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

Gatling

"One wrote:

There’s no such concept (apart from the fact you just invented the term) as “sex based rights”.

Women give birth. Men give birth.

Sex based rights Have been around for a long time , claiming they just made the term up is utter nonsense and a lie
Women give birth yes they do .

Men cannot get pregnant , carry a child or give birth ,

self identifying as a woman or in this case self identifying as a man ,doesn't make it humanly possible to get pregnant ,carry child or give birth as a man , they are women getting pregnant , carrying to term and giving birth as a woman

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Sex based rights Have been around for a long time , claiming they just made the term up is utter nonsense and a lie

It’s really only been around as long as a tiny minority of women have been referring to themselves as “adult human females”, it has no effect in law save for the fact that it prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, and if a person is the holder of a gender recognition certificate, then in Irish law their sex becomes that of their preferred gender -


18. (1) Where a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person the person’s gender shall from the date of that issue become for all purposes the preferred gender so that if the preferred gender is the male gender the person’s sex becomes that of a man, and if it is the female gender the person’s sex becomes that of a woman.

Gatling wrote: »

Women give birth yes they do .

Men cannot get pregnant , carry a child or give birth ,

self identifying as a woman or in this case self identifying as a man ,doesn't make it humanly possible to get pregnant ,carry child or give birth as a man , they are women getting pregnant , carrying to term and giving birth as a woman

I get the distinct impression you may have missed the point, but explain to me again how it’s only a small cohort of men is pushing this newspeak? Because from where I’m sitting, most of them appear to be women.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s really only been around as long as a tiny minority of women have been referring to themselves as “adult human females”,


it’s only a small cohort of men is pushing this

Told you ,but now its back tracking ehhhh it's only because women who are adult human female can get pregnant carry to term and give birth ,

A piece of paper or self identifying men or women cannot change the facts only Adult Human Females can conceive ,carry to term and give birth ,

Unfortunately no amount of word games /language can physically change this ,

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Told you ,but now its back tracking ehhhh it's only because women who are adult human female can get pregnant carry to term and give birth ,

A piece of paper or self identifying men or women cannot change the facts only Adult Human Females can conceive ,carry to term and give birth ,

Unfortunately no amount of word games /language can physically change this ,

There’s no backtracking? Any rights which a person is entitled to are not based upon scientific argument, they’re based upon politics and making reasonable arguments which cause changes in law as it relates to the rights a person has. Before 2015, people who are transgender has no legal recognition and therefore no protection from discrimination on the basis of their gender.

When the law changed in 2015, it gave everyone the right to be identified in law as their preferred gender. It had nothing to do with science or facts or anything else - just simply introducing in Irish law the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, not “sex based rights” or any of that other nonsense about “adult human females”.

RWCNT

If "sex based rights" are this longstanding legal concept can someone please find me any reference to the term "sex based rights" that isn't in some way related to transgender issues? I've had a search and I can't find anything anywhere.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

European Convention on Human Rights, not “sex based rights” or any of that other nonsense about “adult human females”.

Again "you" claimed another poster just made up sex based rights which have been around before this thread,
What nonsense about adult Adult Human Females are the only females who can conceive ,carry to term and give birth ,
How is that nonsense it's cold hard Facts .
No piece of paper changes that

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Again "you" claimed another poster just made up sex based rights which have been around before this thread,
What nonsense about adult Adult Human Females are the only females who can conceive ,carry to term and give birth ,
How is that nonsense it's cold hard Facts .
No piece of paper changes that

It’s a term that was made up recently by a tiny minority of women who refer to themselves as adult human females. I’ve already explained that it has no effect in law (from which rights are determined - no legal recognition, no rights).

It’s nonsense to suggest that the term has existed for years, that’s the nonsense I was referring to, as though simply referring to “sex based rights” excludes people on the basis of the sex they are recognised as in Irish law. That’s why the piece of paper that is their gender recognition certificate is important - because just like a birth certificate or a marriage certificate or a passport or a will or a drivers license or any other piece of paper which is a legal document - bearing that document determines a person’s rights in Irish society.

I’m done with the argument now before this thread circles round to being a repetition of the many threads before it where this issue has been discussed to death already.

Daragh1980

Please see what one of the leading gender lobbyists got up to before they moved to Ireland.

Seems to be practising medicine (amputations) without a license.

https://twitter.com/52degreesN/status/1329020163056873474

Gruffalux

RWCNT wrote: »

If "sex based rights" are this longstanding legal concept can someone please find me any reference to the term "sex based rights" that isn't in some way related to transgender issues? I've had a search and I can't find anything anywhere.

Sorry that this is a long answer. But I cannot think how to answer otherwise. Read if you wish. Or don't. This does not address anything to do with the whole area of protection of children.

Sex based rights and protections have been afforded to women on the very specific basis of their biological sex. The hint is in the phrase. The sex based rights and protections afforded to women cannot be extended to male-bodied persons as they are rooted in the biological actuality of the female state. Separate parallel rights and protections for transgendered people are the answer in this case.

The whole idea of affording sex based rights and protections in advanced civilised societies proceeded out of a long history of effective chattelhood and subservience that had been the reality for women. Of course men have had a really sh1t time of it too as serfs and war fodder, but there is an extra layer of vulnerability in the female due to their specific inherent biology.

We can easily see this in the subservience and lack of freedom still in existent societies on the planet, whereby women are confined to domestic situations (much of the developing world especially in Muslim areas), not afforded the right to schooling (Afghanistan under the Taliban), married off very young as a wealth transaction, deformed by genital mutilations, traded as sex slaves in war or tribal conflict (Yazidi women for example) and so on.

It is only for a very short period of modern human history that we have not all been living as harassed kinship groups in some kind of fortified enclosures or walled cities, all of us men and women subjected frequently to raids or attacks. Women and girls have lived very vulnerable lives on the planet, and have not had all that much freedom of movement at all for reasons that are directly rooted in their biological reality. That is vaginas, wombs, breasts, and reproduction, and a big imbalance in biological strength among the sexes. There was no strolling freely about the countryside admiring the blossoms and gathering grains for ladies as some might romanticise medieval or bronze age or any times heretofore in Ireland. It was a pretty bloody scary time and being whipped off as a girl or woman for bounty or as a sex slave would have been a real thing.

The sex based portion of modern rights has evolved because the actual biological functions of the adult or juvenile human female have by their nature made females very vulnerable to dependency and abuse. The long gestation period, the helplessness of human infants and their dependency on the human female throughout history for initial sustenance, the huge danger of child birth to women, the vulnerability of women to rape and impregnation via rape which increased danger of death in child birth, tendencies to suffer haemorrhage due to biological functions of organs, the importance of protecting lineages, of protecting the continuation of tribes, all of this and more biological reality has led to very circumscribed lives for women. Specifically for women in addition to the sh1t times for men, and specifically rooted in the biological reality of their female reproductive organs.

As civilisations advanced we were all able to move outside the protection of fortified enclosures and trade some of our tribal independence for protection by regional governments, law enforcement, prison systems, and so on, which have to a large extent allowed especially women a lot more freedom. In some places in the world there is still a lack of sex based rights and protections but organisations do mount campaigns for say single sex toilets to enable girls to get educated safely, and so on. In our more developed part of the world, for example, it is only relatively recently, historically speaking, that women have had access to public conveniences for their own sex. Here is an interesting article - https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/History-of-Womens-Public-Toilets-in-Britain/#:~:text=The%20story%20in%20Britain%20starts,as%20'Public%20Waiting%20Rooms'. The circumscription of women's public lives right to the end of the 19th century was called ''the urinary leash''. They could not travel much outside the domestic and private sphere because of an absence of safe single-sex facilities. Thus as you could imagine a career or any notable life outside of domestic duties (for themselves or others) were not available to women.

In our developed world women have been encouraged very successfully into education, previously male-dominated professions, business, politics, top level elite sports, and so on, and this has been because sex based rights and protections were introduced to allow for this. This has included factors as simple as separate hygiene facilities required in the work place and right up to quotas, ending marriage bans, improved childcare provision, making the public market square safer in general, having separate sporting categories for women which has allowed female sport to only really begin to flourish since the last parts of the 20th century. To some extent this ''postitive discrimination'' via sex based rights and protections, for want of a better phrase, has reached too far in that there can be discrimination now against men, but that is another discussion.

For women now to be told that any man may self identify as a woman and freely enter female sports, places of refuge, intimate facilities and etc at will is neither rational nor good. It is not actually that trans people are a problem but that literally anyone, trans or not, can now self identify into sex based rights and protections. It is bearing fruit with political representation or sporting scholarships (as examples) being taken by male-bodied people from women. If we were to do the same in the developing world to the women who live as chattels even now in 2020, those females would never get beyond the state of submission that is theirs due to their biological reality. It is an incoherency I, for one, will not tolerate.

Frankie Machine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s a term that was made up recently by a tiny minority of women who refer to themselves as adult human females.

Made up recently ?

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is over forty years old.

It defines discrimination against women as

any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field

Hardly 'recently', and the United Nations is hardly 'a tiny minority of women'.

Gruffalux

Frankie Machine wrote: »

Made up recently ?

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is over forty years old.

It defines discrimination against women as

Hardly 'recently', and the United Nations is hardly 'a tiny minority of women'.

Thanks

Frankie Machine

Gruffalux wrote: »

Thanks

You are most welcome.

Eric Cartman

Daragh1980 wrote: »

Please see what one of the leading gender lobbyists got up to before they moved to Ireland.

Seems to be practising medicine (amputations) without a license.

https://twitter.com/52degreesN/status/1329020163056873474

this kind of crap is up there with FGM on the list of 'things that should have you banned from even getting a flight connection through our country'

Gatling

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this kind of crap is up there with FGM on the list of 'things that should have you banned from even getting a flight connection through our country'

And yet if you don't support a certain ideology your a far right neo Nazi .

Hellllo WTF do they actually consider is unacceptable to them other than claiming adult female human is far right hate speech

One eyed Jack

Frankie Machine wrote: »

Made up recently ?

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is over forty years old.

It defines discrimination against women as

Hardly 'recently', and the United Nations is hardly 'a tiny minority of women'.

I don’t see a demonstration there of any distinction that shows “sex based rights” means what it’s proponents intend it to mean, and yes, it is a term used only by a tiny minority of women who refer to themselves as adult human females.

For what it’s worth though, CEDAW includes transgender women in protecting them from discrimination on the basis of sex, as distinct from the term “sex based rights” which some people are under the impression excludes them. I know you’re not just going to take my word for it though so I rooted out the Irish Submission to CEDAW from 2017 from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission archives -


Ireland and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women


Might want to pay particular attention to this part -


Example 4 – Effectiveness of human rights framework to challenge legislation


The European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 provides for a particular set of remedies, including compensation and a declaration of incompatibility. Following the conclusion of a number of legal cases, the lawyer representing a trans woman in her application for a birth certificate made the following comments about the effectiveness of the available remedies:

The ECHR Act is inadequate to deliver that protection where the domestic law itself is at fault and where the only remedy is a Declaration of Incompatibility. A process that can take eight years to bring about change following a clear and unequivocal declaration by the High Court is neither effective nor acceptable. Provision for compensation with no publicly available criteria or rules of procedure is also unsatisfactory.

Following this case, the Gender Recognition Act 2015 came into operation in September 2015, which represents a positive development for gender equality. However, the Act requires that an application be made to the Minister for Justice and Equality for a Gender Recognition Certificate on behalf of a 16 or 17 year old child and does not provide for the recognition of the preferred gender of a person under 16 years of age. The Commission recommended in its parallel report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child that the legislation be amended to allow young people aged 16 and over to make an application under the legislation themselves, subject to appropriate safeguards and that research be undertaken on the needs of trans and intersex children to inform future policy on gender recognition.


You can read the rest of the report at your leisure, but suffice to say I don’t have to fling muck and hope something sticks or claim to be against what I think are “outdated stereotypes”, only to invoke those same stereotypes hours later to argue for the protection of women. I know well what it’s like for women living in Ireland without having to do a round the world trip that has little or no bearing on the status of women in Irish society.

With all due respect Gruffalox it comes off as somewhere between the White Mans Burden relating to Colonialism, and the Missing White Woman Syndrome bias in US media (exploited to great effect by the three white girls In Connecticut to argue that transgender girls are ruining their chances of success). Meanwhile closer to home, the sport of rugby is fast becoming popular among women who play the game the same as the men. The only issue is that they’re far more aggressive than the men and don’t know how to tackle properly or protect themselves from injury. Nothing is going to stop them from playing the sport they love though -


Rugby is one of the fastest growing sports for women and one of the few sports where men and women play in exactly the same way.

But recent research suggests female players are at a greater risk of suffering concussion than men - and the effects are more severe.

Swansea University is carrying out a pioneering study to understand why.
...

Prop forward Ruth Lewis, 19, from Pontardawe, plays for Swansea University, Ospreys and Wales.

She said she has had three concussions but the risks have not put her off the game.

"My most recent one was last August and it was quite a bad one - I went to the hospital and I had bruising on the brain," she said.

She added: "Players and coaches have a better understanding about how serious concussion is. It comes with the game and there are rules to make it as safe as possible.

"I love rugby and nothing will put me off."


Rugby concussion: Swansea University study into protecting women

Some Yoke

Jesus is King

Tired Gardener

Dante7 wrote: »

Amnesty and NWCI now seek to remove political representation from women who disagree with them. This will not end well for them.

https://twitter.com/JinnysJoe/status/1329847671063015424?s=20

So we are at the 'Calling for people to have their access to political representation removed' stage of fascism now.

Because that is fascism, making demands that a group have their political rights removed is something that we see happen throughout history by very nasty groups.

Disagree with someone's views, opinions, beliefs, etc... but don't push for their political representation to be removed. That is abhorrent, and something that I honestly could never encourage. I strongly disagree with anti-abortion, racists, anti-vaxxer, flat earth, evangelical christian, and far right groups... however I could never be ok with removing their right to political representation. It is such a basic human right that I am struggling to see how anyone can think itnis an ok thing to demand? Surely they can see how this is going to blow up in their face, a spectacular own goal there.

I strongly think that this is going to sadly cause a lot more kick back towards Transgender individuals.

Gatling

Tired Gardener wrote: »

So we are at the 'Calling for people to have their access to political representation removed' stage of fascism now.

Because that is fascism, making demands that a group have their political rights removed is something that we see happen throughout history by very nasty groups.

But they claim it would only apply to those showing far right ideological views ,
Such as woman ,women , Adult Female Human,

Such offensive words of hate from the far right .
Far right of the moon

Dante7

Tired Gardener wrote: »

So we are at the 'Calling for people to have their access to political representation removed' stage of fascism now.

Because that is fascism, making demands that a group have their political rights removed is something that we see happen throughout history by very nasty groups.

Disagree with someone's views, opinions, beliefs, etc... but don't push for their political representation to be removed. That is abhorrent, and something that I honestly could never encourage. I strongly disagree with anti-abortion, racists, anti-vaxxer, flat earth, evangelical christian, and far right groups... however I could never be ok with removing their right to political representation. It is such a basic human right that I am struggling to see how anyone can think itnis an ok thing to demand? Surely they can see how this is going to blow up in their face, a spectacular own goal there.

I strongly think that this is going to sadly cause a lot more kick back towards Transgender individuals.

It should be front page news. Amnesty and The NWCI and some left wing politicians put their names to it. Could you imagine the headlines if a right wing political organisation put out a document calling for political and media representation to be removed from say, immigrants?

Frankie Machine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t see a demonstration there of any distinction that shows “sex based rights” means what it’s proponents intend it to mean, and yes, it is a term used only by a tiny minority of women who refer to themselves as adult human females.

What you do see a demonstration of though, is that when you said

It’s a term that was made up recently...

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115380565&postcount=1180

that you were absolutely incorrect.

Agreed ?



Secondly, as to 'what it's proponents intend it to mean' - and like yourself I've had to do my homework -

I came across a link which contains the following definition of sex...

Sex is defined by the United Nations as “the physical and biological characteristics that distinguish males from females.’’ (Gender Equality Glossary, UN Women)

https://womensdeclaration.com/en/declaration-womens-sex-based-rights-full-text/

Physical and biological characteristics...

Frankie Machine

I find it laughable, the characterisation of

a tiny minority of women who refer to themselves as adult human females

whereas in fact, implicitly (via that very same, long-established dictionary definition) that is how the whole English-speaking world has considered women.

So it isn't a process for a tiny minority of women of establishing an identity, it's a process of making explicit the bloody obvious.

In a way that most people can hardly believe is necessary.

Meanwhile we all know from which direction the absurd and sinister warping of language is coming.

jam_mac_jam

Frankie Machine wrote: »

I find it laughable, the characterisation of



whereas in fact, implicitly (via that very same, long-established dictionary definition) that is how the whole English-speaking world has considered women.

So it isn't a process for a tiny minority of women of establishing an identity, it's a process of making explicit the bloody obvious.

In a way that most people can hardly believe is necessary.

Meanwhile we all know from which direction the absurd and sinister warping of language is coming.

It's literally the dictionary definition. But yeah radical and minority view.

Gatling

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It's literally the dictionary definition. But yeah radical and minority view.

Only several billion women call themselves women .

A drop in the ocean then

Frankie Machine

Gatling wrote: »

Only several billion women call themselves women .

A drop in the ocean then

A 'tiny minority' !

Dante7

Colm gaslighting Iseult White now. Sean McBride's granddaughter and Maud Gonne's great-granddaughter. He really should be gone after this shameful episode.

https://twitter.com/iseult/status/1330641147446915072?s=20

jam_mac_jam

Dante7 wrote: »

Colm gaslighting Iseult White now. Sean McBride's granddaughter and Maud Gonne's great-granddaughter. He really should be gone after this shameful episode.

https://twitter.com/iseult/status/1330641147446915072?s=20

Can't address the actual argument so pointing out people commented from the UK.

Everyone deserves political representation. Even those far right or whatever they want to call it. It's a human right. You don't lose that because of your opinion.

One eyed Jack

Frankie Machine wrote: »

What you do see a demonstration of though, is that when you said

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115380565&postcount=1180

that you were absolutely incorrect.

Agreed ?

Secondly, as to 'what it's proponents intend it to mean' - and like yourself I've had to do my homework -

I came across a link which contains the following definition of sex...

https://womensdeclaration.com/en/declaration-womens-sex-based-rights-full-text/

Physical and biological characteristics...

The term I’m referring to, is “sex-based rights”. Protection from discrimination on the grounds of sex applies equally to women as it does to men, and included in that are transgender women and transgender men. I don’t use the terms “transgender women” or “transgender men” myself, but most organisations which are concerned with women’s rights include transgender women when they’re referring to women’s rights and protecting women from discrimination.

That’s why I’m saying that the term, “sex-based rights” is a recent term which is intended to distinguish between natal women and transgender women (in effect to discriminate between natal women and transgender women). In law they’re treated as the same and protected from discrimination on the grounds of sex. That’s why I said you didn’t show any distinction, and you still haven’t as to what would even qualify as a right that natal women have, that transgender women do not.

Find me anything in any UN document or Irish Law that actually suggests otherwise, instead of just a blog which gives the UN glossary definition of sex, which is not in dispute. It’s the term “sex-based rights” in relation to women’s rights is disputed. My point is that transgender women have the same protection in law as women from discrimination on the basis of their sex. Men have that right to protection from discrimination on the basis of their sex too, and that includes transgender men. So - a sex based right that women have that transgender women don’t, if it’s not too much to ask?

Gatling

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im not sure if I want to call social services to report child abuse, a sick cult or a bit of both but not for a single second longer should that child remain in the company of the mother that brought them there.

This is getting more common in situations children being brainwashed to say what mammies tell them,they know no different .
No child speaks about this preferred pronouns nonsense .


only in America

Frankie Machine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The term I’m referring to, is “sex-based rights”.

... the term, “sex-based rights” is a recent term which is intended to distinguish between natal women and transgender women.

Article 1 refers to 'on the basis of sex...'.

On the basis of sex/sex-based.

There is no difference between those things worth talking about. Attempting to present the concept as novel just by playing with the word order, is just farcical.

and you still haven’t as to what would even qualify as a right that natal women have, that transgender women do not.

So - a sex based right that women have that transgender women don’t, if it’s not too much to ask?

Sure thing.

Article 11. Dismissal on the grounds of maternity or pregnancy... shall be prohibited with sanction.

Transgender women don't have it, because they don't need it.




.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Only several billion women call themselves women .

A drop in the ocean then

Yes, that’s my point. Very few women have ever or will ever refer to themselves as “adult human females”.

On the plus side for incel types at least, now they can legit refer to “females”.