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

AllForIt

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

Actually, I know instinctively, that gay men, have by-and-large, no affinity for trans issues. Gay man are sick and tired of constant activism. It's over afaic.

The type of gay ppl who 'keep going' are stereotypical metropolitan societal loaners who become part of a niche community who will never stop being activists. And the whole idea is to be as 'far out' as possible, just for the sake of it. Just like that lesbian who wore a long leather Nazi like jacket who turned up to protest at a 'far right' rally recently, who got a bump on the head, as a result of their 'activism'. Yeah, those types.

I am telling you right now, that the general opinion around transgender rights amongst the non-metropolitan gay demographic, is very much in line with what the general heterosexual demographic thinks on the issues, specifically where it comes to issues related to trans teenagers.

So your I'm 'out of step' suggestion is utterly deluded.

LLMMLL

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?

Anti-trans folk?

For someone who thinks people can define their identity, you have no problem pigeonholing people who don't align with you.

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

So far all I can decipher is that the relationship between gay and trans is activism and fighting for rights?
What rights are gay people fighting for at the moment?
Do you see a similar link between trans and the Uighurs?
It seems convenient to say the least that you picked a nice popular cause to associate with trans. Homosexuality is pretty mainstream these days, is there any chance that linking trans is an attempt to piggyback on the success of gay rights?

Do you accept that one cause is about gender and the other is about sexual orientation? Do you accept these are different things?
Can you try to explain why you think the two are so related, other than both very rights based causes?

Is it because you think people are trans to avoid being gay or that being trans effectively, for most people, would result in then being gay?

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

A trans woman is a woman.

A trans women currently believes that they want to be perceived as a woman by others. By your own definition they may not have actually told anyone else this belief.

Natterjack from Kerry

Who defines what is meant by transphobia ?

Gatling

Gentlemanne wrote: »

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.

Your wrong .

grassylawn

I accepted the following study as evidence that Transgenderism is a tangible thing and not an imaginary thing:

Transgender brains are more like their desired gender from an early age:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm

However it is seemingly contradicted by this study:

Comprehensive synthesis of human brain studies reveals few male-female differences beyond size:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763421000804

I also found research that indicated that it manifests in boys where there is an overbearing overinvolved mother and a weak (uninvolved) father figure. Likewise this points to it being a psychological phenomenon and not a physical one.

It doesn't make any difference to me whether an adult wants to be considered a different gender than they were born as, regardless whether it is due to something psychological/imaginary or tangible/physical.

However if it is psychological/imaginary and not physical, then children identifying as trans should receive psychological treatment and not physical treatment.

Gentlemanne

To prove whatever point, noted right wing homophobe & transphobe YouTuber Steven Crowder (very familiar name) has crossdressed and went to the gym:


https://twitter.com/scrowder/status/1368997905869266945?s=19

Even in his own deceptively edited video he is accepted entirely despite clearly being there to cause trouble and filming people for no reason, and is only kicked out because he obnoxiously drops weights (which is a well known taboo for the rules for Planet Fitness in the US)

Bannasidhe

AllForIt wrote: »

Actually, I know instinctively, that gay men, have by-and-large, no affinity for trans issues. Gay man are sick and tired of constant activism. It's over afaic.
.

That is some egotistical statement you have made there.

You might be sick of... you might have no affinity... you might be tired of but sweetie, you speak only for you not an entire community.

And tbh, if other people with no personal stake in inequality had your attitude male homosexuality would still be illegal in this country. Thankfully two straight, cis, women with extensive legal qualifications could see beyond their own self interest and took the case.

Back in the days when AIDS was believed to affect primarily gay men a hell of a lot of not gay men, including lesbians who were considered (along with nuns) the safest group, cared for dying young men, fought for health care, and advocated for something to be done even though it wasn't in their self interest.


The bang of I'm all right jack so I'll pulling up the ladder behind me off your post is obnoxious.

Gruffalux

Sweetie? Obnoxious?

Hmmmmm.

Everyone only speaks for their own view. And are entitled to do so. Everyone.

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The bang of I'm all right jack so I'll pulling up the ladder behind me off your post is obnoxious.

I hate this 'pulling up the ladder' argument. An attempt to shame people, emotionally blackmail them, into having to have certain believes or support certain causes they they can have genuine reasons to not support, which ofcourse get overlooked.

The same arguments get made to the children of immigrants who supposedly have to support immigration less they be 'pulling up the ladder'.

I likewise, see no relation between gay rights and transgender rights particularly when the latter extends into pre-op trans-people being housed with those of the opposite sex, or claims that misgendering is violence.

Bannasidhe

AllForIt wrote: »

Actually, I know instinctively, that gay men, have by-and-large, no affinity for trans issues..

Gruffalux wrote: »

Sweetie? Obnoxious?

Hmmmmm.

Everyone only speaks for their own view. And are entitled to do so. Everyone.

Indeed.
Perhaps you should address that comment to those who are speaking for all gay men.

