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

TheValeyard

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

I only understand stuff like this from playing Crusader Kings 3

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

You’re missing the wood for the trees. Throughout the discussion, people have argued that they would no longer be able to question someone who they felt should not be in their space. Nobody had any such right to do that in the first place, and one of the main consequences as has been evidenced from other jurisdictions of this kind of behaviour is that it is primarily women who are subject to that sort of harassment in spaces which are open to the public, based upon other people’s perceptions and the behaviour which in their opinion, is inappropriate -

Women are getting harassed in bathrooms because of anti-transgender hysteria

There is currently no provision in Irish law that mandates people using public facilities must do so according to their sex or gender identity, they are not doing anything which is unlawful by using whichever facilities they prefer to use. The only consequences should be that people are able to use public facilities without interference from another ordinary member or members of the public.

In the case I linked to, the man was not arrested because he was urinating in public, he was arrested because he failed to identify himself to the authorities. He was later charged with public indecency, which his legal representation tried to equate with breastfeeding in public. Women breastfeeding in public are often subject to the same sort of harassment by people who decide that they are behaving inappropriately (and unfortunately some women are forced to breastfeed in public restrooms because of the inappropriate behaviour of other people). However they are protected from discrimination by Irish law in the same way that anyone using the public facilities of their preferred gender identity is protected from discrimination and harassment by law.

Other people may find such behaviour inappropriate, they may disagree with laws which prevent them from interfering with another person’s right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, but what they can not do, is take the law into their own hands. There are indeed consequences in law for that sort of behaviour, as there always has been.

GreeBo

Annasopra wrote: »

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.

Sure if cubicles are the deciding factor, why can't men use women's toilets in that case?

km991148

GreeBo wrote: »

Sure if cubicles are the deciding factor, why can't men use women's toilets in that case?

In places where they do (unisex toilets exist - and long before there was so much gender awareness), why hasn't there been as much pushback?

LessOutragePlz

Annasopra wrote: »

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.

Do you see any issues with trans women competing against women in sporting events?

As they clearly retain an advantage over biological women.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

Therefore allowing them to compete against biological women is wrong and unfair IMO.

GreeBo

km991148 wrote: »

In places where they do (unisex toilets exist - and long before there was so much gender awareness), why hasn't there been as much pushback?

I'd guess because people choose to use a unisex toilet and are aware that the opposite sex will be using them?

Are you equating gender and sex btw?

GreeBo

km991148 wrote: »

All good questions, I'm sure.

But no interest in answering them?

km991148

GreeBo wrote: »

I'd guess because people choose to use a unisex toilet and are aware that the opposite sex will be using them?

Are you equating gender and sex btw?

The first is a good point...think about it for a second.

The second, I'm entirely lost with how you jumped to that conclusion.

km991148

GreeBo wrote: »

But no interest in answering them?

Very little tbh, we seem to be going round in circles. I see we are about to have another go on sport now. I guess we'll jump on that until middle of next week and then what? Will we give prisons another lash? That hasn't been out for a couple of weeks.

iptba

Canadian man jailed for calling his biologically female child as ‘daughter’
At the heart of Hoogland’s miseries is a gender non-conforming 14-year-old biological female who identifies as transgender and prefers the use of male pronouns.

https://www.opindia.com/2021/03/canadian-man-jailed-for-calling-his-biologically-female-child-as-daughter/

JORDAN PETERSON WAS RIGHT; FATHER JAILED FOR REFERRING TO HIS DAUGHTER AS ‘SHE’

https://www.wibc.com/blogs/mock-n-rob/jordan-peterson-was-right-father-jailed-for-referring-to-his-daughter-as-she/

This is from Canada but it might happen in other countries (I'm no legal expert) and given this seems like it might be the main thread to discuss the topic, I thought I would post it here.
If there is a better thread, feel free to let me know. I only have a passing interest in the topic.

GreeBo

km991148 wrote: »

The first is a good point...think about it for a second.

The second, I'm entirely lost with how you jumped to that conclusion.

Are you asking me to think about my own answer to your question?

In an argument about different sexes using gender designated toilets your brought up unisex toilets. Unless we have unigender toilets in not sure if the relevance, unless you equate the two?

km991148 wrote: »

Very little tbh, we seem to be going round in circles. I see we are about to have another go on sport now. I guess we'll jump on that until middle of next week and then what? Will we give prisons another lash? That hasn't been out for a couple of weeks.

If we are going around in circles then I'm sure you can point out where my questions have been previously answered?

The rest of your post is nothing to do with me, not sure why you bring it to in reply to me?
I'm curious why you started posting only to now refuse to discuss and answer questions?

km991148

GreeBo wrote: »

Are you asking me to think about my own answer to your question?

In an argument about different sexes using gender designated toilets your brought up unisex toilets. Unless we have unigender toilets in not sure if the relevance, unless you equate the two?

I was simply pointing out that there wasn't this mass hysteria when unisex (as they were known) toilets are in places. Surely if there is a danger with trans identifying people using m/f toilets (i.e. a trans woman using the women toilet), then we would have a wider issuer? Its almost as if some people don't actually care about danger. But again, toilets have been discussed to death too. Where does it end?

GreeBo wrote: »

If we are going around in circles then I'm sure you can point out where my questions have been previously answered?

The rest of your post is nothing to do with me, not sure why you bring it to in reply to me?
I'm curious why you started posting only to now refuse to discuss and answer questions?

I'm sure I could. I'm also sure you have been following this thread as much as I have. Additionally, I don't have all the answers, so sometimes if I don't know, then I don't want to get into a protracted, pedantic cat and mouse.

km991148

iptba wrote: »

https://www.opindia.com/2021/03/canadian-man-jailed-for-calling-his-biologically-female-child-as-daughter/


https://www.wibc.com/blogs/mock-n-rob/jordan-peterson-was-right-father-jailed-for-referring-to-his-daughter-as-she/

This is from Canada but it might happen in other countries (I'm no legal expert) and given this seems like it might be the main thread to discuss the topic, I thought I would post it here.
If there is a better thread, feel free to let me know. I only have a passing interest in the topic.

This is the thread, as evidenced by the fact it was already posted (as well as a discussion on how the original JP tweet was full of all sorts of misinformation).

GreeBo

km991148 wrote: »

I was simply pointing out that there wasn't this mass hysteria when unisex (as they were known) toilets are in places. Surely if there is a danger with trans identifying people using m/f toilets (i.e. a trans woman using the women toilet), then we would have a wider issuer? Its almost as if some people don't actually care about danger. But again, toilets have been discussed to death too. Where does it end?



I'm sure I could. I'm also sure you have been following this thread as much as I have. Additionally, I don't have all the answers, so sometimes if I don't know, then I don't want to get into a protracted, pedantic cat and mouse.

The two situations are totally different, as I already explained.
A unisex toilet, by definition, will contain both sexes.
A gender specific toilet does not.

If answering basic, relevant and honest questions about the topic under discussion is "pedantic cat and mouse" then you might be in the wrong place!

iptba

km991148 wrote: »

This is the thread, as evidenced by the fact it was already posted

Okay, I had searched Boards for the surname for the man and nothing had shown up but that would not show all relevant results.

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

Sure if cubicles are the deciding factor, why can't men use women's toilets in that case?

They do, and there’s no big fuss about it. The whole nonsense of portraying men as sexual predators who wish to enter women’s spaces to prey on women just isn’t borne out by reality. That myth in any case would have nothing to do with people who are transgender exercising their right to use the bathroom which they are most comfortable in using. They have that right under the various Equality Acts in Ireland.

In any case, the intention appears to be to restrict the rights of people who are transgender to participate in public life, and what better way to exclude them from public life and restrict their movements than by denying them the most basic human rights such as recognising that they are regarded as having equal status in society with everyone else? That’s the sort of thing was historically done to women, claiming that it was “for their own protection” -


The feminist history of public toilets in the UK has been documented (Penner, 2001; Walkowitz, 1992) and located within Western women’s ongoing struggles for access to, and safety within, the built environment (Banks, 1991). Whilst London’s first public toilets for men were installed in 1851, it was over 40 years later that provisions for women were finally introduced (Penner, 2001), and campaigns for women to have better toilet access continue to this day in the UK and elsewhere. It has been highlighted that decisions regarding the presence or absence, size and location of women’s toilets are made within culturally and historically specific gendered power structures. For instance, Penner (2001, p. 37) indicates that resistance shown in response to early-twentieth-century campaigns to install women’s toilets in Camden Town in London rested upon wider unstated concerns about the ‘powerful message’ women would be given ‘about their right to occupy and move through the streets’ if amenities were built there for their benefit. The deficit of facilities ‘was no oversight but part of a systematic restriction of women’s access to the city of man’ (Greed, 2010, p. 117), grounded in the presumption that a woman’s ‘proper place’ was the home, ‘tending the hearth fire, and rearing children’ (Kogan, 2007, p. 5).

...

The significance of current women-only provisions is often positioned within this history. Today’s toilet is therefore recognised by some feminist scholars as a ‘hard-won’ radical occupation of public space (Greed & Bichard, 2012). Jeffreys (2014a, p. 46), for example, describes women’s public toilets as ‘essential to women’s equality’, and Greed (2010, p. 121) shares concerns that without these facilities ‘women’s [public] presence [would be] threatened’ as ‘the “bladder’s leash” [would tether] women to [the] home’. Yet, these accounts rarely acknowledge that early women’s toilets were not designed for all women (Patel, 2017; Penner, 2001, 2013). Victorian toilets were regularly segregated not only by gender but also by class (Penner, 2001) and, as Patel (2017, p. 52) notes, ‘the creation of a sex-segregated bathroom space to enclose and protect the feminine was formed exclusively in relation to white femininities’. Indeed, until the 1960s in the American South, and the 1990s in South Africa, toilets would be not only gender-separated, but divided upon racial lines (Penner, 2013). Neither were disabled women considered within women’s toilet provision: it was 1970 before (all-gender) accessible toilets were legislated in the UK (Ramster et al., 2018). The histories of women’s toilets, therefore, were never a fight for all women’s liberation; rather, they are a reminder that ‘woman’ was (and often continues to be) used as shorthand for white, wealthy, non-disabled, cisgender and heterosexual women. Such histories illustrate ‘how misleading it is to speak of “women’s needs” as a unified entity’ (Penner, 2001, p. 41).

...

‘Gender-critical’ feminists prioritise the demonisation and exclusion of trans people, even when this comes at the expense of improving toilets for all. We argue, therefore, that their concerns are not merely architectural, nor are they entirely concerned with equity or (cis) women’s rights. Rather, their views are ideological: trans people’s increased visibility is interpreted as dangerous because it holds the possibility of changing entrenched binary understandings of sex and gender. Thus, the fight is not so much ‘about toilets’ but about the contested boundaries of womanhood, tightening the reins on gender, and making trans lives impossible. This is not to say that re-thinking toilet design is unnecessary. Toilets can and should be changed for the better (Slater & Jones, 2018). In fact, we argue that toilets are contested because they are important, and access to safe and comfortable toilets plays a fundamental role in making trans lives possible.


The toilet debate: Stalling trans possibilities and defending ‘women’s protected spaces’


The point was that individual cubicles afford people a reasonable amount of privacy while they go about their business (though it has occurred to me on occasion that the previous occupant was no lady given the lingering odour!), and the further point to that which I found curious is that it didn’t occur to you to suggest that adequately sized cubicles might be a relevant consideration in all bathroom facilities, so that anyone could use them regardless of their gender, sex, disability or any of the other grounds in the Equal Status Acts which prohibit unlawful discrimination.

GreeBo

If you think everything that happens in a female toilet happens in the stalls then you are incorrect.

How does your cubicle solution work for changing rooms?

suicide_circus

Is there anything to be said for abolishing single sex spaces?

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

If you think everything that happens in a female toilet happens in the stalls then you are incorrect.

How does your cubicle solution work for changing rooms?

The same way they work anywhere else? For example in many leisure centres they have individual cubicles and family cubicles for people with children. Sometimes the family cubicles are used by people in wheelchairs because they have the extra space for manoeuvrability.

km991148

iptba wrote: »

Okay, I had searched Boards for the surname for the man and nothing had shown up but that would not show all relevant results.

Yeah it was the tweet linked to an article that was posted. The problem was the article done a good impression of referencing sources. It linked to articles and papers but managed to completely bastardise and misinterprets the findings.

This makes me doubt the entire article. It appears the only facts are we have a trans teenager and a man charged with contempt of court. But everything in between is up for debate as some details at least have been misrepresented.

This is a complete pain in the hole as it makes it hard to have any discussion around it as the waters are most definitely muddied.

Tho, JP done well out it I'm sure!

km991148

suicide_circus wrote: »

Is there anything to be said for abolishing single sex spaces?

I mean, if the bathrooms are such a dangerous place, I'm surprised we haven't already.
Of course I'd rather see tougher sentences and more work in general to prevent the actual predators and abusers from acting in the first place. I'm still not sure why this is a topic on a gender identity thread.

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The same way they work anywhere else? For example in many leisure centres they have individual cubicles and family cubicles for people with children. Sometimes the family cubicles are used by people in wheelchairs because they have the extra space for manoeuvrability.

So why do we have any gender based toilets/spaces?
In fact why do we have sex based anything?

GreeBo

km991148 wrote: »

I mean, if the bathrooms are such a dangerous place, I'm surprised we haven't already.
Of course I'd rather see tougher sentences and more work in general to prevent the actual predators and abusers from acting in the first place. I'm still not sure why this is a topic on a gender identity thread.

That's a straw man. Dangerousness isn't the only reason not to do something.
Why do we have gender based sports?

Quantum Erasure

GreeBo wrote: »

That's a straw man. Dangerousness isn't the only reason not to do something.
Why do we have gender based sports?

Good question, OEJ wants to get rid of them aswell, throw everyone in together, although I'm not quite sure how that'd work... I can envisage biological females setting up their own leagues not long after if it was ever implemented, and where do we go from there?

suicide_circus

km991148 wrote: »

I mean, if the bathrooms are such a dangerous place, I'm surprised we haven't already.
Of course I'd rather see tougher sentences and more work in general to prevent the actual predators and abusers from acting in the first place. I'm still not sure why this is a topic on a gender identity thread.

So would you be in favour of abolishing single sex spaces? It's a yes/no question.

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

So why do we have any gender based toilets/spaces?
In fact why do we have sex based anything?

In my previous post I thought it was clear? Because public facilities were designed by able-bodied men, with able-bodied men in mind. They were never designed for women. Women were never meant to participate in public life, their place was literally and commonly regarded as being in the home. Yes, even prisons - built by men, with the incarceration of men in mind, and the only reason women began to be incarcerated in prisons was for, again, you guessed it - “their own protection”. It happened to be a convenient cover for maintaining women’s status as subservient to men as opposed to being regarded as having equal status as men.

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Good question, OEJ wants to get rid of them aswell, throw everyone in together, although I'm not quite sure how that'd work... I can envisage biological females setting up their own leagues not long after if it was ever implemented, and where do we go from there?

Nope, that’s never been my position. By all means maintain segregated sports if the organising and governing bodies may wish to, but the history behind segregated sports goes back to the revival of the Olympics at the turn of the last century at a time when women were regarded as inferior to men and were simply not permitted to participate in sports with men -


Coubertin also spoke against women's sports and the Women's World Games: "Impratical, uninteresting, unaesthetic, and we are not afraid to add: incorrect, such would be in our opinion this female half-Olympiad".


Pierre de Coubertin


My position has always been that neither women, nor men, should be excluded from participating if they wish to at whatever level they wish to. It’s obvious that in women’s sports the rules as they are, and the criteria as limited as they are, are much less an attempt to detect men participating in women’s sports, and rather the rules as they are prohibit more women from participating in sports, let alone permitting women to participate in men’s sports where they would have equal opportunities to earn as much as men do.

It was actually men who were criticised recently for wanting to set up their own men only leagues to the exclusion of women -

‘Tone deaf’: Novak Djokovic creates new players association for men only


Where do we go from there? Towards a society where equal status actually means equal status and not just subjugating groups of people under the pretence that we tell them it’s for their own protection. With any luck it might even make identity politics redundant.

km991148

GreeBo wrote: »

That's a straw man. Dangerousness isn't the only reason not to do something.
Why do we have gender based sports?

I see your strawman and raise you a whataboutary!

But no it wasn't really. The question was specifically about removing single sex/ unigengered bathrooms. The argument over the bathrooms in relation to trans is generally due to the perceived danger to women* (I say perceived as I have yet to see any stats to back this up). I have seen some other concerns raised (back when gruffalux had some obsession with spelling out procedures and bodily functions as if it's either a shock or everyone is ignorant to what goes on in the bathroom). But again, what happens in mixed bathrooms?

Now, I'm not sure why you brought in the question around sports? It's a different topic and has its own set of issues. Feel free to take another trip on that merry go round. I'm kinda dine with this. The thread is getting repetitive and boring. I'm starting to wonder if the forum format really suits it.

*Actually what I really mean here is cis women/non trans/natal woman/whatever I need to write to not offend as the safety of either trans women or trans man is never really included.

km991148

suicide_circus wrote: »

So would you be in favour of abolishing single sex spaces? It's a yes/no question.

No, why would I? And what bearing does my opinion have? Unless there is a problem with single spaces? Or you have some follow up question?

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In my previous post I thought it was clear? Because public facilities were designed by able-bodied men, with able-bodied men in mind. They were never designed for women. Women were never meant to participate in public life, their place was literally and commonly regarded as being in the home. Yes, even prisons - built by men, with the incarceration of men in mind, and the only reason women began to be incarcerated in prisons was for, again, you guessed it - “their own protection”. It happened to be a convenient cover for maintaining women’s status as subservient to men as opposed to being regarded as having equal status as men.

So the changing rooms in, let's say, Abercrombie & Fitch were designed for men only?
How about the bathrooms in McDonald's?

Your argument is based on public toilets built decades ago, what about the vast majority of facilities built in the last 5 years?

GreeBo

km991148 wrote: »

I see your strawman and raise you a whataboutary!

But no it wasn't really. The question was specifically about removing single sex/ unigengered bathrooms. The argument over the bathrooms in relation to trans is generally due to the perceived danger to women* (I say perceived as I have yet to see any stats to back this up). I have seen some other concerns raised (back when gruffalux had some obsession with spelling out procedures and bodily functions as if it's either a shock or everyone is ignorant to what goes on in the bathroom). But again, what happens in mixed bathrooms?

Now, I'm not sure why you brought in the question around sports? It's a different topic and has its own set of issues. Feel free to take another trip on that merry go round. I'm kinda dine with this. The thread is getting repetitive and boring. I'm starting to wonder if the forum format really suits it.

*Actually what I really mean here is cis women/non trans/natal woman/whatever I need to write to not offend as the safety of either trans women or trans man is never really included.

The fact that you get bored when people ask what seem to be difficult questions is something that I, as a biological male, personally find interesting and illuminating.