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

suicide_circus

km991148 wrote: »

By stating there are 3 genders

You may have me mixed up with another poster, i never stated anything of the sort. There are two sexes or genders if you prefer that synonym.

km991148

suicide_circus wrote: »

You may have me mixed up with another poster, i never stated anything of the sort. There are two sexes or genders if you prefer that synonym.

I certainly did.

So this is the confusion: I responded to GreeBo, and you took a subsection of my post out of context by honing in on the word exist. I understand you were making a general comment, I was using 'exists' because it implied GreeBo was denying the existence of trans people (for the reasons I stated above).

And I know you are generalising, there are mostly two sexes.
Our understanding of gender does seem to be changing. That's my take on it and I feel another round of this "debate" is about to begin. Therefore it's a topic I'm not an expert in, so I won't be doing a back and forth on this.

GreeBo

km991148 wrote: »

What 'whole' thing tho?

The fact trans people do exist?
That expression of gender Vs gender Vs sex could all be different?

No, Gender Identity in general.
If people can now change the gender and in fact can change multiple times then "gender" doesnt mean what it has meant for the last couple of thousand years.

km991148 wrote: »

I mean, I'm not trying to pick holes or anything, just trying to understand.
From my point if view there is a lot if complexity and unknowns. If it were all known and worked out, we wouldn't be having this thread.

Indeed, there are a lot of complexities involved, its certainly not as clear cut as some transgender people would make out "I say I'm a woman therefore I am a woman".

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can’t answer for DeargDaol, but in any case the answers to your questions are likely to be subjective anyway as opposed to anything approaching objectivity, like your first point -

Subjectivity is fine, but not when it comes to acceptance of facts.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So what if they do? It doesn’t matter how many people it’s a prerequisite for, that still wouldn’t give them any more rights than they don’t have already, nor does it diminish the rights that any individual has already, such as the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Ok, I'm not really sure what point you are making there to be honest...?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re not outing yourself though? The question might arise if you were using the women’s toilets, and even then you still maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in that someone approaching you to question whether or not you are entitled to use the women’s facilities might well be regarded as an unreasonable infringement of your right to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Well I am in much the same way a trans person using a trans toilet would be?
How am I not clearly identifying myself as male/non trans/non female?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Individuals decide for themselves which bathroom they prefer to use. Speaking from my own personal experience, people generally aren’t too concerned about who uses what bathroom for whatever their purposes. It appears to be an individual choice which facilities anyone prefers to use. Sometimes I’ll use the men’s, sometimes I’ll use the women’s, sometimes I’ll use the facilities which are provided for people with disabilities which sometimes contains the baby changing facilities, they’re not restricted by gender.

No problem with using the toilets that are not restricted by gender, but why do you feel its ok for you to use that toilets that *are* restricted by gender? Why would you not use the toilets that match your gender?
I have a reasonable expectation that there will only be people of my gender in the toilet thats restricted to my gender.

I think you are in a minority if you think its acceptable for you to pick and choose what toilet you use.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The relevance is in relation to your suggestion of the provision of facilities for a third gender, and the reference to separate but equal by displaying an indication of their gender identity can’t have been that lost on you. People would be forced to forego their right to a reasonable expectation of privacy by being forced to use facilities which other people regard as appropriate based upon other people’s perception.

How are they forgoing their rights? They are the appropriate facilities in exactly the same way as male and female toilets are.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point being alluded to is reminiscent of various civil rights movements throughout history where people were regarded as “separate but equal”, but it was enforced upon people, they didn’t ask for it and they didn’t campaign for it. Historically, people have campaigned against segregation, whether it be based upon race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, sex or gender identity, etc.

"People" have historically campaigned for a multitude of things, not all of them accepted or endorsed by wider society.
Men and women have their own toilets today, separate but equal.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Offering people a lesser status, or something they haven’t asked for, is generally regarded as a white elephant, rather than the gift horse the person wants to maintain it is in order to be seen as a “reasonable compromise”, as opposed to regarding all people as having equal status in law. Again, it’s why the Gender Recognition Act was enacted in Ireland in the first place, to recognise that all people have the right to their gender identity, and they have the right to have their preferred gender identity recognised by the State, and protected from unlawful discrimination on the basis of their gender identity, in the same way as everyone is protected from unlawful discrimination on the basis of any of the other protected characteristics listed in Irish Law.

Why is a 3rd toilet a "lesser" status? Is a man a lesser status than a woman?

We all know its in law, thats not in question, but I think you know this.
Otherwise close all threads and just link to the relevant statute.

GreeBo

km991148 wrote: »

I certainly did.

So this is the confusion: I responded to GreeBo, and you took a subsection of my post out of context by honing in on the word exist. I understand you were making a general comment, I was using 'exists' because it implied GreeBo was denying the existence of trans people (for the reasons I stated above).

And I know you are generalising, there are mostly two sexes.
Our understanding of gender does seem to be changing. That's my take on it and I feel another round of this "debate" is about to begin. Therefore it's a topic I'm not an expert in, so I won't be doing a back and forth on this.

How can I possibly deny they exist if I literally gave them an equal category alongside men and women?

GreeBo

km991148 wrote: »

I guess it's down to the link between gender and biological sex.
By stating there are 3 genders, two if which you relabeled to use the word biological, then it looks like you are even denying the existing if trans (or sweeping them all neatly into this 'other gender').

I don't have any right answers here btw, just looking at what you wrote Vs how a lot of people see it.

By stating there are 3 Im somehow stating there are 2?

If anything *you* are saying they dont exist, you are telling me that everyone is either male or female, there is no trans since a trans man is a man and a trans woman is a woman, ergo no trans exists.

GreeBo

Rodin wrote: »

The child is female and therefore a daugher.
That should really be the end of it. Courts shouldn't be getting involved.

As I was reading that it occurred to me that I had never thought about the issue from a parents point of view in moving from having a daughter to having a son.

I wonder what it would mean for a Monarchy, if your first born changes their gender, who is next in line for the throne...

km991148

GreeBo wrote: »

I wonder what it would mean for a Monarchy, if your first born changes their gender, who is next in line for the throne...

Considering they (UK) are struggling with the concept of a mixed race child, I think its going to be a while before they could handle that scenario!

km991148

GreeBo wrote: »

By stating there are 3 Im somehow stating there are 2?

If anything *you* are saying they dont exist, you are telling me that everyone is either male or female, there is no trans since a trans man is a man and a trans woman is a woman, ergo no trans exists.

Not really, from what it seems the gender part is more than 2 or 3, more like a spectrum. Similar to the way that sexuality (some people might not see it that way, but I don't think many people are either 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual, for example) is on a spectrum.

Of course, generally speaking most people converge on one over the other or build relationships and interactions with the world on "being" one or the other.


This is my lay understanding, but who am I apart from some internet person.. I'm not "telling" anyone anything!

volchitsa

km991148 wrote: »

Not really, from what it seems the gender part is more than 2 or 3, more like a spectrum. Similar to sexuality (some people might not see it that way, but I don't think many people are either 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual).

Of course, generally speaking most people converge on one over the other or build relationships and interactions with the world on "being" one or the other.


This is my lay understanding, but who am I apart from some internet person.. I'm not "telling" anyone anything!

Being sexually attracted to someone is completely different to being physically one thing or the other though. Like most mammals, we are a dimorphic species. Again, like most mammals, that doesn't prevent us from engaging in same sex sexual activity. We're still either male or female though.

You seem to be confusing intersex conditions with transgender.

km991148

volchitsa wrote: »

Being sexually attracted to someone is completely different to being physically one thing or the other though. Like most mammals, we are a dimorphic species. Again, like most mammals, that doesn't prevent us from engaging in same sex sexual activity. We're still either male or female though.

I'm was only suggesting that maybe gender (as far as my understanding) could be perceived as a spectrum, similarly to sexuality being on a spectrum. I know fine well that identifying as male or being a man or whatever is obviously different to sexual attraction. At no point did I say that. The spectrum/scale part was the thing I was comparing. I edited that post to tighten my language.

volchitsa wrote: »

You seem to be confusing intersex conditions with transgender.

Eh? I'm doing no such thing.

suicide_circus

km991148 wrote: »

I'm was only suggesting that maybe gender (as far as my understanding) could be perceived as a spectrum, similarly to sexuality being on a spectrum

"Maybe....could be"

Well indeed. Maybe gender could be perceived as a spectrum. By some people. And not by others. We're dealing in individual perceptions here. People perceive all kinds of things. But we don't then morph those perceptions into some parallel pseudo reality and insist others adopt it.

km991148

suicide_circus wrote: »

"Maybe....could be"

Well indeed. Maybe gender could be perceived as a spectrum. By some people. And not by others. We're dealing in individual perceptions here. People perceive all kinds of things. But we don't then morph those perceptions into some parallel pseudo reality and insist others adopt it.

Hmm. That's your view of what's happening. I can only give you mine.

I'm open minded enough to consider the chance of other possibilities, while also acknowledging that I don't know for sure (I've not studied psychology or any other science that is involved in gender).

What makes you so certain you are right? Why do you think you are an expert?

suicide_circus

km991148 wrote: »

What makes you so certain you are right?

Would you ask this of a transwoman if they told you they are a woman?

GreeBo

km991148 wrote: »

I'm was only suggesting that maybe gender (as far as my understanding) could be perceived as a spectrum

Isn't it already a spectrum though? Not every man acts the same way or has the same thoughts, same for women.
There are lots of men who have what are considered feminine traits, but they are still men, they are not women.

The range of behaviours and attitudes that have always been on display by each sex are vast and overlapping, possibly contradictory, but their gender is still the same, still male or female, regardless of their traits.

km991148

suicide_circus wrote: »

Would you ask this of a transwoman if they told you they are a woman?

Interesting question. I guess by me saying I don't know for sure that it is implied that I could ask if they are sure they are a woman.
But it's a lot more complicated really because first we are talking about gender and moving away from what our society has perceived as "Normal" for the last short while in human history.
Then we've got to consider other factors like gender as experienced, how one might identity and (most contentiously it seems) what rights are to be given based on this combination.

None if that really is to do with you answering the question tho? I'm stating I don't know for sure as I haven't studied any if the sciences involved.

You are saying things with absolute certainty.

km991148

GreeBo wrote: »

Isn't it already a spectrum though? Not every man acts the same way or has the same thoughts, same for women.
There are lots of men who have what are considered feminine traits, but they are still men, they are not women.

The range of behaviours and attitudes that have always been on display by each sex are vast and overlapping, possibly contradictory, but their gender is still the same, still male or female, regardless of their traits.

Now this is where we differ. Yes behaviours overlap, of course. But I don't think sex and gender the same there (or at least open to the possibility that they aren't).

GreeBo

km991148 wrote: »

Now this is where we differ. Yes behaviours overlap, of course. But I don't think sex and gender the sane there (or at least open to the possibility that they aren't).

Ok so what's the difference between a man with traits, opinion's and behaviours that are predominantly feminine and a transgender woman?

If you accept transgenderism does that mean one must also accept the various variations of gender? Does it also mean one has to accept that gender is totally fluid and can change from one day to the next?

I'd argue that the above renders the word meaningless. Eddie izzard talks of switching between bit and girl mode like it's a hairstyle, so what does it mean to be a certain gender if you can be the opposite tomorrow?

Finally, if we are going to label every variation on the two themes then we are removing the spectrum and instead creating barriers and boundaries imo.

km991148

GreeBo wrote: »

Ok so what's the difference between a man with traits, opinion's and behaviours that are predominantly feminine and a transgender woman?

If you accept transgenderism does that mean one must also accept the various variations of gender? Does it also mean one has to accept that gender is totally fluid and can change from one day to the next?

I'd argue that the above renders the word meaningless. Eddie izzard talks of switching between bit and girl mode like it's a hairstyle, so what does it mean to be a certain gender if you can be the opposite tomorrow?

Finally, if we are going to label every variation on the two themes then we are removing the spectrum and instead creating barriers and boundaries imo.

All good questions, I'm sure.

McGinniesta

Personally, I find this whole gender scenario to be quite tiresome.

km991148

McGinniesta wrote: »

Personally, I find this whole gender scenario to be quite tiresome.

Good contribution! :pac:

Seriously tho - from what point of view?
If you are saying you don't care, can I assume there is nothing impacting you? If so.. then what? I am not really sure what you are saying? Or why you need to comment on a GI specific thread (unless this is something you normally do?).

I normally comment on the threads I am interested in, and don't comment on the others.

Mic 1972

km991148 wrote: »

Good contribution! :pac:

Seriously tho - from what point of view?
If you are saying you don't care, can I assume there is nothing impacting you? If so.. then what? I am not really sure what you are saying? Or why you need to comment on a GI specific thread (unless this is something you normally do?).

I normally comment on the threads I am interested in, and don't comment on the others.

Unfortunately gender obsession has become impossible to avoid, it has leaked into every aspect of society and yes, it's very tiresome for the vast majority of people

km991148

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Unfortunately gender obsession has become impossible to avoid, it has leaked into every aspect of society and yes, it's very tiresome for the vast majority of people

I'm not sure I agree tbh, but I don't know what you mean by obsession and every aspect of society.

TheValeyard

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Unfortunately gender obsession has become impossible to avoid, it has leaked into every aspect of society and yes, it's very tiresome for the vast majority of people

I only see this discussion online and never in the real world.

y0ssar1an22

McGinniesta wrote: »

Personally, I find this whole gender scenario to be quite tiresome.

its easy to put to bed.

is a transman/woman the same as a woman/man?

if yes, get rid of the word trans...they are the same, no need for a distinction.

if no, then fine just something distinct. but dont expect to share a man's bathroom or compete in the 100m vs bolt/jones (although think that person doped).

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

Subjectivity is fine, but not when it comes to acceptance of facts.

...

We all know its in law, thats not in question, but I think you know this.
Otherwise close all threads and just link to the relevant statute.

It appears that Irish Law is in question though, precisely because a small number of people are unable to accept the fact that people who are transgender are granted equal status in Irish Law since the enactment of the Gender Recognition Act in 2015. I’ve linked to the relevant provisions a number of times throughout this thread already, but some people imagine they are still entitled to their own facts.

The rest I could take it or leave it, I don’t particularly sweat the small stuff, and people’s freedom to use whatever facilities they choose and whether they are using the appropriate facilities is a matter of opinion, not fact. It’s a fact that people have the freedom to choose whichever facilities they feel themselves are appropriate. It’s a fact that anyone who takes it upon themselves to intrude upon a person who is using the facilities may well find themselves in trouble with the management of the facilities or even the authorities. Whatever facilities a person chooses to use is really their own business, I certainly don’t recommend anyone relieve themselves wherever they like though, there are laws that go back to Victorian times against that sort of behaviour, as this chap found out recently -

Court rejects appeal comparing urinating in public to breastfeeding

Quantum Erasure

km991148 wrote: »

Considering they (UK) are struggling with the concept of a mixed race child, I think its going to be a while before they could handle that scenario!

They changed the rules 6 months after William and Kate got married...


in accordance with the 2011 Perth Agreement.[2] The Act replaced male-preference primogeniture with absolute primogeniture for those in the line of succession born after 28 October 2011, which means the eldest child, regardless of sex, precedes their siblings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_Crown_Act_2013

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It appears that Irish Law is in question though, precisely because a small number of people are unable to accept the fact that people who are transgender are granted equal status in Irish Law since the enactment of the Gender Recognition Act in 2015. I’ve linked to the relevant provisions a number of times throughout this thread already, but some people imagine they are still entitled to their own facts.

The rest I could take it or leave it, I don’t particularly sweat the small stuff, and people’s freedom to use whatever facilities they choose and whether they are using the appropriate facilities is a matter of opinion, not fact. It’s a fact that people have the freedom to choose whichever facilities they feel themselves are appropriate. It’s a fact that anyone who takes it upon themselves to intrude upon a person who is using the facilities may well find themselves in trouble with the management of the facilities or even the authorities. Whatever facilities a person chooses to use is really their own business, I certainly don’t recommend anyone relieve themselves wherever they like though, there are laws that go back to Victorian times against that sort of behaviour, as this chap found out recently -

Court rejects appeal comparing urinating in public to breastfeeding

People can accept that the law exists yet disagree with it, you seem to be missing this point? Unless you believe that law is infallible and as such, never changes?

I don't understand your second point. It's a fact that anyone can choose to do anything they want, it's also a fact that there are consequences to these actions.

Finally, your point about urinating in public is pretty disingenuous and totally unrelated to any point that anyone else brought up. The argument was about which genders facilities someone can choose, not arbitrarily urinating wherever they want, but again I suspect you know this.

Annasopra

The whole toilet discussion is beyond absurd.

Womens toilets have generally have cubicles. Trans women have always used womens toilets. What some people here want to do out of a scaremongering fear that has no basis is to put them in danger by forcing them to use mens toilets or special trans toilets.

There hasnt been a huge increase in 6 years in sexual predators in Ireland in toilets so its a complete and utter non issue and scaremongering. And those who claim to want to "protect women" dont actually want to do so because the consequences of forcing trans women into male or "special trans" toilets is to put trans women in danger.

km991148

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

They changed the rules 6 months after William and Kate got married...


in accordance with the 2011 Perth Agreement.[2] The Act replaced male-preference primogeniture with absolute primogeniture for those in the line of succession born after 28 October 2011, which means the eldest child, regardless of sex, precedes their siblings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_Crown_Act_2013

Well, who knew, progressive (ffs..)!