GreeBo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That is some egotistical statement you have made there.

You might be sick of... you might have no affinity... you might be tired of but sweetie, you speak only for you not an entire community.

And tbh, if other people with no personal stake in inequality had your attitude male homosexuality would still be illegal in this country. Thankfully two straight, cis, women with extensive legal qualifications could see beyond their own self interest and took the case.

Back in the days when AIDS was believed to affect primarily gay men a hell of a lot of not gay men, including lesbians who were considered (along with nuns) the safest group, cared for dying young men, fought for health care, and advocated for something to be done even though it wasn't in their self interest.


The bang of I'm all right jack so I'll pulling up the ladder behind me off your post is obnoxious.

So either there is some link between gay rights and trans rights (that no one has provided yet!) or your argument boils down to "you cant have one cause, you need to have them all to be considered valid"?

I can't imagine how you get anything done if you have to do everything at the same time.


/edit to add, you do realise that you have just, ironically or otherwise, responded by basically saying that *you* know what the gay community thinks, not AllForIt, the gay guy.

Gruffalux

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed.
Perhaps you should address that comment to those who are speaking for all gay men.

You just spoke as if you were speaking for all gay people. You do not. Not for the at least 3 gay people on this thread who very much do not share your views. Nor for the many elsewhere speaking out.
You are entitled to your views. I am happy to hear them. Maybe even debate them.
But you are not entitled to call a gay man with whom you simply disagree "sweetie" nor to declare his views are "obnoxious".

CtevenSrowder

Gruffalux wrote: »

You just spoke as if you were speaking for all gay people. You do not. Not for the at least 3 gay people on this thread who very much do not share your views. Nor for the many elsewhere speaking out.
You are entitled to your views. I am happy to hear them. Maybe even debate them.
But you are not entitled to call a gay man with whom you simply disagree "sweetie" nor to declare his views are "obnoxious".

Well she is, it's just a poor look though.

Bannasidhe

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I hate this 'pulling up the ladder' argument. An attempt to shame people, emotionally blackmail them, into having to have certain believes or support certain causes they they can have genuine reasons to not support, which ofcourse get overlooked.

The same arguments get made to the children of immigrants who supposedly have to support immigration less they be 'pulling up the ladder'.

I likewise, see no relation between gay rights and transgender rights particularly when the latter extends into pre-op trans-people being housed with those of the opposite sex, or claims that misgendering is violence.

I don't give a flying what you hate tbh. If the cap fits when it comes to people who have rights due to the advocacy of others then want to deny others then they are looking to pull the ladder up.

Equally, just because you cannot see a relation doesn't mean there isn't one. It could mean you don't want to see it.
Rather like those who pull the ladder up are happy to enjoy the rights won with the support of people who didn't personally benefit now turn around and declare 'they are sick and tired' of it all.

Fact is a hell of a lot of LGB people do see a link, and especially those LG people who were at the coal face of fighting for LG rights and did so alongside people who are T and we aren't throwing those who stood with us under the bus because a few straight people can't see the relation or a few gay men and lesbians are happy to pull the bloody ladder up.

Bannasidhe

Gruffalux wrote: »

You just spoke as if you were speaking for all gay people. You do not. Not for the at least 3 gay people on this thread who very much do not share your views. Nor for the many elsewhere speaking out.
You are entitled to your views. I am happy to hear them. Maybe even debate them.
But you are not entitled to call a gay man with whom you simply disagree "sweetie" nor to declare his views are "obnoxious".

You are free to use the report function.
You are not free to tell me what I am entitled to do in a thread you do not mod.

Bannasidhe

GreeBo wrote: »

So either there is some link between gay rights and trans rights (that no one has provided yet!) or your argument boils down to "you cant have one cause, you need to have them all to be considered valid"?

I can't imagine how you get anything done if you have to do everything at the same time.


/edit to add, you do realise that you have just, ironically or otherwise, responded by basically saying that *you* know what the gay community thinks, not AllForIt, the gay guy.

The link is the decades long fight for rights where L, G, and T stood together.
The link is Stonewall.

The link is not throwing comrades under the bus as soon as you get what you want which is what AllForIt wants.

And no - tell a person "you do not speak for" - which is what they were doing is not saying I speak for all - it is saying your view is not shared by everyone which he claimed it was.
A look at Panti's twitter feed proves not all gay men are sick of it.

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I don't give a flying what you hate tbh. If the cap fits when it comes to people who have rights due to the advocacy of others then want to deny others then they are looking to pull the ladder up.

Well you care enough to reply;)

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Equally, just because you cannot see a relation doesn't mean there isn't one. It could mean you don't want to see it.
Rather like those who pull the ladder up are happy to enjoy the rights won with the support of people who didn't personally benefit now turn around and declare 'they are sick and tired' of it all.

