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

Gruffalux wrote: »

I don't find the trans people who I read to be inherently maladjusted. Ordinary people.
And then some vocal well known transgender people are very maladjusted. There are arseholes in every walk of life.

As for Page I only know what I see. I think they look very malnourished. Skeletal actually. Looking at photos from 10 years ago they looked a lot more healthy and vibrant. The announcement contained passages that seemed highly neurotic and unneccessary. Afraid of violence. Etc.

Then again that is stardom, maybe. Angelina Jolie also looks gaunt and malnourished, and she was incredibly beautiful before. I would say that few people in Hollywood remain well adjusted, frankly. Seems like a lot of them are weird and narcissistic. Not really useful as role models. The cult of celebrity is akin to the worship of the Greek pantheon of old.

Skeletal? He doesn’t even look vaguely gaunt.

It’s so very clear that the TERF tactic is to insinuate that a public trans figure must have mental health issues.

They don’t want the public to see a nice normal trans person living their life. They want the public to be afraid of the made up man-in-a-dress bogeyman.

political analyst wrote: »

She means that most children who have gender dysphoria but don't receive puberty blockers grow out of it.

Ok, the research on this is what could only be described as controversial. Her last point about everybody suffering when politics gets mixed up with science is just silly, because politics has always been an inherent component of science and yes, people have suffered, but there is also no denying the fact that people have also benefited from politics being mixed with science.

So, the current position, and I’ve seen this figure go from anywhere between 65 and 90% of adults who have “grown out of” gender dysphoria (and the numbers of patients involved in these studies btw are tiny, which is one of the major issues with any of these studies regarding gender dysphoria), as though they were incorrectly diagnosed and therefore the whole idea should be scrapped. But in reality, it’s the criteria for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria have changed in the last 30 years, so Stella saying that 30 years ago she could have convinced people she was transgender - she obviously didn’t convince anyone. It wasn’t a new thing even 30 years ago. The idea has been around in Western medicine and science for at least the last century in various different forms.

Much like scaremongering about autism, the idea of it’s over diagnosis has some validity, a grain of truth. However that’s literally all it is, in comparison to the mountains of scientific evidence which suggests otherwise. Same thing with gender dysphoria and that statistic - a grain of truth in the statistic, but a mountain of scientific evidence which suggests otherwise -

The Controversial Research on 'Desistance' in Transgender Youth


Stella then was not diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and even today as an adult it’s unlikely that she would be, but we know that there are adults who “come out” as transgender and it’s pretty sudden for anyone who wasn’t aware that the person is transgender, because the person kept it to themselves! So that indicates that we may well be underestimating the numbers of adults who are transgender within the population, because they’re impossible to identify without any physical characteristics we can point to and say “yep, they’re transgender alright”.

Stella saying she would have convinced anyone she was transgender is something she needs to convince herself of, in order to support her argument that gender dysphoria is being incorrectly diagnosed in children. Now Stella is a journalist of no particular note giving her opinion in a mainstream rag and being celebrated by those who agree with her for being brave in speaking out and all the rest of it. No such accolades have been bestowed upon the thousands and thousands of scientists and clinicians and physicians who are at the coal face so to speak of this issue every day, and are trying to discover its origins in order to develop better treatments which they hope will lead to better health outcomes.

So Stella who is a journalist, and not a scientist, crowing about the dangers of doing the very thing she is guilty of, is hardly the canary in the fcuking coal mine she and those who already agreed with her opinions, think she is. There’s nothing brave about parroting an opinion she’s already fairly sure is held by the majority of people in society, but there’s a few quid in it all the same, so no harm done at least, to Stella anyway.

Gruffalux wrote: »

I don't find the trans people who I read to be inherently maladjusted. Ordinary people.
And then some vocal well known transgender people are very maladjusted. There are arseholes in every walk of life.

As for Page I only know what I see. I think they look very malnourished. Skeletal actually. Looking at photos from 10 years ago they looked a lot more healthy and vibrant. The announcement contained passages that seemed highly neurotic and unneccessary. Afraid of violence. Etc.

Then again that is stardom, maybe. Angelina Jolie also looks gaunt and malnourished, and she was incredibly beautiful before. I would say that few people in Hollywood remain well adjusted, frankly. Seems like a lot of them are weird and narcissistic. Not really useful as role models. The cult of celebrity is akin to the worship of the Greek pantheon of old.

Page is vegan, the lack of collagen in their diet means their face hits the wall pretty hard by 30. Also, mental illness and depression can really age you.

political analyst wrote: »

In an article in today's Indo (3 December), Stella O'Malley wrote that she strongly believes she would have had everyone convinced she was a 'trans kid' if she'd been born 30 years later, that studies show that 80% of children with gender dysphoria grow out of it - just as she did - and only 5% grow out of it when children receive puberty blockers.

This line from the final paragraph sums up the horror of the issue.

https://books.google.ie/books?id=M4UJDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA591&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

-This is discussed in the Overview of Gender and Sexuality Development section.

They say that a factor that can predict if transgenderism will persist into early adulthood is the presence of a high degree of it in childhood that persists into early adolescence. So it really is compelling evidence that puberty blockers are a bad idea.

Who came up with the term Terf? feminists that have particular views about trans or critics of these feminists? If someone decided to label unionists as CEPs, Catholic Exclusionary Protestants , how could it not be seen as a put down of sorts?

silverharp wrote: »

Who came up with the term Terf? feminists that have particular views about trans or critics of these feminists? If someone decided to label unionists as CEPs, Catholic Exclusionary Protestants , how could it not be seen as a put down of sorts?

It was originally used by feminists themselves to define other feminists. Started by inclusive feminists to describe radical or second wave feminists.

It has changed to mean anyone who doesn't agree with gender theory. Even if they are not radical feminists.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Just to be clear.

To be a TERF one must first be a Radical Feminist?

Yes originally, but now it is used incorrectly to mean anyone who disagrees with gender theory. People who use it a lot of the time don't even know the meaning. Or what the difference in feminist types are.

A bit like fascist or communist is used widely and people don't really understand them. It just means people who disagrees with me.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Right.

My thinking here would be:
Let's say an American user signs up to Boards.ie
We all agree that "British" is not an offensive term or a slur. It's a description of someone's nationality.
If that America based poster then went on to constantly refer to people on this forum as "you British", "you British folks" etc etc then they would be warned for sure. Probably banned if it continued.

The logic being that while there's nothing offensive about "British" as a descriptor it's not cool to continually refer to people who are obviously not British AND annoyed about being called British as "British".

So unless you can confirm that someone is indeed a Radical Feminist you should not be calling them a TERF and they should be able to object to the label and repeated incorrect labeling should be considered a slur to some extent? OK, maybe not a slur exactly but if the person takes it as an insult then isn't it wrong to keep on calling them that?

How can it be OK to label someone with a label that they reject, disagree with or find offensive? Even if the label itself is widely used as a description if someone says "don't call me that" then how can it still be deemed acceptable to continuously call them that?

It has also been used to dehumanise people, especially women. Punch a terf, kill the terf. It's used as a way to justify violence against people. There seems to be much more hatred towards women for questioning the ideology.

I don't really understand the focus on women for me transgender people have more to fear from men. If the activists were actually worried about transgender people that is.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Right.

My thinking here would be:
Let's say an American user signs up to Boards.ie
We all agree that "British" is not an offensive term or a slur. It's a description of someone's nationality.
If that America based poster then went on to constantly refer to people on this forum as "you British", "you British folks" etc etc then they would be warned for sure. Probably banned if it continued.

The logic being that while there's nothing offensive about "British" as a descriptor it's not cool to continually refer to people who are obviously not British AND annoyed about being called British as "British".

So unless you can confirm that someone is indeed a Radical Feminist you should not be calling them a TERF and they should be able to object to the label and repeated incorrect labeling should be considered a slur to some extent? OK, maybe not a slur exactly but if the person takes it as an insult then isn't it wrong to keep on calling them that?

How can it be OK to label someone with a label that they reject, disagree with or find offensive? Even if the label itself is widely used as a description if someone says "don't call me that" then how can it still be deemed acceptable to continuously call them that?

They demand that we use pronouns, yet they don't give us the same respect. How in the world do they expect their ideology to function when the respect element is a one way street? It's out right narcissistic to force a standard on some people, yet not expect to live by the standard yourself.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ah let them have their Terf word, they certainly have no coherent arguments or logical consistency to fall back on so i'd allow them this security blanket. Plus, it's a good way to know who the Flat Eathers are when you spot Terf in their posts.

It doesn't bother me but I can understand the arguments against it. It's also funny when used against men who by definition cannot be radical feminists.

I don't need others to validate me or define me so if someone calls me a terf it's not going to upset me really more of an eye roll.

I wouldn't consider myself a radical feminist but probably closer to it then current feminists who are a pain in the arse. I don't really see the insult.

So calling a woman a woman gets a ban but slurring someone as a TERF, despite that person asking not to be referred to in that way, is fine.

Seriously, f*ck this site.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

This is a sound argument and maybe it should be possible to just say that we'd have no more gender based divisions in sports and everyone just goes in together.

Accepting this also means that for a lot of sports you will simply lose the women's division permanently. That would ultimately need to be accepted.

For many people the 100 metres is one of the "main event" competitions in the Olympic Games.

The current women's world record is an amazing 10.49.

However, this time would not even be enough to make the semi-finals (top 24) of the men's competition.

Get rid of the divisions and you will probably never see another woman performing in an Olympic 100 meter final, or even semi-final, at the Olympic Games ever again.

Indeed the only thing separating some of the current men's competitors and a world record is their gender identity. Many of these runners could identify as a woman tomorrow and be deemed the fastest woman in the world by Monday.

Obviously that is not happening and maybe it will never happen.
It definitely could happen though.

You could very easily look at the athletics field in the next few decades and see that the women's medals are exclusively competed for by women who have transitioned at some point in their lives.

Of course, this is where Radical Feminists now see the writing on the wall.
The future of cis-women as legitimate competitors in the world of sports is potentially under threat unless tight regulations are put in place and then protected.

On a smaller scale you could look at races where nothing is really at stake except for prize money. Say a local marathon race offers 5,000 euro to the fastest man and the fastest woman. A male competitor who might be expected to be just outside the top 5 men's finishers could identify themselves as an entrant into the women's event and walk home with a nice bit of cash in their pocket.

Of course sports people would never do something like abuse or break the rules for money so it's probably OK.

the slight counter argument is that there probably never be enough of them to top every event at an Olympics. How many men can run 100m in under 11 seconds?

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Of course.

So you get rid of gender divisions and sport becomes almost entirely dominated by men. Cis men. Which is the worst kind of man!

No option to see anyone but Cis men at major events. It's a shame to do that just as women's soccer, for example, is exploding in popularity. Sorry ladies you can't have your own divisions. Compete with the lads or move on.

OR you relax your restrictions on women's sports and the majority of your top women's competitors will be women who have transitioned at some point in their lives. In that scenario, for example, say a young girl admires the 2032 women's decathlon champion and wants to be a competitor herself one day. "Oh no, it's only women who have transitioned who make it big these days".

The other options would be things like a 3rd "trans division" but I don't see how this is viable since it basically denies the "trans-women are women" rule and so I'm not sure how that could be workable?

I suppose you could look at doing things like expanding the 100 meter final field to 12 slots and then saying we must have 4 slots for cis-men, 4 slots for cis-woman and 4 slots for people who have transitioned. This would probably not go over well as the 4 cis-men would be over the line in under 10 seconds while the rest are left in the dust.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the next decade or so.

Right now, I would guess that there is very little incentive for male competitors to move over to the women's event and probably quite a lot of social pressure to not do that. As prize money allocations and money from sponsorships start to even out a bit we could see a lot more change coming up.

the current kind of loophole situation looks unsustainable , so either trans people have their own events or you get rid of gender in sport all together and let the chips fall where they may. There would still be sponsorship and opportunities for the best female athletes and looked at in a particular way fits in with Equality