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; } } }

Child Item

Ridiculous Moderation on Current Affairs/IMHO

[Deleted User]

I'm sure you guys are already aware about this one. In the "Lady can't have her hairy balls waxed" thread, it has been stated that we are not allowed to call a biological male a "he".

Now regardless of what you think about self identification, in a forum with IMHO in it, being told that calling a biological male a "he" is incorrect falls well beyond the bounds of reasonable discourse and instead insists that every poster must use the preferred pronouns of the subject.

Misgendering is the word that has been used to quell conversation. What if when saying "he" we were referring to the persons biological sex? That wouldn't be incorrect.

Surely the right of the individual to live by their own pronoun, doesn't trump the right of others to reject/ignore his their request. Is this the only scenario where this occurs? If so, why do trans people have this right?

I would ask, if this is the standard, then surely you should be closing every Donald Trump thread which calls him orange or comments on his hair as that is definitely image/fat shaming.

I would like to know exactly what is acceptable when discussing a man/woman who thinks they are the opposite sex.

(p.s. this isn't an attack on the specific mod. I'm sure he is only following orders)

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

klaaaz wrote:

The mask has slipped. Ye and others who posted here never had acceptance of transgender people in Ireland in the first place.

I'm seriously sick of you misrepresenting me. How, and in what way, did the post that you quoted in any way show that "the mask has slipped"?

Talking absolute nonsense once again and bandying around "transphobe" or "intolerant" accusations to try and win an argument that doesn't exist.

Yer Da sells Avon

Omackeral wrote: »

Forgive me but I honestly thought that was another pronoun I hadn't heard of within Trans community

That's just a culchie pronoun. The equivalent for normal people Dubs is 'yiz'.

[Deleted User]

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

That's just a culchie pronoun. The equivalent for normal people Dubs is 'yiz'.

Ah yes I know, many a school teacher bestowed it upon us. And it's yizzer here in the big smoke pal, please respect the pronoun.

Yer Da sells Avon

Omackeral wrote: »

Ah yes I know, many a school teacher bestowed it upon us. And it's yizzer here in the big smoke pal, please respect the pronoun.

'Yizzer' is a possessive pronoun.

An everyday Dublin example would be: Did yiz all take yizzer heroin?

drunkmonkey

klaaaz wrote: »

The mask has slipped. Ye and others who posted here never had acceptance of transgender people in Ireland in the first place.

I would have been accepting but once you want to start asking or hoping for rights only a pedophilic pervert would want things change. I'd support the trans people I meet day to day but not some of the what I perceive to be twisted thinking individuals policing boards who have no respect for pre pubescent girls.

I'm genuinely disturbed by the Transgender activists on boards, not one willing to say they shouldn't be able to hang around with young girls, some are conservative and say they only should if they cut off their man bits, others don't think it's necessary let them live as they want with full women's rights balls and all.

Boards protected these people, gives them a safe spaces. Madness. I'd have yourself and mcfesh banned in an instant if I had the power for your views on this subject alone. How the hell can you claim your a woman when you won't even stand up for little girls rights. Utterly sickening behaviour.

[Deleted User]

MrFresh wrote: »

Discrimination on the grounds of gender is prohibited under the equal status act.

if you cannot join the dots here to the instance where referring to a trans woman as 'he' has been found to be discrimination then you should rescind the above and stop making ridiculous statements

i had asked previously if a person could mod in the relevant fora while disagreeing with this new tack. its a very pertinent question given the discussions recently about the way and the reasons for the way in which mods are chosen imo.

enforced agreement on something like this is utterly worthless and wrongheaded.

Glass fused light

[

Warning

So go get a brew or 2 and make yourselves very comfortable.
This one is 1,000,000 words or less ( I think??) ]

Title
The joys of ageing, when bathroom wakes lead to insomnia

Executive summary
Short Case overview
Yes the NI cake is there
Pronouns are politics and activism
The undocumented self ID does not give legal rights nor protection.
"Gender" (only) is not a legally protected word nor a protected right, it's sex/gender.
Don't be deliberately rude
Pronouns are not legally protected
If you are rude I can chose to be rude back

Links
The Constitution
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons.html *

The Equal Status Act as amended
http://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/2000/act/8/revised/en/html

The Gender Recognition Act as amended
http://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/2015/act/25/section/18/revised/en/html

* Whut?? God exists because Bunreacht na hÉireann says so ? Ohhh so the male is the one with the big(?) fig leaf!

Time for tae

The litigant has self IDed as a woman, the current ideology is that other people must accept that as a valid "choice" to publicly transition from a 'male' gender to a 'female' gender and that trans women are women. It is acceptance without exception.

I am not and will not deny that this is the current as ideology but others may. I will object to anyone attempting to deny that Acceptance without exception is why this issue exists. IMO It's a queer theory as applied to transgender theory.

IMO anyone who can not accept that we (as a society) have to maintain some form of gate-keeping regarding this; can not try act in good faith. IMO they can not ignoring this dilemma, or dismiss it as scaremongering or transphobia. I acknowledge that gate-keeping may be at the very real expense of those individuals who just want to get on with their lives who do not and would not accept the "acceptance without exception"

If a person ( transgendered or not ), attempts to deny that there is a conflict of rights, I will not abide by good manners nor be bound by any unconscionable law. I fully reserve the right to call them any pronoun or noun which I myself choose.

I have come to believe the current queered transgendered ideology is being used as a fundamental and base attack on women as a sex. (and note I can expand on that as and when required :) )

I do not believe that this was what people campaigned for or continue to campaign for here in Ireland.

I freely acknowledge that most (if not all) Irish activists themselves strongly object to the actions of this individual. I would hope that the activists/trans people would accept that for most other people the 'idea/concept ' of being transgendered is difficult to understand.

I believe we will all need to work to establish a new base line of acceptable behaviour. And I would hope that challenging coercive behaviour will never be socially unacceptable.

If the women in the centre of the case had submitted to the coercion from this individual and applied wax to her male genitalia or arm/leg we would not be debating this issue.

If the women in the centre of the case had submitted to the coercion of attending mediation and paid damages to this individual for not submitted to the coercion from this individual we would not be debating this issue. It would have cost them in the region of $CAD 2,500 each and their livelihood.

They are currently trying to defend their right not to be coerced into unwanted contact with another human. If they loose they will potentially have to pay the litigant $CAD 500,000 and loose not just their livelihood but their financial existence.

IMO This was a targeted attach by a trans woman who up until now mainly expressed a fetish on menstruation by targeting prepubescent and pubescent girls. The litigant has extended this abusive fetish behaviour by targeting women in a specific niche market.

The ladies cultural heritage , religion, and personal belief system which are core to their sex/gender identity have come under attack.

This attack is by an individual who claims that the cases are about the legal protections offered to a person as a result of the recognition of 'gender' and the derecognition 'sex'.

This person has openly published that the objective is the removal of the rights the ladies currently enjoy in respect of the ladies cultural heritage , religion, and personal belief system.

This activism is political. It is being used by the litigant in a campaigning to bring about
A) political change in the way transgender ideology is legislated for and

social change in the way undocumented self IDing transgendered and documented transgendered people are treated by the general public.

Most if (not all will) agree the litigant is by no shape or form a person a reasonable transgendered person would wish or choose to be the "public face" of any politically motivated court action.

This can be compared to the NI baker case, where people were making value judgements based on the religious believe and sexual orientation of the parties involved. There the judge balanced the right of individuals to engage in employment (a necessary evil ! ) and have a strongly held belief system against the denial of service as a result of these belief to a member of a protected class. The judge parsed the judgement on the application of the wax sorry icing ( manly snort / girlie giggle ).

Irrespective of this litigant, the case itself will clarify the extent to which the body of trans identified person is recognised as the gender of their choice under Canadian law. And will the judge pars the judgement between different body parts?

My take on the Irish position on pronouns.

First point to note IMO the litigant is not recognised as a woman/female under Irish law.

We do not recognise undocumented self ID as being a valid method of changing sex(gender).

As pointed out the State has enacted the Gender Recognition Act 2015.

As a result of this, only persons with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) can legally be recognised as having changed sex(gender).

The Constitution only recognises "sex" not "gender".

Eg

ARTICLE 16

1 1° Every citizen without distinction of sex[h] who has reached the age of twenty-one years, and who is not placed under disability or incapacity by this Constitution or by law, shall be eligible for membership of Dáil Éireann.

1 2° i All citizens, and

ii such other persons in the State as may be determined by law,

without distinction of sex who have reached the age of eighteen years who are not disqualified by law and comply with the provisions of the law relating to the election of members of Dáil Éireann, shall have the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann.

1 3° No law shall be enacted placing any citizen under disability or incapacity for membership of Dáil Éireann on the ground of sex or disqualifying any citizen or other person from voting at an election for members of Dáil Éireann on that ground.

Until such time as someone can point to the legistation where the State interprets "gender" being defined as other than "sex" (per the Equality Acts) I will argue that "gender" (as opposed to "sex") has no independent protected characteristics and is not recognised (and can not be recognised) in law as being other than "sex".

EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000

3 2 ( a) that one is male and the other is female (the “gender ground ” ),

No GRA 2015 case has yet been appealed to the Supreme Court(?).

Therefore IMO only persons with a GRC can lawfully be given any rights and protections that their "new" sex has been granted.

To highlight the importance of this recognition I reference where a non-citizen although resident was excluded from employment protections by virtue of the interaction of employment law and the Constitution. (google Asian/Indian chef underpayment of wages).

See below that the State grants non-citizens the right to obtain a GRC.

Further more the recognition is only legal on and after the date the GRC is issued.

PART 3

Gender Recognition Certificate

Effect of gender recognition certificate generally

18. (1) Where a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person the person’s gender shall from thedate of that issue become for all purposes the preferred gender so that if the preferred gender is the male gender the person’s sex becomes that of a man, and if it is the female gender the person’s sex becomes that of a woman.

(2) The date of issue of a gender recognition certificate shall be—

(a) the date on which the Minister decides to issue the certificate under section 8 (3)(a), or

(b) the date of an order of the court under section 17 (2)(a).

As a non-resident the litigant would be obliged to apply under section 8 and the Minister has a right to grant or refuse a gender recognition certificate.
The recognition would only apply after the cert is issued to qualify the litigant.

PART 2

Applications and Appeals Relating to Gender Recognition

Application for a gender recognition certificate

8. (1) A person referred to in section 9 may apply to the Minister for a gender recognition certificate.

(2) An application under this section shall be in writing in the form, including electronic form, as may be prescribed, and no fee shall be charged by the Minister for considering the application.

(3) The Minister shall consider an application under this section and shall decide to either—

(a) issue a gender recognition certificate, or

(b) refuse to issue a gender recognition certificate.

>>>> I can only see the next paragraph on my phone if yiz want I can add a 2nd post<<<<<

To date approximately 400 GRC's have been issued between 2015 and 2019
Between 2015 and 2017 only four applications were received under section 9.
http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/GRA%20Review%20Report.pdf

Unless there has been a large shift in the demographic applying under this section it would not be unreasonable to extrapolate that the total number of these successful applicants would be less than 20 persons.

Is there even a remote possibility that the litigant has applied and been issued with a gender recognition certificate under section 9 1 a? I would argue that based on the evidence in the public domaine that to suggest this would be a nonsense.

Further as there is ample evidence to support the litigant's ordinary residence is in Canada, she would not legally have qualified under section 9 1 b either.

“ordinarily resident” in sections 9 and 10 means ordinarily resident in the State throughout the period of one year ending on the date that a person applies for a gender recognition certificate;

Persons who may apply for a gender recognition certificate

9. (1) This section applies to a person who satisfies the conditions specified in subsection (2) —

(a) who may or may not be ordinarily resident in the State and—
[ has a right to Irish Citizenship by birth or decent ]
...

(b) who is ordinarily resident in the State, whose birth did not take place in the State and whose birth—

The wider application of recognising undocumented self ID is only good manners.

It offends a persons personal dignity to not recognise a persons name. Unless the speaker has a mental/speech disability to continue to misname a person after introductions are made is just rude. In a lot of cases (most) to continue do so is a abusive in the way all controlling behaviour is abusive.

However the use of pronouns when referring to someone or something have now become subjective when applied in the Sex V Gender word war.

From a cultural perspective the Irish language did not recognise "it" everything basically is "male" or "female" and non-sex and/or inanimate objects derived a "sex". So from a philosophical view point we may sex/gender a car while recognising the material reality of the car being inanimate.

Why can we not do the same when applying a sex/gender specific pronoun to a person who's biology (as a material reality when it comes to acts of sexual reproduction) is not matched by their preferred pronoun or GRC?

Do we as citizens have a right to a protected pronoun?
Do we as citizens have a right to force others to use that protected pronoun?
I would argue that we do not have a right to protected pronouns nor the right to force other to use them.

ARTICLE 40
1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.
....

3 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

3 2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

I would argue that the State has not legislated to protect pronouns within the GRA.
IMO as it expressly limited the personal recognised right to marry, the State it's self differentiates between birth sex and GRC sex.

Gender Recognition Certificate

Effect of gender recognition certificate generally

18. (1) Where a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person the person’s gender shall from the date of that issue become for all purposes the preferred gender so that if the preferred gender is the male gender the person’s sex becomes that of a man, and if it is the female gender the person’s sex becomes that of a woman.
...

(3) A person issued with a gender recognition certificate may only—

(a) marry a person of the opposite gender to the preferred gender and reference in section 2(2)(e) of the Act of 2004 to “same sex” includes a reference to the same sex as the preferred gender,

(b) be a party to a civil partnership registration with a person of the same gender as the preferred gender and reference in section 2(2A)(e) of the Act of 2004, to “not of the same sex” includes a reference to not of the same sex as the preferred gender.

The current ideology of gender and transgender is no longer limited to people who suffer from a clinically recognisable dysmorphia about the sex of their body.

IMO It has extended out so far as to become a dangerous nonsense.

Further to this, it has extended so far as to become a threat to the recognition of women as a sex.
It has extended so far that I have to define women as a person born only with X chromosome and exclude persons who's genetic makeup contains any number of Y chromosome.
It has extended so far that people will actually argue that the exclusion of persons with any number of Y chromosome is biologically inaccurate and/or transphobic.
It has extended so far that people will call me a bigot and accuse me of causing the death of someone by saying that.

IMO the ideology has deliberately targeted women as a sex and the words used to define and describe women as a sex.

Women as a sex are being redefined using such words as "Ciswomen".
The inclusion of the word "cis" is being used to validate undocumented self IDing males as women/female.

The forced speech; by insisting that I use of a pronoun to describe an individual who is not legally recognised as being the sex/gender of that pronoun, is in my view contrary to the rights all citizens under Article section 6 of the Constitution to freely my convictions and opinions in respect of the difference between a sex and having the rights and protections afforded that sex.

[ edit ]

As such I point out that I have right to protection under the Equal status act section 3 2 (a) on the grounds of sex* under section 3 2 (e) on the grounds of religious belief and section 3 2 (j) (iv) on the grounds I can opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act.

* And to avoided the erasure/kill argument I fully acknowledge that the 400 aprox GRC may all have been issued to males who are now recognised as female irrespective of being pre or post op people.

EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 (as amended)

Discrimination (general).

3.— F9 [ (1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur —

( a ) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation F10 [ on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B) , ] (in this Act referred to as the ‘ discriminatory grounds ’ ) which —

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

( b ) where a person who is associated with another person —

(i) is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and

(ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph ( a ), constitute discrimination,

or

( c ) where an apparently neutral provision F10 [ would put a person ] referred to in any paragraph of section 3(2) at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. ]

(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:

( a) that one is male and the other is female (the “gender ground”),

( b) that they are of different F11 [ civil status ] (the “ F11 [ civil status ] ground”),

( c) that one has family status and the other does not or that one has a different family status from the other (the “family status ground”),

( d) that they are of different sexual orientation (the “sexual orientation ground”),

( e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (the “religion ground”),

( f) subject to subsection (3), that they are of different ages (the “age ground”),

( g) that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (the “disability ground”),

( h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the “ground of race”),

( i) that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not (the “Traveller community ground”),

( j) that one—

(i) has in good faith applied for any determination or redress provided for in Part II or III,

(ii) has attended as a witness before the Authority, the F12 [ adjudication officer ] or a court in connection with any inquiry or proceedings under this Act,

(iii) has given evidence in any criminal proceedings under this Act,

(iv) has opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act, or

(v) has given notice of an intention to take any of the actions specified in subparagraphs (i) to (iv),

and the other has not (the “victimisation ground”).

F9 [ (3) (a) Treating a person who has not attained the age of 18 years less favourably or more favourably than another, whatever that person ’ s age shall not be regarded as discrimination on the age ground.

(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply in relation to the provision of motor vehicle insurance to licensed drivers under that age.

(3A) In any proceedings statistics are admissible for the purpose of determining whether discrimination has occurred by virtue of subsection (1)(c) .]

F13 [ (3B) For the purposes of section 6(1)(c) , the discriminatory grounds shall (in addition to the grounds specified in subsection (2) ) include the ground that as between any two persons, that one is in receipt of rent supplement (within the meaning of section 6(8) ), housing assistance (construed in accordance with Part 4 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 ) or any payment under the Social Welfare Acts and the other is not (the “ housing assistance ground ” ). ]

(4) The Minister shall, not later than two years after the commencement of this section, review the operation of this Act to assess whether there is a need to add to the discriminatory grounds specified in subsection (2).

Annotations:

Amendments:
F9
Substituted and inserted (18.07.2004) by Equality Act 2004 (24/2004), s. 48(a) and (b), commenced on enactment.

F10
Substituted (1.01.2016) by Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015 (43/2015), s. 13(a)(i) and (ii), S.I. No. 610 of 2015.

F11
Substituted (1.01.2011) by Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 (24/2010), s. 103(3), S.I. No. 648 of 2010.

F12
Substituted (1.10.2015) by Workplace Relations Act 2015 (16/2015), s. 84(1)(c), S.I. No. 410 of 2015, subject to transitional provision in subs. (2).

F13
Inserted (1.01.2016) by Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015 (43/2015), s. 13(b), S.I. 610 of 2015.

And the extract

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

PERSONAL RIGHTS

ARTICLE 40

1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.
....

3 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

3 2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.
......

6 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: –

i The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

The publication or utterance of seditious or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

ii The right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms.

Provision may be made by law to prevent or control meetings which are determined in accordance with law to be calculated to cause a breach of the peace or to be a danger or nuisance to the general public and to prevent or control meetings in the vicinity of either House of the Oireachtas.

iii The right of the citizens to form associations and unions.

Laws, however, may be enacted for the regulation and control in the public interest of the exercise of the foregoing right.

2° Laws regulating the manner in which the right of forming associations and unions and the right of free assembly may be exercised shall contain no political, religious or class discrimination.

Posting on main and mod thread
If you got this far:
Thanks for reading

Glass fused light

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

Language evolves, as does society. Misgendering of one person not only affects that person, but other trans people too. The "accurate" pronoun is the preferred pronoun of the person; it's something that many of us don't have to deal with, but it's a small change in reference that can make a big difference.

There was an AMA with a transgender female back in 2015 where she said, "the key idea that the transgender community is trying to get across is 'your gender identity is *not* determined by what's between your legs.'"

One is welcome to be a "voice of dissent." However, there are Terms and Conditions that users agree to when signing up for an account as well as points in the FAQ and Charters that cover the various forums across the site. The virility of a message can be delivered just as potently by saying, "She/They/Yavin/This individual."

Discussing what you call a spade and a shovel and what pronoun you use when referring to a transgender person is also not the same. And we're not shrugging our shoulders and telling you it shouldn't matter; it should matter. Reading about the experiences and knock-on effects of misgendering can highlight why it should.

Mark may I point out the "accurate" noun and pronoun for woman is woman.

If asked what are they; how many women do not use the word woman to explain what they are?

Why is it growing increasingly common that the word woman being replaced by other words to "ally" with an ideology most women don't understand?

As you point out the small change you refer reference that can make a big difference.

Its something that many women do have to deal with, but it's not a small change in reference but it can, is and will make a big difference.

As I have pointed I object to be labeled "cis" IMO it is persistently and consistently used in an attempt to claim that biology is bogus science and queered gender theory is the only legitimate science when it comes to human identity.

Women as a sex are loosing out.
Eg
Social stigma of periods Bloody woman, Bloody bitch, Bloody hell

While it is being argued that bathrooms don't matter the Canadian case proves that they do.

Ignoring the idea of it being a safe space:
One of the biological changes girls have as a result of puberty is the beginning of periods. Most girls will have irregular periods at the start of puberty and will only realise it when they start to 'flood'. This comes with a risk of visible stains on outer clothing. Lack of single sex provision in schools obliges these girls to attempt to remove these stains in the public area of a bathroom while in their underwear.
Even without mishaps most girls need time to learn how to manage the blood flow and may need to wash blood off their hands, again is a public area at the hand basins.

The social stigma about periods remain. The "oh it's the curse" or "it's that time of the month again" used in arguments to shut down women's voices still happen and still gets sniggers from the peanut gallery.

Women have been saying that the key idea that the women are trying to get across is 'identity is *not* determined by what's between their legs or our ability to birth children from our bodies.'
And it was working we got legal recognition, legal equalities and specific legal protection for women who carry and birthed babies.

This identity re-labling is visable everywhere, along with calling women cis women:

Suddenly we are back to being described by our reproductive systems
menstruators
cervix havers,
people with vagian,
pregnant people etc.

And the vile invented term for the female reproductive organs as "front hole".
Women don't have a front hole we don't urinate from our vagina, nor do we sh1t out babies.

We are 50% + of most populations.
The 'most' is because in societies where male progeny have higher "value", the in utero selection of male v female when it comes to abortion is self evident. And as for the wokie claim by an Irish pro-choice group that it's not only women who need abortions. They can fcuking go back and read their political campaign material where men were told to put up and shut up it was women only.

The loss of women in these societies has also lead to the reintroduction and normalisation of forced marriage (sex slave to me).

I can go on, but I hope people understand there are imbalances being pushed back into society which women have fought so hard to remove.

So when people start saying its a small change for 1% of the population try think of the knock on effect to has on the position of women in the whole world not just the first world.

Women as a sex are still women fighting inequality. It's inequality as we are women not because we identify but because we are born women.

[Deleted User]

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

'Yizzer' is a possessive pronoun.

An everyday Dublin example would be: Did yiz all take yizzer heroin?

Can also be a contraction though. E.g. Yizzer after smoking all me gear

klaaaz

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I would have been accepting but once you want to start asking or hoping for rights only a pedophilic pervert would want things change. I'd support the trans people I meet day to day but not some of the what I perceive to be twisted thinking individuals policing boards who have no respect for pre pubescent girls.

I'm genuinely disturbed by the Transgender activists on boards, not one willing to say they shouldn't be able to hang around with young girls, some are conservative and say they only should if they cut off their man bits, others don't think it's necessary let them live as they want with full women's rights balls and all.

Boards protected these people, gives them a safe spaces. Madness. I'd have yourself and mcfesh banned in an instant if I had the power for your views on this subject alone. How the hell can you claim your a woman when you won't even stand up for little girls rights. Utterly sickening behaviour.

You must be in the wrong country or think that Canadian law equals Irish law when it's not, this is Ireland not Canada. We have different laws than there. As you think that you speak for young girls and women, you don't. It's quite the coincidence that you use language "think of little girls safety" similar to the American conservatives campaigns against transgender people. You and others do scaremonger alot though either trying to get a reaction or you misunderstand.

Strongly disagree about you saying that Boards is a safe space for transgender people especially in AH/CA with a history of vitriol bashing them. As for transgender activists, i've yet to spot one here.

As for Glass fused light's extra long ramble, self ID has been here since 2015, that's 4 years. There was no objection to it from any political sphere, legal sphere or any special interest groups or any individuals, absolute nothing. As I stated earlier, there has been no legal objection to the Gender Recognition Act in Ireland on religious or constitutional grounds and there has certainly been not a test case to object to the GRA using the religion option.

Glass fused light

drunkmonkey wrote: »

riffmongous wrote: »

This is why I'm happy with the Boards policy, it's bad enough as it is with the constant threads without them also being full of dehumanising crap

Your a history mod, when has this happened before when the media has decided what can and can not be spoken? Was there a happy outcome?

Well the ranty people on the pro side like to throw German history at gender critical people might want to check out the book burnings in the late 1930's

The electronic version is to get the authors banished eg the litigant

klaaaz

Glass fused light wrote: »

Well the ranty people on the pro side like to throw German history at gender critical people might want to check out the book burnings in the late 1930's

The electronic version is to get the authors banished eg the litigant

As you brought up history, yes the Nazi's did a mass burning of books from the Institute of Sexology, a specifically targeted event at transgender people, gay people, women's emancipation, sex education to name a few. Apparently it was performed to protect the "morals of society", sounds familiar.

drunkmonkey

klaaaz wrote: »

As you think that you speak for young girls and women, you don't. It's quite the coincidence that you use language "think of little girls safety"

It's looking pretty apparent JY has used her status as a woman to take advantage of young girls.
I've a daughter I do think of her safety, I make no apologies for it. It's not scaremongering when it's actually happening.
I have no problem with a woman's helping her with woman stuff but I take exception to self identifing lesbians with hairy balls been anywhere near her.
Transgender rights are taking the piss out of women. Irish women just haven't copped onto it yet as nothing has brought it to the front and center.

Imreoir2

Glass fused light wrote: »

From a cultural perspective the Irish language did not recognise "it" everything basically is "male" or "female" and non-sex and/or inanimate objects derived a "sex". So from a philosophical view point we may sex/gender a car while recognising the material reality of the car being inanimate.

Why can we not do the same when applying a sex/gender specific pronoun to a person who's biology (as a material reality when it comes to acts of sexual reproduction) is not matched by their preferred pronoun or GRC?

Gender when it comes to words has nothing at all to do with gender when it comes to biology. If you want to make a cultural argument with regards the Irish lanuage you should bear in mind that the word Cailín (girl) is masculine in Irish.

Boards.ie: Mark

This is not a matter of population size and it is not a matter of the character of the person. It is about decency, respect, and inclusivity.

There is a small percentage of black or Asian people living in Ireland at the moment; we still clamp down on slurs. It was said above that "there is no scenario where using these terms are acceptable though." But, at one point in time, there would have been people arguing that they were correct to use such language. As I said before, society and language changes and evolves.

By the same token, "they" is considered acceptable to use in a singular context. It has been around since the 14th century and has grown in use. Using "it" in relation to anyone is something that I would consider unacceptable to say the least.

The forum's title includes "IMHO." However, the charter says, "Don't be a dick" - i.e. be respectful and civil. It also says not to post material that you know or should know is abusive or harassing. Mistakes can happen, but posters have been told that misgendering isn't acceptable. Twitter's Hateful Conduct Policy (even though this is an equivalent of the "If all your friends did x, should you be allowed to too?"), specifically prohibits misgendering and deadnaming of transgender individuals ( https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy).

Glass fused light

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Gender when it comes to words has nothing at all to do with gender when it comes to biology. If you want to make a cultural argument with regards the Irish lanuage you should bear in mind that the word Cailín (girl) is masculine in Irish.

Would that have anything to do with being " of " ones parents like "O" or "ní"?

Thanks for supporting the argument that calling male "she" has nothing to do with biology.

[Deleted User]

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

This is not a matter of population size and it is not a matter of the character of the person. It is about decency, respect, and inclusivity.

There is a small percentage of black or Asian people living in Ireland at the moment; we still clamp down on slurs. It was said above that "there is no scenario where using these terms are acceptable though." But, at one point in time, there would have been people arguing that they were correct to use such language. As I said before, society and language changes and evolves.

This is an argument that annoys me. "Hey, we used to think that "x" was not right and now we accept it. That means that we have to accept "y" because otherwise you are against "x"

That's ridiculous. Hey guys, we shouldn't frown upon beastiality. Sure didn't gay sex used to be illegal?

These things have nothing to do with each other. Language might evolve, but that doesn't mean we have to use the wrong language when describing men and women.

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

The forum's title includes "IMHO." However, the charter says, "Don't be a dick" - i.e. be respectful and civil. It also says not to post material that you know or should know is abusive or harassing. Mistakes can happen, but posters have been told that misgendering isn't acceptable. Twitter's Hateful Conduct Policy (even though this is an equivalent of the "If all your friends did x, should you be allowed to too?"), specifically prohibits misgendering and deadnaming of transgender individuals ( https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy).

I still disagree that because someone doesn't wish to be referred to as something they physically are, it is disrespectful to do so. You are even alluding to the fact that it is considered Hateful, which is beyond ridiculous. Using biologically accurate pronouns is hateful? Get a grip.

Funnily enough "misgendering" is such a misnomer. It is misgendering to use the correct words as someone doesn't want it to be true. That is the hill boards.ie want to die on when it comes to discussion around trans issues?

So will you be preventing people from using the word "cis" when describing people? It has been shown to annoy/offend people here. because as you said:

This is not a matter of population size and it is not a matter of the character of the person. It is about decency, respect, and inclusivity.

Sir Oxman

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

This is not a matter of population size and it is not a matter of the character of the person. It is about decency, respect, and inclusivity.

There is a small percentage of black or Asian people living in Ireland at the moment; we still clamp down on slurs. It was said above that "there is no scenario where using these terms are acceptable though." But, at one point in time, there would have been people arguing that they were correct to use such language. As I said before, society and language changes and evolves.

By the same token, "they" is considered acceptable to use in a singular context. It has been around since the 14th century and has grown in use. Using "it" in relation to anyone is something that I would consider unacceptable to say the least.

The forum's title includes "IMHO." However, the charter says, "Don't be a dick" - i.e. be respectful and civil. It also says not to post material that you know or should know is abusive or harassing. Mistakes can happen, but posters have been told that misgendering isn't acceptable. Twitter's Hateful Conduct Policy (even though this is an equivalent of the "If all your friends did x, should you be allowed to too?"), specifically prohibits misgendering and deadnaming of transgender individuals ( https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy).

The IMHO forums charter does say don't be a dick, however that cuts both ways.
No-one should be subject to abuse and you already have guidelines in place for that (as there are laws in place for it in the real world) but what you and this company are doing in the name of inclusivity is denying a large slice of the boards.ie population their own (in most cases, honest) opinion.
Those opinions should be expressed in a respectful way as should trans activists opinions.

A subject such as this cannot be debated successfully if one side of the debate is forced to describe a fundamental reality on the terms of the other side.

I think it best not to hold up Twitter as an example to support your stance.
Really.

Glass fused light

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

Twitter's Hateful Conduct Policy (even though this is an equivalent of the "If all your friends did x, should you be allowed to too?"), specifically prohibits misgendering and deadnaming of transgender individuals ( https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy).

Might actually see how the misgendering rule is working out in real time for them. Ethical investing is pushing into mainstream investment, get enought critical mass going and there will be new management.

People are beginning to realise that faking trans and the dead naming rule is a sex predators wet dream.
In the UK something like half the 'new age transgenders' [ in prison ] have been convicted of a sex crime. With a new gender name they don't have to work at hiding their history the Social media and main stream media will do that for them.

drunkmonkey

Mark twitter have rowed back on misgendering. You won't get banned for calling him a fat ugly man. Statements of fact should never be censored.

Imreoir2

Glass fused light wrote: »

Would that have anything to do with being " of " ones parents like "O" or "ní"?

Thanks for supporting the argument that calling male "she" has nothing to do with biology.

No, the grammer rules around naming are a different thing entirely. The reason for the specific example is unknown but it highlights that the gramatical gender of the word has nothing to do with the cultural/biological gender with which it might be associated. Several linguists have suggested that the term "gender" when it comes to grammer rules is misleading and should be dumped for another term that would not lead to such confusion.

I'm not sure that I was supporting a particular argument, just pointing out that there is no basis to the arguement that the Irish language provides a cultural basis for asigning a sex to anything. Gender in grammer has no connection to gender in biology.

derfderf

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

There is a small percentage of black or Asian people living in Ireland at the moment; we still clamp down on slurs. It was said above that "there is no scenario where using these terms are acceptable though." But, at one point in time, there would have been people arguing that they were correct to use such language. As I said before, society and language changes and evolves.

I mentioned the no scenario bit, but you misunderstood. Words are either okay, or they're not, for the vast majority at least. There are no words that I can think of that are completely fine to name one group, but slurs against another.

There are no words for black people, for example, that would get you a ban here, but would be completely fine if directed at white people. It's the words themselves that are offensive. He/she are not offensive words.

hullaballoo

Glass fused light wrote: »

Would that have anything to do with being " of " ones parents like "O" or "ní"?

Thanks for supporting the argument that calling male "she" has nothing to do with biology.

People might think it strange that this is the issue I weigh in on but this is simply indicative and a good example of a more deep seated lack of any real engagement with the actual substance of the matters in play. Words are important. More important still is the impact of societal and cultural nuance on their usage.

Ó and Ní do not have anything to do with being of one's parents. They mean grandson/granddaughter of...

So in fact, they specifically do not bear reference to one's parents.

Mac and Nic mean son of and daughter of.

More importantly, traditional naming conventions have been abandoned in still-Irish-speaking parts of the country in favour of less gender-centric conventions, such as using genitive forms or simply taking the Ó variant of any given name no matter what gender you are.

Just to draw a parallel.

Imreoir2

hullaballoo wrote: »

More importantly, traditional naming conventions have been abandoned in still-Irish-speaking parts of the country in favour of less gender-centric conventions, such as using genitive forms or simply taking the Ó variant of any given name no matter what gender you are.

They have not. I work in an Irish speaking area and the use of Ó/Ní etc are widespread. It is entirely acceptable to use the genitive form, and a transgendered person may well choose to do so instead of replacing Ó for Ní or vice-versa, but it is not at all true to say that the use of Ó and Ní have been adandoned. I don't think it would even be true to say that they are less used than they were.

hullaballoo

Imreoir2 wrote: »

They have not. I work in an Irish speaking area and the use of Ó/Ní etc are widespread. It is entirely acceptable to use the genitive form, and a transgendered person may well choose to do so instead of replacing Ó for Ní or vice-versa, but it is not at all true to say that the use of Ó and Ní have been adandoned. I don't think it would even be true to say that they are less used than they were.

It doesn't help that you've misinterpreted my post tbh. I didn't say Ó/Ní have been abandoned. I said traditional naming conventions have been abandoned - the likes of Máire Nic Phádraig Bean Uí Néill/Tomás Mac Donnchadha Ó Tuathail and the likes.

So now there is a preference in these parts of the country to use simpler conventions. The genitive form is common. Using the Ó variant is, as you say and indeed as did I, widespread.

However, we'll have to pit our life experiences against each other for the purposes of allowing others to assess the point on which we disagree. In my experience, with my father's family being native speakers and having spent every summer and Easter at Irish college on the Aran Islands, women are more commonly taking the Ó variant of a name in disregard of the Ó/Ní distinction.

Boards.ie: Mark

The correct language to use when discussing a transgender person is their preferred pronoun. There is an article on the GLAAD website that states that "gender identity is about who you are." If someone identifies as male or female then that is who they are and how they should be referred to as. Ireland's Gender Recognition Act makes no reference to a requirement to have undergone surgical procedures in order to have their gender recognised.

While he and she are not offensive terms in their own right, how they are used can be. If in doubt, or referring to someone by their chosen pronoun doesn't sit with you, the option is there to say "they".

[Deleted User]

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

The correct language to use when discussing a transgender person is their preferred pronoun. There is an article on the GLAAD website that states that "gender identity is about who you are." If someone identifies as male or female then that is who they are and how they should be referred to as. Ireland's Gender Recognition Act makes no reference to a requirement to have undergone surgical procedures in order to have their gender recognised.

While he and she are not offensive terms in their own right, how they are used can be. If in doubt, or referring to someone by their chosen pronoun doesn't sit with you, the option is there to say "they".

for the record im against misgendering to cause offence

but boards.ie is not the GLAAD

AH/IMHO/CA are not the lgbtqi+ boards

mods dictating on a discussion forum the terms central to the discussion makes a joke of the whole idea.

back to banning opinions and not behaviours, something we've seen a lot of discussion on recently.

MrFresh

Deleted User wrote: »

This is an argument that annoys me. "Hey, we used to think that "x" was not right and now we accept it. That means that we have to accept "y" because otherwise you are against "x"

Well the question was specifically asked when has language been policed like this before. And the fact of the matter is that the same arguments about biological identity were used to portray black people as inferior, women as less intelligent than man, and homosexuality as being against nature. All of these positions were proven wrong. Religion also supported two out of three of those positions. Now people are using biology and religion to try and make trans people seem abnormal or unnatural whereas medical science seems to be saying the opposite.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Deleted User wrote: »

This is an argument that annoys me. "Hey, we used to think that "x" was not right and now we accept it. That means that we have to accept "y" because otherwise you are against "x"

That's ridiculous. Hey guys, we shouldn't frown upon beastiality. Sure didn't gay sex used to be illegal?

These things have nothing to do with each other. Language might evolve, but that doesn't mean we have to use the wrong language when describing men and women.

What's also being ignored is that language usually evolves naturally, as opposed to this which is being artificially imposed on us by ideologues (read authoritarians) hiding behind arguments of "respect".

p1akuw47h5r3it

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

The correct language to use when discussing a transgender person is their preferred pronoun. There is an article on the GLAAD website that states that "gender identity is about who you are." If someone identifies as male or female then that is who they are and how they should be referred to as. Ireland's Gender Recognition Act makes no reference to a requirement to have undergone surgical procedures in order to have their gender recognised.

While he and she are not offensive terms in their own right, how they are used can be. If in doubt, or referring to someone by their chosen pronoun doesn't sit with you, the option is there to say "they".

Who gets to decide that and why? Why is Boards.ie taking an ideological position, based on something GLAAD have said, as opposed to letting participants in a debate simply debate and use what pronouns they want?