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

.anon.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That’s a shame about his separation though not entirely surprising. At least you haven’t gloated about it unlike many #bekind proponents on Twitter.

I can't help but find it sad that someone would become so embroiled in any debate (especially an online one where they really have 'no dog in the fight' one way or the other) that it takes over - and wrecks - their life in such a profound way. Probably had a terrible effect on the lives of those close to him too.

LLMMLL

.anon. wrote: »

I can't help but find it sad that someone would become so embroiled in any debate (especially an online one where they really have 'no dog in the fight' one way or the other) that it takes over - and wrecks - their life in such a profound way. Probably had a terrible effect on the lives of those close to him too.

The boards on mumsnet is littered with anti-trans folk having trouble in their relationships because their partner does not agree with them.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

The boards on mumsnet is littered with anti-trans folk having trouble in their relationships because their partner does not agree

If it's on line it must be true (caveat ) absolutely not every thing on line is true

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

If it's on line it must be true (caveat ) absolutely not every thing on line is true

I don't see why they'd lie about problems in their own relationship.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

.anon. wrote: »

I can't help but find it sad that someone would become so embroiled in any debate (especially an online one where they really have 'no dog in the fight' one way or the other) that it takes over - and wrecks - their life in such a profound way. Probably had a terrible effect on the lives of those close to him too.

I find the separation completely understandable. I can see why it happened. It’s easy for me to imagine. I’ve said in this thread a few times that I believe it was a good thing for Linehan to be banned for Twitter. I believe some of his tweets amounted to harassment. I can easily understand his wife objecting to that and maybe seeing him differently because of it.

On the wider issue, I strongly believe he will be vindicated. Maybe not soon but I truly believe it will happen and I really admire him for sticking his neck out when so few have. We need more high-profile people with no skin in the game to highlight the absurdities. If that happened, maybe the likes of Linehan wouldn’t have to devote so much time to the cause. Guaranteed when the pendulum swings back, they’ll be climbing out of the woodwork saying that they always objected. :rolleyes:

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I find the separation completely understandable. I can see why it happened. It’s easy for me to imagine. I’ve said in this thread a few times that I believe it was a good thing for Linehan to be banned for Twitter. I believe some of his tweets amounted to harassment. I can easily understand his wife objecting to that and maybe seeing him differently because of it.

On the wider issue, I strongly believe he will be vindicated. Maybe not soon but I truly believe it will happen and I really admire him for sticking his neck out when so few have. We need more high-profile people with no skin in the game to highlight the absurdities. If that happened, maybe the likes of Linehan wouldn’t have to devote so much time to the cause. Guaranteed when the pendulum swings back, they’ll be climbing out of the woodwork saying that they always objected. :rolleyes:

I think it will be the opposite. We will look back on this period of transphobia and Graham Linehan will be considered the misguided leader of a cult like group.

Of course at that point everyone will deny ever having an issue with trans rights.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think it will be the opposite. We will look back on this period of transphobia and Graham Linehan will be considered the misguided leader of a cult like group.

Of course at that point everyone will deny ever having an issue with trans rights.

Cult like group - who wants people cancelled ,who wants to get women sacked from their jobs for voicing opinions and concerns ,who wants peoples right to representation , who wants the word woman and women removed from feminine hygiene products ,who wants mother and women and breastfeeding removed from maternity hospitals and else where

Cult is definitely the word to use ,

History won't be Kind to a ideological cult

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

Before I respond to this, could more seasoned boards users please advise me on the etiquette of posting something that I received in a PM? It’s nothing about the sender, it’s a comment they made about me.

I think you’re not supposed to without permission from both parties.

Gatling

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I think you’re not supposed to without permission from both parties.

Could they forward it to others in pm ???

McFly85

Thought for a while that Graham needed help. Seemed to become this all-consuming thing for him, and any points he was trying to make were lost in twitter rage.

I remember him saying of writing-write something, then stick it in a drawer for 6 months and forget about it. When you read it again, see if you still like it, or something to that effect. I think if he could treat social media like writing he’d be in a much better place.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gatling wrote: »

Cult like group - who wants people cancelled ,who wants to get women sacked from their jobs for voicing opinions and concerns ,who wants peoples right to representation ,

Cult is definitely the word to use ,

History won't be Kind to a ideological cult

I think there will eventually be a realisation that they can’t upbraid everyone who speaks out if a lot of people do it at the same time and a dam will burst.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gatling wrote: »

Could they forward it to others in pm ???

