klaaaz wrote: » https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/az/g/gender-dysphoria/
Sittingpretty wrote: » Please explain how it is radical to believe that a trans woman/man does not and never will equate to a biological woman/man?
HSE, the medical professionals wrote: Some transgender people seek to have surgery to permanently alter their biological sex.
One eyed Jack wrote: » And you claim you’re not just playing with words :pac:
LLMMLL wrote: » I'm 99.999999% certain. I'd say you're 98% certain. ... It really depends what you mean by could. ... Deception re identity. Not deception re GENDER identity. They are not the same thing. ... Your quote mentions breach of trust, not how the victim felt about it.....
One eyed Jack wrote: » Speak for yourself, I wouldn’t be as certain of that as you are.
You really do have it arseways. A person in that situation could be found guilty of rape or sexual assault assault. I never said I was certain that they would be.
As I said, their gender is irrelevant. It is the deception is the key factor which vitiates consent, as it did in this particular case -Man posed as stranger ‘to trick’ stepdaughter into having sex And as for your idea that the feelings of the victim are not taken into consideration -
klaaaz wrote: » Yep, it's a small hostile place on the internet for transgender people. This place has quite a combination of radicals of different persuasions coming together with extreme often outdated views on people who are different to them, thankfully the hostiles are a small number and do not reflect the most people's views in Irish society.
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: » 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.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Just a hateful bigot
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
B0jangles wrote: » That's one to start with, from this very page.
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
Zorya wrote: » Can you give me examples of the foul things being said about all trans people?
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: » 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: » 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: » 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?
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: » 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.
