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

volchitsa

Rodin wrote: »

Identifying as a different race is equally as valid as identifying as a different gender. How dare some race-phobe say differently!

Well my thoughts exactly. But it seems transgender "allies" don't agree at all. None of them spoke up in favour of Rachel - in fact all the usual "progressive" groups condemned her for being a fraud. I really can't see why they're so sure it's completely different.

Rodin

volchitsa wrote: »

Well my thoughts exactly. But it seems transgender "allies" don't agree at all. None of them spoke up in favour of Rachel - in fact all the usual "progressive" groups condemned her for being a fraud. I really can't see why they're so sure it's completely different.

If we're not allowed to use certain criteria to say why a "transwoman" isn't a woman then we shouldn't be using criteria to identify race....
The whole thing is a load of nonsense... and needs to be called out for it.

Rachel whatsherface is white and Caitlin Jenner is male. End of.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gatling wrote: »

But do they .

There has been numerous reports of many people who transition then later detransision and revert back to their original gender ,

That would suggest people don't actually know themselves what their identity is

I wasn't arguing they didn;t know, I was arguing how someone else knew better.

Frankie Machine wrote: »

Without wanting to be offensive to anyone, I'd argue that I know what a woman is.

Your unwarranted observation about my 'refusing to accept' anyone, will be ignored as of now.


.

Then the simple question is: do you accept someone who has transitions as their new gender, yes or no?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Well my thoughts exactly. But it seems transgender "allies" don't agree at all. None of them spoke up in favour of Rachel - in fact all the usual "progressive" groups condemned her for being a fraud. I really can't see why they're so sure it's completely different.

The example of Rachel Dolezal is often brought up as a fairly transparent attempt at pointing out “hypocrisy”, when it’s completely different circumstances. Bringing it up is just an example of insincere whataboutery, because you don’t believe it yourself, but you want to point fingers other people who don’t either. It’s the equivalent of asking why people who are in favour of marriage equality aren’t in favour of people marrying their pets.

Frankie Machine

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Then the simple question is: do you accept someone who has transitions as their new gender, yes or no?

'Accept' as in - work with, work for, socialise with, converse with, cook for, loan money/books/tools/vehicles/clothes to, drive to the far side of Ireland as a favour at a moment's notice, accommodate, defend from attack, not make disparaging remarks about or towards, then... yes.

But I don't 'accept' eg that a transwoman is a woman, because the definition of a woman is 'adult human female'.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The example of Rachel Dolezal is often brought up as a fairly transparent attempt at pointing out “hypocrisy”, when it’s completely different circumstances.

It's hardly ever brought up ,

It's not completely different circumstances at all one believes she is the wrong colour ,Vs say a man who self identifies as a woman ,
It's exact same thing oddly enough ,
It's like the glaring lack of any discussion of female to male trans demanding this and demanding that ,it's one very narrow minded group that has the idea that women don't deserve to be represented because they are women ,and don't buy into this self identified nonsense .

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The example of Rachel Dolezal is often brought up as a fairly transparent attempt at pointing out “hypocrisy”, when it’s completely different circumstances. Bringing it up is just an example of insincere whataboutery, because you don’t believe it yourself, but you want to point fingers other people who don’t either. It’s the equivalent of asking why people who are in favour of marriage equality aren’t in favour of people marrying their pets.

So black people are like animals then? FFS. It's nothing like that.

People actually can be black, white or a mixture in between. It's often not that easy to know what "race" someone is. People can't be pets though. That's obvious.

Dante7

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.

It is because it is compelled speech over a faith based belief system, and failure to comply can cost you your job, reputation and can even get you prosecuted. If your workplace implemented a policy whereby you had to acknowledge Jesus as the one true god and failure to refer to him as such could get you fired, I am sure you would have a problem with that.

I have two trans friends who are genuinely dysphoric and I have absolutely no problem addressing them by their preferred pronouns. But that is my choice and they in no way make anyone feel compelled to address them as such. I also know a couple of new transgenders in my wider circle, and I point blank refuse to use their preferred pronouns. I just avoid addressing them at all. Because they not genuinely trans. They are just attention seeking, misogynistic narcissists.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

It's hardly ever brought up ,

It's not completely different circumstances at all one believes she is the wrong colour ,Vs say a man who self identifies as a woman ,
It's exact same thing oddly enough ,
It's like the glaring lack of any discussion of female to male trans demanding this and demanding that ,it's one very narrow minded group that has the idea that women don't deserve to be represented because they are women ,and don't buy into this self identified nonsense .

It really is often brought up, as a sort of “gotcha!”

But here’s the thing, if you care about people identifying themselves as another race, you go ahead and support that if you want. It has nothing to do with people who are transgender.

volchitsa wrote: »

So black people are like animals then? FFS. It's nothing like that.

People actually can be black, white or a mixture in between. It's often not that easy to know what "race" someone is. People can't be pets though. That's obvious.

Jesus volchista, you’ve outdone even Cathy Newman with that one :pac:

For what it’s worth though, I agree with you, other people might point to the fact that humans are animals too, but I think we’ve gone far enough down that rabbit hole before we start bumping into vegans and their false equivalence between humans and animals on the basis of sentience.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Frankie Machine wrote: »

'Accept' as in - work with, work for, socialise with, converse with, cook for, loan money/books/tools/vehicles/clothes to, drive to the far side of Ireland as a favour at a moment's notice, accommodate, defend from attack, not make disparaging remarks about or towards, then... yes.

But I don't 'accept' eg that a transwoman is a woman, because the definition of a woman is 'adult human female'.

I meant the later. Which means the reason you're fixated with the pronouns is because you don't accept transgenerism, full stop; and by using them it forces you to go against said belief. Answers my question, thank you.

My personal feeling? Comes across as a bit snowflakey. I'd just use them out of respect and not being all that annoyed, even if I didn't agree,

Question answered, I'm off for the night, cheers.

jaxxx

volchitsa wrote: »

So black people are like animals then? FFS. It's nothing like that.

People actually can be black, white or a mixture in between. It's often not that easy to know what "race" someone is. People can't be pets though. That's obvious.

Newsflash: all human beings are animals. The problem with the world is that most people see 'other animals' as objects.

Frankie Machine

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

My personal feeling?

No thanks, if that were of any consequence I'd have asked.

One eyed Jack

jaxxx wrote: »

Newsflash: all human beings are animals. The problem with the world is that most people see 'other animals' as objects.

Too late :pac:

jaxxx

Frankie Machine wrote: »

'Accept' as in - work with, work for, socialise with, converse with, cook for, loan money/books/tools/vehicles/clothes to, drive to the far side of Ireland as a favour at a moment's notice, accommodate, defend from attack, not make disparaging remarks about or towards, then... yes.

But I don't 'accept' eg that a transwoman is a woman, because the definition of a woman is 'adult human female'.

They say 'accept', but what they really mean is 'comply'.

Frankie Machine

jaxxx wrote: »

They say 'accept', but what they really mean is 'comply'.

Absolutely.

It is sinister.

One eyed Jack

jaxxx wrote: »

They say 'accept', but what they really mean is 'comply'.

They say accept because they mean acceptance. Compliance is a totally different thing which they would prefer didn’t have to be used in order to force people who would unlawfully discriminate against them to comply with equality legislation.

That’s the essential difference really - at an individual level, nobody has to care what another individual does or doesn’t accept, Irish law and the Gender Recognition Act in particular means that people who are transgender are protected from unlawful discrimination against them, whether it be for example in terms of housing, employment, services, education, healthcare, etc.

volchitsa

jaxxx wrote: »

Newsflash: all human beings are animals. The problem with the world is that most people see 'other animals' as objects.

And when we're allowed to attach other human beings to a lead or fence them in to keep them out of our way, that will be a relevant point.

I'm well aware that we're all "animals" but humans have a different status all the same. And black people have the same status as white people, not that of anumals, so saying that someone who thinks that biological sex is a real thing is like arguing about about people marrying their pets is bizarre.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

And when we're allowed to attach other human beings to a lead or fence them in to keep them out of our way, that will be a relevant point.

I'm well aware that we're all "animals" but humans have a different status all the same. And black people have the same status as white people, not that of anumals, so saying that someone who thinks that biological sex is a real thing is like arguing about about people marrying their pets is bizarre.

That’s not what the argument was? The argument was comparing racial identity to gender identity and trying to claim you don’t understand why people don’t regard them in the same way. Your own example above shows that you actually do understand why people are able to make the distinction between two completely different things, notwithstanding the fact that Rachel Dolezal was a woman who intentionally set out to defraud people, which is still different circumstances from those who do not intentionally set out to defraud people -


Dolezal was charged by the State of Washington with felony theft by welfare fraud and second degree perjury in May 2018. The matter was settled in a diversion agreement; Dolezal agreed to repay the welfare funds and to perform community service.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It really is often brought up, as a sort of “gotcha!”

No .

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

No .

Cool, we can drop it so as the example is irrelevant.

Frankie Machine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They say accept because they mean acceptance. Compliance is a totally different thing which they would prefer didn’t have to be used in order to force people who would unlawfully discriminate against them to comply with equality legislation.

That’s the essential difference really - at an individual level, nobody has to care what another individual does or doesn’t accept, Irish law and the Gender Recognition Act in particular means that people who are transgender are protected from unlawful discrimination against them, whether it be for example in terms of housing, employment, services, education, healthcare, etc.

All very well, but totally irrelevant to the context of the post you are responding to, and my post to which it was a response.

I would love for anyone to point out in a thread of >1.1k posts, the instances of anyone saying that anyone else should be discriminated against on the grounds you finished your post with.

But again, that is not the point. The point is that neither at the individual level, nor at the societal level, will we readily submit our intelligence and our experience to compelled speech legislation.

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not what the argument was? The argument was comparing racial identity to gender identity and trying to claim you don’t understand why people don’t regard them in the same way. Your own example above shows that you actually do understand why people are able to make the distinction between two completely different things, notwithstanding the fact that Rachel Dolezal was a woman who intentionally set out to defraud people, which is still different circumstances from those who do not intentionally set out to defraud people -

Dolezal was charged by the State of Washington with felony theft by welfare fraud and second degree perjury in May 2018. The matter was settled in a diversion agreement; Dolezal agreed to repay the welfare funds and to perform community service.

Dolezal's welfare fraud has absolutely nothing to do with her identifying as a black person. Why are you throwing that into the mix, trying to muddy the waters?

Is it that because she claimed welfare payments that she did not quality for it makes her claim of 'feeling' like a black person not worthy unlike trans people who are all genuine? I just don't get why you bring that up?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Cool, we can drop it so as the example is irrelevant.

I dont see why it is. Why are there not people who are cis-racial, and trans-racial? If biology can be denied in one case, why not the other.

One eyed Jack wrote:

That’s the essential difference really - at an individual level, nobody has to care what another individual does or doesn’t accept, Irish law and the Gender Recognition Act in particular means that people who are transgender are protected from unlawful discrimination against them, whether it be for example in terms of housing, employment, services, education, healthcare, etc.

Yes, and while some of this non discrimination is not problematic some of it is. That said if the law means anything then a trans women is a woman ( in law), and we should either accept that with all the problems it creates for cis-women in particular, or change the law.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Cool, we can drop it so as the example is irrelevant.

Absolutely not why should it be irrelevant when it's exactly the issue .

Someone claims they are the wrong gender is exactly the same as someone who claims to be the wrong race or colour ,or are from a different place other than earth or from the wrong century .

I find it amazing now one side keeps trying to shut any points that isn't pro self identifying trans , irrelevant,your not allowed to use this word or that word because it's deemed offensive ,

ingalway

Deleted User wrote: »

I dont see why it is. Why are there not people who are cis-racial, and trans-racial? If biology can be denied in one case, why not the other.

Yes, and while some of this non discrimination is not problematic some of it is. That said if the law means anything then a trans women is a woman ( in law), and we should either accept that with all the problems it creates for cis-women in particular, or change the law.

Yes, that law was swept in very quietly on the coat tails of the Yes vote for the Marriage Referendum with no debate and no input from a selection of women. It is only now, especially since the own goal from Amnesty, NWCI, TENI and the esteemed Colm O'Gormon, that many people, especially women, are finally beginning to understand what is happening here and they are not happy.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not what the argument was? The argument was comparing racial identity to gender identity and trying to claim you don’t understand why people don’t regard them in the same way.

You literally compared black people (but NOT white people) to animals.

If you really think that saying "Oh but we're all animals really" is a get-out clause for that, I think you have a problem.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your own example above shows that you actually do understand why people are able to make the distinction between two completely different things, notwithstanding the fact that Rachel Dolezal was a woman who intentionally set out to defraud people, which is still different circumstances from those who do not intentionally set out to defraud people -


Dolezal was charged by the State of Washington with felony theft by welfare fraud and second degree perjury in May 2018. The matter was settled in a diversion agreement; Dolezal agreed to repay the welfare funds and to perform community service.

Which of course would be very like someone like Philip/Pippa Bunce being found guilty of fraud for going in for a "Businesswoman of the year" prize. Instead of being considered terribly brave for making his way in business as a man before deciding that he was a woman for part of the week and as such entitled to a prize intendedto encourage actual women in business.

One eyed Jack

Frankie Machine wrote: »

All very well, but totally irrelevant to the context of the post you are responding to, and my post to which it was a response.

I would love for anyone to point out in a thread of >1.1k posts, the instances of anyone saying that anyone else should be discriminated against on the grounds you finished your post with.

But again, that is not the point. The point is that neither at the individual level, nor at the societal level, will we readily submit our intelligence and our experience to compelled speech legislation.

And the point I’m making, is that nobody really has to care what you do or you don’t accept, they have Irish equality legislation on their side which protects them from unlawful discrimination against them by people who imagine they don’t have to comply with Irish equality legislation.

Before the GRA was enacted, people could lawfully discriminate against people on the basis of their gender identity, and they did, in many of the areas I have listed above. It didn’t matter that there were people who said they wouldn’t discriminate or that people who are transgender shouldn’t be discriminated against in those areas. The fact is that they were.

The GRA changed that, and in legislation it has the effect that anyone who meets the criteria may apply for a gender recognition certificate, that they don’t have to produce upon request or as evidence to someone who refuses to accept their preferred gender identity. It’s simply a fact that they can claim they have been the victim of unlawful discrimination in those circumstances, and if the person who is discriminating against them doesn’t comply, that person may be found to be in breach of equality legislation.

As an aside, while you can legitimately claim what you will or won’t do at an individual level, you certainly can’t make any claims as to what people will or won’t do at a societal level. That’s where Irish Law serves to protect the rights of everyone equally to be free from discrimination on any of the nine grounds listed in equality legislation, and there might well come a time when people will not be able to discriminate against vegans either, if ethical veganism is successfully argued as a protected philosophy, belief or worldview in Irish Law -

Ethical veganism is a philosophical belief to be protected, tribunal rules


Essentially, nobody has to care about what you think you can or can’t be compelled to accept, and in the same way they don’t have to care about what you can’t compel them to accept either. However it’s what’s written in legislation to protect them from discrimination, is the very same legislation which protects you from discrimination. In the case of Maya Forstater, nobody compelled her to submit her albeit limited intelligence, nor her albeit limited experience to compelled speech legislation. She simply found out that equality legislation in the UK didn’t extend to protect her beliefs and therefore her employers could not be found guilty of discrimination against her for choosing not to renew her contract after she had been given multiple warnings from her employer to desist from her behaviour which was causing other employees to become uncomfortable. She chose to persist, under the misguided belief that she would continue to say what she liked and her employer would be compelled to accept her behaviour.

Boy did she get that wrong.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Essentially, nobody has to care about what you think you can or can’t be compelled to accept, and in the same way they don’t have to care about what you can’t compel them to accept either. However it’s what’s written in legislation to protect them from discrimination, is the very same legislation which protects you from discrimination.

Its hardly the "very same" legislation.

Appeal to the law is a logical fallacy.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-the-Law

Aleece2020

For some people, the issue isn't with their physical sex. The issue is with the socially acceptable behaviors/interests/attitudes that are expected of their sex.

I was regarded as not being feminine or "girly" enough in my teens. A lot of the girls around me were into make-up, fashion and beauty, but they were never things that interested me personally. I accept that my interests were very niche in comparison and were seen as being hobbies that were better suited for men at the time. I have been told that I "talk like a man" and lack "feminine traits" which I can only presume are things like sweetness, sensitivity, gentleness etc.

To this day I still get asked if I have come out as being trans yet, but the problem is that I'm not trans. I don't feel like I was born the wrong sex. Just because I lack feminine traits or have masculine traits does not make me a man. I am a woman because I was born a woman; and me choosing to not wear make-up or a dress does not change that. I think that's what a lot of people seem to be missing when it comes to the trans debate. Nobody should ever push people, especially not kids, into saying or thinking that they're trans just because they lack the traditional traits/interests of their sex. It's detrimental to their mental health and makes them think there's something wrong with them or that they were born the wrong sex when they were not.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

You literally compared black people (but NOT white people) to animals.

If you really think that saying "Oh but we're all animals really" is a get-out clause for that, I think you have a problem.

I made no such comparison, you made the comparison based upon what I said about people who argue that marriage equality should mean people should be able to marry their pets. The point I was making is that they’re two very different circumstances - just like racial identity and gender identity are two very different circumstances, and that’s why people who argue in favour of self-identified gender identity don’t associate it with racial identity. You can draw the comparison, but it’s not one anyone made before you did.

volchitsa wrote: »

Which of course would be very like someone like Philip/Pippa Bunce being found guilty of fraud for going in for a "Businesswoman of the year" prize. Instead of being considered terribly brave for making his way in business as a man before deciding that he was a woman for part of the week and as such entitled to a prize intendedto encourage actual women in business.

Except it would be nothing like that because Philip/Pips Bunce has been very open about their gender fluidity and non-binary status, whereas Rachel Dolezal was not at all open about the fact that she set out to defraud people. That’s why when an organisation I’ve never heard of before chooses to lavish awards on Pips/Philip Bunce in order to increase their public profile, Pips/Philip Bunce is not committing fraud, nor can they be found guilty of committing fraud. I honestly don’t care enough about the image of the organisation to argue that Pips/Philip doesn’t deserve to be chosen for an award - that’s entirely their own business. After reading this interview with them, Pips/Philip deserve all the positive recognition they get -


Inspirational Profile: Pips Bunce | Director, Credit Suisse


I certainly wouldn’t begrudge any organisation which chooses to recognise them as worthy of an award.