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

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

The basis of your argument, which is that more rape or sexual violence is JUST more rape or sexual violence because 'whatabout what already happens over there', is fundamentally amoral. How amoral do you want to be?

If your argument is reduced to just calling me amoral it's not much of an argument. For instance I believe your treatment of trans people is amoral. Do you consider that a good argument.....

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

In the end I didn't have to look very far. I didn't even have to look for individual incidents like Gruffalux did. There are whole patterns to be found:

"While female inmates were more likely to be sexually victimized by other inmates than by staff (21.2 vs. 7.6%), male inmates were more likely to report an incident of sexual victimization perpetrated by staff (7.6 vs. 4.3%)."

I guess all the female inmates.will need not a third.or.fourth space but thousands of individual spaces as by Gruffalux's criteria, even one incident should dictate prison policy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2438589/

Another example of using the fundamentally amoral argument that more violence is just more violence and has no meaning or value to humans.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Another example of using the fundamentally amoral argument that more violence is just more violence and has no meaning or value to humans.

That's a complete misrepresentation of my argument. Calling me amoral is just silliness.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

If your argument is reduced to just calling me amoral it's not much of an argument. For instance I believe your treatment of trans people is amoral. Do you consider that a good argument.....

You are using an argument. I am not just calling you something but telling you what your argument is, and arguing that your argument displays philosophical amorality. Your argument is that more is just more and has no meaning in a moral sense. So a person who hits their lover twice has no more moral culpability than if they hit their lover once, because more is just more. And who cares about more - it is just more. They could keep hitting their lover many times and it would be no more reason to be alarmed than if they had hit them once.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

You are using an argument. I am not just calling you something but telling you what your argument is, and arguing that your argument displays philosophical amorality. Your argument is that more is just more and has no meaning in a moral sense. So a person who hits their lover twice has no more moral culpability than if they hit their lover once, because more is just more. And who cares about more - it is just more. They could keep hitting their lover many times and it would be no more reason to be alarmed than if they had hit them once.

No my argument is that prison policy shouldn't be decided on one instance you found online.

I have shown you how there are many many instances of cis female sexual assault on cis females in prison.

Do you believe that all cis females should be kept separate from each other.

If you do not then by your own definition you are displaying the tenetsnof philosophical amorality.

So to turn your own question back on you "how amoral do you want to be"?

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's not deflection it's the entire point. Trans people are not responsible for the vast amount of prison rapes.

But less than 18 months in rapes and sexual assaults were carried out by trans people ,
Increase the number of violent male offenders into woman's prison s especially those convicted of sexual assaults and that number will increase year on year ,
Hence why they are currently reviewing the policy after sex attacks on staff and Prisoners a like ,

If you are a male and convicted of sex crimes against women then under no circumstances should they be sent to a women's prison just because they self identify

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

But less than 18 months in rapes and sexual assaults were carried out by trans people ,
Increase the number of violent male offenders into woman's prison s especially those convicted of sexual assaults and that number will increase year on year ,
Hence why they are currently reviewing the policy after sex attacks on staff and Prisoners a like ,

If you are a male and convicted of sex crimes against women then under no circumstances should they be sent to a women's prison just because they self identify

Any sexual offender should not be kept in the general population

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

No my argument is that prison policy shouldn't be decided on one instance you found online.

I have shown you how there are many many instances of cis female sexual assault on cis females in prison.

Do you believe that all cis females should be kept separate from each other.

If you do not then by your own definition you are displaying the tenetsnof philosophical amorality.

So to turn your own question back on you "how amoral do you want to be"?

Natal born females do not have the advantages in strength over each other that natal males have over natal female. This is an evolutionary fact established over 100s of 1000s of years of human existence. Men are stronger than women. It is amoral to put a less protected sex in a confined inescapable space with a stronger sex and say well if more violence happens than is usual that is simply more violence.

The evolutionary differences in physical reality are one of the very important fundamental reasons why female prisons have been separate to male prisons in the first place. It is one of the fundamental reasons why campaigns for safe single sex toilet facilities are ongoing in the developing world.

Criminological studies also show that trans women continue to offend along natal male patterns. In order to facilitate transgender ideology it is amoral to insist that the female estate (only the female, not the male estate note) become a mixed sex estate just to show we are kind.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Any sexual offender should not be kept in the general population

Have you started a thread on this ? A campaign? Will I be waiting a long time?

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

'cis male':rolleyes::rolleyes:

Surely you’re capable of being reasonable? I don’t use the term myself, but I can understand why the people who do use it, use it in reference to the distinction between cisgender and transgender as those terms relate to gender - they’re opposites of each other.

It’s somewhat similar to the way in which you were arguing earlier about male sex offenders among the female population in prisons. It’s the fact that they’re sex offenders is the characteristic that presents a risk, not the fact that they are male, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of staff in women’s prisons are men, or the fact that women in women’s prisons are a far more significant risk than the tiny number of male sex offenders in women’s prisons.

Basically your whole idea of objecting to male inmates in women’s prisons and the idea that it means women are less safe, or are at any greater risk to their safety than they are already, is predicated upon a whole slew of unreasonable and unrealistic assumptions.

Historically, prisons were never meant to accommodate women in the first place as women were regarded as the property of men, and male relatives were held responsible as women could not commit criminal acts, and if you really need to see an example of history repeating itself, you’re likely aware of the recent recommendations by the House of Lords in the UK to remove ‘person’ from the proposed legislation under review, and replace it with the word ‘women’. It’s an exact reversal of the recommendations by one John Stuart Mill in arguing at the time that women should not be excluded from the electorate -


At the time, the Commons was considering the Second Reform Act, which eventually roughly doubled the size of the electorate in England and Wales by loosening the property qualifications Brits had to meet in order to vote. The legislation only applied to the Queen’s male subjects, however, so Mill devised a clever ploy: He proposed to amend the Act by replacing instances of the word “man” with “person,” a change that would have included (some) women in the mass of newly eligible voters. Though he later described as “perhaps the only really important public service I performed in the capacity as a Member of Parliament,” Mill’s amendment was defeated when put to a vote.

He had never expected it to succeed, however. Rather, Mill used the amendment as a pretext to debate the larger question of why women were not allowed to vote. He began his speech by refuting some obvious potential objections to his proposal, calling it an “extension of the suffrage which can excite no party or class feeling in this House” and “which cannot afflict the most timid alarmist with revolutionary terrors, or offend the most jealous democrat as an infringement of popular rights, or a privilege granted to one class of society at the expense of another.”

Having set these issues aside, Mill got to the heart of the matter, saying, “There is nothing to distract our attention from the simple question, whether there is any adequate justification for continuing to exclude an entire half of the community, not only from admission, but from the capability of being ever admitted within the pale of the Constitution.”

Women’s exclusion from the voter rolls, he argued, was an outrage against the idea of the British constitution’s universal applicability. It was predicated only on the basis of women’s sex, an immutable factor beyond anyone’s control, and had no equivalent in British law or common sense.


John Stuart Mill Speech: On the Admission of Women to the Electoral Franchise


(I’ve no doubt you can see the parallels between the arguments then, and the arguments now for the same purposes - to either include, or continue to exclude, a section of society)

Instead of arguing about the safety of women In facilities which were originally built by men with men in mind, I would be more concerned with arguing against the continuing incarceration of women in the first place, for a couple of different reasons completely unrelated to the idea that when they are suffering from distress and they’re experiencing alopecia, they might ask the nurse for a bandana to alleviate their distress in the hope that it might deter them from being bullied by the other female inmates, and instead of a bandana, the nurse brings them a banana as though she misheard and thought by any reasonable measure a banana would be of any use in those circumstances. It wasn’t, obviously -


Drink-drive student, 21, who killed herself in jail 'after being forced to parade naked in front of guards' was 'given a BANANA instead of bandana to cover up stress-related hair loss'


Yet here are an incredibly unlikely set of circumstances being used to argue against something which is completely unrelated, as though such arguments should be taken seriously or are in any way reasonable. If one wishes to argue for the welfare of women in prisons, that’s one thing, but trying to argue that people who are transgender should be denied recognition of their gender and continue to be discriminated against in law because the alternative is that they present as an inevitable threat to the safety of women in prisons? That’s just daft, and as an argument against people’s right to their gender identity, it’s completely irrelevant. One has absolutely no bearing on the other.

It’s completely disingenuous to suggest that one form of discrimination has no bearing on another form of discrimination, but one form of discrimination must prevail in order to protect the welfare of one group over another. It’s still discrimination, and in many circumstances it would be regarded as unlawful unless it were imposed as a means of achieving a legitimate aim. The original argument for incarcerating women in prison wasn’t because they fought for it or demanded a separate space as part of any women’s rights movement. It was to protect women from themselves, because it wouldn’t do to have loose women out and about in what was regarded as civilised society, and the idea of separating women from men in prisons was simply because it was thought they would be having sex if they weren’t separated, and the authorities didn’t fancy the cost of maintaining any children who had been borne of such unions. Not entirely all that different from the way women in prison in the UK are still treated today -


Mothers In Prison; Centre for Women’s Justice


I don’t have to do a round the world trip of how women are treated in other jurisdictions in other countries to use as examples to deny another group in Irish society equal rights. There are plenty of examples on our own doorstep, examples that aren’t nearly so disingenuous or detached from reality as some of the examples given in this thread.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Natal born females do not have the advantages in strength over each other that natal males have over natal female. This is an evolutionary fact established over 100s of 1000s of years of human existence. Men are stronger than women. It is amoral to put a less protected sex in a confined inescapable space with a stronger sex and say well if more violence happens than is usual that is simply more violence.

The evolutionary differences in physical reality are one of the very important fundamental reasons why female prisons have been separate to male prisons in the first place. It is one of the fundamental reasons why campaigns for safe single sex toilet facilities are ongoing in the developing world.

Criminological studies also show that trans women continue to offend along natal male patterns. In order to facilitate transgender ideology it is amoral to insist that the female estate (only the female, not the male estate note) become a mixed sex estate just to show we are kind.

You keep jumping between philosophical amorality and just calling me amoral. Bit of a sneaky trick.

The strength thing is a misdirection. Most people are too shocked to fight back when they are assaulted. I've frozen during a mugging and my 6ft1 muscular friend froze during a sexual assault.

I find the shifting of goalposts to strength differentials to be amoral. Sexual violence campaigners have long been fighting against rape victims being asked "why didn't you fight back" etc.

Now you want to take it back to "oh well women only get raped by someone stronger than them" just so you can achieve your goals against trans people. Amoral indeed.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Surely you’re capable of being reasonable? I don’t use the term myself, but I can understand why the people who do use it, use it in reference to the distinction between cisgender and transgender as those terms relate to gender - they’re opposites of each other.

Male and female never relate to gender. They are words that explicitly relate to sex.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Have you started a thread on this ? A campaign? Will I be waiting a long time?

No but I haven't campaigned that a group of people should be treated differently by pretending this was an issue for me.

If I did I would be being disingenuous.

But since I havent..... I'm not.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

You keep jumping between philosophical amorality and just calling me amoral. Bit of a sneaky trick.

The strength thing is a misdirection. Most people are too shocked to fight back when they are assaulted. I've frozen during a mugging and my 6ft1 muscular friend froze during a sexual assault.

I find the shifting of goalposts to strength differentials to be amoral. Sexual violence campaigners have long been fighting against rape victims being asked "why didn't you fight back" etc.

Now you want to take it back to "oh well women only get raped by someone stronger than them" just so you can achieve your goals against trans people. Amoral indeed.

To use philosophically amoral arguments is amoral; hope that clears that up for you.

My well built 6 foot 2 husband is vastly more equipped than I am at 5 foot 4 to fight off assailants and has done so. To claim otherwise is ludicrous. Hope that clears that up for you.

While I am pleased to have gifted you a new word for your vocabulary, I reject completely your nasty insinuation that I am attempting to undermine rape victims or rape campaigns in any way, or that I have suggested women only experience a valid rape if they are raped by someone stronger than them. Hope that clears that up for you.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Male and female never relate to gender. They are words that explicitly relate to sex.

Not to go all tables of exemplars on you with your physics degree, but the male/female terminology is common in fields such as electricity, engineering and plumbing, feckall to do with sex, unless your electrician is particularly kinky...

But your initial eye rolling was with the term ‘cis male’, and because you value objectivity over subjectivity, I can’t see any reason why you would have a problem with the idea of the distinction being made between males on the basis of their either being cisgender, or transgender.

I don’t like the term cisgender, would never apply it to myself, but in that paradigm which I don’t subscribe to, I can understand why I would be referred to as cisgender, as opposed to transgender.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

To use philosophically amoral arguments is amoral; hope that clears that up for you.

My well built 6 foot 2 husband is vastly more equipped than I am at 5 foot 4 to fight off assailants and has done so. To claim otherwise is ludicrous. Hope that clears that up for you.

While I am pleased to have gifted you a new word for your vocabulary, I reject completely your nasty insinuation that I am attempting to undermine rape victims or rape campaigns in any way, or that I have suggested women only experience a valid rape if they are raped by someone stronger than them. Hope that clears that up for you.

That is the natural consequence of your argument whether you intend to undermine rape victims or not. I'm just glad you are not a defense barrister. "milord, the alleged victim is tall and strong. She is vastly.more equipped to fight off an attacker than a smaller woman. Why did she not do so".

And since you have used amoral arguments about the assaults perpetuated by cis women in prisons I assume you have no issue being called amoral.

I'm glad you cleared that up Gruffalux.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not to go all tables of exemplars on you with your physics degree, but the male/female terminology is common in fields such as electricity, engineering and plumbing, feckall to do with sex, unless your electrician is particularly kinky...

But your initial eye rolling was with the term ‘cis male’, and because you value objectivity over subjectivity, I can’t see any reason why you would have a problem with the idea of the distinction being made between males on the basis of their either being cisgender, or transgender.

I don’t like the term cisgender, would never apply it to myself, but in that paradigm which I don’t subscribe to, I can understand why I would be referred to as cisgender, as opposed to transgender.

Don't be jealous of my physics degree Jack, we can't all be as smart as me:p This whole discussion is framed around talking about humans, as such my point stands in the context of the discussion.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Don't be jealous of my physics degree Jack, we can't all be as smart as me:p This whole discussion is framed around talking about humans, as such my point stands in the context of the discussion.

What point were you making exactly? I thought your point was that you were dismissive of the term “cis male”, and even if that were your point, it’s still within the same paradigm as it relates to human sexuality - “cis” or “cissexual” is just the opposite of “trans” or transsexual, still the commonly used medical term for people whose gender identity does not correlate with their sex - they’re still either male or female, cisgender/cissexual or transgender/transsexual.

Cis or trans just wouldn’t be commonly used outside of that particular paradigm, but they’re just terms used to distinguish between two different concepts within that paradigm is all.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What point were you making exactly? I thought your point was that you were dismissive of the term “cis male”, and even if that were your point, it’s still within the same paradigm as it relates to human sexuality - “cis” or “cissexual” is just the opposite of “trans” or transsexual, still the commonly used medical term for people whose gender identity does not correlate with their sex - they’re still either male or female, cisgender/cissexual or transgender/transsexual.

Cis or trans just wouldn’t be commonly used outside of that particular paradigm, but they’re just terms used to distinguish between two different concepts within that paradigm is all.

Male and female will do. They are well defined already.

Unless you are one of the seemingly many people here who thing that gender and sex are the same thing.

Natterjack from Kerry

Deleted User wrote: »

Male and female will do. They are well defined already.

Unless you are one of the seemingly many people here who thing that gender and sex are the same thing.

Most people do. They are synonymous in general wide usage.

Natterjack from Kerry

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Most people do. They are synonymous in general wide usage.

If that's the case, I'd like people who do think that, to tell me how many sexes there are.

I've asked a few times.

Natterjack from Kerry

Deleted User wrote: »

If that's the case, I'd like people who do think that, to tell me how many sexes there are.

I've asked a few times.

Two.

Natterjack from Kerry

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Two.

But if gender and sex are the same, how can gender be a spectrum or non binary?

Are pansexuals wrong but transfolk aren't? I mean, the whole point of transGENDER ism is that they feel like the other sex.


But GENDER and sex are the same so the trans woman couldn't feel the need to transition because being a man or a woman is no different. Because your sex is interchangeable.
But biologically they are different, biut they are a woman because law... And law needs to be respected.... Unless I disagree with the law.... As anyone that went through bad treatment feel the same and should be grouped together... Unless it makes my argument look weak.

It's almost as if it's all this stuff is predicated on bull****.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Male and female will do. They are well defined already.

Unless you are one of the seemingly many people here who thing that gender and sex are the same thing.

Certainly they will do if those are the relevant terms, and as well defined as they are already, we would still need to use trans/cis to distinguish between people who are transgender and people who are cisgender. I don’t think gender and sex are the same thing either, but I understand that most people in my experience at least tend to use the two different concepts interchangeably to refer to the same thing. I’ll still understand what someone means regardless of whatever terminology they’re using, that understanding is based upon the context in which the words are used, and not the individual words themselves.

It’s why I detest the sort of language policing going on in this thread which really isn’t representative of most people’s reality. Thankfully for society at large the language police are a tiny minority who inhabit the virtual world with no real power to compel people to adjust their use of language or police how people communicate or express themselves differently.

Natterjack from Kerry

Deleted User wrote: »

But if gender and sex are the same, how can gender be a spectrum or non binary?

The question is flawed. Gender is not a spectrum, nor non binary, as the question presumes. With that presumtion, the answer becomes clear, or trivial.

ingalway

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

The question is flawed. Gender is not a spectrum, nor non binary, as the question presumes. With that presumtion, the answer becomes clear, or trivial.

Is that a quote from Judith Butler?

Natterjack from Kerry

ingalway wrote: »

Is that a quote from Judith Butler?

If so, by coincicidence

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

Male and female will do. They are well defined already.

Unless you are one of the seemingly many people here who thing that gender and sex are the same thing.

Aye, tis always funny when you see people claim (not necessarily on this thread but sometimes) that “nobody has ever conflated sex and gender!”. It happens all the frickin’ time. It’s why you get people saying “But but intersex people!”. Yes, what about intersex people? They can’t change their genetic make up either and get often ignorantly classed as a mysterious third sex so that people can... I don’t know... show that biological sex is fluid. Even though it isn’t. Whatever genetic make up you’re born with, you die with. That’s the reality as of today. Maybe that won’t always be the case but for now it is. We need to work off definites, not some woolly future maybe that’s greatly unlikely for a long, long time, if ever.

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

They are not treated as women under Irish law unless they have a GRC. Are you only learning this now?

Hmm, it appears that you didn't actually answer the questions in my post, how novel.

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

For both gay people and trans people, whether they are believed or not makes no difference as to their internal identity. Because being gay and trans are both "internal". The idea that just because some people don't believe that trans women are women that make it an "external" thing and not an "internal" one. It's so silly.

Today is the same as yesterday. Trans people do not have to declare it to be trans. Neither do gay. However.nobody will know unless they do. Does.this really have to spelled out? It's alarming that it does.

Fantastic, so then why am I forced to use what I believe are the incorrect pronouns towards trans people if it's internal? I'm not forced to treat gay people differently than straight people, why are trans people special?