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

keano_afc

Deleted User wrote: »

You are seriously losing the plot of you think that giving your height or weight slightly wrong is in any way comparable to defining yourself as the opposite sex.

Your height CAN change, your weight DOES change. Your sex doesn't.

It's beyond parody.

Got there before me. Seriously, some of the stuff they come out with is just jaw dropping.

Then again, I guess it has to be when you're figuratively trying to prove that the earth is flat.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I know who my mother and father were.

Without being read a dictionary definition??? But....how???

Can a transwoman have a penis - and who has no wish to change that via surgery or otherwise.

If yes, by logical deduction, a transwoman is a woman - so a woman has a penis.

Yes. Did you think when we have said trans women are women we only meant the trans women who have had surgery?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You are seriously losing the plot of you think that giving your height or weight slightly wrong is in any way comparable to defining yourself as the opposite sex.

Your height CAN change, your weight DOES change. Your sex doesn't.

It's beyond parody.

The issue is whether they are labels or not and if not why not.

If you claim your 89kg because that’s your most consistent weight but in reality you are currently about 92kg, is 89kg a label and if not why not?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

The issue is whether they are labels or not and if not why not.

If you claim your 89kg because that’s your most consistent weight but in reality you are currently about 92kg, is 89kg a label and if not why not?

Your sex (male/female or man/woman) is a label because it is immutable.

Your weight is not.

Gentlemanne

LLMMLL wrote: »

I love how you seem to think being 6ft8 somehow is more manly. Like your issue with trans people is their height. If you believe so much in definitions shouldn’t you be referring to their gametes and chromosomes and not their height. Surely it would make no difference to you if they were 5ft4 or 6ft8.

Since you’re so accurate in your definitions...

They do this a lot, any woman doesn't meet their criteria is less female. But also if someone not cis enough is presenting female they're overcompensating or acting stereotypical. There is no winning with some people, their brains are tied into knots.

EDIT: Also would like to point out that transphobia affects cisgender people too - in the US they're having genital inspections of children because of hysteria around trans people in sports.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Your sex (male/female or man/woman) is a label because it is immutable.

Your weight is not.

So weight is a label and eskimohunt was incorrect to say it was a provable reality?

Can you give a definition of what a label is?

Gentlemanne

Gentlemanne wrote: »

They do this a lot, any woman doesn't meet their criteria is less female. But also if someone not cis enough is presenting female they're overcompensating or acting stereotypical. There is no winning with some people, their brains are tied into knots

Less feminine maybe. Not less female.

You'd also find that most people you are disparaging rarely use the word cis too

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

So weight is a label and eskimohunt was incorrect to say it was a provable reality?

Can you give a definition of what a label is?

Weight is a provable reality. You may just have it wrong as it fluctuates. It doesn't mean it can't be proven. You may not have the correct figure on hand due to the fluctuation.

But it certainly can be proven.

Gentlemanne

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm glad you find it amusing.

Perhaps you will have the courage in your convictions to actually present this diagram and actually give an explanation rather than allude in the way you are in order to contribute without saying anything.

The diagram was a joke. It isn't hard to understand what I mean.
Eskimo is trying to use broken logic to say trans is a redundant term for women, when it's not*, its just one descriptor, like how a woman can be tall or short or fat or skinny.

*notwithstanding the people here who truly do not believe that being trans is even a thing.

EDIT: Did a google and someone actually made a diagram, haha.
https://miro.medium.com/max/1050/1*1_EKLJUrD2kNXART77_ZUg.png

Gentlemanne

Deleted User wrote: »

You'd also find that most people you are disparaging rarely use the word cis too

Oh I'm aware, and I understand why.

I'll keep using it, it's the correct word to use when describing people who isn't trans. It's like if someone isn't gay, they're straight.

Gentlemanne

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Oh I'm aware, and I understand why.

I'll keep using it, it's the correct word to use when describing people who isn't trans. It's like if someone isn't gay, they're straight.

What is your understanding of why people don't use it?

I personally don't use it as it is superfluous.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes. Did you think when we have said trans women are women we only meant the trans women who have had surgery?

So, in your view, transwomen with penises and no breasts are still women.

If an ordinary straight man refuses to sleep with a transwoman with a penis and no breasts, are they displaying transphobia in your view?

If a transwoman (with a penis) who likes women is turned down by a lesbian, does that make the lesbian transphobic and homophobic?

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Oh I'm aware, and I understand why.

I'll keep using it, it's the correct word to use when describing people who isn't trans. It's like if someone isn't gay, they're straight.

No, that's incorrect.

I am not a cis-man, and do not identify with such terminology.

I am a man.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Weight is a provable reality. You may just have it wrong as it fluctuates. It doesn't mean it can't be proven. You may not have the correct figure on hand due to the fluctuation.

But it certainly can be proven.

How do you prove it? Are 2 different scales guaranteed to give the same weight? If one scales says 90kg and another says 90.431kg what’s your actual weight?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No, that's incorrect.

I am not a cis-man, and do not identify with such terminology.

I am a man.

If you wouldn’t mind, how is your declaration any different from anyone else’s declaration about themselves? Your declaration, by your own standards, is no more worthy of acknowledgment, consideration or acceptance by anyone else, in the same way as declarations anyone else makes about themselves are not worthy of acknowledgement, consideration or acceptance by you, in your view.

There’s a double-standard there which you apply to others, but it doesn’t seem to occur to you that the same standards applies to you from their point of view.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So, in your view, transwomen with penises and no breasts are still women.

If an ordinary straight man refuses to sleep with a transwoman with a penis and no breasts, are they displaying transphobia in your view?

If a transwoman (with a penis) who likes women is turned down by a lesbian, does that make the lesbian transphobic and homophobic?

No

No, that's incorrect.

I am not a cis-man, and do not identify with such terminology.

I am a man.

Oh so we can pick and choose what terminology we identify with? That’s great news.

Because cis is a well defined word. That you claim the definition doesn’t apply to you when it clearly does is completely contradictory to your stated position on definitions.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

How do you prove it? Are 2 different scales guaranteed to give the same weight? If one scales says 90kg and another says 90.431kg what’s your actual weight?

Yes. There is an absolute way of measuring weight and height. Commerial scales may give an incorrect weight but there are proper scales that can tell you exactly what weight you are at the precise moment you stand on them.

To argue differently is banal and absolutely obfuscation.

Because most people don't have access to a specific and presumably expensive weighing scales, they use the very best estimate which is usually remarkable in how close it is. Up to less of a percentile error margin of what is your definite weight at that time

Saying you are a woman when you are a man however, is 100% inaccurate.

The fact you are continuing down this absurd route of trying to prove a terrible point is exhausting and says a lot about you.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you wouldn’t mind, how is your declaration any different from anyone else’s declaration about themselves? Your declaration, by your own standards, is no more worthy of acknowledgment, consideration or acceptance by anyone else, in the same way as declarations anyone else makes about themselves are not worthy of acknowledgement, consideration or acceptance by you, in your view.

There’s a double-standard there which you apply to others, but it doesn’t seem to occur to you that the same standards applies to you from their point of view.

Objectivity means truth independent of personal opinion.

It doesn't matter what I think of myself. In fact, I could have been born unconscious, then died, having been completely unaware that I even existed.

But objectively, I am and was still a man.

That's the whole point of the word objective. I am not declaring anything about myself other than the very obvious biological reality.

You cannot be anything other than a man or a woman. There is no third sex.

Intersex does exist, but not even every intersex individual considers themselves transgender.

But we cannot point to the exceptions to the rule (including Kleinfelter's syndrome) to justify a new social rule that dominates XX and XY individuals and says that sex is interchangeable.

That is total, arrant nonsense.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

No



Oh so we can pick and choose what terminology we identify with? That’s great news.

Because cis is a well defined word. That you claim the definition doesn’t apply to you when it clearly does is completely contradictory to your stated position on definitions.

The point is that YOU are picking and choosing what is defined. When it comes to cis, you are sure that it is defined and still claim weight and woman can't be.

It is an example to show the absurdity of your stance

Cis may be accurate, but it is superfluous

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes. There is an absolute way of measuring weight and height. Commerial scales may give an incorrect weight but there are proper scales that can tell you exactly what weight you are at the precise moment you stand on them.

To argue differently is banal and absolutely obfuscation.

Because most people don't have access to a specific and presumably expensive weighing scales, they use the very best estimate which is usually remarkable in how close it is. Up to less of a percentile error margin of what is your definite weight at that time

Saying you are a woman when you are a man however, is 100% inaccurate.

The fact you are continuing down this absurd route of trying to prove a terrible point is exhausting and says a lot about you.

Lol I actually did a project on this in my physics undergrad and there is no method that will give you exact measurements of weight.

Please explain the method you have in mind that is guaranteed to give identical measurements each time.

Otherwise it is not a provable reality.

keano_afc

Gentlemanne wrote: »

The diagram was a joke. It isn't hard to understand what I mean.
Eskimo is trying to use broken logic to say trans is a redundant term for women, when it's not*, its just one descriptor, like how a woman can be tall or short or fat or skinny.

*notwithstanding the people here who truly do not believe that being trans is even a thing.

EDIT: Did a google and someone actually made a diagram, haha.
https://miro.medium.com/max/1050/1*1_EKLJUrD2kNXART77_ZUg.png

Well, not really. All women fall into a weight category. Its something every woman has in common.

"Trans" is not a descriptor of women. Its a term to describe a biological male/female who thinks they're something they're not.

I go back to what I said earlier:

This is a quasi-religion where evidence is thrown out the window, dismissed, and data propagandistically interpreted - all to mould a narrative that is based on a fiction where people can live in a fantasy world that simply does not exist in reality. It's almost a hatred of the real world.

Faith is believing in something that has no evidence base whatsoever. That is precisely what we are dealing with here.

And unsurprisingly, those who reject the new faith are considered heretics and must be dismissed as social pariahs.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The point is that YOU are picking and choosing what is defined. When it comes to cis, you are sure that it is defined and still claim weight and woman can't be.

It is an example to show the absurdity of your stance

Cis may be accurate, but it is superfluous

Ok so you are a cis man but you think it’s superfluous.

However eskimohunt says he is not a cis man.

Now ordinarily I don’t think that two people who are on the same side of an argument should have to be in complete agreement.

But surely two people who claim that concepts are given by definitions and definitions are 100% precise should be in complete agreement about definitions?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Otherwise it is not a provable reality.

You have the audacity to talk about evidence and provable realities when you have spent the last many pages arguing in favour of something with no provable evidence whatsoever.

If anything counter not only to the best available evidence, but all available evidence.

And cis- is entirely superfluous - it adds no value whatsoever other than to somehow balance out the need to justify the use of the word trans-. In chemistry, cis- and trans- makes sense; double and triple bonds and so on, but not when applied to human beings.

I am not a cis- anything.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You have the audacity to talk about evidence and provable realities when you have spent the last many pages arguing in favour of something with no provable evidence whatsoever.

If anything counter not only to the best available evidence, but all available evidence.

No there’s the evidence that they identify as a man or woman.

And cis- is entirely superfluous - it adds no value whatsoever other than to somehow balance out the need to justify the use of the word trans-.

But something being superfluous doesn’t mean it is inaccurate. Therefore you are a cis man as it’s an accurate definition, even if you feel it’s a superfluous word.

Is this correct?

keano_afc

"You're a cis man. It doesnt matter what you say, you simply are a cis man. Accept it."

"OMG, you called that transwoman a man. Who are you to tell them what gender they are?"

Do they ever get the irony, I wonder.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Objectivity means truth independent of personal opinion.

It doesn't matter what I think of myself. In fact, I could have been born unconscious, then died, having been completely unaware that I even existed.

But objectively, I am and was still a man.

That's the whole point of the word objective. I am not declaring anything about myself other than the very obvious biological reality.

You cannot be anything other than a man or a woman. There is no third sex.

Intersex does exist, but not even every intersex individual considers themselves transgender.

But we cannot point to the exceptions to the rule (including Kleinfelter's syndrome) to justify a new social rule that dominates XX and XY individuals and says that sex is interchangeable.

That is total, arrant nonsense.

You say now it doesn’t matter what you think of yourself, but only a few posts ago you declared that you do not identify with the term cis, as though you expect you should be taken seriously. My point is that you’re applying that standard for yourself, yet you don’t allow for the fact that other people have the same rights as you do, to do exactly as you have done. Objectively, they do.

We can absolutely point to exceptions in any given previous assumptions and use those exceptions to demonstrate exactly why previously held assumptions were incorrect. That’s exactly what was done in relation to legal recognition of people who are transgender, and now they have the same rights, obligations and protection from discrimination in Irish society as everyone else - the objective standard which governs Irish society being Irish law.

In that respect, then it’s objectively true to point out that nobody has to care what you think or what rules you think should or shouldn’t apply or what names or labels, terminology or definitions you choose to use. Nobody is beholden to your standards. They are recognised, acknowledged and their rights are protected by Irish law. Nobody has to care whether you would or wouldn’t want to have sex with them or anything else. In reality, objectively, your opinions of other people and how they should define themselves, just isn’t as important to other people as you imagine it should be.

LLMMLL

keano_afc wrote: »

"You're a cis man. It doesnt matter what you say, you simply are a cis man. Accept it."

"OMG, you called that transwoman a man. Who are you to tell them what gender they are?"

Do they ever get the irony, I wonder.

Actually the irony is the reverse. I’ve no problem with people not identifying as cis and not wanting to be called cis.

However we have a poster here who says they are not cis as they don’t identify as cis even though it’s an accurate term.

The same poster describes my statements about people who have xx chromosomes not identifying as women as “absurd”.

Irony indeed.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

No there’s the evidence that they identify as a man or woman.

But something being superfluous doesn’t mean it is inaccurate. Therefore you are a cis man as it’s an accurate definition, even if you feel it’s a superfluous word.

Is this correct?

I reject the term. You can use it in a sociology essay, but it's not something I will ever, ever use - not anyone else that I know. It is limited in its application by gender extremists who want to establish the linguistic rules of the conversation.

And to that, I will not yield an inch.

As for the suggestion that self-expression is "evidence". My goodness me.

Some people hallucinate and genuinely believe what they have seen. Is that good evidence for their belief?

Some people are born able-bodied but, later in life, believe they were born into a disabled body - and so want to remedy that by turning their belief into a reality (such as amputation, blinding themselves etc.).This is known as transable-ism. Is that good evidence for their belief?

Some people fervently believe in Islamic extremism - that their strong belief is so true that they feel the need to blow up an arena filled with children. Is that good evidence for their belief?

Some people, often girls, believe they have a very fat body when in fact they are on the verge of death due to anorexia. Is that good evidence for their belief?

The wider point is this: that strong belief never equates to strong evidence - and this is true no matter what subject we speak about. To identify with any of the above positions raises precisely the same set of questions.

In courts of law, personal testimony is considered among the weakest forms of evidence - and there's a very good reason for that, too.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ok so you are a cis man but you think it’s superfluous.

However eskimohunt says he is not a cis man.

Now ordinarily I don’t think that two people who are on the same side of an argument should have to be in complete agreement.

But surely two people who claim that concepts are given by definitions and definitions are 100% precise should be in complete agreement about definitions?

Why?

Cis is a superfluous term. I'm also non handicapped. I also have ten fingers. It would not be inaccurate for you to describe me as such, but I can see why it would be silly and superfluous for you to address me as a man with those prefixes and know the only reason you are doing it is in the pretence that both cis and trans need to be used as man or woman is not enough of a descriptive term and people may get confused.

It is a silly and childish to pretend you are using it for any other reason.

Biology wise

A man is a man and a woman is a woman.

A "cis man" is a man and a "cis woman" is a woman

A trans man is a woman and a trans woman is a man.

That's why trans is used as a prefix.

keano_afc

LLMMLL wrote: »

Actually the irony is the reverse. I’ve no problem with people not identifying as cis and not wanting to be called cis.

However we have a poster here who says they are not cis as they don’t identify as cis even though it’s an accurate term.

The same poster describes my statements about people who have xx chromosomes not identifying as women as “absurd”.

Irony indeed.

There's no reason to call anyone "cis". Its a meaningless prefix that only exists to validate trangenderism. I've only seen it used by gender activists.

Identity has nothing to do with chromosomes. Someone who is XX is female. Elliot Page is female. They can change their body all they want but it wont change the fact that if their body was exhumed in 200 years, the scientific method of identification would classify them as female.