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

peddlelies

https://twitter.com/MikiB007/status/1152966024632897536

Noveight

Loada shíte. The bloke’s a looper who should be added to a few watch lists.

Dante7

The gas thing about all this, is that the woke blokes who have advocated all this have cornered themselves into a position where they have to defend this. Maybe they will start to see the issue and also acknowledge how it may also be a problem for a woman to not want to see a penis in a changing room.

wiggle16

Dante7 wrote: »

Ah yes, the "No true Scotsman" defence. It starts off with, this will never happen, and then when it does, it will be claimed that it is not representative.

This thread is a real eye opener. A bunch of idiots who are so invested in their virtue signalling, that even when explicit evidence is provided to them, they tacitly support the heinous act rather than address the root cause of the problem. And it's nearly all men (yes you with the beard), trying to deflect and obfuscate the issues. I have become very suspicious of men who are arguing for males to be allowed access to female only spaces.

Where did you get any of that from what I wrote?

You don't know what the No True Scotsman fallacy is if you think you can invoke it to refer to my post. I said this person is not representative of the majority of transpeople - that is not the same as the No True Scotsman fallacy. Or do you think that all transpeople are predators?

You may as well come out and say that that's what you think if it is.

As for virtue signalling - do you think that the "idiots" you refer to on this thread don't actually believe what they are saying when they point out that this person is a crank and not representative of trans-people? Who are they trying to impress with their virtue signalling? You?

You have absolutely no idea what I think of the bollocksology we refer to as gender/identity politics or the bullsh*t that that is driving lawsuits like these, because I haven't articulated my position on it. So save your smug buzzwords for someone else.

Calhoun

wiggle16 wrote: »

Why is it that when one solo d*ckhead acts like a d*ckhead they become representative of all trans-people? We are not this single-minded about any other group. Not anymore at least.

There are many cases on boards where this is just not true, replace trans with men or white men and its open season. There is one person even in this thread who generally doesn't like men and has statements basically grouping them all together.

Whats galling about this case is that some people are defending the indefensible, if you have any group in society that abuses laws to take advantage of another group or even children then it should be called out vigorously.

bloodless_coup

peddlelies wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MikiB007/status/1152966024632897536

Gotta get the phrase "male privilege" into the sentence even if it makes so sense I suppose.

wiggle16

Calhoun wrote: »

There are many cases on boards where this is just not true, replace trans with men or white men and its open season. There is one person even in this thread who generally doesn't like men and has statements basically grouping them all together.

Whats galling about this case is that some people are defending the indefensible, if you have any group in society that abuses laws to take advantage of another group or even children then it should be called out vigorously.

So if some posters on Boards are bigoted against white men or men in general then you must respond by taking on trans-people?
What does that have to do with anything here? We're not talking about white men. We are not talking about men bashing - which is also wrong, lest I be misunderstood.

No one is defending this person. Not one post in this thread has defended this person - their actions are abhorrent and they should be arrested for harassing women and filing vexatious lawsuits. And then some.

But there is a difference between one perverted crank trying to access women, and an entire group of people. You can't conflate the two simply because that person identifies as a member of that group.

The "trans community" are not abusing the law to take advantage of women and children - this is one case.

Your point would be better served to simply say that the current law in Canada and potentially in other countries is open to abuse in this way, because that is true. You are instead making out that an entire, very heterogenous group of people are predators.

Beast4mdaeast

The world is gone bonkers... maybe its the heat ??

MrFresh

Calhoun wrote: »

There are many cases on boards where this is just not true, replace trans with men or white men and its open season. There is one person even in this thread who generally doesn't like men and has statements basically grouping them all together.

Whats galling about this case is that some people are defending the indefensible, if you have any group in society that abuses laws to take advantage of another group or even children then it should be called out vigorously.

but this isn't a group, it's one person.

ceadaoin.

Not one single person on here is conflating the actions of this person with the trans community as a whole (at least that I can see, but please quote the examples if they're there.) We know that. Its a good way to shut down discussion again though, once the "it will never happen" excuse wears thin.

Calhoun

wiggle16 wrote: »

So if some posters on Boards are bigoted against white men or men in general then you must respond by taking on trans-people?
What does that have to do with anything here? We're not talking about white men. We are not talking about men bashing - which is also wrong, lest I be misunderstood.

No one is defending this person. Not one post in this thread has defended this person - their actions are abhorrent and they should be arrested for harassing women and filing vexatious lawsuits. And then some.

But there is a difference between one perverted crank trying to access women, and an entire group of people. You can't conflate the two simply because that person identifies as a member of that group.

The "trans community" are not abusing the law to take advantage of women and children - this is one case.

Your point would be better served to simply say that the current law in Canada and potentially in other countries is open to abuse in this way, because that is true. You are instead making out that an entire, very heterogenous group of people are predators.

I am not taking on trans-people i am commenting on a thread about a trans-person suing women in Canada who also happens to have a thing for girls as young as 12.

I was just pointing out to you why it is the case that people are looking at the lack of condemnation from some posters and trying to switch the conversation to another topic as a defense of them.

