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

Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

Baggly

Gender identity is a very current and heated debate in Ireland at the moment.

There have been a number of threads in the Current Affairs forum that have dealt with specific talking points on the topic in the media, but they have largely become less 'current' and so this thread is more on the 'Honest Opinion' side of the forums purpose.

What is your opinion on gender identity?

A few reminder notes from the mod team

This thread is for discussing the above OP. Please do so.
People are entitled to hold a different opinion to you. As long as they express it civilly, that is fine. The mods will determine what counts as civil and uncivil. If there is an issue, please report the post and move on. Leave it to the mods to deal with (or not, as appropriate).
Please treat other posters with respect, perhaps the same way you would hope to be treated with respect.
Do not attack other posters. Attack posts and their content.
This is not a thread for you to soapbox. If you have an opinion, please share it; but be prepared for others to query that opinion. Be prepared to show why you think what you think.
If the mod team see this thread heading in the same direction as the JK Rowling thread did (with broadly circular arguments and all 'sides' of the debate largely ignoring the other), we will close the thread.
Threadbans from the JK Rowling thread are being extended to this thread, as we recognise discussion from that thread for a significant part of its recent history were focused on the topic of this thread. If you were threadbanned there and it wasnt lifted, do not post in this thread. If you want to discuss lifting your threadban, please contact a member of the mod team.
The normal forum rules still, as always, apply.

Update

TERF is not considered a slur in itself. If it is used as a reasoned part of the discussion here, it wont be actioned.

Everyone using this thread would do well to read this and abide by it: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110864714&postcount=180

The following are strictly prohibited in this thread:

-Any advocation, either open or implicit of violence against trans people
-Any statement that asserts or implies that transgenderism is a mental illness.
-Any use of transphobic language
-Misgendering or deadnaming trans people
-Stating or implying that trans people are mutilating themselves

I have updated the OP of this thread with a list of threadbanned users, I would advise posters to check on this before posting in the thread again or a forum sanction will be imposed for breaching same.

If you want to discuss your threadban feel free to PM the banning mod (or myself if you can't remember who that is and I'll point you in the right direction).

Threadbanned Users
chopperbyrne
Sittingpretty
ILoveYourVibes
MikeOxsgreen
Hamsterchops
Mr. Meanor
Hqrry113
nj27
Dante7
jaxx
Tom O Neill
Gatling
Bannasidhe
Vic_08
stihl waters
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
Bambi
Hego Damask
CtevenSrowder
Dobbytoes
Hhhhh
ingalway
Greebo
Suicide Circus
Theboinkmaster
Gradius

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Smacruairi wrote: »

Can I, just for the record, note that I disagree with you on everything to do with gender identity, but I in no way support any type of personalised slagging of that police officer. Comments about physical appearance etc are totally uncalled for, and this person is being used as a pawn, whether they know it or not.

I deeply disagree with the ideology at play here but there is zero need to put this person out there to be built up or torn down, and when there are mass movements questioning the role of the police, this is not one bit helpful, and only serves to divide society even further.

I agree, I have nothing to say about the officer’s physical appearance. It’s about stance and facial expression. I’d think it inappropriate, no matter who the police officer. I thought it was inappropriate of Willie O’Dea too. Different jobs but both positions of authority.

jam_mac_jam

I think it was a really bad choice to release a picture of the officer pointing at the camera as a pr photo. Same as when Willy o Dea did it.

It's aggressive and silly no matter who did it, man or woman. The photo could have been taken from the side if they wanted to show one while they were working.

It's not the police officers fault and they may be a wonderful person but it's a superbly bad choice for a PR photo.

LLMMLL

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I think it was a really bad choice to release a picture of the officer pointing at the camera as a pr photo. Same as when Willy o Dea did it.

It's aggressive and silly no matter who did it, man or woman. The photo could have been taken from the side if they wanted to show one while they were working.

It's not the police officers fault and they may be a wonderful person but it's a superbly bad choice for a PR photo.

If it doesn't matter who did it, man or woman, why are people raising it in a thread about trans issues? Surely it's 100% irrelevant to this thread and thus the people raising it must have some reason for doing so?

jam_mac_jam

LLMMLL wrote: »

If it doesn't matter who did it, man or woman, why are people raising it in a thread about trans issues? Surely it's 100% irrelevant to this thread and thus the people raising it must have some reason for doing so?

Because it was used as a PR photo to announce that they are female I would presume.

LLMMLL

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Because it was used as a PR photo to announce that they are female I would presume.

Does the photo have any impact on them being female? Is it possible that a cis woman could appear in an image like this?

jam_mac_jam

LLMMLL wrote: »

Does the photo have any impact on them being female? Is it possible that a cis woman could appear in an image like this?

I don't think there would be a PR campaign about it.

I am sure a cis woman could appear in an image like that. In the same way as willy, a cis man did. And was also criticized for it.

LLMMLL

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I don't think there would be a PR campaign about it.

I am sure a cis woman could appear in an image like that. In the same way as willy, a cis man did. And was also criticized for it.

And if a cis woman appeared in an image like that would a women's rights thread be an appropriate place to criticise the image?

jam_mac_jam

LLMMLL wrote: »

And if a cis woman appeared in an image like that would a women's rights thread be an appropriate place to criticise the image?

Why not?

LLMMLL

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Why not?

Because the issue would be about police communications using aggressive imagery which has nothing to do with women's rights?

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Because the issue would be about police communications using aggressive imagery which has nothing to do with women's rights?

So why promote trans so aggressively

Bannasidhe

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Utterly disingenuous.

Those muscular women are still within a female range. Muscular women should not be made to feel bad about their bodies but those bodies are still nothing like the bodies of those who go through a male puberty. Even a woman with abnormally high testosterone has levels way lower than even men with low testosterone levels. A man and women who weigh the same and/or are the same height will still have significant differences in strength. The physical advantages of males are numerous and most of them are irreversible.

You mention Serena Williams. One of the finest female athletes of all time. Had she had to compete against men, we never would have heard her name.

And there seems to flip-flopping on the importance of sport when this topic is debated, I’ve noticed. When transgender people might find themselves excluded (at various levels), it’s discriminatory and sports are of the utmost importance. But then when it’s pointed out that women will lose out, often the same commentators will adopt a “Sure it’s only sport, who cares?” attitude. Are sports important or aren’t they? People can’t have it both ways.

Can the poster who made the comments not defend herself?

There is nothing disingenuous about the bullying that non-feminine cis girls and women are subjected to, and utterly disrespectful to those women - many of who are the lesbians you and your fellow travellers claim to be trying to 'protect' - to use the "looks male because tall with 'overly' muscular forearms" argument to determine a person's gender.

I made no comment about sport - I shared photographs of 3 cis women who have overly muscular forearms - one is also very very tall - 2 of the women happen to be are sports women, one is not, so your tangent about sport is not relevant to the point I am making - but you know that.
We have been down this road before.

It's not me who is making muscular women feel bad - it is the person you are defending who is spouting nonsense which links being tall and muscular with looking masculine.

Try and stick to the point I made and stop flip flopping around trying to change the topic to one where you feel you may have an advantage.

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

So why promote trans so aggressively

Nothing to do with trans issues. Why have a cis woman in an aggressive image? Why have a black person in an aggressive image? Why have a short person in an aggressive image?

If you're genuinely concerned I eagerly await the thread on a UK police force using aggressive imagery. Kinda suspect I'll be waiting a while for that one.

Gruffalux

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So women have to be short and not overly muscular?
How utterly ridiculous.
Women can be and are all shapes and sizes - but are pushed into thinking they should have a certain kind of body type and here are you doing exactly the same thing.

Did you stop and think about the fact that there are biological women who are tall with 'forearms that are overly muscular' who get called 'mannish' before you posted that crap?
The same crap bullies use to harass and attack any woman whose body image doesn't conform to a narrow set of parameters.

Do you give a damn as long as you get to have a go at transgendered women even if it means using tactics that have long been used against cis women?

Women can be all shapes and sizes. Tall, muscular, short, fat.
One key thing they are not, though, is male.

You have tried to make out I said something else. Read what I said again. I read it again and it does not say what you imply. It was not anything about women having to look a certain way. Or transwomen.
The police force in the UK used this overtly aggressive image to promote the LIE that Skye Morden is a "female" police officer, which includes being entitled to exercise functions reserved for female officers. It was a bad choice of imagery.

It is not about the physical appearance regarding attractiveness. That does not matter.
The appearance is about the reality of the information supplied by ones senses which in this case can have consequences. An arrested woman in a vulnerable place, as an example, would have to be allowed to pay attention to the evidence supplied directly to her brain via her senses that, in spite of being informed this is a police woman, that this is a tall muscular male-bodied person as per the evidence of her own eyes.
And the arrested woman must be allowed refuse intimate searches based simply and solely upon this physical evidence that means they perceive this police officer as presenting as male.

If that woman said to you in a time of later judgement I did not want to be strip searched by them as they are male, would you say how do you know they are male? If that woman said because they are very tall and have big muscular arms and they look like a man, would you really say to them how dare you, women can be any shape they want? So she would be shamed into ignoring what she perceives?
How far does that squelching of people's ordinary sense perception have to go?

For it to become politically correct that one must contradict the evidence perceived by ones senses would be idiotic and dangerous in many situations. Skye is a trans woman but there must be exemptions maintained whereby those being investigated or detained by police can ask for sex based protections. And they must be allowed use the uncomplicated evidence of their own eyes as justification for such requests.

jam_mac_jam

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nothing to do with trans issues. Why have a cis woman in an aggressive image? Why have a black person in an aggressive image? Why have a short person in an aggressive image?

If you're genuinely concerned I eagerly await the thread on a UK police force using aggressive imagery. Kinda suspect I'll be waiting a while for that one.

The whole point of the PR announcement was that the person was female. So you might be deliberately missing the point of the original announcement. It wasn't about their training or anything else. So how is it not relevant.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nothing to do with trans issues. Why have a cis woman in an aggressive image? Why have a black person in an aggressive image? Why have a short person in an aggressive image?

Don't think I've seen women police officers used in aggressive images ,

Sarah Conners aka Linda Hamilton is only 5'5 do you think terminator would have been a success if she was shown throwing armie around for two movies

LLMMLL

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

The whole point of the PR announcement was that the person was female. So you might be deliberately missing the point of the original announcement. It wasn't about their training or anything else. So how is it not relevant.

Because the image had nothing to do with trans issues. Go look up the articles. There are many images used. Explain to me how these images relate to any particular trans issue.

If you can show that images of a trans person relate to a trans issues then we might have something to discuss.

Otherwise it's a case of criticising a trans person for doing something anyone else could do. It opens up trans people for criticism on living their daily lives which is something we are repeatedly told the TERF side has no issues with.

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

Don't think I've seen women police officers used in aggressive images ,

Sarah Conners aka Linda Hamilton is only 5'5 do you think terminator would have been a success if she was shown throwing armie around for two movies

Now you have. Are you going to take it to the Ladies Lounge forum to complain?

jam_mac_jam

LLMMLL wrote: »

Because the image had nothing to do with trans issues. Go look up the articles. There are many images used. Explain to me how these images relate to any particular trans issue.

If you can show that images of a trans person relate to a trans issues then we might have something to discuss.

Otherwise it's a case of criticising a trans person for doing something anyone else could do. It opens up trans people for criticism on living their daily lives which is something we are repeatedly told the TERF side has no issues with.

Ok. I will agree to disagree as we could be here all night going around in circles.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Women can be all shapes and sizes. Tall, muscular, short, fat.
One key thing they are not, though, is male.

You have tried to make out I said something else. Read what I said again. I read it again and it does not say what you imply. It was not anything about women having to look a certain way. Or transwomen.
The police force in the UK used this overtly aggressive image to promote the LIE that Skye Morden is a "female" police officer, which includes being entitled to exercise functions reserved for female officers. It was a bad choice of imagery.

It is not about the physical appearance regarding attractiveness. That does not matter.
The appearance is about the reality of the information supplied by ones senses which in this case can have consequences. An arrested woman in a vulnerable place, as an example, would have to be allowed to pay attention to the evidence supplied directly to her brain via her senses that, in spite of being informed this is a police woman, that this is a tall muscular male-bodied person as per the evidence of her own eyes.
And the arrested woman must be allowed refuse intimate searches based simply and solely upon this physical evidence that means they perceive this police officer as presenting as male.

If that woman said to you in a time of later judgement I did not want to be strip searched by them as they are male, would you say how do you know they are male? If that woman said because they are very tall and have big muscular arms and they look like a man, would you really say to them how dare you, women can be any shape they want? So she would be shamed into ignoring what she perceives?
How far does that squelching of people's ordinary sense perception have to go?

For it to become politically correct that one must contradict the evidence perceived by ones senses would be idiotic and dangerous in many situations. Skye is a trans woman but there must be exemptions maintained whereby those being investigated or detained by police can ask for sex based protections. And they must be allowed use the uncomplicated evidence of their own eyes as justification for such requests.

This will lead to the humiliation of cis women.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Women can be all shapes and sizes. Tall, muscular, short, fat.
One key thing they are not, though, is male.

You have tried to make out I said something else. Read what I said again. I read it again and it does not say what you imply. It was not anything about women having to look a certain way. Or transwomen.
The police force in the UK used this overtly aggressive image to promote the LIE that Skye Morden is a "female" police officer, which includes being entitled to exercise functions reserved for female officers. It was a bad choice of imagery.

It is not about the physical appearance regarding attractiveness. That does not matter.
The appearance is about the reality of the information supplied by ones senses which in this case can have consequences. An arrested woman in a vulnerable place, as an example, would have to be allowed to pay attention to the evidence supplied directly to her brain via her senses that, in spite of being informed this is a police woman, that this is a tall muscular male-bodied person as per the evidence of her own eyes.
And the arrested woman must be allowed refuse intimate searches based simply and solely upon this physical evidence that means they perceive this police officer as presenting as male.

If that woman said to you in a time of later judgement I did not want to be strip searched by them as they are male, would you say how do you know they are male? If that woman said because they are very tall and have big muscular arms and they look like a man, would you really say to them how dare you, women can be any shape they want? So she would be shamed into ignoring what she perceives?
How far does that squelching of people's ordinary sense perception have to go?

For it to become politically correct that one must contradict the evidence perceived by ones senses would be idiotic and dangerous in many situations. Skye is a trans woman but there must be exemptions maintained whereby those being investigated or detained by police can ask for sex based protections. And they must be allowed use the uncomplicated evidence of their own eyes as justification for such requests.

Do you believe trans women should be allowed to join a police force?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can the poster who made the comments not defend herself?

Excuse me? We are on a messageboard. It’s a discussion. There’s no rigid rule that you may not respond to a post that wasn’t directed at you. Threads would grind to halt pretty darn quickly if there was.

political analyst

LLMMLL wrote: »

Now you have. Are you going to take it to the Ladies Lounge forum to complain?

The now ex-cop whose picture you attached to your post is such a diva!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8056325/Ex-poster-girl-Mets-firearms-unit-cleared-leaking-claiming-exposing-corruption.html

LLMMLL

political analyst wrote: »

The now ex-cop whose picture you attached to your post is such a diva!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8056325/Ex-poster-girl-Mets-firearms-unit-cleared-leaking-claiming-exposing-corruption.html

And?

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Do you believe trans women should be allowed to join a police force?

Of course.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Do you believe trans women should be allowed to join a police force?

Do you think women in custody should be allowed to request that people of the female sex only can do a body cavity search on them?

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Of course.

Ok I'll lay the whole argument out for you so it doesn't cbecome a back and forth:

1. Do you believe that trans women should be allowed join the police. You've answered yes.

2. Do you believe a tall muscular trans woman should be allowed join the police.

3. Should a police force be able to promote the diversity of it's force? This includes racial, cis female, gay, and trans.

4. Can a police force use aggressive imagery as part of this. Specifically do you have a problem with the image of the cis female officer with the gun I posted?

5. Can a police force use non-aggressive imagery such as the other photos used of the trans woman in need articles?

All this is to get to the main point:

6. What difference would it make if they used non aggressive imagery to the main concern you've raised about strip searches? Presumably the woman being searched would meet this trans officer in person regardless of whether they'd read an article about it. How would this image and the promotion tweets and article make any difference to a woman about to be searched?

I also have to point out that this officer is a training officer and is unlikely to ever have to search anyone so this is all a lot of whataboutery but I will engage in hypotheticals.

SnazzyPig

LLMMLL wrote: »

Now you have. Are you going to take it to the Ladies Lounge forum to complain?

What's aggressive about that image?

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Do you think women in custody should be allowed to request that people of the female sex only can do a body cavity search on them?

I'd give a provisional answer of yes, with a reservation that I could change my mind if I hear persuasive arguments against it. People in vulnerable situations should be allowed their prejudices if it makes them feel more comfortable.

I do think it's all a bit nonsense predicated on the nasty idea that trans women all look stereotypically male.

I think that it will result in the humiliation of cis women who have some stereotypically male features.

And conversely, the question will not arise of a trans woman doctor who looks stereotypically female. Many people who believe it would be traumatic for them to be examined by a trans woman probably already have. (well not that many it's going to be a rare issue regardless).

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ok I'll lay the whole argument out for you so it doesn't cbecome a back and forth:

1. Do you believe that trans women should be allowed join the police. You've answered yes.

2. Do you believe a tall muscular trans woman should be allowed join the police.

3. Should a police force be able to promote the diversity of it's force? This includes racial, cis female, gay, and trans.

4. Can a police force use aggressive imagery as part of this. Specifically do you have a problem with the image of the cis female officer with the gun I posted?

5. Can a police force use non-aggressive imagery such as the other photos used of the trans woman in need articles?

All this is to get to the main point:

6. What difference would it make if they used non aggressive imagery to the main concern you've raised about strip searches? Presumably the woman being searched would meet this trans officer in person regardless of whether they'd read an article about it. How would this image and the promotion tweets and article make any difference to a woman about to be searched?

I also have to point out that this officer is a training officer and is unlikely to ever have to search anyone so this is all a lot of whataboutery but I will engage in hypotheticals.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes. Though cis is an unnecessary word. I would also qualify that "diversity" promotion is a pain in the hole. Who gives a shyte who you sleep with or what colour you are?
4. Imagery is my work so I suppose I respond to subtext and atmosphere. The image of Skye looked insane. It did Skye no favours. It could not possibly promote inclusion and reassurance. There were other images of Skye that I would have signed off on very happily. The image quoted was the only one posted by the police on Twitter. It was a daft choice. The other person with a gun - it depends. If the tweet was intended to promote a friendly inclusive police force in ones neighbourhood I would say it was positively dystopian.
5. It would have been wise. They deleted the tweet of Skye probably because the picture looked terrible.

6. The strip search concern remains regardless of any imagery that might ever be used. Sex based protections should remain a choice for those who wish for them.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes. Though cis is an unnecessary word. I would also qualify that "diversity" promotion is a pain in the hole. Who gives a shyte who you sleep with or what colour you are?
4. Imagery is my work so I suppose I respond to subtext and atmosphere. The image of Skye looked insane. It did Skye no favours. It could not possibly promote inclusion and reassurance. There were other images of Skye that I would have signed off on very happily. The image quoted was the only one posted by the police on Twitter. It was a daft choice. The other person with a gun - it depends. If the tweet was intended to promote a friendly inclusive police force in ones neighbourhood I would say it was positively dystopian.
5. It would have been wise. They deleted the tweet of Skye probably because the picture looked terrible.

6. The strip search concern remains regardless of any imagery that might ever be used. Sex based protections should remain a choice for those who wish for them.

Right so your the imagery used, the promotion of diversity in trans issues etc. Have nothing to do with strip search concerns.

So what has this image got to with trans issues.

Strip searches are a separate debate and this person should not be denigrated to fuel that debate.