Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

Baggly

Gender identity is a very current and heated debate in Ireland at the moment.

There have been a number of threads in the Current Affairs forum that have dealt with specific talking points on the topic in the media, but they have largely become less 'current' and so this thread is more on the 'Honest Opinion' side of the forums purpose.

What is your opinion on gender identity?



A few reminder notes from the mod team

• This thread is for discussing the above OP. Please do so.
• People are entitled to hold a different opinion to you. As long as they express it civilly, that is fine. The mods will determine what counts as civil and uncivil. If there is an issue, please report the post and move on. Leave it to the mods to deal with (or not, as appropriate).
• Please treat other posters with respect, perhaps the same way you would hope to be treated with respect.
• Do not attack other posters. Attack posts and their content.
• This is not a thread for you to soapbox. If you have an opinion, please share it; but be prepared for others to query that opinion. Be prepared to show why you think what you think.
• If the mod team see this thread heading in the same direction as the JK Rowling thread did (with broadly circular arguments and all 'sides' of the debate largely ignoring the other), we will close the thread.
• Threadbans from the JK Rowling thread are being extended to this thread, as we recognise discussion from that thread for a significant part of its recent history were focused on the topic of this thread. If you were threadbanned there and it wasnt lifted, do not post in this thread. If you want to discuss lifting your threadban, please contact a member of the mod team.
• The normal forum rules still, as always, apply.

Update

TERF is not considered a slur in itself. If it is used as a reasoned part of the discussion here, it wont be actioned.

Everyone using this thread would do well to read this and abide by it: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110864714&postcount=180

The following are strictly prohibited in this thread:

-Any advocation, either open or implicit of violence against trans people
-Any statement that asserts or implies that transgenderism is a mental illness.
-Any use of transphobic language
-Misgendering or deadnaming trans people
-Stating or implying that trans people are mutilating themselves



I have updated the OP of this thread with a list of threadbanned users, I would advise posters to check on this before posting in the thread again or a forum sanction will be imposed for breaching same.

If you want to discuss your threadban feel free to PM the banning mod (or myself if you can't remember who that is and I'll point you in the right direction).




Threadbanned Users
chopperbyrne
Sittingpretty
ILoveYourVibes
MikeOxsgreen
Hamsterchops
Mr. Meanor
Hqrry113
nj27
Dante7
jaxx
Tom O Neill
Gatling
Bannasidhe
Vic_08
stihl waters
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
Bambi
Hego Damask
CtevenSrowder
Dobbytoes
Hhhhh
ingalway
Greebo
Suicide Circus
Theboinkmaster
Gradius

Hodors Appletart

Should people be allowed to unilaterally declare themselves to be a gender other than what they were born with? I don't know, it's a difficult one

I don't really care what a person chooses to identify as, but there needs to be a conversation had around biological-female only spaces, and if that offends people then I don't really care about that - that also extends to sports.

Should we allow a person who grew up male, went through a biologically "normal" puberty and then began to identify as female access to a sports field with biological females? Even with HRT their bodies will have developed differently. Can a person with such a huge advantage even derive pride from winning under such circumstances?

Am I a TERF for even typing that? I don't think so, and I believe anyone using that term to shout down opinion they don't want aired to be doing it for that reason, and that reason only.

At the same time, should we allow a person who grew up female access to sports where they are likely to be pummelled unmercifully because they now identify as male? Again, I don't think so.

Anyone should be entitled to call themselves whatever they want, define themselves as whatever they want and identify as whatever they want regardless of biology or facts.

Everyone should also be able to ignore that absolute bull**** and not deny reality.

The_Brood

Baggly wrote: »

Gender identity is a very current and heated debate in Ireland at the moment.

There have been a number of threads in the Current Affairs forum that have dealt with specific talking points on the topic in the media, but they have largely become less 'current' and so this thread is more on the 'Honest Opinion' side of the forums purpose.

What is your opinion on gender identity?



A few reminder notes from the mod team

• This thread is for discussing the above OP. Please do so.
• People are entitled to hold a different opinion to you. As long as they express it civilly, that is fine. The mods will determine what counts as civil and uncivil. If there is an issue, please report the post and move on. Leave it to the mods to deal with (or not, as appropriate).
• Please treat other posters with respect, perhaps the same way you would hope to be treated with respect.
• Do not attack other posters. Attack posts and their content.
• This is not a thread for you to soapbox. If you have an opinion, please share it; but be prepared for others to query that opinion. Be prepared to show why you think what you think.
• If the mod team see this thread heading in the same direction as the JK Rowling thread did (with broadly circular arguments and all 'sides' of the debate largely ignoring the other), we will close the thread.
• Threadbans from the JK Rowling thread are being extended to this thread, as we recognise discussion from that thread for a significant part of its recent history were focused on the topic of this thread. If you were threadbanned there and it wasnt lifted, do not post in this thread. If you want to discuss lifting your threadban, please contact a member of the mod team.
• The normal forum rules still, as always, apply.

What in the world is 'very current and heated' about it in Ireland? This is Americans arguing on twitter ....and a world exists outside of that. I wish you good fortune showing any shred of evidence why this is supposedly "very current" in Ireland. Good luck finding people in real life who debate about this.

Sometimes it's good to remember that there's more to the world than the internet and its toxic nonsense.

Gatling

To quote one Harry potter ,

One must not lie

political analyst

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/prison-officers-demand-guidelines-on-transgender-inmates-39637102.html

A well-placed prison source said: "There was mass confusion when this issue arose. Basically no one was permitted to search this prisoner because we have no clear guidelines or policies on how to deal with transgender inmates.

"No one searched this inmate in the end and a wand metal detector was used to scan the inmate.

"No weapons were found on the prisoner. But this is not an ideal search method by any means. A physical search is far more effective. We are going to need a policy in writing on how to deal with this specific type of prisoner.

"Because in line with society, we will see more transgender inmates coming through the system."

One criminal defence lawyer says that the Gender Recognition Act 2015 has placed the State in an impossible position.

Why did those who drafted the Act not think of the scenario that has come to pass in the case that I refer to in this post?

I find it hard to believe that the ECHR judgement in the Lydia Foy case meant that the government had to have the law changed to let biologically male prisoners who identify as being female avoid a body search.

Gruffalux

When the other thread was closed I was responding to a post from ingalway re recent Swedish news. I saved the post.

Quote: ingalway
Some good(ish) news:

The Swedish U-Turn on Gender Transitioning for Children:
https://genderreport.ca/the-swedish-u-turn-on-gender-transitioning/

End quote.


People should read that. The comorbidity between gender dysphoria and other serious mental health issues is huge in the children who were flocking in their droves to clinics in Sweden until they called a halt. It was due to pressure from transactivists and gender theorists that gender dysphoria stopped being framed as any kind of mental health issue (even though other body dysmorphias continue to be) and therefore and thereafter gender dysphoria stopped being treated in certain clinical ways such as counselling.

Affirmation became the only game in town, because it was the only game allowed by the politically correct. Affirmation has not been shown to decrease either dysphoria or comorbid mental health issues. A lot of young people have been left with irreversible damage to their bodies as a result of people who push this agenda, including those who are providing back up in the trenches by insisting upon such ideological tenets as transwomen are women because they claim self ID has an actual transubstantiation effect on physical reality. This lie has been part of the bigger mirage that has been fed to these disturbed young people via social media enclaves.

Baggly

Ok so lets get the discussion going then.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Transwomen aren't woman as they are biologically male.

/endofthread

Do you really think thats all there is to it? Its that straightforward? What are your experiences with the topic IRL?

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone should be entitled to call themselves whatever they want, define themselves as whatever they want and identify as whatever they want regardless of biology or facts.

Everyone should also be able to ignore that absolute bull**** and not deny reality.

Why do you think that entitlement, as you describe it, is bs? Which facts are you alluding to exactly? I presume you too think that its straightforward and there is no nuance to the issue?

The_Brood wrote: »

What in the world is 'very current and heated' about it in Ireland? This is Americans arguing on twitter ....and a world exists outside of that. I wish you good fortune showing any shred of evidence why this is supposedly "very current" in Ireland. Good luck finding people in real life who debate about this.

Sometimes it's good to remember that there's more to the world than the internet and its toxic nonsense.

That is not my experience of the issue tbh. I think its very relevant to a lot of real people. Not people in another country - but Irish people. If you haven't experienced that point of view, then fair enough, but i dont think its fair to deny something exists just because you haven't seen it first hand.

Gatling wrote: »

To quote one Harry potter ,

One must not lie

One would question why you felt the need to post this, as it neither helps the discussion nor alludes to your opinion.

suicide_circus

Gruffalux wrote: »

pressure from transactivists and gender theorists that gender dysphoria stopped being framed as any kind of mental health issue (even though other body dysmorphias continue to be) and therefore and thereafter gender dysphoria stopped being treated in certain clinical ways such as counselling.

In what was is gender dysphoria not a mental health issue?

Richard Hillman

I remember when I was younger and obviously when you are young you think things like Men dressing up as women is a bit mental. But my overall view on things was that what people do with their lives, and as long as its not affecting me or anyone else then good luck to them, its none of my business.

That was the overall argument and it was a good one. I can still think of it as fairly wierd but it doesn't affect me, it's harmless and it's none of our business.

However...


Things have changed over the last few years. Science is being denied, children are being indoctrined with drag storytimes and teachings, public buildings are being pressured to install special toilets, work quotas have been installed for civil service jobs, biological men (who are sex offenders) are being sent to women's prisons, sports are being pressured to accept biological males in very physical sports, beauty businesses being harranged for not waxing a biological males testicals. It's goes on and on.

Suddenly, something that was argued to be none of our business, has become our business. So I choose not to accept this way of life anymore. Most people were passive on the idea, it was none of our business, we can go with out lives. But we were dragged into the trenches and told to pick a side. I have picked my side and it is of normality.

ThewhiteJesus

I feel sorry for kids who are encouraged with this sort of thing, if they don't "feel" like the gender they were born with i'd say they need help mentally, you are what you are and you can't change your genome.
You can get surgery yes, but this is simply like wearing a halloween costume it's not real.

Gruffalux

suicide_circus wrote: »

In what was is gender dysphoria not a mental health issue?

It was reclassified to various degrees. Though it remains open to treatment funding.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-48448804

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria#Classification_as_a_disorder

John Hutton

There are a lot of barristers and solicitors who are going to make a ton of money over the next couple of decades when people (currently children) realise that doctors under the thumb of extreme activists destroyed their lives with unnecessary "treatments" and surgeries resulting in life long ailments, disabilities and conditions like infertility, osteoporosis etc.

I think biological men are men, biological women are women, and that, unfortunately, some people suffer from a mental illness, gender dysphoria. But this is a tiny amount of people, and that most being "diagnosed" (i.e. the internet or YouTube tells them they are) as such are not actually "transgender" but rather tomboys, autistic, gay, lesbian etc.

The idea that a man can just decide he is woman, declare as such, change zero about his life or appearance and have to be treated as a "woman" is frankly bizarre - this is something which directly effects the general public and people around them. I for one will not be going along with this madness.

Wibbs

If someone wants to live their lives by their choice as a different gender to their biological I say fair enough and would address them as such, because that's quite simply good manners.

However they remain their birth gender biologically and no amount of doublethink can change that actual demonstrable scientifically provable fact. And that's fine too, right up to the point where anyone claims differently and uses that claim to pervert the nature of fact for quasi political identity politics ends. This goes double when the vulnerable are in play. So biological males going into women's sports for example. Another would be the drive to medically "transition" children and teenagers with hormonal therapies for which the data on results, better outcomes and long term damage is extremely scant. I take a dim and concerned view that too many in the medical profession are enabling this. I think the wording has been changed, but at one time our own HSE claimed that someone could medically change from one gender to another. This is a nonsense and a dangerous one.

I would also have issue with the Trans label being applied willy nilly, especially when the comorbidities with other mental conditions are so strong and there is the IMHO high risk of people transitioning unnecessarily with all that goes with that because they are being led down this path when other far less invasive therapies would achieve better outcomes.

biko

An adult can make decisions on their legal gender and receive surgery.
Before that, no chemicals or surgery.
m2c

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

The_Brood wrote: »

What in the world is 'very current and heated' about it in Ireland? This is Americans arguing on twitter ....and a world exists outside of that. I wish you good fortune showing any shred of evidence why this is supposedly "very current" in Ireland. Good luck finding people in real life who debate about this.

Sometimes it's good to remember that there's more to the world than the internet and its toxic nonsense.

Well, we have self-ID in Ireland, a situation that has allowed two males to be housed in the already overcrowded women’s prison in Limerick. One of them is a sex offender (a child sex offender, I should clarify in the interests of honesty), the other has a history of violence against women.

And the thing is, the self ID laws allow this. Demand it, in fact. They both have gender recognition certs. Legally, they are women and have to be placed in the women’s prison.

So this is not just a faraway problem. The women who will suffer the most from the erosion of safeguarding because of self-ID laws are the most vulnerable in society, far far away from university campuses and corporate offices where people can comfortably advertise their progressive credentials and perform “kindness”. They’re not at the coalface.

Ekerot

The problems started when people began putting their preferred pronouns on their Twitter bios
I'll never understand how that caught on, very very silly

Gatling

biko wrote: »

An adult can make decisions on their legal gender and receive surgery.

And children can be medicated with puberty blockers because someone told them they were the wrong gender

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The issue for me is security: stopping cis* men from pretending to identify as women as a ruse to either enter sports competitions or women-only changing rooms.

That said, this is a seperate issue, and should never, ever be used as an excuse to deny people the right to transition.


*just to nip this in the bud: "cis" is not a makey-uppy woke term, it's form the latin, meaning "to stay on the same side as"; just as "trans" is latin for "to crossover to the other side". And I'm pretty sure Latrin predates woke.

excludedbin

Not really sure what kind of discussion can be had when one side sees the scientific consensus that supports the other as being a result of "extreme activists". Frankly, if that's the kind of delusion we have to deal with then just leave it as another echo-chamber for the transphobes to rub themselves raw off in. Or is this to be another thread where rabid transphobes (if you're going with "extreme activists") can get away with floating whatever vile abuse against trans people they like, because it's technically not directed at any specific member on the site?

Because opinions are one thing but homophobia, racism, etc. are rightly banned and not just against specific posters but in general, but the same respect doesn't seem to be afforded trans people.

Talk about respect all you want but, again, if the first page already features "extreme activists" then what hope is there? It really does appear to be that one 'side' in this is given near free rein to be as abusive and sneering as they like to anyone that dares disagree with them. I know CA/IMHO is a majority reactionary right wing forum but if you're going to give lip service to equal treatment under the rules then you've got to actually follow through to some degree.

Honestly, I don't think this is the kind of issue that can be discussed here. One side sees the other as extremists, 'degenerates', deviants, deserving of being ignored because they're "mentally ill", groomers, abusers... Can you really, honestly, not see that discussion with people that believe those sorts of things can't happen? Not unless they're massively reined in from not speaking like that, which one would think would be the bare bloody minimum under the rules of the site and forum.

But whatever. Seems like this forum is increasingly becoming somewhere LGBT people just aren't welcome. Not unless they're self-hating reactionaries.

I know this post will be mocked and ganged up on by the usual names but I wanted to say my piece and I did. I won't claim to speak for everyone on the side of trans people but I doubt what I've said is far off the feelings of many.

jam_mac_jam

Gruffalux wrote: »

When the other thread was closed I was responding to a post from ingalway re recent Swedish news. I saved the post.

Quote: ingalway
Some good(ish) news:

The Swedish U-Turn on Gender Transitioning for Children:
https://genderreport.ca/the-swedish-u-turn-on-gender-transitioning/

End quote.


People should read that. The comorbidity between gender dysphoria and other serious mental health issues is huge in the children who were flocking in their droves to clinics in Sweden until they called a halt. It was due to pressure from transactivists and gender theorists that gender dysphoria stopped being framed as any kind of mental health issue (even though other body dysmorphias continue to be) and therefore and thereafter gender dysphoria stopped being treated in certain clinical ways such as counselling.

Affirmation became the only game in town, because it was the only game allowed by the politically correct. Affirmation has not been shown to decrease either dysphoria or comorbid mental health issues. A lot of young people have been left with irreversible damage to their bodies as a result of people who push this agenda, including those who are providing back up in the trenches by insisting upon such ideological tenets as transwomen are women because they claim self ID has an actual transubstantiation effect on physical reality. This lie has been part of the bigger mirage that has been fed to these disturbed young people via social media enclaves.

I think the affirmation model is very dangerous for people of that age. It is a huge commitment to be taking off label drugs and maybe surgery and I don't think in your teenage years that you fully understand the implications of what you are doing. We are basically experimenting on children.

In some cases people with gender dysphoria will accept the bodies that they are born with or go on to become homosexual. But if you suggest counseling for this are you suggesting conversion therapy?

And I don't blame the parents, they are trying to be supportive, they are told that they are helping their children and it will prevent suicide and depression when it is not scientifically proven that it does.

But this cannot be discussed or you are accused of denying people exist. I think its very dangerous and I wonder how many people are going to exist in a few years that realize what they have done to their bodies when they may not have needed to. especially teenage girls who often go through a period of hating their bodies as part of puberty.

Gatling

Ekerot wrote: »

The problems started when people began putting their preferred pronouns on their Twitter bios
I'll never understand how that caught on, very very silly

On now internet forums and media are scared that they will be labeled as transpobic if they don't agree with some wackos on twitter .
So protections are put place to promote and protect the ideology of a miniscule group who live on twitter

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The issue for me is security: stopping cis* men from pretending to identify as women as a ruse to either enter sports competitions or women-only changing rooms.

That said, this is a seperate issue, and should never, ever be used as an excuse to deny people the right to transition.


*just to nip this in the bud: "cis" is not a makey-uppy woke term, it's form the latin, meaning "to stay on the same side as"; just as "trans" is latin for "to crossover to the other side". And I'm pretty sure Latrin predates woke.

We know it’s not made up. But it’s a chemistry term (if my chemistry knowledge holds up, cis- and trans- prefixes are used for mirror image versions of the same molecule). Just because it is a real prefix, doesn’t mean people have to accept it being applied to them. How it’s used doesn’t even correlate to the chemistry usage, as men and women are not simply mirror images of one another.

skooterblue2

Gatling wrote: »

And children can be medicated with puberty blockers because someone told them they were the wrong gender

.... and that is fine. The problem is what happens when a decision is made and the "child" comes off these blockers. What if the hormones dont start up not just the growth hormones and the hormones for cognitive development and the parents are left with a 20 year old that thinks they are 9 years old..... forever.

yourdeadwright

I don't get the problem ,

If your a man and feel like a women that's grand, if your a women and feel like a man that's also grand
By the same token if you have XX chromosome you where born a female & if you have XY you where born a Male,
Whatever you chose to be after that is up to you but don't get angry, annoyed or deny your biological DNA it is what it is ,Meaning don't be trying to participate in sports of other genders and things like that to gain advantages


If you chose to be something else fire ahead as long as you are not hurting anyone,

_Brian

This topic has grown on me over time, I would have in the past had a very black and white opinion which was probably a bit narrow minded of me.

I’m less inclined now though.

Who am I to judge how someone feels inside. Within nature there are few “absolutes” things have a range. I think it’s one of these things that society will learn to cope with, and by that I mean people will be more accepting rather than meaning it’s a “problem” of any sorts.

Live and let live.

juice1304

I dont understand why people care about how another person feels.

There are people here going on like trans people choose to be like that. Why would anyone choose to be like that when even from reading this thread you get an idea of the level of ignorance in society and the nonsesne they have to put up with on a daily basis. Why would anyone choose to be mocked for the rest of their lives by immature idiots.

Do they also believe gay people choose to be gay?

Should trans people be allowed to play in sports of their affirmed gender? No, because they are physically different and it is unfair.

Should there be laws forcing the use of language that can be used by petty people to sue others? No
But other than that who cares. It's not your life, worry about your own problems.

And for those who believe it's not possible. Every human being starts life as a female, It is the development of new hormones that change the characteristics of the individual. Who is not to say that their brains didn't develop to the point of being hardwired female before the hormonal changes occurred?
It's impossible to know but still quite possible and irrelevant anyway because it's no ones business how anyone else lives their life.

TomTomTim

_Brian wrote: »

This topic has grown on me over time, I would have in the past had a very black and white opinion which was probably a bit narrow minded of me.

I’m less inclined now though.

Who am I to judge how someone feels inside. Within nature there are few “absolutes” things have a range. I think it’s one of these things that society will learn to cope with, and by that I mean people will be more accepting rather than meaning it’s a “problem” of any sorts.

Live and let live.

Agreed. Trans people can believe in what they like, and I'll respect that once they respect the fact that I don't have to believe what they believe, nor does wider society.

maxsmum

My view, if you want to identify psychologically as a different gender, or non-gender or whatever, fine. Like your sexuality, that's your business and fair play to you.
You can't change your sex, ie your biological chromosomes. You can have surgery or hormonal treatment to alter your appearance but you can't change your sex. So things like sports tournaments and so forth, you can't state you're the opposite sex just because you want to. But if you want to change your gender via cert that'd your business.
I'm a scientist really so I will never be able to accept that people have changed sex simply by self declaration.

suicide_circus

excludedbin wrote: »

Not really sure what kind of discussion can be had when one side sees the scientific consensus that supports the other as being a result of "extreme activists".

The "scientific consensus" can recommend treatments for conditions. What it can't do is dictate that the general public say something is red when they can see it is blue.

Wibbs

excludedbin wrote: »

Not really sure what kind of discussion can be had when one side sees the scientific consensus that supports the other as being a result of "extreme activists".

1) the scientific consensus is either newly minted or disputed or at odds with itself. EG gender is a social construct, yet it's also innate? Schroedingers identity politics. 2) And any scientific consensus that says someone can change gender is an obvious and provable nonsense. They can change the appearance of gender and of course by almost always reinforcing apparently socially constructed gender appearance and that's fine like I said and people should be treated with courtesy.

as an aside and nota bene, not "respect". This Americanism does my bloody head in. One earns respect, it is not, nor should be automatic. Courtesy should be automatic. Plus courtesy is far more reliable a first position that anything based on passion, politics or personal beliefs.

But whatever. Seems like this forum is increasingly becoming somewhere LGBT people just aren't welcome. Not unless they're self-hating reactionaries.

I can't recall a single poster taking issue with any LGB positons. T certainly, but no need to lump all the letters together.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

We know it’s not made up. But it’s a chemistry term (if my chemistry knowledge holds up, cis- and trans- prefixes are used for mirror image versions of the same molecule). Just because it is a real prefix, doesn’t mean people have to accept it being applied to them. How it’s used doesn’t even correlate to the chemistry usage, as men and women are not simply mirror images of one another.

Yeah, I know and agree - but the last time I was in a thread liek that, peopel honestly thought the woke crowd had created the word.

Don't want to do down the road again.

osarusan

My thoughts on this from a previous thread (Yaniv ball-waxing thread, hence the reference to law at the end):

I am somebody who thinks that people who are transgender should be allowed to live their lives pretty much as they want, by and large. I don't have any problem with using their preferred pronoun, for example. I'm not quite sure I agree with the logic behind it, but, hey, I'm not going to think about it too deeply. There has been a fair amount of discussion about Boards policy on this one, but as far as I can see, using the pronoun 'they' sorts it out, and for me at least, that isn't any kind of hill to die on.

But when it comes to 'live their lives as they want, by and large', the reality is that living their lives comprises a huge number and range of interactions with other people.

Do I have a problem with the idea that somebody who is biologically female prefers to be called 'he' in an office environment (or vice versa)? No, I don't, to be honest.

