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

suicide_circus wrote: »

i'd imagine the person would be entitled to both maternity and paternity benefits. The solution is to make no distinction, call it parental leave and have no difference in entitlements between the genders.

So men pregnant or not get the same pay and time off as the person having the baby

Now 
Are men who are not physically pregnant given time off for antenatal appointment? 
Do they need an Occupation Health assessment?
At what stage should they be signed off work?
How do they get the cert off the pregnant persons doctor if the pregnant person refused to allow the doctor to provide the information?
Like if it was a ONS do the same rules apply?
Will the employer have additional Data Protection obligations when asking for the cert and can they get the 2 DNA test just to check the 'sperm donation'?
Who is in charge of handing out the donation cup?
If they come back to work early will they're employer have to provide for breastfeeding?
Do they have the same legal protection against dismissal during the pregnancy? 

Are the HR department banging their heads off desks yet?

And if men with pregnant people partners get this why are we allowed discriminate against people becoming parents by adoption or surrogate?

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

This nonsense is now seemingly being used by creeps as a smokescreen for their devient activities.

Welcome to "TERF world" 

tldr? It will never happen.

[ read the foot notes if you want to argue its only a bathroom]


Did you know that within the current transgender ideology what you suggest is not possible.
Yes, we should accept without exception(1)
And contrary to any transphobic proof (2) that may be offered, there is no evidence that this acceptance (3) has ever resulted in a person self IDing (4) and gaining access to spaces they would otherwise have no right to occupy (5)

Yep, it started with the bathrooms (6)

See sex is movable but gender is not (7)

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/EO16_Single-Sex_City_Facilities.pdf (8)

https://medium.com/gender-inclusivit/how-to-ruin-gender-inclusive-bathrooms-cc573d78b327

Those spaces with (hopefully ) emergency supplies (9) for expected periods (10) and the ultimate safe space*  to look for help in dealing with a suspected creepy man(11). (< *note the space )
Sure ladies have to que as they have to use a cubicle (12) rather that a urinal (13) or cubicle. (This is actually good news for younger ladies, it gives them time to practice the pelvic floor exercises which will be so useful in later life(14).) 
But it was a post puberty penis free zone(15) and if one turned up ladies had the option (yes a choice) to evaluate and a number of options (yes a choice, again). 

Then, ladies  were told that some men are actually violent (to be fair this tip was only recently discovered) and that as a result trans women needed a safespace.(16)  Trans men are safe because they have not figured out that men can be violent yet?

Now for those of you who don't understand this word safespace.(17)
A safespace is where people go to be safe from anybody who asks awkward questions or has a different opinion to that of the person seeking sanctuary. 
To do either of the above is literally violence so the occupant is wholly justified in responding with equal physical violence.(18)

Now remember how sex is movable but gender is not?(19)

It was decided. Yep, I think I missed that vote.

Well it was decided that the female sex can move over and provide that safespace that people are talking about and looking for to protect trans women from dangerous men.(20)

What the ladies have to understand that once somewhere is designated a safespace any objection is literally violence. (21) So because ladies can be physical violent for asking to use a bathroom, without trans men, it's been agreed that these ladies will always be more violent than men.

Hold that thought

Its been agreed that sex is movable but gender is not.(22)

The ladies presented a problem as they keep talking about sex instead of gender when it comes to bathrooms. Now it's agreed that these ladies now present a greater danger to trans women than men ever did. (23)

But yeah, sex is moveable!! (24)

So gender neutral bathrooms are the solution (25). It's cheap too just stick a man or a woman sign on the alternative door and off we all go.(26)

Sorry gentlemen, is a **** free zone needed for men ? (27)
Ladies understandably accept that this will never be a woman's issue.(28)

Now  refurbishing a bathroom can be expensive. 
Talk to a single house owner but if you don't believe them you are literally erasing all house owners.(29) The proof is not the receipt (30) the the builder gave them. The proof is their lived experience. Seriously (even if the house owner is a landlord) violence is a bad thing.

Woo ...... getting lost again. 

Bathrooms... yep....
They cost money to renovate and it's cheaper to leave the urinal (31) in place and anyways why should men loose 3 urinal for only 2 cubicles.(32)
A que for the bathroom is a perfect work out (33); ladies, bladder control, pelvic floor exercise, gives the upper leg a good old work out and men, do men need time for pelvic floor exercises(34)?

Its an opportune place to meet new friends too.(35)

But gentlemen a word to the wise if you offer a random lady a tampon she is likely to thank you by allowing you to understand that all that sh*t kept in her handbag can multitask too.(36)
Ouch!

Now before I depart from bathrooms 
Ladies please correct all trans ally's who complain over the suggestion that the disabled bathroom (37) being a alternative option is transphobic. 

Bless their naive little male (& female) hearts!
They need a hug before you gently lead them over to the signs for bathrooms. 

It will come as a great shock, but a great bonding experience, when they realise that women always shared their single sex spaces, with disabled men and children of both sex too.(38)



So accept without exception

Reject this idea is transphobic and an unwarranted attack on a safespace. 
We have the right to calmly call you a "TERF" and a "bigot". 
Now once we have that right lable we have the right to exclude you from society.

Seriously.
Genital skin is just skin it's transphobic to say sex organs matters in sexual orientation.
 
Take those lesbian who object to trans women attempting to occupy the vagian of lesbians. Sorry loves' they are safespaces. Clearly the correct and only option is to work closely with the police to remove them from any Pride march they attempt to attend. They clearly do not understand that pointing out homophobia is transphobic. So they will not be allowed into polite society until they recant the heresy.

Why hetro male must sleep with tans women
https://mobile.twitter.com/zjemptv/status/881284028548173824?lang=en

 Seriously, this is serious.

It's all about safespaces.  You can also politely suggest that people should 'kill a TERF'. This is not hate speech it's literally a way to save lives. So anyone using the word TERF is not supporting the idea of violence against all women is acceptable or being homophobic about lesbians.

Now dont feel you cant be included without exception if you identify as male luckly "TERF" is mainstreamed, so just like "c*nt" it can be applied to men too. 

So if you meet the guy with a nice beard and jeans, remember ask for their pronoun trans women are women trans men are men and men are cis men.

If you are providing a waxing service genital skin is just skin and it's not sexual assault forcing someone to have non-consent contact with your body. Sure nurses and care staff don't have any choice either.

And the really sad thing about this is I do believe that people have body dysmorphia and all of them will be the big losers

[foot notes added

1) https://www.stonewall.org.uk/resources/acceptance-without-exception-worldwide-2016
2) if you accept (1) when the person said "I belong here because I am transgendered" they automatically have the right to be where ever they may be found. So your objection is baseless and so transphobic.
3) The 'body dysmorphic' trans people are estimated at 1% of the whole population. Most people would not have noticed the law which gave trans people rights to change "gender".  Even if they did they were not transgendered so it would have no impact on their lives. In reality it should not either.
4) Everyone will use a public bathroom at some stage. Can you remember when you realised that men used one bathroom and women and children another? It's a little rite of passage when a boy is allowed to be called a man and p*ss without supervision.
5) Women noticed that some men were now looking for access to a sex segregated  bathrooms. Now this is a small enclosed space where you end up with your knickers around your ankles, most women are going to instinctively react if a male follows them into a bathroom.
6) Its not just bathrooms it's any public space, changing room, showers etc. in pools or schools. It's visible in sports and women's prison. And now women's waxing.
7) With "assigned at birth" the gender of the person trumps the biological body. As the birth body was a 'mistake'
there are 2 ideology in this (my biased take anyway)
Observed: that sex/gender is binary. Its observed at birth by looking at the external genitalia. We say that it's a boy if there is a penis and a girl if there is a vulva. We accept that the physical body will be a key influence of the development of a gender identity. That gender is how we are socialised according to the culturally developed roles of men and women in society.
Assigned: that sex/gender is not binary. Its assigned at birth by looking at the external genitalia. We say that it's a boy, but only because there is a penis and a girl, but only because there is a vulva. By saying this we assigne a role and we socialised according to the culturally developed roles of men and women in society.
8) note the litigants behaviour
9) dealing with periods takes additional time which makes the que time longer. Young girls may embarrassed to have to use the sanitary machine, and extra so in front of a male
10) https://kidshealth.org/en/teens/menstruation.html 
11) see (5)
12) women only have an option of a cubical and need to relocate them knickers to knees/ankles.
13) the male fast track unzip, p*ss, rezip and go
14) babies and age make pelvic floor exercises a women's issue when having to que https://www2.hse.ie/wellbeing/child-health/pelvic-floor-muscle-exercises/pelvic-floor-muscle-exercises.html
15) see (4)
16) the original argument for trans women in bathrooms
17) BS to close down a discussion the person can't argue or justify.
18) the extension of your mouth broke your nose when dealing with (17)
19) see (7)
20) the victim hierarchy level i : trans women = ladies who both outrank men
21) the victim hierarchy level ii : trans women outrank ladies who outrank men
22) see (7)
23)  the victim hierarchy level iii : trans women outrank men who outrank ladies
24) see (7)
25) see (20) (21) and (23)
26) see (9) (10) (12) (13) and (14)
27) https://mobile.twitter.com/BurgessWave/status/1138913878409142276?s=19
28) see (27) like fcuk we do! that's why single sex places were created.
29) BS about how a single personal history trumps any proof
30) physical proof including offsite stored data (see prior posts of litigants history)
31) women have to access a cubicle via a row of urinals
32) male to female ratio of urinals/toilets and turnover rates see (9) (10) (12) (13) and (14)
33) see (9) (10) (12) (13) and (14)
34) yes men should do pelvic floor exercises (please google)
35) note the litigants behaviour and see (5)
36) note the litigants behaviour
37) well fcuk me, we are IDing an able bodied person as being less able than people who use the other bathrooms. 
38) what do you know some Ladies figured that one out on their own
Ok that's it ]

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sittingpretty wrote: »

I stopped reading at “I’ve been misgendered because of my beard”. 

Nonsense.

It’s supposed to be nonsense. It’s satire, and brilliantly done

Broadening the bandwidth for women but not for men

https://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwick/this-transgender-woman-has-a-full-beard-and-she-couldnt-be-h

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/trans-advisory-group

A Male bodied lesbian in a LGBT+ activist organisation. With a beard.

MrFresh wrote: »

Still trying to create a false dilemma. I appreciate that you can only see two sides of a coin here but that doesn't oblige me to view the situation the same way. A trans woman can be a legal woman and still not be able to access the same services a biological woman can. If the person in the op had requested a leg wax you might have a point but they specifically requested a service that wasn't offered to anyone.

try read the actual case reports
Defendant 2 was asked for arm/leg waxing  
 

MrFresh wrote: »

How is that the same logic? There is no impediment to a man and a woman using the same bathroom.

said you.

thanks but I am happy to stay in a urinal free zone

And I don't need any naked penis having people hanging around when I am changing after swimming either.

MrFresh wrote: »

Again you are missing the whole argument. She can be treated like a woman and still be refused a service that is not available. If any other woman, cis or trans, were to ask for a ball sack wax they would also be told no, because you cannot perform an act that is impossible to perform. So her rights are exactly the same as everyone else's.

So thats the argument for the ladies who are the defendants.

The fundamental question has to be answered first.
Is her body now male or female

Amalgam wrote: »

Get off your high horse.

You're being a pedant.. the genitalia is an important specific you're choosing to ignore. If you pull on a Scrotum with the same tugs that you do with the Labia majora, there's going to be some serious injuries and plenty of blood.

This person chose to ignore plenty of outlets that provided a service that suited the genitals that are present, a Penis and a Scrotum, instead, going to outlets with personnel that only had training in depilation of the Female Mons pubis and Labia majora.

Unfortunately there is no official certification for waxing the genitals that are established to be presented
So if she was happy to take the risk, of the ladies learning as they pull the wax off and she is legally a woman where should the judge draw the line?

plus the ladies have already testified that they would never provide the waxing service to the litigant irrespective of the genitalia.

Calhoun wrote: »

Indeed why should it matter ? Unless we are arguing for special privilege due to their sexual orientation.

Trans is not a sexual orientation.

Although people are researching for a "gay" brain and a "boy/girl" brain they have not found it yet. Nor has any research that I can find proved that body dysmorphia is not distributed across the 'normal' variation of sexual orientation.

Historically with a wait and see policy 80% of people referred for 
assessment are homosexual and reconcile to this by their early 20's

Calhoun wrote: »

You are just wrong, you don't like this paragon of all that is trans challenging your gender norm views. They just wanted to help those little kids out :P :P :P.

What is next will we actually start saying those who identify as minor attracted people (MAP) are just confused about their sexual orientation. 

Being serious if anyone regardless of race, sexuality or creed shows any predatory behavior against anyone but more importantly children who are our most vulnerable we must condemn it.

MAP is not a sexual orientation it's just a "age thing".
And yes there was adult males in the London pride who's kink is age play, it is dressing up as babies and sh*t in adult nappies etc. in public.

There also are "puppy" groups, some who have adult and "junior" members.
To be fair to one of the puppy groups reps, they made of very clear that as far as they were concerned their Pride is an adult only event which celebrates the sex in sexual orientation. So kids should not be involved. Either as participants or spectators.

Calhoun wrote: »

All stuff like this does is build opposition, if the MAP crowd get recognized as part of the LGBT+ which i think they wont then its game over.

For now though the issue at hand is how extra rights/privileges can be abused by minorities who now have some power. Definitely an US v Them scenario and  is just a question of how long its allowed to continue for.

The MAP kink is already visible in the UK



There is also a question  linked to the slogan "love is love" where children are being taught that age is not a barrier to love.

And the NSPCC moving the sexual contact with a minor to being something that makes the child feel uncomfortable. The child has to draw a line.
They should be taught that all sexual contact is wrong and the responsible person for any act is the adult

And I'm off to check a tweet that said an elected Labour member wants schools to teach girls that sex work is a career option.

Dante7 wrote: »

I know you are being sarcastic, but I am kinda with you on this. Part of me does wish that Yaniv wins the case so that it will really highlight the absurdity of the self-id laws. However, if Yaniv wins then costs and penalties will be awarded against the migrant women who are being sued. 
Yaniv is a despicable racist with obvious paedophile tendencies. So on balance, I really hope Yaniv loses and has massive costs awarded against zer.

This case is only in" level one" like an employment tribunal so it would go to the high court and supreme court and the the EU over here 

From memory the equity commissioner in the UK wanted to appeal to the EU but the gov basically said cop-on.

klaaaz wrote: »

Which country? The thread is about Canada, then you jumped into American civil law and you're asking that question on an Irish forum. Each country as you know has different laws, so which country you referring to in your incoherent ramblings?

Well knock me down with a feather and color me surprised.
It's happening all over!

klaaaz wrote: »

All these "trans" stories are from USA/Canada where their laws are not the same as here.
What you're saying there does not apply under Irish law, establishments here have exemptions under the Equal Status Act whereby they have a right not to render a service to a person(s). If that Canadian tried that stunt here, no solicitor would take it up as they'd immediately fail despite our super compo culture in other cases.

 
EQUITY ACT 2000
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.
5.2.(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,

I was reading this as a female could refuse a trans woman on gender grounds due to the physical contact.
However the person looking for a hair cut succeeded even thought there was physical contact and arguably the hair cut falls within "similar nature"


She is taking the case herself and the ladies were the ones with the problem getting a solicitor to take them

klaaaz wrote: »

You need to get onto the barbers legal reps as to why they didn't enable the exemption. Hint, they hadn't a strand of hair to stand on over hair on a person's head. And that case involved a trans man, not a trans woman which is irrelevant to the barber case.

Ireland
Trans man looking for a man to provide a service which required physical contact 

Canada
Trans woman looking for a woman to provide a service which required physical contact 

klaaaz wrote: »

It's not the same. As I stated in Ireland, there are exemptions under the Equal Status Act for an establishment to refuse service even to gender recognition holders. It's done on a case by case basis, if there is no agreement between the customer and the service provider, the service provider can invoke the said exemptions legally. Self ID has been here for 4 years, places like salons and gyms have negotiated in mutual agreements between themselves and customers(trans obviously) and all being happy outcomes so far!.
As for that Canadian type case here, they haven't a leg to stand on using the law, no solicitor would entertain such a case. Each country is different in it's laws!

What part of the law covers a gym?

A person has succeeded in case against a barber.

If there was mutual agreement these cases in Canada would not be happening.
She found 2 establishments which provided the service.
She decided to file against the other 16.

No solicitor is required to take legal action on ones own behalf.
One is likely to have a better outcome with a solicitor but one can proceed to litigate without one.

klaaaz wrote: »

Why was it brought up then in a discussion about the rights of a service provider to refuse service?

By the way, any male bodied(with intact male genitalia) person convicted of sexual assault should not be in a womens prison. There is a massive difference between those who change sex who are decent law abiding people who bother no-one and those who go around with intact male genitalia sexually assaulting people, the latter are still s*um. That's the word from a transgender ally.

Are we to accept that both are trans women?

klaaaz wrote: »

Quoting a religious conservative website makes a mockery of your stance. However they quote Yanev yet again the super troll in the story. Roll on the right wing zealots to bash trans people from the actions of one loo-la.

She is a trans woman
She claims her activism is for the betterment of the trans community as a whole.

Que  the name calling for some one pointing out that this person is a loo-la.
Que the call out of literal violence against trans people.

Non trans people have been pointing out that this person's behaviour is a problem.  In fact one, Meghan Murphy sued Twitter over being banned for discussing her.

klaaaz wrote: »

Quoting a religious conservative website makes a mockery of your stance. However they quote Yanev yet again the super troll in the story. Roll on the right wing zealots to bash trans people from the actions of one loo-la.

Dante7 wrote: »

 As Glinner said, we tried to warn you about Yaniv, but you called us bigots.

klaaaz wrote: »

It's relevant when posters quote religious conservative websites to bash trans people.

To echo this try not attack the messenger just because you don't agree with the message

klaaaz wrote: »

Oh Eric, the defender of the American right in the likes of the antifa thread, we meet again.

There is scant details on the Irish case, in fact it was a Sunday World story ya know a red top tabloid. There is an active body of right wing posters here trying to label all trans people as like that lunatic Yanev and/or as sex offenders.

Desmond is not trans, he's a young drag performer many miles from here or maybe in your neighbourhood in New York?

Seriously you would see nothing wrong with a tween girl dancing for money in a club?

klaaaz wrote: »

Drag is not trans and despite your wishing, the vast vast majority of transgender people are not sex offenders. If one person claiming to be trans is a sex offender, throw the book at them just like any other non-trans person.

klaaaz wrote: »

What you mean by end game? Are you talking about trans women as it's not clear. Crossdressing males like transvestites, fetishists and drag artists are not transgender, transsexuals with gender dysphoria are definitely transgender.

Under the new rules anyone can apply 



She got an award for being a business women

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

That’s the problem here - an ideology that denies biology and opposes any medical or scientific differences between sexes has leaked from the academic community into real life.


.

It's also interesting where you see in creeping into fact based biology centres of learning.

The London natural history museums on binary sexual reproduction and intersexed people
https://mobile.twitter.com/soulfoodie/status/1140593467552346113?p=v