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

Sir Oxman

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

I would not want any activist organisation to be part of any school curriculum.
Since the post was about part of the UK, I'd suggest the revisionist history of the gay movements beginnings at Stonewall 1969 (to facilitate the narrative now that T has always been integral and actually LED the poor, stupid gays and lesbians and bi's to liberation) promoted by 'official' orgs -> Stonewalluk + the myraid of other affiliated orgs, political figures and their parties, the bloody police(!) -> media (mainstream and not) -> onboard celebrities -> is a perfect example of why they should have no part in educating anyone from children to adults in history.

AndrewJRenko

Sir Oxman wrote: »

I would not want any activist organisation to be part of any school curriculum.
Since the post was about part of the UK, I'd suggest the revisionist history of the gay movements beginnings at Stonewall 1969 (to facilitate the narrative now that T has always been integral and actually LED the poor, stupid gays and lesbians and bi's to liberation) promoted by 'official' orgs -> Stonewalluk + the myraid of other affiliated orgs, political figures and their parties, the bloody police(!) -> media (mainstream and not) -> onboard celebrities -> is a perfect example of why they should have no part in educating anyone from children to adults in history.

That would include any organised religion, right? So we need to wrestle control of our schools back from the Catholic Church.

AndrewJRenko

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

What's the current stance on gender reassignment surgery / hormone therapy / puberty blockers for under 18s?

Dunno - what's the current stance on puberty blockers for precocious puberty?

drunkmonkey

Seemingly we've nobody to blame but ourselves for this situation after giving Emmet Stagg a free pass when he was caught in the Phoenix Park according to Justin Barrett.

Full Disclosure, never even heard of him until someone mentioned him here, still don't know if I'm after watching a d'Unbelievables sketch or this is real life.

Yellow_Fern

There is an explosion of girls who are being told and are telling others that they are really boys. It is a due to a peer contagion effect. There is a lot of evidence that this category has very regrets later in life.

wildeside

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That would include any organised religion, right? So we need to wrestle control of our schools back from the Catholic Church.

People knowingly send their kids into a school that has a religious foundation (or not). Parent's, even if they disagree, know the philosophy and can challenge and deal with many aspects they might have a problem with.

What parents do not knowingly do is send their kids to a school who's teachings are influenced by one or more radical political movements. They often do not know or understand the philosophy being espoused by such movements/groups and so are ill equipped to challenge it. It doesn't help that often these groups don't want to be challenged lest it out their philosophy as a radical ideology.

I'm a lefty and an atheist and at this point I would now actually consider sending my kids to a catholic school if it protected them from
the (willful?) ideological blindness on display from trans activists and the contempt they display for any countervailing narrative.


It's a case of which 'religion'/orthodoxy do I think would do the least damage to my kids and personally I don't think the answer is all that clear.

Dravokivich

wildeside wrote: »

People knowingly send their kids into a school that has a religious foundation (or not). Parent's, even if they disagree, know the philosophy and can challenge and deal with many aspects they might have a problem with.

What parents do not knowingly do is send their kids to a school who's teachings are influenced by one or more radical political movements. They often do not know or understand the philosophy being espoused by such movements/groups and so are ill equipped to challenge it. It doesn't help that often these groups don't want to be challenged lest it out their philosophy as a radical ideology.

I'm a lefty and an atheist and at this point I would now actually consider sending my kids to a catholic school if it protected them from
the (willful?) ideological blindness on display from trans activists and the contempt they display for any countervailing narrative.


It's a case of which 'religion'/orthodoxy do I think would do the least damage to my kids and personally I don't think the answer is all that clear.

What are you suggesting here?

Bannasidhe

Sir Oxman wrote: »

I would not want any activist organisation to be part of any school curriculum.
Since the post was about part of the UK, I'd suggest the revisionist history of the gay movements beginnings at Stonewall 1969 (to facilitate the narrative now that T has always been integral and actually LED the poor, stupid gays and lesbians and bi's to liberation) promoted by 'official' orgs -> Stonewalluk + the myraid of other affiliated orgs, political figures and their parties, the bloody police(!) -> media (mainstream and not) -> onboard celebrities -> is a perfect example of why they should have no part in educating anyone from children to adults in history.

The 'stupid gays and lesbians' thank you for your concern about attempts to do a spot of revisionism of our history and kindly ask you to stop doing so.

Rarely have I seen such agenda driven, biased, complete and utter BS in a post.

VillageIdiot71

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Again, this seems to me to be only the legal aspects. Not medical.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/children-under-16-could-legally-change-gender-under-new-proposals-from-lgbt-committee-1002933.html

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/new-law-in-republic-may-allow-kids-to-alter-gender-39252332.html

And, fine, at some level I can appreciate there's a difference between a law that says anyone can declare themselves to be a certain gender, and a law that says a person of a certain age can undergo life changing surgery.

But can the legal framework just float in the clouds like this? Does it not need to relate to real life, in some way? If a boy turns up demanding legal recognition as a girl, and the legal framework passively accepts that (subject to parental consent), is it a bit like curing the problem of childhood obesity by having a law that says fat children weigh less than they do (subject to parental consent to the recognition of the legally mandated lower weight).

Which all seems harmless and pointless, until the fat kid goes bungee jumping.

oyvey

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

I can see this being on the list for Roderic

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

Is it going to be a separate subject? Or it will be added to an existing subject?

AndrewJRenko

wildeside wrote: »

What parents do not knowingly do is send their kids to a school who's teachings are influenced by one or more radical political movements. They often do not know or understand the philosophy being espoused by such movements/groups and so are ill equipped to challenge it. It doesn't help that often these groups don't want to be challenged lest it out their philosophy as a radical ideology.

Sounds pretty much like the Catholic Church, and most organised religions to me.

oyvey

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Sounds pretty much like the Catholic Church, and most organised religions to me.

Maybe on the surface. But I knew kids who opted out of the religious aspects of school because it didn't fit in with their beliefs, no questions asked. I'd expect anyone who might opt out of a class teaching LGBTQ material to probably be labeled homophobic/transphobic/etc.

Losty Dublin

political analyst wrote: »

PS: Whatever anyone thinks of Gript or Aontú, this is a concern that must not be brushed off.

Ah yes Gript; the broadsheet version of The Liberal.

political analyst

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Seemingly we've nobody to blame but ourselves for this situation after giving Emmet Stagg a free pass when he was caught in the Phoenix Park according to Justin Barrett.

Full Disclosure, never even heard of him until someone mentioned him here, still don't know if I'm after watching a d'Unbelievables sketch or this is real life.

Sure, who takes any of Justin Barrett's statements seriously anyway?!

As for Stagg, public anger was about the Garda leak of details to the press - and gay sex had been decriminalised the year before, of course!

wildeside

Dravokivich wrote: »

What are you suggesting here?

I'm suggesting that if I had a choice to send my kids to a school who's ethical and philosophical underpinings were religious/catholic (something I understand and is socially acceptable to challenge and open to scrutiny) vs a school who's ethical and philosophical underpinings were politically so-called 'progressive' (something I also understand but is not socially acceptable to challenge) then I'd cut my losses and go with the former.

wildeside

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Sounds pretty much like the Catholic Church, and most organised religions to me.

Except that it's socially acceptable and easy to rip the p1ss out of religion, it's teachings and followers (I'm an atheist by the way) but try take the same approach with say a progressive idelogy like trans rights for kids. And I'm not even suggesting taking a hardline approach, dare to even question the ideology in public and good luck guessing how that will work out for you.

It's telling all the things it's socially acceptable to say about one ideology and not the other. Which of these then is more of a religion composed of ideological fanatics and zealouts?

Dravokivich

wildeside wrote: »

I'm suggesting that if I had a choice to send my kids to a school who's ethical and philosophical underpinings were religious/catholic (something I understand and is socially acceptable to challenge and open to scrutiny) vs a school who's ethical and philosophical underpinings were politically so-called 'progressive' (something I also understand but is not socially acceptable to challenge) then I'd cut my losses and go with the former.

Ah, so vague comments about a preference. But nothing specific to be concerned about.

keano_afc

oyvey wrote: »

Home schooling is starting to look more and more necessary.

Started last September. Every day that passes it seems like it was the right decision.

ronivek

wildeside wrote: »

Except that it's socially acceptable and easy to rip the p1ss out of religion, it's teachings and followers (I'm an atheist by the way) but try take the same approach with say a progressive idelogy like trans rights for kids. And I'm not even suggesting taking a hardline approach, dare to even question the ideology in public and good luck guessing how that will work out for you.

It's telling all the things it's socially acceptable to say about one ideology and not the other. Which of these then is more of a religion composed of ideological fanatics and zealouts?

Interesting how you pick the extreme opinions of the LGBT movement whilst simultaneously ignoring the extreme teachings and opinions of the Catholic Church.

Also you're comparing a single organisation ruled from the Vatican City with a nebulous 'movement' where there is no central leadership or ideology and essentially anyone can make any kind of claim they like and others can hold it up as representative of the entire movement. The Catholic Church has its own ways of dealing with that sort of thing too.

wildeside

Dravokivich wrote: »

Ah, so vague comments about a preference. But nothing specific to be concerned about.

If the school had a Marxist philisophical underpinning and ethos I would not need to get into each and every specific concern, I'd know enough for my conerns to be valid.

But if you want a specific hyptothetical example, if the school were to teach my primary age kids about transgenderism on the ciriculum I would have a very specific problem with that, not least because I would know where this teaching was coming from i.e. a political movement.

wildeside

ronivek wrote: »

Interesting how you pick the extreme opinions of the LGBT movement whilst simultaneously ignoring the extreme teachings and opinions of the Catholic Church.

Also you're comparing a single organisation ruled from the Vatican City with a nebulous 'movement' where there is no central leadership or ideology and essentially anyone can make any kind of claim they like and others can hold it up as representative of the entire movement. The Catholic Church has its own ways of dealing with that sort of thing too.

I was brought up Catholic and am an atheist. I can criticse the Catholic/christian ideology till the cows come home without any fear and indeed get plenty of social kudos for doing so.

The same cannot be said for many facets of the LGBTQ+ movement.

(And no, I'm not *-phobic, I believe in equal rights for ALL individuals, including trans people who I have nothing but sympathy for and their situation but I also believe in the free expression of ideas, debate, science and critical thinking).

ronivek

wildeside wrote: »

I was brought up Catholic and am an atheist. I can criticse the Catholic/christian ideology till the cows come home without any fear and indeed get plenty of social kudos for doing so.

The same cannot be said for many facets of the LGBTQ+ movement.

(And no, I'm not *-phobic, I believe in equal rights for ALL individuals, including trans people who I have nothing but sympathy for and their situation but I also believe in the free expression of ideas, debate, science and critical thinking).

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.

wildeside

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.

What's wrong with criticizing some aspects of the LGBTQ+ movement? It it a case of all or nothing?

Sir Oxman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The 'stupid gays and lesbians' thank you for your concern about attempts to do a spot of revisionism of our history and kindly ask you to stop doing so.

Rarely have I seen such agenda driven, biased, complete and utter BS in a post.

Excuse me?

The narrative in the UK and US via 'official' LGB now LGBTQ++ orgs has a black gay man who was a drag queen now renewed as *trans (he told everyone he was a man - in audio and writing) and the leading light at the Stonewall 1969 riots.

He didn't even arrive at the venue till about 3 hours after the riot started.

Whereas, the 'first brick thrower' was a black lesbian but that doesn't suit in 2020.



So yeah, the TQ agenda (activists and 'official' orgs) are rewriting history so no, why would anyone want lying organisations who are the 'official' voice of swathes of people involved in any history curriculum?



I'd love to know what my agenda is

I don't think this is the thread to take potshots at your agenda - I know it too well from other threads.


I want truth and transparency, what do you want?

Dravokivich

wildeside wrote: »

If the school had a Marxist philisophical underpinning and ethos I would not need to get into each and every specific concern, I'd know enough for my conerns to be valid.

But if you want a specific hyptothetical example, if the school were to teach my primary age kids about transgenderism on the ciriculum I would have a very specific problem with that, not least because I would know where this teaching was coming from i.e. a political movement.

But they don't.

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

RandRuns

political analyst wrote: »

That he was talking to a young male who may or may not have been a rent boy in the Phoenix Park doesn't necessarily mean he was going to have sex with him. Doesn't the assumption that he was going to sound a bit Minority Report?

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.

Bannasidhe

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Excuse me?

The narrative in the UK and US via 'official' LGB now LGBTQ++ orgs has a black gay man who was a drag queen now renewed as *trans (he told everyone he was a man - in audio and writing) and the leading light at the Stonewall 1969 riots.

He didn't even arrive at the venue till about 3 hours after the riot started.

Whereas, the 'first brick thrower' was a black lesbian but that doesn't suit in 2020.



So yeah, the TQ agenda (activists and 'official' orgs) are rewriting history so no, why would anyone want lying organisations who are the 'official' voice of swathes of people involved in any history curriculum?



I'd love to know what my agenda is

I don't think this is the thread to take potshots at your agenda - I know it too well from other threads.


I want truth and transparency, what do you want?

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.

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.

Are you referring to Martha P Johnson or Sylvia Riveria when you say 'him' - both were seen taking part in the riot at the Stonewall Inn - a riot which moved onto city hall and lasted a lot longer than 3 hours.
They also founded STAR - Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries - an organisation to support gay and trans individuals who had been left homeless.

Transsexualism (as it was known in the 1960s) was very much underground in the 1960s (despite it being referred to as far back as 1869)- in 1968 a Transgender women was granted the right to change her name on her birth cert but not her gender - the case is listed as
Matter of Anonymous, 57 Misc. 2d 813, 293 N.Y.S.2d 834 (1968).

Gender Dysphoria Syndrome was only proposed as a condition in 1973, in 1994 Gender Dysphoria Disorder replaced the term transsexualism.

But sure - you can state with absolute certainty 50 years after the events and 28 years after Martha P Johnson died that she was not transgender. Couldn't name her mind.

Or were you referring to Sylvia Riveria? A life long activist for Trans Rights who in her later years did identify as transgender.

In 2002, the year of her death, The Sylvia Riveria Law Project was founded as a legal aid organisation.
SRLP “works to guarantee all people are free to self-determine gender identity and expression, regardless of income and race, and without facing harassment, discrimination or violence” by giving gay, trans and gender-fluid individuals access to legal services, as well as teaching leadership and advocacy skills.


It is still impossible to say with certainty who was, and was not arrested, at the Stonewall as police reports requested under FOI are heavily redacted. However, The Christopher Newport University is continuing to request police reports and are publishing them.

Stormé DeLarverie is credited with 'throwing the first punch' - Stormé was a butch black woman, life long activist for LGBTQ rights, and a Drag King.


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.

Dyr

Roderick O'Gorman at it again? I am suprised I tell you, suprised.

AndrewJRenko

Some interesting stats from the UK

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

AndrewJRenko

wildeside wrote: »

If the school had a Marxist philisophical underpinning and ethos I would not need to get into each and every specific concern, I'd know enough for my conerns to be valid.

But if you want a specific hyptothetical example, if the school were to teach my primary age kids about transgenderism on the ciriculum I would have a very specific problem with that, not least because I would know where this teaching was coming from i.e. a political movement.

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