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

Quantum Erasure

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

have we yet defined all the genders? hard to have a debate without establishing the ground rules.

what are all the genders? I would defend 12 of them, but more keep cropping up.

i suppose, lets start with the definition of a gender if anyone can enlighten me?

That one is easy, agender is the absence of any gender (which itself is a gender...)

sasta le

Is this all the he she me you it I ****e I see on Twitter

Bonniedog

sasta le wrote: »

Is this all the he she me you it I ****e I see on Twitter

That's you off the short list for next Minister for Children. (Only state in Europe I'd say where we have had two successive ministers for children who cannot have children unless they take someone else's. And who missed the biology lesson where it was pointed out that boys have penises and girls do not )

mohawk

ceadaoin. wrote: »

There are some links to studies in this article about using one particular drug for precocious puberty and to increase height in adolescents. They found adverse effects on bone density and other problems and there are thousands people effected by this. This is the same medication being used off label in gender questioning children, why would the same long term damage not be seen?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/women-fear-drug-they-used-to-halt-puberty-led-to-health-problems

The whole off label use has me thinking. So called puberty blockers have been used for years off label. Why have they not been submitted for approval for use as puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria? They have years worth of data so why not go into clinical trials??

Tired Gardener

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

have we yet defined all the genders? hard to have a debate without establishing the ground rules.

what are all the genders? I would defend 12 of them, but more keep cropping up.

i suppose, lets start with the definition of a gender if anyone can enlighten me?

Gender is a social construct that relates to (outdated) stereotypes that clothes, roles, and performances are segregated by sex.

Essentially it is the idea that a Barbie doll is for girls and girls only, Action Man is for boys and boys only. Pink is a girls colour, blue is a boys colour. Nurse is a Woman's role, Dr is a Man's role. Etc.

It is very outdated, and also a bit western culture centric, not every human culture shares the same ideas about what clothes, roles, and performance are for Men or Women.

One eyed Jack

AllForIt wrote: »

I'm a bit offended with your non-stereotypical brief reply.:D

Anyway, it absolutely was redefined. There was no provision for men to marry men therefore it was redefined by adding to the legal definition. Marriage for gay people was not denied - it was just never catered for. Now through a legal ref it has been legally catered for.

The illogical part of your reply is that if you believe in equality then cis-men should also be allowed to participate in what is defined as a biological female sport. But no, you want to give transsexuals a special right to do so and no one else.

There was no provision for anyone to marry someone of the same sex. Expanding the provisions for eligibility didn’t redefine marriage - it was still the case that marriage between an adult and a child for example would not be recognised by the State in this country. Same thing with sport - expanding the criteria for who is eligible to participate isn’t redefining the sport - it’s still kicking a ball about, the number of players on each team remains the same, etc. I don’t believe in equality as you might define it. I believe in equity, and in that sense - there is no “male sport” or “female sport”, it’s just sports, minus the sex discrimination, and no special rights are granted to any particular group. It would be granting groups special rights if they were permitted to exclude people they don’t want to participate against. However there are provisions in law which allow for discrimination for the purposes of achieving a legitimate aim, and discrimination in those circumstances is not considered unlawful.

AllForIt wrote: »

Yet again this issue boils down to whether one thinks a trans woman is 100% equivalent to a cis-woman in respect of rights. In relation to sport I do not, therefore there is no such fundamental right which you say I wish to deny them. I even said if the definition was proposed to be changed I wouldn't object.

No it’s not even about whether one thinks they are or they aren’t equivalent in respect of rights. The fact is, in law, they are! There are some exceptions in certain circumstances such as there is no provision in Irish law for a trans man to be named as the father on their children’s birth certificate, but both parents may choose to be named as partners on their children’s birth certificate. In relation to sport, you would wish to deny people the fundamental right to participate as equals, and that’s not just a makey uppy perceived right, it’s a right guaranteed in human rights law, which is why the World Athletics organisation comes in for such heavy criticism from human rights organisations, even the least respected ones like Amnesty International. Spoiler:

I know Cteven, the link is irrelevant.

AllForIt wrote: »

Unless you can convince me that the separation of sports by sex was done for the separation of sport by how one identifies their gender, and not for the obvious reason of human physicality, then I don't see how I can ever agree with you on this. I don't care about the having an advantage stuff at all, that's irrelevant to me.

