Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Woman Loses Job for Holding Gender Critical Opinions.

Options
1…89111314…40

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Candamir wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I wouldn't give a hard and fast definition until we understand the brain in relation to sex/gender differences. Which is a loooooong way off.

    I’m talking about sex, not gender.

    I'm talking about both.


  • Options
    #303
    KikiLaRue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭KikiLaRue


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    If they are espousing the views of ISIS they are more then likely inciting violence. This is already illegal.

    Let’s say they’re not. But they are going around saying they support a caliphate for Muslims. Should an employer be forced to keep someone with those views on.

    What if someone wrote a Medium post this week saying the killing of Lyra McKee was justified by the cause of Republicanism? Should an employer be forced to keep them on? They’re not calling for violence, but they are justifying it after the fact because of their political ideology.


  • Options
    #304
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I wouldn't give a hard and fast definition until we understand the brain in relation to sex/gender differences. Which is a loooooong way off.

    So in other words you are talking out of your arse, and are another science denier. Sex is already scientific fact. The brain doesn't matter with regards to what sex you are.


  • Options
    #305
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Gender fluid is different to being trans.

    You don't need to prove it. It's a non issue. How many cis men do you know who have used self identifying as a trans woman fraudulently at some point?

    The pitch is ruined with the goal post shifting here.

    There's no goal post shifting. I'm just dealing with silly hypotheticals that have very little basis in fact. How else would one deal with them than to point out they're silly extreme hypotheticals.


  • Options
    #306
    Candamir
    Registered Users Posts: 531 ✭✭✭Candamir


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I'm talking about both.

    I realise that. My question is solely related to sex.
    How would you define a biological male?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    KikiLaRue wrote: »
    Let’s say they’re not. But they are going around saying they support a caliphate for Muslims. Should an employer be forced to keep someone with those views on.

    What if someone wrote a Medium post this week saying the killing of Lyra McKee was justified by the cause of Republicanism? Should an employer be forced to keep them on? They’re not calling for violence, but they are justifying it after the fact because of their political ideology.

    Yes they should be required to keep them on.


  • Options
    #308
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I wouldn't give a hard and fast definition until we understand the brain in relation to sex/gender differences. Which is a loooooong way off.

    So in other words you are talking out of your arse, and are another science denier. Sex is already scientific fact. The brain doesn't matter with regards to what sex you are.

    Yes it does. And its not science denial.


  • Options
    #309
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    KikiLaRue wrote:
    I’m a member at the Swan Leisure Centre in Rathmines. The changing rooms for the pool there are unisex. Grown men, grown women and families all change at the same time in the same area in their own cubicles and it’s not a big deal at all.

    Unisex changing rooms are fine. No problem with them at all.
    KikiLaRue wrote:
    In fact, I’d imagine it saves a lot of hassle for mothers with their sons and fathers with their daughters.
    It sure does. I find them highly useful when I'm out with my daughter. I'm talking about instances where there aren't cubicles and there are designated women only areas
    such as gyms and the likes.
    KikiLaRue wrote:
    The idea that men are going around with big swinging mickeys in front of little girls is just scaremongering.

    If there are woman only communal changing areas, there is a chance that if some people got their way, there could be big (and small) swinging mickeys in front of girls.

    Its not scaremongering.


  • Options
    #310
    o1s1n
    Registered Users Posts: 34,517 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Yes it does. And its not science denial.

    Morticians must have a very hard time deciphering between male and female corpses so.


  • Options
    #311
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Candamir wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I'm talking about both.

    I realise that. My question is solely related to sex.

    I don't define sex solely by genetic criteria. Until we understand what makes a biologically male brain and can be assured that trans brains do not exhibit the same structures (and I don't mean the crude larger structures we currently kind of understand) then I consider the definition of biologically male vs biologically female and open definition.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Yes it does. And its not science denial.

    It doesn't. Sex refers to your reproductive system and secondary sex characteristics, or on a deeper level your chromosomes.

    You don't accept the science because it's doesn't suit your world view i.e. You are a science denier.


  • Options
    #313
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    Candamir wrote: »
    I realise that. My question is solely related to sex.
    How would you define a biological male?

    anyone with a plastic mickey and short hair and a blazer


  • Options
    #314
    KikiLaRue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭KikiLaRue


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    Yes they should be required to keep them on.

    Why?

    If you’ve founded and built up a company, spent years investing your time and money in it and made something of it - and that company has a values statement/ dignity and respect policy/ diversity and inclusion statement that an employee is disregarding, why shouldn’t they get the sack?


  • Options
    #315
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    o1s1n wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Yes it does. And its not science denial.

    Morticians must have a very hard time deciphering between male and female corpses so.

    For the vast majority of purposes the broader definitions are fine. For example candamirs definition is not currently used by morticians. It would be odd to do a genetic test as a routine part of an autopsy.


  • Options
    #316
    Candamir
    Registered Users Posts: 531 ✭✭✭Candamir


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I don't define sex solely by genetic criteria. Until we understand what makes a biologically male brain and can be assured that trans brains do not exhibit the same structures (and I don't mean the crude larger structures we currently kind of understand) then I consider the definition of biologically male vs biologically female and open definition.

    So you’ve no issue with trans women, who self identify and have u dethrone no medical or surgical transition, competing in women’s sports?

    That’s fair?
    Because the biological definition of what’s male is open?


  • Options
    #317
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Yes it does. And its not science denial.

    It doesn't. Sex refers to your reproductive system and secondary sex characteristics, or on a deeper level your chromosomes.

    You don't accept the science because it's doesn't suit your world view i.e. You are a science denier.
    Nope you've just chosen the definition to suit yourself, ignoring a little understood biological organ that exhibits sex differences

    I don't think you're a science denier, you just don't understand it.


  • Options
    #318
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Candamir wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I don't define sex solely by genetic criteria. Until we understand what makes a biologically male brain and can be assured that trans brains do not exhibit the same structures (and I don't mean the crude larger structures we currently kind of understand) then I consider the definition of biologically male vs biologically female and open definition.


    So you’ve no issue with trans women, who self identify and have u dethrone no medical or surgical transition, competing in women’s sports?

    That’s fair?
    Because the biological definition of what’s male is open?

    I don't recall ever mentioning fairness in sport. The truth is I couldn't care less about fairness in sport.


  • Options
    #319
    Candamir
    Registered Users Posts: 531 ✭✭✭Candamir


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    For the vast majority of purposes the broader definitions are fine. For example candamirs definition is not currently used by morticians. It would be odd to do a genetic test as a routine part of an autopsy.

    Morticians don’t do autopsies. Pathologists do. And I’d be confident they’d discover whether they had a Biological male or female on their table without a genetic test. Because they see the primary and secondary sexual characteristics that occur as a consequence of those genetics.


  • Options
    #320
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    KikiLaRue wrote: »
    Why?

    If you’ve founded and built up a company, spent years investing your time and money in it and made something of it - and that company has a values statement/ dignity and respect policy/ diversity and inclusion statement that an employee is disregarding, why shouldn’t they get the sack?

    So if we roll back 3 years and I campaign for the removal of the 8th amendment, airing my pro-choice views on rte, you should be free to sack me because I'm being exclusionary of pro-life people or it goes against your respect policy?


  • Options
    #321
    beejee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭beejee


    Giving credibility to nutters via social media is the worst mistake made since world war 2.

    This, and many things closely related, are barking mad.

    Once the emperors new clothes come off there's going to be many things scrutinised that have been let slide.

    Lunatics are running the asylum, Ted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    Candamir wrote: »
    So you’ve no issue with trans women, who self identify and have u dethrone no medical or surgical transition, competing in women’s sports?

    As long as they hide their big hairy balls during the swim events, no.


  • Options
    #323
    Candamir
    Registered Users Posts: 531 ✭✭✭Candamir


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I don't recall ever mentioning fairness in sport. The truth is I couldn't care less about fairness in sport.

    No, you didn’t mention it. I’m asking. It’s a relevant question.

    I’m disappointed that you don’t care. I do. You want fairness for trans people but not for cis women in sport? I care that girls will miss out on scholarships and educational opportunities because some people think that trans women are the same as biological women.


  • Options
    #324
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Candamir wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I don't recall ever mentioning fairness in sport. The truth is I couldn't care less about fairness in sport.

    No, you didn’t mention it. I’m asking. It’s a relevant question.

    I’m disappointed that you don’t care. I do. I care that girls will miss out on scholarships and educational opportunities because some people think that trans women are the same as biological women.

    I truly could not care less about anyone male.or.female missing out on sports scholarships for any reason. Sorry if that disappoints you.


  • Options
    #325
    Candamir
    Registered Users Posts: 531 ✭✭✭Candamir


    Nobelium wrote: »
    As long as they hide their big hairy balls during the swim events, no.

    Ok! I think I got it!!


  • Options
    #326
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    LLMMLL wrote:
    I don't define sex solely by genetic criteria. Until we understand what makes a biologically male brain and can be assured that trans brains do not exhibit the same structures (and I don't mean the crude larger structures we currently kind of understand) then I consider the definition of biologically male vs biologically female and open definition.

    I'm glad that you said that. I now know not to engage any further with you.


  • Options
    #327
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Nope you've just chosen the definition to suit yourself, ignoring a little understood biological organ that exhibits sex differences

    I don't think you're a science denier, you just don't understand it.

    I haven't chosen the definition, that Is the definition. You want to try muddy the waters and redefine concepts to suit your political agenda.

    No different to how there is an attempt to redefine rascism as relying on 'power structures' as opposed to merely descriminating against a person because of their race.


  • Options
    #328
    Candamir
    Registered Users Posts: 531 ✭✭✭Candamir


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I truly could not care less about anyone male.or.female missing out on sports scholarships for any reason. Sorry if that disappoints you.

    So only interested in fairness and rights on your terms?



    Ok then.


  • Options
    #329
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Deleted User wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote:
    I don't define sex solely by genetic criteria. Until we understand what makes a biologically male brain and can be assured that trans brains do not exhibit the same structures (and I don't mean the crude larger structures we currently kind of understand) then I consider the definition of biologically male vs biologically female and open definition.

    I'm glad that you said that. I now know not to engage any further with you.

    Probably for the best. We're not really on the same level anyway.


  • Options
    #330
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I truly could not care less about anyone male.or.female missing out on sports scholarships for any reason. Sorry if that disappoints you.

    Well if you care about women you should.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Candamir wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I truly could not care less about anyone male.or.female missing out on sports scholarships for any reason. Sorry if that disappoints you.

    So only interested in fairness and rights on your terms?



    Ok then.

    Not what I said or meant at all but nice attempt.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement