Calls for Graham Linehan to be removed from Prime Debate on transgender issues!

Zorya wrote: »

There are intersex people too, as well as male and female, but plenty of intersex people are very loud about being fed up to the back teeth of having been hijacked by trans ideologues to ''prove'' that any person's sex can be ambiguous.

I know, it's a certain direction in politics which tries to hijack almost everything.

They blatantly say they want us all to be equal.

But yet they've created so much lables, supposedly I'm a cis male now.
No longer a man in these people's eyes.

Any one who's supporting labeling society, gender's, beliefs or lack of thereof, are creating divisions left right and centre.

And it's about time the left stop hijacking sexuality, gender's, ethnic groups, and other strand's of society.

Instead of bringing us all together, they're creating division.

Men cannot be men and talk about pussy, getting a Shag, hunting, being lads anymore.
Because it's offensive.

A good psycho therapist could sort out a lot of people, they would accept life on life's terms and not be offended or triggered 1023 times a day.

It's all in the head this nonsense.

klaaaz wrote: »

So all the children's organisations who submitted their view on the review of the Gender Recognition Act were biased, gotcha! :rolleyes:

Eh? I didn’t say that. Don’t be putting words in my mouth now at all. I said that the review process was obviously biased when the Chair of the review board is also the executive director of an organisation that has an interest in seeing the proposals they came up with being written into the legislation! Given their position, and their obvious bias, they simply ignored any submissions which they didn’t agree with already.

Perhaps you weren’t aware that I was already familiar with the process long before you brought it to anyone’s attention in this thread.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Eh? I didn’t say that. Don’t be putting words in my mouth now at all. I said that the review process was obviously biased when the Chair of the review board is also the executive director of an organisation that has an interest in seeing the proposals they came up with being written into the legislation! Given their position, and their obvious bias, they simply ignored any submissions which they didn’t agree with already.

Perhaps you weren’t aware that I was already familiar with the process long before you brought it to anyone’s attention in this thread.

Have you any idea how review boards work? You know that there is more than one person involved?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

At all times I said that a person who is transgender who does not disclose the fact could find themselves facing charges of either sexual assault or rape, and that would have happened because their victim makes a complaint to the Gardaí that they were either raped or sexually assaulted, and their complaint that they have been sexually assaulted or raped will be taken seriously, regardless of their gender, and regardless of the gender of the person who they are claiming raped or sexually assaulted them.

Though just to put these things in context, having had a few decades of transgender people in Ireland and a couple of years of self-identification, these issues have never arisen here.

Muckka wrote: »

Instead of bringing us all together, they're creating division.

Men cannot be men and talk about pussy, getting a Shag, hunting, being lads anymore.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

LLMMLL wrote: »

You didn't say someone CLAIMED to be a victim of sexual assault. You said "if a victim of rape or sexual assault....". So it absolutely is the question whether that person is actually a victim of rape or sexual assault based on the belief they were having sex with a cis person.

You can pretend that the only relevant matter in law is what a jury might decide as you have before but you are completely wrong. There is a whole.process involved in deciding whether a case is taken. You seem to think the only thing that matters in legal cases is whether a jury would convict. It's not.

Until you can show a precedent of a trans person in Ireland being successfully convicted under that law then your fringe interpretation is just plain wrong. It is not rape it sexual assault.to not tell a sexual partner you are trans. Just as it's not rape or sexual assault to tell your partner your name is Bob when it's really Mike.

You can play around with language as much as you like LM, but as I pointed out, it’s not an exhaustive list regarding what constitutes consent, and whether a person is charged with rape or assault will be dependent upon what the DPP recommends the person be charged with if they decide to proceed with a prosecution. One of the factors in deciding whether or not to proceed with a prosecution is whether or not the DPP is confident that they can secure a conviction.

At all times I said that a person who is transgender who does not disclose the fact could find themselves facing charges of either sexual assault or rape, and that would have happened because their victim makes a complaint to the Gardaí that they were either raped or sexually assaulted, and their complaint that they have been sexually assaulted or raped will be taken seriously, regardless of their gender, and regardless of the gender of the person who they are claiming raped or sexually assaulted them.

I'm not playing around with language. You described the person presenting at a Garda station as being a victim of sexual assault. They are not a victim of sexual assault until their sexual partner is convicted.

You then presented whether they were convicted of sexual assault as being based on a potential jury verdict alone. I pointed out the error there.

Now you're implying that the prosecution decision to prosecute is based on where they think they can get a conviction. But there are other reasons why the prosecution may not prosecute. They may believe themselves that there has been no breach of the law even if they believe they could get a conviction by jury.

There is no word play here. Just the realities of the legal process.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The problem isn't about people having the vote. The problem is about votes being bought and sold using Facebook and other technologies.

It’s a two way street.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you any idea how review boards work? You know that there is more than one person involved?

I’m very familiar with how review boards work, and I’m very familiar with the functions of the chair of the board, and there is an obvious conflict of interest when the chair of the review board also has a stake in seeing the proposals that they came up with passed.

Though just to put these things in context, having had a few decades of transgender people in Ireland and a couple of years of self-identification, these issues have never arisen here.

That we’re aware of. What you’re saying is that because you aren’t aware of something happening in the past, there is no chance of it ever happening in the future, which is simply ridiculous.

The whole reason why issues related to transgenderism in Irish society are being discussed more often than they were in the past is because transgenderism is becoming more prevalent in Irish society in recent years and we have international evidence on which we can base our opinions of how these issues are playing out in other countries.

The Gender Recognition Act for example is only in existence since 2015, and the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act is only in existence since 2017. Like any legislation they are reviewed regularly as society changes, and society is undergoing constant change, so why would we not be discussing transgenderism in the same way as we discuss any other social issue?

You would prefer that people stay silent on the issues so as not to upset individuals, but that’s no different to people who are opposed to certain policies which they feel will have a negative effect on society demanding that anyone who disagrees with them should stay silent. Why would you expect anyone should stay silent when they disagree with a policy which if introduced in legislation applies to everyone in society and future generations of society?

I do not want my child exposed to certain ideologies and beliefs in school, and that is one of my fundamental constitutional rights, a right which certain ideologies would wish to take away from me. You really think I’m going to stay silent about that?

I don’t care that my next door neighbour hangs her fake tits out to dry as long as she’s not hanging them out on the balcony, I don’t care that she chases children around trying to kiss them, I don’t care that she tries to flirt with me as I’m standing in the queue in the shop to buy a loaf of bread and she’s standing behind me. She’s basically harmless, she’s no threat to me personally or to anyone else whatsoever.

What I do care about, is talk of policies which would compel me by law, to refer to her as her preferred gender and to treat her as though I agree with her that she is a woman. What I do care about, are policies which would supersede parents rights to raise their children according to their values and their beliefs, or risk social services calling to their door, or risk having to appear in Court, or risk having their children removed from their care because they do not consent to their children being permitted to undergo a process of transition to their preferred gender.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

not sure what this means in this context.

You seemed to be implying that people are being fooled into a more conservative view by media and social media. As I said, it’s a two way street.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except that it's the conservatives who have the money to buy the election results.

You don’t need money to stage a photo if you... I don’t know... wanted to push immigration?

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm not playing around with language. You described the person presenting at a Garda station as being a victim of sexual assault. They are not a victim of sexual assault until their sexual partner is convicted.

What? No. the majority of rapes and sexual assaults don't result in a conviction. That doesn't mean they didn't happen and that the person isn't a victim.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn’t ignore anything, I read them. I pointed out that any negative submissions were ignored because the chair of the review group is also the executive director for the organisation which made the proposals. It doesn’t get more biased than that.

Seeing as you are still ignoring the submissions of the children's organisations, here are some of their recommendations which oppose your view and others here. There are no negative views from children's organisations.

Ombudsman for Children
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub053A-GRA2015.pdf
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub053B-GRA2015.pdf
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub053C-GRA2015.pdf

National Youth Council of Ireland
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub059B-GRA2015.pdf

Children's Rights Alliance
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub085-GRA2015.pdf

Union of Students of Ireland
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub078-GRA2015.pdf

Spunout.ie
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub065-GRA2015.pdf

klaaaz wrote: »

Seeing as you are still ignoring the submissions of the children's organisations, here are some of their recommendations which oppose your view and others here. There are no negative views from children's organisations.

Ombudsman for Children
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub053A-GRA2015.pdf
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub053B-GRA2015.pdf
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub053C-GRA2015.pdf

National Youth Council of Ireland
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub059B-GRA2015.pdf

Children's Rights Alliance
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub085-GRA2015.pdf

Union of Students of Ireland
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub078-GRA2015.pdf

Spunout.ie
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub065-GRA2015.pdf

I’m not ignoring them. I’ve told you already I read them. I’m aware that I’m opposed to their views. What’s your point? The point still stands that the review process was nothing more than a crock as the chair of the review group is also the executive director of the organisation which came up with the proposals! An objective review would have employed an independent review group such as the Citizens Assembly or the Law Reform Commission conduct a review of the legislation, not the actual stakeholders who were pushing for the proposals to be introduced.

Is it any surprise that the people who introduced the proposals would be gushing over how great they were?

LLMMLL wrote: »

Absolutely but in those cases it is clear that if the incident happened as the complainant stated then a rape or sexual assault did occur. The issue there is whether it can be proven.

In the case of a trans person not disclosing that they are trans it is not clear that the law applies here.

It's two completelt different situations and everything I say should be taken in the context of the trans situation.

It’s absolutely clear that the law applies equally to everyone regardless of their gender.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not ignoring them. I’ve told you already I read them. I’m aware that I’m opposed to their views. What’s your point? The point still stands that the review process was nothing more than a crock as the chair of the review group is also the executive director of the organisation which came up with the proposals! An objective review would have employed an independent review group such as the Citizens Assembly or the Law Reform Commission conduct a review of the legislation, not the actual stakeholders who were pushing for the proposals to be introduced.

Is it any surprise that the people who introduced the proposals would be gushing over how great they were?

The point is that the Children's organisations who actually work with children are more qualified to have an opinion than a random boards poster who opposes their view.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re not any more qualified than anyone else to have an opinion. I’ve worked with a number of them and I’m aware of the politics and the collective bargaining and backslapping and political lobbying that they do.

Using your rationale, the heads of religious organisations have the most experience of anyone when it comes to children, and they have the most experience of how children should be educated, because they too work with children and have done for decades before any of these groups were ever even heard of, and that includes GLEN who recently had to shut down due to the misappropriation of HSE funds to support his campaign to become a Senator :pac:

See how stupid your attempt to argue from authority sounds now?

You'd want to reread how silly your post is. According to you we should just discard qualification for any job in the land and allow unqualified people take the helm.
Have a look at the Children's ombudsman for example. https://www.oco.ie/about-us/the-ombudsman/

My background is as a clinical psychologist and I’ve worked in the area of child protection for almost 20 years

Why are you One Eyed Jack the random poster on boards not in his position instead as you say you have equal if not more qualifications? :rolleyes:

klaaaz wrote: »

You'd want to reread how silly your post is. According to you we should just discard qualification for any job in the land and allow unqualified people take the helm.
Have a look at the Children's ombudsman for example. https://www.oco.ie/about-us/the-ombudsman/

I didn’t say that.

Why are you One Eyed Jack the random poster on boards not in his position instead as you say you have equal if not more qualifications? :rolleyes:

I didn’t say that either.


How about you address what I actually did day?