Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
24567…62

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    mad muffin
    Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭mad muffin


    Hobosan wrote: »
    Old media are desperate. They need something which will generate interest until another war comes along, which is always good business for them.

    They just put out the bait and not only do people take it, but attention whores like this will happily oblige them with manufactured stories.


    Nobody can resist looking at the car crash.

    You don’t think someone like that needs to be called out? Everything is fine and dandy in what they are doing?


  • Options
    #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Am I allowed say these days that I don't think that person is a woman.


  • Options
    #34
    Glass fused light
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Glass fused light


    Naydy wrote: »


    She is not someone representative of transgender people and should not be held up as such. I think it's awful that there will likely be an outpouring of ignorant comments towards transgender people in general from this. Transgender women have already come out to roundly condemn her behaviour online and rightly so.

    sorry to be harsh about it but as Canada has accepted that she is transgendered
    She herself has tweeted that this is her fighting for the rights of trans women.

    That trans women should have the exact same rights as biological woman including the right to have their genitalia waxed irrespective of it being a penis.

    And I have seen a lot of trans activists try to deny that she is a trans person including trans women
    That it was transphobia to call it a case about transgender rights
    And to pull out the Biggot and "TERF" slur.

    Women have been saying that there has to be a discussion about how to deal with self ID and how can be abused by people; trans men keeping their ladydicks, not taking hormones and with no intention of doing so; only to be told that they should be killed for having an opinion on how to safegard themselves and children.

    Trans is being used as a magic wand to cover bad behaviour and to undermine safeguarding. The UK Girl Guides actually decided that to be a trans friendly space they should let in trans girls (boys) in and trans women in as leaders.
    This is in with girls for sleepover camps with out telling the parents or providing sex segrated spaces. If the Boy Scouts tried that there would have been a media outcry about not learning from passed lessons.

    Yes there are Gay and Trans people objecting but the ones in high visibility position appear the be either in hiding or calling people names.


  • Options
    #35
    Hobosan
    Registered Users Posts: 582 ✭✭✭Hobosan


    mad muffin wrote: »
    You don’t think someone like that needs to be called out? Everything is fi e and dandy in what they are doing?

    Yes people like that need to be called out. No, what they are doing is not fine and dandy.

    Large media companies have no interest in curtailing this, in fact they are complicit. They seek attention at all costs, just like the person with hairy balls.


  • Options
    #36
    wellwhynot
    Registered Users Posts: 280 ✭✭wellwhynot


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Am I allowed say these days that I don't think that person is a woman.

    I don’t think you are. Even though our eyes/brain see a man.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    mad muffin
    Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭mad muffin


    Hobosan wrote: »
    Yes people like that need to be called out. No, what they are doing is not fine and dandy.

    So then the article is valid.


  • Options
    #38
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,119 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Hobosan wrote: »
    Old media are desperate. They need something which will generate interest until another war comes along, which is always good business for them.

    They just put out the bait and not only do people take it, but attention whores like this will happily oblige them with manufactured stories.


    Nobody can resist looking at the car crash.

    We live in a country that allows your to change from the sex your born and get a passport that acknowledges your new chosen sex.
    This can and probably will happen here. She identifies as a female under our laws you must respect that and so must anyone in business or they face prosecution.
    It is not a manufactured story. It's a car crash alright with women in the passenger seat, there the only losers in all this.

    This is very on trend human rights issue, nothing to do with old media.


  • Options
    #39
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,293 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Forcing someone to interact with genitalia that doesn't make them comfortable isn't very nice really


  • Options
    #40
    Glass fused light
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Glass fused light


    _blaaz wrote: »
    I would imagine management have right to refuse business for any reason?


    (Plus id imagine this would be painful beyond belief :eek: )

    No not if covered by legal protection

    If person like that could get a gender cert here or any "reasonable" person looking for a service only provided to the other sex could bring a case on something similar (personal contact like beauty treatments are excluded under out equity legistation).


  • Options
    #41
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Am I allowed say these days that I don't think that person is a woman.

    Stop being transphobic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    _blaaz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,646 ✭✭✭_blaaz


    Glass fused light wrote: »
    (personal contact like beauty treatments are excluded under out equity legistation).

    I hate to be pedantic...but deos this mean beauty treatments can be forced through??



    But i do think a business should be allowed cite a risk.of being sued as a valid reason to turn away business.....i know where i used work,boss turned away customers who were known to sue over petty things regularly,didnt want hassle


  • Options
    #43
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,123 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Ricky Gervais has jumped in to help..


    Am not on the oul' twitter, but if it hasn't already been done, can someone tweet Gervais back and just say that the obvious solution would just be to use the same beautician that his oul' wan uses


  • Options
    #44
    SlowBlowin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭SlowBlowin


    Glass fused light wrote: »
    Trans is being used as a magic wand to cover bad behaviour and to undermine safeguarding. The UK Girl Guides actually decided that to be a trans friendly space they should let in trans girls (boys) in and trans women in as leaders.
    This is in with girls for sleepover camps with out telling the parents or providing sex segrated spaces. If the Boy Scouts tried that there would have been a media outcry about not learning from passed lessons.

    Yes there are Gay and Trans people objecting but the ones in high visibility position appear the be either in hiding or calling people names.

    In the UK worked in a software company with a Trans Scout leader, they regularly did overnight camping with boys. The UK Scouts are very pro Trans now. At one point (at the start) they got my colleague removed, but after a tribunal they were reinstated.


  • Options
    #45
    Glass fused light
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Glass fused light


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    We live in a country that allows your to change from the sex your born and get a passport that acknowledges your new chosen sex.
    This can and probably will happen here. She identifies as a female under our laws you must respect that and so must anyone in business or they face prosecution.
    It is not a manufactured story. It's a car crash alright with women in the passenger seat, there the only losers in all this.

    This is very on trend human rights issue, nothing to do with old media.

    At least here the person has to go through a legal process and the State has built in some safeguards.

    In Canada she was still living a duel life and was allowed to redact her female name of the court documents claiming that outing herself as Trans would have a negative impact on her business. But she apparently admitted under oath that all her client and family were aware that she was Trans

    This was one of the reasons the judge removed the reporting block on her name and and information which would directly ID her.

    She was self IDing and could have continued to do so without getting any official paperwork

    The big media scandal is that none of the Canadian press turned up for the hearing.
    Imagine if the Belfast cake case was going on and none of the media could even be bothered to send an intern to take notes
    How many reporters were there writing about baking a cake on day 1 v having to wax a mans balls on day3?


  • Options
    #46
    Glass fused light
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Glass fused light


    SlowBlowin wrote: »
    In the UK worked in a software company with a Trans Scout leader, they regularly did overnight camping with boys. The UK Scouts are very pro Trans now. At one point (at the start) they got my colleague removed, but after a tribunal they were reinstated.

    Were there proper safeguarding put in place to protect them as a leader as well as the children the were supervising?

    The women who objected were pushed out. They were expected to safegard teenagers, because a trans girl still has a teen boys body and can be sexually attracted to girls, while pretending that the risks were not being properly assessed.


  • Options
    #47
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    Worth a listen if you got 30 minutes free



  • Options
    #48
    Hobosan
    Registered Users Posts: 582 ✭✭✭Hobosan


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    This is very on trend human rights issue, nothing to do with old media.

    I don't see it that way personally. Old media set the trends, or at the very least in this case, they perpetually push narratives that convince enough crazies that such people be pandered to, and we end up with situations like this.

    I'm not saying they orchestrated this madness, but they have a part to play all the same. They know well that this type of story sells, and they are fighting for survival, so forgive me if I suspect that companies that push for unpopular wars might have few scruples about pushing this nonsense.

    There are individual youtubers whose live streams attract more viewers than CNN broadcasts. Old media are desperate.


  • Options
    #49
    Glass fused light
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Glass fused light


    Seriously don't say it on twitter :)
    She is a serious stalker and if she did not get you a ban and dox you someone else will try to


  • Options
    #50
    SlowBlowin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭SlowBlowin


    Glass fused light wrote: »
    Were there proper safeguarding put in place to protect them as a leader as well as the children the were supervising?

    The women who objected were pushed out. They were expected to safegard teenagers, because a trans girl still has a teen boys body and can be sexually attracted to girls, while pretending that the risks were not being properly assessed.

    My ex-colleague is a pretty tough cookie, we don't stay in contact so no idea how things are now, but I think there must have been support otherwise the tribunal would not have found as it did.


  • Options
    #51
    Franz Von Peppercorn II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    Glass fused light wrote: »
    At least here the person has to go through a legal process and the State has built in some safeguards.

    There’s not much impediment to self identification here. In fact during the readings in the dail the parliament took most impediments out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Hobosan
    Registered Users Posts: 582 ✭✭✭Hobosan


    mad muffin wrote: »
    So then the article is valid.

    I'd say every boards member has a story which has as as much merit to appear in The New York Times than this.

    If crazy stuff like this sells, then expect alot more crazy stuff. Let's see where that gets us.


  • Options
    #53
    Glass fused light
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Glass fused light


    _blaaz wrote: »
    I hate to be pedantic...but deos this mean beauty treatments can be forced through??



    But i do think a business should be allowed cite a risk.of being sued as a valid reason to turn away business.....i know where i used work,boss turned away customers who were known to sue over petty things regularly,didnt want hassle

    There is a difference between turning away someone for being a suspected extra cost to the business and turning them away if they fall under a protected class

    So say you turned a pregnant person ( woman is transphobic ) away as the treatment could be dangerous to the health of the pregnant person you could argue that section L applied.

    However section c would allow the refusal for (non essential) services where there is physical contact required

    But these are defences so you have spent the money to argue your case. Your insurance company is likely to have settled the matter before it ended up in court.
    5.—(1) A person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public.

    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of—

    (a) an activity referred to in section 7 (2),

    (b) a service related to a matter provided for under section 6 , or a service offered to its members by a club in respect of which section 8 applies,

    (c) differences in the treatment of persons on the gender ground in relation to services of an aesthetic, cosmetic or similar nature, where the services require physical contact between the service provider and the recipient,

    (d) differences in the treatment of persons in relation to annuities, pensions, insurance policies or any other matters related to the assessment of risk where the treatment—

    (i) is effected by reference to—

    (I) actuarial or statistical data obtained from a source on which it is reasonable to rely, or

    (II) other relevant underwriting or commercial factors,

    and

    (ii) is reasonable having regard to the data or other relevant factors,

    (e) differences in the treatment of person on the religion ground in relation to goods or services provided for a religious purpose,

    (f) differences in the treatment of persons on the gender, age or disability ground or on the basis of nationality or national origin in relation to the provision or organisation of a sporting facility or sporting event to the extent that the differences are reasonably necessary having regard to the nature of the facility or event and are relevant to the purpose of the facility or event,

    (g) differences in the treatment of persons on the gender ground where embarrassment or infringement of privacy can reasonably be expected to result from the presence of a person of another gender,

    (h) differences in the treatment of persons in a category of persons in respect of services that are provided for the principal purpose of promoting, for a bona fide purpose and in a bona fide manner, the special interests of persons in that category to the extent that the differences in treatment are reasonably necessary to promote those special interests,

    (i) differences in the treatment of persons on the gender, age or disability ground or on the ground of race, reasonably required for reasons of authenticity, aesthetics, tradition or custom in connection with a dramatic performance or other entertainment,

    (j) an age requirement for a person to be an adoptive or foster parent, where the requirement is reasonable having regard to the needs of the child or children concerned,

    (k) a disposal of goods by will or gift, or

    (l) differences, not otherwise specifically provided for in this section, in the treatment of persons in respect of the disposal of goods, or the provision of a service, which can reasonably be regarded as goods or a service suitable only to the needs of certain persons.


  • Options
    #54
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Glass fused light wrote: »
    There is a difference between turning away someone for being a suspected extra cost to the business and turning them away if they fall under a protected class
    There was a similar but far more reasonable case here in Ireland a year or two back.

    A trans man went into a barbers for a haircut and was turned away by the barber because they "don't do women's hair".

    Ultimately the nub of the issue was that if the customer had asked for something the barber didn't know how to do, or wasn't qualified to do, then that's perfectly fine and legal.

    But if someone asks you for a service which you are capable of doing (and offer to others), then you don't have the right to turn them down based on the gender ground (or any of the nine others).

    So if a person of any gender goes into a barber asking for a number 2 all over, the barber cannot say, "No, we only do men's hair here". And that's right and correct. If you offer a service you should not be permitted to refuse any reasonable request for it.

    This is relevant to the case in question because there seems to have been crossed wires. Rather than explaining that bollox waxing was not a service they were capable of offering, they instead turned the customer down on the gender basis. Or at least that's the allegation.

    Naturally every moron who thinks that trans people will cause the end of civilisation as we know it, is jumping up and down about "irreperable damage to society" and "slippery slope". When in reality it's one sue-happy moron looking for a payout wherever they can find it. We have plenty of these, but they're rarely entertaining enough to make the news.


  • Options
    #55
    Glass fused light
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Glass fused light


    SlowBlowin wrote: »
    My ex-colleague is a pretty tough cookie, we don't stay in contact so no idea how things are now, but I think there must have been support otherwise the tribunal would not have found as it did.

    No matter how tough a person is it only takes one incident of failed safeguarding to put a person through the gossip mill and official investigations. Any allegations will likely follow the person irrespective of there ever have been any truth in an allegation.

    The rules are there to protect the adults as well as the children.
    That's what the leaders who questioned the policy were objecting to.
    They were asked to pretend that the risk of sexual activity among the teens had not changed.
    With the additional risk sexual assaults from non consent to under the legal age etc.
    If anything went "wrong" it's the leaders in place at the time of the event who would be held responsible.


