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

AllForIt

km991148 wrote: »

I think this very post could also be seen as being guilty of being dragged away from the point.. (whatever the point may be.. the thread is all over the place..).

Regarding your second paragraph, you have no idea peoples personal situation, and you could probably understand why 'these phenomena' might not want to come out and discuss openly.

As was pointed out earlier- do you need experience to discuss a topic on a public forum?

No I can't understanding why those people would be reluctant to put their case on an anonymous discussion forum.

Quite right I don't need personal experience, but I could do with more info and there are things only a gender fluid person can answer, like for example; can you describe what if feels like to be a man in comparisons to feeling like a woman. An ally couldn't answer that one.

Annasopra

Dante7 wrote: »

Scientologists also believe that there is no dissent. Sure how could there be? Everyone they speak to wholeheartedly agrees with their ideology.

I didnt say there was no dissent. I said there isnt a massive dissent in Ireland amongst LGB people. Of course some LGB people dont agree with trans advocacy or trans rights but it isnt a massive LGB backlash at all.

Annasopra

Dante7 wrote: »

Nah, it's grooming. Encouraging children to not confide in their parents, but instead trust some other adult behind the parent's back and against the parent's wishes, resulting in situations where children can have their bodies and minds irreversibly damaged all while being told "shush, don't tell your Mammy and Daddy, they wouldn't understand".

It absolutely is not grooming. Grooming means preparing a child for sexual abuse. You are deliberately twisting that into something its not.

Dante7

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It absolutely is not grooming. Grooming means preparing a child for sexual abuse. You are deliberately twisting that into something its not.

It is grooming.

"Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them."


https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child-abuse/types-of-abuse/grooming/

volchitsa

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It absolutely is not grooming. Grooming means preparing a child for sexual abuse. You are deliberately twisting that into something its not.

Encouraging a child not to confide in its parents is a very dangerous approach - it may not be actively preparing the child to be sexually abused, but it's definitely fostering an attitude in the child's mind, and even creating a situation, where sexual abuse becomes easier.

It should only be done as a last resort, such as if there is evidence that the child's parents are totally unreasonable, and even then, that should be of a level of "unreasonableness" that might require the child to be taken into care. It should never be considered appropriate merely as a way of avoiding uncomfortable discussions.

Cilldara_2000

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It absolutely is not grooming. Grooming means preparing a child for sexual abuse. You are deliberately twisting that into something its not.

What's going on here is the some of the same cohort who are loudly cribbing about words and definitions being misused by what they call TRAs have no problem whatsoever redefining words when it suits their purposes. Anyone reasonable person can see that this is not grooming and can also see a rather insidious attempt to link paedophilia to the discussion.

jam_mac_jam

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

What's going on here is the same cohort who are loudly cribbing about words and definitions being misused by what they call TRAs have no problem whatsoever redefining words when it suits their purposes. Anyone reasonable person can see that this is not grooming and can also see a rather insidious attempt to link paedophilia to the discussion.

Some do have a problem with the word grooming. Who have already commented on it.

Gatling

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Lets just redefine what a lesbian is. I'm sure they won't mind.

Jesus, can everyone just leave lesbians alone.

Can you imagine trying to refine what a gay man is .

km991148

AllForIt wrote: »

No I can't understanding why those people would be reluctant to put their case on an anonymous discussion forum.

Personal experience of posters aside (a more informed opinion could be useful at times), this forum isn't as anonymous as you may think.

People can be identified and maybe some people don't want to. Surely that's not hard to understand on its own.

When you then have people bring described as 'a phenomena' (and other less savoury expressions that have been used) then it becomes clear to me as to why some people may be reluctant to speak on here.

If you are genuinely interested tho, I am sure there are other areas of the internet that you could use to find out more (haven't bothered myself , but I would assume so at least!).

I think a lot if the reason is mainly tho, it's boards.ie - it only really represents a small section of Irish society (and becoming less and less with each year).

Cilldara_2000

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Some do have a problem with the word grooming. Who have already commented on it.

Reasonable. I have edited that post to be clear "some of" and I note your post at the top of this page objecting to the word being used.

Annasopra

Dante7 wrote: »

It is grooming.

"Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them."


https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child-abuse/types-of-abuse/grooming/

No.

Advising a teacher not to out young people to their families is not in any way a process of manipulating them or exploiting them or abusing them.

Grooming is about preparing a child for sexual abuse.

Dante7

Some people seem to be confused about what grooming actually is. They seem to think that it is limited to paedophilic activity. This is incorrect. The abuse can take many forms. For example, in Oliver Twist Fagin groomed the street urchins by befriending them and taking them into his confidence with the ultimate goal to abuse them by way of turning them into his street thieves. Befriending children and telling them not to confide in their parents with the end goal of putting them on a path of puberty blockers and surgery for the adult's validation is most definitely grooming.

Annasopra

volchitsa wrote: »

Encouraging a child not to confide in its parents is a very dangerous approach.

Ok but thats an entirely separate issue and not actually being discussed.

Teachers are advised

"Don’t share information about the student’s trans identity without consent."

That is NOT grooming at all.

Gatling

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Grooming is about preparing a child for sexual abuse.

Actually your wrong .

Grooming isn't about child sex abuse ,it's one of those words a minority want banned from this type of discussion so they can claim some fake outrage .

You can be groomed for success ,you can be groomed to lead ,you can be groomed to believe something isn't true ,you can be groomed as part of religious extremism ,you can be groomed to join criminal gangs ,you can be groomed to deal drugs ,you can be groomed to self harm ,you can be groomed to be isolated from your peers ,you can be groomed for domestic violence .

So yeah the word groomed doesn't just apply to child sex abuse or exploitation

Annasopra

Gatling wrote: »

Actually your wrong .

Grooming isn't about child sex abuse ,it's one of those words a minority want banned from this type of discussion so they can claim some fake outrage .

You can be groomed for success ,you can be groomed to lead ,you can be groomed to believe something isn't true ,you can be groomed as part of religious extremism ,you can be groomed to join criminal gangs ,you can be groomed to deal drugs ,you can be groomed to self harm ,you can be groomed to be isolated from your peers ,you can be groomed for domestic violence .

So yeah the word groomed doesn't just apply to child sex abuse or exploitation

We are not talking about grooming in the general sense though. Its being used in a particular way here to suggest abuse and exploitation. Within that way its being used here it is widely understood as meaning sexual exploitation.

Aside from all that it is a laughable argument that says advice to teachers "Don’t share information about the student’s trans identity without consent" is grooming. Seriously get off the stage with this drivel of an argument. Complete and utter nonsense.

Gatling

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

We are not talking about grooming in the general sense though.

But we are .


It's you claiming otherwise ,


Not for the first time either

Frankie Machine

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It absolutely is not grooming. Grooming means preparing a child for sexual abuse. You are deliberately twisting that into something its not.

However, from the NSPCC website...

What is grooming?

Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them.

Manipulation, exploitation, and abuse of children, can be sexual. But is not necessarily.

Children and young people who are groomed can be sexually abused, exploited or trafficked.

But even if they aren't, they can be groomed none the less.

Anybody can be a groomer, no matter their age, gender or race. Grooming can take place over a short or long period of time – from weeks to years. Groomers may also build a relationship with the young person's family or friends to make them seem trustworthy or authoritative.

It's very straightforward, that the term grooming has a wider meaning than the narrowly sexual one that you wish.

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child-abuse/types-of-abuse/grooming/#what-is

Frankie Machine

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Aside from all that it is a laughable argument that says advice to teachers "Don’t share information about the student’s trans identity without consent" is grooming. Seriously get off the stage with this drivel of an argument. Complete and utter nonsense.

I hope you can now see that such abuse of 'in loco parentis', actually is indeed grooming.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Encouraging a child not to confide in its parents is a very dangerous approach - it may not be actively preparing the child to be sexually abused, but it's definitely fostering an attitude in the child's mind, and even creating a situation, where sexual abuse becomes easier.

There’s no suggestion of encouraging a child not to talk to their parents. The guidelines relate to people working in organisations which work with children, and whoever wrote that tweet has chosen to take the guidelines out of context for their own ends. The guidelines (in their proper context) are here on page 25 of this document under the heading of Supporting Trans Young People -


DON’T Out them to their parents. Ensure you use whatever pronouns they wish you to use if you are communicating with their parents about or with the young person

DON’T Out them if their parent/guardian asks directly – say you don’t know, reassure the parent that the most important thing is the young person’s happiness and feeling of safe spaces. Encourage them to speak to their young person.


The guidelines suggest reassuring the child’s parents and encouraging them to talk to their child - the opposite of what is being portrayed in that tweet. It’s a deliberate misinterpretation on the part of whoever wrote that tweet, because they would have to have read it in it’s proper context in the first place in order to portray it completely out of context as being deliberately malicious or intended to put a child in danger. It has nothing to do with creating a situation where sexual abuse becomes easier.

Necro

Mod:

Can we drop this grooming discussion please, it's turning into a circular back and forth over the definition of the word.

It has nothing to do with the topic at hand which is gender identity.

volchitsa

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ok but thats an entirely separate issue and not actually being discussed.

Teachers are advised

"Don’t share information about the student’s trans identity without consent."

That is NOT grooming at all.

I haven't said it's grooming, I'm saying it's wrong because it starts from the premise that the child's parents, who are responsible for his/her safety and wellbeing should not be informed by default of a major issue like this. Other adults should not be taking the place of the parents unless there is very good reason for that.

To my mind, only parents who are deemed irresponsible shoudl be bypassed like that. Because they are the ones who have the child's best interests at heart, and are also the people who will be left to pick up the pieces if it all goes wrong.

Frankie Machine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There’s no suggestion of encouraging a child not to talk to their parents. The guidelines relate to people working in organisations which work with children, and whoever wrote that tweet has chosen to take the guidelines out of context for their own ends. The guidelines (in their proper context) are here on page 25 of this document under the heading of Supporting Trans Young People -


DON’T Out them to their parents. Ensure you use whatever pronouns they wish you to use if you are communicating with their parents about or with the young person

DON’T Out them if their parent/guardian asks directly – say you don’t know, reassure the parent that the most important thing is the young person’s happiness and feeling of safe spaces. Encourage them to speak to their young person.


The guidelines suggest reassuring the child’s parents and encouraging them to talk to their child - the opposite of what is being portrayed in that tweet. It’s a deliberate misinterpretation on the part of whoever wrote that tweet, because they would have to have read it in it’s proper context in the first place in order to portray it completely out of context as being deliberately malicious or intended to put a child in danger. It has nothing to do with creating a situation where sexual abuse becomes easier.

What parent will be reassured by the words of anyone whom they know to be operating under such guidelines ?

The absolute self-centredness of this approach is an outrageous undermining of parents.

ingalway

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I didnt say there was no dissent. I said there isnt a massive dissent in Ireland amongst LGB people. Of course some LGB people dont agree with trans advocacy or trans rights but it isnt a massive LGB backlash at all.

The tide is turning
https://twitter.com/Ire_LGBAlliance

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

DON’T Out them to their parents. Ensure you use whatever pronouns they wish you to use if you are communicating with their parents about or with the young person

But that's exactly what the above actually does .

Ensure you use whatever pronouns they wish to use

So Paul came to school as a he now we're calling him she ,hi mom this is Teacher A can you come in for a chat about your child ,she is in a bit of bother , but I have a he not a she ,she has gotten in to trouble ,and we need to discuss she .

Oops

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gatling wrote: »

But that's exactly what the above actually does .

Ensure you use whatever pronouns they wish to use

So Paul came to school as a he now we're calling him she ,hi mom this is Teacher A can you come in for a chat about your child ,she is in a bit of bother , but I have a he not a she ,she has gotten in to trouble ,and we need to discuss she .

Oops

I'll never understand why the **** people get so fixated on pronouns. It's like you'e trying to create an issue.

Frankie Machine

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'll never understand why the **** people get so fixated on pronouns. It's like you'e trying to create an issue.

So you think fixating on pronouns is trying to create an issue ?

Do you think the insistence on pronouns is trying to create an issue ? If not, why not ? And who started that nonsense use of language and compelled speech anyway ?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Frankie Machine wrote: »

So you think fixating on pronouns is trying to create an issue ?

Is this an actual question? I mean, I did write it down.

Do you think the insistence on pronouns is trying to create an issue ? If not, why not ? And who started that nonsense use of language and compelled speech anyway ?

No, I think it's trying to affirm an identity.

Do you think the insistence of pronouns is trying to create an issue?

Mic 1972

ingalway wrote: »

The tide is turning
https://twitter.com/Ire_LGBAlliance

Honestly, it makes perfect sense.
Trans have completely different demands and should handle them separately from gay/lesbians

Gatling

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'll never understand why the **** people get so fixated on pronouns. It's like you'e trying to create an issue.

I'm working with what we have been given .

It's there in black and white - i don't make these decisions or word these guidelines

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gatling wrote: »

I'm working with what we have been given .

It's there in black and white - i don't make these decisions or word these guidelines

What is?

I made a general comment about pronouns, not a written article.