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

Franz Von Peppercorn

seamus wrote: »

The poster I was responding to, wasn't.

Linehan is a self-identified "trans-exclusionary" feminist.

I doubt it. That’s a definition generally imposed on people not one self imposed. TERF means heretic

Being for "women's rights" does not make one anti-trans. Being for "women's rights (except trans women)" does make you anti-trans.

He makes the distinction between biological women and biological men.

What I funniest about this stuff is that TERFs like Linehan focus exclusively on the "female" part. Nobody freaks out about "women in the men's changing room" or "women in men's sports". Anti-trans viewpoints are focussed almost exclusively on trans females, and the apparent damage they can do. How they are trying to make "real" women unsafe.

Terf is more name calling but of course feminists (I’m not sure if Linehan is one) concentrate on women’s issues. Until a few years ago that was exclusively biological women until men decided otherwise.

At the root of this belief is an inherent anti-male bias. The belief that all men are violent sexual predators who cannot help ourselves, and a man even if he identifies as a woman, presents a danger to women and their rights.

Funny enough that sounds like a mens rights argument. I bet in different context you’d be laughing at it. Also very interesting use of male there (for people you should believe are female). And no scare quotes either. I see that females are however all “females”. Scare quotes.

TERFs, like Linehan, are the raving, man-hating, misandrist feminists that the denizens of AH claim are lurking around every corner.

As does that. The poor terfs (ie what was once the entire feminist movement) are now cast out in the cold because woke men believe men, who are not transitioned, are women and the biological women should put up or shut up. Feminists are wrong to blame all men for some men’s violence, they are right however that men are statistically more violent than women, and a statistical threat to women.

Muckka

EdgeCase wrote: »

Quite a few times actually.

I've been shoved up against a wall by a woman and had a rather horrible smoker's tongue shoved into my mouth. I'd zero interest in her.

I've had my rear pinched, grabbed, I've been fondled on dance floors, I've been shouted at for being less than responsive to flirting. I've had absolutely obnoxious women sit on my lap.

I largely ignored it and wasn't really that freaked about it but it does happen. I would say tho I did find the being corned and forced to kiss someone pretty gross though. I had to wash my mouth out with beer.

I don't mind flirting but some of that stuff is absolutely taking the piss.

I'm bi, so I've experienced similar very unwanted attention from lads too. Including someone who tried to push me into a car when I was about 19 and seemed to think that because I was bi I would somehow be automatically interested ... Absolutely not the case!

This isn't whataboutary btw. I think it's way way out of line when anyone behaves like a sex pest.

It's usually a mix of alcohol, a brass neck and hormones in many cases it'll just be stupid flirty nonsense but some people go WAY beyond that and that's where you're very much into the realms of sexual assault.

I'd say guys can be more threatening because they're usually physically bigger (not always tho).

There's a lot to be said for getting the concept of consent into everyone's heads.

Lots of good women are finding it impossible for find a good man as their expectations far out weigh their emotional and hypergamy needs.

I was in a gay bar in Galway the one near Rosine Dubh recently with my gay friend, went to the loo, and some dude followed me, asked could we share the cubicle and he asked me was I a top or bottom.
I wasn't offended or horrified, actually I found it quite funny. I told the guy he wasn't my type and could he please leave me alone.
He apologized and walked away, offered to buy me a drink downstairs.

Now if that's not crossing someone's boundry, what is ?
I'm well and more than able to handle myself if it came to the guy being pushy.

Picture a guy doing something similar to someone of another sexual identity, well he'd certainly deserve what ever gets thrown at him.

He'd have charges pressed, he'll more than likely loose his job and any other social status he was used to.
More than likely he'd do time or get a suspended sentence.

I'm not going to say which way I sway, it doesn't matter.
I was approached in a disrespectful way and slightly violated according to what's acceptable in society.

My only grace was I have a thick skin, it's probably a regular thing in the gay scene.

What was I doing in a gay bar ?
I went in to have a drink with my gay friend, it's a licensed premises which just has more gay people in there than straight.

I enjoy drag show's,as some of the wit and humour is hilarious...

It all comes down to how we perceive the world around us, I had two choices there, scream I'm a victim, or realise this guy was a product of an addiction or delusional...

Franz Von Peppercorn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sadly there have been quite a few reports from lesbians across the UK that such assaults have happened in women only clubs. Too many from too wide a geographical area to be dismissed.
I do not for a second believe the perpetrators of these assaults are genuinely trans, I think they are predatory men acting out some 'I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body' scenario. The descriptions of these men is that they are simply dressed in women's clothes with bad wigs.
I know too many people (MTF AND FTM) who are genuinely transitioning and have seen the time and care they take to 'learn' to express their real gender to think for a second any of them would think putting on a frock/suit is all there is to it.

That’s why self definition is a problem. The only problem really. A fully transitioned trans woman clearly believes her new gender and should use women’s rooms etc. The new laws are a problem. For sport too. .

AndrewJRenko

ironwalk wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But you're happy to "wait for one" from a female sexual predator?

Nope, didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth.
But, I've only ever had one woman push the line, and I was able to push back. No fear that she would strangle me, or punch my teeth in.

Have had lots of experience of men not listening when I said 'no'. Always with the worry that they'd take it badly and lash out.

And have you had many experiences of attempted assault by transgender women?

AndrewJRenko

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sadly there have been quite a few reports from lesbians across the UK that such assaults have happened in women only clubs. Too many from too wide a geographical area to be dismissed.
I do not for a second believe the perpetrators of these assaults are genuinely trans, I think they are predatory men acting out some 'I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body' scenario. The descriptions of these men is that they are simply dressed in women's clothes with bad wigs.
I know too many people (MTF AND FTM) who are genuinely transitioning and have seen the time and care they take to 'learn' to express their real gender to think for a second any of them would think putting on a frock/suit is all there is to it.

That’s why self definition is a problem. The only problem really. A fully transitioned trans woman clearly believes her new gender and should use women’s rooms etc. The new laws are a problem. For sport too. .

What problems have they caused in the two years since they were passed?

Will I Am Not

keano_afc wrote: »

That group used to be funny until it started being a liberal mouthpiece. I was banned for posting a pro-life meme.

100%. It being a fan page for a series that is built on poking fun at every stereotype under the sun...

ceadaoin.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Nobody is dismissing anything. What was said is very simple. The chances of a woman being assaulted by a man is low. The chances of a woman being assaulted by a man who is pretending to identify as a woman is so low as to be non-existent.

Except it has happened. Plenty of times. Predatory men have used these self id laws to gain access to women and sexually assault them or harrass them. It's happened in women's jails, shelters, changing rooms even their own homes in the case of the guy that targets female beauticians who work from home.

How many is acceptable to you?

jam_mac_jam

seamus wrote: »

The poster I was responding to, wasn't.

Linehan is a self-identified "trans-exclusionary" feminist.

Which is by definition an anti-trans position.

Being for "women's rights" does not make one anti-trans. Being for "women's rights (except trans women)" does make you anti-trans.

What I funniest about this stuff is that TERFs like Linehan focus exclusively on the "female" part. Nobody freaks out about "women in the men's changing room" or "women in men's sports". Anti-trans viewpoints are focussed almost exclusively on trans females, and the apparent damage they can do. How they are trying to make "real" women unsafe.

At the root of this belief is an inherent anti-male bias. The belief that all men are violent sexual predators who cannot help ourselves, and a man even if he identifies as a woman, presents a danger to women and their rights.

TERFs, like Linehan, are the raving, man-hating, misandrist feminists that the denizens of AH claim are lurking around every corner.

Yet I can guarantee you'll all be on his side because, "Well, sure of course they're not women, this is lefty craziness".

The reason for that is biology. Men are more of a threat to women because they are bigger,stronger and more violent (in general). Applies for sport and being abused.


In the tiny, minuscule chance of something happening then a woman is more at risk because she is smaller and weaker. That's why men are not threatened by trans men because they are not as much of a threat.


Because you want to be safe does not mean that you hate men or trans women. We are talking about a tiny proportion of people here but we have a right to be safe without being told we are man haters. Frankly it undermines your argument to go back to the old stereotypes. Feminists do not hate men.

sabat

So yiz would have no issues with this "woman" for example, going into the female changing rooms? Full story below:



https://kiwifarms.net/threads/jonathan-yaniv-jessica-yaniv-trustednerd-trustednerd-com-jy-knows-it-jy-british-columbia.49790/

AndrewJRenko

blanch152 wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Nobody is dismissing anything. What was said is very simple. The chances of a woman being assaulted by a man is low. The chances of a woman being assaulted by a man who is pretending to identify as a woman is so low as to be non-existent.

