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

Gruffalux

The article writren 1 year ago by Emma Hiltin and Colin Wright in the WSJ is behind a pay wall so I am copying the text here for those who might wish to read it.

"Transgender ideology can take on a comical character, as in a recent American Civil Liberties Union commentary objecting to sales tax on tampons and similar products while pondering: “How can we recognize that barriers to menstrual access are a form of sex discrimination without erasing the lived experiences of trans men and non-binary people who menstruate, as well as women who don’t?”

Yet it’s one thing to claim that a man can “identify” as a woman or vice versa. Increasingly we see a dangerous and antiscientific trend toward the outright denial of biological sex.

“The idea of two sexes is simplistic,” an article in the scientific journal Nature declared in 2015. “Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that.” A 2018 Scientific American piece asserted that “biologists now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male.” And an October 2018 New York Times headline promised to explain “Why Sex Is Not Binary.”

The argument is that because some people are intersex—they have developmental conditions resulting in ambiguous sex characteristics—the categories male and female exist on a “spectrum,” and are therefore no more than “social constructs.” If male and female are merely arbitrary groupings, it follows that everyone, regardless of genetics or anatomy should be free to choose to identify as male or female, or to reject sex entirely in favor of a new bespoke “gender identity.”

To characterize this line of reasoning as having no basis in reality would be an egregious understatement. It is false at every conceivable scale of resolution.

In humans, as in most animals or plants, an organism’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of reproductive anatomy that develop for the production of small or large sex cells—sperm and eggs, respectively—and associated biological functions in sexual reproduction. In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98% of the time. The evolutionary function of these two anatomies is to aid in reproduction via the fusion of sperm and ova. No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex “spectrum” or additional sexes beyond male and female. Sex is binary.

There is a difference, however, between the statements that there are only two sexes (true) and that everyone can be neatly categorized as either male or female (false). The existence of only two sexes does not mean sex is never ambiguous. But intersex individuals are extremely rare, and they are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a “spectrum” or a “social construct.” Not everyone needs to be discretely assignable to one or the other sex in order for biological sex to be functionally binary. To assume otherwise—to confuse secondary sexual traits with biological sex itself—is a category error.

Denying the reality of biological sex and supplanting it with subjective “gender identity” is not merely an eccentric academic theory. It raises serious human-rights concerns for vulnerable groups including women, homosexuals and children.

Women have fought hard for sex-based legal protections. Female-only spaces are necessary due to the pervasive threat of male violence and sexual assault. Separate sporting categories are also necessary to ensure that women and girls don’t have to face competitors who have acquired the irreversible performance-enhancing effects conferred by male puberty. The different reproductive roles of males and females require laws to safeguard women from discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere. The falsehood that sex is rooted in subjective identity instead of objective biology renders all these sex-based rights impossible to enforce.

The denial of biological sex also erases homosexuality, as same-sex attraction is meaningless without the distinction between the sexes. Many activists now define homosexuality as attraction to the “same gender identity” rather than the same sex. This view is at odds with the scientific understanding of human sexuality. Lesbians have been denounced as “bigots” for expressing a reluctance to date men who identify as women. The successful normalization of homosexuality could be undermined by miring it in an untenable ideology.

Those most vulnerable to sex denialism are children. When they’re taught that sex is grounded in identity instead of biology, sex categories can easily become conflated with regressive stereotypes of masculinity and femininity. Masculine girls and feminine boys may become confused about their own sex. The dramatic rise of “gender dysphoric” adolescents—especially young girls—in clinics likely reflects this new cultural confusion.

The large majority of gender-dysphoric youths eventually outgrow their feelings of dysphoria during puberty, and many end up identifying as homosexual adults. “Affirmation” therapies, which insist a child’s cross-sex identity should never be questioned, and puberty-blocking drugs, advertised as a way for children to “buy time” to sort out their identities, may only solidify feelings of dysphoria, setting them on a pathway to more invasive medical interventions and permanent infertility. This pathologizing of sex-atypical behavior is extremely worrying and regressive. It is similar to gay “conversion” therapy, except that it’s now bodies instead of minds that are being converted to bring children into “proper” alignment with themselves.

