Dublin Pride ends media partnership with RTE over Liveline's Gender Identity discussion

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119240478#Comment_119240478

There are more than 200 genders.

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119241782#Comment_119241782

be very bad for the environment if that was true… imagine filling in forms ? All the extra paper required !

LLMMLL

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119241776#Comment_119241776

You claim to be pro gender identification rights

Can you quote where I said that please?

Define for me what you class as a gender.

The dictionary definition is fine.

Tell me how many of them there are

At least 2

, and tell me how many you would actively support.

At least 2

LLMMLL

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119241777#Comment_119241777

I'm not surprised you do not advocate for learning about an issue before holding an opinion on it.

I mean you had some strange opinions about the GRA while clearly knowing nothing about it.

Some of us like our opinions to be well thought out and considered. I certainly wouldn't make pronouncements about a law I hadn't researched.

So I cannot wait for your campaign to have all 200 genders recognized in law. I am sure it will be very informative for me.

LLMMLL

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119241779#Comment_119241779

So you are requesting that staticgender be recognized in law.

I'm sorry for saying earlier you are not passionate about anything. I see that the recognition of staticgender is important to you. I'm impressed by your passion and zeal for it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119241791#Comment_119241791

So you are not pro gender identification rights?

It's a binary answer. You should be ok with that.

I'm interested in what YOU define as a legitimate gender. Because long held definitions (e.g. woman and a man) aren't applicable to some.

Your inability to definitively tell me how many genders you would support is telling.

I suppose you define yourself as support fluid.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119241793#Comment_119241793

I was wrong about the GRA. You seem to to think that is something to be ashamed of.

I knew for certain that biological men and women could identify and be legally recognised as the opposite sex/gender. I wasn't in favour of that. I did assume because of the name of the act, it included all genders. In hindsight it was silly of me, as certain people have shown here, gender and sex are only separate when convenient.

I openly admit when I am wrong though and explain why I held that opinion. Unlike yourself and Anna, I don't dodge awkward questions that may weaken my argument.

That isn't something many here are willing to do. You refuse to even tell us how many genders you believe there are or what you deem a valid gender to be.

There will be no campaign from me. I would prefer gender to be a personal thing. But if there is a "law" that makes people accept other people's gender identity, I certainly won't pay any heed to it as long as it's only a law that permits men to be women and women to be men.

That's not gender equality or accepting of people's gender identity.

LLMMLL

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119241797#Comment_119241797

So you are not pro gender identification rights?

I've been clear about what I support. Couldn't find that quote you claimed I made could you?

Of course the binary question is a debating trick. And not a very good one. It's like if a trans inclusive feminist who defines feminism as including trans women asked a GC feminist "are you a feminist?" And when the GC feminist says "yes" the trans inclusive feminist claims "oh so you acknowledge trans women are women?"

Your clumsy goal is clearly to interpret any answer I give by your own definition of "pro gender identification rights" and then erroneously claim some kind of gotcha moment.

Those kinds of tactics don't work on me.

I'm interested in what YOU define as a legitimate gender.

I've never used the term "legitimate gender". Why would I have to define it?

LLMMLL

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119241799#Comment_119241799

Yes you were wrong about the GRA. I don't think you should be ashamed of that but I would have thought someone who makes such confident pronouncements while not knowing the most basic facts about something might refrain from asking me "what's to learn?" About some issue, and encouraging me to state opinons about issues I'm unfamiliar with.

I haven't dodged any questions. I just do not give the answers you were hoping for. I don't have to define phrases I never used. I don't have to defend arguemnts I never made simply because you demand it.

This all ties into your mistake about the GRA. You can't handle that someone would say "I don't have an opinion on this issue". You must think it's required to have an opinion on things and that's why you have an opinion on the GRA while clearly knowing nothing about it. It's a pattern with you.

It's perfectly reasonable to say "I don't have an opinion on this issue" or "I'm waiting to hear more about this issue" or "I'd like to understand more about the issue from the people requesting legal recognition" such as yourself seeking to have staticgender recognized. When you start your campaign then I will form my opinion.

Oh I see you say you are not going to campaign. But you seem to think that jot campaigning for something means you are against it. But you say you are pro recognition of staticgender. How can you be both for and against it?

Hoboo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119241782#Comment_119241782

There are actually an infinite number of genders yet to be invented if the last 10 years are to go by.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119241801#Comment_119241801

Its very simple to be both pro and against staticgender. Being legalised.

I am against gender recognition so don't believe any gender should have a legal standing, but would be pro staticgender being legalised if we have a law making gender recognition legally binding.

A gender recognition act, only conveniently recognising two binary "genders" is absolutely ridiculous.

My preference would be no gender recognition act, but if that isn't a possibility, I would favour a recognition act that encompasses all genders.

@LLMMLL

@LLMMLL "I've never used the term "legitimate gender". Why would I have to define it?"

Because that's the crux of the matter. Your interpretation of what makes a "gender" legitimate is surely how you base your opinion on what should and should not be legal.

You seem to think that me asking you "how many genders there are in your opinion" or "what makes a gender legitimate in your opinion" are gotchas. They aren't. They are very simple questions that anyone should easily be able to provide very simple, definitive answers to.

While I admire your patience, you're not going to pin them down. They've been doing this for years.

https://twitter.com/thejournal_ie/status/1540213883545145344

Absolutely dreadful article on this issue in The Journal.

What was new, however, is that RTE decided to give a platform to people that espouse these views over the course of three programmes. For that day and the following two, trans people, their families, their friends, and their loved ones had to listen to their rights being debated on the national airwaves.

Yet I presume the author of this article had no problem, and was presumably heavily involved, in the debates around gay marriage and so forth. The hypocrisy stinks.

This is not about free speech.

People can and do say what they like about trans people. RTÉ, however, is not obliged to give them a platform for the sake of a debate.

Oh but there is a massive debate to be had.

The narrative is consistently spun that trans rights are under attack. But trans- activists never, ever concede the ground that perhaps many people out there are uncomfortable with how so-called "trans rights" impinge on other people's rights in society.

There is no rule that says you're entitled to a right. The sporting governing body FINA demonstrated that perfectly well. When rights compete, you need to debate the matter - not silence it to get your own personal way. Nobody has the right to remove the word woman from maternity legislation, or from any other situations in which women are dehumanised with language such as "person with a <insert body part>". The list goes on.

It's also worth noting that The Journal would never, ever have given the platform for the opposition arguments to be made, one against what Dublin Pride did.

UID0

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119240877#Comment_119240877

I’m not sure I understand the question. What rights are denied to people who identify as non-binary, other than the right to be recognised in law? This is the whole point of being recognised in law - so that they have all the SAME rights and freedoms and protection in law as people who identify themselves in accordance with the binary concept of gender which only recognises male and female as legitimate gender identities.

My question wasn't clear enough. What I was trying to ask is what recognising non-binary genders looks like from the point of view of the state. Is there a different treatment that is required from the state or is making existing legislation gender-neutral sufficient.

I’d be in agreement with all of that, except for that last bit. I understand where you’re coming from with the idea that a good therapist will invite a client to… I would say explore, rather than challenge, but you’re ignoring the fact that the beliefs regarding their identity that the person holds are true already as far as they’re concerned. A good therapist will leave their own personal beliefs outside the clinic door. By way of giving you an example, let’s say a client is non-religious. It’s not the job of a therapist to challenge that non-belief, and a good therapist will leave their own personal religious beliefs outside the clinic door in consultation with a client who does not share their religious beliefs. Same applies to their beliefs, or lack thereof, about gender.

Explore is probably a more correct word, and I don't think that a therapist should take their own personal beliefs into account when treating a client. What I mean is that the client should be invited to explore their own motivation - to determine if their desire is innate or is masking a different underlying issue and to ask themselves what transitioning would be like for them, how they see their life after transition, and if the best option for them is to transition or to find a way to exist in the body they are in as is. Either way, I don't think that it is an easy choice for someone to make, and they need care and support through that time. Some of that care will come from family, friends and like-minded support groups, but some needs to come from appropriately trained professionals.

 

Why do you apply this recommendation to people who are transgender specifically? Who do you imagine actually wants to see anyone’s private parts, only people who want to see other people’s private parts? I’m a man, and I sure as hell don’t want to see anyone’s private parts when I’m getting ready to go to the gym, or swimming, or anywhere else. I don’t want anyone else seeing my private parts either, but NOBODY is forced to see anyone’s private parts, and legislation already exists in Irish law which prohibits displays of that nature.

The intention is not to apply this to transgender people specifically. It is more aimed at people who would wish to take advantage of any ambiguity in order to either fulfil their own desire or to cause a problem for transgender people. I think that most transgender people just want to live their life and not draw undue attention to themselves, and would be discrete when using single-sex facilities, and I think that there is a huge difference between intentional and accidental exposure. As an example, if a transwoman has been using a swimming pool, and has showered after it, she will have to change from swimming costume to clothes. This will necessitate a point where there is at most a towel around her, and there is a risk that someone will see her penis. This is very different from the case where after showering, someone deliberately removes all of their clothing and dries themselves with the towel wide open for all to see.

Well that’s just rude, but here’s the thing - I’ll bet you haven’t bothered to check whether the people they’re shouting “transphobe” at, were actually people who were claiming to have seen a penis, or challenging the individual on the basis that they didn’t believe the individual had a right to be in that space? Because if that is the case, then anyone shouting “transphobe” in a crowded dressing room, is correctly identifying a person who is transphobic. Rude, but no different than the behaviour you’re attempting to defend. Neither behaviour is justified however, as complaints of that nature are dealt with either by management or the Gardaí, depending upon the circumstances in each case.

This is linked with the point above. The person who has been discrete is less likely to cause a scene than the person who is deliberate in their exposure. I agree that any incident of this nature need to be dealt with by management or the Gardai. I'm not attempting to defend any behaviour, merely pointing out that there are some people who will attempt to take advantage of any situation and that those people should be made to stand out. There are some trans rights activists who are very quick to shout transphobe, and no facility wants to risk being labelled as 'transphobic.' This, I feel, will result in a reluctance to do anything about these individuals. What I was saying is that if there is a more private option, using this instead of the more public option reduces the risk of accidental exposure and makes the deliberate cases more obvious and increases the chances of them being dealt with appropriately. Looking back at what I wrote, I realise that I wasn't clear. I am not advocating for a legal ban on using the facilities provided for their new gender (I'm not sure what phrase to use here - chosen/desired/acquired don't seem to fit the bill), more something like a recommendation on how to avoid conflict.

 

I think you might be blowing a minor issue out of proportion to suggest that it is a major issue, but given you consider ANYTHING Regina Doherty says to anyone, a major issue… I can see why rather than giving advice to people who are transgender to limit themselves to their designated facilities, it might serve your own interests better to get some perspective rather than criticising the State for what you see as their lack of perspective.

Regina Doherty was a member of government and was speaking in her role as Minister for Social Protection at the time of the review of the GRA. It is more that it is indicative that the thinking of government at the time is that inclusion is more important than safety. She minimised the potential outcomes instead of saying that the government were looking at ways to mitigate risk. There is a lot of fear-mongering (mostly unjustified) around trans rights, and I think that the government have a duty to acknowledge and deal with those fears. Dismissing them as irrelevant is not dealing with them.

 

Exemptions already exist in existing equality legislation to address issues in sports. The issues with the levels of participation in women’s sports have absolutely nothing to do with people who are transgender, and everything to do with the lack of support for women in sports, and the fact that men don’t want women participating in what they see as “their” sports. That’s existed long before any acknowledgement of people who are transgender, let alone the idea that they should have the same rights as anyone else to participate in sports. If their aim in the bathroom is anything to go by, both men and women should be prohibited from playing football, yet it remains a popular sport promoting alcohol consumption… I’m not a conspiracy theorist but… “back of the net” becomes significantly more challenging with alcohol on-board 😂

I'm not blaming transgender people for the levels of participation in women's sport. I'm just saying that inclusion should not result in a reduction in level of participation. For different sports that ill look different - for some it will mean that transwomen will be excluded for reasons of safety and fairness. For some sports it will mean complete inclusion, and for some sports it will be somewhere in the middle. Increasing support for women's sports will help offset any potential reduction in participation. Either way, I think that the effects of inclusion practices need to be monitored and rules adjusted as necessary. There is no point in exclusion just for the sake of exclusion. Any restrictions on participation should be based on the evidence available. This may mean that a lot of sports start out being more restrictive than they need to be until there is sufficient evidence that there is no safety risk to other competitors.

As an aside, and not directed at you, there are some on both sides of this debate who make incorrect logical jumps, reduce the argument to absurdities or just shout that the opposing side is wrong. This is not a sign of reasoned debate. It is important to remember that while the discussion is about groups of people, each group is made up of individuals, who have feelings and thoughts and desires. Everybody deserves respect, and everybody deserves the right to voice their opinion, even when we don't agree with it. Society, generally, works by balancing everyone's rights. Nobody should be allowed to unduly impinge on anyone else. People should be free to live their lives, and the state's involvement in imposing restrictions should only be to balance those rights.

Edit: fixed typos

TomTomTim

Every TRA at the minute seems to be using the "debating the existence of trans people" talking point. It's their go to approach at the minute, with the aim of stopping people discussing the topic. It might have some value if the other side were actually saying anything like that, but no one is. It's such a dishonest and slimy way to go about things, but they don't care once it gets them what they want. They've gotten so used to the comfort of protection that they seem to care little about PR.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119242746#Comment_119242746

When this all kicked off a few years ago, nobody really understood it. I was among them, totally confused about non-binary and the rest.

Most people didn't understand it. But given the movement was confusing yet latched onto words like "progressive" and so on, they managed to score breakthroughs. Throw in the transphobia accusations, and bingo - you'll get what you want.

However, with the passage of time, more and more people have come to understand what trans- actually means, including the whole non-binary stuff - and can see the flaws and contradictions. The unintended consequences of the Gender Recognition Act have also brought this into a much sharper focus.

So in the early stages, there was effectively no debate - and that worked perfectly for trans activists.

Now that people are copping into the subject and wanting a debate - they want to go back to how things were before. No debate, and push the agenda through.

The problem is that this strategy doesn't work anymore. And the kind of pushback we needed is well under way.

DarkJager21

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119242438#Comment_119242438

That article is gold and the expected standard for the "author".

Choice passage below:

"I’m not sure that this has to do with the NWC. For a group like The Countess, which is so concerned about the erasure of the word “woman”, they really do go out of their way not to use that word when referring to trans women on their site".

Hmm I wonder why, what could they possibly be referring to when they say "woman"?

"A Google search pulls back one link for the use of “trans woman”, and even that’s a quote from the TENI website. “Trans women” fares a little better, with 5 results.

There are, however, several pages for the use of the term “trans identified”. They seem quite happy to tie themselves up in linguistic Gordian knots to avoid giving any sort of legitimacy to trans women. The first casualty of the culture war is, it seems, language."

Bravo, the absolute lack of self awareness is amazing. Remind us, what group has been trying to censure language? Twisting themselves in knots to try and legitimise themselves?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119242919#Comment_119242919

Sometimes I don't know whether they actually believe what they're saying, or whether they're sticking to a script.

Shelga

....

Shelga

...

conorhal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119243304#Comment_119243304

As I keep being told, sex and gender are two different things! Can you misgender someone when correctly reffering to their biological sex as opposed to their gender?

NSAman

I’m pissed off also, why am I now a “cis male”, I’m not! I am male. I want my rights respected and to be called male!

.01% of people do NOT get the right to label others.

We live in a democracy, while I respect everyone and have no issues with how others want to be labelled, please do not label me with a name that means nothing to 99% of people.

LLMMLL

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119242076#Comment_119242076

Its very simple to be both pro and against staticgender. Being legalised.

Wait let me get this straight. You think being BOTH pro and against something is "simple" but can't handle someone not having a position on something??? LOL

LLMMLL

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119242094#Comment_119242094

Absolutely not. The GRA doesn't mention "legitimate" genders so why do you think it's a necessary basis for their legality.

Legicitimacy of gender is just a concept you've come up with and demanded everyone else have a position on.

If it actually was a necessary concept it would be impossible to have a piece of legislation where that legislation did not deal with it.

My position is that trans men and women should be recognized asen or women in line with how they identify. What it means to be a legitimate gender or whether they are legitimate or illegitimate genders is irrelevant as I don't recognize that concept.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119243681#Comment_119243681

In this context, as has been outlined to you 100 times on this thread alone, yes.

I'm not in favour of the law recognising gender.

However,

If the law does recognise gender, it would be exclusionary to allow only two to hold weight.

LLMMLL

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119242438#Comment_119242438

Gay people were not happy about the gay marriage debates. I don't know if you're gay or not but it was not fun having to listen to some of the claims made on national tv or radio about our ability to raise children etc.

The reason we had to take part in debates and justify our lives to the general public was because the constitution needed to be changed and that required a public vote.

We weren't like "oh yay let's have a debate and be portrayed as paedophiles. That's how I want to spend the next few months".

LLMMLL

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119243713#Comment_119243713

So "in this context" (I.e. when you say it) it's fine. Presumably then in other contexts you realize holding two conflictig positions is nonsense.

Crazy world where disagreeing with yourself on an issue is considered to be a better position to hold than not having an opinion on an issue.

LLMMLL

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119242808#Comment_119242808

There have been no unintended consequences to the GRA. And that's why the miniscule pushback will fail.

Any time someone complains about the GRA all I have to do is ask them how it has affected their lives or the lives of anyone they know or even find me a news article with negative consequences and watch them splutter. Great fun for me.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119243708#Comment_119243708

"Absolutely not. The GRA doesn't mention "legitimate" genders so why do you think it's a necessary basis for their legality."

I'm asking you. It was a question. To you. About what you feel makes a gender legitimate. I think also it's a little silly to say that something doesn't have to be legitimate in order to be legal. The clue is in the name.

"My position is that trans men and women should be recognized asen or women in line with how they identify"

Great. I wholly disagree and it makes just as much sense to allow people to determine their own age or height.

I just don't understand why you don't extend that to other genders or other demonstrably false self perceptions.