Do I have a problem with the likes of the subject of this thread looking for a genital wax when their genitals are, to put it politely, not the genitals expected by the waxer? Yes I do. I am not sure if there is even a single poster on this thread who thinks that scenario is ok.

So when we talk about 'living their lives', it actually encompasses a huge range of interactions and encounters, and sometimes my own ethical compass will say it's something that sounds ok to me, and sometimes it's something that doesn't sound ok to me.

Do I think that a transgender female should be allowed to live their life as they please, by and large? Yes, I do. Do I think that extends to allowing a transgender female to compete in female sports? No, I don't.

When I think about it like that, I wonder if there is any consistency to my positions or if they are just arbitrary. Maybe what it really means is that 'live their lives as they please, by and large' is something that actually needs to be examined interaction by interaction, scenario by scenario, right versus competing right. I'm not sure a broad/generic law can be worded in such a way that it can adequately cover all these possible scenarios and interactions.

TomTomTim

excludedbin wrote: »

Not really sure what kind of discussion can be had when one side sees the scientific consensus that supports the other as being a result of "extreme activists". Frankly, if that's the kind of delusion we have to deal with then just leave it as another echo-chamber for the transphobes to rub themselves raw off in. Or is this to be another thread where rabid transphobes (if you're going with "extreme activists") can get away with floating whatever vile abuse against trans people they like, because it's technically not directed at any specific member on the site?




.

Why must you people always be so dishonest in your framing? You're trying to frame orthodoxy as extremist, which is ridiculous.

Baggly

Baggly wrote: »

Why do you think that entitlement, as you describe it, is bs? Which facts are you alluding to exactly? I presume you too think that its straightforward and there is no nuance to the issue?

Because you can't change your biology purely by willing it to be so.

I do think it is straightforward.

Nobody should be stopped from claiming to be a different sex/gender but other shouldn't be compelled to believe them or to pander to their "reality" when it is patently untrue.

I extend that to almost all facets of life. Eg religion, climate change, etc.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

juice1304 wrote: »

I dont understand why people care about how another person feels.

There are people here going on like trans people choose to be like that. Why would anyone choose to be like that when even from reading this thread you get an idea of the level of ignorance in society and the nonsesne they have to put up with on a daily basis. Why would anyone choose to be mocked for the rest of their lives by immature idiots.

Do they also believe gay people choose to be gay?

Should trans people be allowed to play in sports of their affirmed gender? No, because they are physically different and it is unfair.

Should there be laws forcing the use of language that can be used by petty people to sue others? No
But other than that who cares. It's not your life, worry about your own problems.

And for those who believe it's not possible. Every human being starts life as a female, It is the development of new hormones that change the characteristics of the individual. Who is not to say that their brains didn't develop to the point of being hardwired female before the hormonal changes occurred?
It's impossible to know but still quite possible and irrelevant anyway because it's no ones business how anyone else lives their life.

No, the sex of the baby is determined from the moment of conception. The foetus in early development starts to develop as a female but later on, gene expression kicks in. Those XX and XY chromosomes are there from the moment of conception. It’s not just some kind of pot luck.

On the rest of your post, you and others are missing the point a bit. People can live however they want to, except where their rights encroach on the rights of others. I find the comparison to gay rights a bit superficial. There is an added layer here, the significant biological differences between males and females. Those differences can’t be magicked away. We can’t ignore them.

ThewhiteJesus

how about a poll op it would be interesting to see the results on what people think,
for or against ect

Wibbs

juice1304 wrote: »

I dont understand why people care about how another person feels.

I agree, so long as they don't harm others or themselves I say play on.

There are people here going on like trans people choose to be like that. Why would anyone choose to be like that when even from reading this thread you get an idea of the level of ignorance in society and the nonsesne they have to put up with on a daily basis. Why would anyone choose to be mocked for the rest of their lives by immature idiots.

Do they also believe gay people choose to be gay?

Oh there's much to that, but one could also debate on how adolescents in particular often take on different personas in their journey to finding their adult identities, many of those personas can attract negative responses from others. And yet many keep doing so.

Every human being starts life as a female

I really wish people would stop repeating this fallacy as fact. It isn't.

It is the development of new hormones that change the characteristics of the individual. Who is not to say that their brains didn't develop to the point of being hardwired female before the hormonal changes occurred?

This I would be much more on board with. I would be of the opinion that roughly speaking there are masculinised and feminised brains on a structural level, with some crossover. In the majority of people their brain matches their gender and indeed their sexuality. In some they don't. Among those their sexuality is where the more obvious differences show and research has shown some parts of Gay men's brains are more like Straight women's brains than Straight men's. Even oddball stuff like thumb prints in Straight men are less symmetrical between hands than Gay men's. Even facial recognition software that had a high enough success rate at spotting Gay men and Women from Straight. So I can certainly see where a biological female baby might end up with essentially an extremely male brain and feel more male. We saw a glimpse of that with Intersex folks in the past where they were assigned, often surgically, gender at birth, by the vague means of whatever their genitals appeared closer to. And that didn't go well fro so many of them. Intersex folks raised as girls who were quite adamant they were men later on.

