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

MrFresh

petros1980 wrote: »

Why do we have to do that if our opinion is that he's a man....

I'm all in favour of trans people taking on whatever identity they want and if requested will happily address them by their preferred pronoun.

But I'm not addressing this person here. I'm engaging in a discussion on an internet forum.

I therefore assert my right to state my opinion as do others......

What's the point in addressing them by their preferred pronoun to their face but not using it when discussing them on a public forum?

Sir Oxman wrote: »

^This
That's what their side of the argument consists of - leave out the actual facts, deflect, cry somethingaphobe. That's if they are not crying to universities, RTE et al and getting the other side of the debate banned.



The fact this poster completely ignored the premise of intact men being naked in womens changing rooms/showers is proof of it.



I notice none of them ever have any smidgen of concern for actual womens rights and spaces.


It's always women that have to move aside.

I ignored nothing, I addressed it multiple times. I don't believe the poster was misrepresented when he said he would attack physically a trans person simply for existing near his daughter. They don't even have to have done anything, just being there would be enough.

MrFresh

JayZeus wrote: »

Not my future. I know what makes a man a man, what makes a woman a woman. The genitalia you’re born with defines this. The pronouns you elect to use to describe yourself are up to you and I can’t stop you doing so. But I’m going to call a man a man and a woman a woman. And I know the difference. You can’t force me to accept something I know to be untrue as being the truth.

Believe what you want. It won't stop the world changing around you.

Sir Oxman

MrFresh wrote: »

So where would you send a woman who talks like a woman, looks like a woman, acts like a woman but has not yet had her operation? Would you say someone like that would be safe in male changing rooms? What about male prisons?

Women and their safe spaces and hard won rights are not to be cast aside for a very, very tiny minority of transitioning (that's if they do) males.


Transitioning males can be given every support under the sun but that does not/should not grant them access to womens spaces unfettered while they are intact.


Women can't fight sexism when ideologues placed in positions of influence attempt to obliterate sex.

Sir Oxman

MrFresh wrote: »

What's the point in addressing them by their preferred pronoun to their face but not using it when discussing them on a public forum?





I ignored nothing, I addressed it multiple times. I don't believe the poster was misrepresented when he said he would attack physically a trans person simply for existing near his daughter. They don't even have to have done anything, just being there would be enough.

You are a very disingenuous poster in this regard.

ingalway

MrFresh wrote:

Except it isn't. Mike clearly said to discuss her actions all you want but just refer to her as a woman as that is what she identifies as. That's it. Simply refer to her as a woman. Talk about her disgusting fantasies, her behaviour towards kids, her case, even her genitalia all you want, just refer to her as a woman while doing so. But what the last two pages of tantrums show is that the very idea of referring to a bio born man as a woman so enrages some people they would rather be banned than do that one small thing. And some people wonder why trans people feel harassed?

So all biological women must simply accept that a biological man is now a woman because he says he is? That really is the zenith of mansplaining and misogyny. I always had very tolerant views regarding this for many years but trans rights activism has now completely changed my views as they have no regards for women's and girl's rights. It is an organisation run by men for men. They want to rewrite what it is to be a woman. They claim to be 'gender non conforming' yet their version of a woman is usually a hyper porny version to attract a certain kind of man or they claim to be lesbians as they could never get a woman when a man so are now calling any lesbian who doesn't like lady penis a transphobe!
No grey areas anymore for me, it cannot be there are some nice trans (which there are many) and a few bad ones. Women spend enough time gatekeeping dodgy men without adding this in as well. If men want to express their gender identity then of course do it, be happy, but other men can get used to them in dresses, makeup etc in their own toilets, changing rooms, prisons, sports. Why do women have to lose their identity and privacy? Let gender expression be normalised but there are only 2 sexes and they are segregated in certain areas for very good reasons.

MrFresh

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Women and their safe spaces and hard won rights are not to be cast aside for a very, very tiny minority of transitioning (that's if they do) males.


Transitioning males can be given every support under the sun but that does not/should not grant them access to womens spaces unfettered while they are intact.


Women can't fight sexism when ideologues placed in positions of influence attempt to obliterate sex.

You didn't answer the question though.

Sir Oxman wrote: »

You are a very disingenuous poster in this regard.

]


Like I said, the only thing the poster took issue with was the idea he would get sexual gratification from the act, not the suggestion he would commit it. And while I get that ye all think it's a turn of phrase, the reality is that trans people do have to worry about being physically and sexually assaulted for who they are.

ingalway wrote: »

So all biological women must simply accept that a biological man is now a woman because he says he is? That really is the zenith of mansplaining and misogyny. I always had very tolerant views regarding this for many years but trans rights activism has now completely changed my views as they have no regards for women's and girl's rights. It is an organisation run by men for men. They want to rewrite what it is to be a woman. They claim to be 'gender non conforming' yet their version of a woman is usually a hyper porny version to attract a certain kind of man or they claim to be lesbians as they could never get a woman when a man so are now calling any lesbian who doesn't like lady penis a transphobe!
No grey areas anymore for me, it cannot be there are some nice trans (which there are many) and a few bad ones. Women spend enough time gatekeeping dodgy men without adding this in as well. If men want to express their gender identity then of course do it, be happy, but other men can get used to them in dresses, makeup etc in their own toilets, changing rooms, prisons, sports. Why do women have to lose their identity and privacy? Let gender expression be normalised but there are only 2 sexes and they are segregated in certain areas for very good reasons.

I doubt someone who can reduce all trans activism to what you have was ever very tolerant to begin with.

We're through the looking-glass here people.

Sir Oxman

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm out. This is a ridiculous subject which obviously can't be discussed with any objectivity.

It's disgusting to see boards.ie go this way.

Just saw that post now.
I'm out too.
And that's exactly what this nonsense does - stops any debate.

Sir Oxman

This is happening all over social media and it is not right.

mike_ie wrote: »

Mod: We're getting a lot of reports about the misgendering, deliberate or otherwise, of Jessica Yaniv.

Whatever people's thoughts on the case at hand, how this person chooses to identify is their choice alone. Jessica Yaniv, whatever you might think of her actions elsewhere, chooses to identify as male-to-female transgender. Discuss the person's actions all you want, but from here on in, use the correct pronouns.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm out. This is a ridiculous subject which obviously can't be discussed with any objectivity.

It's disgusting to see boards.ie go this way.

Omackeral wrote: »

Yaniv is a troll at best and a deviant at worst. Literally anyone can just choose to be whatever they want and that's just that? Even if it's for nefarious means? Or to prove a point? Or simply to act the bollox, no pun intended, and everyone else has to just go along with it? Such a dangerous attitude to hold.

mike_ie wrote: »

When it comes to gender, yes. Whatever your thoughts on the person at hand (and to be clear, I personally believe that this is a very questionable individual), subverting that right simply because you think they are a Bad Person undermines that right for genuine transgender people out there.

If you truly believe that Yaniv is a troll or deviant, then the pronouns used shouldn't matter. Moderation of this thread has stopped people from making that point. The person's actions should speak for themselves.

Omackeral wrote: »

Right. Well I wholeheartedly disagree with that and I disagree with your/the mod team's stance on it vehemently. I suppose that really restricts what I can say any further in an open or honest fashion pending infractions... so I guess that's me out too.

Deleted User wrote: »

So you have the right to identify as what you want to be, but your rights extend to such an extent that everyone else must go along with it?

That's some power.

Shield wrote: »

I also am now 100% excluded from expressing "IMHO" views as a result of this admin instruction enforcing progressive left-wing ideological words that I refuse to use, and I have sent a PM to the admin in question in protest.

In the spirit of not questioning mod/admin actions on thread, I will not post here again.

My views haven't changed or gone away. I've just been silenced.

Shield.

Omackeral wrote: »

Fantastic point. Time to axe that part of the forum's name.

Deleted User wrote: »

This is a local shop..for local people..

jaxxx wrote: »

100%. Speak only if you are in agreement with certain ideologies, and if you dare think otherwise keep silent. Absolutely pathetic! This sort of thinking is why the world is currently in the sh1tst0rm that it is.

Omackeral wrote: »

Yep. ''Use the correct pronouns'' is what's rubbing me up the wrong way. Many would be of the opinion that they are using the correct ones. Should say ''use the person's preferred pronouns'' or something to that effect.

Anyway, unsubscribing now as don't want to incur a ban.

splinter65 wrote: »

I’m out. The mods are anxious because most of us want to say that a person with a penis and testicles is a man and apparently this tendency is breaking a forum rule.
Ladies and gentleman I give you..............the fascism of the left.
The rest of you can enjoy pretending that scientific facts are always debatable.

