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

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

Like what exactly

I gave an example in the post which for some reason you decided to remove......

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

It is interesting regarding what it means for detransitioners, desisters, and gender fluid people. Also from my reading of trans people's opinions many do not want their past erased. They know they are fathers, mothers, were girl or boy children, went through sexed puberties, etc. Trans Rights Activists seem to often be much more ideologically possessed than transgender people themselves.

I never said a trans persons past should be or would be erased. That does not follow from what I said.

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

Because one is subjective. If someone wants me to call them an extraterrestrial it's no skin off my nose, even if I think it daft and I will out of courtesy refer to them as such, however if they the go on to insist they're actually an extraterrestrial and this is backed up by some nebulous "science" and berate me for not automatically respecting that, indeed insisting that I suspend belief in an obvious fact then I will all BS when I see it.

Because language is important when it comes to provable realities and realities are being ridden rough shod by a current and very loud identity politic with ever shifting definitions.

There is no danger to reality. It’s hyperbole.

jmayo

Gruffalux wrote: »

Blood transfusions cannot proceed perfectly fine if people are not clear about factual sex. A male has a 13% extra chance of dying in the following couple of years if he gets blood from a female who has ever been pregnant.

Indeed medicines are processed quite differently by male and female bodies and thus biological sex matters.


https://www.livescience.com/60702-blood-transfusions-women-men.html

Would ya ever stop with your science.

It's all about feelings.

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

"his vagina" ... ah here :pac:

A bit like that one in Vancouver that wanted "her balls" waxed.

Lunacy, fecking lunacy.

And we all meant to quietly pander to it.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

I gave an example in the post which for some reason you decided to remove......

I haven't removed anything from here .

I fixed a spelling correction yesterday at some stage but I've not deleted a post ,

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

I haven't removed anything from here .

I fixed a spelling correction yesterday at some stage but I've not deleted a post ,

Here’s my actual post:

i m talking about cis men and trans men. Presenting as Male could involve lots of things. Ticking the M box on a medical form for example.

You edited out over 50% of the post (where I gave an example) then asked for an example.....cmon.

grassylawn

Bambi wrote: »

They: Pronoun used to refer to a person of unspecified gender.

One eyed Jack

jmayo wrote: »

Would ya ever stop with your science.

It's all about feelings.

That wasn’t science, it was scaremongering, which is precisely all about the feelings.

jmayo wrote: »

A bit like that one in Vancouver that wanted "her balls" waxed.

Lunacy, fecking lunacy.

And we all meant to quietly pander to it.

Unless you’re an aesthetician in the Canadian district of British Columbia, or a nurse, it’s unlikely you’ll ever be troubled with the dilemma of whether or not to shave, let alone wax a man’s balls. You’re literally getting worked up about a scenario you’re never going to experience!

But that’s not lunacy.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Here’s my actual post:



You edited out over 50% of the post (where I gave an example) then asked for an example.....cmon.

I took a relevant piece and asked a question , the rest had no relevance to what I asked ,
I'm hardly going to quote whole posts

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

I took a relevant piece and asked a question , the rest had no relevance to what I asked ,
I'm hardly going to quote whole posts

You edited out the example I gave. Go read the post again. All the answers you seek are within it.

jmayo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That wasn’t science, it was scaremongering, which is precisely all about the feelings.




Unless you’re an aesthetician in the Canadian district of British Columbia, or a nurse, it’s unlikely you’ll ever be troubled with the dilemma of whether or not to shave, let alone wax a man’s balls. You’re literally getting worked up about a scenario you’re never going to experience!

But that’s not lunacy.

Ah but you see what starts out as a small bit of placating a group or mindset can often end up becoming the mainstream, and hell even the law.

It was a bit like how transwomen were allowed into one sport and hey presto they are now in almost all sports and before you know it lifelong lesbian and gay rights activists that put their career in sport on the line are being chased out because they aren't happy with the charade and thus they speak out.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

You edited out the example I gave. Go read the post again. All the answers you seek are within it.

So the answer is ticking M on a box .



For some reason I was expecting something a little more than ticking M on a box .

One eyed Jack

jmayo wrote: »

Ah but you see what starts out as a small bit of placating a group or mindset can often end up becoming the mainstream, and hell even the law.

It was a bit like how transwomen were allowed into one sport and hey presto they are now in almost all sports and before you know it lifelong lesbian and gay rights activists that put their career in sport on the line are being chased out because they aren't happy with the charade and thus they speak out.

You mean like the way John McEnroe and Martina Navratilova are trying to erase Margaret Court from the history books because they don’t like her opinions?

Yeah that’s a possibility alright.


Like anyone else, the little bit of power they have can go to some people’s heads.

The thing is though that nobody is being denied access to any sport or being discriminated against. That they don’t want to compete in the sport because other competitors might beat them is their own personal choice. It’s not sufficient reason to ban anyone from the competition who might beat them. About the best they can do is what they’ve always done and accuse their competition of doping or cheating in order to smear their reputation.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You mean like the way John McEnroe and Martina Navratilova are trying to erase Margaret Court from the history books because they don’t like her opinions?

No true they want her name removed from a court for homophobic comments ,there not trying to demanding she's erased from history ,
Unlike the pro trans cancellation culture ,
Weren't you the one calling people bigots but here your defending one .

jam_mac_jam

Gatling wrote: »

No true they want her name removed from a court for homophobic comments ,there not trying to demanding she's erased from history ,
Unlike the pro trans cancellation culture ,
Weren't you the one calling people bigots but here your defending one .

Its exactly the same thing. You cannot justify one and not the other.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

No true they want her name removed from a court for homophobic comments ,there not trying to demanding she's erased from history ,
Unlike the pro trans cancellation culture ,

It’s exactly “cancellation culture” if we’re going with those terms -


In a bylined article posted on the Tennis.com website on Monday, Navratilova, the winner of 18 grand slam singles titles, gave full voice to her views. “When airports, buildings, streets or stadiums are named after particular people, it is done, or at least should be done, to [honour] exceptional human beings – our heroes,” she wrote.

“Think Muhammad Ali, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Billie Jean King, Rod Laver, Rosa Parks. Would it not be appropriate if the Staples Center [in Los Angeles] were renamed as a tribute to Kobe Bryant?

“Such luminaries excelled in their fields and transcended them; they made a positive contribution to mankind; they led by example. And, perhaps most of all, they were on the right side of history.

“But Margaret Court does not belong in that company or category. Nobody disputes her achievements on the tennis court, and her place in the sport’s history remains as distinguished as it gets. Nobody wants to take away or diminish her career, least of all me. Margaret, Billie Jean [King] and Rod [Laver] were my childhood heroes. I wanted to be like them. So, it pains me to say this, but Margaret Court Arena must be renamed.

“As a worthy replacement, my vote goes to Evonne Goolagong. Evonne is the embodiment of what a role model or hero truly is. Her heritage, her success against the odds, her Hall of Fame career and her exemplary life off court, in which she has given so much of herself to so many causes, are all attributes we can celebrate wholeheartedly.

“In our tennis ‘family’, we celebrate the good values of our sport and we love how democratic and inclusive it has become, the way it has driven out prejudice and unfair exclusion.

“Yes, we have free speech in a democracy, but that doesn’t mean that free speech doesn’t have consequences. When Margaret goes out of her way to single out a group of people and tell them they don’t deserve equal rights, that they are less than good parents, that they are not godly, that’s not merely free speech. It’s hateful and hurtful speech and it’s injurious to countless vulnerable people.


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jan/28/martina-navratilova-takes-fight-on-court-for-name-change-to-evonne-goolagong-arena


The International Tennis Hall of Fame states: "For sheer strength of performance and accomplishment there has never been a tennis player to match (her)." In 2010, the Herald Sun newspaper of Melbourne, Australia called her the greatest female tennis player of all time, a view supported by Evonne Goolagong Cawley.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Court

Gatling wrote: »

Weren't you the one calling people bigots but here your defending one .

Well, since you ask, no.

Nor would I be defending Martina Navratilova who wants to keep players who are transgender out of tennis. It’s like Rachel McKinnon or Dr. Ivy or whatever name they’re going by these days, declaring who shall and shan’t be commemorated in the sport of cycling. People would wonder has McKinnon completely lost their marbles that they think they can issue diktats and expect everyone else to comply. Martina Navratilova is no different. That’s equality in practice - you now have an equal opportunity to be in as precarious a position as everyone else.

AllForIt

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You mean like the way John McEnroe and Martina Navratilova are trying to erase Margaret Court from the history books because they don’t like her opinions?

Yeah that’s a possibility alright.

Like anyone else, the little bit of power they have can go to some people’s heads.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/margaret-court-australian-open-2020-lgbt-transgender-devil-anti-gay-tennis-a9263926.html

https://www.news24.com/sport/Tennis/court-ing-controversy-6-margaret-court-quotes-20170601

I'm surprised you think Margaret court shouldn't be reprimanded for her opinions given the side you are on in this particular debate.

The thing is though that nobody is being denied access to any sport or being discriminated against.

Exactly. Transgender men can compete in women's sports and transgender women can compete in mens sports. They are not being denied anything that is not denied to everyone.

If transgender women are allowed to compete in womens sports then all cis-men should to, that would be equality. Or if that doesn't happen one can simply self-id and get in that way.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

It’s just language authoritarians telling us we must speak exactly how they speak or the sky will falll down yet unable to specify exactly what disastrous consequences we supposedly will see

hahahahahahahahahaha.....................

wait..............


hahahahahahahahahahahaha............

you HAVE to be taking the piss at this stage.

People have been banned from this thread for using the name of the actress who starred in Juno because "they" have decided they are now a man.

RWCNT

Wibbs wrote: »

Because one is subjective. If someone wants me to call them an extraterrestrial it's no skin off my nose, even if I think it daft and I will out of courtesy refer to them as such, however if they the go on to insist they're actually an extraterrestrial and this is backed up by some nebulous "science" and berate me for not automatically respecting that, indeed insisting that I suspend belief in an obvious fact then I will all BS when I see it.

Because language is important when it comes to provable realities and realities are being ridden rough shod by a current and very loud identity politic with ever shifting definitions.

OK, so you don't really accept that gender identity holds any weight in terms of deciding what someone "is", for want of better phrasing.But you're willing to go along with preferred pronouns etc. as you see no harm in it and you'd rather not upset people? That's more than fine as far as Im concerned, you're being accommodating, and that should be commended.

It just strikes me as weird kind of double-think that you'd happily sit in a group conversation with people calling a transman "he", but then stop and go "Sorry guys - we're actually endangering provable reality now" if the transman had been pregnant at some stage and someone in the group referred to "his pregnancy". Of course, that's on the assumption that the people you're in the conversation with are reasonable people who aren't trying to claim a transman is identical to a biological man as far as how their body is built and works. And I do hope the vast majority of people would fall into that camp.

Deleted User wrote: »

hahahahahahahahahaha.....................

wait..............


hahahahahahahahahahahaha............

you HAVE to be taking the piss at this stage.

People have been banned from this thread for using the name of the actress who starred in Juno because "they" have decided they are now a man.

Honestly, I feel there are language authoritarians on both sides of the discussion that are holding the conversation back. I don't see arguing over terminology as a valuable use of time. If we all understand eachother and nobody's deliberately trying to be a d!ck then we should be fine.

Gatling

AllForIt wrote: »

I'm surprised you think Margaret court shouldn't be reprimanded for her opinions given the side you are on in this particular debate.

Yet in his opinion people should get sacked for not agreeing with trans opinions because they are bigots ,
But here it's not this isn't the same ,
The gob****e in Australia has been making homophobic remarks not just recently but for decades ,
So absolutely her name should be removed from any tennis venue's ,it's not cancel culture it's respect especially in a sport that has a large lgbt following and players .


Seems silence is golden

Gruffalux

RWCNT wrote: »

It just strikes me as weird kind of double-think that you'd happily sit in a group conversation with people calling a transman "he", but then stop and go "Sorry guys - we're actually endangering provable reality now" if the transman had been pregnant at some stage and someone in the group referred to "his pregnancy". Of course, that's on the assumption that the people you're in the conversation with are reasonable people who aren't trying to claim a transman is identical to a biological man as far as how their body is built and works. And I do hope the vast majority of people would fall into that camp.

.

The whole dead-naming ban or not referring to past realities seems very engineered and strained, though, doesn't it? Because it has become weighted (apparently) with such significance it has kind of strayed into farce.
Could a transman not shamelessly, warmly and honestly speak of the time when they were a woman and mothered or breastfed a baby? Why could this possibly be injurious to them now? Their child after all came from a womb, which is a female organ and was nursed at female breasts - it seems unreasonable not to speak to the child of those realities, at the very least.
Could a transwoman not comfortably speak of when they were a man and won Olympic accolades?
Why must the reality of the past be made a completely alien unmentionable land?
And I am not at all suggesting this would be something nasty imposed upon people - but rather that it would be something people do naturally themselves. Something completely acceptable.
Surely it is much more healthy psychologically and emotionally to be truthful about one's existence?

Gatling

Who decided or came up with dead naming and that it was offensive ,

Parabellum9

Gatling wrote: »

Who decided or came up with dead naming and that it was offensive ,

It’s only offensive if you fully believe someone can change their sex - which they can’t. You can believe you are what you want but you had a name on your birth certificate and regardless of what you pretend to be now, that name still applies in some context.

RWCNT

Gruffalux wrote: »

The whole dead-naming ban or not referring to past realities seems very engineered and strained, though, doesn't it? Because it has become weighted (apparently) with such significance it has kind of strayed into farce.
Could a transman not shamelessly, warmly and honestly speak of the time when they were a woman and mothered or breastfed a baby? Why could this possibly be injurious to them now? Their child after all came from a womb, which is a female organ and was nursed at female breasts - it seems unreasonable not to speak to the child of those realities, at the very least.
Could a transwoman not comfortably speak of when they were a man and won Olympic accolades?
Why must the reality of the past be made a completely alien unmentionable land?
And I am not at all suggesting this would be something nasty imposed upon people - but rather that it would be something people do naturally themselves. Something completely acceptable.
Surely it is much more healthy psychologically and emotionally to be truthful about one's existence?

Yeah, I feel what you're saying here. I read an article ages ago where a trans woman was recalling growing up and she referred to herself by her old name, recalled fond memories of experiences they had as a teenage boy etc. It was a really nice article and the person seemed very at peace with themselves past and present, I wish I could find it again to share.

A zero tolerance blanket ban on deadnaming IMO falls under the category of the sort of language-policing that I don't feel is particularly helpful to the discussion. I think it's well intentioned, and it's probably good for people to get in the habit of erring on the side of caution, but I'm notin favour of any sort of extreme language policing that divorces words from the intent with which they're spoken.

A bit of reciprocal leeway from both sides would do wonders for the debate IMO. It may have to include some people deciding not to flip out when someone uses the word "cis" and obviously means no harm though!

Gruffalux

RWCNT wrote: »

Yeah, I feel what you're saying here. I read an article ages ago where a trans woman was recalling growing up and she referred to herself by her old name, recalled fond memories of experiences they had as a teenage boy etc. It was a really nice article and the person seemed very at peace with themselves past and present, I wish I could find it again to share.

A zero tolerance blanket ban on deadnaming IMO falls under the category of the sort of language-policing that I don't feel is particularly helpful to the discussion. I think it's well intentioned, and it's probably good for people to get in the habit of erring on the side of caution, but I'm notin favour of any sort of extreme language policing that divorces words from the intent with which they're spoken.

A bit of reciprocal leeway from both sides would do wonders for the debate IMO. It may have to include some people deciding not to flip out when someone uses the word "cis" and obviously means no harm though!

That sounds like a good story - it would be good and truthful if everyone who felt they preferred a different gender expression was at peace with the reality of their past. I hope many are. It is pretty awesome to be here as a human in the first place!

I have to hold the line about the word cis though. First of all I really hate the sound of it. And it's origin in chemistry. Natal would be better if a word must be used.
But the fundamental reason I hold out against the use of cis is it attempts to divide the ontological category of (for example) women - which means adult human female - into two subcategories - ie cis and trans. It suggests there are female women and male women. Women are not a sub-category of women, they are the category.
Trans women are males who identify as expressing and in many cases express their gender fully as women. The word trans means opposite. The opposite here is to their factual biological birth sex.
Though strictly speaking in biological terms they are actually in the category male - I do not think that is helpful or kind to people who wish to express as women, so trans women as a facilitating category on its own is fine. Ditto for transman.

RWCNT

Gruffalux wrote: »

That sounds like a good story - it would be good and truthful if everyone who felt they preferred a different gender expression was at peace with the reality of their past. I hope many are. It is pretty awesome to be here as a human in the first place!

I have to hold the line about the word cis though. First of all I really hate the sound of it. And it's origin in chemistry. Natal would be better if a word must be used.
But the fundamental reason I hold out against the use of cis is it attempts to divide the ontological category of (for example) women - which means adult human female - into two subcategories - ie cis and trans. It suggests there are female women and male women. Women are not a sub-category of women, they are the category.
Trans women are males who identify as expressing and in many cases express their gender fully as women. The word trans means opposite. The opposite here is to their factual biological birth sex.
Though strictly speaking in biological terms they are actually in the category male - I do not think that is helpful or kind to people who wish to express as women, so trans women as a facilitating category on its own is fine. Ditto for transman.

Aye, you and I have spoke before about the word "cis" and I get what you're saying, while not being bothered by it myself. My issue with the word is just that it confuses people and I don't see any use in that. It's a word better placed in impregnable academic discussions than real life IMO. Anyway, that topic has been absolutely beaten to death and I'm not keen on starting it up all over again.

Parabellum9 wrote: »

It’s only offensive if you fully believe someone can change their sex - which they can’t. You can believe you are what you want but you had a name on your birth certificate and regardless of what you pretend to be now, that name still applies in some context.

As with anything, it should come down to intent. If someone deliberately calls someone by a name they no longer go by and have asked not to be called because they're trying to upset them, they're being a bit of a prick.

If you say "Wasn't it great when <person's old name> won an olympic gold medal" simply because that's the name that they were going by at the time and that sounds right in your head, you don't deserve to be lambasted for that.

grassylawn

Some of the Elliot Page reactions are somewhat reactionary.

There are legitimate concerns about transitioning. Real questions need to be asked when people who transition who are sex offenders, children or athletes.

However Elliot Page is none of these. They want to be called what is now their legal name and for people to refer to them with gender neutral pronouns. Why do you care?

grassylawn

grassylawn wrote: »

Some of the Elliot Page reactions are somewhat reactionary.

There are legitimate concerns about transitioning. Real questions need to be asked when people who transition who are sex offenders, children or athletes.

However Elliot Page is none of these. They want to be called what is now their legal name and for people to refer to them with gender neutral pronouns. Why do you care?

I care because she is claiming to be a man. "He" is not gender neutral. She isn't a man.

I could claim to be a knight. Would you encourage people to address me as a Sir? If not why not? What makes my claim any less valid?

I run the risk of being cautioned for misgendering but I assure you I am not. I am referring to Hollywood actress Ellen Page. Not Elliott Page who only came into the celebrity stratus recently. I've never seen "them" in a film.

LLMMLL

grassylawn wrote: »

Some of the Elliot Page reactions are somewhat reactionary.

There are legitimate concerns about transitioning. Real questions need to be asked when people who transition who are sex offenders, children or athletes.

However Elliot Page is none of these. They want to be called what is now their legal name and for people to refer to them with gender neutral pronouns. Why do you care?

Because the TERF side cannot let there be a well adjusted trans public figure. It’s too damaging to their cause. So they have to be torn down. They want the general public to believe that barbie kardashian is representative of trans people.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

It’s too damaging to their cause. So they have to be torn down

What are you smoking .