Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

like 'define to me a table'

Something not difficult at all for most people, outside of the hardest degree on earth, where tables are just impossible to define.

Gentlemanne

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I'm a man, I've got nothing to lose in this debate. So trans-peoples 'existing' is of no inconvenience to me at all.

Extremely transparent position here. It doesnt affect me so I don't care or understand!

a Steven Crowder username is so strange to me. Why associate yourself with someone so awful?

FVP3 wrote: »

The problem with self identification is that the logic could easily removed all protections from female only spaces, for instance in changing rooms, precisely because people cant be expected to show their passports on entering a changing room.

And as I pointed out before, the risk is much higher in unisex changing rooms.

And the risk is much higher male —> female. Which is something that is always ignored with the fallacious statements like “Oh so should gay men be banned from being around straight men in changing rooms?” and “Should lesbians not be around straight women?”.

Men are much likely to be violent than women and men are generally much stronger than women. Not always but typically. That male strength is barely dented by transition and if somebody self IDs, it’s completely unchanged. So we’re just supposed to ignore that strength differential in favour of magical thinking?

LLMMLL wrote: »

There's no need to misinterpret what I said. I think you're well aware that I actually said trans females were always female. Not that a trans female is actually a male and.cant become female.

This statement is interesting because it denies both biology and social conditioning/social construction.

Trans women are women because of some magical essence which can't be measured ( if it could be measured there would be a measuring device and we wouldn't need self identification).

LLMMLL wrote: »

The logical extension of their opinions is no common changing rooms for anyone as, theoretically, a gay man could assault another man. Never mind if it actually happens or not, the mere possibility of it should lead to legal enshrinement.

Of course they know it's ridiculous as times have changed and no sane person thinks that gay men would be likely of assaulting anyone in changing rooms.

They rely on the fact that most people don't have enough experience of trans people to Peddle their fearmongering.

The problem with self identification is that the logic could easily removed all protections from female only spaces, for instance in changing rooms, precisely because people cant be expected to show their passports on entering a changing room.

And as I pointed out before, the risk is in fact much higher in unisex changing rooms.

Sorry about that

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Thats really what a lot of this boils down to. A lot of people here just want trans people to not exist.

Nobody said that, or anything close to it, but this post is an excellent example of how debate is interpreted as hate. See how you did that there?

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

The logical extension of their opinions is no common changing rooms for anyone as, theoretically, a gay man could assault another man. Never mind if it actually happens or not, the mere possibility of it should lead to legal enshrinement.

Of course they know it's ridiculous as times have changed and no sane person thinks that gay men would be likely of assaulting anyone in changing rooms.

They rely on the fact that most people don't have enough experience of trans people to Peddle their fearmongering.

'The logical extension of allowing gay marriage is that next people will be allowed to marry their sisters, cats and dogs'.

You wouldn't be allowing that now would you. Check out the slippery slope fallacy there. For someone who fancies themselves as some sort of philosophical genius, a graduate of 'Ireland's toughest course', I thought you would've known about it.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Fairly simple that you tolerate assaults by other women - no calls for increased security, or private showers, or private cells - those things aren't important, regardless of the frequency of those attacks - but yeah, watch out for the big bogeyman in the frock.

It really doesn't sound like safety of women is your priority at all, given your very narrow, laser-like focus.

#notallmen.

Sorry about that

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's the only conclusion I can draw from the lack of interest in protecting women from assaults from other women (which happen regularly in Irish prisons) - no calls for single cells or single showers - but an absolutely fanatical focus on protecting women from assaults from transgender women (which has never happened in an Irish prison).

Do you seriously not think there is something very strange about this narrow focus on this niche, hypothetical issue while ignoring everything else going on around us?

Every woman isn't small and weak and every transgender woman isn't big and strong - there are all shapes and all sizes on all sides.

You must admit that the prison issue is only a small part of this thread, which is about Graham Linehan's ban from Twitter.

It has evolved into a bigger conversation, with some posters daring to say that trans women are not women, and others in turn, calling them transphobic. But it's not a thread about violence between female inmates.

Nobody suggested that all women are small and weak etc.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think it’s disingenuous codswallop to surmise that from some people’s opinions it’s as though the existence of people who are transgender is of considerable inconvenience to them.

I wouldn’t imagine their ire is just focused on people who are transgender though, I imagine the existence of anyone who doesn’t share their world view is of considerable inconvenience to them :pac:

Nonsense. This is just the usual playing of the man and not the ball that we always get in these threads. Posters in here can't even define to us what a woman is, you then get hit with outlandish bollox like 'define to me a table' when you ask, before the usual posters throw their toys out of the pram labelling you 'anti-trans', 'transphobic', claiming you want people not to exist all because you raise legitimate concerns.

I'm a man, I've got nothing to lose in this debate. So trans-peoples 'existing' is of no inconvenience to me at all.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Thats really what a lot of this boils down to. A lot of people here just want trans people to not exist.

Such dramatics and misrepresentation (absolutely standard for you) highlights how lacking your arguments are. You know that, right?

LLMMLL

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's the only conclusion I can draw from the lack of interest in protecting women from assaults from other women (which happen regularly in Irish prisons) - no calls for single cells or single showers - but an absolutely fanatical focus on protecting women from assaults from transgender women (which has never happened in an Irish prison).

Do you seriously not think there is something very strange about this narrow focus on this niche, hypothetical issue while ignoring everything else going on around us?

Every woman isn't small and weak and every transgender woman isn't big and strong - there are all shapes and all sizes on all sides.

The logical extension of their opinions is no common changing rooms for anyone as, theoretically, a gay man could assault another man. Never mind if it actually happens or not, the mere possibility of it should lead to legal enshrinement.

Of course they know it's ridiculous as times have changed and no sane person thinks that gay men would be likely of assaulting anyone in changing rooms.

They rely on the fact that most people don't have enough experience of trans people to Peddle their fearmongering.

suicide_circus wrote: »

why do you feel the need to resort to this type of utterly disingenuous codswallop? do you really feel your position is that weak?

I don’t think it’s disingenuous codswallop to surmise that from some people’s opinions it’s as though the existence of people who are transgender is of considerable inconvenience to them.

I wouldn’t imagine their ire is just focused on people who are transgender though, I imagine the existence of anyone who doesn’t share their world view is of considerable inconvenience to them :pac:

suicide_circus

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Thats really what a lot of this boils down to. A lot of people here just want trans people to not exist.

why do you feel the need to resort to this type of utterly disingenuous codswallop? do you really feel your position is that weak?

Annasopra

Stark wrote: »

"I mean, have you tried not being transgender?" about sums it up.

Thats really what a lot of this boils down to. A lot of people here just want trans people to not exist.

[Deleted User]

Sorry about that wrote: »

Really disappointed in this post Andrew; I would've admired your integrity even when disagreeing with what you say. Nowhere does Gruffalox declare tolerance for assaults on women by other women, but a woman has a better chance of defending herself from a woman than a man (while respectfully acknowledging that he believes himself to be a woman).

That's the only conclusion I can draw from the lack of interest in protecting women from assaults from other women (which happen regularly in Irish prisons) - no calls for single cells or single showers - but an absolutely fanatical focus on protecting women from assaults from transgender women (which has never happened in an Irish prison).

Do you seriously not think there is something very strange about this narrow focus on this niche, hypothetical issue while ignoring everything else going on around us?

Every woman isn't small and weak and every transgender woman isn't big and strong - there are all shapes and all sizes on all sides.

Gruffalox wrote: »

I did not say that to you. Ever. Vetting of adults with children was mentioned earlier in a broader general context to explain how safeguarding works. I was thinking of my friend, a woman, who is a learning support teacher. You have accused me completely incorrectly if not maliciously of thinking that people who disagree with me are paedophiles. I have no further need of interaction with you.

You did y’know, I wouldn’t say it if you didn’t. If the search function wasn’t shìte on Boards I could provide evidence of it too. However at the time I just took it like much of your personal jabs as a thoughtless effort at a comeback said in the heat of the moment, and didn’t think any more of it.

Again I haven’t accused you of anything you haven’t done, I haven’t accused you of saying anyone who disagreed with you was a paedophile. I did accuse you of saying that you hoped I had nothing to do with children when I disagreed with you, and I explained the way I interpreted your remark. It had nothing to do with paedophilia, and everything to do with imparting ideas to children which you disagreed with.

You were never compelled to interact with me and you can’t be compelled to interact with anyone you don’t want to. When you do interact with them though, you are compelled to interact civilly and don’t be a dick about it. Your learning support teacher friend can educate you on that one as you appear to have difficulty with the concept.

Sorry about that

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Fairly simple that you tolerate assaults by other women - no calls for increased security, or private showers, or private cells - those things aren't important, regardless of the frequency of those attacks - but yeah, watch out for the big bogeyman in the frock.

It really doesn't sound like safety of women is your priority at all, given your very narrow, laser-like focus.

Really disappointed in this post Andrew; I would've admired your integrity even when disagreeing with what you say. Nowhere does Gruffalox declare tolerance for assaults on women by other women, but a woman has a better chance of defending herself from a woman than a man (while respectfully acknowledging that he believes himself to be a woman).

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, that’s not what I said at all. I was referring to the fact that when I had previously disagreed with you, you mentioned that you hoped I had nothing to do with children. .

I did not say that to you. Ever. Vetting of adults with children was mentioned earlier in a broader general context to explain how safeguarding works. I was thinking of my friend, a woman, who is a learning support teacher. You have accused me completely incorrectly if not maliciously of thinking that people who disagree with me are paedophiles. I have no further need of interaction with you.

Gruffalox wrote: »

Just so we are perfectly clear you are now casually accusing me with zero possible reason of believing people who disagree with me to be paedophiles.

Nope, that’s not what I said at all. I was referring to the fact that when I had previously disagreed with you, you mentioned that you hoped I had nothing to do with children. I understood it to mean that you were suggesting I would impart ideas to them which you disagree with, not that you were accusing me of being a paedophile.

Obviously it’s a ridiculous notion in any case as you can do absolutely nothing about people who disagree with you having children, let alone being around other children, so that whole “safeguarding” you speak of is nothing more than a manifestation of your own paranoia.

You obviously don’t understand the purpose of vetting is so that an organisation can cover it’s own arse if allegations of abuse are made. It doesn’t prevent abuse, nor does it address it. The thing about abusers is that while you’re eyeballing the individuals whom are the object of your paranoia, the people whom you regard as respectable sorts are having a field day committing abuse.

That’s why the abuse of these women went under the radar for as long as it did, because they weren’t respectable members of civilised society as dictated by the majority -

Rapist who abused sister and his seven daughters jailed for 20 years

You going to go on another round the world trip now or would you rather address the elephant in the room? That shìt happens in your own back yard every day, right under your own nose, no need to go googling for examples of how women and children are treated in other countries at all.

Unless you’re just using the perceived threat of abuse as a smokescreen for arguing that people should be denied equal recognition and protection in Irish law. One has nothing to do with the other.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Fairly simple that you tolerate assaults by other women - no calls for increased security, or private showers, or private cells - those things aren't important, regardless of the frequency of those attacks - but yeah, watch out for the big bogeyman in the frock.

It really doesn't sound like safety of women is your priority at all, given your very narrow, laser-like focus.

I do not tolerate assaults by anyone on anyone. Do not put your lies in my mouth

[Deleted User]

Gruffalox wrote: »

Risk should always be decreased where possible and certainly never increased. It is fairly simple really.

Fairly simple that you tolerate assaults by other women - no calls for increased security, or private showers, or private cells - those things aren't important, regardless of the frequency of those attacks - but yeah, watch out for the big bogeyman in the frock.

It really doesn't sound like safety of women is your priority at all, given your very narrow, laser-like focus.

Gruffalox wrote: »

Risk should always be decreased where possible and certainly never increased. It is fairly simple really.

Yup. Exactly. You can never fully extinguish all risk but you mitigate it where possible.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But there's no problem with women sharing showers or other spaces with other women who may assault them? Is that a tolerance for a certain level of violence that you were having a go at me about earlier?

Risk should always be decreased where possible and certainly never increased. It is fairly simple really.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

a blind man could sense the attitude off your posts where your concerns are all about you, and if anyone were to disagree with you, they should never be allowed near children.

Just so we are perfectly clear you are now casually accusing me with zero possible reason of believing people who disagree with me to be paedophiles.

[Deleted User]

Gruffalox wrote: »

I have said it a million times Stark. Live how you wish. I do not think anything is required for someone to identify as a transwoman. Zilch. Not even a frock. Nothing.
Transgender people need spaces where they can be safe and content. The contained cubicle. The showering space which is private. A situation in prison where transwomen are not among males.
But none of this over rules the sex based privacies and needs of girls and women.
Self ID is open to abuse, it is abused, there are so many examples. This is just logical. It does not have to be transgender people AT ALL who abuse self ID access to spaces.
It is not feasible to open up female shelters and showers and sports and prisons to men who simply self ID as women. It is just not.
But aside from all of that a transwoman is a transwoman. A transman is a transman. That is just the simple truth. They do not become literally an adult human female. Or male. It is not possible. To say otherwise is a lie. A human being can change their gender expression but they cannot change their sex. Never. Ever. It is not possible.

But there's no problem with women sharing showers or other spaces with other women who may assault them? Is that a tolerance for a certain level of violence that you were having a go at me about earlier?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

What it is is “You can self ID but others shouldn’t lose rights because of that”. I don’t think anyone should have to do anything medically or surgically but then the material reality of their biological sex shouldn’t be disregarded because it’s never going to change. Actually, even after medical and surgical transition, there are disparities.

It’s not disregarded? Medical professionals still understand they are dealing with a human being. Other people aren’t losing any rights which are recognised in Irish law as a consequence of people who are transgender being recognised in Irish law.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And the safeguarding issues that come with self ID should also not be ignored.

There are no safeguarding issues for anyone as a consequence of self-ID, other than it safeguarding the rights of people who are transgender and protecting them from discrimination on the basis of their transgender status.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

How does raising theses concerns stop anyone from self IDing?

They don’t, and they don’t convince anyone either way who wasn’t already convinced of your “concerns” which are based upon fearmongering and ignorance.

Stark wrote: »

I'm not sure wtf you people want to be honest. The whole point of self ID was to allow transgendered people to make their own choices as to how far they were willing to go in terms of physical transitioning while being allowed to live their lives as their chosen gender identity. But then you have the whole "they still have their penises that they can use to rape us with!". Which is it? Do you want to allow people the bodily autonomy to make the call on how far the transition goes or do you want to go the Sweden route of requiring "the works" before a person is allowed to live their life as their chosen gender?

I have said it a million times Stark. Live how you wish. I do not think anything is required for someone to identify as a transwoman. Zilch. Not even a frock. Nothing.
Transgender people need spaces where they can be safe and content. The contained cubicle. The showering space which is private. A situation in prison where transwomen are not among males.
But none of this over rules the sex based privacies and needs of girls and women.
Self ID is open to abuse, it is abused, there are so many examples. This is just logical. It does not have to be transgender people AT ALL who abuse self ID access to spaces.
It is not feasible to open up female shelters and showers and sports and prisons to men who simply self ID as women. It is just not.
But aside from all of that a transwoman is a transwoman. A transman is a transman. That is just the simple truth. They do not become literally an adult human female. Or male. It is not possible. To say otherwise is a lie. A human being can change their gender expression but they cannot change their sex. Never. Ever. It is not possible.

Stark wrote: »

I'm not sure wtf you people want to be honest. The whole point of self ID was to allow transgendered people to make their own choices as to how far they were willing to go in terms of physical transitioning while being allowed to live their lives as their chosen gender identity. But then you have the whole "they still have their penises that they can use to rape us with!". Which is it? Do you want to allow people the bodily autonomy to make the call on how far the transition goes or do you want to go the Sweden route of requiring "the works" before a person is allowed to live their life as their chosen gender?

What it is is “You can self ID but others shouldn’t lose rights because of that”. I don’t think anyone should have to do anything medically or surgically but then the material reality of their biological sex shouldn’t be disregarded because it’s never going to change. Actually, even after medical and surgical transition, there are disparities.

And the safeguarding issues that come with self ID should also not be ignored.

How does raising theses concerns stop anyone from self IDing?