Calhoun wrote: » Well they want to target kids as young as 12 with some fairly ****ed up drugs, also want to remove psychiatrist from the whole process before getting to this. So I'd say the harm is to society overall. I'd also go and far as saying their limited grasp of biology is dangerous when having an opinion on this subject.
freshpopcorn wrote: » Well in my opinion it was all very suggestive from the parents/family. It was like x is a little different so let's label him.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Did you listen to what the mother said? Her despair about "why couldn't you just be gay"? Did that sound like she had suggested the whole thing?
Sonic Youth wrote: » The article says unisex facilities are becoming more and more common so as to appease transsexuals Here's a simple idea, have separate facilities for men and women.
Sonic Youth wrote: » Because he (it's always a man) is an attention seeking twat. I don't like people like that. There's a 40 something man in America who 'identifies' as a little girl. He's a freak, the absolute state of him
ceadaoin. wrote: » No but it allows people to challenge why they might be in facilities of the wrong gender or make them think twice about taking the chance. In the UK most sexual assaults in facilities like that take place in unisex ones. It's all about opportunity
[Deleted User] wrote: » First, the extraordinary number of teenage females who identify as male and how this is not replicated in the number of males who identify as female. Why? How is this explained?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Why would you expect the numbers to be replicated?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Do you believe everything you read in the papers? Unless you know what proportion of pools have unisex changing rooms in the first place, you (and the authors) have no basis for their claim that they are more dangerous. They may well just be more common. But well done on swallowing an article designed to stir things up. That's a great example of why Brexit happened BTW.
Deleted User wrote: » He's a mad looking bastard all the same..His head kind of looks like he spends too much time arguing with idiots on the internet..
Sonic Youth wrote: » AndrewJRenko wrote: » Do you believe everything you read in the papers? Unless you know what proportion of pools have unisex changing rooms in the first place, you (and the authors) have no basis for their claim that they are more dangerous. They may well just be more common. But well done on swallowing an article designed to stir things up. That's a great example of why Brexit happened BTW. Impressive mental gymanistics there. You must be a male feminist.
James1888 wrote: » In what way do you mean prepare to suspend reality, the madness in the whole LGBT agenda on minors? Or the scientific fact that your brain isn't fully developed until 25. This sickness is being brought in to primary schools starting in September, it part of the "inclusive ciriculam" of the new sex ed program. Its sickening to think the whole way through that crap rte ****show that was just on and all the questioning they done about why this was happening. 2 mins of research and you have your answer. Brainwashed by idiot so called liberal documentarys on youtube plus poor diets and health Inc mental health no exercise and underdeveloped brains = testosterone and estrogen levels all over the place and causing feminine men and masculine women. Eat some bloody steaks people
AndrewJRenko wrote: » It's just awful when someone brings facts and data to these discussions, isn't it?
Sonic Youth wrote: » AndrewJRenko wrote: » It's just awful when someone brings facts and data to these discussions, isn't it? You haven't brought any facts. You just tried to dismiss findings that show unisex facilities to be more dangerous for women
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Neither of the issues that you mentioned - drugs and gatekeeping - have anything to do with non-binary.. Those issues apply to the broad issue. So really, what is your particular problem with people who declare themselves non-binary?
Sonic Youth wrote: » Impressive mental gymanistics there. You must be a male feminist.
[Deleted User] wrote: » A very balanced and hugely informative Prime Time tonight - although I suspect praising an RTÉ programme is akin to a crime in the eyes of some. Anyway, three things stood out. First, the extraordinary number of teenage females who identify as male and how this is not replicated in the number of males who identify as female. Why? How is this explained? Second, the high crossover between the number of people who are transgender and who also have autism. Never knew that. How is this explained? Third, the very strong link between mental health issues and transgender people. I surmised that almost entirely based on the experience of one of my sibling's transgender children and the hell of pain and heartbreak the recurrent suicide watch and absence of mental health supports inflicted upon them for years. That absence of mental health supports for adolescents is the real scandal in all this, and that couple from Wexford personified the lives of so many parents trying to understand what's happening. Far too many people here are caught up in bullshít about avoiding "pc" and trying to be "edgy" by "speaking the truth". And they miss the pain, suffering and loneliness of all those people who struggle to come to peace with their gender, never mind have their preferred gender accepted. I can honestly say I don't envy the lives/turmoil of any of the transgender people on that programme. I'd rather not put the boot in by demonising or dismissing their feelings. I'm sure the people who want to demean them could, if they had the balls, find stronger targets for their wrath. There but for the grace of God go we.
grahambo wrote: » Right, just watched the thing on the RTE Player (RTE Player looks new btw, I haven't used it in years, I rarely watch RTE.) Both sides made interesting and valid points about the issues Trans people face and the issues the rest of Society faces. There were some things which annoyed me though: 1) Graham said prevy men were using this as a way to "get" women, which is ballox, there's easier ways to "get" women than that. 2) The professor who wanted to research people who reversed or wanted to reverse going through the change, but was told "No" as it might hurt peoples feelings as it was a sensitive subject... which is also ballox 3) The person they interviewed that wants to be referred to as "They". This does not make sense to me. You can't be "They", you're an individual. 4) Graham was on the show for about 30 seconds... I don't see what the fuss was about
heebusjeebus wrote: » I think point 2 & 4 go hand in hand. There is huge pressure out there to shut down any research or airing of alternate views on this subject. This is very worrying in my opinion.
professore wrote: » I thought it was good overall and Graham Linehan added some balance to it. Disappointed the promised debate never materialised. Very interesting that there is an explosion in girls wanting to transition. Wonder why that is? I think mass hysteria could be a reason, or a backlash against the ridiculous Instagram culture that is almost exclusively the preserve of teenage girls. But I'm just spitballing here. I would be dead against medical intervention for kids younger than 18 but identifying as the other gender I'd have no issue with.
heebusjeebus wrote: » grahambo wrote: » Right, just watched the thing on the RTE Player (RTE Player looks new btw, I haven't used it in years, I rarely watch RTE.) Both sides made interesting and valid points about the issues Trans people face and the issues the rest of Society faces. There were some things which annoyed me though: 1) Graham said prevy men were using this as a way to "get" women, which is ballox, there's easier ways to "get" women than that. 2) The professor who wanted to research people who reversed or wanted to reverse going through the change, but was told "No" as it might hurt peoples feelings as it was a sensitive subject... which is also ballox 3) The person they interviewed that wants to be referred to as "They". This does not make sense to me. You can't be "They", you're an individual. 4) Graham was on the show for about 30 seconds... I don't see what the fuss was about I think point 2 & 4 go hand in hand. There is huge pressure out there to shut down any research or airing of alternate views on this subject. This is very worrying in my opinion.
Calhoun wrote: » heebusjeebus wrote: » I think point 2 & 4 go hand in hand. There is huge pressure out there to shut down any research or airing of alternate views on this subject. This is very worrying in my opinion. Even now you see the usual suspects in this thread scurrying around trying to turn this into a "your all transphobic" issue rather than let folk discuss.
Calhoun wrote: » AndrewJRenko wrote: » Neither of the issues that you mentioned - drugs and gatekeeping - have anything to do with non-binary.. Those issues apply to the broad issue. So really, what is your particular problem with people who declare themselves non-binary? Just people who don't understand biology shouldn't go anywhere near children. Just keep away from kids Andrew and we won't have any issues .
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Isn't it strange though how you can't actually explain what you're afraid of? The biggest risk to children are straight men in their own family circle, despite your determination to create a mythical bogeyman to be scared of.
Calhoun wrote: » I never said I was afraid of anything I just believe in the science of two genders. If you don't have a decent grasp of science should you really be on advocating for children to go through this process. Guess what we also have a fairly big stigma around straight men being around children, if a straight man or men did what happened with the two drag queen children in Canada and America they probably would be ruined right now and in discussion with social services. So you see it's not me who is building up the bogeyman the LGBT community is doing that themselves, combine the above with the near immunity to criticism and you get the potential for a fairly predatory group.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » They go through this process only after a psychiatric evaluation. But you think you know better than qualified medical professionals.
Calhoun wrote: » They want to remove the psychiatric evaluation, that is what the trans woman on the program was arguing. Even with the psychiatrist evaluation though I am not in favor of kids going using hormone blockers or going through surgery.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/43d5d8eb6f74f970975eb821385072d4.svg)
