Lady can't have her hairy balls waxed [mod notes/warnings in post #1]

Glass fused light

mike_ie wrote: »

Mod: We're getting a lot of reports about the misgendering, deliberate or otherwise, of Jessica Yaniv.

Whatever people's thoughts on the case at hand, how this person chooses to identify is their choice alone. Jessica Yaniv, whatever you might think of her actions elsewhere, chooses to identify as male-to-female transgender. DisRcuss the person's actions all you want, but from here on in, use the correct pronouns.

Well while boards are looking into the correct use of words why is the word
**** < C u n t replaced by stars while the word "TERF" not?

Being female both are the female equivelant of ****** <SNIP> but boards have continued to allow my posts the contain the word "TERF" but automatically star out the both of the others??

MrFresh

JayZeus wrote: »

No, the argument was not lessened, but policy was brought to bear against someone in order to force them to mis-state what they otherwise would. That might be okay for some but given the choice, a valid pronoun would likely have been used. For shame.

But we're agreed that the policy you refer to doesn't prevent discussion of the issue.

gmisk wrote: »

I have no issue with referring to someone as she or he personally at all.
This particular person is an attention seeking tool so I would almost not want to give them the satisfaction of referring to them as she.


I have encountered a person who wanted to be referred to as they - I have no problem with that at all, as long as you politely correct me I will continue to call anyone by whatever pronoun they wish. It makes no odds to me, why should it.

Again, no disagreement there.

gmisk wrote: »

When it comes to enforcing it, I have no idea if I am being honest, but I dont think someone of the opposite gender should be using changing rooms etc.
So if someone say reported a man (or someone with male genitalia) in the womans changing rooms they should be removed.
It is entirely different if someone has transitioned.

Why is it different? Transitioning doesn't change your brain. If you are a sexual predator before a transition you will still be one after, no matter what genitals you have.

gmisk wrote: »

I also understand the need for female only spaces.
I can give a random example, I am a gay man I went out for a night with a group of lesbian friends, we ended up at a lesbian night in Dublin.
I was refused entry, did I kick up a fuss, nope not at all I understand the need for those kind of spaces for people.

Perhaps you can explain it a little.

gmisk

MrFresh wrote: »

But we're agreed that the policy you refer to doesn't prevent discussion of the issue.


Again, no disagreement there.


Why is it different? Transitioning doesn't change your brain. If you are a sexual predator before a transition you will still be one after, no matter what genitals you have.


Perhaps you can explain it a little.

It is whatever way you want to look at it IMO. Do girls need to see someones penis in a female changing room no, why should they have to?
Would I be happy about my niece being in that situation nope.



No problem, What do you need me to explain about that example?

Varta

MrFresh wrote: »

No disagreement there. Tell me, do you feel your argument was in any way lessened by using "she" instead of "he"?


It is your argument that is lessened by forcing people to use, what is in reality, the wrong pronoun.

MrFresh

Varta wrote: »

It is your argument that is lessened by forcing people to use, what is in reality, the wrong pronoun.

How?

Overheal

A pedophile is a pedophile is a pedophile, regardless of gender.

Glass fused light

derfderf wrote: »

Thank you. It's not like people are throwing out the N word. 
Is there any other scenario where labelling one group is fine (men=he) but labelling a different group with the same label cops a ban?

Well, under the current thinking "the N word" has been culturally appropriated from the [white] American South by black people living in western societies. .

So there is an argument to throw in to the SJW  ring!

Glass fused light

MrFresh wrote: »

And that same reasoning has been used to suppress other minorities in the past too. better get with the times folks because the future is only going to get more complicated.

Exactly what suppressing are you referring to?

banie01

Glass fused light wrote: »

Exactly what suppressing are you referring to?

That time all those Black people self identified as white?
Or the time all the South Asians self identified as Han Chinese...;)

Simples.

Glass fused light

ingalway wrote: »

MrFresh you are completely wrong on that one but justification not needed. I'm dealing with the here and now.

Me, I am now happy to be called a transphobe, bigot, middle aged pearl clutcher, causer of suicides, etc etc. It took a while, but seeing all the women and men who shut down the women who have been protesting from early on, agreeing or in hiding over this case made me realise that no one can be on the sidelines.

Because if it comes to protecting my rights and the rights of the women and girls in my family and society against the trans right activists, I pick me.

I was willing to share and live and let live.

But TRA who want to decide what rights I am allowed as a subclass of women?

Thanks but no

Overheal

Because if it comes to protecting my rights and the rights of the women and girls in my family and society against the trans right activists

Q: What rights are being infringed by transgenderism?

Glass fused light

JayZeus wrote: »

It ranges from €20-50,000 per 'gender reassignment' plus the vested interests of pharma in providing hormone therapy and so on.

The supply of drugs (like HRT) are beging looked at by womens groups as these are designed to treat menopause etc.

The additional demand with fixed capacity is a concern for women needing treatments.

Neyite

gmisk wrote: »

When it comes to enforcing it, I have no idea if I am being honest, but I dont think someone of the opposite gender should be using changing rooms etc.
So if someone say reported a man (or someone with male genitalia) in the womans changing rooms they should be removed.
It is entirely different if someone has transitioned.

I also understand the need for female only spaces.

Isn't that what we had before Self ID? You could use the womens spaces or services as long as you had surgically and legally transitioned. Your suggestion is a step back and I can't see the trans community being ok with the rights they were given a few years ago removed again.
The problem is that this is segregating the trans community into further subdivision of pre-op and post op trans. The whole point of Self ID was to allow trans people their privacy and dignity to go about their daily lives without having to prove that they've had a surgical transition in order to use services of their preferred gender such as bathrooms and changing rooms.



If we have laws to say that Transwomen are fully legally women as long as they self identify as one, then they all are, We can't apply this law to just the nice ones. Laws apply to all citizens. So they apply to JY as well as the sound trans people we know.

Glass fused light

Overheal wrote: »

Q: What rights are being infringed by transgenderism?

If you mean the rights of women?

Well for one, not to be sued for refusing to wax someone's "ladydick"

The right to be recognised as woman not cisgendered not cis woman don't push labels unless I am free to label back.

The right to sex based sports

The right of females to have female only spaces.

The right to assemble without being told that's not acceptable to discuss our bodies or reproduction issues as its not inclusive?
https://mobile.twitter.com/MunroeBergdorf/status/954775972863193088

PS women stop p*ssing themselves laughing about that one long enough to yell back pink.


PPS you may note the use of TERF as in "kill a Tref" etc

MrFresh

Glass fused light wrote: »

Well, under the current thinking "the N word" has been culturally appropriated from the [white] American South by black people living in western societies. .

So there is an argument to throw in to the SJW ring!

Do you believe you should be able to use the n word to refer to a black person or should it be restricted? If the latter, why do you accept that restriction on language?

Glass fused light wrote: »

Exactly what suppressing are you referring to?

There is a long history of classes of people having their rights restricted because people see them as biologically inferior.

Glass fused light wrote: »

Me, I am now happy to be called a transphobe, bigot, middle aged pearl clutcher, causer of suicides, etc etc. It took a while, but seeing all the women and men who shut down the women who have been protesting from early on, agreeing or in hiding over this case made me realise that no one can be on the sidelines.

Because if it comes to protecting my rights and the rights of the women and girls in my family and society against the trans right activists, I pick me.

I was willing to share and live and let live.

But TRA who want to decide what rights I am allowed as a subclass of women?

Thanks but no

Only people deciding there are subclasses of women are you and yours

Glass fused light wrote: »

The supply of drugs (like HRT) are beging looked at by womens groups as these are designed to treat menopause etc.

The additional demand with fixed capacity is a concern for women needing treatments.

That's some serious straw clutching.

ceadaoin.

MrFresh wrote: »

That's some serious straw clutching.

Actually, there is a shortage of HRT in the UK and other places at the moment. It's a real issue for menopausal women. One of the reasons is because of an increase in demand.

I've seen it suggested that women should stockpile theirs to donate to transgender people, because you know, thats what women are expected to do. Not like they need it themselves or anything...

Glass fused light

MrFresh wrote: »

I think it's a bit useless in most cases as a person isn't required to declare they are transgender. So unless they are very noticeably so or are pre-op and looking for a service involving their genitals it won't really be of consequence.

Well what about this person? (has male genital)

Varta

MrFresh wrote: »

How?

By placing restrictions on what people can or cannot say. I think that was rather obvious.

Overheal

Glass fused light wrote: »

If you mean the rights of women?

Well for one, not to be sued for refusing to wax someone's "ladydick"

The right to be recognised as woman not cisgendered not cis woman don't push labels unless I am free to label back.

The right to sex based sports

The right of females to have female only spaces.

The right to assemble without being told that's not acceptable to discuss our bodies or reproduction issues as its not inclusive?
https://mobile.twitter.com/MunroeBergdorf/status/954775972863193088

PS women stop p*ssing themselves laughing about that one long enough to yell back pink.


PPS you may note the use of TERF as in "kill a Tref" etc

I'll take these one at a time...

Nobody has a right to not be sued - nobody is above the law. The act of someone filing suit against you is not guarantee of an outcome in court.

I'm quite certain you still have as much of a right to be called a woman, just as a transperson would. Cisgender as a label is chosen in conversation as an alternative to 'normal,' which by connation implies that there even is a 'normal' or that all other genders are not normal, which is a delimiting way of addressing the matter.

I have no stakes in the argument for or against sex-based sports, and I can see the difference between sex and physical aptitudes vs. gender.

I feel the same way about 'female only' spaces the same way I feel about 'male only' spaces: they are somewhat needlessly exclusionary. Unisex bathrooms for example, solve a multitude of concerns. Folks have rights to privacy, but rights to exclusion based on sex? I guess this gets back into Sports.

The right to assemble does not infer the right to infringe on the right of others to exercise their speech to share opinions about yours. Your right to speech and your right to assemble does not include the right to not be offended by people who express their belief that your discussion is not acceptable. Certainly, you have the right to gather and protest issues regarding transgenderism, even to use slurs, but nobody else is obligated to listen to you, to be silent, or to provide you a platform, or in some cases continue your employment.

klaaaz

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Actually, there is a shortage of HRT in the UK and other places at the moment. It's a real issue for menopausal women. One of the reasons is because of an increase in demand.

I've seen it suggested that women should stockpile theirs to donate to transgender people, because you know, thats what women are expected to do. Not like they need it themselves or anything...

Who suggested such nonsense?

Transgender people on HRT is a miniscule number in compared to women who need it for menopause. Actually I've heard that the injectables and patches are/were in short supply, not the tabs. The furore over Brexit is not helping supply either.

klaaaz

Glass fused light wrote: »

Well what about this person? (has male genital)

Do you have permission to post pictures of people without any source listed?

Varta

Overheal wrote: »

Q: What rights are being infringed by transgenderism?

Nobody's rights should be infringed by transgenderism. Women have a right to have bathrooms that are exclusively for women and the right to compete in sports that are for women but some people seek to remove those rights.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Neyite wrote: »

If we have laws to say that Transwomen are fully legally women as long as they self identify as one, then they all are, We can't apply this law to just the nice ones. Laws apply to all citizens. So they apply to JY as well as the sound trans people we know.

Irish law requires a legal declation of the below facts for some to self identify as femal legally.

i) have a settled and solemn intention to live in the preferred gender for the rest of my life,
ii) understand the consequences of the application, and
iii) make this application of my own free will.

In the case in question for some of the beauticians JY self identified as Jonathan and approached beauticians asking for genital waxing. After this Yaniv was told they don't do male waxing. Yaniv then identified themselves as female.

It's also the case that Yaniv got the courts to gag the release of their identity until recently. Yaniv used the excuse that they traded as Jonathan and not everyone knew their identity as trans.

In my mind this puts massive questions on the fact of the identification of Yaniv as a woman. What's the legal status of JY? If she is a legal woman with the name Jessica who has self identified as such she should have to stop identifying as Jonathan. If Yaniv wants to identify with both names Yaniv should have to accept both pronouns being used.

Overheal

Varta wrote: »

Nobody's rights should be infringed by transgenderism. Women have a right to have bathrooms that are exclusively for women and the right to compete in sports that are for women but some people seek to remove those rights.

So, hang on:

If women have a right to exclusive bathrooms, what about cafes etc. which only have unisex bathrooms? Do you need to file suit against them? How far does this perceived right extend? What are the limitations?

AFAIK, women can still compete in women leagues in sports. I have not heard of any cisgender woman being denied access to a female sport, unless the sport was not offered wholesale (eg. women's wrestling league)

Glass fused light

MrFresh wrote: »

Do you believe you should be able to use the n word to refer to a black person or should it be restricted? If the latter, why do you accept that restriction on language?

Who said anything about using it when referring to a black person you may have missed that it was about slurs applied to women using women's "labels"

It's a word of 'white' origin used by white people to Slaves so if a black person has the right to label themselves slaves why should I be excluded from using that label but be forced into using trans language which has been appropriated by males?

Woman adult human female

MrFresh wrote: »

There is a long history of classes of people having their rights restricted because people see them as biologically inferior.

Cool, we want our rights back.
Thanks

MrFresh wrote: »

Only people deciding there are subclasses of women are you and yours

Woman adult human female
So sorry but now we want our words back.

MrFresh wrote: »

There is a long history of classes of people having their rights restricted because people see them as biologically inferior.

Cool, we want our rights back.
Thanks

MrFresh wrote: »

Only people deciding there are subclasses of women are you and yours

Woman adult human female
So sorry, but now we want our words back.

MrFresh wrote: »

That's some serious straw clutching.

How is the search for the rate of suicide going ?

Overheal

I don't think you've demonstrated that you've lost any words or rights.

Wibbs

Overheal wrote: »

Cisgender as a label is chosen in conversation as an alternative to 'normal,' which by connation implies that there even is a 'normal' or that all other genders are not normal, which is a delimiting way of addressing the matter.

Normal; confirming to a type, typical. Other genders(and that's another debate) are a tiny minority not confirming to type, not typical. So yes there is a normal and it's "cisgender". The rest is social sciences semantics.

I have no stakes in the argument for or against sex-based sports, and I can see the difference between sex and physical aptitudes vs. gender.

Men in virtually every sport will out compete women. Individuals who transition after the flood of male hormones in puberty competing with biological women is an utter farce and robs women athletes in broad daylight.

I feel the same way about 'female only' spaces the same way I feel about 'male only' spaces: they are somewhat needlessly exclusionary. Unisex bathrooms for example, solve a multitude of concerns. Folks have rights to privacy, but rights to exclusion based on sex?

You mentioned restuarants? They're mixed spaces to start with. If women, or for that matter actually, men, want to have female or male only spaces then they should be allowed to.

Nulu5

Overheal wrote: »

Q: What rights are being infringed by transgenderism?

For one some People,s right to employment are infringed by transgenderism as evidenced by some businesses having to close as a result of the actions of yaniv.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wibbs wrote: »

Normal; confirming to a type, typical. Other genders(and that's another debate) are a tiny minority not confirming to type, not typical. So yes there is a normal and it's "cisgender". The rest is social sciences semantics.

Men in virtually every sport will out compete women. Individuals who transition after the flood of male hormones in puberty competing with biological women is an utter farce and robs women athletes in broad daylight.

You mentioned restuarants? They're mixed spaces to start with. If women, or for that matter actually, men, want to have female or male only spaces then they should be allowed to.

A disturbing point I read being made about that online was that that won’t be a problem in the near future because most transgender people will take hormone blockers as children and won’t go through normal puberty. Oh right, that’s okay then. O_o Puberty blockers, great!

ceadaoin.

Overheal wrote: »

So, hang on:

If women have a right to exclusive bathrooms, what about cafes etc. which only have unisex bathrooms? Do you need to file suit against them? How far does this perceived right extend? What are the limitations?

AFAIK, women can still compete in women leagues in sports. I have not heard of any cisgender woman being denied access to a female sport, unless the sport was not offered wholesale (eg. women's wrestling league)

At least where I am, unisex toilets are single use only with a sink and toilet inside . They aren't a row of cubicles. Anyway, it's not really just about bathrooms, its any place where women should be entitled to privacy from males - changing rooms, hospitals, prisons etc. Or where women are providing intimate services such as waxing, as shown in this case.

Re sports, you might want to read up on the high school girls in Connecticut losing out on championships and possibly scholarships to teenage males who are not undergoing any hormone therapy but identify as girls. Or the trans woman, Laurel hubbard, who looks set to be going to the Olympics in 2020 to represent NZ in weightlifting. The women who should have been on the podiums in those competitions were denied access to the Olympics by a male. One of the women spoke about having to quickly lose weight to drop down a class because she knew she could not compete. That's just a couple of examples.