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

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

There is only one one reality Jack. Not 'my' reality and 'your' reality, but just reality.

But from my perspective that is you trying to impose your reality on someone who doesn’t agree with your opinion. Fine, according to you there is only one reality, I disagree with you as I don’t share your perspective. You can give it welly about science and the fundamentals of nature all you want, but that’s a philosophical discussion I’m really not interested in. Fundamentally it comes down to your being unable to impose your beliefs upon anyone who doesn’t share your opinions, and in reality, objectively, we have laws in this country against that kind of behaviour. Those laws also apply to anyone who would try and do the same to you, which is why I’m not worried about nonsense like being convicted of hate speech or any of the rest of it, and anyone trying to claim that people will be convicted of hate speech, well, they’re spreading fear for a reason.

biggebruv

Like everything I don’t think people in the real world actually care or debate that much so let them crack on how they want

the internet is such a toxic place regarding issues like this and in general

But if ever this situation happens to someone you love your child for example you would suddenly see things very differently and it wouldn’t be as easy to say it’s black and white that’s that every situation is different

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You seem desperate to make out like you’re the victim of these laws which you appear to have made up in your head, yet you criticise others who point out to you that you’re making stuff up to play the victim. You can do that of course, I really don’t care one way or the other, but I’m sure there is no shortage of people who will take you seriously and believe what you’re actually saying is true.

You devote so much time to things you don't care about.

You are a martyr. (because of words being able to mean anything, I am choosing to use this but mean something completely different)

I'm no more a victim than anyone else of the current trend of labelling something you don't like as hate speech or harassment. Because of people who have the same mindset as you, the word "hate" & "harassment" have lost all meaning (as is your modus operandi) and have just become a go-to word for opinions (or FACTS) that you don't like.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Oh my dear lord. There is no practical application to language, that is what you are arguing here, whether you realise it or not.

That’s not what I’m arguing, that’s what you’re claiming I’m arguing. I said nothing about “no practical application to language”, and “whether I realise it or not”? From your perspective that makes you right either way so there’s no point in me even saying anything, you’ve determined what i think already and judged me on that basis. It’s the dictionary definition of prejudice, but you’ll no doubt call it reality.

suicide_circus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

their “reality”

There is no "their reality".

People who "their reality" are unwell.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You devote so much time to things you don't care about.

You are a martyr. (because of words being able to mean anything, I am choosing to use this but mean something completely different)

I'm no more a victim than anyone else of the current trend of labelling something you don't like as hate speech or harassment. Because of people who have the same mindset as you, the word "hate" & "harassment" have lost all meaning (as is your modus operandi) and have just become a go-to word for opinions (or FACTS) that you don't like.

No they’re still well defined in Irish law, which is far more objective in it’s application than whatever some nutbar on Twitter or some journalist says.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No they’re still well defined in Irish law, which is far more objective in it’s application than whatever some nutbar on Twitter or some journalist says.

Can you please tell me the definition then and tell me how it is applied? I can't seem to find it.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But from my perspective that is you trying to impose your reality on someone who doesn’t agree with your opinion. Fine, according to you there is only one reality, I disagree with you as I don’t share your perspective. You can give it welly about science and the fundamentals of nature all you want, but that’s a philosophical discussion I’m really not interested in. Fundamentally it comes down to your being unable to impose your beliefs upon anyone who doesn’t share your opinions, and in reality, objectively, we have laws in this country against that kind of behaviour. Those laws also apply to anyone who would try and do the same to you, which is why I’m not worried about nonsense like being convicted of hate speech or any of the rest of it, and anyone trying to claim that people will be convicted of hate speech, well, they’re spreading fear for a reason.

What is you mean by the word fear, are you sure you don't mean happiness? In my reality fear is a positive emotion, something one feels after eating a nice meal, or sees their loved ones after a long time, whereas happiness is the emotion someone feels when they are exposed to threat or danger.

