LLMMLL wrote: » Absolutely not. You are manipulating what I said. To repeat: A trans person will be held to the same standards as everyone else. They will be prosecuted for forceful rape. They will be prosecuted for raping a sleeping person. But a trans woman is not misrepresenting her identity when sleeping with a man who thinks she is a cis woman. So she is being treated equally to other women. I'm all for equality.
I pointed it out because Rennaws raised his/her feelings as being relevant. Legally they're not (apart from the fact that those feelings might lead him/her to making a complaint).
Will I Am Not wrote: » Don’t know about you but my Facebook newsfeed was polluted with both repeal and save the 8th sponsored posts for months in the lead up to the referendum.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Self-ID on the part of the assailant does not absolve them of any liability if they commit a criminal act. If the complainant is making a complaint, and the basis for their complaint is that they were unaware of the nature of the act, then that would vitiate consent. They thought they were engaged in a sexual act with a woman, and it turns out the person they were engaged in a sexual act with is not a woman, but a man, then indeed they were not having sex with a woman, no matter how that person chooses to identify themselves. That’s why I said that the gender of the accused is irrelevant from the point of view of what charges they could face.
Yes, of course it’s my interpretation, and it’s a far more reasonable interpretation than your interpretation that a heterosexual male would simply be told that they had sex with a woman, what are they complaining about? We don’t need case law to determine what constitutes consent when it’s written right there in black letter law.
You didn’t say that. I’m not selectively editing here. This is exactly where you picked up yesterday - And this clanger today - It’s perfectly clear. You’re just trying to weasel a way out of holding people who identify themselves as transgender to the same standards as everyone else in society.
So what? What are you pointing that out for? Who said it would? I said that it could, for people who commit rape and sexual assault against another person. It leads to far more significant consequences for their victims.
klaaaz wrote: » Nice twisting inventing a conspiracy! Where are the qualified experts who disagree with the Irish qualified experts who are part of children's organisations? The Children's Ombudsman is a clinical psychologist himself and worked in child protection for over 20 years, perhaps he and the rest of the medical community are part of your imaginary ideology?
sophiexyz wrote: » Friend works in a busy pub, a transgender m-f was drinking there , about twice a month for 3 months, the owner was getting told that if he did not bar the transgender from using the womens toilets, that "we won't be drinking here, as long as he is here" every complaint was from women, regular customers, who's numbers where many, and so spent much more in the pub than the transgender. The owner was left with no choice but to bar the transgender. Now before you jump to conclusions, it was a purely commercial decision, there where many complaints, and my friend said not one was from a man, in fact the men fought it was funny, it was the female customers who blew a fuse. (a busy, very nice pub)
LLMMLL wrote: » Reposting the "criteria" is irrelevant because what is at issue is your laymans INTERPRETATION of the criteria. One could quite easily argue that with self id that the complainant was not mistaken about the nature, purpose, or identity of the act. They thought they were having sex with a woman, and indeed they were.
In the absence of case law, neither of us know if consent was absent or not. You can pretend that you know your interpretation is correct all you like. But its still simply your interpretation.
No that's not what I said at all. I said that in terms of the traditional, well-established notions of sexual assault and rape, if a woman, or indeed a man, makes a complaint, then if its assumed to be true, they are indeed a victim.
LLMMLL wrote: » The question is whether that person was actually a victim of rape.or.sexual assault. Your interpretation of the clauses that involve being mislead about "identity" and "the nature" of the sexual act do not hold up in relation to sex with trans people.
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.
It is not clear at all that someone be it a man or woman, who has sex with a trans person that they did not know was trans has a legal case, even if its 100% proven they have told the truth.
And while you are correct that if someone does not feel they have been raped or assaulted, they will be unliekly to make a complaint and there is unlikely to be a trial, that does not mean that someone feeling they have been assaulted will lead to any legal consequences.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Of course you do, the qualified professionals who agree with you of course. You’re ignoring the numbers of qualified experts who disagree with your opinions. They’re spouting, and what they’re spouting is not based upon any medical or scientific evidence, because the medical and scientific experts have reached no consensus on the issues involved, so what we have to work with are people’s opinions regarding what should become policy in treating children with gender dysphoria, and those people’s opinions are based upon their ideological beliefs.
Slutmonkey57b wrote: » If you thought I wasn't going to notice that you've refused to address a single point, you're mistaken. Once again you've suggested linehan has "no expertise" so I'll repeat one of the questions: Does a transwomen have any expertise which allows them to comment on women's issues, or put themselves forward as women's representatives?
Zorya wrote: » A woman is an adult human female.
klaaaz wrote: » Nope, I'd prefer the qualified opinions of qualified professionals.
So your mysterious statement of "numerous people working with children, and numerous parents, who do not share your political and social ideology" is just spouting and not based on qualified expert opinion, that's fine. The children's rights organisations are not spouting, they are qualified experts.
LLMMLL wrote: » One could quite easily argue that with self id that the complainant was not mistaken about the nature, purpose, or identity of the act. They thought they were having sex with a woman, and indeed they were. .
LLMMLL wrote: » And in your case, the fact that you feel that you have been raped does not mean any charges will be made. Though I agree with you its more likely that you will make a complaint than me. But your feelings will onlt get you as far as a complaint.
Rennaws wrote: » Yes and the deception was on a number of levels. One of them was that the rapist duped the victim into believing they were a different gender. Nonsense. That feeling would result in a formal accusation being made which would be followed up with an investigation and potential charges being brought. All based on that feeling. No it’s not irrelevant. The fact that you feel differently would mean no charges would ever be brought. That’s your perogative. I have no issue with that. But it’s not irrelevant.
One eyed Jack wrote: » What makes it more likely that a person who is transgender could find themselves facing charges of rape or sexual assault is that the criteria for whether or not consent was present includes these criteria (and is not limited to these criteria) - (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, (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.
Yes they can. The same would apply whether the victim was a man or a woman, and that’s why I had an issue with seamus’ claim that if a man walked into a Garda station to complain that they had sex with a woman, they would be laughed at. That’s why I pointed out that nobody would be walking into a Garda station to complain that they had sex. They would be walking into a Garda station to make a complaint that they had been raped or sexually assaulted, and their complaint would be taken seriously, regardless of their gender, because the Gardaí tend to take those kinds of claims seriously, because if someone walks into a Garda station claiming to have been the victim of sexual assault or rape, the Gardaí believe them, regardless of their gender, whereas your belief as to whether or not a person is telling the truth appears to be predicated upon their gender. You said yourself in the case of a woman it’s different, but it’s not. The DPP doesn’t try to tell a victim of rape or sexual assault that they aren’t a victim of rape or sexual assault, and the victim is not on trial.
LLMMLL wrote: » The reality is that the woman was not trans. She was a cis woman pretending to be male to have a sexual relationship with a woman.
LLMMLL wrote: » Your feeling that you had been raped would be irrelevant legally.
LLMMLL wrote: » I personally would not feel that I'd been raped or assaulted if it happened to me. That's irrelevant too.
LLMMLL wrote: » The reality is that the woman was not trans. She was a cis woman pretending to be male to have a sexual relationship with a woman.Your feeling that you had been raped would be irrelevant legally. I personally would not feel that I'd been raped or assaulted if it happened to me. That's irrelevant too.
LLMMLL wrote: » That's a little more reasonable. Sure they could find themselves charged with sexual assault. The lack of any cases makes it seem a little unlikely. Just as it's unlikely that Mike will find himself charged with rape for saying his name is Bob.
Regardless, their complainant cannot be assumed to be a victim of rape or sexual assault.
Rennaws wrote: » There was this case where the rapist received 6 and a half years following a retrial so there is precedent.https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/wtf/gayle-newland-used-bizarre-male-disguise-and-fake-penis-to-trick-female-friend-into-sex/news-story/d4583c90e93072b9a03d4e6101605d35 I know if I slept with a post op trans woman without knowing she had been a he, I would feel that I had been raped. That’s the reality of it..
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Not being invited to speak on a flagship current affairs programme is not 'censorship'. If that's censorship, then I'm being censored every day. This is a news programme. It's supposed to be based on facts. You're really contradicting yourself here. If everyone is so afraid to speak up, then how come there is any 'debate on Twitter' or any backlash? It's a contradiction in terms. I'd be very interested to know how you worked out that Linehan represents 'a substantial portion of the population' given that he hasn't lived here for decades and has no expertise or experience in the topic.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You simply prefer the opinions of people who agree with you. There’s nothing unusual or unreasonable about that.
One eyed Jack wrote: » They don’t get more in the public eye than numerous religious organisations who work with children, and of course numerous parents who have children of their own. They’re more in the public eye than some quango of tiny organisations funded which receive public funding from the HSE to lobby Government to further their own political and social ideology. You keep ignoring the fact that I pointed out to you the organisations which already exist which have worked with children and educated children for a lot longer than any of the children’s organisations you mentioned, which using your rationale would make them far more qualified experts worth listening to than the people who agree with your opinion. You’re just a random poster on Boards too btw, seems a bit pointless trying to make the point that I’m a random poster on Boards as though that’s supposed to mean something? I’m interested in the arguments with regards to policies, I couldn’t care less for individuals waving their e-penis about the place as though they are an authority on anything and nobody else can have an opinion.
One eyed Jack wrote: » LLMMLL wrote: » Actually I do get to say you don't know. If you think your layman interpretation of a law would stand up through an entire legal process then you really have zero idea of how the law works. I could easily claim that someone who gives a fake first name could be prosecuted under the law because my laymans interpretation of misrepresenting identity encompasses ridiculous notions. The law is very open to interpretation given the term used "identity" which encompasses so many things that one would have to look at what the legislators intended and what the DPP were willing to go to trial over (and not just because hey think they might win). For example, identity could cover sexual identity. So if a bi man doesn't tell a woman he is bi until after sex, was there no consent? It could apply to national identity. If an American woman presumes an irishman is Scottish and finds out after that he is Irish, was consent absent? You could make a silly laymans interpretation argument for any of these cases. None of them will ever go to court, and you deciding that you know exactly how to interpret an ambiguous law clearly does not change that. You could make silly layman’s arguments all you like. I was talking about the circumstances where a man makes a complaint against another person accusing them of rape or sexual assault. Their complaint would be taken as seriously, and the other person could find themselves facing charges of rape or sexual assault. It’s the same if a woman makes a complaint of rape or sexual assault - the person they’re accusing could find themselves facing charges of rape or sexual assault.
LLMMLL wrote: » Actually I do get to say you don't know. If you think your layman interpretation of a law would stand up through an entire legal process then you really have zero idea of how the law works. I could easily claim that someone who gives a fake first name could be prosecuted under the law because my laymans interpretation of misrepresenting identity encompasses ridiculous notions. The law is very open to interpretation given the term used "identity" which encompasses so many things that one would have to look at what the legislators intended and what the DPP were willing to go to trial over (and not just because hey think they might win). For example, identity could cover sexual identity. So if a bi man doesn't tell a woman he is bi until after sex, was there no consent? It could apply to national identity. If an American woman presumes an irishman is Scottish and finds out after that he is Irish, was consent absent? You could make a silly laymans interpretation argument for any of these cases. None of them will ever go to court, and you deciding that you know exactly how to interpret an ambiguous law clearly does not change that.
klaaaz wrote: » They are far more qualified to speak on children's issues than a random boards poster, as they are qualified for the job. Let that sink in. Their qualified opinion holds more weight than an unqualified opinion like yours and others who oppose children's rights on gender, you can disagree all you want but that fact is insurmountable.
klaaaz wrote: » Your opinion is less qualified than the children's organisations, they are qualified people working with children and represent the welfare of children. You have allegedly read their submissions to the review, they wholeheartedly disagree with your unqualified opinion on how to handle the gender issue with children. This is what you ignore, I'd prefer the qualified opinion of qualified professionals than an anonymous poster on boards on such an important issue.
Who are these "numerous people working with children, and numerous parents, who do not share your political and social ideology", more anonymous boards posters spouting off from the sidelines? Do they have an organisation in the public eye or are they some underground organisation? :rolleyes:
They are certainly not organisations who work with children, not a single childrens organisation has supported your view on the gender issue with children. That is the insurmountable fact, let that sink in.
One eyed Jack wrote: » LLMMLL wrote: » You really don't know. I don't know either because it is relatively untested. For example it might apply to a cis person who completely fakes their gender to target a person, but not apply to a trans person as it could be argued they have not misrepresented their identity. It could apply to both. It could apply to.neither. Until there's more case law around the subject, or until we have access to the number of.complaints made and how the DPP deals.with them then we really don't know. You’re willing to admit you don’t know, grand, but you don’t get to admit I don’t know on my behalf. I do know, as it applies to cases where a person misrepresents their identity, then consent is not present, and their only defence is that their belief that consent was present is reasonable, which is a determination made by a jury, which is why I said you are more than welcome to argue that a person who is transgender could be of the reasonable belief that a heterosexual man would want to have sex with them.
LLMMLL wrote: » You really don't know. I don't know either because it is relatively untested. For example it might apply to a cis person who completely fakes their gender to target a person, but not apply to a trans person as it could be argued they have not misrepresented their identity. It could apply to both. It could apply to.neither. Until there's more case law around the subject, or until we have access to the number of.complaints made and how the DPP deals.with them then we really don't know.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You have no idea of the identity or qualifications of random posters on Boards, nor do I have any interest in yours. Let that sink in for a minute. I didn’t ask you whether or not you have children, or your experience of working with children, or your academic qualifications or anything else pertaining to your identity. Because all of that is simply irrelevant. I’m interested in your opinion. I’m already aware of the opinions of people working in organisations which claim to represent the welfare of children, and you can point to as many executive directors as you need to make your point, it still won’t strengthen your position any more than it’s being as weak as it already is, because your opinions are based upon your own ideological beliefs for what you believe are in the best interests of children. You’re ignoring the fact that there are numerous people working with children, and numerous parents, who do not share your political and social ideology, and those are the facts that appear to be insurmountable to you as you wish to challenge them. Good luck with that.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
