More from Roderic O'Gorman (MOD NOTE IN OPENING POST)

drunkmonkey

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Some interesting stats from the UK

https://twitter.com/wendylyon/status/1281149837862461441?s=19

The same pinknews with a hard on for kids drag shows:rolleyes:

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ronivek wrote: »

You're literally criticising the LGBT movement in this post; and there is plenty of anti-LGBT sentiment expressed on this and other platforms too.

I would be very much in favour of the free expression of ideas and debate also; but one of the key issues is that much of the dross on social media does not really rise to the level of debate or even discussion. Even this particular forum reads more like a Conspiracy Theories forum much of the time.

Hmmm, it seems like it’s very easy to dismiss opposing views based on some sort of lofty standard that is probably quite arbitrary. It’s a handy out - “Oh, the standard of debate here is simply beneath me”.

keano_afc

Using Pink News as a source? Bloody hell :D:D

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

keano_afc wrote: »

Using Pink News as a source? Bloody hell :D:D

The results of that poll actually show that a good chunk of the population are not particularly comfortable with self ID. It’s a majority that are but a small one.

Plus, I mean, self ID is fine. People can ID as whatever they want, as far as I’m concerned. But I don’t believe that self IDing should allow somebody to bypass sex-based rights. So if I was a respondent to that poll, I’d say “Yeah, I’m fine with self ID” but it wouldn’t actually tell us much about my position on the topic.

AndrewJRenko

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Hmmm, it seems like it’s very easy to dismiss opposing views based on some sort of lofty standard that is probably quite arbitrary. It’s a handy out - “Oh, the standard of debate here is simply beneath me”.

You mean, like the Pink News references above?

VillageIdiot71

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

But I don’t believe that self IDing should allow somebody to bypass sex-based rights.

And I don't think you're wrong, but I think that means we don't agree with self ID.

Absolutely, as you say, the question needs a clear understanding. If it just means a certain person can assert a gender to themselves, sure how could you stop them. Why would you even want to.

If it means everyone else has to take notice, it's different.

Like, if a genetic woman asserts manhood and marries a woman, can that person then qualify as the father of any children in that marriage on grounds that the presumption of paternity means that any child of a married woman is assumed to be her husband? That's obviously bonkers.

At the same time, the assertion of a gender means absolutely nothing if it entails nothing. Unfortunately, that's where there has to be a conflict. Self ID isn't the issue. It's the self generation of an obligation on others which is where disagreement exists.

political analyst

RandRuns wrote: »

Yeah, I'm sure he was just having a chat about the issues of the day with him.
I wonder would a heterosexual politician who was caught with a female protitute, in a known red-light area, receive the same leeway? I doubt it.

Red-light areas have neon lights and nightclubs and "massage parlours" in them.

If Stagg had been talking to a female prostitute in a modern equivalent of "Monto" then an accusation against him would have more credibility.

As for Stagg allegedly looking for gay sex, then how the hell is it that he was not just married but was already a father, which meant, obviously, that he had sex with his wife more than once?!

We don't even know whether the younger male he was talking to was a rent boy!

Sir Oxman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Firstly I would really like it if straight people didn't use LGB people to further their agenda against trans people.
Secondly I would like to emphasise my first point.

That is my agenda.

Even though you have managed to drag the post I was responding to into your personal gripe against me for the original sin of not following the critical gender/queer theory cult and manage to miss the point, I'll tap this out to you.
Assuming is pretty sad.
Luckily for me, I'm a gay man. That's gotcha #1 gone.
Luckily, I have no 'agenda against transpeople'. That's gotcha #2 gone.
Is that ok, o spokeswoman and arbiter of 'your' community's history and who may or may not make a point or comment or dare to speak?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I never mentioned you having an agenda I said your 'version' of the history of my community is utter BS and I stand by that statement.

Well, according to your very first sentence I'm a straight person with an agenda against trans people.

As for communities, do the wider community a favour - in which (back on topic) history lessons on this topic in all schools may in the future be part of the curriculum - and seek only the maximal truth and transparency and reject any current day ideological political agendas.

<Me: snip blocks of text with nothing to do with my point>


Storme was indeed a lesbian and was (up until this year in particular) the generally accepted 'first' at Stonewall 1969 - that particular starting event being the one under discussion as being revised by all and sundry.
And if the latest ideological theory is now gaslighting the world (inc. it's own community) about something like that, what chance for transparency and truth in wider, grander debates.

Back to the point of my post -

would a school class know that Marsha was a gnc drag queen/transvestite who was a gay man who wasn't at the vanguard of the protest (which is my point) going by the outpouring of posts/articles (in print, online and media) designating the closest person they could use (incorrectly) to advance the narrative that the virtual 'leaders' of the Stonewall riots were trans women?

As for Sylvia - well, it is widely accepted Sylvia was not present (MPJ even said so) despite wanting to be portrayed as being at the vanguard of those protests.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

See - us 'stupid gays and lesbians' are well able to research our history, using primary sources, and it is filled with trans people so you can take your agenda of writing them out of our history and shove it.

Oh, there's my perceived 'agenda' again which you denied saying I had. Hmm.

I don't tend to go down ideological routes so no, I am not writing anyone out of anything.
You're obviously stuck on the phrase I used to emphasise the sidelining of anything or anyone gay/lesbian/bi nowadays and replace with the trans umbrella and also based your umbrage-led reply on your preconceived notions.

I could have a preconception of you as the poster who quotes Pink 'News' as a primary source in other serious threads - a well known clickbait rag which for some reason has never signed up to the UK's IPSO Editors Code of Conduct - for starters.
It would be so easy for me to label you as <insert useless fingerpointing snipe that assumes blah blah>

Luckily, I'm not into that garbage...anymore :pac:

VillageIdiot71

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So your children may well have a trans child in the classroom, and you have a huge problem with educating their classmates about what this means.

https://twitter.com/TarynDeVere/status/1280078770410606593?s=19

What's she going to do if her daughter thinks she's fat when she's fifteen?

Bannasidhe

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Even though you have managed to drag the post I was responding to into your personal gripe against me for the original sin of not following the critical gender/queer theory cult and manage to miss the point, I'll tap this out to you.
Assuming is pretty sad.
Luckily for me, I'm a gay man. That's gotcha #1 gone.
Luckily, I have no 'agenda against transpeople'. That's gotcha #2 gone.
Is that ok, o spokeswoman and arbiter of 'your' community's history and who may or may not make a point or comment or dare to speak?


Well, according to your very first sentence I'm a straight person with an agenda against trans people.

As for communities, do the wider community a favour - in which (back on topic) history lessons on this topic in all schools may in the future be part of the curriculum - and seek only the maximal truth and transparency and reject any current day ideological political agendas.

<Me: snip blocks of text with nothing to do with my point>


Storme was indeed a lesbian and was (up until this year in particular) the generally accepted 'first' at Stonewall 1969 - that particular starting event being the one under discussion as being revised by all and sundry.
And if the latest ideological theory is now gaslighting the world (inc. it's own community) about something like that, what chance for transparency and truth in wider, grander debates.

Back to the point of my post -

would a school class know that Marsha was a gnc drag queen/transvestite who was a gay man who wasn't at the vanguard of the protest (which is my point) going by the outpouring of posts/articles (in print, online and media) designating the closest person they could use (incorrectly) to advance the narrative that the virtual 'leaders' of the Stonewall riots were trans women?

As for Sylvia - well, it is widely accepted Sylvia was not present (MPJ even said so) despite wanting to be portrayed as being at the vanguard of those protests.





Oh, there's my perceived 'agenda' again which you denied saying I had. Hmm.

I don't tend to go down ideological routes so no, I am not writing anyone out of anything.
You're obviously stuck on the phrase I used to emphasise the sidelining of anything or anyone gay/lesbian/bi nowadays and replace with the trans umbrella and also based your umbrage-led reply on your preconceived notions.

I could have a preconception of you as the poster who quotes Pink 'News' as a primary source in other serious threads - a well known clickbait rag which for some reason has never signed up to the UK's IPSO Editors Code of Conduct - for starters.
It would be so easy for me to label you as <insert useless fingerpointing snipe that assumes blah blah>

Luckily, I'm not into that garbage...anymore :pac:

Even worse , IMHO, for a gayman to try and rewrite what is clear from the sources from the time period.
And yes, I do think you have an agenda, and yes I do think you are pursuing that agenda - which is, as you term it -"not following the critical gender/queer theory cult ". I am basing this belief on your very own words. Rejecting an ideological agenda is itself an agenda.

No- one knows who, if you want to name names, started the riot at Stonewall.
No-One.

You want it to be Stormé to suit your agenda of removing Johnson and Riveria from the narrative.
Stormé said she threw the first punch - she may well have - but there is no proof.
All three of them were there.
There are enough eyewitnesses to confirm that.
I, personally don't care who started it, I'm just glad they did.

I am glad the butch dykes, the transexuals (as they were then called), the drag kings and queens fought back - and yes, that story needs to be taught in case young LGBTQ kids grow up believing the fictionalised film version is our history.

What it telling about you is that your above post contains an awful lot about your perception about me. Incorrect perceptions born out of your own ideological viewpoint.
It is a shame you cannot debate without attempting to personalise things but when that's all you have I suppose you have to attack the poster.

Gruffalux

Well here's one for the gay historians - Merriam Webster dictionary now thinks that the word homosexual is ''now sometimes disparaging and offensive''. This is based on radical trans ideology. I mean fcuk-ing hell....

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual

Sir Oxman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Even worse , IMHO, for a gayman to try and rewrite what is clear from the sources from the time period.
And yes, I do think you have an agenda, and yes I do think you are pursuing that agenda - which is, as you term it -"not following the critical gender/queer theory cult ". I am basing this belief on your very own words. Rejecting an ideological agenda is itself an agenda.

No- one knows who, if you want to name names, started the riot at Stonewall.
No-One.

You want it to be Stormé to suit your agenda of removing Johnson and Riveria from the narrative.
Stormé said she threw the first punch - she may well have - but there is no proof.
All three of them were there.
There are enough eyewitnesses to confirm that.
I, personally don't care who started it, I'm just glad they did.

I am glad the butch dykes, the transexuals (as they were then called), the drag kings and queens fought back - and yes, that story needs to be taught in case young LGBTQ kids grow up believing the fictionalised film version is our history.

What it telling about you is that your above post contains an awful lot about your perception about me. Incorrect perceptions born out of your own ideological viewpoint.
It is a shame you cannot debate without attempting to personalise things but when that's all you have I suppose you have to attack the poster.

Nope.
You continue to personalise your posts not just here but elsewhere.
You assume and express preconceptions left, right and centre.
You declare your readings on the subject are fact without a hint of irony then decide I can't 'debate without attempting to personalise things' while saying you didn't say I have an agenda, then you did, then you don't then I do again.



And here you are again, doing what you do.


'I want Storme' - there you are at it again, do I really?


Like it's a sport instead of history.
You can believe what you like but thanks for highlighting my point that if any history of the movement for homosexual rights becomes an inherent part of the curriculum, the implementation of it needs to be as far away from people with a dogmatic, politicised view and rather be as factual as possible.
Of course, you never acknowledged the fact that there is an untrue revision of that event being spread EVERYWHERE.

But heyho, don't deal with that, eh?



I'd love to know what I personalised about you - are you meaning my answers and commentary of YOUR assumptions about me and who can talk on any given subject? Or my example in how I could but wouldn't.



There's an acronym for that kind of behaviour.

Gruffalox

Gruffalox wrote: »

Well here's one for the gay historians - Merriam Webster dictionary now thinks that the word homosexual is ''now sometimes disparaging and offensive''. This is based on radical trans ideology. I mean fcuk-ing hell....

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual

How does that relate to "radical trans ideology", it can sometimes be used in a disparaging or abusive way. That's a reality.

Gruffalux

Deleted User wrote: »

How does that relate to "radical trans ideology", it can sometimes be used in a disparaging or abusive way. That's a reality.

You know exactly how it relates. If homosexuality is same SEX attraction - which to be fairly fecking frank is exactly what it is - it is transphobic, as per 2020.
And now Merriam Webster, one of the world's most used dictionaries, has taken it upon themselves to declare the word homosexual ''disparaging and offensive''.
It has zero to do with name calling gay people as homosexuals, it has everything to do with the ideology that a gender identification is supposed to literally change one and any discrimination for any purpose including sexual attraction thereafter is transphobic. I find it mind blowing.

Gruffalox

Gruffalox wrote: »

You know exactly how it relates. If homosexuality is same SEX attraction - which to be fairly fecking frank is exactly what it is - it is transphobic, as per 2020.
And now Merriam Webster, one of the world's most used dictionaries, has taken it upon themselves to declare the word homosexual ''disparaging and offensive''.
It has zero to do with name calling gay people as homosexuals, it has everything to do with the ideology that a gender identification is supposed to literally change one and any discrimination for any purpose including sexual attraction thereafter is transphobic. I find it mind blowing.

No, you've invented that motivation for the addition. It's more likely in relation to homophobic people using the term in a negative way. Unless you've got proof of your claim?

Gruffalux

Deleted User wrote: »

No, you've invented that motivation for the addition. It's more likely in relation to homophobic people using the term in a negative way. Unless you've got proof of your claim?

It is not. My god, how can you be in such denial. Homophobic people have used slurs on gay people since forever. Merriam Webster has been around since 1831. Yet only very recently has the dictionary added the qualifying phrase ''now sometimes disparaging and offensive''. One major hint is in the word ''now''.

Gruffalox

Gruffalox wrote: »

It is not. My god, how can you be in such denial. Homophobic people have used slurs on gay people since forever. Merriam Webster has been around since 1831. Yet only very recently has the dictionary added the qualifying phrase ''now sometimes disparaging and offensive''. One major hint is in the word ''now''.

Can you provide a source that backs up your claim on why it was changed? Otherwise it would seem you're making outlandish claims.

The below piece would tend to back my statement. Meanwhile, you've got a conspiracy about trans ideologies.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/fashion/gays-lesbians-the-term-homosexual.html

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalox wrote: »

Well here's one for the gay historians - Merriam Webster dictionary now thinks that the word homosexual is ''now sometimes disparaging and offensive''. This is based on radical trans ideology. I mean fcuk-ing hell....

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual

That is mental. Like, that’s not some niche dictionary, that’s the American version of the OED.

Gruffalux

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you provide a source that backs up your claim on why it was changed? Otherwise it would seem you're making outlandish claims.

Fine. I accept. I cannot back up the reasons. Homosexual is now an offensive + disparaging word. That's it.
Unfortunately it says the same about the word gay.
Lesbian is okay it seems. Not disparaging + offensive.
So people who fancy people of the same sex will all have to be called lesbians.

I cannot see any other option so as not to risk being 'now offensive + disparaging'.

Gruffalux

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you provide a source that backs up your claim on why it was changed? Otherwise it would seem you're making outlandish claims.

The below piece would tend to back my statement. Meanwhile, you've got a conspiracy about trans ideologies.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/fashion/gays-lesbians-the-term-homosexual.html

Gay is also offensive and disparaging.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay

Ten of Swords

Thread concerns the gender recognition legislation, etymology and definitions are dragging the thread off topic

wildeside

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So your children may well have a trans child in the classroom, and you have a huge problem with educating their classmates about what this means.

https://twitter.com/TarynDeVere/status/1280078770410606593?s=19

If my primary age child came home and said one of their class mates was saying they were transgender I'd have a conversation about it with them.

If they came home and said their teacher was teaching them about transgenderism I have a conversation with the school principle.

See the difference?

katiek102010

RandRuns wrote: »

I've suspected for a while now that the whole push to "transition" kids early is a result, in many if not most cases, of a combination of susceptability to trans pressure groups, a parent who wishes to be cool and trendy (or possibly suffers from Munchausen Syndrome), and peer pressure.
An interesting thread here about a school in the UK - 9 girls were "transitioning" to male, but once they were seperated from their peer group due to Covid lockdown, 7 went back to being girls, and another is considering it.

The child I'm on about is a UK school too. I do believe it's a "fashion" trend as in parents wanting to be friends instead of parents.

Puberty is such a confusing time for kids. More common sense is needed as opposed to jumping on the band wagon

AndrewJRenko

The_Brood wrote: »

How did voters choose this direction?

Voters don't generally get to choose directions on any issue. They vote based on policy positions, and coalition government thrash out a programme for government. But you knew that anyway, right?

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

What's she going to do if her daughter thinks she's fat when she's fifteen?

I dunno, you might need to ask her. I don't speak for her.

What do you think she should do in that situation?

wildeside wrote: »

If my primary age child came home and said one of their class mates was saying they were transgender I'd have a conversation about it with them.

If they came home and said their teacher was teaching them about transgenderism I have a conversation with the school principle.

See the difference?

And you know that about half the class have parents who won't have a conversation with their kids, so.....

wildeside

Dravokivich wrote: »

But they don't.

The curriculum is the responsibility of the Department of Education, not an individual (or set of) school(s).

Yes it is, and yes transgenderism is not on the school curriculum .... yet (AFAIK). I'm sure the trans activists have absolutely no desire to see it as a subject on school curricula or to shape its content (devoid of any counter arguments or scientific studies that challenge the arguments put forward).


So until such time that transgenderism is officially on either primary or secondary curricula (or both) your best chance of avoiding this politically motivated ideology is to put your child in a school that will most likely not voluntarily bring this ideology into the classroom.

wildeside

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And you know that about half the class have parents who won't have a conversation with their kids, so.....

No I don't know that, how do you know that?

AndrewJRenko

wildeside wrote: »

No I don't know that, how do you know that?

These are schools where they have to bring in outside speakers to cover basic facts on sexuality, because they know that a fair proportion of parents can't or won't educate their kids on these matters.

What proportion of parents do you reckon would educate their children about transgender? And why would you be waiting for the school to sound off a big alarm to get the discussion going?

Dravokivich

wildeside wrote: »

Yes it is, and yes transgenderism is not on the school curriculum .... yet (AFAIK). I'm sure the trans activists have absolutely no desire to see it as a subject on school curricula or to shape its content (devoid of any counter arguments or scientific studies that challenge the arguments put forward).


So until such time that transgenderism is officially on either primary or secondary curricula (or both) your best chance of avoiding this politically motivated ideology is to put your child in a school that will most likely not voluntarily bring this ideology into the classroom.

Again, what are you on about? You seem to be caught up in being fearful of something that isn't happening.

JoannaJag

My children were told by a class teacher last year, in an Irish primary school, that anyone could be a boy or a girl. There are at least 3 “trans” children in the school that I know of, aged from 8 and up. The girls were told they would be sharing a communal changing room with one of the male children for swimming because he feels like a girl and therefore IS a girl. I have only found out what was being taught since schools closed.


Lowering the age for gender recognition below 16 will give these children and their family legal protection and support against anyone who has a problem with this.

wildeside

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

These are schools where they have to bring in outside speakers to cover basic facts on sexuality, because they know that a fair proportion of parents can't or won't educate their kids on these matters.

What proportion of parents do you reckon would educate their children about transgender? And why would you be waiting for the school to sound off a big alarm to get the discussion going?

I said I would have a conversation with my primary age school kid if they came home and told me one of their class mates said they were transgender.

You intimated that a not insignificant [not your words] number of parents would not have such a conversation with their child.

Now you don't know that, you can't make that claim. You're just wildly speculating.

But I'll grant you that 'some' parents may not discuss it in-depth, maybe even just brush it off, dismiss it or handle it as they otherwise see fit.

Furthermore, I do not see what right a school has (particularly primary level) to bring in an "outside speaker" to speak on such a highly contentious issue let alone tell my child what he/she should think about it. What makes you think the school has such a right?