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

Glass fused light · 30-07-2019 8:11am

ceadaoin. wrote: »

No but the fact is, that males, regardless of their gender identity are more likely to commit crimes and acts of voyeurism against women and children than females. It's one of the reasons that places where people are in a state of undress are generally sex segregated. there is a lot of evidence to suggest that these self ID laws are being abused by male predators to gain access to victims . Can't wait until the incels cotton on to this, or maybe they already have

So at what point do you think that something should be done to stop this? How many victims?

They have
Remember the NI politician who reported a male staff member for a camra in the work bathroom. Cameras are regularly found in ladies bathrooms in the UK.

Upskirting has to have its own specific laws.
A UK accountant convicted recently has something like 1000 individual pictures, each of different. So 1000 incidents of non-contact sexual abuse of a female.

Ditto revenge porn.

And for the men reading, wearing fetish gear to work and **** in the toilet was non-contact sex abuse of men.

And sexual abuse and assault has mainstreamed using tech.
And non-contact can be as simple as people ( men ) watching porn on trains and buses.

And for the men who still go to church women in leggings

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/mom-with-sons-is-right-to-tell-catholic-girls-to-stop-wearing-skin-tight-leggings-to-church

c montgomery · 30-07-2019 8:23am

klaaaz wrote: »

Science has changed that in the 21st century, you'd need to move on from the pre-21st century backward attitude and embrace science of progression for humankind.

Lol

Wibbs · 30-07-2019 8:24am

klaaaz wrote: »

Facts obviously don't apply to your opinion.

A zillion trillion percent wrong on your science denial which actually infringes the medical as well as the science community.

You speak of facts and science denial yet proceed to type the below with a straight face?

klaaaz wrote: »

This sounds like misgendering of trans men who have given birth and raised their kids as proud fathers.

When it becomes "misgendering" to say men can't give birth, then by all means label people that way. I'd rather stand with them and facts and actual science than woo woo nonsense.

Penn · 30-07-2019 9:19am

Wibbs wrote: »

When it becomes "misgendering" to say men can't give birth, then by all means label people that way. I'd rather stand with them and facts and actual science than woo woo nonsense.

While I mostly agree, it depends on the language one uses. It's generally considered that trans woman = person who was born as male but transitioned to female, and trans man = person who was born female but transitioned to male.

Therefore, a trans man can give birth. Obviously "men" can't give birth, but trans men (if you believe trans men are included as a subset of "men" as a collective) can.

I think when it comes to discussing things like this, it's less about science and more about our own perceptions of how we view trans people, and where we believe them to fall within what we see as "men and women" from a social viewpoint rather than a scientific one.

30-07-2019 9:52am

Penn wrote: »

While I mostly agree, it depends on the language one uses. It's generally considered that trans woman = person who was born as male but transitioned to female, and trans man = person who was born female but transitioned to male.

Therefore, a trans man can give birth. Obviously "men" can't give birth, but trans men (if you believe trans men are included as a subset of "men" as a collective) can.

I think when it comes to discussing things like this, it's less about science and more about our own perceptions of how we view trans people, and where we believe them to fall within what we see as "men and women" from a social viewpoint rather than a scientific one.

The scientific viewpoint is the only one that's relevant when considering human reproduction. The social viewpoint has no place at all in relation to gender identification of a person who can procreate, specifically in the context of whether it's a man or a woman contibuting their part to the mix. A male is a man, a female is a woman when looking at reproductive biology and endocrinology, at least outside of the current trend of twisting language to endorse particular forms of social activism.

The ability to alter a persons body via cosmetic surgery and supplemental/complementary hormone treatment in order to present an alternative outward physical appearance which fits with that individuals gender identification does not mean a man can become pregnant.

It's science. Stick with what we know to be true, which is that men do not become pregnant. Not even when you manipulate language. This comes down to the very meaning of 'man' and 'woman' in the most fundamental senses of those words.

drunkmonkey · 30-07-2019 10:04am

From a social standpoint transwomen are still men. There never ever going to have the exact same rights as women, Therefore there not women. To redefine a woman is a crime in itself but oh we got to think of trans feeling and to hell with the rest of society as we know it.
They want the same rights but as were seeing unfolding now that's becoming more and more or a pipe dream as they infringe on what society accepts as any way acceptable behaviour between grown men in dresses and young girls.
This country has learned nothing when it comes to protecting children.

Penn · 30-07-2019 10:07am

JayZeus wrote: »

The scientific viewpoint is the only one that's relevant when considering human reproduction. The social viewpoint has no place at all in relation to gender identification of a person who can procreate, specifically in the context of whether it's a man or a woman contibuting their part to the mix. A male is a man, a female is a woman when looking at reproductive biology and endocrinology, at least outside of the current trend of twisting language to endorse particular forms of social activism.

The ability to alter a persons body via cosmetic surgery and supplemental/complementary hormone treatment in order to present an alternative outward physical appearance which fits with that individuals gender identification does not mean a man can become pregnant.

It's science. Stick with what we know to be true, which is that men do not become pregnant. Not even when you manipulate language. This comes down to the very meaning of 'man' and 'woman' in the most fundamental senses of those words.

But are we only to be defined by our ability to reproduce? Are we only to be defined by our chromosomes?

Again, I don't dispute that when it comes to biology and science, it's the body parts you have and how they work that determines the person's place with regards to sexual reproduction. That's obvious. I just think that to distill people down to that one aspect of the self and ignore the possibility of the brain being the determinant of what the individual considers their gender to be is too simplistic a view especially if that determination comes from actual biological influences in the brain. In the context of sexual reproduction, yes, but not in the larger context.

30-07-2019 10:14am

Penn wrote: »

But are we only to be defined by our ability to reproduce? Are we only to be defined by our chromosomes?

Again, I don't dispute that when it comes to biology and science, it's the body parts you have and how they work that determines the person's place with regards to sexual reproduction. That's obvious. I just think that to distill people down to that one aspect of the self and ignore the possibility of the brain being the determinant of what the individual considers their gender to be is too simplistic a view especially if that determination comes from actual biological influences in the brain. In the context of sexual reproduction, yes, but not in the larger context.

This seems to be conflating the multitude of factors that contribute to an individuals personality, with the persons sex.

For example, Many things may have happened and are happening to you which make you feel quite (what is now considered as being) feminine, but you do not meet the definition of female. There words have quite scientific definitions and altering or diluting them is akin to miseducation.

MrFresh · 30-07-2019 10:15am

Glass fused light wrote: »

Morgane Oger has issued a public statement disagreeing [with your statement, saying ] that transgender people are more likely to comit crimes. This was in a statement about a predator.

She supports the waxing case.

Contact details

https://morganeoger.ca/contact/

And to save you looking the quote

Source
https://morganeoger.ca/2019/04/19/preying-on-children-makes-you-a-predator-regardless-of-who-you-are/

Her qualifications to speak on behalf of transgendered people

Good for her. She's entitled to her opinion.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

From a social standpoint transwomen are still men. There never ever going to have the exact same rights as women, Therefore there not women. To redefine a woman is a crime in itself but oh we got to think of trans feeling and to hell with the rest of society as we know it.
They want the same rights but as were seeing unfolding now that's becoming more and more or a pipe dream as they infringe on what society accepts as any way acceptable behaviour between grown men in dresses and young girls.
This country has learned nothing when it comes to protecting children.

Cling on to the children line as much as you want, it's fairly transparent. Society is moving towards being more inclusive no matter how much you resist it.

Sittingpretty · 30-07-2019 10:18am

Penn wrote: »

While I mostly agree, it depends on the language one uses. It's generally considered that trans woman = person who was born as male but transitioned to female, and trans man = person who was born female but transitioned to male.

Therefore, a trans man can give birth. Obviously "men" can't give birth, but trans men (if you believe trans men are included as a subset of "men" as a collective) can.

I think when it comes to discussing things like this, it's less about science and more about our own perceptions of how we view trans people, and where we believe them to fall within what we see as "men and women" from a social viewpoint rather than a scientific one.

The ONLY reason a trans man can give birth is that s/he is IN REALITY a woman.

Will I Am Not · 30-07-2019 10:36am

Glass fused light wrote: »

So in Scotland prior to the litigant or waxing case getting any wide public attention self ID hit the headlines.

The issue was proposed new laws around the Gender Recognition Act/self ID. Most politicians were either a public ally or did not comment.