  • Options
    #56
    Franz Von Peppercorn II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    seamus wrote: »
    There was a similar but far more reasonable case here in Ireland a year or two back.

    A trans man went into a barbers for a haircut and was turned away by the barber because they "don't do women's hair".

    Ultimately the nub of the issue was that if the customer had asked for something the barber didn't know how to do, or wasn't qualified to do, then that's perfectly fine and legal.

    But if someone asks you for a service which you are capable of doing (and offer to others), then you don't have the right to turn them down based on the gender ground (or any of the nine others).

    So if a person of any gender goes into a barber asking for a number 2 all over, the barber cannot say, "No, we only do men's hair here". And that's right and correct. If you offer a service you should not be permitted to refuse any reasonable request for it.

    This is relevant to the case in question because there seems to have been crossed wires. Rather than explaining that bollox waxing was not a service they were capable of offering, they instead turned the customer down on the gender basis. Or at least that's the allegation.

    Naturally every moron who thinks that trans people will cause the end of civilisation as we know it, is jumping up and down about "irreperable damage to society" and "slippery slope". When in reality it's one sue-happy moron looking for a payout wherever they can find it. We have plenty of these, but they're rarely entertaining enough to make the news.

    I’d be a bit less inclined to call everybody a moron if I knew as little about this case as you.

    There were multiple businesses targeted and many did make that defense, that waxing testicles isn’t what they do. The case is ongoing.


  • Options
    #57
    MrFresh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭MrFresh


    JustAThought wrote: »
    Same is going on here up North with a middle aged man demanding to be let dress up in his tutu and do ballet lessons with little girls. And a lot more. Childrens ballet class teacher sued & usual hell breaking out. Its not just the insurance industry who are at fault. As one poster has said -when is common sense and basic human dignity and cop on going to click in.

    I would have said kick in except no doubt I'd be screamed down for projecting violence -hence the bad english.

    This planet driven by lawyers has gone to the dogs.


    Have you a link to that story? I can't find it.

    _blaaz wrote: »
    I would imagine management have right to refuse business for any reason?


    (Plus id imagine this would be painful beyond belief :eek: )


    Not for a discriminatory reason. They're better off not giving a reason.

    mad muffin wrote: »
    I have to disagree with you. It’s representative of everything that is wrong with society today. This person should not be able to do this and should not be able to harass and threaten women. Should not be able to waist the laws time. Should not be able to do what ever they want without any consequences.

    If I went out and asked women to give me a Brazilian and then start threatening them because they refuse, I’d be arrested.


    Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Whether they will be successful or not is another matter entirely.


  • Options
    #58
    Charmeleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Charmeleon


    seamus wrote: »
    There was a similar but far more reasonable case here in Ireland a year or two back.

    A trans man went into a barbers for a haircut and was turned away by the barber because they "don't do women's hair".

    Ultimately the nub of the issue was that if the customer had asked for something the barber didn't know how to do, or wasn't qualified to do, then that's perfectly fine and legal.

    But if someone asks you for a service which you are capable of doing (and offer to others), then you don't have the right to turn them down based on the gender ground (or any of the nine others).

    So if a person of any gender goes into a barber asking for a number 2 all over, the barber cannot say, "No, we only do men's hair here". And that's right and correct. If you offer a service you should not be permitted to refuse any reasonable request for it.

    This is relevant to the case in question because there seems to have been crossed wires. Rather than explaining that bollox waxing was not a service they were capable of offering, they instead turned the customer down on the gender basis. Or at least that's the allegation.

    Naturally every moron who thinks that trans people will cause the end of civilisation as we know it, is jumping up and down about "irreperable damage to society" and "slippery slope". When in reality it's one sue-happy moron looking for a payout wherever they can find it. We have plenty of these, but they're rarely entertaining enough to make the news.

    You are forgetting the particularly distressing part of this, where the completely innocent parties are being abused and ‘called out’ by hordes of crazies on the internet. That has to be extremely disturbing, especially to the vulnerable women that were targeted. That kind of thing doesn’t happen when some fool takes a typical vexatious case.


  • Options
    #59
    Franz Von Peppercorn II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    Anyway if legal women have testicles now, it stands to reason that a waxing service that excludes that category of legal women is discriminatory. This philosophy needs to be owned by those who espouse it.


  • Options
    #60
    take everything
    Registered Users Posts: 9,804 ✭✭✭take everything


    Definitely headline of the year for me


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    SlowBlowin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭SlowBlowin


    take everything wrote: »
    Definitely headline of the year for me

    I agree, the thread title is a classic...


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement