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

ohnonotgmail

Dante7 wrote: »

3% of men are autogynephilic and although it is impossible to know how exactly how many modern transgender women are actually AGP (they rarely admit it), some real gender dysphoric transexuals have estimated that at least 50% of trans women they encounter today are actually just AGP. They are quite easy to spot. Yaniv is textbook, with a fetish for menstruation. If you check out the Twitter profiles for a lot of trans women, it is an eye-opener. If they are obsessed with sex, porn, fetishism, ladydick, queer theory, etc. they are AGP.

A lot of transgender activism is actually just a campaign to validate their fetish at the expense of women. People are being gaslighted by fetishists.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22005209/

its most severe manifestation, MtF transsexualism, is rare

so how do you square that with

A large percentage of modern transgenders are actually just AGPs

dudara

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

What the Fúck is a "wokes"?

super_furry wrote: »

More East-Yank American political ****e that’s never actually heard in any Irish discussion outside of internet forums.

The “woke” cr*p can stay in America too. Stick to the discussion.

dudara

klaaaz

Dante7 wrote: »

3% of men are autogynephilic

Auto what? Sure men do have a fetish for their cars treating them like women!

Dante7

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so how do you square that with

I'm sorry. I mistook your sealioning as a genuine attempt at debate. I see I was mistaken and that it was a bad faith endeavour.

What was the next line in the quote from the paper that you conveniently omitted? It says that the number is increasing. Also, that paper was from 2011 and the numbers really jumped in the last five years.

ohnonotgmail

Dante7 wrote: »

I'm sorry. I mistook your sealioning as a genuine attempt at debate. I see I was mistaken and that it was a bad faith endeavour.

What was the next line in the quote from the paper that you conveniently omitted? It says that the number is increasing. Also, that paper was from 2011 and the numbers really jumped in the last five years.

And you are basing that on what exactly? the paper did not give a rate of growth.

klaaaz

Dante7 wrote: »

It says that the number is increasing. Also, that paper was from 2011 and the numbers really jumped in the last five years.

Think you'll find that the number of transgender people increasing is due to increasing numbers who are going the other way in opposite to your theory, trans men. There has been an outcry over this from the usual suspects in many threads on the subject. Are the increasing numbers of trans men fetishists too?

splinter65

https://spectator.us/every-woman-right-scrotum-waxed/

Excellent piece in the spectator here in support of this lady.

Glass fused light

Heres Johnny wrote: »

Surely there's some ladies of the night that would carry out this waxing for a moderate fee.

Edit: Sorry, people of the night.

I know that this is a joke but the reality of male waxing is that the person can get an erection.
The specialist who testified pointed out that she did not teach male waxing due to having negative experiences where men expected sexual services and became aggressive when refused.

So even for waxers who do provide this service there are safegarding issues.

Calhoun wrote: »

The scary thing is that in the likes of Canada ect people like this are untouchable. Its nearly like a modern day clergy, from an Irish perspective.

Either this is brought under control and people like this are told to cop on, or it will take care of its self through more sinister means.  Which is the opposite of where we want to be going.

See Morgane Oger below

There is a good article I found re the way "trans" crime is being reported I will upload it. 

And a recent case where a so called trans ally mayor(?) who campaigned for gender neutral facilities in council buildings who was caught with child porn.
It's clear this was not a Trans support objective for him. Women have been pointing that out and been called transphobic because it would never happen.

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Are there people defending this person though?

Surely not?

They fall into a number of camps 

The ones making no comment and hoping that people will not notice this or the issue in sport

The ones denying that the case has anything to do with Trans or gender rights and deny that she is a trans woman

The ones accepting her as a trans woman and supporting the fundamental basis of the case that as a trans woman she is entitled to waxing and that the ladies just need to get over themselves

The ones who agree she can have the waxing because she is a woman but that she can't because the ladies don't have to provide the service.

The ones that will be happy to provide the hair removal in a number of different ways.

And my fav
The ones who genuinely (100%) agree that she is entitled to have her vagina waxed and that the ladies should provide the service. They like the BBC need basic biology lessons.

MrFresh wrote: »

Glass fused light wrote:

The current trans ideology is about getting the world to accept gender is fixed and biology is moveable.

The reality is that most trans people just want to live their lives as their preferred gender and this doesn't affect anyone else. What you are doing is picking out extreme examples and trying to make them somehow representative of trans issues in general.

 
No I am looking at the extreme example of what happens within the legal framework.
Women in Ireland have legal protection against being forced to wax but exactly where is the line?

(actually the in the Equality 2000 )

Just to be clear I don't think that Trans people should be prone to criminal or 'immoral' acts in greater proportion to their birth sex population.

The problem is if just saying the words out loud "I am a trans woman" forces others to accept these words as true we will see a rise in crime associated with Trans people but it won't be body dysmorphic Trans people committing the crimes.

We currently require people to register their gender change.
Scotland would have done this last month and it would have flown under the radar except people and womens organisations are starting to look at the ideology and the organisations driving it.

It was not helped that a child was sexually assaulted in a supermarket toilet. Or that a men's suicide prevention facebook group was targeted by a trans activist objecting to the fact the founder had no experince in trans issues.

Second point for no harm.
Canada currently teaches children about trans in primary school. One school district is being sued because a girl had the lesson and was taught that " girls are not really girls and can be boys ". The child translated that into she did not exist. The parents went up through the district from the teacher to the board of education looking for a simple message. That yes as the child believed that she is a girl she can be told that she is a girl. It's going to court for a judge to decide if the teaching discriminated against the child on the basis of her gender.
 

MrFresh wrote: »

If they don't wax balls in general then they shouldn't have to make an exception because of who the person is.

 

The fundamental question is do they provide waxing services for biological women or do they have to provide services for all women.

How far is the State willing to go to support trans women's rights?

MrFresh wrote: »

It's not the trans community making her prominent though is it?

No it's not the trans community, it's her fighting on behalf herself as a trans woman.

The unfortunate thing is that the flack is going to hit all the community in equal measure.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

is there a goverment given right to have your genitals waxed?

That's the $15,700 question.

super_furry wrote: »

Her rights as a woman don't override the rights of another woman who chooses not to work with penises and scrotums. 

But maybe you're right, maybe it would be for the best for the courts to rule on this and to create a precedent.

Technically this is a Commission  so it's not precedent it would have to be appealed like the NI case was up to the higher courts to fix it in as a precedent.
So while the initial judgement will be delivered soon it could be 2/3+ years before this is settled.

And if the litigant wins this round the ladies may have to fund this themselves 

NI cake cost the taxpayers £500,000 half was refunding the bakers legal fees.

super_furry wrote: »

Well lets wait and see what the court says. It's down for decision on the 26th on this month.



I think the real world is a lot more nuanced that you're trying to present here. Hence the fact that there's no-one supporting Yaniv's actions, her approach or her behaviour.

Morgane Oger a trans right campaigner famous in Canada for forcing all but one of the Rape Crisis centres to provide services for men. He got the State to defunded that one this year.

Issued a statement in April(?) of this year publicly naming the woman as a trans woman and a predator of children targeting young girls and women.

She/MO publicly twittered that while she was not a "PR  success" for trans rights MO supported the principal that the women have go get over themselves and compared the waxing to the care provided by nurses and care workers

gmisk wrote: »

She can identify as a tree for all I care.

Do you support acceptance without exceptance?
Would you accept a trans man is a gay man if attracted to men
Or that a trans woman is a lesbian if attracted to women

Would you support the movement "get the L out" or call it transphobic?
The reason I ask is that Stonewall as a influential LGBT++ group wholly support the actions of London and other Local Pride marched to exclude them.

I don't expect an answer to these as they are personal but they are the questions people are saying no one has a problem with.

As for Pride London IMO publicly trying a smackdown of the NSPCC over trans/wankgate is going to bite them in the ass.

MrFresh wrote: »

They should have the same rights as biological women. And if you can find a biological woman who the waxer in question gave a scrotum wax to you might have a point. But the person in question is asking for something extra to what would be provided to a biological woman. If she was post op and being refused, it would be a different matter.

Well the biological women have both testified that as far as they are concerned
*  she will always have a male body
* with or with out a scrotum the will not wax her
* that they view any contact like this as sexual contact and deem it cheating on their husbands 

So the fundamental remains where is the line between biology and gender for the trans woman

If the court decide that a scrotum remains male, will it also be male after surgery?

This is the first question
It's only once that is answered the obligation to balance opposing rights come in to play.

MrFresh wrote: »

It would be a different matter because you would be rejecting someone based solely on their gender as opposed to what was between their legs. It doesn't necessarily mean it would be illegal either though.

The court has to say illegal or legal, it's very binary there is no third option.

MrFresh wrote: »

Other than a few reported cases, it seems to be a fantasy held mainly by people who are anti trans.

Non"TERF" : And it never happened 
"TERF" : You just said it did?
Non"TERF" :  It never happened that's just an anti trans fantasy
"TERF" :  ...........?

well 50% of the population have now to risk assess all trans presented people, because some trans women like telling ladies to suck their ladydicks. And these are "approved" trans women elected as a women student officer for Labour

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Why don't they go to places where it's not an issue then? Id assume gay fellas get it done in places where it isn't an issue. The vast majority of beauticians don't want to wax a cock and balls, they didn't sign up for that. Is it an attention seeking technique? A way to claim decrimination like those who target bakeries run by Christians?

Attention, abusive control and money
And validation as a trans woman

drunkmonkey

splinter65 wrote: »

https://spectator.us/every-woman-right-scrotum-waxed/

Excellent piece in the spectator here in support of this lady.

They pretty much summed up what's happening on this thread here, especially the bit

the most pressing question raised by this case — a question so few woke warriors and identitarian leftists want to address — is this: just because someone says they are a woman, does that make them a woman?

This lies at the heart of this case. Even some pro-trans people will no doubt argue that Yaniv’s case is frivolous and that most transgender people don’t go around demanding waxes from people who don’t want to wax them.

That is true. But while Yaniv’s human-rights action might be eccentric, it also entirely follows the logic, the central logic, of the transgender ideology. Which is that you can be any sex you want. You can self-ID however you like. Feel like a woman? Then you’re a woman. And anyone who says you aren’t is a bigoted, disgusting spouter of hate.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/why-we-cant-ignore-the-case-of-jessica-yaniv/amp/

The woke people on this thread don't know what to say, none have just said yes she's a woman with no if's ands or buts, one of them went as far as saying she's a woman if she lobs off her man bits.

Who exactly is woke here, I thinks it's the bigots.

One eyed Jack

splinter65 wrote: »

https://spectator.us/every-woman-right-scrotum-waxed/

Excellent piece in the spectator here in support of this lady.

I don’t think I’ve ever laughed so hard, but that’s a brilliantly written piece, this paragraph alone really hammers home the point-


Biological women will never understand the struggles trans women face every day. Have they ever had another woman turn her nose up at the mere sight of their big hairy ball sack? Of course not. Cis women need to learn to know their place.


Legend, whoever wrote that piece

Sittingpretty

splinter65 wrote: »

https://spectator.us/every-woman-right-scrotum-waxed/

Excellent piece in the spectator here in support of this lady.

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

Nonsense.

One eyed Jack

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

screamer

I do think that in terms of these sorts of intimate services, which lets face it are not necessary but rather optional, the service providers should be able to say no.
I don’t think this is about getting waxed at all, because I’m sure there are plenty of places that wax male genitalia, this is more about attention seeking and pc crap gone berserk trying to trump their rights with his/her own.
I feel sorry for the service providers being sued.

The whole thing just brings David Walliams in little Britain to mind... I’m a laydeeh....

Sittingpretty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

Ah. Boy is my face red

jmayo

Jul 1969 - news items
Irish cricket team surprise West indies.

David Bowie release "Space Oddity"

Man walks on the moon.

Jul 2019 - news items
Irish cricketer captains England to World Cup glory

Someone release song with Billy Ray Cyrus.

Man claiming to be woman files lawsuits because beauticians refuse to wax his ballsack.

Plumbthedepths

splinter65 wrote:

Excellent piece in the spectator here in support of this lady.

lol. :-)

Roger Hassenforder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think I’ve ever laughed so hard, but that’s a brilliantly written piece, this paragraph alone really hammers home the point-


Biological women will never understand the struggles trans women face every day. Have they ever had another woman turn her nose up at the mere sight of their big hairy ball sack? Of course not. Cis women need to learn to know their place.


Legend, whoever wrote that piece

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

Franz Von Peppercorn II

The philosophy behind trans ideology was expressed earlier. The belief is that gender is assigned at birth by what Judith Butler calls a “performative utterance”. That’s a statement that changes reality (like a judge telling you are guilty changes your legal status to being a criminal). In this ideology we are trapped by language, language is controlled by elites, so a judge telling you you are guilty changes that reality, and a doctor or midwife saying you are male or female changes that reality.

Biology doesn’t come into it because science doesn’t influence philosophy, and animals rarely get mentioned in philosophical tracts.

Calhoun

Glass fused light wrote: »

I know that this is a joke but the reality of male waxing is that the person can get an erection.
The specialist who testified pointed out that she did not teach male waxing due to having negative experiences where men expected sexual services and became aggressive when refused.

So even for waxers who do provide this service there are safegarding issues.




See Morgane Oger below

There is a good article I found re the way "trans" crime is being reported I will upload it. 

And a recent case where a so called trans ally mayor(?) who campaigned for gender neutral facilities in council buildings who was caught with child porn.
It's clear this was not a Trans support objective for him. Women have been pointing that out and been called transphobic because it would never happen.



They fall into a number of camps 

The ones making no comment and hoping that people will not notice this or the issue in sport

The ones denying that the case has anything to do with Trans or gender rights and deny that she is a trans woman

The ones accepting her as a trans woman and supporting the fundamental basis of the case that as a trans woman she is entitled to waxing and that the ladies just need to get over themselves

The ones who agree she can have the waxing because she is a woman but that she can't because the ladies don't have to provide the service.

The ones that will be happy to provide the hair removal in a number of different ways.

And my fav
The ones who genuinely (100%) agree that she is entitled to have her vagina waxed and that the ladies should provide the service. They like the BBC need basic biology lessons.



 
No I am looking at the extreme example of what happens within the legal framework.
Women in Ireland have legal protection against being forced to wax but exactly where is the line?

(actually the in the Equality 2000 )

Just to be clear I don't think that Trans people should be prone to criminal or 'immoral' acts in greater proportion to their birth sex population.

The problem is if just saying the words out loud "I am a trans woman" forces others to accept these words as true we will see a rise in crime associated with Trans people but it won't be body dysmorphic Trans people committing the crimes.

We currently require people to register their gender change.
Scotland would have done this last month and it would have flown under the radar except people and womens organisations are starting to look at the ideology and the organisations driving it.

It was not helped that a child was sexually assaulted in a supermarket toilet. Or that a men's suicide prevention facebook group was targeted by a trans activist objecting to the fact the founder had no experince in trans issues.

Second point for no harm.
Canada currently teaches children about trans in primary school. One school district is being sued because a girl had the lesson and was taught that " girls are not really girls and can be boys ". The child translated that into she did not exist. The parents went up through the district from the teacher to the board of education looking for a simple message. That yes as the child believed that she is a girl she can be told that she is a girl. It's going to court for a judge to decide if the teaching discriminated against the child on the basis of her gender.
 


 

The fundamental question is do they provide waxing services for biological women or do they have to provide services for all women.

How far is the State willing to go to support trans women's rights?




No it's not the trans community, it's her fighting on behalf herself as a trans woman.

The unfortunate thing is that the flack is going to hit all the community in equal measure.


That's the $15,700 question.




Technically this is a Commission  so it's not precedent it would have to be appealed like the NI case was up to the higher courts to fix it in as a precedent.
So while the initial judgement will be delivered soon it could be 2/3+ years before this is settled.

And if the litigant wins this round the ladies may have to fund this themselves 

NI cake cost the taxpayers £500,000 half was refunding the bakers legal fees.



Morgane Oger a trans right campaigner famous in Canada for forcing all but one of the Rape Crisis centres to provide services for men. He got the State to defunded that one this year.

Issued a statement in April(?) of this year publicly naming the woman as a trans woman and a predator of children targeting young girls and women.

She/MO publicly twittered that while she was not a "PR  success" for trans rights MO supported the principal that the women have go get over themselves and compared the waxing to the care provided by nurses and care workers




Do you support acceptance without exceptance?
Would you accept a trans man is a gay man if attracted to men
Or that a trans woman is a lesbian if attracted to women

Would you support the movement "get the L out" or call it transphobic?
The reason I ask is that Stonewall as a influential LGBT++ group wholly support the actions of London and other Local Pride marched to exclude them.

I don't expect an answer to these as they are personal but they are the questions people are saying no one has a problem with.

As for Pride London IMO publicly trying a smackdown of the NSPCC over trans/wankgate is going to bite them in the ass.



Well the biological women have both testified that as far as they are concerned
*  she will always have a male body
* with or with out a scrotum the will not wax her
* that they view any contact like this as sexual contact and deem it cheating on their husbands 

So the fundamental remains where is the line between biology and gender for the trans woman

If the court decide that a scrotum remains male, will it also be male after surgery?

This is the first question
It's only once that is answered the obligation to balance opposing rights come in to play.




The court has to say illegal or legal, it's very binary there is no third option.



Non"TERF" : And it never happened 
"TERF" : You just said it did?
Non"TERF" :  It never happened that's just an anti trans fantasy
"TERF" :  ...........?

well 50% of the population have now to risk assess all trans presented people, because some trans women like telling ladies to suck their ladydicks. And these are "approved" trans women elected as a women student officer for Labour


Attention, abusive control and money
And validation as a trans woman

On mobile and allot to respond to, so I will respond to the topic you commented on for me.

There are cases in other jurisdictions, that we have seen trans activists essentially abuse and deplatform lesbian women. It's been linked in other threads but as I am out I cannot find it now.

If we don't start holding everyone to equal status we are going to be in trouble, having a hierarchy of oppression to dictate who we do and don't believe is never good.

MrFresh

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

It is in its fcuk.

Either transwomen are legal women or they aren’t. If you wokes merely believed that transwomen were a seperate and distinct category then there would be no issue. That’s the grey area.

However the law sees transwomen as women in Canada, and therefore has to treat them so.

In fact you are trying to wriggle out of this case by saying that while the businesses can’t discriminate on gender they can discriminate on the act. I imagine in law this will have as much weight as a hairdresser refusing to do a black person’s hair because they weren’t equipped to do it, didn’t have the equipment or were religiously opposed to it.

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.

Dante7 wrote: »

Great, we seem to be making progress here. You recognise that a trans woman doesn't have the right to access a female only service due to the fact that they have a penis and balls and not a vagina. Using the same logic you should also agree that women should not have to share their toilets or changing rooms with people who have penises.

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

splinter65

Sittingpretty wrote: »

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

Nonsense.

I don’t think The Spectator is for you.

splinter65

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

lol. :-)

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

Franz Von Peppercorn II

MrFresh wrote: »

Still trying to create a false dilemma.

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

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

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

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

Plumbthedepths

splinter65 wrote:

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

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

Jimmy Garlic

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

MrFresh

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

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

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

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

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



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

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

ceadaoin.

MrFresh wrote: »

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




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

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

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

Roger Hassenforder

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

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

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

His vipassana retreat was a disaster

Franz Von Peppercorn II

MrFresh wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please own your ideology.

drunkmonkey

MrFresh wrote: »

Again you are missing the whole argument.

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

Calhoun

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

ceadaoin.

Calhoun wrote: »

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

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

Amalgam

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

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



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

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

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

Get off your high horse.

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

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

MrFresh

ceadaoin. wrote: »

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

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

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

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

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

You are.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

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

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

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

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

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

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

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

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

Please own your ideology.

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

drunkmonkey wrote: »

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

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

drunkmonkey

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

ceadaoin.

Amalgam wrote: »

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

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

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

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Amalgam wrote: »

Get off your high horse.

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

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

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

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

vladmydad

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

drunkmonkey

vladmydad wrote: »

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

Where did you see that?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

MrFresh wrote: »

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

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

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

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

super_furry

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

Sittingpretty

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Where did you see that?

I hope he tears her a new one.

Eric Cartman

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

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

vladmydad

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Where did you see that?

Heard it advertised on the radio about 40 minutes ago

MrFresh

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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

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

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

Eric Cartman

MrFresh wrote: »

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

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

vladmydad

MrFresh wrote: »

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





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

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

vladmydad

“Jessica” Yaniv is now on 4fm

drunkmonkey

She's on now.

klaaaz

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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

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