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

Frankie Machine

JKR is so evil, she only cares about male prisoner literacy.

Even though she has supported a charity which makes no such ridiculous distinction between men and women.

What kind of Trans ExclusionaryRadical Feminist must she be after all ?

:rolleyes:

Gatling

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

How do you know those prisoners aren't women? Do they not meet your examplars criteria?

Hard to tell with egg in their eyes

CtevenSrowder

Frankie Machine wrote: »

JKR is so evil, she only cares about male prisoner literacy.

Even though she has supported a charity which makes no such ridiculous distinction between men and women.

What kind of Trans ExclusionaryRadical Feminist must she be after all ?

:rolleyes:

The prison she visited houses female prisoners aswell, but because there are none in the background of a picture were only two other humans are visible we have to pretend she cares about male prisoners only. The straws are being clutched.

LLMMLL

Frankie Machine wrote: »

JKR is so evil, she only cares about male prisoner literacy.

Even though she has supported a charity which makes no such ridiculous distinction between men and women.

What kind of Trans ExclusionaryRadical Feminist must she be after all ?

:rolleyes:

Honestly I doubt she cares much about either. One prison visit over a decade ago doesn't exactly display the greatest concern.

But it is hilarious that one prison visit over a decade ago to male prisoners is used as evidence of her concern for the rights of female prisoners. I have to say I'm really enjoying this.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Again we have women's rights and mens rights.

What else is required .

I'd rather see places of worship built for our Jedi's who are wholly underrepresented but make up several thousand individuals
we've 44 trans here covered by various mens's and women's rights

If that’s something you feel strongly enough about then i suggest that like everyone else who campaigns for various causes they support, you should do that. I would fully support your campaign for more places of worship for Jedi even though I’m Catholic myself, because I believe you deserve equal consideration for your philosophical beliefs as I do.

It’s why I support the campaigns of people for equality in education for example - I recognise that they do not share my worldview, and because of this they need special consideration as opposed to being told by the DOE that as long as there are places in schools which do not align with those parents worldviews, tough titty!

While parents are not obligated by law to send their children to schools in violation of their conscience and lawful preference, it’s difficult for many parents to find an alternative to an education system which is dominated by the religious orders. I don’t have to send my own child to an ET school, but I’m happy to support them by contributing to their funding and establishment. Seventh Day Adventist schools are not recognised by the DOE, but the children of those parents too wish for their children to be educated according to their worldview and I fully support them too.

The point I’m making is it’s all well and good to say that men’s and women’s rights exist and everyone’s covered, but it’s the areas which are not covered by men’s and women’s rights in terms of people who are transgender that they need recognition of their unique status, and acknowledgement of their needs which are unique to their circumstances. Women still have women’s rights, men still have men’s rights, Catholics still have their religious freedoms and protection from discrimination, and Jedi’s? Well, the lack of representation and recognition of Jedi in Irish society is something to work towards Gatling if it’s an issue you’re genuinely concerned about. Expect pushback though from people who get their knickers bunched at the perception that you are taking away their rights or infringing upon their rights or questioning you as to why Jedi need rights, sure don’t they have the same religious rights as everyone else? Not when Jedi is not recognised as a legitimate philosophy or system of beliefs in Irish law they don’t.

You might model your campaign on ethical veganism, which is granted the protection of equality legislation in the UK at least -

Ethical veganism is philosophical belief, tribunal rules

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Honestly I doubt she cares much about either. One prison visit over a decade ago

How do you know it was only a single visit In ten years .

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

How do you know it was only a single visit In ten years .

I'm happy to hear evidence there has been another visit.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm happy to hear evidence there has been another visit.

That's not what i asked

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

That's not what i asked

Again I'm happy to be provided with evidence of more than one visit or evidence of any engagement with female prisoners. Would love to hear more of Ms Rowlings charitable work.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Would love to hear more of Ms Rowlings charitable work.

Off you go and learn about it so .

So you made up a claim

Frankie Machine

LLMMLL wrote: »

Honestly I doubt she cares much about either. One prison visit over a decade ago doesn't exactly display the greatest concern.

But it is hilarious that one prison visit over a decade ago to male prisoners is used as evidence of her concern for the rights of female prisoners. I have to say I'm really enjoying this.

I have to say you simply don't get it.

OEJs diatribe was and is blustering nonsense. Ungenerous, mendacious exaggeration.

The one visit in question is enough to dispel in any reasonable person's mind, the stupidity of claiming as OE did - without a shred of evidence of any sort - that

women they previously would never have given a second thought to, such as women in shelters, women in prisons, etc.

It's irrational rhetoric directed at a woman who has been on the wrong end of obscene and degenerate vulgarity on social media, for having the temerity to express her opinion.

One eyed Jack

Frankie Machine wrote: »

I have to say you simply don't get it.

OEJs diatribe was and is blustering nonsense. Ungenerous, mendacious exaggeration.

The one visit in question is enough to dispel in any reasonable person's mind, the stupidity of claiming as OE did - without a shred of evidence of any sort - that

It's irrational rhetoric directed at a woman who has been on the wrong end of obscene and degenerate vulgarity on social media, for having the temerity to express her opinion.

Frankie you tried to present evidence to support the idea that JK gives a second thought to women in prison, your own evidence doesn’t support your claim. At least have the integrity to admit you reached for the first result from a google search and it doesn’t even appear as though you took the time to read the article yourself.

Your evidence certainly dispelled in my mind any consideration for the idea that she gives a second thought thought to women in prison, by which I was referring to the idea that people who use the caricature of women in prisons and shelters give little consideration to the circumstances which led to their incarceration or accommodation in shelters. The point was never specifically about JK, and a person reading the context of what I wrote will be able to make that determination for themselves.

“The temerity to express her opinion”, you have to be having a laugh? She has 14 million followers on Twitter, has no issue with expressing her opinions, sprinkling her spats among submissions of children’s artwork so you can’t see the children’s artwork without seeing her opinions, or the responses to her opinions.

You’re trying to get up on your high horse, and it’s obvious you’re looking for a leg up.

LLMMLL

Frankie Machine wrote: »

I have to say you simply don't get it.

OEJs diatribe was and is blustering nonsense. Ungenerous, mendacious exaggeration.

The one visit in question is enough to dispel in any reasonable person's mind, the stupidity of claiming as OE did - without a shred of evidence of any sort - that



It's irrational rhetoric directed at a woman who has been on the wrong end of obscene and degenerate vulgarity on social media, for having the temerity to express her opinion.

That visit has nothing to do with women prisoners. It is not enough to dispel OEJs assertion in a reasonable persons mind.

A reasonable person would wonder what a visit to men in prison demonstrates about someone's passion for the rights of women prisoners.

Frankie Machine

LLMMLL wrote: »

That visit has nothing to do with women prisoners. It is not enough to dispel OEJs assertion in a reasonable persons mind.

A reasonable person would wonder what a visit to men in prison demonstrates about someone's passion for the rights of women prisoners.

A reasonable person wouldn't assume that a woman interested in prisoner literacy would make such a ridiculous distinction -caring for men, but not for women - its beyond a joke to even insinuate that. Especially now that it suits her detractors to refer to her in disparaging terms as a feminist.

A charity involved in the field of male and female prison literacy invoke her as a supporter.

A woman who worked at one point for Amnesty International.

“There in my little office I read hastily scribbled letters smuggled out of totalitarian regimes by men and women who were risking imprisonment to inform the outside world of what was happening to them.” She said later. “My small participation in that process was one of the most humbling and inspiring experiences of my life.”

https://www.jkrowling.com/about/

I mean, just forget the partisanship and apply some common sense.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Frankie you tried to present evidence to support the idea that JK gives a second thought to women in prison,

Neither you nor the other one proved otherwise ,

The fact she's donated 100 million+ to various causes ,and the best two people can come up with oh there is no women in the photo she doesn't care about women prisoners get the boat if that's the best attempt two of you's have to discredit jk Rowling .

Desperate ****e

Frankie Machine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

your own evidence doesn’t support your claim..

You made a claim with no evidence at all.

And you did it simply to badmouth women whose point of view you oppose.

One eyed Jack

Frankie Machine wrote: »

A reasonable person wouldn't assume that a woman interested in prisoner literacy would make such a ridiculous distinction -caring for men, but not for women - its beyond a joke to even insinuate that. Especially now that it suits her detractors to refer to her in disparaging terms as a feminist.

A charity involved in the field of male and female prison literacy invoke her as a supporter.

A woman who worked at one point for Amnesty International.

https://www.jkrowling.com/about/

I mean, just forget the partisanship and apply some common sense.

Frankie I applied common sense in coming to the conclusion that the people who use women in prisons and shelters in their arguments for perpetuating discrimination against people who are transgender, do not appear to give a second thought to the circumstances which led to those women’s incarceration or accommodation in shelters.

You tried to support your counter argument referring to women, by using an article which primarily houses men, with a wing for women, in effect bombing your own argument against men in women’s prisons, by using an example of a mixed prison!

The fact that JK at one point in her life worked for Amnesty International proves nothing. It was around the same time that they started campaigning for abortion and “sex workers rights”, when I decided I could no longer support the organisations objectives, and now they are the same organisation which does not share JK’s views. Earlier in the thread there was an attempt to smear the organisation and Colm O’ Gorman and as much as I fundamentally disagree with them, the same evidence that was presented against them did not support the claims of any wrongdoing.

Now you want to “forget the partisanship and apply common sense” when your argument has been ripped asunder, in the same fashion as those who are pleading for people to “be reasonable” when they’re trying to justify perpetuating discrimination by painting people out to be deviants who wish to invade their spaces and attack their women and children. That’s your idea of reasonable. It sure as hell isn’t mine.

Frankie Machine

Gatling wrote: »

Neither you nor the other one proved otherwise ,

The fact she's donated 100 million+ to various causes ,and the best two people can come up with oh there is no women in the photo she doesn't care about women prisoners get the boat if that's the best attempt two of you's have to discredit jk Rowling .

Desperate ****e

If it hadn't been for the silly malice of OEJs sentiment in the first place, we needn't have bothered with any of this.

But it's just uninformed character assassination, plain and simple.

A successful woman with an opinion of her own and a platform that she's earned - it really brings out the worst in some people.

One eyed Jack

Frankie Machine wrote: »

You made a claim with no evidence at all.

And you did it simply to badmouth women whose point of view you oppose.

Then you could have asked for my evidence to support my claim, and one poster did, and I provided the evidence to support my opinion. I did not need to provide evidence specifically referring to JK or Suzanne Moore, because I was not specifically referring to either JK or Suzanne Moore.

You took it upon yourself to try and refute what you thought I had claimed, by providing evidence of JK’s visit to a mixed prison. No badmouthing on my part at all, there’s plenty of people I give no consideration to, but the difference between us is that I won’t pretend I do give consideration to those people when it’s painfully obvious from the way I speak of them and use them as a caricature, that I haven’t given a second thought to their circumstances.

It’s dishonest, and it’s disingenuous, and it’s pretty obvious when a person starts to get all high and mighty that they know they’ve been caught with their pants down and they’re trying to attack the person who points out the issue.

Frankie Machine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You tried to support your counter argument referring to women, by using an article which primarily houses men, with a wing for women, in effect bombing your own argument against men in women’s prisons, by using an example of a mixed prison!

Ignoring your shifting of the goalposts...

Will you oblige me with a link to the post of mine you have in mind here, please. I don't remember making the explicit case you've attributed to me there.


While you're at it, could you offer any evidence or source of any kind, to back up your original claim -

It’s difficult to take their claims about wanting to protect women seriously when it’s painfully obvious from the way they talk about “protecting women”, what they mean is “protecting women like meeee”, and trying to disguise their efforts in “concern” for women they previously would never have given a second thought to, such as women in shelters, women in prisons,

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115441041&postcount=1501

Evidence, please.

LLMMLL

Frankie Machine wrote: »

A reasonable person wouldn't assume that a woman interested in prisoner literacy would make such a ridiculous distinction -caring for men, but not for women - its beyond a joke to even insinuate that. Especially now that it suits her detractors to refer to her in disparaging terms as a feminist.

A charity involved in the field of male and female prison literacy invoke her as a supporter.

A woman who worked at one point for Amnesty International.



https://www.jkrowling.com/about/

I mean, just forget the partisanship and apply some common sense.

I am applying common sense. There is no evidence that JK has in the past displayed any concern for women prisoners.

You're operating on a logical fallacy.

It's like saying well this person campaigned for human rights. Sure they'd hardly.make any distinctions so they must care about trans rights because they're human and they must care about cis rights because they're human too. So where would a human rights campaigners opinions lie in this debate?

There is zero evidence that JK has any concern for female prisoners, other than the concerns the average person has for prisoners in general.

For instance, I believe that prisoners be they male or female should not be tortured.

Would you say based on that that I have shown concern for female.prisoners in the past? Obviously not.

Frankie Machine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Then you could have asked for my evidence to support my claim, and one poster did, and I provided the evidence to support my opinion. I did not need to provide evidence specifically referring to JK or Suzanne Moore, because I was not specifically referring to either JK or Suzanne Moore.

And around in circles we go again.

In fact you DID specifically make that connection, and we've been through it already.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115442215&postcount=1514

One eyed Jack

Frankie Machine wrote: »

Ignoring your shifting of the goalposts...

...

Evidence, please.

All that’s evident now Frankie is you’ve dug yourself into a hole, and you want to keep digging. I’ll help you out by telling you I have no intention of further participating in your line of questioning based upon your own curious interpretation of what I wrote.

I respectfully suggest you take the pyrrhic victory and run with it because it’s all you’re getting. I certainly won’t be losing any sleep over JK’s idea that she is somehow being oppressed. The idea is fcuking laughable tbh, before it even gets as far as being worthy of being entertained as a rational argument.

Frankie Machine

LLMMLL wrote: »

There is no evidence that JK has in the past displayed any concern for women prisoners.
.

A charity involved in the educational welfare of women prisoners claims her as a supporter. Has done for over a decade.

If she brought them in a cake with a file inside it, you'd still quibble.

Smacruairi

I'm glad to see slurs no longer being used at least, thanks all.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Maybe she does care about women prisoners.

Jealous much

Frankie Machine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ll help you out by telling you I have no intention of further participating
.

There's the tricky subject of actually answering the question you were asked though...

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115445276&postcount=1553

You would if you could, I'm sure.

Sir Oxman

Frankie Machine wrote: »

You made a claim with no evidence at all.

And you did it simply to badmouth women whose point of view you oppose.

Same with Maya Forstater. Constantly misrepresenting that story (which is unfinished)

One eyed Jack

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Same with Maya Forstater. Constantly misrepresenting that story (which is unfinished)

I have to ask, just to clear this up once and for all, how am I, in your opinion, misrepresenting the facts in the case taken by Maya Forstater against her employers for discrimination against her on the grounds of her beliefs?

The ET determined that her beliefs did not amount to being worthy of protection under the equality act. She was of the understanding that she had an ongoing renewable contract with her employers. She was warned numerous times about her behaviour, that it was causing issues for other employees within the organisation. She left her employers with very little choice but to decide not to renew her contract after they had (generously, IMO) allowed her to finish out the remainder of her current contract instead of just firing her on the spot, something which employers are entirely within their rights to do in the circumstances in which Maya Forstater behaved.

That she is appealing the decision with regard to her beliefs is irrelevant to the facts which have gone before, and btw I’m not just pulling it out of my ass when I say that she is unlikely to win her appeal, there is plenty of evidence which exists to support my opinion -


Why Maya Forstater will lose her appeal


For what it’s worth btw, I took you at your word when you said that five professors or whoever they were, were forced to apologise to Ms. Forstater for expressing similar opinions as my own. I didn’t ask you for evidence of your claims precisely because I took your word on good faith that it did indeed happen. I just didn’t think much of it because my own thoughts on their actions if they were the same as my own, then their assessment of the case was correct, and they had no need to apologise, unless there’s something I’m missing perhaps like the way they may have said it, which in that case I can understand why they may have been forced to apologise to Ms. Forstater.

Ten of Swords

Move on from the JK Rowling arguments, it's been going on for pages now.

This thread is supposed to be discussing gender identity in modern Ireland, the JK thread was closed ages ago

Back on topic please