Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)
Options
Comments
-
I don't understand the obsession with other people's gender identity. I have never felt threated by a woman that is trans in a bathroom or dressing room, plus half the the time you probably don't even notice.
Perhaps the saddest sight I ever saw was when I was in a Supermarket near the GPO and a woman that was extremely tall, and I suppose still quite masculine was standing beside the doorway. One of the women on the checkout noticed her, started to point and laugh and the guffawing and sniggering spread throughout the checkout. I will never forget how that woman looked in that moment and this is probably what we define as a microaggression, a bit of bullying or slagging, so I can imagine it wasn't her most frightening moment.
How many people responding on this thread do you think would act like that?
As for whether somebody being transgender has affected me personally - it’s not really the point. I care about lots of things that haven’t and probably never will affect me. The erosion of safeguards will affect the most vulnerable women in society. I’m lucky to not be one of them but I’m not going to shrug my shoulders just because I’m not. If people cite the vulnerability of transgender people as a group, then it’s hypocritical to then dismiss the vulnerable members of other groups.0 -
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »Well, yes. Adult human male.
Looking for an answer from the other side of the aisle0 -
-
-
You don't like her. We get it. You have a history with her. She is also ''not Irish''. Anything else substantive beyond personal dislike? Should she be removed from media platforms and disenfranchised too?
Where did I say that?
She's a very close relative who I care deeply about.
I hope your being sarcastic as I'm not Irish either.
Moron, now's the first time I get to use the ignore function.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Where did I say that?
She's a very close relative who I care deeply about.
I hope your being sarcastic as I'm not Irish either.
Moron, now's the first time I get to use the ignore function.
I apologise. I thought you were referring to Ceri of LGB Alliance. Pardon me, I read back and see now it was a mistake.0 -
The association I have been making is the provable dangers via statistics to females when anyone can self identify into private spaces. I have never associated transgender people with sex criminals.
The association fallacies in the thread have been made between LGBA and neo nazis, flat earthers, anti vaxxers and yes...even ''pedos'' :eek: - things which have literally nothing in common.
You followed up, in quick time, by associating Lauren and Ceri of LGB Alliance with Ghislaine Maxwell and Alison Mack - people who have gained huge global notoriety as sex traffickers and sex abusers. If you were posting under your own name you would be liable for slander.
I’m not going to labour too much on this point either, but it continues to surprise me that with your two Law degrees, you still post stuff you have to know is just wrong. I’m not going to get too in depth about it as Defamation and Data Protection are two areas of Law where a conflict of rights will often arise, and it’s not as simple as you’re making out at all.
Suffice to say, what I said wasn’t within an asses roar of constituting defamation. I was referring to the statement you made that characterised the people you were speaking of as seeming distinctly ordinary, sweet and non-hateful. That’s your opinion. I was referring to your characterisation. I wasn’t referring to the individuals you mentioned. It’s a characterisation that is often observed with cult leaders too - to their victims they seem distinctly ordinary, sweet and non-hateful. I didn’t make the association you’re claiming, nor did I imply it, nor is what I said likely to damage their reputation. I was commenting on your opinion, and nothing more. I stand by what I said, that your characterisation doesn’t mean much, that the same has been said of numerous people who later turned out to be the complete opposite underneath the veneer of seeming distinctly ordinary, sweet and non-hateful.
Isn’t that your whole shtick with “provable dangers via statistics to females when anyone can self identify into private spaces”? This is why I provided plenty more data to put your statistics in a much broader and objective context that closer resembles probability and reality as opposed to a biased perception of “provable dangers via statistics to females.” They have a greater risk of being run over by a unicorn on a unicycle than they do of being in any danger whatsoever from “people who self-identify into private spaces”. All you’re doing is perpetuating fearmongering and paranoia in people, and it’s misguided and misleading at best, nothing more than malicious and ignorant nonsense at worst, like the way I’m supposed to think that I could be liable for defamation.
You’ve tried to use that same allegation against other posters a number of times now and I can only conclude it’s an effort to silence people when they don’t accept your opinions as facts. JK has that same tendency too - all for free speech for opinions she agrees with, no matter how much they hurt other people, but when her feelings are hurt, she issues threats on social media to silence them -
The author did not take kindly to Spurling’s accusations that Rowling is transphobic, with Rowling claiming that Spurling’s tweets constituted defamation, and hinting that a lawsuit may be coming.
“Unless you want to hear from lawyers, you might want to rethink that tweet. I’m not wasting my time arguing with wilful misrepresentations of my views on transgenderism – your timelines show you’re not big on truth – but making serious insinuations like this comes with consequences,” Rowling tweeted in reply on Friday.
J.K. Rowling threatens legal action against Coquitlam transgender activist over tweets
I’d only love to see her follow through on her threats, it worked out well for Johnny Depp.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I was referring to the statement you made that characterised the people you were speaking of as seeming distinctly ordinary, sweet and non-hateful. That’s your opinion. I was referring to your characterisation. I wasn’t referring to the individuals you mentioned. .... I stand by what I said, that your characterisation doesn’t mean much, that the same has been said of numerous people who later turned out to be the complete opposite underneath the veneer of seeming distinctly ordinary, sweet and non-hateful.
.
Actually you were not referring to my characterisation. You were referring to them. Indirectly but recognisably. Lauren and Ceri. It is a subtle distinction here.
But it exists. Your target was them.
And you actively chose particularly heinous criminals with whom to associate them - women I notice, notorious sexual abusers, as if you were pairing up the two quite amiable lesbian ladies with their dark-side female counterparts. Simply because they disagree with you.
If we were on a TV interview with an ordinary Joe Soap debating his political manifesto with which I agreed and you disagreed, and after Joe Soap was described repeatedly and undeservedly from the audience as an extremist or hate-mongerer, I said - Well, Joe Soap seems like a nice guy to me, and you responded, That's not saying much, Jimmy Saville no doubt seemed like a nice guy to his victims too, what exactly would you be perceived by an objective observer to be trying to do?
You know, just picture yourself there, leaning across the Prime Time desk, bright lights in our faces, with Joe Soap sitting mild-manneredly between us and you having made your rather startling Jimmy Saville contribution..
For my money you would be trying to create some bizarre and completely unfounded association between the blameless Joe Soap and the dreadful Jimmy Saville. I would say people listening would be a bit shocked and Joe Soap himself would quite likely say withdraw that statement, you villain, or it will be muskets at dawn..0 -
Advertisement
-
Just looked up LBG Alliance and this is a healthy development. I’m going to send them money. T discuss a world that almost nobody recognizes and their elaborations sound like the debates of a local Philosophy club group down the local pub. LGB movement is weakened by any association.0
-
Originally Posted by Lux23
I don't understand the obsession with other people's gender identity. I have never felt threated by a woman that is trans in a bathroom or dressing room, plus half the the time you probably don't even notice.There is also the fact that many women who have a stereotypically male appearance are not trans women but masculine looking cis women.
The TERF approach will lead to many of these women being humiliated for their appearance when they use changing rooms etc.
How convenient for your case -
A poster says that half the time you don't notice that the person in the dressing woman is trans.
Yet according to you, TERF's will confuse masculine-looking cis women for trans women... and that 'many of these women' will be humiliated for their appearance.
I mean, come on ! ! ! It's just laughable.
.0 -
-
Actually you were not referring to my characterisation. You were referring to them. Indirectly but recognisably. Lauren and Ceri. It is a subtle distinction here.
But it exists. Your target was them.
And you actively chose particularly heinous criminals with whom to associate them - women I notice, notorious sexual abusers, as if you were pairing up the two quite amiable lesbian ladies with their dark-side female counterparts. Simply because they disagree with you.
...
For my money you would be trying to create some bizarre and completely unfounded association between the blameless Joe Soap and the dreadful Jimmy Saville. I would say people listening would be a bit shocked and Joe Soap himself would quite likely say withdraw that statement, you villain, or it will be muskets at dawn..
As much as muskets at dawn sounds like a good-natured fun-for-all, I would be suggesting those ladies hold fast to their purse strings rather than waste their money on frivolous litigation.
To be perfectly honest with you I see the two ladies and the other chap as harmless instruments of Glinners continued vexatious campaign. I watched the video you posted, and then I watched a couple more (I don’t sleep much), so it wasn’t as though I replied quick time to your post. I sought a broader context instead of outright dismissing ALL the participants as a pack of headbangers.
They do seem harmless, but their opinions of other people aren’t harmless, their opinions carry influence and the effects of their opinions is that other people are being hurt. They’re being egged on by Glinner leading every discussion, and they’re so swept up in feeling like they belong to something that they are afraid to contradict another member of their groups opinions - a typical example being when the chap who’s name escapes me makes a sneery remark about people with gender dysphoria, and one of the ladies (again their names escape me) points out that she actually experiences gender dysphoria. But at least they can all agree that furries are fair game to be mocked relentlessly. I can’t say I have any particularly strong feelings one way or the other about furries, but they seem like they’re a harmless bunch, to me anyway? Should I be worried about furries?
I know you’re unlikely to share my feelings on the whole charade the participants as a group were putting on for the benefit of an audience, but they appeared to me to be putting on a performance contrived of solidarity and jovial sentiment towards each other, as opposed to any genuine respect for each other. It was as though it was just the two ladies kissing Linehan’s arse, and the other lad playing gooseberry. They just appear to be more of a threat to themselves than to society at large, very much reminiscent of other fringe movements, my favourite one being political lesbianism -
Political lesbianism is a phenomenon within feminism, primarily second-wave feminism and radical feminism; it includes, but is not limited to, lesbian separatism. Political lesbianism embraces the theory that sexual orientation is a political and feminist choice, and advocates lesbianism as a positive alternative to heterosexuality for women as part of the struggle against sexism.
Fruitcakes.0 -
Frankie Machine wrote: »How convenient for your case -
A poster says that half the time you don't notice that the person in the dressing woman is trans.
Yet according to you, TERF's will confuse masculine-looking cis women for trans women... and that 'many of these women' will be humiliated for their appearance.
I mean, come on ! ! ! It's just laughable.
.
You do realise that me and that other poster are different people right? Making different arguments.......0 -
Cilldara_2000 wrote: »The absolute state of this. FFS.
I'm reminded of the obnoxious fools on Grindr who seek to meet "masc Irish guys only".
Rather judgemental. I wonder what the reaction would be if a straight person made that observation...Being camp is not extreme and simply going around about their business is not "pushing it in faces".
Actually, you are incorrect. It is extreme by definition and common usage.
From wiki, just because it's the handiest reference -When the usage appeared in 1909, it denoted "ostentatious, exaggerated, affected, theatrical", or "effeminate" behavior, and by the middle of the 1970s, camp was defined by the college edition of Webster's New World Dictionary as "banality, mediocrity, artifice, [and] ostentation ... so extreme as to amuse or have a perversely sophisticated appeal".[3] The American writer Susan Sontag's essay Notes on "Camp" (1964) emphasized its key elements as: "artifice, frivolity, naïve middle-class pretentiousness, and shocking excess".[4]
Perhaps you didn't quite understand the meaning of the term ?Like seriously, you're justifying gay bashing here based on the mannerism of the person being attacked.
Absolutely unwarranted, shame on you for the insinuation.0 -
You do realise that me and that other poster are different people right? Making different arguments.......
Yes, yes I do realise that. Which is why I said -
A poster says... (outlining their point)
And then...
Yet according to you, (referring to you, obviously)
Making different points, whatever.
Just explain the inconsistency if you would, please ?
