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

suicide_circus

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I dont believe transracial is a real thing no. Just whataboutery.

Why is it not real thing? Where is the cut off? If you can give me a logical breakdown i will be open to it.

jam_mac_jam

volchitsa wrote: »

Why not? Why wouldn't you take Rachel Dolezal at her word?

Because there is no such thing as racial dysphoria.

nj27

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Not sure what a story about some man sexually abusing a child has to do with anything in this thread.

Ayo cuz, I'm a chick now. Lemme get my willy out in front of a tiny white chick who has all the substance of an apple blossom petal. I'm a chick now cuz, so my enormous python knob is a strictly feminine feature even when it's inches from the face of a tiny Caucasian chick in a changing room. Ayogibsmedat.

jam_mac_jam

nj27 wrote: »

Ayo cuz, I'm a chick now. Lemme get my willy out in front of a tiny white chick who has all the substance of an apple blossom petal. I'm a chick now cuz, so my enormous python knob is a strictly feminine feature even when it's inches from the face of a tiny Caucasian chick in a changing room. Ayogibsmedat.

This is a disgusting argument.

suicide_circus

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Because there is no such thing as racial dysphoria.

Until there is.

A black man and a white man are far closer biologically than a black man and a black woman.

nj27

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

This is a disgusting argument.

Ayogibsmedat

LLMMLL

volchitsa wrote: »

Yeah but that's more like an intersex person deciding they're one or other sex. To compare race to transgender, it would have to be a white person identifying as black or vice versa. Not an obviously mixed race person.

So would that be ok? Someone who's white, say Elizabeth Warren, deciding she 's really Native American?

Someone with a black parent could be very light skinned. Do you have an issue with that person saying they’re black? How is it like intersex? Explain the relation between them.

suicide_circus

nj27 wrote: »

Ayogibsmedat

Youre drunk, go to bed.

volchitsa

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Because there is no such thing as racial dysphoria.

Says who? Rachel Dolezal says she suffered from it. Maybe lots of others are still in the closet about it?

In Brazil, people changing their racial identification is becoing a thing these days:

More than a quarter of the 168,000 candidates who also ran in 2016 have changed their race, according to a Washington Post analysis of election registration data. Nearly 17,000 who said they were White in 2016 are now mixed. Around 6,000 who said they were mixed are now Black. And more than 14,000 who said they were mixed now identify as White.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/brazil-racial-identity-black-white/2020/11/15/2b7d41d2-21cb-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html

LLMMLL

suicide_circus wrote: »

Until there is.

A black man and a white man are far closer biologically than a black man and a black woman.

But there isn’t. It’s all made up gotchas.

nj27

suicide_circus wrote: »

Youre drunk, go to bed.

I have literally never tasted alcohol, and I am fluent in Latin.

Shelga

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

The drama at everything is very tiring. You are going to KILL people if you use the wrong pronoun.

Can you not just explain to people that they need to use the right one. Are people just going to keel over and die if you say the wrong thing.

Everything is literally killing people.

Ok this made me literally LOL after a long, long day :pac:

I can hear the weariness in your voice!

Reminds me of when Jameela Jamil came out as "queer", even though she doesn't seem to have been with any women, doesn't elaborate any further on what being queer for her actually means, then logs off instantly to "avoid abuse". I'd better not ask her in case I kill her :pac::pac::pac:

volchitsa

LLMMLL wrote: »

Someone with a black parent could be very light skinned. Do you have an issue with that person saying they’re black? How is it like intersex? Explain the relation between them.

I don't have an issue with anyone saying they're anything, I'm exploring how far other people should be expected to go along with their claims, that's all.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, the question wasn't being asked about mixed race people, it was about people who are not (as far as they know) mixed race.

Someone like Elizabeth Warren for example, who was mocked for saying she was part native American - why should she have been mocked like that just because it was only about 2% real genetically speaking? Why shouldn't she just be allowed to say she feels Native American and be treated as one - same as if she said she felt she was a man?

suicide_circus

LLMMLL wrote: »

But there isn’t. It’s all made up gotchas. The only person I’ve heard of who “identified as” another race has admitted they were committing fraud. Not that they actually believed they were a different race.

But can you tell me where the cut off point is and then tell me why thats the cut off point. Telling me it's whataboutery or a gottcha is not an answer.

I'm born male, i'm born brown eyed, i'm born mexican, i'm born short, i'm born curly haired, i'm born a good singer and a bad athlete. Why is the "male" part the only one i can opt in or out of?

volchitsa

LLMMLL wrote: »

But there isn’t. It’s all made up gotchas.

But clearly there is: Rachel Dolezal suffers from it. The fact that she was reviled for it is just a reflection of how ignorant people still are - just like 50 years ago a trans person would have been mocked and insulted.

LLMMLL

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't have an issue with anyone saying they're anything, I'm exploring how far other people should be expected to go along with their claims, that's all.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, the question wasn't being asked about mixed race people, it was about people who are not (as far as they know) mixed race.

Someone like Elizabeth Warren for example, who was mocked for saying she was part native American - why should she have been mocked like that just because it was only about 2% real genetically speaking? Why shouldn't she just be allowed to say she feels Native American and be treated as one - same as if she said she felt she was a man?

I never mocked her for saying she was part Native American. Did she say she “Felt” Native American and “should be treated as one”? Otherwise it’s another made up instance.

LLMMLL

volchitsa wrote: »

But clearly there is: Rachel Dolezal suffers from it. The fact that she was reviled for it is just a reflection of how ignorant people still are - just like 50 years ago a trans person would have been mocked and insulted.

We have no idea what Rachel dolzeal believes.

Ted_YNWA

nj27 wrote: »

What if an enormous black guy with a giant willy says out of the blue he's a chick in the middle of a conversation and he wants to change inches from a 12 year old girl with his massive willy in her face?

nj27 wrote: »

Ayo cuz, I'm a chick now. Lemme get my willy out in front of a tiny white chick who has all the substance of an apple blossom petal. I'm a chick now cuz, so my enormous python knob is a strictly feminine feature even when it's inches from the face of a tiny Caucasian chick in a changing room. Ayogibsmedat.

nj27 wrote: »

Ayogibsmedat

nj27 wrote: »

I have literally never tasted alcohol, and I am fluent in Latin.

Mod

Threadbanned.

Don't post in this thread again.

political analyst

Is the government really going to keep running the risk of staff and prisoners being injured or killed by letting the situation in which a transgender prisoner could hide a sharp instrument under his or her clothes because prison officers cannot subject that prisoner to a full search?

volchitsa

LLMMLL wrote: »

I never mocked her for saying she was part Native American. Did she say she “Felt” Native American and “should be treated as one”? Otherwise it’s another made up instance.

I didn't say you did, but Donald Trump certainly did. As did many news media.

It's not made up, she said more than once that her native American heritage was important to her - which, yes, means she "felt" native American. And yes, she wanted to be considered to be one, that's what she said. Instead, she was mocked and criticised for not being "really" native American, or not native American "enough".

jam_mac_jam

volchitsa wrote: »

But clearly there is: Rachel Dolezal suffers from it. The fact that she was reviled for it is just a reflection of how ignorant people still are - just like 50 years ago a trans person would have been mocked and insulted.

Well no. There were people that were studied as being transexuals (as they were then) during the thirties in Germany which was almost a hundred years ago.

I actually felt sorry for that woman and I don't think she did it out of bad intentions. She was given an awful time.

Parabellum9

Am I the only one who rolled their eyes at the Ellen Page announcement? I find it hard to understand the type of person who hears that sort of announcement and does anything else to be honest. Similar to Sam Smith when he turned himself in to pronouns, I just tuned out. I won’t even listen to 20 seconds of his music when I hear that voice now.

volchitsa

LLMMLL wrote: »

We have no idea what Rachel dolzeal believes.

Indeed, that's the point. Why wouldn't you take her at her word, if you take trans people at theirs? That was what Joey said people should do, which is why I asked.

AllForIt

Kraftwerk wrote: »

One thing I'm confused about in relation to Ellen/Elliot Page is that he's gay/lesbian and says he's Queer and trans. But identifying as a man and married to a woman.

So even though he identifies as a man and not a woman still considers himself a lesbian for liking women?

Wouldnt he be straight now if he's a man married to a woman or does queer mean something else?

Omackeral wrote: »

If my partner decides tomorrow to come out as Jim instead of Janine, am I queer? I'm yet to hear of anyone on the trans ally side of things comment on this. For example, I'd like to hear from Joeytheparott, _godot_ or LLMMML on it. I honestly would.

Eiiiot is still a biological female. Elliot is still sexually attracted to the same body type as her own therefore she is a homosexual. Elliot is now a transgender male therefore Elliot is now a transgender male homosexual.

Elliot and his partner are in a homosexual relationship as they always were. They can define their relationship however they want but they are factually still homosexuals and still in a homosexual relationship and yesterdays revelation has no bearing on this fact whatsoever.

In relation to the term 'queer', gender activists have appropriated the term from the gay world. In niche metropolitan circles it's worn as a badge of honour , to come across as a bit edgy and hip, but it originally was and still is used as a slur on gays. Gay men particularly. Note when queer is used as a slur term it is unheard of to be used as a slur on transgender folk, so it is a bit odd that they would 'reclaim' a term they never were a victim of in the first place.

So when Elliot uses the term queer it is unclear now whether he's referring to gay queer or gender queer because now Elliot can claim both senses of the term. Queer+ I suggest to indicate both to avoid confusion.

CtevenSrowder

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I dont believe transracial is a real thing no. Just whataboutery.

Why not? There are documented examples of people 'living' as a race that they aren't. Jessica Krug and Rachel Dolzial the two most famous. If someone tells you they are black when clearly they are white, why do you not take their word for it?

CtevenSrowder

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Well no. There were people that were studied as being transexuals (as they were then) during the thirties in Germany which was almost a hundred years ago.

I actually felt sorry for that woman and I don't think she did it out of bad intentions. She was given an awful time.

Of course she did it out of bad intentions. She made a career out of it.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

Sure. Gay people have had opposite sex partners for a long time.

Apologies if this is crude, just want to wrap my head around this.

If last week a guy put his penis in Ellen Page's vagina would it be considered a homosexual act? Can I say his vagina this week? Is that the correct terminology?

Omackeral

Omackeral wrote: »

Asking a reasonable question here. You're obviously an individual with opinions and such, I'm asking for yours.

Ah I see the problem you're having, you think words should have meanings that are consistent and logical. You won't find that on this topic.

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

The children treated in this instance have a hormone deficiency which needs to be regulated with prescribed hormones. Without them their health would seriously suffer. Many women need HRT to top up hormones. Some men may also need hormone treatment.
Children who may or may not be trans don't have a hormone deficiency. Changing a child's hormone profile has lifelong consequences.

Children who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria, those who are suitable for hormone treatments at least, are also prescribed hormones to treat the condition. That’s why the hormones used are described as “off-label”, because the drugs prescribed were not developed specifically to treat gender dysphoria. Of course changing a child’s hormone profile has lifelong consequences, that’s the idea of the treatment!

silverharp wrote: »

As the other posted mentioned, growth hormone treatment is an attempt to fix an imbalance, its pure medical science not ideology , if it proved to have more downsides than upsides it wouldnt be offered or would be restricted.

the only similar situation I can think of are a rare condition where people end up sawing off their own limbs because they have a mental condition. Whether its ethical for a doctor to perform this operation is probably debatable BUT i doubt there would even be a discussion of a hospital removing the limb of a child because of this mental condition, which may turn out to be temporary or the patient could be managed with psychological help in the future.

Ideology is the driving force here

And the same is true of any drugs. That’s why a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is a requirement before anyone is treated with the drugs. There is medical science behind it, BUT, there absolutely is issues of ethics and elements of politics involved, it would be foolish for anyone to deny that. There are also enormous financial issues involved and the cost of treatments and socioeconomic aspects involved. The thing with being treated under the HSE or the NHS system is that at least they are being monitored. That’s not the case for people who are self-diagnosing and self-medicating, or going private or availing of treatments in other countries, which is going to become an even greater issue that politicians and policy makers are going to have to come to terms with at some point.

I won’t get too far off topic but the whole issue of ethics in medicine is constantly shifting and there have been cases where the circumstances involved have thrown up all sorts of ethical concerns and moral dilemmas. It’s anything but neat and tidy and one option or the other or watching and waiting or immediately starting on any course of hormone treatment, because any option has lifelong consequences which can be either positive or negative which affect a person’s quality of life. One of the most eyebrow raising ethical dilemmas I’ve read about wasn’t even the removal of healthy limbs in order to alleviate body dysphoria or dysmorphia, it was the Ashley X case, or what was known as “The Ashley Treatment”. It threw up a whole slew of ethical issues -


The Ashley treatment: ‘Her life is as good as we can possibly make it’

Omackeral

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah I see the problem you're having, you think words should have meanings that are consistent and logical. You won't find that on this topic.

The thing is, I'm asking as reasonably as possible. Not looking for these gotcha! moments. Want to see the trans lobby's outlook on it. Trying to understand. But I'm just being met with ''oh that's not for me to say'' or skepticsm. It#s tough to get on board with anything then.