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

bewareofthedog

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

They showed up one day with all their hair cut off and correcting anyone who called them her/she/girl/woman ect..

As long as theyre not hurting anyone let them at it!

I don't really agree with the overall premise that someone can just change who they are on a whim and force people to call them by a different title. Force isn't an exaggeration I don't think with HR policies in workplaces and the twitter mobs etc. I don't believe everyone who feels the need to be addressed differently is doing so for legitimate reasons. For me there's a certain level of control and self indulgence associated with that and I can see how it would be abused.

I know it's not a perfect equivalence but forcing people to do things on your behalf such as calling you by a different pronoun because you feel different on a certain day is in my eyes forcing a certain level of respect - recycling talking points on youtube et al now but society thrives on disrespect because respect takes a lot of work to garner among peers, not the other way round. If everyone respected everyone what's the point of working hard and trying to improve oneself?

I'll just set the disclaimer that I do believe gender dysphoria exists and there's many people out there suffering with such problems - I just have a distrust of human nature in general, when certain people see an opportunity of self gain for little effort they will jump on it. A while back I was reading this cyclist who was a man and transitioned to a trans Woman on twitter. That person started competing with Woman and was openly mocking the whole thing, and in the process getting people banned off twitter who had the audacity to question the motives behind what they were doing.

That's why I think it's dangerous to just blindly trust people - If I got to know someone and felt they were genuine I would have absolutely no problem referring to whatever pronoun they preferred, but beyond that I'll always be skeptical.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why can’t someone be a meat eating vegetarian? You introduced the example, so there must have been a point to the question. I say they can, you obviously think they can’t.

Yeah... I stopped reading after that.

You can't be a meat eating vegetarian because a vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat meat. Very simple, very easy.

Honestly oej, no point in us taking this further if you willingly and wilfully ignore what words mean.

We will leave it there.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah... I stopped reading after that.

You can't be a meat eating vegetarian because a vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat meat. Very simple, very easy.

Honestly oej, no point in us taking this further if you willingly and wilfully ignore what words mean.

We will leave it there.

I’m not ignoring what words mean. I’m telling you as fact that people don’t have to define themselves according to yours or anyone else’s standards. You can argue about what it means to be a vegetarian or whatever else you like, but what’s relevant in this particular context is the issue of gender identity, and people having a right which is recognised in Irish law.

That doesn’t suggest that anyone is forced or compelled to believe anything they didn’t believe before, nor does it suggest that anyone can be compelled to have sex with anyone they don’t want to have sex with or any of the other ludicrous claims which people who are opposed to the idea of people identifying themselves as those people believe they shouldn’t. That’s trying to compel people to act as though they are something they’re not. denying them freedoms and rights which are afforded to everyone else.

I’m not ignoring what words mean, I’m pointing out to you that people aren’t limited to the definitions of words that you mean, they’re not limited to the definitions of words that I mean. It’s how language evolves, it’s why people don’t still speak as people did centuries ago, and it would be silly to think anyone is going to limit themselves to meanings of words which are acceptable by your standards as opposed to their own standards and what words and language means to them.

Do you think if I refer to a work colleague as a giant walking vagina, that I mean they are literally a giant walking vagina? You can understand from the context in which I use the words, exactly what I mean.

bewareofthedog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not ignoring what words mean, I’m pointing out to you that people aren’t limited to the definitions of words that you mean, they’re not limited to the definitions of words that I mean.

vegetarian
noun

a person who does not eat meat for health or religious reasons or because they want to avoid being cruel to animals

It's very simple, definitions actually matter. If you have the boldness to imply words mean whatever you want them to mean I pity anyone who engages with you. It's not a discussion when you can say whatever phrases or words you want yet immediately backtrack and cling to the notion that what you said has no true meaning and can be interpreted differently, even though the definition of said words are black and white. It's called language. Sort of insane actually.

ILoveYourVibes

bewareofthedog wrote: »

vegetarian
noun

a person who does not eat meat for health or religious reasons or because they want to avoid being cruel to animals

It's very simple, definitions actually matter. If you have the boldness to imply words mean whatever you want them to mean I pity anyone who engages with you. It's not a discussion when you can say whatever you want yet cling to the notion that what you're saying has no true meaning. Sort of insane actually.

But feelings and personal experience are not easily defined sometimes.

One eyed Jack

bewareofthedog wrote: »

vegetarian
noun

a person who does not eat meat for health or religious reasons or because they want to avoid being cruel to animals

It's very simple, definitions actually matter. If you have the boldness to imply words mean whatever you want them to mean I pity anyone who engages with you. It's not a discussion when you can say whatever phrases or words you want yet immediately backtrack and cling to the notion that what you said has no true meaning and can be interpreted differently, even though the definition of said words are black and white. It's called language. Sort of insane actually.

I know what vegetarian means. That’s not what I was asked. I was asked can vegetarians eat meat, and they can, there’s nothing stopping them from doing so. They can eat meat and still identify themselves as vegetarian. On the scale of things which matter to me, how someone identifies themselves really doesn’t rate all that highly.

Think of it like people who identify themselves as feminists, who go on about fathers rights. It is of course called language, but it’s anything but black and white or as literal as you’re trying to make out. If that’s truly how you carry on, then it’s understandable that you would struggle with the concept of language and words having different meanings according to how they are used in identifying or conveying ideas or concepts.

ILoveYourVibes

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

But feelings and personal experience are not easily defined sometimes.

So?

bewareofthedog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know what vegetarian means. That’s not what I was asked. I was asked can vegetarians eat meat, and they can, there’s nothing stopping them from doing so. They can eat meat and still identify themselves as vegetarian.

That would be no different from an alcoholic self identifying themselves as a teetotaller. A charade or make believe if you will.

That isn't some new phenomena - it's called lying.

One eyed Jack

bewareofthedog wrote: »

That would be no different from an alcoholic self identifying themselves as a teetotaller. A charade or make believe if you will.

That isn't some new phenomena - it's called lying.

That’s an entirely different matter? The fact is that they can. That’s the only point I took issue with, was the claim that people can’t identify themselves however they wish to. In reality, they can. That’s a fact which seems to put the “facts over feelings” crowd noses out of joint, which by their own standards is called hypocrisy (I’d never accuse anyone of lying, I’d simply point out their double standards).

bewareofthedog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s an entirely different matter? The fact is that they can.

Its the exact same thing. If I met someone and they told me they were a vegetarian and 5 minutes later I saw them eating a big mac that person is a liar. Same thing if I saw someone drinking booze after they self claimed to be a teetotaller.

You're right, anyone can be a liar and disingenuous just because they can.

I might boil the kettle now because you know, I can. Real deep stuff you're preaching man.

One eyed Jack

bewareofthedog wrote: »

Its the exact same thing. If I met someone and they told me they were a vegetarian and 5 minutes later I saw them eating a big mac that person is a liar. Same thing if I saw someone drinking booze after they self claimed to be a teetotaller.

You're right, anyone can be a liar and disingenuous just because they can.

I might boil the kettle now because you know, I can. Real deep stuff you're preaching man.

That’s not what I said though, nor is it the intent of what I said. You appear to be completely missing the point which is that the most critical and important factor is intent, and while you can accuse someone of intending to deceive people, the accusation is meaningless without your being able to provide evidence that the person intended to deceive anyone. It would only matter to me if they were actually the preachy sort who demanded that everyone must adhere to their beliefs and standards, while they aren’t willing to adhere to their own beliefs and standards. It’s not real deep stuff at all, it’s just really basic stuff that most people will have learned as they matured into adulthood - the world does not revolve around them, no more than the world revolves around anyone who imagines that everyone else should be compelled to behave according to their beliefs or be punished in some way for refusing to comply.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Heterosexual people are attracted to and sexually interested in THE OPPOSITE SEX.

Bisexual people are attracted to and sexually interested in BOTH SEXES.

Homosexual people are attracted to and sexually interested in THE SAME SEX.

Well you’ve added the “sexually interested” bit yourself. That’s not the standard definition.

Of course you know that the standard definition only makes reference to attraction and not “sexual interest”.

So to prove that the definition is simple and aligns with your opinion you had to change the definition.

You’ve broken your own principles of definitions being set in stone.

And you accuse others of mangling words and definitions?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well you’ve added the “sexually interested” bit yourself. That’s not the standard definition.

Of course you know that the standard definition only makes reference to attraction and not “sexual interest”.

So to prove that the definition is simple and aligns with your opinion you had to change the definition.

You’ve broken your own principles of definitions being set in stone.

And you accuse others of mangling words and definitions?

When you spoke first of your attraction being absolutely not under your control, it was clear you meant sexual interest. Nobody thought or thinks you meant you could not help yourself really liking someone elses shoes or their fabulous etchings.

You, previously

most people can’t instantly turn off their attraction based on new conscious knowledge.

It is quite simple. People can and do turn off their attraction and/or sexual interest in other people - often instantly - based on new conscious knowledge. They do it all the time. All. The. Time. Like if the girl you are hopping into bed with kneels down for an impassioned full decade of the rosary before hopping in beside you, if she opens the camera to live stream your encounter to her OnlyFans account or if she reveals a penis in her knickers, you may find your attraction is instantly turned off, and this is regular life. Just normal stuff.

You cannot socially engineer people.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

When you spoke first of your attraction being absolutely not under your control, it was clear you meant sexual interest. Nobody thought or thinks you meant you could not help yourself really liking someone elses shoes or their fabulous etchings.

Frankly it’s bizarre that the people such as yourself and the dunne who are obsessed with definitions keep making them up to make their point.

The dictionary definition of heterosexual only mentions sexual attraction. No mention of “sexual interest”. It’s just something the dunne felt he had to add to make his point. Otherwise he couldn’t prove that a man who is initially attracted to a trans woman isn’t gay.

Now you seem to think that sexual attraction means being into someone’s etching or shoes???

Where do ye get these ideas from?

I didn’t mean sexual interest. I meant sexual attraction.

Well, nooo....I am going to contradict myself. You CAN socially engineer people. It is just that all previous wide-ranging attempts at it have ended in inhumanity, chaos, bloodshed and disaster.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I didn’t mean sexual interest. I meant sexual attraction.

And can you not change your sexual attraction when you become appraised of new conscious knowledge? Like if the person turned out to be your sibling?

Theboinkmaster

I'm going to identify as a cow now. I'm going to live in a field and eat grass and fvck other cows.

You can't say anything or you're transphobic or whatever.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And can you not change your sexual attraction when you become appraised of new conscious knowledge? Like if the person turned out to be your sibling?

Your sexual attraction might change, it might not. But you did not control it and decide to change it. Otherwise you could just decide to flip back and become attracted to your sister again. Do you believe that is possible?

Let’s just be clear. Do you think you are in complete control of your sexual attraction or not? That is what I discussed with the dunne and he has already conceded that he is not.

Is this the position you are arguing?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Your sexual attraction might change, it might not. But you did not control it and decide to change it. Otherwise you could just decide to flip back and become attracted to your sister again. Do you believe that is possible?

Let’s just be clear. Do you think you are in complete control of your sexual attraction or not? That is what I discussed with the dunne and he has already conceded that he is not.

Is this the position you are arguing?

If you decided to not continue to be attracted to your sibling once appraised of that knowledge that is controlling your sexual attraction. Some don't of course - but most do. It is very much a conscious action over which one has control. Ditto with underage people, ditto with lots of things. You are arguing as if attraction is completely and constantly helpless whereas in fact it is very much conditioned by ongoing acquisition of new knowledge and one's conscious reaction to these new facts.

Fundamentally you are trying to build up a post modern thesis that to change one's attraction in response to finding a penis in a girls panties is biased and bigoted, as attraction cannot be controlled by the acquisition of new knowledge.

Your thesis attempts to deny the truth that for the heterosexual man (for example) both the known and the presumed existence of the female genitalia is highly important in the persistence of their attraction. This is so regardless of whether or not they have seen said vagina or not. Their attraction includes the assumption that the vagina exists.

Ditto for the homosexual male - the known or presumed existence of the penis is highly important for the existence of their attraction. These attractions are not built on postmodern illusions that nothing is so unless we name it so in some eternal power struggle to name reality which does not exist until then.

Some people do not mind if the genitalia turn out to be otherwise than they assumed. Of course. This is natural for some. But it is not the case for most.
Less than 3% of heterosexual people will fall into this category. That leaves 97% who do not. The numbers are more among homosexuals but still much in the minority. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/sex-sexuality-and-romance/202104/will-straight-men-and-women-date-trans-person

To try and engineer acceptable attraction by ever labelling it transphobic to amend attraction if reality turns out to be unexpected is unreasonable, authoritarian and coercive.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you decided to not continue to be attracted to your sibling once appraised of that knowledge that is controlling your sexual attraction. Some don't of course - but most do. It is very much a conscious action over which one has control. Ditto with underage people, ditto with lots of things. You are arguing as if attraction is completely and constantly helpless whereas in fact it is very much conditioned by ongoing acquisition of new knowledge and one's conscious reaction to these new facts.

So people who are repulsed upon finding out someone they were attracted to was their sister have made a decision to not be attracted? Surely they could just as easily decide to become attracted to them again then?

Could you decide to be a lesbian? If not, why not? If so, why do you choose not be a lesbian?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well you’ve added the “sexually interested” bit yourself. That’s not the standard definition.

Of course you know that the standard definition only makes reference to attraction and not “sexual interest”.

So to prove that the definition is simple and aligns with your opinion you had to change the definition.

You’ve broken your own principles of definitions being set in stone.

And you accuse others of mangling words and definitions?

If you are attracted sexually to the same sex, you are homosexual, to the opposite sex, heterosexual and to both, bisexual.

It's kind of in the name chief.

The reason I had to be a little more elaborate is because this thread has people claiming that vegetarians can be meat eaters, conflating sex and gender and claiming that a person having sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex can be straight.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you are attracted sexually to the same sex, you are homosexual, to the opposite sex, heterosexual and to both, bisexual.

It's kind of in the name chief.

Great. So if a man is attracted to a trans woman before finding out she is trans, he is sexually attracted to the same sex (according to your beliefs) and is therefore either gay or bi.

Can you prove that wrong only making reference to the definition you have given?

Because definitions are simple and not open to individual interpretation. Right?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

So people who are repulsed upon finding out someone they were attracted to was their sister have made a decision to not be attracted? Surely they could just as easily decide to become attracted to them again then?

Could you decide to be a lesbian? If not, why not? If so, why do you choose not be a lesbian?

I think you are confusing orientation and attraction.

If I have a heterosexual orientation I am attracted to the opposite sex. This does not mean I am attracted to every member of the opposite sex. Very few, as it happens And I have control with respect to my attraction within the orientation in that I will consciously limit my attraction according to certain contingencies, and my attraction to people within the orientation is also conditioned in an ongoing manner via conscious acquisition of new information.

It would be quite chaotic to be going around unable to control ones attraction to others.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

So people who are repulsed upon finding out someone they were attracted to was their sister have made a decision to not be attracted? Surely they could just as easily decide to become attracted to them again then?

Could you decide to be a lesbian? If not, why not? If so, why do you choose not be a lesbian?

If your attraction to someone doesn't subside after you find out that they are the same biological sex as yourself, then you are either homosexual or bisexual.

If your attraction to a person who is underage doesn't subside after you find out they are underage, you are a paedophile/hebephile/ephebophile

If your attraction to a sibling doesn't quell after finding out their identity, you are incestuous.

I don't believe you can will your sexual attraction away, but for the vast majority of people, it will be naturally be determined on facts and circumstances and knowledge and your actions and continued/discontinued attraction will see you labelled and defined accordingly.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Great. So if a man is attracted to a trans woman before finding out she is trans, he is sexually attracted to the same sex (according to your beliefs) and is therefore either gay or bi.

Can you prove that wrong only making reference to the definition you have given?

Because definitions are simple and not open to individual interpretation. Right?

Sure.

If a man subsequently finds out that he is attracted to someone of the same biological sex and continues to feel the attraction, he is either bi or gay.

A man finding a trans woman attractive unbeknownst that surgery and or medication has made them strongly resemble a biological female is absolutely not the same as being attracted to the same person after the fact has been revealed.

Definitions are simple. It's really not difficult

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The reason I had to be a little more elaborate is because this thread has people claiming that vegetarians can be meat eaters, conflating sex and gender and claiming that a person having sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex can be straight.

People can, and do, profess all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. Just take the simple idea of people who are married to someone of the opposite sex who later comes out as gay, or lesbian or bisexual, or yes, even transgender. More often, people just don’t align perfectly and neatly with the labels which they either choose for themselves, or the labels which are put upon them by other people. We wouldn’t be having this conversation for example if people would just stick with the label they were given at birth and conform to the stereotypes which that label infers according to other people’s expectations and the traditions and values of the culture in which they live. Such people really need to stop doing that as it’s making other people uncomfortable and it’s just not on. It’s unacceptable!

As if anyone is actually going to adhere to that nonsense which is making them completely and utterly miserable. This isn’t a chicken or egg thing as to which came first - humans definitely came first, and labels were invented after by way of identifying observations about humans. As it turns out, and as people discovered, a lot of the previous assumptions which were made, turned out to be wholly inaccurate in many cases, and were based more upon traditional culture and beliefs as opposed to scientific evidence.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think you are confusing orientation and attraction.

If I have a heterosexual orientation I am attracted to the opposite sex. This does not mean I am attracted to every member of the opposite sex. Very few, as it happens And I have control with respect to my attraction within the orientation in that I will consciously limit my attraction according to certain contingencies, and my attraction to people within the orientation is also conditioned in an ongoing manner via conscious acquisition of new information.

It would be quite chaotic to be going around unable to control ones attraction to others.

All the definitions of orientation are based on attraction. So I’m not confusing them. None of them say you have to be attracted to all men or all women or all men and women.

I think you’re confusing attraction with sexual actions.

Yea it would be chaotic if people could not control their actions.

However most people can and when attracted to someone does not mean they are going to try and jump their leg.

So if being a lesbian is being sexually attracted to women and you are in control of your attraction, can you choose to be lesbian?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sure.

If a man subsequently finds out that he is attracted to someone of the same biological sex and continues to feel the attraction, he is either bi or gay.

A man finding a trans woman attractive unbeknownst that surgery and or medication has made them strongly resemble a biological female is absolutely not the same as being attracted to the same person after the fact has been revealed.

Definitions are simple. It's really not difficult

You did not make reference to the definition there. You added your own details such as “finding out” and “continuing to feel”.

The definition makes no reference to these so you are not actually using the definition. You are using your own interpretation of the definition.

Can you prove that a man who finds a trans women attractive wIthout knowing she is trans is not gay or bisexual only making reference to the definition and not adding your own concepts?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It would be quite chaotic to be going around unable to control ones attraction to others.

People have no conscious control over their sexual orientation or their attraction to others. They certainly have control over their behaviour and how they choose to act towards others based upon their attraction to other people, or indeed lack thereof.

In some cases people commit assault because they are attracted to people they don’t want to be attracted to, and in some cases people commit assault when they imagine they have been deceived, or they are threatened by the idea of their sexual attraction which they wish to keep hidden, becoming public knowledge. People can’t control who or what they are sexually attracted to, but they can certainly control their behaviour. This is precisely why there isn’t the chaos you’re trying to argue there should be if one could not control their attraction to others.

ChickenDish

Anyone who insists on sharing with the world that they identify as this or that is in my eyes nothing but an attention whore.

The vast majority of people go about their daily lives with little or no thought about what they identify as. I've gone through life with no thought what so ever about what I identify as.

Are some people so arrogant that they think the world must recognise them for being this or that - heads up, no one cares if you identify as a cabbage.

I'll no intentionally insult someone I meet, but I'll not pamper to silly whims either.