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

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Isn't that just semantics though? If a person who is born biologically female is then to be referred to as a 'cis woman' or a 'natal woman', wouldn't the non-cis/non-natal women again just feel omitted from the cis/natal group. You'd be back at square one again.

Agreed. It’s just a never ending wild goose chase. A distinction will always have to be made.

km991148

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Agreed. It’s just a never ending wild goose chase. A distinction will always have to be made.

But isn't this conversation ongoing (again) because a distinction was made (of course there has to be, it's a thread discussing trans!?) and someone didn't like the particular word used?

And it was then further revealed in conversation that no offence was meant and the poster had thought long and hard about trying to find the least offensive terminology.

It almost like we *want* to be offended and are choosing to go round in circles here..

LLMMLL

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Because the term 'cis woman' will have now assumed the meaning that 'woman' previously meant. 'Woman' won't mean the same thing anymore.

It won’t mean the same to you as (i assume) you don’t view trans women as women. So of course to you “cis women” refers to what you consider to be women. Any trans woman who uses the term “cis woman” is unlikely to be of your viewpoint and would feel no need to appropriate the term for themselves.

How many trans people have you encountered that referred to themselves as cis?

Invidious

LLMMLL wrote: »

It won’t mean the same to you as (i assume) you don’t view trans women as women. So of course to you “cis women” refers to what you consider to be women.

What's your own definition of "woman"? What makes someone a woman?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

km991148 wrote: »

But isn't this conversation ongoing (again) because a distinction was made (of course there has to be, it's a thread discussing trans!?) and someone didn't like the particular word used?

And it was then further revealed in conversation that no offence was meant and the poster had thought long and hard about trying to find the least offensive terminology.

It almost like we *want* to be offended and are choosing to go round in circles here..

Transgender woman and woman. I’m all for these phrases. The distinction that will always exist is made and 51% of the population don’t have to forego that word that always described them. I’ll be going by ‘woman’ and nothing else anyway and if that upsets anyone, they live a truly charmed life and I wish I had their problems. They don’t know they’re born quite frankly.

Gatling

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Agreed. It’s just a never ending wild goose chase. A distinction will always have to be made.

Leave it at woman or man ,

Nothing to confuse or split hairs about either .


Leave the twitisms on twitter

km991148

Gatling wrote: »

Leave it at woman or man ,

Nothing to confuse or split hairs about either .


Leave the twitisms on twitter

I'm going to need you to clarify that a bit for me. I think it's clear that in a discussion this is specifically about gender identity then some form of reasonable distinction is probably going to be required at some point. Would you agree or disagree?


I don't get the Twitter reference tbh?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

km991148 wrote: »

But isn't this conversation ongoing (again) because a distinction was made (of course there has to be, it's a thread discussing trans!?) and someone didn't like the particular word used?

And it was then further revealed in conversation that no offence was meant and the poster had thought long and hard about trying to find the least offensive terminology.

It almost like we *want* to be offended and are choosing to go round in circles here..

km991148, I spent 2.5 years being treated like a hysterical woman by a string of doctors over worsening health concerns. I was refused referral to a consultant and my cancer was discovered by accident. That delay will cost me my life. My husband meanwhile got a referral to a consultant after two trips to a GP over a few short weeks when he was experiencing headaches.

Women still experience discrimination in the health service solely on account of their biological sex. I will die before the age of 40 because of that attitude. Forgive me for giving zero fucks about somebody’s pronouns.

But yeah, LOL, I’m just looking for something to offended about. Seriously, fuck right off. I’ll gladly take an infraction or forum ban to say that. Completely and totally worth it.

LLMMLL

Invidious wrote: »

What's your own definition of "woman"? What makes someone a woman?

I don’t believe in definitions designed to exclude groups but as a starting definition you can use the XX chromosomal/gamete definition to define cis women. You could use the XY chromosomal/gamete + identification as a woman to define trans women.

The definition of woman would be the union of those two definitions.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

km991148, I spent 2.5 years being treated like a hysterical woman by a string of doctors over worsening health concerns. I was refused referral to a consultant and my cancer was discovered by accident. That delay will cost me my life. My husband meanwhile got a referral to a consultant after two trips to a GP over a few short weeks when he was experiencing headaches.

Women still experience discrimination in the health service solely on account of their biological sex. I will die before the age of 40 because of that attitude. Forgive me for giving zero fucks about somebody’s pronouns.

But yeah, LOL, I’m just looking for something to offended about. Seriously, fuck right off. I’ll gladly take an infraction or forum ban to say that. Completely and totally worth it.

