Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)
Options
Comments
-
Tavistock, Irish kids either sent here or treated/assessed in Ireland by these people, found 'inadequate', health speak for performing badly.
They ended their Contract here ,they were operating out of crumlin childrens hospital ,but I'm sure they will be replaced with another Pro puberty blocker regime
0 -
I think/hope that most people know the right from wrong when we are told;
Sorry - I didn't mean literally right vs wrong, bad phrasing - more that two sides sticking staunchly to their opinions without trying to understand the other doesn't get us anywhere (remember this started in the context of people posting about vile twitter comments as if they were somehow representative of general views).0 -
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »Neither of which qualifies her to talk about moral ehtics and who is and is not good or should or should not deserve to die.
I would have thought being a prof of philosophy qualifies one to speak specifically - even if incorrectly - on moral ethics.0 -
Sorry - I didn't mean literally right vs wrong, bad phrasing - more that two sides sticking staunchly to their opinions without trying to understand the other doesn't get us anywhere (remember this started in the context of people posting about vile twitter comments as if they were somehow representative of general views).
The vile comments issue today was not started about some anonymous person. It was exactly about Abigail Shrier who is really a big public part of this debate receiving rape and death threats for writing a book on the subject of girls and the transgender social craze. Remember Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi. They had threats made, often anonymously and via digital platforms, for daring to criticise Islam. It was permitted even encouraged to publicly discuss such fatwas and death/ violation threats as being repugnant.0 -
McKinnon, now Veronica Ivy, is far more than some dickhead on the internet, although undoubtedly they is that:All I am seeing here is "There are dickheads on the internet" - very little to do with gender identity in modern Ireland, but it seems we are determined to keep digging for examples of who is worst. That to me stops any serious conversation or understanding of any of the other issue that have been raised on this thread.Veronica Ivy (born 1982), formerly Rachel McKinnon, is a Canadian philosophy professor, competitive cyclist, and transgender rights activist. In 2018, she became the first transgender world track cycling champion by placing first at the UCI Women’s Masters Track World Championship for the women's 35–44 age bracket. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veronica_IvyIvy is Professor teaching in a University - I imagine having opposing views would be very difficult to express.
Ivy, at best, would be a mediocre male cyclist. Ivy is now a female world champion.0 -
Advertisement
-
The vile comments issue today was not started about some anonymous person. It was exactly about Abigail Shrier who is really a big public part of this debate receiving rape and death threats for writing a book on the subject of girls and the transgender social craze. Remember Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi. They had threats made, often anonymously and via digital platforms, for daring to criticismIslam. It was permitted even encouraged to publicly discuss such fatwas and death/ violation threats as being repugnant.
My original post (when I re entered this thread a few hours ago) was that I don't really see the point in bringing up every arsehole on Twitter. I know exactly who Abigail Shrier is, and whether or not you agree with her, I think its obvious that such vile comments are unacceptable (same with JK, same with trans people, same with extreme trans activists etc).
I am pretty sure no one on this thread would condone such behaviour and getting into a dirt slinging match (enacted by repeating the comments) isn't really benefiting anyone.0 -
Define either. Are we talking about genital sex? Chromosomes? Both? or femininity and masculinity?
We're talking about male and female as they apply to homo-sapiens. I'm sorry, but this has been done to death across the multitude of trans threads. If you are unsure of how these terms are defined then I suggest you look it up yourself.What about masculine biological women?
What about them? The definition of a woman applies to those that are female. it doesn't matter if you are a 'masculine' women or the most feminine of women.What about transsexuals, are they never to be called women? What does it mater anyway - i.e. if there is a man loving in your street and you found out one day they were born a girl, what's that got to do with anything really?
It matters if one cares about the truth and how things actually are in the natural world. It matters because if you (rightly) do not accept the reality that a male cannot be a female and as such trans-women aren't women, or trans-men aren't men, then supposedly that makes you a transphobe, someone who hates trans-people. It matters because male sex offenders have and are being housed with female inmates and have committed sexual violence against their fellow inmates. It matters for a variety of reasons.
If it matters, I wouldn't bother me in the slightest if the man down the street was infact a women. I probably wouldn't really care. The debate centres more around trans-activists, who tend to be more on the extreme side, then trans-people themselves sadly.I mean - you keep repeating that "A man cannot be a woman" - but you don't seem to add much more than that? So I am not sure what I am supposed to engage with?
What else is there to add? This aspect of the debate has been done to death across the multitude of trans threads. Look up the definition of man and women, and using your new found knowledge of what male and female is in regards to homo-sapiens, you will understand my answer.
Posters who suggest that a man can be a women need to engage in all kinds of mental gymnastics to try and give the idea even a smidgen of authenticity; infamously, the term 'trans-female' was (as far as I'm aware) first coined on one of these trans-threads, or circular logic is employed, such as when asked to define a what a women is, the reply being 'a women is a women'. Tables of exemplars have ben employed also.You hold that opinion, fair enough - but we live in a society that does have:
feminine men, transsexuals, masculine women, men who want to be women (even if it contradicts their physical biology) and on top of that we also have system that try to accommodate that (That are sometimes problematic, such as Self ID), people who abuse the systems, people suffering from other metal conditions that result in them getting caught up with gender related issues, people who feel threatened by the some or all of the above, and many, many other complex situations - hence why I said you cannot simplify it all to one statement about men not being women or something.
None of which changes the fact that you cannot change your sex and as such cannot transition to becoming, for example, an actual man/women. You can, ofcourse, be a trans-man/women.
Look, all of this has been done to death, and I'm not sure what more can be added to this aspect of the discussion.0 -
So it has since been pointed out, I still didn't know them - irrespective of how good an agent they have in terms of getting on the telly.McKinnon, now Veronica Ivy, is far more than some dickhead on the internet, although undoubtedly they is that:snipped for brevityIvy is Professor teaching in a University - I imagine having opposing views would be very difficult to express.
Ivy, at best, would be a mediocre male cyclist. Ivy is now a female world champion.
That is a fair point, but that is not the point that was raised. It was simply a cut and paste of a particularly nasty tweet that was somehow meant to be representative of all trans people or something.0 -
CtevenSrowder wrote: »We're talking about male and female as they apply to homo-sapiens. I'm sorry, but this has been done to death across the multitude of trans threads. If you are unsure of how these terms are defined then I suggest you look it up yourself.
What about them? The definition of a woman applies to those that are female. it doesn't matter if you are a 'masculine' women or the most feminine of women.
It matters if one cares about the truth and how things actually are in the natural world. It matters because if you (rightly) do not accept the reality that a male cannot be a female and as such trans-women aren't women, or trans-men aren't men, then supposedly that makes you a transphobe, someone who hates trans-people. It matters because male sex offenders have and are being housed with female inmates and have committed sexual violence against their fellow inmates. It matters for a variety of reasons.
If it matters, I wouldn't bother me in the slightest if the man down the street was infact a women. I probably wouldn't really care. The debate centres more around trans-activists, who tend to be more on the extreme side, then trans-people themselves sadly.
What else is there to add? This aspect of the debate has been done to death across the multitude of trans threads. Look up the definition of man and women, and using your new found knowledge of what male and female is in regards to homo-sapiens, you will understand my answer.
Posters who suggest that a man can be a women need to engage in all kinds of mental gymnastics to try and give the idea even a smidgen of authenticity; infamously, the term 'trans-female' was (as far as I'm aware) first coined on one of these trans-threads, or circular logic is employed, such as when asked to define a what a women is, the reply being 'a women is a women'. Tables of exemplars have ben employed also.
None of which changes the fact that you cannot change your sex and as such cannot transition to becoming, for example, an actual man/women. You can, ofcourse, be a trans-man/women.
Look, all of this has been done to death, and I'm not sure what more can be added to this aspect of the discussion.
Well it makes a change form your usual one line posting "A man cannot be a woman" :pac:
(It makes your "Look, all of this has been done to death" statement particularly ironic!)0 -
Do you have examples of "vile comments" coming from gender critical people? I don't remember ever seeing any but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of rape, death, violence, shaming and doxing coming from TRA's.My original post (when I re entered this thread a few hours ago) was that I don't really see the point in bringing up every arsehole on Twitter. I know exactly who Abigail Shrier is, and whether or not you agree with her, I think its obvious that such vile comments are unacceptable (same with JK, same with trans people, same with extreme trans activists etc).
I am pretty sure no one on this thread would condone such behaviour and getting into a dirt slinging match (enacted by repeating the comments) isn't really benefiting anyone.0 -
Advertisement
-
Do you have examples of "vile comments" coming from gender critical people? I don't remember ever seeing any but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of rape, death, violence, shaming and doxing coming from TRA's.
Are we really now wanting to trawl the internet to find vile comments to support an argument about how finding vile comments on the internet posted in isolation don't really further any discussion?
I mean - cmon - think about that - seriously this must be some kind of wind up :pac:0 -
Well it makes a change form your usual one line posting "A man cannot be a woman" :pac:
(It makes your "Look, all of this has been done to death" statement particularly ironic!)
I take it you didn't look up what a female and male is then in relation to humans? And I have often posted one than more line and often have gone into relative detail, if you'd have followed the thread you would realise that.
Regardless, the reason it is so important is because it is, as far as I can see, the main reason there are disagreements around this subject. If you truly believe that someone who says they are women magically becomes one, and as such are an actual women, no different to someone born with ovaries and a vagina, XX chromosomes etc., then how can it be that they are not given access to female spaces or whatever, since in your opinion they are female.0 -
CtevenSrowder wrote: »I take it you didn't look up what a female and male is then in relation to humans? And I have often posted one than more line and often have gone into relative detail, if you'd have followed the thread you would realise that.
Regardless, the reason it is so important is because it is, as far as I can see, the main reason there are disagreements around this subject. If you truly believe that someone who says they are women magically becomes one, and as such are an actual women, no different to someone born with ovaries and a vagina, XX chromosomes etc., then how can it be that they are not given access to female spaces or whatever, since in your opinion they are female.
I am quite comfortable with my understanding of the English language and I have probably read every post on this thread at this stage. I understand exactly where you are coming from.0 -
I would have thought being a prof of philosophy qualifies one to speak specifically - even if incorrectly - on moral ethics.
It's a bit yoo vague, to be honest. Philosophy tends to frown on the idea of making judgements one way or the otherr, though. Its more about the process of thinking.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
I am quite comfortable with my understanding of the English language and I have probably read every post on this thread at this stage. I understand exactly where you are coming from.
So why did you ask me to define the words then? If you were so knowledgeable about my position then surely such a question would have been unrequired. You've come in, criticised the standard of debate, but have no exactly improved the standard of it yourself!0 -
CtevenSrowder wrote: »So why did you ask me to define the words then? If you were so knowledgeable about my position then surely such a question would have been unrequired. You've come in, criticised the standard of debate, but have no exactly improved the standard of it yourself!
I understand that you want to simplify a complex issue down to basic human biology. To me this seems a far more complex issue. Transgender people (like all people) come in a variety of forms - its such a wide umbrella term and I don't think you can simplify it down to "If you have "whatever genitals you cannot use a certain changing room in M&S (contrived example, but that seems to be what you are saying)".
Many people live as a gender different to what they were born as. They are fully committed to living their life in a particular way. What business is it of anyone's what is between their legs? Whereas someone else (under the same very broad umbrella term) might simply be into a bit of trans fetishism - they would probably not want to enter such 'female' spaces, and probably wouldn't be welcome in many. Those are two different and complicated examples and neither of them depend on me knowing what the dictionary defined as man or woman, but they did require clarification of your understanding because you seemed to want to simplify all trans cases down to genitals.0 -
I understand that you want to simplify a complex issue down to basic human biology. To me this seems a far more complex issue. Transgender people (like all people) come in a variety of forms - its such a wide umbrella term and I don't think you can simply it down to "If you have "whatever genitals you cannot use a certain changing room in M&S (contrived example, but that seems to be what you are saying)".
Many people live as a gender different to what they were born as. They are fully committed to living their life in a particular way. What business is it of anyone's what is between their legs? Whereas someone else (under the same very broad umbrella term) might simply be into a bit of trans fetishism - they would probably not want to enter such 'female' spaces, and probably wouldn't be welcome in many. Those are two different and complicated examples and neither of them depend on me knowing what the dictionary defined as man or woman.
Clearly you do not understand my position in the slightest if that is what you respond to me.
My a 'man cannot be a women' standpoint comes as it is suggested nowadays that a transman is a man and a trans-women is a women. No amount of muddying the waters or talk of how people come in a 'variety of forms' will ever change the simple fact that this is not the case. A man who wants to live their life as a women is still, ultimately, a man, because they are male. If you want to argue that they should have access to female spaces then go ahead. But your argument cannot be 'because they are women' or some variation of that, because they are not. The debate cannot move forward unless this simple reality is accepted.
Time and time again this has been put forward as the main basis as to why, for example, trans-women should have access to female spaces, or sports. The one exception I can think of is One Eyed Jack.
It's a bit like arguing about Climate change. If one accepts that the Earth is warming, but is not heavily influenced by humans, and another accepts that it is warming and is heavily influenced by humans, then debate can take place. However if one simply refuses to accept the fact that the World isn't warming then it is near impossible to have a debate about Climate change because ultimately one of the debaters is living in denial.0 -
CtevenSrowder wrote: »Clearly you do not understand my position in the slightest if that is what you respond to me.
