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

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/08/dutch-man-69-starts-legal-fight-to-identify-as-20-years-younger

It has everything in common with transgenderism. They want to be recognised as something they aren't.

It has nothing to do with transgenderism? They’re separate characteristics in equality and anti-discrimination laws. He’s claiming discrimination on the grounds of age. His claims provide insufficient justification for a change in legislation. He’s basically on a wind-up to try and undermine equality and anti-discrimination legislation which protects people who are transgender. That’s the only relation the case has to transgenderism.


Dutch court rejects man’s request to be 20 years younger

Gatling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No it isn't.

A man claims he feels younger than he is and wants to be legally recognised as that.

Trans people feel they are the opposite sex and want to be legally recognised as that.

That's the link.

Both are looking to be recognised as something they aren't.

This came up in a discussion in a American university with Ben Shapiro ,as much as he's an ass some one challenged him on gender we got a few minutes of back and forth ,then he asked a simple question of what age are you ,young college student replies 22 he comes back why aren't you 60 because you can't change your age but why no actual real come back to it.

So pro trans claim they can change gender , but if you change your age or race ohhh no you cant do that your taking away from trans something or another ,
But again it's all one sided

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No it isn't.

A man claims he feels younger than he is and wants to be legally recognised as that.

Trans people feel they are the opposite sex and want to be legally recognised as that.

That's the link.

Both are looking to be recognised as something they aren't.

We have an individual case where we have no information about what he actually thinks it feels. Why 20 years? Why not 19? Does he believe he’s 20 years younger? Feel he’s 20 years younger? Is he telling the truth? Do other people feel they are exactly 20 years younger? If so is there any commonalities in what they say about their experience and what this man says?

These are the kind of questions that you need to answer to show there is any link between trans issues and this one individual.

Because I’m not aware of any commonalities between this individual and trans people, other than your claim they are the same.

You are making the claim. So prove it.

I’m not making any claim. I can just sit back and watch you fail to prove any link.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

This came up in a discussion in a American university with Ben Shapiro ,as much as he's an ass some one challenged him on gender we got a few minutes of back and forth ,then he asked a simple question of what age are you ,young college student replies 22 he comes back why aren't you 60 because you can't change your age but why no actual real come back to it.

Ben Shapiro is indeed an idiot, he also happens to be a Harvard Law graduate who knows exactly why a person cannot have their age changed in law, and why laws exist to protect people who are transgender from discrimination, two completely separate and distinct issues. Similar laws exist to protect people from discrimination on the grounds of age discrimination.

Gatling wrote: »

So pro trans claim they can change gender , but if you change your age or race ohhh no you cant do that your taking away from trans something or another ,
But again it's all one sided

And you’re arguing that they can’t, so why are you trying to argue that people should be able to change their age or ethnicity too? You don’t want one, so you’re arguing for both? And you imagine anyone should entertain that nonsense? Anyone can claim to be whatever age they like or whatever gender they like or whatever ethnicity they like, but recognition in law is an entirely different matter,

Smacruairi

Classic sealioning technique, and very bad faith practice. Ask for all the proof in the world, is shown it (eg claims no one identifies as different age, shown link to ppl who do), then waves hand to something else and demands more proof.

Is obvious

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It has nothing to do with transgenderism? They’re separate characteristics in equality and anti-discrimination laws. He’s claiming discrimination on the grounds of age. His claims provide insufficient justification for a change in legislation. He’s basically on a wind-up to try and undermine equality and anti-discrimination legislation which protects people who are transgender. That’s the only relation the case has to transgenderism.


Dutch court rejects man’s request to be 20 years younger

I suspected it was a wind up.

Trans people aren’t on a wind up. Even if you disagree with what you think of as the trans agenda I’m sure you can see that trans people are not out to undermine other people’s legal rights.

This man has nothing in common with trans issues.

This man, elizabeth Warren, non existent rhino identifiers. Can you not see why I call these gotcha arguments?

Edit: not referring to OEJ when I say “you”.

LLMMLL

Smacruairi wrote: »

Classic sealioning technique, and very bad faith practice. Ask for all the proof in the world, is shown it (eg claims no one identifies as different age, shown link to ppl who do), then waves hand to something else and demands more proof.

Is obvious

Actually it’s not obvious.

This man was on a wind up.

Elizabeth Warren never claimed to identify as Native American.

Rhino identifiers don’t exist.

It’s pretty obvious why I ask people for more proof of these nonsensical arguments.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Rhino identifiers don’t exist.

