Irish state now will now accept a trans persons own declaration of their gender

P_1 · 07-06-2015 01:11PM

Darpa wrote: »

Because I need to confirm someones current and past identity.
The brand new Pauline Smith might have a clean record, but the old Paul Smith might have a record as long as her arm. And before anyone starts I have no issue with Trans, I do have an issue with being able to accurately check someones criminal record etc. That's why I'm asking how can I tell this is a new cert, because I need to check any old name as well.

And that's why we have passports

Darpa · 07-06-2015 01:12PM

P_1 wrote: »

And that's why we have passports

Not everyone has, or is required to have a passport.
Does the passport list their old identity name, so I can check it ?

P_1 · 07-06-2015 01:19PM

Darpa wrote: »

Not everyone has, or is required to have a passport.
Does the passport list their old identity name, so I can check it ?

That's fair enough but if a potential employer wanted to see my birth cert they'd be swiftly advised as to the appropriate location to file said request, and I dare say I'm not alone in that.

UCDVet · 07-06-2015 01:46PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you might be kinda missing the point here.

Or apologies if I've got that wrong and maybe I'm kinda missing the point here.

As I understand the argument, gender is not the same as sex. Therefore allowing people to change their gender identity does not affect the things you refer to (in the extracts from your post as quoted above).

If I own a restaurant or boozer with separate toilet facilities for men and women, I can choose to make that distinction on the basis of sex or gender. If I choose to distinguish those separate facilities on the basis of sex rather than gender, that is my business and there is no law to say I can't do that. What I can't do is unreasonably deny access to someone to the facility on the basis of their sex (e.g. by not having a toilet for one sex or the other).

Likewise, if the IAAF, Athletics Ireland, the FAI or the GAA hold competitions where eligibility to take part is determined by sex rather than gender, that is their business and there is no law to say they can't do that.

Going back to the toilet facilities question, one thing I've noticed in the last couple of years in Ireland (particularly Dublin), is an increase in the number of self-contained "unisex" toilets, especially in small bars and restaurants. Do we need sex-differentiated loos at all, or are they a product of Victorian-era thinking?

Here's another question: If a premises has separate toilet facilities for men and women, is the premises legally entitled to insist that the distinction is based solely on sex, and not on gender - and is it legally entitled to insist that its patrons comply with that distinction?

I think a lot of people would agree with the definitions I think you're presenting:
Sex = anatomy and physical characteristics
Gender = 'social role' typically associated with sex

Still, the Irish passport doesn't have anything that records gender. It does indicate sex. And even using the new politically correct definitions where sex != gender, sex is meant to be the actual anatomy and physical characteristics.

The thing is, I don't see any purpose or need for sex *and* gender. I've been hearing for the last 30 years that gender roles are out-dated and sexist. 'Women' can go to work and 'Men' can raise children. So, I support that. If a woman wants to wear clothes that were traditionally for men (jeans) and if a man wants to wear clothes that were traditionally for women (skirts) - go for it. If we're meant to believe that there shouldn't be pre-defined societal expectations based on sex, what's the point of using gender to reaffirm those?

Gender is a undefinable thing. It's like religion, ultimately, despite my actions, it's my right to declare whatever religion I am. And it's equally my right to declare what gender I am. And given that gender is relative to societal norms, by definition, even if I stay the same, my gender can change. And my opinion can certainly change. My gender might change tomorrow. And, I might even argue that I'm BOTH genders or neither gender - and there isn't anyone who can say I'm wrong. It's like asking me what my favorite food is. Maybe it's pizza, maybe it's not. At the end of the day, whatever I say is what my favorite food is.

But sex is easily definable, except in very rare medical cases. And those cases totally exist, but let's focus on the 99% of people who are clearly either one sex or the other.

Look at something like http://www.womensfitness.ie/membership.html - it's a gym *just* for women. A lot of women feel uncomfortable working out around men. Now, when we say 'men' do we mean 'People who work traditionally male jobs?' - or do we mean 'People who are physically male'. The answer, for anyone who is being honest, is clearly the later. It's SEX that matters here. They don't welcome stay-at-home Dads, even though that is a traditionally female gender role, and because of that, they might self-identify as the female gender.

In all of the situations where we make a distinction based on sex or gender, it's really sex that matters. The gender part is just meaningless fluff. And, we (as in all of western society) has spent the last 30-40 years (if not longer) trying to get us to drop the idea of gender anyway.

So, even though the title says gender, it's pretty clear to me that this is about sex. After all, there is no gender on the passport (and there shouldn't be) and putting a gender on a birth certificate is MEANINGLESS, only that child can decide it's gender. Sex - well, the doctor can record the sex trivially. This is about giving people the ability to redeclare their *sex* on all the documents that have it. If I change my passport, driver's license and birth certificate to say 'F' instead of 'M' - that's my sex, not gender that has changed. And what document could the IAAF or GAA ask me to supply that would indicate that I was originally a male?

Links234 · 07-06-2015 01:48PM

Wibbs wrote: »

+1. Clickbait fodder and in that particular instance it badly backfired on him. You see the same with "the other side" too. The opinion pieces in the Indo and Guardian for example. QV the Una Mallaly's of the world, who can write near farcical articles that cause raised eyebrows, but most importantly sell papers and get views. These type of Daily Mail rants have always been with us. Littlejohn et al have been around for decades. It was mostly the right and conservatives pulling this stuff, but increasingly with the interwebs the left, especially the "looney left" have been playing the same game. An arms race of daft. The publishers cynically love the controversial as you say "because it pays".

Though I would slightly disagree with you on one point Links. IMHO he does believe what he says, he just amps it up for clicks and exposure. Just like I think someone like [insert right/left/feminist//little englander/progressive "journalist" here] believes what they write. IMHO the medium and those who profit from it positively encourages them to believe it more deeply and become more radical.

On this note I've actually found something we can be in agreement with, that on both sides we have clickbait nonsense that drum up controversy, and I find that the Guardian can be nearly as bad as the Daily Mail at times, especially towards trans people. It's regularly been a platform for the likes of Julie Bindel and David Batty, and infamously published a downright insane slur and ephitet filled hate screed from Julie Burchill in which she called transgender people every insult under the sun. It's as much a rag as the rest, which is why I'm a little puzzled when in your other post you cite a Guardian commisioned study as backing your side of the argument, a study that was unsurprisingly misrepresented and even had a controversy baiting headline that wasn't reflected anywhere in the study itself.

As for McInnes, I've no doubt he does believe some of what he says, but the persona he's created is an outlandish charicature. You really do get a sense that he's gone to such lengths to make what he says seem outrageous and extreme as possible, so that he could quite easily just stand up and walk away from it at any moment claiming it was all a bit of banter. Whatever he might actually think it's kinda hard to say because he goes so far to the extreme to be a parody: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4234439649001/gavin-mcinnes-a-message-to-emotional-women-voters/?#sp=show-clips

But either way, no matter how much of his ridiculous sexist, racist homophobic and transphobic rants he actually believes, this is not someone you take seriously. This is not someone who's opinion is worth anything. Oh, and the whole "he's entitled to his opinion" nonense, can we please stop pretending that every opinion has equal merit already!

Darpa · 07-06-2015 02:23PM

P_1 wrote: »

That's fair enough but if a potential employer wanted to see my birth cert they'd be swiftly advised as to the appropriate location to file said request, and I dare say I'm not alone in that.

Any potential employer is entitled to ask for your birth cert if they wish to. All the employees I have, have never had any issues or problem providing one. I would have to question the motives of anyone who does.

As an employer I have to be able check peoples full background, regardless of their reasons for recently changing their identity. Once I'm satisfied their previous record is clean, I couldn't care less about their identity change, but I do have difficulty being presented with a self declared new birth cert that gives no clue whatsoever to someones previous identity, and therefore their criminal record/history or lack of.

RDM_83 again · 07-06-2015 02:27PM

Links234 wrote: »

Actually, that's not the case at all, Denmark and Malta had both passed a similar law. The reason other countries that might be considered more liberal don't have similar rules is because their gender recognition laws were brought in many years ago. Sweden for example was in 1972, but their laws look downright draconian today because it required sterilization before gender recognition, and that included destroying any stored materials eg sperm or eggs. Sweden and Norway are proposing changes to bring their gender recognition laws more inline with ours, Denmark and Malta's. So I imagine the why is that we're doing it now, instead of 4 decades ago, so take that Sweden you gorgeous scandinavian bastards! Hope that helps

Ah didn't realise there was those recent changes, it still doesn't really answer the WHY though, it does seem to be two distinct messages, that Transexualism is a provable physical/neurological difference that shouldn't be considered as a social identity issue, whereas the legislation seems to equate it simply as an issue of people choosing how they feel and everybody should be able to chose their own identity.

To me the first area is a completely valid point of view but in terms of the second, if your going to allow gender to be completely due to self identification (which has its own issues that plays into the whole gender stereotypes thing we have been trying to avoid) your going to have to rewrite lots of society.
Isn't the conflation or Transexuality and Transgenderism actually possibly a negative step as UCDVet points out because we conflate Gender with Sex as a society extremely loose legislation like this will mean a greater emphasis on Sex being the defining characteristic.

The person who I talked about in one of my previous posts is a prime example of how an non assessed system could cause issues unless you start to use Sex in which case those that Transexual will be further stigmatized.

Wibbs · 07-06-2015 02:58PM

Links234 wrote: »

It's as much a rag as the rest, which is why I'm a little puzzled when in your other post you cite a Guardian commisioned study as backing your side of the argument, a study that was unsurprisingly misrepresented and even had a controversy baiting headline that wasn't reflected anywhere in the study itself.

My point was looking to certain areas of science that are extremely "fuzzy" and especially something like the APA DSM definitions can be misleading and oft only serve to "prove" whatever position someone already believes.

In any event regardless of one's position I don't see how the headline isn't reflected in the study presented and the title is only controversial if one disagrees with the conclusion within.

The headline is "Sex changes are not effective, say researchers". Within the article the researchers state "The review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transsexuals by the University of Birmingham's aggressive research intelligence facility (Arif) found no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective.". Which is precisely what the headline says in shorthand. The head of the dept involved goes on to say "Chris Hyde, the director of Arif, said: "There is a huge uncertainty over whether changing someone's sex is a good or a bad thing. While no doubt great care is taken to ensure that appropriate patients undergo gender reassignment, there's still a large number of people who have the surgery but remain traumatised - often to the point of committing suicide."

Arif, which advises the NHS in the West Midlands about the evidence base of healthcare treatments, found that most of the medical research on gender reassignment was poorly designed, which skewed the results to suggest that sex change operations are beneficial.". So pretty clear as far as he is concerned as an advisor to the British health service and again reflected in the shorthand of the headline. TBH I dunno what article you read coming to the conclusion you did, nor does it negate my original point I outlined in that post and the opening paragraph of this one.

TBH on the DSM definitions alone it nigh on beggars belief that human grief and non pathological forgetfulness that can come with the natural course of ageing are included as "disorders", yet transgender, which as I pointed out before shows an incredible level of commonality with other clearly defined body image disorders is off the list and is what now, somehow considered within the "normal" range of human existence? And that's before we get to the commonly held by everyone position that this state of being has a higher level of attendant psychological issues than background. That this new one for most of us transablist folks want to be on the DSM as recognition of their condition, but transgender folks don't seems to suggest to me at least that it's as much about a particular group's wish to be included or not and pressure for that to happen, rather than objective medical science going on.

Though I would say that transgender as a subject is one of the few I can think of that gets it in the neck from both conservatives and many progressives. Quite a chunk of feminists can be just as dismissive, even outright hostile about transgender individuals.

The suicide rates are humbling and scary. On that score alone if this new legislation decreases that risk even a little it's worth it.

captainfrost · 07-06-2015 03:09PM

This should be part of Ireland i have a dream speech.
Godbless Ireland more than the rest. Yes am very selfish and selfcentered!!

Links234 · 07-06-2015 03:57PM

Wibbs wrote: »

My point was looking to certain areas of science that are extremely "fuzzy" and especially something like the APA DSM definitions can be misleading and oft only serve to "prove" whatever position someone already believes.

