Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)
Options
Comments
-
[Deleted User] wrote: »Me saying you are wrong doesn't make you wrong.
The fact that you are wrong makes you wrong.
Coincidentally the fact that you are wrong makes you wrong.
See how this works?0 -
Coincidentally the fact that you are wrong makes you wrong.
See how this works?
I do. I often have to explain it to my child when I correct her homework. Just because she thinks the answer to 48÷4 could be 11, doesn't make it so.
In much the same way you think a male can be a female, not only doesn't make it so, but there is no excusing your ignorance.
You've said that there are two genders, two sexes, they are interlinked yet you are open that there could be an infinite amount.
My daughter's explanation of 48÷4 being 11 is more realistic and closer to the truth.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »I do. I often have to explain it to my child when I correct her homework. Just because she thinks the answer to 48÷4 could be 11, doesn't make it so.
In much the same way you think a male can be a female, not only doesn't make it so, but there is no excusing your ignorance.
You've said that there are two genders, two sexes, they are interlinked yet you are open that there could be an infinite amount.
My daughter's explanation of 48÷4 being 11 is more realistic and closer to the truth.
Oh well my son was doing his homework and he thought 8+5 was 29 but I corrected him so therefore you are wrong about biology.
See how this works?0 -
Oh well my son was doing his homework and he thought 8+5 was 29 but I corrected him so therefore you are wrong about biology.
See how this works?
Do you help him in his biology homework since homeschooling? I sincerely hope not.
Again you are missing the point (on purpose).
Facts are facts.
Males (men) are different to females (women).
48÷4 is 12. Even if you wanted it to be 11 and believed in your heart it was 11, you would be wrong. It's not open for interpretation.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Do you help him in his biology homework since homeschooling? I sincerely hope not.
Again you are missing the point (on purpose).
Facts are facts.
Males (men) are different to females (women).
48÷4 is 12. Even if you wanted it to be 11 and believed in your heart it was 11, you would be wrong. It's not open for interpretation.
Of course science is open to interpretation. You must have little science education if you think that0 -
Advertisement
-
Of course science is open to interpretation. You must have little science education if you think that
Oh for **** sake.... That's not what I said and you know it wasn't.
The biological difference between a man and a woman is not open to interpretation.
Male and female
Man and woman
Different ****ing things.
A man thinking he should be a woman and a woman thinking they should be a man doesn't make it so.
No interpretation of science would back up that claim0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Oh for **** sake.... That's not what I said and you know it wasn't.
The biological difference between a man and a woman is not open to interpretation.
Male and female
Man and woman
Different ****ing things.
A man thinking he should be a woman and a woman thinking they should be a man doesn't make it so.
No interpretation of science would back up that claim
More correctly, the biological difference between individuals with XX chromosomes and individuals with XY chromosomes is not open to interpretation.
If those individuals fall under your personal conception of man and woman then you can interpret your statement about men and women to be true.
However, my conception of man includes trans men, and my conception of woman includes trans women. And many share my view. So for me and many others your interpretation of the facts is false.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »But the fact you think that male and female is a matter of "some" rather than a matter of biology just means you are wrong.
Biology is fundamentally based upon the idea of “some” as opposed to the idea of it being as absolute as basic arithmetic. Biology is based on the idea of classification, and at one point in our rather murky history, biology was used to argue that women were both physically and intellectually inferior to men, which perpetuated the prevailing wisdom in society at the time, of women being regarded as subservient to men and subjugated by men. Had it not been for people who were unwilling to accept what made absolutely no sense to them whatsoever, women would still be regarded as physically and intellectually inferior to men, as demonstrated by biology which would have remained static because no more understanding were necessary, just accept the prevailing social and cultural beliefs as fact.
The problems, and there were many, with these ‘facts’, is that they simply weren’t true, and there was plenty of evidence in biology to demonstrate that these concepts of male superiority and female inferiority which it was claimed were based upon biology, were simply opinions which upheld the status quo in society as it was at the time. Biology wasn’t actually needed nor used to support their arguments, they could have just done as you’ve done and dismissed the opinions of anyone who questioned their authority as wrong, based upon the idea that they were intellectually superior to anyone who opposed them, of course. They were literally and figuratively stacking the deck in their favour so that their ideas would become the prevailing wisdom, and would go unchallenged in perpetuity.
