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

Your own post is filled with assertions. You have no idea whether the GRA would pass by referendum which has absolutely nothing to do with sport as sporting bodies set their own rules.

It's so short sighted this demand to change the meaning of these words.. Society will just adapt and use different words to define what private parts people have.. All in all, the ideologues will have annoyed a huge cohort by calling them transphobic for speaking language as they understand it, only to find 20 years down the road the same argument will be happening about the new terms society comes up with to clarify physical gender.. Nothing will be gained by all this effort, It serves no-one, especially those at odds with their physical Gender...

You're like the people who were shocked by Brexit, because they used their social circle and the media as their sole gauge, never once thinking that their social circle may not represent the whole. And you're so sure of it too, which is even more worrying.

It's interesting cause there's a lot of attempts to sanitise The Countess and to present them in certain ways. Izzy just proved they are liars.

My view on this has long been that (much like in so many movements unfortunately, including many I have personally been part of and tried in vain to steer away from this) the most extreme and unreasonable voices in the movement to totally eradicate biological sex as a demographic attribute have done untold and extremely serious harm to the trans movement which would otherwise by and large be something I think most reasonable people would take no issue with whatsoever. And events over the last week illustrate that perfectly - the assertion that we simply cannot have any public discussion whatsoever that doesn't automatically present or side with the supremacy of gender identity over biological sex as a demographic attribute, is absolutely insane on every possible level. As are those radical voices who continue to claim that somebody who merely identifies on paper as the opposite gender to their sex should be regarded, in literally every context from dating to competitive sports, as being the opposite gender, with absolutely no room for debate or discussion on this.

It's my honest opinion that these particular voices have damaged their movement beyond belief, and that had they been called out as fringe and frankly extremist voices early on, this wouldn't have happened.

Obviously just my opinion. But the fact that there is such a concerted, high level movement to suppress any discussion or debate over any of this is in and of itself off-putting and downright alarming. I for one would want absolutely no association with any movement which behaved this way, and judging by the commentary over the last week I'm far from the only one. If I was a committee member of a protest movement which felt that attempting to stifle the opposition's speech was a legitimate tool of activism, I would resign in a heartbeat. So would many others. And it wouldn't matter how deeply or strongly I believed in that movement's aims or goals, any compromise on the moral principle that the opposition should be allowed to say what they want to say just as much as my own side should be would be an absolute red line dealbreaker for me.

To be clear, I personally know other leftists who feel this way, it's far from the right-wing exclusive bogeyman many paint it as. Many of my own friends were actively disgusted by members of their own side during the Repeal debate when they tried to harass hotels into disallowing function room bookings by the no side, for example. And I stepped back from activism with PBP very specifically when some of their members bragged about systematically removing opposition election posters and no action was taken against them.

This is something we should all take extremely seriously and it should transcend partisanship on the underlying issues.

It's only a "distraction" cause you realise they were caught out as liars and you're trying to distract 🙃

The countess being mentioned is this group, https://thecountess.ie

They are what began the debates on liveline, the blurb for first episode of Liveline:

"Sandra claims she was denied access to the National Women's Council of Ireland AGM today - was it because of advocacy group The Countess's stance on women's biology?"

And then the nwci are saying that there was a press release from the countess group:

"In response to a press release that we received ahead of our Annual General Meeting on the 9th June 2022 stating that an organisation called 'The Countess' "will be staging an action at the AGM of the national women's council today in protest", NWC made the decision to refuse entry to the event for the people involved. NWC has a duty of care towards participants and speakers at our events."

I was just explaining who they were, as you kept saying some random twitter user. And potentially you missed the first day of the liveline debate is all.

I'm not sure what you mean by me making a strategic mistake. Bizarre response.

So, all of these opinions I couldn't possibly have just dreamt up out of fresh air to to contradict OEJ's accusation that I'm only involved in these debates to 'stop people moving forward'. Clearly I'm using this forum as a way to think about this topic.

I think the only way forward is to know exactly what transgender is, what is it's nature. Only then can we make progress and agreement. We are certainly nowhere near that as it is.

Hold on a second. I made a post that made no reference to you personally. Off the back of it, you asked me a direct question asking did I think your motivation was to hold people back. I answered that I do think that’s what your motivation is, and here you are again saying as much with the part in bold -

I think the only way forward is to know exactly what transgender is, what is it's nature. Only then can we make progress and agreement. We are certainly nowhere near that as it is.

What’s all that about, if it’s not trying to hold people back? People have been progressing since long before homosexuality in Ireland was decriminalised, so the idea that anyone is piggybacking off gay rights is just something which you heard which you’ve adopted yourself. It’s simply not true.

Remember Julia Grant, whom you referred to before?

Grant was propelled into the limelight in 1979 when she starred in the BBC series A Change of Sex, believed to be the first British documentary film about trans issues.

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/03/transgender-activist-julia-grant-dies-aged-64

1979, over 40 years ago. Progress was being made then, and has been made since then. Throughout the 90’s and 00’s, every time Lydia Foy had to initiate legal proceedings against the State, it was covered in the national media.

In the ‘10’s, there were a few posters on Boards who are transgender, the reaction to their presence on Boards was..: ‘mixed’, to put it politely. Anyone who was around at the time, remembers the Feedback thread on the request to have the T acknowledged as part of the LGB forum, as it was then. Eventually a sub-forum was created, gone now, and so are the posters.

This idea that we have to stop making progress because we have to pretend we don’t understand, well, it doesn’t amount to much of an argument tbh, not least because of the idea that you’re against the idea of educating children in schools about the children who are sitting beside them in class, and their parents and families. You’re free to pretend they don’t exist of course, and you’re free to pretend you don’t understand them, but all I’m seeing is your dislike of political and social views which don’t align with your own, and your annoyance that those views are given any kind of an airing.

That’s why this, is a misrepresentation of everything I’ve ever said -

That is why I am irked when I'm accused of participating in these debates for no other reason that 'to hold people back'. To say that it's all just a question of everyone being regarded as equal in law is just reductive.

I didn’t say that you’re participating in these debates for no other reason than to hold people back. You asked me did I think that was your motivation, and I answered that I do, and I still do, because that’s precisely what you’re arguing for, even I were only to use the post above and pretend I wasn’t familiar with all the rest of your posts on the topic and the many threads you’ve started, motivated by what appears to be nothing more than your disdain for political and social views which are not in alignment with your own.

I unsubscribed from the woke thread precisely because it’s not an irreverent poking fun at the extremes of progressive politics in the style of Father Ted was an irreverent take on the shenanigans of the Catholic Church. It’s at times as bitter and vitriolic as Graham Linehan himself has become, towards people who don’t share his political and social views. He just goes right for the jugular and doesn’t stop, like he has no consideration for the consequences of his actions or his behaviour or his attitude towards other people, and the effects that his behaving like an asshole has on other people. They don’t have the same capacity I do to tell people who hold those views, to fcuk right off. Those people don’t want a civilised discussion, they want a platform from which they can take a dump on other people from a height. Being denied that platform, is not denying anyone their right to freedom of speech or freedom of expression.

Arguing that other people shouldn’t have the same rights and protection of society as you do, or the people who share your opinions do, is the very definition of trying to limit other peoples equal right to equal participation in a democratic society. That’s why it doesn’t come down to a question of everyone being regarded as being of equal status in law. That’s it’s starting point, and progress from there, rather than imagining you’re already in an elevated position above everyone else, so you have greater capacity to call the shots for everyone else, and anyone who doesn’t share your opinions must comply with your perspective regardless of the fact that they have their own ideas which are a hell of a lot different to yours. That’s the whole point, of being recognised in Irish law as being of equal status to everyone else - because it means that everyone has an equal right to argue in favour of their own interests, as opposed to the idea that anyone has the right to deprive other people in Irish society of their rights.

There are no rights being removed from women as a consequence of extending existing protection in Irish employment law to include ALL pregnant employees, regardless of their sex, gender or sexual orientation. It’s no different than the right to enter into marriage was extended to include all couples, and similar arguments were made that it was infringing upon the rights of heterosexual couples.

Is anyone seriously suggesting that there should be a debate on recognising that everyone is entitled to be regarded as being of equal status in law, or is it just the few sneery fcuks who are “calling for a debate” so they can mock and sneer at people who they appear desperate to portray as a threat or a danger to society? We’ve been here before y’know, many, many times in the past already.

But you're debating us right now, aren't you?

That’s not what I’d call it. This is just a conversation, a discussion. But you’re free to call it a debate if you like.

Nobody is suggesting that trans- people do not deserve rights. Everyone on this thread has repeatedly stated that trans people deserve the same equal access to human rights as everyone else; and no less than that. Everyone should respect trans people and use their desired pronouns as an act of courtesy and respect.

Three lies in a row, good man 👍

Reservations are only made in respect of circumstances when rights between trans women and biological females compete. You may not believe that they compete, but many people do. In this situations, a more considered approach is needed - especially given that the number of trans people is so tiny in society (25,000 in Ireland perhaps?), and the rights and language and identity of biological women is at stake (2.5 million people).

Of course there are circumstances where there are competing rights, and that’s why the Courts exist to adjudicate on such matters, as opposed to those matters being adjudicated upon in the Court of Public Opinion. That’s always been the considered approach that has been taken, in every circumstance where there are competing rights. There’s no rights and language and identity of anyone is at stake as a consequence of extending rights which people already have, to other people who don’t.

And yes, that means robust debate is needed.

So you keep saying.

Moreover, there are many trans women (and trans people in general) who agree that this debate is needed too, and who side with my side of the arguments - not yours. 

You keep talking about trans- people as a homogenous group, as if they all have the same opinion on these matters. They don't.

Being transgender doesn’t preclude anyone from being as ignorant of Irish and international human, civil and political rights law as you are. I talk about people who are transgender as an homogeneous group on the basis that they are transgender, not on the basis of “who’s side they’re on” 🙄

I said I don’t care much one way or the other for your attempt to invoke identity politics.

I also said that being transgender doesn’t preclude anyone from being as ignorant of Irish and international human, civil and political rights law as you are.

It’s an issue alright, much like the way you’re attempting to put words in my mouth is an issue, but it’s not one I’m bothered by all that much either, because I know that in any circumstances where there are conflicting rights, these matters will be adjudicated upon by the Courts, and not in the Court of Public Opinion.