With the greatest respect ODB, that has absolutely nothing to do with trans issues and this thread.

km991148

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Transgender woman and woman. I’m all for these phrases. The distinction that will always exist is made and 51% of the population don’t have to forego that word that always described them. I’ll be going by ‘woman’ and nothing else anyway and if that upsets anyone, they live a truly charmed life and I wish I had their problems. They don’t know they’re born quite frankly.

When I said we:

"It almost like we *want* to be offended and are choosing to go round in circles here.."

I was politely referencing *your* post today when you started this entire terminology discussion, that you then tried to shut down by referencing a wild goose chase.

You want to know the best way to stop a wild goose chase? Stop chasing geese. I intend to regarding this subject. I'll reserve my right to reply one more time, just in case..

nolivesmatter

LLMMLL wrote: »

It won’t mean the same to you as (i assume) you don’t view trans women as women. So of course to you “cis women” refers to what you consider to be women. Any trans woman who uses the term “cis woman” is unlikely to be of your viewpoint and would feel no need to appropriate the term for themselves.

How many trans people have you encountered that referred to themselves as cis?

Not trying to be funny but I don't know what it means to say if you "view trans women as women". A distinction is being made in that very sentence.

I'm not aware of any trans people who refer to themselves as cis-man/woman. But if we dilute the meaning of man/woman it surely won't mean as much to trans people. They'll just be omitted from the cis groups.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

km991148 wrote: »

When I said we:

"It almost like we *want* to be offended and are choosing to go round in circles here.."

I was politely referencing *your* post today when you started this entire terminology discussion, that you then tried to shut down by referencing a wild goose chase.

You want to know the best way to stop a wild goose chase? Stop chasing geese. I intend to regarding this subject. I'll reserve my right to reply one more time, just in case..

Yeah, I’ll just quote my last message in this thread, just in case you didn’t see it. I’d place money on you not responding to it. But it will be interesting if you do.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

km991148, I spent 2.5 years being treated like a hysterical woman by a string of doctors over worsening health concerns. I was refused referral to a consultant and my cancer was discovered by accident. That delay will cost me my life. My husband meanwhile got a referral to a consultant after two trips to a GP over a few short weeks when he was experiencing headaches.

Women still experience discrimination in the health service solely on account of their biological sex. I will die before the age of 40 because of that attitude. Forgive me for giving zero fucks about somebody’s pronouns.

But yeah, LOL, I’m just looking for something to offended about. Seriously, fuck right off. I’ll gladly take an infraction or forum ban to say that. Completely and totally worth it.

km991148

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

km991148, I spent 2.5 years being treated like a hysterical woman by a string of doctors over worsening health concerns. I was refused referral to a consultant and my cancer was discovered by accident. That delay will cost me my life. My husband meanwhile got a referral to a consultant after two trips to a GP over a few short weeks when he was experiencing headaches.

Women still experience discrimination in the health service solely on account of their biological sex. I will die before the age of 40 because of that attitude. Forgive me for giving zero fucks about somebody’s pronouns.

But yeah, LOL, I’m just looking for something to offended about. Seriously, fuck right off. I’ll gladly take an infraction or forum ban to say that. Completely and totally worth it.

I am truly sorry for what you are going through.

Genuinely.

km991148

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yeah, I’ll just quote my last message in this thread, just in case you didn’t see it. I’d place money on you not responding to it. But it will be interesting if you do.

There has been an overlap (we posted at the exact same time). I'm not looking to cause strife or attack.

LLMMLL

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Not trying to be funny but I don't know what it means to say if you "view trans women as women". A distinction is being made in that very sentence.

I'm not aware of any trans people who refer to themselves as cis-man/woman. But if we dilute the meaning of man/woman it surely won't mean much to trans people. They'll just be omitted from the cis groups.

Do you think If I say “women with blonde hair are women” I believe that women with blonde hair are not really women? Do you believe it dilutes the word woman?

Obviously not. The same applies to saying “trans women are women”.

Again the reason you can’t see this is you equate “women” with “cis women”. That’s what your argument is based upon.

Your argument is false as the people you believe it applies to don’t share your beliefs.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

km991148 wrote: »

I am truly sorry for what you are going through.

Genuinely.

Yeah, so kindly do not suggest that this is just some superficial cause that I have taken on. ‘Woman’ isn’t a fun costume to throw on. Women are dismissed because of their SEX every day in this country. Sex is real, it’s material, it’s unchangeable and we need to be able to talk about it in clear, concise language. And yeah, anyone who is upset-ed-ed by me saying that - you really don’t know you’re born. I can’t fathom having so little to worry about. It’s like a different language to me.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yeah, so kindly do not suggest that this is just some superficial cause that I have taken on. ‘Woman’ isn’t a fun costume to throw on. Women are dismissed because of their SEX every day in this country. Sex is real, it’s material, it’s unchangeable and we need to be able to talk about it in clear, concise language. And yeah, anyone who is upset-ed-ed by me saying that - you really don’t know you’re born. I can’t fathom having so little to worry about. It’s like a different language to me.

Your tragic circumstances have absolutely nothing to do with gender identity.

km991148

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yeah, so kindly do not suggest that this is just some superficial cause that I have taken on. ‘Woman’ isn’t a fun costume to throw on. Women are dismissed because of their SEX every day in this country. Sex is real, it’s material, it’s unchangeable and we need to be able to talk about it in clear, concise language. And yeah, anyone who is upset-ed-ed by me saying that - you really don’t know you’re born. I can’t fathom having so little to worry about. It’s like a different language to me.

May I just say one thing? This isn't s pronoun debate or any if the usual assumptions. I kinda think the main posters in this discussion today were all essentially saying the same thing, and that is that on a thread where the topic is gender identity, there has to be some level of distinction, that goes beyond any basic biological sex. I didn't think anyone was actually offensive or offended.

When it comes down to discrimination against a particular sex, that is an entirely different and abhorrent situation that goes way beyond this discussion. What you have described is terrible, and I am disgusted that this has happened in "modern" Ireland. It's far from a trivial matter. I fully respect that.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

km991148 wrote: »

May I just say one thing? This isn't s pronoun debate or any if the usual assumptions. I kinda think the main posters in this discussion today were all essentially saying the same thing, and that is that on a thread where the topic is gender identity, there has to be some level of distinction, that goes beyond any basic biological sex. I didn't think anyone was actually offensive or offended.

When it comes down to discrimination against a particular sex, that is an entirely different and abhorrent situation that goes way beyond this discussion. What you have described is terrible, and I am disgusted that this has happened in "modern" Ireland. It's far from a trivial matter. I fully respect that.

I disagree that it’s completely divorced from the discussion in this thread. We’re a country coming out of a recent cervical cancer scandal and yet, the health service of this country saw fit to remove the word ‘woman’ from cervical cancer public health literature. Apparently ‘women, transgender men and non-binary females” wouldn’t do. Who would that wording exclude? Who are we tiptoeing around there? Males who identify as women. The health service of this country saw it fit to obfuscate the language on public health literature related to a cancer that has needlessly killed a not insignificant number of women in Ireland in the last few years to spare the feelings of a cohort who will never need cervical cancer screening.

Not all women know they have a cervix. It may seem strange, but it’s true. Women with poor English may not know the word cervix but they’ll likely know the word woman. But, nah, let’s remove the word ‘woman’ from the literature, those women be damned to spare the feelings of those who will not get cervical cancer. And women who objected to this were dismissed, even by some high profile people. In a country where there are still women feeling the effect of the recent scandal. It’s sickening stuff. The literature has been corrected now to “women, transgender men and non-binary females”, as far as I know. But not without some women kicking up a fuss and being called bigots for their trouble.

It’s not a different matter at all.

km991148

My (possibly ignorant) assumption on that story when I seen it commented on earlier was that it was more about trans men (rather than transwomen), hence the clumsy language of 'person with a cervix'.

I think any public information, particular health information, should be written as clearly as possible.

No argument there (actually no arguments on any of this, I'm still pretty sure we are saying the same thing).

Vic_08

LLMMLL wrote: »

Your tragic circumstances have absolutely nothing to do with gender identity.

Yes they do.

It is just one, an absolutely awful one, but just one of the myriad of ways (in addition to the bloody obvious physical differences) why a trans-woman cannot actually be a woman, cannot have experienced the many way girls from a very young age are treated differently to boys or the different way women perceive the society they live in from many different aspects such as personal safety, consequences of unprotected sex, medical conditions, moral expectations, etc.


The ability you and those that support this extreme ideology to completely deny the reality that women and men are simply not the same in so many ways that cannot just be wished away because someone really wants them to be is very tiresome.

It is akin to arguing with religious zealots whose only tack is that their religion is right just because.

nolivesmatter

LLMMLL wrote: »

Do you think If I say “women with blonde hair are women” I believe that women with blonde hair are not really women? Do you believe it dilutes the word woman?

