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

M_Murphy57

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Trolling though is a much abused term. It has become a catch all silencing technique. Another's opinion aggravates you or shows your own ideology in a poor light - they are therefore a troll and must be quickly dismissed and gotten rid of.
Overuse of the term particularly aims to eliminate satire. I viewed the super straight expression as a satirical thought form. I believe satire is a hugely important act for revealing the nakedness of Emperors.

Yes but in this case it was *literally* started as a joke. Some guy made a tik tok, declaring himself "super straight" as a dig at TRAs.

"Super straight" is not an actual sexuality. It was a joke, by a straight guy on tik tok who wanted to be able to say he was not attracted to trans women without being labelled transphobic.

I called it trolling, you call it "satirical thought form"...either way, it was not a serious statement.

Probes

keano_afc wrote: »

"But the gender doesn't matter".

https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1389873363036815365?s=20

In the US black people make up a third of those in prison, but they only make up 12% of the overall population. What can you derive from those figures?

EddieN75

M_Murphy57 wrote: »

Yes but in this case it was *literally* started as a joke. Some guy made a tik tok, declaring himself "super straight" as a dig at TRAs.

"Super straight" is not an actual sexuality. It was a joke, by a straight guy on tik tok who wanted to be able to say he was not attracted to trans women without being labelled transphobic.

I called it trolling, you call it "satirical thought form"...either way, it was not a serious statement.

So if I say I'm not attracted to trans women I'm transphobic?

M_Murphy57

M_Murphy57 wrote: »

Yes but in this case it was *literally* started as a joke. Some guy made a tik tok, declaring himself "super straight" as a dig at TRAs.

"Super straight" is not an actual sexuality. It was a joke, by a straight guy on tik tok who wanted to be able to say he was not attracted to trans women without being labelled transphobic.

I called it trolling, you call it "satirical thought form"...either way, it was not a serious statement.

I remember the young fella who started it, innocent enough lad, who was having a dig at po-faced identity stuff - a joke, maybe, but still satirical, even if unconsciously. He had to almost go into hiding (if I remember correctly, but god knows I can hardly remember where my car is on a good day!) because I think serious threats were made against him...and his mammy (yep!). But the idea went viral because it was adopted by others with more social media reach and political nous as a kind of transgressive satirical comment - which, to be fair, it is.

Probes

Probes wrote: »

In the US black people make up a third of those in prison, but they only make up 12% of the overall population. What can you derive from those figures?

What do you derive from biological males being more likely to be child abusers and what do you think the relevance is here?

There are more blacks in the US prison system, and definitely that could be put down to racism. For instance the anti drug laws passed in the 70s through the 90s (one authored by Biden) are seen to be deliberately targeting black people, the law, along with a police propensity to target blacks, massively increased incarceration.

There are also more men in the system compared to women. This isn’t put down to misandry.

volchitsa

fvp4 wrote: »

What do you derive from biological males being more likely to be child abusers and what do you think the relevance is here?

There are more blacks in the US prison system, and definitely that could be put down to racism. For instance the anti drug laws passed in the 70s through the 90s (one authored by Biden) are seen to be deliberately targeting black people, the law, along with a police propensity to target blacks, massively increased incarceration.

There are also more men in the system compared to women. This isn’t put down to misandry.

Not at all comparable though: the black population is poorer and suffers more disadvantages, and everywhere around the world, poorer communities end up disproportionately in prison. It's not about being black, it's about being poor. It could be because poorer people commit more crime than wealthy people, or different sorts of crimes for which they get caught more than wealthy criminals, or they can't defend themselves when up in court etc etc or it could be prejudice against that community, or a mixture of causes.

But none of those explanations are true for men as a group, because they have always shown far higher rates of criminal and violent activity than women, historically and around the world today, and that is true in egalitarian societies as well as ones where men have/had far more personal wealth and status than women.

EDIT: that's a reply to Probes more than to you, I guess)

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

But none of those explanations are true for men as a group, because they have always shown far higher rates of criminal and violent activity than women, historically and around the world today, and that is true in egalitarian societies as well as ones where men have/had far more personal wealth and status than women.

EDIT: that's a reply to Probes more than to you, I guess)

They are true for men as a group? As true as what you’re saying about women as a group, which provides an explanation as to why the issue of women who commit child sexual abuse is both under-reported and understudied. Previously throughout history, women were simply thought of as incapable of such behaviour, and that’s why the figure of the 84% rise in reported cases where the perpetrator is female, in just four years, from from 1,249 to 2,297 in just England and Wales alone is as shocking as it is, even taking into consideration the fact that more victims are being encouraged to report their abusers.

The behaviour has nothing to do with biology, and trying to suggest any such association is simply based upon prejudice and presenting statistics with the intent to mislead people. That’s the point Probes is making, and it’s the same point I made earlier in the thread when there was an attempt to associate behaviour with biology. It’s nonsense, for all the reasons you pointed out about making associations between a person’s skin colour and behaviour which is regarded as criminal, and that’s even before any association between gender and sentencing is considered. Women are given shorter sentences than men for the same crimes because they are often mothers and it isn’t generally regarded as beneficial to children to deprive them of their mother. The same consideration is not generally extended to the children’s father when he is convicted of committing a criminal offence.

In any case, such arguments tend to ignore the fact that the vast majority of people of any description, of either gender or any skin colour or ethnicity you’d care to focus on, do not engage in criminal behaviour - poor, black, men or any other characteristic based upon your own prejudices.

There is some truth to the fact that female sentencing is lower for the same crimes. However men are more dangerous.

ingalway

The house of cards of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones for children is starting to fall. Massive law suits will surely follow.

https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier/status/1389988787061620739?s=20

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is some truth to the fact that female sentencing is lower for the same crimes. However men are more dangerous.

That’s two different claims, the second having nothing to do with the first, both based upon prejudice, neither based upon biology. The reasons for any discrepancy in statistical data is entirely sociological as opposed to biological. There is no evidence to suggest that anyone is more dangerous to anyone solely as a consequence of biology. If there were any merit in the argument, people would have taken the Lords suggestion of imposing a curfew on men seriously, instead of completely missing her point.

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s two different claims, the second having nothing to do with the first, both based upon prejudice, neither based upon biology. The reasons for any discrepancy in statistical data is entirely sociological as opposed to biological. There is no evidence to suggest that anyone is more dangerous to anyone solely as a consequence of biology. If there were any merit in the argument, people would have taken the Lords suggestion of imposing a curfew on men seriously, instead of completely missing her point.

Give me strength - literally.

ingalway

ingalway wrote: »

The house of cards of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones for children is starting to fall. Massive law suits will surely follow.

https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier/status/1389988787061620739?s=20

All the times over this thread and others that people objecting validly to so-called ''affirmation treatment'' on children from 8 years old have been called out and made to feel bad.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s two different claims, the second having nothing to do with the first, both based upon prejudice, neither based upon biology. The reasons for any discrepancy in statistical data is entirely sociological as opposed to biological. There is no evidence to suggest that anyone is more dangerous to anyone solely as a consequence of biology. If there were any merit in the argument, people would have taken the Lords suggestion of imposing a curfew on men seriously, instead of completely missing her point.

I didn’t say anything about biology in my statement. In a different thread I might have. Nobody disputes that men are statistically more dangerous to women than vice versa, there some debate on why. Some lean to biology. Others to socialisation. Others to both to different degrees.

It’s odd though that the defense of trans rights brings out the defence of men specifically.

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

Give me strength - literally.

The fact that there are any female perpetrators of sexual abuse at all, should be an indication that physical strength is not a requirement to commit sexual abuse.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There is no evidence to suggest that anyone is more dangerous to anyone solely as a consequence of biology. If there were any merit in the argument, people would have taken the Lords suggestion of imposing a curfew on men seriously, instead of completely missing her point.

Men are more dangerous because they have a very large physical strength advantage. It doesn't mean they're more likely to be violent; just that they're more likely to cause injury when they do.

People didn't take Jenny Jones' curfew suggestion seriously because, as you noted, it is in any case a very small percentage of people overall that are violent, and punishing all of a given group for the sins of a few is rightly considered unjust.

ingalway

4 year old, who knew they were trans at 18 months old, already referred to Tavistock Clinic.
The father has the "permission" of the 4 year old to tell their story.
The 4 year old's father says his son 'hated pigtails and dresses' or even 'pretty shoes', and at the age of two-and-a-half told his family: 'I'm not a girl, I think I'm a boy'.


GENDER stereotypes are the problem, not children born in 'the wrong body'.

A life of blockers, hormones and highly invasive surgeries is not the answer.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9544807/Father-trans-boy-4-says-people-insist-calling-son-girl.html

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I didn’t say anything about biology in my statement. In a different thread I might have. Nobody disputes that men are statistically more dangerous to women than vice versa, there some debate on why. Some lean to biology. Others to socialisation. Others to both to different degrees.

It’s odd though that the defense of trans rights brings out the defence of men specifically.

I was refuting the implication that the statistical correlation is caused by any biological differences between men and women. The statement that “statistically men are more dangerous to women than vice versa” is meaningless. It’s predicated upon statistics and quantifying risk, not assessment of facts. There is no reason to assume that men are dangerous to women or that women are dangerous to men in any case, and the only reason to perpetuate such narratives are based upon prejudice, not reality where the vast majority of people of either gender are of no danger to anyone.

It’s not odd that the perpetuation of bullshìt based upon prejudice brings out a refutation of said bullshìt. Depends upon how you choose to frame it, much like the way you choose to frame statistical data to support your argument which is not supported by the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary of your assertions.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I was refuting the implication that the statistical correlation is caused by any biological differences between men and women.

I didn't make that implication. If I wanted to mention biology I would have. I also said "dangerous" rather than violent for a reason.

The statement that “statistically men are more dangerous to women than vice versa” is meaningless.

Your version of meaningless is not mine. Its an empirical fact.

It’s predicated upon statistics and quantifying risk, not assessment of facts. There is no reason to assume that men are dangerous to women or that women are dangerous to men in any case, and the only reason to perpetuate such narratives are based upon prejudice, not reality where the vast majority of people of either gender are of no danger to anyone.

The reason it is in fact an "assessment of facts", because it is true. You can debate the why of that. i.e cultural conditioning, biology, or both, but nobody debates the truth of it.

It’s not odd that the perpetuation of bullshìt based upon prejudice brings out a refutation of said bullshìt. Depends upon how you choose to frame it, much like the way you choose to frame statistical data to support your argument which is not supported by the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary of your assertions.

Overwhelming evidence that women are as dangerous as men?

I didn't mention any statistical data, you argue straw men all the time.

This all came from one simple and utterly indisputable sentence, that men are more dangerous than women.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Men are more dangerous because they have a very large physical strength advantage. It doesn't mean they're more likely to be violent; just that they're more likely to cause injury when they do.

People didn't take Jenny Jones' curfew suggestion seriously because, as you noted, it is in any case a very small percentage of people overall that are violent, and punishing all of a given group for the sins of a few is rightly considered unjust.

Having greater physical strength than anyone doesn’t make someone more dangerous than anyone else. Anyone, regardless of their gender, is bound to cause injury when they set out with the intention to do so, and that fact says nothing about their physical strength.

People didn’t take Jenny Jones suggestion seriously, because they missed her point. She wasn’t seriously suggesting that men should be under curfew, she was making the point and trying to get people to think about the idea that women have to consciously place themselves under a self-imposed curfew for their own safety. It was a point subtlety made, and missing the point is what made the point - no uproar when women are placed under curfew, uproar at the suggestion that men be placed under curfew.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This all came from one simple and utterly indisputable sentence, that men are more dangerous than women.

Utterly indisputable? It’s easily proven to be nonsense. There is nothing in your claim to suggest that men are more dangerous to women, and there is nothing in the above claim which provides any supporting evidence of the claim. It’s entirely based upon leading people to assume a conclusion without evidence. There’s a word for that - prejudice.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Having greater physical strength than anyone doesn’t make someone more dangerous than anyone else. Anyone, regardless of their gender, is bound to cause injury when they set out with the intention to do so, and that fact says nothing about their physical strength.

I'm not talking about gender. I'm talking about males being stronger than females. You might think it's just as dangerous to be attacked by an unarmed woman as by an unarmed man, but I'd take the woman any day. Because there is more danger in being attacked by a man, due to his strength.

I'm in more danger if I am being attacked by a man, which isn't the same thing as being more in danger of being attacked by a man.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

she was making the point and trying to get people to think about the idea that women have to consciously place themselves under a self-imposed curfew for their own safety.

They don't have to. Some choose to, despite being less likely than men to be assaulted. That's quite a different thing.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was a point subtlety made, and missing the point is what made the point - no uproar when women are placed under curfew, uproar at the suggestion that men be placed under curfew.

This presupposes that women are under curfew. I have never been under curfew in my life.

ingalway

ingalway wrote: »

4 year old, who knew they were trans at 18 months old, already referred to Tavistock Clinic.
The father has the "permission" of the 4 year old to tell their story.
The 4 year old's father says his son 'hated pigtails and dresses' or even 'pretty shoes', and at the age of two-and-a-half told his family: 'I'm not a girl, I think I'm a boy'.


GENDER stereotypes are the problem, not children born in 'the wrong body'.

A life of blockers, hormones and highly invasive surgeries is not the answer.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9544807/Father-trans-boy-4-says-people-insist-calling-son-girl.html

All their talk about pigtails and frilly dresses and pretty shoes makes me wonder if there was a strong discrepancy between how they treated their son and daughter that made "being a boy" look more appealing. They certainly have massive, unhealthy, and pretty misogynistic hangups about gender and what is involved in "being a girl".

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not talking about gender. I'm talking about males being stronger than females. You might think it's just as dangerous to be attacked by an unarmed woman as by an unarmed man, but I'd take the woman any day. Because there is more danger in being attacked by a man, due to his strength.

I'm in more danger if I am being attacked by a man, which isn't the same thing as being more in danger of being attacked by a man.

It would depend entirely upon the circumstances in each and every case. As I suggested earlier, there would be no reports of female perpetrators of child sexual abuse if physical strength were a factor in determining the risks to anyone of any danger. It’s precisely that line of thinking which has led to female perpetrators of child sexual abuse being underreported and understudied. There isn’t any more danger in being attacked by a man or a woman. I get that you’re not talking about gender, that you’re talking about sex, but you’re also talking about your own preferences. Were I speaking of my own preferences, my son is twice my size and twice my strength and wouldn’t harm a fly. My wife is half my size and not even a tenth of my strength, but I wouldn’t fancy my chances.

Of course being attacked by a man is not the same thing as being in danger of being attacked by a man, but the arguments are being framed in such a way as to suggest that men are a danger to women based upon statistical evidence gathered after women were attacked by men.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They don't have to. Some choose to, despite being less likely than men to be assaulted. That's quite a different thing.

This presupposes that women are under curfew. I have never been under curfew in my life.

Hey I know that, and you know that, but neither of us is Jenny Jones who was actually making the point. I disagree with the point she was making, but the reaction to it proved her point - men don’t have to consider their own safety as they do not consider women to be dangerous, whereas whether you and I like it or not - some people do consider men to be dangerous to women, and in the context of this thread, that’s why they make the point about men who identify as women being a danger to women. In reality, men are not dangerous to women.

Whatever may or may not happen in relation to people having the right to have their gender identity recognised by the State, which I don’t imagine being repealed any time soon, I certainly don’t envision a time when people’s right to the presumption of innocence and the right to their good name or due process are rights that will be repealed any time soon, regardless of the political interests of certain lobby groups.

Annasopra

keano_afc wrote: »

The LGB Alliance represent people who are same sex attracted. Its literally in the name. "Trans" is a gender identity and has nothing to do with sexuality.

If the LGB Alliance is a "hate group" because it doesn't represent trans people, so is the RSPCA, by the same logic.

They dont represent LGB People. Their entire reason for existing is nothing to do with LGB people. It is all about hateful transphobia.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Stuff!

I understand your point a bit more now, I think. I have quibbles, but nothing so big that it warrants a continuing back and forth.

Thanks.

ingalway

Annasopra wrote: »

They dont represent LGB People. Their entire reason for existing is nothing to do with LGB people. It is all about hateful transphobia.

I am a lesbian and they certainly represent me far more than any other organisation.
Stonewall repulse me.
BTW you don't get to decide who represents who. Democracy is a great thing.

EddieN75

Annasopra wrote: »

They dont represent LGB People. Their entire reason for existing is nothing to do with LGB people. It is all about hateful transphobia.

Do they receive government funding?

km991148

EddieN75 wrote: »

Do they receive government funding?

They now have UK charitable status. This would imply at least tax breaks, but who knows about funding.

They were set up in direct response to some existing LGBT groups views on trans issues.
The Wikipedia article points out that they have been described as 'transphobic by some senior public figures.

I don't agree with the term 'hate group', but they do seem to spend more time campaigning against trans issues rather than promoting LG or B issues (of course these can of course be mutually exclusive, or not or overlapping or not).

ingalway

km991148 wrote: »

They now have UK charitable status. This would imply at least tax breaks, but who knows about funding.

They were set up in direct response to some existing LGBT groups views on trans issues.
I see their Wikipedia article has been updated to point out that they have been described as 'trans exclusionary' (by some senior public figures). This entry did read transphobic today.

I don't agree with the term 'hate group', but they do seem to spend more time campaigning against trans issues rather than promoting LG or B issues (of course these can of course be mutually exclusive, or not or overlapping or not).

They do not spend more time campaiging against trans issues, they campaign not to allow same SEX orientation to be redefined by gender identity.

Denying biological reality is not transphobic. Denying same sex orientation is homophobic.

km991148

ingalway wrote: »

They do not spend more time campaiging against trans issues, they campaign not to allow same SEX orientation to be redefined by gender identity.

Denying biological reality is not transphobic. Denying same sex orientation is homophobic.

I'm not getting into another meaning debate around 'biological reality'. I'm just stating facts (or trying to at least). I'm only quoting what others have said, with at least a nod towards sources (rather than pictures of headlines from Twitter, or worse pictures of headlines from Twitter of "articles" based upon screen grabs of LinkedIn).
I pointed out that other senior public figures referred to them as transphobic to try and find the balance with the hate group categorisation.