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

MrFresh

The Specialist wrote: »

But it’s not human rights at all. If pedophiles launched a similar campaign do you think we would just accept it?

No. Trans people are not comparable to pedophiles.

lawlolawl wrote: »

We should definitely be worried about the rights of pedophile men-in-dresses to see children naked.


This is totally a hill worth dying on in 2019.

No, worried about the rights of trans people.

Calhoun wrote: »

Human rights should not be dependent on being in the majority but in the case right now it definitely looks like the minority is abusing it for some fairly sinister things.

Even though the minor individuals that do these items its kinda like the loudest person in the room gets the most attention and boy are they getting some.

So while human rights should apply to all, if your in a minority and members of your community are abusing additional rights or laws put in place then you have a target on your back.

You had just better hope we have civilized up enough that we won't devolve into a lynch mob. Look at how one individual has stoked up hate, for some it will because they are bigots but for allot more it will be because they see the injustice and the danger posed to society if this is let fly.

You are not responsible for the actions other people who happen to share traits with you. The vast majority of trans people just want to live their lives as a particular gender. This one person is trying to abuse the rights afforded to them but the response to that should not be to take rights away from everyone else.

jaxxx wrote: »

I'm going to repeat something I said last night. If someone who has underwent gender reassignment surgery and treatment, is cloned, what is the clone going to be?

Whatever they choose.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

MrFresh wrote: »

No, worried about the rights of trans people.

The rights of trans people can be served by allowing people with a medical diagnosis to change legal gender after a medical transitional and as an adult. The problem is self identification.

You are not responsible for the actions other people who happen to share traits with you. The vast majority of trans people just want to live their lives as a particular gender. This one person is trying to abuse the rights afforded to them but the response to that should not be to take rights away from everyone else.

It’s a bit odd to say that Jessica is abusing her position as a self identifying trans woman since legally she is a female and has all the rights that entails. As far as I’m concerned the ideology behind this is ludicrous but if the law accepts Jessica as a woman she should win this case, in fact all these cases and thus expose the ideology.

The Specialist

MrFresh wrote: »

No. Trans people are not comparable to pedophiles.

JY is comparable to any pedoplhile, a groomer and a disgusting pervert with obsession far outside of normality. What is to stop a child rapist suddenly deciding he’s a female to acccess more victims? There’s no smoke without fire is there? You can keep your kumbaya nonsense to yourself, the rest of us will protect our children and wives from perverted scumbags masquerading as women...

ingalway

MrFresh wrote: »

Whatever they choose.

I would be very interested to know if you believe that Rachel Dolezal was a black woman because she chose to be one?

Dante7

MrFresh wrote: »

No. Trans people are not comparable to pedophiles.





No, worried about the rights of trans people.

Mr Fresh, are you perchance an autogynephic self id trans woman? The reason I ask is that throughout this thread you have displayed the typical narcissistic traits of someone who is only concerned about their own issues and who couldn't care less about how this effects other people. Seems like textbook AGP.

MrFresh

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

The rights of trans people can be served by allowing people with a medical diagnosis to change legal gender after a medical transitional and as an adult. The problem is self identification.

That's certainly open for debate. Many trans people felt that the previous requirements were overly burdensome.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

It’s a bit odd to say that Jessica is abusing her position as a self identifying trans woman since legally she is a female and has all the rights that entails. As far as I’m concerned the ideology behind this is ludicrous but if the law accepts Jessica as a woman she should win this case, in fact all these cases and thus expose the ideology.

You're certainly entitled to that opinion. I don't agree though, as I have explained previously..

The Specialist wrote: »

JY is comparable to any pedoplhile, a groomer and a disgusting pervert with obsession far outside of normality. What is to stop a child rapist suddenly deciding he’s a female to acccess more victims? There’s no smoke without fire is there? You can keep your kumbaya nonsense to yourself, the rest of us will protect our children and wives from perverted scumbags masquerading as women...

Shouldn't you protect them from all perverts?

Dante7 wrote: »

Mr Fresh, are you perchance an autogynephic self id trans woman? The reason I ask is that throughout this thread you have displayed the typical narcissistic traits of someone who is only concerned about their own issues and who couldn't care less about how this effects other people. Seems like textbook AGP.

No.

The Specialist

MrFresh wrote: »

Shouldn't you protect them from all perverts?

Absolutely, and part of that is point blank refusing to allow confused men with dicks access to female only spaces.

ceadaoin.

Interesting article about this whole thing.


https://quillette.com/2019/07/25/a-canadian-human-rights-spectacle-exposes-the-risks-of-unfettered-gender-self-id/

Here is a concise explanation from it of the reasons the women did not want to provide services to a male, for those posters who think it's "no biggie" and don't see why they shouldn't do it.

Here is my attempt to set out the aestheticians’ position as clearly as possible. The pubic-waxing service they offered was not something they were willing to provide to males with male genitalia. They did not want to handle a penis and scrotum, and did not see why a willingness to touch the area around a female client’s genitals should be taken as implying they did. They were happy enough to have unknown females in their homes, but not unknown males. They also mentioned religion (one woman was Sikh); safety (another went to her clients’ homes, instead of vice versa); and general discomfort (an expert witness who provides genital waxing for males from a large salon said that it involves extensive handling of the penis as well as the scrotum, and that males commonly get erections and demand sexual services, and can become abusive when these are refused). Moreover, waxing a man’s genital region was not something they were even qualified to do. The skin of the scrotum is thinner and looser than that of a woman’s pubis, and would be severely damaged by the same wax and the same techniques.

MrFresh

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Interesting article about this whole thing.


https://quillette.com/2019/07/25/a-canadian-human-rights-spectacle-exposes-the-risks-of-unfettered-gender-self-id/

Here is a concise explanation from it of the reasons the women did not want to provide services to a male, for those posters who think it's "no biggie" and don't see why they shouldn't do it.

i don't think anyone on this thread has said they should have done it.

MrFresh

The Specialist wrote: »

Absolutely, and part of that is point blank refusing to allow confused men with dicks access to female only spaces.

If that's the case, considering most child molesters are known by the victim, should you not be more concerned about your own family and friends? In the interest of protecting the children of course.

The Specialist

MrFresh wrote: »

If that's the case, considering most child molesters are known by the victim, should you not be more concerned about your own family and friends? In the interest of protecting the children of course.

Safety takes all forms, we all know about male child molesters and take every precaution against them. Why should we allow perverts in sheep’s clothing access to those spaces as well?

skybox2014

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Interesting article about this whole thing.


https://quillette.com/2019/07/25/a-canadian-human-rights-spectacle-exposes-the-risks-of-unfettered-gender-self-id/

Here is a concise explanation from it of the reasons the women did not want to provide services to a male, for those posters who think it's "no biggie" and don't see why they shouldn't do it.

And in addition to all those reasons is the simple fact that these women said no!

A women (and indeed a man) should never be under any obligations to touch another person's genitals. End of.

Does this really need to be spelled out? Again. And again?

Glass fused light

Overheal wrote: »

Glassfusedlight wrote:

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

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. 

Let me reword that not to be sued for refusing to consent to handling genitalia.
Otherwise called sexual assault 

Now if nobody is above the law is there a lower or upper limit age limit to prevent people being sued?

Overheal wrote: »

Glassfusedlight wrote:

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

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.

Woman not a woman 
Cis is label that is forced on me by others. 
If I am forced to say she when talking about a male.
Why should that male be allowed to use a word I object to as it Misgendering me.

Overheal wrote: »

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. 

so you agree that women have a right to sex based sports

Overheal wrote: »

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)

Except you don't?

Overheal wrote: »

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.

What would you expect the layout of 20 toilets units to look like 
And how would you expect a school to organise unisex toilets in existing buildings

Do you agree with single sex changing rooms or shower rooms?

How about a single sex pool swim?

Overheal wrote: »

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? 

London fire brigade began hiring women with no facilities provided they has to share break rooms, toilets, showers changing rooms and sleeping accommodation.  The women campaigned for their legal right to have sex separated spaces. Which spaces should they have a right to on the basis of sex and which should they share?

Overheal wrote: »

Glassfusedlight wrote:

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.

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.

A woman's march is for women about women not about transgenderism.
So can the male please take her banned list to the men's march

ingalway

MrFresh wrote: »

That's certainly open for debate. Many trans people felt that the previous requirements were overly burdensome.

Many women feel it overly burdensome to have men in their sex segregated spaces and sports.
Also, still would like to know your views on Rachel Dolezal choosing to identify as a black woman - can I assume that you fully support her in that choice?

Glass fused light

Overheal wrote: »

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

You clearly have not read the full thread  :)






[edit still twittering 10000 words or less]

Omackeral

Dante7 wrote: »

No. Just, no. I will not be compelled to use the preferred pronouns of a paedophilic predator. You can take your social justice blasphemy rules and stick them where the sun don't shine. You won't dictate to me that I have to use words that abrogate scientific facts. What next? Will we have to use language that accommodates the feelings of anti-vaxxers and flat earthers? Fcuk that.

Jonathon Yaniv is a man. If you try to force me to call him a woman, you can shove your website.

Omackeral

ingalway wrote: »

I would be very interested to know if you believe that Rachel Dolezal was a black woman because she chose to be one?

Ha don't even try that one. I posed the question once on here and a moderator told me that it was not contrasting like with like as Dolzeal is either a wind-up merchant or mentally ill. I asked them firstly what makes them an authority on diagnosing someone as mentally ill while simultaneously insisting that someone who self-IDs just is a woman. What's the difference in choosing a gender and choosing a race? The answer was a thread ban and red card.

Glass fused light

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

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.

From what I understand she can be binary or 2 spirited etc and still be recognised once she says is a woman Canadian law accepts it as true.
No paper work needed.
The second FB account is being used as proof of gender.

Dante7

MrFresh wrote: »

No.

Perhaps I should rephrase. Do you currently identify as a gender that doesn't match the sex on your birth cert?

Glass fused light

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.

And in the UK the trans right activists want it earlier and pushed out to doctors surgeries.

The whole idea locks in stereotypes,
if a girl is a tomboy
If a boy is ? (girlie)

See we don't even have a word for a boy who likes to do "female" things.

The Specialist

Glass fused light wrote: »

And in the UK the trans right activists want it earlier and pushed out to doctors surgeries.

The whole idea locks in stereotypes,
if a girl is a tomboy
If a boy is ? (girlie)

See we don't even have a word for a boy who likes to do "female" things.

It’s sissy isn’t it? Couldn’t care less who’s offended by that word, but that’s what they were called in my day.

Glass fused light

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.

It's because the litigant has targeted women from a background (culture & religon) who would not provide these services to a male.

In the first two women's testimony they both state that pre or post op they regard the body as a male body.

That they would not provide the service on the body and both seen this as a sex act (cheating)

16 ladies paying $2,500 each for filing paperwork is a good gamble.

And with an added bonus of forcing the women to engage further with her.

ceadaoin.

MrFresh wrote: »

i don't think anyone on this thread has said they should have done it.

There's a poster who has popped in a couple of times to wonder what the big deal is or what's the difference.

Glass fused light

drunkmonkey wrote: »

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

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

Let's see if he gets put in Twitter male jail, along with the ladies or if he gets a free pass?

Charmeleon

Glass fused light wrote: »

And in the UK the trans right activists want it earlier and pushed out to doctors surgeries.

The whole idea locks in stereotypes,
if a girl is a tomboy
If a boy is ? (girlie)

See we don't even have a word for a boy who likes to do "female" things.

The oul wans on our street called them variously: ‘Nancy boys’, ‘sissies’ and ‘big girls blouse’.

Glass fused light

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Anyway, word to the wise, this is going to blow up against self identification pretty strongly. I’d delete any tweets you may have produced or any public statements. The anger on feminist websites is only increasing and the major effects of self id have yet to be felt.

check out the Christian sites too.
They really don't like males in women's spaces

And both are not happy with the child safegarding issues which are being spotted by replacing sex with gender

Scotland's politicians thought self ID was a shoo in.
Now the State funding of lobby groups are being examined
And womens groups are comming out saying that their submissions were edited to remove objections.

Glass fused light

klaaaz wrote: »

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

Are we fighting again?

drunkmonkey

Dante7 wrote: »

Perhaps I should rephrase. Do you currently identify as a gender that doesn't match the sex on your birth cert?

drunkmonkey

Mrs Monkey is now Woke and she's not too happy about it.

Glass fused light

Ok so this appears to be a legimate website which describes 2 spirited.
And I am confused I understood it to be a transgender specific word but it also appears to cover homosexuality?


https://lgbtqhealth.ca/community/two-spirit.php