Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
75% of newly infected HIV victims were homosexual.

In the UK its about 50% and as there is a mandatory lifestyle questionnaire that has to be taken before donating blood (I believe that this is EU wide) high risk individuals can be weeded out (of any sexuality). For example a group that is deemed to be high risk of HIV infection are prostitutes and they are dealt with via the questionnaire. There are perfectly reasonable arguments for removing a blanket ban on Gay men donating blood.

A blanket ban currently violates EU law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

I like the idea that gender-based role models seem to be restricted to biological sex. They can teach them how only boys can use blue toys, and girls pink ones. Otherwise, you might have kids not learning how to function as the clearly delineated gender society expects them to be. And that would be terrible.

Yes, that obviously was what I saying *roll eyes*

 Sienisoturi wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:


Children need a good role model when they grow up. A boy needs a male role model, a girl needs a female role model, disabled children greatly profit from disabled role models etc. Not "need" as in "do or die", but rather "highly beneficial". Same-sex relationships can certainly raise a child and most certainly better than a lot of regular couples. After all, they have to go through a real struggle to get a child and don't get children "by accident", as many, many regular couples...or even relationships do. Those children, however, should still have access to a corresponding gender role model. This is especially important with boys, early on, as pre-school / elementary school tea

I like the idea that gender-based role models seem to be restricted to biological sex. They can teach them how only boys can use blue toys, and girls pink ones. Otherwise, you might have kids not learning how to function as the clearly delineated gender society expects them to be. And that would be terrible.

Could you please elaborate this a little bit more?

By all means.

Sigvatr asserted a number of things. Firstly, that children need role models. He then went on to assign the appropriate role models as being male/female, and that boys/girls would need to match with ones that he feels are appropriate (boys to males, and girls to females). Now whilst he did state that it should be a 'gender role model' (and therefore did not exclude the idea that a woman who identified as a male in terms of gender could be an appropriate male role model), he did however, automatically assign the boys to the male gender role and the girls to the female gender role.

In other words, Sigvatr believes firstly that boys should be inculcated into the gender concept of being a 'male' and girls that of a 'female', and further, that is necessary in order to provide them with good 'role models' who identify as either one. That is to say, children should be provided with specific role models who identify as specific genders, in order to inculcate the children into becoming either one (I'll provide Sigvatr the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that he does not oppose a boy who feels that way inclined being provided with a female gender role model to emulate).

As the concept of male and female are social constructs however, what he is advising is nothing less than gender indoctrination. It is one thing to advise that a role model be provided to portray values or behaviours (a good/tough/caring person is one regardless of gender). By linking the idea of a role model to the concepts of gender, Sigvatr is asserting that gender is the value/behaviour which should be imparted to children.

In the Western world, this would usually mean that a man should be tough, strong, assertive, like 'toys' which are based on action and adventure, and so forth. A woman meanwhile, should be empathetic, concerned for her appearance, and so forth.

Such a view of the world implicitly rejects the idea that people should be able to select to emulate, like and hold whichever values they please from either or no gender, regardless of biological sex. After all, if any gender role model could impart the necessary values to raise a healthy child, then the specified link to gender would be absolutely meaningless. A pair of biological woman could raise a male child and be perfect role models by demonstrating both those positive attributes identified as being 'manly' (so toughness, and so on) and female (being empathetic and so on).

Sigvatr clearly states that this is impossible, and that the child would still need 'access to a corresponding gender role model'. The idea that the two ladies could function in an agender sense, and impart good values & behaviours, and that the child might not be of a set gender or indeed, even require a set gender, is implicitly rejected.

Lie. I'll quote for you:

Not "need" as in "do or die", but rather "highly beneficial".

You're born either a man or a woman. Period. There's an extremely small percentage of the population as in really small that is neither where it's impossible to determine the gender at birth. I'd like to exclude those and would, due to a lack of experience on this matter, just follow the law and allow those to have no official gender at birth and let them then later on choose what to pick. But alas, that's the tiny percentage. Dwindling.

Back to the previous point: man or woman. End of the story. No tralala in between. That's what you're born. Now, you can then /identify/ as another gender, if you want to. That is absolutely in order and part of your personality. Whether that requires psychological councelling...well, I'll leave it at that. That depends on your point of view.

Now, you're born a man or a woman and thus share all traits that go along with it. Sexual dimorphism etc. Physical and psychological traits. Being more similar to someone allows for easier identification, easier adaption and prevents adaptive stress.

What if you where born the wrong sex?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Lie. I'll quote for you:

Not "need" as in "do or die", but rather "highly beneficial".

You're born either a man or a woman. Period.

Biologically, yes.

Back to the previous point: man or woman. End of the story. No tralala in between. That's what you're born. Now, you can then /identify/ as another gender, if you want to.

I don't think you quite understand the point I'm making. Biological 'man' and 'woman' are one thing. Genders, such as 'male' and 'female' are another. If a biological man/woman can impart all the necessary values/behaviours to produce a good person without needing to link them to gender, than there is no need to have 'male' or 'female' (in the gender sense) role models. You just need role models. The gender becomes irrelevant.

The gender is only relevant if you wish to attach gender related concepts to the behaviours/traits imparted/inculcated/indoctrinated into children. If you disavow that now, then fair enough, but then you're directly contradicting what you said before.

62% in favour.

I always though that Ireland was a very socially conservative country going by their politics, social history and general outlook. It seems that things have changed dramatically.

Some parts are but things have changed dramatically over the last 20 years or so.

 Ratius wrote:
Some parts are but things have changed dramatically over the last 20 years or so.

It seems that the further you go northwest from Dublin the lower the yes vote was

Yeah, the Border regions, as expected, had the weakest Yes vote and the only No majority. The north is actually a lot more conservative, and it's Protestant (by majority ), zing.

Still. Not too much backslapping deserved yet- let's hope this energy is maintained and pressure mounts to fix our abysmal abortion laws. Then I will be truly satisfied with my home country. But a good night, and a rare day when I'm proud to be Irish.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
still doesn't allow gay men to donate blood

There are actually good reasons for this, backed up by objective data, not homosexual hate.

AIDS? Just do a blood test, not exactly expensive or difficult. Everyone's blood should be screened as a matter of course.

Japan doesn't allow anyone who has lived in the UK more than six months to donate blood, because of mad cow disease.

The problem is the blood test is not 100% accurate, and there is no way to make it 100% accurate. All blood is screened of course, more than once, but if a contaminated sample makes it through, then because samples are pooled, you lose a large amount of blood.

It's a risk management thing, because the population have such an elevated risk of HIV, it's not worth the risk to take blood from them, or at least, that is the judgement made in some countries. I imagine the risk is quite small and needs to just be balanced against the hurt feelings of the gay men excluded. Lesbians are not a high risk group so there is no restriction for them, it isn't a homophobia thing really.

The problem with Mad Cow is that it's a prion disorder, and there's no test for it, so no way to be sure the blood is not contaminated.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

AIDS? Just do a blood test, not exactly expensive or difficult.

There can be a significant delay between contracting HIV and having a detectable level of anti HIV antibodies so there is some validity to selectively exclude high risk groups, I just don't think that all gay men fall into a high risk group. Incidentally the risk of contracting HIV from donated blood in the UK is 1 in 17 million (the same odds as winning the Euromillions jackpot )

There is no satisfactory blood test for 'mad cow disease' which is why British people tend to be excluded from giving blood abroad.

Congratulations Ireland. Good job.

I bet the Eurovision parties in Dublin are something else tonight.

 Da Boss wrote:
I bet the Eurovision parties in Dublin are something else tonight.

We didn't even get in this year

 Da Boss wrote:
I bet the Eurovision parties in Dublin are something else tonight.

A 'Yes' to gay marriage
The Eurovision on the telly
Rainbows over Cork & Dublin




There could never be any other result

Congrats, Ireland, well done!

Y'know, you would think a country that has a fondness for rainbows, treasure at the end of a rainbow & little men would have done this alot earlier.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Y'know, you would think a country that has a fondness for rainbows, treasure at the end of a rainbow & little men would have done this alot earlier.

Sure, if you ignore the overwhelming historical religiosity of the country.

Anyone could see this is a joke.
Jeez. Im Irish. My family is Irish Immigrants. I know how religious they are.

It's good that it passed...But there is always something chilling about putting rights up for popular vote...

sorry to be that guy, but i dis-agree with homo-sexuality, i don't dislike the people it's just their opinions. No offense.

Skyth: Yeah, it is unfortunate. It's due to the Irish Constitution having some specific language about the role of the family. So any law granting marriage rights to homosexuals would have been open to legal challenge, and the legal advice the government got was that it would be ruled unconstitutional. So the constitution needed to be amended, and that requires a popular vote. An odd situation, a left over of the fact that the guy that wrote our constitution was a pretty die hard catholic.

Blood Raven's Addiction: Well, homophobes are pretty common, so I guess you'll have company, at least.

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, the Border regions, as expected, had the weakest Yes vote and the only No majority. The north is actually a lot more conservative, and it's Protestant (by majority ), zing.

Still. Not too much backslapping deserved yet- let's hope this energy is maintained and pressure mounts to fix our abysmal abortion laws. Then I will be truly satisfied with my home country. But a good night, and a rare day when I'm proud to be Irish.

What are these abysmal abortion laws?

 Da Boss wrote:

Blood Raven's Addiction: Well, homophobes are pretty common, so I guess you'll have company, at least.

Just disliking homosexuality does not make one a homophobe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Lie. I'll quote for you:

Not "need" as in "do or die", but rather "highly beneficial".

You're born either a man or a woman. Period.

Biologically, yes.

Back to the previous point: man or woman. End of the story. No tralala in between. That's what you're born. Now, you can then /identify/ as another gender, if you want to.

I don't think you quite understand the point I'm making. Biological 'man' and 'woman' are one thing. Genders, such as 'male' and 'female' are another. If a biological man/woman can impart all the necessary values/behaviours to produce a good person without needing to link them to gender, than there is no need to have 'male' or 'female' (in the gender sense) role models. You just need role models. The gender becomes irrelevant.

The gender is only relevant if you wish to attach gender related concepts to the behaviours/traits imparted/inculcated/indoctrinated into children. If you disavow that now, then fair enough, but then you're directly contradicting what you said before.

Gender and biological sex are not the same thing, but in Western (and all other) culture they are always linked to each other. Society expects a person to fit in the gender that corresponds with his/her biological sex. Not following this pattern is possible but leads to a lot of problems and possibly being rejected from society. Therefore I think it is better to indoctrinate children with the "correct" gender identity, as this is for their own good and will allow them to function better in society than if you raised them without clear genders.

Didn't you get threatened with a ban and have a post deleted for fairly anti-homosexual views and how they were presented? I vaguely remember this being a thing.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

Blood Raven's Addiction: Well, homophobes are pretty common, so I guess you'll have company, at least.

Just disliking homosexuality does not make one a homophobe.

I think that disliking homosexuality kind of does made you a homophobe. Google's first definition:

"homophobia
ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə,ˌhəʊmə-/
noun
noun: homophobia

dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Lie. I'll quote for you:

Not "need" as in "do or die", but rather "highly beneficial".

You're born either a man or a woman. Period.

Biologically, yes.

Back to the previous point: man or woman. End of the story. No tralala in between. That's what you're born. Now, you can then /identify/ as another gender, if you want to.

I don't think you quite understand the point I'm making. Biological 'man' and 'woman' are one thing. Genders, such as 'male' and 'female' are another. If a biological man/woman can impart all the necessary values/behaviours to produce a good person without needing to link them to gender, than there is no need to have 'male' or 'female' (in the gender sense) role models. You just need role models. The gender becomes irrelevant.

The gender is only relevant if you wish to attach gender related concepts to the behaviours/traits imparted/inculcated/indoctrinated into children. If you disavow that now, then fair enough, but then you're directly contradicting what you said before.

Gender and biological sex are not the same thing, but in Western (and all other) culture they are always linked to each other. Society expects a person to fit in the gender that corresponds with his/her biological sex. Not following this pattern is possible but leads to a lot of problems and possibly being rejected from society. Therefore I think it is better to indoctrinate children with the "correct" gender identity, as this is for their own good and will allow them to function better in society than if you raised them without clear genders.

It is not an adequate excuse that 'society would reject' a person who does not follow gender norms; this is a problem with society, not the individual. We should not just 'indoctrinate' children with the 'correct' (how I loathe that usage) gender because it is easier; we should work on changing society.

Nope nope nope

 blood ravens addiction wrote:
sorry to be that guy, but i dis-agree with homo-sexuality, i don't dislike the people it's just their opinions. No offense.

Ok I'll bite.

Simple question. Why do you disagree?

Disliking homosexuality is pretty much the definition of homophobia.

Ireland does not allow abortion, and has in the past put travel bans on people who tried to leave the country to have abortions elsewhere, or refused to allow asylum seekers who had been raped (just one example) to leave, even when said asylum seeker was suicidal at the thought of giving birth to her rapist's child.

It's a national disgrace.