I’m not sure what the official line is on that.

Cestmoi 111

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I think you’re not supposed to without permission from both parties.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I would strongly advise against posting a PM. If it's inappropriate/insulting you can, however, report it.

Thank you both. Nothing inappropriate or report worthy.

Gatling

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I think there will eventually be a realisation that they can’t upbraid everyone who speaks out if a lot of people do it at the same time and a dam will burst.

That's exactly what's going to happen and when it does a few people are going to be left making excuses after excuses and saying they never really believed in it in the first place

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

That's exactly what's going to happen and when it does a few people are going to be left making excuses after excuses and saying they never really believed in it in the first place

Yup the trabsohobes will all be claiming to never have had any issues with trans people etc.

And for the sake of peace I will smile and nod politely.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

And for the sake of peace I will smile and nod politely.

More than likely covid will be blamed

Cestmoi 111

LLMMLL wrote: »

Riiiiight so you don't know any trans people but are 100% certain they're all just fetishists because you searched it out online. Great.

I never said all trans people are fetishists, never. That is not what I believe.
I said that where a person suffers from one paraphilia, it is likely they also suffer from others. So that where autogynephilia is a factor in transitioning, it is likely that other paraphilias are also present. There is research showing that. I also recommended that people check it out in online trans spaces rather than take my word on it.
I’m not sure why you would want to misquote me as saying all trans people are fetishists because that could be misleading for some readers.

LLMMLL

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

I never said all trans people are fetishists, never. That is not what I believe.
I said that where a person suffers from one paraphilia, it is likely they also suffer from others. So that where autogynephilia is a factor in transitioning, it is likely that other paraphilias are also present. There is research showing that. I also recommended that people check it out in online trans spaces rather than take my word on it.
I’m not sure why you would want to misquote me as saying all trans people are fetishists because that could be misleading for some readers.

What's misleading is to claim you went looking for trans spaces as a neutral open-minded person and all.you could find were spaces about paraphilia etc. As someone who ACTUALLY knows trans people I can conclusively say you are peddling nonsense. And I don't believe its genuine at all.

Cestmoi 111

The bold Glinner’s address to the House of Lords today. While he can be problematic, I think this is brilliant. What do you think?...


My name is Graham Linehan, I am a writer. I’ve written several comedy programmes, the best-known of which is probably ‘Father Ted’ but I’d ask you today to briefly take me seriously because I believe the stakes could not be higher.

Almost four years ago I saw that feminists were being bullied, harassed and silenced for standing up for their rights and their children's rights. I decided to use my platform on Twitter to bring attention to what seemed to be an all-out assault on women, on their words, their dignity and their safety. Also, I saw that vulnerable children were being fast-tracked onto a medical pathway that carried severe long-term implications. My position is very simple. I believe everyone should be allowed to talk about these issues. In fact, I believe it is a moral imperative that we do so.

I am talking about such matters as... the scandals at the Tavistock, the confusing and misleading advice that Stonewall has been providing to institutions all over the UK regarding the nature of the equalities act, the issue of men in women’s sports, in women’s prisons, their rape crisis centres, the destruction of basic safeguarding principles that has led to all this, and the silencing and abuse of feminists, doctors, teachers, academics and writers--anyone, in fact--who questions the fashionable American orthodoxy of gender identity ideology.

For engaging in this debate, I have been the subject of a series of harassment campaigns, including vexatious legal actions, police visits, magazine articles misrepresenting my positions, threatening letters hand-delivered to my home, my wife’s business address released online...anything and everything has been tried to silence me and prevent people from hearing the reasonable fears many women have about the impact of this ideology on their sex-based rights. I have also lost work. As a result of my sudden financial insecurity, my marriage was placed under such a severe strain that my wife and I finally agreed to separate.

Believe me, I would rather be writing a farce than living through one. But this is a very dangerous farce, one in which children's health and happiness are gambled on an ideology that makes no sense, and yet is zealously and obsessively policed by misogynistic activists on platforms that empower them just as they disempower the women they abuse.

But it’s not just the platforms or their users who are preventing a debate. Around three years ago, I was among the initial signatories of a letter to Stonewall asking them to help lower the toxicity of the conversation around sex and gender and acknowledge the plurality of views on the subject. The letter was composed by Jonny Best, a gay man and longtime LGBT activist, and the majority of these initial signatories were either gay, lesbian or trans.

