Jonathan Clynch of RTE Radio News to become Jonathan Rachel Clynch #See post 1/81#

frostyjacks · 16-09-2015 12:37pm

dottie_lottie wrote: »

But its not a male leader in this theory, it is a gender fluid or intersex leader who through choice of their parents was raised as male despite their biology. This is not just some bloke with a wig slapped on, a flowery dress and handbag stumbling in heels

How would a parent be expected to raise a boy or girl other than according to their gender? Should blue and pink be discouraged, in place of beige? Western civilisation has jumped the shark.

MTBD · 16-09-2015 12:42pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek:

Oh my Holy God!! Those bastard parents!! They looked at his nether regions when he emerged into the world, observed a little tinkie and decided without consultation with the squealing infant that it was a boy.

Subsequently they potty trained him to pee standing up, encouraged him to play with fire engines and footballs and probably sent him to an all boys school.

What chance did the poor kid have!

Look we get it. Some people feel they are trapped in the wrong gender and would like to swop. And now, thanks to the miracles of medical science they can. But are we now to treat, from the moment of birth it would appear according to your screed, EVERYBODY as being "gender fluid" and guard against any possible presumption of preordained sexual identification?

Puhllease. The world is complicated enough.

Jaysus, there is some outrageous nonsense being spouted in this thread. Its amazing how people were once expected to leave their personal lives at home. That seems to not apply anymore if it has to do with you having an odd sexual/gender preference.

Max Mosely probably felt more comfortable in leather, assless chaps while being holding a feather duster. That was his true self and identity. I firmly believe he should have dressed to reflect that, while negotiating Formula 1 deals with Bernie Ecclestone.

Why does your true genuine self have to express itself when it comes to sexuality? There are many other facets of life that people keep secret or dont bring in to their work lives.

Triceratops Ballet · 16-09-2015 12:55pm

frostyjacks wrote:

How would a parent be expected to raise a boy or girl other than according to their gender? Should blue and pink be discouraged, in place of beige? Western civilisation has jumped the shark.

There is no blame on parents intended by that statement. Parents raise their kids as best they can and they dont all have all the biological info at the time. But that doesnt mean that should awareness of genderfluidity come about that the person should be told "well no you were born a boy so hop back in your box there"

MTBD · 16-09-2015 1:03pm

dottie_lottie wrote: »

Parents raise their kids as best they can and they dont all have all the biological info at the time.

What? So they dont know what genitals the child was born with? What hospital did you go to?

I think what you mean to say is they dont know the psychological issues their child will present with later in life at birth. You do seem to be suggesting we should all raise our children in a gender neutral way to appease the 1 in 1000 (or whatever it is) gender confused people out there.

Harry Angstrom · 18-09-2015 4:44pm

Interesting point just raised on the George Hook Show. If Mr/Ms Clynch decided to run for election, would he/she qualify for the female gender quota if he/she ran as a woman..........?

L1011 · 18-09-2015 4:48pm

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Interesting point just raised on the George Hook Show. If Mr/Ms Clynch decided to run for election, would he/she qualify for the female gender quota if he/she ran as a woman..........?

I suspect the birth or changed by determination under the new gender recognition act gender would be what would count for that

Second Toughest in_the Freshers · 18-09-2015 4:54pm

Can't you legally change gender and change back again under this act?

Harry Angstrom · 18-09-2015 4:56pm

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

Can't you legally change gender and change back again under this act?

Presumably if you're "gender fluid", you'd be legally changing it every second day.....

Omackeral · 18-09-2015 5:06pm

If you were to lose a loved one, and the male undertaker dealt with the funeral arrangements with the utmost professionalism but on the day of the actual funeral rocked up dressed as a woman while spouting some guff about "gender fluid"

amdublin wrote: »

I'd have no problem with that.

I'm gonna go ahead and say that most people would have a problem with that and they'd be well within their rights to.

youtube! · 18-09-2015 5:07pm

Ehm I wonder how the toilet arrangements at RTE are going to work out? If I was a woman I reckon I would feel very weird about "Rachel" in the next cubicle. I have noticed even some members of the gay community are distancing themselves from this Gender fluid lark.

furiousox · 18-09-2015 5:59pm

RTE have been fully supportive.
I'm sure they'd have no problem with Jonathan Rachel helming the main evening television news on a regular basis. :rolleyes:

Trick of the Tail · 18-09-2015 10:38pm

1. His gender isn't 'fluid', there's no such thing. Gender is determined by genetics. He is male. Psychologically he may not be comfortable with that, but factually that's the way it is.
2. I don't care about his gender issues or sexual proclivities or anything about him. All I care about is the news items he reports on.

