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

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A witness isn’t perfectly entitled to say anything! Let’s at least be clear about that much.





Not sure how you make that out. It’s not the defendants obligation to prove they’re not guilty of rape, that’s the job of the prosecution to prove they are guilty of rape.





Different standards apply in a court of law than in the court of public opinion. One could refer to the defendant how they wanted, at the risk of being found in contempt of court.

Think it through though...a victim says they were raped by a man, the defendant says, no I'm a woman.

They basically just confessed to rape.

Regarding your last point, are we really at the stage where women can rape people with the natural penis they were born with and we are all supposed to nod sagely and agree? This attitude didn't even last long in the emperor's new clothes....

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

Think it through though...a victim says they were raped by a man, the defendant says, no I'm a woman.

They basically just confessed to rape.

They didn’t though, they corrected the witness. I get the attempt, but it also leaves open the possibility that the defendant can say “there you have it, definitely wasn’t me so! I told you I was innocent”.

GreeBo wrote: »

Regarding your last point, are we really at the stage where women can rape people with the natural penis they were born with and we are all supposed to nod sagely and agree? This attitude didn't even last long in the emperor's new clothes....

Nope, of course we haven’t, but it may be required in a Court of Law to address the person who is on trial as their preferred gender if one is appearing as a witness for the Prosecution in their case against the accused. You’re arguing as though you already had them bang to rights for committing rape already.

political analyst

Someone called 'Big Gerry' linked this article on the Hate Speech Public Consultation thread in this forum this afternoon.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9070893/Schoolgirl-14-plans-free-speech-fight-police-hate-rules.html

Miss B, who is dyslexic and has a condition that makes it hard for her to understand sounds, has strong views about transgenderism, but now feels inhibited about discussing the topic. She said: 'Is it out of order for a 14-year-old girl to question in a school setting if it's appropriate for a male-bodied person to be present in her sports changing area, toilets and dorms without fear of police intervention?'

If a natal girl was sexually assaulted at school by a biological male who identifies as female (and there's no indication it has happened yet - but it could), could the victim be in a similar situation to children who were sexually abused by some Catholic priests in the 1980s?

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, of course we haven’t, but it may be required in a Court of Law to address the person who is on trial as their preferred gender if one is appearing as a witness for the Prosecution in their case against the accused. You’re arguing as though you already had them bang to rights for committing rape already.

You say we haven't but then go on to say that we have to if the court tells us to.
So yes, women can rape people with the penis they were born with.
It also means that men can breastfeed the children that they gave birth to.
What a time to be alive!

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

You say we haven't but then go on to say that we have to if the court tells us to.
So yes, women can rape people with the penis they were born with.
It also means that men can breastfeed the children that they gave birth to.
What a time to be alive!

I also said earlier that different standards apply in a Court of Law than in the court of public opinion. Surely context is important in determining the most appropriate approach in any given situation?

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I also said earlier that different standards apply in a Court of Law than in the court of public opinion. Surely context is important in determining the most appropriate approach in any given situation?

I would disagree, biological/scientific facts don't change due to man (ha!) made constructs such as law.

Hector Savage

There is a good book on this
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Irreversible-Damage-Transgender-Seducing-Daughters/dp/1684510317/ref=sr_1_1?crid=27WB3WO1ACEI7&dchild=1&keywords=abigail+shrier&qid=1608560311&sprefix=abigail+sh%2Caps%2C188&sr=8-1

The author was on Joe Rogan podcast recently, very interesting ...

Gatling

Hector Savage wrote: »

There is a good book on this
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Irreversible-Damage-Transgender-Seducing-Daughters/dp/1684510317/ref=sr_1_1?crid=27WB3WO1ACEI7&dchild=1&keywords=abigail+shrier&qid=1608560311&sprefix=abigail+sh%2Caps%2C188&sr=8-1

The author was on Joe Rogan podcast recently, very interesting ...

It's a wake up call

Hector Savage

Gatling wrote: »

It's a wake up call

And regarding the spotify podcast, all she did was speak sense and her concern is teenage girls with mental health issues.

Some spotify employees wanted Rogan removed/cancelled because of this - just think about the mentality of these people - what kind of brainwashing have they gone through to think someone like Abigal Shrier is dangerous and needs to be shut down.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Hector Savage wrote: »

And regarding the spotify podcast, all she did was speak sense and her concern is teenage girls with mental health issues.

Some spotify employees wanted Rogan removed/cancelled because of this - just think about the mentality of these people - what kind of brainwashing have they gone through to think someone like Abigal Shrier is dangerous and needs to be shut down.

And even if they were right and it was an awful book, censorship doesn’t work. It never has. It just pushes things underground, where they foment. What are people afraid of? Let’s get everything out in the open and discuss it.

