Moderation of trans issue and terms

Raichų

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123505142#Comment_123505142

Volchitsa, I am not opposed to your point of view.

I find this whole charade a waste of time and energy.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123505149#Comment_123505149

I wasn't saying you were, I was explaining where I disagree with that particular post, that's all. It's not about proving anyone wrong, it's about explaining where I'm coming from.

And that "both sides" thing is something I see a lot of. I'm explaining why I think it's not appropriate in this case. (In plenty of others too, FWIW, but for different reasons).

As to being a waste of time, that's entirely up to you. Women's rights are something I feel strongly about, so I don't feel it's a waste of my time.😎

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123504898#Comment_123504898

Nope. My mobile showed the words looking the same.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123505181#Comment_123505181

So you have no spaces when you type on your mobile?? Maybe get a new mobile.

suvigirl

Biological sex is not bioo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123505000#Comment_123505000

Biological sex isn't the same as gender though is it? Isn't that one of the arguments?

baxterooneydoody

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123505194#Comment_123505194

You're right, you're biologically male or female, gender is upto yourself, you may be a transformer monosex lesbian rabbit if you wish, I'd you can imagine it you can be it

suvigirl

Most men are not sex abusers, yet we don't say they can hang around in female changing rooms, because some are.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123505019#Comment_123505019

Ah, ok I think I see the issue. Why in the world do you think single sex spaces are due to men being sex offenders??

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123505237#Comment_123505237

I'm well aware of the history of public toilets for women, and the concept of the urinary leash, so I hope you don't think I need a lesson on any of that?

All I'm saying is that women are more at risk of sexual assault in mixed sex changing areas, and so whatever the original reasons for their existence, they do now provide some degree of protection for women. Another example is, I don't know if you've ever taken refuge from an over insistent man in the women's loos in a pub or nightclub, but lots of women have. When toilets are gender neutral, that's no longer an option, because you're literally in a single cubicle, unable to get any help from the women around.

BP_RS3813

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123504842#Comment_123504842

Huh really, you learn something new everyday. Wonder how it went from meaning a bunch of sticks to a insult for gay people. Thanks for the correction.

BP_RS3813

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123504849#Comment_123504849

No need for the pedantics. It was easy enough to understand what I meant.

kippy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123504654#Comment_123504654

You are equating the terms 'biologicilly male/biologically female/born male/born female' with those derogatory terms.

Do you see anything different between both categories?

aero2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123501977#Comment_123501977

I tend to agree with many of your posts, but you lost me on the parallel parking - it's not ok for anyone to be bad at that 😀!

Raichų

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123505255#Comment_123505255

I’m honestly not sure! I suppose it’s like retardation was never a bad word until it was.

That’s why this idea of censoring certain phrases is quite silly. They seem to change what’s offensive with regards to transgenderism numerous times a week, I can’t keep up anymore.

BP_RS3813

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123505309#Comment_123505309

They seriously need to put that in the driving test. The amount of people who never learned or are just terrible at it a national disgrace.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123505248#Comment_123505248

All I'm saying is that women are more at risk of sexual assault in mixed sex changing areas

Than what?

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123505385#Comment_123505385

Than they are in single sex changing areas. Don't you already know this??

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

Just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment are about incidents in unisex facilities.

Or here:

https://www.womensrights.network/post/leisure-centres-putting-women-and-girls-at-riskpress-release

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123505333#Comment_123505333

Queer is one I find very interesting. That was a hugely offensive word when I was growing up. Was actually used in a really derogatory way towards me by teenage scrotes when I was a younger. (God help you if you dressed in anything other than a grey Adidas tracksuit!)

People throw it around to beat the band these days as a 'reclaimed' word and I still wince every time I hear it.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123505390#Comment_123505390

That's hilarious!

Women are at risk of sexual assault everywhere. Saying there is less of a risk of being sexually assaulted by a man, in a female only changing area, is like saying there is less of a risk of being sexually assaulted by a man at an ICA meeting.

Single sex spaces do not exist because men are sexual offenders. I honestly think you need to think through these things rationally. You know a female sign on a door is not magic? This has been an eye opener to your beliefs.

You know, I personally have gone way off topic in this thread, along with many others. The point is whether offensive language should or shouldn't be allowed on boards when discussing trans people, most rationally thinking posters would agree it shouldn't.

George White

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123505407#Comment_123505407

It's a generational thing.

I know one person my age who does find queer offensive, a genderfluid lesbian too rather than the kind of older middle class, frequently rural dwelling gay man who thinks everyone wants the t split from the lgb. This person definitely isn't one of them.

But for my generation (I was born 1995), 'gay' was the slur word, not 'queer'. 'You're gay!' Like I've heard kids say things like 'you like girls, girls are gay!'

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123504850#Comment_123504850

At least you can always be relied upon to be an unreliable narrator, Volchitsa.

Taking what was a genuine attempt by a trans woman to explain why they find the term "biological male" offensive to them and using it here out of context to put your own slant on it (that they meant it applied across the board).

It's a cheap way to debate, imo.

If someone can't be trusted to post in good faith, then it is a waste of time trying to have any kind of debate with them.

Lost causes.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123505413#Comment_123505413

I'm not in the habit of getting undressed at ICA meetings, so that's not an issue.

I'm not sure what your argument is though: should we get rid of all single sex spaces because women get raped in other places too, so who cares if you greatly increase the numbers of rapes by doing so? Why exactly would "the numbers will never be zero anyway" be an argument for getting rid of single sex changing rooms altogether?

And is this only for changing rooms? Does the same apply to prisons? Put men and women in together because women get raped outside prison anyway?

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123505443#Comment_123505443

Do you even understand what that post you quoted actually says? You put the wrong bit in yellow.

"saying that (…) a Trans Woman is a biological male (is) offensive" - that's the part I was referring to.

And that's exactly what I said.

The bit you put in yellow says that the poster thinks it's fine to call a person who identifies as a biological male (even if they are actually female) but not someone who is biologically male if they identify as something else. Which is entirely different.

And nowhere in the post does the poster say they are only talking about themselves. They're saying it's about how the person identifies, not saying "if you're talking about me".

aero2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123505335#Comment_123505335

It was in my driving test I think .....

Raichų

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123505407#Comment_123505407

yeah it’s not a thing right? Like being queer is under the expanded LGBT umbrella.

I don’t really get what it means though. I think the idea is you’re queer if you don’t subscribe to standards expected of someone of your sexuality and gender or something?

Just once again goes to demonstrate words mean nothing

_Kaiser_

You're born male or female. You can later feel that you should have been the opposite sex, but that doesn't make it so, no does it change your history or biology or make it something you were "assigned" or any other attempt to muddy or dilute the reality and facts involved.

What you CAN do is start living as that opposite sex - adopt a new name, change your dress style or general appearance (if desired), let those around you know how you would prefer to be known as going forward, or even go further and take steps to more permanently change your physical appearance and attributes - but again, this does not MAKE you that sex.

What you (or self-appointed spokespeople for your situation who may or may not actually understand it from your perspective, or what you may/may not have an issue with) CAN'T do is pressure, force or bully anyone who chooses NOT to support your feelings or validate your chosen new identity.

Some may just refuse because they don't believe in it, or they value science more than feelings in their lives and see supporting/going along with it as contradictory and false. Some people may just be assholes in general, but that is just as much THEIR right too!

Nor can you demand that you be given the same rights and entitlements as those you now identify with. They too have the right to have their feelings, opinions and any questions or concerns heard and given equal weight in any outcome. You are not special and you don't get any special entitlements (especially not over others) "just because" your feelings are that strong and sure.

All you can really do is get on with your life as best you can - like everyone else! - and accept that not everyone you meet will agree with or validate you (on this, or any other issue for that matter!). Do that and you'll probably find that life a lot easier.

To get back to the OP… as per my earlier posts and having read the rest of this thread since, IMO there is no action needed here by Boards or the Mod team.

It's absolutely ironic that I say "IMO" too as this entire topic is one of opinion and feelings, and whether individuals or others value those entirely personal and subjective concepts over the language, terms and the medical facts established over not just decades but generations.

I fully accept that there are about 3/4 posters who won't agree with this (and I'm sure will reply to this accordingly), but as I said previously, its impossible to legislate for constantly moving goalposts of personal feelings/opinions and agenda-driven motivations - especially where a lot of these are being generated in a country (the US) that has a wholly different society, values, and set of issues to our own (despite superficial initial similarities). To do so would be an exercise in futility and frustration for ALL concerned.

All that's needed here is basic common sense (which I admit, does seem to be in ever shorter supply nowadays) when deciding if action is needed:

• Did the poster use terms or come from a position based on scientific/biological or historical facts, or did they express what appeared to be a genuine opinion with no ill-intent behind it, or which was aligned with the cultural/societal norm in Ireland? (not America or anywhere else). Given how socially liberal we are as a nation anyway nowadays, that's surely not a bad yardstick to use!
• Was the objection rooted in those same factors, or more ideological, personal, or just contrarianism?
• Does taking action genuinely help or hinder/limit the discussion for those others partaking in it?

This is not a big site, and I'm sure the reports generally come from the same group of users (from whatever "side" they're on!). It shouldn't be too hard to determine the above answers if the Mods themselves know their regulars.

Flaneur OBrien

I'd just leave the guidance to mods to be more open:

Was the post posted in a way that would be seen as being posted to antagonise? We used to have a rule banning flame-baiting, but that seems to have been done away with years ago. I'd bring that back.

Also:

Was the post posted in a way that was intended to be derogatory towards an individual or group? In this case it would be up to the poster to defend their post, in a feedback thread if required.

Can anyone argue that they would not like boards to be more open, warm and welcoming to all?

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123504475#Comment_123504475

Again, this has nothing to do with what I personally do or do not believe. It's about showing people respect by choosing words least likely to offend them, when addressing or referring to them. It really shouldn't be so hard to wrap your head around. No one is asking you to apply any terms you find offensive to yourself.

Also, just a reminder, even though it has already been discussed upthread - up until as recently as the last 10 years, not all Irish hospitals offered routine ultrasounds to expectant parents. And, as someone else mentioned, I do know parents who were told their baby would be one sex, only for them to be born the other. So the "science" got it wrong!

On the subject of amniocentisis, which has also come up, back in the early 60s during her second pregnancy, my own mother was approached and became one of the very first women in the UK to agree to amniocentisis for the purpose of medical research. She had lost her first child at 28 weeks, and they told her it might help them to find out why it happened and prevent it happening to other women. So she consented. They went around her baby bump multiple times in with what she described as like a clock, making multiple punctures with "inches long" needles. She described it as "excruciating". She went through this three times, over a number of weeks, and each time afterwards, she was given a chair to rest on and a cup of tea and after 30 minutes let go home on the tube alone.

So no, we are not dismissive of "science" in my family. But we don't weaponise it in conversation, or debate, to cause deliberate offense to others. In Boards.ie context, we aren't dicks.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123505072#Comment_123505072

Similarly, doctors don't assign the baby's sex, because it doesn't depend on their choices, only on their observations.

Even in the case of a baby with a DSD, doctors in the past may have wrongly recorded the baby's sex, but in reality, doctors mostly didn't actually get it wrong, they just didn't know how best to deal with a baby whose genitalia were deformed or ambiguous. And they didn't have chromosomal tests to identify for sure the baby's sex - but they do all have one of the two sexes all the same.

Doctors make choices based upon their observations, it's how they classify a neonate as being of either sex. Even in the case of a neonate with a DSD observable to the naked eye, doctors in the past didn't immediately record the neonates sex - they performed corrective surgery first, then recorded the neonate as the sex they had decided was appropriate.

There's a reason why the DSD athletes are nearly all from poor countries with terrible healthcare who weren't examined by a properly trained medical professional. Those mistakes just don't happen in developed countries any more.

The reason is that those are the neonates that got away. Had there been proper medical facilities at the time, there are a number of options available to parents and the medical profession. Because there aren't, neonates born with DSDs are immediately expired.

But they all have a sex, and that sex becomes clear at puberty, even if it wasn't clear before.

It's always clear, puberty is just another stage of human development is all. People with DSDs can go their whole lives without ever being aware of the condition.

So assigned, recorded or labelled female at birth is simply wrong. Observed and recorded is correct - and observed on its own is also fine. But why would anyone need four words when "born female" would be enough? And the reason is because it implies that maybe the person has since become the other sex. But that's a nonsense. Nobody can change sex. No matter how much they want to.

Has the right to freedom of expression been repealed without my knowledge? If it hasn't, then people are still entitled to describe themselves using whatever language they're comfortable with. The issues arise when they attempt to describe other people and groups in whatever language they're comfortable with, and those people they're describing aren't comfortable with that language at all. Whether the GRA is or isn't repealed wouldn't change the fact that it applies to everyone in Irish society, be they man, woman, or child, and so if it were repealed, 'biological females' would also lose the ability to use language which describes themselves. The State was recently rapped on the knuckles for misinterpreting Irish legislation so I wouldn't hold out too much hope of being able to force individuals to use their words.

And it's unfair on them to allow them to think so - it can send vulnerable teens down a pathway of irreversible drugs, sterility and mutilating surgery - all for a result that is almost never fully convincing anyway.

As much as I'm not in favour of medical interventions to alleviate conditions which are regarded in Irish society as undesirable, I also wouldn't be in favour of a model which deprives people of the right to exercise their autonomy. So while it could be argued that it is unfair to those people to allow them to think they can change sex, it's not a particularly compelling argument in favour of depriving them of their right to autonomy. Arguments framed like that can make for some very unusual circumstances, motivated by actors whose concern is definitely not for the people in question, but rather to further their own ideological beliefs which they believe everyone in society should share in common -

ECHR disability abortion fight important | CARE

No prizes for guessing the ideological underpinnings of the organisation funding that particular legal battle, which on the face of it appears unfair, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the implications of a decision in favour of the woman in question and what it would mean for every other woman in the UK, even those women not born yet.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123505536#Comment_123505536

People are of course free to describe themseves as they wish. And other people are under no obligation to go along with that unless they can prove it. Otherwise all those illegal immigrants at risk of being expelled from the US would just identify as American.

Flaneur OBrien

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123505552#Comment_123505552

You say you believe trans people exist, and then post bull like

"Otherwise all those illegal immigrants at risk of being expelled from the US would just identify as American."

Which it is? You either believe that trans individuals wake up one day and decide, "oh f*ck being a man, those transwomen have it so handy, I'll be one of them" or you believe that a trans person goes through an enormous amount of soul-searching, often therapy, often medication, sometimes painful surgeries and recoveries because they believe deep down they belong to the other gender.

I don't believe you.

I don't believe you understand any of the pain transgender people go through. About how they have to deal often with a family fallout and the societal price they pay to be transgender.

No transgender person has had an easier life coming out as trans than a cisgender person does, by remaining cis