Rose Of Tralee now accepting trans applicants (Threadbanned List in OP)

I never claimed to be, THAT'S the difference.

The rules are up to the organisers - THEY choose what is right or wrong.

Well if there is one thing you can't accuse Eskmo of and that is being a coward to debate. I don't know where he gets the energy from.

I'm still waiting for you to show me that line-up challenge you proposed earlier btw, however you're thinking of presenting that.

reason: typo

The Big Fight Debate Live, is it?

Ooooh

So what are the rules? i.e how much verbal violence are we talking?

Will there be a trash talk build up? A weighing of egos?

Is this thread the arena? How much is the entrance fee? ...

So many questions but so excited!! 😀

Erm, I don't think Eskimo is trying to enforce his 'belief's' on anyone since most people do share his beliefs. If they didn't there wouldn't be gender ID controversies on the front pages relentlessly, a new one ever week.

The reality is Gender Ideologists are severely on the back foot as it currently strands. They've taken a massive hit this last year especially in the UK. It's not a change in tide but more a tsunami coming towards them. I've never seen anything like it. I can't say I'm personally surprised. I've always felt that the Gender ID theories are a very small usual types minority that exist within the wider LGBT demographic, which I stated in past threads, and it looks to me I was right about that.

The LGB demographic are sick to death of this issue (for a long time) and it seems to me their is an 'uprising' going on to counteract whats been going on over the last few years. We are intrinsically 'involved' so the tired old argument of 'how does this affect you', doesn't apply in my case.

I know what kinds of people are out there, because I've been exposed to them. I know there are people who are sex addicts, live in a fantasy world driven by sexuality, which are medially described as sexual paraphernalia, sexuality based personality disorders, psyco-sexual disorders, and so on. I'm not saying these are necessarily bad people, but I know they exit.

What clearly is happening is all of this is being promoted by leftist progressives, who are driven to turn your reality upside down, just for the sake of it. They are social anarchists. Gay leftists, Trans leftists, Heterosexual Leftists. You can spot them in the street by they way they dress. Like a hipster but ever more odd. The are weird for the sake of it, they couldn't exist if noone else existed. You can't be a drag queen if there was no one else to look at you. They wouldn't exist without 'normal' people around them. They don't make any sense in isolation, because then there wouldn't be anything 'off the wall' about, which is the whole point of them.

I always wondered what the general political Left would do when they've succeed in their aim of equal wealth and equal rights. Where do the go then? That's an impossible dream for the simple reason people are not same or have the same abilities. So they focus on more and more niche issues, like this one.

And the line of attack is, it's always your fault. The way you look at people and access them, is wrong. It's grounded in some phobia or other. As a general idea maybe there is some truth to that historically, but at the same time, they have gone too far now imo, as the Leftists are desperate to fight for the rights of anyone niche they can find, and people with psycho-sexual disorders are all they have left. Criminals is another one, where they talk about reforming them instead of punishment. The idea you could think badly of a criminal shows there's more wrong with you than the criminal. Again, to the leftists anarchist, everything wrong in the world is all your fault. 'Normal' is the enemy, to them.

So, i am not saying trans people have *psycho-sexual 'conditions'. I'm saying some people do and they can be indistinguishable from trans people. I'm saying that their (transsexuals) nature is purely psychological and in no way can those psychological conditions ever be considered as an 'identity' or classification, in the same way a man or a woman.

*Having said that, I do personally feel there is something intrinsically sexual about trans gender identity, if not in the same league as transvestites. How can it not. How can a trans heterosexual male dress as a woman in society and not know they are giving off female sexual vibes to heterosexual male based on the way they dress. All the changes they make to their bodies are 'sexual' ones. But they never do anything to change other stuff like softening their skin or changing the shape of their jaw-line. Looking female and looking male can never be sexually neutral. Since transwoman expect to be treated as women, then surely they expect to be treated as sexually attractive to heterosexuals males as well. I'd love to get to the bottom of this one, but as ever, there are no trans people willing to answer these kinds of questions here. Just people talking on their behalf. Curious that.

A lot to go through in that post, too late for now.. but on your very last point.. what appeal is there to trans people to come on here and face with the bullshit and constant need to prove every single point to people who have absolutely no desire to engage or understand anything about them. Constant belittling, derogatory language, piss taking, and being constantly asked to prove they are not some sexual deviant - and that's before we get to the posts that routinely removed by the usual transphobes and their re-regs.

I'm sorry but unless you up your game you will be confined to your LGB alliance style echo chamber. That's fine, they represent your views, but don't then come on and feign surprise that there are a lack of trans people left to engage with.

Eskimo IS trying to force his views on other people, specifically - people who don’t share his views. It doesn’t matter whether anyone else agrees with him or not, the point is that he is aiming for people who don’t. The Rose of Tralee Committee aren’t telling Eskimo that he has to accept the idea of transgender women. Eskimo is saying that they shouldn’t, because from his point of view it simply boils down to - “It’s not right”. That’s not a sufficiently compelling reason for anything that anyone should be obligated to take seriously. There aren’t gender controversies on the front pages every week, or anything like it. It’s largely uncontroversial save for the tabloid media in the UK trying to whip up a bit of moral panic every so often. Generally speaking people just have more to concern themselves with than grifters getting their knickers in a twist over what they attempt to portray as the world gone mad.

Gender theorists and theories about gender were academic discussions and pursuits long before they were ever picked up on by anyone outside of academic circles. Feminists in particular were a long time arguing about gender and discrimination and oppression long before the idea of “gender critical feminists” ever identified themselves as such. It was well outside of the “LGB demographic”, which was an entirely different conversation before the concept of “Intersectional Feminism” was coined, which aimed to increase Feminism’s popularity by suggesting that more than just women were oppressed, that there were all sorts of groups in society who were oppressed in some way or another, or faced multiple vectors of oppression.

What’s happening and what has been happening for some time now is that as more and more people are unwilling to conform to other peoples expectations, it’s putting some peoples noses out of joint. This isn’t exactly “does a bear shìt in the woods?” stuff. These people have always existed, but it’s simply a fact that most people in society don’t care to see much further than the end of their own noses - their reality is simply what they’ve grown up with, and their version of normal is what they imagine is shared by everyone else. Anything which causes them to question that is an affront to what they like to call “objective reality”, which is nothing more than what reality looks like from their perspective. Even down to the idea that you think you can pick people out by the way they dress. The way someone dresses is never a good indicator of their innermost thoughts. Obviously they couldn’t exist if no-one existed, the point of that surely speaks for itself? They do exist though, and they exist independently of whether or not anyone else does or doesn’t exist. You would need to be fairly egocentric to imagine that other people couldn’t exist if you didn’t exist. I don’t imagine for example that people in Africa don’t exist simply because I can’t see them.

It’s not just “people on the left” in any case, but it’s not surprising that you don’t see any correlation between your own prejudices, and WHY people campaign for equal rights and equal treatment of others - precisely because of your own attempts to denigrate people you find objectionable as having psychosexual disorders and all the rest of it. There’s no escaping the fact that such an identification of other people as being disordered in some way is based upon your own moral standards of what is or isn’t normal, or acceptable to you personally. Thankfully, you’re not actually so lacking in self-awareness that you don’t see how you speak of other people now, is exactly the same way you were once spoken of (and still are, if we’re to be completely honest!). The same cannot be said of Eskimo whom I truly don’t believe possesses the same self-awareness as you do.

Anything, can be considered an identity or a classification in exactly the same way as man or woman are considered identities or classifications. It’s exactly what classifications and identities are. I don’t use the terms ‘transgender’ or ‘biological’ to refer to anyone, but that doesn’t mean other people CAN’T use them to refer to themselves or others. It would be just as unusual and unnecessary from my perspective to refer to anyone as ‘organic’ or ‘artificial’ depending upon their circumstances in order to distinguish one from the other. Within certain contexts it is perfectly appropriate to refer to people as organisms, but you wouldn’t generally use that terminology when referring to human beings outside the context of biology, and that’s notwithstanding the fact that if we were to extend the logic of the distinction between organic and artificial organisms to people, then how are people who have artificial limbs or transplant organs classified? Are they to be denigrated and denied equal status in the same way as the attempt to denigrate and deny people who are transgender equal status in law? That’s a rhetorical question btw, I know already that for some people the answer is a resounding YES.

As for the idea of how can anyone not know they are giving off sexual vibes to anyone else? Because nobody can read minds is how. I’m sure you’ve been in plenty of situations where you weren’t thinking of how attractive you were or weren’t to other men, and other men approached you to leave you in no doubt whatsoever that they found you sexually attractive to them! It’s the same for everyone, regardless of their own sexual orientation or anything else. Asserting that anyone should have to undergo unnecessary medical treatments or surgeries to conform to someone else’s standards of what is or isn’t attractive, isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. There’s no great mystery that needs to be understood there. You’re old enough and experienced enough to understand that different people find different attributes sexually attractive. Precisely what’s frustrating for some people who argue that other people should be denied equal status in society is that the people they most vociferously argue against, are people who are unwilling to undergo unnecessary medical treatments or surgeries in order to conform to those people’s expectations. Why SHOULD those people waste their time arguing with, or explaining themselves to people who they’re fully aware couldn’t care less about them or are unwilling even to make any attempt to understand where they’re coming from? They know they’re just putting themselves in the firing line to be told how they’ve gone too far, that they shouldn’t expect to be treated as equals, that it’s just not right and they should accept it.

Would you just accept it if you were being denied being treated as equal to someone else for reasons which from your perspective are unjustifiable? Some people do, for the sake of a quiet life, and some people don’t. It’s really not as difficult to understand as you make out if you actually really thought about it and put yourself in someone else’s position in order to attempt to understand their perspective.

Completely blind. I think you live too deep in a bubble tbh and as for your 'widely held' views.. I'd even check that "fact" as well.

Maybe try reading the article and think about what the schools are saying.

It will require you to follow beyond the headline tho, there are at least 10 paragraphs tho so might be a big ask.

You’re not just giving your opinion on a subject though, your attempts aren’t nearly as benign as you’re trying to make out. You’re well aware that your declarations with regards to how the Rose of Tralee Committee should run their own festival is in your opinion discrimination and denying womens rights and an affront to what you call objective reality and all the rest of it. In your own words this is just another example of the encroachment of gender ideology and all the rest of it.

Anyone is entitled to question your opinion and to point out the many, many glaring flaws in your reasoning. The Rose of Tralee Committee have declared that people who are transgender are not prohibited from participating in a competition that they have organised, meaning that you didn’t just lose an argument - you never had one to begin with. You’re literally coming along after the decision has been made and you want your objection to be acknowledged.

Nobody has suggested you marched anywhere with an AK-47, and neither did anyone else, nor are your points as impenetrable as you think they are when it’s precisely because they’ve already been shot to shìt is the reason why the Festival organisers clarified that people who are transgender have never been discriminated against, because the point was brought up when they declared that they were changing the rules to permit married women to participate in the event.

What’s not the least bit surprising is that you attempt to argue your own idea of what qualifies as unlawful discrimination in the face of people who are transgender being regarded as being of equal status, and what distinguishes the competition winner from the other participants isn’t based at all upon their physical attributes, but what they’re like as a person, and whether they embody or best represent the spirit of what the judges are looking for. Using your rationale of what you call “biological reality”, the winner of the competition couldn’t even be a woman, it could only be a plant, because that’s the title of the competition and that’s how roses are classified according to biology.

Yep reads it all, they are looking for guidance. As it stands they don't want to admit people who are biologically male. Spin it all you want.

Oh wow congratulations!

So what's your problem? School seeks guidance, most likely to ensure they keep getting funding. No spin (well apart from the sensationalist headline).

Probably some stronger protections for trans rights and legal clarifications would help a lot? For both the schools and the trans people currently attending.

Maybe write to your mp if you are in UK?

Eskimo claimed we all know his opinions to be true. This is patently false. The ROT committee clearly think so. A lot of the posters here dont hold them as true. Its laughable and absurd to claim "My opinion is the truth and everyone knows it"

Thats not an argument to be taken seriously at all in any way.