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

senordingdong

Dravokivich wrote: »

Yes and what did I say?

Sorry that reply was aimed at the person you were replying to.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's HUGE, giving biological males equal status as women is beyond woke. They can't and never will be women in anything more than print. We don't need to redifine what it means to be a woman, brushing it off as a thing of nothing is one hell of a disservice to womankind.

I know trans women and I know plenty of non trans women. None of them have any issue with recognising the trans women as women. Even my mother in her early 70s is fine with it. Thankfully terfs are a tiny minority in Ireland and y'know what you don't get to decide for "womankind". Transgender people is not a new concept and there's every indication that women simply can be born into the wrong body.

This may be very upsetting and confusing to you. But in fairness, this seems to be a common thread with you around LGBTQ people.

seamus

This whole thing is just part of the Waters/GOD/Gript paranoia campaign against a gay man.

The mention of Soros in the first page is a clue to what kind of gob****es are peddling this.

We should just merge this forum with Conspiracy Theories at this stage.

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

I know trans women and I know plenty of non trans women. None of them have any issue with recognising the trans women as women. Even my mother in her early 70s is fine with it. Thankfully terfs are a tiny minority in Ireland and y'know what you don't get to decide for "womankind". Transgender people is not a new concept and there's every indication that women simply can be born into the wrong body.

This may be very upsetting and confusing to you. But in fairness, this seems to be a common thread with you around LGBTQ people.

seamus wrote: »

This whole thing is just part of the Waters/GOD/Gript paranoia campaign against a gay man.

The mention of Soros in the first page is a clue to what kind of gob****es are peddling this.

We should just merge this forum with Conspiracy Theories at this stage.

"opposing this is homophobia" and "opposing this is a homophobic attack and agreeing with Gemma o Doherty"

its not, plenty of people have pointed out many valid concerns that have nothing to do with this , boiling it down to that is just lazy and dismissive of real argument.

Tacitus Kilgore

seamus wrote: »

This whole thing is just part of the Waters/GOD/Gript paranoia campaign against a gay man.

The mention of Soros in the first page is a clue to what kind of gob****es are peddling this.

We should just merge this forum with Conspiracy Theories at this stage.

Absolutely, this forum is a filthy little circlejerk of racists and small hate filled people.

It's gas that they have the audacity to complain about twitter users and seemingly keep straight faces.

Have a look in the fucking mirror you absolute cretins.

Bannasidhe

paw patrol wrote: »

Why can't I do both?

In fact I have.






I'll settle for writing emails to my TDs for the moment.


As for suggesting the courts - given what I said above (my actual point) why on earth would I go the court route. They ruled. The law is wrong and yes I am lobbying my TDs.
Since one is SF and another Green - I don't fancy my chances but God loves a trier..

That is your prerogative in a democracy.

I would say that given it was FG who put the proposal into the PfG and FG who committed to a change in legislation it's FG you should be writing to, not SF or the Greens.

But, of course, Gov hands are tied as they are bound by the European Court of Human Rights which is why I said if you feel that strongly it is that decision that needs to be challenged.

Absolutely no point in having a go at me. All I did was read beyond the Indo headline and a bit of factchecking.

TheCitizen

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Absolutely, this forum is a filthy little circlejerk of racists and small hate filled people.

It's gas that they have the audacity to complain about twitter users and seemingly keep straight faces.

Have a look in the fucking mirror you absolute cretins.

LOL you’re not wrong but your post won’t last long on here. Circlejerk is a good description of a lot of them round here

Annasopra

Gruffalox wrote: »

If you read it correctly he is differentiating between adults and children or minors. Which we do a lot of - we dont send young people to Mountjoy, for example. Or name them in courts etc etc etc. It is a valid point.

But he is also suggesting trans people shouldnt have any legal recocgnition

CrankyHaus

seamus wrote: »

This whole thing is just part of the Waters/GOD/Gript paranoia campaign against a gay man.

The mention of Soros in the first page is a clue to what kind of gob****es are peddling this.

We should just merge this forum with Conspiracy Theories at this stage.

I knew Roderic O'Gorman, and he was a very nice guy who I wouldn't have a bad word to say about. I agree that last weeks attempt to smear him over the Thatchell connection was a disgrace.


But surely we can debate a Minister's policy proposals without being accused of Homophobia or association wth the Alt-Right.

TheCitizen

CrankyHaus wrote: »

I knew Roderic O'Gorman, and he was a very nice guy who I wouldn't have a bad word to say about. I agree that last weeks attempt to smear him over the Thatchell connection was a disgrace.


But surely we can debate a Minister's policy proposals without being accused of Homophobia or association wth the Alt-Right.

From what I can garner, this isn’t his policy. It’s EuropeanCourt of Human Rights stuff that Ireland are required to legislate for.

I haven’t a clue about the subject matter btw, I imagine that it’s very rare and that common sense plays a big part in any individual cases being signed off on.

ronivek

CrankyHaus wrote: »

But surely we can debate a Minister's policy proposals without being accused of Homophobia or association wth the Alt-Right.

I’m not sure how the vast majority of the discussion around the topic could be called ‘debate’. Many people appear to be wilfully ignoring both the actual changes being brought forward and the fact they originated with previous ministers.

Also interesting to me is the fact that this story broke from a single journalist who also appeared to interview O’Gorman about the Tatchell situation; then waited a day to file this one. A cynical man might question the timing and motive given that again these changes were not O’Gorman’s to begin with; merely fell into his lap.

sabat

Nothing to see here...

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=transition+regret

Bannasidhe

CrankyHaus wrote: »

I knew Roderic O'Gorman, and he was a very nice guy who I wouldn't have a bad word to say about. I agree that last weeks attempt to smear him over the Thatchell connection was a disgrace.


But surely we can debate a Minister's policy proposals without being accused of Homophobia or association wth the Alt-Right.

But it's not O'Gorman's policy.

The proposal to change in legislation re:16/17 year olds came from Doherty in DSP - and was introduced into the PfG by FG - so if that's anyone's policy now it's Humphrey's.
Ditto any discussion around under 16s - that was a FG policy proposal.

IMHO this insistence on saying it's all down to O'Gorman hot on the heels of the Tatchell debacle does look like there is an agenda at play here.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But it's not O'Gorman's policy.

The proposal to change in legislation re:16/17 year olds came from Doherty in DSP - and was introduced into the PfG by FG - so if that's anyone's policy now it's Humphrey's.
Ditto any discussion around under 16s - that was a FG policy proposal.

IMHO this insistence on saying it's all down to O'Gorman hot on the heels of the Tatchell debacle does look like there is an agenda at play here.

Yep there's a bit of a weird obsession of certain posters to paint O'Gorman in a certain way.

biko

ronivek wrote: »

The consultation and mooted changes simply concern how those under 18 will attain a gender recognition certificate.

Thanks, but I cannot find this corroborated in other news.

FG has brought it up before, is this what Gorman is now proposing?
https://www.finegael.ie/progressive-programme-for-government-will-improve-rights-and-equality-for-lgbti-people/

Remove the need for a person aged 16 and 17 years to have two specialist reports before they can apply for legal gender recognition,
by providing for self- declaration, with parental consent and by making mediation available on a voluntary basis.
These improvements will include the provision of a gender- recognition certificate providing proof of change of name, as well as gender.

Edit, beaten to it by Bannasidhe

drunkmonkey

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But he is also suggesting trans people shouldnt have any legal recocgnition

They have legal recognition, they just don't believe it's correct yet 99.9% of people know it is.
Should a bilogical male who identifies as a woman be allowed in my daughter's changing room as he has the legal status to be recognized in law as a woman. Absolutely not.
Is that transphobia or a protective parent? Riddle that one for me.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

FG drafted a policy paper for this to be discussed as part of the PfG, not the Greens.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fine-gael-seeking-law-change-to-let-under-16s-legally-change-gender-39252644.htmlhttps://app.legalrss.ie/ogormansolicitorsandyford/fine-gael-call-for-a-reform-to-the-gender-recognition-act-2015

https://app.legalrss.ie/ogormansolicitorsandyford/fine-gael-call-for-a-reform-to-the-gender-recognition-act-2015

Perhaps if people read more than the headlines they would see that as part of the PfG legislation is being introduced in line with what Doherty proposed.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/new-childrens-minister-to-make-it-easier-for-under-16s-to-change-their-gender-39346464.html

You will have to decide for yourself why the Indo failed to mention that "examining arrangements for children under 16" was a FG policy proposal.

biko wrote: »

Thanks, but I cannot find this corroborated in other news.

FG has brought it up before, is this what Gorman is now proposing?
https://www.finegael.ie/progressive-programme-for-government-will-improve-rights-and-equality-for-lgbti-people/




Edit, beaten to it by Bannasidhe

I went looking for where I posted link so dammit I'm sharing it.

It's actually an FG proposal not O'Gorman's. I suspect when asked about it agreed - it's in the PfG so even if he didn't agree he would agree - and that was spun to create this whole ado.

Bannasidhe

drunkmonkey wrote: »

They have legal recognition, they just don't believe it's correct yet 99.9% of people know it is.
.

Who is 'they' in this confusing statement?

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

They have legal recognition, they just don't believe it's correct yet 99.9% of people know it is.
Should a bilogical male who identifies as a woman be allowed in my daughter's changing room as he has the legal status to be recognized in law as a woman. Absolutely not.
Is that transphobia or a protective parent? Riddle that one for me.

Paedophiles are opportunistic, claims of transitioning to act out on paedophilia is more for the purpose of fear mongering. By default, a male paedophile has access to men's changing rooms where boys are present. If anything, you're giving an argument for individual changing rooms.

senordingdong

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Changing their legal status doesn't involve any form of an operation so not as hard hitting a point as you think it is.

Not yet, but if a minor wants to transition, and has already been acquiesced by their parents and gp by way of changing their legal gender/legal documentation, how can these same parents, gp or anyone else argue against chemical or surgical transition?
It could be very hard hitting for them without those concerned fully understanding how.

Quantum Erasure

Could even see it that denying puberty blockers could be ,judged to be infringing on their human rights

RandRuns

katiek102010 wrote: »

I personally know a child of 13 who wanted this.

School backed the child who was born female let them change their name, dress in male uniform etc.

Thankfully child's father refused to allow hormonal medication to slow puberty. Mum and child were pushing for it.

2 years later child has now decided they want to be female again and believes that they are gay and she herself states that she was very confused.

Puberty is an extremely confusing time for teens with hormonal surges etc.

If this is to be brought in I firmly believe permenant medical procedures should not be performed until adulthood

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.

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

Paedophiles are opportunistic, claims of transitioning to act out on paedophilia is more for the purpose of fear mongering. By default, a male paedophile has access to men's changing rooms where boys are present. If anything, you're giving an argument for individual changing rooms.

Wtf, what has trans got to do with pedophiles, my point is women should have spaces where they can feel safe, gay trans women in women's changing rooms should not be allowed, were back to wax my balls. I don't know any trans pedo's but know plenty of pedo's mainly men with girls but a few with boys.

Look at the cliffs of moher there going back to 2 toilets due to all the complaints, mainly smell.

Your confusing the Tatchell story with the trans piece.

Gruffalux

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I know trans women and I know plenty of non trans women. None of them have any issue with recognising the trans women as women. e.

Ya'd have to laugh or else you would cry. Now as a natal female I have moved past the silly word "cis" woman to becone a non trans woman fuxake ..

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Who is 'they' in this confusing statement?

That’s pretty clear if you read the post he quoted.

mohawk

Historically males to females was approx 70% of number of transgender people seen by gender clinics. In teenagers the situation has reversed with females identifying as males now in the majority. I would be of the opinion that we should thread carefully until we understand why there was such a change.

Does anyone know if there is a requirement to have gender dysphoria to get a GRC?

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Wtf, what has trans got to do with pedophiles, my point is women should have spaces where they can feel safe, gay trans women in women's changing rooms should not be allowed, were back to wax my balls. I don't know any trans pedo's but know plenty of pedo's mainly men with girls but a few with boys.

Look at the cliffs of moher there going back to 2 toilets due to all the complaints, mainly smell.

Your confusing the Tatchell story with the trans piece.

In fairness, you're the guy who implies the issue is paedophilia or that they're in some way unsafe. Otherwise, what exactly is the issue? It's a person changing clothes.

seamus

senordingdong wrote: »

Not yet, but if a minor wants to transition, and has already been acquiesced by their parents and gp by way of changing their legal gender/legal documentation, how can these same parents, gp or anyone else argue against chemical or surgical transition?
It could be very hard hitting for them without those concerned fully understanding how.

This is a slippery slope fallacy.

There is no link between the right to a legal document and the right to medical intervention. This is like saying, "If a child can have their name legally changed to John, how can you argue against tattooing that on their forehead?".

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

I know trans women and I know plenty of non trans women.

These are the categories now?

senordingdong

seamus wrote: »

This is a slippery slope fallacy.

There is no link between the right to a legal document and the right to medical intervention. This is like saying, "If a child can have their name legally changed to John, how can you argue against tattooing that on their forehead?".

I would think that a minor, fully in belief that they need to transition, would have their case bolstered hugely, by possessing legal documents identifying them as this preferred gender.