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

Gatling

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Where is lego on the scale. As that's what I played with.

Your could be a unicorn going by that idea that gender either Barbie or Joe
Oddly enough neither Barbie or GI Joe have any genitals so both are wrong when being used to identify gender .

I wonder if they will start handing that out in labour wards in maternity hospitals "now love have a look at this chart and decide which gender suits your newborn baby before confirming the child's gender and name"

Spectrum being used to suggest to children what they are ,well considering many experts believe the majority of children and adults Will find themselves some where on the autism spectrum it's definitely no way to use to to determine gender or anything else ,
Imagine handing that to kids and asked what ethnicity they fell close to based off their feelings

One eyed Jack

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. they are 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.

AllForIt I’m just gonna preface this by saying you know I love you man, and one of the reasons I do is because I know I can disagree with you and you won’t get all pissy about it. I know I can be informal in how I express my thoughts and less conscientious about my use of language (I do worry sometimes that I may develop a spastic sphincter at some point from having to be so tight-arsed about minding my P’s and Q’s in my posts!). Essentially I think it’s shìte that you had to post a footnote at the end of your post to explain where you were coming from, but I get why, it just still doesn’t make it any less shìte that you felt the need to do it. I’ve always gotten where you’re coming from and I’ve never been fond of the idea of presuming the worst in people and treating them accordingly. I’ve always been biased the other direction - assume good faith and when in doubt, give people the benefit of the doubt as opposed to assuming as the first principle that people are actually acting with malice intended.

Aaanyway, before I get to addressing the core of your argument, I should probably explain the foundation of where I’m coming from on this one, where I come from on all issues relating to human rights really. You’re sort of on the ball, but for me it’s more fundamental than just a matter of law, it’s due to the fact that I’ve always been religious (that’s a B category status according to your understanding, if I’m not mistaken, as you don’t consider religion an innate personality trait? More on that later) and a firm proponent of belief in the concept of all humans being created equal as a universal concept. I’m absolutely certain the concept existed long before it was documented in the earliest versions of the Bible. So when I saw I was being characterised in the same vein as Progressives, I figured I’d best correct that misunderstanding of where I’m coming from fairly quickly I have no desire to be associated with Progressive thought, there may be some overlap in our positions, but I’ve always been and shall remain Conservative, and to that end - transgenderism is nothing new, no matter how many names people have placed on the concept throughout human history, it’s fundamentally the same concept they’re referring to. It didn’t just arise out of the 60’s and 70’s in Western Society when the Political became Personal. It’s a phenomenon that’s been observed in almost every culture and society throughout human history, we’ve just had different names for it and attached different meanings to it. In current prevailing Western thought, the concept is still framed in a Victorian understanding of sex and sexuality, not least because of the fact that it’s what suits the vast majority of people, and they’ll be damned if they’re going to let anyone interfere with that. Can’t say I blame them, but it still doesn’t justify unjust discrimination against anyone on the basis of preconceived negative notions about them that they present as a threat to the prevailing social and cultural norms. If anyone thinks they should be able to deny a person equal status and they think they can do it in less than 140 characters, they should be advised to think again. Depriving an individual or a group of people equal status on the basis that they do not conform is exactly why the concept of protected statuses exists in law. It allows for people to be different, and still be regarded as equals. It’s often forgotten that human rights are prescriptive, people all too often concentrate on the ‘rights’ part, and ignore the ‘human’ part which places an obligation on all people to act in the spirit of cooperation and cohesion on the basis of their equal status as humans. That’s the difference really between Progressives (who are a modern expression of liberal philosophy - they don’t do history), and Conservatives (who were always the same boring old farts and prefer to maintain the status quo, the question being how far back in human history does the status quo go, and people who regard themselves as “Classic Liberals” are a modern expression of that philosophy - they only go back about 200 years of human history to the Victorian Era).

So to your idea of statuses then, and the first thought which occurred to me when I read your post was George Orwell wants his Animal Farm back - the moral prescription being put forward in the book that all animals are created equal, some are more equal than others, and how that maps to your Status A and Status B prescriptions. I get that the classification for you comes down to characteristics which you consider to be innate, and behavioural expressions which you consider to be performative, or external characteristics which are not a permanent feature of a person. And no matter what examples I can think of, there is an argument can be considered for an innate basis for it, yes, even tattoos and branding - I can think of no explanation for tacky shìt like cocktail glasses on wrists, fairies on ankles, tributes to their grandmothers inscribed between their shoulder blades just underneath the barcode on the back of their neck on which they also branded their children’s names... nope, I’m coming up a blank on that one, but when I consider the history of the practice and it’s cultural significance - then it immediately moves from classification B to classification A - for the Maori people of New Zealand for example it’s a rite of passage for adolescents to receive facial tattoos and tattoos on other parts of their bodies, done nowadays with machine, but historically their tattoos were carved with bone, and it was understandably a painful experience for a child to be initiated into adulthood in that way, but it was and still is a fundamental part of their cultural identity as a distinct group within society. Would I do it to my own child? No, but I understand why other parents might want it for their children and think it’s odd that I don’t want any part in it. I’d wonder where I failed my child if they arrived home with a shìtty tattoo that looks like they lost a fight with a George Foreman grill. The concept of inscribing our history in our skin is still somewhat something of a foreign concept for people in Western Society, we use paper for that sort of thing and can thank the Chinese for that much at least.

Basically, anything which you could classify as external to humans on based upon the idea that it isn’t biologically innate, it can be argued that there is an innate biological driving force underlying it’s manifestation as a behaviour (and biology doesn’t make any moral judgments on the morality of any behaviour, humans do; classification of observed phenomena is a human endeavour). The same applies even to religiosity or lack thereof. It would be misleading to suggest there’s a biological basis for religion itself as though there’s such a thing as a God gene (I’ve tried to be non-religious, only made myself miserable in any attempt), but scientists have spent years investigating whether or not there is a biological basis for religiosity. As such does the same understanding of “born this way” commonly applied to sexual orientation, apply in other contexts. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that it could, and so we would have to move that from category B to category A.

And that’s the underlying approach I have in terms of human rights. From when I was a child I understood that everyone has human rights and is entitled to equal treatment. What I didn’t realise at the time when my old man was beating the living daylights out of me and I would remind him that I have rights and he cannot be doing this (I wasn’t a particularly bright child and keeping my mouth shut and waiting until he had worn himself out just didn’t occur to me at the time). I wasn’t entirely certain of course that I had rights, I just felt I had to have rights to counter such unjust treatment that in my opinion the punishment seemed disproportionate for the transgression. Encyclopaedia Britannica confirmed that not only did I have rights, but children are entitled to special consideration. My old man didn’t take kindly to this new evidence of something I had hypothesised must exist, and of course it was considered a transgression worthy of the usual unjust treatment. As a child I was in a poor position to argue my point. And that’s why I consider recognition of children’s agency is a fundamental right due special consideration in law, because they do not have the same opportunities as adults to enable them to authentically express themselves. They are expected to conform to adult expectations or face what is often disproportionate and unjust treatment.

The concept of treating individuals or a group of people unfavourably on the basis that they are different, a difference based upon innate characteristics which they have no control over, no agency to change to be someone they’re not in order to conform to what is expected of them, and subject them to unjust and often disproportionate treatment on that basis, has never and will never sit right with me. Social progress is founded upon people supporting each other, as opposed to coming up with ways to classify people into their various groups that we can regard ourselves as superior on any particular basis, and regard other people who are different as inferior, as though they are a threat to our way of being and must be eliminated as an obstruction to the objective of social, as opposed to human evolution, based upon a limited understanding of scientific inquiry.

jam_mac_jam

I think that's a good point about the 12 year old. Some people aren't bothered by having a doctor of a different sex. And that's fine for them. But some people would be, you might be vulnerable, it could be religious, you could be older and not understand gender theory or you might simply prefer a doctor of your own sex.

The comfort of the patient needs to be considered as well as the doctor.

There are situations that I personally would not be bothered about a transwoman being there but I can understand why others might not be. I am a lot less bothered by nudity or showing my body then I would have been when I was younger.

These are legitimate things that we need to work out. And not just dismissed as bigotry or transphobic because you don't agree with or understand gender theory.

To a lot of people not exposed to this they may not even be aware or understand that a trans women could have a penis. If exposed to this it could be a source of distress. In a changing room or gym.

They are not all bigots.

GreeBo

Any chance of a TL; DR?

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

Any chance of a TL; DR?

