Ten of Swords wrote: » A significant number of posts have been deleted, this is the second (and final) reminder that this thread concerns the gender recognition legislation for children under 18. Any more posts conflating trans with pedophilia or mental illness, traveller rights, transgender prisoners, crime from people of a migrant background or any other off topic posting will earn an immediate card and threadban.
Deleted User wrote: » Makes sense, the civil rights movement is part of history classes. Can't see why significant events such as the Stonewall riots or closer to home, decriminalisation of homosexuality. They're significant cultural events.
Sir Oxman wrote: » I would not want any activist organisation to be part of any school curriculum. Since the post was about part of the UK, I'd suggest the revisionist history of the gay movements beginnings at Stonewall 1969 (to facilitate the narrative now that T has always been integral and actually LED the poor, stupid gays and lesbians and bi's to liberation) promoted by 'official' orgs -> Stonewalluk + the myraid of other affiliated orgs, political figures and their parties, the bloody police(!) -> media (mainstream and not) -> onboard celebrities -> is a perfect example of why they should have no part in educating anyone from children to adults in history.
Quantum Erasure wrote: » What's the current stance on gender reassignment surgery / hormone therapy / puberty blockers for under 18s?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » That would include any organised religion, right? So we need to wrestle control of our schools back from the Catholic Church.
wildeside wrote: » People knowingly send their kids into a school that has a religious foundation (or not). Parent's, even if they disagree, know the philosophy and can challenge and deal with many aspects they might have a problem with.What parents do not knowingly do is send their kids to a school who's teachings are influenced by one or more radical political movements. They often do not know or understand the philosophy being espoused by such movements/groups and so are ill equipped to challenge it. It doesn't help that often these groups don't want to be challenged lest it out their philosophy as a radical ideology. I'm a lefty and an atheist and at this point I would now actually consider sending my kids to a catholic school if it protected them from the (willful?) ideological blindness on display from trans activists and the contempt they display for any countervailing narrative. It's a case of which 'religion'/orthodoxy do I think would do the least damage to my kids and personally I don't think the answer is all that clear.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Again, this seems to me to be only the legal aspects. Not medical.https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/children-under-16-could-legally-change-gender-under-new-proposals-from-lgbt-committee-1002933.htmlhttps://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/new-law-in-republic-may-allow-kids-to-alter-gender-39252332.html
1800_Ladladlad wrote: » I can see this being on the list for Roderichttps://twitter.com/lewisdandrews/status/1280195932831862785
wildeside wrote: » What parents do not knowingly do is send their kids to a school who's teachings are influenced by one or more radical political movements. They often do not know or understand the philosophy being espoused by such movements/groups and so are ill equipped to challenge it. It doesn't help that often these groups don't want to be challenged lest it out their philosophy as a radical ideology.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Sounds pretty much like the Catholic Church, and most organised religions to me.
political analyst wrote: » PS: Whatever anyone thinks of Gript or Aontú, this is a concern that must not be brushed off.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Seemingly we've nobody to blame but ourselves for this situation after giving Emmet Stagg a free pass when he was caught in the Phoenix Park according to Justin Barrett. Full Disclosure, never even heard of him until someone mentioned him here, still don't know if I'm after watching a d'Unbelievables sketch or this is real life.
Dravokivich wrote: » What are you suggesting here?
wildeside wrote: » I'm suggesting that if I had a choice to send my kids to a school who's ethical and philosophical underpinings were religious/catholic (something I understand and is socially acceptable to challenge and open to scrutiny) vs a school who's ethical and philosophical underpinings were politically so-called 'progressive' (something I also understand but is not socially acceptable to challenge) then I'd cut my losses and go with the former.
oyvey wrote: » Home schooling is starting to look more and more necessary.
wildeside wrote: » Except that it's socially acceptable and easy to rip the p1ss out of religion, it's teachings and followers (I'm an atheist by the way) but try take the same approach with say a progressive idelogy like trans rights for kids. And I'm not even suggesting taking a hardline approach, dare to even question the ideology in public and good luck guessing how that will work out for you. It's telling all the things it's socially acceptable to say about one ideology and not the other. Which of these then is more of a religion composed of ideological fanatics and zealouts?
Dravokivich wrote: » Ah, so vague comments about a preference. But nothing specific to be concerned about.
ronivek wrote: » Interesting how you pick the extreme opinions of the LGBT movement whilst simultaneously ignoring the extreme teachings and opinions of the Catholic Church. Also you're comparing a single organisation ruled from the Vatican City with a nebulous 'movement' where there is no central leadership or ideology and essentially anyone can make any kind of claim they like and others can hold it up as representative of the entire movement. The Catholic Church has its own ways of dealing with that sort of thing too.
wildeside wrote: » I was brought up Catholic and am an atheist. I can criticse the Catholic/christian ideology till the cows come home without any fear and indeed get plenty of social kudos for doing so. The same cannot be said for many facets of the LGBTQ+ movement. (And no, I'm not *-phobic, I believe in equal rights for ALL individuals, including trans people who I have nothing but sympathy for and their situation but I also believe in the free expression of ideas, debate, science and critical thinking).
ronivek wrote: » You're literally criticising the LGBT movement in this post; and there is plenty of anti-LGBT sentiment expressed on this and other platforms too. I would be very much in favour of the free expression of ideas and debate also; but one of the key issues is that much of the dross on social media does not really rise to the level of debate or even discussion. Even this particular forum reads more like a Conspiracy Theories forum much of the time.
Bannasidhe wrote: » The 'stupid gays and lesbians' thank you for your concern about attempts to do a spot of revisionism of our history and kindly ask you to stop doing so. Rarely have I seen such agenda driven, biased, complete and utter BS in a post.
wildeside wrote: » If the school had a Marxist philisophical underpinning and ethos I would not need to get into each and every specific concern, I'd know enough for my conerns to be valid. But if you want a specific hyptothetical example, if the school were to teach my primary age kids about transgenderism on the ciriculum I would have a very specific problem with that, not least because I would know where this teaching was coming from i.e. a political movement.
political analyst wrote: » That he was talking to a young male who may or may not have been a rent boy in the Phoenix Park doesn't necessarily mean he was going to have sex with him. Doesn't the assumption that he was going to sound a bit Minority Report?
Sir Oxman wrote: » Excuse me? The narrative in the UK and US via 'official' LGB now LGBTQ++ orgs has a black gay man who was a drag queen now renewed as *trans (he told everyone he was a man - in audio and writing) and the leading light at the Stonewall 1969 riots. He didn't even arrive at the venue till about 3 hours after the riot started. Whereas, the 'first brick thrower' was a black lesbian but that doesn't suit in 2020. So yeah, the TQ agenda (activists and 'official' orgs) are rewriting history so no, why would anyone want lying organisations who are the 'official' voice of swathes of people involved in any history curriculum? I'd love to know what my agenda is I don't think this is the thread to take potshots at your agenda - I know it too well from other threads. I want truth and transparency, what do you want?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
