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
1…175176178180181…226

Comments

  • Options
    #5312
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    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.

    Educate us as to the similarities between trans people and people with body dysmorphia please.

    What experiences exactly do they share? Do people treat them the same way? Would it have similar implications for ones career prospects? Have people with body dysmorphia ever had threads started about them arguing about their rights? Etc etc etc.

    Because I can and have repeatedly discussed the similarities experiences that trans and gay people face while acknowledging that being gay and being trans are different things.


  • Options
    #5313
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    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.

    Again it's your misunderstanding of science that leads you to believe that.


  • Options
    #5314
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Again it's your misunderstanding of science that leads you to believe that.

    .........

    What?

    Your understanding of science says that biological men can be women?

    And to change sex you just need to declare it?

    Honestly?

    What is a man? What is a woman?

    Answer those two questions and that will be the end of it.


  • Options
    #5315
    BavarianCare
    Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭BavarianCare


    "-Any statement that asserts or implies that transgenderism is a mental illness. "

    May I ask is it possible to assert or imply that gender dysphoria is a mental illness?


  • Options
    #5316
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    .........

    What?

    Your understanding of science says that biological men can be women?

    And to change sex you just need to declare it?

    Honestly?

    What is a man? What is a woman?

    Answer those two questions and that will be the end of it.

    Firstly, I have repeatedly said that declaration has nothing to do with sex/gender. There is really no need to misrepresent me.

    Your.misunderstanding of science is that the terms used in science are not scientific facts. They're linguistic facts. Scientists are like any other social group in that regard .

    It is a scientific fact that individuals with Xx chromosomes differ biologically from individuals with XY chromosomes. It is not a scientific fact that individuals with XX chromosomes are to be called women and nobody else can.

    If you believe terminology used in science are scientific facts then you lack the very basic understanding of science and it's methodologies.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5317
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    BavarianCare wrote: »
    "-Any statement that asserts or implies that transgenderism is a mental illness. "

    May I ask is it possible to assert or imply that gender dysphoria is a mental illness?

    As a gender critical transexual I know has answered in reply to this question, "Of course it's a mental illness. Where do they think my dysphoria resides? In my liver?"


  • Options
    #5318
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    BavarianCare wrote: »
    "-Any statement that asserts or implies that transgenderism is a mental illness. "

    May I ask is it possible to assert or imply that gender dysphoria is a mental illness?

    Can't answer for the mods you would probably have to message them directly.

    But it seems unlikely it would be allowed as gender dysphoria being no longer.considered a mental illness by the psychiatric community is the basis for no longer considering being trans to be a mental illness.


  • Options
    #5319
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    BavarianCare wrote: »
    Untrue:
    Gender dysphoria is a diagnosis listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), a manual published by the American Psychiatric Association to diagnose mental conditions.

    Ref: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/symptoms-causes/syc-20475255

    So, this 'regulation by the mods' appears to stop free and FACTUAL speech?

    Perhaps I'm wrong...

    It's only considered to be a psychological issue if:

    "Significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other areas of functioning"

    So it's not the feelings of non conforming gender. It's that these feelings can cause people to be distressed.

    Of course people ignore this fact and try to imply that the feelings of non confrming gender are the mental issue.


  • Options
    #5320
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Firstly, I have repeatedly said that declaration has nothing to do with sex/gender. There is really no need to misrepresent me.

    Your.misunderstanding of science is that the terms used in science are not scientific facts. They're linguistic facts. Scientists are like any other social group in that regard .

    It is a scientific fact that individuals with Xx chromosomes differ biologically from individuals with XY chromosomes. It is not a scientific fact that individuals with XX chromosomes are to be called women and nobody else can.

    If you believe terminology used in science are scientific facts then you lack the very basic understanding of science and it's methodologies.

    Ffs. Really?

    So essentially you agree that men and women are different.

    You agree that a trans woman isn't a female by biological standards yet insist they are a woman because it's not a "scientific definition"?

    You really are clutching at straws here.

    A male and a female are different. Agree?

    A male can't be female by wanting to be. Agree?

    A male human is almost universally referred to as a man. Agree?

    A female human is almost universally referred to as a woman. Agree?

    You are being obtuse and are the furthest thing from an ally to trans people by making this absurd argument


  • Options
    #5321
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Ffs. Really?

    So essentially you agree that men and women are different but want to use the same words so as to "be nice"?

    You agree that a trans woman isn't a female by biological standards yet insist they are a woman because it's not a "scientific definition"?

    You really are clutching at straws here.

    A male and a female are different. Agree?

    A male can't be female by wanting to be. Agree?

    A male human is almost universally referred to as a man. Agree?

    A female human is almost universally referred to as a woman. Agree?

    You are being obtuse and are the furthest thing from an ally to trans people by completely making this absurd argument

    Yes I agree that men and women are.different. And by women I include trans women and by men I include trans men.

    A trans woman is a female. But I agree she does.not have XX chromosomes.

    I agree that a male human is almost universally referred to as a man. I include trans men as male humans.

    I agree that males cannot be female by wanting to be. Both trans males and cis males are.not female.

    Whether you think I'm an ally or not is completely irrelevant to me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5322
    BavarianCare
    Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭BavarianCare


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    It's only considered to be a psychological issue if:

    "Significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other areas of functioning"

    So it's not the feelings of non conforming gender. It's that these feelings can cause people to be distressed.

    Of course people ignore this fact and try to imply that the feelings of non confrming gender are the mental issue.

    That is a chicken & egg argument. It's equally reasonable for me to state that people are distressed with these feelings due to a mental disorder?
    I can't understand this.

    Next you will be able to say that 2+2 is not 4?

    (Perhaps that is linguistics also?)


  • Options
    #5323
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    BavarianCare wrote: »
    That is a chicken & egg argument. It's equally reasonable for me to state that people are distressed with these feelings due to a mental disorder?
    I can't understand this.

    Next you will be able to say that 2+2 is not 4?

    (Perhaps that is linguistics also?)

    It's not a.chciken and egg argument.

    If you've ever read the DSM you will know there are many issues listed.

    For nearly all of them a significant portion of the population who do not fall under the DSM definition will have some of the criteria.

    The criteria that most don't meet is that their conditions to.not cause significant distress.

    If the DSM considered the gender non-conforming issues to be the main criteria for including it in the DSM there would be no need to put in the "significant distress" part.

    It is completely accepted that if someone has feelings of gender nonconformity and it does not cause them significant distress then they do not fall under the definition given in the DSM.

    You are being extremely disingenuous to suggest otherwise.


  • Options
    #5324
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    BavarianCare wrote: »
    That is a chicken & egg argument. It's equally reasonable for me to state that people are distressed with these feelings due to a mental disorder?
    I can't understand this.

    Next you will be able to say that 2+2 is not 4?

    (Perhaps that is linguistics also?)

    That's your perception of what 2 is. Some people may interpret that if you add 2 to another 2 you end up with 22.

    Who are you to say they're wrong?


  • Options
    #5325
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    It's not a.chciken and egg argument.

    If you've ever read the DSM you will know there are many issues listed.

    For nearly all of them a significant portion of the population who do not fall under the DSM definition will have some of the criteria.

    The criteria that most don't meet is that their conditions to.not cause significant distress.

    If the DSM considered the gender non-conforming issues to be the main criteria for including it in the DSM there would be no need to put in the "significant distress" part.

    It is completely accepted that if someone has feelings of gender nonconformity and it does not cause them significant distress then they do not fall under the definition given in the DSM.

    You are being extremely disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

    The gall to bring up definitions to further your argument while ignoring male/female definitions is ballsy to say the least.


  • Options
    #5326
    BavarianCare
    Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭BavarianCare


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    It's not a.chciken and egg argument.

    If you've ever read the DSM you will know there are many issues listed.

    For nearly all of them a significant portion of the population who do not fall under the DSM definition will have some of the criteria.

    The criteria that most don't meet is that their conditions to.not cause significant distress.

    If the DSM considered the gender non-conforming issues to be the main criteria for including it in the DSM there would be no need to put in the "significant distress" part.

    It is completely accepted that if someone has feelings of gender nonconformity and it does not cause them significant distress then they do not fall under the definition given in the DSM.

    You are being extremely disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
    By whom?


  • Options
    #5327
    Rodin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Firstly, I have repeatedly said that declaration has nothing to do with sex/gender. There is really no need to misrepresent me.

    Your.misunderstanding of science is that the terms used in science are not scientific facts. They're linguistic facts. Scientists are like any other social group in that regard .

    It is a scientific fact that individuals with Xx chromosomes differ biologically from individuals with XY chromosomes. It is not a scientific fact that individuals with XX chromosomes are to be called women and nobody else can.

    If you believe terminology used in science are scientific facts then you lack the very basic understanding of science and it's methodologies.

    People with xx sex chromosomes are different to those with xy chromosomes. One cannot become the other.

    We call those with xx sex chromosomes 'female'.
    We call those with xy sex chromosomes 'male'.

    Since xx can not become xy and vice versa, females cannot become males and vice versa.

    People can call themselves or identify as whatever the hell they want but their biology is fixed.
    A 'transwoman' is not female and it is not "transphobic" to say so.


  • Options
    #5328
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    The gall to bring up definitions to further your argument while ignoring male/female definitions is ballsy to say the least.

    I don't ignore them. I think they describe cis people just fine. No issue there.


  • Options
    #5329
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    BavarianCare wrote: »
    By whom?

    WHO and APA for starters.


  • Options
    #5330
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I don't ignore them. I think they describe cis people just fine. No issue there.

    Cis isn't a scientific term. Could mean anything by your logic


  • Options
    #5331
    BavarianCare
    Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭BavarianCare


    Rodin wrote: »
    People with xx sex chromosomes are different to those with xy chromosomes. One cannot become the other.

    We call those with xx sex chromosomes 'female'.
    We call those with xy sex chromosomes 'male'.

    Since xx can not become xy and vice versa, females cannot become males and vice versa.

    People can call themselves or identify as whatever the hell they want but their biology is fixed.
    A 'transwoman' is not female and it is not "transphobic" to say so.

    My simple understanding is the same.
    Basically:
    You're born either a male or female. SCIENTIFICALLY.

    You identify as either a male or female (gender identity?)

    However, whatever you IDENTIFY as does not overrule SCIENCE.

    Otherwise I can identify as a cat e.g.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5332
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Rodin wrote: »
    People with xx sex chromosomes are different to those with xy chromosomes. One cannot become the other.

    We call those with xx sex chromosomes 'female'.
    We call those with xy sex chromosomes 'male'.

    Since xx can not become xy and vice versa, females cannot become males and vice versa.

    People can call themselves or identify as whatever the hell they want but their biology is fixed.
    A 'transwoman' is not female and it is not "transphobic" to say so.

    You call those with XX chromosomes female. I don't. So you're incorrect to say "we".


  • Options
    #5333
    BavarianCare
    Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭BavarianCare


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    WHO and APA for starters.

    Source?

    UPDATE:
    Reference is what I mean. You've only given opinion.


  • Options
    #5334
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


      LLMMLL wrote: »
      You call those with XX chromosomes female. I don't. So you're incorrect to say "we".

      That's pathetic. Especially from someone who uses the word cis


    1. Options
      #5335
      Rodin
      Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


      LLMMLL wrote: »
      You call those with XX chromosomes female. I don't. So you're incorrect to say "we".

      It doesn't really matter what you call them...
      The words will be different in different languages but the principle is the same.
      Biology existed before language.

      Xx can not become xy...and that's the bottom line.
      Transwomen are not female and never can be.


    2. Options
      #5336
      LLMMLL
      Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


      [Deleted User] wrote: »
      Cis isn't a scientific term. Could mean anything by your logic

      I've never said any word could mean anything. You obviously still fail to understand the basics of my argument.

      A words meaning comes from understanding it's usage by groups who use it.

      Since nobody uses the word "cis" to mean "cat" then it's clear that cis does not mean cat.


    3. Options
      #5337
      LLMMLL
      Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


      BavarianCare wrote: »
      Source?

      UPDATE:
      Reference is what I mean. You've only given opinion.

      According to the American Psychiatric Association, the critical element of gender dysphoria is "clinically significant distress".[1]

      The relevant article is linked in Wikipedia.


    4. Options
      #5338
      BavarianCare
      Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭BavarianCare


      Rodin wrote: »
      It doesn't really matter what you call them...
      The words will be different in different languages but the principle is the same.
      Biology existed before language.

      Xx can not become xy...and that's the bottom line.
      Transwomen are not female and never can be.

      The issue appears to be the following.

      Transwomen can never become BIOLOGICALLY female (science).

      However, as they IDENTIFY as female then everyone else must accept that they are ACTUALLY 'real' females and IGNORE SCIENCE?

      Sure, this is total madness... Hence the GD


    5. Options
      #5339
      Rodin
      Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


      BavarianCare wrote: »
      The issue appears to be the following.

      Transwomen can never become BIOLOGICALLY female (science).

      However, as they IDENTIFY as female then everyone else must accept that they are ACTUALLY 'real' females and IGNORE SCIENCE?

      Sure, this is total madness... Hence the GD

      Anyone who thinks a transwoman is female should be considered to be akin to a flat earther.
      The concept doesn't stand up to even the most minimal scrutiny.


    6. Options
      #5340
      BavarianCare
      Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭BavarianCare


      LLMMLL wrote: »
      According to the American Psychiatric Association, the critical element of gender dysphoria is "clinically significant distress".[1]

      The relevant article is linked in Wikipedia.

      Critical... I see.

      Give me the ACTUAL DEFINITION of GD?

      PS: Just a quick question; does 2+2=4?

      ===
      I don't think you have an open mind at all but no harm done.
      However, before I go, I'll leave you with a 'reference' which you DID NOT

      This 'reference' is not SCIENCE. It's wiki...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5

      PS: When asked for definitions in future - use proper sources. wiki does not qualify.

      All you've aid has made me think even more about this topic and makes me feel that far more people are deluded about this than I previously thought.
      It is sad.

      Goodnight & take care.


    7. Advertisement
    8. Options
      #5341
      LLMMLL
      Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


      BavarianCare wrote: »
      Critical... I see.

      Give me the ACTUAL DEFINITION of GD?

      PS: Just a quick question; does 2+2=4?

      I've given you the relevant part. You're clearly trying to imply anyone with feelings of gender nonconformity are mentally ill. The DSM definition does NOT support that and the expert groups completely disagree with you as I have proven.


    This discussion has been closed.
    Advertisement