And just because you can see a relation doesn't mean there is one. You berated and were condescending to a poster who did exactly what you are doing; speaking on behalf of a large group of people. Quite the double standard.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Fact is a hell of a lot of LGB people do see a link, and especially those LG people who were at the coal face of fighting for LG rights and did so alongside people who are T and we aren't throwing those who stood with us under the bus because a few straight people can't see the relation or a few gay men and lesbians are happy to pull the bloody ladder up.

And a lot of LGB people don't. In fact some so much so that they have formed new homosexuality advocacy groups. If not allowing male sex offenders into prison with females, were it possible for them to go on and rape or sexual assault said females, is throwing trans-people 'under the bus'... Well then so be it. Noone's safety was compromised by decriminalising homosexuality, or allowing gay marriage.

Gruffalux

https://twitter.com/DanialWebb/status/1368464885667991552?s=19

CtevenSrowder

Gruffalux wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DanialWebb/status/1368464885667991552?s=19

Tut tut Danial sweetie. Pulling up the ladder like a bad boy. Should be out supporting his 'comrades'.

GreeBo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The link is the decades long fight for rights where L, G, and T stood together.
The link is Stonewall.

Thats not a link though, thats people fighting together for something. There are plenty of straight people who support Stonewall, are you now saying that straight is linked to gay which is linked to trans?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The link is not throwing comrades under the bus as soon as you get what you want which is what AllForIt wants.

Comrades?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And no - tell a person "you do not speak for" - which is what they were doing is not saying I speak for all - it is saying your view is not shared by everyone which he claimed it was.
A look at Panti's twitter feed proves not all gay men are sick of it.

So you are both sharing your views on what the gay community currently thinks, based on your own experiences. Oh, but you are honourable and righteous and they are an egotistical sweetie?

GreeBo

I vaguely brought it up earlier, but if a biological male declares as a female, if they are sexually attracted to women, are they gay or straight or what now?

excludedbin

Gotta love the rabid transphobes posting a handful of examples as if they speak for all of us. Because it's not like the rest of us couldn't find just as many examples disagreeing. Never mind that it is, yet again, straight people claiming they know us better than we know ourselves.

But heigh-ho, what's new? Certainly not their arguments, we've seen them for decades. Seriously, lads and lassies, get some new material. Please. It's embarrassing at this point. You may fool a few useful idiots but most people can see through it. Especially when the mask slips like so:

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

And a lot of LGB people don't. In fact some so much so that they have formed new homosexuality advocacy groups.

What, like this one: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/01/23/lgb-alliance-co-founder-malcolm-clark-predatory-gay-teachers-anti-gay/? Yeah, that's some real sterling "advocacy".

There's three things you can count on in this world: death, taxes, and transphobes recycling homophobic arguments/being homophobes themselves. Sure where do you think they got those arguments? They're the same ones that used them against us, just with "gay people" changed to "trans people".

Hence, yes, LGB people supporting them really are just shooting themselves in their feet. We'll be turned on just as soon as soon as the latest right-wing shibboleth is addressed. Some aren't even waiting, it seems. But please, please keep doing it! The more you reveal yourselves to be hateful of LGBT people, the more people will realise what your real goal is!

Gruffalux

GreeBo wrote: »

I vaguely brought it up earlier, but if a biological male declares as a female, if they are sexually attracted to women, are they gay or straight or what now?

The thinking is they are a lesbian.

Gruffalux

excludedbin wrote: »

Gotta love the rabid transphobes posting

Hmmm.

Natterjack from Kerry

grassylawn wrote: »

I accepted the following study as evidence that Transgenderism is a tangible thing and not an imaginary thing:

Transgender brains are more like their desired gender from an early age:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm

However it is seemingly contradicted by this study:

Comprehensive synthesis of human brain studies reveals few male-female differences beyond size:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763421000804

I also found research that indicated that it manifests in boys where there is an overbearing overinvolved mother and a weak (uninvolved) father figure. Likewise this points to it being a psychological phenomenon and not a physical one.

It doesn't make any difference to me whether an adult wants to be considered a different gender than they were born as, regardless whether it is due to something psychological/imaginary or tangible/physical.

However if it is psychological/imaginary and not physical, then children identifying as trans should receive psychological treatment and not physical treatment.

So fair to say that the Jury is out on this at the moment. Trans people may be solely a mental condition which is helped/mitigated for them by transitioning, or, there may indeed be a difference in their brain sex and the sex of the rest of their body which transitioning brings into line?
So that a trans person is still their original sex, or, that they are truly their transitioned sex, are both equally valid views, and neither is transphobic?

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DanialWebb/status/1368464885667991552?s=19

Bit of a weird tweet thread. Does he think gay men can't be bigots or something?

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Bit of a weird tweet thread. Does he think gay men can't be bigots or something?

Is it?
What is weird about it?

You calling him a bigot, BTW, does not make it weird - that is just you calling him names.

suicide_circus

LLMMLL wrote: »

Bit of a weird tweet thread. Does he think gay men can't be bigots or something?

In what way is he a bigot?