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

Bannasidhe

AllForIt wrote: »

One can have a fetish for something that isn't sexual. This is what separates cross-dresser's, transgender people, drag queens etc, i.e. the is of a differing nature.

But I think of all those things in the same category, lets say status B.
They are on a level below male, female, heterosexual, homosexual, black, white (Status A).

When I said earlier trans people are not 'one of us' (gay demographic), I meant as much they are not on the same status level I proposed as much as they are obviously completely different things.

I think trans activists have been doing everything they can to elevate their status B to status A.

It is why they are so desperate to be aligned to the status A gay demographic.
It is why they have in recent years made up terms like 'gender identity', non- binary, and a raft of made up pronouns. It's all an attempt to elevate their 'thing' to status A.

I think the problem is, is that all this is working, (due in part to the influence of 'progressive' types) which is why we have posters like OEJ (who I think is genuinely coming from a good place), treating the transgender cause as if he's defending a status A cause. I think this is where people like him have gone wrong. I'm just using you as an example here OEJ of those who come at this from a human rights angle, but I think you are mistaken.

I would put issues of personality traits, in status B. Like for example a young man who wants to be considered muscular, who widens out his arms in public to create the illusion he is muscular when he isn't particularly.
To follow on that analogy, he may take steroids to enhance that look.
But it would be absurd to give that guy status A rights, and give him free steroids, because that's his internal muscular 'identity'.

So, to me it's absurd to give specific rights to people of status B. It's endless the amount of 'identities' that actually exist, and there seems to be more of them popping up all the time.
When you look at it the way I do now, it explains why LGBT went from LGBT+ to LGBTA to LGBTQ or whatever. It became a looser definition from status A to status B over time to include what are really just personality types of a kind.

This is why I object to the alignment of LGB and T+.

I've been thinking about this issue for quite some time since this thread appeared but I've pretty much made up my mind on it now. I hope noone finds it obnoxious of transphobic of me to to come to the conclusions I've come to. They are made in all sincerity and if one doesn't like it, disagree away.

People with gender dysphoria (which is simply the modern term for something long recognised) are recorded as existing for hundreds of years and across many cultures so trying to claim it is some new fashionable thing is utter nonsense.
The term used in Early Modern England was 'Androgyny' first used in the 1550s to describe someone who had the traits of one gender but was biologically the other.
Beginning of the 20th century Magus Hirschfeld coined the term 'transvestite'

Transitioning in the surgical/hormonal sense is first recorded in Hirschfeld's Berlin Institute.

Before you expound your made up theories about people of Status A and Status B - where you are naturally in the higher status group and those you have an aversion to are in the lower perhaps you should read a bit of the history around 'sexology' and acquaint yourself with some facts.

This is a handy place to start https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/02/brief-history-transgender-issues#:~:text='Transvestite'%20originated%20in%201910%20from,British%20term)%20not%20until%201996.

Should you decide to study further you will find that among sexologists like Edward Carpenter the belief was that gay men possessed a male body and a female temperament and vice versa for lesbians - in essence that homosexuality was a form of gender dysphoria. They called it sexual inversion.
The sexologist Richard von Krafft-Ebing described female sexual inversion as "the masculine soul, heaving in the female bosom".

From wikipedia on sexual inversion:

According to this theory, gay men and lesbians were sexual "inverts", people who appeared physically male or female on the outside, but felt internally that they were of the "opposite" anatomical sex (according to the binary view of gender). Therefore, same-sex desires and attraction were explained as "latent heterosexuality",

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_inversion_(sexology)

The belief was Homosexuals were actually transgender (inverted) and therefore really heterosexual but in the 'wrong' body.

The argument can be made - using primary sources - that acknowledgement of gender dysphoria as a condition by the medical profession pre-dates the acceptance of homosexuality as anything other than a mental illness and/or disorder.
For a history of how homosexuality was viewed by the medical profession this is a good start https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-03661930059-8/fulltext

So - early sexologists believed that all homosexuals were in reality people with gender dysphoria or psychiatrically very ill and in need of aversion therapy.
Or to put it in your terms - Transgender people were Status A, Homosexuals Status B.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I agree with you that the Tavistock was a shìt show of epic proportions,

I don’t agree with the second part of your argument which can essentially be summed up as “children must be allowed to continue to suffer so I can feel better about myself”, under the guise of pretending you’re actually concerned about the children involved while ignoring the fact that gender incongruence is a widely recognised medical condition,


You’re arguing essentially that the science should be hidden from them, thereby depriving them of the tools to learn and grow and explore and develop ideas and opinions of their own.

See not so long ago you were telling us how amazing it was but no suprise there.

Children must allowed to suffer ,see that's one of them statements that's utterly false and misleading Feinting concern or outrage ,
So I can feel better about myself comical actually ,see I believe Children need to be protected from sometimes them selves.but from those who which to do them harm under the guise of trans ideology or any other ideology which will turn their bodies into a science experiment so what they can be included in the LGBT community ?
I just want to make these children feel good ?

I believe anyone who harms Children to promote an ideology or cause should be treated as I would treat anyone who harms a child physically or otherwise ,with extreme prejudice,
This isn't science this is a science experiment ,the type we ban on animals ,the type which was long supposed to be consigned to history ,
gender incongruence is a medical condition treated through psychology which means it's a condition of the mind , but we have been told were not allowed to say that despite the fact it's a psychological condition ,

No Matter which word you Google or look to Wikipedia for it will not change the fact children need to grow ,mature , both physically and mentally at their own pace ,Neural pathway are delicate things ,they might cause a child to feel different , but give them time them Neural pathway have a way of making things just right ,

Hands off the Children ,

LLMMLL

AllForIt wrote: »

One can have a fetish for something that isn't sexual. This is what separates cross-dresser's, transgender people, drag queens etc, i.e. the is of a differing nature.

But I think of all those things in the same category, lets say status B.
They are on a level below male, female, heterosexual, homosexual, black, white (Status A).

When I said earlier trans people are not 'one of us' (gay demographic), I meant as much they are not on the same status level I proposed as much as they are obviously completely different things.

I think trans activists have been doing everything they can to elevate their status B to status A.

It is why they are so desperate to be aligned to the status A gay demographic.
It is why they have in recent years made up terms like 'gender identity', non- binary, and a raft of made up pronouns. It's all an attempt to elevate their 'thing' to status A.

I think the problem is, is that all this is working, (due in part to the influence of 'progressive' types) which is why we have posters like OEJ (who I think is genuinely coming from a good place), treating the transgender cause as if he's defending a status A cause. I think this is where people like him have gone wrong. I'm just using you as an example here OEJ of those who come at this from a human rights angle, but I think you are mistaken.

I would put issues of personality traits, in status B. Like for example a young man who wants to be considered muscular, who widens out his arms in public to create the illusion he is muscular when he isn't particularly.
To follow on that analogy, he may take steroids to enhance that look.
But it would be absurd to give that guy status A rights, and give him free steroids, because that's his internal muscular 'identity'.

So, to me it's absurd to give specific rights to people of status B. It's endless the amount of 'identities' that actually exist, and there seems to be more of them popping up all the time.
When you look at it the way I do now, it explains why LGBT went from LGBT+ to LGBTA to LGBTQ or whatever. It became a looser definition from status A to status B over time to include what are really just personality types of a kind.

This is why I object to the alignment of LGB and T+.

I've been thinking about this issue for quite some time since this thread appeared but I've pretty much made up my mind on it now. I hope noone finds it obnoxious of transphobic of me to to come to the conclusions I've come to. They are made in all sincerity and if one doesn't like it, disagree away.

None of your arguments objectively hold up. What your argument amounts to is "my thing is real, but I've got my rights now and don't believe in other people's things so they shouldn't get rights".

Let's start with your example of non-sexual fetish. What is a non-sexual fetish and once you clarify that can you inform is what a drag queen's fetish is? Because every drag queen I've ever met wears drag as a performance. For many they have turned it into a career. What is the fetishistic aspect? Is someone who entertains by playing the guitar engaging in non-sexual fetishism? If drag queens are and guitar players aren't, what's the difference as you see it?

Also your "status A" stuff makes zero sense. How is being gay status A. Would you entertain the opinion of someone who claimed you were engaging in fetishism, sexual or non-sexual? Can you prove to us that being gay is not a fetish? What if I posted 5 cis male gay authors who have written salaciously about the male body? Does that mean being gay has fetishistic aspects? Why did we change the law to allow gay people to marry? Is it possible that gay men are actually straight men with male body fetishes? If so surely we shouldn't change the law to reflect how they see themselves?

Now of course I don't believe any of the above. But unless you can convincingly answer with proof the above questions then your idea of status A and status B is you just trying to encode your own biases as pretend objective criteria.

Bannasidhe

Gatling wrote: »

I believe anyone who harms Children to promote an ideology or cause should be treated as I would treat anyone who harms a child physically or otherwise ,with extreme prejudice,
This isn't science this is a science experiment ,the type we ban on animals ,the type which was long supposed to be consigned to history ,
gender incongruence is a medical condition treated through psychology which means it's a condition of the mind , but we have been told were not allowed to say that despite the fact it's a psychological condition ,

No Matter which word you Google or look to Wikipedia for it will not change the fact children need to grow ,mature , both physically and mentally at their own pace ,Neural pathway are delicate things ,they might cause a child to feel different , but give them time them Neural pathway have a way of making things just right ,

Hands off the Children ,

Like the ideology of being heterosexual?
Are you one of those who will claim that pre-teens cannot possible know they are attracted to members of the same gender?

You are so quick to dismiss those children who are utterly sure their biological body is wrong and the emotional distress it causes them when forced to conform to set notions of what it means to be a 'boy' or a 'girl'.

Your mantra of hands off children doesn't extend to allowing those children to dress the was that makes them feel comfortable.

"will somebody think of the children" is such a pithy battlecry isn't it - until it's parsed when it becomes obvious that what is actually meant it that biological boys/girls will conform to a set set of expectation and never deviate from those no matter how much distress it causes them.

I'm not transgender -but I'll tell you this, being forced to wear a dress as a girl was a living hell for me. Thankfully I had parents who were ideology free and allowed me to be me.

Gatling

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Like the ideology of being heterosexual?

Hetrosexual ideology yeaaah naaaaa .


Children first .


Keep your ideological believes to the adults who are mentally compitent to discuss whether they are the wrong gender, keep your puberty blocker's , followed mastectomies and hysterectomies to those who actually need them , rather than suggesting it to very valuable children who could easily influenced by quacks using them experiments and funding.

Case and point
I'm not transgender -but I'll tell you this, being forced to wear a dress as a girl was a living hell for me. Thankfully I had parents who were ideology free and allowed me to be me..

See you were left alone to become the woman you are today ,no drugs ,no surgeries ,no quackery,
Your now a happy healthy woman ?

Bannasidhe

Gatling wrote: »

Hetrosexual ideology yeaaah naaaaa .


Children first .


Keep your ideological believes to the adults who are mentally compitent to discuss whether they are the wrong gender, keep your puberty blocker's , followed mastectomies and hysterectomies to those who actually need them , rather than suggesting it to very valuable children who could easily influenced by quacks using them experiments and funding

Is this your response to being asked if a child should be forced to wear the clothes deemed proper for their biologically assigned gender even when it causes them distress?

Hyperbolic ranting about mastectomies and hysterectomies? Can you provide even one example of a child having radical surgery in order to transition?
Given such surgery before the age of 18 is illegal in most countries I reckon we can disregard that whole "what about..." you just posted and ask outright

Do you support forcing a child to wear the clothes and pursue the activities associated with their biologically assigned gender even if this causes them extreme emotional distress?

Gatling

Bannasidhe wrote: »

biologically assigned gender

No I don't buy into the identity ideology.

So you grew in to a healthy adult woman who didn't require puberty blocker's or radical surgery because you didn't want to wear dresses.

Gender associated activities that's a new one

Bannasidhe

Gatling wrote: »

No I don't buy into the identity ideology.

So you grew in to a healthy adult woman who didn't require puberty blocker's or radical surgery because you didn't want to wear dresses.

Gender associated activities that's a new one

Do you support forcing a child to wear the clothes and pursue the activities associated with their biologically assigned gender even if this causes them extreme emotional distress?

Yes or No.

Gatling

The absolute majority of children that people claim to be trans actually grow out of it ,
The few who don't need to be cared for under the supervision of a psychology team ,till they are adults and capable physically and mentally to make the decision to transition,

They don't need to be told how to ask for puberty blocker's ,they don't need to be told to freeze their eggs or semen if they choose to have a child in adult hood ,

Distress they people claiming Child are distressed about wearing the wrong clothes have zero clue about it ,more makey upey claims they can't back up ,

This is why we need to heavily invest on child psychology supports and services for children and families ,
And oddly enough the same people don't want the topic of mental health being connected to the idea ,
So why would psychology be the lead support service.


Answers on a post card

Gatling

AllForIt wrote: »

One can have a fetish for something that isn't sexual. This is what separates cross-dresser's, transgender people, drag queens etc, i.e. the is of a differing nature.

But I think of all those things in the same category, lets say status B.
They are on a level below male, female, heterosexual, homosexual, black, white (Status A).

When I said earlier trans people are not 'one of us' (gay demographic), I meant as much they are not on the same status level I proposed as much as they are obviously completely different things.

I think trans activists have been doing everything they can to elevate their status B to status A.

It is why they are so desperate to be aligned to the status A gay demographic.
It is why they have in recent years made up terms like 'gender identity', non- binary, and a raft of made up pronouns. It's all an attempt to elevate their 'thing' to status A.

I think the problem is, is that all this is working, (due in part to the influence of 'progressive' types) which is why we have posters like OEJ (who I think is genuinely coming from a good place), treating the transgender cause as if he's defending a status A cause. I think this is where people like him have gone wrong. I'm just using you as an example here OEJ of those who come at this from a human rights angle, but I think you are mistaken.

I would put issues of personality traits, in status B. Like for example a young man who wants to be considered muscular, who widens out his arms in public to create the illusion he is muscular when he isn't particularly.
To follow on that analogy, he may take steroids to enhance that look.
But it would be absurd to give that guy status A rights, and give him free steroids, because that's his internal muscular 'identity'.

So, to me it's absurd to give specific rights to people of status B. It's endless the amount of 'identities' that actually exist, and there seems to be more of them popping up all the time.
When you look at it the way I do now, it explains why LGBT went from LGBT+ to LGBTA to LGBTQ or whatever. It became a looser definition from status A to status B over time to include what are really just personality types of a kind.

This is why I object to the alignment of LGB and T+.

I've been thinking about this issue for quite some time since this thread appeared but I've pretty much made up my mind on it now. I hope noone finds it obnoxious of transphobic of me to to come to the conclusions I've come to. They are made in all sincerity and if one doesn't like it, disagree away.

This I can agree with , it's quite obvious it's got nothing to do with womens rights , child's rights ,

it's wishy washy self identifying politics were more special than this cohort or that cohort ,
We want the word woman , women , girls erased and replaced with acronyms because a tiny cohort claim Woman /women is offensive to men who self identify as women ,hence the push to remove maternity from maternity hospitals , breasts and breastfeeding are offensive to the same cohort ,who then say the majority of women support it and them,
The majority of women in the world support their own deletion of course they do and if a woman or women speak up they are attacked ,and face loosing their jobs and careers because they don't believe or support this identity ideology ,that will see them reduced to random letters made up by people on twitter .

Cancellation and deletion and using the idea it's for inclusion , inclusiveness doesn't mean you exclude the majority of women making decisions for women

Tokyo

Gatling wrote: »

But hands off Children ,let them have their childhood let them learn ,grow and explore and develop at their own pace and not be used for science experiments under the guise of identity ideology .

Gatling wrote: »

Hands off the Children ,

Mod: We're getting very close to dog-whistle territory here. Dial it back.

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

I’ve embedded the stuff Serano wrote below. I’ve no doubt it was typed with one hand only.

Mod: Cestmoi 111 - there's a nasty undertone to the vast majority of your posts in this thread, and indeed, this forum. If I don't see an immediate change in that, I am removing your access.

CtevenSrowder

AllForIt wrote: »

I hope noone finds it obnoxious of transphobic of me to to come to the conclusions I've come to. They are made in all sincerity and if one doesn't like it, disagree away.

Ahh, bless your naivety. You are a TERF, anti-trans, a bigot, a transphobe, you have aligned yourself with those who burn people alive.

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

People with gender dysphoria (which is simply the modern term for something long recognised) are recorded as existing for hundreds of years and across many cultures so trying to claim it is some new fashionable thing is utter nonsense.
The term used in Early Modern England was 'Androgyny' first used in the 1550s to describe someone who had the traits of one gender but was biologically the other.
Beginning of the 20th century Magus Hirschfeld coined the term 'transvestite'

Transitioning in the surgical/hormonal sense is first recorded in Hirschfeld's Berlin Institute.

Before you expound your made up theories about people of Status A and Status B - where you are naturally in the higher status group and those you have an aversion to are in the lower perhaps you should read a bit of the history around 'sexology' and acquaint yourself with some facts.

This is a handy place to start https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/02/brief-history-transgender-issues#:~:text='Transvestite'%20originated%20in%201910%20from,British%20term)%20not%20until%201996.

Should you decide to study further you will find that among sexologists like Edward Carpenter the belief was that gay men possessed a male body and a female temperament and vice versa for lesbians - in essence that homosexuality was a form of gender dysphoria. They called it sexual inversion.
The sexologist Richard von Krafft-Ebing described female sexual inversion as "the masculine soul, heaving in the female bosom".

From wikipedia on sexual inversion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_inversion_(sexology)

The belief was Homosexuals were actually transgender (inverted) and therefore really heterosexual but in the 'wrong' body.

The argument can be made - using primary sources - that acknowledgement of gender dysphoria as a condition by the medical profession pre-dates the acceptance of homosexuality as anything other than a mental illness and/or disorder.
For a history of how homosexuality was viewed by the medical profession this is a good start https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-03661930059-8/fulltext

So - early sexologists believed that all homosexuals were in reality people with gender dysphoria or psychiatrically very ill and in need of aversion therapy.
Or to put it in your terms - Transgender people were Status A, Homosexuals Status B.

Oh you're back. I thought you'd left for good. Can you give us your reasons why you think it's acceptable for male rapists to be put into women's spaces such as prison, but aren't allowed into your womens space?

Ted_YNWA

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Oh you're back. I thought you'd left for good. Can you give us your reasons why you think it's acceptable for male rapists to be put into women's spaces such as prison, but aren't allowed into your womens space?

Mod.

Don't post in this thread again.

Bannasidhe

Gatling wrote: »

The absolute majority of children that people claim to be trans actually grow out of it ,
The few who don't need to be cared for under the supervision of a psychology team ,till they are adults and capable physically and mentally to make the decision to transition,

They don't need to be told how to ask for puberty blocker's ,they don't need to be told to freeze their eggs or semen if they choose to have a child in adult hood ,

Distress they people claiming Child are distressed about wearing the wrong clothes have zero clue about it ,more makey upey claims they can't back up ,

This is why we need to heavily invest on child psychology supports and services for children and families ,
And oddly enough the same people don't want the topic of mental health being connected to the idea ,
So why would psychology be the lead support service.


Answers on a post card

You can put your Yes or No on a postcard if it means you will answer the question you have been asked.

Natterjack from Kerry

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ahh, bless your naivety. You are a TERF, anti-trans, a bigot, a transphobe, you have aligned yourself with those who burn people alive.

I don't think anyone at all, is really a TERF, anti trans, or a transphobe. Using those term for some who believes a trans woman is really a man, is pretty offensive. I have been called such by the mods here.
That the view conflicts with that of the trans person, does not mean it is transphobic or anti trans. It is simply the majority view, from a rational and disinterested position. The greater error is by those who don't accept the view that sex or gender cannot change, no matter how hard they try to redefine the English language to bend it to that view, and accusé those who don't conform to be bigots.

Gatling

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You can put your Yes or No on a postcard

As I said answers on a postcard

Cestmoi 111

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

On this, what on earth happens with the non-binary or gender fluid people who are sentenced to a stay in prison? Do they just get to choose the prison that they prefer (always the women’s I’m gonna guess)? What would happen, for example, someone like that Bunce person in Credit Suisse who says that they “decide how I choose to express on a given day regarding my gender expression”?
Using the immutable quality of sex is a far clearer, fairer and more realistic criteria to use.

Quoting myself here! I’m interested if anyone has any examples of what happens in these gender fluid or non binary situations.

Unanticipated consequences for Sam Smith and the Brit awards:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/mar/12/sam-smith-gender-2021-brit-awards

mohawk

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

I don't think anyone at all, is really a TERF, anti trans, or a transphobe. Using those term for some who believes a trans woman is really a man, is pretty offensive. I have been called such by the mods here.
That the view conflicts with that of the trans person, does not mean it is transphobic or anti trans. It is simply the majority view, from a rational and disinterested position. The greater error is by those who don't accept the view that sex or gender cannot change, no matter how hard they try to redefine the English language to bend it to that view, and accusé those who don't conform to be bigots.

I would agree that there a very few actual transphobes. Personally I have a couple issues with the TRA viewpoint. I would definitely not class myself as a transphobe.
1 Research shows about 80% of children would are show signs of gender Dysphoria as children don’t show these signs when they adulthood. Therefore any medical transition cannot be the default treatment for teenagers. Medical and surgical international is physically tough and can have lifelong side effects.
2. Over last decade there was a dramatic increase in teenage girls identifying as trans. It should be okay to ask why. I am not sure the answer is because it’s more socially acceptable nowadays is correct because otherwise there should also be an increase in older women coming out as trans also.
3. The use of the word woman is not transphobic and pregnancy, breastfeeding etc are female issues. I know it can be triggering for some trans people however you cannot change sex. There are male bodies and female bodies. Gender is not the same as sex.
4. Transwomen are transwomen. Out of respect and politeness when I speak to a trans acquaintance of mine I use their chosen female name. However they are not female. I will not treat them with disrespect or exclude them.
In fact I was recently watching an interview recently and the interviewee was trans and they were asked the male/female question. The person said they are male and if they are female they wouldn’t be trans. Gender Dysphoria has been something they have been dealing with for last 20 years of their life. They also described how initially it was tough to be referred to as a man but yet being called a woman gives them a feeling of cognitive dissonance. This person is in process of transitioning and honestly I wish them well as they deserve to feel comfortable.

Cestmoi 111

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

I don't think anyone at all, is really a TERF, anti trans, or a transphobe. Using those term for some who believes a trans woman is really a man, is pretty offensive. I have been called such by the mods here.
That the view conflicts with that of the trans person, does not mean it is transphobic or anti trans. It is simply the majority view, from a rational and disinterested position. The greater error is by those who don't accept the view that sex or gender cannot change, no matter how hard they try to redefine the English language to bend it to that view, and accusé those who don't conform to be bigots.

That is exactly how these words are used now - to describe someone who doesnt think everything a trans person wants them to think.

Last week Katy Montgomerie, a usually militant TRA was accused of wrongspeak and denounced as a TERF and a transphobe and accused of “peddling transphobic hate speech” for saying that for a lot of people “genitals are part of their sexual orientation and it is not a choice or something you can learn.”

Of course it was deleted from Twitter before KM could be cancelled.

Bannasidhe

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

I don't think anyone at all, is really a TERF, anti trans, or a transphobe. Using those term for some who believes a trans woman is really a man, is pretty offensive. I have been called such by the mods here.
That the view conflicts with that of the trans person, does not mean it is transphobic or anti trans. It is simply the majority view, from a rational and disinterested position. The greater error is by those who don't accept the view that sex or gender cannot change, no matter how hard they try to redefine the English language to bend it to that view, and accusé those who don't conform to be bigots.

TERF is an acronym for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. A small, but vocal group. Unless you are a radical feminist who wants to exclude transwomen you are not a TERF.

This doesn't mean a person cannot be transphobic (am not saying you are). Graham Linehan is transphobic - he is not a TERF.

Saying a trans gender woman is really a man is both obnoxious and trans phobic. In exactly the same way as saying being homosexual is unnatural is obnoxious and homophobic.


You have no evidence it is the 'majority' view.

The English language is constantly redefined - unlike Latin which is a dead language for that very reason.

Bannasidhe

Gatling wrote: »

As I said answers on a postcard

Not going to answer the question I see.

How interesting that a person who has ranted on and on about protecting children and keeping ideology out of their lives is unable to confirm that they would not force a child to wear clothes or participate in an activity that would cause them serious emotional distress.

Forcing a child to do something they really do not want to do is being a bully in my book.

The question now is how far does this go?
Do girls have to wear skirts/dresses and never trousers?
Can they play soccer?

Can boys study ballet?
Knit?

Seems to me that insisting children conform absolutely to what is deemed boys stuff and girls stuff is ideologically driven and cares not a jot for the mental health of individual children.

No more Tomboys in this ideological gender appropriate behaviour world. No more boys cooking away in the kitchen with mammy as they should be out kicking a ball whether they want to or not.

That sound like a miserable childhood for many a young 'un.

Cestmoi 111

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not going to answer the question I see.

How interesting that a person who has ranted on and on about protecting children and keeping ideology out of their lives is unable to confirm that they would not force a child to wear clothes or participate in an activity that would cause them serious emotional distress.

Forcing a child to do something they really do not want to do is being a bully in my book.

The question now is how far does this go?
Do girls have to wear skirts/dresses and never trousers?
Can they play soccer?

Can boys study ballet?
Knit?

Seems to me that insisting children conform absolutely to what is deemed boys stuff and girls stuff is ideologically driven and cares not a jot for the mental health of individual children.

No more Tomboys in this ideological gender appropriate behaviour world. No more boys cooking away in the kitchen with mammy as they should be out kicking a ball whether they want to or not.

That sound like a miserable childhood for many a young 'un.

Who’s doing this though? Seems to me (and many others as I’ve seen it said many times here and elsewhere) that it is the trans movement who is taking a backwards step here. I think for most people a boy who knits and ballet dances or a little girl climbing up trees in wrecked jeans is a perfect little snapshot of childhood. But it’s the trans side that is suggesting maybe this dancing boy is a girl and maybe this little climber is in fact a boy. That’s the regressive piece.

Btw I was very much a tomboy too. I still remember how I howled when I was forced to wear a dress for my communion and how I sprinted upstairs to change into shorts and T-shirt soon as I got home. Outside of that one experience, I don’t remember being forced to conform to girly stuff.

Gatling

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Forcing a child to do something they really do not want to do is being a bully in my book.

The question now is how far does this go?
Do girls have to wear skirts/dresses and never trousers?
Can they play soccer?

Can boys study ballet?
Knit?



No more Tomboys in this ideological gender appropriate behaviour world. No more boys cooking away in the kitchen with mammy as they should be out kicking a ball whether they want to or not.

Forcing a child to believe they are the wrong gender because a supposed expert say so , yeah Id consider that bullying hence the stand back and observe approach should always be applied .

Girls have always wore skirts or trousers all through history or whatever they feel comfortable in ,

Girls play soccer and other team sports from GAA to rugby all across the world even in Islamic states ,
Boys and men have always been able to and in Many many cases hold the lead roles in ballet ,
Boys , girls ,men and women have knitted and sowen for hundreds of years of not thousands of years .
Boys have always learned to Cook and bake and be hugely successful at it ,

"No more Tomboys in this ideological gender"

So your clearly wrong with the above claims I actually find it very amusing no more Tomboys ,

And yet here you are a happy healthy woman despite not wanting to wear a dress in childhood

Bannasidhe

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

Who’s doing this though? Seems to me (and many others as I’ve seen it said many times here and elsewhere) that it is the trans movement who is taking a backwards step here. I think for most people a boy who knits and ballet dances or a little girl climbing up trees in wrecked jeans is a perfect little snapshot of childhood. But it’s the trans side that is suggesting maybe this dancing boy is a girl and maybe this little climber is in fact a boy. That’s the regressive piece.

Btw I was very much a tomboy too. I still remember how I howled when I was forced to wear a dress for my communion and how I sprinted upstairs to change into shorts and T-shirt soon as I got home. Outside of that one experience, I don’t remember being forced to conform to girly stuff.

With respect, this isn't about you.

A poster made a comment about how they believed children needed to be protected from an 'ideology' they disagree with and how children should be left alone to 'be children'. That poster was the one who complained about forcing children to do things because 'ideology'.

As this is a discussion I politely asked whether this poster would let a child alone when they didn't want to conform to what is considered gender appropriate by 'non-ideological' people such as the poster presents themselves as being, or would they force them to conform.

The poster attempted to dodge the question.

I repeated the question - asking if they would force a child to do things that seriously emotionally distressed that child.

They declined to answer.

I then gave my opinion on forcing a child to do things they do not want to do and causes them emotional distress, and how this can very much be ideologically driven.

Gatling

Bannasidhe wrote: »

With respect, this isn't about you.

A poster made a comment about how they believed children needed to be protected from an 'ideology' they disagree with and how children should be left alone to 'be children'.

Yes they do and I've stated multiple times and I stand by it .

I've answered your question several times ...


But your going on about tomboy ideology ,there is no such thing as tomboy ideology

Cestmoi 111

Bannasidhe wrote: »

With respect, this isn't about you.

A poster made a comment about how they believed children needed to be protected from an 'ideology' they disagree with and how children should be left alone to 'be children'. That poster was the one who complained about forcing children to do things because 'ideology'.

As this is a discussion I politely asked whether this poster would let a child alone when they didn't want to conform to what is considered gender appropriate by 'non-ideological' people such as the poster presents themselves as being, or would they force them to conform.

The poster attempted to dodge the question.

I repeated the question - asking if they would force a child to do things that seriously emotionally distressed that child.

They declined to answer.

I then gave my opinion on forcing a child to do things they do not want to do and causes them emotional distress, and how this can very much be ideologically driven.

No not about me but it’s a discussion board so it’s ok that I commented on your opinion, and followed up your anecdote with a small one of my own.

Natterjack from Kerry

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This doesn't mean a person cannot be transphobic (am not saying you are). Graham Linehan is transphobic - he is not a TERF.

Saying a trans gender woman is really a man is both obnoxious and trans phobic. In exactly the same way as saying being homosexual is unnatural is obnoxious and homophobic.

Saying it to a person is one thing - that is indeed just rude and obnoxious, and transphobic I would agree.

But thinking it, is not transphobic. Iwould be transphobic by your strict above definition if you include thinking it, although I presume you dont.

Those who would class thinking a transwoman is a man as transphobic are again bending the English language away from the norm and making it specific to their own world rather than to its general usage. Using 'phobe' simply as a descriptor of someone who disagrees with the view that a transman can truly be describes as a man, is in that sense benign, and just a means of stating a different opinion. But x-phobe has stronger connotations than simply disagreement. And people are right to object to its usage if they are neither fearful of nor discriminating agains transpeople.

Gatling

Are we now trying to conflate being a tomboy to being trans ?

Not wanting to wear a dress with taking a child from 4 years up to tavistock to be started on the gender reassignment path ?

Bannasidhe

Gatling wrote: »

Girls have always wore skirts or trousers all through history or whatever they feel comfortable in ,

Historically females wearing male dress was a crime punishable by death. Deuteronomy 22: 5 was the justification for this.

Women wearing trousers in Paris was outlawed in 1800. It was repealed in 2012 having not been enforced since the 1920s.

In many parts of the U.S during the 1940s/50s/60s the " 3 article rule" was strictly enforced - women and men were jailed for not wearing 3 article of clothing specific to their biological gender. It turned out there was no specific law and the authorities were using obsolete laws from the mid 1800's designed to stop white people dressing like Native Americans.

So no - women have not historically been allowed to 'cross-dress'. Many women were severely punished for doing just that.

Whether you want to admit it or not your belief is that boys must be boys and girls must be girls and there are acceptable 'norms' for how they should express their gender - the fact that societally acceptable norms has changed in recent decades doesn't change that. You claim this means you are not ideologically driven and seek only to protect all the children.

What you are not accepting is that you have an ideology - the ideology of social conservatism, and by insisting that all children should conform to the norms you find comfortable you are ignoring those children who cannot conform as it causes them severe emotional distress.

You claim one side is ideologically driven and using children. I am saying your stance is also ideologically driven and one willing to cause distress to some children.