Obviously not. The same applies to saying “trans women are women”.

Again the reason you can’t see this is you equate “women” with “cis women”. That’s what your argument is based upon.

Your argument is false as the people you believe it applies to don’t share your beliefs.

I don't know. I would assume trans people were interested in the term woman in the first place because of it's traditional definition.

Once you move that definition over to the term cis-woman instead it hardly seems like much of win for a trans person to be able to claim the word 'woman'.

LLMMLL

Vic_08 wrote: »

Yes they do.

It is just one, an absolutely awful one, but just one of the myriad of ways (in addition to the bloody obvious physical differences) why a trans-woman cannot actually be a woman, cannot have experienced the many way girls from a very young age are treated differently to boys or the different way women perceive the society they live in from many different aspects such as personal safety, consequences of unprotected sex, medical conditions, moral expectations, etc.


The ability you and those that support this extreme ideology to completely deny the reality that women and men are simply not the same in so many ways that cannot just be wished away because someone really wants them to be is very tiresome.

It is akin to arguing with religious zealots whose only tack is that their religion is right just because.

It seems your reason for not believing trans women are women is completely tied up in the negative experiences that women face. Is womanhood all negative to you. I find it very strange. I’d like to think that women lead lives with at least some positive elements.

ODBs tragic circumstances have nothing to do with trans people. If trans people did not exist, ODB would still face the same issues.

And trans people can get cancer too. And that has nothing to do with cis people and their identity and their rights. It doesn’t belong in this thread.

LLMMLL

nolivesmatter wrote: »

I don't know. I would assume trans people were interested in the term woman in the first place because of it's traditional definition.

Once you move that definition over to the term cis-woman instead it hardly seems like much of win for a trans person to be able to claim the word 'woman'.

Well as you admit it’s your assumption. I know no trans people who share your viewpoint and have not even heard of a trans person claiming to be cis.

If you ever provide any evidence supporting you assumption I’d be happy to discuss it. But seems a bit pointless to debate a made up scenario.

nolivesmatter

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well as you admit it’s your assumption. I know no trans people who share your viewpoint and have not even heard of a trans person claiming to be cis.

If you ever provide any evidence supporting you assumption I’d be happy to discuss it. But seems a bit pointless to debate a made up scenario.

If you redefine woman to mean 'cis and trans', what's the benefit? To understand each other we'll just have to say cis-woman/trans-woman instead of woman/trans-woman. People will still be omitted from certain groups. We'll be back where we started.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Vic_08 wrote: »

Yes they do.

It is just one, an absolutely awful one, but just one of the myriad of ways (in addition to the bloody obvious physical differences) why a trans-woman cannot actually be a woman, cannot have experienced the many way girls from a very young age are treated differently to boys or the different way women perceive the society they live in from many different aspects such as personal safety, consequences of unprotected sex, medical conditions, moral expectations, etc.


The ability you and those that support this extreme ideology to completely deny the reality that women and men are simply not the same in so many ways that cannot just be wished away because someone really wants them to be is very tiresome.

It is akin to arguing with religious zealots whose only tack is that their religion is right just because.

Indeed. And I actually think this does transgender men and women a huge disservice too. Transgender men and women face big challenges too. Jokes being made at their expense. Very unique health concerns related to medications they might be taking or surgery complications if they have had surgery. I have no idea what it’s like to be transgender. But by the same token, a transgender woman has no idea what being female entails and what growing up female was like. And never will.

LLMMLL

nolivesmatter wrote: »

If you redefine woman to mean 'cis and trans', what's the benefit? To understand each other we'll just have to say cis-woman/trans-woman instead of woman/trans-woman. People will still be omitted from certain groups. We'll be back where we started.

The benefit is that we can refer to cis women without implying that trans women are not women.

You keep claiming that trans people will feel left out of the cis group. Provide some evidence please.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

Your tragic circumstances have absolutely nothing to do with gender identity.

The people who liked this post noted. And if I see them ever post about compassion or empathy, I’ll smile to myself.

Though, you’re right. It indeed has nothing to do with my gender identity, something I don’t subscribe to. It has to do with my biological sex.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The people who liked this post noted. And if I see them ever post about compassion or empathy, I’ll smile to myself.

I have compassion for you and your circumstances.

They still have nothing to do with gender identity.

Based on your post you seem to believe that compassion for your individual circumstances (which have nothing to do with gender identity) should influence people’s opinions on gender identity. Do you really think compassion for you individually should be part of this debate?

I honestly find this quite shocking.