The time for politeness on this issue has passed. Biologists and medical professionals need to stand up for the empirical reality of biological sex. When authoritative scientific institutions ignore or deny empirical fact in the name of social accommodation, it is an egregious betrayal to the scientific community they represent. It undermines public trust in science, and it is dangerously harmful to those most vulnerable."

Mr. Wright is an evolutionary biologist at Penn State. Ms. Hilton is a developmental biologist at the University of Manchester

Cestmoi 111

Gruffalux wrote: »

Fantastic. You give me the prompt to post this video I watched today specifically because Emma Hilton is in it. She is a developmental biologist. She is with Colin Wright, an evolutionary biologist, and they are speaking with Benjamin Boyce about just the things you mention - specifically gametes. And other factual relevancies of biological life and sex as a binary fact.

Emma is lovely. It is nice to put a face to these supposed monsters and bigots. I think Boyce fell in love with her a little bit going by his giddy compliment at the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygK8HmkOFDY

That was a great video thanks. I agree with you about Emma. she came across as a lovely woman, warm and genuine with a charming manner -confidence without any hint of brashness.


https://youtu.be/cGgVoqr78gk

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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

That made me lol. That individual is incredibly annoying. Everything I watched was just about clothes and makeup. It seemed to imply that the clothes and makeup made this person a woman. I can’t square the logic in trans ideology that invests so much importance on an item of clothing whilst also telling us that genitals are irrelevant. I think a penis makes a man more than a dress makes a woman.

LLMMLL

More good news coming from the US

[URL]

https://twitter.com/LibbySkarin/status/1357740575231983618?s=20[/URL]

Gatling

Meanwhile in Ireland


Roderick O’Hanlon, senior counsel for the appellant, last week told the Court of Appeal that his client is having difficulty in a women’s prison which the original judgement had not foreseen.

Additionally, O’Hanlon argued that the judgement should have suspended more than six months of the sentence to facilitate rehabilitation.


https://gript.ie/trans-sex-offender-abuse/V

Gruffalux

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40234322.html

Just in case people object to Gript.
The child who was sexually assaulted was 4 years old and regularly threatened with having their arms and legs broken..
No matter what sex or gender identity the offender the court should be doubling or tripling the sentence, not contemplating reducing it due to the abusers "difficulties". I can never comprehend the leniency of sex abuse, incest and rape sentencing in Ireland.

Cestmoi 111

LLMMLL wrote: »

More good news coming from the US

[URL]

https://twitter.com/LibbySkarin/status/1357740575231983618?s=20[/URL]

Can you explain why it’s so important to change the birth certificate? I get if it’s for administrative reasons but I think it’s more?
I saw this old tweet from Chase Strangio:

“The cost of being trans: I still get mail in my old name. Because of this, I am afraid to check my mail. Because of that, I sometimes miss bills that I need to pay. Because of that those outstanding bills have gone to collection. Because of that, my credit gets worse.”
and it got me wondering why this desperate need for transpeople to distance themselves from their past? Would it not be better to change the narrative around it so that misgendering or deadnaming are not spoken about in such negative ways. Like maybe just having a bit of acceptance for the reality of the past would actually make life easier for transpeople? (even the term dead name, would birth name not be better?).

Gatling wrote: »

Meanwhile in Ireland


Roderick O’Hanlon, senior counsel for the appellant, last week told the Court of Appeal that his client is having difficulty in a women’s prison which the original judgement had not foreseen.

Additionally, O’Hanlon argued that the judgement should have suspended more than six months of the sentence to facilitate rehabilitation.


https://gript.ie/trans-sex-offender-abuse/V

For some reason your link is pointing to an article on vaccination rates.

LLMMLL

Ian McKellen continuing to be a beacon of light for the LGBT+ community

[URL] https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ian-mckellen-shares-pearls-wisdom-163025224.html[/URL]

Sir Oxman

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ian McKellen continuing to be a beacon of light for the LGBT+ community

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ian-mckellen-shares-pearls-wisdom-163025224.html

“The connection between us all is we come under the queer umbrella – we are queer. I quite like being queer actually"

McKellen can proclaim what he likes, however he does not speak for everyone and never will. Example above.

