nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

When did Gemma O Doherty go batshyt crazy?

lbc2019

Some of her posts on twitter lately seem to be off the charts.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Grayson

PhoneMain wrote: »

I call bullsh1t on this.
1) I'm a doctor and I've never heard any doctor or health care professional refer to a PATIENT as a client
2) As doctor's, we treat all blood as the same....i.e. we take the same precautions and there's no different treatment algorithm if you get a needle stick from a gay man, a person from africa, a 5 year old Irish boy or a 90 year old woman. All blood is high risk and treated equally.

To be fair councillors and therapists refer to people as clients. I've never heard of a medical doctor doing it but maybe under certain situations?

As a side note an SHO stabbed himself in the finger when giving me stitches. I had to get blood tests done etc and so did he. I was saying after "you must be so grateful I'm not an IV drug user".

Auntie Semite

Outside of the elites or the 1% who have always existed ie Chiefs, warlords, aristocracy, royalty, merchants etc
I would say that contemporary bourgeois Western women are amongst the most privileged people to have ever existed in the entirety of human history.

aloneforever99

Auntie Semite wrote: »

Outside of the elites or the 1% who have always existed ie Chiefs, warlords, aristocracy, royalty, merchants etc
I would say that contemporary bourgeois Western women are amongst the most privileged people to have ever existed in the entirety of human history.

That's correct. White Western women are number two in the "most privileged" stakes. Guess who's number one?

Auntie Semite

aloneforever99 wrote: »

That's correct. White Western women are number two in the "most privileged" stakes. Guess who's number one?

Western women are considerably more privileged than men in contemporary society.

TaurenDruid

Auntie Semite wrote: »

Western women are considerably more privileged than men in contemporary society.

Time to just /ignore the obvious troll being obvious. Sorry it wasn't obvious enough to me earlier.

gmisk

Auntie Semite wrote: »

Western women are considerably more privileged than men in contemporary society.

Are you sure about that? How so? What are you basing that opinion on?
Is it from a report or something?

Birneybau

I see they've arrived

Auntie Semite

gmisk wrote: »

Are you sure about that? How so? What are you basing that opinion on?
Is it from a report or something?

Family law, divorce settlements, custody of children, maternity leave, custodial sentencing, the fact that the constitution states that a woman has should not be compelled by financial necessity to work instead of raising her children at home to name but a few.
How many women have been convicted of spousal abuse? How many women have been accused of sexism in the workplace?

gmisk

Auntie Semite wrote: »

Family law, divorce settlements, custody of children, maternity leave, custodial sentencing, the fact that the constitution states that a woman has should not be compelled by financial necessity to work instead of raising her children at home to name but a few.
How many women have been convicted of spousal abuse? How many women have been accused of sexism in the workplace?

To be honest I am a gay man I dont have any children, the majority of those things I don't know a huge amount about (especially the first 4).

But lets take say one of them How many women have been convicted of spousal abuse?

I actually watched a documentary recently about a man who was abused by his girlfriend, she was jailed, for coercive and controlling behaviour.
So its not unheard of.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/81a8f303-5849-45b8-85a0-e8532b5d948b

These figures are from 2016
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/domestic-violence-women-statistics-number-trebles-female-violence-against-partners-a7316481.html

The number of women convicted of domestic violence has tripled in the last decade, new figures have shown.

1,850 women were convicted of perpetrating the offence in 2006, a figure which rose to 5,641 in 2015. The statistics were released by the Crown Prosecution Service to Parliament following a question submitted by Conservative MP Philip Davies.

[Deleted User]

Auntie Semite wrote: »

By encouraged I mean telling kids to explore gender identities.. As in presenting an option of switching gender rather than being happy with who you are.

You present that as if they are somehow mutually exclusive. You can tell kids they can be happy with who you are. You can _also_ tell them that if who they are is making them entirely miserable they do not have to just accept their lot in life. They can identify what the source of their misery is and see if it is something that can be alleviated or improved.

And if they are identified as being transgender then they should be all means be told what their options are.

That is all _very_ different to the "encourage them to explore" narrative of complete ominous vagueness you are pedaling here.

Auntie Semite wrote: »

Some are proposing this here

So you are not actually talking about anything that is or has been happening. You are talking about things you have heard proposed. By a single person. In an opinion piece. Wow. Lets see what proposals actually come from our education boards shall we? Not the mere opinion pieces of single individuals that got platformed by a rag news paper.

But you fling out the link without saying where or what your issue is with it? I am reading down through it. Paragraphs 1-3 seem entirely fine for me for example. I can not even imagine what issue you might be taking with it.

So where _exactly_ in the text are your sensibilities being offended? Rather than link me to a block of text - the majority of which is benign stuff stating the blatantly obvious - why can you not be specific about what the issue is in the article?

Give me quotes, paragraph numbers, something I can work with here.

For example take this paragraph:

"Increasingly, schools are introducing unisex toilets, common uniforms for boys and girls if there is any uniform at all, and avoiding gender segregation for school activities such as sport."

Even _without_ gender identity issues I would be for a lot of that already! But also in fact the more gender neutral you make that environment the less potential for gender identity issues a transgender student will even have in the first place. So is that not also a good thing for your narrative as well as my own????

Reading the article is seems you are doing little more than replacing the word "support" with the word "encourage" because you appear to think it adds something to your position. And I can not imagine what other than to make ominous implications we are not just supporting such students but actively trying to foster the creation of more them. And that is tin foil hat territory.

Wibbs

aloneforever99 wrote: »

That's correct. White Western women are number two in the "most privileged" stakes. Guess who's number one?

Actually he's not so far wrong. Compared to the average Irish man, the average Irish woman will live longer, be better educated, earn more before kids come along, more free to reenter work after any family hiatus, have more medical and social supports, be seen as less "disposable", be less likely to be homeless, an addict, physically assaulted or murdered, die at work, or die by their own hand.

On the other hand she's much more likely to be sexually assaulted in adulthood, more likely to suffer from some mental illnesses like anxiety and the like, more likely to be judged on her appearance, age and fertility status.

In many areas it's swings and roundabouts and individuals differ in how life and society treats them and they treat society in return, but overall it can be pretty easily argued that yes, White "bourgeois" western women are one of the most(and largest) "privileged" demographics in the Western world. EG: Take two people living rough on the street. One woman, one man. Who will garner more sympathy and attention in society, in the media and personally? Bonus points if she has kids involved. Indeed the words "living rough on the street". Which gender immediately springs to mind? We'd be fibbing if a woman sprang to mind.

Very broadly speaking society values in average people in general order of preference; children, women, men. When there's a hostage situation words you will never hear from negotiators are "please release the men and children first". Word to the wise hostage takers, release the men first. Look how much world attention Boko Haram got a few years ago after they took a load of women and girls hostage. "Bring our girls home" and all that, yet they'd been happily been butchering hundreds of men and boys and releasing the girls to go home and be good little Muslims and barely made the papers.

"Valued" is often a double edged sword too mind you. Slaves were "valued" and "protected" too.

skooterblue2

Grayson wrote: »

Then their algorithm is biased. If I went through the hiring for a bank for the last 50 years and looked at who their best hires were it would show it was white men. that's because most of their hires were white men.
I'd also find that their worst hires were white men.

The best way to sort candidates for interview is to remove age, gender, name and nationality and look at their recent experience and qualifications.
That's not just my opinion, that's based on research by the CIPD.
Studies have found that if you show people the same CV with a male name instead of a female name they will think better of the candidate. So the best way to find the best candidate is to focus on the experience etc and ignore the rest.

That is what they did do, They removed all those traits and still came up with the top most qualified candidates with the best experience and the results were a white males with qualifications in Computing/IT/Engineering.

aloneforever99

skooterblue2 wrote: »

That is what they did do, They removed all those traits and still came up with the top most qualified candidates with the best experience and the results were a white males with qualifications in Computing/IT/Engineering.

No. No, they didn't. They found the AI was flawed and biased against female candidates. You clearly didn't even read or fully understand the article that you posted.

skooterblue2

PhoneMain wrote: »

I call bullsh1t on this.
1) I'm a doctor and I've never heard any doctor or health care professional refer to a PATIENT as a client
2) As doctor's, we treat all blood as the same....i.e. we take the same precautions and there's no different treatment algorithm if you get a needle stick from a gay man, a person from africa, a 5 year old Irish boy or a 90 year old woman. All blood is high risk and treated equally.

Ahh yes we do call patient clients now

Yes there were restrictions on donations on bloods from people born in Africa.
"On your first attendance at a clinic we will only take blood samples from you and not a full donation if you were born outside if Ireland or the United Kingdom, provided you are otherwise eligible to donate blood."

You say that but really which which ones raise the most concern? 50 year old woman who has been married faithfully for 25 years or the 25 year old who sleeping with allsorts?

skooterblue2

aloneforever99 wrote: »

No. No, they didn't. They found the AI was flawed and biased against female candidates. You clearly didn't even read or fully understand the article that you posted.

It wasnt programmed that way it learned that by itself. Where is my damn Mocha?

Grayson

aloneforever99 wrote: »

No. No, they didn't. They found the AI was flawed and biased against female candidates. You clearly didn't even read or fully understand the article that you posted.

Yep. It even said that it was throwing up random CV's for some jobs.

skooterblue2

baby and crumble wrote: »

Oh I do understand you have to treat blood carefully, I'm not an idiot. The point I was making is it sounded very very much like the person I was replying to was making assumptions about this trans person SIMPLY because they are trans. Now, I know since they've clarify that's not the case and they have information that confirms that they do from the person themselves, so that's all fair. My point is if you make assumptions and treat people differently simply because they're trans, that's discriminatory behavior.

First of all, you can quit the condescension towards social workers etc. You sound like an arsehole.

Ahhh I must appear like Moby Dick to you, the great white whale that must be harpooned. All white straight mens fault, the source off all mens woes. In fairness you are dealing with some of nastier ends of society but you lob us all in together. Oh I have house shared with social workers (child protection and foster care placement) not the 9 to 5 types. They seem to see white men as the cause of all the worlds problems. The department of Social welfare attracts the same kinds of people that would have been nuns in the past.

My practice is that I stated just because you start taking hormones and have a bit of surgery done, that does not change your gender. I treat clients as they were born and all clients get the same level of treatment. I have a friend who started arguing with a lecturer that there weren't 27 different genders just two and then insisted that the lecturer refer to him as Giraffe.

aloneforever99

skooterblue2 wrote: »

It wasnt programmed that way it learned that by itself. Where is my damn Mocha?

The point is that the programme you're somehow think proves your point was completely flawed. It didn't work. How are you not getting this? You really should go re-read the article you posted.

skooterblue2

PhoneMain wrote: »

I call bullsh1t on this.

2) As doctor's, we treat all blood as the same....i.e. we take the same precautions and there's no different treatment algorithm if you get a needle stick from a gay man, a person from africa, a 5 year old Irish boy or a 90 year old woman. All blood is high risk and treated equally.

No you dont, a few years back, if the IBTS suspected a client was gay, they kept that sample to the side. Only recently have allowed both people with Tattoos and acupuncture to donate. Anyone from the UK wasnt allowed donate due to CJD. Africans shouldnt even turn up to donate. Was that IBTS policy until recent years?

skooterblue2

gmisk wrote: »

Are you sure about that? How so? What are you basing that opinion on?
Is it from a report or something?

No just observations. They are less prone to mental health problems but more likely to seek help, Less likely to be homesless, Less likely to be killed in the work place, less likely to be drafted for military duty. That is just the start.

Odhinn

....when did this change from Gemma Doherty to A White Mans Blog About His Persecution?

skooterblue2

aloneforever99 wrote: »

You kind of won the battle and lost the war there, though, don't you think.

I owe you a fiver, but that article is pretty much the definition of male privilege:

The entire point of the article is that the system was flawed and they had to ditch it, which entirely nullifies your point.

Once again my coffee!! Why do you think the program disliked these "All Female college". Lets relate it to the real world. Would you hire a graduate of Evergreen college in Washington State, based on your perception of the college?

I myself think the concept of single sex third level college is concept at best dated and should have been let in the 18th Century. While the ladies who attend these colleges may not be the best of programmer or suited to male dominated work environment. The system wasnt flawed the HR office didnt like the result it was turning out that "the formula we were using for years that worked is what computer agreed on".

baby and crumble

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Ahhh I must appear like Moby Dick to you, the great white whale that must be harpooned. All white straight mens fault, the source off all mens woes.

Oh my. I seem to have hit a nerve.

I had (until now) no idea about your gender or race. none. How could I, your user name is 'SkooterBlue2' ffs. I just thought you sounded like a bit of an asshat.

Glad to see i was right, tbh.

skooterblue2

Odhinn wrote: »

....when did this change from Gemma Doherty to A White Mans Blog About His Persecution?

Come join the fun, we are hoisting white straight men on gin pole before we crucify them. I have saved you a spot up here near the front

skooterblue2

baby and crumble wrote: »

Oh my. I seem to have hit a nerve.

I had (until now) no idea about your gender or race. none. How could I, your user name is 'SkooterBlue2' ffs. I just thought you sounded like a bit of an asshat.

Glad to see i was right, tbh.

Did you just assume my gender?lol
I am actually an SAR helicopter today but that could change.
I am glad I didnt assume you were a perpetual spinster, with marxist man hating tendencies, working for dangerously corrupt state agency. But hey look how that turned out

The Nal

One of Gemmas supporters

https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/1100430390630797314

batgoat

skooterblue2 wrote: »

If they fire you because you have Crohns then that is illegal. If they do not hire you on the single issue that you have Crohns then that is illegal. If they do not hire you because they feel you cannot carry out the assigned tasks to you then that is not illegal. I do not know what work you do so, I cannot judge whether you are capable of carrying out your duties. I as a (hypothetical) responsible HR officer would not hire someone who didnt have capability to carry out those duties.

Your response was specifically in relation to the possibility a woman might become pregnant...

Ipso

The Nal wrote: »

One of Gemmas supporters

https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/1100430390630797314

Looks like an even more oxygen starved at birth Glen Beck with the white board.

batgoat

skooterblue2 wrote: »

It wasnt programmed that way it learned that by itself. Where is my damn Mocha?

You do realise that machine learning can get things wrong right? Eg there's certain pieces of data that do intentionally get ignored at the development stage because they simply don't matter. That's a failure of the engineers so if something is imperfectly designed, it's prone to breaking which the amazon ai was found to be doing.

Grayson

skooterblue2 wrote: »

It wasnt programmed that way it learned that by itself. Where is my damn Mocha?

That's the way machine learning works. Even if the algorithm is good, it's only as good as the data it gets.
It's not omnipotent.