Calls for Graham Linehan to be removed from Prime Debate on transgender issues!

Is there any issue that effects so few and yet gets so much coverage? Like honestly how many transgender people are there even in the country, I honestly only know of 1 lad that is. It's an issue that seems to get a seriously disproportionate amount of coverage, asking people to change what has been scientific fact of literally centuries to avoid hurting the feelings of a tiny minority. There are two genders Male and Female if you want to know which you are have a look downstairs,

I feel sad for trans people i really do, must be horrible to basically not be able to deal with who you are and to be so unhappy with it. That said just because you feel like X or want to be X doesn't mean you are. Maybe i want to be a Japanese Samurai but no matter how much i feel like one or want to be one the fact is I'm a white man from Ireland and nobody should have to entertain my delusions.

StopWatch wrote: »

I'm unsure how I feel here,but In what way is the writer of Father Ted an expert panel member?

That's a silly thing to say..

chicorytip wrote: »

Why are we even having this discussion and why does RTE deem the topic worthy of broadcast.

We’re having these discussions because it’s a topic that’s becoming more and more relevant for people in modern Irish society. RTÉ deem the topic worthy of broadcast because it’s considered a current affairs topic, just like many of the issues you mentioned below which RTE have also covered in great depth and detail on numerous programmes, not just current affairs programmes.

Just how many of these "transgender" people are there in a small country like ours? The number must be minute.

It’s true, the number that we know of is minuscule, but that number has been increasing exponentially over the last decade or so. It’s still minuscule, but there appears to be an increasing trend in the number of people who identify as transgender. Therefore RTÉ having noticed how the trend is going in the UK and the backlash that is happening over there, decide in their wisdom that it’s a topical issue ripe for generating controversy and increasing their own viewership - give the two extremes a platform, grab popcorn, sit back and watch them go at it. Advertisers will pay a fortune for ad slots because they know people will be watching. RTÉ makes more money.

I don't know if this kind of transformative surgery is available in the Republic of Ireland and as to what exactly it entails, well, my mind boggles. It would be interesting to see any Dept. of Health data on the matter, if it's available. Let's talk about issues that really matter such as the huge problems of alcoholism, drug addiction, mental illness and suicide affecting our young people.
Let these shemale freaks bugger off to England with themselves.

There’s plenty of data available from the HSE and numerous other organisations, but the reality is that in Ireland at least, there’s not much more to it as of the passing into law of the Gender Recognition Act of 2015 than “I think, therefore I am” so to speak - one only has to apply to be legally recognised as their preferred gender, and set in motion a series of events that from that day on they are to be legally recognised as their preferred gender. Surgery is not required, and more and more people who identify as transgender are foregoing surgery in favour simply of social transition, which is peeing off a lot of the “Old Guard” as it were, who complain about people identifying themselves as transgender when they haven’t gone through medical or surgical transition and have no interest in or intention of doing so.

ironwalk wrote: »

AlphabetCards wrote: »

I get the impression they are. Ask how many are comfortable sharing a dressing room with a pre-op trans woman.

Dial Hard wrote: »

I can only speak for myself, but it wouldn't bother me in the least. Same as I have no issue sharing unisex bathrooms with men.

Dial, my elderly mother would get a start and would probably apologise, imagining that she had wandered into the wrong changing room. It would bother her. She wouldn't be able to wander around the dressing room.

There are lots of women who are from non-Christian religious backgrounds who would have a problem with using a changing room or bathroom with men.

I'd have a problem with my teenager sharing with a teenage male-bodied person, in a dressing room, or a Scout tent, or a bathroom etc etc etc.

And what if there is a female sexual predator in the tent or in the bathroom?

ironwalk wrote: »

How has it got to the point that being concerned with woman's right is now equivalent to being "anti-trans".

Nobody was talking about women's rights. I was responding to a post which claimed that most women would agree with Linehan, i.e. that most women were anti-trans.

I think all these transgender controversies stem from one simple thing - most ppl do not accept the idea that one is internally one gender and outwardly another. Most ppl think it's a psychological issue. I do to. I have no doubt transgenders believe fully they are internally the opposite gender to their body and I don't see how anyone would have a problem with that per se. I don't. So being transphobic don't make much sense to me. Being nasty to minorities just for the sake of it is not on but having said that I'm not sure how widespread that is anyway.

Disagreeing with transgender rights of the kind we are hearing a lot of recently is a completely different thing to thoughtless transphobia. Radical transfolk are demanding this that and other and it is thoroughly right that these things are vigorously debated before any new rights are given.

It doesn't matter how accepting society is of ppl with gender dysphoria, this is not enough for the trans radicals. They know full well what most ppl's opinion is of gender dysphoria which I mentioned and all these issues concerning toilets etc is an attempt by them to change ppl's view on the issue, to force ppl to accept something they don't without conclusive proof which at this moment in time I don't think exists. Demanding preferred pronouns is a great example of how trans radicals are trying to hack an acceptance of their views on the issue, as if if they can get ppl to speak in a certain way that's equivalent to one thinking a certain way, the way they want. That tactic could only end in disaster and if there is a rise in transphobia their tactic would be the reason for it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Don’t be silly, there’s no such thing as a female sexual predator!



Cat, meet pigeons

Would you like something to help you stir that Jack?

ironwalk wrote: »

Nope, not buying that one either.
I am talking about women's rights.

The poster I was responding to, wasn't.

Linehan is a self-identified "trans-exclusionary" feminist.

Which is by definition an anti-trans position.

Being for "women's rights" does not make one anti-trans. Being for "women's rights (except trans women)" does make you anti-trans.

What I funniest about this stuff is that TERFs like Linehan focus exclusively on the "female" part. Nobody freaks out about "women in the men's changing room" or "women in men's sports". Anti-trans viewpoints are focussed almost exclusively on trans females, and the apparent damage they can do. How they are trying to make "real" women unsafe.

At the root of this belief is an inherent anti-male bias. The belief that all men are violent sexual predators who cannot help ourselves, and a man even if he identifies as a woman, presents a danger to women and their rights.

TERFs, like Linehan, are the raving, man-hating, misandrist feminists that the denizens of AH claim are lurking around every corner.

Yet I can guarantee you'll all be on his side because, "Well, sure of course they're not women, this is lefty craziness".

ironwalk wrote: »

Was it in jest? Many a true word etc etc.
If you read back on my posts, you'll see that my concern is solely with the subset of men, who will (and have) used trans rights to enter women's spaces in order to abuse and hurt.
I suspect that the risk of being hurt by a transgender wo/man is exactly the same as being hurt by any other male bodied person.

As for the dismissal of women's risk of being hurt by men....are you seriously dismissing that, on an Irish forum, given our history?
I may have a slim chance of being raped, but no woman goes out without it being in the back of their heads.
I will continue to treat unknown men as if they are potential abusers because until I know you're safe, then I'm going to treat you as unsafe. (and here's the thing, in my personal experience, abusive men have been teachers, classmates, randomers on the Luas, boyfriends etc).

And if you have any of the following: a mother/wife/sister/female partner/daughter , then I urge you to consider my earlier examples.
Then tell me, whether women's protections should be dismantled for trans rights.

Nobody is dismissing anything. What was said is very simple. The chances of a woman being assaulted by a man is low. The chances of a woman being assaulted by a man who is pretending to identify as a woman is so low as to be non-existent.

ironwalk wrote: »

The chances of a woman being assaulted by a man is low

So low, that most women have experienced some version of it.
Or, are you denying what women tell you about their lives?

define "most women" and "assault"

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Nobody is dismissing anything. What was said is very simple. The chances of a woman being assaulted by a man is low. The chances of a woman being assaulted by a man who is pretending to identify as a woman is so low as to be non-existent.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life

The tale of Karen White is interesting. While, on the one hand, you can argue that the percentage of men who are likely to commit a sexually motivated crime on women is higher than the percentage of transgender women who are likely to commit a sexually motivated crime on women, and I would fully accept that, unless someone else can produce statistics that differ. I would also accept that the proportion of women likely to commit a sexually motivated crime on women is less than the percentage of transgender women who are likely to commit a sexually motivated crime on women. Therefore, in allowing transgender women to access "women-only" areas, there is an increased risk to women.

However, a crime depends on a number of factors, and that argument only addresses one, that of motivation. A second, and often more important factor, is opportunity. Thousands of people might pick up a bag of cash lying on the ground, but most of us never get the opportunity. Transgender women get an opportunity that men don't, through access.

The case of Karen White illustrates that.

ironwalk wrote: »

So, what are the chances? Don't know, but not one that I'm willing to take.
How many incidents? Don't know, but if it's foreseeable, why wait for one?

By that logic, we should segregate both genders entirely in case of an incident. But we don't, because in the real world, we know that it's completely impossible to legislate for such things.

The fact of the matter is that you, your daughter, your elderly mother and any other woman is far more likely to be sexually assaulted by a partner, friend, ex or man otherwise known to her than by the bogeyman pretending to be transgender that you seem to be convinced will be hiding in every bathroom and changing room.