Are things different in your reality? Sure what does it matter anyway, how one defines or names anything is irrelevant.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can you please tell me the definition then and tell me how it is applied? I can't seem to find it.

Section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, should give you a good start -

Harassment. 10. —(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not what I’m arguing, that’s what you’re claiming I’m arguing. I said nothing about “no practical application to language”, and “whether I realise it or not”? From your perspective that makes you right either way so there’s no point in me even saying anything, you’ve determined what i think already and judged me on that basis. It’s the dictionary definition of prejudice, but you’ll no doubt call it reality.

It is what you arguing. You said:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Very simple - there’s no practical application in how one chooses to name or define anything. Knowing the difference between things though has plenty of practical application depending upon how you wish to use it and what you wish to use it for.

Language is based in naming things, and giving them definitions. Names and definitions are one of the fundamentals of language.

Often, someone who is speaking a second language will be unable to think of the word for something, for example a car, they will then describe what it is that they are thinking of. You are suggesting there is no practical application of this!

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, should give you a good start -

Harassment. 10. —(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

That's only in your reality though. Can you define it as it is in thedunne's reality?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, should give you a good start -

Harassment. 10. —(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

Oh right.

So you agree that stating that a trans man isn't a man is NOT harassment. That makes your previous statement a little odd.

“The uttering of the disbelief”, you really imagine anyone is that stupid that they don’t know what you really mean is harassment,

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It is what you arguing. You said

...

Language is based in naming things, and giving them definitions. Names and definitions are one of the fundamentals of language.

Often, someone who is speaking a second language will be unable to think of the word for something, for example a car, they will then describe what it is that they are thinking of. You are suggesting there is no practical application of this!

I know what I said. I also know that I don’t have to know what something is called in order to know when, how and where to use it. That’s why I used the example of knowing the difference between a torch and a vibrator in the dark - one will help you see where you’re going, and the other could have your eye out.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know what I said. I also know that I don’t have to know what something is called in order to know when, how and where to use it. That’s why I used the example of knowing the difference between a torch and a vibrator in the dark - one will help you see where you’re going, and the other could have your eye out.

Yes but you wouldn't have the same definition of the words (I assume).

The ability to use an item isn't related in any way to the definition of the item.

You can call a torch a vibrator if you want. You would be wrong and you would cause confusion. Nobody can force you or wants to force you to use correct and recognised language. You can be purposefully obtuse all you want, it will only result in people not respecting you at your word

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know what I said. I also know that I don’t have to know what something is called in order to know when, how and where to use it. That’s why I used the example of knowing the difference between a torch and a vibrator in the dark - one will help you see where you’re going, and the other could have your eye out.

No, but sure thing a nurse needs to know what a small and extremely sharp bladed instrument used for surgery is. It's no use if a surgeon asks for scalpel and they come back with a torch because that's what they've decided to call a scalpel. Or if a doctor has to waste time asking another doctor for the device used in the treatment of life-threatening cardiac dysrhythmias, specifically ventricular fibrillation and non-perfusing ventricular tachycardia that delivers a dose of electric current to the heart, instead of simply asking for a defibrillator.

There is absolutely practical applications to how one chooses to name things or define them. You even posted up apart of the law. The law takes great care in how things are defined!

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh right.

So you agree that stating that a trans man isn't a man is NOT harassment. That makes your previous statement a little odd.

How so? You claimed that expressing that belief constitutes harassment. It doesn’t. You’re perfectly free under Irish law at least, to express that opinion based upon fact if that’s how you want to put it, and it doesn’t constitute harassment. I don’t use the terms “trans man” or “trans woman”, nor can I be compelled to use them.

I’ve yet to have any difficulty offline in it being understood to what or whom I am or was referring to. I haven’t come across anyone who has attempted to police my use of pronouns either, but I know it’s a rule here on Boards, which is fair enough as it’s a private site.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

There is absolutely practical applications to how one chooses to name things or define them. You even posted up apart of the law. The law takes great care in how things are defined!

I’m well aware it does, and which do you imagine takes precedence in terms of the Gender Recognition Act?

Science, or Law?

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m well aware it does, and which do you imagine takes precedence in terms of the Gender Recognition Act?

So you must then accept that definitions have a practical usage. I rest my case, so to speak.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Very simple - there’s no practical application in how one chooses to name or define anything. Knowing the difference between things though has plenty of practical application depending upon how you wish to use it and what you wish to use it for.

Opening packages of anything you've ordered on the internet must be a laugh in your house! I bet the kids (if you have any) fight to get to do it.

Gruffalux

This week West Midlands Police UK actually posted this picture on their Twitter account of Skye Morden pointing their taser happily towards the camera and informed us that Skye was assigned male at birth but is now a ''female''.

Skye said she knew that though she was assigned male at birth and had lived as a man for many years, she was in fact female.

Skye is a trans woman who came out as such in their mid 40s. Skye is not a female. Female is a scientific term used in biology to describe the sex that produces large gametes.

The tweet was deleted after a few days of people saying what the feck...The surprise was mostly I think at the completely tone-deaf image used.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

So you must then accept that definitions have a practical usage. I rest my case, so to speak.

Sorry, I’m confused. My point was wholly related to the utility of naming things. Definitions are an entirely different matter.

I can use an expression, not that I would of course you understand, when identifying someone to someone else - “Your one that looks like a man”. They’re then looking for a woman who looks like a man without me ever having used either the terms “woman” or “adult human female”.

In terms of objective reality, since I suspect you purposely evaded the question - it isn’t just my opinion that Laws govern a society. Science does not. Laws are what fundamentally matters in how a society is governed. Science has it’s place within that society, but there are no consequences whatsoever for rejecting science, whereas pretending you have some perceived right to ignore laws which govern a society is about as far from objective reality as it gets.

CtevenSrowder

Gruffalux wrote: »

This week West Midlands Police UK actually posted this picture on their Twitter account of Skye Morden pointing their taser happily towards the camera and informed us that Skye was assigned male at birth but is now a ''female''.



Skye is a trans woman who came out as such in their mid 40s. Skye is not a female. Female is a scientific term used in biology to describe the sex that produces large gametes.

The tweet was deleted after a few days of people saying what the feck...The surprise was mostly I think at the completely tone-deaf image used.

Reminds me of this, still one of my most favourite photos ever!

Gruffalux

In a poignant example of where the rubber hits the road, I saw this woman's story

https://twitter.com/GPalastre/status/1336806916199243778?s=20


Her daughter is 13. It is becoming widely recognised that young girls are experiencing a phenomenon known as Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria and that there have been huge increases in the number wishing to transition. I think it is comparable to eating disorders, and other things like self harm, etc.
Binders cause rib deformities and breathing difficulties. To be in that position as a mother must be heart-breaking. To find that one is up against a wall of affirmation ideologues when trying to deal with it is horrible.

jam_mac_jam

Gruffalux wrote: »

This week West Midlands Police UK actually posted this picture on their Twitter account of Skye Morden pointing their taser happily towards the camera and informed us that Skye was assigned male at birth but is now a ''female''.



Skye is a trans woman who came out as such in their mid 40s. Skye is not a female. Female is a scientific term used in biology to describe the sex that produces large gametes.

The tweet was deleted after a few days of people saying what the feck...The surprise was mostly I think at the completely tone-deaf image used.

I saw that. Very unfortunate photograph.

This makes me wonder about searches. I have been subject to fairly intimate searches in airports, one in particular where my bra was pulled out and patted down everywhere.

While I was uncomfortable it was a woman so not really a big deal. I think she was just being over zealous. Extra strange as it was an Asian country where they are less touchy.

Not sure if I would feel the same if such a security check was carried out by the police officer in the picture.

Gruffalux

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Reminds me of this, still one of my most favourite photos ever!

Equally stupid and inappropriate.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

The tweet was deleted after a few days of people saying what the feck...The surprise was mostly I think at the completely tone-deaf image used.

Not the first time something like that has been done, sure wasn’t the bould Willie chastised for similar behaviour? Willie didn’t let Rabbite get away with it though -

O'Dea tells Rabbitte to 'get a life' over gun photo

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sorry, I’m confused. My point was wholly related to the utility of naming things. Definitions are an entirely different matter.

No doubt you are confused. And you said definitions in your op:

Very simple - there’s no practical application in how one chooses to name or define anything. Knowing the difference between things though has plenty of practical application depending upon how you wish to use it and what you wish to use it for.

When you define something you give it a definition.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can use an expression, not that I would of course you understand, when identifying someone to someone else - “Your one that looks like a man”. They’re then looking for a woman who looks like a man without me ever having used either the terms “woman” or “adult human female”.

Ok, and? This neither proves nor disproves the practical utility of naming things or defining things.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In terms of objective reality, since I suspect you purposely evaded the question - it isn’t just my opinion that Laws govern a society. Science does not. Laws are what fundamentally matters in how a society is governed. Science has it’s place within that society, but there are no consequences whatsoever for rejecting science, whereas pretending you have some perceived right to ignore laws which govern a society is about as far from objective reality as it gets.

Well there are.. but I wont be pedantic.

As for the underlined part, you are straw manning again. I have never said or stated that I believe I or anyone has such a right. But, anyway, do you accept that their is an objective reality or not then? Because if you do not I don't quite see your point. Can one not just proclaim that in their reality they haven't broken any laws, because who are you or anyone else to tell them that they have?

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

In a poignant example of where the rubber hits the road, I saw this woman's story

...

Her daughter is 13. It is becoming widely recognised that young girls are experiencing a phenomenon known as Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria and that there have been huge increases in the number wishing to transition. I think it is comparable to eating disorders, and other things like self harm, etc.
Binders cause rib deformities and breathing difficulties. To be in that position as a mother must be heart-breaking. To find that one is up against a wall of affirmation ideologues when trying to deal with it is horrible.

By whom? Idiots? It certainly isn’t clinically recognised.

I agree with the rest of what you wrote though.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Well there are.. but I wont be pedantic.

That’s never stopped you before? I think you understood the point I was making - there are no consequences for anyone saying the earth is flat (to use your earlier example), there are consequences for someone who insists on referring to someone in a way that is intended to humiliate the person.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

As for the underlined part, you are straw manning again. I have never said or stated that I believe I or anyone has such a right.

I know you didn’t, that’s just being obtuse. You know I was referring to people who do engage in that kind of behaviour.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

But, anyway, do you accept that their is an objective reality or not then? Because if you do not I don't quite see your point. Can one not just proclaim that in their reality they haven't broken any laws, because who are you or anyone else to tell them that they have?

Oh there is objective reality alright, no question about that from my perspective anyway, though it’s an entirely philosophical question. I’m saying that objective reality as you wish to call it, simply isn’t as important to individuals as their own subjective reality. In that sense they can certainly proclaim their innocence, or like one of those Freeman weirdos refuse to recognise the authority of the State, but someone who claims to be either a woman or a man, isn’t breaking any laws. You aren’t compelled to like it, but they’re entitled to the protection of law in the same way as you are protected by the same laws which govern society, and mean that rights such as certain beliefs are protected, and others are not, because they are considered an infringement upon the rights of others, a violation of people’s dignity, or just generally considered unworthy of respect in a democratic society. Doesn’t mean you can’t say it, it’s just not taken seriously enough to be considered worthy of protection in Law.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By whom? Idiots? It certainly isn’t clinically recognised.

I agree with the rest of what you wrote though.

In my "reality" an idiot is a stupid person.

I think that under your reasoning, calling people stupid for having an opinion that differs from your "reality" is bullying and hateful.

Why are you hateful towards people?

Unless by idiot you mean something completely different, as you may well do considering your lack of appreciation for language.