Calls for Graham Linehan to be removed from Prime Debate on transgender issues!

AndrewJRenko

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

This one is pretty simple, Andrew. And totally unrelated to the WRC cases which are he says, she says,.

If a person is legally a woman then there is no distinction between another person classified as a woman. Clearly.

Unless you're an expert in both equality law and transgender law, you're in no position to speak definitively about this.

For the record, I'm not claiming to be an expert in these either. That's why I'm not speaking definitively about how cases might play out.

Wrongway1985

I'm puzzled as to why a guy can't give his views on a topic. Protest outside RTE studios at half 6 over it, a protest for RTE to censor...strange times.

AndrewJRenko

Calhoun wrote: »

Of course its getting nasty its only going to get nastier the more and more they target kids. I can understand why a minority group wants to grow its a matter of survival but there is a fine line with it coming across as predatory.

The photo session in Canada about a week ago with the naked adult beside the 10 year old "drag queen" is not going to endear allot of people to the cause. Before that we had the incident of the 11 year old in the gay bar.

I can only see things getting worse for the trans community the more and more children are involved.

Children are already involved, not by any choice of their own or because of any targeting. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend otherwise, just like the typical Irish response to anything related to sexuality, but that won't stop children finding themselves with gender issues.

And yes, if you keep relying on the Daily Mail or other scandal sheets for your information, things will get worse and worse.

ceadaoin.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not transitioning IS making a decision - a decision to spend those critical teenage years in a gender that is wrong for you.

Are they capable of making that decision?

It's not necessarily wrong for them though. Most transgender children are not transgender as adults if left to it without starting on a path of hormone blockers or social transition. Usually they identify as cis and gay. This is what every study on the subject shows. So no, they aren't capable of making that decision. Can you imagine the amount of damaged adults, not to mention lawsuits, in the future if children who are not actually transgender are allowed to make these choices?

AndrewJRenko

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

I'm puzzled as to why a guy can't give his views on a topic. Protest outside RTE studios at half 6 over it, a protest for RTE to censor...strange times.

Do you think that perhaps when the national broadcaster is selecting participants for a sensitive topic on the major current affairs programme, they should choose people with some expertise or experience in the topic? Or is it OK to pick anyone who stirs things up on Twitter?

No one is being censored here.

Gravelly

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you think that perhaps when the national broadcaster is selecting participants for a sensitive topic on the major current affairs programme, they should choose people with some expertise or experience in the topic? Or is it OK to pick anyone who stirs things up on Twitter?

No one is being censored here.

The general public (who fund RTE) don't have any expertise or experience on this topic, should they be allowed to hold a view? Should they be allowed to have someone who, like themselves, have no expertise or experience on the panel so it doesn't turn into a talking shop of "experts" agreeing with one another?

Calhoun

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Children are already involved, not by any choice of their own or because of any targeting. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend otherwise, just like the typical Irish response to anything related to sexuality, but that won't stop children finding themselves with gender issues.

And yes, if you keep relying on the Daily Mail or other scandal sheets for your information, things will get worse and worse.

Its also the typical Irish response to put a smaller group with perceived authority in place while they abuse it completely and destroy generations of children. Some of this community have already started to grasp onto that perceived authority and doing some fairly shady stuff.

So much is the immunity from criticism that actual pedophiles are looking at this like its a godsend and are trying to tag onto the LGBT community with the MAP, NO-MAP crap.

Things will get worse because those who believe they are all knowing on these topics will push ahead and not answer any criticism (It already looks like they are fairly anti-family if you dont agree with the doctrine.), then all it takes is the match to the powder keg. From the examples i have already discussed on thread an incident will more than likely happen at some point.

suicide_circus

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

I'm puzzled as to why a guy can't give his views on a topic. Protest outside RTE studios at half 6 over it, a protest for RTE to censor...strange times.

if he was totally unqualified but was fielding the right sort of opinions, do we think there would be a protest?

freshpopcorn

suicide_circus wrote: »

if he was totally unqualified but was fielding the right sort of opinions, do we think there would be a protest?

They'd be those clapping hands emojis used on Facebook/Twitter under all the articles he was mentioned in!

Franz Von Peppercorn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Really? And your basis for that claim is?

My basis for that claim is not giving hormones is less harmful than giving hormones to pre pubescent children.

AndrewJRenko

Gravelly wrote: »

The general public (who fund RTE) don't have any expertise or experience on this topic, should they be allowed to hold a view? Should they be allowed to have someone who, like themselves, have no expertise or experience on the panel so it doesn't turn into a talking shop of "experts" agreeing with one another?

For the umpteenth time, no-one is challenging anyone else's right to hold an opinion.

This isn't a 'panel discussion' on Prime Time. Glinner's piece has already been recorded. He won't be engaging with experts on the show. He will be given time to expound his opinions, though he has no experience or expertise in the matter.

"Next week on Prime Time - the M50 traffic chaos - we speak to cyclists in rural Clare who never drive in Dublin for their compelling insights on the topic".
It's just a bit silly, isn't it?

AndrewJRenko

suicide_circus wrote: »

if he was totally unqualified but was fielding the right sort of opinions, do we think there would be a protest?

So you're having a go at people for being motivated and committed enough to get off their arses and get out from behind a keyboard?

If others are too lazy or smug to protest, that's their own problem.

Will I Am Not

Linehan is well known for his views on the subject, views that are in line with a lot of TV licence payers. He’s not some randomer dragged in off the street.

Gravelly

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

For the umpteenth time, no-one is challenging anyone else's right to hold an opinion.

This isn't a 'panel discussion' on Prime Time. Glinner's piece has already been recorded. He won't be engaging with experts on the show. He will be given time to expound his opinions, though he has no experience or expertise in the matter.

"Next week on Prime Time - the M50 traffic chaos - we speak to cyclists in rural Clare who never drive in Dublin for their compelling insights on the topic".
It's just a bit silly, isn't it?

Another silly comparison - a more accurate one would be:

"This week on Prime Time, should six year olds be allowed to drive? We speak to 3 experts who we have already vetted to ensure that they agree"

Franz Von Peppercorn

Some of the issues with the possible new act in the U.K.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/19/gender-recognition-act-reforms-six-legal-views-transgender-debate

AndrewJRenko

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

My basis for that claim is not giving hormones is less harmful than giving hormones to pre pubescent children.

And that's purely personal opinion, right? No actual research or anything?

Maybe we should get rid of all those pesky Randomised Controlled Trials for new drugs and just go on your personal opinion of what the outcomes will be instead?

suicide_circus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So you're having a go at people for being motivated and committed enough to get off their arses and get out from behind a keyboard?

If others are too lazy or smug to protest, that's their own problem.

not having a go. not everything is a personal attack, you know?

I just don't think it's the man's qualifications that are at issue, rather his opinions.

AndrewJRenko

Gravelly wrote: »

Another silly comparison - a more accurate one would be:

"This week on Prime Time, should six year olds be allowed to drive? We speak to 3 experts who we have already vetted to ensure that they agree"

Where did anyone look for vetting to ensure people agree?

freshpopcorn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

For the umpteenth time, no-one is challenging anyone else's right to hold an opinion.

This isn't a 'panel discussion' on Prime Time. Glinner's piece has already been recorded. He won't be engaging with experts on the show. He will be given time to expound his opinions, though he has no experience or expertise in the matter.

"Next week on Prime Time - the M50 traffic chaos - we speak to cyclists in rural Clare who never drive in Dublin for their compelling insights on the topic".
It's just a bit silly, isn't it?

That's not really a good comparison to make to be fair now.
When we had debates on gay marriage we had people who weren't gay but just held a view on the matter.

Gravelly

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where did anyone look for vetting to ensure people agree?

Well, since it appears that anyone who doesn't isn't welcome, I'd say that's pretty much the outcome, isn't it?

AndrewJRenko

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Linehan is well known for his views on the subject, views that are in line with a lot of TV licence payers. He’s not some randomer dragged in off the street.

On this issue, he literally is 'some randomer'. He has no experience and no expertise.

And tell me more about your research with licence payers to assess their opinions? Are we going down the Trump road of majority opinion taking precedence over experts?

AndrewJRenko

Gravelly wrote: »

Well, since it appears that anyone who doesn't isn't welcome, I'd say that's pretty much the outcome, isn't it?

How did you work out that 'anyone who doesn't isn't welcome'? The protest is about Glinner.

Franz Von Peppercorn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And that's purely personal opinion, right? No actual research or anything?

It’s all personal opinions here, although doctors have chimed in and you ignored them too.

Maybe we should get rid of all those pesky Randomised Controlled Trials for new drugs and just go on your personal opinion of what the outcomes will be instead?

You really argue like an intolerant teenager. Everything’s a sneer or an ad hom (as far as I know it’s all on my dime too).

I don’t need a medical degree or be part of a randomised trial to know that drugs that delay puberty must be by definition harmful to a child’s development. It stops puberty. Which is part of development.

The only counter argument would be that the distress of being in the “wrong body”, which is fairly hard to measure, is worse. We don’t accept that children can consent to adult activities and we can’t know therefore if the child is really in a position to consent to these drugs. Or surgery.

I honestly didn’t think that I’d get anybody supporting this.

I also presume it’s illegal in Ireland.

AndrewJRenko

freshpopcorn wrote: »

That's not really a good comparison to make to be fair now.
When we had debates on gay marriage we had people who weren't gay but just held a view on the matter.

Who did we have on Prime Time speaking about marriage equality who had no experience or expertise?

freshpopcorn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Who did we have on Prime Time speaking about marriage equality who had no experience or expertise?

Various people from the No side mainly such as those from IONA. They weren't gay so why should they have a view in the matter and some who weren't even married.

Bannasidhe

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It's not necessarily wrong for them though. Most transgender children are not transgender as adults if left to it without starting on a path of hormone blockers or social transition. Usually they identify as cis and gay. This is what every study on the subject shows. So no, they aren't capable of making that decision. Can you imagine the amount of damaged adults, not to mention lawsuits, in the future if children who are not actually transgender are allowed to make these choices?

My experience - and I have a fair bit - is it's the other way around.
As young teenagers they identified as gay and later as transsexual.
After transition most - but not all - then identify as heterosexual.
So the gender they were/are attracted to sexually stays the same but their own body changes so it becomes the opposite gender they are attracted to not the same gender.

This isn't a hard and fast rule as every individual is different but it has been my experience with the majority of young people I know who have/are transitioning. And no. None of them are pre-pubescent. All are late teens/early twenties. All are taking hormones, most are waiting for various surgeries - waiting until their bodies have adapted to the hormones and can cope.

I will also say that I have seen them go from deeply unhappy angry kids lashing out at the world to happy adults secure in their own bodies and post-trans gender identity.

ceadaoin.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

It’s all personal opinions here, although doctors have chimed in and you ignored them too.



You really argue like an intolerant teenager. Everything’s a sneer or an ad hom (as far as I know it’s all on my dime too).

I don’t need a medical degree or be part of a randomised trial to know that drugs that delay puberty must be by definition harmful to a child’s development. It stops puberty. Which is part of development.

The only counter argument would be that the distress of being in the “wrong body”, which is fairly hard to measure, is worse. We don’t accept that children can consent to adult activities and we can’t know therefore if the child is really in a position to consent to these drugs. Or surgery.

I honestly didn’t think that I’d get anybody supporting this.

I also presume it’s illegal in Ireland.

The puberty blockers are dangerous, with long term health effects. This is now becoming known after girls who were prescribed it to stop precocious puberty are suffering various ailments. As well as adults who were prescribed the drug for cancer treatment. Yes, they are giving drugs used in cancer treatment off label to children, but sure it'll be grand..

It's a dangerous myth being peddled that they are harmless and merely "press pause" on puberty.


https://www.statnews.com/2017/02/02/lupron-puberty-children-health-problems/

sabat

I can't think of any other "scientific" field where literally the only evidence is words coming out of a child's mouth.

conorhal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My experience - and I have a fair bit - is it's the other way around.
As young teenagers they identified as gay and later as transsexual.
After transition most - but not all - then identify as heterosexual.
So the gender they were/are attracted to sexually stays the same but their own body changes so it becomes the opposite gender they are attracted to not the same gender.

This isn't a hard and fast rule as every individual is different but it has been my experience with the majority of young people I know who have/are transitioning. And no. None of them are pre-pubescent. All are late teens/early twenties. All are taking hormones, most are waiting for various surgeries - waiting until their bodies have adapted to the hormones and can cope.

I will also say that I have seen them go from deeply unhappy angry kids lashing out at the world to happy adults secure in their own bodies and post-trans gender identity.

What is the current legal and medical situation regards minors and transitioning in this country? Genuine question, I've no idea if any particular guidelines or legal positions exist.

Wrongway1985

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you think that perhaps when the national broadcaster is selecting participants for a sensitive topic on the major current affairs programme, they should choose people with some expertise or experience in the topic? Or is it OK to pick anyone who stirs things up on Twitter?

No one is being censored here.

What sort of expertise are you looking for on this? Guy has aired views publically before so an easy selection for them and given the reaction to his inclusion they are probably justified. Do I think it's okay, don't see anything wrong with it can explain themselves. If even coming off looking like an oaf so be it very rarely watch RTE myself but will be tuning in to see what all this mad fuss is really over.

The protestors are doing so to censor his views I thought?