So I 100% believe Trans people exist. However my concern is how many who think they are at a certain part of their lives actually are? They might be just "tomboys" or "effeminate", they might simply be Gay and confused about that, or they could have other developmental conditions that "Trans" seems the easier label to attach. Which would be fine if there wasn't the spectre of hormone blockers and treatments that change so many of the body's bits and bobs and irreversibly. That's before surgery is in the mix.

It's impossible to know but still quite possible and irrelevant anyway because it's no ones business how anyone else lives their life.

I hear this trotted out a lot too and it doesn't bear much scrutiny. Unless you're living on a desert island how you live your life affects quite the number of people. We're a social animal that lives in extended families and communities.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

osarusan wrote: »

My thoughts on this from a previous thread (Yaniv ball-waxing thread, hence the reference to law at the end):

Good post! What “living their lives” actually means in practical terms does need to figured out. But any public figure who has tried to do this (like the lady who inspired this thread) has been severely unbraided. Only the very rich and/or famous can insulate themselves against that kind of criticism so it just doesn’t get discussed. People are afraid to do so as jobs can and have been lost by people who spoke out.

WhenPigsCry

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, we have self-ID in Ireland, a situation that has allowed two males to be housed in the already overcrowded women’s prison in Limerick. One of them is a sex offender (a child sex offender, I should clarify in the interests of honesty), the other has a history of violence against women.

And the thing is, the self ID laws allow this. Demand it, in fact. They both have gender recognition certs. Legally, they are women and have to be placed in the women’s prison.

That's just prison. A cis woman convicted of assaulting other women will be in a woman's prison. Why is that an acceptable level of risk for the other inmates?

Chips Lovell

I'd be broadly of the "live and let live" school of thought myself. The most simple explanation I've heard was when someone said to me that sex and gender are not the same thing.

I do find though that it's a topic that tends to make some people I've met almost irrationally angry, even though it often has little or no impact on them personally, so much so that you could argue that it's in inverse proportion They'll frequently use edge cases, such as gender reassignment for children or transgender athletes, as a stick to beat everything else with. Just deal with the edge cases and let everyone else get on with their lives.

Also, saying "you're free to identify as a woman as long as I'm free to insist, to your face, that you're a man" isn't live and let live. That's just being a dick.

Baggly

excludedbin wrote: »

Not really sure what kind of discussion can be had when one side sees the scientific consensus that supports the other as being a result of "extreme activists". Frankly, if that's the kind of delusion we have to deal with then just leave it as another echo-chamber for the transphobes to rub themselves raw off in. Or is this to be another thread where rabid transphobes (if you're going with "extreme activists") can get away with floating whatever vile abuse against trans people they like, because it's technically not directed at any specific member on the site?

Because opinions are one thing but homophobia, racism, etc. are rightly banned and not just against specific posters but in general, but the same respect doesn't seem to be afforded trans people.

Talk about respect all you want but, again, if the first page already features "extreme activists" then what hope is there? It really does appear to be that one 'side' in this is given near free rein to be as abusive and sneering as they like to anyone that dares disagree with them. I know CA/IMHO is a majority reactionary right wing forum but if you're going to give lip service to equal treatment under the rules then you've got to actually follow through to some degree.

Honestly, I don't think this is the kind of issue that can be discussed here. One side sees the other as extremists, 'degenerates', deviants, deserving of being ignored because they're "mentally ill", groomers, abusers... Can you really, honestly, not see that discussion with people that believe those sorts of things can't happen? Not unless they're massively reined in from not speaking like that, which one would think would be the bare bloody minimum under the rules of the site and forum.

But whatever. Seems like this forum is increasingly becoming somewhere LGBT people just aren't welcome. Not unless they're self-hating reactionaries.

I know this post will be mocked and ganged up on by the usual names but I wanted to say my piece and I did. I won't claim to speak for everyone on the side of trans people but I doubt what I've said is far off the feelings of many.

Mod

If you want to add to the discussion here, please do. If you want to backseat mod we can arrange a threadban for you, and if you want to throw insults at a group of posters we can also arrange sanctions for you there.

This thread is for people to discuss this topic. Im not really interested in whether you think that can be done or not. I am interested in your opinions on the topic (provided you can post them civilly), however.

CtevenSrowder

Baggly wrote: »

Ok so lets get the discussion going then.



Do you really think thats all there is to it?

With respect to what I posted, yes. Women is a word defined based on scientific fact (adult human female)

Baggly wrote: »

Its that straightforward?

Yes.

Baggly wrote: »

What are your experiences with the topic IRL?

I did biology for my leaving junior cert

Baggly wrote: »

Why do you think that entitlement, as you describe it, is bs? Which facts are you alluding to exactly? I presume you too think that its straightforward and there is no nuance to the issue?

Ok maybe we need clarification. Most of the trans-threads issues are not necessarily to do with gender identity as such, but with whether a male can be an actual women or a female can be an actual man. They cannot unless the words are redefined and in the process become meaningless, or cause serious issues as the only other way is to base them on stereotype.

The answer to this is clear and straightforward. Gender identity i.e. someone identifies as non-binary for example, will still have a particular sex regardless of what they claim their gender to be.

Baggly wrote: »

That is not my experience of the issue tbh. I think its very relevant to a lot of real people. Not people in another country - but Irish people. If you haven't experienced that point of view, then fair enough, but i dont think its fair to deny something exists just because you haven't seen it first hand.

It is ofcourse relevant. Many may not pay a huge amount of attention to the issue on a day to day basis but cases like the recent one we had with a trans-woman (i.e. a biological male), who is a clear danger to woman being put in prison with other women, brings the issue to fore (if only for a short period).

Ofcourse, my first post was in some respects facetious (\endofthread part)

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

That's just prison. A cis woman convicted of assaulting other women will be in a woman's prison. Why is that an acceptable level of risk for the other inmates?

Things aren’t 100% safe in women’s prisons so let’s make them even less safe? Really? And also “that’s just prison”? REALLY?

Most women aren’t in for violent crimes. Some are, but most aren’t.

We know that males are responsible for the vast majority of violent crime. And sexual assault. So, we should mitigate risk as much as possible using the information at our disposal. We’ll never get to a point of 100% safety but we can get as close as possible.

There’s also the added physical advantage of males. A woman attacking a woman will almost always do less damage than a male attacking a woman.

AllForIt

excludedbin wrote: »

..........Seems like this forum is increasingly becoming somewhere LGBT people just aren't welcome. Not unless they're self-hating reactionaries.

So you think all LGBT people should have the exact same opinion otherwise you will label them self-hating reactionaries. Yeah that sounds about right.

WhenPigsCry

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Things aren’t 100% safe in women’s prisons so let’s make them even less safe? Really? And also “that’s just prison”? REALLY?

Most women aren’t in for violent crimes. Some are, but most aren’t.

We know that males are responsible for the vast majority of violent crime. And sexual assault. So, we should mitigate risk as much as possible using the information at our disposal. We’ll never get to a point of 100% safety but we can get as close as possible.

There’s also the added a physical advantage of males. A woman attacking a woman will almost always do less damage than a male attacking a woman.

What if she is using a weapon? What if her aim is not to inflict physical damage?

What about men's prisons then? Why is it acceptable for men to be imprisoned with men who have committed male-on-male violence?

humberklog

When someone states that they are "gender fluid" I can't help thinking that they've just called themselves a "cum stain".

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I'd be broadly of the "live and let live" school of thought myself. The most simple explanation I've heard was when someone said to me that sex and gender are not the same thing.

I do find though that it's a topic that tends to make some people I've met almost irrationally angry, even though it often has little or no impact on them personally, so much so that you could argue that it's in inverse proportion They'll frequently use edge cases, such as gender reassignment for children or transgender athletes, as a stick to beat everything else with. Just deal with the edge cases and let everyone else get on with their lives.

Also, saying "you're free to identify as a woman as long as I'm free to insist, to your face, that you're a man" isn't live and let live. That's just being a dick.

I’m sorry, but do you only care about things that affect you personally?

I know that I will never have an abortion (unless the pregnancy was going to kill me) but I cared about it being legalised because I cared about the vulnerable people who need that option there for them. It’s the same now. I believe that the groups most affected by self-ID legislation are the most vulnerable - female prisoners, children etc. It makes me quite angry sometimes but I don’t think that anger is irrational. And I think calling it irrational is undermining.

And the last time I heard people say that people were just using edge cases as examples were No campaigners for the eighth referendum. Maybe you voted no then, but if you didn’t, surely using that argument should give you pause for thought. So what if these are rare examples? Does that matter to the person affected? I hate the rareness argument during the eighth referendum and I hate it now. The people affected by self ID legislation aren’t collateral.

CtevenSrowder

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

What if she is using a weapon? What if her aim is not to inflict physical damage?

What about men's prisons then? Why is it acceptable for men to be imprisoned with men who have committed male-on-male violence?

What do you want? Everyone to be put into solitary confinement?

You are just engaging in whataboutery. If something is unsafe why make it even more unsafe?

Chips Lovell

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I believe that the groups most affected by self-ID legislation are the most vulnerable - female prisoners, children etc.

I think you might have taken me up wrong. I'm saying by all means address these issues, but that it's poor form for people to use these issues as an excuse to bash all transgender people.

Gatling

humberklog wrote: »

When someone states that they are "gender fluid" I can't help thinking that they've just called themselves a "cum stain".

Funniest post we had in CA so far