One eyed Jack wrote: » I’m not tying myself up in knots at all. Women aren’t being denied medals, they have the same opportunities to compete for medals as they always had, they never had the right to determine who else could or couldn’t also compete against them, in spite of accusations of doping against other athletes by American athletes when they didn’t win medals.
One eyed Jack wrote: » The ongoing discrimination is that people who are transgender are often discriminated against on the basis that they are transgender and do not fit neatly into boxes that are labelled for the sex they identify with rather than the sex that has been determined for them at birth. Women have to accept it because they are part of a democratic society where everyone is entitled to equal treatment based upon the law acknowledging that everyone in that society is entitled to equal treatment based upon the idea of valuing human dignity and respect.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Why do you say of course they will be taken seriously when you yourself don’t take them seriously? Anyone can say they aren’t transgender, it’s up to the person who claims they are transgender to provide supporting evidence for their claims. It’s not as though their claims will be taken seriously without supporting evidence. Where’s the problem, other than one which is implied by tabloid rags sensationalising the whole thing for clickbait revenue to fuel moral panic in society of people who are transgender?
One eyed Jack wrote: » So what? I’m not responsible for claims someone else makes!
Bannasidhe wrote: » That's not paraphrasing - that is completely twisting to suit your agenda. I said to another poster "your views are those of a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist), but you are not a feminist." - she herself said she wasn't a feminist. And indeed - her expressed views were the same as TERFs, doesn't follow she is one, what with not being a feminist never mind a radical one.
Gruffalox wrote: » So you too will have to come up with a different slur for me since you cannot argue the grounds and instead make emotional appeals and resort to extrapolating from personal anecdote while disallowing others anecdotal experience
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Who said anything about forced sterilisation/genital rearrangement? They can have the surgery if they want, no-one is forcing them to. I'll ask you the same question I asked Joey: What do you propose exactly? Or is it a case of women just having to suck it up?
Smith152 wrote: » 1 in 50 male prisoners in the UK are now claiming to be women. There's a reason for this and it's nothing to do them actually being transgender.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » You are proposing forced surgery.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Reddit has banned the gender critical subreddit “GoOd RiDdAnCE, iT wAs FiLLeD WiTh hAtE sPeEcH”. Or something.
Reddit has banned the gender critical subreddit
CtevenSrowder wrote: » No I am not. You are wrong. As usual. Still haven't answered my questions. As usual. Interacting with you is such a waste of time as you are not interested in having a legitimate discussion. I won't even bother asking the questions again as you won't answer.
OscarMIlde wrote: » I presume you are referring to personality traits or interests when you talk about people fitting neatly into the boxes that are labelled for their sex? Surely people should be breaking down gender based stereotypes rather than assuming that interests/personality traits are sex specific.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » You have suggested that if a person wants a Gender Recognition Cert they can only do so by fully transitioning. That is forced surgery.
I'd have no problem allowing people to self declare, and have legal documents changed, as long as this recognition does not extend to being allowed in women's prisons, having access to women's changing rooms, or women's shelters etc. unless that person goes through a full transition. That to me is the best compromise.
Smith152 wrote: » But you're defending their right to make such claims and therefore emboldening this nonsensical ideology of allowing self identification.
Discrimination also extends to transphobic preferences in the dating world: from cisgender gay men not wanting to date trans men
Smith152 wrote: » Why wouldn't someone like Larry Murphy use self id if it was available to him. An unusually high number of male prisoners in the UK are self identifying as women now. Why wouldn't a struggling male golfer or tennis player use self id and go from earning nothing to being a millionaire overnight. A lot of human beings are incredible cynical and if they see an opportunity to benefit themselves then there's a good chance any person would take advantage of it.
Smith152 wrote: » If self ID is allowed then surely it's against their human rights to be denied transfer to a women's prison when they have self identified as women.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Self ID is available to Larry, and has been available to him and everyone else for four or five years now in Ireland. We've had no disasters in prisons. In fact, Irish prisons had zero Covid cases, a huge achievement in very crowded circumstances. We've had no disasters in sports. We've had no disasters in changing rooms or swimming pools. Do you think maybe somebody are using this just to further their anti-trans agenda?
One eyed Jack wrote: » My own views would be much broader than personality traits or interests tbh which I would associate more strongly with expression and manifestation as opposed to internal physiology. For example there’s no way to determine a persons sex at birth from fMRI scans, but we are aware that sex hormones have an influence on brain development. Me personally I can’t be arsed “breaking down gender stereotypes”, but if other people choose to take that responsibility on themselves, more power to them. Apart from the fact that I’m notoriously sexist and far too conservative for that sort of new fangled nonsense, I simply have no interest in it. I know that children’s development is also influenced by their environment as much as their genetics, but I just can’t bring myself to be bothered to explain myself to people when they raise an eyebrow at the fact that I like nothing better of an evening than winding down with a ball of wool and a pair of knitting needles. I accept that it’s an unusual hobby for anyone really in modern times, but I don’t try to push it on anyone who isn’t interested. It’s just something I enjoy that I was taught by my mother and I never gave it much thought other than that. My own son gives me an awful time for it because he thinks it’s weird, but that’s only because it’s unfamiliar to him. I could show him this video if I was honestly arsed, but I’m not https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-Lri1rYfqk
AndrewJRenko wrote: » We've had no disasters in sports.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I’ll defend anyone’s right to freedom of expression. That doesn’t mean I share their opinions.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » They are labelled for the sex they were born with because that is the sex they were born with. You cannot change your sex. This is a view you even agree with, so I don't see your point. Although at least you aren't a moral coward and can say that you believe that it's up to women to just accept it.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Jack, c'mon, we both know the trans lobby will be all over it. They are being 'denied their existence', it's 'transphobic' to say they aren't. And anyway, the whole point of self id is that you don't have to prove it. I'd have no problem allowing people to self declare, and have legal documents changed, as long as this recognition does not extend to being allowed in women's prisons, having access to women's changing rooms, or women's shelters etc. unless that person goes through a full transition. That to me is the best compromise. Unfortunately, sports are just a know go in general for me.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Poor oul JK thought she had an anti-trans ally in Stephen King over the weekend, but got a nasty shock.https://twitter.com/notallbhas/status/1277370116188057605
One eyed Jack wrote: » It’s true, one absolutely can not change their sex. I’ve never argued otherwise. What I have argued, is that we simply lack the tools to be able to determine with any degree of specificity a persons sex. Most of the time it’s simply nothing more than a best guess on the basis that their balls have dropped, otherwise they’re a girl.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Yeah, and your compromise is simply unsatisfactory, hence why people express disagreement with your opinions. That’s what living in a democratic society means! It means that JK’s opinions have no more influence in policy decisions than the average guy or girl on the street. If she wants to campaign against legislation, then she could put her money where her mouth is and mount a legal challenge to the legislation. Talk of supporting Maya Forstater is cheap, same as the way she thought Stephen King supported her and licked his arse from here to high heaven, then withdrew her praise when she realised her assumptions that King agreed with her was incorrect. If someone can turn on you as quick as that, their support never meant anything in the first place because it was all about them feeling better about themselves and having their ego stroking reciprocated. JK found out that King doesn’t need JK, as much as JK needs King.
One eyed Jack wrote: » It’s true, one absolutely can not change their sex. I’ve never argued otherwise. What I have argued, is that we simply lack the tools to be able to determine with any degree of specificity a persons sex.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » We have had all those things, just not in Ireland... yet.
Smith152 wrote: » Wrong, numerous women have lost out of scholarships and medals in different sports around the world due to men who claim to be women.
OscarMIlde wrote: » Well what do you mean when you talk of boxes then?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Isn't it funny how far people are willing to search to find problems in this one particular area? But not every other area of medical research - just this one particular one. Why is that now?
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » To those of you tripping over yourself to call people concerned about the erosion of sex-based not only transphobes but also homophobes, what are your thoughts on this excerpt from a BBC article from the weekend? I believe it’s been edited out but the internet is forever. And the following was not the BBC quoting somebody, it was their own writing. Get that: a mainstream publication called it both discriminatory AND transphobic for a gay man to not want to date or sleep with a transgender man. Not only is that homophobic but also creepy. Yes, dating and sexual relations are by their very nature discriminatory. That’s how it works. The only justification anyone has to give for not sleeping with or dating somebody is “I don’t want to”. Nobody is entitled to a further explanation. And people who support this shit have the temerity to call other people homophobic? The brass necks on them.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » haha what? We manage to find out the sex of 100 year old bones. We absolutely have the ability to detemine ones sex.
OscarMIlde wrote: » I must have imagined medical diagnostics tools like cytogenetics or sequencing.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
