Are we going to talk about our kids? [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 02-06-2020 10:31pm #1

Admin: Thread rules are simple. Legitimate discussion only. Any Godwin's Law type arguments, tarring everyone with the paedophile brush, threadshïtting, winding others up, or trolling and it means an instant red card and threadban. Particularly dickish responses will be met with a week long forum ban.

If you can't abide by that (i.e. posting with common decency), then this isn't the thread for you. There will be no further mod warnings beyond this point.

Children under the age of 16 could be able to legally change their gender.

Under current legislation, only people over 18 can legally change their gender.

Fine Gael is discussing the proposal, following a report from its LGBT committee.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/children-under-16-could-legally-change-gender-under-new-proposals-from-lgbt-committee-1002933.html

Children changing their "gender" is absolutely wrong. Yes let them wear what they want and act how they want but legally, no. It's far too much. It's an already confusing time and they're already being bombarded with wondering if they're straight/gay/whatever. Introducing this idea to them is a step too far. First it'll be "legally" they're the opposite sex and next the LGBT crowd will be pushing for irreversible surgery/hormone treatment. The term legally opens up a whole other can of worms down the line too. Lets keep the discussion to the kids as we all know well what other problems are created by the likes of Jonathan Yaniv etc.

This is a mental health issue, telling kids they can be whatever "gender" they want is absolute lunacy.

CinemaGuy45 · 02-06-2020 10:32pm

I agree but at the same time I also don't really care.

In life we have to pick our battles I think I will sit this one out.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 02-06-2020 10:33pm

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I agree but at the same time I also don't really care.

I identify as a 14 year old girl. Legally I can play on your daughters soccer team, use her changing room, shower with her.

Do you care now?

CinemaGuy45 · 02-06-2020 10:35pm

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I identify as a 14 year old girl. Legally I can play on your daughters soccer team, use her changing room, shower with her.

Do you care now?

Good point and yes I care now.

Quantum Erasure · 02-06-2020 11:00pm

Ireland recognises 'self declaration' under the gender recognition act 2015, and you get two free changes, just incase you decide it wasn't for you... (after that it has to be medically certified)

Madeleine Birchfield · 03-06-2020 1:34am

There are huge problems with having children change gender, not the least that they are not yet legally adults so their parents are legally responsible for their children. There is also the whole issue of puberty which manifests differently between biological males and females and thus the child would have different discussions with their peers about their bodies depending on their biological sexes. Most women don't go to men to talk about their first period for example. Then there are a lot of drugs involved in transitioning, and many children aren't yet capable of understanding the numerous side effects of said drugs to the natural development of the body, on top of all the changes due to puberty and the interactions between the two, and therefore aren't capable of making a rational, informed decision. And so on.

Mellor · 03-06-2020 1:53am

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I identify as a 14 year old girl. Legally I can play on your daughters soccer team, use her changing room, shower with her.

Do you care now?

This is very odd logic.
How does your gender, genetic or identified, have have any impact on legality of showering with a strangers child? Do you think it's ok for you to do that in the boys changing room now because you're a man. That's worrying tbh.

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Acceptance of pedophiles.

This is ironic, assumption that same sex pedophilia is ok.

_Kaiser_ · 03-06-2020 2:06am

Mellor wrote: »

This is very odd logic.
How does your gender, genetic or identified, have have any impact on legality of showering with a strangers child? Do you think it's ok for you to do that in the boys changing room now because you're a man. That's worrying tbh.

The point is that if we are meant to accept a child's view of their sexuality without question, and even validate and celebrate it - then so too must we accept anyone else's view of theirs.

But as you rightly point out, that would be nonsense. Just as allowing a child to make such a far reaching decision at a time when they're still very much open to external influences and particularly online agendas would similarly be nonsense.

When they're legally and emotionally mature enough to make such a decision then so be it if that's their wish. However I'll add that no one else is obligated to validate it or deny the reality behind it. Most people will adopt a live and let live approach which is absolutely correct but this is all that can be expected - or indeed increasingly demanded for that matter.

auspicious · 03-06-2020 2:43am

No. Ever without question.
In this day and age, obviously referring to this generations access to the World Wide Web and all its confusing nuances and misdirections, we should never take an inexperienced child's declaration of outward expression as justification for irreversible change.
A serious professional psychological assessment is of utmost necessity to ensure forward thinking.

Rubberchikken · 03-06-2020 4:26am

I have no issue with homosexuality, abortion or same sex marriage. But allowing a minor to decide to change their sex by surgery is irresponsible, and downright foolish.
Fine Gael backing such nonsense is nothing new from our homeless taoiseach. He lives for 'likes'.

fran38 · 03-06-2020 4:35am

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I have no issue with homosexuality, abortion or same sex marriage. But allowing a minor to decide to change their sex by surgery is irresponsible, and downright foolish.
Fine Gael backing such nonsense is nothing new from our homeless taoiseach. He lives for 'likes'.

Birth control, homosexuality, adolescent sex, pornography, and prostitution were once sinful or subversive sexual practices in the past but have have been integrated into the marketplace, irreversibly changing moral values. The once illicit has become a norm.

We may proudly boast "I have no problem with...." but can you not see the thin end of the wedge in that once we accept something, eventually we accept everything.

Mellor · 03-06-2020 5:03am

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The point is that if we are meant to accept a child's view of their sexuality without question, and even validate and celebrate it - then so too must we accept anyone else's view of their.

The topic was gender, not sexuality. They aren't related in the slightest.
Whether somebody is male or female has no bearing on whether they are a pedophile.

Just because you chose accept an somebody's gender identify, doesn't mean you have to accept pedophilia. I don't particularly care about the topic, as it doesn't affect me. I'm was just baffled that the above logic was the concern.

Hunky Monster wrote: »

You've taken my comment COMPLETELY out of context. I will not be responding to you at all.

I quoted you post in its entirety. Where did I take it out of context? That wasn't my intent. I was trying to point out the flaw in your pointing out the flaw in your logic.

You literally made a statement about the law;

I identify as a 14 year old girl. Legally I can play on your daughters soccer team, use her changing room, shower with her.

That statement is 100% false.
It's illegal for you to shower with children whether you are male or female. I don't see how people changing gender has any impact on that. Please explain what you meant if I misunderstood, or if I'm missing the context.

Mellor · 03-06-2020 5:24am

fran38 wrote: »

The subject of letting society including children (my God, children!! :eek::eek::eek:) decide whether to cut off or modify their genitalia is grotesque & mirrors the great decline and fall of many cultures that has come before us.

You are confusing gender identify with sexual transition surgery.
Not sure whether that's intentional, but really weakens any opinion you have.

It's a fair comment though. When we take into account how homosexuality has been normalised as well as same sex marriage.[/QUOTE]
Do you think that normalisation of homosexuality is right or wrong?
It's not really clear what you are saying here.

fran38 wrote: »

Birth control, homosexuality, adolescent sex, pornography, and prostitution were once sinful or subversive sexual practices in the past but have have been integrated into the marketplace, irreversibly changing moral values. The once illicit has become a norm.

Do you have a problem with birth control or pornography?

I it funny the church ever had that stance tbh. Comdoms are evil, **** is the work of the devil.
Meanwhile molesting alterboys is no big deal. :rolleyes:

...but can you not see the thin end of the wedge in that once we accept something, eventually we accept everything.

Ah the slippery slope argument. Isn't that well know logically fallacy?
There's no logical basis for accept one accept all.

I mean, if that were true, then the logical conclusion is to accept nothing at all. No sex before marriage, no masturbating, no kissing, no contact between men and women unless married, no kissing. Sex for procreation only.
Obvious that's ridiculous. So is the idea that we have to accept pedophiles.

fran38 · 03-06-2020 5:29am

Mellor wrote: »

You are confusing gender identify with sexual transition surgery.
Not sure whether that's intentional, but really weakens any opinion you have.

It's a fair comment though. When we take into account how homosexuality has been normalised as well as same sex marriage.

Do you think that normalisation of homosexuality is right or wrong?
It's not really clear what you are saying here.

Do you have a problem with birth control or pornography?

I it funny the church ever had that stance tbh. Comdoms are evil, **** is the work of the devil.
Meanwhile molesting alterboys is no big deal. :rolleyes:

Ah the slippery slope argument. Isn't that well know logically fallacy?
There's no logical basis for accept one accept all.

I mean, if that were true, then the logical conclusion is to accept nothing at all. No sex before marriage, no masturbating, no kissing, no contact between men and women unless married, no kissing. Sex for procreation only.
Obvious that's ridiculous. So is the idea that we have to accept pedophiles.[/QUOTE]

I'll respond to your questions later on in the day. I'm on a nightshift at the moment and have given enough time to the internet. Need to knuckle down and get on with work.

Gruffalux · 03-06-2020 6:38am

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/amp

In relation to this issue the above article from December of 2019 links to what some call the Dentons document. This document is a plan of action for LGBT NGOs drawn up by one of the largest law firms in the world, Dentons.
The document advocates getting ahead of the public on these issues, having pre-prepared legislation which is presented as a fait accompli by think tanks, minimising public attention in the media. It is especially concerned with legal recognition of gender for children and notes the parental guardianship can be restrictive and that this must be essentially whittled away. Ireland is noted as an exemplar in how to do business. By tagging relatively unpublicised gender legislation onto popular issues like same sex marriage it got legislation enacted below the radar of general public awareness.

As for the paedophilia issue, it seems at first sight to be gruesome thinking that there could be any relationship between progressive LGBT activism and such a dreadful issue as that. It seems like only a crazy person with regressive ideas would imagine such a link. But then there are strange signs. Twitter, one of the world's biggest social media platforms, in its regulations permits discussion of sexual attraction to children so long as it does not encourage offending. Thus Twitter has become a huge meeting place for MAPS and NOMAPS, and in its darker areas a huge repository of child porn. Reminds me of how Tumblr was and perhaps still is an influential platform for gender questioning children. Remember a year or so ago when Tumblr introduced new rules re depiction of the naked body. Even the most artistic or innocent representation of the naked form was banned except for the depiction of post surgical images of gender transition operations like mastectomies.
And Dr James Cantor a highly influential Canadian therapist and sexologist has publicly stated that the LGBT movement cannot pull the ladder up after them and forget about the P. Readers could also make themselves aware of the sex education guidelines being issued by transnational NGOs and authorities. The breadth and scope of proposed public education for often very young children on the topics of sexuality and gender is disturbing. Here is a starting point - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bzga-whocc.de/fileadmin/user_upload/WHO_BZgA_Standards_English.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjz97SV9uTpAhVdUBUIHVncCkYQFjABegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw3i9H-md6bz9oF49kf2FEUH

collywobble7 · 03-06-2020 7:43am

CinemaGuy45 wrote:

Good point and yes I care now.

It's not a good point. I identify as a dinosaur. What are the chances of this actually being recognised. Same applies to someone identifying as a 14 year old girl. But yes I totally agree with you. It's absolutely wrong to introduce this. People can make a decision when they are adults.

Tokyo · 03-06-2020 10:27am

Admin: There is scope for a legitimate discussion here, and I'm pressing the reset button on this thread right now before it spirals further.

Thread rules are simple. Legitimate discussion only. Any Godwin's Law type arguments, tarring everyone with the paedophile brush, threadshïtting, winding others up, or trolling and it means an instant red card and threadban. Particularly dickish responses will be met with a week long forum ban.

If you can't abide by that (i.e. posting with common decency), then this isn't the thread for you. There will be no further mod warnings beyond this point.

El_Duderino 09 · 03-06-2020 11:23am

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I identify as a 14 year old girl. Legally I can play on your daughters soccer team, use her changing room, shower with her.

Do you care now?

This is the equivalent of the "if we allow gay marriage then well all have to marry a dog or a chair" argument. 0/10

I honestly don't know how I feel about changing the age from 18 to 16. It probably makes very little difference. I think it should be a decision that takes time to make. Not to harass people out of doing it but to give them time to have the appropriate counselling and preparation.

The assumption in these threads is that transgenderism is a stupid fad and not worth treating. I cant even imagine what it's like to be transgender. I was born male, grew up and I fit my gender. It's not a consideration for me. It's like asking me to imagine a colour that is outside my spectrum of vision.

I just think people with transgenderism should be given the treatment then need and there's very little to it beyond that. Normal safeguarding for children should be applied like normal but i don't suspect trans people of being paedophile.

_Kaiser_ · 03-06-2020 11:37am

Ultimately virtue signalling and trendy causes do not trump common sense or reality. I'll keep saying it - when you're a legal adult with emotional maturity, do whatever you want. Kids of 14 don't have that and that's why their parents are expected to guide them and make certain decisions and are held legally responsible for them.

fran38 · 03-06-2020 11:42am

Mellor wrote: »

You are confusing gender identify with sexual transition surgery.
Not sure whether that's intentional, but really weakens any opinion you have.
My point about modifying body parts remains true to my argument if we take gender reversal to it's most logical point. It makes sense to come to the conclusion that any individual will want to physically feel and look like the gender they now think they are. A man identifying as a woman will want to feellike a woman so what is the logical step here? I don't want to generalise because of course surgery/hormone treatment will not be for everybody.

It's a fair comment though. When we take into account how homosexuality has been normalised as well as same sex marriage.

Do you think that normalisation of homosexuality is right or wrong?
It's not really clear what you are saying here.
In my opinion normalisation of homosexuality goes against the nature of creativity. To give life to another is one of the most sacred reasons we are here. Anything that tries to subvert that is wrong. But we also need to understand that homosexuality has become weaponised against all human life in that it is being used for population control.

Do you have a problem with birth control or pornography?
I do not. In answering your last question, I raised the point about creating life. But we also need to be realistic about certain situations ie: can a couple afford more children, do certain cultures continue to procreate to the detriment of its enviroment etc I do not have an issue with pornography. The point here is that pornography was frowned upon but it is widely accepted.

I it funny the church ever had that stance tbh. Comdoms are evil, **** is the work of the devil.
Meanwhile molesting alterboys is no big deal. :rolleyes:
Is there a particular reason you've taken the opportunity to give out about the Catholic Church? I haven't spoken about religion at all in my first post.

Ah the slippery slope argument. Isn't that well know logically fallacy?
There's no logical basis for accept one accept all.

I mean, if that were true, then the logical conclusion is to accept nothing at all. No sex before marriage, no masturbating, no kissing, no contact between men and women unless married, no kissing. Sex for procreation only.
Obvious that's ridiculous. So is the idea that we have to accept pedophiles.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but I'm having difficulty in understanding the question. Cn you be a liitle clear please.

osarusan · 03-06-2020 11:53am

fran38 wrote: »

But we also need to understand that homosexuality has become weaponised against all human life in that it is being used for population control.

What does that even mean?

El_Duderino 09 · 03-06-2020 11:54am

fran38 wrote: »

Do you think that normalisation of homosexuality is right or wrong?
It's not really clear what you are saying here.
In my opinion normalisation of homosexuality goes against the nature of creativity. To give life to another is one of the most sacred reasons we are here. Anything that tries to subvert that is wrong. But we also need to understand that homosexuality has become weaponised against all human life in that it is being used for population control.

Classic. Particularly liked this bit "But we also need to understand that homosexuality has become weaponised against all human life in that it is being used for population control"

Annasopra · 03-06-2020 12:13pm

osarusan wrote: »

What does that even mean?

Gay sex doesnt end up with babies therefore gays are evil because the worlds population is falling because everyone is having gay sex? :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

suicide_circus · 03-06-2020 12:15pm

There are four lights.

storker · 03-06-2020 12:18pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Gay sex doesnt end up with babies therefore gays are evil because the worlds population is falling because everyone is having gay sex? :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

With the way overpopulation is heading, gay sex should be encouraged, if not mandatory.

Gruffalux · 03-06-2020 1:00pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I honestly don't know how I feel about changing the age from 18 to 16. It probably makes very little difference. I think it should be a decision that takes time to make. Not to harass people out of doing it but to give them time to have the appropriate counselling and preparation.

.

The intent is not to reduce the age from 18 to 16. It is to enable children UNDER 16 to legally change their gender.

Why? For what reason? Cui bono?

Identifying with the expression of a gender that is not normally associated with ones sex does not need legal recognition in a child. It certainly does not need hormones that will adversely affect health, cause atrophy of organs, impotence, sterility, stymy the frontal lobes development and IQ, reduce bone density etc. There is just no need for ANY of this. Just express gender however one wants. It is so square, these supposedly modern gender notions, so limiting and regressive. Girls like frocks, boys have short hair. How silly. What pigeon holes. How did we become so backward?
Express however one feels gender wise. Especially as a child. But maintain health, bodily integrity and have no dependance on life long pharmaceuticals. Or any necessity for legal instruments
There is just no need for any of this stuff. Cui bono? Pharmaceutical industries, therapists, activist ngos, etc. But certainly not the children for whom their alternative gender expression, instead of being a natural flowing easy-going part of themselves, has become elevated to their defining chatacteristic - which can only lead to life long neurosis. Leave the kids alone. Simple.

TheValeyard · 03-06-2020 1:43pm

So a child can change their gender at 16 but not drink beer in a pub until 18?

That seems stupid.

Mellor · 03-06-2020 1:47pm

fran38 wrote: »

In my opinion normalisation of homosexuality goes against the nature of creativity. To give life to another is one of the most sacred reasons we are here. Anything that tries to subvert that is wrong. But we also need to understand that homosexuality has become weaponised against all human life in that it is being used for population control.

I assume you meant to say procreation not creativity. Statistically creative types are more likely to be creative in my experience, some of the creativity minds in history were homosexual.

So homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't contribute to (over)population.
Do you think hetrosexual couples who decide to not have children are equally evil/amoral? What about people who naturally can't have kids, also wrong?

I do not have an issue with pornography. The point here is that pornography was frowned upon but it is widely accepted.

Yes, it's widely accepted, but you ok with that.
No doubt at some point in the past some bible basher ranted about how if we allow boobs in movies will all turn into deranged animals.

Is there a particular reason you've taken the opportunity to give out about the Catholic Church? I haven't spoken about religion at all in my first post.

I was pointing out the irony of their homophobia.

Ah the slippery slope argument. Isn't that well know logically fallacy?
There's no logical basis for accept one accept all.

I'm sorry but I'm having difficulty in understanding the question. Cn you be a liitle clear please.

I was pointing out that the slippy slope argument (if we allow X, we'll have to allow EVERYTHING) is nonsense, and is widely know to be nonsense. It falls apart at the slightest inspection.
If like saying if we allow sex before marriage will have to allow sex with dead bodies. It's just a completely unintelligent, it's hardly worth entertaining

Guy:Incognito · 03-06-2020 1:53pm

Nothing in that says its about people getting surgery.

From what little is on google I found another article that says this

"However, in the report drafted by Fine Gael's LGBT committee it is recommended that these children should be free to legally self-declare their own gender"

They get to decide what their official gender is on documents.

Changes for others too.

"The committee notes that countries including Germany, Denmark and Canada allow people to declare a "third gender" on official documentation.

It recommends that the next government should allow people who do not consider themselves either male or female to be permitted to mark X on their passports"

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I identify as a 14 year old girl. Legally I can play on your daughters soccer team, use her changing room, shower with her.

Do you care now?

Wheres the proposal to allow anyone identify as a different age and participate in anything?

You can identify all you like as a 14 year old girl but no one is going to allow you to play on an underage team.

Tell me how · 03-06-2020 2:09pm

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I identify as a 14 year old girl. Legally I can play on your daughters soccer team, use her changing room, shower with her.

Do you care now?

The only case I have heard of where someone tried to identify as a different age to that which they were commonly understood to be was thrown out.

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2018/12/04/510980.htm

What evidence is there that someone can identify as a 14 year old and play on that age group soccer team?

Mellor · 03-06-2020 2:11pm

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Ultimately virtue signalling and trendy causes do not trump common sense or reality. I'll keep saying it - when you're a legal adult with emotional maturity, do whatever you want. Kids of 14 don't have that and that's why their parents are expected to guide them and make certain decisions and are held legally responsible for them.

Yes kids aren't mature enough to decide this on their own, that's why parents consent is needed.
This isn't about 14 years changing gender on their own. It's about parents helping their children. People seem to be missing that.

What do you think changing the gender legally actually means, practically? We're talking about a letter on a passport. It's not actually going to change how the child feels. It's not going change their genitals. At most, they'll use a different bathroom. And unisex bathrooms are hardly rare or offensive.

Tell me how wrote: »

What evidence is there that someone can identify as a 14 year old and play on that age group soccer team?

Wishful thinking that evidence, intelligent thinking or logic formed the basis of that argument.

Are we going to talk about our kids? [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

Comments