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

splinter65

Sittingpretty wrote: »

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

Nonsense.

I don’t think The Spectator is for you.

splinter65

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

lol. :-)

Plumbthedepths it’s the best bit of satire I’ve read this year.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

MrFresh wrote: »

Still trying to create a false dilemma.

I think you learned a new phrase today. I present no dilemma false or otherwise.

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.

Sorry Fresh. You barely understand the ideology you yourself are espousing, however half heartedly. The very fact that that boldified part there makes a distinction between biological and non biological women actually puts you into the transphobic category as defined by most activists. Why mention biology at all? Gender is not biology.

This idea, that a trans woman is a woman, means what it says. That biology doesn’t matter. It’s not saying that a trans woman is a different category of woman but equal to any other woman. And in law, that’s what we have now. It’s up to courts how to judge on this but in the vast majority of cases they are going to make no distinction between cis and trans women. In the case here in Ireland for instance, a protection of sport was taken out of the bill in its initial readings.

Plumbthedepths

splinter65 wrote:

Plumbthedepths it’s the best bit of satire I’ve read this year.

Thank you for the link. Great laugh, just what was needed on a Monday.

Jimmy Garlic

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

"Godfrey" was banned from twitter for calling out the bullshît. Pure gold.

Absolute gold...excerpt from another article...

I couldn’t believe it. All this time, Andromeda had been living a lie, even going as far as to admit that the shocking pink pixie-cut hairstyle he had begun to wear around the house last year was merely a wig he’d worn as a ‘joke’. As he removed it in front of me, the betrayal rocked me to my very core. I couldn’t accept it. It was monstrous. I chose to believe that perhaps xe was going through a violent genderflux and the dysphoria had caused xer to become unstable. But deep down, I knew I was clutching at straws. Desperate to change the reality of what ‘he’ was telling me into something my woke mind could digest more easily.

‘W-what pronouns would you prefer me to use from now on?’ I tentatively inquired. ‘Call me whatever you want mate, I’m really not that arsed’, ‘he’ laughed, pulling a packet of Amber Leaf along with some Green Rizlas from a pocket of ‘his’ donkey jacket and rolling up a cigarette.

I was lost. I didn’t know how to talk to xer. Suddenly, it was as if we were worlds apart. I mean, would our Friday night ‘Challenge Racism’ bongo sessions still be the same?

MrFresh

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

I think you learned a new phrase today. I present no dilemma false or otherwise.

It's a logical fallacy commonly used by people such as yourself.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Sorry Fresh. You barely understand the ideology you yourself are espousing, however half heartedly. The very fact that that boldified part there makes a distinction between biological and non biological women actually puts you into the transphobic category as defined by most activists. Why mention biology at all? Gender is not biology.



This idea, that a trans woman is a woman, means what it says. That biology doesn’t matter. It’s not saying that a trans woman is a different category of woman but equal to any other woman. And in law, that’s what we have now. It’s up to courts how to judge on this but in the vast majority of cases they are going to make no distinction between cis and trans women. In the case here in Ireland for instance, a protection of sport was taken out of the bill in its initial readings.

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.

ceadaoin.

MrFresh wrote: »

It's a logical fallacy commonly used by people such as yourself.




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.

Why is it impossible to perform? if a person or company advertises "female" waxing then why shouldn't JY be able to avail of the services if they are legally a female and "feel" like one on the inside? This is the problem with self id, a person is whatever they say they are and we have to take the chancers along with the genuine trans people. We are all being told that there is such a thing as a female penis these day aren't we? Denial of this makes you a transphobe.

Perhaps businesses need to start advertising "labial waxing" or similar. Although no doubt people like yaniv, who now claims to have both a penis and vagina, would still try to find a way to get around this and abuse women

Roger Hassenforder

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Absolute gold...excerpt from another article...

https://spectator.us/jack-dorsey-eyes-vipassana/

His vipassana retreat was a disaster

Franz Von Peppercorn II

MrFresh wrote: »

It's a logical fallacy commonly used by people such as yourself.

I’m not engaging in any dilemma. False or otherwise.

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.

I am fully aware of your argument. It’s wrong. In fact it’s transphobic if you accept that a ciswoman and a trans woman are equal in law.

