Is Dave Chappelle's new special "The Closer" really transphobic?

Using that rationale, if a man describes himself as a woman… 🤔

Rushed through so fast?

Foy began legal proceedings in April 1997,[7] to challenge the refusal of the Registrar General to issue her with a new birth certificate.

——-

Judgment was reserved for nearly two years until 9 July 2002 when Mr Justice Liam McKechnie rejected Lydia Foy's challenge, stating that Foy had been born male based on medical and scientific evidence and that accordingly the registration could not be changed. He did express concern about the position of transsexuals in Ireland, however, and called on the government to urgently review the matter.[2][9][10]

Whoa there speedy, what’s the 20 year rush for? 🤨

(never mind that it was a decision by the European Court of Human Rights in 2002 which found that the UK was in violation of articles 8 and 12 of the convention and Ireland passed the European Convention on Human Rights Act in 2003 is the reason why four years later, Foy took Ireland to Court for the second time in 2007… but yeah, totally an imported ideology)

Watched it tonight after seeing an article about netflix staff protesting it.

I've zero skin in the game either way, don't give any thought to trans/gay people etc but I found his story about his trans friend at the end comedically similar to somebody making racist jokes saying they've loads of black friends 😁

I love def comedy jam/Eddie Murphy/ Richard Pryor etc but there's no doubt that a big chunk of their material rips the piss out of gay people. I think culturally in Black communities its really looked down on so its defo got roots.

I also think you'd be hard pressed to find a white comedian being overtly racist these days. But I'd say chapelle is OK with that being cancelled.

I missed your edit, but just to be clear, the idea of the gender recognition act was never that gender supersedes sex, it doesn’t, not even in the Act itself which recognises the right of everyone in society to be protected from unlawful discrimination on the basis of their gender identity, and the purpose of a gender recognition certificate is to afford people the right to be recognised in law as being the sex of their preferred gender.

It still wasn’t rushed through, wherever you got that idea from, not to mention that your ideas of a democracy which doesn’t recognise people as being of equal status in law, is not a democracy. When the world hegemony says men are women now we all agree men are women… do we? Really? Clearly we do not, regardless of your attempt to paint yourself as the victim of some totalitarian dictatorship! 🙄

The reason those considerations were revised is because politicians decided the social model approach to gender identity would be more appropriate than the medical model which is still used in the UK, because they considered that gender identity itself is not a medical condition. It doesn’t mean at all what you’re driving at, that exceptions to the application of the gender recognition act don’t exist. They do, and this was never more clearly demonstrated than during the campaign to repeal the 8th amendment -

It is ok, are you ok?

What you quoted is making the point that satire is not the intellectual property of people in power, it’s used to mock the people in power by those people who have none. That’s what makes it effective. Multi-millionaires and billionaires using satire to portray themselves as victims being oppressed by a more powerful authority, misses the point of satire by a country mile.

What was your point in telling me I really need to proof read what I’m saying, when you’re just gonna make up whatever shìt you like as if I said it anyway?

No, it isn't, it is a comedy. Put 10 people in a room and tell a joke. Some will laugh as they may like it. Some will laugh because well, others are laughing... And some will not, they either do not like it or do not get it. Same situation here.

I do not usually watch standup comedy, I do so when there is too much of a fuss and a storms in a bucket about some. Just to see what made people crazy about it.

It was not the best I have seen yet the guy is not bad either. Whole situation reminds me of a censor office where you had people going over stuff just for the sake of finding something to run and show the boss how good busy bees they are. It usually involved some bonus for the most productive. Nowadays that bonus may not be in form of bigger salary but as a boost to oneself 5 seconds of a glory and fame or increased self feeling of worthiness.

Some people compete between themselves who gets offended the most. Others get a kick by analyzing situation to the point that they produce so much of a "explanation clutter" one have no idea what they are talking about. Sort of like a politician - some of them talk so much that when they actually finish you have no clue what it was all about anyway.

As long as people feint outrage on behalf of self Identifying people and the 100+ other gender identities out there there will always be calls for censorship and cancellations ,

Were all fair game in this world

I have great time for Dave Chappelle and similar - I think he walks a fine line but real comedy often does. Its often said the court Jester is the only one in the kingdom telling the truth and that is hitting home harder than ever in the current cultural climate of shouting down anyone you dont agree with.

The thread prompted a discussion did it not ? I don't see anyone being shouted down, divergence of views and opinion is ok .

The gender recognition act allows people to be legally regarded as the gender they wish. This is in no way equivalent to saying that the state agrees that one is in fact the gender they choose to live as. If it were there is no way any transwoman could be denied to participate in woman's sports, etc.

Unfortunately this is no longer good enough for the activists (it is for a lot trans people just like civil partnership was enough for some gay people) which is why we are where we are today.

🤣

Don't forget jokes about whites, blacks, gay people, feminist women and ars*eholes in general.

'REPENT MOTHERFU*CKERS!' 🤣

Lunatics.🤪🤡

Great point -OEJ

The only people who are surprised when anyone disagrees with them are people who aren’t used to anyone disagreeing with them,

Apparently disagreeing with a tiny cohort brings out the oul phobic this and phobic that bigoted this and that your all woman haters.

Aaaand I’m sure you give a shìte Gatling?

I certainly don’t give a shìte, they are as you rightly suggest only a tiny minority, same as the tiny minority who tries to play the victim when anyone doesn’t find their opinions funny, or intelligent or whatever.

Yiz are both mistaken in that the purpose of a GRC is specifically to acknowledge that the State recognises the person’s preferred gender which means they acquire all the rights and obligations of their acquired sex -

18. (1) Where a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person the person’s gender shall from the date of that issue become for all purposes the preferred gender so that if the preferred gender is the male gender the person’s sex becomes that of a man, and if it is the female gender the person’s sex becomes that of a woman.

Both the Constitution AND Legislation do distinguish between sex and gender, and this was pointed out to you in the link I provided earlier where the point was being made that the legislation does not include transgender men. The ‘unintended consequences’ Simon Harris was referring to were likely related to this sort of case arising -

And with regards to whether or not any circumstances would constitute unlawful discrimination, would depend upon the circumstances in each and every case, because exemptions in Irish equality legislation do exist. Since you specifically mentioned sports -

5.—(1) A person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of -

(f) differences in the treatment of persons on the gender, age or disability ground or on the basis of nationality or national origin in relation to the provision or organisation of a sporting facility or sporting event to the extent that the differences are reasonably necessary having regard to the nature of the facility or event and are relevant to the purpose of the facility or event,

There are a number of exemptions in Irish equality legislation on any of the nine grounds. Gender is not a special case any more than the rest of the eight grounds aren’t. None of these rights are absolute either, in any case it’s a question of determining which rights apply, and balancing those rights which are in conflict to determine whether or not the discrimination is either lawful or unlawful -

Sounds like more nonsense you just made up that you’re trying to attribute to me tbh. I’m not sure a second or even third reading of my posts is going to assist with your inability to address anything I’ve actually said.

Did you purposely miss the part where I said that the ‘unintended consequences’ which Simon Harris was referring to were likely relating to the sort of case arising that I gave an example of? You’re doing that thing again where you can refer to the US and your example of a “World Hegemony” as if US standards apply in Ireland, but when I refer to an example of a case in the UK, you try to make out it’s not a legitimate example because it’s not Irish!

I was using the case as an example of what he was likely referring to because our laws in relation to motherhood and pregnancy are exactly the same as the UK, that’s why he was reluctant to include provisions specifically relating to transgender men in the legislation - because of the possible unintended consequences, one of which being the example I gave in making the point. It’s similar to the way in which same-sex couples who are men do not have the same parental rights as same-sex couples who are women (it’s easier in the case of women because person who gives birth is automatically regarded as being the child’s mother) -

As for the second point, I’m honestly baffled that anyone can read an exemption in certain circumstances and still say that it’s not an exemption! That’s exactly what it is, and that’s exactly the circumstances it provides for. It doesn’t matter whether the person is a man or a woman, what matters is whether or not they were lawfully or unlawfully discriminated against, and there are provisions or exemptions which permit discrimination in certain circumstances. Maybe a link to the full section might help -

I don’t know how you maintain that the birth certificate of a person who has legally changed their gender becomes useless? An amendment is made to their birth record to register their preferred gender, it doesn’t wipe out their life between the two points?

Further to that it doesn’t automatically mean that the gender recognition act is useless, because without it, they would be in the previous position where they had no legal recognition in Irish law, and thereby no protection from unlawful discrimination on the basis of their gender. It has been tested too, that was the whole purpose of Lydia Foy taking their case, because their argument was they were being discriminated against on the basis of their sex -

Foy began legal proceedings in April 1997, to challenge the refusal of the Registrar General to issue her with a new birth certificate. Unemployed, Foy was represented in the action by Free Legal Advice Centres. The basis of her action was a contention that the Births and Deaths Registration (Ireland) Act 1863 did not justify the practice of using solely biological indicators existing at the time of birth to determine sex for the purposes of registration. According to Foy, she had been born a "congenitally disabled woman" and the error recording her sex on her birth certificate was not only embarrassing to her but also could interfere with her constitutional rights, as she would be unable to ever choose to marry a man.

The practice of using solely biological indicators to determine sex for the purposes of registration is still a legitimate practice, and if they choose to in later life, a person can request that the birth record be amended in accordance with their acquired sex and be issued with a revised birth certificate. It’s still an important legal document if you do wish for example to apply for a passport or other circumstances where a birth certificate may be required.

Or did you mean that there hasn’t been a case pursued in Ireland by a person who is transgender who was discriminated against on the grounds of gender when they wished to play sports? If so, I’m not sure why you’re trying to create a fuss about something that hasn’t happened, and if it were to happen, the case would be determined upon it’s own merits, as opposed to this idea you appear to have that transgender women cannot be discriminated against under any circumstances and that this means anything with regard to having any effect on women as you were alluding to earlier in the thread.

At no point did I imply the example I gave was Irish? Why would I when I was making the point that the circumstances of that case were likely something Harris was referring to as ‘unintended consequences’, something Harris was hoping to AVOID, if transgender men were included in the drafting of Irish legislation? He was advised against it.

The definition of gender hasn’t changed since the GRA? It didn’t change from being biological to gender identity either. I don’t even know what you’re saying when you say that saying that there can be discrimination on the grounds of gender in sports isn’t helpful. It isn’t helpful in what way? Earlier your claim was that there was no distinction in Irish law between sex and gender, and when that was shown to be untrue, now your claim is that the definition of gender has changed since the GRA, telling me I either don’t understand, deliberately lied, or perhaps I just made a mistake and should acknowledge it and I should apologise for being disingenuous?

Get up the feckin’ yard! 😂

Yes, I linked to a CASE in the UK where a transgender man had wanted to be named as the father on their child’s birth certificate, and the appeal was rejected because the person who gives birth is named as the mother on the birth certificate. From the link I provided earlier -

Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the Family Division of the High Court and the most senior family court judge in England and Wales, had initially ruled against Mr McConnell after a High Court hearing in 2019.

He concluded that people who had given birth were legally mothers, regardless of their gender, and said there was a “material difference between a person's gender and their status as a parent”.

Three appeal judges, including Lord Burnett, the Lord Chief Justice, and the most senior judge in England and Wales, upheld Sir Andrew's decision in April.

They said the issue involved complicated “interlinked” legislation and any reform of the law was a matter for Parliament.

A registrar told him that the law required people who give birth to be registered as mothers, and he took legal action against the General Register Office, which administers the registration of births and deaths in England and Wales.

How the absolute fcuk you thought I was trying to imply it was an Irish case is beyond me! Did you actually read the article before coming to that conclusion? You read newspapers in three different languages ffs!

As for what Harris actually said, you didn’t look too hard -

A number of TDs have raised concerns about how the language used in the Bill could affect members of the trans community who may require an abortion. Coppinger is among those to call for the term ‘pregnant person’ to be added to the Bill, saying the current wording is trans-exclusionary.

Harris said he would “dearly love” to amend the Bill to say ‘pregnant person’, saying he originally thought this would be possible, but has received legal advice to the contrary.

He said including this term could cause problems for trans men in terms of other services they currently access, adding that including trans-inclusive language in this Bill might unintentionally cast doubt on all other legislation which doesn’t include it.

Coppinger said she fails to understand how this is the case, noting that members of the trans community have expressed concern about accessing abortion services. Harris said he is willing to discuss this issue with representatives from the community.