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

Gatling

So we've seen if you say your a woman as a man your considered to be a real woman and back again, chromosomal differences ,to trans are the most gentle people despite reports of viscous and sex attacks on women both inside prison or outside ,to affirmation which is on par with fgm when you consider the long term and permanent damage puberty blocker's do to a young childs body and mental health ,
To fairy tales oh look at this lovely story but then come the other stories that seem to attract mod action to prevent a counter discussion.
And yet this is being presented as this all about women's rights that only a chort of men from the LGBT community should be allowed to discuss , never mind the actual women in the room being talked down to about what they should say or think .
Women or woman is to be considered offensive to the same cohort when it comes to womens services upto and including maternity and obgyn .

Cestmoi 111

Gatling wrote: »

So we've seen if you say your a woman as a man your considered to be a real woman and back again, chromosomal differences ,to trans are the most gentle people despite reports of viscous and sex attacks on women both inside prison or outside ,to affirmation which is on par with fgm when you consider the long term and permanent damage puberty blocker's do to a young childs body and mental health ,
To fairy tales oh look at this lovely story but then come the other stories that seem to attract mod action to prevent a counter discussion.
And yet this is being presented as this all about women's rights that only a chort of men from the LGBT community should be allowed to discuss , never mind the actual women in the room being talked down to about what they should say or think .
Women or woman is to be considered offensive to the same cohort when it comes to womens services upto and including maternity and obgyn .

Just on that little bit of your post, most of those stories were own goals. We had the one transgender person who paid for someone’s cancer treatment which implied to some that the poster thought it was rare for a transperson to do a good deed like that. We had the uber obnoxious Joe/Lilly person who said they were Joe by day and Lilly by night - the difference being the dress, the makeup and the wig, and the ‘joke’ Joe made to a young woman that he would like to keep the peelings of her sunburnt skin and make himself a woman suit. And most recently we’ve had the story of the ‘trans kid’ which to most on this thread is a really awful concept. The last two stories could have been posted by people on the other side of the discussion.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

That is an exceptionally lame effort LLMMLL..
You are the TRA in this thread. You are the activist who nobly supports the affirmation approach for children. Having the reality of the affirmation approach outlined in terms of its devastating physical impact on a small child or young person's primary and secondary sexual characteristics should not make you feel aghast and clutching your pearls. You should know what you support. The real nitty gritty of it. Do you think it is all about the feels? Transkids are affected directly in the genitals by the medicalisation of their discomfort. Do you think it just makes their little eyes shine brighter?

Honestly now your supposed shock is beyond cynical. You should give yourself a shake.

The issue is that you picked an actual 13 year old to discuss.

Imagine for a moment someone wrote that post referencing your child in particular.

How would you feel about that?

The lack of empathy for a 13 year old coming from some posters is astounding.

If that girl googled her own name she could actually find a description of what one person thinks will happen to her medically.

LLMMLL

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

It was more than lame, it’s quite nasty. The use of “disturbed” is insinuating something.

LLMMLL did the word “daughter” in that article confuse you? It was very misleading. But Zaya is a boy. So no breasts or vaginas were harmed in the making of any posts.

No I understood it, it was Gruffalux who.made the error. I don't feel like correcting Gruffalux on this as to do so compounds the horrible fact that we would be discussing the sexual organs of an actual 13 year old.

I have to ask you. Would it be ok to discuss your children's sexual organs when they were 13 simply because they took part in a public conversation with Michelle.Obama?

LLMMLL

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

Looking forward to LLMMLLs answer to that, but in the meantime:
I was curious about that too so had a look back at some of LLMMLLs posts. There is one where they say that xy chromosomes plus identifying as a woman means you’re a woman. But now they say that declaring oneself a woman doesn’t make you a woman.
As if there weren’t already enough mental gymnastics required for all this, now people apparently need to figure out whether a man is identifying as a woman, or merely declaring he is identifying as a woman. And the difference in those two things, is apparently the difference between a man and a woman.
SMH.

If you can quote a post where I said "declaring". Of course the only way to argue against my position is to misquote me.

Tokyo

Mod: The thread is diverging from the original topic, and the discussion is becoming personalized. Dial it back.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

No I understood it, it was Gruffalux who.made the error. I don't feel like correcting Gruffalux on this as to do so compounds the horrible fact that we would be discussing the sexual organs of an actual 13 year old.

I have to ask you. Would it be ok to discuss your children's sexual organs when they were 13 simply because they took part in a public conversation with Michelle.Obama?

No error. I am discussing the real physical consequences that occur specifically to the sexual characteristics of any child/minor as a result of present-day affirmation protocols re gender identity. I thoroughly disagree with those procedures ever happening. Adults can make their medical choices - children cannot consent properly to this.
You, on the other hand, support it. I do not understand your squeamishness about what you advocate. This is where the rubber hits the road and you don't want to hear it.

I remember when I was a kid I saw stories in encyclopedias about girls in China with tiny feet due to foot binding. I got the notion in my head that this was incredibly cute, teeny tiny little feet on girls even if they are grown ups. And then there was the way they walked. It all seemed so exotic and even magical.
Then when I was a young teenager I saw a picture of an x-ray of the bones of the feet from a girl who had been bound. I was literally horrified. All my were illusions shattered.

There is a lot of cutesieness promoted around this whole area of ''trans kids'', and a lot of the TRAs who promote it use anime avatars and the whole pastel-coloured infantilism vibe. But the reality is experimental treatment of children (as it is exactly described recently by Dr Thomas Steensma who developed and implemented the Dutch affirmation protocols) is not cute at all. It is very harsh and it causes lifelong suffering.

I do not see why this should not be talked about above board. Just like the realities past of symphysiotomy, or the present-day automatic circumcision of boy children at birth in many countries. Just because a procedure is done in a surgery or hormones are prescribed to a child by a doctor does not make it right.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

No error. I am discussing the real physical consequences that occur specifically to the sexual characteristics of any child/minor as a result of present-day affirmation protocols re gender identity. I thoroughly disagree with those procedures ever happening. Adults can make their medical choices - children cannot consent properly to this.
You, on the other hand, support it. I do not understand your squeamishness about what you advocate. This is where the rubber hits the road and you don't want to hear it.

I remember when I was a kid I saw stories in encyclopedias about girls in China with tiny feet due to foot binding. I got the notion in my head that this was incredibly cute, teeny tiny little feet on girls even if they are grown ups. And then there was the way they walked. It all seemed so exotic and even magical.
Then when I was a young teenager I saw a picture of an x-ray of the bones of the feet from a girl who had been bound. I was literally horrified. All my were illusions shattered.

There is a lot of cutesieness promoted around this whole area of ''trans kids'', and a lot of the TRAs who promote it use anime avatars and the whole pastel-coloured infantilism vibe. But the reality is experimental treatment of children (as it is exactly described recently by Dr Thomas Steensma who developed and implemented the Dutch affirmation protocols) is not cute at all. It is very harsh and it causes lifelong suffering.

I do not see why this should not be talked about above board. Just like the realities past of symphysiotomy, or the present-day automatic circumcision of boy children at birth in many countries. Just because a procedure is done in a surgery or hormones are prescribed to a child by a doctor does not make it right.

And you think it's OK to discuss this using an ACTUAL 13 year old girl as an example who you have no idea of their medical history?

Simply because they had the temerity to take part in an online conversation that had nothing to do with puberty blockers.

I ask again: how would you feel if your children were discussed online by name with references to their vaginas drying up or small penises etc.

Would you be ok with that?

LLMMLL

Anyway I have DMed the father of this girl on Twitter to make him aware of the post. I know if people were discussing my child's genitals in public I would be considering legal action.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Anyway I have DMed the father of this girl on Twitter to make him aware of the post. I know if people were discussing my child's genitals in public I would be considering legal action.

There have been whole series of television programs made in the US about children transitioning. Jazz Jennings cut a cake shaped like a penis to celebrate the removal of their organ. Their mother talks openly about their dilators. Jazz is a household name. Books have been written about them and by them. Children under the age of 17 have made youtube journals of their vaginoplasty surgery.
It is commonly known what happens under the affirmation protocol. There has been a court case very recently in the UK where the court decided that children do not have the possibility to legally consent to puberty blockers and cross sex hormones.
If that child takes medicine to stop puberty the facts are completely true about what will happen to their body, specifically their sexual characteristics. I have re read my post on the subject and stand over it - it is the reality I said for a lot of children like that child if they pursue the medical affirmation path. There is nothing false there. I am willing to talk to anyone including that father about my position on the matter. I think it is medical malpractice to interfere with a child's development.

You brought the child into the discussion. You wanted people to cheer about it. I cannot cheer about it as the medical reality if affirmation is pursued in youth is very consequential for children like them.

