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

jam_mac_jam

Sir Oxman wrote: »

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.

I just finished that book recently. It really helped me understand the mind set and complete lack of logic and pointless of arguments with them. (whatever you want to call the followers of this strand of thought I don't think left is correct)

Never really understood that it's a completely different perception of the world and launguage.

The impact on science and knowledge is terrifyingly.

It's funny I had the discussion with my son years ago and dismissed this all as oh it's just mental ers in college in the US on Twitter. It will never effect real life. How wrong I was.

Gruffalux

There is something in making your kids say or think ''Mommy has a penis'' which just makes me feel irritable. Mother and all variations thereof are ancient sounds, often the first a human utters, and they mean the female parent in relation to a child. Mother - mater - matter - matrix - the female progenitor. If you have sired or otherwise find yourself to be the caregiver to a child, and have a penis, don't gaslight them by having them call you Mommy, let them use your chosen name.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Earlier in the thread you made the point about brainwashing children, I wasn’t going to be a picky fcuk and point out that .

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

It was a prime example of brainwashing a child , nothing to get picky about , unfortunately it happens a lot with children , it's similar to munchausen syndrome by proxy imo not saying exactly the same but similar.

As for the other poster, I'm not one bit surprised you support them and correct terminology bollox

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

There is something in making your kids say or think ''Mommy has a penis'' which just makes me feel irritable. Mother and all variations thereof are ancient sounds, often the first a human utters, and they mean the female parent in relation to a child. Mother - mater - matter - matrix - the female progenitor. If you have sired or otherwise find yourself to be the caregiver to a child, and have a penis, don't gaslight them by having them call you Mommy, let them use your chosen name.

The person or people gaslighting in that scenario are the person or people who would try and undermine the child’s already formed worldview.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

It was a prime example of brainwashing a child , nothing to get picky about , unfortunately it happens a lot with children , it's similar to munchausen syndrome by proxy imo not saying exactly the same but similar.

As for the other poster, I'm not one bit surprised you support them and correct terminology bollox

It’s really not, because brainwashing just isn’t possible. By that standard, every parent raising their own children can be accused of brainwashing their children, or gaslighting their children, or is experiencing munchausens by proxy. It’s a ridiculous assertion which means nothing more than “I know better than everyone else what’s best for their own children”, because they disagree with your opinions regarding their own children. It stands to reason that from your point of view you’re right, they’re wrong, but from their point of view, your opinions are irrelevant.

I didn’t say I support their ideas, I said I understood where they were coming from, and they had no malicious intent. You implied from what I said that I agree with them. I hope I’ve cleared up your misunderstanding.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s really not, because brainwashing just isn’t possible.

It actually is possible I'd use another word but brainwashing is the word .

It's not possible of course it is , why do people make these claims and keep a straight face

Eric Cartman

Frankie Machine wrote: »

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.

Absolutely. Worst part is the same people who usually tell us this is nothing to worry about think 1 or 2 loopers posting on websites nobody cares about because theyve been banned from all the others are a representation of an alarmingly massive rise of the far right.

When I see one NGO work to do something far right ill be concerned, so far this anti woman nonsense is entered into atleast 5 NGO’s newspeak guide.

silverharp

If this was a series about exposing child abuse I would get it, but looks like it will be both sunning and brave

https://twitter.com/JoshLekach/status/1330678148439044096

Gatling

silverharp wrote: »

If this was a series about exposing child abuse I would get it, but looks like it will be both sunning and brave

https://twitter.com/JoshLekach/status/1330678148439044096

This was posted last night and rapidly removed .

Gruffalux

Gatling wrote: »

This was posted last night and rapidly removed .

It's very scary. Maybe that is why..

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

It actually is possible I'd use another word but brainwashing is the word .

It's not possible of course it is , why do people make these claims and keep a straight face

Because evidence suggests the idea of brainwashing is nothing more than inflammatory nonsense. You remind me of a recent conversation between Alex O’ Connor and Matthew Dillahunty, both of them consider themselves rational and reasonable and basing their arguments about morality in science and all the rest of it.

The conversation was going great, until the topic of veganism came up, and Alex O’ Connor has a compelling and logical argument in favour of veganism. Dillahunty who remember thinks of himself as rational and reasonable and all the rest of it, suddenly his faculties of reason, logical argument and science appeared to have deserted him as his response to being confronted with the idea essentially amounted to “I don’t like it”. Same as your arguments, all they boil down to is “I don’t like it”. You’d almost feel sorry for Dillahunty as he flailed about looking for an argument he could couch in science, reason or rational argument, only for the fact that he’s an arrogant prick.

The comments section weren’t kind to him either, many coming to the realisation that their Emperor was wearing no clothes. Starts at 39 minutes in, right after Dillahunty says he despises bad arguments...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAOzGNFamgQ

Couch your arguments in as much inflammatory language, scientific terminology, fearmongering, scorn and all the rest of it as much as you need to, it’ll still be painfully transparent what you’re at.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because evidence suggests the idea of brainwashing is nothing more than inflammatory nonsense.

What evidence .

This is just another word people want removed from a discussion because they are fauxfended

Nothing more .

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

What evidence .

This is just another word people want removed from a discussion because they are fauxfended

Nothing more .

Is this the part where you pretend I didn’t already provide evidence?

Probing Question: Does brainwashing exist?

The brainwashing myth


The term is based upon pseudoscientific nonsense, and if you’re going to hold others to a rational standard of argument based upon scientific evidence, then you don’t have the luxury of abandoning that standard when it suits you to invoke inflammatory and irrational arguments.

I don’t mind that you use the term, remember I didn’t pick you up on it when you did use it, because I don’t care whether you use it or not, I know the idea just doesn’t exist, there’s no evidence for it, and what is colloquially known as brainwashing just doesn’t work and isn’t at all effective.

It’s use says nothing more than “anyone who disagrees with my worldview must be brainwashed”. It’s circular logic at best, a malicious accusation at worst. It’s often invoked against people who don’t share another person’s ideas for their children - the other person is brainwashing their children.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is this the part where you pretend I didn’t already provide evidence?

Brainwashing , manipulation , exploitative /exploitation grooming all exist ,
Despite what ever is falsely claimed,
they don't go way because someone claims to be fauxfended by such words

Aleece2020

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.

You're absolutely right. I'd argue it's also an attack on men, but you do see it more thrown towards women right now. I have yet to see someone suggest usage of the term "prostate-owners" for men or "adult human males."

With regards to that particular tweet and the term "gestational carriers" I find that particularly degrading towards women, especially infertile women or women without children who do not want any.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Brainwashing , manipulation , exploitative /exploitation grooming all exist ,
Despite what ever is falsely claimed,
they don't go way because someone claims to be fauxfended by such words

Oh yeah, manipulation, exploitation, grooming all exist, and describe a specific set of behaviours, but ‘brainwashing’ just has no basis or grounding whatsoever in psychology or science. I’m not offended by the term, I’m pointing out that the idea is nonsense, and in order for your claims to be taken seriously, you’d need to be able to provide compelling and reasonable evidence of malicious intent of you’re going to accuse someone of manipulation, exploitation or grooming. You’d hardly expect people should just take your word for it?

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Oh yeah, manipulation, exploitation, grooming all exist, and describe a specific set of behaviours, but ‘brainwashing’ just has no basis or grounding whatsoever in psychology

But yet it exists and is regularly discussed in papers and studies and psychological and clinical research as well as mental health and the effect on victims of said Brainwashing.

Eric Cartman

Gatling wrote: »

This was posted last night and rapidly removed .

I suppose we're not allowed to post video of what is clearly a child being abused.

Gatling

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I suppose we're not allowed to post video of what is clearly a child being abused.

Unfortunately with the spectre of bans hanging over my posts ,
I'll leave it for others for discuss , according to some if repeat it's not real three times it will go away .

mohawk

Aleece2020 wrote: »

You're absolutely right. I'd argue it's also an attack on men, but you do see it more thrown towards women right now. I have yet to see someone suggest usage of the term "prostate-owners" for men or "adult human males."

With regards to that particular tweet and the term "gestational carriers" I find that particularly degrading towards women, especially infertile women or women without children who do not want any.

Some of us women are infertile, some of us are mothers, some of us have PCOS and it’s causing us not to have periods, some of us have lost breasts or wombs or ovaries, some of us have endometriosis, some of us are in peri menopause and others have been through menopause. These are all part of womanhood and our varied life experiences.

Gestational carriers is completely degrading. It’s a respectful as calling us cattle.

OscarMIlde

jaxxx wrote: »

Because that's exactly what they are. There's this strange denomination of people who take offense because they can, not that there's actually any offense intended or even any offense taken. It's chaos for the sake of chaos. There's no logic behind it, there's no reason behind it. They have no plan, no goal. At the heart of humanity there's this idea that just because we can do something means that we must do it. They don't stop for even a second to think that maybe they shouldn't do it. And yes that is derived from Goldblum's infamous Jurassic Park quote. These people just take that concept of 'can do it, must do it' to the absolute extreme. Pretty sure I only said it twice, so hardly constant.

Why are you slagging redheads though? It's clearly the best hair colour.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

But yet it exists and is regularly discussed in papers and studies and psychological and clinical research as well as mental health and the effect on victims of said Brainwashing.

Dear God! Nobody is arguing the word doesn’t exist, of course it does! But the effects it describes, don’t.

Why wouldn’t it be regularly discussed in papers and studies and clinical research as well as mental health and the effects on victims of said brainwashing? So are women with penises! Your point proves nothing.

It’s akin to Lisa Littman coining the term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” off the back of a small scale ‘study’ (I deliberately use that term loosely) of parents opinions whose daughters used social media and ‘suddenly’ developed gender dysphoria. It got legs because people wanted to believe it was actually a thing, it played into their prejudices so they didn’t question it. It’s since been questioned many times and it’s methodology as well as practically everything else about her study has been shown to be fundamentally flawed. It has as much scientific validity as this horsecrap -


The conceptual penis as a social construct


At least the authors of that particular paper admitted it was horsecrap, but not before there were a number of people within academia and clinical research who were taken in by the nonsense, precisely because they wanted to believe the penis as a social construct was actually a thing, and the implications the idea had on society. They weren’t brainwashed, they believed it already, but the authors of that paper just articulated their ideas in a way it’s victims already related to. The idea of the hoax was to highlight the fundamental flaws in the areas of social psychology and academia.

It’s nothing anyone who is familiar with the area wasn’t aware of already -


Ideological Bias in Social Sciences and Implications for Clinical Practice


I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised that social workers would see that video clip and think “Awh, so cute”, and wouldn’t be the least bit concerned for the welfare of the children involved. You’d have your work cut out to convince them of any evidence of child neglect or “brainwashing”. What would the children you work with say, do you think, if you told them they were being brainwashed by their parents? It’s unlikely it would occur to them that you’re trying to weaponise those parents children against their parents, but that’s the effect of correcting a child who tells you their mommy has a willy.

Frankie Machine

Is a thread entitled 'Gender Identity in Modern Ireland' entitled to broach the subject of how resistance to this anti-women agenda can/could be formed, and what form it should take ?

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So are women with penises!

Adult Human Females Don't have penises or testicles, only a vagina , cervix ,overies and a womb,

Adult Human Males have penises , testicles and a prostate

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Adult Human Females Don't have penises or testicles, only a vagina , cervix ,overies and a womb,

Adult Human Males have penises , testicles and a prostate

Are you going to make a child who thinks otherwise write the above 100 times as punishment for their transgression?

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

It's quite informative actually. It lets people know that they are human, and both a biological female and an adult. Very useful descriptor when the definition of woman is being warped to mean anything and everything.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Are you going to make a child who thinks otherwise write the above 100 times as punishment

Child punishment

Ehhhh .

Your on own there,

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

It's quite informative actually. It lets people know that they are both a biological female and an adult. Very useful descriptor when the definition of woman is being warped to mean anything and everything.

If they already think of a biological female as having a penis, you’re left with the same dilemma of the term making no distinction and providing no new information. It’s not as though the terms “adult human female” can’t be warped to mean whatever the user chooses it should mean, a bit like the way some women on social media will describe themselves as “real women”, inferring that they are superior to other women based upon an entirely subjective set of criteria that suits them.

I do get where you’re coming from and what the terms attempt to convey, but it’s about as useful as the dictionary definition of a feminist -

a person who supports feminism

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Dear God!
I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised that social workers would see that video clip and think “Awh, so cute”, and wouldn’t be the least bit concerned for the welfare of the children involved. You’d have your work cut out to convince them of any evidence of child neglect or “brainwashing”. What would the children you work with say, do you think, if you told them they were being brainwashed by their parents? It’s unlikely it would occur to them that you’re trying to weaponise those parents children against their parents, but that’s the effect of correcting a child who tells you their mommy has a willy.

Your argument here is to latch onto the use of one word here, brainwashing, and argue that it doesn't exist. However that is pedantry. Clearly children are massively influenced by their parents in all kinds of ways, particularly before their teenage years.

Frankie Machine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If they already think of a biological female as having a penis, you’re left with the same dilemma of the term making no distinction and providing no new information.

A dilemma easily solved by an education system that teaches Biology.

Through the medium of the English language.