then, it was that they didn’t fancy the idea of being forced to undergo mandatory sterilisation in order to receive treatment for an unrelated psychological or medical condition.

Complete piffle. Sex change operations have the same sterilising effect as actual sterilisation, and cannot be as easily reversed. the idea that the "aim" of the procedure is not to sterilise is just the same old Catholic double intention rubbish that we had to put up with during the abortion debates. Outside of Catholic philosophy, it's not a thing.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Of course the same thing can be done in case someone later decides to reverse their sterilisation procedure. So that's not a real difference between the two procedures.

There’s a couple of problems with your theory. The first problem is the assumption that a person who makes the decision that they do not ever want to become pregnant will change their mind at some point in the future. The second problem is the idea that sterility is an inevitable consequence of any medical or surgical procedures. My point was that medical professionals will try and maintain fertility or give people who are transgender the option at least to become pregnant at some point in the future. Someone who is adamant that they do not want to become pregnant, is not interested in changing their mind at any time in the future in the same way as someone who is transgender must be able to demonstrate that they do not intend to change their mind following their decision to undergo medical or surgical treatment. For all intents and purposes, the outcomes of both decisions are expected to be permanent.

volchitsa wrote: »

Complete piffle. Sex change operations have the same sterilising effect as actual sterilisation, and cannot be as easily reversed. the idea that the "aim" of the procedure is not to sterilise is just the same old Catholic double intention rubbish that we had to put up with during the abortion debates. Outside of Catholic philosophy, it's not a thing.

No they do not, and the question Aleece raised was with regard to consent to medical procedures. The outcomes of surgical procedures such as a double mastectomy for example will have no effect on fertility. I didn’t need to put aim in inverted commas either, I can only conclude you’re doing it to misrepresent my opinion. The aim of providing transgender healthcare is certainly not to sterilise patients or to impede their reproductive capacity, the aim is to alleviate the symptoms of their gender incongruence which is causing them mental distress. Feckall to do with religion or abortion debates. Not particularly curious about it but I noticed you intentionally ignored context and the example I gave of Sweden, which could hardly be described as a Catholic country, where sterilisation was a mandatory condition of receiving medical treatment for gender dysphoria, prohibited in 2012 because it was regarded as a breach of human rights, a position opposed by the Christian Democratic Party -


Until 2012, sterilisation was mandatory before sex change. This last mandatory sterilisation has been criticised by several political parties in Sweden and since 2011 the Parliament of Sweden was expected to change the law but ran into opposition from the Christian Democrat party. After efforts to overturn the law failed in parliament, the Stockholm Administrative Court of Appeal overturned the law on 19 December 2012, declaring it unconstitutional after the law was challenged by an unidentified plaintiff.


Medical professionals just generally aren’t in the habit of, and have no inclination to perform unnecessary medical or surgical procedures. They’re generally risk averse which is why they aren’t keen on the idea of patients having autonomy to contradict their decisions, and why informed consent in law is as important as it is. Around the time of the decision in the UK regarding informed medical consent, here’s the opinions of a medical professional and a legal professional on the potential outcomes for medical professionals and the practice of medicine in Ireland -


Lawyers the beneficiaries of new patient consent guidelines


Importance of medical consent


I’ll leave it up to yourself to decide which point of view is complete piffle, as you put it. I know myself which one isn’t. That’s not to say I am advocating an attitude to medical care like they practice in the US where if someone has the means, they can pretty much avail of any procedures they want, and finding a medical professional willing to perform the procedure isn’t really an issue (exemplified by Dr. Levine’s attitude to providing healthcare for emancipated minors, they’re fair game apparently), but rather being able to afford the procedure if it isn’t covered under federal healthcare insurance directives is the greater issue in a country where religion has a far more overbearing influence on healthcare and public policies and politics, than any influence of religion in this country in terms of healthcare provision, public policies and politics.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gentlemanne wrote: »

The woman behind the channel "badgeOfShame", a classic public interview YouTube series, formally known as JoeGoes, just released a YouTube video after being gone for years

https://youtu.be/cGgVoqr78gk

It's a very lovely video!

Confirmation that one can’t transition out of being deeply irritating. :eek:

McFly85

https://www.thejournal.ie/transgender-surgery-options-ireland-5370886-Mar2021/?utm_source=shortlink

Read this article and it seemed a bit entitled to me. The author is complaining that we are sending trans people away for major surgery but when you read it we're not really, it's just expensive here. And any sort of cosmetic surgery here is fairly expensive because it's still relatively niche compared to the rest of the world.

So they do what loads of people do, go abroad to do it cheaper. I suppose I just question just how important this surgery is - lots of people have surgery to alter their appearance abroad outside of transitioning, would it be less important for them?