sophiexyz wrote: » If it can happen over there it can happen here!
Topgear on Dave wrote: » If that man had been in the ladies dressed in a skirt Sarah-Jane would have been pounced on as a terf and a transphobe for a comment like that. :pac:
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Here's just one real example from Twitter today, but no, let's obsess about the issues that aren't happening here instead:https://twitter.com/sjanemurf/status/1089086652092420096
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Do the Title Case capitals make this one very unusual case from a completely different society and legal environment any more relevant to Ireland?
davidk1394 wrote: » This would sort out the genuine people who want to change sex from the bullshíters.https://www.france24.com/en/20190124-japan-court-upholds-sterilisation-rule-gender-change
sophiexyz wrote: » I sure you are well aware of the Man Identifying As Woman who Sued Female beauticians For Refusing To Give Him A Lady’s Genital Wax, on his fully intact dick & balls, how can anyone in their right mind support this? This JY chancer is involved in many more controversy, a google will show you how depraved this man is, periods,tampons, young girls, absolutely disgusting individual who is getting support from the SJW mob. Japan has the right idea.
Will I Am Not wrote: » So there was so little to whinge about you have to remark on the way he types? Without even knowing what he was typing about
ceadaoin. wrote: » Ok so you don't approve of his typing but but did he say anything transphobic?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » 'The motion'? Really, 'the motion'? As I said above, this isn't a chance for immature lads to have a night out shouting at each other and then go for a few points. This is a life-or-death issue for many people, an issue with a track record of high rates of suicide and self-harm. And you think we need a 'debate'? I suppose the first question is why focus on this topic at all? And no, this isn't censorship. I'm not saying that the issue shouldn't be discussed, but why did Prime Time try to discuss this. Have any issues arisen in two years of self-identification? No. Is there any serious risks to anyone arising from the proposed changes in the new bill? Not really - one of the doctors mentioned that young people 'could' use their gender cert to go for operations abroad, but didn't give any details to back this up, or to show that it actually has been happening. And if there are clinics abroad that will do these operations on 16 year olds, do you really think that an Irish cert is going to be the major issue for them? So what's really going on here? Prime Time have tried to import a bit of a 'scandal' from the UK to try to get viewers. They have taken a very sensitive issue, and treated it (in part at least) as an imminent danger, without any real explanation of how the danger might arise. Not so sure that he didn't come across as 'raging' - he must go through a keyboard every couple of weeks if he types as furiously as he appeared on camera. So what do I want? I want future current affairs shows to rely on experience or expertise, not sh1t-stirring ability.
SoupMonster wrote: » That question SHOULD be debated on the flagship current affairs show. Since you object to Glinner as just a comedy writer, who would you propose to support the motion?
ceadaoin. wrote: » Anyway, it's over and done with now. He was on the show, the world didn't end, he didn't come across as a raging transphobe, lots of people agree with him. What do you want? An official apology from rte? It's time to move on.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Gender is not transgender. You don't need to have a PhD to have an opinion. We all have opinions, me included. But the flagship current affairs show on a public broadcaster really should require something more than opinion. This isn't a college debating club. This is the flagship current affairs show on a public broadcaster. It really doesn't matter what he believes or how articulate and persuasive he is. He has no expertise or experience.
SoundsRight wrote: » I think every living person has experience of gender. You don't need to have a PhD to know there's something not quite right about the direction this trans thing is heading.
SoupMonster wrote: » "This house believes trans rights are in direct conflict with women's rights'. Can you suggest someone more qualified than Glinner who not only believes the statement to be true but is also clear, articulate and persuasive?
Billy86 wrote: » Probably has something to do with them being treated so badly for so long that something like 40% self harm and 20% attempt suicide... before they turn 18.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Pretty much anybody with expertise or experience. The other participants on the show all had either professional expertise or personal experience. Glinner had neither, though his typing speed appeared to hit record levels.
SoupMonster wrote: » Who do you think should have appeared on PrimeTime in place of Graham?
The Squad wrote: » Knife crime, acid attacks and rape are out of control in the UK but good to see the police are taking on the thought criminals.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » No. That isnt true. He was given a verbal warning by the police.
The Squad wrote: » Why do transsexuals get so irrationally angry when people critise their lifestyle choice?
One eyed Jack wrote: » It’s not true to say no trans person would let it get that far when we’re aware of trans advocates who are attempting to gaslight women into having sex with them and having those women labelled transphobic when those women refuse to have sex with them. In terms of people who are transgender who would wish to have sex with men, the reason they avoid it is because they are more concerned for their own safety as the risk of them being assaulted or murdered by another man is much greater than it would be if they were to try and have sex with a woman. In no way do I condone men committing assault on another person, and I would hope that they face the full rigours of the law too, but that doesn’t mean giving people who are transgender a free pass when they are fully aware that they have not attempted to ensure that consent is present. They may be legally recognised as their preferred gender, but they are still held to the same standards as everyone else in society, regardless of their gender.
Mad_maxx wrote: » 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. Liam cunningham has appeared on the late late show several times discussing refugees. Is cunningham an expert on international migration?
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.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » Actually he wasn’t. He was reported by the trans activist and the police showed up but nothing happened. The police basically act as a private police force for some groups.
Calhoun wrote: » I am not sure how we would tackle that one, where do 16 year olds get the money to go abroad. I am sure it will get through without any issues though and next they will lower it to 12 like other jurisdictions.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Not inviting a comedy writer to go on Prime Time to speak about something that he no experience or expertise in doesn't quite qualify as 'censorship'. It's not about silencing him, regardless of how many people are keen to play the victim.
SoupMonster wrote: » 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. This is not cheap fiction. It's very clear from this case that the guy lost it when he discovered Laude was not really female.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jennifer_Laude
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.
Billy86 wrote: » 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. 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.
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?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/23af546224513cf852af4d456d68d01c.svg)