We wanted to see an end to women receiving death and rape threats for standing up for their sex-based rights. To that end, we asked Stonewall to commit to fostering an atmosphere of respectful debate, rather than demonising as transphobic those who wished to discuss or dissent from Stonewall’s current policies. Stonewall flatly refused this appeal within the day, and continued to dishonestly frame women standing up for their rights as an attack on trans rights. The petition has since been signed by over 11,000 people, many of them gay men and women in despair at what is being done in their name.

JK Rowling is only the latest and most high-profile figure to suffer the consequences of this fundamentalist view of the issue-- the magazine Pink News, which is partly funded by Google, ran 42 stories on her in a single week, that’s six stories a day. But there are thousands more women, who are bullied and slandered and harassed into silence. These women – and they are mostly women – are not famous and so even more vulnerable to the smear campaigns and targeted harassment that JK Rowling and myself have endured.

And to briefly pause here, does anyone present know what JK Rowling said that was transphobic? Can anyone produce any transphobic statements by her? You cannot, because there are none. As a survivor of domestic abuse, she wrote movingly about the importance of single-sex spaces to vulnerable women and children, she complained about the erasure of the word ’woman’ in many areas of civic life, and she pointed out, correctly in my view, that we are living through the misogynistic period we have ever experienced.

In place of evidence of her supposed transphobia, we have hundreds if not thousands of youtube stars, Twitter trolls, mainstream media outlets--including the BBC-- spreading a poisonous lie intended to blacken her name and serve as a warning to the women who might otherwise find the courage to echo her concerns.

This silencing of women was the main reason I entered this fight. I knew the subject of gender was fraught but I’m political by nature and I couldn’t remain quiet in the face of such vicious misogyny. I presumed that when others saw what was happening that they too would speak up and we would be able to force the debate our opponents were so desperate to avoid.

I now realise that I was up against a much bigger beast than I thought. These platforms shape the debate and declare you untouchable when you refuse to play by their rules. The upshot is that many people presume that I am a bigot. These people also presume the same of JK Rowling and many other left-leaning, liberal and progressive women.

If you believe that JK Rowling is transphobic, a woman who has devoted her work and much of her fortune to the vulnerable, the bullied, the forgotten and the abused, then you are under a spell. If you believe that men can fairly compete against women in their sports--including contact sports-- then you are under a spell. If you believe that men will not go to the most extreme lengths to gain access to women and children, then you are under a spell. If you believe that children as young as three years old can agree to a procedure that puts them on a medical pathway for life, that arrests their natural puberty, and that has almost no scientific proof as to its efficacy as a treatment for dysphoria, then you are under a spell.

Social media has created a through the looking glass world which is robbing everyone of their ability to think. My final statement on Twitter, the straw that broke the camel’s back, was simply “Men are not women.” A world where statements like “Men are not women” is hate speech is a world on the brink of chaos. Feminists are just the canary in the coalmine in this upside-down world where public discourse depends on the whims of a small group of men in Silicon Valley. Gender identity ideology began in American Universities, is uncritically disseminated by the popular media, but social media companies and their users are the enforcers.

People do not understand the extent to which they have been indoctrinated by this ideology. Women who oppose it are trying desperately to be heard. Helen, who is here with me today is only one example of thousands. I have heard from young lesbians who are frightened that their sexuality will have them labelled transphobic, I have heard from therapists unable to tell distraught children that their favourite author does not want them dead, I’ve heard from detransitioners who tell of young women being groomed by older men in trans youth groups.

The reason you have not heard the things that I have heard is that the discourse is being shaped by trans rights activists. In place of reasoned arguments and democratic discussion, we have mantras like “No debate” and “Transwomen are women”, we have policies passing by stealth, we have bogus statistics about trans murder epidemics and we have the unconscionable weaponising of suicide for political ends.

The discourse is broken. Women’s rights are being stripped away, our children are not safe, and we are not allowed to talk about it.

Once again, thank you for giving us the opportunity to address this today and I would be happy to answer any questions that you have.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

What's misleading is to claim you went looking for trans spaces as a neutral open-minded person and all.you could find were spaces about paraphilia etc. As someone who ACTUALLY knows trans people I can conclusively say you are peddling nonsense. And I don't believe its genuine at all.

Is a trans woman a female?

If not, what is a female?

Is sex and gender the same thing?

Is it possible to be a male woman? If not why not?

Why does you knowing trans people give you credence?

Sounds very like "I can't be racist, I have black friends".