LLMMLL

I posted a factual story about them having a discussion with Michelle Obama. I did not make up some absurd fanfiction about them medically transitioning. Where does it say she is taking puberty blockers? Why is it OK to make this up and then describe the child's genitals?

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

I posted a factual story about them having a discussion with Michelle Obama. I did not make up some absurd fanfiction about them medically transitioning. Where does it say she is taking puberty blockers? Why is it OK to make this up and then describe the child's genitals?

You know perfectly well I was describing what happens now to thousands of ''trans kids'' nowadays with the so-called affirmation protocol. If the specific child is not taking puberty blockers, or will not take cross sex hormones, I am really delighted about that. It would be truly great if all gender non conforming kids could grow up completely healthy in functional bodies that have not been harmed.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

You know perfectly well I was describing what happens now to thousands of ''trans kids'' nowadays with the so-called affirmation protocol. If the specific child is not taking puberty blockers, or will not take cross sex hormones, I am really delighted about that. It would be truly great if all gender non conforming kids could grow up completely healthy in functional bodies that have not been harmed.

I actually don't know perfectly well because you did not speak in generalities. You specifically talked about this child by name and then continuing by constantly referencing "her vagina".

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

I actually don't know perfectly well because you did not speak in generalities. You specifically talked about this child by name and then continuing by constantly referencing "her vagina".

The specific child doesn't have a vagina.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

The specific child doesn't have a vagina.

Yes you early made a mistake. When cest_moi corrected you, you didn't say "I was speaking generally". You moved onto speaking about penis".

I assume with all this backtracking you realize it's a quite horrible post. I'd ask you to edit it to remove reference to the specific child. I think it would be horrible if she ever came across this post by googling herself.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes you early made a mistake. When cest_moi corrected you, you didn't say "I was speaking generally". You moved onto speaking about penis".

I assume with all this backtracking you realize it's a quite horrible post. I'd ask you to edit it to remove reference to the specific child. I think it would be horrible if she ever came across this post by googling herself.

I will do that. I was using them as a generalisation but may not have been general enough. I said ''children like them''.
That does not change the fact that what was described is what happens under affirmation protocols and perhaps you should check your thinking on that matter.

Gatling

Gruffalux wrote: »

I will do that. I was using them as a generalisation but may not have been general enough. I said ''children like them''.

Why would you edit it to placate some fake outage

Tokyo

Mod: Enough.

I'm satisfied that Gruffalux was giving their opinion in general terms about the physiological effects of transitioning, which are well documented. However, that line of discussion is quickly turning into a thread hijack from both sides, and is steering a wide berth away from the original scope of the thread, that being Gender Identity in Modern Ireland. The line of discussion leading up to my post has now come to an end.

From this point forward, everything and everyone needs to be on best behavior. If a questions asked, try to answer it. No personal cracks of any kind against another poster.

Failure to comply may result in warnings, penalties, banning from thread or forum and will almost certainly get this thread shut down.

I hope that’s clear.

GreeBo

volchitsa wrote: »

That's not where I suggested there might be a contradiction, not in your posts, but in the thinking that underpins your opinion. I said 'should' because that's what I'm asking: whether you see any contradiction in someone supporting genderbased rights over sexbased rights while also believing that gender is mostly a social construction.

It's the choice of gender over sex that intrigues me. What is it that makes you think that gender is sufficiently important to be the basis for these rights and that sex is not?

I suspect it's that they know people won't stand for scientifically definable things like sex being redefined Willy nilly. But frankly I would have put gender in that same category, being that it's linked to sex, but we are where we are I guess!

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

If you can quote a post where I said "declaring". Of course the only way to argue against my position is to misquote me.

Is there any chance you could answer my question?
If it's not biology and it's not declaration, what is it?

AllForIt

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

Ok wait, just shows how utterly confusing all this nomenclature is...seems Zaya is a biological boy, so no womb, etc. That’s why I won’t use the term ‘transwoman’ for a bio male; it’s unclear and makes you have to pause and try to think the opposite of your actual thoughts upon hearing the word woman.

I agree, the terminology related to this issue is not intuitive. I was reading this thread for some time before I realized I had to do that mental stop and think the opposite to understand the context.

I think it's wrong from all perspectives, because I would have thought a trans activist would not wish to use the term transwoman when they argue that a transwoman is equivalent to a cis woman. So why prefix with trans at all, because that makes a distinction between the two. So by using transwoman one is indirectly admitting there is a difference.

Makes much more intuitive sense to say a transman is a woman (the opposite to the terminology that is used).

LLMMLL

GreeBo wrote: »

Is there any chance you could answer my question?
If it's not biology and it's not declaration, what is it?

Identification is not declaration. That's where the fundamental misunderstanding is. Many trans people do not declare their gender identity and yes it's possible for a cis woman to say the words "I am a man" and simply be lying. And the same for cis men. It's also just really unlikely that a cis person would declare that they are trans. so in most cases a declaration can be taken to reflect the identification.

Before anyone points out the empty arguemnt that we cannot then identify who is male or female in that case, the same is true for gay people.

Anybody can claim they are gay. Theoretically, a straight person could claim to be gay and be lying about it. Of course it's unlikely that they are which is why we just believe people when they say they are gay. It's not measurable but that has provided no impediment to society in general assuming a person who says they are gay are telling the truth about their internal thoughts.

Cestmoi 111

LLMMLL wrote: »

If you can quote a post where I said "declaring". Of course the only way to argue against my position is to misquote me.

I hope it’s ok to answer this after the mod warnings, but they do mention try to answer questions so here goes...

It was the below post I was referring to. I said you said declaring didn’t make someone a woman, but identifying does. But how is one to know that a male identifies as a woman if they don’t declare it? For example, some of the “lesbians” recently posted online from the Her app would certainly need to declare their womanly identity for someone to think they were anything except a regular bloke.

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don’t believe in definitions designed to exclude groups but as a starting definition you can use the XX chromosomal/gamete definition to define cis women. You could use the XY chromosomal/gamete + identification as a woman to define trans women.

The definition of woman would be the union of those two definitions.

ETA you’ve since replied to GreeBo while I was typing the above, but I personally can’t make head nor tail of it!

LLMMLL

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

I hope it’s ok to answer this after the mod warnings, but they do mention try to answer questions so here goes...

It was the below post I was referring to. I said you said declaring didn’t make someone a woman, but identifying does. But how is one to know that a male identifies as a woman if they don’t declare it? For example, some of the “lesbians” recently posted online from the Her app would certainly need to declare their womanly identity for someone to think they were anything except a regular bloke.



ETA you’ve since replied to GreeBo while I was typing the above, but I personally can’t make head nor tail of it!

Who said you need to know? They are either trans or they are not. You do not need to know. Do.you think gay people are only gay once they come out to at least one person? I'm guessing not but feel free to correct me.

So if gay people can identify as being gay without telling someone, why do trans people need to declare it to identify as their gender identity?

Cestmoi 111

volchitsa wrote: »

That's not where I suggested there might be a contradiction, not in your posts, but in the thinking that underpins your opinion. I said 'should' because that's what I'm asking: whether you see any contradiction in someone supporting genderbased rights over sexbased rights while also believing that gender is mostly a social construction.

It's the choice of gender over sex that intrigues me. What is it that makes you think that gender is sufficiently important to be the basis for these rights and that sex is not?

On this, what on earth happens with the non-binary or gender fluid people who are sentenced to a stay in prison? Do they just get to choose the prison that they prefer (always the women’s I’m gonna guess)? What would happen, for example, someone like that Bunce person in Credit Suisse who says that they “decide how I choose to express on a given day regarding my gender expression”?
Using the immutable quality of sex is a far clearer, fairer and more realistic criteria to use.

Cestmoi 111

LLMMLL wrote: »

Who said you need to know? They are either trans or they are not. You do not need to know. Do.you think gay people are only gay once they come out to at least one person? I'm guessing not but feel free to correct me.

So if gay people can identify as being gay without telling someone, why do trans people need to declare it to identify as their gender identity?

This is two completely different scenarios. Gay men are not pushing to gain entry to female changing rooms and sports, whereas trans identified men are using their trans status to do exactly that.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

So if gay people can identify as being gay without telling someone, why do trans people need to declare it to identify as their gender identity?

But they do tell people hence identifying as gay , straight ,man or woman ,trans or other

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

But they do tell people hence identifying as gay , straight ,man or woman ,trans or other

Not every gay person comes out. Same for trans people. These gay people still identify as gay, and these trans people still identify as men or women.

Cestmoi 111

How can we avoid the literal violence of misgendering a transperson if they don’t declare their trans status? Especially when it comes to the 6’2” trans identified males who keep their beards and show no outward signs of femininity?

LLMMLL

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

How can we avoid the literal violence of misgendering a transperson if they don’t declare their trans status? Especially when it comes to the 6’2” trans identified males who keep their beards and show no outward signs of femininity?

If you're concerned about it you can use a neutral pronoun like "they".