More from Roderic O'Gorman (MOD NOTE IN OPENING POST)

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

That wont be happening soon. Trans people exist. Get over it.

Flat-earthers exist too.

It's not about existence, though.

It's easy to get over something when it isn't being legislated into reality too.

Annasopra

Gradius wrote: »

Flat-earthers exist too.

It's not about existence, though.

It's easy to get over something when it isn't being legislated into reality too.

Of course its about existence. Some people here just dont wany trans people to exist.

suicide_circus

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Of course its about existence. Some people here just dont wany trans people to exist.

you keep trotting this out Joey, maybe its your go-to when youre tired.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Of course its about existence. Some people here just dont wany trans people to exist.

It has precisely nothing to do with existence.

Psychopaths exist. Paedophiles exist. Flat-earthers exist. All manner of nutters exist. No problem.

When government positions itself on the side of such believers, to the extent that it begins teaching children that the earth IS flat, then it's a problem.

Believe whatever nonsense you like, just don't expect things to go smoothly when you attempt to indoctrinate the children of people who aren't nutters.

Gradius wrote: »

Flat-earthers exist too.

It's not about existence, though.

It's easy to get over something when it isn't being legislated into reality too.

People aren't flat-earthers - they beleive the Earth is flat. They arent't physcially disc-shaped planets.

Gradius wrote: »

It has precisely nothing to do with existence.

Psychopaths exist. Paedophiles exist. Flat-earthers exist. All manner of nutters exist. No problem.

When government positions itself on the side of such believers, to the extent that it begins teaching children that the earth IS flat, then it's a problem.

Believe whatever nonsense you like, just don't expect things to go smoothly when you attempt to indoctrinate the children of people who aren't nutters.

There's no medical basis to classify transgender people as "nutters"...

drunkmonkey

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

That wont be happening soon. Trans people exist. Get over it.

There not trans anything, it's wrong speak, it implies something is moving from one place to another in this case male to female which isn't possible. I'm not saying they should be denied their place in the world but obliterating what constitutes a male or female is complete wrong. It's an extremely selfish lobbying by trans people forcing society by legislation to deny reality.

I can't get my head around it, what's next for Trans lobbyists if they get this through. Are they all going to retire and we won't hear from them again. I very much doubt it once we open Pandoras box and end up a basket case like Canada when it comes to peoples rights and especially Women's.

Back to wax my balls. Is that where you want Irish society going, I certainly don't. To think Jessica is a random headbanger and it won't happen here is nieve.
Male and female work just fine, leave them alone.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

People aren't flat-earthers - they beleive the Earth is flat. They arent't physcially disc-shaped planets.

Exactly. There are people who actually believe such things.

Try to challenge their beliefs and you'll be met with walls of ignorance, amusingly complicated structures that underpin their beliefs, and lots of "well that particularly minute fact can't be proven to my satisfaction therefore I can ignore it"

Nutters. That exist.

Deleted User wrote: »

There's no medical basis to classify transgender people as "nutters"...

To further my point above about complex belief structures...:p

Gradius wrote: »

Exactly. There are people who actually believe such things.

Try to challenge their beliefs and you'll be met with walls of ignorance, amusingly complicated structures that underpin their beliefs, and lots of "well that particularly minute fact can't be proven to my satisfaction therefore I can ignore it"

Nutters. That exist.

So, flat-Earthers are nutters - are you posting in the wrong thread maybe?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, flat-Earthers are nutters - are you posting in the wrong thread maybe?

Whoosh

Gradius wrote: »

Whoosh

Well, the only other explanation is that you don't know the difference between a theoretical belief and a factual existence, but we dismissed that when you denied believeing they disc-shaped planets, so....

drunkmonkey

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Self-ID works fine. We've had it here for five years without any problems. Leave them alone.

Completely incorrect, it has caused legal problems and issues for women here.

Annasopra

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Completely incorrect, it has caused legal problems and issues for women here.

Such as?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Well, the only other explanation is that you don't know the difference between a theoretical belief and a factual existence, but we dismissed that when you denied believeing they disc-shaped planets, so....

Flat-earthers factually exist. Their beliefs are founded on mush.

Likewise, most "beliefs" are founded on mush.

Gravity is a fact. Founded on provable, repeatable science that is not only readily observed, it also has an inbuilt intuitive factor. Undeniable.

That's the difference between beliefs and fact. You can desire yourself to be blue. You can paint yourself blue You can name yourself "Blue". But the fact of the matter is that you are not naturally blue, and never will be.

Fine. Believe such things all you like. Just don't expect everyone else to buy into your personal desires.

castle2012

I've no problem with this guy and didn't know about him till recently. However changing gender in kids puts him into question for me. I'm not sure he is suitable for the role of childrens minister. Let kids be kids.

castle2012 wrote: »

I've no problem with this guy and didn't know about him till recently. However changing gender in kids puts him into question for me. I'm not sure he is suitable for the role of childrens minister. Let kids be kids.

I just had a look there and the guy is gay. And the last minister for children was gay.

What's that about? I mean the odds of such a coincidence are significantly outlandish.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Completely incorrect, it has caused legal problems and issues for women here.

What legal problems and what issues for women are you referring to?

Gradius wrote: »

Flat-earthers factually exist. Their beliefs are founded on mush.

Likewise, most "beliefs" are founded on mush.

Gravity is a fact. Founded on provable, repeatable science that is not only readily observed, it also has an inbuilt intuitive factor. Undeniable.

That's the difference between beliefs and fact. You can desire yourself to be blue. You can paint yourself blue You can name yourself "Blue". But the fact of the matter is that you are not naturally blue, and never will be.

Fine. Believe such things all you like. Just don't expect everyone else to buy into your personal desires.

At this point, you're making my point for me.

If you tattoo yourself, you are a tattooed person. It's not something someone else can come along and say, "no you are not a tatooed person because I don't beleive tattooed people exist"!!

Good night!

Gradius wrote: »

I just had a look there and the guy is gay. And the last minister for children was gay.

What's that about? I mean the odds of such a coincidence are significantly outlandish.

What's the problem though?

Ten of Swords

Thread reopened after a cleaup

Brian Hartman do not post in this thread again

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.

jmayo

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why would anyone want fascist scum preaching at kids?

No more than I would want some of the very nasty trans people preaching at kids.
And there are a few very nasty trans people out there.
The likes of Rachel McKinnon or Munroe Bergdorf are hate filled and seek to destroy anyone that disagrees with them.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

This is a UK case but we've had the same thing here I'm just not I reserach mode https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/a-predator-and-highly-manipulative-transgender-prisoner-jailed-after-sexually-assaulting-women-in-prison-37411500.html
So to answer your question, yes men can take liberties when disguised as a woman.

That case of a self pronounced transwoman, who is serving time for rape of multiple women, being tolerated and facilitated by the authorities shows how fooked up we have become in parts of the Western world these days.

If someone told you 50 years hell even 20 or 30 years ago, that a rapist would be moved to a women's prison because they claimed they were a woman, you would think they were fooking insane.
Yet today this is the type of shyte that goes on.

And the case in UK where teacher was reprimanded because they didn't play along with a kid that one day wanted to be a girl and the next a boy just shows how authorities are cowtowing to the demands of a very small but very vocal section of society.

The shyteshow that is modern feminist and modern LGB groups where they are even throwing brave lifelong campaigners such as Martina Navratilova under the bus is astounding and disgusting.

Hector Savage

In this new sex ed curriculum for kids, is it stated how relatively rare transgenderism is ?
does it talk about % and statistics ?

Or does it present it as something that's quite numerous in populations ?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What's the problem though?

The problem is probability, or, more to the point, improbability.

Assuming 3% of the population are gay, it's easy to state that there is a 3 in 100 chance of a gay person becoming minister for children. Or 1 in 33.

With consecutive probability, that becomes a 1 in 1089 probability. Let's be generous and round it up to 0.1%

If the ministers position lasts on average 1 year, then it would take 1 thousand years for that same result to happen spontaneously. But it's not only 1 year, it's more like 4 years. So that means it would take 4000 years for such a situation to occur, all else being equal.

Tldr: The probability of two gay ministers for children occurring consecutively is once every 4 thousand years.

But...that's assuming that there are no other factors involved. But there are other factors involved, namely human decision making every step of the way. Choices are made, not mathematically randomised.

So, you either believe that it's all a crazy coincidence, or you question how such long odds happen, and why.

Lastly, the factors involved are linked. This isn't about two albino's becoming minister for children. It would be more like 2 albino's becoming minister for hair, and then being involved in controversial "hair" issues.

Causation is not necessarily linked to correlation, but to a functioning mind it naturally draws attention. That's all I have to say on that matter.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

At this point, you're making my point for me.

If you tattoo yourself, you are a tattooed person. It's not something someone else can come along and say, "no you are not a tatooed person because I don't beleive tattooed people exist"!!

Good night!

Arse backwards.

If a person swears to you that they have a tattoo on their forearm, yet...

1) you cant see it
2) the tattoo artist tells you the person has never had a tattoo
3) you examine the forearm with a microscope and there's not so much as a biro mark

Then the tattoo exists only in the mind of the person. It is contrary to all physical and observed reality, and also evidential reality.

For another person to trot along and pretend that they too can "see" a non-existent attoo is bonkers. Not only is it bonkers, it's cruel and dangerous.

A game of make-believe amongst supposed adults with life-altering consequences on the line.

Mr E

@jmayo - don't post in this thread again.

seamus

Gradius wrote: »

Tldr: The probability of two gay ministers for children occurring consecutively is once every 4 thousand years.

...

Causation is not necessarily linked to correlation, but to a functioning mind it naturally draws attention. That's all I have to say on that matter.

Yeah, your statistical assertion is poorly constructed, you've inserted a LOT of assumptions that you can't make from the outset. In other words, your figure is complete nonsense.

Then you've used that badly drawn but adequately-scientific-sounding declaration to imply that there's something more nefarious going on.

This is the kind of fantasy stuff that the fake moon landings and flat earthers are made of.

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, your statistical assertion is poorly constructed, you've inserted a LOT of assumptions that you can't make from the outset. In other words, your figure is complete nonsense.

Then you've used that badly drawn but adequately-scientific-sounding declaration to imply that there's something more nefarious going on.

This is the kind of fantasy stuff that the fake moon landings and flat earthers are made of.

No, man, you're talking bollix.

If you have something of merit to counteract my point, by all means do it.

Simply stating "that's no good" followed by zero reasoning is crap. Using words like "fantasy" with zero grounding is also crap.

Crap.

Hector Savage wrote: »

In this new sex ed curriculum for kids, is it stated how relatively rare transgenderism is ?
does it talk about % and statistics ?

Or does it present it as something that's quite numerous in populations ?

What new curriculum are you referring to?