Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

km991148 wrote: »

It does, 'apparently'?

I need to start seeing some real quantative numbers on this one. I've searched around in this one.. it really does seem like an old internet tale.

I know. Same. Im not aware of any hate crime in relation to what is being discussed.

Bambi wrote: »

Slapping on some makeup over 2000 years of genetic programming is not going to work

If only it were that simple..

(And you might be missing a 0 or three.. the Romans were quite into a bit of trans culture for many different reasons)

km991148 wrote: »

I just had a 20 minute conversation

It was 2 posts.

20 minute conversation lol

km991148 wrote: »

Felt like a lifetime tbh

Tell me about it ,

Nothing but passive aggressive nonsense

km991148 wrote: »

That's how it was read? Why didn't you report it if that was the case?

Why would I report a post I'll leave the serially offended posts for others to spam the report button.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote:

I’d love for more people to get involved. However, most of our questions go unanswered. People run away when they can’t give a response. There’s not much to be done with that.

Now, you can posture loftily about our questions not being answered because people won’t stoop to that.

But lots of us HAVEN’T been threadbanned and have only been given minor cards or none at all. So we’re doing something right. Many of us have made good points and that’s the usually the point where people opposing us scarper. That’s not our problem. Why don’t they respond? If they have such a strong position, why do they flee? Weird, huh?

Also, you suggest that the only reason we are escaping sanction is because we have remained civil. Sneaky.

Sorry, missed this part of your post from earlier.

Regarding the stuff about banning/sanctions etc: Yes - of course a lot (I'd assume most?) of you haven't been sanctioned or threadbanned, and it IS because you're doing something right - which is that your posting is suitably civil and meets the standards of the moderation team. The text you quote is in response to a poster suggesting that "the discussion has been civil on one side". I disagree with this assessment and think that's evidenced by gender critical posters who have been booted off the thread for uncivil posting. I'm not suggesting that the actions of sanctioned posters is wholly representative of your side of the argument at all. I'm genuinely at a loss to see what's "sneaky" about me saying that you haven't been sanctioned because you've remained civil. I've also remained civil (I think) and haven't been sanctioned as a result. Isn't one of the main aims of moderation to keep things civil? I don't know what you're getting at.

As far as the makeup of the thread's posters and what side of the argument they fall/lack of engagement from the opposing side, that's a complicated question. Posters will have their own reasons for this. You probably think it's because they have no cogent argument, and maybe you're right! There's also that one post can result in replies from several users which the poster may feel compelled to respond to, and that's tiring for them. Maybe they feel some of those posters responding to them either mistake or misrepresent their position so can't be bothered engaging. (I've seen this happen to one poster a lot in particular, and while I don't think their debate style does them any favours, the level of straw-manning they've received has at times been ludicrous to me). I abandoned an exchange myself earlier as a response I received was a gish-gallop of points of (IMO) varying accuracy and nuance that would have taken ages to go through and I can't be bothered engaging with that sort of debating style. Sometimes I respond to parts of certain replies and ignore the rest because certain aspects of the convo just don't interest me, I've addressed them before or I know that me and the other poster will never see eye to eye and I'm not looking for conflict (depends on mood really). There also seems to be a lot of presumptions of bad faith in this thread which I find extremely irritating - we could all go around in circles all day accusing eachother of dishonest debating, whats the point? In summary - god knows, there's myriad potential reasons. None of us are actually achieving anything on here, it's a recreational activity. People will tag in and out as they please, from what I can see it seems to be the same posters returning intermittently as opposed to new ones popping in and out regularly, maybe I'm wrong.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

In the past year, the word ‘woman’ has been removed from some female-specific public health literature here in Ireland. The same is not true for male-specific literature. So it’s easy to be blasé about this when it doesn’t affect you (I think I’m correct in assuming you’re a man). The literature was changed back because some tenacious women made a stink and were mocked and criticised for doing so, even by some quite high profile people. This stuff actually does matter and has real world ramifications.

I remember that, objected to it and I wrote to the HSE myself about it off the back of a suggestion from a poster on here (maybe even you?). I understand that language matters but I'm not seeing a link between something I post on here and the actions of the HSE. I do get where you're coming from though.

Gruffalux wrote: »

I don't think you are a misogynist - I find you generally a good and good-humoured poster even though we often disagree. But I presume you would not like to be referred to as a non straight man? Or a non woman? A non child? It is just odd isn't it. Women are women, and then people who identify as women can be whatever name suits them, trans women being the one that inherently has the meaning that the person has identified as being OPPOSITE to their natal sex. In fact to be honest I think TRAs are gonna wake up soon enough and say whoa this word trans is transphobic!

Nawww, thank you Gruf. Did you bump into any angry turnip farmers in the end that day? (If you remember, you remember) I completely get your point. Honestly, nearly every term I can think of in relation to this topic is open to some form of interpretation that causes someone, somewhere to get annoyed or respond with a slogan that gets someone else annoyed. I have zero doubt the terminology itself will change multiple times in the coming years - I've lived through about 5 different PC terms for "disabled" now.

Jesus, the length of this post. I never actually knew my biological Dad. One Eyed Jack, if you're reading this, what were you getting upto circa 1988 of curiosity?

Gruffalux wrote: »

Transgender and third gender has existed always. And is valid. Some people just really like or need the idea and act of expressing themselves as the opposite sex for lots of reasons.

I don't know if it has happened before in time that there has been such an imposed, politically-correct ideologically driven slant on it - ie that the acceptable position is that one must accept that the person actually has physically changed sex and that a trans man is thus a man.
Or especially as one poster here holds a man is now a trans female.

Personally I do not see what is the problem with the statement a trans woman is a trans woman. Why the necessity for compulsory adherence to a false unscientific assertion that a trans woman is a woman? They are a trans woman. That does not make them in any way less. They are equal.

It is a big aspect for me - to be forced to say that biological reality does not exist. It has led to things like gendered language supposedly becoming offensive like mother, breast feed, etc. This seems like ''doublethink'' or ''newspeak''.

And just to add that in fairness to you, you have stayed the course. I think we actually agree on many aspects of this discussion. Perhaps you have been inclined to dismiss long held valid concerns too airily, but when asked to consider them you have found that there are valid concerns and that is honest.

Now wait a minute.. I was just accused of being egotistical a few posts back.. and now others are taking credit for shaping my views :pac:


Seriously tho, I think a lot of real people are closer to the centre than are given credit for. A lot if debates using labels are really just label debates and often don't help.

I am often a stickler for concrete examples because this is an insanely complex issues, and that complexity is often completely underestimated (I don't just mean the reason as to why someone may or may not be on one trans spectrum or another) but because it also touches a lot of other extremely complex issues that we face in our society (women's rights, why people feel threatened, equality laws etc etc).

I think in the last few years the internet has a lot to answer for in terms of making debates such as this much worse. Certain groups and voices are echoed and get much more credence then they deserve (that's really what dragged me back in the other day.. the Twitter stuff, it's really not helpful at times).

Final note on this RWCNT mentioned someone's debating style not doing them any favours. My ego would like to think that's me.. if it wasn't, then I definitely fall into that category at times.. but really no harm is meant at all.

RWCNT wrote: »

Jesus, the length of this post. I never actually knew my biological Dad. One Eyed Jack, if you're reading this, what were you getting upto circa 1988 of curiosity?

The Summer of ‘98? That was the Summer I received something of an education from the local farmer’s daughters in a haybarn, long before we learned about it in school

Cracker of a post btw, pretty much sums up where I am with the whole thing - it just makes no sense to waste time arguing with a handful of posters on here when I can make far better use of my time campaigning for changes in policies and legislation at national and international level.