Iona vs Panti

Delirium

ne0ica wrote: »

Harrison Ford never made a speech about gay rights dressed up as Hans solo

and a bank manager did?

MsStroggatrix

Taking the piss out of what is considered stereotypical female behavior. There are also Drag Kings - they take the piss out of stereotypical male behavior. There also exist female drag queens and male drag kings (wrestlers for example).

Stereotypes != women or men.

ne0ica

SW wrote: »

and a bank manager did?

My point was that I doubt panti went to meet the bank manager or landlord when pantibar was bring set up. Therefore panti making political speeches is a bit of a joke.

ne0ica

MsStroggatrix wrote: »

Taking the piss out of what is considered stereotypical female behavior. There are also Drag Kings - they take the piss out of stereotypical male behavior. There also exist female drag queens and male drag kings (wrestlers for example).

Stereotypes != women or men.

I seriously doubt lesbians would allow themselves to be represented by a drag king and made a fool of in the manner that gay men have. Women are in many ways smarter than men.

Delirium

ne0ica wrote: »

My point was that I doubt panti went to meet the bank manager or landlord when pantibar was bring set up. Therefore panti making political speeches is a bit of a joke.

Only if you have a problem with drag artists. Focus more on the message and less on the delivery.

Nodin

ne0ica wrote: »

Because a child needs love and stability. Imagine panti outside the school gate dropping off kids.

Yep.

Wheres the lack of love and stability there?

ne0ica

SW wrote: »

Only if you have a problem with drag artists. Focus more on the message and less on the delivery.

SW panti blew the same sex marriage debate. Rory could have made an impact. Panti was just a silly drag queen.

Delirium

ne0ica wrote: »

SW panti blew the same sex marriage debate. Rory could have made an impact. Panti was just a silly drag queen.

Nonsense. Your prejudice against drag artists is clouding your judgement. Rory, whether as himself or Panti, has communicated the problem of homophobia in Ireland very clearly.

ne0ica

SW wrote: »

Nonsense. Your prejudice against drag artists is clouding your judgement. Rory, whether as himself or Panti, has communicated the problem of homophobia in Ireland very clearly.

Panti is safer to straight people than Rory. Rory is a human being while panti is a harmless funny drag queen, good for a few laughs but not to be taken seriously.

Delirium

ne0ica wrote: »

Panti is safer to straight people than Rory. Rory is a human being while panti is a harmless funny drag queen, good for a few laughs but not to be taken seriously.

I'd have to disagree based on the Noble Call video. Don't see how you can just dismiss the speech out of hand like that just because a drag artists happened to be the speaker.

eviltwin

ne0ica wrote: »

Panti is safer to straight people than Rory. Rory is a human being while panti is a harmless funny drag queen, good for a few laughs but not to be taken seriously.

In your opinion and yet tens of thousands of people have seen the Noble Call, have seen Rory in full drag and haven't been shocked, disgusted or taken the piss out of him.

ne0ica

eviltwin wrote: »

In your opinion and yet tens of thousands of people have seen the Noble Call, have seen Rory in full drag and haven't been shocked, disgusted or taken the piss out of him.

Lots have. Go to politics.ie to see how many posters have made fun of it.

ne0ica

SW wrote: »

I'd have to disagree based on the Noble Call video. Don't see how you can just dismiss the speech out of hand like that just because a drag artists happened to be the speaker.

Maybe in post Celtic tiger Ireland where clowns like Mick Wallace and ming Flanagan are elected politicians.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oceanclub wrote: »

So because some bloke coined a word based on an acronym a few years ago, an acronym I've never once seen used, I'm supposed to instantly understand it. And by some bizarre twist you imply I'm anti-Irish because I don't.

Go away, you eejit.

I haven't actually implied you're anti-Irish because you weren't aware of the meaning of a quite common phrase, coined in the context of Irish politics. I've drawn quite different conclusions from it.

Zillah wrote: »

You sound completely stoned. Like that guy at a party who doesn't realise he's talking nonsense.

Oh, I've noticed the lack of comprehension. And, while the experience is quite positive at my end, it would be too much to call it intoxicating.

ne0ica wrote: »

If the character panti was created as the new gay character in say fair city people here would decry it as a homophobic stereotype

But only if someone standing on a passing bandwagon told them that's what it was.

Nodin

ne0ica wrote: »

SW panti blew the same sex marriage debate. Rory could have made an impact. Panti was just a silly drag queen.

It wasn't a debate about same sex marriage per se.

MrPudding

aloyisious wrote: »

However, I'd posit an argument against the totality of that argument:

A citizen choosing to object to and deny another citizen access to a existing civil right he/she has access to (in this case, Civil Marriage) on the absolute ground of a personal religious-societal belief - that part of that right to civil marriage absolutely and necessarily involves the procreation of children, without which that right should NOT be given to the requestee/s.

That seem's to me to be a denial of equality before the law. That issue should be decided by referendum, as is proposed.

I think you are missing the point of this argument. They are not arguing on a religious ground, at least not explicitly. They, the anti-SSM brigade, tried the religious/moralistic and failed. This is their second crack at this. If you look at the paper I linked to you will find no mention of religion. They are trying de-couple their argument from religion. They are trying to push a definition of marriage that is not routed in religion, they make no explicit reference to religion though it stinks of it, but is routed in what they think is common sense and obviousness. They then follow this up with lashing of "won't somebody think of the children/collapse of society as we know it" arguments. They are, of course, trying to push a religious agenda, but they are trying o be sneaky about it.

So I am not sure if the Iona homophobes are a sophisticated users of this arguments as some of the other I have come across, but some users do address the weakness of couples that can't or won't have children. Their argument goes something like this. In their type of marriage (male and female), which they call conjugal, the sex is more than mere sex. It is a joining of two bodies into one. This is possible because of the complimentary nature of the bodies. This joining may result in children. they argue that couples that can't have children are ok because they are still doing it right. Although it is not said explicitly, I am sure there is some belief in there somewhere that there could always be a miracle.

Whilst these arguments, purporting to be non-religious, do give the appearance of being secular in nature, I think they are quite weak. In addition, I find it suspicious that they are only really deployed by deeply religious people. go figure.

Personally, I completely object their argument as well, but I think you need to look at what they are saying. You can't reject it on the grounds you have said you reject it on, because it is not an argument that is, on the face of it, using those grounds. We know that Iona is a bunch of religious nuts. We know that their objection to SSM is base on their religious beliefs, but the arguments they use are not based on their religious beliefs and if you want to properly dismiss them then you need to deal with what they are actually saying, not the motivation behind what they are saying.

That said, this is not a particularly difficult task. The arguments they are deploying are weak and they have already been meticulously dismantled by the courts in the US. I think this is the bit that irritates me most, aside from the wanton homophobia and desire to discriminate, they know these arguments have failed. They know why they failed. They know the studies they quote don't say what they want them to say. Yet, they still deploy the arguments and they still use the studies. The level of dishonesty being used by these people is breathtaking.

MrP

Corkfeen

ne0ica wrote: »

Panti is safer to straight people than Rory. Rory is a human being while panti is a harmless funny drag queen, good for a few laughs but not to be taken seriously.

My mother also responded extremely positively to his speech. She is just about to enter her seventies and lives in a rural area. Also Panti's speech has not had any negative impact upon support for SSM. While it has shown up the likes of Iona for what they are.

aloyisious

ne0ica wrote: »

Think of some young gay man coming to teens with his sexuality and his only model is panti. It's enough to be suicidal. But hey feck that are so mature and PC that we think it's cool to egg on a hysterical drag queen.

Google BeLonGTo and you'll find something to make you change your opinion as to whom Gay Irish Teens turn for information.

Bannasidhe

ne0ica wrote: »

I have alot of empathy for people with gender identity issues. I have no sympathy for men in drag who perform for the amusement of middle class bores

So you have no time for Shakespeare either? As with all 16th century actors (and he began as an actor) his first appearances on the stage would have been in drag.

ne0ica wrote: »

Taking the Piss out of women. Surprised feminism hasn't something to say about this.

Are you a woman?
Are you a Lesbian?

I wonder as you seem keen to get incensed on behalf of both...

I am both. I have been both for a very long time. Long enough to remember that the Gay Liberation Movement began when a bunch of Drag Queens and Diesel Dykes said 'Enough!' . I couldn't be more proud of Panti so park your faux outrage on my behalf - I am more than capable of speaking for myself thank you very much.

ne0ica

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So you have no time for Shakespeare either? As with all 16th century actors (and he began as an actor) his first appearances on the stage would have been in drag.


Are you a woman?
Are you a Lesbian?

I wonder as you seem keen to get incensed on behalf of both...

I am both. I have been both for a very long time. Long enough to remember that the Gay Liberation Movement began when a bunch of Drag Queens and Diesel Dykes said 'Enough!' . I couldn't be more proud of Panti so park your faux outrage on my behalf - I am more than capable of speaking for myself thank you very much.

Maybe you should google the amount of transphobia amount lesbian feminists before you lecture me.

Bannasidhe

ne0ica wrote: »

I seriously doubt lesbians would allow themselves to be represented by a drag king and made a fool of in the manner that gay men have. Women are in many ways smarter than men.

Does that mean I have to give back all those prizes I won at Lesbian events? :eek:

My Che is always particularly well received but my gendarme is the most popular with the laydees while my construction worker proved very attractive with the mens at mixed events.....

My personal favourite is my Knight Templer - full beard and authentic outfit including chainmail...:D

ne0ica

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Does that mean I have to give back all those prizes I won at Lesbian events? :eek:

My Che is always particularly well received but my gendarme is the most popular with the laydees while my construction worker proved very attractive with the mens at mixed events.....

My personal favourite is my Knight Templer - full beard and authentic outfit including chainmail...:D

Have yet to see then show up at plays making speeches about gay rights on the channels 4 news. Maybe it's a maturity thing. In America where the gay rights movement is older, thus more established, gay people respect themselves too much to be misrepresent by a figure like panti. Given that panti is a publican, maybe being gay here is still about the party lifestyle.

amdublin

Oh sweet Jesus

Nodin

ne0ica wrote: »

Have yet to see then show up at plays making speeches about gay rights on the channels 4 news. Maybe it's a maturity thing. In America where the gay rights movement is older, thus more established, gay people respect themselves too much to be misrepresent by a figure like panti. Given that panti is a publican, maybe being gay here is still about the party lifestyle.

I'm beginning to think you've a thing for him.

Links234

ne0ica wrote: »

Maybe you should google the amount of transphobia amount lesbian feminists before you lecture me.

How is this even relevent to Bann's point? Nobody cares about transphobic radical feminists and the acceptability of transphobia in general is evaporating quickly, and personally speaking as a transgender woman who is also a lesbian and hangs around with loads of other lesbian woman in my area, I experience practically no transphobia from other women in real life. I also find no experience of prejudice from feminists I know as well, having marched with so many for women's rights in Ireland. Similarly to Panti's experience, I find the only place you can truly be nasty to trans people is either online or if you're a columnist for certain papers.

But all of that is besides the point, because what you're doing here is merely jumping from one non-sequitur to another, constantly making appeals to prejudices you assume must be common place. You asserted that women should be angry at drag queens, again trying to appeal to prejudice, but when someone comes along and dashes that argument to pieces you don't even respond to that, you go on to make yet another appeal to prejudice by saying "Yeah yeah, but transphobic feminists!"

You're failing constantly to realize people just don't share those prejudices, and no matter how many times you appeal to that, your argument will fall flat on it's arse.

Bannasidhe

ne0ica wrote: »

Have yet to see then show up at plays making speeches about gay rights on the channels 4 news. Maybe it's a maturity thing. In America where the gay rights movement is older, thus more established, gay people respect themselves too much to be misrepresent by a figure like panti. Given that panti is a publican, maybe being gay here is still about the party lifestyle.

Who made you our spokesperson???

All you are doing is demonstrating your complete and utter ignorance about Gay culture while condescending to us with your faux concern and statements about what we do and do not approve of..

Notice my use of 'us and 'we' - I am one of those 'gay people'. I am also a Lesbian and a Feminist and you are talking testicles.

hare05

Links234 wrote: »

How is this even relevent to Bann's point? Nobody cares about transphobic radical feminists and the acceptability of transphobia in general is evaporating quickly, and personally speaking as a transgender woman who is also a lesbian and hangs around with loads of other lesbian woman in my area, I experience practically no transphobia from other women in real life. I also find no experience of prejudice from feminists I know as well, having marched with so many for women's rights in Ireland. Similarly to Panti's experience, I find the only place you can truly be nasty to trans people is either online or if you're a columnist for certain papers.

But all of that is besides the point, because what you're doing here is merely jumping from one non-sequitur to another, constantly making appeals to prejudices you assume must be common place. You asserted that women should be angry at drag queens, again trying to appeal to prejudice, but when someone comes along and dashes that argument to pieces you don't even respond to that, you go on to make yet another appeal to prejudice by saying "Yeah yeah, but transphobic feminists!"

You're failing constantly to realize people just don't share those prejudices, and no matter how many times you appeal to that, your argument will fall flat on it's arse.

And a very flat arse it will be if they keep this up

kylith

I see no reason why a man in a dress should be taken any less seriously than a woman in a pair of trousers. To say that a man should not be taken seriously because he's wearing a (very nice) frock is to do nothing but expose your own shallowness and prejudice. Eddie Izzard campaigns for integration, has donated to housing services, and fund-raises for Sport Relief in the UK. Should his contributions be discounted and him ridiculed because he is a transvestite?

robindch

kylith wrote: »

I see no reason why a man in a dress should be taken any less seriously than a woman in a pair of trousers.

Well, there are some men in dresses who shouldn't be taken seriously.

Bannasidhe

ne0ica wrote: »

Maybe you should google the amount of transphobia amount lesbian feminists before you lecture me.

Perhaps you should stop mansplaining and accept that us Lesbian Feminists can speak for ourselves and don't require you to lecture us about what we do and do not approve of or what we should think.