Gruffalux

The NCWI were congratulating themselves yesterday for getting the word woman put back into use in official literature about female health issues/screening.

https://twitter.com/NWCI/status/1340991702656540676?s=20

People were quick to point out that it was not the NCWI who managed to have this changed right now - it was regular women kicking up a stink and going on radio and writing into papers etc. The NCWI may have not realised that there are plenty of women who will not fall for their crap about supporting the removal of political representation for those who have opinions different than their own.

https://twitter.com/dontshamewomen/status/1341185165108916226?s=20

In that reply I notice a screen shot of a recent Tweet from Aoife Martin - remember they hold an official position as Director in an NGO which has no small amount of influence, including in the field of education (TENI) - where they refer to a woman who objected to the erasure of woman from official health literature as being ''a wan'' who was ''going ape****'' and Aoife wondered how ''she manages to tie her shoelaces every morning''.
This is a public response to a woman making the perfectly valid request that the word woman be included in material and not be replaced by ''people with a cervix''.
I may have been a bit hasty earlier to be so supportive of Aoife's prerogative to espouse activism towards their goals. If a trans man responded to a man who objected to the erasure of the word man in public health literature by condescending publicly that there was ''some bloke'' ''going ape****'' about the use of the phrase ''people with prostates'' and if they ''wondered how does he manage to tie his shoes every day'', I think that trans man would be fairly correctly told to take a hike.

The NCWI in their advice to the National Screening Service on this matter recommended that the language be framed as "women, transgender men, intersex and non-binary people with a cervix". I have yet to see any significant and publicly-funded NGO recommend to the NSS that literature issued for Prostate screening be directed towards "men, transgender women, intersex and non-binary people with a prostate". I also wonder when the NCWI is going to morph into the NCWTMIANBPWACI.

Sir Oxman

Gruffalux wrote: »

The NCWI were congratulating themselves yesterday for getting the word woman put back into use in official literature about female health issues/screening.

https://twitter.com/NWCI/status/1340991702656540676?s=20

People were quick to point out that it was not the NCWI who managed to have this changed right now - it was regular women kicking up a stink and going on radio and writing into papers etc. The NCWI may have not realised that there are plenty of women who will not fall for their crap about supporting the removal of political representation for those who have opinions different than their own.

https://twitter.com/dontshamewomen/status/1341185165108916226?s=20

In that reply I notice a screen shot of a recent Tweet from Aoife Martin - remember they hold an official position as Director in an NGO which has no small amount of influence, including in the field of education (TENI) - where they refer to a woman who objected to the erasure of woman from official health literature as being ''a wan'' who was ''going ape****'' and Aoife wondered how ''she manages to tie her shoelaces every morning''.
This is a public response to a woman making the perfectly valid request that the word woman be included in material and not be replaced by ''people with a cervix''.
I may have been a bit hasty earlier to be so supportive of Aoife's prerogative to espouse activism towards their goals. If a trans man responded to a man who objected to the erasure of the word man in public health literature by condescending publicly that there was ''some bloke'' ''going ape****'' about the use of the phrase ''people with prostates'' and if they ''wondered how does he manage to tie his shoes every day'', I think that trans man would be fairly correctly told to take a hike.

The NCWI in their advice to the National Screening Service on this matter recommended that the language be framed as "women, transgender men, intersex and non-binary people with a cervix". I have yet to see any significant and publicly-funded NGO recommend to the NSS that literature issued for Prostate screening be directed towards "men, transgender women, intersex and non-binary people with a prostate". I also wonder when the NCWI is going to morph into the NCWTMIANBPWACI.

I see Mr Authoritarian-Amnesty Ireland is getting schooled again in those replies (in which he inserted himself)
I guess that'll go in his 'I'm being abused by bigots' excel list.

jam_mac_jam

I would have thought the aim of providing health information is clear information. So women and people with a cervix would be a million times better than people with a cervix. Or the other string of possibilities.

Not everyone speaks this language of inclusivity and it can actually be difficult to understand what is meant. In adverting or a headline its annoying. In the case of health information you may actually be putting people in harm's way by them not understanding you. For the sake of saving the feelings of a limited amount of people.

You can be inclusive and clear at the same time and say women and people with a cervix.

Sittingpretty

Gruffalux wrote: »

The NCWI were congratulating themselves yesterday for getting the word woman put back into use in official literature about female health issues/screening.

https://twitter.com/NWCI/status/1340991702656540676?s=20

People were quick to point out that it was not the NCWI who managed to have this changed right now - it was regular women kicking up a stink and going on radio and writing into papers etc. The NCWI may have not realised that there are plenty of women who will not fall for their crap about supporting the removal of political representation for those who have opinions different than their own.

https://twitter.com/dontshamewomen/status/1341185165108916226?s=20

In that reply I notice a screen shot of a recent Tweet from Aoife Martin - remember they hold an official position as Director in an NGO which has no small amount of influence, including in the field of education (TENI) - where they refer to a woman who objected to the erasure of woman from official health literature as being ''a wan'' who was ''going ape****'' and Aoife wondered how ''she manages to tie her shoelaces every morning''.
This is a public response to a woman making the perfectly valid request that the word woman be included in material and not be replaced by ''people with a cervix''.
I may have been a bit hasty earlier to be so supportive of Aoife's prerogative to espouse activism towards their goals. If a trans man responded to a man who objected to the erasure of the word man in public health literature by condescending publicly that there was ''some bloke'' ''going ape****'' about the use of the phrase ''people with prostates'' and if they ''wondered how does he manage to tie his shoes every day'', I think that trans man would be fairly correctly told to take a hike.

The NCWI in their advice to the National Screening Service on this matter recommended that the language be framed as "women, transgender men, intersex and non-binary people with a cervix". I have yet to see any significant and publicly-funded NGO recommend to the NSS that literature issued for Prostate screening be directed towards "men, transgender women, intersex and non-binary people with a prostate". I also wonder when the NCWI is going to morph into the NCWTMIANBPWACI.

The NCWI has appointed a trans woman to their board. That should tell you that their priorities lie with being woke rather than supporting actual women.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

The NCWI in their advice to the National Screening Service on this matter recommended that the language be framed as "women, transgender men, intersex and non-binary people with a cervix". I have yet to see any significant and publicly-funded NGO recommend to the NSS that literature issued for Prostate screening be directed towards "men, transgender women, intersex and non-binary people with a prostate". I also wonder when the NCWI is going to morph into the NCWTMIANBPWACI.

It's nice to see you are open to compromise.....

Really just looks now like your goal is not to get the word "woman" used in medical literature but to erase any reference to trans individuals.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's nice to see you are open to compromise.....

Really just looks now like your goal is not to get the word "woman" used in medical literature but to erase any reference to trans individuals.

No. I am happy with woman and people with a cervix.

jam_mac_jam

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's nice to see you are open to compromise.....

Really just looks now like your goal is not to get the word "woman" used in medical literature but to erase any reference to trans individuals.

Could you not use both and not exclude anyone?

LLMMLL

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Could you not use both and not exclude anyone?

That's what the new wording does. Gruffalux does not seem happy with it.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

That's what the new wording does. Gruffalux does not seem happy with it.

Do you never look back...

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Do you never look back...

You're happy enough with the new wording? That's great!

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

You're happy enough with the new wording? That's great!

Woooohhooooo! Me and LLMMLL agree!

Gatling

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Could you not use both and not exclude anyone?

Seems to exclude men who cannot carry and give birth to a baby .

A small victory for women

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gatling wrote: »

Seems to exclude men who cannot carry and give birth to a baby .

A small victory for women

And I suspect it was solely for their benefit that the word ‘woman’ was excised in the first place. Anyway, sense prevails. But I don’t know how it was even allowed to come to that.

ingalway

Peak Gender Identity:
https://youtu.be/CTTYwhZ7948

Sittingpretty

ingalway wrote: »

Peak Gender Identity:
https://youtu.be/CTTYwhZ7948

They may as well have titled their video “we want attention, give us lots of attention now”.

Gruffalux

The people in that family are not any odder than some other families I have known, to be honest. I have known some quite odd ones, especially people in religious cults, who have very strong beliefs and unusual ideas and raise their children with those ideas.

They all love their children deeply, and honestly believe they are doing the right thing at the time. Sometimes years later I have seen people who were very convinced of one way of thinking changing their ideas completely 20 years later. I have seen lots of different outcomes - rebellious kids who eventually tell their parents to eff off being the main one.

In my personal view the parents in this family are imposing gender theory ideology on their children even more than they think ''society'' imposes gender identity on everyone else. They are staunch ideologues, even more conservative, straight and narrow in their thinking than those they feel they oppose. They are fully bought in to deconstructionism which is not a creative philosophy. But they are not the first people in the world to be ideologues nor will they be the last, and they are entitled to be themselves.

So long as they do not start with medicating their children in any way that would have an effect on their health, or pushing them towards blocking puberty or eventual surgeries and so on, then hopefully the children will work out their own best way to live in the long run and maintain strong healthy bodies. And as long as they don't mind that I think their ideology is utter bulllsh1t whenever it denies biological reality, and as long as they don't mind that I will defend sex-based rights and protections against their gender ideology, then I don't mind them being immersed in their ideas. Everyone is entitled to a world-view.

It is really not nice that they would get online abuse. It would probably be better for them and their children if they would completely step out of the public eye and not seek attention and just get on with their lives. The attention they seek will draw negative responses also, and that could only ever be horrible for them and their children. 15 minutes of fleeting fame is not worth the pain. But I would say that to any family seeking widespread attention, even with persistent social media exposure of their children. It is not useful.

fantaiscool

Gruffalux wrote: »

The people in that family are not any odder than some other families I have known, to be honest. I have known some quite odd ones, especially people in religious cults, who have very strong beliefs and unusual ideas and raise their children with those ideas.

They all love their children deeply, and honestly believe they are doing the right thing at the time. Sometimes years later I have seen people who were very convinced of one way of thinking changing their ideas completely 20 years later. I have seen lots of different outcomes - rebellious kids who eventually tell their parents to eff off being the main one.

In my personal view the parents in this family are imposing gender theory ideology on their children even more than they think ''society'' imposes gender identity on everyone else. They are staunch ideologues, even more conservative, straight and narrow in their thinking than those they feel they oppose. They are fully bought in to deconstructionism which is not a creative philosophy. But they are not the first people in the world to be ideologues nor will they be the last, and they are entitled to be themselves.

So long as they do not start with medicating their children in any way that would have an effect on their health, or pushing them towards blocking puberty or eventual surgeries and so on, then hopefully the children will work out their own best way to live in the long run and maintain strong healthy bodies. And as long as they don't mind that I think their ideology is utter bulllsh1t whenever it denies biological reality, and as long as they don't mind that I will defend sex-based rights and protections against their gender ideology, then I don't mind them being immersed in their ideas. Everyone is entitled to a world-view.

It is really not nice that they would get online abuse. It would probably be better for them and their children if they would completely step out of the public eye and not seek attention and just get on with their lives. The attention they seek will draw negative responses also, and that could only ever be horrible for them and their children. 15 minutes of fleeting fame is not worth the pain. But I would say that to any family seeking widespread attention, even with persistent social media exposure of their children. It is not useful.

Good post. I disagree somewhat though. Unfortunately I do think the children here are being negatively affected by the environment they are growing up in.

I think the fact that the 10 year old has already decided to be "non-binary" is quite telling as to the effect of living in that environment. Clearly growing up in that environment is going to make the children turn out to be more "gender fluid" if thats the right term. Why not just raise the child normally and if anything like that pops up then address it. Surely the percentage of children who are born one gender and decide they aren't that gender is incredibly small so the chances that happening to your child are so slim that you should just proceed as if it won't happen, rather than raising a baby as a non binary.

However, is it any different to religious people raising their children to believe in God and follow a holy book. There is absolutely no evidence for a God. I would take issue with any religious people taking issue with these non-binary people.

oldtimeyfella

Raise your kids to be weirdos then complain that society treats them differently.


Also, anyone with functioning eyes can tell who is actually male and actually female in that video.All this trans stuff is such utter ****ing nonsense and we are weaker as a society for even entertaining any of it in the first place.

Gruffalux

oldtimeyfella wrote: »

Raise your kids to be weirdos then complain that society treats them differently.


Also, anyone with functioning eyes can tell who is actually male and actually female in that video.All this trans stuff is such utter ****ing nonsense and we are weaker as a society for even entertaining any of it in the first place.

I think there is a huge amount of scutter that is swamping out genuine dysphoria issues that are real. There is a very vocal cohort of AGP trans identifying people hyped up on sissy porn etc who have hitched their fetish to a "rights" movement which others have adopted as a religion. It is an absolute swamp.
Stick to the facts is my approach. But at the same time know there are plenty of humans with all manner of strong belief systems from Scientologists, Amish to Orthodox Jews and so on. This we know. And as a civilisation we tolerate people's faith based allegiances and don't support discrimination based on ideology.
But we also do not turn off the internet so Orthodox Jews can safely observe the Sabbath, or burn our cars so the Amish can have safe roads for their carts etc. Likewise there is zero need for us to turn off our brains and deny the facts about biological reality in order to be tolerant and kind to transgender people or the activists.

Mules

I think it's a bit weird how the trans stuff is now everywhere. A decade ago the idea of giving children hormones so they could change their gender would have been laughed at. Now mainstream politicians are lobbying for it.

Trans people are such a tiny percent of the population, I don't know why its constantly talked about like it's vitally important. I think minorities should be respected and not be made to feel like outsiders. I just think it's odd that an issue that affects such a small number of people has gained such prominence.