Woman Loses Job for Holding Gender Critical Opinions.

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

Is it possible in your eyes for a person to change gender? (self_ID or not) Some posters think a person cannot change gender and some posters think a person can change gender, what is your view? Yay or nay?

It’s possible for anyone to identify themselves as whatever gender they wish. I don’t have to agree with them that I perceive them to be the gender they want me to perceive them to be, but because it is self-identified, which is the crucial point you seem to keep missing - my opinion with regard to how someone chooses to identify themselves is neither here nor there unless they choose to make it public and wish to be acknowledged as their preferred gender and wish for society to acknowledge them as their preferred gender.

They can identify themselves as the tooth fairy for all I care, but if they try to pull my teeth, they’d better leave €2 under my pillow first.

Brendan Delaney

Imagine mutilating yourself with crude surgery and then having to live the rest of your life knowing you will never pass as a woman?

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

So yourself and Zorya disagree on this.

Myself and Zorya disagree on plenty of things. You still don’t have a point. You’re still thinking in terms of identity politics where you imagine there are “conservative science deniers” who disagree with you, and “liberal scientific and medical community” who agree with you.

The conservative science deniers apparently are all in agreement with each other, and the liberal scientific and medical community are all in agreement with each other, and everything revolves around you.

I suppose whatever helps you sleep easier at night.

Bobblehats

Zorya wrote: »

There is no compelling proof that biological sex is other than chromosomal. There are fragmentary pieces of research from small studies that claim possible longer androgen receptors or such like, though these do not account for epigenetics. There is in fact extremely limited research as of yet in the whole area,which is problematic if only because there are wider indications of harms being definitely caused to other organisms from endogenous xeno-chemicals. EG fish and reptiles with confused sex genotypes.
It would be brilliant f there was concentrated research that is unbiased and empirical in this whole area - and most especially in the realm of childhood treatment of dysphoria and long term follow up on the harms being caused by hormonal and surgical treatment.
For example one surgeon I read about recently states that he is seeing a surge in metastasising tumours among young people which he is speculating could be attributed to excessive hormone treatment in youth. Surgeons say people have terrible problems with neo-vaginas because there is almost universally bad smells and bacterial infections. Reports from Tavistock recently say that treatment increases dysphoria and concommitant mental issues such as anger, anbxiety and depression.
This whole area is vastly under-researched. It should be otherwise. It is important given the dreadful harm that is being casually done under the auspices of being ''nice''.
I already suggested that in the meantime it is best to go with the Occam's Razor approach of chromosomal sex until proven otherwise.

Critical stinking???

Candamir

So in the absence of an answer from Klaaaz, I’ll lay out my answer to my own question


My understanding of it is that transsexuals are people who have had some procedure which makes them appear closer to their preferred gender.

The terms ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ were in the past often used interchangeably, however ‘gender’ has been used more recently to describe how a person identifies, while ‘sex’ refers to a persons biology.

Transgender people are those who identify as a different gender to their biological sex.
They may or may not opt to undergo a social, medical or surgical transition.

In Ireland, people can self identify as their preferred gender, and do not need certification from medical professionals, or have undergone any kind of transition, social, medical or surgical.
They can get a gender recognition certificate, which legally recognises their preferred gender.

A Gender recognition certificate legally changes a persons sex, and they can also apply to have their birth certificate changed to reflect their preferred gender. This gender is annotated in the ‘sex’ column of the birth certificate. (There is no ‘gender’ column).
This legal change affords them the same rights as their chosen sex.

Therefore:
A trans man is legally a man, and a trans woman is legally a woman. They don’t have to have a ‘sex change’ - (more properly referred to as Gender reassignment, or gender affirmation surgery.) - be a transsexual.

Gender affirmation surgery (or medical treatments to affirm gender) do not alter a persons biological sex.

While for the vast majority of time, there is no issue or conflict, there are instances these new rights can conflict with the rights of non transgender people.
This is an area that needs to be discussed fairly, openly, and without fear of censure.


How did I do?

p1akuw47h5r3it

Candamir wrote: »

So in the absence of an answer from Klaaaz, I’ll lay out my answer to my own question


My understanding of it is that transsexuals are people who have had some procedure which makes them appear closer to their preferred gender.

The terms ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ were in the past often used interchangeably, however ‘gender’ has been used more recently to describe how a person identifies, while ‘sex’ refers to a persons biology.

Transgender people are those who identify as a different gender to their biological sex.
They may or may not opt to undergo a social, medical or surgical transition.

In Ireland, people can self identify as their preferred gender, and do not need certification from medical professionals, or have undergone any kind of transition, social, medical or surgical.
They can get a gender recognition certificate, which legally recognises their preferred gender.

A Gender recognition certificate legally changes a persons sex, and they can also apply to have their birth certificate changed to reflect their preferred gender. This gender is annotated in the ‘sex’ column of the birth certificate. (There is no ‘gender’ column).
This legal change affords them the same rights as their chosen sex.

Therefore:
A trans man is legally a man, and a trans woman is legally a woman. They don’t have to have a ‘sex change’ - (more properly referred to as Gender reassignment, or gender affirmation surgery.) - be a transsexual.

Gender affirmation surgery (or medical treatments to affirm gender) do not alter a persons biological sex.

While for the vast majority of time, there is no issue or conflict, there are instances these new rights can conflict with the rights of non transgender people.
This is an area that needs to be discussed fairly, openly, and without fear of censure.


How did I do?

Basically you're a transphobe

eagle eye

Thaddeus Slow Silver wrote:

Basically you're a transphobe

And just to clarify, it's not the same as being a real phobe!

p1akuw47h5r3it

eagle eye wrote: »

And just to clarify, it's not the same as being a real phobe!

She's a transphobe until she identifies as not a transphobe

Zorya

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BSb92OYA0g

Simple words for simple truths.

suicide_circus

gender and sex are not unrelated??!

hatrickpatrick

To those who are justifying this era of private companies punishing individuals for speech and activities unrelated to the actual company itself, in all honesty how do you react to this tweet? Because it sums up, for me, the absolute absurdity of ideological discrimination being considered acceptable, and private companies being allowed to discriminate either employees or customers based on their speech in their spare time:

WinnyThePoo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To those who are justifying this era of private companies punishing individuals for speech and activities unrelated to the actual company itself, in all honesty how do you react to this tweet? Because it sums up, for me, the absolute absurdity of ideological discrimination being considered acceptable, and private companies being allowed to discriminate either employees or customers based on their speech in their spare time:

Have you ever worked in a company yourself?.

hatrickpatrick

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Have you ever worked in a company yourself?.

I have, although only a small one. Why?

My manager had no interest in nor access to any of my social media if that's what you're wondering, nor did he have any interest in who I voted for or what I posted on Boards once I was off the clock.

ancapailldorcha

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To those who are justifying this era of private companies punishing individuals for speech and activities unrelated to the actual company itself, in all honesty how do you react to this tweet?

It's a silly strawman. Nothing more.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Zorya wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BSb92OYA0g

Simple words for simple truths.

That's the thing, the truth is plain and simple. Basic biology.

It's why I don't rate the likes of Jordan Peterson. He's not telling us anything that we don't already know, he just relays basic facts in a fancy way. He's not the great philosopher of our age.

The fact that these views are deemed as controversial in certain quarters is ridiculous.

Zorya

I lost all faith in the morality of ''companies'' and ''corporations'' way back when John Hume welcomed Raytheon, one of the largest armaments manufacturers in the world, to Derry to set up its operations there as part of the ''peace dividend''. That circle cannot be squared.

Companies do not give one single flying feck for noble causes. Nor do governments. Money and votes and more money is all they care about.

On the same day Ireland follows the UK's lead to sign up to the environmental emergency or whatever they're calling it, Tamboran applies for licences to frack the crap out of N Ireland.

Converse have launched a campaign promoting Pride using Desmond is Amazing, the 11 year old drag kid who performs raunchy sets in night clubs, as a representative of their amazing diversity - Desmond of course adopts a provocative stance on their adverts. Converse only cares about money.

The Centre for Global Development only cares about its funding - its money. They are terrified they would lose money so no employee is allowed to have a mind of their own.

Diversity and ''being nice'' - that repulsive order echoed by activists now, especially to certain women, to shut them up or else face narcissistic rage - is just a fraud, a cover story, because it's all about the bottom line for the companies.

Zorya

Zorya wrote: »

Diversity and ''being nice'' - that repulsive order echoed by activists now, especially to certain women, to shut them up or else face narcissistic rage - is just a fraud, a cover story, because it's all about the bottom line for the companies.

Good post.

I didn't really understand what you were referring to specifically in this part though, would you mind expanding on that?

Zorya

The WitchKing of Angmar wrote: »

Good post.

I didn't really understand what you were referring to specifically in this part though, would you mind expanding on that?

Hmmm. Putting me on the spot eh
There has been a split of sorts in feminism, though I hate that damn word because fourth wave feminism is so alien to me, someone who would have certainly considered and still consider myself an old style feminist. There are certain women now who are objecting to a new attempt to erase woman by what is essentially a man's movement.
I am not going to go into it, as it's too big. Those women are told to stay quiet. they have been doxxed, threatened with rape/death, called TERFs, there are TERF killer memes, even art installations! For example The Degenderettes. Who also merchandise bats. This is from their exhibit at San Francisco Public Library




It's too big to cover.

kildare lad

Free speech is dead now. Nowadays , there's squads of transgender Nazis/ sjws/ activists searching people tweets, internet comments and facebook posts hoping to find something they deem "offensive" . They want him/ her to be publically shamed, cry out for them to lose there job. Make them publically apologise for having a different opinion. Even though their opinion is more of a sane one. What a world we live in.

hatrickpatrick

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's a silly strawman. Nothing more.

How is it a strawman, though? Either private companies can discriminate on the basis of speech or political ideology, or they can't. There is no in between.

ancapailldorcha

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How is it a strawman, though? Either private companies can discriminate on the basis of speech or political ideology, or they can't. There is no in between.

That's a false dichotomy. What are you basing this on?

suicide_circus

just stick to the currently approved orthodoxy and you cant go wrong.

be like politicians and corporations, check which way the wind is blowing and row in behind that. avoid thinking for yourself at all costs.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote:

That's a false dichotomy. What are you basing this on?

Can we just end this conversation with a poll?

Should saying that homosapiens born with a vagina are female and those born with a penis are male (despite what they "feel" ) should be a stackable offence?

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Can we just end this conversation with a poll?

Should saying that homosapiens born with a vagina are female and those born with a penis are male (despite what they "feel" ) should be a stackable offence?

No idea. Down to the individual employer. I see no reason why, say someone who is a homosexual should be compelled to retain an employee they find thinks of them as subhuman.

Patty Hearst

kildare lad wrote: »

Free speech is dead now. Nowadays , there's squads of transgender Nazis/ sjws/ activists searching people tweets, internet comments and facebook posts hoping to find something they deem "offensive" . They want him/ her to be publically shamed, cry out for them to lose there job. Make them publically apologise for having a different opinion. Even though their opinion is more of a sane one. What a world we live in.

True, but ultimately they will lose (they are losing right now and they know it)
Thats why they're doubling down and ramping everything up..because they're desperate.

In a way I'm happy they've started attacking 'Cis' women (which was always going to eventually happen) It forces ordinary Women to stop and think 'what the f*ck is happening' and turns them to 'our' side.

Personally I know a few Women who just a year ago were all on board the Trans-Train...but now there has been quite the turnaround. My oh my have they switched their opinions..great to see.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote:

No idea. Down to the individual employer. I see no reason why, say someone who is a homosexual should be compelled to retain an employee they find thinks of them as subhuman.

Do you see why anyone who is devoutly Catholic should keep on an atheist?

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you see why anyone who is devoutly Catholic should keep on an atheist?

Depends. Does the Atheist despise Catholics?

rgodard80c

kildare lad wrote: »

Free speech is dead now. Nowadays , there's squads of transgender Nazis/ sjws/ activists searching people tweets, internet comments and facebook posts hoping to find something they deem "offensive"

My post was reported here.

https : // www . boards.ie / vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110143086&postcount=953

Banned for a month.

So ironic that a post specifically about people being silenced by trans activists, a blatant re-reg (HCF500 - yes I know the irony) has reported people with different opinions to silence them.

It's sad, it's pathetic, it's a sign that a few hundred people with clear psychological problems are very much censoring and silencing the normal, traditional, scientific status quo.

Anyways, carry on.

hatrickpatrick

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's a false dichotomy. What are you basing this on?

If a company can ban a customer for actions taken outside the company which have nothing to do with the company, then it is a reasonable analogy to suggest that companies which operate utilities could cut customers off for actions taken outside the company which have nothing to do with the company. How is it a strawman? It's literally happening right now, today. I believe Twitter is the most recent company to state that an individual's behaviour away from the platform might get them banned from using it. How is that any different to what's depicted in the graphic I posted?

hatrickpatrick

rgodard80c wrote: »

My post was reported here.

https : // www . boards.ie / vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110143086&postcount=953

Banned for a month.

So ironic that a post specifically about people being silenced by trans activists, a blatant re-reg (HCF500 - yes I know the irony) has reported people with different opinions to silence them.

It's sad, it's pathetic, it's a sign that a few hundred people with clear psychological problems are very much censoring and silencing the normal, traditional, scientific status quo.

Anyways, carry on.

Until literally a few very short years ago, it was officially recognised as a psychiatric disorder in the DSM. For someone to be punished for stating that they haven't changed their belief on that is a clear example of how one is no longer allowed to hold certain opinions in a debate in which those opinions are explicitly relevant.