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

It is the whole mentality of it I object to and that mentality could be applied to lots of things not just healthcare. If it isn't already.

It is not trans inclusive language, it is trans dominant language. It completely misrepresents the reality that only a tiny fraction of society identify as the opposite gender to their sex, but the wording suggest's is commonplace, an integral part of us as a species. To suggest it is is what's called Gender Ideology. Humanity isn't generally trans, no more than humanity is generally sexual orientation fluid. The correct wording is 'Woman and Trans men...', because that reflects reality. And in that order as well. 

That's basically why I'm so opposed to it.

You’re misrepresenting the point of the exercise though. I don’t care much for the practice one way or the other, but I do recognise that other people who aren’t me don’t think the same way I do, don’t express themselves the same way I do, don’t act the same way I do and definitely don’t have the same beliefs I do. None of that means that they are not entitled to the same freedoms I have which are recognised in Irish and international law, including freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and so on.

It’s not trans dominant language precisely because it’s absolutely not dominated by the concept of transgenderism. The reason it’s said to be inclusive language is because it recognises that people who are transgender do exist, and they don’t conform to dominant concepts of gender or the idea that there are only two sexes in human biology and all the dominant ideas that are defined within that classification framework.

That’s why there is no such concept as ‘correct wording’, let alone correct wording according to you, or me, because the idea of ‘correct wording’ according what someone says is absolutely NOT a reflection of reality, clearly, when the reality exists that people absolutely do NOT express themselves in the same way as other people do. The whole concept of inclusive language evolved from the idea of “person first”, or “people first” language, which too, has it’s critics -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language

It’s precisely because it’s become more commonplace in society that objections to its use, have also become more commonplace, ironically enough from people who claim to value everyone’s right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech, who portray themselves as victims who are being oppressed if they’re confronted by the reality that other people are equally entitled to exercise their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of speech!

That’s why when Dublin Pride chose to end their association with RTE, I didn’t think much more than “Off you fcuk!”, because it was Dublin Pride’s decision to end the relationship. They did the same in 2014 after Rory O’ Neill shot his mouth off -

This is the second time Dublin Pride has terminated its partnership with RTÉ. It last terminated the partnership in 2014 due to the ‘Pantigate’ incident when the broadcaster paid damages to six people following comments made by Rory O'Neill, also known as drag performer Panti Bliss, during the course of an interview on The Saturday Night Show.

The partnership was rekindled in 2019 as Dublin Pride with the organisation saying: “In all our meetings with RTÉ, we were very clear, we had not forgotten and we demanded better from our national broadcaster.”

It said this was “an opportunity for RTÉ to fulfil a responsibility they have to our community”.

"They approached us, looking to build a partnership. We get no money from this partnership when we were asked what we wanted in return, we were very clear ‘tell the story of real people in our community’.”

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/dublin-pride-ends-rte-partnership-due-to-extremely-harmful-anti-trans-discussions-on-liveline-41753753.html

It’s no different than people who claim they are the victims who are being oppressed when they portray themselves as having been “cancelled, for expressing an opinion”. It’s never as simple as they were fired, or whatever their claims may be, for merely expressing some benign, uncontroversial opinion, or just for having deeply held beliefs. It’s because those people imagine they have rights which, in reality, they just don’t have. You remember the doctor in this case who not only thought he was above the code of ethics he was bound by in his profession, but also imagined he had the right to violate the rights of other people? Yeah, him, Dr. David Mackereth -

Speaking to Personnel Today however, Robin White, barrister and co-author of A Practical Guide to Transgender Law, said that there are two significant differences between Mackereth’s case and Forstater’s.

“Dr Mackereth’s principal case was based on the fact that he was a Christian, and the tribunal was very clear that there are plenty of trans-supportive Christians as well as anti-trans Christians,” said White.

“Part of his claim was that he was indirectly being discriminated against because Christians are likely to be anti-trans. The tribunal said no, there’s no evidence to support that.”

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/dr-david-mackereth-appeal-eat-trans-pronoun-religious-belief-discrimination/

In reality, these concepts simply don’t exist in a vacuum, they exist as part of wider society, which is based upon more than just any one individuals opinions. Everyone is governed by the same laws, regardless of their ideology or biology. That’s reality.

But you just said you forgot to include it in your opening post, that it was the main talking point of the show, that it was the whole mentality of it you objected to, and how the correct wording is 'Woman and Trans men...', because that reflects reality. And in that order as well.

That’s what I was responding to, so in terms of the point of the thread, we’re bang on!

All that stuff about reality and truth and all the rest of it, is an attempt to ignore reality in favour of your own beliefs, kinda like what you’re doing here -

It is well known for some time now that the trans activists lobby have held the strategy of going under the public spotlight gaze in achieving their aims. It is also well know they managed to do this by piggbybacking off the gay rights movement.

That is precisely why Dublin Pride are going ape over the Liveline discussion because they do not want any public discourse on trans issues whatsoever.

It’s not well known for some time now that the trans activist lobby have held any such strategy, nor did they even attempt to do this by piggybacking off the gay rights movement. Lydia Foy first took legal action against the State back in 1997, no piggybacking was involved.

The reason Dublin Pride went ape is not all that different from your own reasons for claiming that you don’t want to get bogged down and go off the point of the thread, because for the same reason as Dublin Pride - you don’t want to be confronted with a reality which contradicts the narrative you want to promote in accordance with your own beliefs. Dublin Pride wanted RTE to tell their story, and from their perspective - RTE stabbed them in the back.

It’s not because they don’t want any discussion on trans issues whatsoever, and there’s plenty of issues experienced by people who are transgender that RTE could be discussing, but they’re not, because there’s more money to be made off pitting idiots against each other and calling it “a debate”, when in reality it’s just about generating content to increase an audience who normally wouldn’t be arsed listening to Joe Duffy’s show, as it IS well known the show promotes misery porn.

Much as I can’t stand the prick, McSavages portrayal of the show years ago was, and still is, pretty accurate -

We are all 'offended' by different aspects of the state, but we tend to understand that we cant have a model that pleases everyone. Should we ban bord bia from promoting pork as a tasty foodstuff? (Please certain vegans and religious but offend many of us who love the stuff and produce it? )

The general sentiment is trans people are welcome in Ireland, but this dictation to the masses of what that welcome should look like seems to be offensive to many..

normal practice nowadays, it's optional of course but funny seeing older irish managers doing it

Absolutely, I don't see why we should change wording for what is an absolute minority. Saw some fanny on the Reddit thread yesterday lose his mind because he couldn't understand why a change of word would be such an issue if it "stops even one trans person being misgendered". That tells you all need to know - that one trans and their "feelings" are more important than the other 99.9% of people who attend maternity services.

I don't want my wife or my daughter or my mam being denigrated to "person with a cervix" for the sake of any trans person and their feelings. They are women, the services are provided for women and if that offends some self absorbed trans person looking to use the services the best advice would be to grow the **** up or **** off.

I think we’re seeing a bit of a Streisand effect with this issue now. A lot of people are only now becoming aware of the aggressive, divisive nature of this form of activism and how changes in legislation are done by stealth rather than public engagement.

Those tweets from panti yesterday don’t help either. Throwing a strop and using adolescent reasoning isn’t going to move us forward together.

Play them at their own game and shout them down for misgendering you - they are the ones who want to deviate from male and female so they can prefix those with whatever special label they want. There is no such thing as a "cis" male or female, it is Male and Female and they are immutable.

Don't get me wrong. You can call me whatever you want. Go.bshite or whatever if that's how you feel.

But don't expect me not to pick you up on it if you are being hypocritical. I'm a bit of a contrary b.ollox though.