Huntergonzo wrote: » Well he's not agreeing with them, so obviously he should be censored. You're either 100% behind the idea that you can choose your own gender at random or you need to be silenced. Welcome to 2019 folks.
seamus wrote: » I don't believe that's the case. Not just legally, but if a guy arrived in a station complaining that the woman he had sex with last night turned out to be trans, he'd be laughed out of the station.
The Act of 1990 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 9: “9. (1) A person consents to a sexual act if he or she freely and voluntarily agrees to engage in that act.(2) A person does not consent to a sexual act if— (a) he or she permits the act to take place or submits to it because of the application of force to him or her or to some other person, or because of the threat of the application of force to him or her or to some other person, or because of a well-founded fear that force may be applied to him or her or to some other person, (b) he or she is asleep or unconscious, (c) he or she is incapable of consenting because of the effect of alcohol or some other drug, (d) he or she is suffering from a physical disability which prevents him or her from communicating whether he or she agrees to the act,(e) he or she is mistaken as to the nature and purpose of the act, (f) he or she is mistaken as to the identity of any other person involved in the act, (g) he or she is being unlawfully detained at the time at which the act takes place, (h) the only expression or indication of consent or agreement to the act comes from somebody other than the person himself or herself.(3) This section does not limit the circumstances in which it may be established that a person did not consent to a sexual act. (4) Consent to a sexual act may be withdrawn at any time before the act begins, or in the case of a continuing act, while the act is taking place. (5) Any failure or omission on the part of a person to offer resistance to an act does not of itself constitute consent to that act. (6) In this section— ‘sexual act’ means— (a) an act consisting of— (i) sexual intercourse, or (ii) buggery, (b) an act described in section 3(1) or 4(1) of this Act, or (c) an act which if done without consent would constitute a sexual assault; ‘sexual intercourse’ shall be construed in accordance with section 1(2) of the Principal Act.”.
Perhaps. But opinion is irrelevant anyway. We don't legislate for opinion. Unless it could be proven that the tran person set out to deceive the other, and especially given that we have legal recognition of gender, the individual wouldn't really have a leg to stand on. Their opinion on whether a trans person is their chosen gender, is irrelevant. It's a legal fact.
Agreed. No trans person would let it get that far anyway. So like you say, the entire discussion is moot. It's a solution in search of a problem.
One eyed Jack wrote: » He can though, and he’s likely to have his complaint taken seriously too, and the other person could find themselves facing charges of aggravated sexual assault or rape.
Will I Am Not wrote: » See this is just your opinion, an opinion that I doubt would be shared by most heterosexual men. A tiny fraction maybe.
It’s fairly moot anyway, I can’t imagine many men would get to the point of the next morning after sex without realising the other person is trans.
seamus wrote: » Rather odd to assert that there should be a "right" to be attracted to a choice. You either are attracted or you aren't, it's not something you can really choose. If you're talking about the right to have a preference without fear of being labelled, then absolutely. Like I say, attraction kind of is or isn't, you don't really get to decide, "Today I will not find Chinese people attractive". But ultimately just because a person has a preference, that doesn't obligate a potential partner to reveal everything to make sure they're compatible. If I had brought a woman home and the next morning found out that she hunts animals for sport and pickets abortion clinics I'd not only be unattracted to her, I'd also feel dirty and "violated". Is that her fault for not telling me, or is it my stupid fault for letting my dick make all my decisions?Trans is no different. Having sex with a transwoman does not make you gay. It does not "violate" your sexuality. While it's certainly a good idea on her part to be upfront for her own safety, if some guy jumps into bed without getting to know the other person better, then he can't whinge the next day when he finds out she has attributes that turn him off.
seamus wrote: » if some guy jumps into bed without getting to know the other person better, then he can't whinge the next day when he finds out she has attributes that turn him off.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Being trans is not the same as being "cis", though. And a lot of straight, non-trans peoples' sexual orientation is specifically only open to sexual activity with non-trans members of the opposite sex. Call it transphobic if you like, but it's a simple fact - a lot of straight people of either gender would be weirded out and feel violated after discovering that a person they just engaged in sexual activity with (or were just about to when this was discovered) was not a "natural born" member of the opposite sex. In my view, people have a right to have their sexual orientation respected, just as many believe that people have a right to have their gender identity respected. Why should one trump the other? Does a straight person not have the right to be attracted exclusively to members of the opposite sex who were never members of the same sex - and therefore feel sexually violated if they were led to believe this was the case when it wasn't?
Sittingpretty wrote: » A transsexual woman is not a biological woman. She was born male and every chromosome in her body is still male.
NIMAN wrote: » Donkey Kong?
Billy86 wrote: » By that logic, shouldn't RTE should have 4.8mn people on the panel so we can get all of the views on it? Otherwise, whether he were pro or anti trans, Linehane being on the panel makes about as much sense as having Jamie Redknapp on news shows discussing the impact of Brexit in the financial sector.
seamus wrote: » These are slight deviations though. They are people actually pretending to be someone else. There's an intent to deceive. The same intent cannot be said to exist if one person is trans.
klaaaz wrote: » Disagree. Most people do not resort to violence even when triggered, they do abide by the law to seek restitution of their grievance.
Zorya wrote: » I mean, how do you filter your social life to have it include such a statistically significant segment from an unusually small reference group that you can speak with such authority about chips on shoulders?
HandsomeBob wrote: » Have you ever heard of what you described actually happening? Can't say that I have other than in the world of very cheap fiction. Most people are decent when in comes down to it and that would include people who happen to be transgender.
mazcon wrote: » Women in their twenties and thirties are routinely refused sterilisation because they're too young and might change their minds but we are to accept that children as young as twelve can make decisions about their future fertility and sexual function?
Cartroubles wrote: » ohnonotgmail wrote: » That was Petal Stool not Pedal Stool. No it wasn't. The joke is that she thought pedestal was pedal stool. Petal stool sounds nothing like pedestal.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » That was Petal Stool not Pedal Stool.
Gravelly wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » What does Graham Linehan actually know about the subject though? He's not trans. He has no experience of being trans and he hasn't anything in the way of research or study into trans issues. He literally just rants because he doesn't like it. What on Earth does that do for anyone only piss off and add to the stigma that trans people have to endure? If he studied trans issues academically or experienced what trans people go through, and he had something to back up his rants with, then we'd be having a different conversation. Having him on wasn't about providing 'balance', it was about getting a contrarian view in a bid to cause a bit of controversy even though he literally has nothing in the way of experience in the issues they face. I don't have any experience with trans people. I don't know any personally, I don't work with any and I've never studied it. Should I be allowed to be given a platform to rant about why people who rant about it are wrong? As far as I'm aware, Linehan's only knowledge of the subject is that he has been the victim of a campaign of harassment by "trans activists" - but he is as entitled as anyone else to give his opinion on a subject that is a cause of concern to many. I wasn't the one trying to shut down Linehans, the bould Andrew was - with the claim that he shouldn't be allowed to speak on it because he has no experience (a view you seem to share) - that's just a teeny bit hypocritical when the same Andrew was holding forth on what 4 or 5 year olds know or don't know, when it appears he knows as much about them as I do about Northern Hairy-nosed wombats.
Faugheen wrote: » What does Graham Linehan actually know about the subject though? He's not trans. He has no experience of being trans and he hasn't anything in the way of research or study into trans issues. He literally just rants because he doesn't like it. What on Earth does that do for anyone only piss off and add to the stigma that trans people have to endure? If he studied trans issues academically or experienced what trans people go through, and he had something to back up his rants with, then we'd be having a different conversation. Having him on wasn't about providing 'balance', it was about getting a contrarian view in a bid to cause a bit of controversy even though he literally has nothing in the way of experience in the issues they face. I don't have any experience with trans people. I don't know any personally, I don't work with any and I've never studied it. Should I be allowed to be given a platform to rant about why people who rant about it are wrong?
Will I Am Not wrote: » Everyone has the potential to be violent and there is something that will trigger that violence for everyone. It’s a lot easier to avoid the situation occurring.
DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: » This is a very pertinent point. A male in high passion is not to be meddled with. If they feel that they've been tricked into sleeping with somebody who has misrepresented themselves as a biological woman then they could very easily become violent. It's happened in the past. For everyone's well being in cases where it's not outwardly obvious all info should disclosed up front by the TG person
klaaaz wrote: » It's a two way street, the violent male should disclose up front that he is violent. It'll save the lives of trans and non-trans women. In fact, violent males should not be dating at all.
ceadaoin. wrote: » I could imagine would be even more humiliating for the trans person and could potentially lead to a violent response from the partner. Is it not best to be upfront as soon as the potential for a sexual relationship becomes apparent? That doesn't mean advertising it to all and sundry but surely a potential sexual partner has the right to fully informed consent?
DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: » There's even a name for this. The Cotton Ceiling.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_ceiling
ceadaoin. wrote: » Probably won't be too long before the terms homosexual and heterosexual are deemed exclusionary by extreme genderists. Seems to be the way that anything referring to biological sex goes In my opinion sex and gender are different things. Actually, not in my opinion, they actually are. I'm all for trans people being treated as their chosen gender, but sex is still relevant sometimes and shouldn't be erased.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
