nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

A Knight of Ireland

https://theliberal.ie/newly-appointed-childrens-minister-backs-the-idea-that-teenagers-under-16-should-be-able-to-change-their-gender/

Children’s Minister Roderic O’Gorman is introducing a law to make it easier for children to change their genders – based on the recommendations of a review group Chaired by a Trans rights activist that did not have one single medical expert on it. :mad: This is shocking

Mod Note

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

excludedbin

Making an obvious joke - not okay

Not-so-subtly (and sincerely) insinuating a TD is a paedophile, while bringing pictures of nooses to a protest against him, and a banner stating "punish the guilty" - okay

The twisted worldview of far right homophobes.

political analyst

AllForIt wrote: »

https://twitter.com/TheSTMagazine/status/1282193172697960448

Just wondering...will those that legally change their gender be able to change it again? I am actually genuinely curious about this.

I read that and other stories in that edition of The Sunday Times Magazine. All of those stories are very sad.

How would a child of as low as primary-school age even think of the idea of being born with the wrong biological sex?

Obviously, as a man, I've been in the habit of going to the men's room to answer the call of nature since I was a child because that's where I was trained to go when I "had to go". Hypothetically, why would I think the opposite of that?

castle2012

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

"trys to justice"?

Why didn't you give the full context of the tweet?

https://twitter.com/heterotextual/status/88509803890085888?s=19

Do you think that it was intended to be taken literally?

Doesn't matter what the issue is. Encouraging volience against wemon never acceptable

Annasopra

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It's all so stupid like anyone really believes he is a paedophile or holds the view the age of consent should be lowered or that is even on the table. It's not going to happen or even be raised.

Just hysteria over nothing.

It reminds me of the satanic panic.

Renua were saying Roderic O'Gorman was promoting satanism

drunkmonkey

We could do with more Satanist in Dáil Éireann. If he comes out tomorrow and says he likes to eat babies and open pubs he'll get my vote. We need a bit of anarchy.

RWCNT

drunkmonkey wrote: »

We could do with more Satanist in Dáil Éireann. If he comes out tomorrow and says he likes to eat babies and open pubs he'll get my vote. We need a bit of anarchy.

He's MAD for baby eating, this has been established, screenshot from his twitter here:

https://theliberal.ie/demands-for-him-to-be-sacked-as-state-media-completely-ignores-minister-for-children-roderic-ogorman-sick-social-media-posts/

ceadaoin.

Patton Oswalt is a "self confessed paedophile"? What now?

Eric Cartman

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Patton Oswalt is a "self confessed paedophile"? What now?

He tweeted something like “kids love rubbing my dong #careerendingtwittertypos” obviously the typo being dong was supposed to be dog
Patton is a pretty crappy comedian and a loud mouth celebrity but not a paedo.

[Deleted User]

castle2012 wrote: »

Doesn't matter what the issue is. Encouraging volience against wemon never acceptable

There was no encouragement of violence in that tweet. How's the view down there at the bottom of the barrel that you're scraping?

[Deleted User]

political analyst wrote: »

How would a child of as low as primary-school age even think of the idea of being born with the wrong biological sex?

Obviously, as a man, I've been in the habit of going to the men's room to answer the call of nature since I was a child because that's where I was trained to go when I "had to go". Hypothetically, why would I think the opposite of that?

So you're not transgender, and you can't comprehend that a transgender person would have a different life experience to you?

Children don't think of the idea. They work it out for themselves.

AllGunsBlazing

Yup, the Greens are back.

[Deleted User]

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

Yup, the Greens are back.

Yes, they're back implementing FG policy left over from the last government, agreed in the Programme for Government with FF.

castle2012

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There was no encouragement of violence in that tweet. How's the view down there at the bottom of the barrel that you're scraping?

If Cowan or anyone else tweeted that there would be uproar. It's not acceptable full stop. Encouraging people to take the law into there own hands. O Gorman is supposed to be a law maker. Just in case anyone missed the tweet. Here it is again!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

political analyst wrote: »

I read that and other stories in that edition of The Sunday Times Magazine. All of those stories are very sad.

How would a child of as low as primary-school age even think of the idea of being born with the wrong biological sex?

Obviously, as a man, I've been in the habit of going to the men's room to answer the call of nature since I was a child because that's where I was trained to go when I "had to go". Hypothetically, why would I think the opposite of that?

A lot of transgender people say they knew from a very young age that they were more in tune with the opposidte gender but had to wait to transition. That said, I'm totally in agreement with not allowing any gender changes that could cause problems if they had to be re-aligned later on should the person wish to change their mind before the age of 16 or so. By 18, they'll be legally allowed to change anyway, and there's nothing you can do to stop them.

But from my experiences with the community, by the time you hit 12-14 or so, they know.

RWCNT

castle2012 wrote: »

If Cowan or anyone else tweeted that there would be uproar. It's not acceptable full stop. Encouraging people to take the law into there own hands. O Gorman is supposed to be a law maker. Just in case anyone missed the tweet. Here it is again!

That faux-outrage isn't going to happen for you bud, find something else.

castle2012

RWCNT wrote: »

That faux-outrage isn't going to happen for you bud, find something else.

Why aren't we allowed question people who align themselves with the dark side? This is where this country went wrong with the Catholic Church. We didn't question things

RWCNT

castle2012 wrote: »

Why aren't we allowed question people who align themselves with the dark side? This is where this country went wrong with the Catholic Church. We didn't question things

You're allowed. Question away.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

castle2012 wrote: »

Why aren't we allowed question people who align themselves with the dark side? This is where this country went wrong with the Catholic Church. We didn't question things

By all means, question him - but you need to sepreate him from the issue at hand.

Just because you hate a party or hate an individual, doesn't mean you should automatically oppose an idea connected with them. That's just ignorant.

castle2012

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

By all means, question him - but you need to sepreate him from the issue at hand.

Just because you hate a party or hate an individual, doesn't mean you should automatically oppose an idea connected with them. That's just ignorant.

People are on this thread questioning the comments O Gorman put up on twitter. And because hard leftys don't like it they get shot down. It reminds me of the old Catholic Church anyone who doesn't conform gets shot down.

RWCNT

castle2012 wrote: »

People are on this thread questioning the comments O Gorman put up on twitter. And because hard leftys don't like it they get shot down. It reminds me of the old Catholic Church anyone who doesn't conform gets shot down.

What do you mean by "shot down"?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

castle2012 wrote: »

People are on this thread questioning the comments O Gorman put up on twitter. And because hard leftys don't like it they get shot down. It reminds me of the old Catholic Church anyone who doesn't conform gets shot down.

So - is this thread about O'Gorman or is it about the propoised leagal change to allow 16-year-olds to change their gender?

[Deleted User]

castle2012 wrote: »

People are on this thread questioning the comments O Gorman put up on twitter. And because hard leftys don't like it they get shot down. It reminds me of the old Catholic Church anyone who doesn't conform gets shot down.

Tbh, it reeks of finding any stupid reason to get rid of him. Cowen broke the law. O'Gorman had a lot of homophobes dig into every tweet and photo to find something to complain about. Then you had a mixture of loons, the gullible, fascists and homophobes rally to get rid of him.

JJayoo

Wait till people find out that Leo is gay.....oh the outrage

VillageIdiot71

Deleted User wrote: »

Cowen broke the law.

If we're being forensic about it, Cowen doesn't seem to have been sacked because of any law that he broke.

He's being sacked because of, apparently, something recorded on Pulse that didn't actually form part of the offence that he accepted the penalty for.

Tbh, he's being sacked for much the same kind of oblique connection. The only difference being Rod actually posted a message of support for Tatchell, where Cowen didn't write the Pulse record.

And, just to be clear, I do accept the thrust of Rod's statment of explanation, and I'm happy to ignore his political doublespeak on the topic. I suspect he's a little inept, not bad.

He finds the "homophobe" route is, politically, the best cover. Because who's going to point out that no-one gives or gave a toss about Leo?

[Deleted User]

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

If we're being forensic about it, Cowen doesn't seem to have been sacked because of any law that he broke.

He's being sacked because of, apparently, something recorded on Pulse that didn't actually form part of the offence that he accepted the penalty for.

Tbh, he's being sacked for much the same kind of oblique connection. The only difference being Rod actually posted a message of support for Tatchell, where Cowen didn't write the Pulse record.

And, just to be clear, I do accept the thrust of Rod's statment of explanation, and I'm happy to ignore his political doublespeak on the topic. I suspect he's a little inept, not bad.

He finds the "homophobe" route is, politically, the best cover. Because who's going to point out that no-one gives or gave a toss about Leo?

Not really, he failed to address it in the dail. In the case of O'Gorman, he's addressed the tenuous link and there's no real reason for any further pursuit of the issue.

[Deleted User]

castle2012 wrote: »

If Cowan or anyone else tweeted that there would be uproar. It's not acceptable full stop. Encouraging people to take the law into there own hands. O Gorman is supposed to be a law maker. Just in case anyone missed the tweet. Here it is again!

At the date of the tweet, he was nothing - not a Councillor, not a TD, not a Minister - definitely not a law maker.

Can we take it that you have never said "I'll kill ya" or similar to a mate or a sibling maybe?

Because this is at the same level - absolute clutching at straws, and fairly pathetic.

excludedbin

The fact remains that O'Gorman has said he wasn't aware of Tatchell's leter from 1997. I don't know if it sparked outrage at the time but it is just a little bit suspicious that the photo of O'Gorman standing next to Tatchell only now has been brought up. And I don't really buy that homophobia is just a cover, considering the abuse Katherine Zappone received before him.

Linking homosexuality to paedophilia is an old piece of propaganda from homophobes so it's not that surprising they'd target a Minister for Children who's openly gay. Some people are unwilling to acknowledge the actions of bad actors in trying to smear and threaten ministers because they're gay. I'd have more respect if they at least came out and stated they agree with the mob instead of dancing around the issue.

VillageIdiot71

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really, he failed to address it in the dail.

Which breaks no law - which is what you were contending.

He broke a law, and took the penalty that went with that. And now is sacked for something that is politically bad, but breaks no law.

If you want to say that being convicted of an offence should exclude someone from office forever, that's Dessie Ellis out of a job for starters.

Deleted User wrote: »

In the case of O'Gorman, he's addressed the tenuous link and there's no real reason for any further pursuit of the issue.

I'd agree there's no particular reason to revisit the fact that O'Gorman has admitted his support for Tatchell was inept, and something he did in ignorance.

Also fair enough for Mattie McGrath to ask questions over who is contributing to the framing of the school curriculum. Because that's a broader question that reflects the fact that this is a policy area with a longer and broader scope that one new Minister.

castle2012

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So - is this thread about O'Gorman or is it about the propoised leagal change to allow 16-year-olds to change their gender?

I think the thread is about o gorman according to the start of the thread.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

castle2012 wrote: »

I think the thread is about o gorman according to the start of the thread.

Have you read the opening post?