It's like a tin of Christmas sweets , there's a flavour for every taste ,

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Actually it’s not obvious.

This man was on a wind up.

Elizabeth Warren never claimed to identify as Native American.

Rhino identifiers don’t exist.

It’s pretty obvious why I ask people for more proof of these nonsensical arguments.

What is your opinion of otherkin?

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Trans people aren’t on a wind up.

Even if you disagree with what you think of as the trans agenda I’m sure you can see that trans people are not out to undermine other people’s legal rights

Can the first statement be backed up with evidence at all ,

So removing peoples rights to be represented and to be heard on or in , isn't trying to undermine people's rights that statement says otherwise

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What is your opinion of otherkin?

Are these the people who identify with foxes panthers etc. ?

I looked into it before. None of them believe they are foxes panthers etc. They identify WITH (this is their own language) not AS these animals.

They freely admit to being insecure people who believe identifying with these animals gives them a boost in confidence and charisma.

Again, nothing to do with trans people.

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

Can the first statement be backed up with evidence at all ,

So removing peoples rights to be represented and to be heard on or in , isn't trying to undermine people's rights that statement says otherwise

Colm o Gorman isn’t trans as far as I’m aware.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

I suspected it was a wind up.

Trans people aren’t on a wind up. Even if you disagree with what you think of as the trans agenda I’m sure you can see that trans people are not out to undermine other people’s legal rights.

This man has nothing in common with trans issues.

This man, elizabeth Warren, non existent rhino identifiers. Can you not see why I call these gotcha arguments?

Edit: not referring to OEJ when I say “you”.

I think anyone can see it for what it is alright - people using a spurious “argument” thinking they’re being clever. They appear to have no recollection of the fact that Lydia Foy initially in her first case against the State tried to argue, unsuccessfully, that she was being discriminated against on the grounds of disability, that she had been born a “congenitally disabled woman” -


Foy began legal proceedings in April 1997, to challenge the refusal of the Registrar General to issue her with a new birth certificate. Unemployed, Foy was represented in the action by Free Legal Advice Centres. The basis of her action was a contention that the Births and Deaths Registration (Ireland) Act 1863 did not justify the practice of using solely biological indicators existing at the time of birth to determine sex for the purposes of registration. According to Foy, she had been born a "congenitally disabled woman" and the error recording her sex on her birth certificate was not only embarrassing to her but also could interfere with her constitutional rights, as she would be unable to ever choose to marry a man.

The case reached the High Court in October 2000. Foy's former wife and their daughters contested her plea, claiming that it could have "an adverse effect on their succession and other rights."

Judgment was reserved for nearly two years until 9 July 2002 when Mr Justice Liam McKechnie rejected Lydia Foy's challenge, stating that Foy had been born male based on medical and scientific evidence and that accordingly the registration could not be changed. He did express concern about the position of transsexuals in Ireland, however, and called on the government to urgently review the matter.


It was over 15 years later when the Gender Recognition Act was enacted in Irish law. It was not, as some people who claim to care about the facts and the truth have tried to argue, introduced “through the back door, off the back of the marriage equality referendum, with no public consultation”. That’s just complete nonsense, but still people choose to perpetuate it, because they know people will believe it, even though the people spreading it know they’re spreading falsehoods and lies with the aim of portraying themselves as victims. They prey on people’s ignorance and naivety for their own nefarious purposes. I’ll say nefarious because the outcomes of their efforts are perpetuating ignorance, fear, prejudice, hatred and discrimination against people who are transgender, because people who are transgender are now recognised as being equal before the law -


All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.


The GRA recognises every citizens right to their gender identity in Irish law, which has the effect that people who are transgender are protected in Irish law, whereas before the GRA there was no recognition of people who are transgender in Irish law.

fantaiscool

Gatling wrote: »

This came up in a discussion in a American university with Ben Shapiro ,as much as he's an ass some one challenged him on gender we got a few minutes of back and forth ,then he asked a simple question of what age are you ,young college student replies 22 he comes back why aren't you 60 because you can't change your age but why no actual real come back to it.

So pro trans claim they can change gender , but if you change your age or race ohhh no you cant do that your taking away from trans something or another ,
But again it's all one sided

Shapiro is the same guy who says "facts don't care about feelings" but is also very religious?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Are these the people who identify with foxes panthers etc. ?

I looked into it before. None of them believe they are foxes panthers etc. They identify WITH (this is their own language) not AS these animals.

They freely admit to being insecure people who believe identifying with these animals gives them a boost in confidence and charisma.

Again, nothing to do with trans people.

Oh really??

Otherkin largely identify as mythical creatures,[4] with others identifying as creatures from fantasy or popular culture. Examples include: angels, demons, dragons, elves, fairies, sprites, aliens,[5][6][7] and cartoon characters.[8] Many otherkin believe in the existence of a multitude of parallel universes, and their belief in the existence of supernatural or sapient non-human beings is grounded in that idea.[9] Some otherkin consider themselves to be part of the larger "Trans" identity movement, seeing themselves as "trans species".[10]

With regard to their online communities, otherkin largely function without formal authority structures, and mostly focus on support and information gathering, often dividing into more specific groups based on kintype.[9] There are occasional offline gatherings, but the otherkin network is mostly an online phenomenon.[9]

Some otherkin claim to be especially empathic and attuned to nature.[6] Some claim to be able to shapeshift mentally or astrally, meaning that they experience the sense of being in their particular form while not actually changing physically.[1][11]

The therian and vampire subcultures are related to the otherkin community, and are considered part of it by most otherkin, but are culturally and historically distinct movements of their own, despite some overlap in membership.[1] The word 'alterhuman' exists as an umbrella term which intends to encompass all of these subcultures, as well as others such as plurality.[12]

You sure?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh really??



You sure?

I’m absolutely sure. I read through some of the pieces that were footnotes in that Wikipedia page and it’s clear there is no common experience among otherkin. They do not describe their experiences in similar ways and they do not identify as one thing.

It has nothing in common with trans people.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Can the first statement be backed up with evidence at all ,

So removing peoples rights to be represented and to be heard on or in, isn't trying to undermine people's rights that statement says otherwise

That’s not what the letter, signed by numerous organisations and individuals was calling for. They weren’t calling for anyone’s rights to be removed or rescinded. That would require a referendum in any case. They were calling on the media and politicians not to represent the people who hold those views. The media and politicians aren’t obligated to do anything the letter calls for.

nolivesmatter

fantaiscool wrote: »

Shapiro is the same guy who says "facts don't care about feelings" but is also very religious?

There's no contradiction there unless you can demonstrate him having his feelings hurt by facts.

Kaybaykwah

LLMMLL wrote: »

I’m absolutely sure. I read through some of the pieces that were footnotes in that Wikipedia page and it’s clear there is no common experience among otherkin. They do not describe their experiences in similar ways and they do not identify as one thing.

It has nothing in common with trans people.

Are otherkin related to munchkin?

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nobody has claimed they are interchangeable. There are no lies or inaccuracies. One poster is obsessively asking about Elliott Page’s sex life. As we have no info about this nobody has told a lie. It’s all made up argument with zero consequences.

That’s just a false narrative. I’ve explained over and over how I’m trying to gauge language, mindset and a general outlook on how things are seen from your POV and I have been fair and as neutral as possible while doing so. I’m using this news story as a hypothetical to do that. Your attitude has remained dismissive, vague and off-putting to be quite honest. It would make some folks just forget about trying to learn at all. You’re doing more harm than good by going on the way you are. Well done.

Omackeral

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Elliot Pages announcement doesn’t change anything for them. It’s obvious they’re only pretending it does and that they’re severely distressed by this development.

As explained, it was all asked respectfully but as it doesn’t align with your own narrative, you dismiss it as “pretending”. Some might call that ironic. The “severely distressed” comment is just preposterous and says more about you that you can’t address a situation with resorting to emotion.

It doesn’t really bother me what a Hollywood star does tbh, just wanted to get feedback but sure I’m only pretending according to you. Why should anyone even attempt to educated themselves if they’re met with attitudes like yours?

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

It is a gotcha. Nobody identifies as a different height. If there were a significant number of people who did, then it could be investigated and we could form opinions about it. But there isn’t.

TRAs never claimed “anyone who says the words “I identify as....” are those things they identify as”.

So if you want to use random made up identifications with helicopters or unicorns or heights then it is up to YOU to provide evidence that they have anything n common with trans issues.

It is not up to TRAs to defend made up scenarios they never expressed an opinion on.

TRAs claim exactly that "I identify as" has a material consequence. You just personally want to limit it to gender (and given your past invention of transfemale, sex).

There are other genuine dysphorias that create very strong emperically-observable identities. Body dysmorphic disorders of various kinds affect up to 3% of people and include Body Integrity Identity Disorders, eg dysphoria about limbs or abilities.
Some people with Body dysphoria identify as disabled even though they are not disabled. They do this sincerely and it feels real for them. In some body dysphoria disorders very emaciated people may identify as obese. Society generally does not enable this identification as it is so harmful to the person.

Extremely obese people may identify as simply curvaceous and wish to avoid labels of adverse health implications and fat shaming. This has been embraced by the wider queer movement in some places.

People in other words identify as being a lot of things that objectively are incorrect identifications. But it seems that only when it comes to gender does this identification have a permissable transubstantiation effect in your opinion.


As it happens I think transpeople can identify as they wish. If they are not harming themselves then no problem. Harming of minors bodies creates a whole other area. In terms of material consequences, however, re law, language, sex based rights, trans rights, sports, refuges, representation and so on, all conflicts of interest will have to be dealt with in a manner that reflects reality, maintains safeguarding and does not prejudice anyone.
It may be that the older distinction between transsexual and transgender will have to be ressurrected. Transgender is too amorphous as a concept - too broad an umbrella at this stage. It works fine at a personal level but at a wider social level it attempts to prioritise what can be fluid personal identities over reality and that cannot hold.

One eyed Jack

Omackeral wrote: »

As explained, it was all asked respectfully but as it doesn’t align with your own narrative, you dismiss it as “pretending”. Some might call that ironic. The “severely distressed” comment is just preposterous and says more about you that you can’t address a situation with resorting to emotion.

It doesn’t really bother me what a Hollywood star does tbh, just wanted to get feedback but sure I’m only pretending according to you. Why should anyone even attempt to educated themselves if they’re met with attitudes like yours?

Stall the ball there, don’t bother starting on me just because you couldn’t nail down the other poster who couldn’t give you the answers you’re looking for to what is in my opinion an unfair and unreasonable question. It’s only now you admit that you don’t care what a Hollywood star does, so was I wrong? The severely distressed comment was in relation to people who it was clear were severely distressed by having to come to terms with this new development. It wasn’t a judgement informed by any emotion on my part.

For what it’s worth though, I don’t mind giving you a straight answer which isn’t just my opinion, but the opinion of many people, and it really comes down to this -


As their sexual development continues to progress, most youth will eventually identify themselves as straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning. However, since sexual orientation is an internal, psycho-emotional experience, no one else is qualified to label or judge another person's sexual orientation.

...

The issue of "choice" with respect to both gender identity and sexual orientation is quite controversial and beyond the scope of this article. However, there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest people do not get to "choose" their attractions, nor do they select their gender identity as though they were choosing from a menu.
As mentioned previously, sexual orientation describes an internal psycho-emotional experience, and does not automatically include a behavioral manifestation of that experience. Thus, while sexual orientation may prove to be biologically determined, people must ultimately decide whether they choose to act upon their attractions. For a variety of personal reasons, some people may decide not to act upon certain attractions. However, denying the existence of these attractions will not eliminate them, nor does it diminish their power and force. Likewise, acknowledging certain attractions does not compel a person to behave according to those attractions. These are private and personal choices each person must make.


Child Development Theory : Adolescence (12 - 24)


I know you’re a straight talker so that’s about as much ‘help’ as I can give you, if it’s any help at all. However if you were really interested in finding out, do your own research. I’d suggest though you steer clear of scientists with an education in biology on Twitter, and Bill Nye, the ‘Science’ guy. By way of refreshing your memory as to why I suggest you steer well clear of bogus charlatans, here’s a reminder of that shìt show -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtJFb_P2j48

I’m sorry man it’s not Linda Martin

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Colm o Gorman isn’t trans as far as I’m aware.

I didn't ask about Colm o g

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

TRAs claim exactly that "I identify as" has a material consequence. You just personally want to limit it to gender (and given your past invention of transfemale, sex).

But that’s all it IS limited to in the context of sex and gender? Why should transgender advocates have to argue for something outside of the scope of their advocacy? If people wish to argue about other identities that’s on them to advocate their positions on behalf of those identities. There is no obligation on transgender advocates to advocate for every identity. Paedophiles have tried that kind of gaslighting shtick to say that they too are being discriminated against, but nobody is actually convinced of their “genuine concerns”, any more than most people aren’t convinced by “genuine concerns” about other identities when the discussion is about issues related to people who are transgender. Anything else is plain as day whataboutery.

Gruffalux wrote: »

As it happens I think transpeople can identify as they wish. If they are not harming themselves then no problem. Harming of minors bodies creates a whole other area. In terms of material consequences, however, re law, language, sex based rights, trans rights, sports, refuges, representation and so on, all conflicts of interest will have to be dealt with in a manner that reflects reality, maintains safeguarding and does not prejudice anyone.

Cool, but none of that identifies anything specific. If you hadn’t been clear so far on what you have specific issues with, the above reads as a fairly ambiguous statement which everyone would agree is the ideal. I’d also include in that voluntary safe spaces with giant neon lights on them, so people will know to avoid these spaces like the plague, like the ones they have in some third level institutions with the pastel coloured bean bags and soft cuddly toys and raising your hand before you can seek permission to speak kinda stuff going on. A crèche for adults.

Gruffalux wrote: »

It may be that the older distinction between transsexual and transgender will have to be ressurrected. Transgender is too amorphous as a concept - too broad an umbrella at this stage. It works fine at a personal level but at a wider social level it attempts to prioritise what can be fluid personal identities over reality and that cannot hold.

Transsexual is still used in medicine, transgender too. You wish to define language to suit your own purposes but criticise others for doing exactly the same? I think feminist is a fairly nebulous label or identifier, but I don’t care about the concept enough to seek to limit how people should use the term according to the dictionary definition. I understand that people are free to use language in whatever way best suits them in communication with other people. Someone doesn’t understand what they mean just ask. I do it all the time when I don’t understand what someone means. It’s not the social impediment you’re making it out to be. For example I came across this article the other day, and I know what they’re referring to, so I don’t need to ask what they mean -


’Do Vulva Owners Like Sex?’ Is the Wrong Question — Here’s What You Should Ask Instead


I’m not upset by being referred to as a penis owner. It’s an apt, albeit limited description, like referring to humans as ugly giant bags of mostly water. Apart from “ugly”, it’s pretty spot on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43DJ1sJJ6Hw

Being referred to as a penis owner is the least of my problems with that article.

silverharp

I miss the pandemic already, it kept the nonsense stuff at bay

TomTomTim

The SNP are in trouble for allowing a dissenter through the gates

New SNP equalities chief proudly supports JK Rowling and anti-trans pressure group For Women Scotland

Omackeral

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Stall the ball there, don’t bother starting on me just because you couldn’t nail down the other poster who couldn’t give you the answers you’re looking for to what is in my opinion an unfair and unreasonable question. It’s only now you admit that you don’t care what a Hollywood star does, so was I wrong? The severely distressed comment was in relation to people who it was clear were severely distressed by having to come to terms with this new development. It wasn’t a judgement informed by any emotion on my part.

Arguing in bad faith yet again. It doesn’t matter to me if Page (specifically Page) is attracted to men, women, both or neither. I was asking in a broader sense what it means if a trans man is in a relationship with a woman and how I should/would/could address that. You don’t want people being misgendered , do you want them being misrepresented with their orientation? I was genuinely asking what is the state of play with that but yet my motives are questioned or I get it’s none of of your business. I’m trying to find out other points of view and that’s what a discussion board should be about. “Do your own research”. Maybe this is part of it. Maybe I’d like a human input from someone identifying as LGBT who is not gonna have their backs up because I might not be au fait with the terminology in use.

No point engaging you on this from what I can see. Maybe another poster can be more enlightening and less catty.

Sir Oxman

TomTomTim wrote: »

The SNP are in trouble for allowing a dissenter through the gates

New SNP equalities chief proudly supports JK Rowling and anti-trans pressure group For Women Scotland

I meant to post about that on the day the High Court UK case judgment was announced.
This is also a very good development for rationality - there wasn't just one 'dissenter' elected by the SNP membership to their NEC but a raft of 'bigots!' who one and all, are not bigots of course, but the type of people a few unelected NGOs over here would demand have no representation.




It's been a good week across the water.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

I am happy to refer to people as cis. You’re right.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Elliott Page. Yes you can say his vagina.

Omackeral wrote: »

Ellen. What's good for the goose and all that.

Yellow carded for this. Ridiculous. Clearly makes a point in relation to what it’s quoting ie hypocrisy. I’ve been nothing but respectful in every post on this thread. And now I see I’ve wasted my time. The intolerance of the right-on strikes again. It’s insanely ironic and they can’t even see it.

I’m out. Won’t post again on this topic.