I know trans people, most of them are dick heads, not because they are trans, but because they are dick heads. Doesn't mean I can conclusively state that trans people are mostly dickheads based on my limited experience.

AllForIt

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.

There is no bang of jack pulling up a ladder. We are not on the same ladder in the first place, there are many ladders.

LLMMLL said I was 'out of step' where you chipped in. I'm saying they are out of step. I gave a realistic explanation of how one might be deluded as to the support of gay ppl for transgender rights based on one living a metropolitan bubble and those not. I think that irked you, because it's true. You can no more prove % of 'gay support' for trans rights no more than I can. But if I dare to make a point from a non-metropolitan bubble I'm 'egotistical'. I think it's plain to see who is egotistical here and who isn't. You're whole post gives of vibes of a superiority complex based on your personal historical activism. Personally I haven't heard you say anything that bowls me over intellectually. Rather you come across as someone politically militant.

But ppl like you go further, like Ian McKellen, and demand we give support, in full, as if we have some duty to do so, on pain of some sort of rejection and vilification. Nonsense. I'm not part of any LGBT world, therefore I can't be kicked out of one, for not falling into line. I live in the real world, sweetie.

Trans ppl are not 'one of us'. They have their thing, we have our thing. There is no connection whatsoever, it's a match made in hell.

In a further post I'm going to go into detail about how both issues couldn't be more different. You're gonna love it.

LLMMLL

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

The bold Glinner’s address to the House of Lords today. While he can be problematic, I think this is brilliant. What do you think?...

Very disingenuous of him

Cestmoi 111

LLMMLL wrote: »

Very disingenuous of him

Which bit? Everything he says echoes pages and pages of concerns on this thread alone.

LLMMLL

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

Which bit? Everything he says echoes pages and pages of concerns on this thread alone.

Exactly.

But for starters he tries to imply it was threats against him that caused his wife to leave. I think we all know it's because he became a nutcase.

Secondly he tries to portray the debate as a one way abusefest. Which is a bit rich considering he goes out of his way to stoke up the debate and make it as heated as possible.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

he goes out of his way to stoke up the debate and make it as heated as possible.

That's how debates work they are supposed.to be heated and Stoked not one sided with zero opposition view allowed ,that's nothing but a echo chamber ,

I'm sure that some say the same about jk Rowling for saying Woman and women

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

That's how debates work they are supposed.to be heated and Stoked not one sided with zero opposition view allowed ,that's nothing but a echo chamber ,

I'm sure that some say the same about jk Rowling for saying Woman and women

No I don't think JK went out of her way to stoke up debate and make it as heated as possible.

And i don't agree with you that the purpose of debate is to be heated and stoked though it does explain your posting style somewhat.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

And i don't agree with you that the purpose of debate is to be heated and stoked

And yet a small cohort tried to Cancel her .

Debate should be heated otherwise it's not a debate just people nodding their heads as someone repeats lets cancel this person and that person.

Nothing wrong with my posting style whenever I'm right ,I'm right and whenever i get something wrong i apologise and move on ,
I don't run around in circles Chasing my own tail

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you see the difference between lemons and oranges?

Another get out of jail free card. Quite the penchant for not really answering questions, par the course for the thread. BTW, I was going to start a thread on the following:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/09/arkansas-abortion-ban-supreme-court-roe-v-wade?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

But then I remembered, it isn't ok to discuss such things in public.

chopperbyrne

Bannasidhe wrote: »

To muddy the waters.

The whole complex area of medical ethics where benefits and risks have to be carefully considered and weighed against each other because few medical treatments are risk free or without side effects is being reduced down to bickering about what Bannasidhe didn't actually say.

Bannasidhe says generally the more medical studies the better, however Bannasidhe recognizes that when the subjects are children it is an ethical minefield, and that goes not just for puberty blockers but for cancer treatments, and indeed any experimental treatments for chronic conditions.
Don't try can mean no advances.
No advances can mean children will die who could have been saved.

I'm sure those tasked with medical ethics appreciate the absolutism of some posters here in determining the correct course of treatment for a particular group of children.

Why are you talking in Third person?

Forget which account you were signed in to?

GreeBo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you see the difference between lemons and oranges?

Indeed I do.
I also see the similarities.

Now that that's out of the way, can you answer my question please?
It was a pretty simple example of how the exact same procedure, the exact same, can be valid or invalid depending on the reason for it.
Hopefully you can see how this relates to the two uses of hormones in children that has been brought up on this thread?