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

LLMMLL

JamesFlynn wrote: »

Allowing male-born athletes to compete against female-born athletes without changing rules around weight/bone-density/strength will of course be more dangerous to women.

There's nothing anti-trans about that - it's a measurable scientific observation and common sense. To protect women's safety there would need to be a change in sports' current participation rules.

I don't think I've misrepresented your position but others can be the judge:

You are misrepresenting them. I am not suggesting that trans women play with cis women. Nor am I suggesting that they don't.

What I'm suggesting is that IF any safety measures are introduced that these are introduced across the board.

So either decide there are safety issues relating to weight in rugby in which case SOME trans women would not be able to play with cis women and equally 140kg cis men probably couldn't play with 70-80kg cis men and 87kg cis women probably wouldn't be able to play with 60kg cis women.

That would be safety conscious AND fair.

Alternatively if there are no safety issues with 140kg cos men playing with smaller cis men then how could one reasonay say an 80kg trans woman poses a safety threat to a 60kg cis woman. If there's no safety issues in men's rugby there's none in women's rugby and no Segment of the sport should have anti-trans rules.

You seem to think I'm campaigning for one of the above situations.

I'm not. I'm campaigning for whichever of the above two things is true, that it's implemented fairly for trans people.

So either of the above is fine with me. Either there's rules for everyone or there's rules for nobody.

That's my actual position.

Quantum Erasure

Talking about weight classes... how would that work in boxing, for instance? Surely theres more to it than just weight

Quantum Erasure

And now....

for something completely different.

I noticed the ukpolitics subreddit has been shut down, seemingly in solidarity with one of the mods who had been permanently banned for posting an article from The Spectator, about trans issues in the Green party...

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-green-party-s-gender-intolerance-problem (I think that's the article, not sure)

Seems like one of the admin has gone rogue, Graham Linehan recently posted a blog about them/she/her here

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/something-rotten-at-the-heart-of

Stihl waters

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Talking about weight classes... how would that work in boxing, for instance? Surely theres more to it than just weight

They would obviously identify as whatever weight they want to be classed as and hey presto

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not what you said. I referenced both men’s and women’s achievements throughout history, and you still brought it back to sports which were conceived and developed by men for men, at a time when women simply weren’t regarded as being equal status to men. You want to talk about the Olympics, then at least you should familiarise yourself with the history of the modern Olympic revival -


Female athletes were excluded from the first modern Olympic Games in 1896 because its founder, Pierre de Coubertin, felt their participation would be inappropriate.

“No matter how toughened a sportswoman may be, her organism is not cut out to sustain certain shocks,” the French educator and historian said then.

See 120 years of struggle for gender equality at the Olympics


Women were quite literally on the back foot from the inception of the Games, so you won’t have heard of women like Alice Milliat (and had it not been for her efforts, you wouldn’t have heard of many more!) -


In opposition, women took matters into their own hands. Frenchwoman Alice Milliat believed that women should have the same opportunity as men. She created the International Women’s Sport Federation, and in 1921 organised the first Women’s Olympiad which took place in Monaco. Five nations took part; Great Britain, Switzerland, Italy, Norway and France. The aim was to make organisations such as the IOC and the International Amateur Athletics Association take women seriously.

The main outcome of the first Women’s Olympiad was to irritate the IOC, who demanded the women change the name of their competition. From then on, it was called the Women’s World Games, and was held every four years from 1922 until 1934. The first event held in 1922 was a one-day track and field event. The timing of the Games, every four years, was a clear sign of the women’s intentions to rival the Olympic Games.

The Women’s World Games were a success. More nations took part, and there was positive media and big crowds. Following this, increasing numbers of women’s events and women themselves were allowed to take part in the Olympic Games.

Disappointingly, it may merely have been a way to control their participation in sport rather than an acknowledgement that they belonged. Even in 1931, when 14 women’s events were scheduled for the next Olympic Games, the new IOC head Baillet-Latour said he hoped that one day women could be completely excluded from the Olympic Games.

In 1934 Milliat issued a challenge to the IOC and said that her organisation would give up the Women’s World Games if women’s athletics were fully included in the Olympics Games, and if women were represented on the IOC. Whilst Milliat ultimately did disband the Women’s World Games when the first part of this request was met, it was not until 1981 that the first two women were appointed to the IOC. As of 2014 just under a quarter of the IOC members are women.


Women & the Olympic Games: "uninteresting, unaesthetic, incorrect"


While you might think you have a slam dunk of a point referring constantly to records in the men’s events, it’s pretty easy to set records in the men’s events when only men are permitted to compete and women are excluded from participating with men. See I’m not arguing and have never argued that anything should be taken away from anyone, but rather that equal opportunities should be granted to everyone, regardless of their sex or gender. It would have the opposite effect of what you’re suggesting, that women would not wish to participate, or that there would be no professional elite women athletes. There would, and they would gain equal recognition for their achievements as men receive recognition for their achievements.

It can’t possibly have escaped your attention that elite athletes whatever their sex or gender are training and competing almost from the moment they’re out of nappies. They don’t just happen to get an idea into their heads as adults to suddenly start competing with the idea of making it to the Olympics or the World Games in their chosen sport. Nobody is forcing anyone in, or out of anything. The idea is to include everyone, rather than attempt to exclude people from participating in competitions using some fairly shìtty studies that fly in the face of scientific evidence, arguing that they’re trying to make the sport fair to everyone, by relying on outdated nonsense attitudes that just don’t stand up to any kind of cursory examination. I don’t need the scientific evidence, but for the love of Christ don’t present some shìte and call it scientific evidence when it falls far short of it. That’s just disrespectful.

Those who fear anyone might negatively impact anything, aren’t onto anything only their own paranoia fuelled nonsense. Their fears shouldn’t be the determining factor of anyone else’s human rights and it shouldn’t fall to other people to constantly have to prove they are not a threat, or that they as a starting point should have equal status in society, or in your beloved sports competitions.

Again you dump paragraph after paragraph of unrelated nonsense.
'Men and women's achievements throughout history" pertains to the conversation how exactly?

If you can't get your point across in under 12 paragraphs, perhaps the problem isn't on my side?

Either way I won't be engaging anymore since it's pointless replying when your replies constantly wander away from the topic at hand.

/edit
As a perfect illustration of your constant deflection, avoidance and down right misrepresentation:

While you might think you have a slam dunk of a point referring constantly to records in the men’s events, it’s pretty easy to set records in the men’s events when only men are permitted to compete and women are excluded from participating with men.

Since day 1 I have restricted the conversation to events that both genders participate in, feel free to actually read my posts to clarify this.
I also havent referred to mens records, I have referred to the records for both genders, giving examples of how the junior boys records would beat every woman on the planet.

Women dont need to participate alongside men for anyone to determine what the outcome would be.
Thats the beauty of relying on facts to prove a point.
A 100M track is 100M long, regardless of the sex of the person running on it. The passage of time (unless you have recently submitted a request to change it?) is also the same for both sexes, and finally that brings us to maths.
The numbers beside the men are smaller than the numbers beside the women, that means that men are faster than women.
I'm sure at this juncture you will bring up some obscure point about the Byzantine Empires attitude to women growing tomatoes, but it still wont change the facts above. In any case, thankfully I wont have to waste time on it anymore.

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

Again you dump paragraph after paragraph of unrelated nonsense.
'Men and women's achievements throughout history" pertains to the conversation how exactly?

If you can't get your point across in under 12 paragraphs, perhaps the problem isn't on my side?

Either way I won't be engaging anymore since it's pointless replying when your replies constantly wander away from the topic at hand.

The topic at hand was women’s participation in the Olympics, and how it is analogous to people who are transgender being restricted from participating in sports competitions on the basis of their gender identity; of course history is relevant because it can be used to demonstrate that the discrimination apparent then was based upon people’s unfounded fears and ignorance, same as it is now. It’s definitely not because anyone had smaller hands and wouldn’t be able to handle a ball, or because of unfounded nonsense about men disguising themselves as women to participate in the women’s competitions. That nonsense was used to justify sex testing in women’s sports for decades and not only was it determined that it was a violation of women’s human rights, but they didn’t find any men trying to cheat their way into the women’s competitions either. Women were excluded from participating with men purely because of how they have been perceived in society as not as good in sports as men. You’re claiming it would end women’s sports and would mean the end of women’s opportunities in professional athletics, yet historically it has had the opposite effect. So much so that the arguments you’re making, were the same arguments throughout history that have been used to exclude people from sports and exclude people from being regarded as having equal status in society.

You can’t follow a simple argument, yet you imagine anyone should take your nonsense about people’s fears of people with small hands seriously? Your own article that you linked to provided the opinions of two people with experience in the game, one was concerned about making the game a better spectacle, the other saw no reason for women to use a smaller ball and thought there were more important things to be concerned about, yet you dismiss their opinions because it doesn’t agree with yours.

I don’t care if you never replied, but the topic at hand is Gender Identity in Modern Ireland. In order to understand the current status of discrimination against people on the basis of their gender, it’s entirely relevant to look at how we got here and why. It didn’t just happen overnight or in the time it takes to bang out a snappy quip for likes on social media.

Annasopra

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

And now....

for something completely different.

Graham Linehan recently posted a blog about harassing them/she/her

Nothing different at all....

Graham Linehan regularly harasses trans women

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/jun/27/twitter-closes-graham-linehan-account-after-trans-comment

https://www.her.ie/tech/dating-app-issues-statement-after-graham-linehan-allegedly-set-up-fake-profile-to-harass-trans-women-518487

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-45777689

One eyed Jack

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

And now....

for something completely different.

...

Same shìt, different day is all.

Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper would be horrified to see what the ideas they developed have become that they have enabled idiots like James Damore and Graham Linehan to spread their ignorant nonsense.

JamesFlynn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Same shìt, different day is all.

Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper would be horrified to see what the ideas they developed have become that they have enabled idiots like James Damore and Graham Linehan to spread their ignorant nonsense.

I think they'd be horrified a man could simply declare himself a woman and enter womens' bathrooms, changing rooms, women's aid shelters, women's sports, female prisons, etc, and be protected by law.

They lived long before the recent advent of this ideology.

I suspect they'd be horrified that women have to give up their rights so men can have their way.

One eyed Jack

JamesFlynn wrote: »

I think they'd be horrified a man could simply declare himself a woman and enter womens' bathrooms, changing rooms, women's aid shelters, women's sports, female prisons, etc, and be protected by law.

They lived long before the recent advent of this ideology.

The ideology has existed throughout human history, long before they were born, but they were born at a time when women were regarded as being incapable of being equal status as men who regarded men as being intellectually superior to women and women were advised by the medical profession (comprised primarily of men) not to think too hard or they might hurt themselves. It’s easy to laugh at the idea of that shìte now, but at the time it was regarded as fact based upon biology.

JamesFlynn wrote: »

I suspect they'd be horrified that women have to give up their rights so men can have their way.

They certainly would, they fought hard enough against ideological nonsense which perpetuated such myths. Good for society as a whole then that’s not happening. Your insinuation is as ridiculous as the same nonsense that was spouted during the marriage equality referendum campaign that it was redefining marriage, that it was taking away rights from any other group (heterosexual people, religious groups, children, etc, basically any shìte they imagined would stick), same deliberately misleading nonsense (and it is deliberate at this point) as has been perpetuated throughout this thread and the many others before it.

Can you give me a single example, just one, of a legal right which women had previously in Irish Law, which has been repealed or removed from Irish Law, as a consequence of the Gender Recognition Act being enacted in 2015?

JamesFlynn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The ideology has existed throughout human history

The ideology that a man should have the right to declare himself legally a woman has not existed through human history.

It has only been enshrined in Irish law for 6 years and the belief that a transwoman literally *is* a woman in every way has only emerged as a minority belief in the last few decades.

The idea would have baffled anyone from before the 1990s.

Society at large is only now becoming aware of the consequences to women for this new ideology.

There's been lot of examples in this thread of the rights women have lost - the right to object to a male-born person in spaces like sports, boxing rings (fallon fox), women's refuges, prisons (barbie kardashian), etc.

This issue is not the same as the marriage ref - I supported that fully, and indeed support fully any and all rights for our trans brothers and sisters that do not conflict with women's rights and safely.

keano_afc

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1374331296143581186?s=20

This a good thread on the logical fallacy of "but sport isnt fair in the first place".

jmayo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s true, I don’t know too many 14 year old girls that would physically stack up to women in their 20’s, and that’s exactly the point. That’s why using an exceptional example of an athlete who could play with men if she wanted, is exactly the point.

I admire Cora hugely, despite what some fellow county people over the last couple of years, but even in her prime she would be at a disadvantage playing against men who are by the very fact they are male physically stronger.

This is precisely why we have men and womens sport for the most part.

Now some people can twist this any which way they want by dragging in the Jonah Lomus, the Michael Phelps, etc but it doesn't change simple facts of biology.
There is a far greater chance of other men being comparable to Lomu or Phelps than a woman being comparable to them or indeed any man.

How anyone can claim a biological born and raised male is physically comparable to most women is beyond me.
Yes there will be the odd woman that might physically come close but it is not very likely.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody has argued that athletes be mismatched. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will beat everyone, not just women, but men too, so using them as examples to suggest that women couldn’t compete with men is just stupid. You’re also ignoring the most obvious point you’re making yourself in that not only are the women’s and men’s competitions played differently in any sport, but traditionally concessions have been made in the women’s games which are completely unnecessary IMO. Women and men are socialised differently outside of sports, they train differently in sports, but elite athletes will always be able to out-compete their competitors. It’s precisely that which separates them from their competitors, not their gender or sex, but a whole combination of factors and having the opportunities which enable them to develop and realise their potential.

What some here and especially in the social media spheres want is effectively the Mike Tysons of this world competing against the Michael Conlons or the Shane Lowrys competing against the Leona Maguires.

Guest who would always win in those scenarios.

They want to disregard biology, just so some can feel all warm and fuzzy.
All at the expense of a huge chunk of women.

What concessions are now in the women's sport bar lets say women's tennis matches are 3 sets as opposed to 5 for men ?
Women's soccer matches are 90 minutes long, same pitch.
Women's GAA football don't have to use toe to pick up ball, but that's about it.
Women's rugby has same rules AFAIK ?

And how do women train differently exactly ?
Are you saying they train less ?

It is you who seems to be living in the past and with a distinctly backward view of women and their sports.

GreeBo

jmayo wrote: »

It is you who seems to be living in the past and with a distinctly backward view of women and their sports.

This.
A hundred times this.

Baggly

Stihl waters wrote: »

They would obviously identify as whatever weight they want to be classed as and hey presto

Mod

Dont post in this thread again.

GreeBo wrote: »

Again you dump paragraph after paragraph of unrelated nonsense.
'Men and women's achievements throughout history" pertains to the conversation how exactly?

If you can't get your point across in under 12 paragraphs, perhaps the problem isn't on my side?

Either way I won't be engaging anymore since it's pointless replying when your replies constantly wander away from the topic at hand.

/edit
As a perfect illustration of your constant deflection, avoidance and down right misrepresentation:


Since day 1 I have restricted the conversation to events that both genders participate in, feel free to actually read my posts to clarify this.
I also havent referred to mens records, I have referred to the records for both genders, giving examples of how the junior boys records would beat every woman on the planet.

Women dont need to participate alongside men for anyone to determine what the outcome would be.
Thats the beauty of relying on facts to prove a point.
A 100M track is 100M long, regardless of the sex of the person running on it. The passage of time (unless you have recently submitted a request to change it?) is also the same for both sexes, and finally that brings us to maths.
The numbers beside the men are smaller than the numbers beside the women, that means that men are faster than women.
I'm sure at this juncture you will bring up some obscure point about the Byzantine Empires attitude to women growing tomatoes, but it still wont change the facts above. In any case, thankfully I wont have to waste time on it anymore.

Mod

Let me do you a favour here; if you are going to claim to not engage with someone; do it. If you continue to bicker with other posters in this thread, you will lose your posting privileges.

One eyed Jack

JamesFlynn wrote: »

The ideology that a man should have the right to declare himself legally a woman has not existed through human history.

It has only been enshrined in Irish law for 6 years and the belief that a transwoman literally *is* a woman in every way has only emerged as a minority belief in the last few decades.

The idea would have baffled anyone from before the 1990s.

It really has, documented in numerous historical texts. Granted not as specific as the examples you gave (public toilets haven’t been around that long), but the idea of transgenderism and transformation and all the rest of it is not the unfamiliar concept you’re making it out to be.

It’s true that it has only been enshrined in Irish law for the last six years but Lydia Foy who had completed their medical and surgical transition back in ‘92, started their battle for legal recognition in ‘97 by arguing they were born a congenitally disabled woman (a novel argument it was at the time granted), with the Judge rejecting the argument because according to scientific and medical evidence Foy had been born male and therefore the registration could not be changed.

We’re all surely familiar with that famous scene from The Life of Brian? The film was released in 1979, banned in Ireland, but it was widely available to anyone who knew of it’s existence. It was satire of course, but it wasn’t poking fun at people who are transgender, it was poking fun at religion, and doing it in an intelligent way, as opposed to the utter dullards nowadays thinking that stating the obvious makes them look intellectual. There was plenty of that around too in the ‘90s. To suggest it would have baffled anyone in the ‘90s just wouldn’t be true, there was plenty of what was called at the time “gender bending” going on.

JamesFlynn wrote: »

Society at large is only now becoming aware of the consequences to women for this new ideology.

There's been lot of examples in this thread of the rights women have lost - the right to object to a male-born person in spaces like sports, boxing rings (fallon fox), women's refuges, prisons (barbie kardashian), etc.

This issue is not the same as the marriage ref - I supported that fully, and indeed support fully any and all rights for our trans brothers and sisters that do not conflict with women's rights and safely.

Those are not examples of legal rights that women had which were now removed from them as a consequence of the Gender Recognition Act. Nobody, man or woman, has lost the right to object to anything, they still have the right to object to anyone being in “their spaces”, but they never had the right to determine at an individual level who was or wasn’t permitted in a shared space open to the public in the first place. Essentially - nobody had an automatic right to enter any space in the first place, and nobody has the right to interfere with another person’s privacy, and nobody has the right to deny anyone else the right to compete in competitions if the governing body has determined that they are eligible to compete. That’s not changed. What’s changed is that people are coming up with rights they think they had before, that they never had, and looking for those rights now, in order to deny people who are transgender equal status in society.

Don’t get me wrong though, I do get where you’re coming from with regard to women’s rights and safety and so on, it’s an easy appeal to the feels because who doesn’t care about the welfare of women and children? Everyone does, but I agree with Posie Parker on one thing at least - feminism, as a political philosophy has done women no favours. It’s been beneficial for a small number of women, that’s about it. The broader context of Identity Politics itself, does no favours for the people it claims to benefit, rather it’s useful to a small number of people. Nowhere was this more evident than in that Harvard Medical webinar which was released recently on social media about “maternity justice for birthing people”, where they showed graphics and stats which showed that black pregnant women had five times higher mortality rates than white pregnant women. The discrepancy in outcomes and the reasons for it, were patently obvious to anyone who hadn’t even a bulls notion of how to interpret statistical evidence.

The fact is that affording any group in society rights which protect their equal status and protect them from unlawful discrimination does not take any rights away from anyone else, and doesn’t conflict directly with any other groups rights. It’d be like arguing that recognising people’s right to freedom from religion is in conflict with people’s right to freedom of religion. The most common argument put forward in the US for example against recognising the rights of people who are transgender comes from a small number of people who try to claim that recognition of equal rights of people who are transgender is in direct conflict with their religious freedom.

In Europe the religious argument against recognising the equal rights of people who are transgender just doesn’t fly, they rely on bastardising science instead in order to support their beliefs, or claim that their right to freedom of speech is being eroded, or women’s rights are being eroded, or children’s rights are being eroded, etc, all manner of nonsense is perpetuated with the intent of disguising their contempt for people who are transgender with a veil of intellectual legitimacy. The issue for these individuals is that people aren’t as stupid as they need people to be in order for what they call their “gender critical” ideology to gain any traction in Irish society.

The same people who claim to care so much about women are generally the same people who show up to play the victim when it comes to claiming that men are being oppressed when there is so much as a sniff of any initiatives to promote women’s equal participation in society. Nowhere was this more evident than leading up to the referendum to repeal the 8th amendment, there were numbnuts making the argument that in order for there to be “gender equality”, men should have access to “paper abortions”. Never mind the critical difference between the two concepts was the fact that children are recognised in law as being entitled to rights, and the Courts are where these conflicts between the rights of the various parties are decided. They’re not decided in legislation, but rather the rights which are considered relevant in every case are decided if necessary by the Courts, not by individuals.

In short, there is no immediate conflict between people with respect to their rights as determined in law. Conflicts in rights (which are not absolute) are determined by the Courts and adjudicated upon by the Courts. Grifters raising hypothetical scenarios and perpetuating fearmongering in society of other groups are doing so with the sole and specific objective of generating income for themselves or drawing people to support their ideological cause.

JamesFlynn

Thanks for the considered response, Jack. I'll have a more detailed read through anon but wanted to focus on our first point regarding whether "The ideology that a man should have the right to declare himself legally a woman has not existed through human history".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It really has, documented in numerous historical texts. Granted not as specific as the examples you gave (public toilets haven’t been around that long), but the idea of transgenderism and transformation and all the rest of it is not the unfamiliar concept you’re making it out to be.

I didn't claim that transgenderism hasn't existed through history, rather the belief that a man should have the right to declare himself legally a woman has not existed.

To my knowledge, the ideology that "transwomen are women" along with the accompanying legal penalties for single-sex-spaces, deadnaming, etc is novel, emerging in western societies the last 25 years or so.

But I might be wrong here - can you point to societies in history which granted men this legal right?

I don't think it's helpful to consider those who disagree with your point of view with such disdain - you use words like "Grifter", "Fearmongers", "Numbnuts", "Utter dullards".

It's possible to have valid concerns about the impact on society and women's safety of this topic and not have ill-will towards transgender people. Indeed there are transgender people who don't believe that "transwomen are women" or that the current legal framework is the best balance.

Gatling

Why not just create trans sports leagues ,that cover the usuals soccer , basketball ,gaa , athletics , swimming ,rugby and so on ,
No advantage or disadvantage or safely concerns ,just taking part in sports with other trans people,
Trans in women's sports , might as well abolish women's sports all together along with men's sports and make them all compete against each other for football , rugby and so on , might end seeing no women actually reaching any pinicle in Olympics , soccer , basketball, rugby , athletics

It would end any real arguments

Quantum Erasure

I've said it before, trans athletes should compete in the Paralympics, they have categories for different abilities, starting at zero for most profoundly affected up to 6 or 8 for only mild impairment, they could very easily extend that up to 10 or 11 for differently abled (in a positive sense) trans people...

_Godot_

Being trans isn't a disability.

Ted_YNWA

Stihl waters wrote: »

They would obviously identify as whatever weight they want to be classed as and hey presto

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I've said it before, trans athletes should compete in the Paralympics, they have categories for different abilities, starting at zero for most profoundly affected up to 6 or 8 for only mild impairment, they could very easily extend that up to 10 or 11 for differently abled (in a positive sense) trans people...

MOD

Choose your next post carefully,. These are both reading as done to troll the thread.

One eyed Jack

JamesFlynn wrote: »

Thanks for the considered response, Jack. I'll have a more detailed read through anon but wanted to focus on our first point regarding whether "The ideology that a man should have the right to declare himself legally a woman has not existed through human history".

I didn't claim that transgenderism hasn't existed through history, rather the belief that a man should have the right to declare himself legally a woman has not existed.

You’re quite right James, I assumed the ideology you were referring to was transgenderism. It’s quite clear you’re not referring to transgenderism, but to freedom of expression, and yes, I’m absolutely certain the legal right of any man to declare himself a woman has existed in law since the early 6th century BC according to ye olde Wiki.

JamesFlynn wrote: »

To my knowledge, the ideology that "transwomen are women" along with the accompanying legal penalties for single-sex-spaces, deadnaming, etc is novel, emerging in western societies the last 25 years or so.

But I might be wrong here - can you point to societies in history which granted men this legal right?

Legal penalties for single-sex spaces? What’s that about now? I have to ask because I assumed you understand what I was referring to earlier and by God I got it wrong again. I’m damned if I’m going to misunderstand you a third time.

As for the legal right you speak of, see previous paragraph referring to the right to freedom of expression which recognises the legal right of every man to declare themselves a woman.

JamesFlynn wrote: »

I don't think it's helpful to consider those who disagree with your point of view with such disdain - you use words like "Grifter", "Fearmongers", "Numbnuts", "Utter dullards".

Helpful to whom James? People whose tin-foil hats fit more snugly than a condom? Stupidity is not a protected characteristic in Irish Law, and that’s not to say that people who disagree with my point of view are stupid. People who disagree with my point of view are generally a pain in my hole, but that’s my problem, not theirs. Paranoid people expect that everyone else should have their liberties, freedoms and rights curtailed in order to conform to that person’s world view.

For example I doubt you would think it reasonable or rational if you were told that because of your male body and your male violence and your penis, your curfew is 6pm. You should remain inside your home while the ladies in your life are escorted on their girls night out by Fabio (who needs an unsafe taxi when Fabio can carry a girl on each bicep?). You’re told that these measures are necessary to protect and maintain the safety of the women in your life from men like you.

Or do you want to have a rational and reasonable conversation about people’s equal status in society then? I bloody bet you would

JamesFlynn wrote: »

It's possible to have valid concerns about the impact on society and women's safety of this topic and not have ill-will towards transgender people.

I’m not sure it is James. Nobody has been able to express any concerns that should be considered valid so far anyway. I think the ill-will comes from the fact that they know they’re being disingenuous and nobody takes them seriously.

JamesFlynn wrote: »

Indeed there are transgender people who don't believe that "transwomen are women" or that the current legal framework is the best balance.

I’m not sure what the point of them being transgender has to do with their argument tbh? You talk about what you think is and isn’t helpful and women’s safety and all the rest of it, but it looks like you’re just putting more stock in the opinions of people who share your opinions, and being disingenuous with those people who don’t share your opinions.

JamesFlynn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

.... It’s quite clear you’re not referring to transgenderism, but to freedom of expression, and yes, I’m absolutely certain the legal right of any man to declare himself a woman has existed in law since the early 6th century BC according to ye olde Wiki.

No, it's different to Freedom of Speech. Barbie Kardashian has always had the right to claim they are a woman, but only since the new laws in Ireland have they had the right to be moved to a women's prison.

Activists like Jessica Yaniv have always had freedom of speech, but only since the new laws were introduced in their country have been able to take the court actions they do.

The ideology that "a man should have the right to declare himself legally a woman" and have the courts back up their statement, with consequential punishment for those who do not comply with his (now her) rights, is new.

GreeBo

JamesFlynn wrote: »

No, it's different to Freedom of Speech.

The ideology that "a man should have the right to declare himself legally a woman" and have the courts back up their statement, with consequential punishment for those who do not comply with his (now her) rights, is new.

Strangely the word "legally" that you rightly used in your post was dropped from the subsequent rebuttal.

One eyed Jack

JamesFlynn wrote: »

No, it's different to Freedom of Speech. Barbie Kardashian has always had the right to claim they are a woman, but only since the new laws in Ireland have they had the right to be moved to a women's prison.

Activists like Jessica Yaniv have always had freedom of speech, but only since the new laws were introduced in their country have been able to take the court actions they do.

The ideology that "a man should have the right to declare himself legally a woman" and have the courts back up their statement, with consequential punishment for those who do not comply with his (now her) rights, is new.

But they or anyone else for that matter don’t have any automatic right to be moved to a women’s prison? Prisoners are housed according to a number of criteria, least of all where they want to be housed. It’s still a prison, not a daycare centre. I’m always interested though in situations where you’re so concerned about women’s welfare, why do you accept women being locked up at all? You must know what the conditions are like, but yet you only care when you hear about the idea of a man being locked up with them? That’s not caring for women’s welfare or safety, that’s only caring because you want to break people’s balls. Why should anyone take that seriously? It’s obvious what you’re at.

I couldn’t give a fcuk about Jessica Yanniv, and really neither do you. They’re in a completely different country in a completely different jurisdiction, completely irrelevant to Irish society as a whole. At least be honest if you want people to be respectful and be helpful and all the rest of it, because I don’t see any reason to be respectful or helpful towards someone who’s trying to treat other people like they’re idiots.

I think you mean having the State recognise people’s right to their gender identity. Yes, that is new, and it has fcukall to do with any of the other nonsense you bring up. They could have housed men in women’s prisons at any time, or vice versa, or mixed, and men never needed a gender recognition certificate to be admitted to women’s spaces. I love that euphemism as if it means women’s freedom. It’s actually the opposite if you’ve ever been to some of these domestic violence shelters and “homeless hubs”. There should be no such thing as a “homeless hub” if you genuinely cared about women’s rights and welfare and safety as much as you claim to, rather than just when it’s convenient for your purposes to break someone else’s balls.

There are consequences for violating laws, what makes you imagine you should be held to any different standard than the people you wish to deprive of their rights?

GreeBo wrote: »

Strangely the word "legally" that you rightly used in your post was dropped from the subsequent rebuttal.

No such thing as a right without it having legal effect? The word wasn’t dropped at all, it was merely acknowledged that people do have a legal right to declare themselves however they like. I don’t like pedantry or being pedantic with anyone, and I assume posters here are posting in good faith, but when posters get nit picky and are arguing in bad faith, it just makes any sort of authentic discussion that much more difficult.

JamesFlynn

You make incorrect assumptions about what I think and my motivations, Jack. But fair enough, you're very entitled to them .

I genuinely assume good faith from you. I don't think those that disagree with me are uncaring, dishonest, idiots, talking nonsense, not genuine or "breaking someone else's balls" - all words you've used above (why the vitriol? we probably agree on a lot of things!)

To the best of my knowledge there were no male-born people in female Irish Prisons before the new law in 2015. Today there are.

That's something new and worthy of debate - on the island next door the debate also continues. We should be able to discuss this topic without thinking those who disagree with us are evil.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison

Mic 1972

Has anyone seen the new ad for Pantene Shampoo?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFSVbBW5Cg4

A lesbian couple turned their boy into a girl, dressing him up in girls clothes and referring to him as a she. It's not clear how old the boy is, but he doesn't look old enough to know what he's doing.
I give my full support to gay/lesbian parents, but this type of stuff is only going to make people more uneasy with the idea of children being raised by LGBT couples

km991148

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Has anyone seen the new ad for Pantene Shampoo?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFSVbBW5Cg4

A lesbian couple turned their boy into a girl, dressing him up in girls clothes and referring to him as a she. It's not clear how old the boy is, but he doesn't look old enough to know what he's doing.
I give my full support to gay/lesbian parents, but this type of stuff is only going to make people more uneasy with the idea of children being raised by LGBT couples

woah - are we actually going for the "Gay couples are gonna turn your kids gay" argument?

I mean I could see lots of things the non trans side might pick at (even the pro trans), but the 1980s called and want their arguments back..

Also the underlined part is a contradiction.

suicide_circus

Procter & Gamble do love a woke marketing campaign

jam_mac_jam

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Has anyone seen the new ad for Pantene Shampoo?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFSVbBW5Cg4

A lesbian couple turned their boy into a girl, dressing him up in girls clothes and referring to him as a she. It's not clear how old the boy is, but he doesn't look old enough to know what he's doing.
I give my full support to gay/lesbian parents, but this type of stuff is only going to make people more uneasy with the idea of children being raised by LGBT couples

That's not fair. You don't know the child's background and have no idea if they turned him into a girl. It could be a case that the child is suffering.

Would you make the same assumptions if the parents were straight? As many parents of these children are.