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

manonboard

manonboard wrote: »

I'm a supporter of trans rights and gender identity being choosable.
I had a female friend, always seemed a bit unfitting to their role. They transitioned. They're a man now.

But they aren't.

they choose to live like a stereotype of a man. But they certainly are not a man.

John Hutton

Wibbs wrote: »

Because the vast majority of TRA cranks calling for blood are M-F Transgenders. F-M folks seem to just get on with it and don't go flipping out all the time.

Maybe testosterone is part of it? Contrary to popular belief angry, irritable men are more likely to have lower testosterone. In studies of hypogonadal men, that is men with low test because of illness, age etc their mood massively improved when given hormone replacement therapy. Oddly enough oestrogen may raise aggression. In rodent models anyway. When male mice were engineered to not respond to the small amounts of oestrogen in their blood they became less aggressive.

We're still working out how these systems work in the sexes and they work in different ways, so adding oestrogen to a male system, while removing testosterone is a running experiment in who the hell knows. Same for adding testosterone and removing oestrogen in a female system. It's not nearly so simple as "add testosterone get man". These are extremely balanced systems that have evolved over millions of years and evolve through our lifetimes.

Old article here. I'll try and dig up more recent stuff.

And it seems that, increasingly, FtoM girls are becoming the victims of their agenda.



Joe Rogan is often a load of rubbish but this interview (and the book its about) is very compelling... as is the hysterical opposition to it.

CtevenSrowder

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

He won't give you a straight answer. It's why these threads turn to farce. You spend ages and ages trying to get straight answers to simple questions.

IAMAMORON has yet still to answer what rights transgender people are being denied, and to give evidence for his claim that transpeople are more 'passive'.

This is part of the problem for me.

Reluctance to engage in good faith honest discussion about trans issues, and about the potential effect of trans people on others.

TRAs only interested in impact on the individual themselves, not the consequences on society; just a demand to be accepted "because", or "deal with it"" or "muh...hunan rights", or the last resort a accusation of "bigot/transphobe" before rage quitting/block.

I think this reluctance is a fear of being painted into a corner, or being held to an actual principle or position. One that may cause the whole house of cards to fall.

Much easier to attack the "wrongthought" , obfuscate, deflect, strawman or appeal to emotion.


Prime example (although they may have been facetious- hard to tell)

keano_afc wrote: »

As soon as they say so.

mohawk

manonboard wrote: »

I'd like to query you on this if its ok.

I'm a supporter of trans rights and gender identity being choosable.
I had a female friend, always seemed a bit unfitting to their role. They transitioned. They're a man now. They seem happy. Just spends a bit of time trying to be a bit more manly to fit in with the crowd/stereotype.

I find in the conversation that something that keeps getting made one thing, that i think is two. The gender (our role) in society is largely defined by the sex of the person, but why is there an issue with someone choosing a different gender (role) and being aware they have female/male biological components.

I think it affects things like sports etc, but what makes it such a big deal? Why can someone just choose to live as a man or woman, and be aware that they also came from a different biological body than usually is defined as such?
Why is gender roles being discouraged because someone has the non usual body to begin with?

I think many people would feel similar to you. People should be free to choose the gender role they feel best suits them and live their lives accordingly. Where views differ is you say your friend is now a man others say they are a transman.
I think what people push back against is the narrative some TRA’s have is that the sex is changed. They believe the mantra Transwomen are women, however others believe trans women are transwomen and that it doesn’t make them less equal than others.
Sports and healthcare are two areas where biological sex matters.
Who cares what gender you feel suits you best. You be you. I personally am not a fan of rigid stereotypes. As a kid I loved Lego, and playing sports, playing with my trains, hated dolls and dresses and pink. I was called a tomboy. Even now I am not a big fan of heels and rarely wear makeup. None of those things define whether I am a woman. For others they feel distressed and need to change how they live their lives. We only get one life so there is no point in being miserable when you can make a change to make yourself happier.

keano_afc

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

This is part of the problem for me.

Reluctance to engage in good faith honest discussion about trans issues, and about the potential effect of trans people on others.

TRAs only interested in impact on the individual themselves, not the consequences on society; just a demand to be accepted "because", or "deal with it"" or "muh...hunan rights", or the last resort a accusation of "bigot/transphobe" before rage quitting/block.

I think this reluctance is a fear of being painted into a corner, or being held to an actual principle or position. One that may cause the whole house of cards to fall.

Much easier to attack the "wrongthought" , obfuscate, deflect, strawman or appeal to emotion.


Prime example (although they may have been facetious- hard to tell)

I absolutely was

Wibbs

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Becoming a trans man, because of biology, doesn't bestow any physical "advantage" to an average woman; a trans man would be unable to excel in mens sports, and would not be regarded as a threat to security and safety of men.

Not quite. Take testosterone, a banned substance in sports because it confers serious advantages in many sports. Fine. However a Trans man is allowed take testosterone as part of their transitioning and lives. How does one measure what would be a "normal" level of medically taken testosterone?

Examples: Trans men.





How many biological men reading this are built like that? You reckon you could take them in a scrap?

It also nicely illustrates the effect testosterone has on the body. It can turn a female body into a monster of a male body(obviously with huge dedication in the gym) in a way that oestrogen can't turn a male body into a female one.

Yet we're expected to believe that a M-F Trans who has spent 10 or more years with that hormone coursing through their bodies hasn't a physical advantage over women after transition?

Omackeral

suicide_circus wrote: »

Is that allowed? Can you do multiple gender declarations back and forth?

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

With Ministerial approval

Absolute lunacy. Whatever about doing it once. But then to say nah the other way was better. Then down the line you can revert back yet again? And everyone else is supposed to be on board with that or else they're a -phobe or TERF or whatver other ridiculous term these lobbyists come up with that day?

IAMAMORON

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

He won't give you a straight answer. It's why these threads turn to farce. You spend ages and ages trying to get straight answers to simple questions.

IAMAMORON has yet still to answer what rights transgender people are being denied, and to give evidence for his claim that transpeople are more 'passive'.

If you think it is my role to improve your knowledge, or to enhance any sort of pedantic debating skill you are hoping to refine, let me inform you that you are highly mistaken.

This thread is not about calling out posters, it is a proper discussion on Gender Identity in Ireland. If you think that involves picking holes in other posters opinions while having a little snigger to yourself you are also very much mistaken.

I will not be giving you the dual enjoyment of ridiculing both Gender identity and my opinion on it. You either have something to offer the debate or you don't? But calling out other posters for your own personal shíts in giggles is not what this thread is about, for starters it shows a distinct lack off respect to the topic you are pretending to care about?

km991148

yep - a lot of talk about 'engagement' and good faith. Also a lot of problems identified.

Not any solutions to problems or understanding or anything. Just pettiness and hole picking (and yes, I have been guilty of a little of the pettiness as well before you all jump on me for being a hypocrite. I can admit my mistakes).

Additionally I have been accused of having an agenda, being dishonest, acting in bad faith etc. It's a discussion forum. The topic grabbed my interest. That's it.

km991148

Wibbs wrote: »

Not quite. Take testosterone, a banned substance in sports because it confers serious advantages in many sports. Fine. However a Trans man is allowed take testosterone as part of their transitioning and lives. How does one measure what would be a "normal" level of medically taken testosterone?

Examples: Trans men.

<cut the images for size>

How many biological men reading this are built like that? You reckon you could take them in a scrap?

It also nicely illustrates the effect testosterone has on the body. It can turn a female body into a monster of a male body(obviously with huge dedication in the gym) in a way that oestrogen can't turn a male body into a female one.

Yet we're expected to believe that a M-F Trans who has spent 10 or more years with that hormone coursing through their bodies hasn't a physical advantage over women after transition?

That's a fair question, and I would leave it for the science to determine, not images of transitioning people who also work out a lot. I get you are trying to illustrate the point, but I am not sure this is a valid comparison.

CtevenSrowder

IAMAMORON wrote: »

If you think it is my role to improve your knowledge, or to enhance any sort of pedantic debating skill you are hoping to refine, let me inform you that you are highly mistaken.

This thread is not about calling out posters, it is a proper discussion on Gender Identity in Ireland. If you think that involves picking holes in other posters opinions while having a little snigger to yourself you are also very much mistaken.

I will not be giving you the dual enjoyment of ridiculing both Gender identity and my opinion on it. You either have something to offer the debate or you don't? But calling out other posters for your own personal shíts in giggles is not what this thread is about, for starters it shows a distinct lack off respect to the topic you are pretending to care about?

I've offered far more to this debate then you have. You asked for examples on numerous occasions apparently feigning ignorance. When asked for your own examples you failed to provide any. You then went on to call me a transphobe, getting carded in the process, and ofcourse you now laughably proclaim that it's me showing a lack of respect. Self-awareness along with an understanding of the topic at hand clearly are not your strong points.

If you make claims to further your position, don't get upset when asked to provide evidence of those claims, that is not 'ridiculing' your position, it's part and parcel of debate and discussion. Why not just be honest about it and withdraw your absurdist claim that trans-people are more passive and admit that trans-people's rights aren't somehow being taken away?

Rodin

manonboard wrote: »

I'd like to query you on this if its ok.

I'm a supporter of trans rights and gender identity being choosable.
I had a female friend, always seemed a bit unfitting to their role. They transitioned. They're a man now. They seem happy. Just spends a bit of time trying to be a bit more manly to fit in with the crowd/stereotype.

I find in the conversation that something that keeps getting made one thing, that i think is two. The gender (our role) in society is largely defined by the sex of the person, but why is there an issue with someone choosing a different gender (role) and being aware they have female/male biological components.

I think it affects things like sports etc, but what makes it such a big deal? Why can someone just choose to live as a man or woman, and be aware that they also came from a different biological body than usually is defined as such?
Why is gender roles being discouraged because someone has the non usual body to begin with?

I couldn't care less what gender a person chooses to identify as
But they don't get to say that their sex has changed. Because it hasn't.

Should we be asking men if there's a possibility they're pregnant before having an XRay?
Or calling transwomen for cervical check or transmen for prostate screening?

A person can have whatever social identity they want. But their biological sex should stay fixed.

Rodin

Wibbs wrote: »

Not quite. Take testosterone, a banned substance in sports because it confers serious advantages in many sports. Fine. However a Trans man is allowed take testosterone as part of their transitioning and lives. How does one measure what would be a "normal" level of medically taken testosterone?

Examples: Trans men.





How many biological men reading this are built like that? You reckon you could take them in a scrap?

It also nicely illustrates the effect testosterone has on the body. It can turn a female body into a monster of a male body(obviously with huge dedication in the gym) in a way that oestrogen can't turn a male body into a female one.

Yet we're expected to believe that a M-F Trans who has spent 10 or more years with that hormone coursing through their bodies hasn't a physical advantage over women after transition?

Most males are not jacked up on roids...
They also don't need to inject chemicals to be tall, have denser bones, stronger muscles, thicker skin, coarser hair because they are real men.

Those are women who are taking steroids... they are not males.

SouthWesterly

keano_afc wrote: »

As soon as they say so.

Everyone doing what's right in their own eyes. What could possibly go wrong?:D

volchitsa

manonboard wrote: »

I'd like to query you on this if its ok.

I'm a supporter of trans rights and gender identity being choosable.
I had a female friend, always seemed a bit unfitting to their role.

Could you explain what you mean by this please? What is a woman's role in our society and how was this person visibly "unfitting" to it in a way that the rest of us are not?

manonboard wrote: »

They transitioned. They're a man now. They seem happy. Just spends a bit of time trying to be a bit more manly to fit in with the crowd/stereotype.

I find in the conversation that something that keeps getting made one thing, that i think is two. The gender (our role) in society is largely defined by the sex of the person, but why is there an issue with someone choosing a different gender (role) and being aware they have female/male biological components.

I think it affects things like sports etc, but what makes it such a big deal? Why can someone just choose to live as a man or woman, and be aware that they also came from a different biological body than usually is defined as such?
Why is gender roles being discouraged because someone has the non usual body to begin with?

I don't really understand what you're saying here. I have no problem with someone choosing to live as a man or a woman if they want to.

My problem is about those times when it is a big deal, such as when people are giving experimental drug treatments to teenagers and even children, on the assumption that they will help, or when a man who is violent to women is put in a female prison just on his own say so.

So it's not about how they want to live - they can dress however they like, and live whatever way they think women live - for me it's about how the rest of society has to respond to them. I'm not allowed to get a driver's licence on the strength of my declaration that I feel I can drive, or a disabled badge just because I say I need one, so why shouldn't someone have to prove that there's a serious reason why other people should treat them as a different gender to the one they physically are?

Omackeral

km991148 wrote: »

That's a fair question,and I would leave it for the science to determine

You'll back yourself into a corner with that line of thinking on this topic.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Not quite. Take testosterone, a banned substance in sports because it confers serious advantages in many sports. Fine. However a Trans man is allowed take testosterone as part of their transitioning and lives. How does one measure what would be a "normal" level of medically taken testosterone?

Examples: Trans men.





How many biological men reading this are built like that? You reckon you could take them in a scrap?

It also nicely illustrates the effect testosterone has on the body. It can turn a female body into a monster of a male body(obviously with huge dedication in the gym) in a way that oestrogen can't turn a male body into a female one.

Yet we're expected to believe that a M-F Trans who has spent 10 or more years with that hormone coursing through their bodies hasn't a physical advantage over women after transition?

Good point, I might struggle in a fight..
But I fight dirty , no Marquess rules for me

But in a field of men doing similar training regiemes, how would thesectrans-men fare? Doubt they would be elite, break mens records .
Alas, vice versa....

km991148

Omackeral wrote: »

You'll back yourself into a corner with that line of thinking on this topic.

On this forum.. yeah - I don't have high expectations tbh.

Baggly

Mod

Gatling's threadban lifted after discussion via pm.

CtevenSrowder

IAMAMORON wrote: »

As I mentioned, this is not an opportunity for you to start refining your debating skills. I know exactly what you are doing.

Says the poster who repeatedly ignores requests for evidence of their claims. No self-awareness. We all know what you are doing.

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Either bring something to the debate or don't. But I will not let you use it as an excuse to isolate and ridicule other posters. I have read everything you have brought to the table thus far, it is all complete wind up garbage. As I said you don't get to mire other posters in your little game.

It is not wind-up. I don't believe that males should be able to compete against females in sport just because they declare themselves women, or be put in prisons with females etc. That is not wind-up. Only 1 poster thus far managed to put forward any good argument against this but was subsequently banned for a week.

IAMAMORON wrote: »

You might not respect the discussion but you have a duty to respect posters opinions and what they offer to it.

Maybe take your own advice. You have already been carded for personal abuse, and yet your are now laughable telling me (the poster who you abused) to respect other posters. As I said, no self-awareness.

And I absolutely do not have to respect others opinions, what I have to do is reply back to them respectfully, something you yourself thus far have been unable to do. I will leave it here as this is just turning into a tit-for-tat. I'm assuming you will provide no evidence to back up your claims due to us both knowing that no evidence exists. The honest thing would be to come out and admit this so we can all move on, but I won't hold my breath.

Baggly

Mod

CtevenSrowder, dont post in this thread again.

Neyite

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

... or that crank in Canada with the waxing who was rightfully told to GTFO by the Canadian legal system are being held up as typical of the whole transgender population. I don't want to write off people's concerns but I really wish so many people were genuinely concerned with equality. The world would be a much better place.

A minor correction, if that's ok - the judge ruled against JY on the sole reason that the beauticians didn't have specific training in testicle waxing. Had JY booked say, a leg wax, or an arse wax, she would have won the case because then it would have been deemed transphobic to refuse to wax because the training required for waxing a male or female in those instances are no different.

She ruled that legally, the beautician could not provide a waxing service they had no certified training for. So Jessica Yaniv was not told to GTFO.

WhenPigsCry

Neyite wrote: »

A minor correction, if that's ok - the judge ruled against JY on the sole reason that the beauticians didn't have specific training in testicle waxing. Had JY booked say, a leg wax, or an arse wax, she would have won the case because then it would have been deemed transphobic to refuse to wax because the training required for waxing a male or female in those instances are no different.

She ruled that legally, the beautician could not provide a waxing service they had no certified training for. So Jessica Yaniv was not told to GTFO.

Which seems fair, I mean, is a client's gender a big deal if you're waxing someone's legs. Or their arse, they've probably seen a million arses.

Wibbs

Rodin wrote: »

Most males are not jacked up on roids...
They also don't need to inject chemicals to be tall, have denser bones, stronger muscles, thicker skin, coarser hair because they are real men.

Those are women who are taking steroids... they are not males.

That's my point R. "Roids"(outside of HGH etc) are for the most part different forms of testosterone, many of them developed to get around testing for the original stuff. Women have some floating around their bodies, just as men have some oestrogens floating around theirs, but of course in quite different amounts.

Trans men are essentially taking "roids" as part of their medical therapy to transition. Men have naturally different levels depending on the individual. It's quite the range. I can't recall the units involved but "normal" range is something like 300-1000. Some are quite low, others very high, most somewhere in the middle(though in the West this middle is getting lower).

So which level does a Trans man decide to go for? It would be quite understandable to go for the higher end. Hell in their position I would. More gives you more male features, bones and skin thickens, jaws get bigger, muscles grow more and so on(look at some women bodybuilders and you can spot the ones taking extra help. They look more male in fairly short order, particularly in the face) So a Trans man on hormone therapy taking the equivalent of say 900 units(and working out of course) is going to be more jacked up and stronger and with denser bones than a man whose natural level is 300*.

I remember reading of a Trans male teenager in the US who was into school wrestling and was told they could only compete with teenage girls and he was way bigger than them and has won two titles in a row against these girls. This is the chap in question.

And to be fair to them, and unlike some Trans women, they wanted to compete against the boys in a more equal contest, but wasn't allowed to.

Even though I was put in this position, even though I didn’t want to be put in this position, even though I wanted to wrestle the guys, I still had to wrestle the girls.

“But what can I tell people? I can tell the State Legislature to change the policy, but I can’t tell them to change it right now. All I can hope for is that they come to their [senses] and realize this is stupid and we should change the policies to conform to other people in my position.”

Though he has repeatedly asked to wrestle in the boys’ devision, Beggs is forced to wrestle girls because, under University Interscholastic League rules, athletes must compete in the gender division that corresponds to their birth certificates.

He realises how daft this is. Now if they did compete with the boys it would be fairer, but by how much? As I say if they're on a dose equivalent to 800, when the average among wrestlers is 500...




*How people respond can vary too. You can have naturally high test men who aren't built like tanks. It's why drugs in sport is problematic beyond the obvious. When Lance Armstrong was found out a fair number of his fans were "our drugged up guy beat your drugged up guy". It's not that simple. Some like Lance are super responders to extra "help". Generally it seems the lower your test is to start with the more you will tend to respond to extra added to the mix.

Annasopra

Omackeral wrote: »

Absolute lunacy. Whatever about doing it once. But then to say nah the other way was better. Then down the line you can revert back yet again? And everyone else is supposed to be on board with that or else they're a -phobe or TERF or whatver other ridiculous term these lobbyists come up with that day?

An application for a GR cert can be refused. Honestly I think if a person got a GR cert then got the Minister to revoke it and then applied again that they would probably be refused. Ive seen some honestly weird and pointless arguments against gender recognition but this is the weirdest most pointless.

Neyite

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

Which seems fair, I mean, is a client's gender a big deal if you're waxing someone's legs. Or their arse, they've probably seen a million arses.

Yes, usually.

However Jessica Yaniv only contacted immigrant beauticians who's cultural /religious beliefs meant that being in a room alone with a partially clothed male was incompatible with their beliefs. They were also all working from a room in their home so essentially, they would have been with an unrelated male-bodied person alone in their home. I can't speak for what those religions or cultures would stand on a trans woman, so I couldn't tell you if for example, a post-op trans woman would have been fine, but a pre-op one not.

It was potentially (if you can set aside the uncomfortable issues of forcing sole traders out of business) a very interesting test case given that according to Canadian law, JY is a woman and therefore entitled to each and every right or service afforded to woman but the potential clash with certain religious beliefs (and the right to practice those religious beliefs under religious freedom) would have tested that law.

And I suppose that's where laws that support the rights of all without taking away rights and freedoms from another protected group and teasing out the implications for all involved is worthy of discussion.

Omackeral

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

An application for a GR cert can be refused. Honestly I think if a person got a GR cert then got the Minister to revoke it and then applied again that they would probably be refused. Ive seen some honestly weird and pointless arguments against gender recognition but this is the weirdest most pointless.

Where did I once say I was against gender recognition? Quote me. I’ve said here umpteen times I refer to people by their preferred pronouns out of courtesy and respect. The gender fluid nonsense though, nah.

jam_mac_jam

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

An application for a GR cert can be refused. Honestly I think if a person got a GR cert then got the Minister to revoke it and then applied again that they would probably be refused. Ive seen some honestly weird and pointless arguments against gender recognition but this is the weirdest most pointless.

I can't really see it happening in practice either. They have to allow you to revoke it but why would you even apply again after it was revoked.

Gatling

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I can't really see it happening in practice either. They have to allow you to revoke it but why would you even apply again after it was revoked.

But they would be within their rights to switch back and forth as they see fit ,

What minister covers gender identity,and how much power would they have to prevent someone switching gender on a yearly or monthly basis

IAMAMORON

Gatling wrote: »

But they would be within their rights to switch back and forth as they see fit ,

What minister covers gender identity,and how much power would they have to prevent someone switching gender on a yearly or monthly basis

I doubt a minister of state would have any power. You are into constitutional rights there. Well beyond the remit of a state minister, it is not even an oireachtas issue really, apart from the obvious debate of new legislation.

I doubt there is a TD out there would want to touch it with a barge pole tbh, far too contentious. They would leave it to the courts for sure.