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

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 16-11-2020 4:42pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

We know it’s not made up. But it’s a chemistry term (if my chemistry knowledge holds up, cis- and trans- prefixes are used for mirror image versions of the same molecule). Just because it is a real prefix, doesn’t mean people have to accept it being applied to them. How it’s used doesn’t even correlate to the chemistry usage, as men and women are not simply mirror images of one another.

Yeah, I know and agree - but the last time I was in a thread liek that, peopel honestly thought the woke crowd had created the word.

Don't want to do down the road again.

osarusan · 16-11-2020 4:45pm

My thoughts on this from a previous thread (Yaniv ball-waxing thread, hence the reference to law at the end):

I am somebody who thinks that people who are transgender should be allowed to live their lives pretty much as they want, by and large. I don't have any problem with using their preferred pronoun, for example. I'm not quite sure I agree with the logic behind it, but, hey, I'm not going to think about it too deeply. There has been a fair amount of discussion about Boards policy on this one, but as far as I can see, using the pronoun 'they' sorts it out, and for me at least, that isn't any kind of hill to die on.

But when it comes to 'live their lives as they want, by and large', the reality is that living their lives comprises a huge number and range of interactions with other people.

Do I have a problem with the idea that somebody who is biologically female prefers to be called 'he' in an office environment (or vice versa)? No, I don't, to be honest.

Do I have a problem with the likes of the subject of this thread looking for a genital wax when their genitals are, to put it politely, not the genitals expected by the waxer? Yes I do. I am not sure if there is even a single poster on this thread who thinks that scenario is ok.

So when we talk about 'living their lives', it actually encompasses a huge range of interactions and encounters, and sometimes my own ethical compass will say it's something that sounds ok to me, and sometimes it's something that doesn't sound ok to me.

Do I think that a transgender female should be allowed to live their life as they please, by and large? Yes, I do. Do I think that extends to allowing a transgender female to compete in female sports? No, I don't.

When I think about it like that, I wonder if there is any consistency to my positions or if they are just arbitrary. Maybe what it really means is that 'live their lives as they please, by and large' is something that actually needs to be examined interaction by interaction, scenario by scenario, right versus competing right. I'm not sure a broad/generic law can be worded in such a way that it can adequately cover all these possible scenarios and interactions.

TomTomTim · 16-11-2020 4:48pm

excludedbin wrote: »

Not really sure what kind of discussion can be had when one side sees the scientific consensus that supports the other as being a result of "extreme activists". Frankly, if that's the kind of delusion we have to deal with then just leave it as another echo-chamber for the transphobes to rub themselves raw off in. Or is this to be another thread where rabid transphobes (if you're going with "extreme activists") can get away with floating whatever vile abuse against trans people they like, because it's technically not directed at any specific member on the site?

.

Why must you people always be so dishonest in your framing? You're trying to frame orthodoxy as extremist, which is ridiculous.

[Deleted User] · 16-11-2020 4:48pm

Baggly wrote: »

Why do you think that entitlement, as you describe it, is bs? Which facts are you alluding to exactly? I presume you too think that its straightforward and there is no nuance to the issue?

Because you can't change your biology purely by willing it to be so.

I do think it is straightforward.

Nobody should be stopped from claiming to be a different sex/gender but other shouldn't be compelled to believe them or to pander to their "reality" when it is patently untrue.

I extend that to almost all facets of life. Eg religion, climate change, etc.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 16-11-2020 4:55pm

juice1304 wrote: »

I dont understand why people care about how another person feels.

There are people here going on like trans people choose to be like that. Why would anyone choose to be like that when even from reading this thread you get an idea of the level of ignorance in society and the nonsesne they have to put up with on a daily basis. Why would anyone choose to be mocked for the rest of their lives by immature idiots.

Do they also believe gay people choose to be gay?

Should trans people be allowed to play in sports of their affirmed gender? No, because they are physically different and it is unfair.

Should there be laws forcing the use of language that can be used by petty people to sue others? No
But other than that who cares. It's not your life, worry about your own problems.

And for those who believe it's not possible. Every human being starts life as a female, It is the development of new hormones that change the characteristics of the individual. Who is not to say that their brains didn't develop to the point of being hardwired female before the hormonal changes occurred?
It's impossible to know but still quite possible and irrelevant anyway because it's no ones business how anyone else lives their life.

No, the sex of the baby is determined from the moment of conception. The foetus in early development starts to develop as a female but later on, gene expression kicks in. Those XX and XY chromosomes are there from the moment of conception. It’s not just some kind of pot luck.