Deleted User wrote: »

Let me get this straight. If Brendan O'Carroll decided tomorrow he was going to identify as Mrs Brown in real life and considered himself a woman now. Went about dressed as Mrs Brown etc. That we would all have to play along and refer to him as her.

If we didn't we'd be considered transphobic ?

Nermal wrote: »

He’s a man. Please ban me from this sewer of a thread, thanks.

cdeb wrote: »

Post reported, thread unsubscribed, complaint taken to Moderator forum.

Absolutely not acceptable that a mod demands that saying black is white is a base criterion for partaking in a debate on this matter.

Cisphobe.

Wibbs wrote: »

There's a worrying orthodoxy spreading into this subject, where a minority of not the full shilling/loud/fetishistic individuals are hijacking the narrative and it really doesn't help the genuine cases, because they get lumped in with the loopers.

banie01 wrote: »

Given that the name of the this forum includes IMHO as part of its name...

Threatening posters with sanction for expressing just that, is a mod action too far IMHO!

There is a worrying rush towards an orthodoxy here that is at odds with the scientific evidence, unless of course one considers the social sciences evidential rather than just verbose opinion.

I haven't posted on this thread previously, but have read it regularly.
I won't be anymore I suppose.

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Jessica Yaniv is a man and I’m appalled that boards.ie moderation considers it appropriate to force contributors to admit otherwise despite their opinion and biological fact.

Ban me and allow the delusion continue. I won’t be part of any discussion that discourages fact to appease the likes of Mr Yaniv.

The Specialist wrote: »

I’m out too, **** that. I refuse to be told by anyone how I should speak or that I must use special pronouns for a man in a dress. No way.

And to whoever complained about “misgendering” - you’re doing no favors for the trans cause at all. Enjoy your shallow victory on the internet.

Deleted User wrote: »

If the world now has the option of using their own pronouns, and demanding that others use them or face sanction I'm going to use the following pronouns :

Her majesty / her grace

You may not use my name. Just my pronouns. You have been warned.

derfderf wrote: »

Misgendering is nonsense. What they're basically doing is using the pronoun attached to the sex, not the gender. This is offensive for some reason?
For the longest time they were interchangeable.

MrFresh

MrFresh wrote: »

Believe what you want. It won't stop the world changing around you.

In reality, all that's going to change is that some people will start believing something that has no foundation in fact or truth. What's going on now is like some sort of crusade, led by people who are determined to force their beliefs onto the rest of us.

And it's not like anyone's trying to convince us to swap one belief for another. It's attempting to force me to accept a belief, in something that is absolutely nonsensical, on the words of another just because they want me to do so.

I don't believe in God, gender self identification or unicorns, fairy princesses or ghouls. I live in the real world, day by day, the same as everyone else. All I have to do is look at natural order and evolution to see that ALL mammals have two sexes, binary gender directly determined by the alternate sex of the subject and that as with all things involving biological reproduction and genetics, there will be anomalies and statistical outliers.

I can accomodate the reasoned assumption that some people will end up somewhere in the middle when it comes to their sex due to abnormal formation of their reproductive organs, that they may experience some abnormal hormonal imbalance as a consequence, that their physical appearance may be at odds with what their physiology and genitalia would suggest. That makes perfect sense.

But to suggest that there is any more than two sexes and directly consequential genders than the prevailing norm is, generally speaking, absolute rubbish. It's illogical and I owe people who hold a belief that contradicts what I know to the true no more than some courtesy as a fellow human being.

I know a man is a man and a woman is a woman. A dog is not a horse and a cup is not a saucepan. Why would anyone go along with this nonsense?

As for the world changing around me? Like I said, not my world, not my future. It's about time people starting getting this stuff straight in their own heads and stopped letting this ****show snowball ahead of them, led by a load of people who want to make up some sort of new reality for everyone.

Enough is enough. Call a spade a spade.

ingalway

MrFresh wrote:

I doubt someone who can reduce all trans activism to what you have was ever very tolerant to begin with.

MrFresh you are completely wrong on that one but justification not needed. I'm dealing with the here and now.

MrFresh

JayZeus wrote: »

In reality, all that's going to change is that some people will start believing something that has no foundation in fact or truth. What's going on now is like some sort of crusade, led by people who are determined to force their beliefs onto the rest of us.

And it's not like anyone's trying to convince us to swap one belief for another. It's attempting to force me to accept a belief, in something that is absolutely nonsensical, on the words of another just because they want me to do so.

I don't believe in God, gender self identification or unicorns, fairy princesses or ghouls. I live in the real world, day by day, the same as everyone else. All I have to do is look at natural order and evolution to see that ALL mammals have two sexes, binary gender directly determined by the alternate sex of the subject and that as with all things involving biological reproduction and genetics, there will be anomalies and statistical outliers.

I can accomodate the reasoned assumption that some people will end up somewhere in the middle when it comes to their sex due to abnormal formation of their reproductive organs, that they may experience some abnormal hormonal imbalance as a consequence, that their physical appearance may be at odds with what their physiology and genitalia would suggest. That makes perfect sense.

But to suggest that there is any more than two sexes and directly consequential genders than the prevailing norm is, generally speaking, absolute rubbish. It's illogical and I owe people who hold a belief that contradicts what I know to the true no more than some courtesy as a fellow human being.

I know a man is a man and a woman is a woman. A dog is not a horse and a cup is not a saucepan. Why would anyone go along with this nonsense?

As for the world changing around me? Like I said, not my world, not my future. It's about time people starting getting this stuff straight in their own heads and stopped letting this ****show snowball ahead of them, led by a load of people who want to make up some sort of new reality for everyone.

Enough is enough. Call a spade a spade.

If it has no foundation in truth why is medical science in support of it?

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

We're through the looking-glass here people.

When you have this person



and this person



winning medals in women's competitions, and notions like a "woman's penis" and this Yaniv individual demanding a back, sack and crack wax while harbouring decidedly worrying "interests", we've well passed through the looking glass, we're in fear and loathing in the looking glass and the bad acid has just kicked in.

Pronoun policing, while I do understand the whys of it, the problem is these types(and nearly always M2F trans) are a tiny minority of an already tiny minority and the tiny minority of those suffering from the condition and intersex folks are getting lumped in with the very vocal loonies and piss takers. It's a major negative for the genuine folks just looking to live their lives.

It ranges from €20-50,000 per 'gender reassignment' plus the vested interests of pharma in providing hormone therapy and so on.

If you think that something generating 100's of millions of euro across the globe in annual revenue for providers and pharmaceutical companies won't be provided with supportive research, you're not thinking this through.

That's before we get close to the cosmetic surgeries and treatments and so on.

There are ALWAYS vested interests.

Varta

MrFresh wrote: »

Except it isn't. Mike clearly said to discuss her actions all you want but just refer to her as a woman as that is what she identifies as. That's it. Simply refer to her as a woman. Talk about her disgusting fantasies, her behaviour towards kids, her case, even her genitalia all you want, just refer to her as a woman while doing so. But what the last two pages of tantrums show is that the very idea of referring to a bio born man as a woman so enrages some people they would rather be banned than do that one small thing. And some people wonder why trans people feel harassed?

Someone feeling harassed is not the same thing as someone being harassed.
This yoke in Canada has a Y chromosome and is therefore male. To my last breath I will refer to those with a Y chromosome as 'He' and those without a Y chromosome as 'She' and for the record I have no issue with people who believe themselves to be the opposite sex... but I most certainly take issue with being expected to believe it myself.

MrFresh

MrFresh wrote: »

If it has no foundation in truth why is medical science in support of it?

Medical science is supporting what???

lawlolawl

MrFresh wrote: »

If it has no foundation in truth why is medical science in support of it?

Medical science isn't infallible.

They used to think bloodletting was a cure for numerous maladies and they gave mentally ill people lobotomies to "fix" them.

Wibbs

MrFresh wrote: »

If it has no foundation in truth why is medical science in support of it?

In support of what? Medical science only quite recently changed trans from being a dysmorphia and/or a mental illness. They were just as cock sure of the previous position. The science didn't change, but the lobbying did. It could change again.

Oh and BTW I not a trans denier. I fully believe that transgender is a reality. Personally I'd see it as another form of intersex spectrum, but located in the brain because of the influence of genetics and the hormone environment in the womb. I would also believe that trans itself is a spectrum of conditions that ranges from the above brain/mind intersex, through yep dysmorphia, even social and socialisation influences. EG someone who is gay but grows up in a conservative even homophobic society might see declaring as trans because that's seen more as a medical condition rather than a sexuality(or a sexuality choice as conservative societies can view it) so a little more "acceptable".

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=110797964#post110797964

Just to keep some focus on how ridiculous Yaniv's claims are... listen to the absolute horsecrap this clown is coming out with... Seriously. What an absolute moron.

klaaaz

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Women and their safe spaces and hard won rights are not to be cast aside for a very, very tiny minority of transitioning (that's if they do) males.

Transitioning males can be given every support under the sun but that does not/should not grant them access to womens spaces unfettered while they are intact.

Women can't fight sexism when ideologues placed in positions of influence attempt to obliterate sex.

You have it mixed up, putting on a dress is not transitioning. Medically transitioned people are not a threat, they have been in those spaces without a fuss for decades.

ingalway

klaaaz wrote:

You have it mixed up, putting on a dress is not transitioning. Medically transitioned people are not a threat, they have been in those spaces without a fuss for decades.

Medical transition is not a factor anymore. Self ID is the only show in town and gets you into any woman's space. It's transphobic to even mention genitals unless of course you are trans and can state categorically that you have a lady penis.

klaaaz

ingalway wrote: »

Medical transition is not a factor anymore. Self ID is the only show in town and gets you into any woman's space. It's transphobic to even mention genitals unless of course you are trans and can state categorically that you have a lady penis.

The poster was incorrect about what transitioning was hence my reply.

About self-ID , you obviously didn't read the thread as the laws are different in each country. We in Ireland have the Equal Status Act with exemptions for businesses who can refuse service to a self-ID person such as a salon doing a similar service to the one in Canada.

Slieve Gullion

Lolzers

Sir Oxman

klaaaz wrote: »

You have it mixed up, putting on a dress is not transitioning. Medically transitioned people are not a threat, they have been in those spaces without a fuss for decades.

klaaaz wrote: »

The poster was incorrect about what transitioning was hence my reply.

I can't let that go but I won't reply further as this is not a free and open debate on this thread.


I said transitioning (intact, male)
I have zero problems with transsexuals access

skybox2014

klaaaz wrote: »

The poster was incorrect about what transitioning was hence my reply.

About self-ID , you obviously didn't read the thread as the laws are different in each country. We in Ireland have the Equal Status Act with exemptions for businesses who can refuse service to a self-ID person such as a salon doing a similar service to the one in Canada.

On what basis can a salon refuse services to a person who self IDs as a woman even though they are male? Or vice versa?
The barbershop case was a case in point - the court decided the trans man had every right to use the male barbershop. No reason it wouldn't apply in a waxing salon, gym etc.
In the barbershop case the trans man was taking hormones but there was no discussion that I read that they had a gender cert. It appeared to be pure self ID.
So how can a business refuse services after this ruling?

MrFresh

skybox2014 wrote: »

On what basis can a salon refuse services to a person who self IDs as a woman even though they are male? Or vice versa?
The barbershop case was a case in point - the court decided the trans man had every right to use the male barbershop. No reason it wouldn't apply in a waxing salon, gym etc.
In the barbershop case the trans man was taking hormones but there was no discussion that I read that they had a gender cert. It appeared to be pure self ID.
So how can a business refuse services after this ruling?

Under 5 (2) (c) of the 2000 Act.

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,

drunkmonkey

MrFresh wrote: »

Under 5 (2) (c) of the 2000 Act.

Do you as an ally of the alphabet community think that clause in the law should be changed?

Amalgam

skybox2014 wrote: »

On what basis can a salon refuse services to a person who self IDs as a woman even though they are male? Or vice versa?
The barbershop case was a case in point - the court decided the trans man had every right to use the male barbershop. No reason it wouldn't apply in a waxing salon, gym etc.
In the barbershop case the trans man was taking hormones but there was no discussion that I read that they had a gender cert. It appeared to be pure self ID.
So how can a business refuse services after this ruling?

The Barbershop case from Dublin, that was unique because not only did the barber assume gender, they refused to provide a service under the guise of an 'arrangement' with a Womens Hair Salon situated in the same complex. There was also, allegedly, some rather unpleasant interaction between other customers present and a person in the business, 'playing to the gallery', making the whole situation very very public and uncomfortable.

I fully supported the F2M client receiving damages.

MrFresh

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Do you as an ally of the alphabet community think that clause in the law should be changed?

I think it's a bit useless in most cases as a person isn't required to declare they are transgender. So unless they are very noticeably so or are pre-op and looking for a service involving their genitals it won't really be of consequence.