My point has an always has been that if we treat people as equals then we shouldn't have an issue. If we put laws or rules in place that are extra rights for certain groupings they will be abused. The fact these special privileges exist and are supported by so many is an indication that the group is either predatory or is so caught up in the US v Them they are defending the indefensible.

It luckily hasn't hit Ireland too much right now but i see the UL accommodation thing and how its being portrayed as straying into that area but thats for another thread.

Calhoun

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Not one single person on here is conflating the actions of this person with the trans community as a whole (at least that I can see, but please quote the examples if they're there.) We know that. Its a good way to shut down discussion again though, once the "it will never happen" excuse wears thin.

Its understandable one side is worked up on how an individual can get away with such abuse. They see past the individuals to the laws that are allowed be abused, if things were so absurd they won't enforce these laws that are put in place and would move to correct them so they cannot be abused.

The other side sees it as an attack on their minority group and will go down defending it. As someone else on the thread said, you would nearly wonder if this was a false flag designed to cause the reaction.

wiggle16

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Not one single person on here is conflating the actions of this person with the trans community as a whole (at least that I can see, but please quote the examples if they're there.)

Here you go:

Calhoun wrote: »

Whats galling about this case is that some people are defending the indefensible, if you have any group in society that abuses laws to take advantage of another group or even children then it should be called out vigorously.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Trans community : we want our members with penises to be able to go in to spaces where women and young girls are less protected or more likely to have to observe or touch those penises

‘The right’ : we don’t want yong girls, women workong or lesbians to have to be exposed to penises against their will or increase the risk of abuse

Trans community : ‘that wont happen at all’

This nutjob : im campaigning for exactly the thing the right warned you about

Trans community : some of us are against you, some of us with you and some of us think the laws and protections youre abusing should still be there for the rest of us but disagree with you specifically

‘The right’ : anything that increases the risk of children being abused is not worth appeasing 0.05% of the population for, and now we have yet another case of that exact thing happening

Trans community ; bigots.

It is impossible to have a conversation about this because some people are more concerned about what this person is than what the person has done and are happy to use it as a stick with which to beat trans-people in general.

Dante7

wiggle16 wrote: »

Where did you get any of that from what I wrote?

You don't know what the No True Scotsman fallacy is if you think you can invoke it to refer to my post. [Bold]I said this person is not representative of the majority of transpeople[/Bold] - that is not the same as the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Yeah, it is. That's exactly what it is. You just refuse to see it.

Calhoun

wiggle16 wrote: »

Here you go:





It is impossible to have a conversation about this because some people are more concerned about what this person is than what the person has done and are happy to use it as a stick with which to beat trans-people in general.

Exactly it is impossible to have the conversation as some people only want to shut it down, they will basically ignore all wrong doings on one side while pointing out how another is being abused.

When i said any group in society i meant any group, i don't care if trans or cis gender ect we should not be in a position to abuse the law to get away with taking advantage of any group. Would you disagree with this point?

wiggle16

Calhoun wrote: »

Its understandable one side is worked up on how an individual can get away with such abuse. They see past the individuals to the laws that are allowed be abused, if things were so absurd they won't enforce these laws that are put in place and would move to correct them so they cannot be abused.

The other side sees it as an attack on their minority group and will go down defending it. As someone else on the thread said, you would nearly wonder if this was a false flag designed to cause the reaction.

Calhoun, the two things are not mutually exclusive.

I think this individual is a scumbag and a pervert, who has been using the law every which way to facilitate their abuse and harassment of women and girls and using it as a shield for same. The law needs changing and people need to get real about this. On that we agree.

But there are people also using this whole debacle as an excuse to have a go at a minority group as a whole or conflate this person's behaviour with theirs or insinuate that it is their fault this happened - that isn't fair and you know that.

wiggle16

Calhoun wrote: »

Exactly it is impossible to have the conversation as some people only want to shut it down, they will basically ignore all wrong doings on one side while pointing out how another is being abused.

When i said any group in society i meant any group, i don't care if trans or cis gender ect we should not be in a position to abuse the law to get away with taking advantage of any group. Would you disagree with this point?

You know I wouldn't disagree with that, obviously.

I disagree however that there is a group actively doing this, which is what your posts strongly seemed to imply.

As an aside, I am of the opinion that the current climate around the trans debate, especially in the LGBTQ community, is such that people are made to feel that it's unwise to question the "conventional wisdom" around trans issues as outlined by the trans rights movement - in other words, that anything but full support for everything trans is transphobic and that debate or dissent is indicative of bigotry. And I don't agree with that.
The movement can be very reactionary and in that way I don't think it has the best interests of most trans-people at heart.

We should be able to talk and have a proper conversation about this subject in the public sphere - but because of the current climate I feel the conversation is being left to the bigots and the trans rights movement is being allowed to exist in a bubble, and that may one day pop.

Dante7's rush to throw out an errant application of the No True Scotsman Fallacy at me and say I was virtue signalling is telling all the same.

Calhoun

wiggle16 wrote: »

Calhoun, the two things are not mutually exclusive.

I think this individual is a scumbag and a pervert, who has been using the law every which way to facilitate their abuse and harassment of women and girls and using it as a shield for same. The law needs changing and people need to get real about this. On that we agree.

But there are people also using this whole debacle as an excuse to have a go at a minority group as a whole or conflate this person's behaviour with theirs or insinuate that it is their fault this happened - that isn't fair and you know that.

I agree and i will be honest you in the heat of the discussion i may not always say things in the right way, also i am really bad at getting my point across in a clear manner.

I would rather take the approach of letting people be who they are and want to be as long as they doing their thing doesn't impact on me. It does not mean that my enjoyment should come by denigrating them in anyway but from a law and societal perspective we should be the same.

Calhoun

wiggle16 wrote: »

You know I wouldn't disagree with that, obviously.

I disagree however that there is a group actively doing this, which is what your posts strongly seemed to imply.

As an aside, I am of the opinion that the current climate around the trans debate, especially in the LGBTQ community, is such that people are made to feel that it's unwise to question the "conventional wisdom" around trans issues as outlined by the trans rights movement - in other words, that anything but full support for everything trans is transphobic and that debate or dissent is indicative of bigotry. And I don't agree with that.
The movement can be very reactionary and in that way I don't think it has the best interests of most trans-people at heart.

We should be able to talk and have a proper conversation about this subject in the public sphere - but because of the current climate I feel the conversation is being left to the bigots and the trans rights movement is being allowed to exist in a bubble, and that may one day pop.

Dante7's rush to throw out an errant application of the No True Scotsman Fallacy at me and say I was virtue signalling is telling all the same.

What you have described about being fearful of saying anything is why these discussions take place. Its only when something as disturbing as this individual in the OP turns up that people feel that can talk about it. Its like a vent/valve going off and releasing some pressure.

That bubble popping is a big fear i have, luckily in Ireland we are more center of the road so we don't really do the extremes. However saying that we have to walk a very careful line, if we push people out from the center they have no option but to side with the other side or somewhere in between. Its like that video on youtube with Camille Paglia describing how we are building the future opposition/oppressive force.

I personally right now don't consider myself an ally, because right now i feel being an ally is being someone who doesn't question and does as they are told. I will take each issue as they come and decide depending on the debate. I would like there to be a much more equal world for the future generations.

Glass fused light

Hal3000 wrote: »

This may sound bizzare but I'm looking forward to living in one of those Black Mirror socities where drones haul you off if you say anything or even think anything out of place or offensive, or a large mainframe drains your credits away and you starve to death in a ditch. I'm not so worried because I rarely say anything wrong or offensive. Roll on this perfect universe.

You only need to move to China. Per the radio / some googling 
They are beta testing a tracking system 
Facial recognition on phones and public cameras, media over sight, good citizenship . And a limit to the amount of loo roll allowed for wiping in public bathrooms

Glass fused light

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?

Glass fused light

gmisk wrote: »

 
Do I think people can genuinely believe they were born a women when they were born a man and vice versa, yes I have no experience with regards this area though.

i agreed that the dysmorphia is a real issue.

gmisk wrote: »

 
No idea what you are on about here? What were women saying that they now cant say?

Well some of us would like anyone with a penis who is happy to keep that penis to hang out with the other people  with a penis

Bathrooms are iffy but changing rooms and showers are post puberty penis free zones.

And watch the don't call me sir clip but substitute the word sir with cis.

gmisk wrote: »

 
I honestly dont think I know enough about this to comment, but I dont think it is widespread, there are a few instances.

2 runner hopefully
8 football players 
1 weight lifter
All of these will miss a chance to win at the Olympics

2 (?) international cyclists 
1 fighter who got her scull crushed 


 

gmisk wrote: »

 
I dont think there is really anyone on here saying that this woman should have to wax someones balls when they aren't trained to....has anyone said they should? Waxing balls is not a human right...

Yes they are "post op" balls should be waxed because the operation makes a difference.
Except it makes no difference to the ladies involved they will never see her body as a female body.


 

gmisk wrote: »

 
I am trying to understand what you are saying but as you say yourself it is a rambling mess.

 foot notes added 

Glass fused light

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 ]

Glass fused light

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Misgendering is a crime here.

Do you know what legislation it would fall under?

Glass fused light

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.

Glass fused light

Calhoun wrote: »

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

For  Misgendering or deadnaming ?

Or something else excluding actual abuse?

Glass fused light

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

Glass fused light

ceadaoin. wrote: »

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

Wankgate version 2

ceadaoin. wrote: »

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.

As I understand it that or a similar case was won and neither hormones nor medical procedures are required to trans.

This litigant is intact per the report and apparently may not be taking any hormone meds either

Glass fused light

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.

Glass fused light

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.

Well women, the gender critics / bigots / "TERFs" ones,  have been pointing out that saying that "I am tran woman"  is a sexual offenders dream. 
That you have to accept self ID.
And trans people are not sex offenders.
Therefore no trans person even the sexual offender will commit sexual offences.

In the UK there are males convicted of sexual assault transing to trans women. So expect a lot more stories in the news about sex crimes committed by trans people.