Firstly waxing a ball sack isn’t impossible. It’s entirely possible. In fact she was looking for a brozillian.

A legal female was looking to have her genitalia waxed. That’s what’s happening here. If you accept that there is no legal distinction between cis and trans then she has that right. After all genitalia are different already within the spectrum of cis women.

Similar laws apply to sport and prisons, changing rooms and so on.

Please own your ideology.

drunkmonkey

MrFresh wrote: »

Again you are missing the whole argument.

Your missing what it means to be a woman, you said earlier if she cuts off her 3 piece suite that makes her a woman. That's complete bolixoligy.

Calhoun

Looks like Twitter handing out bans for people talking about the case.

ceadaoin.

Calhoun wrote: »

Looks like Twitter handing out bans for people talking about the case.

But a self filmed video of a male who claims to be trans masturbating in the women's toilets and laughing about it was doing the rounds on twitter for days. Hilarious

Amalgam

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

I’m not engaging in any dilemma. False or otherwise.



I am fully aware of your argument. It’s wrong. In fact it’s transphobic if you accept that a ciswoman and a trans woman are equal in law.

Firstly waxing a ball sack isn’t impossible. It’s entirely possible. In fact she was looking for a brozillian.

A legal female was looking to have her genitalia waxed. That’s what’s happening here.

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.

MrFresh

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Why is it impossible to perform? if a person or company advertises "female" waxing then why shouldn't JY be able to avail of the services if they are legally a female and "feel" like one on the inside? This is the problem with self id, a person is whatever they say they are and we have to take the chancers along with the genuine trans people. We are all being told that there is such a thing as a female penis these day aren't we? Denial of this makes you a transphobe.

Perhaps businesses need to start advertising "labial waxing" or similar. Although no doubt people like yaniv, who now claims to have both a penis and vagina, would still try to find a way to get around this and abuse women

Why is it impossible to perform a sack wax on a person with no sack? You can certainly argue the use of "female" in advertising is incorrect, although I don't know if that was specifically the case in this particular case, but that still wouldn't mean you are obliged to offer a special service outside of your normal business i.e the sack wax.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

I’m not engaging in any dilemma. False or otherwise.

You are.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

I am fully aware of your argument. It’s wrong. In fact it’s transphobic if you accept that a ciswoman and a trans woman are equal in law.

If you are fully aware of it then way to you keep misstating it? They are equal in law. I have not stated otherwise. neither are able to get their sack waxed.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Firstly waxing a ball sack isn’t impossible. It’s entirely possible. In fact she was looking for a brozillian.

It is impossible if you don't have a sack to wax.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

A legal female was looking to have her genitalia waxed. That’s what’s happening here. If you accept that there is no legal distinction between cis and trans then she has that right. After all genitalia are different already within the spectrum of cis women.

Similar laws apply to sport and prisons, changing rooms and so on.

Please own your ideology.

Why do you keep misrepresenting my "ideology" and demanding I "own" it. This is the false dilemma you are creating. You don't get to decide what an ideology is and insist other people adhere to your warped understanding of it. This woman has the same rights as any other woman, she lacks the capability to invoke those rights in some cases.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Your missing what it means to be a woman, you said earlier if she cuts off her 3 piece suite that makes her a woman. That's complete bolixoligy.

I see no reason why she should be treated any different. Feel free to describe what it means to be a woman though.

drunkmonkey

Well hairy balls would be one reason for starters. Maybe a woman could row in and wake you a bit more.

ceadaoin.

Amalgam wrote: »

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.

Yes exactly, and the fact that they self id as a female allowed them to bring lawsuits against the providers. Some of the women contacted said they would do it, but yaniv ignored them because that's not what they really wanted. They wanted to use the law to extort money, and in a few cases it worked.

There has also been another case in Canada where a trans gender prisoner (who transitioned after being sent to prison) claimed their human rights were violated because a female guard refused to perform a search on them because of their male genitalia. Also it was discrimination that in order to remain in a female prison, they couldn't grow a beard and cut their hair short ie: look like a man.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

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.

The person, a legal female, wanted her female genitalia waxed by a provider who offered such services to females.

(I haven’t ignored genitalia at all by the way, nor do I have a horse - tall or otherwise).

vladmydad

Jessica Yaniv is on Niall Boylan 4fm at 9pm tonight

drunkmonkey

vladmydad wrote: »

Jessica Yaniv is on Niall Boylan 4fm at 9pm tonight

Where did you see that?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

MrFresh wrote: »

Why do you keep misrepresenting my "ideology" and demanding I "own" it. This is the false dilemma you are creating. You don't get to decide what an ideology is and insist other people adhere to your warped understanding of it. This woman has the same rights as any other woman, she lacks the capability to invoke those rights in some cases.

I do get to tell people what an ideology is if I know what it is.

You want to believe that Yaniv is equal to any other woman in law but still can’t get the services - waxed genitalia - that other legal women have because of her particular type of genitalia.

If you do think that, then trans activists would disagree with you - you need to look into the attacks on lesbians who don’t want to have sex with transwomen. They are roundly denounced as transphobic - clearly this ideology ignores the difference between penis and vulva.

super_furry

Seems to me that there are people here so annoyed that no-one is defending Yaniv that they're taking the position of defending her themselves, purely to wind up others and try to 'prove' some half-baked point while insisting that if you believe one thing, you have to believe everything they say.

Sittingpretty

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Where did you see that?

I hope he tears her a new one.

Eric Cartman

Its stuff like this that really holds the trans community back. Why is it that almost every story about 'trans community outrage' centres around making women working / little girls having to observe or touch a penis.

Its really doing very little to take away the stereotype of 'wolf in sheeps clothing' sex offenders.

vladmydad

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Where did you see that?

Heard it advertised on the radio about 40 minutes ago

MrFresh

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

I do get to tell people what an ideology is if I know what it is.

You want to believe that Yaniv is equal to any other woman in law but still can’t get the services - waxed genitalia - that other legal women have because of her particular type of genitalia.

If you do think that, then trans activists would disagree with you - you need to look into the attacks on lesbians who don’t want to have sex with transwomen. They are roundly denounced as transphobic - clearly this ideology ignores the difference between penis and vulva.

Yet that is not my ideology. And again you are ignoring the fact that it is not simply "genitals" she wants waxed it is specifically a scrotum. It's not a vague concept, it's a specific body part. In the same way a person with no left foot could not demand their left foot be fitted for a shoe and claim discrimination when the request is denied.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its stuff like this that really holds the trans community back. Why is it that almost every story about 'trans community outrage' centres around making women working / little girls having to observe or touch a penis.

Its really doing very little to take away the stereotype of 'wolf in sheeps clothing' sex offenders.

Anti trans people choose to make these issues big deals so they can pretend that all trans people are a danger.

Eric Cartman

MrFresh wrote: »

Anti trans people choose to make these issues big deals so they can pretend that all trans people are a danger.

I dont doubt it, but they need the issue to exist before hyping it. Most trans stories that make any kind of news beyond social / lgbt centric outlets are about a trans woman expecting access/service to/from a space where the very idea of a man exposing his penis to the staff/patrons would be a criminal offence or incredibly distasteful at best and the demand by somebody that has sometimes only taken the step of 'identifying as a woman' verbally to be allowed expose their penis in that space because 'progressiveness'

vladmydad

MrFresh wrote: »

Yet that is not my ideology. And again you are ignoring the fact that it is not simply "genitals" she wants waxed it is specifically a scrotum. It's not a vague concept, it's a specific body part. In the same way a person with no left foot could not demand their left foot be fitted for a shoe and claim discrimination when the request is denied.





Anti trans people choose to make these issues big deals so they can pretend that all trans people are a danger.

What you call anti trans, I call pro biology and good old fashioned facts.

vladmydad

“Jessica” Yaniv is now on 4fm

drunkmonkey

She's on now.

klaaaz

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I dont doubt it, but they need the issue to exist before hyping it. Most trans stories that make any kind of news beyond social / lgbt centric outlets are about a trans woman expecting access/service to/from a space where the very idea of a man exposing his penis to the staff/patrons would be a criminal offence or incredibly distasteful at best and the demand by somebody that has sometimes only taken the step of 'identifying as a woman' verbally to be allowed expose their penis in that space because 'progressiveness'

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.