In any event regardless of one's position I don't see how the headline isn't reflected in the study presented and the title is only controversial if one disagrees with the conclusion within.

That whole study has been utterly debunked previously, and what you're getting in the Guardian article is cherry picking to suit an agenda. The review did not find that sex changes are not effective, it doesn't say that at all, what it says is that they found "no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective" and that is a very significant distinction. To quote from the review:

The overall conclusion reached by ARIF was:

The degree of uncertainty about any of the effects of gender reassignment is such that it is impossible to make a judgement about whether the procedure is clinically effective.

Now, how they go about reaching that conclusion is very interesting. They looked into the methodologies of various different studies on the outcomes of transgender people who had undergone genital surgery, and judged them based on certain criteria. The ARIF has stated that "Most research designs employed to investigate the effects of gender reassignment surgery have not employed a control group." and further,

The points above, by raising significant problems in the conduct of much of the research claiming to show that gender reassignment surgery is beneficial, suggests that the true conclusion from the available research is that we genuinely cannot be certain about what its effects are. A systematic review could help reduce this uncertainty, but because of the flawed nature of the majority of the research it is likely that the only way to reduce the level of uncertainty is to undertake more research using more rigorous designs with a control group, ideally randomly assigned, and blind independentassessment of outcomes

I want you to take careful note of what they are saying here, the main reason they are finding the scientific evidence not to be robust is the lack of a control group. What is a control group and why is it important? "A group of subjects closely resembling the treatment group in many demographic variables but not receiving the active medication or factor under study and thereby serving as a comparison group when treatment results are evaluated."

When studying the outcomes of genital surgery on trans people, you cannot have a control group. It's an absolute impossibility. In a clinical trial of medication, you give the control group a placebo, but there is no placebo for a surgery. You simply can't have a group of people who you trick into thinking they've had serious invasive surgery that requires a lot of aftercare, and you can't do any sort of long term follow up, it's an absolute absurdity. What the ARIF were doing was looking at the scientific evidence and seeing if it met certain criteria that it was not required to meet and would be impossible to meet. Essentially, it was being set up to fail.

jank · 07-06-2015 04:13PM

Wibbs wrote: »

To question the new Dogma, is to be branded a heretic of many titles and ultimately if no repentance is seen, excommunicated. Literally in yer man's case.

Personally, I find it very worrying. You are basically branded a 'denier' one such is a climate change denier. This is the same type of language used by the Spanish Inquisition, that you were a denier of God and his teachings... so off you go to be burned at the stake, to learn of his truth and 'love'.

Darpa · 07-06-2015 04:18PM

jank wrote: »

Personally, I find it very worrying. You are basically branded a 'denier' one such is a climate change denier. This is the same type of language used by the Spanish Inquisition, that you were a denier of God and his teachings... so off you go to be burned at the stake, to learn of his truth and 'love'.

When one power is displaced the vacuum is quickly filled, and not necessarily with anything better.

Links234 · 07-06-2015 04:25PM

Ok folks, can't reply for a while, bit busy what with tying Wibbs to the stake. Then I'm off to find kindling for the fire, and some marshmallows, it's gonna be quite a blaze!

Wibbs · 07-06-2015 05:31PM

Links234 wrote: »

When studying the outcomes of genital surgery on trans people, you cannot have a control group. It's an absolute impossibility. In a clinical trial of medication, you give the control group a placebo, but there is no placebo for a surgery. You simply can't have a group of people who you trick into thinking they've had serious invasive surgery that requires a lot of aftercare, and you can't do any sort of long term follow up, it's an absolute absurdity. What the ARIF were doing was looking at the scientific evidence and seeing if it met certain criteria that it was not required to meet and would be impossible to meet. Essentially, it was being set up to fail.

Indeed and echoing my point earlier that "research" in many areas of science, in this case medical science are extremely dubious sources to draw any worthwhile conclusions from and what conclusions are drawn are as much, if not more about what the researcher wants to find out. When small sample sizes and as you point out the lack, or practicality of a control group precludes concrete conclusions*.

This goes for the research since that time that has decided a complete about face on the subject, but just as the Guardian position was to say "it's pointless/we don't know", your position would be to find it clinically worthwhile. By the same metrics you dismiss the conclusions of that study(rightfully) you believe the conclusions of the studies that support your position.

So what concrete "facts" can be deduced? As I said on all sides there is agreement that trans individuals have higher levels of mental illness, up to suicide ideation than non trans individuals. The other day I read up to nine times background levels, which seems crazy high. Though troubling and more resources and support is clearly needed, there is also an element of bad news travels farther to it too. The good news of the transgender individuals who don't have suicidal ideation can be lost in the mix. Indeed finding out if there are obvious differences between the two groups would be a plan. If their narrative is anything like the background reasons I've read on suicide in gay folks, community acceptance especially from their families, or lack of it is a huge factor.

PS The more I read on the DSM definition, the more it looks like a token name change to take the sting out of it rather than any change in the consideration that it's a disorder.

*"You simply can't have a group of people who you trick into thinking they've had serious invasive surgery that requires a lot of aftercare, and you can't do any sort of long term follow up, it's an absolute absurdity". Interestingly there was a surgery, albeit on a much smaller level that tried to do just this. IIRC it was either knee or back "keyhole" surgery, where both groups had the small keyhole incisions, but half didn't have the actual surgery and what they found was a very strong placebo effect in those who had the fake surgery. Their satisfaction of treatment and results wasn't far off those who had the full procedure

Darpa · 07-06-2015 05:32PM

Links234 wrote: »

Ok folks, can't reply for a while, bit busy what with tying Wibbs to the stake. Then I'm off to find kindling for the fire, and some marshmallows, it's gonna be quite a blaze!

Wibbs is doing well to speak out though, I don't think you should be having a passive aggressive go at him

Wibbs · 07-06-2015 05:33PM

Links234 wrote: »

Ok folks, can't reply for a while, bit busy what with tying Wibbs to the stake. Then I'm off to find kindling for the fire, and some marshmallows, it's gonna be quite a blaze!

Don't expect much of a barbecue out of it mind you as I'm mostly bone and gristle.

P_1 · 07-06-2015 06:04PM

Darpa wrote: »

Wibbs is doing well to speak out though, I don't think you should be having a passive aggressive go at him

And this folks is why no one should take what they read on the internet too seriously.

Darpa · 07-06-2015 06:10PM

P_1 wrote: »

And this folks is why no one should take what they read on the internet too seriously.

Or rather don't be taking yourself too seriously

KomradeBishop · 07-06-2015 06:19PM

nokia69 wrote: »

what the hell is wrong with people like you, is your mind and world view so fragile that you can't stand someone having a different opinion, cop yourself on

Simple fact is: Not everyones opinion is valid, and if people don't screen their sources before taking them as credible/serious, then people are just volunteering to fool themselves into taking on questionable views, through osmosis.

If people give a bigot like McInnes credibility, and choose to read his garbage to try and separate the 'valid points' from the 'bad points' - then they are not being smart, because every living person is susceptible to conditioning themselves into believing nonsense (even when they know at first that it is nonsense), by osmosis - just by repeatedly reading the same nonsense again and again, until they let their guard down and begin to take it in subconsciously.

That's why sources with a history of discreditable views, like McInnes, should be shunned by people - if he has any valid points worth making, then those promoting such valid points, should be able to find a more creditable source...(otherwise, it's fair to assume that if only bigots like McInnes can be found spouting a certain view, that view can be lumped in with the rest of his nonsense)

KomradeBishop · 07-06-2015 06:42PM

jank wrote: »

Personally, I find it very worrying. You are basically branded a 'denier' one such is a climate change denier. This is the same type of language used by the Spanish Inquisition, that you were a denier of God and his teachings... so off you go to be burned at the stake, to learn of his truth and 'love'.

There is an ongoing fight between science, and those who want to reduce science down to 'opinion' - and naturally, anyone and everyone who holds questionable views (most especially where they contradict evidence), want to try and play-down science and make every debate just a matter of "my opinion vs your opinion (instead of vs evidence)" - because that's the only way that arguments in denial of evidence can survive.

It's anti-intellectualism, at its core - and usually people who use these tactics, try to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about science/evidence (promoting denial of science/evidence, i.e. Denialism), and try to engage in emotive arguments - i.e. faux concern about censorship, and "PC brigade stop oppressing me!" type arguments (when nobody is trying to silence them...in fact they are sometimes extremely uncivil in debate, to try and silence others), to try and give the impression they are just attacking sacred cows - when instead they are just trying to push a particular agenda.

They are simple propaganda tactics really - not hard to see through either.

Links234 · 07-06-2015 07:22PM

Wibbs wrote: »

If their narrative is anything like the background reasons I've read on suicide in gay folks, community acceptance especially from their families, or lack of it is a huge factor.

Yes, trans people face staggering levels of discrimination and rejection, and this is a factor. In America a report from the National LGBTQ Task Force showed some shocking results, and in reference to what you're saying here, it showed that trans people who have been rejected by their families had a rate of attempted suicide that was 19% higher than those who had family acceptance. Transgender people regularly face public harassment, assaults and worse, trans people also face discrimination in the workplace, housing and public life, all of this has a negative effect on the mental health of the transgender population.

This is why I have such a problem with the way everyone's discussing Caitlyn Jenner, without wanting to belittle, her experience is so far removed what your average trans person experiences and the media campaign is ignoring the serious issues facing the trans community.

Wibbs wrote: »

PS The more I read on the DSM definition, the more it looks like a token name change to take the sting out of it rather than any change in the consideration that it's a disorder.

It's not a token name change at all, there is a very significant difference. "Gender Identity Disorder" described being transgender as the disorder, in that such a diagnosis would have essentially marked someone for life as disordered and was considered stigmatizing, whereas "Gender Dysphoria" describes the distress felt by those who are transgender and it is extremely important because gender dysphoria that can be alleviated and that is what is seen as this issue. I transitioned years ago now, so I had the diagnosis of GID and if that still existed I would still be described as someone who suffered from an identity disorder. But today I'm not someone who could be described as suffering from gender dysphoria, because I no longer have that. You can understand how that is an extremely important distinction I hope.

Darpa wrote: »

Wibbs is doing well to speak out though, I don't think you should be having a passive aggressive go at him

I'm not having a go at him, I'm taking the piss out of Jank's hysterical, alarmist post saying people are being burned at the stake for having an different opinion by pretending I'm going to burn Wibbs at the stake and toast marshmallows while doing it. It's one of them joke things that liberal progressive types like me supposedly don't get because we've got no sense of humour or souls.

Speaking of... How the **** did you get off that stake Wibbs?!

Well screw it, there's strawmen so big being constructed around here I'm gonna stick ya in one of them and send you up like Edward Woodward! :pac:

AlphaRed · 07-06-2015 09:00PM

Apparently not everyone is happy about this, especially lesbians?

So some lesbians feel the trans are hijacking their cause and don't consider them to be "real" women because of biology

I watched this debate last night
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bo-70Mm4oI

Wibbs · 07-06-2015 09:23PM

Links234 wrote: »

I'm not having a go at him, I'm taking the piss out of Jank's hysterical, alarmist post saying people are being burned at the stake for having an different opinion by pretending I'm going to burn Wibbs at the stake and toast marshmallows while doing it. It's one of them joke things that liberal progressive types like me supposedly don't get because we've got no sense of humour or souls.

Yea I didn't come close to thinking you were having a go at me at all.

My first thoughts were "bitch please, marshmallows my arse".(which I gather is a fetish in Denmark)

Speaking of... How the **** did you get off that stake Wibbs?!

As I said L, "I'm mostly bone and gristle", so wriggling out of the frankly piss poor rope bindings was easy. You need one of those Japanese rope fetish dudes or dudesses on the case.

Wibbs · 07-06-2015 09:28PM

AlphaRed wrote: »

Apparently not everyone is happy about this, especially lesbians?

So some lesbians feel the trans are hijacking their cause and don't consider them to be "real" women because of biology

I watched this debate last night
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bo-70Mm4oI

As I said earlier AR transgender folks get it from multiple angles. Most what might be seen as "right on" causes get full backing from the spectrum of the "left" and "progressives". Trans folks do not. They're pretty unique in this. When right wing nut jobs like MRA eejits and left wing nut jobs like tenth wave feminists are on the same page my tendency is to think WTF? I'm tending more in sympathy the accosted here.

Darpa · 07-06-2015 09:32PM

Problem is if you're a right on lesbian claiming to be persecuted and having it hard a trans will trump you and steal the show every time, and probably be better looking as a woman to boot.

P_1 · 07-06-2015 09:44PM

Darpa wrote: »

Problem is if you're a right on lesbian claiming to be persecuted and having it hard a trans will trump you and steal the show every time, and probably be better looking as a woman to boot.

There is nor should there be a hierarchy in matters like this though. The trouble is that there are some folk out there who have a platform who's ideas and opinions would make the tin foil hat brigade seem rather intellectual by comparison.

jank · 08-06-2015 05:19AM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

There is an ongoing fight between science, and those who want to reduce science down to 'opinion' - and naturally, anyone and everyone who holds questionable views (most especially where they contradict evidence), want to try and play-down science and make every debate just a matter of "my opinion vs your opinion (instead of vs evidence)" - because that's the only way that arguments in denial of evidence can survive.

It's anti-intellectualism, at its core - and usually people who use these tactics, try to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about science/evidence (promoting denial of science/evidence, i.e. Denialism), and try to engage in emotive arguments - i.e. faux concern about censorship, and "PC brigade stop oppressing me!" type arguments (when nobody is trying to silence them...in fact they are sometimes extremely uncivil in debate, to try and silence others), to try and give the impression they are just attacking sacred cows - when instead they are just trying to push a particular agenda.

They are simple propaganda tactics really - not hard to see through either.

All well and good but as remarked earlier by Wibbs there is so much bad science out there to begin with. Take for example Climate change, well is climate change real? Probably, however, is it man-made climate change? Well that is the interesting question. The climate has been changing for thousands of years without mans help, so how can we be 100% sure that present day climate change is indeed man's doing. No doubt you can go off and cite a study to this effect and I can go off and google another study that contradicts it. We both are not scientists so why bother engage in this pointless pissing in the wind. Science good or bad, is often just used to try gain an advantage in a debate, hence is so politicised now and often it gets no where and adds to the confusion and where good science is lost in the mess.

Another case. Homosexuality and Transgenderism. Is there conclusive science on this? You mentioned yourself that the brain is a 'black-box' and I happen to agree. No one has really any clue on what causes the above. However, science is used to suit the argument. It has not been mentioned in this debate, well because there is no conclusive science to back up the present argument. Yet, in another debate say on SSM you will have the same people drag out study after study in order to win the point. Its kinda having it all your own way, having your cake and eating it.

My previous point really was about the language used to described dissenters to the latest cause du jour, what ever fashionable cause of the day it may be. People latch onto ideas with a religious fervour of old even though they may not be religious themselves, which is the ultimate irony of modern day secularism. People who have swayed from the progressive approved line of thinking have been called 'bigots' and been accused of trying to dehumanise transgender people. Very much like a presit of old calling out heretics because they don't like the the points being raised. Then of course you have people like yourself engaged in character assassin, calling out the motives of people who dare even ask a question about poorly drafted legislation, which feeds into the above.

jank · 08-06-2015 05:42AM

Links234 wrote: »

I'm not having a go at him, I'm taking the piss out of Jank's hysterical, alarmist post saying people are being burned at the stake for having an different opinion by pretending I'm going to burn Wibbs at the stake and toast marshmallows while doing it. It's one of them joke things that liberal progressive types like me supposedly don't get because we've got no sense of humour or souls.

Perhaps you should read my post as you are deliberately being dishonest here. I did not say people are being burned alive, I only mentioned the language used by some people when it comes to certain topics. The word 'denier' is branded out used to caterogise those you reject the notion of man made climate change just as one example. The word denier had its origins in the Spanish Inquisition. I was just referring to its historical context. It always surprises me that people of no belief engage in similar thought practises and use language that would not be out of place in a church (hence denier). Yet, these people would think of themselves as 'enlightened'. You for example have previously made xenophobic posts about a country yet would tick most boxes of the progressive mould.

Clearlier · 08-06-2015 10:15AM

jank wrote: »

All well and good but as remarked earlier by Wibbs there is so much bad science out there to begin with. Take for example Climate change, well is climate change real? Probably, however, is it man-made climate change? Well that is the interesting question. The climate has been changing for thousands of years without mans help, so how can we be 100% sure that present day climate change is indeed man's doing. No doubt you can go off and cite a study to this effect and I can go off and google another study that contradicts it. We both are not scientists so why bother engage in this pointless pissing in the wind. Science good or bad, is often just used to try gain an advantage in a debate, hence is so politicised now and often it gets no where and adds to the confusion and where good science is lost in the mess.

Another case. Homosexuality and Transgenderism. Is there conclusive science on this? You mentioned yourself that the brain is a 'black-box' and I happen to agree. No one has really any clue on what causes the above. However, science is used to suit the argument. It has not been mentioned in this debate, well because there is no conclusive science to back up the present argument. Yet, in another debate say on SSM you will have the same people drag out study after study in order to win the point. Its kinda having it all your own way, having your cake and eating it.

My previous point really was about the language used to described dissenters to the latest cause du jour, what ever fashionable cause of the day it may be. People latch onto ideas with a religious fervour of old even though they may not be religious themselves, which is the ultimate irony of modern day secularism. People who have swayed from the progressive approved line of thinking have been called 'bigots' and been accused of trying to dehumanise transgender people. Very much like a presit of old calling out heretics because they don't like the the points being raised. Then of course you have people like yourself engaged in character assassin, calling out the motives of people who dare even ask a question about poorly drafted legislation, which feeds into the above.

Just because there's a lot of bad science out there doesn't meant that you dismiss it. You examine it, you critique it and you try to do better and work out better ways of doing things. You call out misrepresentations of it. You don't just plead ignorance and leave it alone. You do the best that you can. As part of that you weigh up the available evidence and make the best decisions that you can. Sometimes you end up revisiting those decisions as new information becomes available.

There may be questions about the source of 'homosexuality and transgenderism' in the same sense as there are questions about the source of heterosexuality. Just because we don't understand the mechanism of something doesn't mean that it's not real and there's no question about their existence.

A quick note on the whole 'bigot' thing. Your last paragraph is quickly becoming the classic response from thoughtless people (N.B. I'm not making a comment on any of your other posts here as I haven't followed your contribution). It happens on both sides of the debate and is a reflection of people who fail to engage with the argument sometimes because they just don't want things to change/remain the same, other times because their arguments have been exposed as flimsy and still others because they simply don't understand the arguments. Sometimes it manifests itself subtly in constant restatement of someone's position without any acknowledgement of a counter argument, other times it's more overt taking the form of abusive or semi-abusive language. Whatever the form that it takes it doesn't deserve any attention and it certainly doesn't add anything to the discussion.

kunst nugget · 08-06-2015 10:43AM

jank wrote: »

All well and good but as remarked earlier by Wibbs there is so much bad science out there to begin with. Take for example Climate change, well is climate change real? Probably, however, is it man-made climate change? Well that is the interesting question. The climate has been changing for thousands of years without mans help, so how can we be 100% sure that present day climate change is indeed man's doing. No doubt you can go off and cite a study to this effect and I can go off and google another study that contradicts it. We both are not scientists so why bother engage in this pointless pissing in the wind. Science good or bad, is often just used to try gain an advantage in a debate, hence is so politicised now and often it gets no where and adds to the confusion and where good science is lost in the mess.

The climate change argument is a bit of a nonsense tbh. We have plenty of people denying climate change in the media but very little are writing peer-reviewed articles in relation to it. In an analysis of the 2,258 (with 9,136 authors) peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013, only one author explicitly rejected human-driven global warming.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html

Irish state now will now accept a trans persons own declaration of their gender

Comments