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

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Where does that say its a human right to have a biological child, if the couple are unable to naturally?

It’s implicit in an individual’s right to decide whether or not to become a parent.


Might want to hold onto something before you read this -


Single men will get the right to start a family under new definition of infertility

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s implicit in an individual’s right to decide whether or not to become a parent.


Might want to hold onto something before you read this -


Single men will get the right to start a family under new definition of infertility

Its not implicit at all. Why would the right to become a parent extend to the use of another person's body? So a man would also have the legal right to make a woman have a termination if his decision was not to become a parent? Dont you see how that causes a conflict of rights?

Gruffalux

That ludicrous WHO shyte just makes me think we are in deeper crap than I had imagined.

That article is 4 years old. How do I claim my kid, is there a form or something? He'll be due to start school soon so I'll need to kick on with it.

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Its not implicit at all.

It is, and the means by which they become a parent includes not just by conventional means, but also assisted reproduction and surrogacy. Though as was pointed out in the article I linked to, in Ireland this does not extend to surrogacy, but we have legislated for DAHR.


102. In P. and S. v. Poland, the Court reiterated that the notion of private life within the meaning of Article 8 applies both to decisions to become and not to become a parent (see also Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 71; R.R. v. Poland, § 180; Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 66; Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy [GC], §§ 163 and 215). In fact, the concept of “private life” does not exclude the emotional bonds created and developed between an adult and a child in situations other than the classic situations of kinship. This type of bond also pertains to individuals’ life and social identity. In certain cases involving a relationship between adults and a child where there are no biological or legal ties the facts may nonetheless fall within the scope of “private life” (Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy [GC], § 161).

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Why would the right to become a parent extend to the use of another person's body?

It doesn’t. Everyone also has the same right to decide not to become a parent.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So a man would also have the legal right to make a woman have a termination if his decision was not to become a parent?

No.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Dont you see how that causes a conflict of rights?

I’ve said this already but conflicting rights are nothing new, and there are conflicting rights in relation to parenthood most people will never be aware of, and I have no wish to make them aware of because it’s just scaremongering when the likelihood of them ever finding themselves in those circumstances isn’t worth entertaining. One of the most well known cases in Ireland was this one -


Gay-lesbian dispute over child raises legal issues


And recently legislation was introduced by way of addressing this issue in Irish Law -


New parental rights for same-sex female couples in Ireland come into effect today, but there is still a long way to go

ingalway

Anyone who is attracted to a biological sex, opposite or same, is a bigot

"Hopefully we shall see some further updates down the line that can help us better filter bigots, but at the end of the day genital attracted individuals will always be out there and we need to continue to build resiliency against their ignorance."

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/get-a-load-of-this?r=1nhrr&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=copy

LLMMLL

ingalway wrote: »

Anyone who is attracted to a biological sex, opposite or same, is a bigot

"Hopefully we shall see some further updates down the line that can help us better filter bigots, but at the end of the day genital attracted individuals will always be out there and we need to continue to build resiliency against their ignorance."

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/get-a-load-of-this?r=1nhrr&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=copy

Did you actually read the piece? She says nothing of the sort.

Gruffalux

Mr X Gxrmxn, you cannot knowingly sign a public letter falsely claimiing people with a different POV to yours are aligned with the far-right and for the removal of political representation from defenders of biology and those who question affirmation protocols, double down on it a day later saying you are proud to have done so, and then try and get away from any justifiable backlash by self identifying as Eckhart Tolle

https://twitter.com/Colmogorman/status/1332798293160628234?s=19

Wibbs

He's steeped in the language of identity politics and that lot are eating themselves at this stage. No wonder some feminists are confused because they come out with the same ballosology, only now it's coming home to roost and pecking them in the arse.

Gruffalux

Wibbs wrote: »

He's steeped in the language of identity politics and that lot are eating themselves at this stage. No wonder some feminists are confused because they come out with the same ballosology, only now it's coming home to roost and pecking them in the arse.

It's a lovely little video and my joke is mean

jam_mac_jam

I'm surprised at the reaction he got to be honest. I expected a lot more people to agree with him especially on Twitter.

suicide_circus

https://mobile.twitter.com/Colmogorman/status/1332794770423484418

I am also not going to be harassed into making performative statements

Yes that would be awful, wouldn't it, Colm?

Sir Oxman

Iseult White supports self-ID.
I do not.
To people who think and do not farm out their opinion and who are not extremely devoted to dogma, this won't matter.
She's starting a campaign - it will be interesting to see if she's given time and space to be represented just as Mr O'Gorman et al are afforded that right.

"So I spoke up. I did not anticipate the response. Not at all. People felt that my speaking up gave them a space to have a voice. I don't agree with all their viewsl. How could I? But I am continuing to speak up. I am overwhelmed but determined."

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1333047869817950210.html

ingalway

LLMMLL wrote: »

Did you actually read the piece? She says nothing of the sort.

The quote came directly from the article:
"Hopefully we shall see some further updates down the line that can help us better filter bigots, but at the end of the day genital attracted individuals will always be out there and we need to continue to build resiliency against their ignorance."

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p...tm_source=copy

Did I misquote it?

Gruffalux

ingalway wrote: »

The quote came directly from the article:
"Hopefully we shall see some further updates down the line that can help us better filter bigots, but at the end of the day genital attracted individuals will always be out there and we need to continue to build resiliency against their ignorance."

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p...tm_source=copy

Did I misquote it?

The ignorance of genital-attracted bigots. That's a whole world of weirdness encapsulated in one idea.

Aleece2020

Gruffalux wrote: »

The ignorance of genital-attracted bigots. That's a whole world of weirdness encapsulated in one idea.

Imagine calling people bigots for just having a sexual orientation. Not even for having the “wrong” one, just for having one in the first place. That’s the world we live in now apparently.

Gruffalux

Aleece2020 wrote: »

Imagine calling people bigots for just having a sexual orientation. Not even for having the “wrong” one, just for having one in the first place. That’s the world we live in now apparently.

Aleece you are a bio-essentialist homo-genitalist defender of biology. You are going on the bold list!

LLMMLL

ingalway wrote: »

The quote came directly from the article:
"Hopefully we shall see some further updates down the line that can help us better filter bigots, but at the end of the day genital attracted individuals will always be out there and we need to continue to build resiliency against their ignorance."

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p...tm_source=copy

Did I misquote it?

Nope but your interpretation is completely false. You read the word bigots and then invented what group of people she was calling bigots.

At no point in the article does she state anything about anyone refusing to sleep with her or not being attracted to her.

She does not call these people bigots as you would know if you read the article.

Gatling

Gruffalux wrote: »

The ignorance of genital-attracted bigots. That's a whole world of weirdness encapsulated in one idea.

Not the brightest student in class

"My account says trans woman, so not, I am not a man. Also, what the heck are female internal organs"

A -Yes your a man .
B- cervix , overies , fallopian tubes ,womb .(female internal organs)

One eyed Jack

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Iseult White supports self-ID.
I do not.
To people who think and do not farm out their opinion and who are not extremely devoted to dogma, this won't matter.
She's starting a campaign - it will be interesting to see if she's given time and space to be represented just as Mr O'Gorman et al are afforded that right.

"So I spoke up. I did not anticipate the response. Not at all. People felt that my speaking up gave them a space to have a voice. I don't agree with all their viewsl. How could I? But I am continuing to speak up. I am overwhelmed but determined."

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1333047869817950210.html

Nobody is being denied that right, and the letter signed by Amnesty, Colm O’ Gorman etc weren’t calling for anyone to be denied that right, nor were they calling for anyone to be denied political representation. The letter calls on politicians and the media not to represent them. It doesn’t say that they should be denied the right to represent themselves, or that the likes of media outlets like grift.ie gript be wound down. There will still be people who represent their views and media outlets who represent their views. It’s simply wrong to say that anyone was calling for anyone to be denied the right to political representation.

