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

ronivek

senordingdong wrote: »

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.

That's clearly nonsense. Any medical professional with experience treating those with Gender Dysphoria or any other condition which causes them to question their gender is going to be fully aware of the provenance of a Gender Recognition Certificate.

1800_Ladladlad

I can see this being on the list for Roderic

https://twitter.com/lewisdandrews/status/1280195932831862785

ronivek

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

I can see this being on the list for Roderic

Makes sense. I would much rather my kids learn about LGBT issues in a safe manner with appropriate and factual material rather than by listening to random people on Twitter or Facebook or whatever other platform might be in vogue in the future.

1800_Ladladlad

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

I can see this being on the list for Roderic

https://twitter.com/lewisdandrews/status/1280195932831862785

Makes sense, the civil rights movement is part of history classes. Can't see why significant events such as the Stonewall riots or closer to home, decriminalisation of homosexuality. They're significant cultural events.

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

No your confused.

Issue #1 O'Gormans link to Tatchell (that's where the pedo link comes in but I have never called either man a pedo). I've said nothing more than it's odd company for a children's minister to keep.

Issue#2 O'Gorman calling any one who dares question him a homophobe as he's too thick to see what the real problem is.

Issue#3 O'Gormans decides the most important task at hand in his first few days is allow minors to change their sex.

If it's just about clothes O'Gorman needs to come out and tell us that, suspecios me thinks it's a bit more than clothes though.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

No your confused.

Issue #1 O'Gormans link to Tatchell (that's where the pedo link comes in but I have never called either man a pedo). I've said nothing more than it's odd company for a children's minister to keep.

Issue#2 O'Gorman calling any one who dares question him a homophobe as he's too thick to see what the real problem is.

Issue#3 O'Gormans decides the most important task at hand in his first few days is allow minors to change their sex.

If it's just about clothes O'Gorman needs to come out and tell us that, suspecios me thinks it's a bit more than clothes though.

No, you're going off on an entirely separate tangent to the tweet I responded to, you specifically started talking about transgender people and changing rooms..

In addition to that, as pointed out it's simply completing work that FG shared. You've brought Tatchell up, I didn't. The homophobia aspect, you've also brought up. It seems more to dodge addressing your own statements.

jam_mac_jam

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

I can see this being on the list for Roderic

https://twitter.com/lewisdandrews/status/1280195932831862785

Well they seem to spend hours in primary school on religion so a few hours learning about an important civil rights movement won't be the end of the world.

AndrewJRenko

Helpful clarification

https://twitter.com/OwenHanleyLives/status/1280523075352694785?s=19

keano_afc

Gruffalox wrote: »

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 ..

At least you werent referred to as a non trans uterus haver.

keano_afc

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Helpful clarification

https://twitter.com/OwenHanleyLives/status/1280523075352694785?s=19

"Killing" trans people? We can do without this hyperbolic nonsense.

jam_mac_jam

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Helpful clarification

https://twitter.com/OwenHanleyLives/status/1280523075352694785?s=19

Not sure how the current system is killing people. A little less hyperbole might be more appropriate.

ronivek

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Issue#3 O'Gormans decides the most important task at hand in his first few days is allow minors to change their sex.

If it's just about clothes O'Gorman needs to come out and tell us that, suspecios me thinks it's a bit more than clothes though.

Care to share your evidence for him deciding it's "the most important task at hand"?

A particular reporter (Hugh O'Connell) appears to be the origin of this entire story. He writes for the Independent and the Herald; the only two mainstream media outlets to carry the story as far as I can see. He also interviewed O'Gorman about the Tatchell statement which is likely where this story originated in the first place.

So do you think it's reasonable to suggest that Hugh O'Connell might have been discussing LGBT issues with O'Gorman at the same time as the Tatchell statement; and that's where this whole story originated? Not because O'Gorman sat down at his desk and decided this was going to be his absolute #1 priority but because some enterprising journalist has spun a nothing story about a minister who was already in the news?

PonchoMcHoncho

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Helpful clarification

https://twitter.com/OwenHanleyLives/status/1280523075352694785?s=19

What an idiot. "it's a legal clarification only, no need to go crazy.... THEYRE KILLING TRANS PEOPLE!!!!"

seamus

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

I can see this being on the list for Roderic

And?

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

No, you're going off on an entirely separate tangent to the tweet I responded to, you specifically started talking about transgender people and changing rooms..

In addition to that, as pointed out it's simply completing work that FG shared. You've brought Tatchell up, I didn't. The homophobia aspect, you've also brought up. It seems more to dodge addressing your own statements.

Your fudging it. That's the aim here though isn't it, to derail things as much as possible.
O'Gorman and the Green Party are the subject at hand.

Just on FG I don't ever remember Leo playing the Gay card, he never needed to. O'Gorman playing the victim shows what he's made of.

I'm going to kick back now and watch how things play out.

seamus

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Issue #1 O'Gormans link to Tatchell (that's where the pedo link comes in but I have never called either man a pedo). I've said nothing more than it's odd company for a children's minister to keep.

You didn't even know who Thatchell was until last week. Last week, virtually nobody knew that Thatchell had written a short letter to a foreign newspaper in the 1990s.
O'Gorman was 15 when that letter was written. He has since clarified that he, like you and I, had never seen this before last week. Yet clearly that isn't good enough for you. And it's certainly not good enough for the people who started discussing this, because....

Issue#2 O'Gorman calling any one who dares question him a homophobe as he's too thick to see what the real problem is.

The point is that the people who started making the accusations are homophobes. People like you who jumped on the bandwagon may not explicitly be homophobes, but you have been duped into supporting an agenda that it homophobic at its core.

O'Gorman has no case to answer here, and the only ones who insist he still does, are the homophobes.

sabat

seamus wrote: »

Last week, virtually nobody knew that Thatchell had written a short letter to a foreign newspaper in the 1990s...

...O'Gorman was 15 when that letter was written. He has since clarified that he, like you and I, had never seen this before last week. Yet clearly that isn't good enough for you. And it's certainly not good enough for the people who started discussing this, because....

It's a bit more than that Seamus:

Google Forced by European Law to Unlist Peter Tatchell Paedophilia Book Exposé

http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=3156#more-3156

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Your fudging it. That's the aim here though isn't it, to derail things as much as possible.
O'Gorman and the Green Party are the subject at hand.

Just on FG I don't ever remember Leo playing the Gay card, he never needed to. O'Gorman playing the victim shows what he's made of.

I'm going to kick back now and watch how things play out.

I'm not fudging anything, you brought up changing rooms. You clearly implied something and then diverted over and over again after I pointed out what a stupid point it was.

Dravokivich

drunkmonkey wrote: »

No your confused.

Issue#2 O'Gorman calling any one who dares question him a homophobe as he's too thick to see what the real problem is.

The reason why Homphobia comes up, is because it was crap like this by the likes of Ben Gilroy no less, that incited the masses against O'Gorman, purely because he is gay.

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10220070242578651&set=a.4104709548376


Everything after that is people trying to rationalise hysteria.

RandRuns

Dravokivich wrote: »

The reason why Homphobia comes up, is because it was crap like this by the likes of Ben Gilroy no less, that incited the masses against O'Gorman, purely because he is gay.

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10220070242578651&set=a.4104709548376


Everything after that is people trying to rationalise hysteria.

In fairness, if that's homophobic, then it is also unqualophobic, engineerophobic, cyclophobic, offallophobic, Dublinophobic, and Chinophobic.

Poorside

RandRuns wrote: »

In fairness, if that's homophobic, then it is also unqualophobic, engineerophobic, cyclophobic, offallophobic, Dublinophobic, and Chinophobic.

Did they mention the sexual orientation of any of the others?

Clarence Boddiker

Its about exposing children to sexuality at an early age, a creeping, gradual sexualisation of kids. Then inevitably a lowering of the age of consent. A lowering the bar of what is considered Paedophilia.
In this clip we see Mr Tatchell asking who has the right to judge whether a 9 year old child was abused if the grown adult (in later years) says he enjoyed it?

https://twitter.com/RebBarrettNP/status/1280598710074986497




This is where they want to bring us. I don't care if any Homosexuals are uncomfortable with that, couldn't give a flying fcuk to be honest.

What the likes of Mr Tatchell consider to be Paedophilia (which he says he's against) is an adult molesting a child, as in the child does not want it to happen.
But in the eyes of Mr Tatchell, if the child consents well then thats not a problem in his eyes.

Why do people think they're planning on teaching consent classes in primary schools?
At that age there is no consent

Dravokivich

RandRuns wrote: »

In fairness, if that's homophobic, then it is also unqualophobic, engineerophobic, cyclophobic, offallophobic, Dublinophobic, and Chinophobic.

Well, I'd rather argue that homophobia isn't really a phobia. But the last one there is commonly known as racism.

And this post by Ben Gilroy is what incited a lot of the trawling and led OGorman to defend himself against something he didn't do. Which is happening now with this legislation put against his name. Everything is being tainted by it.

RandRuns

Poorside wrote: »

Did they mention the sexual orientation of any of the others?

Think you missed my entire point - why should O'Gorman being gay and/or childless be any more off-limits than Harris being unqualified in anything, Ryan loving bicycles, Cowan being from Offally, or Donnelly being an engineer?
People are a little too quick to take offence at the slightest whiff of criticism of some things - it's not always a -phobia or and -ism.

ronivek

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

This is where they want to bring us. I don't care if any Homosexuals are uncomfortable with that, couldn't give a flying fcuk to be honest.

Who are the 'they' here?

Also he's effectively just saying people are entitled to have their own opinions and judgements about their own experiences; whilst also accepting that the vast majority of cases of sex between adults and children are correctly classified as abuse. Not sure what's particularly offensive about that.

Gruffalux

seamus wrote: »

You didn't even know who Thatchell was until last week. Last week, virtually nobody knew that Thatchell had written a short letter to a foreign newspaper in the 1990s.
O'Gorman was 15 when that letter was written. He has since clarified that he, like you and I, had never seen this before last week. Yet clearly that isn't good enough for you. And it's certainly not good enough for the people who started discussing this, because....
The point is that the people who started making the accusations are homophobes. People like you who jumped on the bandwagon may not explicitly be homophobes, but you have been duped into supporting an agenda that it homophobic at its core.

O'Gorman has no case to answer here, and the only ones who insist he still does, are the homophobes.

Tatchell, without the H, is quite famous for his removal of age of consent contributions, which were much more than a letter.
I knew about him many years ago. I am sure many others did too. We are not all walking around head down keeping to our lanes.
The Minister should have known about Tatchell also. It does not matter if Tatchell is gay or straight or anywhere in between, if a straight person, man or woman or anywhere in between, had done the following I would feel the exact same about them - Tatchell wrote the obituary in the Guardian for Ian Campbell Dunn, commending him on his activism, but never once mentioning that he was a co-founder of the Paedophile Information Exchange which campaigned for 10 years to have no age of consent.
Many of PIEs members including Ian Campbell Dunn were imprisoned on various charges of child molestation, possession of child abuse images and facilitation of child abuse. Tatchell never made a mention of this in the obituary.
Personally I would never be inveigled into writing an obituary for such a person. But then Tatchell also wrote actual chapters of pro-paedophilia books - Dare to Speak and Betrayal of Youth. He publicly called the first book ''courageous''. Tatchell is a very well-known and controversial figure for a couple of decades now, and this idea that the peasants have never heard of him is patronising.
Paedophilia in places of power is a well known subject matter, we have our own cases to answer here in Ireland eg the Kincora Boys Home, and Tatchell was always named as being part of well known public involvement on this matter.

RandRuns

ronivek wrote: »

Who are the 'they' here?

Also he's effectively just saying people are entitled to have their own opinions and judgements about their own experiences; whilst also accepting that the vast majority of cases of sex between adults and children are correctly classified as abuse. Not sure what's particularly offensive about that.

The highlighted bit is offensive to all right-minded people.

Not "the vast majority" ALL.

ronivek

RandRuns wrote: »

The highlighted bit is offensive to all right-minded people.

Not "the vast majority" ALL.

So you're saying people aren't entitled to have opinions about things they experienced as a child?

Clarence Boddiker

ronivek wrote: »

Who are the 'they' here?

Also he's effectively just saying people are entitled to have their own opinions and judgements about their own experiences; whilst also accepting that the vast majority of cases of sex between adults and children are correctly classified as abuse. Not sure what's particularly offensive about that.

Do you think a 9 year old can consent to sex with a man and that it should not be regarded as abuse?

RandRuns

ronivek wrote: »

So you're saying people aren't entitled to have opinions about things they experienced as a child?

Are you saying an adult raping a child is OK as long as they can brainwash the child into believeing it wasn't wrong or that it was somehow their fault? Because that's what you seem to be trying to condone.