.0 -
Frankie Machine wrote: »Yes, yes I do realise that. Which is why I said -
A poster says... (outlining their point)
And then...
Yet according to you, (referring to you, obviously)
Making different points, whatever.
Just explain the inconsistency if you would, please ?
.
There is no inconsistency.
Other poster (OP) believes most people wouldn't notice a trans person in a changing room. My position is that I don't know if they would or would not. No inconsistency.
It is also my position that IF a cis woman BELIEVED a woman in the changing rooms was trans and not cis, and IF she decided to confront that woman, there is every chance she would actually be humiliating a cis woman with stereotypically masculine features. Again no inconsistency.
Not that I have to be consistent with someone else's belief.0 -
Frankie Machine wrote: »Rather judgemental. I wonder what the reaction would be if a straight person made that observation...
Actually, you are incorrect. It is extreme by definition and common usage.
From wiki, just because it's the handiest reference -
Perhaps you didn't quite understand the meaning of the term ?
Absolutely unwarranted, shame on you for the insinuation.
Yeah, not going to engage in the dictionary game with someone defending poster whose very first line was "To be fair, in many cases, they bring that abuse upon themselves." and then goes on to say all camp men rub it in other people's faces and refers to camp guys getting beating up for their mannerisms.
The evidence is there for people to see and it's you who should be ashamed for defending such a post.0 -
Frankie Machine wrote: »How convenient for your case -
A poster says that half the time you don't notice that the person in the dressing woman is trans.
Yet according to you, TERF's will confuse masculine-looking cis women for trans women... and that 'many of these women' will be humiliated for their appearance.
I mean, come on ! ! ! It's just laughable.
.
The type of situation LL is describing has actually happened before, to be fair:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/woman-abused-walmart-toilets-after-7992196
I appreciate you've highlighted the word "many" and it's not a widespread occurrence, but the idea of such an event isn't far-fetched. I don't know if this sort of thing is high on the "TERF" agenda either, but I would worry that alarmism over the dangers of transwomen accessing women's spaces could lead to this sort of thing happening more often.
There have been plenty of incidents of transwomen being assaulted in bathrooms, two randoms I just found:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/north-carolina-trans-sexual-assault-raleigh-bathroom-bill-women-charged-a8718796.html
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/06/23/lara-rae-trans-woman-attacked-karate-chopping-drunk-cis-women-public-bathroom-winnipeg/
It's not a great leap to imagine someone who isn't trans could also be assaulted like this if mistaken for being trans. Not that I feel it matters what anyone is, we shouldn't be assaulting people full stop.CtevenSrowder wrote: »It is an insult that seemingly only applies to you women. And in these threads is constantly thrown out by predominantly male posters. Misogyny? Maybe, I don't know.
Definitely applies to men as well, albeit not heard as much. I searched "Graham Lineham TERF" and found examples of him being referred to by it. I'm a man and I've been called a TERF for saying that I think it's perfectly fine to not date someone because of the genitals they have not being to your liking. It was a pretty strange experience as it's the only time I've ever been called any kind of radical feminist let alone a trans-exclusionary one. I think men are less commonly described as feminists in general tbh.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
There is no inconsistency.
Other poster (OP) believes most people wouldn't notice a trans person in a changing room. My position is that I don't know if they would or would not. No inconsistency.
I read the OPs post more carefully and accurately than you read my post, QED. Basics, always.
So I don't need you to tell me what the OP believes.
I didn't accuse you of any inconsistency on that basis either, so that's a red herring.It is also my position that IF a cis woman BELIEVED a woman in the changing rooms was trans and not cis, and IF she decided to confront that woman, there is every chance she would actually be humiliating a cis woman with stereotypically masculine features. Again no inconsistency.
And again, red herring. I didn't accuse you of that inconsistency, since you've now expressed something much more elaborate than your initial assertion, ie
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115423704&postcount=1375Not that I have to be consistent with someone else's belief.
It would in that case help if you didn't create the impression in your posting, that you are amplifying their position, as is suggested by the expressionThere is also the fact...
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115423704&postcount=1375
Rather than 'On the other hand...', 'However, to the contrary...', or any other familiar phrase to suggest that you are not doing so.
Apart from that, TERF is a term that has been objected to by several on the thread, as derogatory, and people have asked for it not to be used.
It is not too much to ask.0 -
Cilldara_2000 wrote: »Yeah, not going to engage in the dictionary game with someone defending poster whose very first line was "To be fair, in many cases, they bring that abuse upon themselves." and then goes on to say all camp men rub it in other people's faces and refers to camp guys getting beating up for their mannerisms.
The evidence is there for people to see and it's you who should be ashamed for defending such a post.
I didn't defend his post.
I attacked your post.
Big difference.
Anyway, you're wrong again, because the 'evidence' is not there to be seen, it is there to be 'interpreted'.
That is why you prefer not to play 'the dictionary game', because it allows you to interpret the words of others simply to suit yourself.
Handy for finding offence where none may be intended, but dishonest.0 -
The type of situation LL is describing has actually happened before, to be fair:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/woman-abused-walmart-toilets-after-7992196
I appreciate you've highlighted the word "many" and it's not a widespread occurrence, but the idea of such an event isn't far-fetched. I don't know if this sort of thing is high on the "TERF" agenda either, but I would worry that alarmism over the dangers of transwomen accessing women's spaces could lead to this sort of thing happening more often.
There have been plenty of incidents of transwomen being assaulted in bathrooms, two randoms I just found:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/north-carolina-trans-sexual-assault-raleigh-bathroom-bill-women-charged-a8718796.html
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/06/23/lara-rae-trans-woman-attacked-karate-chopping-drunk-cis-women-public-bathroom-winnipeg/
It's not a great leap to imagine someone who isn't trans could also be assaulted like this if mistaken for being trans. Not that I feel it matters what anyone is, we shouldn't be assaulting people full stop.
Of course, and I can easily believe that there have been instances of any kind of repugnant atrocity.
What I object to is a post which cynically piggy backs on the idea that you half the time don't notice the trans person in the bathroom...
by using it to suggest that 'many' masculine-looking cis-women will be humiliated by the terf approach.
I mean, are we to believe that 'terfs' are more observant than the average ?
More prone to humiliating other individuals because they are hostile to a movement ?
As an argument it is a load of balls. Ironically.0 -
Frankie Machine wrote: »I read the OPs post more carefully and accurately than you read my post, QED. Basics, always.
So I don't need you to tell me what the OP believes.
I didn't accuse you of any inconsistency on that basis either, so that's a red herring.
And again, red herring. I didn't accuse you of that inconsistency, since you've now expressed something much more elaborate than your initial assertion, ie
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115423704&postcount=1375
It would in that case help if you didn't create the impression in your posting, that you are amplifying their position, as is suggested by the expression
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115423704&postcount=1375
Rather than 'On the other hand...', 'However, to the contrary...', or any other familiar phrase to suggest that you are not doing so.
Apart from that, TERF is a term that has been objected to by several on the thread, as derogatory, and people have asked for it not to be used.
It is not too much to ask.
You've yet to point out where my inconsistency lies. Just tell me that I haven't understood what you meant by saying I was being inconsistent.
How strange.
"Explain why you are being inconsistent but I wont tell you where I think you're being inconsistent". The mind boggles.0 -
It really, really, really isn't.
I've never met anyone in real life with an opinion on this nonsense. It's an internet issue. The same 12 twitter accounts arguing. No real people care.
You are largely correct, it is a twitter issue.
However, it is now the case that anyone can obtain a legal document to state that they are whatever gender they claim to perceive themselves as in contradiction to any measurable biological reality.
This is a new departure for humanity and has consequences for the wider society.0 -
You've yet to point out where my inconsistency lies. Just tell me that I haven't understood what you meant by saying I was being inconsistent.
How strange.
"Explain why you are being inconsistent but I wont tell you where I think you're being inconsistent". The mind boggles.
Indeed it does. And rather easily...
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115430862&postcount=1460
Anyway, I've addressed your inconsistency in a post to RWCNT, almost an hour ago. But I repeat -
What I object to is a post which cynically piggy backs on the idea that you half the time don't notice the trans person in the bathroom...
by using it to suggest that 'many' masculine-looking cis-women will be humiliated by the terf approach.
I mean, are we to believe that 'terfs' are more observant than the average ?
More prone to humiliating other individuals because they are hostile to a movement ?
As an argument it is a load of balls. Ironically.
You've posted this request almost half an hour later, and there are no intervening posts.
Boggling, for real.0 -
Frankie Machine wrote: »Indeed it does. And rather easily...
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115430862&postcount=1460
Anyway, I've addressed your inconsistency in a post to RWCNT, almost an hour ago. But I repeat -
What I object to is a post which cynically piggy backs on the idea that you half the time don't notice the trans person in the bathroom...
by using it to suggest that 'many' masculine-looking cis-women will be humiliated by the terf approach.
I mean, are we to believe that 'terfs' are more observant than the average ?
More prone to humiliating other individuals because they are hostile to a movement ?
As an argument it is a load of balls. Ironically.
You've posted this request almost half an hour later, and there are no intervening posts.
Boggling, for real.
Well one would expect you might have explained the supposed inconsistency (but not actually inconsistent) in the post addressing me and not make me search for it In a post addressing someone else.
Again there is no inconsistency. I did not say that trans people go unnoticed in bathrooms. I do not have to be consistent with that argument as I did not make it.
Also "half the time you wouldn't notice....." Would mean that sometimes you would notice (and again I'm not necessarily agreeing with that, just exploring what the other poster said).
In addition, the other poster was talking about trans women being noticed when they said "half the time....". I'm extending that to cis women with stereotypically masculine features. This would most likely account for far more people believing they are noticing a trans person than actual trans people being in the changing rooms.
So there is no inconsistency in me saying that TERFs having an issue with trans people in their dressing rooms Would lead to cis women being humiliated. Me and the OP were discussing two different but unrelated things. They were talking about noticing trans people and I was talking about belief that you were noticing a trans person.0 -
Well one would expect you might have explained the supposed inconsistency (but not actually inconsistent) in the post addressing me and not make me search for it In a post addressing someone else.
I think we have a right to expect that people make some effort to follow the thread, especially here given there are only a handful of posts to consider.
You should have seen that the person I was responding to was making reference to your post, for who else could 'LL' be a reference to here ? -
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115431090&postcount=1463
This was careless
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115430554&postcount=1458
This was moving the goalposts
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115430918&postcount=1461
This was evasive
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115432781&postcount=1471
And you just won't admit seeing the double standard in a thousand years anyway, no matter what anyone says.
I truly have no patience for people who can't/won't perform the basic courtesy of reading though a thread.
Likewise, patent obfuscation.
It's just bad manners, so I'll leave it there.0 -
Advertisement
-
Frankie Machine wrote: »I think we have a right to expect that people make some effort to follow the thread, especially here given there are only a handful of posts to consider.
You should have seen that the person I was responding to was making reference to your post, for who else could 'LL' be a reference to here ? -
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115431090&postcount=1463
This was careless
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115430554&postcount=1458
This was moving the goalposts
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115430918&postcount=1461
This was evasive
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115432781&postcount=1471
And you just won't admit seeing the double standard in a thousand years anyway, no matter what anyone says.
I truly have no patience for people who can't/won't perform the basic courtesy of reading though a thread.
Likewise, patent obfuscation.
It's just bad manners, so I'll leave it there.
Fair enough if you can't respond to my actual points then it's best you don't continue.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement