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

Frankie Machine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

Because it doesn't need elaborating, since the much more convenient two-syllable word 'women' means exactly the same thing.

Very few of them refer to themselves as 'terfs' either, by the way. Or 'menstruators', or 'cervix-havers'.

One eyed Jack

Frankie Machine wrote: »

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.

Sure thing.

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

.

There is very much a difference between protection from discrimination on the grounds of sex, and a sex-based right. What you’ve provided is an example of protection from discrimination on the grounds of sex (or gender, or family status), and yes, that same right applies to transgender women. I don’t have to present the concept as novel, because it doesn’t exist in Irish Law anyway, it’s a term which some people use to refer to women’s perceived rights. Now do you see why the distinction is important? A set of rights which people imagine they have based on their sex, but there’s no foundation for their belief in Irish Law.

There are plenty of rights people “don’t need”, until they find themselves in circumstances where they’re glad to have them, such as the right to due process and the right to the presumption of innocence, which is why the whole “the GRA allows men to enter women’s spaces” implying that they might get up to no good, doesn’t even get out of the starting blocks in an attempt to argue that transgender women should be discriminated against on the basis of what someone might do.

There are plenty of other rights which are afforded to people depending upon circumstances whether or not they meet the criteria to qualify for those rights - their right to family and so on, should they choose to - if they do not, then they do not qualify to avail of maternity or parental leave or adoptive leave, etc.

There are circumstances where discrimination is not considered unlawful if it can be argued that the discrimination is for the purposes of achieving a legitimate aim, such as excluding men from being clients of women’s shelters, and the shelter could deny a transgender woman entry to the shelter in the same way as they often do other women, but if they excluded a transgender woman specifically on the basis that they were transgender, the organisation could find themselves being found liable for discrimination on the grounds of the person’s transgender status.

As an aside anyway, no women has the right to automatic entry into a women’s shelter either. They can be denied entry, and often are, for a whole variety of reasons.

One eyed Jack

Frankie Machine wrote: »

Because it doesn't need elaborating, since the much more convenient two-syllable word 'women' means exactly the same thing.

Very few of them refer to themselves as 'terfs' either, by the way. Or 'menstruators', or 'cervix-havers'.

That’s exactly why I think the term “adult human female” is nonsense. It doesn’t need elaborating, and the only people who do elaborate are women who seek to distinguish themselves from transgender women in arguing about protecting what they term women’s sex-based rights. The term was basically popularised by Posie Parker a couple of years ago -


Woman billboard removed after transphobia row


You’ll get no argument from me either on the whole “inclusive language” stuff, it’s just as ridiculous and IMO unnecessary as the “adult human female” stuff, but contrary to what Gatling suggested earlier in the thread that this nonsense was being perpetuated by a tiny minority of men, the reality is that it’s being perpetuated by a tiny minority of women who for their own reasons are trying to popularise what they call more inclusive language.

It’s no different to the way scientists and academics would have their own terminology among themselves, and would then use different language to relate their ideas to the general public, and I get it, I really do, but that doesn’t mean I’m not as sick of hearing euphemisms and newspeak as anyone else. It’s part of the reason why I’m no longer involved in social care or education when I had to listen to this sort of nonsense -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The above sort of tokenism reminds me of a conference I was at last year regarding the future of education in Ireland, and one of the speakers was from the UK, and she was giving it welly about the lack of women and BME at third level, which was definitely more relevant in a UK context. It's as though she hadn't even thought of her audience and tailored her presentation accordingly, when the room was filled with Casper white Irish women and only a handful of men.

Now granted it was a teacher training college so I didn't expect much variance in the audience, but that didn't stop this woman going on to talk about how there weren't enough women in STEM, and how it was mostly socially awkward men (I'd lost the will to listen at this stage), before she moved on to the topic of 'unconscious bias', without so much as stopping for a breather to spot the irony.

It’s virtue signalling endemic within realms such as social care and education which are dominated by women, and I just got to a point where I wasn’t able for it any more because it’s so insincere and abnormal as opposed to the way I’d normally talk to people. I just couldn’t be arsed referring to “clients” and “service users” or any of the rest of it - language I find equally dehumanising as any of the other nonsense.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s exactly why I think the term “adult human female” is nonsense.

But unfortunately it's necessary because a cohort of men with women penises and women testicles and pushing the idea that the word Women is offensive to them ,as it's non inclusive of their claim be men who identify as women ,just like those who have a period ,have babies ,go through menopause ,as this cohort who happen to be based on twitter who cry out every time we see an advert for womens clothing , sanitary products , feminine hygiene products , because it's non inclusive of men who identify as women ,
It's not a majority of women pushing it , that's just s false claim has anyone actually asked the majority of women that's what they want or believe in -No
It's a simple case of if you don't believe this ideology your attacked , online ,in your work ,your cancelled , your right to representation to be removed due to claims of being far right ,
This is all coming from one side ,who keep making claims that are false, demanding certain words are not allowed to be discussed , claiming people just made up terms that have been around for decades.

All from a small cohort.

The word woman or women is not offensive not should it ever considered to be

Baggly

Mod

CtevenSrowder's threadban lifted after discussion via pm.

Tired Gardener

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

Because that is what the word 'Woman' means it encapsulates, species, sex, and a level of development. Saying 'Woman' is saying 'adult human females.

We don't go around saying, 'light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation' hair removal. We use the acronym laser to avoid clunky language. Same is true of the word Woman, again it is a clearly defined word that conveys several pieces of information.

When people try to change the meaning of words, that is when we need to start referring to the definition of a word in order to avoid confusion. In this case, there is an attempt to redefine Woman as anyone who views themselves as such. Hence people saying adult human female.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s exactly why I think the term “adult human female” is nonsense. It doesn’t need elaborating, and the only people who do elaborate are women who seek to distinguish themselves from transgender women in arguing about protecting what they term women’s sex-based rights. The term was basically popularised by Posie Parker a couple of years ago -


Woman billboard removed after transphobia row


You’ll get no argument from me either on the whole “inclusive language” stuff, it’s just as ridiculous and IMO unnecessary as the “adult human female” stuff, but contrary to what Gatling suggested earlier in the thread that this nonsense was being perpetuated by a tiny minority of men, the reality is that it’s being perpetuated by a tiny minority of women who for their own reasons are trying to popularise what they call more inclusive language.

It’s no different to the way scientists and academics would have their own terminology among themselves, and would then use different language to relate their ideas to the general public, and I get it, I really do, but that doesn’t mean I’m not as sick of hearing euphemisms and newspeak as anyone else. It’s part of the reason why I’m no longer involved in social care or education when I had to listen to this sort of nonsense -





It’s virtue signalling endemic within realms such as social care and education which are dominated by women, and I just got to a point where I wasn’t able for it any more because it’s so insincere and abnormal as opposed to the way I’d normally talk to people. I just couldn’t be arsed referring to “clients” and “service users” or any of the rest of it - language I find equally dehumanising as any of the other nonsense.

It is not a nonsense term. It's the literal definition of the word women. How could that be nonsense.

Tired Gardener

https://mobile.twitter.com/ARTRiskFIS/status/1326945543017402369

Gestational Carriers... what the actual F@%k is that, way to go to dehumanise Women.

Eric Cartman

Tired Gardener wrote: »

https://mobile.twitter.com/ARTRiskFIS/status/1326945543017402369

Gestational Carriers... what the actual F@%k is that, way to go to dehumanise Women.

Never really believed there was a systematic attack on women in the modern western world like so many feminists shrieked about, turns out their is, and its from the T side of LGBT. Sickening.

Tired Gardener

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Never really believed there was a systematic attack on women in the modern western world like so many feminists shrieked about, turns out their is, and its from the T side of LGBT. Sickening.

I don't think it is a systematic attack on women, just people going a bit too far with not wanting to cause offense to a very small yet very vocal group of people.

A lot of this will just be down to the Internet blowing everything out of proportion.

Only met a handful of people in real life who buy into this sort of crap.

jam_mac_jam

Tired Gardener wrote: »

https://mobile.twitter.com/ARTRiskFIS/status/1326945543017402369

Gestational Carriers... what the actual F@%k is that, way to go to dehumanise Women.

Makes us sound like livestock.

Eric Cartman

Tired Gardener wrote: »

I don't think it is a systematic attack on women, just people going a bit too far with not wanting to cause offense to a very small yet very vocal group of people.

A lot of this will just be down to the Internet blowing everything out of proportion.

Only met a handful of people in real life who buy into this sort of crap.

I would agree its a handful blowing things out of proportion, but when you have even a handful asking every womens charity / pregnancy service etc.. to stop using the word woman/women , and they're complying in droves, it becomes a systematic attack on women.

Gatling

I married a woman , not a gestational carrier
Where do we go with this

What to do call a young girl then ?

Gruffalux

Gatling wrote: »

I married a woman , not a gestational carrier
Where do we go with this

What to do call a young girl then ?

Potential gestational carrier? Juvenile gestational carrier? Immature foetus incubator?

Tired Gardener

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I would agree its a handful blowing things out of proportion, but when you have even a handful asking every womens charity / pregnancy service etc.. to stop using the word woman/women , and they're complying in droves, it becomes a systematic attack on women.

A lot of that is from online accounts on Twitter... so has no real weight to it. Have you honestly met anyone in real life who said 'gestational carriers', or any other such nonsense?

Having said that I do find the mental gymnastics at wording things is absolutely hilarious, and shows zero self awareness.

Eric Cartman

Tired Gardener wrote: »

A lot of that is from online accounts on Twitter... so has no real weight to it. Have you honestly met anyone in real life who said 'gestational carriers', or any other such nonsense?

Having said that I do find the mental gymnastics at wording things is absolutely hilarious, and shows zero self awareness.

I haven't, but companies are changing their language in response to the twitter minority, if it was just the twitter outraged it would be fine, but it is spreading through the NGO/Charity and media sectors like wildfire. They are changing because of this tiny minority which will only make more actual people think thats how it has to be.

Gruffalux

Tired Gardener wrote: »

A lot of that is from online accounts on Twitter... so has no real weight to it. Have you honestly met anyone in real life who said 'gestational carriers', or any other such nonsense?

Having said that I do find the mental gymnastics at wording things is absolutely hilarious, and shows zero self awareness.

Have you ever met anyone in real life who said, what! You are a defender of biology?! You have a different opinion to me on gender identity, puberty blockers and women's spaces.?! Well, I will sign a public petition to have your media access and political representation removed..

Here are 3 well known people who have done that in real life.

Tired Gardener

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I haven't, but companies are changing their language in response to the twitter minority, if it was just the twitter outraged it would be fine, but it is spreading through the NGO/Charity and media sectors like wildfire. They are changing because of this tiny minority which will only make more actual people think thats how it has to be.

It is sadly spreading into real world things, that is for sure.

However I have more faith in those who don't live on Twitter rejecting this cult.

Gatling

the Murphy chap who claims to understand the jobstowners while living in his expensive House on a TDs salary.

One eyed Jack

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Because that is what the word 'Woman' means it encapsulates, species, sex, and a level of development. Saying 'Woman' is saying 'adult human females.

We don't go around saying, 'light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation' hair removal. We use the acronym laser to avoid clunky language. Same is true of the word Woman, again it is a clearly defined word that conveys several pieces of information.

When people try to change the meaning of words, that is when we need to start referring to the definition of a word in order to avoid confusion. In this case, there is an attempt to redefine Woman as anyone who views themselves as such. Hence people saying adult human female.

Using the term “adult human female” tells anyone very little about a woman, or women. It’s a reductive dictionary definition which says nothing about women as a social class, and conveys very little information that would allow anyone to establish what you mean when you use it, especially when it can be so easily countered by someone using it to refer to themselves who isn’t an “adult human female”.

Using the definition of a word that suits you does nothing to reduce the confusion experienced by someone who isn’t familiar with the terminology. I can think of a plethora of different names to refer to my phallus, but for anyone unfamiliar with the terminology it’s use wouldn’t further their understanding (far more likely to further their misunderstanding). The term has it’s own connotations which aren’t at all clear to anyone who is unfamiliar with the term.

Using the term “adult human female” isn’t going to stop anyone else from referring to themselves as a woman, it’s a clunky effort which, while I can’t speak for anyone else, arouses suspicion in me as to why the person is using it (it appears to require a special effort) when the term woman is more commonly understood to refer to women.

I never knew LASER was an acronym btw, learn something new every day

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Using the term “adult human female” tells anyone very little about a woman, or women.

Using the definition of a word that suits you does nothing to reduce the confusion experienced by someone who isn’t familiar with the terminology

What does woman tell you about someone absolutely nothing ,
Adult Human Female is descriptive it's Says your a woman and their a woman ,
Not a man who self identifies as a woman.

It's really simple

Who would be confused exactly? ,and who would not understand the terminology exactly ?

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

What does woman tell you about someone absolutely nothing ,
Adult Human Female is descriptive it's Says your a woman and their a woman ,
Not a man who self identifies as a woman.

It's really simple

It wouldn’t tell me anything if I’d just heard the term, but because I’ve been familiar with the connotations of the term for nigh on 40 years, I’ll understand from the context in which someone uses it what they mean.

I’m not sure whether it was deliberate to make the point, or whether you meant to use ‘your’ and ‘their’ incorrectly in your post. I’m familiar with the way they can be used incorrectly, so I understood what you mean. Someone who isn’t familiar with how they can be used incorrectly is going to struggle to understand your point.

Frankie Machine

Tired Gardener wrote: »

When people try to change the meaning of words, that is when we need to start referring to the definition of a word in order to avoid confusion.

It is not confusion. It is misappropriation, and it has to be resisted.

Someone mentioned that we are 'through the looking glass', earlier. The reference is very apposite -

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

Gruffalux

Adult -

fully developed and mature : GROWN-UP

one that is adult
especially : a human being after an age (such as 21) specified by law

mature

Human -

a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : a person

of, relating to, or characteristic of humans

Female -

of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs

a female person : a woman or a girl
an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs

Dictionary to the rescue. Phew for a minute there, with all the repetition, I thought those words might have meant nothing. Indoctrination by repetition, it's a thing!

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It wouldn’t tell me anything if I’d just heard the term, but because I’ve been familiar with the connotations of the term for nigh on 40 years,

But yet your not confused that a man can be a woman


Yet if I said to some of the kids I work with I'm going to talk about Adult Human Females they would all reply "Women"


bingo !

ingalway

Tired Gardener wrote: »

I don't think it is a systematic attack on women, just people going a bit too far with not wanting to cause offense to a very small yet very vocal group of people.

A lot of this will just be down to the Internet blowing everything out of proportion.

Only met a handful of people in real life who buy into this sort of crap.

Whether you buy into the crap or not in everyday life there are already consequences; self ID being swept quietly in, women being told they don't deserve political and media representation, academics who don't buy into it being cancelled by colleagues and students, companies pushing for all employees to put their pronouns into work correspondence and all the other insidious things already discussed here.
It is a systematic creep into language and rights and there only one group who lose out.

Frankie Machine

We should always be very wary of those who tell us that the most obnoxious ideas are just a teeny-tiny percentage of a teeny-tiny minority, and really nothing to worry about in our day-to-day lives.

Some of the most toxic and oppressive movements in human history started out from such inauspicious beginnings.

Sir Oxman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I haven't, but companies are changing their language in response to the twitter minority, if it was just the twitter outraged it would be fine, but it is spreading through the NGO/Charity and media sectors like wildfire. They are changing because of this tiny minority which will only make more actual people think thats how it has to be.

IMO, this isn't in response to a Twitter minority albeit yes, the below short list will respond to insane demands always on Twitter/social media or via a media surrogate because the theory demands 100% compliance, otherwise any questioning lays the logical fallacies bare.
The accounts people pay attention to are corporates, celebrities and artists, political parties, polticians, govt departments, news media (tv, radio, print), established NGOs etc
And all are pushing this absolutely insidious crap with very few exceptions and we see what happens in that case - it's not a coincidence.
It's postmodernism aka critical theory - identity politics, intersectionalism, race, queer and social justice.
It has utilised and taken over familiar terms and activist movements (ie, LGB, women's orgs, Amnesty for example) to undermine those same terms and what thgose orgs are supposed to actually stand for hence why most people who think this is a passing fad, passively subscribe to the headline terms - diversity, inclusion, equality (now equity), anti-racism and the big one, social justice.

50 years the long march of postmodernism has taken in most of our living memories, but it is verifiably here now in real life.

I suggest reading Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsays' book or listen to their audiobook - Cynical Theories.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

But yet your not confused that a man can be a woman

Yet if I said to some of the kids I work with I'm going to talk about Adult Human Females they would all reply "Women"

bingo !

I’m not confused at all that a man can’t be a woman? I know they aren’t, and can never be a woman, and language doesn’t change that.

Earlier in the thread you made the point about brainwashing children, I wasn’t going to be a picky fcuk and point out that brainwashing isn’t actually a thing, nor has it ever been demonstrated to be effective, I understood what you meant in using the term.

So when you tell me that you’re going to talk to children you work with about adult human females, unless they’re familiar with what you mean already, it doesn’t stand to reason that they would know you’re referring to women, and if they’re familiar already with the idea of adult human females with penises because as far as they’re concerned mommy has a penis, well, you’re referring to the same thing as far as they’re concerned and haven’t made any distinction at all.

When I worked with children, with adults, with anyone really, it was more important that i familiarised myself with the way they use language, as opposed to me telling them how to use their words, because in my experience when a person tries to tell people how to use their words, it shuts that person down, in the same way as IAMAMORON was hopped off earlier in the thread by both sides for “not using the correct terminology”. I had no problem understanding what they meant, and they had no malicious intent.

I can’t say the same for anyone I hear using the terms “adult human female” when I associate the use of the term with incel types who think that they’re being clever in saying the term is just a biological fact, when their use of the term means it’s connotations are far more sinister.

Frankie Machine

Gruffalux wrote: »

Indoctrination by repetition, it's a thing!

Indeed.

Look at the relentlessness with which its promoters come back for more, again and again, in the face of massive scepticism and resistance.

It is zealotry.