Woman Loses Job for Holding Gender Critical Opinions.

Zorya wrote: »

I don't see anything particularly wrong with it, to be honest. People being irritated things don't go their way (on either side)is not a big deal. No matter what kind of transgender politics thread there could be there will always likely be drift and edgy remarks, passive aggressiveness, smart jibes, calls to shut it down, people who simply give their opinion from either side. That's life. I think the very context of a professional being disciplined or let go for public expression of a political opinion based on biology gives the subject solid context.

I get what your saying but what tends to happen in these thread's is they start based around a certain subject like this one. Yet if there's the potential for it they always turn out how this one is now so the actual topic doesn't get the attention it was meant to.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If a number goes above zero, then that number is rising. I have already given you evidence of the existence of people who have detransitioned, yet you still persist in claiming there is no evidence of this as though they don’t exist. That continued denial doesn’t sound familiar to you at all?

So from zero to one or was it two represents a rising number of people, you're an expert at sensationalism.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you’re claiming that a person can change their sex, then your views are not based upon facts in the real world. Your opinions are based upon a minority political ideology, which is why people are opposed to it. Your opinions aren’t based upon scientific evidence because the scientific evidence you’re claiming as proof that a person can change their sex just doesn’t exist! There is none! As it relates to gender, the concept of transgender relates specifically to Western understanding of a binary gender paradigm. In other parts of the world they have different understanding of gender which isn’t based upon a binary gender paradigm. The concept of gender is entirely a social construct, whereas humans as a sexually dimorphic species is inarguable scientific fact regardless of the society in which one lives.

The Wpath and the scientists who have facts at their disposal that disagree with you. You don't like the scientific community as a science denier, we get it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

These stories aren’t being imported, they’re happening in the real world. Where they’re happening is important because legislation, politics and social policies in other countries influences legislation, politics and social policies in this country. I’m not fond of twitter or anything else besides Boards and I’ve been aware of the existence of alternative explanations for the experiences of people in other cultures and societies since I was in primary school. This is nothing new, and certainly not controversial. It becomes controversial when people are experiencing the negative effects of having an opinion which doesn’t align with other people’s political and social agendas. Gender ideology isn’t an entirely inaccurate description of the phenomenon, I would suggest your own interpretation is in regard specifically to people’s sex, given that you are of the belief that people can change their sex.

People have changed sex for decades, it's nothing new or part of a mystical ideology.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

More obfuscation in substituting the medical term transsexual for the social and political term transgender. The GRA 2015 only streamlined the process for persons wishing to be identified in law as their preferred gender. It did nothing to encourage the idea that person’s ability or capacity to change their sex. There are no references to a person’s sex in the act, just their gender and their preferred gender -

Gender Recognition Act 2015

Transgender is an umbrella term encompassing different groups of transgender types, transsexuals are those who have changed sex. You seemed not to have grasped this fact and understand the different subsets that belong to being transgender.
What is your opinion on self-ID for changing gender, you never gave one and have been extremely silent on posters who oppose people changing gender without medical intervention. Go on, give us your opinion.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You rarely ever acknowledge this though. And this is what we should be talking about. It won’t be talked about though while you’re still attempting to convince anyone that it is possible for a person to change their sex from male to female or from female to male, and continue to refuse to acknowledge the existence of people for whom medical and surgical treatments are not effective. I’m struggling to give you the benefit of the doubt that it isn’t just insincere tokenism on your part with reference to people who have no wish to undergo medical and surgical treatments, while identifying themselves as transgender. I’ve witnessed you be dismissive of their experiences which you consider invalid already. I can understand why you do it, I do the same myself, I’m just not trying to be deceitful about it.

Same as above, you disagree with the medical and scientific community.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There was feckall public consultation about the legislation klaaaz, same as there’s feckall public consultation about the current proposals to review the current legislation. The thing is though that in a democracy people can still object to legislation which they become aware of, whether or not they were previously aware of it’s existence - that’s precisely how legislation is often changed and reviewed, and there’s been plenty of legislation changed and reviewed lately with very little in the way of public discourse. I don’t think there’s any conspiracy either btw, I just think people generally aren’t interested in politics, so lobby groups which people generally have never heard of, have the ears of politicians.

There was widespread public consultation like there is for the review of the Irish Gender Recognition Act. We discussed this before and yet you dismissed the rake of submissions from a wide range of groups in society.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

With regard to the idea of medical professionals and scientists that I don’t like? I don’t like their ideas. There’s a difference - I really couldn’t care less for them as people, I’m not interested in them to that degree. Their opinions regarding gender and sex and so forth are all I’m concerned with, and in that regard you’re quite right- I don’t like their opinions, because I think they’re not basing their opinions upon either science nor medicine, but they’re basing their opinions upon their political beliefs. They, much the same as yourself klaaaz, are doing a piss poor job of deflecting from the fact that people cannot change their sex, and medical and surgical treatments are not the appropriate treatment for everyone who identifies themselves as transgender.

"Scientists not basing their opinions on science", that's quite amusing Jack.

The medical community and the scientists who have facts at their disposal that disagree with you. You don't like the scientific community as a science denier, whatever your motivation for dismissing science be it religion, politics or what, that's your problem to deal with in your own bubble. The rest of the real world moves on.

klaaaz wrote: »

Out of all this, you agree that the Gender Recognition Act(Ireland) does not hit people personally who are not transgender, progress!

If you want to claim progress, go ahead.
It doesn't affect me personally, but I can still have a say in proposed changes in society.
Trans women truly claiming or expecting to be recognised as real women, falls under a broad category of bullshit which also includes anti-vaxxers, anti-evolutionists and flat earthers.
Something which merits comment.

klaaaz wrote: »

There was no backlash in 2015, you're making that up. There were no objections from anyone, anywhere at the time.

I never said there was, in any of my posts.

You claimed "overwhelming support of the majority" and based that on "no objections".
The absence of chalk doesn't prove the presence of cheese.

klaaaz wrote: »

It is not a key issue for most people yes so why is it suddenly a key issue for you and your fellow posters who oppose the Gender Recognition Act in Ireland?

It's not "suddenly" a key issue, the issue which spawned this thread is the people losing their jobs or impacts in their career from their more scientific and intuitive opinions on the subject.

hcf500 wrote: »

Their needs to be spaces set aside in politics for trans and gender non conforming persons. Their will never be a trans td in Ireland otherwise! They are at such a disadvantage. Just look at some of the comments on this tread. Proves it really!

Sweet Jesus... you want 149 people in Ireland to have their own dedicated non-elected TD. Thankfully that won't happen.

hcf500 wrote: »

It will happen in time. Mark my words. The whole world is feeling the negative impact from Trump. It was on a very progressive ladder until 2016. Once 2020 comes and he is out, there will be a worldwide shift. We need more TDs in Ireland like Pelosi, Omar and AOC. Diversity is very important in politics.

I dunno if I should laugh at you or what?

hcf500 wrote: »

Would you rather just tackle the post? Or are insults all you can manage

The vast majority of your 9 posts on here are so far incredibly one dimensional especially the Trump thing.

Your latest remark of Trump leaving a negative affect on all of us.... I'm yet to experience this what makes me so special?

How have I avoided this tyrant so far!!

hcf500 wrote: »

It will happen in time. Mark my words. The whole world is feeling the negative impact from Trump. It was on a very progressive ladder until 2016. Once 2020 comes and he is out, there will be a worldwide shift. We need more TDs in Ireland like Pelosi, Omar and AOC. Diversity is very important in politics.

Rather than the idea of diversity implied by identity politics, it’s diversity of character is far more important than diversity of characteristics -


I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.


- Martin Luther King Jnr.

klaaaz wrote: »

So from zero to one or was it two represents a rising number of people, you're an expert at sensationalism.



The Wpath and the scientists who have facts at their disposal that disagree with you. You don't like the scientific community as a science denier, we get it.










Same as above, you disagree with the medical and scientific community.







"Scientists not basing their opinions on science", that's quite amusing Jack.

The medical community and the scientists who have facts at their disposal that disagree with you. You don't like the scientific community as a science denier, whatever your motivation for dismissing science be it religion, politics or what, that's your problem to deal with in your own bubble. The rest of the real world moves on.

Would you stop all this nonsense about people acknowledging that biological sex exists and furthermore can be determined by various tests being "science deniers". It is you who is coming across as one of those tbh. Gender can change because that is determined by how the person feels and identifies. sex? nope, never can. Most rational people who aren't ideologues accept this, including many trans people

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system

Here is an article about how a distinction between sex and gender should be made in scientific literature to avoid confusion. Bloody science denying scientists and their crazy theories

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222296/

In the study of human subjects, the term sex should be used as a classification, generally as male or female, according to the reproductive organs and functions that derive from the chromosomal complement.
In the study of human subjects, the term gender should be used to refer to a person's self-representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions on the basis of the individual's gender presentation.

BattleCorp wrote: »

There's a thread in AH called What practice/beliefs make you instantly lose respect for someone.

No idea why I just remembered that thread right now.

Because I see Trump for what he really is?

hcf500 wrote: »

Because I see Trump for what he really is?

No, because you fail to acknowledge the fact that there are people who exist who disagree with your beliefs. That’s how Trump was elected, and how I’d put money on it he’ll do a second term just to piss off the minority who imagine there is any merit to society in identity politics.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, because you fail to acknowledge the fact that there are people who exist who disagree with your beliefs. That’s how Trump was elected, and how I’d put money on it he’ll do a second term just to piss off the minority who imagine there is any merit to society in identity politics.

I know their are people who disagree with my beliefs. I don't think they are all bad people or anything like that. Just misguided by listening to Trumps empty promises. Bernie or Biden will make for a good change but I would prefer Kamala Harris or even Liz Warren. Anyway back on topic, A lot of this transphobia is being driven by Trump and his admin. Its clear to see in his policies

rgodard80a wrote: »

Thanks for saying we're not bad.
I don't think trans are bad, but more of a psychiatric disorder.
Can't have the patients running the asylum.

I see conservatism as an attempt to protect society.
Liberalism and in this case the concept of legally enforced change against peoples beliefs will get push back from society.

"Can't have the patients running the asylum." You should be banned for that sort of transphobic comment. It is highly insulting to people that are not gender conforming.

hcf500 wrote: »

"Can't have the patients running the asylum." You should be banned for that sort of transphobic comment. It is highly insulting to people that are not gender conforming.

No... that's not your call.

But just proves what people say here, say the wrong thing and you're banned, social media attacked, etc...
This is a dialog, and threatening to report or ban especially when you are an obvious re-reg, is blatant censorship of opinions.
Or do you not believe in diversity of opinions ?

I can somewhat try to empathise with the trans position.
Maybe they're failed males that fantasized too much about females or the benefits or power they perceive that females have.
But I still see it as a pathology. A disfunctional state of mind.

hcf500 wrote: »

I know their are people who disagree with my beliefs. I don't think they are all bad people or anything like that. Just misguided by listening to Trumps empty promises. Bernie or Biden will make for a good change but I would prefer Kamala Harris or even Liz Warren. Anyway back on topic, A lot of this transphobia is being driven by Trump and his admin. Its clear to see in his policies

How is that back on topic? It’s the same topic!

I’d hold Trump responsible for... actually, no, I wouldn’t hold him responsible for anything as he’s a useless prick, but what his election represents is the antithesis to Hillary’s disingenuous efforts to appeal to identity politics - she literally obliterated any support she had every time she opened her mouth, and I say that as someone who used to admire Hillary’s work in the areas of human rights and family law.

What I think you’re referring to as “transphobia” though, is people’s refusal to accept the political ideology of a minority. It’s inevitable that as any social group gains notoriety, their ideology is going to be subject to greater scrutiny.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There is no consensus within the scientific and medical community with regard to an effective treatment for gender dysphoria. The idea of medical and surgical treatments are being pushed by political consensus among a small lobby group at this point, as science and medicine are investigating human development, societies and culture further afield than your limited perspective.

Medical and surgical treatments have been carried out on trans people since the 1950's. Nothing new. (you don't believe in science so why quote them all of a sudden??)

I see you dodged the question as usual, quick to not to give your opinion. Asking again...

What is your opinion on self-ID for changing gender, you never gave one and have been extremely silent on posters who oppose people changing gender without medical intervention. Go on, give us your opinion.

hcf500 wrote: »

All meaningless word.

If you really want a dialog, you wouldn't threaten banning.
Tell me, did you report a post here?

Your credibility and decency would go out the window if you did.