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

AndrewJRenko

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

If you thought I wasn't going to notice that you've refused to address a single point, you're mistaken.

Once again you've suggested linehan has "no expertise" so I'll repeat one of the questions:

Does a transwomen have any expertise which allows them to comment on women's issues, or put themselves forward as women's representatives?

I haven't "suggested" that Linehan has no expertise. I've stated the fact that he has no expertise. He has no expertise. He has no qualifications. He has no professional experience.

He has no expertise.

And no, I'm not going to be led down a rathole with another hypothetical question about a hypothetical scenario - another problem that hasn't happened with two years of self-identification.

klaaaz

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course you do, the qualified professionals who agree with you of course. You’re ignoring the numbers of qualified experts who disagree with your opinions.

They’re spouting, and what they’re spouting is not based upon any medical or scientific evidence, because the medical and scientific experts have reached no consensus on the issues involved, so what we have to work with are people’s opinions regarding what should become policy in treating children with gender dysphoria, and those people’s opinions are based upon their ideological beliefs.

Nice twisting inventing a conspiracy!

Where are the qualified experts who disagree with the Irish qualified experts who are part of children's organisations? The Children's Ombudsman is a clinical psychologist himself and worked in child protection for over 20 years, perhaps he and the rest of the medical community are part of your imaginary ideology?

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Reposting the "criteria" is irrelevant because what is at issue is your laymans INTERPRETATION of the criteria.

One could quite easily argue that with self id that the complainant was not mistaken about the nature, purpose, or identity of the act. They thought they were having sex with a woman, and indeed they were.

Self-ID on the part of the assailant does not absolve them of any liability if they commit a criminal act. If the complainant is making a complaint, and the basis for their complaint is that they were unaware of the nature of the act, then that would vitiate consent. They thought they were engaged in a sexual act with a woman, and it turns out the person they were engaged in a sexual act with is not a woman, but a man, then indeed they were not having sex with a woman, no matter how that person chooses to identify themselves. That’s why I said that the gender of the accused is irrelevant from the point of view of what charges they could face.

In the absence of case law, neither of us know if consent was absent or not. You can pretend that you know your interpretation is correct all you like. But its still simply your interpretation.

Yes, of course it’s my interpretation, and it’s a far more reasonable interpretation than your interpretation that a heterosexual male would simply be told that they had sex with a woman, what are they complaining about? We don’t need case law to determine what constitutes consent when it’s written right there in black letter law.

No that's not what I said at all. I said that in terms of the traditional, well-established notions of sexual assault and rape, if a woman, or indeed a man, makes a complaint, then if its assumed to be true, they are indeed a victim.

You didn’t say that. I’m not selectively editing here. This is exactly where you picked up yesterday -

LLMMLL wrote: »

The question is whether that person was actually a victim of rape.or.sexual assault.

Your interpretation of the clauses that involve being mislead about "identity" and "the nature" of the sexual act do not hold up in relation to sex with trans people.

And this clanger today -

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm not playing around with language. You described the person presenting at a Garda station as being a victim of sexual assault. They are not a victim of sexual assault until their sexual partner is convicted.

It is not clear at all that someone be it a man or woman, who has sex with a trans person that they did not know was trans has a legal case, even if its 100% proven they have told the truth.

It’s perfectly clear. You’re just trying to weasel a way out of holding people who identify themselves as transgender to the same standards as everyone else in society.

And while you are correct that if someone does not feel they have been raped or assaulted, they will be unliekly to make a complaint and there is unlikely to be a trial, that does not mean that someone feeling they have been assaulted will lead to any legal consequences.

So what? What are you pointing that out for? Who said it would? I said that it could, for people who commit rape and sexual assault against another person. It leads to far more significant consequences for their victims.

