B0jangles wrote: » Irish cis woman here. Not offended. More offended by the usual boards suspects feeling so extremely entitled to speak on behalf of irish women.
ceadaoin. wrote: » Yeah we had this discussion before. I don't care that the hse is publishing non scientific nonsense to appease certain groups . It is not possible to change sex. End of. Every cell in your body is either male or female. Present how you want, take hormones to take on the appearance of the opposite sex, whatever. I absolutely support any persons decision to live how they want and not face discrimination for it. But their chromosomes are not changing and they will never know what it is to be a biological male or female if they aren't one. Also, I never claimed to speak on behalf of women. It is you who is doing that. I merely pointed out that the women you seem to think don't exist,actually do.
Zorya wrote: » Oxford English Dictionary definition of ''sex'' - Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions; (hence) the members of these categories viewed as a group; the males or females of a particular species, esp. the human race, considered collectively. Occasionally with plural verb. No one can alter their sex to be a member of the opposite sex. No one. People can alter their gender expression as I have said. It is not possible to alter biological sex.
B0jangles wrote: » Some of you armchair experts on the genetics of gender and sex (and looking things up in online dictionaries!) should do a little research on chimerism and intersexuality before you make such absolute statements about how there are only 2 sexes and how every cell in your body is either male or female. (I'm claiming no such expertise either but at least I know enough to know that I am very ignorant on the subject, which is more than 99% of the people posting in this thread)
klaaaz wrote: » perhaps you also should direct your ire at the medical community who say a person can alter their sex to be a member of the opposite sex. https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/az/g/gender-dysphoria/
One eyed Jack wrote: » Is this the line you’re referring to?You may decide to have surgery to permanently alter your sex. You must surely be aware that the above statement is misleading? One cannot alter one’s sex, and no amount of surgery will alter a person’s sex, nor will the hormones they have to take for the rest of their lives to maintain the appearance of their preferred gender. Whoever wrote that misleading nonsense above is not as you claim, in any way representative of the “medical community”.
Gravelly wrote: » If I understand your rant correctly, you are comparing the extraordinarily rare genetic condition of chimera with lads putting on a dress and declaring themselves to be women? Believe me, you don't know how ignorant you are.
ceadaoin. wrote: » Human beings as a species have two sexes. Those conditions are extremely rare and represent abnormalities. They are not an indication of more than 2 sexes, just like the fact that a tiny amount of people are born with only one leg is not an indication that humans are not bipedal.
klaaaz wrote: » Well, will you too be protesting against the HSE as you have better medical knowledge than them on transgender issues?
B0jangles wrote: » You don't understand me correctly, have a reread and a little think and maybe it'll become clearermy point is that gender and sexuality are a lot more complex and variable than the MEN ARE MEN, WOMEN ARE WOMEN END OF DISCUSSION crowd would have us believe.
B0jangles wrote: » Are people born with one leg just imagining the problem then? After all, we know humans are a bipedal species, so any deviation from the norm must be completely imaginary. That's the logic you're applying to trans people.
Zorya wrote: » Gender and sexual expression are not sex. Sex is the division of species into the ones producing gametes and the ones producing eggs. Occurences of intersex has nothing to do with gender expression or sexuality - it is as a result of chromosomal abnormalities and intersex people do not like being used as transgender leverage. Likewise abnormalities of the sexed body that mean a man or woman cannot reproduce are just that - health abnormalities - and they do not imply in any sense that the chromosomal sex of the person is different, nor can they be used as leverage by transgender ideologues. People can have whatever gender or sexual expression preference they want. But they cannot change sex. That's all.
B0jangles wrote: » Some of you armchair experts on the genetics of gender and sex (and looking things up in online dictionaries!) should do a little research on chimerism and intersexuality before you make such absolute statements about how there are only 2 sexes and how every cell in your body is either male or female.
klaaaz wrote: » Yes we had this conversation before, I ended up pulling out the World Health Organisation as backup
So women without reproductive functions are not women, that's an awful thing to highlight Zorya.
The medical community disagree with you(along with many other bodies that were highlighted previously) Will you too be protesting at HSE offices with your superior medical knowledge on transgender people?
B0jangles wrote: » You don't understand me correctly, have a reread and a little think and maybe it'll become clearer my point is that gender and sexuality are a lot more complex and variable than the MEN ARE MEN, WOMEN ARE WOMEN END OF DISCUSSION crowd would have us believe.
B0jangles wrote: » I feel very badly for any remaining trans boards members, (if there even are any at this point, given the way things have been let go here). It must be soul-destroying to have your personal choice to live in a way that makes life bearable, maybe even wonderful, endlessly treated as a delusion and a threat.
Zorya wrote: » It's only a threat if trans activists do things like insist on curricula in education being changed to have small children taught that their innate biological sex is mutable. Or if 'wait and see' is overthrown as the wisest medical approach to gender dysphoric clients and very young people are rushed (aftera couple of appointents often) onto pubertal blockers that halt the development of their pre frontal cortex and atrophy sex organs and decrease bone density among many other dreadful side effects, including, eventually with cross sex hormones, sterility and impotence. That kind of medical practice used to be called eugenics. Even the trans community are seriously questioning the extreme ideologues. They are the ones at the coal face being experimented on. They are suffering the side effects. They are dealing with huge issues if the desist from hormones. There is vocal reaction within their own community to the ideology and many trans people argue vehemently that they cannot change sex. Plus if you want to see what radical trans activists are capable of you should check out the vile hatred spewed on social media by them towards anyone who does not agree with their false science - death threats, rape threats, doxxing..
B0jangles wrote: » Have you seen what is being said about all trans people in this very thread? Not the extremists somewhere else, right here and now. You're so very concerned about the rage of extremists on twitter or in the UK, but you've nothing whatsoever to say about the foul remarks being made about all trans people right here and right in front of you
Zorya wrote: » Can you give me examples of the foul things being said about all trans people?
Whats Up? wrote: » I feel bad too because they have profound mental health issues. Letting them mutilate themselves into taking on the crude appearance of a woman is not going to change that.
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
B0jangles wrote: » That's one to start with, from this very page.
Whats Up? wrote: » Why? Because it goes your 'muh feels' argument? I can darken my skin and surgically alter my appearance to take on the appearance of a black man but I'm not black.
One eyed Jack wrote: » The law is not untested? It applies to everyone equally, regardless of their gender. The victim was clearly misled as to the nature of the act if the person they assumed was a woman, turns out that the person does not agree that they are a woman. The Gender Recognition Act doesn’t apply here as it only applies in how a person is recognised in law. Even if they were legally a woman, it wouldn’t matter to a person who does not consider them to be a woman, and considers that they were misled by the nature of the act, thereby vitiating consent.
Your red herrings about national identity aren’t relevant to what we’re discussing here which is gender identity, but you feel free to argue that in front of a jury too. I’ve heard worse arguments.
They’re irrelevant to you perhaps, but they aren’t irrelevant to me, and they aren’t irrelevant to anyone I’ve ever met who works in the legal profession. The feelings of the victim aren’t irrelevant to a jury either, and can often sway a case one way or the other. And it is the feelings of a person who has been sexually assaulted or raped, and your attempts to downplay the severity of the impact that being sexually assaulted or raped can have on a person are noted.
LLMMLL wrote: » Its not a red herring. Its just one interpretation of the word identity, just as yours is. The law does not mention gender identity, so if you believe that your interpretation with no case law to support it must be valid, then why cant my interpretation that identity could apply to sexual preference or national identity apply just as much? It seems the answer is because you say so and you are the exclusive and final judge of the interpretation of law.
Rennaws wrote: » I linked to this before, it was dismissed because the rapist wasn’t a transsexual. But there are huge parallels that can’t be ignored in the context of this discussion. She was found guilty twice by 2 different jury’s so it’s cut and dried.“The jury was told the “real issue” of the case boiled down to consent: did the complainant really know she was having sex with her friend, or did she honestly think her sexual partner was a man she had met on the internet? In the end the jury decided the complainant had no idea that her lover was Gayle Newland and so could not have consented.”
One eyed Jack wrote: » I never argued that it couldn’t apply. I’m just not interested in whether it could or couldn’t apply. I said you’re free to argue that it refers to national identity if you like. I certainly won’t attempt to stop you, but it would be a different context to the context we’re talking about here. I’m talking specifically about a person’s gender identity, given the context of the thread. Your argument about national identity would be relevant to this discussion if we were talking about national identity.
LLMMLL wrote: » And we all know that nobody is going to court for giving a fake first name or for not correcting someone who assumes they are a different nationality anytime soon. And I doubt anyone would view them as a victim of rape.
I have the same attitudes to your certainty about people who sleep with a trans person. They have not been raped until it has been shown that the law applies to that particular situation. And that is going to require actual cases to show that your interpretation holds any weight.
Mr Justice Michael White described the deception as callous and ruthless and said this breach of trust was a serious aggravating factor.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Just a hateful bigot