The only issue I have with Iseult’s claims are that she too appears to be more interested in misrepresentation rather than representation. If she chooses to lean on her heritage to lend weight to her political pedigree, she is misrepresenting both Irish history and the history of Amnesty as an International Human Rights organisation in order to one-up O’ Gorman.

I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, so in O’ Gorman’s case he did indeed speak too hasty while forgetting the history of the organisation he represents. In Iseult’s case though, I have a feeling she is likely to be well aware that while her grandfather joined the organisation as it’s chairman in 1963, Peter Benenson, a British lawyer, founded the organisation in 1961.

Nelson Mandela has legitimate reason to be critical of Amnesty for the way he was treated by the organisation - they took up his cause and then dropped him like a hot potato (he was “cancelled”, in modern parlance) -

Nelson Mandela and Amnesty International

But Iseult feigning outrage at O’ Gorman for “tarnishing” her grandfather’s legacy? Amnesty’s reputation as a Human Rights organisation was in shìt long before O’ Gorman waded in and forced it round the u-bend. The organisation moved from it’s original intentions as soon as McBride joined and used it to further his own political aims. O’ Gorman isn’t doing anything differently that wasn’t done before.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody is being denied that right, and the letter signed by Amnesty, Colm O’ Gorman etc weren’t calling for anyone to be denied that right, nor were they calling for anyone to be denied political representation. The letter calls on politicians and the media not to represent them.

But that's exactly what it means .

Remove rights of representation and a voice .

It's one of the reasons we need more media outlets like gript who are willing to speak up and call this ****e out

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

But that's exactly what it means .

Remove rights of representation and a voice .

It's one of the reasons we need more media outlets like gript who are willing to speak up and call this ****e out

No, that’s not what it means. It’s essentially calling on politicians not to represent the views which they were referring to as divisive and harmful and all the rest of it.

The main political parties have no intention of representing those views, and mainstream media such as the rag that is the Irish Independent will continue to give a platform to LGB Alliance, whose only Irish representation I’ve seen so far are the two ladies that have been living here for a few years, and Graham Linehan, who previously worked on the abortion referendum campaign with Amnesty.

I suspect that neither Colm nor Graham are on each other’s Christmas lists this year... peace and good will to all men (and women) indeed.

ingalway

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nope but your interpretation is completely false. You read the word bigots and then invented what group of people she was calling bigots.

At no point in the article does she state anything about anyone refusing to sleep with her or not being attracted to her.

She does not call these people bigots as you would know if you read the article.

What group of people have I invented? Those that are genitally attracted? Is it a figment of my imagination that the vast majority of the world are genitally attracted? Who then is Shana calling bigots if it's not those who will not sleep with a trans woman as they are not sexually attracted to them? What else is she talking about if not this?

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p...tm_source=copy

LLMMLL

ingalway wrote: »

What group of people have I invented? Those that are genitally attracted? Is it a figment of my imagination that the vast majority of the world are genitally attracted? Who then is Shana calling bigots if it's not those who will not sleep with a trans woman as they are not sexually attracted to them? What else is she talking about if not this?

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p...tm_source=copy

It’s very clear if you actually read the article and forget about Graham Linehan.

She mentions:

1. People who message her without reading her profile.

2. People who lecture her on her genitals when they match with her without reading her profile.

3. Chasers.

At no point does she mention people who are not attracted to her.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, that’s not what it means. It’s essentially calling on politicians not to represent.

What part are you finding difficult to understand .


Everyone else gets it

Gruffalux

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1333128232997105664?s=19

This is quite a long thread by a developmental biologist. It is well worth reading. She compares what is developing now to the teaching of creationism and she discusses human sexual dimorphism. Sometimes you have to click more replies to get Emma's full posting.

“Your honor, I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue [..] to oppose this law in any way I can.

Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom—that is, to teach the truth as guaranteed in our constitution [..]" - American John Scopes at his trial in the 1920s when he was found guilty of teaching the theory of evolution.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1333128232997105664?s=19

This is quite a long thread by a developmental biologist. It is well worth reading. She compares what is developing now to the teaching of creationism and she discusses human sexual dimorphism. Sometimes you have to click more replies to get Emma's full posting.

“Your honor, I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue [..] to oppose this law in any way I can.

Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom—that is, to teach the truth as guaranteed in our constitution [..]" - American John Scopes at his trial in the 1920s when he was found guilty of teaching the theory of evolution.

I’ve just read the thread, because I suspected from just the snippet above that the author of the thread was not familiar with the Scopes Trial. It turns out that not one of the respondents on the thread informed the author that the Scopes Trial was an example of the idea of playing the victim, and inventing the truth to fit their narrative.

Scopes had to pretend he was guilty of a crime he had not yet been found guilty of, and even his students were coached on what to say in giving evidence against him, (because they wouldn’t have had a clue otherwise!).

The same sort of behaviour is observed among those people who are looking to be prosecuted for crimes they haven’t committed, just so they can claim it’s the law is an ass!

If I have a question relating to developmental biology, she would be a useful authority to speak to, and I’ll even overlook the fact that she claims to be a feminist (a label which means whatever she wants it to mean, but on it’s own doesn’t tell me a whole lot), but she is not the authority on developmental biology, and if I wanted to have a more objective view of any issues regarding developmental biology, I would ask more than one developmental biologist, I would scour a number of sources rather than rely on just one. I might even ask people who are not developmental biologists for their views.

I might find 99% of their answers unhelpful, rigid, tautological, even useless. But nonetheless I could never claim it wasn’t an education. If we were to live in a society where scientific fact was all that could be taught in education, it would be a pretty shìt education IMO. Whether one likes it or not, educational institutions and academia are battle grounds of competing ideologies all vying for supremacy over each other, and it’s just as fundamentalist IMO to suggest that only scientific fact should be taught, and pretend that no other ideology or worldview exists or is of any value.

That’s why I’m interested in reading the book you referenced earlier, partly because it really is right up my street because it touches on a lot of areas which pique my interest, partly because the author seems mad as a box of frogs, partly because normally the books of that type I buy are anywhere between €50 - €100 and €17 is the price of a pack of smokes, but mostly because I’m always interested in different perspectives other than my own and new ways of thinking. The mind is analogous to muscles in the body - without use, it atrophies. That’s something that struck me when Sir Oxman said this -

Sir Oxman wrote: »

To people who think and do not farm out their opinion and who are not extremely devoted to dogma, this won't matter.

A developmental biologist who doesn’t appear to be used to engaging their critical faculties all that often, that they didn’t even take the time to look up the case before they thought to use it as an example of a profound statement about the truth? If her tweets are an indication of her abilities as a scientist, I don’t think she is in a position to lecture anyone either on the importance of research, the scientific method, biology or the truth. Feminism tho? Depends upon what type of feminist philosophy she advocates which she considers has any educational value I suppose. I don’t think feminism offers anything of any educational value, but I’m always willing to explore the possibility that it might some day have some utility in society.

suicide_circus

Gruffalux wrote: »

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1333128232997105664?s=19

Fair play to her.

Aleece2020

Gruffalux wrote: »

Aleece you are a bio-essentialist homo-genitalist defender of biology. You are going on the bold list!

Santa is a bigot though! He's married to Mrs. Claus so clearly he's a cis-gendered, straight and white privileged male! :pac:

Gatling

There's an ongoing case in Australia where a 15 Year old was taken into care claimed there parents won't let them transition ,
Now authorities want to start the 15 Year old on puberty blockers to start the transition process , parents are firmly saying no and they want 2nd opinions on medical and psychology ,
They want their child to be treated for depression and self harming in a non evasive manner as possible ,

The child can't return home as they claim they face mental torture not being allowed to transition


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theaustralian.com.au/nation/parents-grief-as-trans-teenager-taken-into-care/news-story/45462227e3b87702370fe4e0a95885cd