Jessica Yaniv refused service at gynaecologist's office

ingalway wrote: »

Well I'm glad we agree that no one can ever change their sex and that what we are really talking about here are cross dressers. No problem with a cross dresser but as we agree a woman it does not make so they have no rights to women's spaces, sports etc.

Well we’re agreed that no one can ever change their sex, but I never agreed that what we’re talking about here are cross dressers. The difference being that cross dressing is an activity that some people engage in where they derive comfort or indeed sexual gratification from wearing clothing (including underwear) normally associated with the opposite sex. People who are transgender are convinced they are the opposite sex. We’re agreed that doesn’t make them a woman, but because the law regards them as women if they have a certificate to say so, then anyone attempting to deny them access to women’s spaces and sports could be found guilty of discrimination under equality legislation. It would depend upon the circumstances of each individual case though whether they are, or are not guilty of violating equality legislation. Someone declaring they are a man for instance and claiming that they are being discriminated against because they want to join the Catholic priesthood would be likely to be told jog on. If they had a gender recognition certificate which recognised in law that they are a man, then things become infinitely more complicated.

ingalway wrote: »

If you choose self id in this scenario then you must be prepared for all the crazy scenarios such as black and disabled that are coming and their claims must be no less legitimate than women being told that women can have a penis.

I’m prepared for those scenarios, as prepared as one can be really - I either agree with the individual or I don’t, because it would apply in the same way as gender recognition legislation. It wouldn’t mean I can be compelled to refer to someone as their preferred gender, and if attempts were made to compel me to refer to someone as their preferred gender, or treat them as though I believe they are their preferred gender... well I’d simply tell that person to piss off. The law however doesn’t have the luxury of my individual perspective.

ingalway wrote: »

BTW - thanks for all the great jobs you gave us. Very kind.

I think you’re very well aware of what I meant by that. The point being that nobody needs your permission to exercise their human rights, any more than women need men’s permission to exercise their human rights.

ingalway wrote: »

Of course.
But I bet you will never see a naked trans man in a changing room until they have medically transitioned.
Trans men pose no sexual or physical threat to men.
Trans men will never be able to compete against men in any male only sport.
I doubt any trans man would ever seek to gain access to male single sex spaces for predatory reasons.
Basically I never see trans men making demands of men in any way which is the complete opposite of many trans women and their allies.

So what? Genuinely I’m wondering why you think you can’t simply tell that person to piss off. I’ve done it many times and not once did I care whether the person was a man or a woman. I’ve known plenty of women to make demands of men and they too were greeted with the same disregard I have for anyone who makes what I consider to be unreasonable demands.

If organisations or anyone else wants to run their business how they see fit, and they are aiming their products and services at people who are transgender, so what? You’re not compelled to avail of those services or buy those products any more than you couldn’t be compelled to before already.

If someone is a rude, obnoxious fcuk, they’re a rude, obnoxious fcuk regardless of their sex or their gender. I don’t tar either all women or all men with the same brush because I’ve met one or two in my life who happen to be rude, obnoxious fcuks.

Brian? wrote: »

Hold up there. You think Trans women are predators who are a physical threat to women? That’s your line of objection?

I would hope there’s more to their objections than that seeing as one doesn’t have to identify themselves as the opposite sex in order to abuse another person or persons. We have laws and a judicial system to punish people who are of a mind to commit abuse already without the need to introduce laws specifically to punish people who commit abuse on the basis of either their sex or gender.

Self-ID laws are not an opportunity for people who are of a mind to abuse other people. People who are of that particular mindset don’t care what the law says one way or the other as they generally try to avoid being caught and held responsible for their actions.

Dante7 wrote: »

Trans women commit sexual offences at the same rates, or higher, as males. If you accept that males pose a threat to females, then you have to accept that trans women pose the same threat to females. That's before we get into the fact that predatory males can also abuse self id to gain access to females.

I don’t accept that for a minute tbh. I’d also want to see some stats for your claim that trans women commit sexual offences at the same rates, or higher, as males. I gather you mean males who identify themselves as women, right? And I hope it’s not some shìtpiece straight from the Daily Mail et al.

But let’s get into the fact that predatory males can also abuse self id to gain access to females. It’s true, they can, but that’s not the reason self id legislation was introduced, and you make it sound as though there aren’t a million and one other circumstances where people who are of a mind to commit abuse, will find a way to commit abuse against other people.

They’re not the same two groups of people we’re talking about here as there is nothing whatsoever about being transgender that implies they are inclined to commit sexual offences, any more than when people used argue that people who are homosexual should be denied human rights, for all the same reasons as are now being used to attempt to argue that people who are transgender should be denied their human rights.

the idea that gender is a fluid attribute which can be in the wrong body or change willy nilly but sexuality and transgenderism are hardwired from conception dosnt work, sorry. you cant have both.

suicide_circus wrote: »

the idea that gender is a fluid attribute which can be in the wrong body or change willy nilly but sexuality and transgenderism are hardwired from conception dosnt work, sorry. you cant have both.

In any other context the idea of standard "male" and "female" brains rather than individual personality traits etc. is considered outdated and sexist.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So what? Genuinely I’m wondering why you think you can’t simply tell that person to piss off. I’ve done it many times and not once did I care whether the person was a man or a woman. I’ve known plenty of women to make demands of men and they too were greeted with the same disregard I have for anyone who makes what I consider to be unreasonable demands.

If organisations or anyone else wants to run their business how they see fit, and they are aiming their products and services at people who are transgender, so what? You’re not compelled to avail of those services or buy those products any more than you couldn’t be compelled to before already.

If someone is a rude, obnoxious fcuk, they’re a rude, obnoxious fcuk regardless of their sex or their gender. I don’t tar either all women or all men with the same brush because I’ve met one or two in my life who happen to be rude, obnoxious fcuks.

The individual this thread is about, cried transphobe and caused a couple of beauty parlours to close down after being informed they weren't trained to wax his nuts, never mind being told to fcuk off. These days it seems to be the norm for transwomen athletes to cry transphobe, when any statements by female competitors have mentioned they have a very unfair physical advantage over biological women based on proven science with no forms of malice behind the statements. You only have to look at the defenders of Yaniv in the early sections of this thread, to see how people who freely admit they don't know anything about the situation but are more than quick to label anyone with an issue regarding Yaniv a transphobe. So lets not pretend it's as simple as telling people knowingly acting the goat to fcuk off.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re not the same two groups of people we’re talking about here as there is nothing whatsoever about being transgender that implies they are inclined to commit sexual offences, any more than when people used argue that people who are homosexual should be denied human rights, for all the same reasons as are now being used to attempt to argue that people who are transgender should be denied their human rights.

But the problem is with self ID how do we know who is a genuine trans person and who is just some chancer, or worse, using such a soft system that is so easy to game to access spaces with women and girls who might be in changing facilities undressed, using toilets, in female only hospital wards, female prisons.
Of course I know there any many trans people who are absolutely fine and honourable people and I genuinely feel sorry that they are caught up in this but the fact cannot be ignored that some awful people have and will abuse this and women will end up physically and sexually abused. It should not be some social experiment to see how far it goes.
If someone is genuinely trans then make the meaningful medical transition, if you are not prepared to do that then you should not expect full entitlement to women's single sex spaces.

If I committed a crime and could demand I be put in a female prison by virtue of self id, I would 100% do it.

Not A Troll Dont_Ban wrote: »

You probably do.

Oh you’re back again with a new account I see. How long did your last account last, not even a day.

Can’t see this one lasting the hour.

mcmoustache wrote: »

The only one that I'm aware of is the report by one of the red-top rags about a self-declared male in a women's prison. I don't know how much truth there is to it since it's one of those papers aimed at simple people but whether or not it has happened yet in this country is beside the point. If it's legal for it to happen, then it's only a matter of time before it does. It has already happened in other common-law jurisdictions with larger populations so stuff like that will happen here. The real question is whether it's right that it does.

That prison incident was in the UK.

So the answer to the question is zero incidents in Ireland in the years since self ID was enabled.

If all those obsessed with protecting women from trans women were to focus on protecting women from men, maybe we wouldn't have ten or twenty women killed by men each year. But I guess it's much more fun to focus on the theoretical risk than the very real, current, actual danger.

LorenzoB wrote: »

Willy nilly 😅

Willy