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

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

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

The problem with research when it comes to hot-button topics is that proposals are often rejected by universities for fear of social media mobbing, or already-conducted studies are removed from university websites for fear of same, or conferences are shut down by activists.

So important as peer-reviewed studies are, the wider context of the availability of research and the reasons for any potential gaps are important to understand if one is genuinely seeking to obtain a greater understanding.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

the usual faux concern angle

You are constantly throwing out these kind of lines. I hope readers can see them for what they are.

km991148

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The problem with research when it comes to hot-button topics is that proposals are often rejected by universities for fear of social media mobbing, or already-conducted studies are removed from university websites for fear of same, or conferences are shut down by activists.

So important as peer-reviewed studies are, the wider context of the availability of research and the reasons for any potential gaps are important to understand if one is genuinely seeking to obtain a greater understanding.

Ah come on, I'm not buying that as a trend. We are saying we can't trust science now because universities are worried about social media..?

But because someone works in a remotely scientific field we have to trust them when they speak in parliament?

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

I'm just finding the usual faux concern angle a bit jarring.

That's a rather vile accusation to slip in there.

Evidence that my stated concern is "faux"?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a rather vile accusation to slip in there.

Evidence that my stated concern is "faux"?

It is a regular line - the ehrmagawd accusation, I like to call it

It is rather vile.

km991148

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You are constantly throwing out these kind of lines. I hope readers can see them for what they are.

Yes you introduced a story of extreme violence and abuse and you biggest concern seemed to be what name we referred to the perpetrator.

I'm not constantly throwing out any such lines. As you are a fairly new user, we've barely spoken but in this instance, yeah I'm having trouble believing there is genuine concern for safety or wellbeing if the victim.

I'm not really interested in what readers see them for either (and I'm not even sure what you mean, I've been pretty direct).

km991148

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's a rather vile accusation to slip in there.

Evidence that my stated concern is "faux"?

Wasn't directed at you at all. You had quoted my post, which was in reply to the other poster.

I'm trying to understand this from other angles. Others seem keen on subterfuge and false equivalence.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

Wasn't directed at you at all. You had quoted my post, which was in reply to the other poster.

I'm trying to understand this from other angles. Others seem keen on subterfuge and false equivalence.

Cymro's concern is not faux, full of subterfuge or false equivalence in your judgement? And for expressing the exact same opinion, my concern is faux, full of subterfuge and false equivalence.
Is it my hair style?

:pac:

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

Ah come on, I'm not buying that as a trend. We are saying we can't trust science now because universities are worried about social media..?

No. I really am quite careful, usually, to be precise in my speech, and where I err, I clarify. I would appreciate it if you would address what I say rather than what it is you imagine I might mean.

I didn't say that we can't "trust science" (though any trust should be placed in the method rather than the ever-shifting set of hypotheses and conclusions, but I digress). I provided examples of where science has been hindered by activism and stated that it's something that people wanting to get a full understanding should take account of.

You may disagree with that, and believe that it is perfectly fine for studies to be shut down by activists or conclusions taken down for reasons of political correctness or institutional reputation preservation. You may even believe that studies being memory-holed and shut down is a-okay and has no discernible effect on the body of literature at large. But it's disingenuous to make things up out of whole cloth and attribute them to me.

km991148 wrote: »

But because someone works in a remotely scientific field we have to trust them when they speak in parliament?

I didn't actually address this, but since you mention it—yes. It is generally considered good practice to have a range of experts in a given field, or in fields related to the matter at hand, often of varying opinion, contribute to government consultations. It's up to the individual and to the department performing the consultation how much or how little credence they give a particular expert, but I don't think it's controversial to suggest that expertise is a thing and that we generally value it, particularly when it comes to tricky or complex subjects with wide-ranging ramifications.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

Wasn't directed at you at all. You had quoted my post, which was in reply to the other poster.

Gotcha. Thanks for qualifying. [Edit: Uh. Clarifying :cool:]

FWIW it might just be a difference in priority. If you personally prioritise the safety and wellbeing of trans people a bit higher than the safety and wellbeing of victims of trans-identifying abusers and someone else prioritises the safety and wellbeing of the victims of trans-identifying abusers above the safety and wellbeing of trans people, you'll both appear to each other to have a callous disregard for "the real victim", when in reality you both care about both groups, just with slightly different priorities.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

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.

I think that a fairly high percentage of male sexual offenders in the U.K. identified as trans and were moved to a female prison. Also why do you assume that concern about this is faux?

In the thread that was abruptly ended the discussion about sports was interesting. Not that long ago defenders of self identification claimed that self identification wouldn’t change sports, now the claim is that we don’t discriminate within genders/sexes based on testosterone levels and we shouldn’t do that for transwomen either. (It’s generally trans women where the effect on sports lies).

Which actually makes sense of you believe that a trans woman is a woman, as is the legal case in many countries.

Now, I don’t believe that but legally it’s watertight.

Probes

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Gotcha. Thanks for qualifying. [Edit: Uh. Clarifying :cool:]

FWIW it might just be a difference in priority. If you personally prioritise the safety and wellbeing of trans people a bit higher than the safety and wellbeing of victims of trans-identifying abusers and someone else prioritises the safety and wellbeing of the victims of trans-identifying abusers above the safety and wellbeing of trans people, you'll both appear to each other to have a callous disregard for "the real victim", when in reality you both care about both groups, just with slightly different priorities.

This is such a weird take. You're assuming first of all that any victim will take issue with the perpetrator being transgendered. If they aren't then how are you prioritising their well-being? My assumption would be that the victim would first and foremost prioritise justice over any win on what gender they have to refer to.

Secondly, I would have to step back and question why people are so wrapped up in this scenario? It just strikes me as the type of pigeon-holing that has occurred with many minority groups over the years.

Probes

Probes wrote: »

This is such a weird take.

I'm not sure what you'd find weird about what I said, but the rest of your post doesn't seem to be related to it.

Can you explain what you think my "weird take" actually was?

suicide_circus

Probes wrote: »

Secondly, I would have to step back and question why people are so wrapped up in this scenario? It just strikes me as the type of pigeon-holing that has occurred with many minority groups over the years.

It's entirely different to the gay "question". If someone tells me they are gay, no action is required on my part.

Gay man: "i fancy blokes"
Me: "ok"

Transwoman: "i am an actual literal woman"
Me: "that is at odds with my perception of reality and understanding of biology".

Probes

suicide_circus wrote: »

It's entirely different to the gay "question". If someone tells me they are gay, no action is required on my part.

Gay man: "i fancy blokes"
Me: "ok"

Transwoman: "i am an actual literal woman"
Me: "that is at odds with my perception of reality and understanding of biology".

If you aren’t able to muster up any empathy for the person then the only thing you have to do is be polite and refer to them by their preferred method, you don’t even have to believe it or even comment on it. It’s exactly the same reason why people wouldn’t refer to you by something you find offensive, out of courtesy and politeness.

Suicide rates are amongst their highest in transgendered people. They are marginalised and abused. If you watched Elliot Page’s interview the other day you would be able to see just how important all of this can be to someone’s life. All you have to do to enable that life is to respect them.

Probes

Probes wrote: »

If you aren’t able to muster up any empathy for the person then the only thing you have to do is be polite and refer to them by their preferred method, you don’t even have to believe it or even comment on it. It’s exactly the same reason why people wouldn’t refer to you by something you find offensive, out of courtesy and politeness.

.

You say this, calling for empathy, with a straight face, having earlier wondered, in direct reference to an Irish case of child sexual abuse, and having not mentioned the victim at all - "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

Probes wrote: »

If you aren’t able to muster up any empathy for the person then the only thing you have to do is be polite and refer to them by their preferred method, you don’t even have to believe it or even comment on it. It’s exactly the same reason why people wouldn’t refer to you by something you find offensive, out of courtesy and politeness.

Suicide rates are amongst their highest in transgendered people. They are marginalised and abused. If you watched Elliot Page’s interview the other day you would be able to see just how important all of this can be to someone’s life. All you have to do to enable that life is to respect them.

This is an appeal to emotion. Suicide is fairly common amongst men and up to 3 times higher than women, (in the U.K.). In fact it’s the largest cause of death amongst young men. This doesn’t stop debates on men, or young men.

In any case like a lot of posters on this thread you’ve mistaken politeness (sure we should accept people’s preferred pronouns) with whether we should accept the reality. And there’s a general debate about the effects of policy, self identification in particular, on female spaces and sports. This thread has debated that extensively.

suicide_circus

Probes wrote: »

If you aren’t able to muster up any empathy for the person then the only thing you have to do is be polite and refer to them by their preferred method, you don’t even have to believe it or even comment on it. It’s exactly the same reason why people wouldn’t refer to you by something you find offensive, out of courtesy and politeness.

Suicide rates are amongst their highest in transgendered people. They are marginalised and abused. If you watched Elliot Page’s interview the other day you would be able to see just how important all of this can be to someone’s life. All you have to do to enable that life is to respect them.

Sigh.

The above "converstaions" were only to illustrate that the idea that the resistance to the TRA worldview is akin to the way gay people were treated back in the day is false - there is a different scenario at play- interacting with a gay person, i am not required to utter what to me is a falsehood. I would obviously never say the above to a trans person. I work with a trans person. I use their preferred pronouns. But i don't for a second think they are a woman.

Probes

Probes wrote: »

If you aren’t able to muster up any empathy for the person then the only thing you have to do is be polite and refer to them by their preferred method, you don’t even have to believe it or even comment on it. It’s exactly the same reason why people wouldn’t refer to you by something you find offensive, out of courtesy and politeness.

Why should someone be compelled to say things they don't believe to be true?

That's not "politeness". It's grotesquely authoritarian.

And mentioning suicide in the same breath as pronouns is manipulative. I've been "misgendered" lots of times in my life, as have many other women, particularly tall, butch, short-haired women I know. We didn't go to pieces over it. We shrugged and carried on with our lives.

If a trans person's dysphoria is still so severe after transition that someone using the wrong pronouns might send them on a suicidal spiral, then I would suggest that the transition was not a terribly effective treatment in and of itself and they should be seeking additional help. Nobody should need their identity validated by strangers to that extent. It is not a healthy situation.

Child : the man who abused me...
Counsellor : No dear, it was a woman.
Child : It was a man. The man used their penis.
Counsellor : Well, dear, we must not make a fuss. It was a woman. They say they are a woman.
Child : It was a man!
Counsellor : Listen, dear, what has gender got to do with it? What difference does it make to you whether you were raped by a man or a woman?

suicide_circus

Deleted User wrote: »

Why should someone be compelled to say things they don't believe to be true?

That's not "politeness". It's grotesquely authoritarian.

And mentioning suicide in the same breath as pronouns is manipulative. I've been "misgendered" lots of times in my life, as have many other women, particularly tall, butch, short-haired women I know. We didn't go to pieces over it. We shrugged and carried on with our lives.

If a trans person's dysphoria is still so severe after transition that someone using the wrong pronouns might send them on a suicidal spiral, then I would suggest that the transition was not a terribly effective treatment in and of itself and they should be seeking additional help. Nobody should need their identity validated by strangers to that extent. It is not a healthy situation.

Very well said.

Probes

isha wrote: »

Child : the man who abused me...
Counsellor : No dear, it was a woman.
Child : It was a man. The man used their penis.
Counsellor : Well, dear, we must not make a fuss. It was a woman. They say they are a woman.
Child : It was a man!
Counsellor : Listen, dear, what has gender got to do with it? What difference does it make to you whether you were raped by a man or a woman?

I’m going to back out here, this is really weird fictional scenario that only illustrates negative associations. I get it, you guys think it’s authoritarian to have to refer to people by their preferred pronoun.

Probes

Probes wrote: »

I’m going to back out here, this is really weird fictional scenario that only illustrates negative associations. I get it, you guys think it’s authoritarian to have to refer to people by their preferred pronoun.

You said, directly, ''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?''

How exactly do you think that thought experiment of yours plays out in real time among real people in real situations?
Do you have ANY exceptions when it comes to the use of preferred pronoun? Do you have any exceptions when people describe their lived experience of rape or abuse in a court-room or in a counselling scenario? Or do you say in all cases preferred pronouns are the absolute requirement? Can you not see how this can lead to real life instances of true injustice?

km991148

isha wrote: »

You said, directly, ''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?''

How exactly do you think that thought experiment of yours plays out in real time among real people in real situations?
Do you have ANY exceptions when it comes to the use of preferred pronoun? Do you have any exceptions when people describe their lived experience of rape or abuse in a court-room or in a counselling scenario? Or do you say in all cases preferred pronouns are the absolute requirement? Can you not see how this can lead to real life instances of true injustice?

I really don't see why it is so hard to understand that a person can be referred to as "she" in the present while also understanding the person was presenting as male at the time of the attack - i.e. the person was a male, seen as male etc.

Again, if the other suppositions (of further abuse by faking trans, or using the trans as a power play etc etc) are actually true, then they policy makers should be looking at this. But for now I think its more important to deal with the attacker and support the victims rather than lengthy arguments over names (which is what you are effectively proposing - that the attacker be forced to somehow reverse the gender declaration and have to answer to their former name - how would that play out - I can tell you - even more back and forward nonsense over the least important aspect of the case. This is why I say there is subterfuge and why I doubt the concern is as genuine as you would like us to believe - the victim seems pretty far down the list of priorities in terms of getting actual justice and support. I hope I am wrong in this - but this is how your comments read)

GreeBo

km991148 wrote: »

I really don't see why it is so hard to understand that a person can be referred to as "she" in the present while also understanding the person was presenting as male at the time of the attack - i.e. the person was a male, seen as male etc.

So was the victim abused by a man or a woman?
"There is the man/woman who abused me"

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

I really don't see why it is so hard to understand that a person can be referred to as "she" in the present while also understanding the person was presenting as male at the time of the attack - i.e. the person was a male, seen as male etc.

Again, if the other suppositions (of further abuse by faking trans, or using the trans as a power play etc etc) are actually true, then they policy makers should be looking at this. But for now I think its more important to deal with the attacker and support the victims rather than lengthy arguments over names (which is what you are effectively proposing - that the attacker be forced to somehow reverse the gender declaration and have to answer to their former name - how would that play out - I can tell you - even more back and forward nonsense over the least important aspect of the case. This is why I say there is subterfuge and why I doubt the concern is as genuine as you would like us to believe - the victim seems pretty far down the list of priorities in terms of getting actual justice and support. I hope I am wrong in this - but this is how your comments read)

You are engaging in a sort of ad hominem by mind reading here.

To be honest I don’t know where the debate between you two arose, but the issue regarding safety for women in particular isn’t about nomenclature but about biological male access to biological female spaces, in general. Not just prisons.

What people are called is a secondary issue. I personally agree that personal pronouns should be accepted. Out of politeness.

km991148

GreeBo wrote: »

So was the victim abused by a man or a woman?
"There is the man/woman who abused me"

There is the person who abused me. She is accused of "<insert crime>". She was the victims step dad at the time (Historic). Again.. its probably not the most important detail in all of this and not particularly hard (especially for people on a forum commenting on the case..). I accept the victim has had a traumatic experience to deal with and I would assume the appropriate care is available to them. This would (in my mind) include minimising these courtroom debates.

km991148

fvp4 wrote: »

but the issue regarding safety for women in particular isn’t about nomenclature but about biological male access to biological female spaces, in general. Not just prisons.

What people are called is a secondary issue. I personally agree that personal pronouns should be accepted. Out of politeness.

Well, if we are going back round to the general access to female spaces, I would say that (as far as I understand at least) that its practically a statistical anomaly for the trans person to be the aggressor and that the trans person is far, far more likely to be the victim. This is my understanding. I don't want to increase/promote the chances of harm for women (or anyone) - just to spell it out before the misquoting begins.

But I am too long on this thread now, so someone else can repeat the usual arguments on this one. Its getting a bit much, especially with the new (or "new") posters on the thread etc. Just go back a few (hundred) pages and re-read as I am not seeing any new points or progress on this topic.

JustAThought

Probes wrote: »

I’m going to back out here, this is really weird fictional scenario that only illustrates negative associations. I get it, you guys think it’s authoritarian to have to refer to people by their preferred pronoun.

The dialogue of the child being chastised by the judge for using the wrong pronouns isn’t too far off reality.
Not for the children raped by the Brazillian whatever he calls himself now who was recently sentenced in the Dublin courts - married and ‘homeless’ with a council flat off Patrick St and calling himself a woman - of course he started as a he, raped and abused children in Brazil as a he, came to Iteland as a he,outstayed his visa here as a he, stayed here illegally as a he,then self identified as a she, got a female ID & name, married for cash to Irish man, declared himself homeless as a woman, got a council flat as a woman, carried on abusing children with HIS PENIS & was finally caught & sentenced. In Brazil they’d have torn it off for him - here he’ll get a menu in mountjoy & 3 meals a day and some left winder do gooder to stroke his ego and anything else he wants. Dosn’t help any of the children he raped thou. And not far from the surreal narrative ‘nonsense’ the original person posted - except in this riduculous world here in Dublin surreal has already taken over.

And to answer the original question - No - we should allow anyone born as a different sex self declare or for any other reason, compete in the other sex sports competitively.

Even the disabled olympics grades their athletes based on body ability and degree of disability in their specific categories ( eg below knee amputee, legally blind etc).

The Bench Book guidelines I linked to earlier compel all persons in UK courts, including the victim, to refer to the accused using their preferred pronouns. Thus will unfold unjust and immoral situations. Full stop.

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