The case of Karen White illustrates that.

If we're going to take every case of every possible assault in the UK or indeed anywhere as a basis for requiring new legislation here, we're going to be very busy.

A plumber sexually assaulted a young girl in Texas last year. Do we need new laws against plumbers?

Zero issues have arisen in two years since self-identification was permitted.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that some people are looking for problems as an excuse to have a go at inclusive measures for trans people.

One eyed Jack

ironwalk wrote: »

Was it in jest? Many a true word etc etc.
If you read back on my posts, you'll see that my concern is solely with the subset of men, who will (and have) used trans rights to enter women's spaces in order to abuse and hurt.
I suspect that the risk of being hurt by a transgender wo/man is exactly the same as being hurt by any other male bodied person.

Reading back on your posts, I do see that your concern is solely with a subset of men who will (and have) used trans rights to enter women’s spaces in order to abuse and hurt. My point, is that the men who want to abuse and hurt women, will abuse and hurt women by any means, and whether or not trans rights are legally recognised, those men would still find ways to hurt and abuse women. Women wouldn’t need shelter in the first place if men didn’t abuse and hurt them. That has absolutely nothing to do with legal rights which acknowledge people who are transgender in Irish society.

With regard to the risk of being hurt by someone who trans, it’s actually far more likely that a person who is trans will be subjected to abuse by both men and women, including trans women who are trying to escape domestic violence who go into women’s shelters, who are then subjected to abuse and violence from women in those shelters. The risk of you being subjected to violence from someone who is transgender doesn’t even come close to the risk of you being subjected to abuse and violence from either men or women who claim to be transgender, and even then - it’s an awful lot of trouble to go to when they actually don’t have to claim to be transgender at all in order to abuse and commit violence against you, nor does their claim to be transgender place them above the law - they would still be subject to the same laws as anyone else, regardless of their gender identity.

If you were to have violence committed against you by either a man or a woman claiming to be transgender in order to have access to you to commit violence against you, that’s considered an aggravating factor in a case against them. Consider if you will this case from the UK where a woman claiming to be transgender was given a jail sentence for being found guilty of rape by deception of another woman -


Gayle Newland: Lawyers for woman who duped female lover into thinking she was a man consider appeal

As for the dismissal of women's risk of being hurt by men....are you seriously dismissing that, on an Irish forum, given our history?

I didn’t dismiss a woman’s risk of being hurt by men at all. In fact I gave you a far more realistic evaluation of the risk based upon evidence gathered over decades of research, as opposed to anecdotal evidence (and the risk is falling, as opposed to increasing, so lobbyists are attempting to redefine the terms because they rely on anecdotal evidence to support their aims). I’m just not overstating the risk as you’re attempting to do is all. You’re not living in a country where your safety is constantly at risk.

I may have a slim chance of being raped, but no woman goes out without it being in the back of their heads.

Excuse me? I don’t know too many women who go out with the thought that they may be raped in the back of their heads? It’s a good thing for them too because they aren’t living their lives in fear of something that is unlikely ever to happen to them. Contrary to your belief, most women absolutely do not live their lives in a constant state of fear and hyper-vigilance. That sort of paranoia would be exhausting and depressing and they would suffer greatly with their mental health.

I will continue to treat unknown men as if they are potential abusers because until I know you're safe, then I'm going to treat you as unsafe. (and here's the thing, in my personal experience, abusive men have been teachers, classmates, randomers on the Luas, boyfriends etc).

That is absolutely your right, and I would never want to take that away from you. You hold on to that thought. However, if those thoughts cause you to treat other people with unfair prejudice, such as refusing people who are transgender their human rights, then you may run into issues with the authorities. I probably won’t give two fouks tbh as you’ve already made me aware that I’m a threat to your safety, so I shan’t be leaping to your defence any time soon.

And if you have any of the following: a mother/wife/sister/female partner/daughter , then I urge you to consider my earlier examples.
Then tell me, whether women's protections should be dismantled for trans rights.

I’ll never understand the appeal to relatives as though it’s supposed to supersede all other legal rights that people are entitled to. For what it’s worth though, I’m a separated father of a teenage son whom you regard as a danger to your safety. Thankfully neither my wife, my mother, my sister and any of my female friends do not consider either me or my son to be a threat to their safety. I don’t know what any of that has to do with dismantling women’s protections for trans rights though. The fact is that women’s protections will still exist, and since 2015 at least, protection for people who are transgender has existed in Irish legislation. What you’re attempting to do, and what Graham Linehan the unfortunate fcuk is attempting to do, is close the gate after the horse has bolted.

It’s similar to the way in which during the marriage equality campaign I met many people who were of the opinion that they would support marriage equality, but they wouldn’t support same-sex couples adopting children. They were surprised to be told that marriage equality had nothing to do with adoption, same-sex couples could already adopt children and were already raising children, and one of the effects of marriage equality would mean that the children of same-sex couples would have the same legal protections in law as the children of opposite-sex couples.

Point being - people who are transgender already exist in Irish society, as do their children, as do children who are transgender. What they lack, is the same legal recognition and protections as everyone else in Irish society. Social acceptance is something that has to happen over time, but legal recognition and protection and acknowledgment of their human rights, is something we can do something about right now.

seamus

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Because you want to be safe does not mean that you hate men or trans women. We are talking about a tiny proportion of people here but we have a right to be safe without being told we are man haters. Frankly it undermines your argument to go back to the old stereotypes. Feminists do not hate men.

Right, they don't. But TERFs do. That's my point.
TERFs exist entirely because of the boogeyman of the predatory transwoman.

Exactly the same kind of hysterical irrational fear that drove anti-gay sentiment for years; the fear that gay men were lurking around corners waiting to pounce on innocent people and defile them.

What makes it ironic is that the same people who would claim that men are under attack, are the exact same people who would side with TERFs, even though TERFs ideology is based on the premise that men are bad and dangerous, and therefore transwoman should not be tolerated.

Billy86

ironwalk wrote: »

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Don’t be silly, there’s no such thing as a female sexual predator!



Cat, meet pigeons

Ah, here lads.
Men have the advantage in physical strength.
I have a fair chance against any female who wants to have a go; against even a mediocre man, nope, I'm going to come off badly injured.
Even a man who is shorter than me.
And, I'm on the tall, physically fit, well built end of the female spectrum.

I know a few women stronger than the average man, one or two to a pretty absurd extent. What would you do if one of them sexually assaulted you?

And what would a smaller, weaker woman do if you (or a woman built similar to you) sexually assaulted them?

Because you're coming across as being under the impression that women are simply not all that capable of posing any real threat of sexual assault on the basis that women are all around equal strength, which simply isn't true.

ceadaoin.

Billy86 wrote: »

I know a few women stronger than the average man, one or two to a pretty absurd extent. What would you do if one of them sexually assaulted you?

And what would a smaller, weaker woman do if you (or a woman built similar to you) sexually assaulted them?

Because you're coming across as being under the impression that women are simply not all that capable of posing any real threat of sexual assault on the basis that women are all around equal strength, which simply isn't true.

The fact is though that very few women have felt threatened by another woman, sexually or otherwise. The majority of women have had an experience of a man making them uncomfortable. It's pretty much gaslighting to constantly tell women that other women pose a threat when for the most part their lived experience tells them otherwise. You should listen

jam_mac_jam

Billy86 wrote: »

I know a few women stronger than the average man, one or two to a pretty absurd extent. What would you do if one of them sexually assaulted you?

And what would a smaller, weaker woman do if you (or a woman built similar to you) sexually assaulted them?

Because you're coming across as being under the impression that women are simply not all that capable of posing any real threat of sexual assault on the basis that women are all around equal strength, which simply isn't true.

Women pose less of a threat. In general men are stronger and bigger and more likely to overpower you and in general more likely to abuse you then a woman. There are very few women that are stronger then the average man. Even if she is the same size then its likely that a man will have much more strength. You knowing a couple of women does not change this. Its a fact. Men are stronger. Men are bigger.

This does not mean that all men are capable of rape or that all trans women are. I would say trans women are less likely then men to be capable of rape again though, that's my assumption and perception.

jam_mac_jam

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Reading back on your posts, I do see that your concern is solely with a subset of men who will (and have) used trans rights to enter women’s spaces in order to abuse and hurt. My point, is that the men who want to abuse and hurt women, will abuse and hurt women by any means, and whether or not trans rights are legally recognised, those men would still find ways to hurt and abuse women. Women wouldn’t need shelter in the first place if men didn’t abuse and hurt them. That has absolutely nothing to do with legal rights which acknowledge people who are transgender in Irish society.

With regard to the risk of being hurt by someone who trans, it’s actually far more likely that a person who is trans will be subjected to abuse by both men and women, including trans women who are trying to escape domestic violence who go into women’s shelters, who are then subjected to abuse and violence from women in those shelters. The risk of you being subjected to violence from someone who is transgender doesn’t even come close to the risk of you being subjected to abuse and violence from either men or women who claim to be transgender, and even then - it’s an awful lot of trouble to go to when they actually don’t have to claim to be transgender at all in order to abuse and commit violence against you, nor does their claim to be transgender place them above the law - they would still be subject to the same laws as anyone else, regardless of their gender identity.

If you were to have violence committed against you by either a man or a woman claiming to be transgender in order to have access to you to commit violence against you, that’s considered an aggravating factor in a case against them. Consider if you will this case from the UK where a woman claiming to be transgender was given a jail sentence for being found guilty of rape by deception of another woman -


Gayle Newland: Lawyers for woman who duped female lover into thinking she was a man consider appeal





I didn’t dismiss a woman’s risk of being hurt by men at all. In fact I gave you a far more realistic evaluation of the risk based upon evidence gathered over decades of research, as opposed to anecdotal evidence (and the risk is falling, as opposed to increasing, so lobbyists are attempting to redefine the terms because they rely on anecdotal evidence to support their aims). I’m just not overstating the risk as you’re attempting to do is all. You’re not living in a country where your safety is constantly at risk.





Excuse me? I don’t know too many women who go out with the thought that they may be raped in the back of their heads? It’s a good thing for them too because they aren’t living their lives in fear of something that is unlikely ever to happen to them. Contrary to your belief, most women absolutely do not live their lives in a constant state of fear and hyper-vigilance. That sort of paranoia would be exhausting and depressing and they would suffer greatly with their mental health.





That is absolutely your right, and I would never want to take that away from you. You hold on to that thought. However, if those thoughts cause you to treat other people with unfair prejudice, such as refusing people who are transgender their human rights, then you may run into issues with the authorities. I probably won’t give two fouks tbh as you’ve already made me aware that I’m a threat to your safety, so I shan’t be leaping to your defence any time soon.





I’ll never understand the appeal to relatives as though it’s supposed to supersede all other legal rights that people are entitled to. For what it’s worth though, I’m a separated father of a teenage son whom you regard as a danger to your safety. Thankfully neither my wife, my mother, my sister and any of my female friends do not consider either me or my son to be a threat to their safety. I don’t know what any of that has to do with dismantling women’s protections for trans rights though. The fact is that women’s protections will still exist, and since 2015 at least, protection for people who are transgender has existed in Irish legislation. What you’re attempting to do, and what Graham Linehan the unfortunate fcuk is attempting to do, is close the gate after the horse has bolted.

It’s similar to the way in which during the marriage equality campaign I met many people who were of the opinion that they would support marriage equality, but they wouldn’t support same-sex couples adopting children. They were surprised to be told that marriage equality had nothing to do with adoption, same-sex couples could already adopt children and were already raising children, and one of the effects of marriage equality would mean that the children of same-sex couples would have the same legal protections in law as the children of opposite-sex couples.

Point being - people who are transgender already exist in Irish society, as do their children, as do children who are transgender. What they lack, is the same legal recognition and protections as everyone else in Irish society. Social acceptance is something that has to happen over time, but legal recognition and protection and acknowledgment of their human rights, is something we can do something about right now.

I didn't know that trans women are at risk in domestic violence shelters. That's really depressing and horrible.

HandsomeBob

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Is Linehan anti-trans? That’s a genuine question, I don’t know an awful lot about his Twitter outbursts on the topic.

It’s just, if he is expressing reservations about things like pre-teens being given medication to block puberty or questioning whether young teenagers should undergo sex-change surgery, that doesn’t necessarily indicate that he is anti-trans, does it?

Has he gone farther than this, made openly anti-trans statements?

He's on Twitter referring to being born in the wrong body as being a fairy tale so I'd say he's generally anti transgender alright.

Going through his feed he does seem to have lost the plot on this issue. Calling engaging vulnerable young people on the issue comparable to telling someone with anorexia to get liposuction.

That is a harebrained comment if for nothing else than how can he feel qualified enough to dismiss so many people who have said they have struggled from a very young age with their identity.

If that's the crazy type of sh1t he'll say on prime time maybe he is better off not appearing. On second thought let him appear - that type of crazy comment needs to be heard and duly deconstructed.

seamus

HandsomeBob wrote: »

On second thought let him appear - that type of crazy comment needs to be heard and duly deconstructed.

Except that's not what will happen.

They won't get a qualified professional on to listen and deconstruct his argument. There will be Linehan on one side, with some questionable professional like Patricia Casey, opposite a trans woman (or man) beside an expert on human rights or the head of some charitable organisation.

And rather than uninformed nonsense being properly deconstructed and destroyed, it'll be a sh1tshow of ignorant and hateful comments thrown against continuous pleading for respect and humanity.

We've seen enough of this bolloxology over the last 3 years. RTE are afraid to get qualified people and put them opposite unqualified ones lest they get sued like John Waters and Iona did over their homophobic ranting.

So instead they find the lowest common denominator and make sure the panelists are as unqualified as eachother.

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

it’s actually far more likely that a person who is trans will be subjected to abuse by both men and women, including trans women who are trying to escape domestic violence who go into women’s shelters, who are then subjected to abuse and violence from women in those shelters. .

Can you link to any cases of trans women facing violence in women's shelters? Women saying no, that they don't feel comfortable with a male being there is not violence.

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

Right, they don't. But TERFs do. That's my point.
TERFs exist entirely because of the boogeyman of the predatory transwoman.

Exactly the same kind of hysterical irrational fear that drove anti-gay sentiment for years; the fear that gay men were lurking around corners waiting to pounce on innocent people and defile them.

What makes it ironic is that the same people who would claim that men are under attack, are the exact same people who would side with TERFs, even though TERFs ideology is based on the premise that men are bad and dangerous, and therefore transwoman should not be tolerated.

I think it’s a fair bit more nuanced than that though.

The fact is that there are trans advocates who claim that women should accept them into women only spaces, and being reluctant to do so is transphobic. ”The Cotton Ceiling” is one example of this very real phenomenon which is not so much a bogeyman at all.

I would also say that your claim that the same people who claim men are under attack are the same people who would side with women who object to men referring to themselves as women (I refuse to use that term “TERF” as it’s an attempt to portray these women as irrational for expressing their disagreement with transgender ideologies).

Their premise is not at all that ALL men are bad or dangerous, just the men who they object to who want society to accept them as women, as though they were born biologically as female and have lived their lives as female up to the point where they chose to identify themselves as girls or women. They also object to young girls being encouraged and indoctrinated in transgender ideology, and being subjected to medical treatments and surgical procedures on that basis.

Billy86

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The fact is though that very few women have felt threatened by another woman, sexually or otherwise. The majority of women have had an experience of a man making them uncomfortable. It's pretty much gaslighting to constantly tell women that other women pose a threat when for the most part their lived experience tells them otherwise. You should listen

You are not arguing against anything I said... my point was that claiming to be able to handle any woman out there while not being able to handle even the shortest or weakest of males is not a reason that stands up to logic.

professore

LoonyLovegood wrote: »

I don't see why someone who doesn't live here is being interviewed for a piece on transgender laws in Ireland? I mean, he doesn't live here, hasn't for years, and has been cautioned by police for the way he's treated some trans people.

If you want to have someone who'd have similar views to him, find someone who's actually here. Don't be dragging the chaos that is anything to do with the UK over here. I mean, after his Christmas 'Graham is off twitter for Christmas, this is his assistant' idiocy, who'd trust him?

There are people in Ireland jumping up and down to allow Irish people who haven't lived here for 50 years to vote in elections. In fact I believe there is a referendum on it soon.

Dick phelan

I ask this as a genuine question not to make a cheap point. If a white person or whatever said they now identify as black would anyone accept them for what they say they are. If not then why? Why is it we would say no to somebody saying they are a different race but accept people who say they are a different gender. Personally i think your born as you are, what you want to be is irrelevant when it comes to genetics and science. The facts are the facts and it's crazy a certain section of society think we should ignore it and pretend we can all change our gender if we like. Na i ain't getting on board with that.

HandsomeBob

seamus wrote: »

Except that's not what will happen.

They won't get a qualified professional on to listen and deconstruct his argument. There will be Linehan on one side, with some questionable professional like Patricia Casey, opposite a trans woman (or man) beside an expert on human rights or the head of some charitable organisation.

And rather than uninformed nonsense being properly deconstructed and destroyed, it'll be a sh1tshow of ignorant and hateful comments thrown against continuous pleading for respect and humanity.

We've seen enough of this bolloxology over the last 3 years. RTE are afraid to get qualified people and put them opposite unqualified ones lest they get sued like John Waters and Iona did over their homophobic ranting.

So instead they find the lowest common denominator and make sure the panelists are as unqualified as eachother.

I wouldn't be confident myself as I imagine they won't have a healthcare professional experienced in the issue nor an activist adequately experienced in speaking on the issue. I'd actually prefer if they brought in someone from abroad (for example Paris Lees) as this is still an issue rarely spoken about over here.

jam_mac_jam

Dick phelan wrote: »

I ask this as a genuine question not to make a cheap point. If a white person or whatever said they now identify as black would anyone accept them for what they say they are. If not then why? Why is it we would say no to somebody saying they are a different race but accept people who say they are a different gender. Personally i think your born as you are, what you want to be is irrelevant when it comes to genetics and science. The facts are the facts and it's crazy a certain section of society think we should ignore it and pretend we can all change our gender if we like. Na i ain't getting on board with that.

No of course not, by that logic then you could just call yourself an elephant. Its a recognised medical condition and has been since the 60's. You should look it up.

Dyr

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The fact is though that very few women have felt threatened by another woman, sexually or otherwise. The majority of women have had an experience of a man making them uncomfortable. It's pretty much gaslighting to constantly tell women that other women pose a threat when for the most part their lived experience tells them otherwise. You should listen

Uncomfortable: Check
Gaslighting: Check
Lived Experiences: Check
Demand for silence: Check

Gender Studies Bingo Night is so much fun

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Can you link to any cases of trans women facing violence in women's shelters? Women saying no, that they don't feel comfortable with a male being there is not violence.

I can’t link to any specific case now (did a quick google, thought cases I’d read about before would show up, but they didn’t). And for what it’s worth I completely agree with the idea that women should feel safe in women’s shelters. I don’t think people who identify themselves as transgender women should be permitted access to women’s shelters. From what I understand though, it’s a violation of their human rights to deny them equal access to women’s shelters.

I think the balancing of rights of women and women who identify themselves as women is frought with difficulty, but special consideration should be given in special circumstances such as women who have suffered domestic violence and abuse at the hands of men, who would not wish to share a space with people they perceive to be a potential threat to their safety or who make them feel uncomfortable or unsafe in a space where they have an expectation of their safety and privacy being respected.

TheValeyard

Seen this pop up a few times, in this thread, online and amongst teens.

What de fcuk is a woke male?

One eyed Jack

Dick phelan wrote: »

I ask this as a genuine question not to make a cheap point. If a white person or whatever said they now identify as black would anyone accept them for what they say they are. If not then why? Why is it we would say no to somebody saying they are a different race but accept people who say they are a different gender. Personally i think your born as you are, what you want to be is irrelevant when it comes to genetics and science. The facts are the facts and it's crazy a certain section of society think we should ignore it and pretend we can all change our gender if we like. Na i ain't getting on board with that.

Some people would, and some people wouldn’t. People who are bi-racial for example would experience both acceptance and discrimination from either black or white people. Paris Jackson (Michael’s daughter) for example recently claimed she was black, a claim which Wendy Williams greeted with scorn and derision. Genetics and science don’t particularly care for your opinion either, and pretending that you can ignore genetics and science when they don’t support your argument is as bad as the people whose ideology you are opposed to ignoring genetics and science when they don’t support their argument either. The fact is that there is more to defining and determining gender and biology than simply pretending we can ignore the evidence which doesn’t support our ideological beliefs for how we wish everyone in society was more like us. That’s neither science nor genetics - it’s egotism.

BBFAN

Well I've signed the petition anyway, guy is an idiot.