Grassroots women got active.
Women whom are 'Christian' far right and the 'Athiest' far left "which ain’t easy; ‘cause when they met, it was murder". (< So who had to google the quote? )

And lobbied as they have had multiple instance of acceptance without exception causing public outrage. (yiz can google these argument)

This is becoming a first world political issue. And is being weaponised in America politics on a State and Nationl level.

In Scotland Mhairi Black did an "interesting" tweet with embedded video before waxing became an issue.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MhairiBlack/status/1146476340864081920

Nice young lady I am sure. Lovely music and the presentation skills.
However while she is busy giggling at her Jermey Hunt joke, i am laughing at the irony. I get the irresistible urge to send her a pink mirror, with the note "yes dear, you are one, cas you have one and yes they are all pink"

Labour have gotten themselves into a little problem too.

https://mobile.twitter.com/OpenLabour/status/1155794528764403713

Now people on the pro side can ignore the canary in the coal mine.
They can call it transphobia to point out that 1% of the population are trying to educate the other 99% in how to be an ally.
Just don't be suprised when critical thinking is employed.
Dont answer a question with the words transphobia and bigot

There’s an awful strange rabbit hole to crawl down when you click on some of the linked tweets in that Mhairi Black tweet. Bizarro world.

Penn · 30-07-2019 10:44am

Deleted User wrote: »

This seems to be conflating the multitude of factors that contribute to an individuals personality, with the persons sex.

For example, Many things may have happened and are happening to you which make you feel quite (what is now considered as being) feminine, but you do not meet the definition of female. There words have quite scientific definitions and altering or diluting them is akin to miseducation.

Absolutely, there can be masculine females, feminine men etc. Those people and their experiences shouldn't be discounted and care should be taken to ensure a person doesn't more fit one of those groups before any decision to begin transitioning is taken.

However, in much the same way the brain can make people sexually attracted to people of their own gender (which goes against the concept of biological reproduction as part of our evolution), I believe the brain can develop in such a way as to believe themselves to be the opposite gender than their body develops. That regards sexuality, gender, masculinity/femininity etc, these are all a set of scales most of us are firmly or mostly on one side of as it's most beneficial with regards attracting mates and reproducing as per evolution.

But to not consider it possible that people may be born at the opposite ends of those scales, to me is also unscientific.

drunkmonkey · 30-07-2019 11:00am

Penn wrote: »

Absolutely, there can be masculine females, feminine men etc. Those people and their experiences shouldn't be discounted and care should be taken to ensure a person doesn't more fit one of those groups before any decision to begin transitioning is taken.

That's fine to say Penn but that fly's in the face of trans rights as demonstrated here by the trans supporters who won't tell the truth and say they want early intervention for trans kids as young as possible. They also won't tell you they believe anything besides transoning should be offered as a treatment.
You can't be pro women and children's rights and be pro trans. The 2 ideologys don't agree with each other.

klaaaz · 30-07-2019 11:10am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

From a social standpoint transwomen are still men. There never ever going to have the exact same rights as women, Therefore there not women. To redefine a woman is a crime in itself but oh we got to think of trans feeling and to hell with the rest of society as we know it.
They want the same rights but as were seeing unfolding now that's becoming more and more or a pipe dream as they infringe on what society accepts as any way acceptable behaviour between grown men in dresses and young girls.
This country has learned nothing when it comes to protecting children.

Are you a person of the cloth by any chance, a Pastor? That misleading and ignorant stuff is like straight out of what American evangelicals say. Which country are you stating, Canada where perhaps you're a resident of or Ireland where most of us live?

drunkmonkey · 30-07-2019 11:21am

klaaaz wrote: »

Are you a person of the cloth by any chance, a Pastor? That misleading and ignorant stuff is like straight out of what American evangelicals say. Which country are you stating, Canada where perhaps you're a resident of or Ireland where most of us live?

Misleading and ignorant the person who claims men can give birth and won't stand up for children or women's rights. Have you looked in the mirror recently.
Now you doing the Leo on it and having a pop at the church, well played keep insulting people and you'll have the right to get into little girls toilets in no time.

Jeeeze, the balls on some people:rolleyes:

Penn · 30-07-2019 11:24am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

That's fine to say Penn but that fly's in the face of trans rights as demonstrated here by the trans supporters who won't tell the truth and say they want early intervention for trans kids as young as possible. They also won't tell you they believe anything besides transoning should be offered as a treatment.
You can't be pro women and children's rights and be pro trans. The 2 ideologys don't agree with each other.

Do you think it's possible you're ascribing your own perceptions of their arguments or extreme versions of arguments you've seen others on the internet make to trans supporters on this thread?

Personally, I believe in trans rights. I believe it's important, prior to any form of transitioning, that children be taught that it's okay to be a masculine female or feminine male and that it doesn't necessarily mean they're trans. I also believe no form of medical transitioning should be allowed prior to the age of 16. I also believe that, say in the case which started this thread, the women had the absolute right to refuse to wax this trans woman as requested as while I believe trans women are women and should be treated as such in so far as is possible, there is still a significant biological difference which was a substantial factor in why they didn't want to carry out the waxing (rather than simply refusing because they were trans).

I don't think any of these ideals are in conflict, though I do accept they are subjective based on my own opinions and others may have differing opinions, and my opinions can be changed based on evolving arguments, scientific research etc.

coffee_cake · 30-07-2019 11:25am

Dante7 wrote: »

This is an interesting one, and wherein lies the Crux of the issue. There has been an 8000% increase in young females identifying out of their gender. This has been ascribed to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD). It's a relatively new phenomenon but it seems that most of these females will simply grow out of it.

The trans lobby is not made up of these females. It is largely made up of males, with no surgery, identifying as lesbians, and for whom the whole trans thing seems like more of a kink. There is an inordinate obsession with sex. I don't think they are genuinely trans at all. They are AGPs. There's a lesbian with a beard on the Stonewall advisory committee ffs.

There's apparently areas on reddit where many fully admit it is a kink and are AGPs.

That article from the former gids worker has firmly put me even more against any of this for children. Children with past abuse or other issues manifesting as this gender dysphoria and nobody is allowed to treat the other issues before drugging them. Or parents driving the issue out of homophobia or munchhausens. Heartbreaking. Too many detrans stories as well.
They are children and we are supposed to protect them, not insist on backwards gender roles, homophobia, and medical experiments on them

klaaaz · 30-07-2019 11:29am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Misleading and ignorant the person who claims men can give birth and won't stand up for children or women's rights. Have you looked in the mirror recently.
Now you doing the Leo on it and having a pop at the church, well played keep insulting people and you'll have the right to get into little girls toilets in no time.

Jeeeze, the balls on some people:rolleyes:

So you're based in Canada. Welcome to Ireland, we've had self ID since 2015. American evangelicals have been at the forefront attacking transgender people with made up nonsense in a policy of scaremongering.

As for your "concern" about little girls, a sign on the door is not going to stop a man entering a female toilet committing sexual offences. And that sign on the door is also not going to stop a man doing the same to a little boy in the male toilets, it seems you don't care about the welfare of little boys either.

drunkmonkey · 30-07-2019 11:38am

Penn wrote: »

Do you think it's possible you're ascribing your own perceptions of their arguments or extreme versions of arguments you've seen others on the internet make to trans supporters on this thread?

Personally, I believe in trans rights. I believe it's important, prior to any form of transitioning, that children be taught that it's okay to be a masculine female or feminine male and that it doesn't necessarily mean they're trans. I also believe no form of medical transitioning should be allowed prior to the age of 16. I also believe that, say in the case which started this thread, the women had the absolute right to refuse to wax this trans woman as requested as while I believe trans women are women and should be treated as such in so far as is possible, there is still a significant biological difference which was a substantial factor in why they didn't want to carry out the waxing (rather than simply refusing because they were trans).

I don't think any of these ideals are in conflict, though I do accept they are subjective based on my own opinions and others may have differing opinions, and my opinions can be changed based on evolving arguments, scientific research etc.

No Penn I don't believe I am, if you go back and read some of the things posted by Mr Fresh and a few more of them you'll see this dosn't arrise from any other place on the internet. It's reaction based solely on the trans allys attitude to women and children rights here on boards.

I'd agree with a lot of the rest of your post but a lot of it has been discussed already. I've bad news, your not woke like the major majority of us.
Your either in the wax my balls Bigot camp or not. Your clearly not. You don't believe in equal rights for trans people.

drunkmonkey · 30-07-2019 11:45am

klaaaz wrote: »

So you're based in Canada. Welcome to Ireland, we've had self ID since 2015. American evangelicals have been at the forefront attacking transgender people with made up nonsense in a policy of scaremongering.

As for your "concern" about little girls, a sign on the door is not going to stop a man entering a female toilet committing sexual offences. And that sign on the door is also not going to stop a man doing the same to a little boy in the male toilets, it seems you don't care about the welfare of little boys either.

Jesus H Christ, you do realise your talking to a parent of both boys and girls not a priest.
I'm putting you in the Mr Fresh basket of people I won't engage with anymore you've proven yourself to be utterly dilusional like him.

Again it's not scaremongering when it's actually happening. Notice Joey and his deflecting yesterday when he was pulled up when he said it wasn't happening to 4yr olds. Sometimes silence says it all.

klaaaz · 30-07-2019 11:53am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Jesus H Christ, you do realise your talking to a parent of both boys and girls not a priest.
I'm putting you in the Mr Fresh basket of people I won't engage with anymore you've proven yourself to be utterly dilusional like him.

Again it's not scaremongering when it's actually happening. Notice Joey and his deflecting yesterday when he was pulled up when he said it wasn't happening to 4yr olds. Sometimes silence says it all.

You said

drunkmonkey wrote:

They want the same rights but as were seeing unfolding now that's becoming more and more or a pipe dream as they infringe on what society accepts as any way acceptable behaviour between grown men in dresses and young girls.
This country has learned nothing when it comes to protecting children.

And

drunkmonkey wrote:

you'll have the right to get into little girls toilets in no time.

You've been challenged and disproved on your misleading statements on toilets and you now back away. A sign on the toilet door is not going to stop a sexual assault, you're falsely using the scaremongering tactic of " little girls" in danger from transgender people and not even a thought from you for the little boys in the male toilets.

Penn · 30-07-2019 11:54am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

No Penn I don't believe I am, if you go back and read some of the things posted by Mr Fresh and a few more of them you'll see this dosn't arrise from any other place on the internet. It's reaction based solely on the trans allys attitude to women and children rights here on boards.

I'd agree with a lot of the rest of your post but a lot of it has been discussed already. I've bad news, your not woke like the major majority of us.
Your either in the wax my balls Bigot camp or not. Your clearly not. You don't believe in equal rights for trans people.

If a person with a significant skin condition went to the beauticians, requested a waxing and was refused as the beauticians didn't want to or felt they couldn't due to that skin condition, siding with them wouldn't mean I'm against equal rights for people with skin conditions.

Again, if they refused simply because the person was trans, for example if she went in to get her eyebrows done rather than genitals, to me that would be wrong as the fact the person was trans should have no impact in that case. This is a different scenario though. She wasn't refused the service because she was trans, she was refused it because a significant aspect of the fact she is trans meant the parameters of the service were different in a way that the beauticians weren't comfortable with for personal or professional reasons.

Regardless, I'm not concerned with being "woke" or in whatever camp. I consider things as best I can and make my own judgement on them.

MrFresh · 30-07-2019 12:09pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

No Penn I don't believe I am, if you go back and read some of the things posted by Mr Fresh and a few more of them you'll see this dosn't arrise from any other place on the internet. It's reaction based solely on the trans allys attitude to women and children rights here on boards.

I'd agree with a lot of the rest of your post but a lot of it has been discussed already. I've bad news, your not woke like the major majority of us.
Your either in the wax my balls Bigot camp or not. Your clearly not. You don't believe in equal rights for trans people.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Jesus H Christ, you do realise your talking to a parent of both boys and girls not a priest.
I'm putting you in the Mr Fresh basket of people I won't engage with anymore you've proven yourself to be utterly dilusional like him.

Again it's not scaremongering when it's actually happening. Notice Joey and his deflecting yesterday when he was pulled up when he said it wasn't happening to 4yr olds. Sometimes silence says it all.

Obsessed much? You also seem to be dishonest about the position taken by the majority of people.

drunkmonkey · 30-07-2019 12:14pm

Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Mark Twain

MrFresh · 30-07-2019 12:18pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Mark Twain

If you keep posting people will keep arguing with you.

Neyite · 30-07-2019 12:28pm

Penn wrote: »

She wasn't refused the service because she was trans, she was refused it because a significant aspect of the fact she is trans meant the parameters of the service were different in a way that the beauticians weren't comfortable with for personal or professional reasons.
.

It's worth repeating that JY did contact other waxers enquiring about genital waxing. There were several who offered her a booking knowing that they were waxing male genitalia on a transwoman with a menstruation fixation.

JY never booked in with any of them.

This is because JY has zero interest in beauticians who are happy to wax them. Now I can't speak for all women, but most I know tend to be creatures of habit and would tend not to go to a new hair stylist or beautician without at least a recommendation from a friend. If JY had beauticians who were willing to do the job, why not simply pick the one that offers the better service and go to that same place every six weeks or so like the rest of us do?

The real reason is that they are pursuing a specific niche kink which as nothing to do with being hair free. It's about coercion and intimidation of female sole traders usually working alone.

In my view, if you have something kinky that gets you off, that's your own business, you'll get no judgement from me. But when your fetish or kink involves unwilling or unaware participants, then I will have a problem with it, whoever you are, however you present, and whatever you think your rights should be.

gmisk · 30-07-2019 12:34pm

Neyite wrote: »

It's worth repeating that JY did contact other waxers enquiring about genital waxing. There were several who offered her a booking knowing that they were waxing male genitalia on a transwoman with a menstruation fixation.

JY never booked in with any of them.

This is because JY has zero interest in beauticians who are happy to wax them. Now I can't speak for all women, but most I know tend to be creatures of habit and would tend not to go to a new hair stylist or beautician without at least a recommendation from a friend. If JY had beauticians who were willing to do the job, why not simply pick the one that offers the better service and go to that same place every six weeks or so like the rest of us do?

The real reason is that they are pursuing a specific niche kink which as nothing to do with being hair free. It's about coercion and intimidation of female sole traders usually working alone.

In my view, if you have something kinky that gets you off, that's your own business, you'll get no judgement from me. But when your fetish or kink involves unwilling or unaware participants, then I will have a problem with it, whoever you are, however you present, and whatever you think your rights should be.

Honestly from what I am reading here its not a "kink" with this person but they are clearly targeting people in a really nasty way to make a point to gain some kind of strange infamy/notoriety a really odd individual and tbh not indicative of the vast vast majority of trans people I would think.

Neyite · 30-07-2019 12:40pm

gmisk wrote: »

Honestly from what I am reading here its not a "kink" with this person but they are clearly targeting people in a really nasty way to make a point to gain some kind of strange infamy.

There's a narcissistic attention seeking element for sure. Like, attending the hearing in a ball gown and tiara for example. But I do think that the way their messages to teen girls and other beauticians about periods or helping in a bathroom is pointing to at least an unhealthy obsession if not something that is a turn on for them.

Penn · 30-07-2019 12:41pm

gmisk wrote: »

Honestly from what I am reading here its not a "kink" with this person but they are clearly targeting people in a really nasty way to make a point to gain some kind of strange infamy/notoriety a really odd individual and tbh not indicative of the vast vast majority of trans people I would think.

From what I've read of this particular person, I agree there is more to it than simply a case of "trans woman refused service", and that her behaviour is certainly inappropriate both in this context and from much of what people have pulled from her tweets etc.

But like you say, her behaviour shouldn't be taken as indicative of the majority of trans people, and behaviour like hers should be called out regardless of sexuality or gender.

mcmoustache · 30-07-2019 12:58pm

Dante7 wrote: »

There's a lesbian with a beard on the Stonewall advisory committee ffs.

For anyone wondering:

Alex is a Cognitive Behavioural Psychotherapist with research and clinical interests in ADHD, and accredited as a specialist in Gender and Sexual Diversity. She also works as a photographer.

This wouldn't be an issue if Stonewall weren't such an influential lobby group. So if Alex Drummond is a lesbian, whose rights are they actually lobbying for?

I understand the need to lobby for trans rights but why is it being mixed up with people like this who, on the face of it, just like wearing dresses and stuff?

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

Comments