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

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

This is not just a trans issue by the way.

I used to work in a university and used to chat to a woman in the gym who I assumed was a cis man. I later saw they had written an article in the college newspaper and realised she was a cis woman.

Now I never used specific pronouns in conversation with her but if I had used the pronouns "he/him" there's a good chance this cis woman could have been offended.

Pronouns are not just a trans issue. They affect anyone who may not fit gender/sex stereotypes.

LLMMLL

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

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.

Gay men and women wanted access to.marriage, which was until recently a right only granted to straight people.

Whether we as individuals have the right to demand some bizarre form of proof as to their internal identity is a completely separate matter.

And Separate to both these points, it was still completely incorrect to say that I have said anything about "declaring" one's gender identity

CtevenSrowder

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

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

That's the point, it's intentionally indecipherable. You've to go through so many hoops to even be given answer, then you've to go through some more to get some kind of clarification that actually makes the original answer make sense.

We've had 'transfemale', 'tables of exemplars', a tree is a tree so women are women so transwomen are women.. And now we have 'declaration isn't identification' or whatever.

It gets more bizarre, and more ridiculous with each passing brain-wave. But when you believe something so obviously scientifically wrong, self-evidently wrong even, that is enevitable. Look at the hoops and amount of blather that flat-Earthers engage in to try to convince themselves that the world isn't globular. This scientifically illiterate ideology is no different.

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

Frankly I was hoping for something a bit more concrete and less wishy-washy!

So let's break it down.
What's the purpose of identification without declaration? If there is no declaration then there is no conversation, no misgendering, no nothing. The entire situation might as well be a dream in the subjects head.

I have no idea how you think a biological male could say they're are a man and be lying. Can you expand on this please? It's a bit disturbing for me as it appears you think you know better than the people themselves?

You are separating identification from declaration... Again can you expand on what you believe the difference to be? If your version of identification is to voice ones gender to others then I'm afraid I would consider that declaration.

Again you insist on relating homosexuality with gender and I don't know why. Why do you think they are related at all? One deals with being attracted to the same sex, the other deals with believing your gender does not match your sex.
Knowing another's sexual orientation has literally zero impact on my life, knowing what gender they have clearly does, from the moment I try to address them.

Finally, nowhere in your reply can I decipher an answer to what is the deciding factor. You made a statement that declaration is not, again I'll ask you, what is then?

LLMMLL

GreeBo wrote: »

Frankly I was hoping for something a bit more concrete and less wishy-washy!

So let's break it down.
1. What's the purpose of identification without declaration? If there is no declaration then there is no conversation, no misgendering, no nothing. The entire situation might as well be a dream in the subjects head.

2. I have no idea how you think a biological male could say they're are a man and be lying. Can you expand on this please? It's a bit disturbing for me as it appears you think you know better than the people themselves?

3. You are separating identification from declaration... Again can you expand on what you believe the difference to be? If your version of identification is to voice ones gender to others then I'm afraid I would consider that declaration.

4. Again you insist on relating homosexuality with gender and I don't know why. Why do you think they are related at all? One deals with being attracted to the same sex, the other deals with believing your gender does not match your sex.
Knowing another's sexual orientation has literally zero impact on my life, knowing what gender they have clearly does, from the moment I try to address them.

5. Finally, nowhere in your reply can I decipher an answer to what is the deciding factor. You made a statement that declaration is not, again I'll ask you, what is then?

I've numbered your question in your post so I can answer them.

1. What's the purpose of identification? Strange question. It's not something that has a purpose. It's not a human invention. I identify as gay. It's not something I invented. I don't identify as gay to achieve anything. I just am. You are still misunderstanding what people say when they say they identify as something.

2. No I absolutely do not think I know better. I never mentioned myself. Or that I would know if they are lying. I am saying anyone can say the words. I can say it right now "I am a woman". Now the quoted statement is me telling a lie. So obviously a cis male could potentially say the words "I am a woman" and be lying. I just proved it by doing it. My point is that people don't lie about their gender identity. It's the usual scaremongering.

3. I don't think you are reading my posts. I clearly said identification is NOT voicing it to anyone. It is an internal process. It would be helpful if you would read my responses carefully before replying.

4. I don't think they are the same thing. I think they have certain aspects in common. And I think the example you gave about addressing someone is very odd. Because the exact same issues come up when talking about gay people's partners. It's very common to ask someone if they are dating anyone or how their partner is doing etc. So do you assume someone is straight and ask males about their girlfriends or wife, or do you use something more neutral? Either way the exact same principles can be applied to how.you address a cis or trans person.

5. Identification and biology. For most people biology is a clear indicator. For others it's not and we must rely.on their identification (which they do not have to voice).

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

Pronouns are not just a trans issue. They affect anyone who may not fit gender/sex stereotypes.

Huh?
Who else has mismatched genders other than trans people? A tomboy is still a female, still a girl, still a woman.

Can you give an example of a non trans person for whom gender is an issue?

You know I think that you honestly believe what you are saying, the problem is that it's just illogical and any time someone of your position is logically questioned they get labelled as "anti" something. To me it's very similar to conflicting religious beliefs, but at least with religion the players are willing to accept that its a faith based position, you are trying to couch your ideas as facts, really without anything to back it up.

I'd be perfectly happy to accept that there are men who honestly believe they are women and women who honestly believe they are men, that doesn't change the biological facts though, so while I can understand it, I don't have to believe it any more than I have to believe in God. The idea that me not believing is abusive to others worries me greatly, I think it's a very dangerous road that society is traveling down. We already have white voice actors having to resign from giving black characters, (I would have thought portraying something you are not is the very essence of acting...) so I don't get how the now male actor Elliott Page can play a woman? Is that not hugely stereotypical?

LLMMLL

GreeBo wrote: »

Huh?
Who else has mismatched genders other than trans people? A tomboy is still a female, still a girl, still a woman.

Can you give an example of a non trans person for whom gender is an issue?

You know I think that you honestly believe what you are saying, the problem is that it's just illogical and any time someone of your position is logically questioned they get labelled as "anti" something. To me it's very similar to conflicting religious beliefs, but at least with religion the players are willing to accept that its a faith based position, you are trying to couch your ideas as facts, really without anything to back it up.

I'd be perfectly happy to accept that there are men who honestly believe they are women and women who honestly believe they are men, that doesn't change the biological facts though, so while I can understand it, I don't have to believe it any more than I have to believe in God. The idea that me not believing is abusive to others worries me greatly, I think it's a very dangerous road that society is traveling down. We already have white voice actors having to resign from giving black characters, (I would have thought portraying something you are not is the very essence of acting...) so I don't get how the now male actor Elliott Page can play a woman? Is that not hugely stereotypical?

Did you read the example.i gave?

There are cis women who do not fit gender stereotypes. I fully agree that they are women and one should use "she/her" to refer to them (unless they ask otherwise). But you are saying it's an issue for you if you do not know how to address someone. You may accidentally refer to a cis woman as "he" and offend her.

So it's not a trans issue. It's an issue which affects anyone who is ambiguous in appearance with regards to gender/sex stereotypes. Even if that person is cis.

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

5. Identification and biology. For most people biology is a clear indicator. For others it's not and we must rely.on their identification (which they do not have to voice).

1: identification without declaration, in any scenario and for any topic, is pointless. If you don't declare something then no one knows that you have identified something. This becomes especially important when you are charging the generally understood identification of the object in question.

2: you said a biological male could declare that were make and be lying?

3: see answer#1

4: again with the gay stuff. What's the downside of I assume a gay person is straight? They correct me and we move on, same as if I assume a blonde is a natural blonde or I assume that an Indian looking person in India is from India rather than Pakistan.

5: Ok ignoring the glaringly obvious problem of different people using different systems when discussing the same thing.

How exactly does a society function when we have to rely on something that no one else knows?

If I worked in a shop and I have decided that I will be using the binary numbering system, but haven't told anyone, do you see any potential issues with misunderstandings?
It looks like I'm using the decimal system, the numbers are the same but I'm interpreting them totally differently than everyone else is. Oh and I'm also doing so silently, only in my head.

How does this work on any level?

JamesFlynn

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

I think this is a point one can have a respectful difference of opinion on.

Anyone can claim they are gay, but if I claim to be gay, I do not take for myself the right to enter a woman's changing room.

Nor take away her right to object to the presence of a male in that changing room, if she does not feel safe.

In my opinion, it's just painfully naive and utopian to believe that *some* straight men will not abuse this newly-granted right, and whatever small percentage of men do abuse it, will have consequences for the safety of women in society.

I assume you don't believe there are consequences for women's safety, or perhaps that the rights of male-borns who wish to access women's changing rooms outweigh the rights of female-borns to object.

They're both valid positions to take, I just disagree - and believe that in practice this ideology will result in more danger for women.

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

Did you read the example.i gave?

There are cis women who do not fit gender stereotypes. I fully agree that they are women and one should use "she/her" to refer to them (unless they ask otherwise). But you are saying it's an issue for you if you do not know how to address someone. You may accidentally refer to a cis woman as "he" and offend her.

So it's not a trans issue. It's an issue which affects anyone who is ambiguous in appearance with regards to gender/sex stereotypes. Even if that person is cis.

Ok, so do you think that a biological female who deliberately appears as a male will be offended if I call them by male pronouns?

Compare that to a trans female who clearly is a biological male being addressed by male pronouns. Both scenarios prior to any declaration.
Who is getting offended and why?

What's your solution? Remove all genders?
The exact same problems arise if you remove gender and use sex. Then what? Remove sex. Where does this "logically" stop?

I do find it worrying how common it seems to be for people conflating sexual preference to gender.

Being gay and being trans are in no way related.

LLMMLL

GreeBo wrote: »

1: identification without declaration, in any scenario and for any topic, is pointless. If you don't declare something then no one knows that you have identified something. This becomes especially important when you are charging the generally understood identification of the object in question.

2: you said a biological male could declare that were make and be lying?

3: see answer#1

4: again with the gay stuff. What's the downside of I assume a gay person is straight? They correct me and we move on, same as if I assume a blonde is a natural blonde or I assume that an Indian looking person in India is from India rather than Pakistan.

5: Ok ignoring the glaringly obvious problem of different people using different systems when discussing the same thing.

How exactly does a society function when we have to rely on something that no one else knows?

If I worked in a shop and I have decided that I will be using the binary numbering system, but haven't told anyone, do you see any potential issues with misunderstandings?
It looks like I'm using the decimal system, the numbers are the same but I'm interpreting them totally differently than everyone else is. Oh and I'm also doing so silently, only in my head.

How does this work on any level?

1. I agree identification is pointless. It's not supposed to have a point. It just "is". The issue is that you seem to think that the whole debate is supposed to lead up to a point that makes you as an individual capable of identifying who is a woman and who is a man. Who is cis and who is trans. It's egocentric. I don't mean that in the insulting sense. I mean it in the literal sense in that you have placed yourself at the centre of the debate. People are trans or not trans and for some people you as an individual will never know their internal identity. It's just something you have to learn to live with.

2. I said a cis make could say he is a woman and be lying. Can you quote where I said what you think I said. Either I made a mistake or you did not read it carefully. If you quote the post I can clear it up.

4. And a trans person can correct you if you use the wrong pronouns....what's your point?

5. It's already working. Trans people can apply for GRCs and are then treated in law the same as a cis individual.

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

1. I agree identification is pointless. It's not supposed to have a point. It just "is". The issue is that you seem to think that the whole debate is supposed to lead up to a point that makes you as an individual capable of identifying who is a woman and who is a man. Who is cis and who is trans. It's egocentric. I don't mean that in the insulting sense. I mean it in the literal sense in that you have placed yourself at the centre of the debate. People are trans or not trans and for some people you as an individual will never know their internal identity. It's just something you have to learn to live with.

2. I said a cis make could say he is a woman and be lying. Can you quote where I said what you think I said. Either I made a mistake or you did not read it carefully. If you quote the post I can clear it up.

4. And a trans person can correct you if you use the wrong pronouns....what's your point?

5. It's already working. Trans people can apply for GRCs and are then treated in law the same as a cis individual.

You just said they don't have to voice it, how do they apply for the GRC, mime?

Cestmoi 111

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've numbered your question in your post so I can answer them.

1. What's the purpose of identification? Strange question. It's not something that has a purpose. It's not a human invention. I identify as gay. It's not something I invented. I don't identify as gay to achieve anything. I just am. You are still misunderstanding what people say when they say they identify as something.

And the difference between gay and trans lies therein. You identify as gay because you ARE gay. A trans identified male identifies as a woman because they ARE NOT a woman. It’s literally the opposite.

LLMMLL

GreeBo wrote: »

You just said they don't have to voice it, how do they apply for the GRC, mime?

Nobody has to apply for a GRC. It does not mean they are not trans. It does not mean they are not the gender/sex they identify as. But they will not have the right to be treated as such in Irish law.

That is the individuals choice and so the system still works.

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

4. And a trans person can correct you if you use the wrong pronouns....what's your point?

The problem is that they are forcing their belief system onto me. Forcing me to also believe that the gender construct has been redefined across the world by a statistically insignificant number of individuals. Society created gender and defined two of them, one for each sex.
For the vast majority of people there are still two sexes and two genders, sure you can be stereotypical or atypical or, like most, somewhere in the middle, that doesn't change the fact that your gender is your gender.

Think of it like colours, no matter how dark grey gets its still grey, it's never black. Black is a different think to grey. Similarly you can have the lightest grey imaginable and it's still not white, if it was white it wouldn't be grey.

LLMMLL

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

And the difference between gay and trans lies therein. You identify as gay because you ARE gay. A trans identified male identifies as a woman because they ARE NOT a woman. It’s literally the opposite.

A trans woman is a woman.

LLMMLL

GreeBo wrote: »

The problem is that they are forcing their belief system onto me. Forcing me to also believe that the gender construct has been redefined across the world by a statistically insignificant number of individuals. Society created gender and defined two of them, one for each sex.
For the vast majority of people there are still two sexes and two genders, sure you can be stereotypical or atypical or, like most, somewhere in the middle, that doesn't change the fact that your gender is your gender.

Think of it like colours, no matter how dark grey gets its still grey, it's never black. Black is a different think to grey. Similarly you can have the lightest grey imaginable and it's still not white, if it was white it wouldn't be grey.

You don't have to believe it. It's complete hyperbole to say that you are being forced to believe anything. You clearly don't believe so how could you have been forced to do so?

The issue is whether you would use their pronouns.

Now most of the anti-trans folk on this thread have said they are happy to use a trans person's pronouns out of politeness.

Are you saying you would refuse to use them?

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nobody has to apply for a GRC. It does not mean they are not trans. It does not mean they are not the gender/sex they identify as. But they will not have the right to be treated as such in Irish law.

That is the individuals choice and so the system still works.

Forget about the legal system, I'm talking about society.
How does society work if people can believe they can change gender but also not let anyone know or take any outward facing changes?

Frankly discussing this is appearing to be more and more pointless as you just keep shifting and providing nebulous, almost incomprehensible replies to basic questions.

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

You don't have to believe it. It's complete hyperbole to say that you are being forced to believe anything. You clearly don't believe so how could you have been forced to do so?

The issue is whether you would use their pronouns.

Now most of the anti-trans folk on this thread have said they are happy to use a trans person's pronouns out of politeness.

Are you saying you would refuse to use them?

To use their preferred pronouns requires that I agree with their beliefs. Failure to follow their beliefs in this regard is now abusive, hence I am forced to deny my own "beliefs", that by the way are scientifically based. It's offensive to me to be told that a human born a male is now a female simply because they think they are. It's against every logical and scientific bone in my body and everything I stand for. You might as well tell me that I have to accept astrology.

LLMMLL

GreeBo wrote: »

Forget about the legal system, I'm talking about society.
How does society work if people can believe they can change gender but also not let anyone know or take any outward facing changes?

Frankly discussing this is appearing to be more and more pointless as you just keep shifting and providing nebulous, almost incomprehensible replies to basic questions.

My replies are clear. Sure let's drop the legal argument. Though legality is a massive part of "society" so if you think I am.shifting goalposts by referencing the law then you are completely mistaken. But for the sake of argument I will discuss non-legal aspects of society.

How can society work? Just as it currently is. Do you think society has fallen somehow? Do you think we are no longer living in a society? How has society failed?

AllForIt

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

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.

I keep making this point all the time. There is absolutely no connection between the gay cause and trans cause. I as a gay person have no affinity for the trans cause no more than I have any affinity for the BLM cause.

All gay ppl wanted was not be considered as sexual deviants. I actually couldn't care less about the marriage thing. The important thing for me was to change societal attitudes such that it wasn't frowned upon in society. That has been achieved in Irish society and the issue is over afaic.

But now because of all this disturbing talk of hormone treatment for 'trans youth', gay society is inextricably linked with all of that, just when everything seemed like it was going okay for us. It's really terrible that gay society is being linked with all of that.

Gentlemanne

I haven't read a few pages, apologies, I might get to them tomorrow, but I find it really disappointing that the phrase "Trans Identified Males" is allowed here.

It's a very particular phrase and acronym used by some very unsavoury types to paint women who are trans as men, mock them for being "Tim", and is generally just another pointless obfuscation of trans woman to transwoman... And so on

Do ye realise that men who are trans exist?

LLMMLL

AllForIt wrote: »

I keep making this point all the time. There is absolutely no connection between the gay cause and trans cause. I as a gay person have no affinity for the trans cause no more than I have any affinity for the BLM cause.

All gay ppl wanted was not be considered as sexual deviants. I actually couldn't care less about the marriage thing. The important thing for me was to change societal attitudes such that it wasn't frowned upon in society. That has been achieved in Irish society and the issue is over afaic.

But now because of all this disturbing talk of hormone treatment for 'trans youth', gay society is inextricably linked with all of that, just when everything seemed like it was going okay for us. It's really terrible that gay society is being linked with all of that.

You're fully entitled to your views on gay rights. It's a litttttle odd to say that "all gay people wanted was not to be considered as sexual deviants". You may not have cared about gay marriage (and that's fully your choice i have no issue with that) but it's insanely obvious that most gay people cared to some extent. Most straight people too by the looks of it.

Gatling

Gentlemanne wrote: »

I haven't read a few pages, apologies, I might get to them tomorrow, but I find it really disappointing that the phrase "Trans Identified Males" is allowed here.

Actually the majority of the several thousand posts in here refer to people who self identify , Very little or no mention of trans identified males
Or whether or not being allowed or not allowed .

CtevenSrowder

GreeBo wrote: »

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

Notice GreeBo that your original question has still not been answered. Obfuscation is all we've witnessed since.

CtevenSrowder

Gentlemanne wrote: »

I haven't read a few pages, apologies, I might get to them tomorrow, but I find it really disappointing that the phrase "Trans Identified Males" is allowed here.

It's a very particular phrase and acronym used by some very unsavoury types to paint women who are trans as men, mock them for being "Tim", and is generally just another pointless obfuscation of trans woman to transwoman... And so on

Do ye realise that men who are trans exist?

To paint women who are trans as men? But they are are they not, considering they would be male?

AllForIt

LLMMLL wrote: »

You're fully entitled to your views on gay rights. It's a litttttle odd to say that "all gay people wanted was not to be considered as sexual deviants". You may not have cared about gay marriage (and that's fully your choice i have no issue with that) but it's insanely obvious that most gay people cared to some extent. Most straight people too by the looks of it.

That's a mighty deflection from my main point. You are rather good at that I've noticed.

LLMMLL

AllForIt wrote: »

That's a mighty deflection from my main point. You are rather good at that I've noticed.

Well I thought the connections were pretty obvious but I'll spell it out.

Your first paragraph says there is no connection. Etween gay and trans causes. Your next sentence says you dont have any affinity for trans causes. It seems you are using your personal "affinity" for a cause as some sort of subjective measure of the general relationship between that cause and gay causes.

Second paragraph which I dealt within my post shows that your personal "affinity" is fairly out of step with most gay people. I thought the conclusion was obvious but I guess I'll have to spell it out. If your personal "affinity" is shown to be very unrepresentative in one case then it cannot be used as some kind of general measure of the affinity of gay causes with any other cause, specifically trans rights.

So the fact that you feel no "affinity" with trans rights only tells us one thing. You feel no "affinity" with trans rights. That's it. It gives us no indication as to whether there is a link between trans and gay causes in general.

Your third paragraph see to say that gay rights are being impacted by the link between gay rights and trans rights. Can you give an example because I've seen no roll back in gay rights due to gay people supporting trans rights.

I think I've fully dealt with every point you've made now.

Gentlemanne

Gatling wrote: »

Actually the majority of the several thousand posts in here refer to people who self identify , Very little or no mention of trans identified males
Or whether or not being allowed or not allowed .

That's not true, most posters will say "they" for people they don't consider female enough when it's clear that said person goes by she/her. (But they dislike using "they' pronouns in other situations, hmm)

There's plenty of use of the term, probably even more in the pages I've yet to read. In fact I would be completely unsurprised if you had used that term or had "thanked" posts that has used it