My a 'man cannot be a women' standpoint comes as it is suggested nowadays that a transman is a man and a trans-women is a women. No amount of muddying the waters or talk of how people come in a 'variety of forms' will ever change the simple fact that this is not the case. A man who wants to live their life as a women is still, ultimately, a man, because they are male. If you want to argue that they should have access to female spaces then go ahead. But your argument cannot be 'because they are women' or some variation of that, because they are not. The debate cannot move forward unless this simple reality is accepted.
Time and time again this has been put forward as the main basis as to why, for example, trans-women should have access to female spaces, or sports. The one exception I can think of is One Eyed Jack.
yep - I understand your viewpoint.
All I will add is - while I am not sure you cannot treat all trans people the same (i.e. on one extreme the image of the con artist filling out a form to get an easier prison life vs some one born and raised a girl, but living as a man irrespective of surgery or hormones etc) you cannot treat all female spaces (and access to them) the same. There is a world of difference between trying on a skirt in the high street changing room vs competition in sport.
I cut the climate change analogy, as that too is (in my opinion obviously) an over simplification and not particularly helpful.0 -
yep - I understand your viewpoint.
All I will add is - while I am not sure you cannot treat all trans people the same (i.e. on one extreme the image of the con artist filling out a form to get an easier prison life vs some one born and raised a girl, but living as a man irrespective of surgery vs hormones) you cannot treat all female spaces (and access to them) the same. There is a world of difference between trying on a skirt in the high street changing room vs competition in sport.
I cut the climate change analogy, as that too is (in my opinion obviously) an over simplification and not particularly helpful.
If you don't think the analogy is helpful then I disagree that you understand my viewpoint.
I don't disagree with the point in the middle, however, for many TRA's there is no difference at all, because, ultimately, we are talking about women (as they do not make a distinction between trans-women and non-trans women in any real sense, as trans-women are women). As such, trying to argue the difference with them between sport and trying on a skirt is near impossible, because they will refuse to acknowledge any distinction between trans and non-trans people (women in this case), and denying trans-women access to any females spaces, regardless of it being a changing room or the 100m Olympics final, is thus ultimately transphobic...
Hence my climate change analogy! The complex issues cannot be resolved if basic facts are not asserted and accepted.0 -
Gender critical feminists have been trying that since around 2015 in the UK in real life - doors shut.That's a lot of issues blended together there, but ultimately it comes down to nuclear war style politics and two wrongs don't make a right.
At some point someone has got to make space for healthier debate, otherwise it truly is a race to the bottom.
Only now are their voices and inputs being considered as there was a shutout or 'no debate', if you will - all down to critical identity/queer theorists in NGOs and beyond who employ and rely on 'under the radar' tactics and extreme reactions to *anyone* questioning the theory.
Homosexuals, including founders and big voices in Stonewall in the UK approached the board of Stonewall over 5 years ago to encourage conversation about the direction it was taking - 'no debate'. Shutout.
Women organising themselves in meetings to discuss the clash of rights and impending (now dumped thank God) self-id nonsense in the UK were blackballed, venues cancelled, physically attacked and harassed, jobs lost or severely under threat.
Women beginning to organise here get a concerted effort from 30 or so NGOs etc endorsed by bloody Amnesty to demand no politician or political body even dare to represent them/listen to them or media to cover their concerns.
Is that real life enough?
Now, where's the reciprocation from the 'other side' and who exactly is stifling conversation?0 -
Advertisement
-
Gender critical feminists have been trying that since around 2015 in the UK in real life - doors shut.
Only now are their voices and inputs being considered as there was a shutout or 'no debate', if you will - all down to critical identity/queer theorists in NGOs and beyond who employ and rely on 'under the radar' tactics and extreme reactions to *anyone* questioning the theory.
Homosexuals, including founders and big voices in Stonewall in the UK approached the board of Stonewall over 5 years ago to encourage conversation about the direction it was taking - 'no debate'. Shutout.
Women organising themselves in meetings to discuss the clash of rights and impending (now dumped thank God) self-id nonsense in the UK were blackballed, venues cancelled, physically attacked and harassed, jobs lost or severely under threat.
Women beginning to organise here get a concerted effort from 30 or so NGOs etc endorsed by bloody Amnesty to demand no politician or political body even dare to represent them/listen to them or media to cover their concerns.
Is that real life enough?
Now, where's the reciprocation from the 'other side' and who exactly is stifling conversation?
I don't know, but I don't represent any 'side', I can only talk about this thread and how it applies in Ireland.
And again.. pointing out the ills of the 'other' side is exactly my point..
I don't know what you mean about 'real life'?0 -
...while I am not sure you cannot treat all trans people the same (i.e. on one extreme the image of the con artist filling out a form to get an easier prison life vs some one born and raised a girl, but living as a man irrespective of surgery or hormones etc) you cannot treat all female spaces (and access to them) the same. There is a world of difference between trying on a skirt in the high street changing room vs competition in sport.
.
Insofar as you have a nuanced view that recognises scales and differences, your opinions are unacceptable to gender theory ideology and its activists.
You do not go far enough and so will be rejected. Half way is not enough. There are no escape clauses permitted at all in that system. Andraya Yearwood only has to tie their hair in a pony tail and simply identify as a girl in order to actually BE one and compete in female sports. Nothing else. No physical change.
There can be no differentiations in scale between the occasional paraphiliac cross dresser and the person who lives wholly submersed for a lifetime in the gender identity which they desire. All are equally entitled, some upon mere self identification, to the reality of actual transubstantiation into BEING the sex they declare and to all the rights, protections and access belonging to that sex.
This is incoherent and will give rise to absurdities, injustice and endangerment.0 -
The vile comments issue today was not started about some anonymous person. It was exactly about Abigail Shrier who is really a big public part of this debate receiving rape and death threats for writing a book on the subject of girls and the transgender social craze. Remember Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi. They had threats made, often anonymously and via digital platforms, for daring to criticise Islam. It was permitted even encouraged to publicly discuss such fatwas and death/ violation threats as being repugnant.
And trans people face specific abuse too. It’s not started about an anonymous person. Here is some abuse directed at Elliott page that took me 2 minutes to find on twitter. I’m sure there’s much more.0 -
Insofar as you have a nuanced view that recognises scales and differences, your opinions are unacceptable to gender theory ideology and its activists.
You do not go far enough and so will be rejected. Half way is not enough. There are no escape clauses permitted at all in that system. Andraya Yearwood only has to tie their hair in a pony tail and simply identify as a girl in order to actually BE one and compete in female sports. Nothing else. No physical change.
There can be no differentiations in scale between the occasional paraphiliac cross dresser and the person who lives wholly submersed for a lifetime in the gender identity which they desire. All are equally entitled, some upon mere self identification, to the reality of actual transubstantiation into BEING the sex they declare and to all the rights, protections and access belonging to that sex.
This is incoherent and will give rise to absurdities, injustice and endangerment.
I think most people, trans or otherwise, recognise that gender and sexuality are both on a spectrum and as a result these cause all sorts of complex issues.
I would be interested to know exactly what we mean when discussing 'gender theory ideology'. I.e. here, on this thread, not what we assume some extremists count it as.0 -
-
Other side = the other side to extreme trans activism, the ones who said oh hang on, I think there may be a problem here for women, let's have a chat maybe?I don't know, but I don't represent any 'side', I can only talk about this thread and how it applies in Ireland.
And again.. pointing out the ills of the 'other' side is exactly my point..
I don't know what you mean about 'real life'?
These are much more than 'ill's' - this stopped (stops) in it's tracks any logical debate and conversation - it's not too insurmountable to understand why that is employed.
Real life = not Twitter0 -
Here are some exAmples which were quite easy to find:
The first example is vile and that account has rightly been suspended.
I have no idea what the second one is about.
The number of gender critical women who are banned from Twitter for merely stating biological facts, or asking sex based questions, is shocking, particularly when TRAs who make horrific threats are not thrown off.0 -
The first example is vile and that account has rightly been suspended.
I have no idea what the second one is about.
The number of gender critical women who are banned from Twitter for merely stating biological facts, or asking sex based questions, is shocking, particularly when TRAs who make horrific threats are not thrown off.
The second one are tweets about Elliott page. I may be misunderstanding her but Gruffalux seems to be making a distinction that trans abuse is directed at trans people in general whereas those who follow the TERF ideology are specifically targeted as individuals.
I think someone saying Elliott page should have all of his holes filled with dicks is pretty specific personal abuse......0 -
I think the main difference between the abuse those who follow TERF ideology face and trans people face is that those who follow TERF ideology are quite organised and have websites set up to collect the abuse and present it as a pattern.
Most trans people aren’t bothered doing that. They’re trying to live their lives not prove a point. Doesn’t mean they don’t face this abuse.
Nor does it mean that those who follow TERF ideology are all abusers. But they can’t have it both ways. They can’t claim the abuse directed at them is symptomatic of the debate, while the abuse directed at trans people is a niche subset of people who don’t represent them.0 -
Advertisement
-
I
Most trans people aren’t bothered doing that. They’re trying to live their lives not prove a point. Doesn’t mean they don’t face this abuse.
.
Indeed, weirdos on Twitter who live for victimhood just havent the time to document abuse
Fool yerself if you want, wont full anyone else with that.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement