GN Toilets

ceadaoin. · 05-11-2019 3:13pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’ve edited your post while I was responding, and frankly you can suppose what you like. I don’t have to defend anything I haven’t said, least of all your supposition of what I might say and then telling me I’m wrong, when it’s your supposition in the first place :pac:

I’ve also clarified earlier that I have never tried to say women are “just as bad”, because I never made any comparison in the first place. I was talking specifically about female sex offenders (the ones who we know of at least), and female inmates. You compared them with men off your own back. I’m not taking responsibility for anything you tried to imply. That’s all on you.

124 female sex offenders imprisoned in the UK, compared to 15,000+ male ones. There isnt really a comparison to be made tbh. Clearly if even a small percentage of those males identified as women and were transferred, the risk to female prisoners would increase significantly, as the sex offenders population could plausibly double or more.

Also, sorry, yes. You WOULD BE wrong if you thought that. Should have said it that way

One eyed Jack · 05-11-2019 3:38pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

124 female sex offenders imprisoned in the UK, compared to 15,000+ male ones. There isnt really a comparison to be made tbh. Clearly if even a small percentage of those males identified as women and were transferred, the risk to female prisoners would increase significantly, as the sex offenders population could plausibly double or more.

Also, sorry, yes. You WOULD BE wrong if you thought that. Should have said it that way

I never made any comparison in the first place! Again, I was specifically talking about female inmates in women’s prisons. If you said that the level of sexual and physical abuse in women’s prisons is an issue that needs to be addressed, I’d say “ceadaoin you absolutely have a point, I feel the same way about women’s shelters too, having been in a few - they’re shìtholes like human dog kennels!”, but you’re not arguing that, you’re arguing that males, solely by virtue of their sex, are a threat to women, and it’s on that basis I fundamentally disagree with what I think you’re trying to imply.

People are a risk by virtue of the fact that they are known sex offenders, and frankly I wouldn’t care if they were subjected to unmerciful beatings daily, but there’s that whole concept of human rights thing which is intended to protect people like them, from people like me, not protect therm from me by virtue of my sex, but because I present a greater risk to their safety by turning a blind eye if they happened to be set upon by someone who didn’t care for the principles of human rights as much as I do.

ceadaoin. · 05-11-2019 4:31pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never made any comparison in the first place! Again, I was specifically talking about female inmates in women’s prisons. If you said that the level of sexual and physical abuse in women’s prisons is an issue that needs to be addressed, I’d say “ceadaoin you absolutely have a point, I feel the same way about women’s shelters too, having been in a few - they’re shìtholes like human dog kennels!”, but you’re not arguing that, you’re arguing that males, solely by virtue of their sex, are a threat to women, and it’s on that basis I fundamentally disagree with what I think you’re trying to imply.

People are a risk by virtue of the fact that they are known sex offenders, and frankly I wouldn’t care if they were subjected to unmerciful beatings daily, but there’s that whole concept of human rights thing which is intended to protect people like them, from people like me, not protect therm from me by virtue of my sex, but because I present a greater risk to their safety by turning a blind eye if they happened to be set upon by someone who didn’t care for the principles of human rights as much as I do.

Ok but in the real world, we know that incarcerating males and females together is a bad idea, and it's because the females would be at higher risk of rape and violence, and not from other females. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

One eyed Jack · 05-11-2019 4:56pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Ok but in the real world, we know that incarcerating males and females together is a bad idea, and it's because the females would be at higher risk of rape and violence, and not from other females. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

No, we don’t know any such thing. What I know of the real world, is that people can identify themselves however the fcuk they like. I don’t have to agree with them and I care even less for how they perceive themselves. That’s why I can say to a person however they choose to identify themselves - “99 genders but a female/male you ain’t!” That’s my own personal opinion. The law doesn’t have the luxury of mine or anyone else’s individual opinions.

I also know that incarcerating males and females isn’t in and of itself a bad idea, males and females are in close proximity in all manner of social and institutional contexts and neither are inherently a danger to each other. I’ve explained this to my own child over and over when he says he doesn’t want girls coming into the bathroom when he’s in there, but like father like son in the respect at least that he’s as fcuking stubborn as I am :pac:

Basically I know that males and females present no inherent danger to each other, for any inherent reason by virtue of their sex, gender, age, race, ethnicity, ability or disability, etc. The only person, regardless of any of the aforementioned traits, who presents as a danger to anyone is the person who seeks to abuse and exploit other people, whether it’s in prisons, in shelters, in schools, wherever. It’s that person should be held responsible and accountable for their actions, not anyone else who you would have painted as guilty by association.

Thankfully for everyone in society, the law in this jurisdiction at least, works the opposite way around in the real world to the way you wish it would work, and you haven’t hurt my feelings one bit, so no need to apologise for anything you haven’t done either.

05-11-2019 5:10pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, we don’t know any such thing. What I know of the real world, is that people can identify themselves however the fcuk they like. I don’t have to agree with them and I care even less for how they perceive themselves. That’s why I can say to a person however they choose to identify themselves - “99 genders but a female/male you ain’t!” That’s my own personal opinion. The law doesn’t have the luxury of mine or anyone else’s individual opinions.

I also know that incarcerating males and females isn’t in and of itself a bad idea, males and females are in close proximity in all manner of social and institutional contexts and neither are inherently a danger to each other. I’ve explained this to my own child over and over when he says he doesn’t want girls coming into the bathroom when he’s in there, but like father like son in the respect at least that he’s as fcuking stubborn as I am :pac:

Basically I know that males and females present no inherent danger to each other, for any inherent reason by virtue of their sex, gender, age, race, ethnicity, ability or disability, etc. The only person, regardless of any of the aforementioned traits, who presents as a danger to anyone is the person who seeks to abuse and exploit other people, whether it’s in prisons, in shelters, in schools, wherever. It’s that person should be held responsible and accountable for their actions, not anyone else who you would have painted as guilty by association.

Thankfully for everyone in society, the law in this jurisdiction at least, works the opposite way around in the real world to the way you wish it would work, and you haven’t hurt my feelings one bit, so no need to apologise for anything you haven’t done either.

I would thank this twice if I could.

_Kaiser_ · 05-11-2019 5:20pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't see why not.
All the toilets in my house are gender neutral - the system works just fine!

This argument again...

- Your toilets/bathrooms aren't used by several people at once I'm betting. I'm also sure that they're not shared by members of the opposite sex in your household at the same time either
- They certainly aren't shared by strangers while your family members use them

In other words, not the same thing.

ceadaoin. · 05-11-2019 7:04pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

.

I also know that incarcerating males and females isn’t in and of itself a bad idea, males and females are in close proximity in all manner of social and institutional contexts and neither are inherently a danger to each other..

You'd better contact the UN so and tell that they are wrong about their minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners. After all, you personally know it's not a bad idea at all and is somehow no different than men and women working together or going to school together.

8. The different categories of prisoners shall be kept in separate institutions or parts of institutions taking account of their sex, age, criminal record, the legal reason for their detention and the necessities of their treatment. Thus,

(a) Men and women shall so far as possible be detained in separate institutions; in an institution which receives both men and women the whole of the premises allocated to women shall be entirely separate;

One eyed Jack · 05-11-2019 8:12pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

You'd better contact the UN so and tell that they are wrong about their minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners. After all, you personally know it's not a bad idea at all and is somehow no different than men and women working together or going to school together.

I’ll be sure to get on that right after I’m done not giving a shìte for your selective quoting for which you hadn’t even the courtesy to provide a source. In it’s full context then -

Separation of categories

8. The different categories of prisoners shall be kept in separate institutions or parts of institutions taking account of their sex, age, criminal record, the legal reason for their detention and the necessities of their treatment. Thus,
( a ) Men and women shall so far as possible be detained in separate institutions; in an institution which receives both men and women the whole of the premises allocated to women shall be entirely separate;
( b ) Untried prisoners shall be kept separate from convicted prisoners;
( c ) Persons imprisoned for debt and other civil prisoners shall be kept separate from persons imprisoned by reason of a criminal offence;
( d ) Young prisoners shall be kept separate from adults.

And I would consider it remiss of me if I didn’t cite the basic principles of said policy -

Basic principle

6. (1) The following rules shall be applied impartially. There shall be no discrimination on grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
(2) On the other hand, it is necessary to respect the religious beliefs and moral precepts of the group to which a prisoner belongs.

Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners

In short, basically you’re only shooting yourself in the foot when the same organisation whom you acknowledge as as an authority on human rights, are the same organisation which contradicts your ideology -

“Today, the UN took a historic step forward,” said John Fisher, Geneva director at Human Rights Watch. “By creating a UN expert, the Human Rights Council has given official voice to those facing violations because of their sexual orientation or gender identity the world over. There can be no turning back, and we look forward to working with civil society colleagues and the new UN expert toward a world free from violence and discrimination for all people regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

UN Makes History on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity

ceadaoin. · 05-11-2019 8:39pm

Why would I quote stuff that is irrelevant to the fact that the UN acknowledge that men and women should be incarcerated in separate facilities? You're the one who said there was no reason not to incarcerate men and women together, not even meaning gender identity, just straight up men and women locked up together. I was pointing out that UN guidelines advise against that.

One eyed Jack · 05-11-2019 9:01pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Why would I quote stuff that is irrelevant to the fact that the UN acknowledge that men and women should be incarcerated in separate facilities? You're the one who said there was no reason not to incarcerate men and women together, not even meaning gender identity, just straight up men and women locked up together. I was pointing out that UN guidelines advise against that.

In the 1970’s when that document was last revised, yep, I might as a socially and politically conservative sort even have agreed with them if I wasn’t aware then of people who are transgender at the time, but in 2019, while the same basic principles of the policy still apply, attitudes towards equality in Western society have evolved as we are a better educated society than we were nearly 40 years ago. The policy you produced is a product of it’s time, whereas the global political landscape if you haven’t noticed, has changed quite a bit in the meantime.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 05-11-2019 10:00pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In the 1970’s when that document was last revised, yep, I might as a socially and politically conservative sort even have agreed with them if I wasn’t aware then of people who are transgender at the time, but in 2019, while the same basic principles of the policy still apply, attitudes towards equality in Western society have evolved as we are a better educated society than we were nearly 40 years ago. The policy you produced is a product of it’s time, whereas the global political landscape if you haven’t noticed, has changed quite a bit in the meantime.

I don't think they've evolved quite as much as you'd think.

If Ireland had a vote on whether to allow self iding "women" ie men to be incarcerated with women I'd be willing to bet my own testicles that it would be voted down.

I'd imagine a majority of the country don't even know we have self I'd laws. I myself only know about them from a thread on boards (though I do live outside of Ireland) from a year otlr 2 ago.

ceadaoin. · 05-11-2019 10:23pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In the 1970’s when that document was last revised, yep, I might as a socially and politically conservative sort even have agreed with them if I wasn’t aware then of people who are transgender at the time, but in 2019, while the same basic principles of the policy still apply, attitudes towards equality in Western society have evolved as we are a better educated society than we were nearly 40 years ago. The policy you produced is a product of it’s time, whereas the global political landscape if you haven’t noticed, has changed quite a bit in the meantime.

Yeah but literally no one is arguing that for the sake of progress , sex segregation in prisons should be abolished altogether. Despite what you may think, there is still a need for that and for other sex segregated spaces

carolmon · 05-11-2019 10:39pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s completely untrue, which is basically that posters point - they would actually be very unusual in having raised their children ignoring the norms and social expectations of gender roles. Most people are actually the opposite - they raise their children according to society’s norms and expectations, and like hell do they leave their children to decide their gender for themselves!

Tbh I didn't see it as remotely connected to gender choice... just kids expressing their interests and doing activities they enjoyed without any shaming re traditional concepts of boys/girls roles.

I wasn't sticking a barbie in his hand and whipping away his action man ffs.... just letting him choose his interests and letting him follow his passions.

I thought that was ok (ish) parenting.... but hey what do I know?

I'm looking forward to the 2020 remake of Billy Elliott .....

One eyed Jack · 05-11-2019 10:54pm

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I don't think they've evolved quite as much as you'd think.

If Ireland had a vote on whether to allow self iding "women" ie men to be incarcerated with women I'd be willing to bet my own testicles that it would be voted down.

I'd imagine a majority of the country don't even know we have self I'd laws. I myself only know about them from a thread on boards (though I do live outside of Ireland) from a year otlr 2 ago.

Wouldn’t quite go so far as to bet my testicles Dan (as you can imagine I’m rather attached to them), but more to the point I feel that you might well be right, not because of any great amount of interest in prisoners rights, the last referendum I can think is any way related was the “bail referendum” a few years back - 30% turnout of the electorate, overwhelming yes vote, but there was no social kudos attached to voting in that referendum, nor was there much social kudos attached to the children’s referendum - 33% turnout, result was a close call - 60/40 in favour, but the social kudos attached to voting for equality for minorities? I’d say there’d be little interest in a referendum nationally as most people don’t know, don’t care, and don’t want to know, but the yes vote would run away with it on the basis of being able to post selfies with their voting cards on social media of them “doing the right thing”.

I know, I was born cynical :pac:

Annasopra · 05-11-2019 11:06pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Wouldn’t quite go so far as to bet my testicles Dan (as you can imagine I’m rather attached to them), but more to the point I feel that you might well be right, not because of any great amount of interest in prisoners rights, the last referendum I can think is any way related was the “bail referendum” a few years back - 30% turnout of the electorate, overwhelming yes vote, but there was no social kudos attached to voting in that referendum, nor was there much social kudos attached to the children’s referendum - 33% turnout, result was a close call - 60/40 in favour, but the social kudos attached to voting for equality for minorities? I’d say there’d be little interest in a referendum nationally as most people don’t know, don’t care, and don’t want to know, but the yes vote would run away with it on the basis of being able to post selfies with their voting cards on social media of them “doing the right thing”.

I know, I was born cynical :pac:

The vast vast majority of Irish people are not bothered either for or against trans self id so this whole "it would be voted down in a referendum" is an irrelevant point really.

On the other hand though remember too trans people have strong allies here in Ireland and that very very few Irish feminists went down the TERF exclusionary route (like UK and US) and specfically stood in solidarity with trans people.
https://feministire.com/2018/01/22/an-open-letter-to-the-organisers-of-the-we-need-to-talk-tour-from-a-group-of-feminists-in-ireland/

One eyed Jack · 05-11-2019 11:08pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yeah but literally no one is arguing that for the sake of progress , sex segregation in prisons should be abolished altogether. Despite what you may think, there is still a need for that and for other sex segregated spaces

Yeah, I never brought up the prisons nonsense in the first place, that was brought up by people opposed to self-id in Irish law in a sort of “won’t someone think of the inmates” disingenuous fashion. For what it’s worth I do agree with you that there’s a need for sex segregated spaces, just like there’s a need for intergrated spaces, and then there’s a need to accommodate people who straddle those two spaces (there’s a mental image :pac:), but hopefully you get the point - society isn’t just made up of everyone having to conform to your ideas or mine for society - everyone has their own ideas for the kind of society they want to live in, and our laws have to acknowledge and accommodate that reality.

_Kaiser_ · 06-11-2019 8:39am

DanDan6592 wrote: »

When it comes to self-id, you throw women under the bus.

And therein lies the problem with most of these "modern crusades"...

- For the vast majority of people, ideology does not outweigh reality and practicality

- the noise of social media, echoed by traditional media with virtual columns to fill, magnifies these issues but this rarely translates into real world mass support

- American identity politics from their deeply fractured and divided society doesn't translate well outside their borders

- the 'you're with us or against us' mentality of these campaigns, coupled with abrasive and aggressive tactics to try and force their viewpoint on people who otherwise would probably be fairly neutral or apathetic on the issue backfires and actively turns people against it

The problem in Ireland is 'we' have an institutional 'need" to be liked and validated by those abroad. This is why certain sections of our society wholeheartedly embrace this nonsense and that was bad enough, but now it's seeping into the real world and negatively affecting people who generally weren't aware or didn't care previously, and that is the real concern.

TL;DR : in the words of the late David Bowie... This is not America. Their divisive identity politics and ideology has no place here.

Beasty · 06-11-2019 11:37am

DanDan6592 is now taking a break from the forum. Once his ban is up he is banned from posting in this thread again

If he, or anyone else, has any questions, PM me - do not respond to post in-thread

One eyed Jack · 06-11-2019 11:42am

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Why have you consistently not answered this question posed to you?

It’s a stupid question that really isn’t worth dignifying with any sort of an answer, not withstanding the fact that Joey already said he wasn’t going to bat for rapists. That should have been indication enough for anyone how stupid the question was in the first place. I’m not answering for Joey, but I’m tired of seeing the question being constantly thrown out as if it deserves an answer. It doesn’t.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

As I said (in my post that was seemingly deleted), that when it comes to rapists being able to self I'd, yiu throw women and their rights under the bus.

You’re implying that anyone would go to bat for a rapist which is an embarrassment of an argument tbh. The point of self-ID isn’t about rapists, if you want to address the question of men who commit rape, then start with the vast majority of men who aren’t transgender, and there you’ll come to a point where you’re going to end up being accused of throwing women under the bus merely by your presence in public spaces. You’re a threat to the female sex, solely by virtue of your sex... apparently :rolleyes:

And yes, that is how stupid the argument sounds. Nobody is throwing anyone under the bus. Instead, the intent, and it shouldn’t have to be pointed out but anyway - they intent is to pull people out from under the bus, people like Lydia Foy who shouldn’t have had to fight the State for the best part of two decades for the legal right to have her preferred gender recognised in law. That is all the gender recognition act does. It doesn’t take rights away from anyone else. Women still have the same rights they had in 2015, men still have the same rights they had in 2015, and now everyone in Irish society, has the right to be identified in law as their preferred gender.

People who commit rape are a red herring thrown in purely out of spite, similar to the way in which any time some people don’t want other people to have the same rights they have, they’ll pull out the idea of them being a threat to society solely by virtue of the trait that person just doesn’t like. People do the same with sexual orientation and religion and a whole host of other traits, and frankly it’s fairly transparent and disingenuous as an argument, making it simply impossible to take seriously.

Cordell · 06-11-2019 12:26pm

Women still have the same rights they had in 2015, men still have the same rights they had in 2015, and now everyone in Irish society, has the right to be identified in law as their preferred gender.

True to some extent. You are also right, Lydia Foy who shouldn’t have had to fight the State to have his preferred gender recognized. And I should be free to tell him or anyone else that he's not a real woman, but he's a biological male with his bits replaced with a manufactured fanny. I would never to that because I'm not an arsehole, but human rights go both ways.

One eyed Jack · 06-11-2019 12:42pm

Cordell wrote: »

True to some extent. You are also right, Lydia Foy who shouldn’t have had to fight the State to have his preferred gender recognized. And I should be free to tell him or anyone else that he's not a real woman, but he's a biological male with his bits replaced with a manufactured fanny. I would never to that because I'm not an arsehole, but human rights go both ways.

No, it’s completely true. A person’s legal right to be recognised in law as their preferred gender has nothing to do with the right nobody has to harass, intimidate and humiliate other people. What you appear to be driving at is that your right to freedom of conscience and your right to freedom of expression have somehow been violated by the State. No, as you quite rightly acknowledge and accept - nobody has the right to harass, intimidate and humiliate other people. You still have the right to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, same as everyone else in Irish society, even people who are transgender, who are held to the same standards as everyone else, and now they can exercise a right that has been granted to everyone to apply to have their preferred gender recognised in law, providing they qualify to exercise that right under current legislation.

It’s not a question of human rights “going both ways” btw, but rather in any circumstances where there is a conflict of human rights, it is adjudicated by the Courts. The idea is balance, and treating everyone as equal before the law.

weldoninhio · 06-11-2019 12:45pm

Gekko wrote: »

Worse deal for women if you think about it. Toilets left in a mess by men that use them

Ask any amount of cleaners, in any public places, if they had a choice of cleaning only mens toilets or only womens toilets and the vast vast majority would say mens

weldoninhio · 06-11-2019 12:58pm

Why not cut out all the nonsense and bull**** and have XX and XY toilets. You can't change your chromosomes, so you use the toilet that matches your chromosomes. That way the XX's and the XYs are kept segregated and there is no issue.

If you are one of the tiny, miniscule amount of people are intersex and have XXY you get to choose which one you feel comfortable with. Anyone over 13 using a toilet for people of the other chromosome should carry a very large fine.

One eyed Jack · 06-11-2019 1:14pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

Why not cut out all the nonsense and bull**** and have XX and XY toilets. You can't change your chromosomes, so you use the toilet that matches your chromosomes. That way the XX's and the XYs are kept segregated and there is no issue.

If you are one of the tiny, miniscule amount of people are intersex and have XXY you get to choose which one you feel comfortable with. Anyone over 13 using a toilet for people of the other chromosome should carry a very large fine.

Cut out the nonsense and bullshìt, and then you follow up with that?

Who would carry out this chromosome testing on the population?

Who is going to pay for it?

How do you intend to police it and how do you intend to collect fines from say for example someone like me who doesn’t care what sign is on the door? I’ll quickly tell you to piss off if you came near me looking for any kind of payment of a fine or to submit myself to any form of chromosome testing :pac:

Cordell · 06-11-2019 1:15pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, it’s completely true. A person’s legal right to be recognised in law as their preferred gender has nothing to do with the right nobody has to harass, intimidate and humiliate other people. What you appear to be driving at is that your right to freedom of conscience and your right to freedom of expression have somehow been violated by the State. No, as you quite rightly acknowledge and accept - nobody has the right to harass, intimidate and humiliate other people. You still have the right to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, same as everyone else in Irish society, even people who are transgender, who are held to the same standards as everyone else, and now they can exercise a right that has been granted to everyone to apply to have their preferred gender recognised in law, providing they qualify to exercise that right under current legislation.

It’s not a question of human rights “going both ways” btw, but rather in any circumstances where there is a conflict of human rights, it is adjudicated by the Courts. The idea is balance, and treating everyone as equal before the law.

Everyone, including transgenders have the right to have their own identity recognized by the law, I fully agree here. The gender in the State papers is there for identification purposes so if a person wants a certain gender there then that should not be an issue.
But stating the facts, the objective truth, is not harassment by itself. If someone goes after them shouting it, then that's harassment but it's not because of what is being said, it's because of how it's being said.

06-11-2019 1:15pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The vast vast majority of Irish people are not bothered either for or against trans self id so this whole "it would be voted down in a referendum" is an irrelevant point really.

Sorry Joey, I don't think that is in any way true and a absurd statement to make.

One eyed Jack · 06-11-2019 1:17pm

Cordell wrote: »

Everyone, including transgenders have the right to have their own identity recognized by the law, I fully agree here. The gender in the State papers is there for identification purposes so if a person wants a certain gender there then that should not be an issue.
But stating the facts, the objective truth, is not harassment by itself. If someone goes after them shouting it, then that's harassment but it's not because of what is being said, it's because of how it's being said.

Yeah, the right to freedom of expression has it’s limitations, and those limitations are for the common good of society. Everyone is subject to the same limitations on the rights they are granted in law.

Cordell · 06-11-2019 1:21pm

So for the greater good the deciders decided that some facts are not to be expressed

spodoinkle · 06-11-2019 1:23pm

I went to sit an exam in the Kilmore Centre in Cavan a few months back, I need a wee before and went to the gents which was locked. Went to the closet toilet (disabled) and a gent was leaving as I went in, place STUNK out. Went for the wee, washed and left, a serious STENCH still lingering. As I opened the door, a queue of 3 semi-attractive women waiting. As I walked out the door and one walked in, I could hear her roar of the state of the toilet. I had to share an exam hall with these ladies for the next 3 hours.

GN Toilets? GTFO.

One eyed Jack · 06-11-2019 1:27pm

Cordell wrote: »

So for the greater good the deciders decided that some facts are not to be expressed

Nobody has decided that any facts are not to be expressed? That’s a fairly odd take on the right to freedom of expression, particularly as it applies to protect you just as much as anyone else in society.

Cordell · 06-11-2019 1:51pm

spodoinkle wrote: »

I went to sit an exam in the Kilmore Centre in Cavan a few months back, I need a wee before and went to the gents which was locked. Went to the closet toilet (disabled) and a gent was leaving as I went in, place STUNK out. Went for the wee, washed and left, a serious STENCH still lingering. As I opened the door, a queue of 3 semi-attractive women waiting. As I walked out the door and one walked in, I could hear her roar of the state of the toilet. I had to share an exam hall with these ladies for the next 3 hours.

GN Toilets? GTFO.

Actually, with GN toilets you may be enlightened to the fact that semi-attractive women are perfectly capable to stink up the place. Fully-attractive women, not so much :pac:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody has decided that any facts are not to be expressed? That’s a fairly odd take on the right to freedom of expression, particularly as it applies to protect you just as much as anyone else in society.

No one needs protection from others in regards to facts.
We are going through a phase in which the opinions and feelings are more valued and protected that the facts.

One eyed Jack · 06-11-2019 2:10pm

Cordell wrote: »

No one needs protection from others in regards to facts.
We are going through a phase in which the opinions and feelings are more valued and protected that the facts.

A phase? It’s a fact that the fundamental principles of human rights are based entirely upon valuing and protecting opinions and feelings! Human rights are an acknowledgment of the inherent values of human dignity and respect. It’s as though you imagine your opinions and your feelings are deserving of greater respect than anyone who disagrees with your opinions. They’re perfectly entitled to, as they have the same rights to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression as you do.

Cordell · 06-11-2019 2:17pm

Yes, as I said before, I'm not an arsehole so I'm conscious of what I say and how it can affect other's feelings. But that is my choice!!

And, as a matter of principle, you're not entitled to opinions. Here, this picture explains it better:
https://imgur.com/a/QOAH55c

Sir Oxman · 06-11-2019 2:23pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The vast vast majority of Irish people are not bothered either for or against trans self id so this whole "it would be voted down in a referendum" is an irrelevant point really.

On the other hand though remember too trans people have strong allies here in Ireland and that very very few Irish feminists went down the TERF exclusionary route (like UK and US) and specfically stood in solidarity with trans people.
https://feministire.com/2018/01/22/an-open-letter-to-the-organisers-of-the-we-need-to-talk-tour-from-a-group-of-feminists-in-ireland/

The vast, vast majority of Irish people had zero say as self-id law was rapidly ran through on the back of the marriage referendum victory.

Feminism movements and orgs are amazing things - they are usually places for open discussion and thought, exchange of ideas etc
the very idea you think that letter announces anything less than an exclusionary, authoritarian stance from the undersigned says a hell of a lot.

Oh.
And 'TERF' is an abusive term towards women more than likely accompanied by actual violence, violent threats and misogyny.

EDITED to include tweet re-Irish extreme TRA feminists mentioned in thread, boards.ie users choose who you listen to on this issue very, very carefully:
https://twitter.com/djandyhealey/status/1192445816792920064?s=20

https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/1192532885925957632?s=20

One eyed Jack · 06-11-2019 2:26pm

Cordell wrote: »

Yes, as I said before, I'm not an arsehole so I'm conscious of what I say and how it can affect other's feelings. But that is my choice!!

Well it’s also your right, and you are protected from discrimination and persecution for your beliefs and opinions by those same human rights which apply to all people in any given jurisdiction which recognises and acknowledges the principles of human rights.

Cordell wrote: »

And, as a matter of principle, you're not entitled to opinions. Here, this picture explains it better:

Have we not just been talking about the fundamental human rights like freedom of conscience and freedom of expression? I absolutely am entitled to my opinions, as is everyone in any jurisdiction which acknowledges the principles of human rights. That’s why you absolutely have the right to tell me I’m not entitled to an opinion, and I have the right to ignore your declarations as they have no standing in law.

Cordell · 06-11-2019 2:31pm

Again, for the third time I think, stating facts is not discrimination and persecution. Facts, not opinions.

06-11-2019 2:41pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well it’s also your right, and you are protected from discrimination and persecution for your beliefs and opinions by those same human rights which apply to all people in any given jurisdiction which recognises and acknowledges the principles of human rights.

Have we not just been talking about the fundamental human rights like freedom of conscience and freedom of expression? I absolutely am entitled to my opinions, as is everyone in any jurisdiction which acknowledges the principles of human rights. That’s why you absolutely have the right to tell me I’m not entitled to an opinion, and I have the right to ignore your declarations as they have no standing in law.

You have the right to your opinion. You also have no right to be accepted as correct when you are wrong. The belief that you are right does not make it so and it is not discrimination to not adhere to your belief.

One eyed Jack · 06-11-2019 2:44pm

Cordell wrote: »

Again, for the third time I think, stating facts is not discrimination and persecution. Facts, not opinions.

Again, for the third time too I guess, nobody is arguing that stating facts is discrimination and persecution. Laws which limit your freedom of expression are based upon whether or not your opinions are likely to cause offence or are offensive. You appear to be unclear about what constitutes human rights, and as I explained already, they aren’t based upon facts, they’re based upon feelings. That’s a fact too -

Human rights are moral principles or norms that describe certain standards of human behaviour and are regularly protected as natural and legal rights in municipal and international law. They are commonly understood as inalienable, fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being" and which are "inherent in all human beings", regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin, or any other status. They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal, and they are egalitarian in the sense of being the same for everyone. They are regarded as requiring empathy and the rule of law and imposing an obligation on persons to respect the human rights of others, and it is generally considered that they should not be taken away except as a result of due process based on specific circumstances; for example, human rights may include freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution.

Human Rights, Wikipedia

Hey if we’re doing wore out cliches like the “facts don’t care about your feelings”, I’ve got one too -

You’re entitled to your facts, you’re not entitled to an audience.

One eyed Jack · 06-11-2019 2:53pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You have the right to your opinion. You also have no right to be accepted as correct when you are wrong. The belief that you are right does not make it so and it is not discrimination to not adhere to your belief.

That same standard applies to you too, so I’m not getting what point you’re trying to make in stating the blatantly obvious which I am acutely aware of already, but you seem to be under the impression that somehow you are exempt from your own standards which you feel should apply to other people and not to you?

Am I missing something?

Sorry td, I think I misread your point. I think you were just explaining the point Cordell is trying to make?

Cordell · 06-11-2019 2:55pm

Where are the feelings mentioned there?
That clichee is in fact a fact :pac:

One eyed Jack · 06-11-2019 3:03pm

Cordell wrote: »

Where are the feelings mentioned there?
That clichee is in fact a fact :pac:

The feelings aren’t mentioned. I figured since we were doing wore out cliches...

I’m still no clearer on whatever point you’re trying to make, as it’s quite clear that facts aren’t the determining factor in human rights law. You’re entitled to state what you believe are facts, I haven’t disputed that, and you haven’t disputed the fact that you’re not entitled to harass or offend people, because nobody has that right, nor does the right to freedom of expression imply anyone has that right.

10-11-2019 11:16pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Who said they are a threat because they are transgender? Males are a threat to females in prison, solely because of their sex. Their self identified gender doesn't come into it. The 1 in 50 males in UK prisons identifying as women would be a threat to women if they were transferred to female institutions, even if they arent all sex offenders (although they are over represented in that figure). Because they are male and should not be put with females simply because of their self declaration that they are women. I'm not sure how you can dispute that.

I don't know if this was covered already, but they have been already, based on self id it looks like.
https://www.irishpost.com/news/male-born-transgender-sex-offender-moved-womens-prison-limerick-171283

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/female-prisoner-takes-government-to-court-after-alleged-assault-by-transgender-inmate-n5wtg2nf7

at least it is being challenged in court ,but how many women should be assaulted first?

someone mentioned terfs being threatened - yes indeed. it's only ever applied to women. a 'woke' way to threaten women. business as usual.
https://i.redd.it/ik8w0nha8jw31.jpg

Cordell · 11-11-2019 10:07am

So if it's based on what you think about yourself and what you like maybe gay men should be moved to women prisons and gay women to men prisons

I'm surprised that more men don't avail of this opportunity to serve time in women prisons.

11-11-2019 11:13am

Cordell wrote: »

So if it's based on what you think about yourself and what you like maybe gay men should be moved to women prisons and gay women to men prisons I'm surprised that more men don't avail of this opportunity to serve time in women prisons.

Gay does not equate to trans.

Cordell · 11-11-2019 11:50am

Yeah I didn't know that

So

[gay man]: just as most of the women I like having sex with other men. Can I go to women prison?
NO!

[drag queen]: just as most of the women I like dressing up in women clothes. Can I go to women prison?
NO!
.
.
.

[trans person]: In my own mind I am a woman. Can I go to women prison?
Absolutely!

If there's nothing wrong with the above then fair play.

weldoninhio · 11-11-2019 12:07pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Cut out the nonsense and bullsh and then you follow up with that?

Who would carry out this chromosome testing on the population?

Who is going to pay for it?

How do you intend to police it and how do you intend to collect fines from say for example someone like me who doesn’t care what sign is on the door? I’ll quickly tell you to piss off if you came near me looking for any kind of payment of a fine or to submit myself to any form of chromosome testing :pac:

Could be done at birth. Ireland needs to catch up with the rest of Europe and being out a national identity card. It could be put on that. Viola. No need for GN toilets, xx and xy. Same could apply for all sports.

11-11-2019 12:12pm

Cordell wrote: »

Yeah I didn't know that

So

[gay man]: just as most of the women I like having sex with other men. Can I go to women prison?
NO!

[drag queen]: just as most of the women I like dressing up in women clothes. Can I go to women prison?
NO!
.
.
.

[trans person]: In my own mind I am a woman. Can I go to women prison?
Absolutely!

If there's nothing wrong with the above then fair play.

I'm not disagreeing that self identification is absolutely ridiculous chief.

It's just that people get antsy when lumped in with the trans group.

Cordell · 11-11-2019 12:15pm

I was just pointing out how ridiculous it is to determine the gender for prison assignment reasons by anything other than biological gender. No lumping whatsoever

11-11-2019 12:30pm

Cordell wrote: »

I was just pointing out how ridiculous it is to determine the gender for prison assignment reasons by anything other than biological gender. No lumping whatsoever

In that case, I apologise chief. We are in total agreement.

is_that_so · 12-11-2019 12:58pm

A tweet and thread on this theme. Not quite as advertised!

https://twitter.com/annalouiseadams/status/1193830645547642880

GN Toilets

Comments