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

About 10 or more years ago this kind of American nonsense would have been dismissed as just that - American nonsense. Now though the whole English speaking world thinks we live in the US, this is evident on the right and the left, and thus the trans movement spreads here there and everywhere.

That video reminded me of one of Louis Theroux's documentaries on the Westboro Baptist Church, there was a scene where a naive looking 6 year olds was holding a placard suggesting that homosexuals would burn in hell ( although it used ruder vocabulary). Louis interviewed him and he looked utterly uncomfortable trying to recite the mantra, he was shy. And just like in that video the parents jumped in to help him. I wouldn't use the term "brain washing" because it is looked down upon here, but his opinions were not his own.

Gatling

Frankie Machine wrote: »

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

Through the medium of the English language.

Some times it's just a simple case of sorry No .

A Woman does not have a penis lady or otherwise .

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

No, I’m not latching onto the use of the word, I’m saying that the phenomenon of being able to change a person’s worldview through trying to reinforce an idea they don’t share, doesn’t exist. There is no evidence that the methods which are commonly referred to as brainwashing are effective in their intended goal.

Of course children are massively influenced by their parents in all kinds of ways. Our own Irish Constitution recognises parents as the primary and natural educators of their children and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

I would argue that the influence of this relationship extends long beyond their teenage years, so the idea of removing children from their parents care based on some visceral knee-jerk reaction to a practice we don’t like, is completely unreasonable and disproportionate action with no regard for the effects on children who are removed from their parents. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest the outcomes aren’t good, and so it’s normally reserved as a last resort than the default response. Anyone suggesting removing a child or children from their parents care as a first response, is an idiot.

CtevenSrowder

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.

I don't believe it is. It's not a scientific term like you are making out. I'd stay away from the term brainwashing and use manipulation instead if I was you.

One eyed Jack

Frankie Machine wrote: »

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

Through the medium of the English language.

That system already exists, and has done for centuries. The people who argue that men are women have been through that same system, and that’s why they’re campaigning to change it. Your proposal which currently already exists doesn’t actually resolve anything.

You hardly thought that just by repeating something which people will have heard all their lives anyway will suddenly make them change their minds and conform to your worldview?

That’s why I asked Gatling would they punish a child for their transgression by making them write out the post 100 times. It wouldn’t matter if you made them repeat it 1,000 times - they still aren’t going to be able to accept your worldview any more than you’re able to accept theirs.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s why I asked Gatling would they punish a child for their transgression by making them write out the post 100 times. It wouldn’t matter if you made them repeat it 1,000 times -

No ,
Don't believe in child punishment .

But hey !

Frankie Machine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That system already exists, and has done for centuries. The people who argue that men are women have been through that same system, and that’s why they’re campaigning to change it. Your proposal which currently already exists doesn’t actually resolve anything.

If they're arguing that men are women then I think they need to look at themselves, and not the system.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That system already exists, and has done for centuries. The people who argue that men are women have been through that same system, and that’s why they’re campaigning to change it. Your proposal which currently already exists doesn’t actually resolve anything.
.

In response to someone who says we should teach biology this is an incoherent mess of an argument.

BattleCorp

What's next lads once we throw out biology?

How about I identify as black, or maybe 21, or maybe 70 so that I get the old age pension. Because thinking a man who wants to live his life as a woman = biological woman is every bit as stupid as me thinking I'm black, or 21, or maybe 70.

By the way, I've no problem with a man living as a woman, rock on folks if that's what you want but don't ram it down my throat that you are a real biological woman, because you are not.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

No ,
Don't believe in child punishment .

But hey !

That’s fair enough, I was trying to inquire as to how you might work with a child who says their mommy has a willy. Traditionally in the school environment, apart from corporal punishment, children were punished for their transgressions by being made to write out lines repetitively as though that would enforce the idea in their minds. That’s similar to the concept of brainwashing, but I suspect you were already aware the point was that it wouldn’t work to change their minds to your worldview.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In response to someone who says we should teach biology this is an incoherent mess of an argument.

We already DO teach biology! In English (apart from gaelscoileanna). It clearly hasn’t worked.

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We already DO teach biology! In English (apart from gaelscoileanna). It clearly hasn’t worked.

The biology part or the teaching biology part? I think the biology part functions perfectly well to be honest.

Frankie Machine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We already DO teach biology! In English (apart from gaelscoileanna). It clearly hasn’t worked.

Perhaps the problem isn't a pedagogical one...

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s fair enough, I was trying to inquire as to how you might work with a child who says their mommy has a willy. Traditionally in the school environment, apart from corporal punishment, children were punished for their transgressions by being made to write out lines repetitively as though that would enforce the idea in their minds.

Things have moved on since the 70s .
And kids generally don't discuss mammies vagina or Daddy's willy ,at least ones I've worked with or come across ,
Suppose you could apply that to the Idea of a woman having a penis saying it a thousand times on boards doesn't make it true or even lead to another person changing their world view

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

The biology part or the teaching biology part? I think the biology part functions perfectly well to be honest.

The teaching biology part. There are lots of things we teach children in school as fact, like biology. It doesn’t follow that they actually believe it. They’ll believe it if they can relate to the concept already. If they can’t, they’re generally not in a position where they’re able to articulate the fact that they can’t relate to what they’re being taught.

As they develop into adolescence and adulthood, people are generally in a better position to articulate the fact that they can’t relate to what they’re being taught, or what they were taught as children.

Frankie Machine

Gatling wrote: »

Things have moved on since the 70s .
And kids generally don't discuss mammies vagina or Daddy's willy ,at least ones I've worked with or come across ,
Suppose you could apply that to the Idea of a woman having a penis saying it a thousand times on boards doesn't make it true or even lead to another person changing their world view

Perfection.

I thank you.

Frankie Machine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The teaching biology part. There are lots of things we teach children in school as fact, like biology. It doesn’t follow that they actually believe it. They’ll believe it if they can relate to the concept already. If they can’t, they’re generally not in a position where they’re able to articulate the fact that they can’t relate to what they’re being taught.

As they develop into adolescence and adulthood, people are generally in a better position to articulate the fact that they can’t relate to what they’re being taught, or what they were taught as children.

What they 'believe' and what they can 'relate to', are neither here nor there.

E pur si muove, as Galileo might say.

What would he make of all this unreason, four hundred years on...

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Things have moved on since the 70s .
And kids generally don't discuss mammies vagina or Daddy's willy ,at least ones I've worked with or come across ,
Suppose you could apply that to the Idea of a woman having a penis saying it a thousand times on boards doesn't make it true or even lead to another person changing their world view

Kids say the darnest things :pac: Ahh no, I get what you’re saying, I wasn’t asking about children generally though, I asked about what you would do in a very specific set of circumstances. You’ve avoided even attempting to answer the question thus far so I’ll leave it at this point rather than badgering you for an answer.

But yes, you could apply the same idea to Boards, and even to wider Irish society, and then anyone else’s world view is irrelevant because people who are transgender will be protected from discrimination, or as you say yourself - sometimes it’s just a simple case of “No!”

One eyed Jack

Frankie Machine wrote: »

What they 'believe' and what they can 'relate to', are neither here nor there.

, as Galileo might say.

What would he make of all this unreason, four hundred years on...

They are important? The idea that they are neither here nor there is daft if your suggestion as to how to address an issue is to teach biology. Surely the point of teaching biology is ensuring that the students are able to relate to the material. Otherwise you’re just preaching, if you don’t care whether your intended audience of students can relate to your ideas!

I imagine Galileo might say something in Greek which I wouldn’t be able to understand. It would literally be all Greek to me. In any case, he’s unlikely to be qualified to teach biology in English.

Dyr

BattleCorp wrote: »

How about I identify as black, or maybe 21, or maybe 70 so that I get the old age pension. Because thinking a man who wants to live his life as a woman = biological woman is every bit as stupid as me thinking I'm black, or 21, or maybe 70.

Oddly enough, you can change sex (which is not a social construct) and nary and eye will be blinked but you'll be strung up if you declare that you've changed race (which is a social construct)


This is what happends when the world decides its rude to point out that something is crazy.

Frankie Machine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Surely the point of teaching biology is ensuring that the students are able to relate to the material. Otherwise you’re just preaching, if you don’t care whether your intended audience of students can relate to your ideas!

The purpose of teaching biology is to impart knowledge of biology.

A teacher should always care about whether their students can 'relate' to the 'ideas' or not, but only because it might be telling them something about their teaching style and ability, not because the ideas are flawed.

Just because you cant relate to something doesn't make it any less true.

I imagine Galileo might say something in Greek which I wouldn’t be able to understand. It would literally be all Greek to me.

Italian, actually.

That's your downfall - all imagination, no information.


.

One eyed Jack

Frankie Machine wrote: »

The purpose of teaching biology is to impart knowledge of biology.

A teacher should always care about whether their students can 'relate' to the 'ideas' or not, but only because it might be telling them something about their teaching style and ability, not because the ideas are flawed.

Just because you cant relate to something doesn't make it any less true.

That’s what I said previously, but according to you it’s neither here nor there! Clearly it IS important that the students are able to relate to the material!

Frankie Machine wrote: »

Italian, actually.

That's your downfall - all imagination, no information.

.

Meeeooow, my mother would love you :pac:


(I should explain - my mother was a teacher, and I would often tune out in her class, and she would express similar sentiments when she knew I hadn’t been paying attention. She also laughed in disbelief when I told her when I was 10 that computers are the paper and pencil of tomorrow).

Frankie Machine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s what I said previously, but according to you it’s neither here nor there! Clearly it IS important that the students are able to relate to the material!

Well, actually you started by saying

Surely the point of teaching biology is ensuring that the students are able to relate to the material.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115397665&postcount=1282

That's quite incorrect. As I've said, the purpose of teaching biology is to impart knowledge of biology.

It is important that students can relate to the material ONLY insofar as it may tell us something about the ability of the teacher to impart the facts.

It is of NO consequence to the veracity of the facts how the student 'feels', or 'relates to' them.

The merits or demerits of an educator are open to discussion about 'feelings about' and 'relating to'.

The facts of biology are not.



How it is that I am reading your posts with more precision than you can yourself, is to be wondered at.




.

Frankie Machine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I should explain - my mother was a teacher, and I would often tune out in her class.

She was a biology teacher, I suppose ?




.

Marcos

Gruffalux wrote: »

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..

Now, if you were the CEO of a charity why would you publicly write your support on behalf of that charity calling for political representatives

to no longer provide legitimate representation

for those who hold a different opinion? Isn't that explicitly moving into the political sphere?

Now is that really a big thing you ask? Well according to the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO), the body that is supposed to, among other things, oversee the

The Electoral Act 1997, which regulates political financing, including political donations and election expenses

So what has Amnesty International Ireland got to do with SIPO or the Electoral Act 1997? Well this is regarding a donation of €137,000 made in 2015 by The Open Europe Foundation (OSF) for a campaign which

included lobbing politicians and organising events and seminars for politicians before the 2016 General Election aimed at having the Eighth Amendment appealed. *

but in November 2018

the Standards in Public Office Commission directed Amnesty (and other organisations) to return the money after finding the donation was prohibited under Section 23 A2 of the 1997 Electoral Act after deeming it to be a donation for political purposes.

SIPO took an action against Amnesty because they refused to return €137,000 they got from the Open Society Foundation (OSF) based in Switzerland, stating that it was specifically used for political purposes which would be in contravention of the Electoral Act 1997 which states that

Donations from people or organisations outside Ireland, other than citizens or organisations that keep an office on the island of Ireland, are not allowed under the Act.

This wasn't just aimed at Amnesty, the Abortion Rights Campaign complied with the order and returned the funding, acknowledging that it was a political donation.

But Amnesty went to the High Court claiming that this money wasn't political it was just because the OSF liked Amnesty and supported their general view on things so gave them €137,000, as you do. After an exchange of letters including one from the OSF stating that this explicitly wasn't a political donation :rolleyes: that action was settled without a court hearing.

So, after spending all that money, effort and goodwill specifically stating that the charities actions weren't political (and any monies that they received weren't for political actions), now the CEO comes out and tweets specifically on behalf of the charity that people who he disagrees with and urges politicians to deny them any

legitimate representation

blows any similar arguments out of the water.

Unless you're a representative of a body that wants to have political influence on public life in this country but not have to adhere to little things like political financing laws. Run with the hare and hunt with the hounds if you will.

And that kind of thing would never happen in Ireland now, would it?

*FYI I like the majority voted in favour of repeal, but that's not what this post is about.

One eyed Jack

Frankie Machine wrote: »

Well, actually you started by saying

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115397665&postcount=1282

That's quite incorrect. As I've said, the purpose of teaching biology is to impart knowledge of biology.

It is important that students can relate to the material ONLY insofar as it may tell us something about the ability of the teacher to impart the facts.

It is of NO consequence to the veracity of the facts how the student 'feels', or 'relates to' them.

The merits or demerits of an educator are open to discussion about 'feelings about' and 'relating to'.

The facts of biology are not.

How it is that I am reading your posts with more precision than you can yourself, is to be wondered at.


.

I’ve obviously misunderstood your whole point then because I thought you were offering teaching biology as a suggestion in how to combat transgender ideology from gaining any foothold in Irish society, and my point was that we do teach biology already, and it’s a futile effort if students aren’t able to relate to the material. I was making the point that surely far more important than just imparting the facts is ensuring that students can relate to the material, because otherwise, when they can’t relate to the information, they won’t understand it, and they won’t retain the information!

If ever there was a better example of same, it’s surely that when you mentioned Galileo who I would have learned about in primary school, I would have remembered that he was Italian and I wouldn’t have been thinking of Aristotle?

Frankie Machine wrote: »

She was a biology teacher, I suppose ?


.

No, thankfully, I probably would have lost interest in biology if she were :pac:

One eyed Jack

Marcos wrote: »

Unless you're a representative of a body that wants to have political influence on public life in this country but not have to adhere to little things like political financing laws. Run with the hare and hunt with the hounds if you will.

But the case was resolved when it was determined that Amnesty DID adhere to political financing laws? From your own link -


As part of the settlement, counsel read extracts from a letter from SIPO to Amnesty stating that “the Commission (SIPO) had concluded that the process leading to the adoption of the decision communicated in its decision in November 2017 was procedurally flawed” and “considers it appropriate” to consent to the order quashing the decision.


Why would there need to be a hearing when SIPO admitted they goofed?

Like as much as I’m not a fan of either Colm O’ Gorman or Amnesty, they’ve always had political influence on public life, and it’s not unusual that as a representative of Amnesty he would be doing his thing and calling on the media and politicians to no longer provide legitimate representation to people for the reasons stated in the letter -


We call on media, and politicians to no longer provide legitimate representation for those that share bigoted beliefs, that are aligned with far right ideologies and seek nothing but harm and division. These fringe internet accounts stand against affirmative medical care of transgender people, and they stand against the right to self-identification of transgender people in this country. In summation they stand against trans, women’s and gay rights by aligning themselves with far right tropes and stances. They have attacked LGBT+ education in school, attacked anti-bullying campaigns, and attack access to medical services. They stand to remove equality, and cause a legacy of damaging discrimination.


There’s no suggestion in the letter that they are calling for people who hold those beliefs to be denied the right to political representation. The letter is calling for politicians and the media not to represent them. I have no doubt that there are politicians and certain media organisations which are only too happy to represent those people and feed them the content that validates their opinions.

Rodin

I think a consensus is being reached in this thread...

John Hutton

Pretty hard hitting piece on Gript today:

“Gender”, these activists say, “is merely a social construct”. In other words, you’re only a male, or a female, because society has told you that is what you are.

“A penis”, they say, “does not make you a man, because some women have penises too”.

This is a lie. Women do not have penises.

“Some men have periods”, they insist. This is a lie. Men do not have periods.

“Some men give birth”, they say. This, too, is a lie. Men do not give birth.

These are not fringe ideas. They are held, for example, by all of Ireland’s political parties, without question. If you want to make Micheál Martin uncomfortable, and – on this subject, anyway – no journalist does, just ask him if men can have periods. And watch him struggle to avoid saying “no”.

He doesn’t believe it, of course, but he is too scared to tell the truth. All of them are, because if you tell the truth, you are a “transphobe” by these self-styled “trans rights activists”.

https://gript.ie/to-trans-rights-activists-the-truth-is-a-mortal-enemy/

political analyst

Amnesty Ireland thinks women who defend women-only spaces should be deprived of representation in politics and in the media. In response, #WeWillBeHeard is trending on Twitter.

It is alarming that the law in this country lets someone self-declare gender by filling in a form and doesn't make it conditional on medical intervention. Look at the case of the biological male identifying as female and remanded in custody in a women's prison.