Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » This one is pretty simple, Andrew. And totally unrelated to the WRC cases which are he says, she says,. If a person is legally a woman then there is no distinction between another person classified as a woman. Clearly.
Calhoun wrote: » Of course its getting nasty its only going to get nastier the more and more they target kids. I can understand why a minority group wants to grow its a matter of survival but there is a fine line with it coming across as predatory. The photo session in Canada about a week ago with the naked adult beside the 10 year old "drag queen" is not going to endear allot of people to the cause. Before that we had the incident of the 11 year old in the gay bar. I can only see things getting worse for the trans community the more and more children are involved.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Not transitioning IS making a decision - a decision to spend those critical teenage years in a gender that is wrong for you. Are they capable of making that decision?
Wrongway1985 wrote: » I'm puzzled as to why a guy can't give his views on a topic. Protest outside RTE studios at half 6 over it, a protest for RTE to censor...strange times.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Do you think that perhaps when the national broadcaster is selecting participants for a sensitive topic on the major current affairs programme, they should choose people with some expertise or experience in the topic? Or is it OK to pick anyone who stirs things up on Twitter? No one is being censored here.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Children are already involved, not by any choice of their own or because of any targeting. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend otherwise, just like the typical Irish response to anything related to sexuality, but that won't stop children finding themselves with gender issues. And yes, if you keep relying on the Daily Mail or other scandal sheets for your information, things will get worse and worse.
suicide_circus wrote: » if he was totally unqualified but was fielding the right sort of opinions, do we think there would be a protest?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Really? And your basis for that claim is?
Gravelly wrote: » The general public (who fund RTE) don't have any expertise or experience on this topic, should they be allowed to hold a view? Should they be allowed to have someone who, like themselves, have no expertise or experience on the panel so it doesn't turn into a talking shop of "experts" agreeing with one another?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » For the umpteenth time, no-one is challenging anyone else's right to hold an opinion. This isn't a 'panel discussion' on Prime Time. Glinner's piece has already been recorded. He won't be engaging with experts on the show. He will be given time to expound his opinions, though he has no experience or expertise in the matter."Next week on Prime Time - the M50 traffic chaos - we speak to cyclists in rural Clare who never drive in Dublin for their compelling insights on the topic". It's just a bit silly, isn't it?
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » My basis for that claim is not giving hormones is less harmful than giving hormones to pre pubescent children.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » So you're having a go at people for being motivated and committed enough to get off their arses and get out from behind a keyboard? If others are too lazy or smug to protest, that's their own problem.
Gravelly wrote: » Another silly comparison - a more accurate one would be: "This week on Prime Time, should six year olds be allowed to drive? We speak to 3 experts who we have already vetted to ensure that they agree"
AndrewJRenko wrote: » For the umpteenth time, no-one is challenging anyone else's right to hold an opinion. This isn't a 'panel discussion' on Prime Time. Glinner's piece has already been recorded. He won't be engaging with experts on the show. He will be given time to expound his opinions, though he has no experience or expertise in the matter. "Next week on Prime Time - the M50 traffic chaos - we speak to cyclists in rural Clare who never drive in Dublin for their compelling insights on the topic". It's just a bit silly, isn't it?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Where did anyone look for vetting to ensure people agree?
Will I Am Not wrote: » Linehan is well known for his views on the subject, views that are in line with a lot of TV licence payers. He’s not some randomer dragged in off the street.
Gravelly wrote: » Well, since it appears that anyone who doesn't isn't welcome, I'd say that's pretty much the outcome, isn't it?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » And that's purely personal opinion, right? No actual research or anything?
Maybe we should get rid of all those pesky Randomised Controlled Trials for new drugs and just go on your personal opinion of what the outcomes will be instead?
freshpopcorn wrote: » That's not really a good comparison to make to be fair now. When we had debates on gay marriage we had people who weren't gay but just held a view on the matter.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Who did we have on Prime Time speaking about marriage equality who had no experience or expertise?
ceadaoin. wrote: » It's not necessarily wrong for them though. Most transgender children are not transgender as adults if left to it without starting on a path of hormone blockers or social transition. Usually they identify as cis and gay. This is what every study on the subject shows. So no, they aren't capable of making that decision. Can you imagine the amount of damaged adults, not to mention lawsuits, in the future if children who are not actually transgender are allowed to make these choices?
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » It’s all personal opinions here, although doctors have chimed in and you ignored them too. You really argue like an intolerant teenager. Everything’s a sneer or an ad hom (as far as I know it’s all on my dime too). I don’t need a medical degree or be part of a randomised trial to know that drugs that delay puberty must be by definition harmful to a child’s development. It stops puberty. Which is part of development. The only counter argument would be that the distress of being in the “wrong body”, which is fairly hard to measure, is worse. We don’t accept that children can consent to adult activities and we can’t know therefore if the child is really in a position to consent to these drugs. Or surgery. I honestly didn’t think that I’d get anybody supporting this. I also presume it’s illegal in Ireland.
Bannasidhe wrote: » My experience - and I have a fair bit - is it's the other way around. As young teenagers they identified as gay and later as transsexual. After transition most - but not all - then identify as heterosexual. So the gender they were/are attracted to sexually stays the same but their own body changes so it becomes the opposite gender they are attracted to not the same gender. This isn't a hard and fast rule as every individual is different but it has been my experience with the majority of young people I know who have/are transitioning. And no. None of them are pre-pubescent. All are late teens/early twenties. All are taking hormones, most are waiting for various surgeries - waiting until their bodies have adapted to the hormones and can cope. I will also say that I have seen them go from deeply unhappy angry kids lashing out at the world to happy adults secure in their own bodies and post-trans gender identity.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
