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

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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..

jesus Jack, the mask is slipping.

You've no bother lashing out the insults to people you don't agree with.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

You appear to have answered your own question already.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You appear to have answered your own question already.

I most certainly haven't. Please expand on why you are ok to dole out abuse towards people you disagree with, yet you admonish people for stating objective facts that are provable as it doesn't align with some of the infinite amount of realities you advocate for.

Gatling

Gruffalux wrote: »

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.

Have you seen the follow up tweet ,mum if you get me a binder I might not need top surgery when I'm older .


Jesus Christ

jaxxx

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You appear to have answered your own question already.

You appear to live completely within your own twisted reality.. .. .. Time upon time again twisting what others have said to your own interpretations, like adding 2 and 2 together but coming up with infinity.

Gruffalux

Gatling wrote: »

Have you seen the follow up tweet ,mum if you get me a binder I might not need top surgery when I'm older .


Jesus Christ

I find the ones that call her hateful for not supporting her daughter more upsetting. Who wants to see their child literally deformed before their eyes and told that is the kind thing to do? I really do not envy any parent or child facing such trauma. But that affirmation rather than counselling is the approved response by the people on the right side of history....it really confuses me.

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

Have you seen the follow up tweet ,mum if you get me a binder I might not need top surgery when I'm older .


Jesus Christ

Its sickening. And you have certain people on here who have no issue with encouraging this.

What a world.

jaxxx

Deleted User wrote: »

Its sickening. And you have certain people on here who have no issue with encouraging this.

What a world.

Add hormome blockers to that too. Messing up a child's natural body growth is absolutely abhorrent, and all because of "feelings".

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

jesus Jack, the mask is slipping.

You've no bother lashing out the insults to people you don't agree with.

I thought you’d have been aware of that much before now surely given how familiar we are with each other having been involved in various discussions? It’s why I figured I could make a joke yesterday and you’d take it as it was intended. You obviously didn’t and so I realised I made a bad call, decided it would be safer just not to engage with you at all, yet here we are because I still figure you’re a decent skin. I’d have no issue with telling you you’re an idiot if I thought you were one.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I thought you’d have been aware of that much before now surely given how familiar we are with each other having been involved in various discussions? It’s why I figured I could make a joke yesterday and you’d take it as it was intended. You obviously didn’t and so I realised I made a bad call, decided it would be safer just not to engage with you at all, yet here we are because I still figure you’re a decent skin. I’d have no issue with telling you you’re an idiot if I thought you were one.

No idea what you are on about Jack. I was simply saying that you feel that you are ok to call Freemen (or whatever they are called) weirdos and other people idiots.

I didn't for one minute think you were insulting me

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

What relevance has this to you believing that words and definitions have no practical usage? Do you accept this is not the case yet?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

How am I supposed to realise that? You brought up something completely unrelated to what we were discussing, in a response to my post. This is not the first time you have had to clarify you are not talking directly to the person you have quoted. I am unaware as to anyone who has said on this thread, or in general, that people have a right to break the law.

Objective reality sits outside the law anyway. I do not see the relevance to anything we are discussing.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

It is important to society as a whole so we can have, for example, a functioning justice system.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

This whole paragraph is again strawmanning. I don't believe that anyone on this thread, or even amongst the various threads on this topic, has suggested that someone who claims to be a man or a women is breaking the law. People have routinely stated that they accept people can claim to be whatever they want. Again, all irrelevant.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No idea what you are on about Jack. I was simply saying that you feel that you are ok to call Freemen (or whatever they are called) weirdos and other people idiots.

I didn't for one minute think you were insulting me

Really? No idea?

Deleted User wrote: »

That's an entirely patronising post and is unbecoming of you. I've argued with you on many an occasion as I think we are diametrically opposed on many, many issues but you were one of the only ones on here I found respectful and reasoned.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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****.

No idea tho why I might have thought I could make a joke and you’d know I was joking, but you definitely didn’t react as I expected, and you have no idea what I’m talking about. Yeah fair enough.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

People have routinely stated that they accept people can claim to be whatever they want.

This thread must be my imagination so, because it appears to me that there are numerous people who do not routinely accept that people can claim to be whatever they want, and argue quite strongly against it, coming up with new and imaginative ways to exclude people by using terms like “adult human female”, “biological females”, “natal females” was even given a mention, all because people couldn’t, and don’t accept, that people can claim whatever they want. You might, I might, but that’s not the case for a tiny minority of people who wish to argue otherwise and I’ll bet you won’t question any of them on the nature of reality, until they too disagree with you on some other issue.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Really? No idea?







No idea tho why I might have thought I could make a joke and you’d know I was joking, but you definitely didn’t react as I expected, and you have no idea what I’m talking about. Yeah fair enough.

Sorry Jack, I assumed you were referring to the conversation we were having now considering you quoted a recent post. I misread the post you made and missed the "yesterday" part.

Does go to show the importance of words meaning what they mean i suppose.

And yes, I did believe previously that you were reasoned and someone who, while i disagree with, I can respect. As we know, opinions can change.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This thread must be my imagination so, because it appears to me that there are numerous people who do not routinely accept that people can claim to be whatever they want, and argue quite strongly against it, coming up with new and imaginative ways to exclude people by using terms like “adult human female”, “biological females”, “natal females” was even given a mention, all because people couldn’t, and don’t accept, that people can claim whatever they want. You might, I might, but that’s not the case for a tiny minority of people who wish to argue otherwise and I’ll bet you won’t question any of them on the nature of reality, until they too disagree with you on some other issue.

What people state is that people can claim to be what they want, but it doesn't make it true, and shouldn't necessarily be given legal credence. The same way someone who claims to be 10 instead of 50 shouldn't be given legal credence, or claims to be born in Ireland when they haven't shouldn't be given legal credence etc. Noone has suggested that anyone who makes a claim such as the ones given should be considered to be breaking the law. I have no idea were you have gotten that idea from.

You are also consistently selectively quoting me. Do you accept that there is indeed a practical application in how one chooses to name or define something?

jaxxx

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This thread must be my imagination so, because it appears to me that there are numerous people who do not routinely accept that people can claim to be whatever they want, and argue quite strongly against it, coming up with new and imaginative ways to exclude people by using terms like “adult human female”, “biological females”, “natal females” was even given a mention, all because people couldn’t, and don’t accept, that people can claim whatever they want. You might, I might, but that’s not the case for a tiny minority of people who wish to argue otherwise and I’ll bet you won’t question any of them on the nature of reality, until they too disagree with you on some other issue.

Can you not read? Is that it? Let's remind ourselves what Cteven said.. .. ..


"People have routinely stated that they accept people can claim to be whatever they want."


CLAIM TO BE. You can claim to be whatever you wish, however claiming to be something and in fact actually being something are completely different. Claiming to be is an illusion, actually being is the reality.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This thread must be my imagination so, because it appears to me that there are numerous people who do not routinely accept that people can claim to be whatever they want, and argue quite strongly against it, coming up with new and imaginative ways to exclude people by using terms like “adult human female”, “biological females”, “natal females” was even given a mention, all because people couldn’t, and don’t accept, that people can claim whatever they want. You might, I might, but that’s not the case for a tiny minority of people who wish to argue otherwise and I’ll bet you won’t question any of them on the nature of reality, until they too disagree with you on some other issue.

Do you think that refusal to accept or acknowledge that a transperson is the gender they identify as, is a hate crime?

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This thread must be my imagination so, because it appears to me that there are numerous people who do not routinely accept that people can claim to be whatever they want, and argue quite strongly against it, coming up with new and imaginative ways to exclude people by using terms like “adult human female”, “biological females”, “natal females”

Give over , imaginative excluded language most people om here agree you can be whatever you want ,but we don't have to agree with this Nazi like ideology ,
Men can play tennis , women can play tennis , including mixed Matches ,the same with soccer ,rugby or any other sports , nobody is excluded but the various sports governing bodies have a right to say no Males in female sports and vice versa ,they are not excluded you part take in your sex ,not assigned or picked but your biological gender .As it's always been

Gruffalux

https://www.si.com/college/2020/12/11/tulsi-gabbard-new-bill-title-ix-trans-athletes-rights

This kind of action is why I really wish Tulsi had been the candidate.
I have a serious girl crush on her.

From the article -

The bill, titled the “Protect Women’s Sports Act of 2020," would prevent people who were determined to be males at birth from participating in women's sports.

“Title IX was a historic provision championed by Hawaii’s own Congresswoman Patsy Mink in order to provide equal opportunity for women and girls in high school and college sports," Gabbard said in a statement. "... However, Title IX is being weakened by some states who are misinterpreting Title IX, creating uncertainty, undue hardship and lost opportunities for female athletes. Our legislation protects Title IX’s original intent which was based on the general biological distinction between men and women athletes based on sex."

LLMMLL

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.

What exactly is the issue with this image. I googled the persons name and all I found were positive news stories about them.

I personally do not see an issue with having a photo of someone who trains police officers how to use tasers using a taser.

If your issue is with the use of tasers and featuring an image of a police officer using a taser while smiling then that has absolutely nothing to do with trans people. It should apply to cis and trans people regardless. And those criticisms would have no place in a thread on trans issues.

Just looks like it’s any excuse to pile on a trans person really.

jam_mac_jam

LLMMLL wrote: »

What exactly is the issue with this image. I googled the persons name and all I found were positive news stories about them.

I personally do not see an issue with having a photo of someone who trains police officers how to use tasers using a taser.

If your issue is with the use of tasers and featuring an image of a police officer using a taser while smiling then that has absolutely nothing to do with trans people. It should apply to cis and trans people regardless. And those criticisms would have no place in a thread on trans issues.

Just looks like it’s any excuse to pile on a trans person really.

The issue is pointing the teaser at the camera. In the exact same way Willie O' Dea was criticized.

That's the issue I have, its an unfortunate photograph.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do you think that refusal to accept or acknowledge that a transperson is the gender they identify as, is a hate crime?

I don’t think OEJ has ever argued that.

Might be wrong but I think his position is that it might be a hate crime or harrassment depending on what form that refusal to accept or acknowledge takes.

LLMMLL

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

The issue is pointing the teaser at the camera. In the exact same way Willie O' Dea was criticized.

That's the issue I have, its an unfortunate photograph.

So nothing to do with trans issues..... why even mention it in this thread. It’s almost like some people will take any opportunity to criticise a trans person.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don’t think OEJ has ever argued that.

Might be wrong but I think his position is that it might be a hate crime or harrassment depending on what form that refusal to accept or acknowledge takes.

If a transperson states that they are female despite being born male, and I say "you are not a woman, you are a man" (the scenario I proposed to which jack replied to below) makes me unsure as to what jack is arguing. Contradictory posts mired with walls of text and unrelated links are sometimes hard to decipher.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

“The uttering of the disbelief”, you really imagine anyone is that stupid that they don’t know what you really mean is harassment, and yes, depending upon context and circumstances it could have any number of negative consequences for the person who insists that they have a right to engage in such behaviour. That’s going quite a bit further than simply not taking a person seriously.

AllForIt

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

Well if sport is a willy waving contest then you'd have to have a willy in the first place otherwise it just wouldn't work.

But anyway to your sports by social demographic argument, the social demographic here derives from physical attributes in the first place, so it does in the end come down to physical attributes. You've just put another link in the chain leading back to the reason pro sports are organised the way they are but it doesn't make any difference, it's still the same chain.

What ppl do socially is up to them but this is professional sports we're talking about here where participants are bound by rules they must abide by for fear of being docked points etc. In snooker if you don't turn up on time you are docked a frame, or can be disqualified etc. It's not a social occasion, it's a competition. When a player break a rule, is seen to have an advantage, is practising gamesmanship, the opposing playing rightly goes nuts, complains to the ref etc. It very serious for them, it's about winning, because it's a completion, it's not about taking part for the fun of it. When a guiding rule is added or changed if often comes with endless discussion and disagreement.

With your it's just about equal rights argument that would imply you would be perfectly fine to have a team of 15 transgender woman play against a team of 15 cis-women. Something like this is hardly going to be accepted without argument given what I said about the way sport is contested in reality. And before you say this is never going to happen I'd repeat what I said about profession sport being a competition, so anything could happen if you let it where rewards for winning are concerned.

I'm being somewhat devils advocate on all this but the part I'm not playing devils on is the bit where gender activist say that it's 'transphobic' not to permit then in the sport they 'choose'. Its' so silly no one ever chooses what category they are in. It's decided by a set of rules everyone has to abide by, in pro sports awash with rules. Rules rule.

I think team sports could be accommodated for with rules like there has to be an equal number of transgender people on both sides but individual sports is hugely problematic imo. How many transgender boxers are there I wonder? Hmm.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If a transperson states that they are female despite being born male, and I say "you are not a woman, you are a man" (the scenario I proposed to which jack replied to below) makes me unsure as to what jack is arguing. Contradictory posts mired with walls of text and unrelated links are sometimes hard to decipher.

Are you asking me if that scenario is a hate crime? I actually have no idea.

What OEJ seems to express, and what the vast majority of people on this thread constantly miss (because of a poor understanding of legal issues) is that that is a question of law, not opinion.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Are you asking me if that scenario is a hate crime? I actually have no idea.

What OEJ seems to express, and what the vast majority of people on this thread constantly miss (because of a poor understanding of legal issues) is that that is a question of law, not opinion.

And I am of the opinion that nobody should be castigated, deemed a "phobe" or in violation of any law, by stating facts.

Something that a vocal minority on this thread constantly miss.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And I am of the opinion that nobody should be castigated, deemed a "phobe" or in violation of any law, by stating facts.

Something that a vocal minority on this thread constantly miss.

Nobody missed that. It's very clear that's your opinion. People disagreeing with you is not the same as missing your point.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nobody missed that. It's very clear that's your opinion. People disagreeing with you is not the same as missing your point.

Misrepresenting my opinion is incredibly different.

Stating facts is not harassment which jack inferred.

Jack also stated I was trying to make people adhere to my "reality" and that was unacceptable and I was pointing out the hypocrisy of making that allegation while agreeing with laws and opinions which prevent people making factual statements for fear of being branded a bigot or even worse, prosecuted for some "hate" speech.

If facts can be considered hate, then you really need to question the law.

I have no issue with courtesy, fairness and respectful treatment of all people. When it is mandated or demanded, thats where I draw the line.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If a transperson states that they are female despite being born male, and I say "you are not a woman, you are a man" (the scenario I proposed to which jack replied to below) makes me unsure as to what jack is arguing. Contradictory posts mired with walls of text and unrelated links are sometimes hard to decipher.

That’s not just an expression of disbelief though. An expression of disbelief is “I don’t believe you”, whereas what you’re doing in that scenario by telling someone they’re not a woman, that they’re a man, could be perceived by the person as harassment, and if they decide to make a complaint, the authorities whether it be your employer or the Gardaí, may agree with them that what you are doing constitutes harassment.

What you were suggesting is that what you are doing immediately constitutes harassment, and that’s why I said it depends upon the circumstances in each and every case - while I wouldn’t care if it were me you were saying that to, I can’t speak for another person, and if I were your employer and someone came and made a complaint about what you were doing to them, I’d have you immediately fired for your actions towards another employee. That’s just me though, you’re perfectly free to take your chances otherwise and see how it works out. Some people may even regard you as the victim.