Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1151618202156

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    hahahaha

    The defense rests your honour.

    Even tacit tolerance of such absolute bullsh!ttery, should be ridiculed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,781 ✭✭✭mohawk


    I remember during the referendum on Marriage Equality there were some very articulate, passionate people in the media supporting it. With their words they definitely won over support for marriage equality. The other side looked like cranks in comparison which probably lost them support.

    Some of those very same people now get angry if any discussion they don’t like comes up and refer to it as hate speech or transphobic. I don't think the referendum would not have passed if they had behaved like this previously so this new approach is a red flag for me. Why can’t a woman have concerns about the word woman being removed from legislation. Should certain organisations not be saying for reasons x,y and z there won’t be an issue with this change? Why the rush to condemn??



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,430 ✭✭✭lee_baby_simms


    This is a key point. This is a relatively new ideology and it’s on shifting sands. I can only imagine there’s constant conflict within the trans activist community itself given how many plates are spinning in the air.

    I think it’s possible that one of the reasons why debate is not always welcome was seen in how Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson refused to define what a woman was a few months ago. It’s a difficult question to answer because we no longer live by settled science and truth but a feeling based reality instead. She knew quite rightly that even attempting to address the question would be disastrous. That should really give people pause for thought as to what the logical conclusion, if there is any, of this will look like.



  • Registered Users Posts: 367 ✭✭Gentlemanne


    Unless you talk like Data from Star Trek I really doubt you eschew ALL pronouns. That saying is just for annoying older pedants, it's like a teacher retorting "I don't know, CAN you go to the bathroom?".

    If I can be pedantic myself, the 'who' in that saying is literally a pronoun lol.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Much of the heavy artillery of these debates is fired on Twitter.

    And the kind of extremism out there is absolutely appalling. We're seeing trans activists trying to somehow link the guests invited to Liveline as being linked to the far-right and anti-Semitism; as an attempt to discredit them. But even if these links were true, it wouldn't discredit the arguments they made. It's a classic example of the Ad hominem fallacy: discredit the person in the hope of discrediting their arguments.

    The community development officer of TENI, who uttered the words that some women should be "smashed out of existence", recently retweeted the following:

    You'd be forgiven for thinking that the objective of some trans activists isn't really to secure trans- rights, but rather to churn out as much hateful invective as possible against people they seem to inherently dislike.

    Why is there no condemnation from so-called trans "allies" over this kind of extreme language?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 367 ✭✭Gentlemanne


    link the guests invited to Liveline as being linked to the far-right and anti-Semitism; as an attempt to discredit them. But even if these links were true,

    The links are true, and they're damning, but Farage avatar is going to have difficulty understanding why.

    discredit the person in the hope of discrediting their arguments

    The people being discredited are being discredited because of their hateful rhetoric and their platform and support of bigots who have a common enemy. It's hardly a classic example of an Ad Hominen attack if they're being criticised specifically for what they believe and promote lol.

    they seem to inherently dislike. the words that some women should be "smashed out of existence"

    I wasn't able to find this but I have a funny feeling when you mean "some women" what she had probably said is specifically TERFs or Gender Criticals - which are organised groups you identify into specifically to be nasty to transgender people (and if you think she's being bigoted, since when have you cared about that?). Framing it as a "woman vs. transgender" thing is a disingenous trick I've seen you do a lot.

    they seem to inherently dislike.

    Duh? Seem to? I'd more than dislike anyone who'd spend this much time, money, and energy to spread hatred and misinformation about me. Some of their rhetoric is practically genodical:

    https://twitter.com/setoacnna/status/1533204551251132417



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭BruteStock


    Keep hearing about this existence denied stuff🧐.. From their own website




  • Registered Users Posts: 938 ✭✭✭Mike Murdock


    On your point related to TERFs and the fact that they are organised groups ergo not "all women" that are targetted, we've seen how malleable language is to Progressives. Anyone even questioning immigration policy is now labelled a "racist". It is no stretch to see that any woman that would question the Trans ideology could, and would, be easily included under the umbrella term "TERF".



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Ehhh WTF ?

    Maybe the cretins in the transactivism movement should get together with the fruitloops in scientology and start coming up with genders for the aliens.

    How many times on here over the last few years have people been ridiculed and chastened when we discuss the way the country is going.

    There is usually mention that this is all a problem in other countries and not here so why are we discussing it.

    Usually the sideswipe is that we are all middle aged white guys who can't get laid.

    Another area that illicits similar putdowns is when we discuss immigration and the future problems due to growing population that adheres to a certain religious ideology.

    These things are insidious.

    It starts off with the fair enough statements "we are all equal", "live and let live", "we need to protect certain groups"

    But then it slowly morphs into "certain groups may not be discussed", "certain groups are beyond criticism".

    We are sleepwalking into problems, problems that are very much evident throughout the world.

    And certain vested groups, including a fair amount of posters here, want to make sure we never get to discuss the problems.

    They arrogantly assume they know better.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Registered Users Posts: 938 ✭✭✭Mike Murdock


    That is because you are questioning Progressive Religious Dogma.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,107 ✭✭✭McFly85


    We will get nowhere without debate. Shutting down conversations because they’re uncomfortable is only going to cause resentment of the trans community. People are not going to change their minds without information and engagement.

    The core principle seems to be “we are not different in any way that matters”. And for the most part, that’s true. But there will always be small situations where it isn’t - the Lia Thomas example, none of her teammates should be in a position to see Lias genitals if it makes them uncomfortable, and it’s frankly bizarre that that would be an argument.

    Until there is reasonable discussion and recognition of everyone’s rights we’ll be stuck where we are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,841 ✭✭✭TomTomTim


    Your post typifies everything that is wrong with the trans lobbies approach to debate:

    their hateful rhetoric and their platform and support of bigots who have a common enemy.


    hatred and misinformation


    practically genodical

    Everything you say means nothing to normal people, because there's no substance to any of it, and all these terms and just ways to give yourself ideological cover, because your ideological can't stand on its own two feet, so you need cheap tactics to use as crutches.

    “The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”- ― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Well to my surprise, when I was researching this LiveLine debate on Twitter I came across another trans- group I never knew existed. Apparently they identify as "toddlers" and wear diapers and suck pacifiers.

    One of the people's profile stated they were: 37 year old #ABDL transgender (Presents as Male) toddler named Lilly who loves princesses, pink and unicorns.

    Now I think it's perfectly reasonable and fair to ask the question, why can't we debate whether we want to change the norms that have governed society re: sex and gender, if what we're dealing with includes people who self-identify as toddlers and wear diapers.

    If someone wants to identify as a toddler, who am I to deny them that right. But, at the same time, I don't think society's norms should be thrown under the bus, or censored, to point that out.



  • Registered Users Posts: 360 ✭✭sekiro


    You are part of the community. At what age are people having surgeries at the moment?

    An article I found suggests that:

    "The World Professional Association for Transgender Health said hormones could be started at age 14, two years earlier than the group’s previous advice, and some surgeries done at age 15 or 17, a year or so earlier than previous guidance. The group acknowledged potential risks but said it is unethical and harmful to withhold early treatment."

    Trans kids' treatment can start younger, new guidelines say (yahoo.com)

    So regardless of what is actually happening in this current moment there is definitely a push to have hormones started in 14 year olds and surgeries to be done as early as 15 years old. Not sure if you consider 14 and 15 year old people as children technically?

    If someone were to go on Liveline and insist that children aged 14 should not be starting hormones and people aged 15 should absolutely not be getting surgeries then, as a member of the community yourself, would you consider that kind of statement to be transphobic?

    How do you feel about 15 year old people undergoing surgeries to change their gender? Are discussions of such things in the public interest?

    As a member of that community you should know more than most about what's going on with this kind of thing. If you are saying that children aren't having surgeries is it because you don't consider a 16 year old to be a child or is it because these kinds of surgeries aren't happening in Ireland yet?

    As an outsider it kind of looks like the LGBTQ+ community circles the wagons if there's a bit of controversy going on within the community and then goes all out on the attack if any kind of negative aspect gets discussed in public. There's definitely a push to start treatments at younger ages and it seems impossible that you would not know about this. So why the flat denial?



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,419 ✭✭✭archfi


    ,,

    The issue is never the issue; the issue is always the revolution.

    The Entryism process: 1) Demand access; 2) Demand accommodation; 3) Demand a seat at the table; 4) Demand to run the table; 5) Demand to run the institution; 6) Run the institution to produce more activists and policy until they run it into the ground.



  • Registered Users Posts: 367 ✭✭Gentlemanne


    You're right, when people make their entire professional career about being anti-trans, transgender people should not say "that's shite", they should say "yes sir, please can I have some more"



  • Registered Users Posts: 367 ✭✭Gentlemanne


    Not my fault that if someone says some transphobic stuff, that they're called trans-exclusionary. If anything the term is fairly soft. I have never heard a person with a reasonable opinion on immigration who wasn't completely obsessed about it called a racist. Instead I mainly see people with racist views whine tha they can't even express these views without being called a racist.

    I have a simple solution to anyone who feels upset by constantly being caleld a bigot - do not be a bigot all of the feckin time.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,749 ✭✭✭donaghs


    Which people exactly are you referring to here?

    ive been reading this, but sorry, I don’t see where your going here,

    Surely not Joe Duffy? I’m no fan of his show but he’s fairly inoffensive.



  • Registered Users Posts: 41,080 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Exactly

    Very few say it out loud but the ultimate aim here is basically for trans people to no longer exist. That's what this is all really about.


    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users Posts: 360 ✭✭sekiro


    Would it really be that surprising if the internet hardmen of the past simply found a niche where they could threaten and bully and harass people and never really be called out on it? It makes sense that cowardly people like this would just gravitate to situations where you can get away with threatening people and using violent rhetoric.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,971 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Anyone know why the "T" is included with LGB? Surely trans has nothing to do with the issues facing LGB people? LGB groups would perhaps be wise to concentrate on their own well established and non confrontational raison d'etre, rather than aligning with Trans which is a group only leading to controversy and hatred and is becoming more and more bizarre with each day that passes.

    I think the fact that LGB are included with Trans is giving radical Transactivists a lot of cover for their "no debate" approach. Time for LGB to think about it a bit more.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Is it transphobic to say that it is impossible for a male to become a female?

    Would you call panti bliss a bigot for his abusiveness towards men and women who feel "misgendered" by being labelled cis?

    Or is that ok?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I think if you read the excerpt you provided in it's entirety (and not just the highlighted text) it doesn't really come across as controversial.

    It could have been worded better, sure, but it's not exactly the smoking gun you seem to think it is.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,256 ✭✭✭plodder


    ... the words that some women should be "smashed out of existence"


    I wasn't able to find this but I have a funny feeling when you mean "some women" what she had probably said is specifically TERFs or Gender Criticals - which are organised groups you identify into specifically to be nasty to transgender people (and if you think she's being bigoted, since when have you cared about that?). Framing it as a "woman vs. transgender" thing is a disingenous trick I've seen you do a lot.

    So, you think Helen Joyce should be "smashed out of existence" or you think it's okay and not a bad look for biological males to be saying this about women?

    For what it's worth, the point that I think Joyce was making in that quote is that the huge increase in trans identifying teenage girls could be resulting in some of them being put on a medical pathway that is not in their best interests, because they might not actually be trans at all. That question is being debated in the medical world, whether anyone else likes it or not. Maybe, she could have put it in a more sensitive way though.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,859 ✭✭✭growleaves




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Very few say it out loud but the ultimate aim here is basically for trans people to no longer exist

    Where does it say that? It says that they would like to see fewer of them, but there's no mention of wanting to delete trans people from existence. Reducing or keeping down the numbers... to say that they want Transpeople to no longer exist is quite a leap.

    Oh, and I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why I'm supposedly transphobic for the statement made earlier.. or are you going to continue with your habit of insulting others, disappearing from the thread for a while, and then reappearing to repeat the same behaviour again?



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,015 ✭✭✭Shelga


    It’s no wonder that Putin rubs his hands with glee over so-called “progressiveness” eating itself over this issue, while he uses it to point west and say “who wants to be like that?”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/10/22/putin-valdai-speech-trump-cancel-culture/



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,859 ✭✭✭growleaves


    No one should be encouraging moody 14 year old girls to poison, mutilate and sterilise themselves.

    So in that sense there should indeed be fewer transitioning people, by limiting these transitions to adulthood.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,789 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    I respect you eskimohunt as you are normally sensible and debate things in an honest fashion, but this limitless list of what you can identify as is as stupid as things can get.

    Like, come on. Look at how ridiculous some of these are.

    Amicagender: a gender that changes depending on which friend you’re with


    Anxiegender: a gender that is affected by anxiety.


    Aerogender: a gender that is influenced by your surroundings


    Astralgender: a gender that feels connected to space.


    Colorgender: a gender associated with one or more colors and the feelings, hues, emotions, and/or objects associated with that color; may be used like pinkgender, bluegender, yellowgender.

    I just can't read the list any further. It's pure stupidity to be entertaining this crap.

    That said, I'm in a slight quandry because while I'm all for treating people with respect (including transgender people), I'm not a fan of this unlimited number of genders nonsense either.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 414 ✭✭dorothylives


    I don't understand how they are able to get away with labeling women who have concerns about sharing female only spaces with men who identify as women, as being Radical Feminists. I am the last woman in the world that you could accuse of being a radical feminist, old school feminist with a small f, but yes, I do have concerns about it. I don't believe trans people are a predatory threat to women or girls. See, the thing is, there are a lot of trans men who can easily pass as female and that's fine. But, if I'm in a changing room and I can see a man who is clearly a man, dressed as a woman then I will feel uncomfortable and that's natural. But if I complain to management about it the man can throw me out. So, in a female only space, a man who says he's a woman has more right to access female only areas than a biological woman. In what universe does that make sense?



Advertisement