Why has he seen the need to involve all of us in his personal life?

Shut up and do your job.

I heart TV · 18-09-2015 11:14pm

I think it's only a matter of time until a lot of teenage boys start having gender fluid on school PE day and demand to be allowed in the girls changing room.

LorMal · 18-09-2015 11:17pm

A pinta gender fluid and a package a Tayto please....

Second Toughest in_the Freshers · 18-09-2015 11:19pm

:eek:

Canadel · 19-09-2015 2:13am

Omackeral wrote: »

I'm gonna go ahead and say that most people would have a problem with that and they'd be well within their rights to.

That you would have a problem with it, especially on such an occasion, genuinely makes me feel sorry for you. Terribly sad way to live.

youtube! wrote: »

Ehm I wonder how the toilet arrangements at RTE are going to work out? If I was a woman I reckon I would feel very weird about "Rachel" in the next cubicle.

Unisex bathrooms do exist you know.

Omackeral · 19-09-2015 7:18am

Canadel wrote: »

That you would have a problem with it, especially on such an occasion, genuinely makes me feel sorry for you. Terribly sad way to live.

Especially on such an occasion? That's the whole point. That's specifically an occasion where decorum is called for. You'd feel sorry for me would you? That's some amout of bending over backwards to show how tolerant you are. You have no idea how I live my life by the way. I am onside for plenty of things seen as liberal or left wing. I welcome refugees, I voted yes for marriage equality, I dont think Travellers are all bad folks. But if some fella decides he's gonna show up in a dress at someone's funeral, I'm gonna bet that 99% of people are gonna question it. No actually do you know what? 100% of people are gonna question it. It'll be a topic of discussion. You can go ahead and feel sorry for whoever you want and say "oh I wouldn't even notice" in your attempt at being oh so accepting of everything, EVERYTHING but you really just come off as either deluded and smug or else a bit of a liar.

Annasopra · 19-09-2015 8:31am

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

Can't you legally change gender and change back again under this act?

Yes but the Act only applies to binary transgender people. So it's silly to suggest that people would be changing their gender legally every second day.

Fr Tod Umptious · 19-09-2015 8:40am

I think that people who are suggesting that they would have no problem with, and that others should have no problem with, the funeral director example shown here is a perfect case of someone being so open minded that their brain is falling out.

Nody · 19-09-2015 8:51am

//MOD

Since some people appear to have a slight issues with reading let me make this 100% clear:

Try to be "funny" about Jonathan Rachel Clynch gender (or anyone else in similar situation) or bash him about it and you WILL be banned. There is very clearly outlined in the charter and multiple people are serving bans inc. permanent bans due to this. If you are so bloody insecure and immature that you can't handle the topic then I suggest you crawl back into your cave and never back out until you've matured and grown up.

//MOD

Amirani · 19-09-2015 8:53am

Whatever someone does in their private time is obviously fair game and none of anyone else's business. Fair play to them for having the courage to be what they want to be.

This doesn't quite extend to the professional world. The taoiseach, a funeral director, a barrister, an actor aren't free to "be themselves" while they're working. People saying that "as long as they do their job properly is fine" are missing a key point - a huge portion of doing the job properly is looking a certain way, detracting attention and giving an aura of assurability. If Enda Kenny wants to act gender fluid in his private time, that's fine. If he wants to do it while meeting heads of state of CEOs of multinationals, then it's not. If he wants to change gender fully, that's also fine in my view as it allows overcoming the major problems above.

LorMal · 19-09-2015 9:36am

Nody wrote: »

//MOD

Since some people appear to have a slight issues with reading let me make this 100% clear:

Try to be "funny" about Jonathan Rachel Clynch gender (or anyone else in similar situation) or bash him about it and you WILL be banned. There is very clearly outlined in the charter and multiple people are serving bans inc. permanent bans due to this. If you are so bloody insecure and immature that you can't handle the topic then I suggest you crawl back into your cave and never back out until you've matured and grown up.

