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

Gruffalux wrote: »

The ignorance of genital-attracted bigots. That's a whole world of weirdness encapsulated in one idea.

Not the brightest student in class

"My account says trans woman, so not, I am not a man. Also, what the heck are female internal organs"

A -Yes your a man .
B- cervix , overies , fallopian tubes ,womb .(female internal organs)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody is being denied that right, and the letter signed by Amnesty, Colm O’ Gorman etc weren’t calling for anyone to be denied that right, nor were they calling for anyone to be denied political representation. The letter calls on politicians and the media not to represent them.

But that's exactly what it means .

Remove rights of representation and a voice .

It's one of the reasons we need more media outlets like gript who are willing to speak up and call this ****e out

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nope but your interpretation is completely false. You read the word bigots and then invented what group of people she was calling bigots.

At no point in the article does she state anything about anyone refusing to sleep with her or not being attracted to her.

She does not call these people bigots as you would know if you read the article.

What group of people have I invented? Those that are genitally attracted? Is it a figment of my imagination that the vast majority of the world are genitally attracted? Who then is Shana calling bigots if it's not those who will not sleep with a trans woman as they are not sexually attracted to them? What else is she talking about if not this?

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p...tm_source=copy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, that’s not what it means. It’s essentially calling on politicians not to represent.

What part are you finding difficult to understand .


Everyone else gets it

Gruffalux wrote: »

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1333128232997105664?s=19

This is quite a long thread by a developmental biologist. It is well worth reading. She compares what is developing now to the teaching of creationism and she discusses human sexual dimorphism. Sometimes you have to click more replies to get Emma's full posting.

“Your honor, I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue [..] to oppose this law in any way I can.

Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom—that is, to teach the truth as guaranteed in our constitution [..]" - American John Scopes at his trial in the 1920s when he was found guilty of teaching the theory of evolution.

I’ve just read the thread, because I suspected from just the snippet above that the author of the thread was not familiar with the Scopes Trial. It turns out that not one of the respondents on the thread informed the author that the Scopes Trial was an example of the idea of playing the victim, and inventing the truth to fit their narrative.

Scopes had to pretend he was guilty of a crime he had not yet been found guilty of, and even his students were coached on what to say in giving evidence against him, (because they wouldn’t have had a clue otherwise!).

The same sort of behaviour is observed among those people who are looking to be prosecuted for crimes they haven’t committed, just so they can claim it’s the law is an ass!

If I have a question relating to developmental biology, she would be a useful authority to speak to, and I’ll even overlook the fact that she claims to be a feminist (a label which means whatever she wants it to mean, but on it’s own doesn’t tell me a whole lot), but she is not the authority on developmental biology, and if I wanted to have a more objective view of any issues regarding developmental biology, I would ask more than one developmental biologist, I would scour a number of sources rather than rely on just one. I might even ask people who are not developmental biologists for their views.

I might find 99% of their answers unhelpful, rigid, tautological, even useless. But nonetheless I could never claim it wasn’t an education. If we were to live in a society where scientific fact was all that could be taught in education, it would be a pretty shìt education IMO. Whether one likes it or not, educational institutions and academia are battle grounds of competing ideologies all vying for supremacy over each other, and it’s just as fundamentalist IMO to suggest that only scientific fact should be taught, and pretend that no other ideology or worldview exists or is of any value.

That’s why I’m interested in reading the book you referenced earlier, partly because it really is right up my street because it touches on a lot of areas which pique my interest, partly because the author seems mad as a box of frogs, partly because normally the books of that type I buy are anywhere between €50 - €100 and €17 is the price of a pack of smokes, but mostly because I’m always interested in different perspectives other than my own and new ways of thinking. The mind is analogous to muscles in the body - without use, it atrophies. That’s something that struck me when Sir Oxman said this -

Sir Oxman wrote: »

To people who think and do not farm out their opinion and who are not extremely devoted to dogma, this won't matter.

A developmental biologist who doesn’t appear to be used to engaging their critical faculties all that often, that they didn’t even take the time to look up the case before they thought to use it as an example of a profound statement about the truth? If her tweets are an indication of her abilities as a scientist, I don’t think she is in a position to lecture anyone either on the importance of research, the scientific method, biology or the truth. Feminism tho? Depends upon what type of feminist philosophy she advocates which she considers has any educational value I suppose. I don’t think feminism offers anything of any educational value, but I’m always willing to explore the possibility that it might some day have some utility in society.

Gruffalux wrote: »

Aleece you are a bio-essentialist homo-genitalist defender of biology. You are going on the bold list!

Santa is a bigot though! He's married to Mrs. Claus so clearly he's a cis-gendered, straight and white privileged male! :pac:

Gatling wrote: »

There's an ongoing case in Australia where a 15 Year old was taken into care claimed there parents won't let them transition ,
Now authorities want to start the 15 Year old on puberty blockers to start the transition process , parents are firmly saying no and they want 2nd opinions on medical and psychology ,
They want their child to be treated for depression and self harming in a non evasive manner as possible ,

The child can't return home as they claim they face mental torture not being allowed to transition


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theaustralian.com.au/nation/parents-grief-as-trans-teenager-taken-into-care/news-story/45462227e3b87702370fe4e0a95885cd

That link is behind a paywall, this link has more of the story -

Parents grief as ‘trans teenager’ taken into care

I could see similar cases happening here when the Irish electorate voted to pass the Children’s Referendum.

(To be clear - it had nothing to do specifically with any “trans lobby”, there were entirely different lobby groups campaigning for the CR)

Second lowest turnout of the electorate for a referendum, the lowest was related to the referendum on refusing bail to a suspect where it was feared that while at liberty they would commit a serious offence. That passed by a majority at least.

Gatling wrote: »

No child here should be ever be allowed to take puberty blockers or parents forced to allow them ,
Let them be Children and Make decisions when they care adults capable of making such a decision

I disagree. Parents have a responsibility to care for their children and make decisions for their children on their children’s behalf, and the State should never have been granted authority to put the boot in as flippantly as they do. That’s what leads to circumstances like the ones described in that article. My point is that it also happens in an Irish context which is what the thread is supposed to be about.

If it were determined by physicians that the child needed medical treatment which involved the use of hormone treatments, then that decision should ultimately be decided by the child’s parents, not the State.

It would also take the steam out of a lot of these calls on social media for children to be removed from their parents care just because some people get their knickers in a twist about children being raised by their parents according to values and beliefs that person is convinced are harmful.

Dante7 wrote: »

Some important language used in the ruling. "Perceived identity" used instead of gender identity. Preach it! Saying that in the workplace could get you sacked.

Absolutely, don't be surprised if they try to have any mention of the ruling removed ,be interested to see it any of the mainstream media run with it

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I certainly wouldn’t be cheering on foot of this decision.

There's always one .

Maybe we can stop sending children from here to tavistock all together ,I'd rather they got s full assessment of needs to see if there is evidence of ASD /Asperger's first ,and if there is no push for transitions as they may not be capable of making a life changing decision they would have long lasting effects

Gatling wrote: »

There's always one .

Maybe we can stop sending children from here to tavistock all together ,I'd rather they got s full assessment of needs to see if there is evidence of ASD /Asperger's first ,and if there is no push for transitions as they may not be capable of making a life changing decision they would have long lasting effects

No, this isn’t a “there’s always one” thing or anything like it. This decision makes it that much more difficult for parents who do not wish for their child to undergo any sort of treatments for conditions they don’t believe their children have, such as gender dysphoria or autism or any of the myriad of other conditions which are used to pathologise children’s behaviour.

One outcome of this decision is that the numbers of parents in the UK will simply take their children to be treated in other countries, another outcome will be a surge in hormones ordered over the Internet. It won’t have the chilling effect many of it’s cheerleaders are thinking it will.

I won’t even bother to address the attempted correlation between autism and gender dysphoria or sexual orientation and gender dysphoria because there is insufficient evidence to show any causative link, it only amounts to speculation among armchair psychologists. I’ve seen plenty of that too where professionals if they aren’t of the opinion that the child has any particular need, they’ll create one, or they’ll create one under pressure from the child’s parents, who are invariably of the “let kids be kids” variety, which just happens, by sheer coincidence mind, to coincide with their ‘diagnosis’ of the child or children in question.

Gatling wrote: »

There is no treatments for autism ,there is supports in education , psychology , occupational therapy , speech and language therapy ,
No parent is forced to allow their child to have treatments based off off behaviour .
What a silly thing to say

You know exactly what I’m saying all the same. I didn’t suggest there was any treatment for autism, I was making the point about it’s over-diagnosis in the first place, that it’s on a ‘spectrum’, that ASD is an umbrella term for conditions identified as ‘Asperger Syndrome’, etc, and people using terms like ‘aspie’, now a condition for the whole family (can’t find the article from the Irish Times now but it was an interview with a mother who was married to a man diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome, she was diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome, and all their children were... you guessed it!).

EDIT: I misremembered, it wasn’t the Irish Times, it was the other rag, the Irish Independent -


Our three kids all have Asperger's – just like me and my husband


I also didn’t say that any parents were forced to allow their children to have treatments based off their behaviour. I specifically made the point that it is contingent upon being diagnosed by a professional*, and when a professional makes a diagnosis, the parents decision making capacity comes secondary to what are determined by professionals and in some cases the Courts where the parents are of a different opinion, as to their own children’s best interests. The Courts will give more weight to the opinions of the professionals as opposed to the parents in terms of the child’s welfare.


*Before you say it, I’m aware that a diagnosis is not necessary in order to apply for some types of assistance.

Sir Oxman wrote: »

And the Health minister/dept, like what backup plans did they have for such a scenario - carry on nothing to see here or put in the proper full supports in Ireland.

It’s impossible to determine the impact for patients in Ireland, I don’t know what the Minister might say, but PinkNews, of all media outlets, has the most accurate take on today’s judgement and what the case was actually about -


Trans kids must understand risks of hormone therapy to receive life-saving puberty blockers, judge rules in landmark case