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

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

But what you just wrote shows that you still miss the point.

Stating "facts" can be harassment. Firstly, if a trans woman has a GRC then they are considered to be a woman under Irish law. So your idea.of what are facts differs from legal facts.

It would best be reworded as "stating my opinion is not harassment". And this may or may not be legally true depending on how/how often/in what context your opinion was stated.

I think your position would best be summed up as "stating my opinion shouldn't be harassment".

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

And that’s why the law exists, so that nobody has to care where your personal line is, or anyone else’s for that matter. The fact is that they are protected from discrimination and harassment and it’s the law that mandates objectively, as opposed to your subjective proclamations which you imagine carry any weight, when in reality the fact is they don’t.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

For someone who doesn't believe in meanings of words, you are being quite pedantic (and wrong)

Saying "no, you are not a man" is in its very essence vocalising your disbelief in the claim that they are a man.

It is undeniably an utterance of disbelief.

As for you firing someone for making a factual statement, it neither surprises me nor shocks me. You really want to have a little think about yourself though. You honestly said you would fire someone for stating facts because the facts hurt someone.

It is indeed a clown world.

One eyed Jack

[/S][/S]

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And that’s why the law exists, so that nobody has to care where your personal line is, or anyone else’s for that matter. The fact is that they are protected from discrimination and harassment and it’s the law that mandates objectively, as opposed to your subjective proclamations which you imagine carry any weight, when in reality the fact is they don’t.

The law you quoted earlier doesn't cover the scenario I put forward though does it? Or does it? I admit I may be wrong.

Is it illegal to disagree that a trans person is their preferred gender and state it to them when they insist they are.

jam_mac_jam

LLMMLL wrote: »

But what you just wrote shows that you still miss the point.

Stating "facts" can be harassment. Firstly, if a trans woman has a GRC then they are considered to be a woman under Irish law. So your idea.of what are facts differs from legal facts.

It would best be reworded as "stating my opinion is not harassment". And this may or may not be legally true depending on how/how often/in what context your opinion was stated.

I think your position would best be summed up as "stating my opinion shouldn't be harassment".

I think that it depends on the situation and as you say the context. If I said it directly to a person then yes it is harassment and apart from that its cruel and rude. There is no reason for it. I also personally wouldn't ever do that even if the thought occurred to me.

My opinion on it generally is another thing, I feel like I have the right to express my opinions on it. Obviously I am not going to do that in public as I do not want to harass or be rude to somebody.

That does not change my opinion that transwomen have an advantage in sports however; or that rape or domestic violence shelters should be allowed to facilitate cis women only if they choose to. I am not harassing anyone by having that opinion.

I think there are questions that should be subject to discussion without it being harassment or insulting. Maybe I am wrong, maybe the other person is wrong.

LLMMLL

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I think that it depends on the situation and as you say the context. If I said it directly to a person then yes it is harassment and apart from that its cruel and rude. There is no reason for it. I also personally wouldn't ever do that even if the thought occurred to me.

My opinion on it generally is another thing, I feel like I have the right to express my opinions on it. Obviously I am not going to do that in public as I do not want to harass or be rude to somebody.

That does not change my opinion that transwomen have an advantage in sports however; or that rape or domestic violence shelters should be allowed to facilitate cis women only if they choose to. I am not harassing anyone by having that opinion.

I think there are questions that should be subject to discussion without it being harassment or insulting. Maybe I am wrong, maybe the other person is wrong.

And you are discussing your opinions on this thread. Nobody has said this is harassment.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For someone who doesn't believe in meanings of words, you are being quite pedantic (and wrong)

Saying "no, you are not a man" is in its very essence vocalising your disbelief in the claim that they are a man.

It is undeniably an utterance of disbelief.

This is why I said you really think people are that stupid. It’s quite clear you do.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As for you firing someone for making a factual statement, it neither surprises me nor shocks me. You really want to have a little think about yourself though. You honestly said you would fire someone for stating facts because the facts hurt someone.

It is indeed a clown world.

No, I would never fire anyone for making a factual statement, I’d fire someone twice as fast though if they tried to justify their actions by claiming that they were just making a factual statement pretending that they couldn’t see how their actions had humiliated another person. I honestly wouldn’t care what kind of a world they think they live in.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And that’s why the law exists, so that nobody has to care where your personal line is, or anyone else’s for that matter. The fact is that they are protected from discrimination and harassment and it’s the law that mandates objectively, as opposed to your subjective proclamations which you imagine carry any weight, when in reality the fact is they don’t.

The law regarding rights in this case is subjective, not objective.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The law regarding rights in this case is subjective, not objective.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at tbh, or what you mean. In the scenario as described, the law objectively protects everyone from harassment and discrimination. It depends on the circumstances in every individual case what rights are applicable and balancing those rights, which isn’t a determination made by the parties involved, but rather determined by an objective third party.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is why I said you really think people are that stupid. It’s quite clear you do.





No, I would never fire anyone for making a factual statement, I’d fire someone twice as fast though if they tried to justify their actions by claiming that they were just making a factual statement pretending that they couldn’t see how their actions had humiliated another person. I honestly wouldn’t care what kind of a world they think they live in.

You need to elaborate as to why I think people are stupid. Nothing I said hinted at that.

your second paragraph is contradictory.

You would not fire someone for stating a fact unless that fact humiliated someone.

When do feelings supersede facts?

I also never mentioned humiliation. I mentioned stating the fact that you didn't believe they are trans man was a man and stating it. Not repeatedly, not in an aggressive manner. Just stating that you do not believe that through virtue of thought and feelings and chemicals or certainly not by signing a gender recognition form, a woman has become a man. You think this is harassment or discrimination?

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not sure what you’re getting at tbh, or what you mean. In the scenario as described, the law objectively protects everyone from harassment and discrimination. It depends on the circumstances in every individual case what rights are applicable and balancing those rights, which isn’t a determination made by the parties involved, but rather determined by an objective third party.

Yes, but what is classed as harrassment is subjective law. So in the case that the dunne mentioned we are discussing subjective law, not objective law.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You need to elaborate as to why I think people are stupid. Nothing I said hinted at that.

your second paragraph is contradictory.

You would not fire someone for stating a fact unless that fact humiliated someone.

I disagree.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

When do feelings supersede facts?

Apparently when people feel like it.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I also never mentioned humiliation. I mentioned stating the fact that you didn't believe they are trans man was a man and stating it. Not repeatedly, not in an aggressive manner. Just stating that you do not believe that through virtue of thought and feelings and chemicals or certainly not by signing a gender recognition form, a woman has become a man.

I know you didn’t. I did though, and it’s not unreasonable to presume that your behaviour would cause the person you’re addressing to feel humiliated. You acknowledged this much yourself already so you can hardly pretend now you don’t know the effect it would likely have on another person.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You think this is harassment or discrimination?

Precisely the circumstances you’re describing? I do.

Do you think your behaviour is reasonable?

Do you think there should be no consequences for your behaviour?

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Yes, but what is classed as harrassment is subjective law. So in the case that the dunne mentioned we are discussing subjective law, not objective law.

No it’s not? Read Section 10 of the NFOAP Act for yourself. It sets out a number of criteria and provisions which constitute harassment.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I disagree.



Apparently when people feel like it.



I know you didn’t. I did though, and it’s not unreasonable to presume that your behaviour would cause the person you’re addressing to feel humiliated. You acknowledged this much yourself already so you can hardly pretend now you don’t know the effect it would likely have on another person.



Precisely the circumstances you’re describing? I do.

Do you think your behaviour is reasonable?

Do you think there should be no consequences for your behaviour?

Yes. I do feel like my behaviour is reasonable. Which part do you think is not.

I do not think anyone should be afraid of consequences for being honest or by stating facts.

Again, I am absolutely in favour of polite, cordial and respectful behaviour towards everybody and that is my default setting. However, I will not have respect demanded of me and be told that I must respect someone's feelings.

I usually would. But I lose respect for people who think their feelings supersede everything else.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it’s not? Read Section 10 of the NFOAP Act for yourself. It sets out a number of criteria and provisions which constitute harassment.

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.

"Reasonable excuse". That's subjective.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it’s not? Read Section 10 of the NFOAP Act for yourself. It sets out a number of criteria and provisions which constitute harassment.

Yes Jack, that is subjective law. Objective law is, for example, we're our constitution states that the state will protect 'the personal rights of the citizen'. How the state does this broadly speaking becomes subjective law.

My point ultimately is that you dismissed thedunnes subjective opinion, and described the law as objective. However it isn't necessarily objective, it is mostly subjective itself.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes. I do feel like my behaviour is reasonable. Which part do you think is not.

I do not think anyone should be afraid of consequences for being honest or by stating facts.

Again, I am absolutely in favour of polite, cordial and respectful behaviour towards everybody and that is my default setting. However, I will not have respect demanded of me and be told that I must respect someone's feelings.

I usually would. But I lose respect for people who think their feelings supersede everything else.

You’ve nothing to be concerned about so, because apart from Little Britain which features a pair of characters known for ensuring that everyone they meet has to be told “I’m a laydeeee don’t you know!”, I cannot fathom any circumstances whatsoever where anyone would actually do any such thing that would require you to state facts to the contrary. In those circumstances, should they ever arise, I’d simply be more inclined to ignore them and carry on about my business rather than entertain them.

Gruffalux

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.

This trans woman is being directly promoted as a "female" by a UK police force. Not as a transwoman. This is a lie.
This is the photo the police force chose to use to promote their lie. The imagery is not a little whacky and weird in terms of conveying the idea of this person being just another gal on the force.
I find it a threatening image - it would not be good to use in any circumstance. There is also an air of parody about it.

In the UK a police officer can conduct intimate searches on others as per the gender with which they identify. This trans woman police officer presents in a very male way. They are very tall and the forearms are unusually muscular. This is almost emphasised in the image.
This is not a good photo to in any way reassure women who might be subjected to strip searches by members of the police force who identify as women. How could it be reassuring?

The police officer is also wearing a wig which is not tied back as per uniform recommendations which state that hair must be neatly tied back and not below the collar. Why are they allowed to breach regulations?

I think for a police force to publicise such an image of a trans woman police officer in such an aggressive stance, albeit smiling (which looks frankly somewhat deranged), obviously breaking uniform rules so they can have their girl hair, is odd, counter productive, and even smacks of subtle bullying. You will accept this person as a "female" ....or else.

Feisar

I don’t buy into this trans nonsense however I’m sure as hell not going to upset anyone.

Girly Gal

Feisar wrote: »

I don’t buy into this trans nonsense however I’m sure as hell not going to upset anyone.

Tbf it's not nonsense for those affected, it's just unfortunate that the issue has been completely hijacked by a tiny, but, very vocal minority within and outside of the trans community who are actually causing more long term damage to the trans community than they are helping. Most trans people just want to get on with their lives as normally as they can without drawing too much attention to themselves.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

volchitsa wrote: »

I've never used the expression adult human female myself, never mind demanded that anyone else use it, so you can drop your straw man right there.

Indeed, and the only reason I personally use the terms ‘female’ and ‘male’ when discussing this topic is because ‘man’ and ‘woman’ have been rendered utterly meaningless. I would LOVE to not have to say ‘female’ and ‘male’ in place of ‘woman’ and ‘man’. I feel like a biology lecturer in doing so. But in the interests of clarity, I feel I have no choice.

Bannasidhe

Gruffalux wrote: »

This trans woman police officer presents in a very male way. They are very tall and the forearms are unusually muscular. This is almost emphasised in the image.

So women have to be short and not overly muscular?
How utterly ridiculous.
Women can be and are all shapes and sizes - but are pushed into thinking they should have a certain kind of body type and here are you doing exactly the same thing.

Did you stop and think about the fact that there are biological women who are tall with 'forearms that are overly muscular' who get called 'mannish' before you posted that crap?
The same crap bullies use to harass and attack any woman whose body image doesn't conform to a narrow set of parameters.







Do you give a damn as long as you get to have a go at transgendered women even if it means using tactics that have long been used against cis women?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

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.

When Willie O’Dea was heavily criticised for similar, what do you think was the reason there?

It’s an unnerving photo of somebody in a position of authority and power. The officer looks unhinged.

suicide_circus

Feisar wrote: »

I don’t buy into this trans nonsense however I’m sure as hell not going to upset anyone.

god forbid

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So women have to be short and not overly muscular?
How utterly ridiculous.
Women can be and are all shapes and sizes - but are pushed into thinking they should have a certain kind of body type and here are you doing exactly the same thing.

Did you stop and think about the fact that there are biological women who are tall with 'forearms that are overly muscular' who get called 'mannish' before you posted that crap?
The same crap bullies use to harass and attack any woman whose body image doesn't conform to a narrow set of parameters.

Do you give a damn as long as you get to have a go at transgendered women even if it means using tactics that have long been used against cis women?

Utterly disingenuous.

Those muscular women are still within a female range. Muscular women should not be made to feel bad about their bodies but those bodies are still nothing like the bodies of those who go through a male puberty. Even a woman with abnormally high testosterone has levels way lower than even men with low testosterone levels. A man and women who weigh the same and/or are the same height will still have significant differences in strength. The physical advantages of males are numerous and most of them are irreversible.

You mention Serena Williams. One of the finest female athletes of all time. Had she had to compete against men, we never would have heard her name.

And there seems to flip-flopping on the importance of sport when this topic is debated, I’ve noticed. When transgender people might find themselves excluded (at various levels), it’s discriminatory and sports are of the utmost importance. But then when it’s pointed out that women will lose out, often the same commentators will adopt a “Sure it’s only sport, who cares?” attitude. Are sports important or aren’t they? People can’t have it both ways.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

This trans woman is being directly promoted as a "female" by a UK police force. Not as a transwoman. This is a lie.
This is the photo the police force chose to use to promote their lie. The imagery is not a little whacky and weird in terms of conveying the idea of this person being just another gal on the force.
I find it a threatening image - it would not be good to use in any circumstance. There is also an air of parody about it.

As you consider it to be a lie, presumably any photo they attached would have the same issues for you as promoting a "lie". If you read any of the articles about this woman there are many alternative photos. Either you have an issue with images of police officers using weapons or you have an issue with photos of trans officers. One has nothing to do with trans issues, the other shows that the claims that the TERF side are just concerned about legal issues and support trans women otherwise going about their lives are complete nonsense.

In the UK a police officer can conduct intimate searches on others as per the gender with which they identify. This trans woman police officer presents in a very male way. They are very tall and the forearms are unusually muscular. This is almost emphasised in the image.
This is not a good photo to in any way reassure women who might be subjected to strip searches by members of the police force who identify as women. How could it be reassuring?

The officer is a taser training officer. There is no indication they will be doing strip searches and quite bizarre to think that a primary concern when highlighting diversity would be to pander to alarmists who seem to think trans people are really just out to molest them.

The police officer is also wearing a wig which is not tied back as per uniform recommendations which state that hair must be neatly tied back and not below the collar. Why are they allowed to breach regulations?

Honest question: would you be on boards posting about a photo of a cis female officer you saw a photo of with loose hair?

Again, any excuse to pile on a trans person.

I think for a police force to publicise such an image of a trans woman police officer in such an aggressive stance, albeit smiling (which looks frankly somewhat deranged), obviously breaking uniform rules so they can have their girl hair, is odd, counter productive, and even smacks of subtle bullying. You will accept this person as a "female" ....or else.

Only if you have an ingrained belief that trans women are a threat.

I think it's quite sad and worrying that a trans woman who has successfully integrated into a historically difficult job for LGBT people to integrate into faces these kind of smears.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

When Willie O’Dea was heavily criticised for similar, what do you think was the reason there?

It’s an unnerving photo of somebody in a position of authority and power. The officer looks unhinged.

Is Willie o deas job to train people how to use weapons?

And of course the main reason for the criticsims of Willie o dea was because those people did not like Willie o Dea. Everyone else just thought it was funny as far as I recall.

LLMMLL

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So women have to be short and not overly muscular?
How utterly ridiculous.
Women can be and are all shapes and sizes - but are pushed into thinking they should have a certain kind of body type and here are you doing exactly the same thing.

Did you stop and think about the fact that there are biological women who are tall with 'forearms that are overly muscular' who get called 'mannish' before you posted that crap?
The same crap bullies use to harass and attack any woman whose body image doesn't conform to a narrow set of parameters.







Do you give a damn as long as you get to have a go at transgendered women even if it means using tactics that have long been used against cis women?

Don't forget were also told that trans people are perpetrating stereotypes of femininity, and this is portrayed as an extremely negative thing to do.

Now there's a complete 180 switch and female officers must be dainty and unthreatening.

Smacruairi

LLMMLL wrote: »

Don't forget were also told that trans people are perpetrating stereotypes of femininity, and this is portrayed as an extremely negative thing to do.

Now there's a complete 180 switch and female officers must be dainty and unthreatening.

Can I, just for the record, note that I disagree with you on everything to do with gender identity, but I in no way support any type of personalised slagging of that police officer. Comments about physical appearance etc are totally uncalled for, and this person is being used as a pawn, whether they know it or not.

I deeply disagree with the ideology at play here but there is zero need to put this person out there to be built up or torn down, and when there are mass movements questioning the role of the police, this is not one bit helpful, and only serves to divide society even further.

LLMMLL

Smacruairi wrote: »

Can I, just for the record, note that I disagree with you on everything to do with gender identity, but I in no way support any type of personalised slagging of that police officer. Comments about physical appearance etc are totally uncalled for, and this person is being used as a pawn, whether they know it or not.

I deeply disagree with the ideology at play here but there is zero need to put this person out there to be built up or torn down, and when there are mass movements questioning the role of the police, this is not one bit helpful, and only serves to divide society even further.

Yes we disagree on pretty much everything but in complete agreement on this.