Well, I’m not trying to convince you of anything, I’m saying I’m just not convinced that the basis of separate categories in sports has any foundation in biology, rather the complete opposite - ignorance of biology, based purely upon sociology. Throughout the history of sports, it’s essentially been, if you’ll pardon the terminology - a willy waving contest among men. Women weren’t even regarded. It’s only in the last century or so that women have been taken seriously with regard to their ability to participate and compete in sports. The Olympic Games for example have undergone significant changes from their origins to when they were revived as being competitions for “gentlemen amateurs” only -

Women and the Olympic Games

AllForIt wrote: »

Now more generally, I think transgender activists get the above problem. They know people think the way I do, which is why in recent years they are attempting to shift the narrative of how we view gender in order to solve this impasse.

To make an analogy, gay activists were some years ago pushing this idea that sexuality was on a spectrum - on an individual level! This was an attempt to de-other homosexuals, so the new narrative is that we're all a bit gay, could flip at any time, so no one could say homosexuality was an aberration cuz we all have that gay gene somewhere and so no heterosexual is truly separate from this gay thing. It didn't wash because there is absolutely no evidence to support this new 'progressive' way of looking at things.

Gender radicals are now doing exactly the same thing. They are attempting to change the factual narrative of gender, to de-other transsexuals, gender is all on a spectrum on an individual level, it's more complicated than we know, you can be mostly male and a small bit female or visa versa or somewhere in between. If that attitude was accepted in wider society, then the sports issue would be fixed overnight. No one would object.

But I think this strategy is the whole reason for all these contentious issues we are currently experiencing, because it's what riles cis ppl the most, and that is the dogged insistence of changing the factual narrative of gender and sex to one what I think is just frankly fantasy. I'm not sure they even believe it themselves but it just suits them to get what they want. And they will nail anyone who dares to object to it such is the support they get from all of those disguising hollywood elites and tech company's and opportunistic politicians.

I think they haven't got a hope in this endeavour and until they give it up this thread will go on for years.

Yep, I completely get where you’re coming from with all of the above, the analogy is similar to the way in which Oscar mentioned earlier the “autism community” and the way autism has come to be regarded as “on a spectrum” and all the rest of it. I understood where she’s coming from, having experience of it myself and knowing full well what she was talking about. But the comparison I was making was with the phenomenon of transgenderism. I wasn’t just talking about autism. The politics involved in transgenderism is equally nauseating, and for all the criticism the Tavistock gets as though they are responsible for over-diagnosing gender dysphoria in children on the basis of one single case, that single case is countered by the fact that the same clinicians at the same institute were of the opinion that the person known as Barbie Kardashian was not experiencing gender dysphoria. I imagine they had quite a few questions in that particular case!

What’s also important to remember is that BK was in the ‘care of the State’ (I use that term loosely) for most of their life up to that point, and the idea of them being able to obtain a gender recognition certificate while they weren’t yet 18 means that they had to have been assisted in doing so by whomever was responsible for their care. Leave it to gript though to ignore reality and perpetuate discrimination and feed off people’s ignorance in order to generate revenue for themselves by providing people with the “facts” that they know a certain type of people are susceptible to - the “facts” they want to hear, which validates their opinions. It’s why more weight is given to “studies” which support their beliefs about all sorts of nonsense, and they argue from authority as though data scientists are infallible.

Bad science is bad science whatever the issue, whether it’s autism, transgenderism or even data models making projections which influence public policies in relation to healthcare, like Covid. I don’t criticise anyone for conclusions drawn that have turned out to be utter nonsense. I criticise their use of bad data and their methodology. It’s understood in any science, but data science in particular (or ‘big data’ as it’s more colloquially referred to) - bad data in, bad data out.

Garbage In, Garbage Out – How Bad Data Leads to Bad Reporting and Bad Decision-Making

RWCNT

Bonniedog wrote: »

That's you off the short list for next Minister for Children. (Only state in Europe I'd say where we have had two successive ministers for children who cannot have children unless they take someone else's. And who missed the biology lesson where it was pointed out that boys have penises and girls do not )

"Take someone else's children" is a very unusual choice of words "adopt" is more common and doesn't make it sound as though anyone would be kidnapped.

I don't think I'd heard Roderic O'Gorman or Katherine Zappone have fertility problems, so it's not quite they "can't" have children - they're gay. I assume you don't think being gay has any impact on your ability to do a job. Which is what Minister For Children is - you don't need to be a parent to do it anymore than you need to be a kale-smoothie supping yogi cross-fitter to be Minister For Health.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

RWCNT wrote: »

Grand, that contradicts what I've found when I've searched for info on the topic. Would you mind giving me a link to somewhere that backs this up with sources, studies etc? I appreciate that data may be a bit thin on the ground but you've presumably learned this from somewhere, so can I see a bit of evidence please? Like I say, I've looked myself and not got anywhere. Help me out.

Well, that’s the point. Evidence is thin on the ground and, to my mind, there’s not really any ethical way to trial blocking puberty in minors. Because if it turns out that there are long-term or irreversible effects, the minors involved in the studies have to live with that. It’s different from trialling medicines on minors where the alternative is certain death.

mohawk wrote: »

The whole off label use has me thinking. So called puberty blockers have been used for years off label. Why have they not been submitted for approval for use as puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria? They have years worth of data so why not go into clinical trials??

Ethics. The question is do blockers cause long-term or irreversible changes to the body. If they DO causes those changes, the study participants have to live with that.

RWCNT

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, that’s the point. Evidence is thin on the ground and, to my mind, there’s not really any ethical way to trial blocking puberty in minors. Because if it turns out that there are long-term or irreversible effects, the minors involved in the studies have to live with that. It’s different from trialling medicines on minors where the alternative is certain death.

I hear you loud & clear, ODB. I was just after something more substantial than some posters on boards. Ceadoin sorted me a link and I'll be sure to look into it.

Bannasidhe

Bonniedog wrote: »

That's you off the short list for next Minister for Children. (Only state in Europe I'd say where we have had two successive ministers for children who cannot have children unless they take someone else's. And who missed the biology lesson where it was pointed out that boys have penises and girls do not )

I better tell my 36 year old biological son he doesn't exist so since apparently, like a Minister for Children, I can't have children.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I believe in equity

I don't think you do.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't think you do.

I’m not the least bit surprised tbh. Undoubtedly we don’t share the same ideas of what is meant by equity, but for me it differs fundamentally from identity politics based “equality” -

Is equity the same as equality?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not the least bit surprised tbh. Undoubtedly we don’t share the same ideas of what is meant by equity, but for me it differs fundamentally from identity politics based “equality” -

Is equity the same as equality?

My understanding is that it is that people should be treated fairly and impartially.

Impartially means that "in a way that treats all rivals or disputants equally".

It is not fair or impartial to expect a woman to be able to run faster than a man, lift more than a man, which is why women and people of different ages and weights and abilities have different divisions.

What you are suggesting is that men and women should be free to compete against each other as they are equal.

That is not true, nor is it fair.

By your reckoning, we should allow women to compete with men. The inverse should also be allowed so? If women decide they want to have their own divisions, would you be advocating that a man could decide that he should be allowed join?

Should Brock Lesnar be able to fight Miesha Tate? If not, why not? If yes, then you are deluded.

Are you opposed to weightclass divisions in fighting or weightlifting? If not, why not?

Whats your amazingly bizarre definition of equity?

(And I am not reading your link)

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My understanding is that it is that people should be treated fairly and impartially.

Impartially means that "in a way that treats all rivals or disputants equally".

This would satisfy your criteria for equity so -



From the same London School of Economics as the writer of the article I linked to earlier and all

EXCLUSIVE: London School of Economics Islamic Society holds segregated dinner with a curtain across the room to separate male and female students

I guess they’re just way ahead of the West about this whole separation of the sexes based upon biological differences and maintaining safe spaces and all that craic...

Mad_maxx

why has this huge movement of concern about transexuals become such a key issue this past few years that its now seen as being on a par with combating racism ?

the number of transexuals is so infinitesimally small relative to the rest of the population , how has this become such a corner stone of the progressive agenda ?

who started it off , who was the rosa parks who kicked this off or did it not happen organically ?

Sittingpretty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This would satisfy your criteria for equity so -



From the same London School of Economics as the writer of the article I linked to earlier and all

EXCLUSIVE: London School of Economics Islamic Society holds segregated dinner with a curtain across the room to separate male and female students

I guess they’re just way ahead of the West about this whole separation of the sexes based upon biological differences and maintaining safe spaces and all that craic...

I’m surprised it took so long for your jump the shark moment in this thread

volchitsa

Mad_maxx wrote: »

why has this huge movement of concern about transexuals become such a key issue this past few years that its now seen as being on a par with combating racism ?

the number of transexuals is so infinitesimally small relative to the rest of the population , how has this become such a corner stone of the progressive agenda ?

who started it off , who was the rosa parks who kicked this off or did it not happen organically ?

As I understand t, it came about in around 2015 when there was an attempt in the UK to bring in some form of self declaration law in the UK such as we now have in Ireland too (nobody bothered to object in Ireland)

Some UK women’s groups claimed that this could have implications for the safety of women, and instead of having their concerns taken seriously they were abused and threatened by their erstwhile allies.

Hence the stand off.

One eyed Jack

Sittingpretty wrote: »

I’m surprised it took so long for your jump the shark moment in this thread

Oh come on, surely it was obvious I was messing, no?

Need to work on my delivery

Mad_maxx

volchitsa wrote: »

As I understand t, it came about in around 2015 when there was an attempt in the UK to bring in some form of self declaration law in the UK such as we now have in Ireland too (nobody bothered to object in Ireland)

Some UK women’s groups claimed that this could have implications for the safety of women, and instead of having their concerns taken seriously they were abused and threatened by their erstwhile allies.

Hence the stand off.

that doesnt explain why its now a banner carrying cause of every other trendy liberal on social media ?

grassylawn

Mad_maxx wrote: »

why has this huge movement of concern about transexuals become such a key issue this past few years that its now seen as being on a par with combating racism ?

the number of transexuals is so infinitesimally small relative to the rest of the population , how has this become such a corner stone of the progressive agenda ?

who started it off , who was the rosa parks who kicked this off or did it not happen organically ?

How to be edgy and more right on than your peers. I mean most people aren't racist or particularly sexist, so where is the kudos there? But they are unsettled at the idea of puberty blockers.

Ted_YNWA

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Oh come on, surely it was obvious I was messing, no?

Need to work on my delivery

MOD

Messing = trolling.

Don't attract any more unnecessary negative attention.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This would satisfy your criteria for equity so -



From the same London School of Economics as the writer of the article I linked to earlier and all

EXCLUSIVE: London School of Economics Islamic Society holds segregated dinner with a curtain across the room to separate male and female students

I guess they’re just way ahead of the West about this whole separation of the sexes based upon biological differences and maintaining safe spaces and all that craic...

Man, the fact that a mod needed to be involved shows how low the level of responses you have provided are.

For clarity and despite your "only messing" explanation, I refute that you think that, even jokingly, there may be any correlation between archaic treatment of women as subservient and lesser humans to women deserve the right to compete with other women in order to preserve their right to be rewarded for their efforts.

The most elite female weightlifter or sprinter would not be anywhere near the top twenty, never mind the podium in an Olympic game if your ****ing backwards expectations of wokeness became a reality.

And you "jokingly" showed that I was promoting the fact women should be denied rights.

Good stuff

And again, I'm not reading any of your ****ing links. I made that mistake a while ago. Full of non related bull****.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not the least bit surprised tbh. Undoubtedly we don’t share the same ideas of what is meant by equity, but for me it differs fundamentally from identity politics based “equality” -

Is equity the same as equality?

You've got it backwards, equity is the product of identity politics, not the other way round.

I also don't understand how you can be in favor of equity over equality yet believe men should compete with women in sports, considering equity-ists want to achieve equality of outcome, which will not occur in the sports arena due to the biological differences that on average exist between men and women, differences which you seemingly refuse to accept won't be overcome by merely increasing investment, or women by women training harder or whatever.

Mic 1972

RWCNT wrote: »

Grand, that contradicts what I've found when I've searched for info on the topic. Would you mind giving me a link to somewhere that backs this up with sources, studies etc? I appreciate that data may be a bit thin on the ground but you've presumably learned this from somewhere, so can I see a bit of evidence please? Like I say, I've looked myself and not got anywhere. Help me out.

the fact that there is little information about these treatments should be enough evidence that it's dangerous to mess with them.
Anyway blockers are now been prescribed to 11 your old children
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-50046579

Annasopra

Mic 1972 wrote: »

the fact that there is little information about these treatments

What are you on about? There is loads of information

Mic 1972

Mic 1972 wrote: »

the fact that there is little information about these treatments should be enough evidence that it's dangerous to mess with them.
Anyway blockers are now been prescribed to 11 your old children
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-50046579

The fact that we are even entertaining giving children chemicals to make them more like their imagined self while denying the reality of their sex, is testament to how much we are willing to sacrifice at the altar of inclusivity.

It's horrible.

Mic 1972

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What are you on about? There is loads of information

well, someone said there wasn't.
For me, I understand enough to know how dangerous it is to interfere with natural puberty.
Stating that treatments are fully reverseable is criminal

Mic 1972

Mic 1972 wrote: »

well, someone said there wasn't.
For me, I understand enough to know how dangerous it is to interfere with natural puberty.
Stating that treatments are fully reverseable is criminal

You're not wrong man.

Interfering in puberty. ****ing hell.

Anyone who advocates for that is a ****ing ****

Tired Gardener

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18936441.msps-overwhelmingly-vote-replace-gender-sex-rape-support-law/

Glad this passed, I 5hink the peak is over... I honestly think this ideology is starting to come undone.

Sir Oxman

Tired Gardener wrote: »

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18936441.msps-overwhelmingly-vote-replace-gender-sex-rape-support-law/

Glad this passed, I 5hink the peak is over... I honestly think this ideology is starting to come undone.

I'm very hopeful but still on guard.