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

km991148

Mystery Egg wrote: »

Perhaps isha is highlighting the consequences of self ID and compelled pronoun use.

Doesn't seem strange to me at all.

Perhaps, but it wasn't very clear. I didn't even know if we were taking about an Irish case untill 5 minutes ago.

km991148

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh. So the jury and everyone involved knows. But must frame it otherwise.

.

Yeah? Like of the jury weren't able to differentiate between the past and the present, then they wouldn't be fit for selection.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you were raped by a man how would you like to have to screw your head up by having to say publicly that you were raped by a woman?

Again, no one is rewriting history. It's perfectly possible to refer to someone on the present as female and still understand that they were presenting as male at the time of the attack.

For all sorts of reasons, the attackers name just doesn't seem to be the pertinent fact in this case.

Mystery Egg

Mystery Egg wrote: »

Perhaps isha is highlighting the consequences of self ID and compelled pronoun use.

Doesn't seem strange to me at all.

These unintended consequences are the story of human life. People will say things are rare - but literally everything under the sun happens. I saw a young teenage girl yesterday on a TikTok video explaining how she felt when she had found her father's google search history which was laden with father/daughter sex and rape searches. How that must absolutely screw with her head!

What can happen will happen, and we have to have clear moral and legal responses to all possibilities. To simply and casually say what difference does it make if you were raped by a man or a woman is utterly ridiculous - it makes a huge difference to the victim. It makes a difference to the people who hear of the story. It makes a difference to the fabric of reality.

I just simply cannot get my head to function in the bizarrely relativistic way that seems to be the modern demand. It is inhumanly cavalier.

Probes

GreeBo wrote: »

Its the fact that this case illustrates the absurdity of the situation where a boy is forced to refer to his rapist as a woman despite them raping him as a man. Many feel that this same absurdity exists in all cases of transgenderism.

Hmm, if the absurdities of transgenderism exist in all cases then I can understand why someone would want to associate transgender people with rape, and it's not because they care about the rape victim.

Some posts here are steering dangerously close to the old "gay people are child abusers" trope in my opinion.

km991148

I think turning such a serious and horrific case involving threat of life of a child and rape into some protracted name debate is more than insensitive. It's beyond cavalier.

km991148

[Deleted User] wrote: »

To think we have gotten to the point where the progressive viewpoint now is to say to rape victims that it* really does not matter if your rapist was male or female*,

You know that these are only your words tho?

Past Vs present etc

Probes

Probes wrote: »

Hmm, if the absurdities of transgenderism exist in all cases then I can understand why someone would want to associate transgender people with rape, and it's not because they care about the rape victim.

Some posts here are steering dangerously close to the old "gay people are child abusers" trope in my opinion.

No. This is utterly false to make that accusation. I am absolutely not trying to associate transgender people with rape - I refute that completely. It is a cheap trick on your behalf to attempt to smear me and the argument which holds up on its own.
It is a real case, it poses real questions, it is happening with ever increasing frequency in the UK that sex crimes are being recorded and publicised as having been committed by women when they are not.
I know women commit sex crimes, that is not the argument. The argument is these are not crimes by women, it is not the experience of the victim that they are attacked or abused by a woman - this very recent Irish case proves that point exactly. That child was abused by a man and it is memory holing his reality to present it as anything different. It is subversive.

GreeBo

Probes wrote: »

Hmm, if the absurdities of transgenderism exist in all cases then I can understand why someone would want to associate transgender people with rape, and it's not because they care about the rape victim.

The first part of your sentence has no logical connection with the second half.
To many its absurd to refer to a bearded individual with a penis as a woman, this has nothing to do with rape or otherwise.

Probes wrote: »

Some posts here are steering dangerously close to the old "gay people are child abusers" trope in my opinion.

Only in your head I'm afraid.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

You know that these are only your words tho?

Past Vs present etc

You will have to actually read the posts you thank - ''I'm keen to understand how someone's gender matters in this case? Is a rape somehow more or less severe if it was committed by either a man or a woman?'' - Probes.

km991148

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You will have to actually read the posts you thank - ''I'm keen to understand how someone's gender matters in this case? Is a rape somehow more or less severe if it was committed by either a man or a woman?'' - Probes.

Yep, I stand by my post. Read the other posters and your own again. It was quite clear.

Probes

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No. This is utterly false to make that accusation. I am absolutely not trying to associate transgender people with rape - I refute that completely. It is a cheap trick on your behalf to attempt to smear me and the argument which holds up on its own.
It is a real case, it poses real questions, it is happening with ever increasing frequency in the UK that sex crimes are being recorded and publicised as having been committed by women when they are not.
I know women commit sex crimes, that is not the argument. The argument is these are not crimes by women, it is not the experience of the victim that they are attacked or abused by a woman - this very recent Irish case proves that point exactly. That child was abused by a man and it is memory holing his reality to present it as anything different. It is subversive.

Can you show how this example edge case is now becoming more and more prevalent? I sympathise with any victim of abuse of course, however it doesn't sit comfortably with me to imply that someone is changing gender simply to memory hole a victim's reality. To be honest I think many children now are far more accepting of gender fluidity now anyway.

suicide_circus

Probes wrote: »

I'm keen to understand how someone's gender matters in this case? Is a rape somehow more or less severe if it was committed by either a man or a woman? Are you suggesting women who abuse children get less severe sentences?

It's a power play to force a rape victim to participate in her rapist's legal fiction of an identity. Very "say my name, bitch".

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

It's a power play to force a rape victim to participate in her rapist's legal fiction of an identity. Very "say my name, bitch".

That is not even an aspect I had thought of - I was more thinking of the head wreck for a child to have to tell their story as if they were abused by a woman, to be politically correct. But what you say is also a factor - there is a play on power going on here. Forcing someone to say something that goes against their reality. Upon researching it I find the concept of ''power play'' has been suggested before - it was not one I was aware of, but it makes sense to me.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/warning-over-transgender-guidance-to-judges/5103196.article

Guidance for judges on transgender issues has come under fire from solicitors in the wake of controversial court rulings. Feminist lawyers say the guidance, in the Equal Treatment Bench Book, fails to highlight conflicts between transgender and women’s rights.

The Bench Book advises that transgender defendants should be addressed by the pronouns of their choice and that ‘self-definition is the most important criteria’ (sic). At least one victim of violence by a transgender woman has been reprimanded in court for using male pronouns while describing the attack. Finding the defendant guilty, the judge refused the victim compensation, saying that when asked to refer to the defendant as ‘she’, the victim had done so with ‘bad grace’ or continued to use ‘he’.

Solicitor Harriet Wistrich, head of the Centre for Women’s Justice, has raised concerns about pronoun use in cases involving violence against women. ‘Here there is a conflict between the right of self-definition and the right of a victim, who may have been violated in the most horrendous way, to describe her material reality as she perceives it,’ she said. ‘Why is the victim’s right less important?’


The Bench Book also endorses the terms ‘cisgender’ or ‘cis’ as ‘often used to describe people whose gender identity corresponds to the sex assigned to them at birth’. The book does not mention that some women find the term ‘cis’ offensive. The Gazette understands that the term was also introduced to judges at a training session last year without any kind of warning as to its use.

Criminal defence barrister Allison Bailey of the LGB Alliance, which campaigns for the rights of same-sex attracted people, told the Gazette: ‘Judges have been led to believe that women do not mind being described as cisgender when it is regarded by many, myself included, as highly offensive. I do not have a gender and object to being redefined by men who wish to live as women. It is the most offensive power play.’

Probes

Probes wrote: »

Can you show how this example edge case is now becoming more and more prevalent? I sympathise with any victim of abuse of course, however it doesn't sit comfortably with me to imply that someone is changing gender simply to memory hole a victim's reality. To be honest I think many children now are far more accepting of gender fluidity now anyway.

Nearly half of transpeople in prisons in the UK are sex offenders, the vast majority of whom have transitioned while in prison after committing the sexual offences as men.

Unless you believe it's the case that trans people are more likely to be sex offenders or vice versa (I don't), then one logical conclusion is that predatory, sex-offending men are legally transitioning in order to access women's prisons. That may be because they think they will have an easier time in a women's prison or it may be because they plan to abuse the vulnerable women inside those prisons.

Whatever the reason, and however uncomfortable it may be to talk about in the current moment, talk about it we must. Because I'm sure nobody wants to live in the sort of society that would throw vulnerable women under the bus for fear of committing blasphemy. Again.

Probes

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nearly half of transpeople in prisons in the UK are sex offenders, the vast majority of whom have transitioned while in prison after committing the sexual offences as men.

Unless you believe it's the case that trans people are more likely to be sex offenders or vice versa (I don't), then one logical conclusion is that predatory, sex-offending men are legally transitioning in order to access women's prisons. That may be because they think they will have an easier time in a women's prison or it may be because they plan to abuse the vulnerable women inside those prisons.

Whatever the reason, and however uncomfortable it may be to talk about in the current moment, talk about it we must. Because I'm sure nobody wants to live in the sort of society that would throw vulnerable women under the bus for fear of committing blasphemy. Again.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42221629

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Nearly half of transpeople in prisons in the UK are sex offenders, the vast majority of whom have transitioned while in prison after committing the sexual offences as men.

Unless you believe it's the case that trans people are more likely to be sex offenders or vice versa (I don't), then one logical conclusion is that predatory, sex-offending men are legally transitioning in order to access women's prisons. That may be because they think they will have an easier time in a women's prison or it may be because they plan to abuse the vulnerable women inside those prisons.

Whatever the reason, and however uncomfortable it may be to talk about in the current moment, talk about it we must. Because I'm sure nobody wants to live in the sort of society that would throw vulnerable women under the bus for fear of committing blasphemy. Again.

Just to add - regardless of gender identity any people of any sex or gender identity commit crime according to the patterns of their natal sex. That has been researched.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

Probes

Probes wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42221629

Amidst the obfuscatory waffle in the article:

It said that 60 of the 125 transgender inmates it counted in England and Wales were serving time for a sexual offence.

The only opposing voices are a trans campaigner who "warns against reading too much into the available figures" and a manager from Scottish Trans Alliance. Neither of whom offer any refutation of the fact that in excess of 40% of trans-identifying people in prisons, in the largest government survey done to date that would identify them, are sex offenders.

Even if we suppose that there are a lot more trans people in prison than identified by the survey because they were already in possession of a gender recognition certificate prior to entering prison, and that in those inmates the proportion of sex offenders matches the wider prison population, it really doesn't change the fact that of the male inmates newly identifying as transwomen during while serving their sentence, a disproportionately high percentage are sex offenders.

If anything, it would be even more evidence that sex offending men in prison are using trans identification as a cover so that they can attempt to access women's spaces.

And, with respect, the outright dismissal of any concern about that is pretty disturbing. You would think that trans people and trans allies would be the first to want such a trend at least investigated—especially since it seems that trans inmates (in the UK) may end up being housed together, separate to the general population.

Which would probably be a good thing, since just last month in the UK a male who raped a five year old and a male who had child porn and searches for "child murder" on their phone, both of whom have since decided that they are women, were both spared prison over "safety concerns". There is nothing "fair" about that.

km991148

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just to add - regardless of gender identity any people of any sex or gender identity commit crime according to the patterns of their natal sex. That has been researched.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

Interesting submission. It goes beyond the usual posting of the Swedish study (which the article you link to also references). I'm not sure what that article (yours) is tho? Was that a recent submission to parliament?

It seems to lack the credibility of a peer reviewed paper (which I'm sure you acknowledge is an important thing when discussing research).

km991148

Deleted User wrote: »

Amidst the obfuscatory waffle in the article:



The only opposing voices are a trans campaigner who "warns against reading too much into the available figures" and a manager from Scottish Trans Alliance. Neither of whom offer any refutation of the fact that in excess of 40% of trans-identifying people in prisons, in the largest government survey done to date that would identify them, are sex offenders.

Even if we suppose that there are a lot more trans people in prison than identified by the survey because they were already in possession of a gender recognition certificate prior to entering prison, and that in those inmates the proportion of sex offenders matches the wider prison population, it really doesn't change the fact that of the male inmates newly identifying as transwomen during while serving their sentence, a disproportionately high percentage are sex offenders.

If anything, it would be even more evidence that sex offending men in prison are using trans identification as a cover so that they can attempt to access women's spaces.

And, with respect, the outright dismissal of any concern about that is pretty disturbing. You would think that trans people and trans allies would be the first to want such a trend at least investigated—especially since it seems that trans inmates (in the UK) may end up being housed together, separate to the general population.

Which would probably be a good thing, since just last month in the UK a male who raped a five year old and a male who had child porn and searches for "child murder" on their phone, both of whom have since decided that they are women, were both spared prison over "safety concerns". There is nothing "fair" about that.

The take home from that article is simply the evidence required to fully substantiate the claims is incomplete.

For someone so caring, can I also then conclude that based on this statement:
"And, with respect, the outright dismissal of any concern about that is pretty disturbing"
The outright dismissal of any concern about the safety of trans prisoners is also disturbing?

Before I get dragged into the "lack of concern" angle - I have already stated that if the system is being abused then the abuses should be clamped down upon.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

Interesting submission. It goes beyond the usual posting of the Swedish study (which the article you link to also references). I'm not sure what that article (yours) is tho? Was that a recent submission to parliament?

.

At the top of the document is written

Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock and Professor Alice Sullivan [GRA2021]
Evidence and Data on Trans Women’s Offending Rates
Submitted by Professor Rosa Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock, and Professor Alice Sullivan. This evidence is submitted to the WEC as requested of Professor Rosa Freedman by Nicola Richards MP during the 9th December Oral Evidence Session.

GRA 2021 refers to the public inquiry committee in the UK re reform of the Gender Recognition Act.

suicide_circus

km991148 wrote: »

Before I get dragged into the "lack of concern" angle - I have already stated that if the system is being abused then the abuses should be clamped down upon.

Not sure how you'd do that. Self ID in Ireland at least requires no oversight (or to use the sinister nomenclature, "gatekeeping"), no diagnosis of dysphoria, no interview, no safeguarding, no questions asked, sign the form, hey presto - you're a woman.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

The take home from that article is simply the evidence required to fully substantiate the claims is incomplete.

For someone so caring, can I also then conclude that based on this statement:
"And, with respect, the outright dismissal of any concern about that is pretty disturbing"
The outright dismissal of any concern about the safety of trans prisoners is also disturbing?

Before I get dragged into the "lack of concern" angle - I have already stated that if the system is being abused then the abuses should be clamped down upon.

Personally I am going to put concern for the VICTIMS of crime way, way higher on my list than my concern for the perpetrators of crime.
I dunno - it's just one of those wild crazy things I do.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

The outright dismissal of any concern about the safety of trans prisoners is also disturbing?

Well it depends. I think the safety of anyone in prison should be a concern, particularly since many of the people in prisons are vulnerable, or have insufficiently addressed mental health issues and so on. The loss of freedom and privileges is punishment enough and any additional deprivation or harm caused by the conditions or policies of the prison system should be addressed.

But if the level of concern results in male people who have raped five year old girls walking free, then I think we have to think long and hard about where we are. Because I do not personally think that a man who would rape a five year old would have any compunction at all about calling himself a woman to get out of prison.

In fact, I don't think many people, faced with a prison sentence, would have a hard time "transitioning" if they knew it would keep them free. Particularly if all they need to in order to be legally considered trans is sign a piece of paper.

I think a situation where, because of their stated trans identity, a child rapist is being punished by restriction of their internet access—a punishment I got as a teenager for failing to keep my room in order—is untenable. And a solution to that issue will not be arrived at by people tip-toeing around it because they fear internet outrage mobs.

km991148

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Personally I am going to put concern for the VICTIMS of crime way, way higher on my list than my concern for the perpetrators of crime.
I dunno - it's just one of those wild crazy things I do.

Correct attitude. The trans people in question tend to be the victims. I'm not talking about the abusers who identify as trans, doesn't matter if you write it in capitals or not.

Crazy I know, that different people are different and the behaviour of one isn't necessarily representative of the whole.

Necro

Mod:

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

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

km991148

[Deleted User] wrote: »

At the top of the document is written



GRA 2021 refers to the public inquiry committee in the UK re reform of the Gender Recognition Act.

It's still non scientific opinion (and not research, as you presented it as).

km991148

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well it depends. I think the safety of anyone in prison should be a concern, particularly since many of the people in prisons are vulnerable, or have insufficiently addressed mental health issues and so on. The loss of freedom and privileges is punishment enough and any additional deprivation or harm caused by the conditions or policies of the prison system should be addressed.

But if the level of concern results in male people who have raped five year old girls walking free, then I think we have to think long and hard about where we are. Because I do not personally think that a man who would rape a five year old would have any compunction at all about calling himself a woman to get out of prison.

In fact, I don't think many people, faced with a prison sentence, would have a hard time "transitioning" if they knew it would keep them free. Particularly if all they need to in order to be legally considered trans is sign a piece of paper.

I think a situation where, because of their stated trans identity, a child rapist is being punished by restriction of their internet access—a punishment I got as a teenager for failing to keep my room in order—is untenable. And a solution to that issue will not be arrived at by people tip-toeing around it because they fear internet outrage mobs.

Yeah that's all fine* (although I disagree with the tiptoeing for the sake of internet outrage mobs, I don't think public policy is decided on that basis. Maybe influence by manifestos and who people vote for, but that's about it).

I'm just finding the usual faux concern angle a bit jarring. Some of the most vulnerable people on our society (including prisoners) are trans identified and are far more likely to be victims of attack than perpetrators. But that's often conveniently ignored while we dig out all sorts of extreme examples.

For me: both/all of these scenarios (where people are abused) should be taken seriously and it's not 'one Vs the other', certainly not on the basis of gender alone.




*Fine as in concern about abuse of the system and people behaving fraudulently, obviously not the actual abuse. I can't believe I have to point this out but some people do love to misquote and misinterpret statements.

km991148

suicide_circus wrote: »

Not sure how you'd do that. Self ID in Ireland at least requires no oversight (or to use the sinister nomenclature, "gatekeeping"), no diagnosis of dysphoria, no interview, no safeguarding, no questions asked, sign the form, hey presto - you're a woman.

Yeah, it's a tough one alright. I'm not sure either.

I'm also not sure I'd want to (further) punish the vast majority of people who would avail of self ID on account of a tiny minority of abusers. Especially when for most people there is no 'hey presto' about it (and it would be quite naive to assume so).

I don't know why you refer to gatekeeping as 'sinister' tho? It is what it is, it's not the adjective that naturally springs to mind? Adding the word sinister is quite sinister in itself!

suicide_circus

It's sinister to me in that the people who want no gatekeeping around self id tend to be very keen on gatekeeping in other areas.

km991148

suicide_circus wrote: »

It's sinister to me in that the people who want no gatekeeping around self id tend to be very keen on gatekeeping in other areas.

How so?