Fair point GreeBo, seems only fair that I oblige

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The concept of treating individuals or a group of people unfavourably on the basis that they are different, a difference based upon innate characteristics which they have no control over, no agency to change to be someone they’re not in order to conform to what is expected of them, and subject them to unjust and often disproportionate treatment on that basis, has never and will never sit right with me. Social progress is founded upon people supporting each other, as opposed to coming up with ways to classify people into their various groups that we can regard ourselves as superior on any particular basis, and regard other people who are different as inferior, as though they are a threat to our way of being and must be eliminated as an obstruction to the objective of social, as opposed to human evolution, based upon a limited understanding of scientific inquiry.

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Fair point GreeBo, seems only fair that I oblige

Which is the point I raised earlier, I can disagree with transgenderism without treating them unfavourably or as inferior. I do it with religious people all the time, as an example.

Natterjack from Kerry

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The concept of treating individuals or a group of people unfavourably on the basis that they are different, a difference based upon innate characteristics which they have no control over, no agency to change to be someone they’re not in order to conform to what is expected of them, and subject them to unjust and often disproportionate treatment on that basis, has never and will never sit right with me.

But does this really happen? Who is being treated differently really?
Surely treating a trans man as a man in some cases, where the case is trivial, yet treating them as a woman in non trivial cases, is very flexible and fair and bending with their condition. Society is being very accommodating and not at all unfavourably? On the contrary, it is putting itself out to include their difference rather than mistreat them.

Bannasidhe, where do you draw the line with accepting other people's reality?

Would you advocate that anorexic people should be treated as fat because they are convinced they are?

If a fifty year old believed they were a toddler would you accept it?

If someone with body integrity dysphoria wanted to lop off their leg, would you encourage them to get an amputation?

If a child thought they were a dog, would you feed them dog food?

And more pertently, if someone who was gay didn't want to be, would you advocate that they receive conversation therapy?

If not, why not?

Why is it that trans folk are the people you are willing to ignore actual reality?

The vast, vast majority of people posting here don't hate trans folk, they just simply don't accept that men can be women and vice versa.

Gatling

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you advocate that anorexic people should be treated as fat because they are convinced they are?

For some reason I'd be expecting to hear give them liposuction to make them feel better about themselves

Natterjack from Kerry

Deleted User wrote: »

Bannasidhe, where do you draw the line with accepting other people's reality?

Would you advocate that anorexic people should be treated as fat because they are convinced they are?

If a fifty year old believed they were a toddler would you accept it?

If someone with body integrity dysphoria wanted to lop off their leg, would you encourage them to get an amputation?

If a child thought they were a dog, would you feed them dog food?

And more pertently, if someone who was gay didn't want to be, would you advocate that they receive conversation therapy?

If not, why not?

Why is it that trans folk are the people you are willing to ignore actual reality?

The vast, vast majority of people posting here don't hate trans folk, they just simply don't accept that men can be women and vice versa.

I think the difference with trans is that Trans True Believers would agree that all the above are preposterous, but that Trans is a real thing - someone can change gender like a they can a hair cut. They believe the man really has become a woman. Or moved along a spectrum they believe exists of Man<->Woman to a point that suits them and are indeed a blend of whatever proportion they choose. So there is no ignoring of reality for them on the Trans issue.

Bannasidhe

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Bannasidhe, where do you draw the line with accepting other people's reality?

Would you advocate that anorexic people should be treated as fat because they are convinced they are?

If a fifty year old believed they were a toddler would you accept it?

If someone with body integrity dysphoria wanted to lop off their leg, would you encourage them to get an amputation?

If a child thought they were a dog, would you feed them dog food?

And more pertently, if someone who was gay didn't want to be, would you advocate that they receive conversation therapy?

If not, why not?

Why is it that trans folk are the people you are willing to ignore actual reality?

The vast, vast majority of people posting here don't hate trans folk, they just simply don't accept that men can be women and vice versa.

Dunne.

Why are you so afraid of a statistically tiny number of people with a medically recognised condition whose existence has been noted for hundreds of years across many cultures that you need to construct nonsense false equivalences to justify your aversion.

Furthermore, ironically given your conversion therapy comment your entire premise is not even original. It has also been used against Gay people.

LLMMLL

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Dunne.

Why are you so afraid of a statistically tiny number of people with a medically recognised condition whose existence has been noted for hundreds of years across many cultures that you need to construct nonsense false equivalences to justify your aversion.

Furthermore, ironically given your conversion therapy comment your entire premise is not even original. It has also been used against Gay people.

You also have to wonder what is meant by treating someone "as if they were fat". Personally I don't treat fat people any differently than I do thin people. But that's just me....

Natterjack from Kerry

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why are you so afraid of a statistically tiny number of people with a medically recognised condition whose existence has been noted for hundreds of years across many cultures that you need to construct nonsense false equivalences to justify your aversion.

Where do you see the aversion ?

Bannasidhe

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Where do you see the aversion ?

How do you not?

Natterjack from Kerry

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How do you not?

That is not an answer.

Bannasidhe

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

That is not an answer.

It actually is, it's just not an answer you like as it requires you to consider why you cannot see how comparing people with a recognised medical condition to whether or not one would feed dog food to a child saying they are a dog, or framing a medical condition as "other people's reality" is displaying an aversion.

Natterjack from Kerry

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It actually is, it's just not an answer you like as it requires you to consider why you cannot see how comparing people with a recognised medical condition to whether or not one would feed dog food to a child saying they are a dog, or framing a medical condition as "other people's reality" is displaying an aversion.

It is not an answer. An answer explains your view. If you can explain it, then I might see it.

Bannasidhe

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

It is not an answer. An answer explains your view. If you can explain it, then I might see it.

I already did.

The dunne is creating a false equivalence between a recognised medical condition and feeding children dog food in an effort to downplay the very real nature of what he/she seeks to frame as "other people's reality" and questions those who accept what he/she clearly doesn't.

It is the dunne who is failing to accept the scientific and medical consensus that gender dsyphoria is real.
The dunne is adverse to accepting what he/she either dislikes or disapproves of and is trying to make it seem that the problem lies with those who do accept it.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

You also have to wonder what is meant by treating someone "as if they were fat". Personally I don't treat fat people any differently than I do thin people. But that's just me....

What is meant is if someone was exceptionally underweight but acted and thought they were fat, would you encourage their "reality"

But you knew that.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I already did.

The dunne is creating a false equivalence between a recognised medical condition and feeding children dog food in an effort to downplay the very real nature of what he/she seeks to frame as "other people's reality" and questions those who accept what he/she clearly doesn't.

It is the dunne who is failing to accept the scientific and medical consensus that gender dsyphoria is real.
The dunne is adverse to accepting what he/she either dislikes or disapproves of and is trying to make it seem that the problem lies with those who do accept it.

Gender dysphoria is real. So is body integrity dysphoria. Would you approve of people suffering from both to alter their body's to fit their reality?

Or is it you that chooses to accept one and not the other?

Or do you advocate that people should be encouraged to follow their realities?

And I wasn't making an equivalence. I was asking where your line is before you would not accept someone's reality. It's disingenuous to say I was comparing one to the other. I was giving different scenarios of differing levels of absurdity.

It's telling you haven't answered the question.

Where do you draw the line?

And also I don't have an "aversion". That implies negative connotations. There is no hostility and I am not repulsed by or afraid of someone identifying as trans. It's a bad faith argument to suggest I am.

I just don't accept that a man can be a woman or a woman can be a man.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Gender dysphoria is real. So is body integrity dysphoria. Would you approve of people suffering from both to alter their body's to fit their reality?

Or is it you that chooses to accept one and not the other?

Or do you advocate that people should be encouraged to follow their realities?

And I wasn't making an equivalence. I was asking where your line is before you would not accept someone's reality. It's disingenuous to say I was comparing one to the other. I was giving different scenarios of differing levels of absurdity.

It's telling you haven't answered the question.

Where do you draw the line?

It's easy to draw the line.

Trans women are women. Trans men are men.

It has nothing to do with anything else.

I don't know what I would do in any of the silly analogies you posted as they are unique cases and each one should be treated differently based on a multitude of factors.

So there's the line. It's quite simple really.

Natterjack from Kerry

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's easy to draw the line.

Trans women are women. Trans men are men.

As I said the Dunne, thats what it comes down to for those who go by that definition, and why your questions are seen as a group apart by those who start off with the above as a baseline.

Its like religion - that no science or reason backs it up, will never have the believer change their mind. You cannot even have a rational debate.
And, like the religious, I think we just have to respect their view and leave them to it - live and let live and so on. But the line is drawn when it meets reality, and the wider world cannot go along with the the blind believers.

Like the Tanzanian president saying his country's citizens dont need vaccines for Covid, they just need to pray to cure it. I am fine with him believing that. But not with the consequences of his faith over science.

LLMMLL

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

As I said the Dunne, thats what it comes down to for those who go by that definition, and why your questions are seen as a group apart by those who start off with the above as a baseline.

Its like religion - that no science or reason backs it up, will never have the believer change their mind. You cannot even have a rational debate.
And, like the religious, I think we just have to respect their view and leave them to it - live and let live and so on. But the line is drawn when it meets reality, and the wider world cannot go along with the the blind believers.

Like the Tanzanian president saying his country's citizens dont need vaccines for Covid, they just need to pray to cure it. I am fine with him believing that. But not with the consequences of his faith over science.

It's not like religion at all, any more than believing gay people are gay makes it a religion.

The dunne's examples have nothing in common with trans people.

It's like the silly anti-gay-marriage arguments asking should people be allowed marry their car.

Do you believe people that are sexually attracted to inanimate objects are similar to gay or straight people? Can you prove to.me why there is a difference.

If you cannot provide me with scientific evidence of the difference in afraid you are religious...

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's easy to draw the line.

Trans women are women. Trans men are men.

It has nothing to do with anything else.

I don't know what I would do in any of the silly analogies you posted as they are unique cases and each one should be treated differently based on a multitude of factors.

So there's the line. It's quite simple really.

So you are willing to advocate wholesale for the acceptance of a biological falsehood for transpeople, but every other scenario of dysphoria should be taken case by case.

Also, trans has nothing to do with anything else? Yet you call people TERFS when they oppose trans issues being lumped in with sexuality issues?

at least you're consistent with your inconsistencies

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's not like religion at all, any more than believing gay people are gay makes it a religion.

The dunne's examples have nothing in common with trans people.

It's like the silly anti-gay-marriage arguments asking should people be allowed marry their car.

Do you believe people that are sexually attracted to inanimate objects are similar to gay or straight people? Can you prove to.me why there is a difference.

If you cannot provide me with scientific evidence of the difference in afraid you are religious...

My examples were not conflation or comparisons. They were to decipher where the lack of common sense and reality lies. I wasn't comparing them as a like for like.

Don't misrepresent me.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you are willing to advocate wholesale for the acceptance of a biological falsehood for transpeople, but every other scenario of dysphoria should be taken case by case.

Also, trans has nothing to do with anything else? Yet you call people TERFS when they oppose trans issues being lumped in with sexuality issues?

at least you're consistent with your inconsistencies

It's not a biological falsehood. That's just your opinion.

Can you quote when I called someone a TERF for opposing trans issues being aligned with sexuality issues?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My examples were not conflation or comparisons. They were to decipher where the lack of common sense and reality lies. I wasn't comparing them as a like for like.

Don't misrepresent me.

So you think they are all different to trans issues? Why would it matter what my opinion is on these issues then if you consider them to be different?

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It actually is, it's just not an answer you like as it requires you to consider why you cannot see how comparing people with a recognised medical condition to whether or not one would feed dog food to a child saying they are a dog, or framing a medical condition as "other people's reality" is displaying an aversion.

What medically recognised condition does one of the males who is imprisoned in the women's prison in Limerick have, considering that Tavistock said that they do not believe that they are gender dysphoric?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

So you think they are all different to trans issues? Why would it matter what my opinion is on these issues then if you consider them to be different?

Jesus.....

Although those issues are different, they all need a certain amount of denial of actual reality/biology

I was asking to see where the line was before someone who is an advocate for trans acceptance, would say "hang on, this isn't correct"

You conflate homosexual experiences with trans experiences without a second thought and put them under the same umbrella due to shared experiences.

I would argue that people with body integrity dysphoria and trans people would have much more of a shared experience than gay people and trans people.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's not a biological falsehood. That's just your opinion.

A man is a man because of their biology. A woman is a woman because of their biology.

It's not an opinion. It's a fact.

The fact that you think it's an opinion is laughable and pitiful in equal measures.