BBFAN

sophiexyz wrote: »

Friend works in a busy pub, a transgender m-f was drinking there , about twice a month for 3 months, the owner was getting told that if he did not bar the transgender from using the womens toilets, that "we won't be drinking here, as long as he is here" every complaint was from women, regular customers, who's numbers where many, and so spent much more in the pub than the transgender.
The owner was left with no choice but to bar the transgender.
Now before you jump to conclusions, it was a purely commercial decision, there where many complaints, and my friend said not one was from a man, in fact the men fought it was funny, it was the female customers who blew a fuse.
(a busy, very nice pub)

Yeah, that's a true story that didn't end up in court.

Don't think so. :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

Nice twisting inventing a conspiracy!

Where are the qualified experts who disagree with the Irish qualified experts who are part of children's organisations? The Children's Ombudsman is a clinical psychologist himself and worked in child protection for over 20 years, perhaps he and the rest of the medical community are part of your imaginary ideology?

There’s no inventing any conspiracy? Those organisations which claim to represent children’s interests are supporting a particular ideology which is not based upon either medical or scientific evidence, but purely on ideological beliefs. There’s no imaginary ideology either when it’s quite clear that if you want to influence public policy, you instill yourself at the head of the review committee on the legislation instead of allowing an independent review.

The people who disagree with that ****ty little quango have simply walked away from working in those organisations.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Self-ID on the part of the assailant does not absolve them of any liability if they commit a criminal act. If the complainant is making a complaint, and the basis for their complaint is that they were unaware of the nature of the act, then that would vitiate consent. They thought they were engaged in a sexual act with a woman, and it turns out the person they were engaged in a sexual act with is not a woman, but a man, then indeed they were not having sex with a woman, no matter how that person chooses to identify themselves. That’s why I said that the gender of the accused is irrelevant from the point of view of what charges they could face.

Nope still just your fringe interpretation of an ambiguous law. I never said self id would absolve a trans person of a crime. If they rob a bank they will be prosecuted like anyone else. The question is whether not revealing being trans and proceeding to have sex is a crime, or at least "vitiates" consent.



Until you can show through case law that self id would not apply in this case, then your interpretation holds no more weight than mine. My interpretation is that a trans person who does not reveal that they are trans has not mislead anyone about their identity, any more than an irish person not revealing they are irish has.

Yes, of course it’s my interpretation, and it’s a far more reasonable interpretation than your interpretation that a heterosexual male would simply be told that they had sex with a woman, what are they complaining about? We don’t need case law to determine what constitutes consent when it’s written right there in black letter law.

I don't think a heterosexual male would be told "what are you complaining about". But that doesn't mean a case will be taken over his complaint, nor does it mean it would succeed if done so.

You didn’t say that. I’m not selectively editing here. This is exactly where you picked up yesterday -




And this clanger today -







It’s perfectly clear. You’re just trying to weasel a way out of holding people who identify themselves as transgender to the same standards as everyone else in society.

Absolutely not. You are manipulating what I said. To repeat: A trans person will be held to the same standards as everyone else. They will be prosecuted for forceful rape. They will be prosecuted for raping a sleeping person. But a trans woman is not misrepresenting her identity when sleeping with a man who thinks she is a cis woman. So she is being treated equally to other women.


I'm all for equality.

So what? What are you pointing that out for? Who said it would? I said that it could, for people who commit rape and sexual assault against another person. It leads to far more significant consequences for their victims.

I pointed it out because Rennaws raised his/her feelings as being relevant. Legally they're not (apart from the fact that those feelings might lead him/her to making a complaint).

AndrewJRenko

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Don’t know about you but my Facebook newsfeed was polluted with both repeal and save the 8th sponsored posts for months in the lead up to the referendum.

Personally, I think I saw more save than repeal, but your mileage may vary. The real issue is that there is little or no regulation - have all those who funded the adverts reported their spending through SIPO as they're supposed to?

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Absolutely not. You are manipulating what I said. To repeat: A trans person will be held to the same standards as everyone else. They will be prosecuted for forceful rape. They will be prosecuted for raping a sleeping person. But a trans woman is not misrepresenting her identity when sleeping with a man who thinks she is a cis woman. So she is being treated equally to other women.


I'm all for equality.

I’m not manipulating what you said, that’s a pretty shìtty accusation when I went to the effort of citing you directly so you couldn’t accuse me of misrepresenting your opinion or anything else, and yet you still do. She is being treated equally to other women, but how she is treated is not the point. The salient point is that her victim was misled as to the nature of the act and the identity of the person who sexually assaulted or raped them. Your claim was that a person is not the victim of sexual assault or rape unless their assailant is convicted is nonsense.

You want different standards to apply to people who other people do not recognise as their preferred gender, which would enable them to commit rape and sexual assault with impunity.

I pointed it out because Rennaws raised his/her feelings as being relevant. Legally they're not (apart from the fact that those feelings might lead him/her to making a complaint).

I don’t know where you’re getting this idea that the feelings of a person who has been raped or sexually assaulted would be legally irrelevant when we’re aware of things like the victim impact statement in sentencing, and during a trial of course the victims feelings are taken into account, and every effort is made by the Courts to make them feel as comfortable as possible in giving testimony against the accused.

AllForIt

In the UK the shadow minister for Women and Equality, don't recall her name, has been advocating more lenient sentences for women. I think one of the reasons if not the reason for that is that they have shown that their crimes were associated with men in some way.

If I ever get into criminality it would be handy to self-ID as a woman when arrested. What a mess.

So don't talk to me about men and women being treated the same in the criminal justice system.

AndrewJRenko

AllForIt wrote: »

In the UK the shadow minister for Women and Equality, don't recall her name, has been advocating more lenient sentences for women. I think one of the reasons if not the reason for that is that they have shown that their crimes were associated with men in some way.

If I ever get into criminality it would be handy to self-ID as a woman when arrested. What a mess.

Amazing how this 'handy way' hasn't come up in two years of self-ID here though? There was one case of a criminal cross-dressing as a disguise, at the Regency Hotel shooting, but no-one has tried this 'handy way' to reduce their sentence, amazingly enough.

klaaaz

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There’s no inventing any conspiracy? Those organisations which claim to represent children’s interests are supporting a particular ideology which is not based upon either medical or scientific evidence, but purely on ideological beliefs. There’s no imaginary ideology either when it’s quite clear that if you want to influence public policy, you instill yourself at the head of the review committee on the legislation instead of allowing an independent review.

The people who disagree with that ****ty little quango have simply walked away from working in those organisations.

In your eyes, to look out for the welfare of children and implementing a proper children's policy is based on ideology. And all the children's organisations are involved in said conspiracy! :rolleyes:

Again, the submissions from said children's organisations full of qualified professionals disagree with your ideology so you just diss them with zero evidence to back you up. In other words, you're spouting without any basis.

Slutmonkey57b

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I haven't "suggested" that Linehan has no expertise. I've stated the fact that he has no expertise. He has no expertise. He has no qualifications. He has no professional experience.

He has no expertise.

And no, I'm not going to be led down a rathole with another hypothetical question about a hypothetical scenario - another problem that hasn't happened with two years of self-identification.

So, your judgement is that he has no expertise, and it's also your judgement that the same questioning of someone else's expertise isn't valid, but your questioning his is valid.

The fact of the matter is that no, a transwomen has no expertise in women's experiences and is therefore not qualified to speak about or act on behalf of women. You're dodging that question because you know the truth and don't want anyone to hear it.

As to your earlier dodge, yes a debate is (just about) taking place despite all the violent, dishonest, intimidatory tactics being used by the extremist lobby and the misogynistic grifters who have started to use the bandwagon. That's in no small part down to people like linehan who have refused to back down from speaking in the face of it.

First it was the case that he was a horrific bigot who shouldn't be allowed to speak because of his views. Then, that tactic having failed, people just shouldn't watch it. Then, having appeared on the programme and not been exposed as a raging lunatic he was painted as, now the argument has fallen back on "he's not qualified".

Well he's more qualified to talk about issues with fringe activism then a transwomen is to define what womanhood is on behalf of women. He has experience of it, whereas I have yet to see a trans definition of gender that isn't an ancient, damaging stereotype based on some idea pulled out of nowhere helpful.

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

In your eyes, to look out for the welfare of children and implementing a proper children's policy is based on ideology. And all the children's organisations are involved in said conspiracy! :rolleyes:

Again, the submissions from said children's organisations full of qualified professionals disagree with your ideology so you just diss them with zero evidence to back you up. In other words, you're spouting without any basis.

Yes, in their eyes too to look out for the welfare of children and implementing a proper children’s policy is based upon ideology. I never said all the children’s organisations are involved in any conspiracy, you said that, while you ignored the fact that by your own standards, religious organisations are experts in looking out for the welfare of children and implementing a proper children’s policy based upon their ideology.

I don’t know what evidence you think is required to tell someone they’re spouting nonsense when I don’t agree with their ideology. I simply choose not to entertain their nonsense. They can carry on their cosy little quango and pat themselves on the back for producing reams of nonsense to keep the funding coming from the HSE all they want. It’s when they try to inflict their policies on society that I will object to their ideological nonsense.

AndrewJRenko

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

So, your judgement is that he has no expertise, and it's also your judgement that the same questioning of someone else's expertise isn't valid, but your questioning his is valid.

The fact of the matter is that no, a transwomen has no expertise in women's experiences and is therefore not qualified to speak about or act on behalf of women. You're dodging that question because you know the truth and don't want anyone to hear it.

As to your earlier dodge, yes a debate is (just about) taking place despite all the violent, dishonest, intimidatory tactics being used by the extremist lobby and the misogynistic grifters who have started to use the bandwagon. That's in no small part down to people like linehan who have refused to back down from speaking in the face of it.

First it was the case that he was a horrific bigot who shouldn't be allowed to speak because of his views. Then, that tactic having failed, people just shouldn't watch it. Then, having appeared on the programme and not been exposed as a raging lunatic he was painted as, now the argument has fallen back on "he's not qualified".

Well he's more qualified to talk about issues with fringe activism then a transwomen is to define what womanhood is on behalf of women. He has experience of it, whereas I have yet to see a trans definition of gender that isn't an ancient, damaging stereotype based on some idea pulled out of nowhere helpful.

Once again, it's not a judgement or opinion that he has no expertise. It's a simple statement of fact. He has no expertise on this topic - no qualification, no professional experience, no personal experience.



He has lots of opinions, which he is most entitled to share on Twitter or on opinion shows like Niall Boylan. The problem (as stated originally, not a 'fallback tactic' as you suggest) is that he should never have been invited on Prime Time - a news/current affairs show about transgender rights, not about 'fringe activism' as you suggest.

rgodard80a

LLMMLL wrote: »

But a trans woman is not misrepresenting her identity when sleeping with a man who thinks she is a cis woman. So she is being treated equally to other women.

Absolute rubbish.

That sort of lie of omission would be as morally corrupt as not telling someone you were married or had some history of sexual disease.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The problem (as stated originally, not a 'fallback tactic' as you suggest) is that he should never have been invited on Prime Time - a news/current affairs show about transgender rights, not about 'fringe activism' as you suggest.

The programme in question wasn’t just about transgender rights though, it was about the rise in the number of children in society who are identifying as transgender, and given that Linehan has a high public profile and has experience of dealing with the more radical elements of trans rights activism, the producers of Prime Time identified him as someone who they felt could offer a unique perspective. If people had wanted an echo chamber of their own opinions, then the programme for that was not Prime Time, it was their own channels on YouTube or similar media.

klaaaz

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, in their eyes too to look out for the welfare of children and implementing a proper children’s policy is based upon ideology. I never said all the children’s organisations are involved in any conspiracy, you said that, while you ignored the fact that by your own standards, religious organisations are experts in looking out for the welfare of children and implementing a proper children’s policy based upon their ideology.

I don’t know what evidence you think is required to tell someone they’re spouting nonsense when I don’t agree with their ideology. I simply choose not to entertain their nonsense. They can carry on their cosy little quango and pat themselves on the back for producing reams of nonsense to keep the funding coming from the HSE all they want. It’s when they try to inflict their policies on society that I will object to their ideological nonsense.

As said, you're just a random anonymous poster with an opinion while the people in the children’s organisations are more qualified than you. Your critical answer as to why the professionals disagree with you is that it's all in some ideology regarding money, that's conspiracy nonsense. Perhaps you(and fellow posters) have an ideology yourselves regarding this issue as you keep dismissing the opinions of qualified professionals without any basis?

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

As said, you're just a random anonymous poster with an opinion while the people in the children’s organisations are more qualified than you. Your critical answer as to why the professionals disagree with you is that it's all in some ideology regarding money, that's conspiracy nonsense. Perhaps you(and fellow posters) have an ideology yourselves regarding this issue as you keep dismissing the opinions of qualified professionals without any basis?

I haven’t made you aware of my qualifications, I don’t need to either as that to me would just be a pissing contest seeing as I don’t care for your qualifications either, nor do I care for their qualifications which you rely so heavily upon to support your argument from authority.

You’re correct in that I do have an ideology, and I have an agenda, and my ideology and agenda conflicts with yours. I at least have the balls to admit I have an agenda, do you?

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The programme in question wasn’t just about transgender rights though, it was about the rise in the number of children in society who are identifying as transgender, and given that Linehan has a high public profile and has experience of dealing with the more radical elements of trans rights activism, the producers of Prime Time identified him as someone who they felt could offer a unique perspective. If people had wanted an echo chamber of their own opinions, then the programme for that was not Prime Time, it was their own channels on YouTube or similar media.

Linehan's 'unique perspective' is just pub talk - no more valuable that your or my 'unique perspective'. It is not based on research or evidence or professional expertise or personal experience.



Again, this is not an 'echo chamber' issue. There is no difficulty with the inclusion of Stella O'Malley, who has personal experience and some relevant professional qualification. There is no difficulty with the inclusion of the UK academic (though it would have been reasonable to get a response from his university on the claim of being blocked).


The issue is about bringing a London comedy writer onto a current affairs programme.

Franz Von Peppercorn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Linehan's 'unique perspective' is just pub talk - no more valuable that your or my 'unique perspective'. It is not based on research or evidence or professional expertise or personal experience.

Up to a few short years ago gender dysphoria was considered a mental disorder. It was political pressure that changed the DSM not any new facts about the brain. What’s the fetishing about prime time anyway - it’s just a TV show.

Again, this is not an 'echo chamber' issue. There is no difficulty with the inclusion of Stella O'Malley, who has personal experience and some relevant professional qualification. There is no difficulty with the inclusion of the UK academic (though it would have been reasonable to get a response from his university on the claim of being blocked).


The issue is about bringing a London comedy writer onto a current affairs programme.

Linehan is part of the story, in the UK he was one of the few celebs who opposed self id over there. This stalled the passage of the act to a certain extent.

Annasopra

sophiexyz wrote: »

I sure you are well aware of the Man Identifying As Woman who Sued Female beauticians For Refusing To Give Him A Lady’s Genital Wax, on his fully intact dick & balls, how can anyone in their right mind support this?
This JY chancer is involved in many more controversy, a google will show you how depraved this man is, periods,tampons, young girls, absolutely disgusting individual who is getting support from the SJW mob.
Japan has the right idea.

So you support torture?

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Linehan's 'unique perspective' is just pub talk - no more valuable that your or my 'unique perspective'. It is not based on research or evidence or professional expertise or personal experience.

Again, this is not an 'echo chamber' issue. There is no difficulty with the inclusion of Stella O'Malley, who has personal experience and some relevant professional qualification. There is no difficulty with the inclusion of the UK academic (though it would have been reasonable to get a response from his university on the claim of being blocked).

The issue is about bringing a London comedy writer onto a current affairs programme.

Linehan’s perspective was valuable enough that the producers of the programme thought his opinions were worth an airing in a public forum. It’s not true to say he has no experience of the issues involved when it’s been evidenced that he actually does, particularly given his warning from the police in the UK in relation to his social media spat with a radical transgender activist.

He wasn’t appearing on Prime Time to give his opinions on comedy, he was appearing on Prime Time as part of an investigation into why there is a rise in the numbers of children in the UK identifying as transgender, and he gave his opinions on that subject.

There are a number of different perspectives involved in the discussion of transgenderism, from the medical and scientific aspects to the social and political aspects, and the individual perspectives and case histories that inform that discussion. Some trans advocates appear to want only their perspective represented. I asked klaaaaz earlier were they aware of the term truscum which is how some trans advocates refer to people who identify as transgender who do not feel any need to medically transition... not a peep out of them.

That’s fine, they aren’t obligated to answer anything they don’t want to, but they shouldn’t expect to be taken seriously when they try and shut down anyone who doesn’t share their opinions. The parents on the programme weren’t experts in science and medicine either, and before their child identified themselves as transgender, they had no experience of the condition either. They were as much experts as Linehan, yet there were no calls for them to be excluded from the programme on the basis that they were giving their perspective based on their personal experience.

That’s who the programme was aimed at, informing people about the complexity of the issues involved without overwhelming them with information and trying to exclude anyone who didn’t have 20 years experience in child psychology and all the rest of it. Overall I found it a fairly balanced programme which examined the issues from a few different perspectives while resisting the temptation to repeat the Jeremy Kyle style screaming matches that had been seen on UK television regarding the issues involved which really only appeared to be designed to wind people up.

AndrewJRenko

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Up to a few short years ago gender dysphoria was considered a mental disorder. It was political pressure that changed the DSM not any new facts about the brain. What’s the fetishing about prime time anyway - it’s just a TV show.

Linehan is part of the story, in the UK he was one of the few celebs who opposed self id over there. This stalled the passage of the act to a certain extent.

Not so much 'fetishising' as 'speaking to the topic of this thread'.



There was nothing about the stalling of UK legislation in the programme, so again, I'm not seeing the relevance of the UK comedy writer on transgender rights in Ireland. Linehan didn't speak about his activism iirc - he just raised the same old tired issues that he's been raising on Twitter - the 'bogeyman' cases that haven't happened in three years of self-identification here in Ireland.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not so much 'fetishising' as 'speaking to the topic of this thread'.



There was nothing about the stalling of UK legislation in the programme, so again, I'm not seeing the relevance of the UK comedy writer on transgender rights in Ireland. Linehan didn't speak about his activism iirc - he just raised the same old tired issues that he's been raising on Twitter - the 'bogeyman' cases that haven't happened in three years of self-identification here in Ireland.

Prime Time were investigating the issue in the UK and asking why there appears to be no debate on the issues in Ireland. I could simply have answered the question and said not too many people actually give a shìte.

Slutmonkey57b

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Once again, it's not a judgement or opinion that he has no expertise. It's a simple statement of fact. He has no expertise on this topic - no qualification, no professional experience, no personal experience.



He has lots of opinions, which he is most entitled to share on Twitter or on opinion shows like Niall Boylan. The problem (as stated originally, not a 'fallback tactic' as you suggest) is that he should never have been invited on Prime Time - a news/current affairs show about transgender rights, not about 'fringe activism' as you suggest.

Is he more, or less, qualified than Aimee challenor?

If you want to bring an objective standard of qualification into things, then you are going to have to also accept that a lot of people are going to be disqualified on the basis of personal incompetence, violent misogyny, disingenuousness, or inexpertise.

So on that basis, are you willing to cede that transwomen don't have any right to define womanhood, given their (entirely factual) lack of expertise and personal experience of it?

klaaaz

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I haven’t made you aware of my qualifications, I don’t need to either as that to me would just be a pissing contest seeing as I don’t care for your qualifications either, nor do I care for their qualifications which you rely so heavily upon to support your argument from authority.

You’re correct in that I do have an ideology, and I have an agenda, and my ideology and agenda conflicts with yours. I at least have the balls to admit I have an agenda, do you?

I prefer to follow guidance from qualified professionals, people who have studied and worked all their working lives on the subject matter. How on earth is that an agenda or an ideology is beyond belief.

One eyed Jack wrote:

There are a number of different perspectives involved in the discussion of transgenderism, from the medical and scientific aspects to the social and political aspects, and the individual perspectives and case histories that inform that discussion. Some trans advocates appear to want only their perspective represented. I asked klaaaaz earlier were they aware of the term [url=https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Transmedicalism[/url] which is how some trans advocates refer to people who identify as transgender who do not feel any need to medically transition... not a peep out of them.

You had originally said "truscum" which was discussed earlier in the thread. I think you have the meaning of that term transmedicalism which was made up by some teenage twitter/name that platform kid, backwards. I thought it referred to trans who have medically transitioned hence "Transmedicalism".

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Linehan’s perspective was valuable enough that the producers of the programme thought his opinions were worth an airing in a public forum. It’s not true to say he has no experience of the issues involved when it’s been evidenced that he actually does, particularly given his warning from the police in the UK in relation to his social media spat with a radical transgender activist.

It is 100% true to say that he has no personal or professional experience of the issue - that's a simple fact.


And was it really his 'perspective' that they wanted? If they wanted that perspective, they could have just gone into any pub in Donnybrook any day of they week, and they'd find no shortage of lads giving the same cliched perspective. Why did they need to spend public money on sending a crew to London for a day for a 20 second clip of his furious typing.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s fine, they aren’t obligated to answer anything they don’t want to, but they shouldn’t expect to be taken seriously when they try and shut down anyone who doesn’t share their opinions. The parents on the programme weren’t experts in science and medicine either, and before their child identified themselves as transgender, they had no experience of the condition either. They were as much experts as Linehan, yet there were no calls for them to be excluded from the programme on the basis that they were giving their perspective based on their personal experience.

Yes, that's how experience works. Before the parents got the experience, they had no experience. But now that they've got the experience, they have the experience. That's why they were relevant.


They're not 'as much experts as Linehan'. They have lived with the issue of parenting a transgender child. Linehan has not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s who the programme was aimed at, informing people about the complexity of the issues involved without overwhelming them with information and trying to exclude anyone who didn’t have 20 years experience in child psychology and all the rest of it. Overall I found it a fairly balanced programme which examined the issues from a few different perspectives while resisting the temptation to repeat the Jeremy Kyle style screaming matches that had been seen on UK television regarding the issues involved which really only appeared to be designed to wind people up.

There is no attempt to exclude anyone who didn't have 20 years experience. They should have excluded anyone who didn't have experience or expertise - specifically Linehan.

AndrewJRenko

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Is he more, or less, qualified than Aimee challenor?

If you want to bring an objective standard of qualification into things, then you are going to have to also accept that a lot of people are going to be disqualified on the basis of personal incompetence, violent misogyny, disingenuousness, or inexpertise.

So on that basis, are you willing to cede that transwomen don't have any right to define womanhood, given their (entirely factual) lack of expertise and personal experience of it?

I've never heard of Aimee Challenor, so I'm not really the right person to comment on her qualifications. If she has experience or expertise in transgender, she could be a good candidate for Prime Time. If, like Linehan, she has no experience in this issue, she wouldn't make a good candidate for Prime Time.

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

I prefer to follow guidance from qualified professionals, people who have studied and worked all their working lives on the subject matter. How on earth is that an agenda or an ideology is beyond belief.

Qualified professionals are still people at the end of the day, and people always have an agenda which is propelled by their own idelogical beliefs. It’s not at all beyond belief, it’s simply a matter of who you choose to believe, and you choose to believe ideologues who support your opinions, whereas I choose to question their opinions on the basis that their opinions are based on their political and social ideology. There is no consensus among health professionals or scientists in relation to transgenderim. There is no consensus among social care professionals in relation to transgenderism.

There is plenty of discussion relating to the political and social aspects of transgenderism, and many of the organisations involved in the review of the Gender Recognition Act are basing their opinions on their political and social beliefs as opposed to basing their opinions on any medical or scientific evidence. It’s still a relatively new area of psychology and medicine and we’re learning more about it, which is why your dismissal of anyone who doesn’t share your ideological beliefs comes as no surprise to anyone really.

You had originally said "truscum" which was discussed earlier in the thread. I think you have the meaning of that term transmedicalism which was made up by some teenage twitter/name that platform kid, backwards. I thought it referred to trans who have medically transitioned hence "Transmedicalism".

My point was that even among themselves, transgender activists can’t agree on who is or isn’t qualified to identify themselves as transgender, as though only they are qualified to make that determination according to their standards. The point is that they claim anyone who doesn’t want to go through medical transition is not transgender, as though they are the experts on transgenderism in the same way as the organisations you pointed to are experts in children’s welfare. They aren’t. What they are quite skilled in, is the language of identity politics.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It is 100% true to say that he has no personal or professional experience of the issue - that's a simple fact.

It’s not fact though, as we have documented evidence of his dealings with radical trans activists on social media.

And was it really his 'perspective' that they wanted? If they wanted that perspective, they could have just gone into any pub in Donnybrook any day of they week, and they'd find no shortage of lads giving the same cliched perspective. Why did they need to spend public money on sending a crew to London for a day for a 20 second clip of his furious typing.

Those lads you mention are not public figures living in the UK where Prime Time were investigating the debate in the UK and questioning why there appeared to be no debate on the issues in Ireland. They said as much in every advertisement for the programme, which was heavily advertised. They could simply have phoned the Tavistock Institute too, or any of the participants in the programme. I’m not sure why they had to travel to the UK either but I suppose on-location is always better than over the phone.

Yes, that's how experience works. Before the parents got the experience, they had no experience. But now that they've got the experience, they have the experience. That's why they were relevant.

They have as much experience as Linehan in that case because in just the same way as he was giving his perspective based upon his experiences, they were giving their perspective based upon their experiences.

They're not 'as much experts as Linehan'. They have lived with the issue of parenting a transgender child. Linehan has not.

If the programme was simply about raising a child who identifies as transgender, you’d have a point. The programme wasn’t just about that though, it was about an in-depth look at transgender issues -

Prime Time: An in-depth look at transgender issues

In recent years there has been a huge increase in the number of young people in Ireland who say they are transgender - and who want to change the gender they were born with.

A Prime Time programme broadcast last night, examined the exponential growth in the number of young people seeking to change gender, and the implications of the proposed new law allowing them to do so without their parents' consent.

RTÉ said it was a fair and responsible examination of an issue of considerable public importance, the programme, nevertheless, provoked strong reaction from activists.

There is no attempt to exclude anyone who didn't have 20 years experience. They should have excluded anyone who didn't have experience or expertise - specifically Linehan.

But he does have experience of the issues involved, he just doesn’t share your opinions on the issues involved. That’s every reason to include him in the programme if you’re trying to present a fair and balanced view of the issues involved as opposed to a party political broadcast on behalf of a handful of trans advocates.