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

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

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.

What's weird is he thinks that being on pride committees is evidence that he couldn't be a bigot.

Like is it impossible that someone on a pride committee couldn't be racist?

Like is it impossible that someone on a pride committee couldn't be Prejudiced against travellers?

It's a very silly tweet.

CtevenSrowder

excludedbin wrote: »

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:



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!

What homophobic arguments have been recycled here? And what is this about right-wing? I'm not right-wing. And many of the contributers here are homosexual. So your point about 'straight people' talking on your behalf is moot, not that someones sexuality should matter to begin with.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

What's weird is he thinks that being on pride committees is evidence that he couldn't be a bigot.

Like is it impossible that someone on a pride committee couldn't be racist?

Like is it impossible that someone on a pride committee couldn't be Prejudiced against travellers?

It's a very silly tweet.

I interpret that he is justifiably using his lifelong public activism to show his good credentials on LGB issues.
There are many like him who agree with him. They are coming forward to say they are very hesitant about affirmation treatments for minors, about female sport and refuges being compromised, about homosexuality being redefined as gender identity based attraction rather than sex based attraction, about the lack of safe guarding and calibrated response inherent in simple gender self identification.
He is free to express his self identified opinion, sex based identity, and lived experience without being called names I guess.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

I interpret that he is justifiably using his lifelong public activism to show his good credentials on LGB issues.
There are many like him who agree with him. They are coming forward to say they are very hesitant about affirmation treatments for minors, about female sport and refuges being compromised, about homosexuality being redefined as gender identity based attraction rather than sex based attraction, about the lack of safe guarding and calibrated response inherent in simple gender self identification.
He is free to express his self identified opinion, sex based identity, and lived experience without being called names I guess.

I'm just glad that since I've also been on a pride committee nobody on this thread can call me a misogynist anymore.

Who knew it was the equivalent of a get out of jail free card. Thanks Daniel!

Bannasidhe

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm just glad that since I've also been on a pride committee nobody on this thread can call me a misogynist anymore.

Who knew it was the equivalent of a get out of jail free card. Thanks Daniel!

I have been on so many committees no body can call me anything anymore.
And since I have 40+ years experience of public activism I cannot be questioned.
Apparently.

GreeBo

excludedbin wrote: »

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:



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!

So in your mind can someone freely accept gay people but also not accept trans people? In my mind (and the minds of many others it would appear) gay and trans are as related as ham and eggs, they might often go together, but they are not related in any way.

An example of how they are different would be the rates of detransition compared to the rates of gay people reverting to being straight.

GreeBo

Gruffalux wrote: »

The thinking is they are a lesbian.

So they have gone from straight to gay by becoming trans, and if they detransitioned they would be straight again?

The corollary of this being that they go from being gay to being straight, also by becoming trans. Seems like there might be a link there...

Gruffalux

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have been on so many committees no body can call me anything anymore.
And since I have 40+ years experience of public activism I cannot be questioned.
Apparently.

Me three! It's brilliant

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

What's weird is he thinks that being on pride committees is evidence that he couldn't be a bigot.

Like is it impossible that someone on a pride committee couldn't be racist?

Like is it impossible that someone on a pride committee couldn't be Prejudiced against travellers?

It's a very silly tweet.

Is this like earlier where you said that its impossible that a man who tell us he is a man couldn't be lying?

Nothing is impossible, for example you could be a transphobe who just happens to post in defence of trans people, right?

Bannasidhe

GreeBo wrote: »

So in your mind can someone freely accept gay people but also not accept trans people? In my mind (and the minds of many others it would appear) gay and trans are as related as ham and eggs, they might often go together, but they are not related in any way.

An example of how they are different would be the rates of detransition compared to the rates of gay people reverting to being straight.

I note that you completely missed the point there which is the language used by transphobes is the exact same language used by homophobes just tweaked slightly.
So you really should direct your questions to the transphobes and ask them why they are making the same "points".

See, those of us who were there for the fight for equality remember the great "lesbians in women's toilets" scares, and the "children can't possible know if they are homosexual" pronouncements. It's the same deja poo now as it was then.

GarySmith

Fully agree without any issue we should be able to call ourselves as we want and same for others as whatever they want they can call themselves there shouldn't be any fear or any issue, yes then only we will be able to know what they have in their mind and what they thoughts about themselves. Only then it’s possible that any kind of need such as discussion can be done or mentally help can be provided.

Gruffalux

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I note that you completely missed the point there which is the language used by transphobes is the exact same language used by homophobes just tweaked slightly.
So you really should direct your questions to the transphobes and ask them why they are making the same "points".

See, those of us who were there for the fight for equality remember the great "lesbians in women's toilets" scares, and the "children can't possible know if they are homosexual" pronouncements. It's the same deja poo now as it was then.

No child is harmed in any way by being gay. Zero problems. Ever.

Minors are seriously harmed via affirmation therapy for "trans kids" including almost always sterility, likely impotence and lifelong medical dependence and complications. Even the Doctor (Steensma)who helped develop and implement the Dutch Protocol now calls it experimental and in dire need of research.

What is your opinion on giving puberty blockers to children aged 8 to 11, and cross sex hormones in high doses from 14?

Note - many of these children have autism or mental health commorbidities or childhood trauma in their backgrounds. And studies show most would desist if left alone and allowed express gender however they wish.

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I note that you completely missed the point there which is the language used by transphobes is the exact same language used by homophobes just tweaked slightly.
So you really should direct your questions to the transphobes and ask them why they are making the same "points".

See, those of us who were there for the fight for equality remember the great "lesbians in women's toilets" scares, and the "children can't possible know if they are homosexual" pronouncements. It's the same deja poo now as it was then.

Do you accept the usefulness of single sex spaces, or believe they are useful in the first place?

Bannasidhe

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Do you accept the usefulness of single sex spaces, or believe they are useful in the first place?

I have worked in, and been on the management of, many what you call "single sex spaces" but I and my colleagues (and founders, management, funders) would term "women's spaces" and in every single place transwomen were, and continue to be, welcomed. Not 'tolerated' - welcomed.

Many of these are aimed at the Lesbian/Bisexual community. It a person identifies as a lesbian (i.e. a woman who is primarily attracted to women) or bisexual (i.e a woman who is attracted to both women and men) THEY ARE WELCOME.

Zero official complaint about this policy has ever been received by any member of the community. If it were it would be discussed by the management and a consensus decision received but as there are a number of transwomen who are valuable and active members of the community I'm willing to bet the consensus will be unanimous to retain the current policies.

Tbh I, personally, tend to prefer mixed spaces but that's me.

Bannasidhe

Gruffalux wrote: »

No child is harmed in any way by being gay. Zero problems. Ever.

Minors are seriously harmed via affirmation therapy for "trans kids" including almost always sterility, likely impotence and lifelong medical dependence and complications. Even the Doctor (Steensma)who helped develop and implement the Dutch Protocol now calls it experimental and in dire need of research.

What is your opinion on giving puberty blockers to children aged 8 to 11, and cross sex hormones in high doses from 14?

Note - many of these children have autism or mental health commorbidities or childhood trauma in their backgrounds. And studies show most would desist if left alone and allowed express gender however they wish.

If you believe no child is harmed in anyway by being gay then how easily you dismiss the mental health of children who grew up (and are still growing up) in homophobic families/societies.
Or doesn't that matter to you?

I have no "opinion" on puberty blockers as I am not a medical practitioner and I think such matters are confidential and between Dr and Patient.

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have worked in, and been on the management of, many what you call "single sex spaces" but I and my colleagues (and founders, management, funders) would term "women's spaces" and in every single place transwomen were, and continue to be, welcomed. Not 'tolerated' - welcomed.

Many of these are aimed at the Lesbian/Bisexual community. It a person identifies as a lesbian (i.e. a woman who is primarily attracted to women) or bisexual (i.e a woman who is attracted to both women and men) THEY ARE WELCOME.

Zero official complaint about this policy has ever been received by any member of the community. If it were it would be discussed by the management and a consensus decision received but as there are a number of transwomen who are valuable and active members of the community I'm willing to bet the consensus will be unanimous to retain the current policies.

Tbh I, personally, tend to prefer mixed spaces but that's me.

Is that a yes then?

Bannasidhe

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Is that a yes then?

I'll stifle the urge to be pure Cork and reply with a "I don't no, sure I often work and volunteer my free time in places I don't think are needed" and just say yes.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have no "opinion" on puberty blockers as I am not a medical practitioner and I think such matters are confidential and between Dr and Patient.

So you aren't opposed to it then?

Gruffalux

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have no "opinion" on puberty blockers as I am not a medical practitioner and I think such matters are confidential and between Dr and Patient.

It is demonsteably true that there is no harm to a child's health if they are gay. I do not defend results of ugly homophobia etc. Just I state the empirical fact that there is zero harm to a child's body as a result of being homosexual.

You should have an opinion on puberty blockers and cross sex hormones for minors as you tacitly support it by not questioning it.
You contribute to supporting the use of such by calling out those who question it as phobic.

Doctors have done many things over long years legally to patients including sterilisation of gay people, symphysiotomy, improper pregnancy practices, not diagnosing people correctly, etc. Saying effectively "Doctor knows best" is a total cop out.
You tacitly support and enable this affirmation practise on minors - for example you support those who call people who are very worried about it bigots etc . It is a FUNDAMENTAL part of the picture.

You have to think deeply about it, about the reality of it, and see the future ramifications of chemically or surgically treating a child who cannot properly consent to sterility and impotence, and you cannot hand wave it away with doctor knows best platitudes.

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'll stifle the urge to be pure Cork and reply with a "I don't no, sure I often work and volunteer my free time in places I don't think are needed" and just say yes.

Well it was quite a long winded way to say yes:pac:

Would you accept a a convicted sex offender who is a transwomen into your women only space? I'll guess it's a no (correct me if I'm wrong).

As such, why do you think it is acceptable to put then in another women's only space such as a women's prison?

And please, if your refrain is going to be the factually incorrect 'because trans-women are women', then just like this message and we won't waste eachothers time.

GreeBo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

See, those of us who were there for the fight for equality remember the great "lesbians in women's toilets" scares, and the "children can't possible know if they are homosexual" pronouncements. It's the same deja poo now as it was then.

Well, other than its now "Biological men in women's toilets" you are correct.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

So you aren't opposed to it then?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have no "opinion" on puberty blockers as I am not a medical practitioner and I think such matters are confidential and between Dr and Patient.

Did you have difficulty with "I think such matters are confidential and between Dr and Patient."?

I am opposed to medical decisions being debated on public forums by people with no medical training for ideological reasons.

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Did you have difficulty with "I think such matters are confidential and between Dr and Patient."?

I am opposed to medical decisions being debated on public forums by people with no medical training for ideological reasons.

So what, no abortion debates?

GreeBo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'll stifle the urge to be pure Cork and reply with a "I don't no, sure I often work and volunteer my free time in places I don't think are needed" and just say yes.

So if you accept them, and I would assume understand the need for them, how do single gender spaces work if gender is now a spectrum and specifically if gender can change?

Cestmoi 111

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?

Please listen to transpeople GreeBo

https://mobile.twitter.com/an_aria_blooms/status/1352363965309984769

https://mobile.twitter.com/maybefrommoon/status/1084932085263941632

https://mobile.twitter.com/zesyra/status/1276998376366710784

Bannasidhe

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Well it was quite a long winded way to say yes:pac:

Would you accept a a convicted sex offender who is a transwomen into your women only space? I'll guess it's a no (correct me if I'm wrong).

I'm actually not going to dignify your scaremongering and frankly transphobic question framed as it is tbh.

Any known sex offender - and there are cis female sex offenders by the way, and lesbian sex offenders - would not be welcome.
It has zero to do with their gender.

TomTomTim

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

Please listen to transpeople GreeBo

https://mobile.twitter.com/an_aria_blooms/status/1352363965309984769

https://mobile.twitter.com/maybefrommoon/status/1084932085263941632

https://mobile.twitter.com/zesyra/status/1276998376366710784

What the **** is piv sex? I'm actually somewhat impressed that these people manage to make up so many new words, even if it's impossible to follow.

Bannasidhe

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

So what, no abortion debates?

Abortion is a private matter between patient and Dr - why does it need to be debated publicly?

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Did you have difficulty with "I think such matters are confidential and between Dr and Patient."?

I am opposed to medical decisions being debated on public forums by people with no medical training for ideological reasons.

No. I had no difficulty.

You were asked your opinion on a topic. You said you had no opinion which means you aren't opposed or in favour.

I wanted to clarify that this was your stance.

You did.

No difficulty, no misunderstanding.

TomTomTim

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Abortion is a private matter between patient and Dr - why does it need to be debated publicly?

Now you're playing dumb, which is common when you can't respond rationally. It was a public debate only a few years ago, as you well know.