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

LLMMLL

Of course it turns out the Bliss Female did not read any of the original material in her quest to portray trans people as fetishists. Grace Lavery's quote had nothing to do with sex. It was in response to a group of male professors ignoring her. It reads to me more as satire on how women are treated in academia than a statement of belief on what being a woman should be.

And whether you approve or not, we were certainly misled on it's evidence of trans women's fetishism. Nothing to do with sex or "brutalization" at all.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Did she want them to be used in an argument on trans rights?

Let's just clear this up shall we?

Do you believe these quotes are representative of trans people as a whole?

I have always described it as an aspect of the issue/debate. It is an integral part of a large subject. To deny it is so is a lie and foolish also, as people will see plainly it exists if they look in any way closely at the subject matter.
I do not think it is part of the lives of most trans people, most people are really not that outre or exciting, but if these examples are the people with the strongest voices, with access to broad platforms, cheered on by the media, feted prominently such as the author short listed for a major prize or Andrea Chu, and they publish such heinous views, that is not good for anyone. Woman or trans woman.

And yes the trans woman in question does not agree with your point of view on the debate generally. As many do not, the more I read on the subject. I am not the monster you like to portray.

LLMMLL

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

When a poster makes the above comments that Gentlemanne did, it’s relevant to show that on this very board, over a decade ago, there was no support, even from trans people, for a proposal that the LGB forum would be changed to include the T. Most posters in the thread were vehemently against it.

The wiki article from the time showed that not associating the T with LGB was definitely not isolated to Boards.

So if I was to say most people in Ireland support gay marriage would you propose we use a survey from 2007? Why would we need to go back that far I wonder.....

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

I have always described it as an aspect of the issue/debate. It is an integral part of a large subject. To deny it is so is a lie and foolish also, as people will see plainly it exists if they look in any way closely at the subject matter.
I do not think it is part of the lives of most trans people, most people are really not that outre or exciting, but if these examples are the people with the strongest voices, with access to broad platforms, cheered on by the media, feted prominently such as the author short listed for a major prize or Andrea Chu, and they publish such heinous views, that is not good for anyone. Woman or trans woman.

And yes the trans woman in question does not agree with your point of view on the debate generally. As many do not, the more I read on the subject. I am not the monster you like to portray.

I'm glad you agree that those examples are irrelevant to the lives of most trans women.

As for whether it's relevant in a debate, what would you think if I went to a thread about feminism and started quoting S and M literature about sexually submissive women written by cis women. Would you be like "oh an interesting aspect of the debate"?

Cestmoi 111

LLMMLL wrote: »

So if I was to say most people in Ireland support gay marriage would you propose we use a survey from 2007? Why would we need to go back that far I wonder.....

The posts I was responding to claimed that the T with the LGB had been a harmonious marriage for decades- hence the timeframe of the quoted threads was relevant. You can try hard as you like to paint it as irrelevant, but it is very clearly very relevant wrt the claims made.

You’re like a dog with a bone with Gruffalux and me. Such uppity women.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

So it's a yes that for any trans child with a public presence, you will assume that they are going to go on puberty blockers and discuss the possible effects on their genitalia?

I will be delighted for them if they are not going on puberty blockers. Truly. To express how they wish in a healthy body would be brilliant.

And if any child goes on puberty blockers it has a direct effect on their genitalia. I cannot deny this fact. It is the most salient effect.

And to be compelled not discuss the central facts of any issue is to be a person who chooses to be silent and therefore to enable, or to be one who is conveniently silenced.

Cestmoi 111

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm glad you agree that those examples are irrelevant to the lives of most trans women.

As for whether it's relevant in a debate, what would you think if I went to a thread about feminism and started quoting S and M literature about sexually submissive women written by cis women. Would you be like "oh an interesting aspect of the debate"?

That does sound relevant to me and worthy of including in a thread on feminism.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

I will be delighted for them if they are not going on puberty blockers. Truly. To express how they wish in a healthy body would be brilliant.

And if any child goes on puberty blockers it has a direct effect on their genitalia. I cannot deny this fact. It is the most salient effect.

And to be compelled not discuss the central facts of any issue is to be a person who chooses to be silent and therefore to enable, or to be one who is conveniently silenced.

So again you are saying that any trans child who has a public presence will have their medical history assumed and the effects of the assumed treatment on their genitals discussed?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm glad you agree that those examples are irrelevant to the lives of most trans women.

As for whether it's relevant in a debate, what would you think if I went to a thread about feminism and started quoting S and M literature about sexually submissive women written by cis women. Would you be like "oh an interesting aspect of the debate"?

This is not S&M. It is statements about femaleness and the state of femininity generally.

LLMMLL

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

That does sound relevant to me and worthy of including in a thread on feminism.

Mmmhmm go over to the Ladies Lounge and try it.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

This is not S&M. It is statements about femaleness and the state of femininity generally.

I encourage you to go read Grace Lavery's actual essay. It's clearly satire.

Natterjack from Kerry

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

When a poster makes the above comments that Gentlemanne did, it’s relevant to show that on this very board, over a decade ago, there was no support, even from trans people, for a proposal that the LGB forum would be changed to include the T. Most posters in the thread were vehemently against it.

The wiki article from the time showed that not associating the T with LGB was definitely not isolated to Boards.

T would not seem to have any obvious link to the LGB grouping by its charateristics though, other than as a generalised agglomeration of minorities. While we have become used to it, when I see it separated like that, it does seem like an odd addendum.

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

Chromosomes.

More good progress. So biologically they are different.
So now we move onto you explaining how biology is not related to gender?

LLMMLL wrote: »

What are you talking about now? I said IF to highlight a hypothetical example of you calling cis men "she". The hypothetical exams has no impact as to whether biology is relevant or irrelevant.

"now" I am on about how the importance of biology seems to come and go as important in your arguments. If biology doesnt matter when it comes to gender (see your first point above) they why did you use the example of someone using biology to determine gender?
It's very confusing when you are not consistent in your beliefs and arguments.

LLMMLL

I've now also found the context of the Julia Serano quote which in her actual work and not the selective quoting that Bliss Femake gave us, she portrays her teen fantasy as shameful and rooted in self hatred and her Catholic upbringing.

She is unequivocally NOT portraying it as positive or how women should be viewed.

Have you read ANY of these works beyond an out of context quote Bliss Female?

You do know it's considered very dodgy to selectively quote someone, don't you?

Cestmoi 111

LLMMLL wrote: »

Mmmhmm go over to the Ladies Lounge and try it.

No way. Boards moves way too fast for me, I couldn’t cope with being involved in another thread!

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ah if only it were a debate about toilets. What actually happens is that anti-trans posters go out of their way to find individuals who repel most people and try to claim them as representative of the trans community..

Right, and the posting links to murdering bastards is what? Taking a balanced sample from those who disagree about trans?

Cestmoi 111

Can I just say I’m loving how LLMMLL is referring to Gruffalux as Bliss Female:pac: Maybe we should all identify as another name and test this newfound respect to the limit:cool::D

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

No people dehumanise them all the time. Trying to portray them as fetishists is dehumanising.

Has anyone of the posters engaged in this thread dehumanised any trans person?

Oh and to help you out, neither this

LLMMLL wrote: »

Responding to a story of a 13 year old trans girl having a nice conversation with Michelle Obama with stories about her vagina drying up is dehumanising.

nor this

LLMMLL wrote: »

Claiming that a dating app is "unusable" because it has a TINY number of trans people on it is dehumanising.

are dehumanising in any way.

LLMMLL

GreeBo wrote: »

More good progress. So biologically they are different.
So now we move onto you explaining how biology is not related to gender?


"now" I am on about how the importance of biology seems to come and go as important in your arguments. If biology doesnt matter when it comes to gender (see your first point above) they why did you use the example of someone using biology to determine gender?
It's very confusing when you are not consistent in your beliefs and arguments.

I've never said biology is not related to gender. For most people it is. Most people born with a certain set of chromosomes will have the same gender identity as the majority of people who have those chromosomes.

For others they do not. So certain aspects of biology cannot be used to identify who is a woman and who is a man.

Your second point makes no sense. You obviously believe that biology determines gender identity. So I'ma. Hypothetical scenario of course YOU (as an individual) would most likely use biology to determine what YOU (as an individual) believe someone's gender identity to be.

In both reality and they hypothetical scenario I would disagree with your beliefs. So no contradiction. Sorry to disappoint.

LLMMLL

GreeBo wrote: »

Has anyone of the posters engaged in this thread dehumanised any trans person?

Oh and to help you out, neither this

nor this

are dehumanising in any way.

They are. But some people are so comfortable with dehumanising others that they can't see it.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

I encourage you to go read Grace Lavery's actual essay. It's clearly satire.

The essay where Grace says ''Did I mention that I look incredible here in France? I have been dressing like the mignonne bitch of my autogynephilic dreams.'' ?

LLMMLL

GreeBo wrote: »

Right, and the posting links to murdering bastards is what? Taking a balanced sample from those who disagree about trans?

Ah so you do find it objectionable when a whole group is associated with their worst members. Good to know.

Gruffalux

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

Can I just say I’m loving how LLMMLL is referring to Gruffalux as Bliss Female:pac: Maybe we should all identify as another name and test this newfound respect to the limit:cool::D

''Bliss'' female is so much nicer than the repulsive word ''Cis'' female I think we should all claim it.

LLMMLL

Bliss Female wrote: »

The essay where Grace says ''Did I mention that I look incredible here in France? I have been dressing like the mignonne bitch of my autogynephilic dreams.'' ?

Yes that one.

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've never said biology is not related to gender. For most people it is. Most people born with a certain set of chromosomes will have the same gender identity as the majority of people who have those chromosomes.
For others they do not. So certain aspects of biology cannot be used to identify who is a woman and who is a man.

Either it is or it isnt, you dont get to choose facts, thats one of the fundamental things about them.
So, for once and for all, can you *please* explain to us what gender is based on, not sometimes, not on Tuesdays between 4 ane 5, actually whats its based on?

LLMMLL wrote: »

Your second point makes no sense. You obviously believe that biology determines gender identity. So I'ma. Hypothetical scenario of course YOU (as an individual) would most likely use biology to determine what YOU (as an individual) believe someone's gender identity to be.

Any thoughts at all on why I might think that?

LLMMLL wrote: »

They are. But some people are so comfortable with dehumanising others that they can't see it.

Ah ha, you've got me there alright, classic Punch & Judy argument.
Do watch out for the transphobe, I'm reliably informed that "he's behind you!"

GreeBo

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes that one.

It would a welcome change to actually have a discussion with someone who can coherently argue their point about why I should accept that a trans-X is actually an X, unfortunately that does not appear to be you, based on content like the above post, and your absolutely all over the place replies.

I will no longer be replying to you, so I'd suggest you dont bother replying to me.

LLMMLL

GreeBo wrote: »

Either it is or it isnt, you dont get to choose facts, thats one of the fundamental things about them.

Neither do you get to choose that either it is or it isn't. Why do you think you can decide these facts but criticise others.

So, for once and for all, can you *please* explain to us what gender is based on, not sometimes, not on Tuesdays between 4 ane 5, actually whats its based on?

Internal self identication.

Any thoughts at all on why I might think that?

I have many thoughts on that.

LLMMLL

GreeBo wrote: »

It would a welcome change to actually have a discussion with someone who can coherently argue their point about why I should accept that a trans-X is actually an X, unfortunately that does not appear to be you, based on content like the above post, and your absolutely all over the place replies.

I will no longer be replying to you, so I'd suggest you dont bother replying to me.

I will continue to reply to you but I'm absolutely fine with you not engaging.

LLMMLL

More on Bliss Female's "rogues gallery" of trans writers transgressions.

Here is a quote from Jacob Tobia that gives more context as to what they mean by objectification. It's pretty tame.

Natterjack from Kerry

LLMMLL wrote: »

Internal self identication.

That is a repurposing of the term gender, and being based on internal self identification, is valid only for the internal self. It does not change the internal identification of those external to the self.