GN Toilets

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 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 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;

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 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 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/

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.