seamus wrote: » The fact that anti-trans discussions online outnumber pro-trans ones 100:1, proves that this is just a false oppression narrative.
suicide_circus wrote: » Why do you think that is? Leaving aside the "anti trans" label, as if anyone who dosn't sign up to every tenet of TRA ideology or even has reservations is somehow opposed to the existence of transgender people (nonsense).
seamus wrote: » The same happens on other platforms; boards has leaned decidely more conservative than the general public over the last decade as conservative users have bullied dissenting viewpoints off the site.
Deleted User wrote: » Damn. Speaking of Reddit, I just see now they banned 2,000 subreddits. They chose their timing perfectly. Not that it matters to anyone else in the world, it could be time for me to jump. Censorship is a joke, especially when saying that hate is allowed to be directed at the majority group.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Andrew Doyle, the guy behind Titania McGrath (and he’s left wing - I really want to point that out) made the point that activists are overrepresented in media, the arts and politics. In other words, areas of huge influence. That’s his analysis of the UK, I don’t know if it would hold for Ireland. And it was actually Linehan who drew attention to the fact that self-ID was snuck in in Ireland on the back of a much more popular reform, marriage equality. Lobbyists for self-ID were advised to draw as little media attention to it as possible. Which is strange. Most activists want media attention. Apparently there was a public consultation about self-ID at the time but did any of y’all hear about it? I didn’t. Meghan Murphy was banned from Twitter for saying “that’s him” about that Yaniv... article even though Yaniv was going by Jonathan at the time she said it. Permanently banned. Incidentally, the Titania McGrath account has been suspended a few times. Can’t even take a joke, they can’t.
One eyed Jack wrote: » It didn’t occur to you at all that Linehan was lying through his teeth? Of course not. There was no “sneaking self-ID through the back door”, it had been on the cards since 1997 when Lydia Foy lost their first legal challenge, but the Judge in the case called on the Irish Government to urgently review the matter. Lydia Foy made a second legal challenge, and in 2007 Ireland were found to be in breach of Human Rights Law, a Convention Ireland had signed up to in 2003. Government challenged the ruling and only dropped their case in 2010, announcing in 2011 that they would introduce gender recognition legislation. Still no sign of any movement in 2013 so Foy took a THIRD legal challenge to force Government to fulfil its obligations under European Human Rights Law and the judgement in the 2007 case. It was only two years later that Government finally fulfilled their obligations under International Human Rights Law. There was a public consultation, but you can’t claim you didn’t hear about it because you weren’t paying any attention to it in the first place. There was no sneaking anything in the back door, nor was it tied to the marriage equality referendum or any of that other nonsense about drawing as little media attention to it as possible. In reality, the media weren’t interested either and hadn’t been interested in the previous eight years it took to have the Irish Government get the finger out and fulfill their international Human Rights obligations. They sure as hell didn’t do it willingly, which is why you didn’t hear much fanfare about it.
One eyed Jack wrote: » People then didn’t imagine they had to respect people who are transgender as they are nothing more than just “things”, not people, not human beings worthy of equal recognition and dignity and respect.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Hi Andrew, did you know that people can care about more than one thing at the same time?
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » A male sex offender has been housed in a women’s prison and needs extra guarding. That’s not nothing. And I helpfully supplied you with a non-Sun source.
Gruffalox wrote: » I partially agree and partially disagree with the points you made in the bulk of the post. Just on this point re so called conservative upsurge I feel inclined to make an observation. It is related to the topic in that some imagine people arguing against gender theory can be lumped in with the alt right or nasty bigots etc etc and abused at will by being called phobic or TERFS etc. This is rather foolish. It under estimates the intelligence of the other. I do not think it is conservatism that you call out. I think it is a reactionary response to hyper leftism. Leftism is even the wrong word as it sits so tightly in the claw of global corporatism that it cannot possibly be left leaning. So we are floundering with vague words like progressivism etc. The conservative thing you identify is a response among many independent thinkers to logical incoherencies in - again - the so called left. On many topics which aught to be validly challenged. It will increase. There may even come a line in the sand for someone like you. Because the hyper leftist ideas are rooted in emotionalism and ideology and eventually contradict themselves. The way say a global corporation puts BLM front and centre and yet bleeds dry brown and black men and women in invisible places to feed its bank balance. It is emotive, dishonest, anti intellectual, censorious etc. It is not authentic. This conservative backlash as you call it does attract racists, petty people, sexists, but these are not the people worth considering. Such horrid people have always existed - merely the thugs led and used by psychopaths from left or right through history. More importantly there is a growing swell of intelligent moderate rational thinkers who argue civilly and coherently against mindless hyper leftism. I wish there was a different word because these people are not leftist nor are they social justice warriors. They are usually simply the spoiled post modern middle class. As I said the reaction to this ideologues will grow. Thank goodness.
Gruffalox wrote: » The fecken words trans ideology are in the title
Gruffalox wrote: » 100 children at least have been shipped to Tavistock Gender Clinic UK from Ireland for treatment. Treatment which is now seriously being evaluated. I think you will find trans ideology has had significant effect in this jurisdiction. Also this argument about hasn't happened here is watery oul p1ss. Because we are a small country we have often in the past relied on bigger common law jurusdictions for guiding legal precedence for example. We consider example or so called best practice from other bigger nations on climate matters, on policing, on anything really. What are all them lovely junkets for? It's what smaller countries without large populations do.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Well, for a start, that report is not attributed or official. It seems to be courtroom gossip. But let's assume that it is accurate. People need extra guarding all the time in prison - whether because of the nature of their offence, or because of gang wars, or because of outside events. It's a routine part of prison management. Sounds like the prison service are well on top of the whole thing. Are you seriously suggesting that the law needs to change because one prisoner needed extra guarding for a bit?
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Andrew, I don’t know you’ve ever called yourself a feminist but I hope you never do because your lack of regard and concern for the safety of vulnerable women here is staggering.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » The women housed with a much stronger sex offender are apparently just collateral. The sex offender’s feelings take precedence. Interesting. Maybe you’ll bring up the safety concerns of the sex offender. If you do that whilst handwaving away the concerns for the female prisoners, that’s hypocritical. Hugely.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Sorry, I'm too busy being concerned about the real, actual, daily, persistent violence against women - the kind that actually happens in Ireland every day - to get worried about hypotheticals based on obscure cases for Wyoming and Canada.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Would this be a good time to get back to the real violence against women that happens in Ireland every day? Any persistent tweeting campaigns from yourself to address this?
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Are obscure cases not real? Did they not happen? There are actually plenty of documented cases. That they are rare means they don’t matter?
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » You seem to know a lot about my Twitter activity. Do tell.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Yeah, don’t ever claim to care about women’s rights. You don’t. Own it at least.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Again, the question would be, why the obsessive focus on these particular obscure cases involving this particular issue, way out of all proportion for its statistical significance?I don't need you to tell me what I do and don't care about, thanks very much. In general, I tend to care a lot more about things that actually do happen all the time here than things that just might possibly happen very rarely some day if the planets line up in a certain sequence. Let's keep it real.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Oh, you may claim to care about whatever you want. However your posts betrayed you. Oops.
Stark wrote: » No they didn't.
Deleted User wrote: » He's probably sitting at home now, a few days away from it, going "Jesus..I got a bit carried away there for a while..".. Probably doesn't know himself..
Stark wrote: » Oh please say he's about to out you as Glinner
[Deleted User] wrote: » private companies controlling what is seen and not seen is not a solid base for public discourse.
Deleted User wrote: » I hope Tencent buys more of them and they go hyper-right pro-Chinese so the same people who laugh and claim private companies can do what they want realise private companies controlling what is seen and not seen is not a solid base for public discourse.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Yes indeed, my posts betrayed me as caring more about the actual assaults happening in Irish prisons all the time than about hypotheticals;
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » What is this insistence from you and others that we must only talk about Ireland? International happenings are discussed on boards all the time. How stupid do you think people are, Andrew? You’re very transparent. Your lack of concern over a male-bodied (and therefore much stronger) sex offender being housed with women gave you away. Any lofty proclamations that you make about women’s rights from here on out will sound empty.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I'm not insisting on what others can talk about. Others are welcome to talk about what's happening outside Ireland, just as I'm welcome to question the relevance of rare incidents in Wyoming and Canada to Ireland. And yes, you're right - my posts absolutely did give away my concern about the violence against women and girls happening every day in Ireland - which of course has nothing to do with transgender women.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » At what point in the transition process do transgender women fall under the criminality patterns of women rather than men? When does that happen, Andrew? And for self IDed transgender women, when does it happen? If transgender women aren’t to be included in male pattern criminality and, as you say, it has “nothing to do with” them, there must be some point at which that switch in criminality from male to female happens. Can you elaborate on that?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » No, I can't elaborate, because it's not something I know much about.