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

Bannasidhe

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Excuse me? We are on a messageboard. It’s a discussion. There’s no rigid rule that you may not respond to a post that wasn’t directed at you. Threads would grind to halt pretty darn quickly if there was.

Indeed.
And you are always so quick to join the discussion when the poster I called to task, this time for perpetuating stereotypes that have been known to fuel bullying, finds herself in a spot of bother.
As I said , we have been down this read before.

Interesting that the only response you came back with is 'it's a message board' - hardly a sterling rebuttal of a single point I made. Faux Outrage.
Seen that one many times as well from you.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Right so your the imagery used, the promotion of diversity in trans issues etc. Have nothing to do with strip search concerns.

So what has this image got to with trans issues.

Strip searches are a separate debate and this person should not be denigrated to fuel that debate.

In that case then, when actively promoting trans inclusion, it would be important for the police authority to note that they maintain sex based exemptions.
The police force do not say this and instead say this person is female which is not true. Directly in the article appended to the image. This is an attempt to land grab sex based protections.

No one could give a shyte about Skye being a transwoman - fair fcuks to them - but as a police officer in the UK one of the regulations stipulates they may search according to the the gender with which they identify.

It is only when "rights" collide that the merits of each must be considered appropriately. My contention is that men and women must be afforded the sex based protection of choice re intimate search in custody. The regulations re transgender police officers in the UK do not afford this exemption. It is relevant to bring this fact up when the police do such public promotions.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

In that case then, when actively promoting trans inclusion, it would be important for the police authority to note that they maintain sex based exemptions.
The police force do not say this and instead say this person is female which is not true. Directly in the article appended to the image. This is an attempt to land grab sex based protections.

No one could give a shyte about Skye being a transwoman - fair fcuks to them - but as a police officer in the UK one of the regulations stipulates they may search according to the the gender with which they identify.

It is only when "rights" collide that the merits of each must be considered appropriately. My contention is that men and women must be afforded the sex based protection of choice re intimate search in custody. The regulations re transgender police officers in the UK do not afford this exemption. It is relevant to bring this fact up when the police do such public promotions.

I think that's a terrible idea. To promote inclusion and diversity of trans people while pandering to the notion that they're a sex pest trying to molest prisoners.......it's the opposite of what the police force were trying to achieve.

Gruffalux

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed.
And you are always so quick to join the discussion when the poster I called to task, this time for perpetuating stereotypes that have been known to fuel bullying, finds herself in a spot of bother.
As I said , we have been down this read before.

Interesting that the only response you came back with is 'it's a message board' - hardly a sterling rebuttal of a single point I made. Faux Outrage.
Seen that one many times as well from you.

Perpetuating stereotypes, me hole.


I am glad to have Obvious defend me against disingenuous claims, and I have got her back too.
Come on! Stick em up! Whatcha gonna do!

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Now you have. Are you going to take it to the Ladies Lounge forum to complain?

Muzzle down , great trigger finger discipline, poorly positioned drop leg holster ,

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

Muzzle down , great trigger finger discipline, poorly positioned drop leg holster ,

I'll take that as a no.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'll take that as a no.

Two more prime examples

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/british-transport-police-launch-counter-14699925.amp


https://www.google.com/search?q=female+counter+terror+cop&client=ms-android-huawei-rev1&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi5nZ7C78btAhUuQhUIHacMAFMQ_AUoAXoECAMQAQ&biw=424&bih=743#imgrc=Y4RQFLSf0YVXiM

o1s1n

LLMMLL wrote: »

Now you have. Are you going to take it to the Ladies Lounge forum to complain?

Completely different type of photo... Where's the muzzle pointed at the camera with an angry face?

Bannasidhe

Gruffalux wrote: »

Perpetuating stereotypes, me hole.


I am glad to have Obvious defend me against disingenuous claims, and I have got her back too.
Come on! Stick em up! Whatcha gonna do!

Rebuttal of the points made me hole.

If that is the best you can do I won't engage you further. I have no interest in fisitcuffs

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think that's a terrible idea. To promote inclusion and diversity of trans people while pandering to the notion that they're a sex pest trying to molest prisoners.......it's the opposite of what the police force were trying to achieve.

It is not about sex pestery. Some women do not want males to examine their holes because of prior assault or embarrassment for example. Some women would not be permitted by their particular religious sect. Etc

LLMMLL

o1s1n wrote: »

Completely different type of photo... Where's the muzzle pointed at the camera with an angry face?

Well if we're going to split hairs the person was smiling not angry and the taser (a far less dangerous weapon) was not pointed at the camera.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed.
And you are always so quick to join the discussion when the poster I called to task, this time for perpetuating stereotypes that have been known to fuel bullying, finds herself in a spot of bother.
As I said , we have been down this read before.

Interesting that the only response you came back with is 'it's a message board' - hardly a sterling rebuttal of a single point I made. Faux Outrage.
Seen that one many times as well from you.

She and I agree a lot on this topic. I don’t know if you are insinuating anything more than that but I believe the admins and mods have tools at their disposal to show whether two accounts are linked and I will gladly submit to that check being ran. Nothing to hide there.

As for the second bolded bit, any other personal jabs to make?

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

It is not about sex pestery. Some women do not want males to examine their holes because of prior assault or embarrassment for example. Some women would not be permitted by their particular religious sect. Etc

And some men would not like to be searched by a cos female officer.

It would be bizarre in the extreme to read an article about diversity of a police force and their acceptance of cis women with a disclaimer at the end: don't worry mens they won't be allowed near your bits.

Gruffalux

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Rebuttal of the points made me hole.

If that is the best you can do I won't shame you further.

You must have missed my earlier rebuttal.

To "Shame" is indeed exactly the term for what you are attempting to do. I noticed. Only some women are worthy, it seems.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

And some men would not like to be searched by a cos female officer.

It would be bizarre in the extreme to read an article about diversity of a police force and their acceptance of cis women with a disclaimer at the end: don't worry mens they won't be allowed near your bits.

Those men who do not wish to be searched by females should never be.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Those men who do not wish to be searched by females should never be.

Should the concerns of male detainees be discussed in promotional materials for diversity in police forces regarding cis women?

o1s1n

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well if we're going to split hairs the person was smiling not angry and the taser (a far less dangerous weapon) was not pointed at the camera.

It's not splitting hairs, they're two totally different photos.

In one photo a woman has her gun under control and secure. It's dignified, professional and shows the police force in a strong light.

The other photo has a trans woman pointing a taser and looks menacing.

I do agree with you that it's not a trans issue, it's just a really bad photo that shouldn't have been used.

Bannasidhe

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

She and I agree a lot on this topic. I don’t know if you are insinuating anything more than that but I believe the admins and mods have tools at their disposal to show whether two accounts are linked and I will gladly submit to that check being ran. Nothing to hide there.

As for the second bolded bit, any other personal jabs to make?

I am not insinuating anything. Are you insinuating I am insinuating something?

I am merely saying us three have been on this merry-go-round before and I have noticed you, as Grufflex said, 'have each other's back'. It does make it a tad difficult to engage in a discussion when a question is asked of one poster but an entirely different poster responds. Means points and questions are not properly addressed.

I was going to stay out of this topic as I find the tag teaming as a way of deflecting from actually answering points put pointless so on that note I withdraw from this thread.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well if we're going to split hairs the person was smiling not angry and the taser (a far less dangerous weapon)

Just as lethal in some cases

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Should the concerns of male detainees be discussed in promotional materials for diversity in police forces regarding cis women?

Male officers are already not permitted to intimately search female prisoners. Or certainly there is the right to same sex search. That is why it is relevant in this case.
What you are saying is not relevant.

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

Just as lethal in some cases

I know which I'd prefer to be around.....

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Male officers are already not permitted to intimately search female prisoners. Or certainly there is the right to same sex search. That is why it is relevant in this case.
What you are saying is not relevant.

I'm not aware if a female officer can search me or not. The issue is awareness right? So should I be made aware of the actual policy to allay my concerns in promotional materials relating to cis women officers?

Bannasidhe

Gruffalux wrote: »

You must have missed my earlier rebuttal.

To "Shame" is indeed exactly the term for what you are attempting to do. I noticed. Only some women are worthy, it seems.

I did indeed miss any rebuttal from you. I have since seen it and in no way does it address my point about hurtful language.

I apologise for my use of the word 'shame' - and although your accusation is extremely distasteful and insulting - nonetheless it was a poor choice of words on my part and I have amended my post.

If you cannot see how your comments were akin to the terms used to bully non-feminine cis females than there is no further point in my engaging with you.

Gruffalux

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am not insinuating anything. Are you insinuating I am insinuating something?

I am merely saying us three have been on this merry-go-round before and I have noticed you, as Grufflex said, 'have each other's back'. It does make it a tad difficult to engage in a discussion when a question is asked of one poster but an entirely different poster responds. Means points and questions are not properly addressed.

I was going to stay out of this topic as I find the tag teaming as a way of deflecting from actually answering points put pointless so on that note I withdraw from this thread.

I answered the points.

But as Obvious said everyone answers everyone elses points on threads all the time. Its free for all keys in the fruit bowl argument orgy round here, baby.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am not insinuating anything. Are you insinuating I am insinuating something?

I am merely saying us three have been on this merry-go-round before and I have noticed you, as Grufflex said, 'have each other's back'. It does make it a tad difficult to engage in a discussion when a question is asked of one poster but an entirely different poster responds. Means points and questions are not properly addressed.

I was going to stay out of this topic as I find the tag teaming as a way of deflecting from actually answering points put pointless so on that note I withdraw from this thread.

So what if we do? What was the point in pointing that out if not to insinuate something? And somebody else responding to a post not addressed to them doesn’t stop the person who WAS addressed from responding. I’m not blocking discussion by replying. You don’t even have to take any notice of what I post. I’m not going to tiptoe around a thread lest somebody thinks I’m butting in. Who are you to say what I should and shouldn’t write?

jaxxx

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am not insinuating anything. Are you insinuating I am insinuating something?

I am merely saying us three have been on this merry-go-round before and I have noticed you, as Grufflex said, 'have each other's back'. It does make it a tad difficult to engage in a discussion when a question is asked of one poster but an entirely different poster responds. Means points and questions are not properly addressed.

I was going to stay out of this topic as I find the tag teaming as a way of deflecting from actually answering points put pointless so on that note I withdraw from this thread.

So those who subscribe to the gender identity ideology are allowed to 'have each other's back', but those that don't aren't? Is that what you're saying? Cos it sure as hell looks like that. Or is there some love-triangle between the 3 of you the rest of us aren't privy to? Hmm, given the record of things on Boards my gut is more inclined towards the former. If you're looking for deflecting, you might wanna look on the other side of the fence, and the mirror as well for that matter.

Gruffalux

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I did indeed miss any rebuttal from you. I have since seen it and in no way does it address my point about hurtful language.

I apologise for my use of the word 'shame' - and although your accusation is extremely distasteful and insulting - nonetheless it was a poor choice of words on my part and I have amended my post.

If you cannot see how your comments were akin to the terms used to bully non-feminine cis females than there is no further point in my engaging with you.

Thank you for noting shame was inappropriate. I appreciate that.

I honestly did not have in my head the idea to shame women for their appearance. Or transwomen. It did not cross my mind

If you have actually followed this thread you will know that despite regular accusations I have not been doing down trans people.

The whole observation was twofold - that it was inappropriate to try and promote reassurance with a particularly aggressive image and that people must be allowed observe the evidence of their senses. The police said Skye is female. This is untrue. It is also observably untrue and why must one deny this?
This would be relevant in this case re intimate searches by police. If a detained woman objected and was told this IS a female that would be making out that the detained woman is a liar or mad to observe what she sees. That is not good for any party.

The more reasonable and civil thing would be if the transwoman police officer said to a woman who had objections I understand you do not want to be attended by a male bodied officer and I will get you a female officer. That does not mean they are not a trans woman - they are.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm not aware if a female officer can search me or not. The issue is awareness right? So should I be made aware of the actual policy to allay my concerns in promotional materials relating to cis women officers?

Actually apparently females can pat down males. That is interesting. If males object it would be something they should campaign against. Justifiably.
Males already cannot intimately search females by law. Gender identification should not change that protection. In my opinion. And I would campaign against that changing, as I am doing I suppose.

Frankie Machine

LLMMLL wrote: »

Does the photo have any impact on them being female?

Emphatically, yes. That picture by itself suggests a person who is neither female, nor feminine, nor photogenic.

That's just the fact of the matter, and the vast majority of people would see that without needing any accompanying text or context.

If you search Google Images, there's an image (from the same shoot I'd say), without the harsh lighting and without the full face portrait which is not flattering.

It's a much, much better image than the one used in the article, which is horribly lit and I think chosen by a photo editor with questionable motives. As we have come to expect from the 'meeja'.

jaxxx

Gruffalux wrote: »

Actually apparently females can pat down males. That is interesting. If males object it would be something they should campaign against. Justifiably.
Males already cannot intimately search females by law. Gender identification should not change that protection. In my opinion. And I would campaign against that changing, as I am doing I suppose.

If I were pat down, I'd rather it do done by a woman (actual woman, i.e. female adult Homo sapien.. not transwoman. Incoming typical 'transphobe' rubbish in 3.. 2..)


Anyway, nothing sexual or anything. The idea of being touched by a man just creeps me out.

#Feminine does not a woman make

#Masculine does not a man make

#Feminine men are men

#Masculine women are women

#BiteMe4StatingFacts

#FactsDon'tCareAboutFeelings

Speaking of Mr Shepiro, although we're agreed on this subject, I strongly dislike him for allowing his religion to cloud his judgement when it comes to homosexuals.