//MOD

is sucha hostile tone really necessary?
There is legitimate cause to question the validity of Jonathan Clinch's public announcement. I personally believe it is bizarre attention seeking behaviour and I would worry about his mental health.
I have no problem with anyone deciding to do what they want as long as they are not harming others. (Although this is very odd).
However, by making it a media event, he has opened this issue up for debate (and satire - as with any public figure). Gender 'fluidity' is very controversial and is not a generally accepted concept. I think the concept can be validly questioned and even mocked.
I agree that the individual himself should not be personally undermined in any way. However,the concept of gender fluidity is on par with homeopathy or spiritualism - some may believe in it but it is unproven scientifically.
If you decide to prevent satire or mockery on this issue, how is that different from the Catholic Church here banning 'the Life of Brian' in the 1980s?

c montgomery · 19-09-2015 9:41am

Canadel wrote: »

That you would have a problem with it, especially on such an occasion, genuinely makes me feel sorry for you. Terribly sad way to live.
Unisex bathrooms do exist you know.

On every occasion where I have been at a venue with unisex bathrooms both sexes have had a problem with them.
Men and women don't want to hear each other **** and then bump into each other while washing hands.

c montgomery · 19-09-2015 9:48am

LorMal wrote: »

<deleted post>

I agree 100% that this is attention seeking.
Unknown person feels the need to tell the world that he's gender fluid, a term most are unaware of and don't really care about.

To me it's like the only gay in the village sketch in little Britain, ohhh look at me look at me, no one cares!

I read it as unknown rte employee wants to cross dress while working. Well maybe he should have to re interview for his job if he's going to be 2 different people, I presume his contract is only for 1 person.

Annasopra · 19-09-2015 10:00am

c montgomery wrote: »

On every occasion where I have been at a venue with unisex bathrooms both sexes have had a problem with them.
Men and women don't want to hear each other **** and then bump into each other while washing hands.

SOME men and SOME women might have that problem. Don't try to claim all do.

LorMal · 19-09-2015 10:05am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

SOME men and SOME women might have that problem. Don't try to claim all do.

Indeed. However, I would suggest most do. See how many unisex public bathrooms exist around the world.
It's about allowing people dignity.

c montgomery · 19-09-2015 10:14am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

SOME men and SOME women might have that problem. Don't try to claim all do.

Bit touchy are we?
I never calmed all do! I stated on all occasions where I have been at a venue where there are unisex bathrooms both sexes in my company felt uncomfortable with them.
It's always a talking point when there encountered as there not so common, I can't recall anyone every saying they liked them.

As with everyone's opinion it'd based on my life experiences, I don't claim to speak to All humanity ðŸ˜˜

Citizen2011 · 19-09-2015 10:17am

It's got to the stage where RTE are incapable of delivering anything close to objective news reporting. Totally biased reporting on the SSM referendum. Anybody who dared disagree was vilified

QUOTE=heybaby;97006096]How exactly? Are you suggesting their journalistic standards are compromised by their gender ambiguity? Or are you suggesting that because someone's gender identity isn't set in stone, you have a problem taking them seriously as a broadcaster? If it's the latter then that is your problem to resolve not Clinch's and not RTE's.

I think you are placing too much significance on the messenger and not enough on the message. For me, if a broadcaster is biased or just simply bad at their job, that would rob them of gravitas or credibility alot sooner than any gender ambiguity.

I think also you underestimate society's ability not to give a sh!t about things like this anymore. Ive heard no outcry from the general population echoing fears voiced in this thread.[/QUOTE]

bbability · 20-09-2015 12:36am

I've tried to stay away from this one because I'm not comfortable with it at all. I had had to google "gender fluid" the other day to find out exactly what it is and I'm sure I wasn't the only one. But seriously I go to work to work and my private life is my private life.
I can only speak for myself here. I would find it difficult to get my head around a person who comes to work as a man with a man's name one day and comes to work the next day as a women with a women's name.

I also believe RTE have a duty of care to (i) the employee above (ii) the rest of the employees who work with this person as they probably will need time and space to get their heads around this and (iii) RTE have a duty of care as a public broadcaster to the general public which I think they have handled this situation ok so far.
Rather them than me.

Grolschevik · 20-09-2015 12:50am

Ah listen. He just wants to be enabled/allowed to wear women's clothes at work occasionally. No big deal.

Since the Finucane interview got pulled, all we have to go on is the newspaper story.

As a professional journalist, albeit one I was only vaguely aware of, I very much doubt he'll present radio News at One in a dress (but who'd see it?) or read the late news on TV in drag.

If he wants to dress as a woman doing research, editing, or writing, I don't give a toss. (I also wouldn't give a toss if he was dressed as a woman while interviewing anyone).

However, I really very much doubt he'd turn up to a heavyweight interview (or any interview) in a skirt and heels.

Though if he did, I'd say 'fair play'!

Jonathan Clynch of RTE Radio News to become Jonathan Rachel Clynch #See post 1/81#

Comments