On the rest of your post, you and others are missing the point a bit. People can live however they want to, except where their rights encroach on the rights of others. I find the comparison to gay rights a bit superficial. There is an added layer here, the significant biological differences between males and females. Those differences can’t be magicked away. We can’t ignore them.

ThewhiteJesus · 16-11-2020 4:57pm

how about a poll op it would be interesting to see the results on what people think,
for or against ect

Wibbs · 16-11-2020 4:59pm

juice1304 wrote: »

I dont understand why people care about how another person feels.

I agree, so long as they don't harm others or themselves I say play on.

There are people here going on like trans people choose to be like that. Why would anyone choose to be like that when even from reading this thread you get an idea of the level of ignorance in society and the nonsesne they have to put up with on a daily basis. Why would anyone choose to be mocked for the rest of their lives by immature idiots.

Do they also believe gay people choose to be gay?

Oh there's much to that, but one could also debate on how adolescents in particular often take on different personas in their journey to finding their adult identities, many of those personas can attract negative responses from others. And yet many keep doing so.

Every human being starts life as a female

I really wish people would stop repeating this fallacy as fact. It isn't.

It is the development of new hormones that change the characteristics of the individual. Who is not to say that their brains didn't develop to the point of being hardwired female before the hormonal changes occurred?

This I would be much more on board with. I would be of the opinion that roughly speaking there are masculinised and feminised brains on a structural level, with some crossover. In the majority of people their brain matches their gender and indeed their sexuality. In some they don't. Among those their sexuality is where the more obvious differences show and research has shown some parts of Gay men's brains are more like Straight women's brains than Straight men's. Even oddball stuff like thumb prints in Straight men are less symmetrical between hands than Gay men's. Even facial recognition software that had a high enough success rate at spotting Gay men and Women from Straight. So I can certainly see where a biological female baby might end up with essentially an extremely male brain and feel more male. We saw a glimpse of that with Intersex folks in the past where they were assigned, often surgically, gender at birth, by the vague means of whatever their genitals appeared closer to. And that didn't go well fro so many of them. Intersex folks raised as girls who were quite adamant they were men later on.

So I 100% believe Trans people exist. However my concern is how many who think they are at a certain part of their lives actually are? They might be just "tomboys" or "effeminate", they might simply be Gay and confused about that, or they could have other developmental conditions that "Trans" seems the easier label to attach. Which would be fine if there wasn't the spectre of hormone blockers and treatments that change so many of the body's bits and bobs and irreversibly. That's before surgery is in the mix.

It's impossible to know but still quite possible and irrelevant anyway because it's no ones business how anyone else lives their life.

I hear this trotted out a lot too and it doesn't bear much scrutiny. Unless you're living on a desert island how you live your life affects quite the number of people. We're a social animal that lives in extended families and communities.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 16-11-2020 5:01pm

osarusan wrote: »

My thoughts on this from a previous thread (Yaniv ball-waxing thread, hence the reference to law at the end):

Good post! What “living their lives” actually means in practical terms does need to figured out. But any public figure who has tried to do this (like the lady who inspired this thread) has been severely unbraided. Only the very rich and/or famous can insulate themselves against that kind of criticism so it just doesn’t get discussed. People are afraid to do so as jobs can and have been lost by people who spoke out.

WhenPigsCry · 16-11-2020 5:05pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, we have self-ID in Ireland, a situation that has allowed two males to be housed in the already overcrowded women’s prison in Limerick. One of them is a sex offender (a child sex offender, I should clarify in the interests of honesty), the other has a history of violence against women.

And the thing is, the self ID laws allow this. Demand it, in fact. They both have gender recognition certs. Legally, they are women and have to be placed in the women’s prison.

That's just prison. A cis woman convicted of assaulting other women will be in a woman's prison. Why is that an acceptable level of risk for the other inmates?

Chips Lovell · 16-11-2020 5:06pm

I'd be broadly of the "live and let live" school of thought myself. The most simple explanation I've heard was when someone said to me that sex and gender are not the same thing.

I do find though that it's a topic that tends to make some people I've met almost irrationally angry, even though it often has little or no impact on them personally, so much so that you could argue that it's in inverse proportion They'll frequently use edge cases, such as gender reassignment for children or transgender athletes, as a stick to beat everything else with. Just deal with the edge cases and let everyone else get on with their lives.

Also, saying "you're free to identify as a woman as long as I'm free to insist, to your face, that you're a man" isn't live and let live. That's just being a dick.

Baggly · 16-11-2020 5:07pm

excludedbin wrote: »

Not really sure what kind of discussion can be had when one side sees the scientific consensus that supports the other as being a result of "extreme activists". Frankly, if that's the kind of delusion we have to deal with then just leave it as another echo-chamber for the transphobes to rub themselves raw off in. Or is this to be another thread where rabid transphobes (if you're going with "extreme activists") can get away with floating whatever vile abuse against trans people they like, because it's technically not directed at any specific member on the site?

Because opinions are one thing but homophobia, racism, etc. are rightly banned and not just against specific posters but in general, but the same respect doesn't seem to be afforded trans people.

Talk about respect all you want but, again, if the first page already features "extreme activists" then what hope is there? It really does appear to be that one 'side' in this is given near free rein to be as abusive and sneering as they like to anyone that dares disagree with them. I know CA/IMHO is a majority reactionary right wing forum but if you're going to give lip service to equal treatment under the rules then you've got to actually follow through to some degree.

Honestly, I don't think this is the kind of issue that can be discussed here. One side sees the other as extremists, 'degenerates', deviants, deserving of being ignored because they're "mentally ill", groomers, abusers... Can you really, honestly, not see that discussion with people that believe those sorts of things can't happen? Not unless they're massively reined in from not speaking like that, which one would think would be the bare bloody minimum under the rules of the site and forum.

But whatever. Seems like this forum is increasingly becoming somewhere LGBT people just aren't welcome. Not unless they're self-hating reactionaries.

I know this post will be mocked and ganged up on by the usual names but I wanted to say my piece and I did. I won't claim to speak for everyone on the side of trans people but I doubt what I've said is far off the feelings of many.

Mod

If you want to add to the discussion here, please do. If you want to backseat mod we can arrange a threadban for you, and if you want to throw insults at a group of posters we can also arrange sanctions for you there.

This thread is for people to discuss this topic. Im not really interested in whether you think that can be done or not. I am interested in your opinions on the topic (provided you can post them civilly), however.

CtevenSrowder · 16-11-2020 5:13pm

Baggly wrote: »

Ok so lets get the discussion going then.

Do you really think thats all there is to it?

With respect to what I posted, yes. Women is a word defined based on scientific fact (adult human female)

Baggly wrote: »

Its that straightforward?

Yes.

Baggly wrote: »

What are your experiences with the topic IRL?

I did biology for my leaving junior cert

Baggly wrote: »

Why do you think that entitlement, as you describe it, is bs? Which facts are you alluding to exactly? I presume you too think that its straightforward and there is no nuance to the issue?

Ok maybe we need clarification. Most of the trans-threads issues are not necessarily to do with gender identity as such, but with whether a male can be an actual women or a female can be an actual man. They cannot unless the words are redefined and in the process become meaningless, or cause serious issues as the only other way is to base them on stereotype.

The answer to this is clear and straightforward. Gender identity i.e. someone identifies as non-binary for example, will still have a particular sex regardless of what they claim their gender to be.

Baggly wrote: »

That is not my experience of the issue tbh. I think its very relevant to a lot of real people. Not people in another country - but Irish people. If you haven't experienced that point of view, then fair enough, but i dont think its fair to deny something exists just because you haven't seen it first hand.

It is ofcourse relevant. Many may not pay a huge amount of attention to the issue on a day to day basis but cases like the recent one we had with a trans-woman (i.e. a biological male), who is a clear danger to woman being put in prison with other women, brings the issue to fore (if only for a short period).

Ofcourse, my first post was in some respects facetious (\endofthread part)

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 16-11-2020 5:13pm

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

That's just prison. A cis woman convicted of assaulting other women will be in a woman's prison. Why is that an acceptable level of risk for the other inmates?

Things aren’t 100% safe in women’s prisons so let’s make them even less safe? Really? And also “that’s just prison”? REALLY?

Most women aren’t in for violent crimes. Some are, but most aren’t.

We know that males are responsible for the vast majority of violent crime. And sexual assault. So, we should mitigate risk as much as possible using the information at our disposal. We’ll never get to a point of 100% safety but we can get as close as possible.

There’s also the added physical advantage of males. A woman attacking a woman will almost always do less damage than a male attacking a woman.

AllForIt · 16-11-2020 5:20pm

excludedbin wrote: »

..........Seems like this forum is increasingly becoming somewhere LGBT people just aren't welcome. Not unless they're self-hating reactionaries.

So you think all LGBT people should have the exact same opinion otherwise you will label them self-hating reactionaries. Yeah that sounds about right.

WhenPigsCry · 16-11-2020 5:20pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Things aren’t 100% safe in women’s prisons so let’s make them even less safe? Really? And also “that’s just prison”? REALLY?

Most women aren’t in for violent crimes. Some are, but most aren’t.

We know that males are responsible for the vast majority of violent crime. And sexual assault. So, we should mitigate risk as much as possible using the information at our disposal. We’ll never get to a point of 100% safety but we can get as close as possible.

There’s also the added a physical advantage of males. A woman attacking a woman will almost always do less damage than a male attacking a woman.

What if she is using a weapon? What if her aim is not to inflict physical damage?

What about men's prisons then? Why is it acceptable for men to be imprisoned with men who have committed male-on-male violence?

humberklog · 16-11-2020 5:23pm

When someone states that they are "gender fluid" I can't help thinking that they've just called themselves a "cum stain".

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 16-11-2020 5:24pm

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I'd be broadly of the "live and let live" school of thought myself. The most simple explanation I've heard was when someone said to me that sex and gender are not the same thing.

I do find though that it's a topic that tends to make some people I've met almost irrationally angry, even though it often has little or no impact on them personally, so much so that you could argue that it's in inverse proportion They'll frequently use edge cases, such as gender reassignment for children or transgender athletes, as a stick to beat everything else with. Just deal with the edge cases and let everyone else get on with their lives.

Also, saying "you're free to identify as a woman as long as I'm free to insist, to your face, that you're a man" isn't live and let live. That's just being a dick.

I’m sorry, but do you only care about things that affect you personally?

I know that I will never have an abortion (unless the pregnancy was going to kill me) but I cared about it being legalised because I cared about the vulnerable people who need that option there for them. It’s the same now. I believe that the groups most affected by self-ID legislation are the most vulnerable - female prisoners, children etc. It makes me quite angry sometimes but I don’t think that anger is irrational. And I think calling it irrational is undermining.

And the last time I heard people say that people were just using edge cases as examples were No campaigners for the eighth referendum. Maybe you voted no then, but if you didn’t, surely using that argument should give you pause for thought. So what if these are rare examples? Does that matter to the person affected? I hate the rareness argument during the eighth referendum and I hate it now. The people affected by self ID legislation aren’t collateral.

CtevenSrowder · 16-11-2020 5:28pm

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

What if she is using a weapon? What if her aim is not to inflict physical damage?

What about men's prisons then? Why is it acceptable for men to be imprisoned with men who have committed male-on-male violence?

What do you want? Everyone to be put into solitary confinement?

You are just engaging in whataboutery. If something is unsafe why make it even more unsafe?

Chips Lovell · 16-11-2020 5:30pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I believe that the groups most affected by self-ID legislation are the most vulnerable - female prisoners, children etc.

I think you might have taken me up wrong. I'm saying by all means address these issues, but that it's poor form for people to use these issues as an excuse to bash all transgender people.

Gatling · 16-11-2020 5:30pm

humberklog wrote: »

When someone states that they are "gender fluid" I can't help thinking that they've just called themselves a "cum stain".

Funniest post we had in CA so far

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 16-11-2020 5:32pm

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

What if she is using a weapon? What if her aim is not to inflict physical damage?

What about men's prisons then? Why is it acceptable for men to be imprisoned with men who have committed male-on-male violence?

Violence in men’s prison is a huge problem. It needs to be tackled. But bringing it up here is whataboutery. Making women’s prisons less safe doesn’t solve the problem of male on male violence in men’s prisons.

And WhenPigsCry, this isn’t directed at you, it’s a more general point. I’ve heard people cite the danger to transgender women in men’s prisons. Absolutely. That is a concern. And it needs to be tackled. But anyone who cites concern for the safety of transgender women in men’s prisons whilst dismissing female inmates’ safety concerns reveals themselves to be a bit of a hypocrite.

WhenPigsCry · 16-11-2020 5:32pm

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

What do you want? Everyone to be put into solitary confinement?

You are just engaging in whataboutery. If something is unsafe why make it even more unsafe?

Okay, so let's say we have a cis woman convicted of multiple violent assaults against other woman, and a trans woman with no history of violent crimes, who is convicted of forging cheques.

Is it an acceptable level of risk to imprison the first woman in a women's prison? If so, why is the second unacceptable?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 16-11-2020 5:36pm

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I think you might have taken me up wrong. I'm saying by all means address these issues, but that it's poor form for people to use these issues as an excuse to bash all transgender people.

The thing is, Chips, anyone who tries to discuss these problems is severely criticised. I’m not sure if we’re allowed to mention her in this thread but look what happened to JK Rowling. She has been vilified. I thought her essay was kind and compassionate. But she is treated as a modern day witch, and not just by a fringe. Many high profile public figures have and continue to heavily criticise her.

Any attempt at discussion is met with “WHY are you denying my existence?”. It’s so manipulative.

WhenPigsCry · 16-11-2020 5:36pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Violence in men’s prison is a huge problem. It needs to be tackled. But bringing it up here is whataboutery. Making women’s prisons less safe doesn’t solve the problem of male on male violence in men’s prisons.

And WhenPigsCry, this isn’t directed at you, it’s a more general point. I’ve heard people cite the danger to transgender women in men’s prisons. Absolutely. That is a concern. And it needs to be tackled. But anyone who cites concern for the safety of transgender women in men’s prisons whilst dismissing female inmates’ safety concerns reveals themselves to be a bit of a hypocrite.

"What about the safety of prison inmates??!!" was the very first thing you brought up in this thread. But now it's some inmates, not others, we should be especially concerned about.

Apparently the potential for male on male violence in prison is an acceptable level of risk, since you aren't bleating on about it in every available thread. Ditto women on women violence.

Can you explain to me why a trans woman with no history of violent crime is unacceptable in a women's prison, but a cis woman who has a history of violent offences against other women is?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 16-11-2020 5:41pm

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

"What about the safety of prison inmates??!!" was the very first thing you brought up in this thread. But now it's some inmates, not others, we should be especially concerned about.

Apparently the potential for male on male violence in prison is an acceptable level of risk, since you aren't bleating on about it in every available thread. Ditto women on women violence.

It’s not acceptable at all. I’m all ears for ideas on how to tackle that.

The solution isn’t “Well, we see more violence in men’s prisons, let’s transfer some of that over to the women’s estate, where the inmates are mostly at a significant physical disadvantage”.

Why would we make things worse in an already imperfect situation? Make that make sense, I beg of you.

Eric Cartman · 16-11-2020 5:41pm

As above transwomen are biologically men, transmen are biologically women. This truth should be held for bathrooms, changing rooms, prisons, sports and medical facilities. Whatever biological sex you were born as holds to you forever.

There should be absolutely no legal recognition, encouragement or path to transition for people under the age of 18. Children are not here to be abused like that and the chance of regret is too high.

I don't believe 'dead naming' or 'misgendering' anyone should have any legal ramifications more than say calling someone an asshole. You can be offended in yourself or whatever but it shouldn't be something you lose your job over or can be sued over.

people who are 'gender fluid' absolutely do come off as attention seekers and I do not believe for one second that its a 'real condition'

Putting pressure on lesbians to accept partners with penises, gay men to accept partners with vaginas or straight people to accept trans partners is absolutely wrong and should be stopped dead in its tracks. Im a straight man, if you were born a man I don't care how many surgeries you had or how well you 'pass' , its not happening.

Trans people 'passing' on dating sites should absolutely be up front about being trans. Anyone potentially dating them has a right to know exactly what they're in for.

suicide_circus · 16-11-2020 5:42pm

There is a huge gulf, it seems to me, between;

A. Using preferred pronouns as a courtesy and treating people with respect.

and

B. Actually believing that a biological male is and always has been a woman on nothing more than their own say so.

I'm on board with A but I really struggle with B.

I also struggle with the idea that the treatment of a person's gender dysphoria is for everyone else to become a participant in that dysphoria.

Rezident · 16-11-2020 5:44pm

In the conflict between the Laws of Biology and what a tiny minority of people claim that they feel, I think Biology is right and they are probably wrong or confused.

Letting a man fight women in MMA because he claims that he is a woman is wrong. It is just wrong. Biologically, physically, in terms of common sense, it is all wrong, and it shows how far wrong the world has gone that you cannot even use common sense anymore without being falsely accused of some imaginary hate crime.

WhenPigsCry · 16-11-2020 5:45pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It’s not acceptable at all. I’m all ears for ideas on how to tackle that.

The solution isn’t “Well, we see more violence in men’s prisons, let’s transfer some of that over to the women’s estate, where the inmates are mostly at a significant physical disadvantage”.

Why would we make things worse in an already imperfect situation? Make that make sense, I beg of you.

Which is more risky, an inmate with a history of violent crimes or an inmate with no history of violent crimes? If you were going to prison tomorrow, who would you rather have to rub shoulders with, a woman with a history of violence against women, or a woman who is in for forging cheques? What if the former is a cis woman and the latter is a trans woman? Does that change your preference?

If there are solutions to the problem of male on male violence in prison, couldn't those same solutions be applied to women's prisons?

Omackeral · 16-11-2020 5:45pm

Ekerot wrote: »

The problems started when people began putting their preferred pronouns on their Twitter bios
I'll never understand how that caught on, very very silly

On the plus side, it’s a great way to get a snapshot of what someone is all about in one quick glance.

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

Comments