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

ceadaoin.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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!

I doubt that anyone, male or female, who hasn't gone through a proper puberty would be in any way competitive athletically. I mean they would basically be a stunted adult. Not good.

Also never going through puberty raises issues when it comes to future surgical transition, particularly for male to female genital surgery. Basically, there isn't enough to work with . It's grim and completely unethical to do that to children.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed and let's break down that nonsense these individuals signed off on: "pseudoscience" well talk about irony..

"There are no genetic tests that can unambiguously determine gender, or even sex." Utter bloody nonsense. Outside folks who are born intersex, which is a congenital fault yes there are any number of tests to determine biological sex.

"Furthermore, even if such tests existed, it would be unconscionable to use the pretext of science to enact policies that overrule the lived experience of people’s own gender identities." Forget facts, feelz rule all.

And that's just for a get go. They of course conflate actual intersex folks with the wider trans experience.

And among the some of the "top medical" types who signed on the dotted line? PhD Candidate in Plant Biology, PhD Candidate in Marine Ecology, Postdoc in in Data Science, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Professor of Neuromotor Science, postdoc in sociology, Research Scientist in Entomology & Ecology, PhD Candidate in Social Psychology, Associate Professor of Women's Studies, Graduate Student in Animal Behavior, PhD Candidate in Kinesiology, M.S. Candidate in Volcanology :pac::pac: Professor of Biology and Environmental Studies of conservation biology, Director of the Cooper Center in Higher Education, Social Justice, Aquatic Ecology, PhD Candidate in Astronomy(oh jesus, me sides... ), Post-Graduate Fellow in Marine Science... Some of those titles and disciplines make me concerned for the future of western education. But yeah, g'way to feck.

Can I ask, what’s funny about pursuing a PhD in astronomy? It’s not a science related to the biology of gender but it is a scientific discipline. Are you mistaking it for astrology? You also seem amused by volcanology - also a scientific discipline. Am I missing something here? Is it just that they aren’t relevant to the topic of biological sex?

All those titles seem fine - most are sciences. Which ones concern you?

Wibbs

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Can I ask, what’s funny about pursuing a PhD in astronomy? It’s not a science related to the biology of gender but it is a scientific discipline. Are you mistaking it for astrology? You also seem amused by volcanology - also a scientific discipline. Am I missing something here? Is it just that they aren’t relevant to the topic of biological sex?

All those titles seem fine - most are sciences. Which ones concern you?

Of course I consider astronomy a science and no I don't mistake it for astrology. Jesus. It should be pretty clear. Note how I put the "top medical"(the original quoter's words) part in parenthesis. An astronomer, vulcanologist and a large chunk of the signatories have about as much knowledge of the science of gender and sex as you or I do. Hell, it's a highly specialised area within medicine and science itself. So their signatures of support hardly constitutes a worthwhile nod from qualified individuals as it was made out to be, and can be safely disregarded. If I had a bad back I wouldn't be asking a postdoc in data sciences for advice, so why are they being asked for their scientific opinion on gender and sex? Which was my point.

jaxxx

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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!

I don't even.. how can anyone possibly think that this is in any way acceptable?? Blocking the body from undergoing its own natural progression?? Pardon my French, but what the actual f*ck!? I'm not a person of science or of religion, but that just screams out wrong to me on all levels!!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wibbs wrote: »

Of course I consider astronomy a science and no I don't mistake it for astrology. Jesus. It should be pretty clear. Note how I put the "top medical"(the original quoter's words) part in parenthesis. An astronomer, vulcanologist and a large chunk of the signatories have about as much knowledge of the science of gender and sex as you or I do. If I had a bad back I wouldn't be asking a postdoc in data sciences for advice. Hell, it's a highly specialised area within medicine and science itself. So their signatures of support hardly constitutes a worthwhile nod from qualified individuals as it was made out to be, and can be safely disregarded. Which was my point.

Nah, some of them would know more than the layperson if they have done a general science undergrad specialising in that field. I know this by doing a general science degree. You get a good grounding before specialisation. Some scientists would more know about the nitty gritty than doctors who really only have to skim the sciences, their training more focused on treating illnesses than having really in-depth knowledge of what causes them. Some of my friends who did graduate medicine after a science undergrad were told that for medicine they would never need to know their undergraduate degree field to the extent that they do. If I wanted the biology of sex explained to me, I’d go to a scientist over a doctor any day, even if their discipline wasn’t quite in the same field.

Wibbs

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Nah, some of them would know more than the layperson if they have done a general science undergrad specialising in that field. I know this by doing a general science degree. You get a good grounding before specialisation. Some scientists would more know about the nitty gritty than doctors who really only have to skim the sciences, their training more focused on treating illnesses than having really in-depth knowledge of what causes them. Some of my friends who did graduate medicine after a science undergrad were told that for medicine they would never need to know their undergraduate degree field to the extent that they do. If I wanted the biology of sex explained to me, I’d go to a scientist over a doctor any day, even if their discipline wasn’t quite in the same field.

Some of them might, those who went on to do medicine and the like, but how many astronomers have gone through such a programme? I'm sorry holding up a data scientist as someone with insight into gender and sex in humans is about as much use as tits on a bull.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wibbs wrote: »

Some of them might, those who went on to do medicine and the like, but how many astronomers have gone through such a programme? I'm sorry holding up a data scientist as someone with insight into gender and sex in humans is about as much use as tits on a bull.

Any who specialised in astronomy after doing a few years of biology in addition to chemistry and physics, like in my undergrad. And like I said, doctors aren’t really required to go very in-depth into science in their training.

As for data science, it depends. People with biology undergraduate degrees can segue into data science if they want to go into computational biology. So you can’t really dismiss a post graduate student in data science without knowing their educational background.

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=110797964#post110797964

Looks like you missed the you better be woke here or we'll make you clause when you joined.
This mentality will backfire spectacularly yet.
Boards is safe harbor alright, but do they know who there actually protecting?

Wibbs

ODB you're kinda taking this all from the angle of you did an general science degree and that I'm somehow minimising science in general(which I am most certainly not). OK How much did you learn doing your degree beyond about current theories of sex and gender expression in humans? I'd warrant little or nothing. And I'd not expect you to O, it's a very specialised area in research across a few specialities and disciplines and with a fair number of opinions within it on a few matters. The nature/nurture angle being a big one. And it's shifting all the time. Consider that it's not so long ago, less than a decade IIRC where actual experts in the field changed from considering it a mental illness or suite of same to something else again. It's not beyond the bounds that they could change their opinions again as more research comes in.

I agree with you 100% that doctors who don't specialise within an area of medicine that this subject would touch upon(endocrinology, or psychiatry for example) would be relying on basic medical counsel guidelines and firing someone up the chain. However I would still contend that general scientists or specialities within the sciences that have nada to do with the complexity of sex/gender expression in humans have much to say about it. They can certainly read research papers on such things with a more practiced eye than amatuers, if they're interested in the subject, but they're as likely to be swayed by consensus or lobbying by an unrelated discipline.

pjohnson

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Looks like you missed the you better be woke here or we'll make you clause when you joined.
This mentality will backfire spectacularly yet.
Boards is safe harbor alright, but do they know who there actually protecting?

More like missed the safe zone where there are no big bad mean rules oppressing him.

A few threads there of the same type people crying about "rules"

Glass fused light

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Everything I’ve seen online about this Yaniv individual leads me to believe that they are not an actual transgender person. IMHO they are either (a) A male sexual predator using the transgender tag to get access to naked females and have females be obliged to touch his genitals. (b) A male opportunist out to make money off the transgender tag through litigation (c) A male troll, trying to make a farce of the whole transgender movement.

I have no issue referring to anyone by their chosen pronouns within reason, you can get up the yard with your ze and zer, I just don’t believe that this is a genuine transgender person... but I will be carded or banned for calling them he or him? Absolutely mental :rolleyes:

A, B, C make no difference in law.
She has self IDed as a woman and that's all that counts


She has been involved in this type of public behaviours and people who objected were punished and deplatformed eg Megan Murphy, Lindsay Shepherd

Other trans rights activists support the case, they may not like the PR, but want her to win.

Morgane Oger was well aware of this case and the behaviour and still supports that a woman should be forced to wax a male body.

To legistate for the sexual assault of women.

Vancover public libuary has been kicked out of pride because it allowed "transphobic and anti-sex worker speaker Meghan Murphy" rent space.

The more I look at the individual TRAs, the more I am also seeing that they are "sex work is work" supporters, this while denying women the right to their own spaces.

http://www.vancouverpride.ca/index.php?id=279299

So I am done.
If someone want to join the club, start support the weakest members of the team. Supporting the rental of vagian is not in my view a pro-woman stance, particularly when someone is claiming to be a lesbian.

Supporting the sexual coercion of women while expecting womens support, is like expecting a turkey to vote for Christmas.

banie01

banie01 wrote: »

One mod has already confirmed that the outrage of 1% outweighs the acceptance or at worst ambivalence of the 99% and that the card given was warranted.

Is that where Boards is at?
I know it's not a free speech site, nor do I expect it to be but a glorified nanny site where people can cry wolf at a perceived slight?
Surely malice is required for a post to be considered an attack? Hurtful or trolling?

Where is the common sense?

Posted the above a couple of weeks ago in feedback regarding a thread where ridiculous moderation of a happy go lucky thread totally derailed it.

I didn't think that the thought police would lead to such a rapid clampdown in what was "acceptable" here on boards, unfortunately I seem to have been very wrong.

I'd be curious as to what the ratio of unique complainants versus reports is on this particular thread though.
If I had to guess, it would be that at least 80% of any reports regarding mis-gendering are from a single poster.

There is no point at all in trying to foster a discussion or debate if it is shutdown on the saw so of vicarious hurt and insult.

The experiment of CA and IMHO is failing on mods threatening sanction for sharing their IMHO...

I'm not sure irony carries enough weight to fully describe the situation

pjohnson

pjohnson wrote: »

More like missed the safe zone where there are no big bad mean rules oppressing him.

A few threads there of people crying about "rules"

Arguing, intelligently and logically in favour of the rational need to allow EVERYONE to express themselves in this discussion.

Crying? Get a grip.

If you see no problem with people having to adopt a false narrative regarding the definition of man and woman, as your quip about rules suggest, you need to think again.

Being told not to use words that represent ones opinion, understanding or belief (take your pick), in the manner in which those words have been used for 600 years+, is madness.

Why? Because the trans interest groups and advocates of same lobby to redefine the language and bastardise the meanings of these pronouns.

But yeah, quip away there. Good man/woman/gender-non-binary yourself.

.

drunkmonkey

https://twitter.com/DanDicksPFT/status/1154779615346302976?s=09

More misgendering by a reporter in his tweet, completely unacceptable.

jaxxx

JayZeus wrote: »

Arguing, intelligently and logically in favour of the rational need to allow EVERYONE to express themselves in this discussion.

Crying? Get a grip.

If you see no problem with people having to adopt a false narrative regarding the definition of man and woman, as your quip about rules suggest, you need to think again.

Being told not to use words that represent ones opinion, understanding or belief (take your pick), in the manner in which those words have been used for 600 years+, is madness.

Why? Because the trans interest groups and advocates of same lobby to redefine the language and bastardise the meanings of these pronouns.

But yeah, quip away there. Good man/woman/gender-non-binary yourself.

.

Hmm. Isn't what you just described relatable to fascism? Just saying like! :pac:

ILoveYourVibes

I am not saying beautification should have to do something so intimate for anyone they don't want to.

But men get their back and sack waxed all the time by women what is the difference other than she identifies as male?

Its unlikely a beautician would never have waxed a guys balls.

jaxxx

drunkmonkey wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DanDicksPFT/status/1154779615346302976?s=09

More misgendering by a reporter in his tweet, completely unacceptable.

Oh I'm not allowed to comment on this now am I? Cos I've been silenced from giving MY HONEST OPINION, unless I want to risk getting banned of course for giving said opinion. Now THAT, is unacceptable. Definitely sounds similar to fascism to me!!

drunkmonkey

jaxxx wrote: »

Oh I'm not allowed to comment on this now am I? Cos I've been silenced from giving MY HONEST OPINION, unless I want to risk getting banned of course for giving said opinion. Now THAT, is unacceptable. Definitely sounds similar to fascism to me!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-HfVPTgxhs

He was right.

MrFresh

jaxxx wrote: »

Oh I'm not allowed to comment on this now am I? Cos I've been silenced from giving MY HONEST OPINION, unless I want to risk getting banned of course for giving said opinion. Now THAT, is unacceptable. Definitely sounds similar to fascism to me!!

Yeah, I think remember a passage from Anne Frank's diary were she spoke about the torture of not being able to use pronouns. Tragic stuff, that. You guys are the real victims here. There's me thinking ye were all concerned about the kids.

klaaaz

drunkmonkey wrote: »

More misgendering by a reporter in his tweet, completely unacceptable.

Where do you find such stuff among thousands of tweets on twitter? Astonishing!

pjohnson

JayZeus wrote: »

Arguing, intelligently and logically in favour of the rational need to allow EVERYONE to express themselves in this discussion.

Crying? Get a grip.

If you see no problem with people having to adopt a false narrative regarding the definition of man and woman, as your quip about rules suggest, you need to think again.

Being told not to use words that represent ones opinion, understanding or belief (take your pick), in the manner in which those words have been used for 600 years+, is madness.

Why? Because the trans interest groups and advocates of same lobby to redefine the language and bastardise the meanings of these pronouns.

But yeah, quip away there. Good man/woman/gender-non-binary yourself.

.

Sorry to trigger you and your mates.

ILoveYourVibes

klaaaz wrote: »

Where do you find such stuff among thousands of tweets on twitter? Astonishing!

Dan dicks is a horrible man though.

He organized a 'straight pride parade.'

drunkmonkey

klaaaz wrote: »

Where do you find such stuff among thousands of tweets on twitter? Astonishing!

Google > search tools > change anytime to past hour.

drunkmonkey

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Dan dicks is a horrible man though.

He organized a 'straight pride parade.'

Never heard of him, what's wrong with a party for the numbers to celebrate their sex that got us all here.

The Specialist

I posed a question in the help desk thread but I’ll post it here too - why should a group less than 1% out there of the population get to dictate to anybody else about pronouns etc? You expect the other 99% to lie to themselves about what a trans is pretending to be?

This is one for you MrFresh since you are so woke and a clear “trans ally” - maybe you can answer it?

ceadaoin.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I am not saying beautification should have to do something so intimate for anyone they don't want to.

But men get their back and sack waxed all the time by women what is the difference other than she identifies as male?

Its unlikely a beautician would never have waxed a guys balls.

Why is it unlikely? Clearly there is a difference between waxing labia and waxing testicles, skin wise. This person targeted female beauticians who only offered the service to females, often for religious reasons, and were not prepared to service male genitalia.

MrFresh

The Specialist wrote: »

I posed a question in the help desk thread but I’ll post it here too - why should a group less than 1% out there of the population get to dictate to anybody else about pronouns etc? You expect the other 99% to lie to themselves about what a trans is pretending to be?

This is one for you MrFresh since you are so woke and a clear “trans ally” - maybe you can answer it?

Human rights should not be dependant on being in the majority.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I doubt that anyone, male or female, who hasn't gone through a proper puberty would be in any way competitive athletically. I mean they would basically be a stunted adult. Not good.

Also never going through puberty raises issues when it comes to future surgical transition, particularly for male to female genital surgery. Basically, there isn't enough to work with . It's grim and completely unethical to do that to children.

jaxxx wrote: »

I don't even.. how can anyone possibly think that this is in any way acceptable?? Blocking the body from undergoing its own natural progression?? Pardon my French, but what the actual f*ck!? I'm not a person of science or of religion, but that just screams out wrong to me on all levels!!

I know and these children are basically being used as guinea pigs as there is no ethical way to run a clinical trial to test whether blocking puberty will cause problems down the lines. Parents play a part in children giving consent to these hormone blockers and, IMO, those parents are failing in their duty to protect their children.

klaaaz

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Google > search tools > change anytime to past hour.

Search for what?

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DanDicksPFT/status/1154779615346302976?s=09

More misgendering by a reporter in his tweet, completely unacceptable.

I just watched that. Towards the end of the clip, you can quite clearly hear whoever is on the phone or responding to that odd-ball setting off the alarm via the elevator intercom saying "Hello Sir, Sir!..."

I wonder will that be another pending case down the line. What a fool.