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

banie01

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Anyone using the term and expecting credence from others I suppose.

It's not my term.
I am curious however as to why that's the portion of my post you find questionable?

I'd be very happy to use the appropriate and correct terms but from discussions earlier in this thread those terms when applied to JY or m2f can be considered offensive apparently.

Do you have an opinion on attempting to force the beauticians to carry out said waxing?
Or is it to be a picking of specific words to query credibility rather than engagement in the discussion of JY's attempt to force them?

mad muffin

mcmoustache wrote: »

No doubt part of the uproar now is fuelled by right-wing outrage mongers and Russian propaganda using the issue as a stick to beat social liberalism with. In fact, I'd say that the most of threads opened in here on transgender issues were started by the types of people for whom the term "the left" makes up a large part of their vocabulary.

This has actually been a bit of a problem for me in these sorts of threads - it feels dirty to be agreeing with these kinds of people. In a lot of cases these are the misogynists and homophobes who were on the wrong side of the argument during the gay marriage and 8th referendum so I already have my views on them and the idea that we would agree on something just doesn't sit right with me.

Unfortunately, they aren't too far wrong on this issue, even if their motivation is suspect.

This is wrong headed view of the world. And a sources of a lot of the discord that has been going on of late.

banie01

vladmydad wrote: »

Tainted by people who have a traditional view of marriage, by prolife folk ? Jesus, how ironic that you cannot see you are being just as intolerant as this ball sack person. This gender crap developed from your intolerance for people with conservative views or differing opinions. To have a historical view on marriage or to be prolife are perfectly legitimate views , forcing people to shave balls isn’t or deny biology and facts isn’t.

You see my view of marriage, traditional or otherwise is that it is between 2 consenting adults.

I have no part in that relationship and it imposes no obligation on me.
Whereas if I am beautician, and someone attempts to force me to handle their genitals against my will, that is attempting to impose quite an obligation don't you think?

Gay marriage and all its facets doesn't impact my life other than allowing those gay people who love each other to have the same relationship rights as us "traditionally" married people.

Whereas JY's effort to force people into a situation where they must handle their genitals, is akin to forcing sexual contact IMO.

Do you see the difference there?

vladmydad

Bake the cake is where this all came from. Gay people got their right to marry and social conservatives said fine now just leave us alone. But nooooo you must be be involved. You must bake the cake. You must be part of the ceremony, we must rub your face in it. Intolerant leftists intentionally sought out small conservative businesses and dragged them through the courts , pushing many to choose between their faith or their livelihood. Putting many out of business and bankrupting most. All cheered on by centrist liberals but then a fella walks into a business and says wax my balls or your ****ed and all of a sudden we must respect the business owner.

Sittingpretty

banie01 wrote: »

It's not my term.
I am curious however as to why that's the portion of my post you find questionable?

I'd be very happy to use the appropriate and correct terms but from discussions earlier in this thread those terms when applied to JY or m2f can be considered offensive apparently.

Do you have an opinion on attempting to force the beauticians to carry out said waxing?
Or is it to be a picking of specific words to query credibility rather than engagement in the discussion of JY's attempt to force them?

To be honest I didn’t even remember it was you that used the term, maybe I quoted your post, it just stands out as a completely ridiculous, oxymoronic term.

And for what it’s worth, no, I don’t think any woman should be forced into contact with any man’s penis.

vladmydad

banie01 wrote: »

You see my view of marriage, traditional or otherwise is that it is between 2 consenting adults.

I have no part in that relationship and it imposes no obligation on me.
Whereas if I am beautician, and someone attempts to force me to handle their genitals against my will, that is attempting to impose quite an obligation don't you think?

Gay marriage and all its facets doesn't impact my life other than allowing those gay people who love each other to have the same relationship rights as us "traditionally" married people.

Whereas JY's effort to force people into a situation where they must handle their genitals, is akin to forcing sexual contact IMO.

Do you see the difference there?

To have a view that marriage is between a man and a woman is a perfectly normal and far from extreme view to hold. And yes if that gay couple demand you bake the cake then it is affecting your life.

Glass fused light

drunkmonkey wrote: »

He's bateing you don't fall for it, he'll report you. Seems to be the typical trans tactic around here.
Just ignore him.

Rude is rude, ain't it?

ingalway

mcmoustache wrote:

Unfortunately, they aren't too far wrong on this issue, even if their motivation is suspect.

banie01 wrote:

I feel your conflict on this point. So many of the people who are shaping the discourse were IMO on the wrong side and opposed to so much of our socially progressive recent change. That I feel as if by having a similar view, I'm going to be tainted by them.

I really do believe that many people who are generally very liberal and who fully supported the Marriage Ref and Repeal 8th (I did) are the same people who have grave concerns on this topic. I know I was questioning myself early on - all I ever saw/heard was how trans people were being driven to suicide and that anyone who asked anything was automatically a transphobic bigot + a TERF if you were a woman - apparently it's much worse for women to dare speak up, especially against trans women and their terribly woke feminist male allies (skinny jeans/beard). I kept quiet and thought I must be missing something to be so far off left on this one topic.
It took me a while to stop dismissing my concerns as I'm always so bloody liberal but once I started getting more information I got to a point where I absolutely will not agree with the trans/woke mob or nod politely. I'm equally entitled to my opinion. Women's and girl's single sex spaces must be protected. Women's and girl's sports must be protected and children's physical/ mental health need serious protection from puberty blockers and peodphiles

mcmoustache

mcmoustache wrote: »

No doubt part of the uproar now is fuelled by right-wing outrage mongers and Russian propaganda using the issue as a stick to beat social liberalism with. In fact, I'd say that the most of threads opened in here on transgender issues were started by the types of people for whom the term "the left" makes up a large part of their vocabulary.

I dunno..did you ever see that interview with Yuri Bezmenov on YouTube..he used to work with the kgb, but defected..
According to him.. feminism, the LGBT craic etc, they're all useful idiots, that are being encouraged to destabilize society in the west..
Ideological subversion..
The interview was done in the early 80s, but might give you a different perspective on things..

Sittingpretty

ingalway wrote: »

I really do believe that many people who are generally very liberal and who fully supported the Marriage Ref and Repeal 8th (I did) are the same people who have grave concerns on this topic. I know I was questioning myself early on - all I ever saw/heard was how trans people were being driven to suicide and that anyone who asked anything was automatically a transphobic bigot + a TERF if you were a woman - apparently it's much worse for women to dare speak up, especially against trans women and their terribly woke feminist male allies (skinny jeans/beard). I kept quiet and thought I must be missing something to be so far off left on this one topic.
It took me a while to stop dismissing my concerns as I'm always so bloody liberal but once I started getting more information I got to a point where I absolutely will not agree with the trans/woke mob or nod politely. I'm equally entitled to my opinion. Women's and girl's single sex spaces must be protected. Women's and girl's sports must be protected and children's physical/ mental health need serious protection from puberty blockers and peodphiles

I consider myself liberal. I voted yes for Gay marriage and I’ve no issues with how consenting adults live their lives when it doesn’t impact negatively upon others.

However I think this JY case is verging on nonsense and may set a very questionable precedence if successful.

I am a woman. I am firmly for women. Women’s rights completely supersede those of men wanting to be women as far as I’m concerned.

The idea that a 19 year old trans woman (lily Madigan)heads any women’s council anywhere is frankly, laughable. Men talking about their experience of periods and womanhood can quite honestly lose themselves.

Edited to add: it’s akin to me speaking about my experience of erections. I have none of my own obviously so I’m completely unqualified to give my “experience” of having them.

Omackeral

Sittingpretty wrote: »

I don’t think any woman should be forced into contact with any man’s penis.

What about a woman's penis though? Remember your preferred, and therefore correct, pronouns before you answer.

Sittingpretty

Omackeral wrote: »

What about a woman's penis though? Remember your preferred, and therefore correct, pronouns before you answer.

I thought that’s what I was referring to when I called the term “lady dick” oxymoronic.

Jesus I can’t even keep up with the terminology anymore it’s so insane

banie01

vladmydad wrote: »

To have a view that marriage is between a man and a woman is a perfectly normal and far from extreme view to hold. And yes if that gay couple demand you bake the cake then it is affecting your life.

Have I said that it is extreme?
It's extreme IMO to force that viewpoint and adherence to it onto others.
Marriage is a legal recognition of a commited relationship and love between 2 people, but in even more detail it's a legal contract that for far too long was exclusionary towards a large cohort of society.

That Gay marriage is now legal, doesn't mean that you have to be party to a same sex marriage because, and this may grate on you a little but now those other people who engage Adam and Steve relationships can marry too.

Those gay couples that marry, demand nothing of me other than tolerance?
Respect that their marriage is just as valid and meaningful as my own.

I'm at a loss as to what "bake the cake" means?
Is it some allusion to now we have left them have a foot in the door, that "they" can now proceed with creeping moral corruption?

Like some pinko gay cultural takeover?
Rather than co-existence?

Ecce No Homo

I know this will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I think they should just go ahead and wax those those balls. If they need additional training they should seek it. It's just hair and skin, and I doubt they can afford to turn away business.

ingalway

ingalway wrote: »

I really do believe that many people who are generally very liberal and who fully supported the Marriage Ref and Repeal 8th (I did) are the same people who have grave concerns on this topic. I know I was questioning myself early on - all I ever saw/heard was how trans people were being driven to suicide and that anyone who asked anything was automatically a transphobic bigot + a TERF if you were a woman - apparently it's much worse for women to dare speak up, especially against trans women and their terribly woke feminist male allies (skinny jeans/beard). I kept quiet and thought I must be missing something to be so far off left on this one topic.
It took me a while to stop dismissing my concerns as I'm always so bloody liberal but once I started getting more information I got to a point where I absolutely will not agree with the trans/woke mob or nod politely. I'm equally entitled to my opinion. Women's and girl's single sex spaces must be protected. Women's and girl's sports must be protected and children's physical/ mental health need serious protection from puberty blockers and peodphiles

same as this

mcmoustache

Deleted User wrote: »

I dunno..did you ever see that interview with Yuri Bezmenov on YouTube..he used to work with the kgb, but defected..
According to him.. feminism, the LGBT craic etc, they're all useful idiots, that are being encouraged to destabilize society in the west..
Ideological subversion..
The interview was done in the early 80s, but might give you a different perspective on things..

I likely have seen it. The russian's promote the fringes on both the left and right to create social discord. I won't get into it in this thread as I don't want to derail it but I agree with your point.

mcmoustache

Ecce No Homo wrote: »

I know this will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I think they should just go ahead and wax those those balls. If they need additional training they should seek it. It's just hair and skin, and I doubt they can afford to turn away business.

Come on now. You can surely do better than that?

mad muffin

vladmydad wrote: »

Bake the cake is where this all came from. Gay people got their right to marry and social conservatives said fine now just leave us alone. But nooooo you must be be involved. You must bake the cake. You must be part of the ceremony, we must rub your face in it. Intolerant leftists intentionally sought out small conservative businesses and dragged them through the courts , pushing many to choose between their faith or their livelihood. Putting many out of business and bankrupting most. All cheered on by centrist liberals but then a fella walks into a business and says wax my balls or your ****ed and all of a sudden we must respect the business owner.

When all the fights are done and won. We keep looking for any excuse to keep on fighting.

I would have voted for gay people to get married if I was a citizen. I would have baked a cake for them if I had a bakery if they came to me.

But I don’t understand why some people just need to make a point and prove that look! There is still a bigot left. It look we found a racist!

And force the. To do something they are not comfortable doing.

It’s not like there aren’t any options. The west isn’t the oppressive dystopian nightmare some would make out it to be. But they still want to make it for others.

ingalway

Not only did JY deliberately pick mostly immigrant women, he sometime used his previous name of Jonathan, now saying it is not a gendered name (!), he deliberately threw in lots of confusing information to entrap these women whose first language was often not English. Some of the women specifically advertised that they only did female arm/leg waxing but he still contacted them to make an appointment for genital waxing. Many of these women have had to cease business due to trans groups bullying them, financial pressure and unwanted attention in their culture. Plus they have to now defend themselves in a public tribunal, in front of Yaniv, so he can assert his human/trans rights.

Abusers, Assaulters & Pedophiles are actively hijacking LGBTQ law in an effort to make their criminality legal, along the lines that major criminal gangs have used/abused laws to carry out their nefarious activities. The Criminal Assets Bureau helped in somewhat dealing with the latter, there needs to be an imaginative and specific law brought in here for abusing human rights laws.

ceadaoin.

ingalway wrote: »

Not only did JY deliberately pick mostly immigrant women, he sometime used his previous name of Jonathan, now saying it is not a gendered name (!), he deliberately threw in lots of confusing information to entrap these women whose first language was often not English. Some of the women specifically advertised that they only did female arm/leg waxing but he still contacted them to make an appointment for genital waxing. Many of these women have had to cease business due to trans groups bullying them, financial pressure and unwanted attention in their culture. Plus they have to now defend themselves in a public tribunal, in front of Yaniv, so he can assert his human/trans rights.

And he picked women who worked from their own homes or went to the clients home. It's completely understandable why those women didn't want to invite a strange male into their home or go to the home of a strange male, no matter how he identifies or what he wants waxing

Danzy

Ecce No Homo wrote: »

I know this will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I think they should just go ahead and wax those those balls. If they need additional training they should seek it. It's just hair and skin, and I doubt they can afford to turn away business.

Translation: Prostitute themselves for money, those working class bitches will need the money.

Glass fused light

mcmoustache wrote: »

No doubt part of the uproar now is fuelled by right-wing outrage mongers and Russian propaganda using the issue as a stick to beat social liberalism with.

....... I already have my views on them and the idea that we would agree on something just doesn't sit right with me.

Unfortunately, they aren't too far wrong on this issue, even if their motivation is suspect.

Its right wing, middle ground and left wing women the non genderist feminist kind.
I don't take news from a single source. It's understanding the different presentation of facts, what's said and unsaid and how that spins the story.
Take the time to watch RTE and BBC news reports on the same subject and note the difference bias.

So the outrage is from women like me.
It was little bits and bob.
Hated playboy logos on little girls tops, who bought them? ........
More recent a discussion on how women should "chest feed" their babies, "breast" was exclusionary?
That girls and boys should be allowed in to the same bathrooms at school, 50/50 boy/girl and 90% hetro children in a space the school won't supervise. Apart from dealing with periods, public sex and pregnacy what could go wrong?
Then the rape BS on why it's transphobic not to fcuk the rapist or the rapist's friends. I will admit its a little more sophisticated than having to apoligise for getting drunk and raping a stranger, as a family man he would never have tried without the drink.
Etc

I had been watching the littigant and her case build for months
Was on-line and could have tried to data dump the Mermaid files
Ditto with NSPCC v ambassador v wankgate v London Pride
The common line is transphobia being used as a weapon against people pointing out bad behaviour.

Add in the suck my ladydick attacks and 'sex work is work' BS.

We as a country are conservative with pump politic policies still having a national impact. For the most part PCism are met with the non-aggressive reply of "go fcuk off with yourself". We are just much too polite to just say "NO"

I am way too middle aged not to understand the dangers an aggressive heterosexual or homosexual male can present to my personal safety. Ones that want to enter female only spaces because they have rights?
Sorry for your troubles but I have my own sh1t to deal with.

Ecce No Homo

Ecce No Homo wrote:

I know this will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I think they should just go ahead and wax those those balls. If they need additional training they should seek it. It's just hair and skin, and I doubt they can afford to turn away business.

Its not an unpopular opinion. It's an abhorrent opinion. But you know this.

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

Self ID has been here since 2015, how come all the outrage 4 years later? Or is it only outrage when it happens in a country nearly 6000km away?

They’re called unintended consequences, and they’re caused by a variety of factors, not the least of which is your attempt to pretend that public policies and laws in other countries doesn’t have an effect on public policies and laws in this country.

Self ID was never intended to be used by some people for nefarious means, and yet that’s exactly what appears to be happening four years later, that those people now have the political and social clout to promote their ideology and suppress dissent.

Quite honestly, I think the threat is being vastly overstated online relative to actual reality. From my perspective I know far too many people who are transgender to ever assume Ronald McDonald in a blonde wig is representative of people who are transgender. It’s obvious they’re more representative of the kind of degenerate pervert who takes advantage of the unintended consequences of well-meant but ill-thought out policies and legislation to promote their own ideology.

That’s why I wouldn’t take too much notice of the outcomes of this case, because one of the unintended consequences is that it will just make it all that much more difficult for more reasonable people who are entitled to the same rights as everyone else to be treated with the same respect as everyone else in society. We’ve already seen examples of it in this thread with the furore over “preferred pronouns” - it’s not that difficult to express the same sentiment in an infinite number of ways, with the intent of mocking mercilessly the idea of “preferred pronouns”.

I can’t help but laugh as I’m reminded of Bishop Brennan’s remonstration of Father Dougal


Bishop Len Brennan:
Did he call me Len again? [shouts downstairs] You address me by my proper title you little bollocks!

Father Dougal McGuire:
Sorry er... Father Len Brennan.


Father Dougal:
Hello Len.

Bishop Brennan:
Don't call me Len, you little prick. I'm a bishop!

Father Dougal:
Oh right. Well done.

theological

klaaaz wrote: »

Are you a person of the cloth by any chance, a Pastor? That misleading and ignorant stuff is like straight out of what American evangelicals say. Which country are you stating, Canada where perhaps you're a resident of or Ireland where most of us live?

Argumentum ad hominem.

For the record, I'm actually an evangelical Christian. That doesn't preclude me or anyone else for having anything reasonable to say.

We are where we are because of post-modernism and its impact on the average person around us. Post-modernism used to be in the preserve of academia and philosophy but it has made its way down to the base level of everyday life.

Post-modernism has led to a shift in thinking. Instead of thinking of things in God given objectivity we now think in terms of subjectivity, or I determine my own truth. That first shift actually wasn't that difficult. The difficulty is when people try to assert subjectivity as objectivity. Namely when we are told that gender is a social construct that we can define and that we must hold to the same ideology. Or that I can choose X gender, and you must agree that I am that gender or else.

Traditionally tolerance was agreeing to disagree with others. It means having profound disagreements but yet choosing to live alongside others in community. Tolerance now means you must agree with me or else you are a bigot, or even worse I will begin legal proceedings against you for vocalising your own ideas in public. It is no longer live and let live. It is agree with me or else. What's actually ignorant and misleading is the illiberal progressive hounding of individuals that don't agree with them. That's ignorant and misleading.

That's not a world I want to live in. Therefore I live according to what God has spoken objectively into His world. I understand that God created people male and female. Gender isn't simply a social construct. Genders aren't simply interchangeable. Men and women equal in status, but are also different and are created to complement one another. That's how God made the world from my perspective. The Biblical worldview provides an objective basis for understanding the world and it provides a rich framework with nuanced answers on pretty much all aspects of life. Secular society is choosing to rip that apart, and we're seeing the madness that ensues. Biblical Christianity is much more convincing to me than this if I'm honest.

I'm not changing my beliefs because people insist that I must because they have some impressive progressive credentials. Why should I? They'll need to try much harder. I suspect there are many more like me around.

More importantly, why should I? True liberty rather than the fake tolerance that is being espoused means having the right to robustly disagree and to express my views like anyone else.

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

There needs to be an imaginative and specific law brought in here for abusing human rights laws.

#1 Biological males can not be females
# 2 Biological females can not be males
(That was the law until a couple or years ago)

"A line needs needs to be drawn in the sand" to quote Sonia O'Sullivan on who can compete in women athletics. Transwomen rights can not supersede or be on par with Women's. They can't be women, there's more to being a woman than a state or mind or fake plastic boobs.
They can be trans all they want but don't expect women's human rights just because you identify as one.

It's the only way this madness can stop.

vladmydad

banie01 wrote: »

Have I said that it is extreme?
It's extreme IMO to force that viewpoint and adherence to it onto others.
Marriage is a legal recognition of a commited relationship and love between 2 people, but in even more detail it's a legal contract that for far too long was exclusionary towards a large cohort of society.

That Gay marriage is now legal, doesn't mean that you have to be party to a same sex marriage because, and this may grate on you a little but now those other people who engage Adam and Steve relationships can marry too.

Those gay couples that marry, demand nothing of me other than tolerance?
Respect that their marriage is just as valid and meaningful as my own.

I'm at a loss as to what "bake the cake" means?
Is it some allusion to now we have left them have a foot in the door, that "they" can now proceed with creeping moral corruption?

Like some pinko gay cultural takeover?
Rather than co-existence?

I never said I was against gay marriage, I couldn’t give a toss. No I’m saying a Christian or Muslim Baker should not be forced to bake a cake for a ceremony that goes against their convictions, just as a woman shouldn’t be forced to wax a mans balls. What happened to Ashers bakery was outrageous.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ingalway wrote: »

I really do believe that many people who are generally very liberal and who fully supported the Marriage Ref and Repeal 8th (I did) are the same people who have grave concerns on this topic. I know I was questioning myself early on - all I ever saw/heard was how trans people were being driven to suicide and that anyone who asked anything was automatically a transphobic bigot + a TERF if you were a woman - apparently it's much worse for women to dare speak up, especially against trans women and their terribly woke feminist male allies (skinny jeans/beard). I kept quiet and thought I must be missing something to be so far off left on this one topic.
It took me a while to stop dismissing my concerns as I'm always so bloody liberal but once I started getting more information I got to a point where I absolutely will not agree with the trans/woke mob or nod politely. I'm equally entitled to my opinion. Women's and girl's single sex spaces must be protected. Women's and girl's sports must be protected and children's physical/ mental health need serious protection from puberty blockers and peodphiles

Yes, that would be me. I take each issue and consider it separately from everything else.

My feeling is that many people have private reservations and that it is going to come to a head at some point. At the moment, people are afraid to speak up. I especially suspect that there are biologists who are afraid to stick their necks out for fear of putting their jobs at risk so there probably isn’t as much research happening on the subject as there should be. Most of the academics speaking out in favour seem to be humanities-based but you can’t deny science.

ingalway

Here is todays I Kid You Not:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) - yes, CIVIL Liberties, have started a Pledge page where people sign up to support trans student athletes - aka boys taking part in any girls sport they fancy.

Some quotes:
"Transgender people have the right to participate in sports consistent with who they are, just like anyone. Denying this right is pure discrimination."

"The marginalization of trans student-athletes is rooted in the same kind of gender discrimination and stereotyping that has held back cisgender women athletes. Transgender girls are often told that they are not girls (and conversely transgender boys are told they are not really boys) based on inaccurate stereotypes about biology, athleticism, and gender. As a result, transgender athletes – particularly Black transgender women – face systemic barriers to participation in athletics and all aspects of public life."

Just when I think I have heard and read the most nonsensical thing ever then something else comes along to yet again amaze/sicken me.
This article explains it very well:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/aclu-stumps-for-the-new-transgender-patriarchy/