I don't object to him 'proclaiming' whatever he wants or his views - maybe something those who think of him as a leader may want to consider.

LLMMLL

Sir Oxman wrote: »

“The connection between us all is we come under the queer umbrella – we are queer. I quite like being queer actually"

McKellen can proclaim what he likes, however he does not speak for everyone and never will. Example above.

I don't object to him 'proclaiming' whatever he wants or his views - maybe something those who think of him as a leader may want to consider.

Nobody speaks for everybody. I think we are all clear on that.

I love his positive message. It's a great counterbalance to a lot of the negativity and hate around these days.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nobody speaks for everybody. I think we are all clear on that.

I love his positive message. It's a great counterbalance to a lot of the negativity and hate around these days.

The negativity and hate? Global corporations are breaking their necks trying to be the world's best champions for the LGBT pound and kudos, housewives introduce themselves in rural US communities at the PPT meetings by their fecking pronouns (my friend tells me), those in authority are even changing the language in legislation, hospitals, the facts in science books, the curricula of schools etc. People are cheering themselves raw for people like Elliot Page just because they now feel like a man. The woman of the year is up for grabs by any sex. Joe Biden in his dithering dotage wishes all kids were transgender. I think a different planet might be calling looking for the negativity and hate you imagine you are weighed down by.

I am all for rights and respect for trans, that is not even in question - I just will never intellectually accept the enforced manipulation by gender theory ideology of empirical truth and fact.

Sir Oxman

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nobody speaks for everybody. I think we are all clear on that.

I love his positive message. It's a great counterbalance to a lot of the negativity and hate around these days.

But it's not really positive, is it?
It's proclaiming that I should call myself queer (never) and immediately abandon any semblance of my own intelligence, thought and independence on a particular subject with a dollop of possible admonishment from the hierarchy if I don't!

Sir Oxman

Gruffalux wrote: »

The negativity and hate? Global corporations are breaking their necks trying to be the world's best champions for the LGBT pound and kudos, housewives introduce themselves in rural US communities at the PPT meetings by their fecking pronouns (my friend tells me), those in authority are even changing the language in legislation, hospitals, the facts in science books, the curricula of schools etc. People are cheering themselves raw for people like Elliot Page just because they now feel like a man. The woman of the year is up for grabs by any sex. Joe Biden in his dithering dotage wishes all kids were transgender. I think a different planet might be calling looking for the negativity and hate you imagine you are weighed down by.

I am all for rights and respect for trans, that is not even in question - I just will never intellectually accept the enforced manipulation by gender theory ideology of empirical truth and fact.

I know!
You'd swear there really was 'nothing to see here'.
Almost.

Gatling

Sir Oxman wrote: »

I know!
You'd swear there really was 'nothing to see here'.
Almost.

That's it msm are utterly silent on any of the issues ,oh we believe in healthy debate only when it's completely one-sided and censored .
No dissenting opinion or voices allowed much like the BLM nonsense

LLMMLL

Sir Oxman wrote: »

But it's not really positive, is it?
It's proclaiming that I should call myself queer (never) and immediately abandon any semblance of my own intelligence, thought and independence on a particular subject with a dollop of possible admonishment from the hierarchy if I don't!

Nah you don't. I don't identify or call myself queer. You would have to be extremely sensitive to be upset by what Mcakellen is saying.

Sir Oxman

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nah you don't. I don't identify or call myself queer. You would have to be extremely sensitive to be upset by what Mcakellen is saying.

There ya go - in now way am I upset by either you or him.
Where did you get that from?

LLMMLL

Sir Oxman wrote: »

There ya go - in now way am I upset by either you or him.
Where did you get that from?

Your post

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

McFly85 wrote: »

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?

Well, also there’s only one person performing them in Ireland apparently so waiting lists are very long.

But as brought up earlier in the thread, maybe surgeons are reluctant to train up in this area. They could have reservations, I don’t know. Top surgery would be different from both breast augmentation and mastectomy. You can’t force any surgeon to do that upskilling. If there are very few surgeons performing the surgery, there could be a reason for that.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't identify or call myself queer.

What does queer mean? Would you be upset if someone defined you as queer?

Sir Oxman

LLMMLL wrote: »

Your post

Hmm.:rolleyes:

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What does queer mean? Would you be upset if someone defined you as queer?

No I wouldn't.

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

Being India was recently mentioned in this thread ,there is currently a case before the Indian courts where a man violently repeatedly raped a child and then doused her in petrol threatening to burn her alive ,
He was caught are charged and brought before the courts where one of India's most senior judges told the attacker if he marries his victim he could keep his Job and won't be sent to jail due to martial rape not being illegal and the court could help with the situation.

So yeah India is just a bastion for women's rights isn't it !!!!

Who claimed India was strong on women's rights? I explicitly said it wasn't.

It's pure craziness to take my posting of an article about a trans woman in India and the support she received from her parents and patients and respond to that with news of a cis male Indian pedophile.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

No I wouldn't.

So tell me. What does queer mean?

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Who claimed India was strong on women's rights? I explicitly said it wasn't.

It's pure craziness to take my posting of an article about a trans woman in India

Nothing more than a propaganda piece like the others posted , which changes nothing in the discussion , nothing at all

Necro

Mod:

Let's stick to the thread topic and not off on a side tangent about India folks, thanks

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So tell me. What does queer mean?

Why are you asking me? I never use it. Maybe go look it up if you're that interested

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

Those most vulnerable to sex denialism are children. When they’re taught that sex is grounded in identity instead of biology, sex categories can easily become conflated with regressive stereotypes of masculinity and femininity. Masculine girls and feminine boys may become confused about their own sex. The dramatic rise of “gender dysphoric” adolescents—especially young girls—in clinics likely reflects this new cultural confusion.

The large majority of gender-dysphoric youths eventually outgrow their feelings of dysphoria during puberty, and many end up identifying as homosexual adults. “Affirmation” therapies, which insist a child’s cross-sex identity should never be questioned, and puberty-blocking drugs, advertised as a way for children to “buy time” to sort out their identities, may only solidify feelings of dysphoria, setting them on a pathway to more invasive medical interventions and permanent infertility. This pathologizing of sex-atypical behavior is extremely worrying and regressive. It is similar to gay “conversion” therapy, except that it’s now bodies instead of minds that are being converted to bring children into “proper” alignment with themselves.

The time for politeness on this issue has passed. Biologists and medical professionals need to stand up for the empirical reality of biological sex. When authoritative scientific institutions ignore or deny empirical fact in the name of social accommodation, it is an egregious betrayal to the scientific community they represent. It undermines public trust in science, and it is dangerously harmful to those most vulnerable."

Mr. Wright is an evolutionary biologist at Penn State. Ms. Hilton is a developmental biologist at the University of Manchester

Y’know for a pair of biologists who seek to lean on the authority of their scientific credentials, they, much like Debbie Hayton, are doing more to undermine public trust in science than the people who they claim are undermining public trust in science. Their arguments above are not based upon science, they’re based upon sociology. Nowhere in biology does the concept of masculine girls and feminine boys exist, they’re concepts that relate to sociology, not biology, and as for the concept of regressive stereotypes relating to masculinity and femininity, well it doesn’t get much more regressive than referring to “masculine girls” and “feminine boys”. The authors are leaning into common tropes and portrayals of both gay men and lesbian women as historically being considered effeminate men and butch women, the camp affectations of gay men or the macho displays of behaviour by lesbian women - common stereotypes which still persist to a large degree today, which are by no means an accurate representation of either gay men or lesbian women.

So what if young people who experience gender dysphoria are gay, bisexual or lesbian as adults? That has nothing to do with their gender identity as to whether they are transgender or not? Yet that’s commonly the way the argument is framed to suggest that young people who experience gender dysphoria aren’t actually transgender, they’re really gay or lesbian. But one fact has no bearing on the other? It would be like pointing out that a small minority of young people experience sexual attraction to the same sex during adolescence, but they were really heterosexual all along, as if to suggest that people who are either lesbian, bisexual or gay are really just confused heterosexuals who will come right eventually!

They say the time for politeness has passed, but what politeness are they talking about? There’s nothing polite about what they’re doing, it’s fundamentally wrong on a number of levels, not the least of which is that it simply perpetuates ignorance and discrimination, and by their logic of wanting to avoid confusing vulnerable children in schools, then Debbie Hayton should lose their employment as the children should be (if the authors argument were borne out by reality), confused, when they are presented with a transsexual. It doesn’t appear to make any difference at all to them in reality, or where Gruffalox might suggest ‘the rubber meets the road’.

No, it’s simply more of the same perpetuating fearmongering, ignorance and prejudice towards blind belief instead of making any attempt to understand other people or treat people as people, and not just things, or abstract biological concepts which are taken out of context or presented in a different context for the sole purposes of pulling the wool over adults eyes and having them imagine all sorts of scary scenarios like the Brass Eye programme about paedophile hysteria a few years back, taking the piss out of the moral panic being whipped up in society. The authors of the article above are employing the same sort of rhetoric to prey on people’s ignorance and paranoia and fears for their children. They’re not arguing science, they’re arguing bullshìt, and there’s no polite way to say that.

AllForIt

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ian McKellen continuing to be a beacon of light for the LGBT+ community

[URL] https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ian-mckellen-shares-pearls-wisdom-163025224.html[/URL]

Bit ironic of someone who advocates diversity to state that everyone of a certain persuasion should think the same way. And that is precisely what he is saying.

“The connection between us all is we come under the queer umbrella – we are queer. I quite like being queer actually.

There is no connection whatsoever. You can make a loose connection re rights but that's it.

“The problems that transgender people have with the law are not dissimilar from what used to be the case for us, so I think we should all be allies really.”

Again no connection at all. The specific issues that are discussed on this thread, like sport, prison, toilets, etc, are specific issues that having noting whatsoever to do with the gay experience. Again, the only similarity is 'rights', a loose connection. Though he does say 'not dissimilar ' so he does know what game he is playing.

LLMMLL

AllForIt wrote: »

Bit ironic of someone who advocates diversity to state that everyone of a certain persuasion should think the same way. And that is precisely what he is saying.



There is no connection whatsoever. You can make a loose connection re rights but that's it.



Again no connection at all. The specific issues that are discussed on this thread, like sport, prison, toilets, etc, are specific issues that having noting whatsoever to do with the gay experience. Again, the only similarity is 'rights', a loose connection. Though he does say 'not dissimilar ' so he does know what game he is playing.

I think it's very similar. For instance the gay marriage debate had some nonsense argument about adoption of children. It was just a weapon to be used to further an agenda of hatred against gay people. Similarly, changing rooms and prisons are being used to further the anti trans agenda. The principles are the same. Use a legal argument to portray gay people as child molesters. Use a different legal argument to portray trans people as peeping rapists.

I don't find the connection loose at all.

AllForIt

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think it's very similar. For instance the gay marriage debate had some nonsense argument about adoption of children. It was just a weapon to be used to further an agenda of hatred against gay people. Similarly, changing rooms and prisons are being used to further the anti trans agenda. The principles are the same. Use a legal argument to portray gay people as child molesters. Use a different legal argument to portray trans people as peeping rapists.

I don't find the connection loose at all.

Well you could say that about racism issues, that black ppl are more prone to being violent or tend toward criminality. Demographics vilified. But BLM is not aligned with LGBT. Why not, it's all the same thing the way you look at it. I could agree there is similarity but definitely not the same.

I just don't think it's a good idea to conflate gay issues with transgender issues. As much as for transgender activism as for any reason. Meaning that the best thing transgender activism could do for itself if get across it's own cause rather than mixing it up with another one.

LLMMLL

AllForIt wrote: »

Well you could say that about racism issues, that black ppl are more prone to being violent or tend toward criminality. Demographics vilified. But BLM is not aligned with LGBT. Why not, it's all the same thing the way you look at it. I could agree there is similarity but definitely not the same.

I just don't think it's a good idea to conflate gay issues with transgender issues. As much as for transgender activism as for any reason. Meaning that the best thing transgender activism could do for itself if get across it's own cause rather than mixing it up with another one.

I think it's great for transgender activism. It is getting across its own cause.

I've no idea what your BLM analogy is about. Nobody is campaigning to have black people's legal rights restricted.