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

LLMMLL · 28-01-2021 8:40pm

Gruffalux wrote: »

So now the reason there should not be a thread is because people who struggle with their gender identity are being let down by it?
I took a quick look at the front page of current affairs as is now.
Internal Abuse in Green party - God help Green TDs.
Views on Multiculturalism - God help immigrants
NIMBYS complaining about Housing Crises - God help NIMBYs and those with no houses
Mother and Baby Homes - God help all of those affected in any way
Donald Trump and Joe Biden threads - God help us all
Dee Forbes banging a drum - God help Dee Forbes whoever she is
Northern Ireland a Failure - God help the Nordies
Will Britain piss off and Brexit - God help the British and incontinent people
The consequences of buying fish - God help fish, fishermen and mer-people everywhere

I mean...ya know. That's the nature of things.

The subject is current. The subject is eminently suitable for discussion. The subject will be discussed and aught to be discussed. You won't like some angles of the discussion, or avenues it goes down, or the points raised or not raised, but that is life.

They never said there shouldn’t be a thread. Where are you getting this from?

LLMMLL · 28-01-2021 8:44pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

So your solution was to not even name us? We’re just “otherwise”. THAT’S better? Women and transgender women. That’s all you need to say. If the sloganeering says “transgender women are women!” why would that be offensive? That slogan already acknowledges the difference.

And yes, I will point out utter dreck when I see it. Thank you. You’re going for condescension there but I’m very glad to highlight the nonsense.

I’d love for more people to get involved. However, most of our questions go unanswered. People run away when they can’t give a response. There’s not much to be done with that.

Now, you can posture loftily about our questions not being answered because people won’t stoop to that. But lots of us HAVEN’T been threadbanned and have only been given minor cards or none at all. So we’re doing something right. Many of us have made good points and that’s the usually the point where people opposing us scarper. That’s not our problem. Why don’t they respond? If they have such a strong position, why do they flee? Weird, huh?

Also, you suggest that the only reason we are escaping sanction is because we have remained civil. Sneaky.

Women and transgender women implies trans women are not women.

TRANSWomen ARE women does the opposite.

LLMMLL · 28-01-2021 8:47pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Aaaaah, where would we be without you backseat-modding the thread, person who has just started participating in it?

I believe they posted in this thread from when it was created.

One eyed Jack · 28-01-2021 8:49pm

Gatling wrote: »

But here you are again .

I didn’t say I was going anywhere? I just haven’t bothered to argue with the last few pages because it’s just the same thing over and over again when there are far greater issues to be concerned about which are far more worth my time and energy than arguing over which bathroom anyone is or isn’t “permitted” to use, like there is ever going to be such a thing as the bathroom police :pac:

LLMMLL · 28-01-2021 8:55pm

Gruffalux wrote: »

I wish I had saved the tweet but there was one a year or so ago from a big handsome Irish gay lad who said on twitter that the reality is when it comes down to it that gay men love good big solid c)ck. He said it in the context of transmen using gay dating apps and expecting interest. I suppose dating apps are real life in that they lead to real life stuff? It was a good and honest tweet from a person who knows the truth of things for the majority of guys using the apps.

Ah here. I’ve been in gay dating apps for years and live in the most populated part of Ireland. I’d say I’ve seen 3 trans men on the apps and never once has there been any expectation or deception from them. Me thinks this big handsome gay man was telling porkies to make a point.

LLMMLL · 28-01-2021 8:59pm

Gruffalux wrote: »

You do know that when we pass laws and policy to define and protect what is right and what is wrong that we countenance and provide for the hypotheticals as far as is possible. Our law makers do not require a flesh and blood examples of every permutation to attest before them to every possible circumstance. If we did we would have to be adjusting policy non stop as per new permutations.

Or perhaps this is just a rehash of the ''has it happened to you personally'' line of argument, in which case I hope no one discusses football who has not togged out for the nation.

It’s also completely accepted in law (actually appears in most 1st year jurisprudence texts) that legislating based on rare incidences makes bad law.

ingalway · 28-01-2021 9:38pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

Women and transgender women implies trans women are not women.

TRANSWomen ARE women does the opposite.

So why the TRANS at all?
Are they ANY differences between TRANSWomen and women?
If so, what are they?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 28-01-2021 9:39pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

Women and transgender women implies trans women are not women.

TRANSWomen ARE women does the opposite.

Does that mean women are transgender women? If not, why not?

LLMMLL · 28-01-2021 9:41pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Does that mean women are transgender women? If not, why not?

That makes no sense.

Apples are fruit - true

Fruit are apples - false

One does not imply the other.

Gatling · 28-01-2021 9:48pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

Women and transgender women implies trans women are not women.

TRANSWomen ARE women does the opposite.

LLMMLL wrote: »

That makes no sense.

Apples are fruit - true

Fruit are apples - false

One does not imply the other.

But trans women are men , first and foremost being a woman is not a felling ,it's biological ,its chromosomal ,and physical differences , like penis and testicles Vs vagina , cervix uteruses , ovaries ,

What's the difference between men , women and the other 89 gender and self identies

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 28-01-2021 9:51pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

That makes no sense.

Apples are fruit - true

Fruit are apples - false

One does not imply the other.

Transgender women are male.
Women are female.
An unattainable difference, I’m afraid.

Transgender women are transgender women and a subset of male.

I’ve never seen a definition of ‘woman’ from anyone who says TWAW where ‘woman’ isn’t included in the definition. It’ll be nonsense like “anyone who feels like a woman”. A definition shouldn’t include the word one is trying to define.

LLMMLL · 28-01-2021 9:58pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Transgender women are male.
Women are female.
An unattainable difference, I’m afraid.

Transgender women are transgender women and a subset of male.

I’ve never seen a definition of ‘woman’ from anyone who says TWAW where ‘woman’ isn’t included in the definition. It’ll be nonsense like “anyone who feels like a woman”. A definition shouldn’t include the word one is trying to define.

I completely disagree with you on all of the above but I don’t really see the point in rehashing the definitions debate at this stage.

It doesn’t change the fact that posters who were trying to engage with you by not using the word “cis” got their heads bitten off for not using the exact terminology you prefer.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 28-01-2021 10:09pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

I completely disagree with you on all of the above but I don’t really see the point in rehashing the definitions debate at this stage.

It doesn’t change the fact that posters who were trying to engage with you by not using the word “cis” got their heads bitten off for not using the exact terminology you prefer.

Yes, imagine sensitivity around calling people the wrong thing? You wrote that on a forum and thread that cards misgendering (whilst allowing and even even defending the use of a misogynistic slur).

Damn straight I'll point out terminology I consider to be BS. That’s the standard that has been set.

LLMMLL · 28-01-2021 10:17pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yes, imagine sensitivity around calling people the wrong thing? You wrote that on a forum and thread that cards misgendering (whilst allowing and even even defending the use of a misogynistic slur). Damn straight I'll point out terminology I consider to be BS. That’s the standard that has been set.

Yet none of the options you give allow people to express their opinion that trans women are women. At least Griffalux gave some alternative options such as “natal women”. I won’t personally be using them but others might.

Your insistence that people use phrases such as “women and trans women” would lead to them implying that they don’t believe trans women are women. You’re just never going to succeed there.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 28-01-2021 10:23pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yet none of the options you give allow people to express their opinion that trans women are women. At least Griffalux gave some alternative options such as “natal women”. I won’t personally be using them but others might.

Your insistence that people use phrases such as “women and trans women” would lead to them implying that they don’t believe trans women are women. You’re just never going to succeed there.

Oh? I can control what people post? Sweet. When did I get this superpower?

I have no control over what phrases people use. They have no control over my opinion of those phrases.

LLMMLL · 28-01-2021 10:28pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Oh? I can control what people post? Sweet. When did I get this superpower?

I have no control over what phrases people use. They have no control over my opinion of those phrases.

Ok so they’ll continue to use phrases like “trans women or otherwise” or “trans women or non trans women” and you’ll continue to be upset about it I suppose.

As long as you don’t expect them to use your terminology.

CtevenSrowder · 28-01-2021 11:02pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I know yeah. We had a trans person in the lgbt forum recently who stumbled across trans threads in CA forum and closed their account as a result.

That is pathetic.

Feisar · 28-01-2021 11:09pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I know yeah. We had a trans person in the lgbt forum recently who stumbled across trans threads in CA forum and closed their account as a result.

Ah come on you must be on some sort of windup.

Annasopra · 28-01-2021 11:37pm

Feisar wrote: »

Ah come on you must be on some sort of windup.

In general this site is quite hostile to trans people. Thats the reason there are very few trans people posters who are out and open as trans on the site. Like why would any trans people actively go into the CA forum and see lots of raging debates about their identity.

Ten of Swords · 28-01-2021 11:50pm

I can confirm the above is true however we are not discussing that poster so lets move on please

Sir Oxman · 28-01-2021 11:53pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

In general this site is quite hostile to trans people. Thats the reason there are very few trans people posters who are out and open as trans.

This site has hundreds of sections and even with that, there is a no personal abuse policy.
This is one thread in one section - the title might help anyone avoid it that isn't up for debate.
What you probably understand as hostile (on behalf of other posters or potential posters) is anyone questioning the ideological theory which is a circular, illogical deconstructionist mess.

Gatling · 28-01-2021 11:56pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Like why would any trans people actively go into the CA forum and see lots of raging debates about their identity.

One thread .

So far all we have to go by is a few men and one or two women who got shouted down for not agreeing with the few men ,

Is there any pro trans thread in the LGBTQ forum at all?

km991148 · 29-01-2021 12:01am

Sir Oxman wrote: »

This site has hundreds of sections and even with that, there is a no personal abuse policy.

What you probably understand as hostile (on behalf of other posters or potential posters) is anyone questioning the ideological theory which is a circular, illogical deconstructionist mess.

This part of the conversation was initiated by a post I made along the lines of 'good luck to any trans people reading this thread' (if I recall correctly, as a result of (in my opinion) over simplification and crude remarks about genitals, that seemed irrelevant at the time).

You are correct in saying that personal abuse is thin on the ground, but some remarks push the boundaries of civility, and use exaggerated or completely hypothetical examples.

That isn't a call to be extra sensitive or any other such nonsense, I am simply providing the context as now parts of the conversation are being posted hours later and out of context.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 29-01-2021 12:07am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

In general this site is quite hostile to trans people. Thats the reason there are very few trans people posters who are out and open as trans on the site. Like why would any trans people actively go into the CA forum and see lots of raging debates about their identity.

Well, transgender rights are clashing with women’s very hard won rights. Where do you suggest we discuss these issues on this site? You may disagree that there is a clash of rights. So, talk about it.

km991148 · 29-01-2021 12:09am

Gatling wrote: »

Is there any pro trans thread in the LGBTQ forum at all?

I am not sure that someone trans dealing with trans issues, would feel particularly comfortable posting on LGBTQ forum either, especially if they weren't out or coming to terms with trans issues (which was the original comments:

God help anyone struggling with their gender identity reading this thread or looking for a serious viewpoint on understanding what issues are present.

Its not like people post on Boards and its completely anonymous*. You can quite easily work out a few people.

As we see - its a difficult conversation to discuss in a place like this (but I think its still an interesting place to have the discussion - beats twitter for a start).

*Depending on post history, who you know in real life, do you know any mods etc etc

Sir Oxman · 29-01-2021 12:29am

km991148 wrote: »

This part of the conversation was initiated by a post I made along the lines of 'good luck to any trans people reading this thread'

Don't overegg yerself

, the same posters time and again have brought that old chesnut out throughout this thread and the previous one including a famous swish out by someone now immortalised on the feedback forum.

km991148 · 29-01-2021 12:42am

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Don't overegg yerself , the same posters time and again have brought that old chesnut out throughout this thread and the previous one including a famous swish out by someone now immortalised on the feedback forum.

Well I'm sorry, I'm not part of the old cliques around here. Why bring it all up again tho if it's been covered over and over?

nolivesmatter · 29-01-2021 1:27am

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yet none of the options you give allow people to express their opinion that trans women are women. At least Griffalux gave some alternative options such as “natal women”. I won’t personally be using them but others might.

Your insistence that people use phrases such as “women and trans women” would lead to them implying that they don’t believe trans women are women. You’re just never going to succeed there.

Isn't that just semantics though? If a person who is born biologically female is then to be referred to as a 'cis woman' or a 'natal woman', wouldn't the non-cis/non-natal women again just feel omitted from the cis/natal group. You'd be back at square one again.

LLMMLL · 29-01-2021 1:31am

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Isn't that just semantics though? If a person who is born biologically female is then to be referred to as a 'cis woman' or a 'natal woman', wouldn't the non-cis/non-natal women again just feel omitted from the cis/natal group. You'd be back at square one again.

Why would they be bothered about not being considered a cis woman if they were considered to be women?

nolivesmatter · 29-01-2021 1:32am

LLMMLL wrote: »

Why would they be bothered about not being considered a cis woman if they were considered to be women?

Because the term 'cis woman' will have now assumed the meaning that 'woman' previously meant. 'Woman' won't mean the same thing anymore.

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

Comments