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

So. Fence sitting silence and happy enough for disgraceful slurs about deviancy and disorders to be discussed. Very telling.

I didn't read that post as a suggestion that trans people are a threat to anyone in particular, but that there are individuals within the community who are distorting things because of underlying issues, such as personality disorders etc. Unless I misunderstood I don't find this an outrageous claim, as any group or society will include people like that. Maybe it's because I don't see PDs or sexual deviants as an insult, and just as conditions that can be managed. At least that is how I had read the post we are discussing, but you seem to have read it very differently.

“As for "sensitivities" - have people with whatever position you are in been called fetishists? Deviants? Potential abusers? Actual abusers? Is is stated that some people pretend to be in your position in order to gain access to young girls in changing rooms and toilet? Have people in your position been violently challenged when simply trying to use a public facility? Have people been beaten to death for being in your position? Have you been told your position doesn't actually exist?“

Yes to some of the examples you have given. While I can understand some of the "fears" feeding these attitudes I find it very tiring to see everyone being dumped into one congealed group, but I guess this feeling will be the same for many others out there. The general consensus is that I should not exist, but since this is just based on ignorance I can usually laugh it off. I could spend eternity arguing with people, but since there is no interest in it I just stay under the radar and leave them in their own world. It is not aimed at me personally.

I think you might be mistaking me for another poster. I don't think I mentioned the helpfulness of comments?

Your post makes it very clear that you see personality disorders and deviancy as negative things, you even call them insults. How does this make you more tolerant than the people you are criticising? People in both of the above mentioned categories did not chose to have these issues either...

Your claims of objectivity go flying out the window and the indignance gets ramped up to 11 when you can’t address a point. You’re deliberately misrepresenting the point that was made, not only that what you call decent gender critical people is based entirely upon your own subjective evaluation, but the reality that their proclamations DO encourage other people to justify their own violent behaviour towards others. Case in point being Posie Parker inviting men carrying guns into womens bathrooms in order to “protect women” -

The only person attempting deflection here is your good self, and the big smelly red herring is your own attempt to deflect from the fact that you’ve got nothing to support your argument other than your own subjective opinion that it isn’t right, and when pressed, you try and argue criteria which have nothing to do with anything.

You want the rules changed to suit yourself, you’re just using women to try and support your position, and anyone who doesn’t, well you’ll tell them they do anyway -

Nobody, nobody needs protection from anyone who chooses to try and undermine their opinions and tell them they know deep down that what you’re saying is true. That’s not a particularly convincing argument in support of your opinion, the idea that you believe everyone agrees with you anyway in spite of them pointing out to you that they do not.

You actually DO know enough about the specific question to know who is right and who is wrong, and everyone else has the same right as you do to make that determination for themselves too. That’s what equal status means, as opposed to anyone being under the impression that your opinion should carry any more weight than their own.

It’s why in order to argue that discrimination against people who are transgender is justifiable, you’re going to have to come up with a more compelling argument than just it being the right thing to do in your opinion.

What about gender fluid Roses… can they get introduced to the audience as a Gerard and finish off as Geraldine ? Or visa versa

serious point as the rules seem to have evaporated…surely now anyone can enter ?

The issue is the people flinging around such terms deviants very much see them as either insults or warnings of dangerous behaviour. Something 'abnormal' which society needs to be protected from.

It is not the word, it is the intention.

It's the same language as used against homosexuals.

I can call myself a Dyke, David Quinn ( as an example, not saying he would do so) cannot call me that as his intention would be to insult. Not that I would pay even the slightest attention to his opinion I would challenge him lest he thinks he can insult as he sees fit without repercussions.

I for one am not prepared to turn the other cheek. I will challenge hateful intentions.

The post we are discussing is a polemic filled rant which dismissed all those who do not conform to the writers narrow, conserative, dare I say 'rightest' world view and standards of behaviour ( as silly a term as 'leftist') as being lesser. Dangerous.

Deviant.

It's intention was hateful.

I doubt people here would support a polemic rant that states since by far the majority of sexual deviants , paedophiles, rapists, murderers , etc are cis heterosexuals we should treat all of them as suspicious. Yet no 'respectable GC activist' distanced themselves from a post calling for transgender people to be viewed with suspicion.

Some people here can't even cope when it's pointed out that they stand on the same side of a debate with people who beat transgender people to death. They splutter about how outraged they are.

Their silence on that post is deafening.

You can agree with certain aspects of one persons opinion and disagree with some aspects. Its not fair to expect a poster to ridicule another posters post just because they may or may not agree with some of it. If a person disagrees with a posters post, use the quote function, dont bring others into it. I get what you are saying but its not fair to expect somebody to talk on other posters opinions on here. Ask them a specific question if you want but don't call them out as they are agreeing with another posters comment just because they didn't admonish it.

Whatabout whataboutery

This poster refers all the time to "our side" and "the other side". He has created sides but now seeks to abandon them when its too tough to stick by his "side"

Ask direct questions, cant expect posters to disavow every single thing they see on here they don't disagree with. Silence is not agreement. You can have aside but not agree with everything on that side too.

You are kind of lucky that society has changed a fair bit then. Maybe one day others will be in a similar position.

I still can’t really understand why that post seemed so inappropriate, but it might just be my deficiency at play here (I often can’t understand others perspectives). It is not down to your explanation.

Im happy enough to call him out on it but thanks anyway.

so you think if a person doesn't disavow another posters opinions, they agree with said opinion?