pride vs rte (1 Viewer)

[Cormcolash]

I think it's an outrage that Thumped hasn't put little rainbow flags everywhere

 

[pete]

I think it's an outrage that Thumped hasn't put little rainbow flags everywhere

I’d like to think we don’t need to. But I did consider it.

 

[rettucs]

prior to social media, day time radio and TV were the twits media of choice.

It doesn't give proper scrunity to silly people like a political journalist should and all kinds of daft to dangerous nonsense has been treated with respect it doesn't deserve or given a free pass.
giving supernatural or spiritual or much worse health/medicine scaremongering coverage is creating an environment where things like Dr. Andrew Wakefield and the MMR autism fraud are given huge coverage.

various examples of this - and there are many:

on Wednesday, day time TV show Loose Women presenters/panel had a piece where they expressed their thoughts on pharmacists possibly being allowed prescribe medicines. none of the people there were doctors or seemed to have any specialist knowledge. the last time I saw this show last winter they were talking about masks being reintroduced in certain indoor places during the third wave of Covid.
again the regular presenters were expressing strong opinions about mask wearing without any medical expert present.

these sort of programmes have regular stuff aimed at hypochondriacs.

Decades ago Gerry Ryan on his morning radio show interviewed a woman who said she went into her daughters bedroom one night and saw the child in a trance with sparks flying out of her (!!!) what was this supposed to signify??).
I was left wondering was she a hoaxer, actor or a crazy person. Yet Ryan treated her seriously which he was in fairness brilliant at doing with farcical stuff.
I very rarely heard his programme but Ryan covered nonsense like this a lot it seemed.

Prior to the Late Late Show Pat Kenny had a very lightweight chat show on Saturday nights in the late 80's with often rubbishy guests. One was Rael the Raelian cult leader.
Kenny gave a very soft interview with this man who claimed to have been abducted by aliens and taken to another planet where everyone was cloned and they were the creators of us Earthlings.
Pat couldn't have been easier on him.

I saw a doc about a fantasist in Australia who claimed she had an aggressive form of cancer but through a raw fruit diet she was able to stay healthy.
after conquering social media she got lots of positive coverage on TV, publishing deals etc. but she was eventually forced to admit she never had cancer.

whatever about having well thought through social or political opinions, things like the above crap should not be given any traction - these people are frauds or delusional and a danger to themselves.
day time radio and TV is full of stuff like this and it creates a environment where some people will take any old bullshit seriously - fake news?

people remember Gerry Ryan fondly and overlook that he had gone almost completely off the rails in the period up to his death. I know he had some bad shit going on in his life and that likely contributed to everything, but I would always categorise him as an entertaining whack-job. He was nuts. But one thing I'd say about him is, he'd always come out on the right side of a debate like this.

 

[rettucs]

But you have to accept people are going to want to talk about changes to legislation. That's part and parcel of democracy.
If people don't know what is not to be said, without the other side withdrawing and labeling people as hatemongers, then there is no debate to be had.

if this was about race, sexual orientation and not trans do you think the above still holds true?

 

[ann post]

It's probably nobody's job but is there any kinda straight up piece from Dublin pride explaining what boundaries were crossed, how things should have been handled etc etc because it's really far out of my experience. like i'm aware of people like glinner using platforms to attack minorities and stuff but i'm far from educated on what should/shouldn't have happened here.

Looking at this - i don't really think RTE are the worst partner they have

Pride Partners | Dublin LGBTQ Pride

We share a common belief and commitment with all our Partners - Pride is more than a day. Their year round support, not just of Dublin Pride but a host of other LGBTQ+ organisations, demonstrates that commitment. Becoming a Pride Partner is a great way to show practical support for your LGBTQ+ c ...

dublinpride.ie

 

[JohnnyRaz]

It's probably nobody's job but is there any kinda straight up piece from Dublin pride explaining what boundaries were crossed, how things should have been handled etc etc because it's really far out of my experience. like i'm aware of people like glinner using platforms to attack minorities and stuff but i'm far from educated on what should/shouldn't have happened here.

Looking at this - i don't really think RTE are the worst partner they have

Pride Partners | Dublin LGBTQ Pride

We share a common belief and commitment with all our Partners - Pride is more than a day. Their year round support, not just of Dublin Pride but a host of other LGBTQ+ organisations, demonstrates that commitment. Becoming a Pride Partner is a great way to show practical support for your LGBTQ+ c ...

dublinpride.ie

I hear amazon have very positive policies related to trans employees in their slave warehouses

 

[Anthony]

The Streisand Effect in full effect.

 

[nuke terrorist]

people remember Gerry Ryan fondly and overlook that he had gone almost completely off the rails in the period up to his death. I know he had some bad shit going on in his life and that likely contributed to everything, but I would always categorise him as an entertaining whack-job. He was nuts. But one thing I'd say about him is, he'd always come out on the right side of a debate like this.

I am sure Gerry Ryan was covering trans folks decades ago alright - I was more aware of trans people as a kid in 1980's Ireland, than gay rights.
beyond that I was just saying some of the nonsense on day time radio and TV is part of a wider 'lowest common denominator gets the ratings' climate.
I didn't mention trans stuff in my two previous posts here.
supporting trans rights is a no brainer obviously.

I didn't know what gay meant until I was nearly 12 but then I was introduced to homophobia.
which there was a lot of until I was 16 about 30 years ago. a lot of it was tied in with finding sex ridiculous - something that happened a lot (and far more than I ever thought in reality) but was almost never seen.
I rejected homophobia at 16 and was the first lad I knew to actively oppose it when I heard it.

we were so clueless that even if we had met a very camp person e.g. Norton or Julian Clary, we would never have thought they were gay - we simply didn't know the stereotype.

I saw almost no homophobia from girls. the really sad thing was realising that there must be gay and lesbian kids at our school and how much they must have been suffering. that realisation hurt a lot and made me feel really ashamed.

I knew about trans people before gay/lesbian folks. I would see them on TV occassionally in the 1980's.
I didn't think it was a big deal really.

But I had no idea Boy George, Holly Johnson, Jimmy Sommerville etc were gay until I was nearly grown up. it was almost not mentioned unless it was likes of The Scum tabloid in UK outing someone.

I just think ultimately it was down to ignorance rather than any real hatred. I've told all this to a few gay people and feel there is no point in pretending otherwise. This was probably pretty standard for someone of my age sadly.

until the late 2000's gender identity was something that even the trans community could have never realised affected so many people but it's been a big mainstream issue for a decade now.
Supporting trans women's rights to participate in sport is something I changed my mind on since then.

 

[nuke terrorist]

It's probably nobody's job but is there any kinda straight up piece from Dublin pride explaining what boundaries were crossed, how things should have been handled etc etc because it's really far out of my experience. like i'm aware of people like glinner using platforms to attack minorities and stuff but i'm far from educated on what should/shouldn't have happened here.

Looking at this - i don't really think RTE are the worst partner they have

Pride Partners | Dublin LGBTQ Pride

We share a common belief and commitment with all our Partners - Pride is more than a day. Their year round support, not just of Dublin Pride but a host of other LGBTQ+ organisations, demonstrates that commitment. Becoming a Pride Partner is a great way to show practical support for your LGBTQ+ c ...

dublinpride.ie

holy shit - what a horror show of companies.
many banks, Amazon, KPMG, Nestle, Facebook...
this is where assimilation into the mainstream has gotten the LGBT+ community?
this is fucking sad - worse than not booing Varadkar when he came on stage a few years ago.

 

[Space]

I don't need them to justify anything to me. They can do what they want.
But the debate was about legislation changes wanted by trans advocates, which is fine, go for it. Change the law.
But you have to accept people are going to want to talk about changes to legislation. That's part and parcel of democracy.
If people don't know what is not to be said, without the other side withdrawing and labeling people as hatemongers, then there is no debate to be had.

And this is a very nuanced issue. Many many people - in Tullamore an elsewhere - don't get it. It wants talking about.
If not talking is a strength in your view, then that's fine. But that is certainly what's going on.
It could very well be a winning strategy on the issue but it's very easy to see it as a strategy of shutting down debate by painting anyone who doesn't agree with you as a hateful person.


The hour or so I have heard, was respectful, if not contentious.
But you'd expect some contentiousness on matters of legislation and identity.


There was plenty of lunacy on the airwaves from loo-lahs (John Waters et al) during marriage equality on RTE and Pride didn't sever ties. There were enough people sure of their position to go on and counter the other side and they won the argument by a fair stretch on the day.
Pride have deferred to the trans groups on the matter of severing ties with RTE.

The legislation changed 7 years ago with little issue. Liveline had four days in a row of transphobic groups on talking shite and whipping up hysteria for something that's been in affect for 7 years. 7 years like but it's all of a sudden an issue now thanks to various transphobic groups who probably didn't even exist then.

 

[Cormcolash]

Pride vs Thumped

 

[Cormcolash]

Pride vs a pride of lions

 

[Space]

Here's the statement from Dublin Pride outlining the issues they have with RTE/Liveline.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[ann post]

I saw that - It pretty much explains nothing tbh.

 

[Space]

I saw that - It pretty much explains nothing tbh.

Take it up with them so.

 

[Deadmanposting]

if this was about race, sexual orientation and not trans do you think the above still holds true?

I don't know
The issues seem really different, to me anyways.

Being anti-racist is about living up to our long-established shared ideals - loving our fellow man - that most every religion and ethos has had.
We all already know this and understand it, we had to get people to start living it. It is very easy to explain to people the injustices of racism. Everyone gets it and the terms "black" and "white" aren't really recognised as hate words in debate.


The move to change the definition of what a woman is very difficult for a lot of people to get their heads around; you can hear it on the episode.
It requires a real change in existing thinking to bring it about - and for that you have to talk to people.
It seems to me that the very words you need to talk about "male" and "female" etc are the very ones that are causing offence.
No one on the episode I heard was misgendered or deadnamed - which is obviously very hurtful. (The lady with the trans teen said her family did this all the time initially, just because the adjustment in thinking was so big.)
But plenty of women seem not to like the definition of woman being changed - especially in law - yet the making of that argument quite easily you a transphobe. And makes the broadcaster one too.

The idea that just talking about this makes you a hateful person, makes people afraid to speak up and ask questions and express themselves.


I have no skin in the game whatsoever - people can be or do whatever they want as far as I care.

Also, I don't think it adds much merit to the argument when people say "Well, it's just like racism really"

 

[Space]

The change in what the definition of what marriage was difficult for some people too. Before that the change in what defined a human being was difficult for some people too. The equation with racism is pretty spot on.

 

[Deadmanposting]

The legislation changed 7 years ago with little issue. Liveline had four days in a row of transphobic groups on talking shite and whipping up hysteria for something that's been in affect for 7 years. 7 years like but it's all of a sudden an issue now thanks to various transphobic groups who probably didn't even exist then.

They changed the self-ID law years ago, from what I heard on the show.
i.e. say you're a woman/man and we'll change your birth cert to reflect that. Seems like most everyone was happy with letting that be - in the spirit of go be happy and do your own thing.

Now they have to bring that change into various other areas of legislation that have legal protections for women - i.e. remove the word woman from legislation about pregnancy at work etc.
That's what the current iteration of the debate is about.
Or that's what I gleaned from listening to the one episode I listened to. I don't want to listen to more.

But it really didn't sound like hysteria on what I heard. There was a woman and a parent of a teen lesbian who had objections to the change in law, but also how people are afraid to talk about the issue or they'll be labeled transphobe. Which is what happened.

 

[rettucs]

I don't know
The issues seem really different, to me anyways.

Being anti-racist is about living up to our long-established shared ideals - loving our fellow man - that most every religion and ethos has had.
We all already know this and understand it, we had to get people to start living it. It is very easy to explain to people the injustices of racism. Everyone gets it and the terms "black" and "white" aren't really recognised as hate words in debate.


The move to change the definition of what a woman is very difficult for a lot of people to get their heads around; you can hear it on the episode.
It requires a real change in existing thinking to bring it about - and for that you have to talk to people.
It seems to me that the very words you need to talk about "male" and "female" etc are the very ones that are causing offence.
No one on the episode I heard was misgendered or deadnamed - which is obviously very hurtful. (The lady with the trans teen said her family did this all the time initially, just because the adjustment in thinking was so big.)
But plenty of women seem not to like the definition of woman being changed - especially in law - yet the making of that argument quite easily you a transphobe. And makes the broadcaster one too.

The idea that just talking about this makes you a hateful person, makes people afraid to speak up and ask questions and express themselves.


I have no skin in the game whatsoever - people can be or do whatever they want as far as I care.

Also, I don't think it adds much merit to the argument when people say "Well, it's just like racism really"

I agree with some of this but a lot of it seems to be you making excuses for people who are just ignorant. If people approach discussion with an anti-trans agenda, ignorant or not, then fuck them, there is no place for them in a civilised society. If, on the other hand, people want to engage in a discussion with no other agenda than to educate themselves, then grand.

And to clarify I'm not saying being anti-trans is being racist, but I do see parallels in that people are trying to deny people their human rights simply because of who they are and who they were born.

I'm just not sure there's a devil's advocate position here. As @Cornu Ammonis rightly said, there is no neutral ground here.

 

[pete]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies