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

ohnonotgmail

gmisk wrote: »

I would be surprised if many lads are getting their sexual kicks from getting their balls waxed....

it never struck me as a fun activity.

MrFresh

Sittingpretty wrote: »

It wouldn’t be a different matter.

The beautician in question is equally entitled as a biological woman not to be forced or bullied by any agenda that makes her touch what she considers a man.

Trans women/men have every right to live as they please and amend their body accordingly and request that others call them by their new names etc but other people should not have to be forced to be complicit in believing that they are now, because they want to be, their chosen sex. In my opinion, they are not, and never will be.

In short The Lydia Foys of this world should be entitled and consenting adults to do as they please and dress how they please and present themselves to the world as they please without the fear of critique or nastiness from anyone else but do I want her in the shower at the gym beside me? Or competing against me on the track? No. I do not.

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.

suicide_circus wrote: »

its a response to trans ideology i've used myself.

You see yourself as Picard resisting brainwashing?

drunkmonkey wrote: »

So she should have the same rights as a biological woman but she shouldn't have the same rights. So you don't support equal rights even though you claim to? Is that correct?
Post op has nothing to do with it, you can't paint a banana green and claim it's a cucumber, it's still a banana. If they don't want to work downstairs on anything but real women they shouldn't have to but the state is forcing them to or closing them down.

Is the case not still before the courts?

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

I wonder how many cross dressing perverts claim to be trans in order to act out their fantasies...getting their cock and balls waxed for example. A lot of "women" who claim to be trans look like Paul Gascoigne in a dress bought in a charity shop for a quid. No idea about fashion, hair, make up.. things you would have assume they would at least have a basic knowledge of when they claim to be women.

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

gmisk

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it never struck me as a fun activity.

I used to get my back waxed.....it is flipping horrendous! It could be used as a torture technique!

I cant imagine the pain of getting anywhere really sensitive done!


(Laser is the way to go btw)

ohnonotgmail

gmisk wrote: »

I used to get my back waxed.....it is flipping horrendous! It could be used as a torture technique!

I cant imagine the pain of getting anywhere really sensitive done!


(Laser is the way to go btw)

i am not putting a laser anywhere near my danglies. Have you never seen goldfinger?

ohnonotgmail

MrFresh wrote: »

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

Some serious projection from one or two posters alright.

gmisk

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i am not putting a laser anywhere near my danglies. Have you never seen goldfinger?

Ha me either (laser on back only).
Im not even sure goldfinger was a trained beautician!

suicide_circus

MrFresh wrote: »

You see yourself as Picard resisting brainwashing?

not under the same torturous duress obviously but truth and reality are certainly under fire here, yes.

Jimmy Garlic

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you know that men can do that already, right?

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?

ohnonotgmail

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?

why do you think only gay men do it?

Tokyo

Mod: The whataboutery is getting ridiculous, and is detracting from the discussion at hand. If you can't discuss the topic sensibly, then don't post.

Glass fused light

Reposted with foot notes #415 Or thereabouts

Glass fused light

Hate speech filter
**** = C*nt
TERF = TERF
Anyway I need to go back and read from page 9

And .....

SlowBlowin

Anyone else find the above post just a ramble and difficult to understand the points being made ?

I employed 2 trans staff, and was interested in the subject, but I find it difficult to read.

gmisk

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Anyone else find the above post just a ramble and difficult to understand the points being made ?

I employed 2 trans staff, and was interested in the subject, but I find it difficult to read.

It is a rambling mess and I am entirely lost with regards what point they are trying to make so nope definitely not just you.

Glass fused light

gmisk wrote: »

It is a rambling mess and I am entirely lost with regards what point they are trying to make so nope definitely not just you.

Good have a good read of it and think about where the rambling mess goes

Because all of the little points which don't make it flow are the point.

We started off deciding that men can become women and women can become men.

And it's the little things that women said and were told to STFU about

Now it's men heading into the Olympics as women in women's sport.

People trying to argue that a woman has the obligation to wax anybody pre or post op.
But hiding it under a human right

Own it if a man becomes a woman their body is female no exceptions granted.

Glass fused light

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Anyone else find the above post just a ramble and difficult to understand the points being made ?

I employed 2 trans staff, and was interested in the subject, but I find it difficult to read.

Question as an employer are you leagly obliged to give a trans man with a gender recognition cert protection under maternity legistation if he becomes preganant?

jimgoose

I'm a lady, I don't have testicles. Well perhaps tiny little lady testiclés...

klaaaz

Glass fused light wrote: »

Question as an employer are you leagly obliged to give a trans man with a gender recognition cert protection under maternity legistation if he becomes preganant?

Which country? The thread is about Canada, then you jumped into American civil law and you're asking that question on an Irish forum. Each country as you know has different laws, so which country you referring to in your incoherent ramblings?

suicide_circus

Glass fused light wrote: »

Question as an employer are you leagly obliged to give a trans man with a gender recognition cert protection under maternity legistation if he becomes preganant?

i'd imagine the person would be entitled to both maternity and paternity benefits. The solution is to make no distinction, call it parental leave and have no difference in entitlements between the genders.

gmisk

Glass fused light wrote: »

Good have a good read of it and think about where the rambling mess goes

Because all of the little points which don't make it flow are the point.

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


And it's the little things that women said and were told to STFU about
No idea what you are on about here? What were women saying that they now cant say?



Now it's men heading into the Olympics as women in women's sport.
I honestly dont think I know enough about this to comment, but I dont think it is widespread, there are a few instances.



People trying to argue that a woman has the obligation to wax anybody pre or post op.
But hiding it under a human right
I dont think there is really anyone on here saying that this woman should have to wax someones balls when they aren't trained to....has anyone said they should? Waxing balls is not a human right...


Own it if a man becomes a woman their body is female no exceptions granted.
Nope no idea what you mean here. Own what?

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

Franz Von Peppercorn II

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 Canadian Court is still deciding. It might well decide that not offering a service to trans women is discriminatory.

You see yourself as Picard resisting brainwashing?

Well you are definitely brainwashed.

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

How can any reported cases be a fantasy. It’s either happening or it isn’t. It is happening and is a case we are discussing.

Also this case will be a precedent so more of this will happen.

Mr E

Mod: I've deleted some posts that were off topic for this case (the balls situation). We don't want this thread to become a catch-all for any and all trans stories. Cheers...

Hedgelayer

Was she looking for the good old crack sack and back.

I remember back in the 90's women I knew who were beauticians used to do the good old crack back and sack.....

Don't tell me time's have changed....omg

Franz Von Peppercorn II

MrFresh wrote: »

You're attempting to create a false dilemma. Just because someone is in favour of trans people being treated like the gender they identify as, it doesn't mean they have to support this particular case. The real world, and the law, is plenty of grey area.

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.

SlowBlowin

Glass fused light wrote: »

Question as an employer are you leagly obliged to give a trans man with a gender recognition cert protection under maternity legistation if he becomes preganant?

Never looked into it, I sold the company & retired when my wife became ill. Life is much simpler now.

suicide_circus

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

It is in its fcuk.

you just cant beat the eloquence of Hiberno-English

Dante7

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.

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.

splinter65

gmisk wrote: »

What a load of rubbish.
I am a gay man and I most certainly support womans rights.



This person has balls (whether they want to refer to themselves as a man or a woman who cares, I dont) and is at least anatomically a man, the women involved do not wax men, they are not trained how to do it, that should be the end of it.
Jessica Yaniv seems like a right bloody eejit from what I can read and a total creep who is clearly just doing this for attention and publicity and it shouldnt even be entertained.

I’m afraid I have to inform you that based on this post you, gmisk, are a transphobic.

Sittingpretty

splinter65 wrote: »

I’m afraid I have to inform you that based on this post you, gmisk, are a transphobic.

Why?

You think these women should have to wax Yaniv? Are they transphobic because they refuse to do it?

Dante7

gmisk wrote: »

Yeahhh but these are made up cross dressing pervs claiming to be trans to act out their fantasies....its totally different...:rolleyes:
Its endemic everyone is doing it havent you heard?

You guys really need to read up on autogynephilia, because that is exactly what is happening. AGPs, such as Yaniv are exploit transgenderism to get their rocks off, that's what they do. A large percentage of modern transgenders are actually just AGPs and the old school transsexuals are calling them out on it. AGPs don't really believe that they are women and they have no intention of getting bottom surgery.

AGPs get sexual satisfaction from infiltrating women only spaces, dressing up (especially as fantasy type women), coercing women to validate their fantasies, masturbating in women's toilets. They are heterosexual men abusing trans rights.

We are going to see more and more cases like Yaniv, with women's rights and spaces being sacrificed (mainly by beardy woke blokes), all in the name of inclusivity. It's bonkers.