Fortunately for everyone in society, people didn’t stop questioning, inquiring, hypothesising and investigating evidence of phenomena which didn’t fit with the prevailing wisdom at the time, and so we’ve come to a point in society where it actually can be argued, based upon actual scientific evidence and research and developments in medicine and technology and so on, that what was once regarded as the sex binary in biology, isn’t nearly as clear cut or as useful or ideal a classification system as it was once thought to be -
The Gender Spectrum: A Scientist Explains Why Gender Isn’t Binary
It’s still widely regarded as useful of course on a macro-level in biology and society, you’re not going to get too many people splitting hairs (or indeed splitting cells for that matter) over differences which exist at the micro-level. I certainly don’t carry a microscope in my arse pocket to determine how I should treat anyone based upon their genetic profile, that sort of behaviour is the stuff of science fiction, not reality. Various attempts have been made to classify people according to their genetic lineage and hereditary characteristics of course, but it’s never worked out very well for humanity as a whole. It’s the basis of eugenics, and this idea of “gender critical beliefs” is nothing more than a tired rehashing of the same old shìte that’s had to be demonstrated time and time again throughout history as an unjustifiable attempt at promoting the superiority of one group of humans above all other groups. It’s not based upon biology, it’s simply based upon politics, and the ideas of a small group of people determining what they think is best for all of society.
Their ideas are not facts, their opinions are not facts, and using the same tired old rhetoric of leaning on prejudices of women being regarded as inferior and weak and vulnerable to being preyed upon by men with their male violence and all the rest of it - those ideas aren’t based upon biology! Unless a man physically removed their penis and threw it at a woman, there is no way a woman could be injured by a penis solely by virtue of the fact that adult human males are born with a penis; it’s simply a limitation of human biology, and yet this is the line of argument that is used to argue that people who are transgender should continue to be discriminated against in law because being in possession of a penis is somehow invariably a threat to the female of the species. That’s precisely what people mean when they say that such arguments are dehumanising, that’s exactly what they are - stripping people of their dignity and their humanity and reducing them to the sum of their body parts or characteristics, as objects, unworthy of being recognised and acknowledged as equals. It’s precisely why the concept of protected characteristics exists in law, with the aim of preventing that sort of prejudiced belief based discrimination from being regarded as worthy of any legitimate consideration in a democratic society.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Biology is fundamentally based upon the idea of “some” as opposed to the idea of it being as absolute as basic arithmetic. Biology is based on the idea of classification, and at one point in our rather murky history, biology was used to argue that women were both physically and intellectually inferior to men, which perpetuated the prevailing wisdom in society at the time, of women being regarded as subservient to men and subjugated by men. Had it not been for people who were unwilling to accept what made absolutely no sense to them whatsoever, women would still be regarded as physically and intellectually inferior to men, as demonstrated by biology which would have remained static because no more understanding were necessary, just accept the prevailing social and cultural beliefs as fact.
The problems, and there were many, with these ‘facts’, is that they simply weren’t true, and there was plenty of evidence in biology to demonstrate that these concepts of male superiority and female inferiority which it was claimed were based upon biology, were simply opinions which upheld the status quo in society as it was at the time. Biology wasn’t actually needed nor used to support their arguments, they could have just done as you’ve done and dismissed the opinions of anyone who questioned their authority as wrong, based upon the idea that they were intellectually superior to anyone who opposed them, of course. They were literally and figuratively stacking the deck in their favour so that their ideas would become the prevailing wisdom, and would go unchallenged in perpetuity.
Fortunately for everyone in society, people didn’t stop questioning, inquiring, hypothesising and investigating evidence of phenomena which didn’t fit with the prevailing wisdom at the time, and so we’ve come to a point in society where it actually can be argued, based upon actual scientific evidence and research and developments in medicine and technology and so on, that what was once regarded as the sex binary in biology, isn’t nearly as clear cut or as useful or ideal a classification system as it was once thought to be -
The Gender Spectrum: A Scientist Explains Why Gender Isn’t Binary
It’s still widely regarded as useful of course on a macro-level in biology and society, you’re not going to get too many people splitting hairs (or indeed splitting cells for that matter) over differences which exist at the micro-level. I certainly don’t carry a microscope in my arse pocket to determine how I should treat anyone based upon their genetic profile, that sort of behaviour is the stuff of science fiction, not reality. Various attempts have been made to classify people according to their genetic lineage and hereditary characteristics of course, but it’s never worked out very well for humanity as a whole. It’s the basis of eugenics, and this idea of “gender critical beliefs” is nothing more than a tired rehashing of the same old shìte that’s had to be demonstrated time and time again throughout history as an unjustifiable attempt at promoting the superiority of one group of humans above all other groups. It’s not based upon biology, it’s simply based upon politics, and the ideas of a small group of people determining what they think is best for all of society.
Their ideas are not facts, their opinions are not facts, and using the same tired old rhetoric of leaning on prejudices of women being regarded as inferior and weak and vulnerable to being preyed upon by men with their male violence and all the rest of it - those ideas aren’t based upon biology! Unless a man physically removed their penis and threw it at a woman, there is no way a woman could be injured by a penis solely by virtue of the fact that adult human males are born with a penis; it’s simply a limitation of human biology, and yet this is the line of argument that is used to argue that people who are transgender should continue to be discriminated against in law because being in possession of a penis is somehow invariably a threat to the female of the species. That’s precisely what people mean when they say that such arguments are dehumanising, that’s exactly what they are - stripping people of their dignity and their humanity and reducing them to the sum of their body parts or characteristics, as objects, unworthy of being recognised and acknowledged as equals. It’s precisely why the concept of protected characteristics exists in law, with the aim of preventing that sort of prejudiced belief based discrimination from being regarded as worthy of any legitimate consideration in a democratic society.
There was an interesting debate on Radio one yesterday about what it means to be a women in society today, what women do to protect themselves when out walking - carry car keys in their hands, getting a taxi - making fake phonecalls saying they are on the way home and will be ten mins, - walking in groups home from town avoiding being alone at night particularly if they are dressed up. It led to a conversation with women i know and I never realised how cautious they are or how threatened they feel by a minority of men, the presenter acknowledged its a very small minority of men who have caused such a cautious and different approach from women, there were victims of male violence on the radio speaking about their experience. The presenter was saying us men need to do better how can we make the world a safer place for the women in our lives - it wasn't condescending or Sexist it was a moving appeal based on the lived experiences of many women.
Those experiences are based on biology men are stronger than women more prone to violence and more motivated by sexual violence. I walked my sister home from work for 2 years when I was younger not because I believed all men were sexual predators but because I acknowledged she was more vulnerable than me and I wanted her to be safe. She is very much a feminist and a self made women but not once did she say no theres no need to walk me home.
Its not about women being subservient to men its not about biological inferiority and its not about all men being violent, it is about protecting women by acknowledging their vulnerability and putting in place laws that protect 50% of the population which is far more vulnerable to violnece or sexual violence.
Being in possession of a penis statistically means you are far more likely to be the cause of that violence. Women are attacked by men. Biology has everything to do with it - having a penis means you are more likely to commit violent crimes against women, statistically, its a very small minority of men.
Our laws have changed and given more access to female only spaces,and just as the minority of men are capable of violence so to the minority of trans women are or people purporting to be trans women. It increases the risk of harm.
You are right though it is about politics and ideology just look at how a small group of people who think they know whats best for society have lobbied and changed the law which will have consequences for 50% of the population. There are women who because of those changes in the law will and have suffered and its precisely because the adult male had a penis and no they didn't pluck it off and throw it at the women but putting a dress on over it didn't make it dissappear either.0 -
briangriffin wrote: »There was an interesting debate on Radio one yesterday about what it means to be a women in society today, what women do to protect themselves when out walking - carry car keys in their hands, getting a taxi - making fake phonecalls saying they are on the way home and will be ten mins, - walking in groups home from town avoiding being alone at night particularly if they are dressed up. It led to a conversation with women i know and I never realised how cautious they are or how threatened they feel by a minority of men, the presenter acknowledged its a very small minority of men who have caused such a cautious and different approach from women, there were victims of male violence on the radio speaking about their experience. The presenter was saying us men need to do better how can we make the world a safer place for the women in our lives - it wasn't condescending or Sexist it was a moving appeal based on the lived experiences of many women.
Those experiences are based on biology men are stronger than women more prone to violence and more motivated by sexual violence. I walked my sister home from work for 2 years when I was younger not because I believed all men were sexual predators but because I acknowledged she was more vulnerable than me and I wanted her to be safe. She is very much a feminist and a self made women but not once did she say no theres no need to walk me home.
Its not about women being subservient to men its not about biological inferiority and its not about all men being violent, it is about protecting women by acknowledging their vulnerability and putting in place laws that protect 50% of the population which is far more vulnerable to violnece or sexual violence.
Being in possession of a penis statistically means you are far more likely to be the cause of that violence. Women are attacked by men. Biology has everything to do with it - having a penis means you are more likely to commit violent crimes against women, statistically, its a very small minority of men.
Our laws have changed and given more access to female only spaces,and just as the minority of men are capable of violence so to the minority of trans women are or people purporting to be trans women. It increases the risk of harm.
You are right though it is about politics and ideology just look at how a small group of people who think they know whats best for society have lobbied and changed the law which will have consequences for 50% of the population. There are women who because of those changes in the law will and have suffered and its precisely because the adult male had a penis and no they didn't pluck it off and throw it at the women but putting a dress on over it didn't make it dissappear either.
There are many steps that could be taken in separating men and women where we could claim it's a safety issue.
For example, should secondary schools be male only and female only? If not, why not? if a small percentage of a gigantic number of cis men are a threat to women, and you believe that a small percentage of the already TINY number of trans women are a threat to.cis women and the law should be changed in the trans case, it's pretty obvious we should prioritise changes in the law that separate cis men from cis women wherever possible.
I mean if we can't take other aspects of the issue into account in the trans case, we couldn't take other issues into account in the schools case.
It seems when there's a tiny statistical chance of a sexually.violent trans people it's met with screams of "change the law". But a larger (though still small) chance of a cis male sexually violent individual we just shrug our shoulders and say "oh it wouldn't be fair to them" or "oh it's too much hassle to change the law".
If you're gonna talk the talk you really should walk the walk.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't know why you think we should separate school children into male and female schools i don't believe that has anything to do with the issue here. There is a world of difference in outlook and experience between adolescents and adults. Should we separate them in primary school and creches too?There are many steps that could be taken in separating men and women where we could claim it's a safety issue.
For example, should secondary schools be male only and female only? If not, why not? if a small percentage of a gigantic number of cis men are a threat to women, and you believe that a small percentage of the already TINY number of trans women are a threat to.cis women and the law should be changed in the trans case, it's pretty obvious we should prioritise changes in the law that separate cis men from cis women wherever possible.
I mean if we can't take other aspects of the issue into account in the trans case, we couldn't take other issues into account in the schools case.
It seems when there's a tiny statistical chance of a sexually.violent trans people it's met with screams of "change the law". But a larger (though still small) chance of a cis male sexually violent individual we just shrug our shoulders and say "oh it wouldn't be fair to them" or "oh it's too much hassle to change the law".
If you're gonna talk the talk you really should walk the walk.
The problem is that its not just a miniorty of men and a tiny % of trans women its also the "men purporting to be trans women" because the law makes no distinction with self id. Thats a problem which women will pay the price for and that's my issue.
I'm not sure what you mean by a larger % of men and shrugging my shoulders or talking the talk.0 -
Dr Kathleen Stock gave a short talk at the recent Irish Women's Lobby's online IWD conference. I found it interesting. It is about what faces girls when they go to University nowadays to study about women and girls, in terms especially of the effect of gender theory dogma.
Kathleen is a philosophy professor at University of Sussex. She has published on aesthetics, fiction, imagination, sexual objectification, sex, gender, and sexual orientation. She is a lesbian, for what that matters, but just to show that she is one of those many lesbians who will not get in lock step.
As an aside Ruth Breslin also gave a talk at the Irish Women's Lobby conference about sex trafficking in Ireland from her POV as someone researching it at UCD. Well worth a listen also.0 -
-
briangriffin wrote: »There was an interesting debate on Radio one yesterday about what it means to be a women in society today, what women do to protect themselves when out walking - carry car keys in their hands, getting a taxi - making fake phonecalls saying they are on the way home and will be ten mins, - walking in groups home from town avoiding being alone at night particularly if they are dressed up. It led to a conversation with women i know and I never realised how cautious they are or how threatened they feel by a minority of men, the presenter acknowledged its a very small minority of men who have caused such a cautious and different approach from women, there were victims of male violence on the radio speaking about their experience. The presenter was saying us men need to do better how can we make the world a safer place for the women in our lives - it wasn't condescending or Sexist it was a moving appeal based on the lived experiences of many women.
Those experiences are based on biology men are stronger than women more prone to violence and more motivated by sexual violence. I walked my sister home from work for 2 years when I was younger not because I believed all men were sexual predators but because I acknowledged she was more vulnerable than me and I wanted her to be safe. She is very much a feminist and a self made women but not once did she say no theres no need to walk me home.
Its not about women being subservient to men its not about biological inferiority and its not about all men being violent, it is about protecting women by acknowledging their vulnerability and putting in place laws that protect 50% of the population which is far more vulnerable to violnece or sexual violence.
Being in possession of a penis statistically means you are far more likely to be the cause of that violence. Women are attacked by men. Biology has everything to do with it - having a penis means you are more likely to commit violent crimes against women, statistically, its a very small minority of men.
Our laws have changed and given more access to female only spaces,and just as the minority of men are capable of violence so to the minority of trans women are or people purporting to be trans women. It increases the risk of harm.
You are right though it is about politics and ideology just look at how a small group of people who think they know whats best for society have lobbied and changed the law which will have consequences for 50% of the population. There are women who because of those changes in the law will and have suffered and its precisely because the adult male had a penis and no they didn't pluck it off and throw it at the women but putting a dress on over it didn't make it dissappear either.
As a mother I worry about my children of both sexes. Boys risk getting attacked also if out and about.
But there is no doubt that girls are uniquely vulnerable to sexual violence from predatory males (who make up a very small percentage of males). The dreadful forced intimacy of the violence makes it especially repulsive.
I think every woman can admit that they have been shaped by sexual violence or the stories of sexual violence at a deep level in some way or another. For every generation of women there are the stories that hit hard. The story of Sarah Everard will be the story that consciously and subconsciously affects a whole swathe of young women now who can identify with her today - young, independent, lovely, careful, sensible and yet still brutally taken.
For other generations it will be JoJo Dullard or Deirdre Jacobs, or even if you were a child when Mary Boyle disappeared it will have impacted upon the fundamental formation of your world view - what is safe, what is not safe, what to keep in the back of your mind in order to try and protect yourself.
This instinct is formed over long evolutionary periods also - throughout time to have been a female is to be vulnerable based precisely upon ones native biology - literally ones vagina and womb, ones smaller stature generally, the strength differential. Which is why I am very protective of single sex spaces and the privacy and safety they provide for females.0 -
It’s great these issues are being brought into the public domain more and more.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/category/Politician/Cllr-Dom-Armstrong-404663170083504/
It is with great sadness that I tender my resignation to the Green Party.
I have been a member since 2015 and a councillor since May 2019 in Washington/ Sunderland, a role which I will also be giving up.
During that time it has been a privilege to represent the Green Party, especially the last 2 years when we have achieved so much. In Washington, we have campaigned and succeeded in protecting the Washington South football pitches from housing development, we have played a big part in stopping the incinerator that was planned in Washington, and have helped pressure the Council to adopt, and act upon, a Climate Emergency plan. More recently, we introduced a motion on Fair Tax which the council adopted in part. We have also assisted the Council's chief exec and Public Health team in communicating their message and information during this public health emergency.
I joined the Greens, and agreed to stand for public office, simply because I have two daughters. I did hope that through joining the Greens, and fighting climate change, this would be a worthy way to honour them. They didn't always understand, especially when they were younger, why their Dad was working at nights, or at weekends, or posting leaflets in the snow, or responding to emails during holidays. Thankfully, they do now!
During the last couple of months, I have become increasingly uneasy about my party's stance on women's rights. I have had discussions on social media with party members and activists, where, because I have politely disagreed, I have been called a transphobe, a homophobe, and worse. I have witnessed female colleagues issued with death threats and threats of rape by trans rights activists, so in comparison, I have only had a small taste of this vile behaviour.
I am also dismayed by the fact that a co-chair of our women‘s committee is a biological male, who works for a company (GenderGP) that in 2018 was found guilty of illegally supplying puberty blockers to children as young as ten. The Green Party are not concerned by this, in fact this person holds another FOUR senior party roles, and gloats on social media when some women (who they are meant to represent) feel so uncomfortable about this, they leave the party.
There are many trans extremists who are very active in the party and appear to have the leaderships approval. When an emergency motion was tabled for this weekend’s conference, to discuss the issue of GenderGP’s practises, it was deliberately blocked. There was no discussion. Senior party members indicated that it was a "transphobic" motion, not worthy of debate, and there was filibustering tactical manoeuvres, and political deviousness which resulted in another motion being discussed instead. This was a motion meant to discuss the safety of children!
Perhaps even worse than this, when a motion to have women’s sex-based rights recognised (the day before International Women's Day) was put forward, again the Green Party leadership were horrified, how could women dare ask for safe spaces in prisons, or ask for a fair chance in sport? The LGBTIQ+ group declared that there was no historical evidence that women had been oppressed on the basis of their sex. Women are oppressed because they ‘look like women.’ To say otherwise was declared oppressive to trans people, a hate motion, which deserved to be righteously overcome.
It almost feels like I am making this up, I still can't believe this is the party I've given 6 years of my life to. I witnessed appalling behaviour by the most senior people in the party, many of whom I'd admired for years (apart from Jenny Jones, who was magnificent). The dawning of this reality was quite crushing, but sobering too. What’s worse is the fact that many of our senior figures profess to hold the high moral ground on many issues, but in fact, they are as bad, if not worse, than our political foes.
I feel that the party's elite are not willing (or able) to stand up to the bullying, and in this they are complicit. The damage this is doing to the trans community (especially the children) is heartbreaking. And the lack of concern for girls and women is damning. The effects of these doctrines are already being felt; in Brighton, a women’s refuge has been denied further council funding because they insisted on female-only safe spaces.
And even in the last 2 days, the party has begun its purge. Senior (mostly, again, female) party members are being harassed, and even suspended, for having the audacity to disagree with the party’s dogma.
I cannot stay in a party that puts ideology before women and children's safety. I can't continue to serve as a councillor without the motivation to do so 100%, and in good conscience, take the money that the council pay me when I know I'll no longer do the role justice.
I'd like to thank the wonderful people I've met along the way, in particular the local Greens in Sunderland, Washington and the rest of the North East, who I still fully believe in. I'd like to also thank Councillors Miller and Farthing for helping me be a part of a team that put party politics aside, and served our local constituents together, as best we could. My fellow councillors in Sunderland who gave me a different perspective on politics, and who represented their parties and constituents with gusto, you have my respect. I’d like the thank the people of Washington South who gave me a chance, and I hope you understand my principles in this matter.
I'd like to thank the Green Party members who will persevere in the party, who won't be bullied or threatened and will continue to fight against climate change, and extremism. I think eventually people will see what is going on, and you'll have your party back. The bullies will go to another party when they get ousted, they don't care about the Greens like you do.
And finally, my friends and family, who couldn't believe I ever did this, have stood by me even when they've disagreed with my politics, thanks again.0 -
briangriffin wrote: »Those experiences are based on biology men are stronger than women more prone to violence and more motivated by sexual violence. I walked my sister home from work for 2 years when I was younger not because I believed all men were sexual predators but because I acknowledged she was more vulnerable than me and I wanted her to be safe. She is very much a feminist and a self made women but not once did she say no theres no need to walk me home.
They’re not based on biology brian, they’re based upon myths about rape with a side order of stranger danger and the bogeyman thrown in for good measure. In the circumstances you describe, according to your own logic, has it ever occurred to you that you were the danger to your sister in that scenario? “Based upon biology” of course. No, I’ll bet it didn’t occur to you, and yet if you want to talk about statistics, the evidence is overwhelming that in the vast majority of cases of rape and sexual abuse, the perpetrator is someone who the victim trusts, be it a family member or a family friend, neighbour or relative. That’s not biology, it’s sociology.
I’m not being harsh but I have little time for fallacious narratives like the ones you describe which were being discussed on the programme. I didn’t hear the discussion myself, but I’m familiar with the myths which make sense if you don’t think about them too hard. Another one is the idea that you would have been able to protect your sister had ye been attacked. What were you hoping to do in that scenario? Inform your attackers that you were in possession of a concealed biological weapon? Generally what happens in those circumstances is the attackers will still beat the living daylights out of a couple, and becoming more common nowadays is the idea of recording the ordeal on the phone they just acquired. Take for example the recent attack on two men who were just about to head home from a pleasant day out -
Irish gay couple stabbed and beaten in vicious homophobic attack in Newbridge
The most vicious case that sticks in my memory is this one from a couple of years back -
Man (25) is jailed for 20 years over role in savage gang rape
Feckall to do with biology, and everything to do with the circumstances in both of those particular cases. That’s why this idea of women making a fist with car keys and all the rest of it is just instilling fear in women, because in those circumstances it’s not going to give them any more of a fighting chance when in reality they are more likely to freeze up in fear. That’s an instinctive self-protection mechanism kicking in over which nobody has any control when they are taken by surprise and subjected to an ordeal they couldn’t possibly have prepared for, precisely due to their lack of experience.briangriffin wrote: »Its not about women being subservient to men its not about biological inferiority and its not about all men being violent, it is about protecting women by acknowledging their vulnerability and putting in place laws that protect 50% of the population which is far more vulnerable to violnece or sexual violence.
It’s absolutely about arguing that women are inferior to men. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t need men who are superior to them to protect them from other men who might commit violence against them (or have committed violence against them by their family members, and that’s how women end up being incarcerated in domestic violence shelters), but we already have laws in place with the aim of protecting 100% of the population. Do you imagine for a second that someone who is of a mind to commit rape and sexual assault against one of their own family members gives a shìt about the law? No, I don’t either. They will do anything which will give them an advantage in avoiding being caught. One thing they generally don’t do is pick their victims randomly. See the circumstances regarding the case of Anna Kriegel, and the seven sisters who were subjected to sexual abuse throughout their childhood by their own father.briangriffin wrote: »Being in possession of a penis statistically means you are far more likely to be the cause of that violence.
It means no such thing. Correlation does not equal causation. I’ve explained it already but nobody is assigned violent at birth. Being in possession of a penis means nothing in and of itself, being in possession of a mind to commit violence has a far greater bearing on any statistical probability of violence, than any influence of my penis. “Men being led by their dicks” was never meant to be taken literally by anyone, and certainly doesn’t apply in circumstances where they commit violence.briangriffin wrote: »Women are attacked by men. Biology has everything to do with it - having a penis means you are more likely to commit violent crimes against women, statistically, its a very small minority of men.
If biology has anything to do with it, then according to your logic the vast majority of men would be committing violence against women, because they are in possession of a penis. That’s the sole determinant factor apparently. Except that’s really a crock of shìt contradicted by your own logic - more likely to commit violence against women because they have a penis, yet there is no evidence to suggest that the vast majority of men (whom one would imagine are in possession of a penis) commit violence against anyone.briangriffin wrote: »Our laws have changed and given more access to female only spaces,and just as the minority of men are capable of violence so to the minority of trans women are or people purporting to be trans women. It increases the risk of harm.
You are right though it is about politics and ideology just look at how a small group of people who think they know whats best for society have lobbied and changed the law which will have consequences for 50% of the population. There are women who because of those changes in the law will and have suffered and its precisely because the adult male had a penis and no they didn't pluck it off and throw it at the women but putting a dress on over it didn't make it dissappear either.
The only thing which increases the risk of harm to anyone, be they man, woman or child, are idiots who seek to perpetuate division and mistrust of other people in society. They’re the kind of idiot who inject themselves into positions of authority and comes out with this kind of divisive rhetoric -
The director of the Rape Crisis Network Ireland said that almost 40pc of children who were victims of sexual violence were abused by another child.
Dr Cliona Saidlear said young girls need to be made aware that young boys who sit with them in the classroom can also be a danger.
'A boy in class could be a danger' - girls warned of sex abuse0 -
briangriffin wrote: »I don't know why you think we should separate school children into male and female schools i don't believe that has anything to do with the issue here. There is a world of difference in outlook and experience between adolescents and adults. Should we separate them in primary school and creches too?
I would expect that there are little sexual issues in creche but perhaps I'm wrong. If you are so keen to change laws to protect women from sexually violent men then separating boys from girls in secondary school would have a big impact. Take this report from the UK:
·Almost a quarter (24%) of female students and 4% of male students at mixed-sex schools have been subjected to unwanted physical touching of a sexual nature while at school."
I doubt 1/4 cis women have been subjected to anything similar by a trans person in a changing room.
The problem is that its not just a miniorty of men and a tiny % of trans women its also the "men purporting to be trans women" because the law makes no distinction with self id. Thats a problem which women will pay the price for and that's my issue.
It's really one of the most ridiculous arguments on this thread and has been abandoned for quite some time. You really think a cis man is going to legally change their gender and all that that entails solely to gain access to women's bathrooms?
I'm not sure what you mean by a larger % of men and shrugging my shoulders or talking the talk.
As I've shown above for schools, the main danger to women is cis men. If you want to make changes to the law to exclude trans women who are responsible for a miniscule amount of sexual violence against women, surely you might care just a tad for the 1 in 4 women who are assaulted at school.
Of course we both know this is not about protecting Cis women but scapegoating transwomen as sexually violent predators.
So I expect you to shrug your shoulders as the above stats and say "but what can we do" and move on.
(Btw I am not advocating for separating boys and girls in school myself)0 -
Can you point me to where you saw Serano speak disapprovingly about the fantasy? I’ve only found this that shows more extracts from the book, but doesn’t show That Serano thinks disapprovingly about the sex slavery fantasy. In fact the salacious way it’s written suggests the opposite.I'm not defending them. I'm being fair to them. And defending trans people in general from anti-trans posters using individual trans people as some kind of insinuation that trans people are in general fetishists.
However, on researching what the authors said I found that Bliss Female had completely misrepresented them.
Take Julia Serano who used the quoted sentence to describe a fantasy she had as a teenager, which she now disapproves of and explains as being a result of self hatred and her Catholic upbringing.
If you wrote about a sexual fantasy you had as a teen disapprovingly, do you think it would be fair of someone to overlay a quote of that fantasy which you now disavow, and overlay it on a photo of you, post it as evidence of your current fantasies, and use it to imply that this was a common fantasy of whatever groups you happen to be a part of?
It's a hideously sneaky tactic.
https://mobile.twitter.com/womenreadwomen/status/12700369154927534080 -
I would expect that there are little sexual issues in creche but perhaps I'm wrong
I doubt 1/4 cis women have been subjected to anything similar by a trans person in a changing room.
Of course we both know this is not about protecting Cis women but scapegoating transwomen as sexually violent predators.
There has been numerous sexual assaults in crèches Carried out by women ,there is next to no men working in preschool settings,
But we know trans people are being put into women's prisons despite them having been convicted of rape against women as well as other sexual violent offences,
But yet you claim to want to see women protected yet demanding males convicted of rapes and abuse be housed with vunerable women in prison where they have raped and sexually assaulted other prisoners and staff alike .
Some defender of rights
0 -
Cestmoi 111 wrote: »Can you point me to where you saw Serano speak disapprovingly about the fantasy? I’ve only found this that shows more extracts from the book, but doesn’t show That Serano thinks disapprovingly about the sex slavery fantasy. In fact the salacious way it’s written suggests the opposite.
https://mobile.twitter.com/womenreadwomen/status/1270036915492753408
In that quote she talks of her shame. That the fantasies FROM HER TEEN YEARS were a form of penance and punishment. She talks of having been influenced by magazines into these ideas.0 -
Advertisement
-
Despite my better judgement but...In that quote she talks of her shame. That the fantasies FROM HER TEEN YEARS were a form of penance and punishment. She talks of having been influenced by magazines into these ideas.
That quote sums up my opinion on transitions in children quite nicely.
Weird how you think they are clued in enough to know their gender and make decisions regarding puberty blockers and surgeries as teens, yet on the other hand make shameful decisions and are heavily influenced by magazines into forming their opinions.0 -
Despite my better judgement but...
That quote sums up my opinion on transitions in children quite nicely.
Weird how you think they are clued in enough to know their gender and make decisions regarding puberty blockers and surgeries as teens, yet on the other hand make shameful decisions and are heavily influenced by magazines into forming their opinions.
Are teens the only people who have fantasies that they become ashamed of? That's news to me.
Should we remove all medical decisions from age groups that have had shameful fantasies?
Who would be left?0 -
Not all all. We all look back and cringe and decisions we made when we were immature and too heavily influenced by those other immature people around us.Are teens the only people who have fantasies that they become ashamed of?
Thankfully we can look back and laugh and move on and are not left with the life altering results.
Nope, but we should remove them from those that are still immature, especially when the stats show the number of children who go on to regret it.Should we remove all medical decisions from age groups that have had shameful fantasies?
This stuff should really be obvious tbh.
Do you let your pre-teens get tattoos or perhaps some scarring or branding? If not, why not?0 -
Should we remove all medical decisions from age groups that have had shameful fantasies?
So wait what.....
What kind of medical decisions are being made similar to mastectomy , hysterectomy ,and full reassignment based off an apparent fantasy ....
This is why tavistock was stopped from handing out puberty blocker's like smarties to kids as young as 10
0 -
Nope, but we should remove them from those that are still immature, especially when the stats show the number of children who go on to regret it.
Are there stats available to show the numbers of children who receive treatment, and the number of children who regret the treatment, and the number of children who are glad they were able to receive treatment? I don’t think the stats in any case would offer any insight into individual cases about whether or not the patient in any case was regarded as mature enough to make the decision for themselves. Generally there are a number of stakeholders involved in any decisions and having a supportive family network is crucial for positive outcomes of any treatment.This stuff should really be obvious tbh.
Do you let your pre-teens get tattoos or perhaps some scarring or branding? If not, why not?
The most obvious reason why I personally would be against any of the above is because they generally look tacky. Any decision is dependent upon context, and framing anything in a hypothetical black and white scenario, it should be obvious why there isn’t enough information to make any sort of a decision either way as to whether an individual child could be considered mature enough to make the decision for themselves. That’s notwithstanding the fact that none of the above examples are medical decisions which would require medical consent.
It was the whole basis of the Kiera Bell case, in which the Courts decided that children under 16 could not be regarded as Gillick competent for the purposes of medical and surgical treatments for gender dysphoria without their parents consent. The original Gillick case itself was concerned with whether or not children under the age of 16 could be considered mature enough to be able to give medical consent to avail of contraception below the age of 16 without their parents consent -
The result of Gillick is that in England today, except in situations that are regulated otherwise by law, the legal right to make a decision on any particular matter concerning the child shifts from the parent to the child when the child reaches sufficient maturity to be capable of making up his or her own mind on the matter requiring decision.
Gillick competence0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »
The most obvious reason why I personally would be against any of the above is because they generally look tacky.
Ffs jack.
THAT'S the most obvious reason why preteens shouldn't be allowed tattoos?
I usually don't rise to your walls of text but that's without doubt the most blatantly ridiculous response I've ever seen from you0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Ffs jack.
THAT'S the most obvious reason why preteens shouldn't be allowed tattoos?
I usually don't rise to your walls of text but that's without doubt the most blatantly ridiculous response I've ever seen from you
You’re entitled to disagree, but you wouldn’t be making decisions for my child in any case, so the argument wouldn’t arise, and then you wouldn’t have to face the terrible predicament of whether or not to rise to any walls of text, ridiculous as you are entitled to believe any decisions other people make with regards to their own children’s welfare might be.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »You’re entitled to disagree, but you wouldn’t be making decisions for my child in any case, so the argument wouldn’t arise, and then you wouldn’t have to face the terrible predicament of whether or not to rise to any walls of text, ridiculous as you are entitled to believe any decisions other people make with regards to their own children’s welfare might be.
That's not how laws work. It's not for your child. It's for all children.
You stated that your most obvious reason against children aged between 0 and 12 would be because it looks tacky.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »That's not how laws work. It's not for your child. It's for all children.
You stated that your most obvious reason against children aged between 0 and 12 would be because it looks tacky.
That’s exactly how the law would work in the individual circumstances involved in the question posed by GreeBo regarding parents decisions for their own children -Do you let your pre-teens get tattoos or perhaps some scarring or branding? If not, why not?
I wouldn’t permit my child to get tattoos or scarring or branding because they generally look tacky. I wouldn’t care whether or not my child were considered mature enough to make the decision for themselves in those particular circumstances. That’s my standards, and of course I understand that other parents will raise their children according to their standards and values and so on, which I would have zero interest in interfering with.0 -
Advertisement
-
Talking about trying to completely steer a conversation down a one way street
0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M48--mL_OYc
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement