Jessica Yaniv refused service at gynaecologist's office

Dante7

Just report this clown and don't engage.

I'd like to continue the conversation about how self-id invariably results in issues such as Yaniv and other predatory males gaming the system.

Timberrrrrrrr

Squats N Coke wrote: »

You know something pal, he might be a freak but Yaniv is more of a man than you'll ever be.

Oh no, the burn, I'll never get over it :rolleyes:

Soon all your posts will be gone, you won't even be a mere memory of anyone posting here, try harder on your next account kiddo.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Squats N Coke wrote: »

Lucky for her so. Maybe you should make her live in Rotherham? Why should she be denied 'asian' culture?

Somebody swallowed all of the Tommy Robinson kool aid.

Sardonicat

Squats N Coke wrote: »

Another woman toes the line.

He's a man.

Heads, shoulders, knees and toes, knees and toes....

Timberrrrrrrr

Sardonicat wrote: »

Heads, shoulders, knees and toes, knees and toes....

:pac:

Ignoring the dick measuring posts (pun intended) this "person" is at best mentally deranged or at worst a manipulative predator.

Either way, the conversation should not be about what the correct way to address them is, it should be, how can we prevent any harm being caused by their actions.

Anything else is bluster.

AndrewJRenko

Dante7 wrote: »

The feminists have been shouting from the rooftops about this for ages now, but no one has been listening. At least 400 women have been banned from Twitter for misgendering or for stating that a woman is an adult human female. When women try to get together to discuss this, they are de-platformed or face aggressive protests from beardy woke bros.

Us men have an obligation to also step up and protect the sex based rights of our sisters, mothers and daughters.

The feminists I know, like the ones in the compilation on the profile page of from https://twitter.com/AidanCTweets are well capable of standing up for themselves. They've made their position clear, and it is the diametric opposite of yours.

Venom

Deleted User wrote: »

Ignoring the dick measuring posts (pun intended) this "person" is at best mentally deranged or at worst a manipulative predator.

Either way, the conversation should not be about what the correct way to address them is, it should be, how can we prevent any harm being caused by their actions.

Anything else is bluster.

You only have to do a tiny bit of research to see there's a huge amount of evidence that Yaniv is a predator with a menstruation fetish, that's using a trans identity as a shield against criticism.

One eyed Jack

Dante7 wrote: »

Just report this clown and don't engage.

I'd like to continue the conversation about how self-id invariably results in issues such as Yaniv and other predatory males gaming the system.

That’s like arguing that “sex based rights” invariably led to issues such as Louise O’ Neill claiming Ireland is a “rape culture” because something something men :rolleyes:

Predators were “gaming the system” before Yanniv ever existed. The issues aren’t caused by self-ID laws, they’re caused by some people being pricks.

I disagree with the idea that anyone should be denied their human rights because some of the people who are entitled to the same rights as everyone else are complete pricks. On that basis you could find yourself being denied your rights because someone else thinks you’re a prick.

Dante7

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s like arguing that “sex based rights” invariably led to issues such as Louise O’ Neill claiming Ireland is a “rape culture” because something something men :rolleyes:

Predators were “gaming the system” before Yanniv ever existed. The issues aren’t caused by self-ID laws, they’re caused by some people being pricks.

I disagree with the idea that anyone should be denied their human rights because some of the people who are entitled to the same rights as everyone else are complete pricks. On that basis you could find yourself being denied your rights because someone else thinks you’re a prick.

At least we're back on track, but that's nonsense.
What human rights are being denied to trans?

AndrewJRenko

Raconteuse wrote: »

I would not refer to this awful individual as she/her.

If someone is trans and has the treatment and gender reassignment procedure, I would use "her" and "she" and refer to her as a trans woman (not a woman, trans woman) but not this person with his creepy behaviour.

What is 'the treatment and gender reassignment procedure'? Which of the many surgical procedures that may be involved is the threshold for you to be respectful? If someone is living as the opposite gender for years while on the HSE waiting list, will you be respectful while they're waiting, or only after actual surgery?

Squats N Coke wrote: »

Andrew will hire Mr Yaniv to teach his masturbation classes.

Isn't it funny how you have to make stuff up to argue with, given the weakness of any argument you have to make about the real issues?

Sir Oxman

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The feminists I know, like the ones in the compilation on the profile page of from https://twitter.com/AidanCTweets are well capable of standing up for themselves. They've made their position clear, and it is the diametric opposite of yours.

I clicked that link and the courageous Mr Comerford has somehow blocked me even though I've had zero interaction with him to my knowledge.
I must have made it onto a blocklist that he utilises which really isn't a good look.
Echo Echo Echo



So that's Gemma O'Doherty and Mr Comerford that I know of who have blocked me on Twitter!
Paragons of free thought, speech and debate unite!

ingalway

Dante7 wrote: »

At least we're back on track, but that's nonsense.
What human rights are being denied to trans?

Yes, I'd also love to know what are these magical human rights that are being denied?

Sir Oxman

ingalway wrote: »

Yes, I'd also love to know what are these magical human rights that are being denied?

I've yet to see anyone answer that.

AndrewJRenko

Sir Oxman wrote: »

I clicked that link and the courageous Mr Comerford has somehow blocked me even though I've had zero interaction with him to my knowledge.
I must have made it onto a blocklist that he utilises which really isn't a good look.
Echo Echo Echo



So that's Gemma O'Doherty and Mr Comerford that I know of who have blocked me on Twitter!
Paragons of free thought, speech and debate unite!

Him blocking you doesn't block your thought or your speech. You have no entitlement to debate with him or with anyone else.

Funny how you weren't too worried about 'paragons of free thought, speech and debate' when you chose to ignore people on boards;

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111172235&postcount=1645

Dante7

Sir Oxman wrote: »

I clicked that link and the courageous Mr Comerford has somehow blocked me even though I've had zero interaction with him to my knowledge.
I must have made it onto a blocklist that he utilises which really isn't a good look.
Echo Echo Echo



So that's Gemma O'Doherty and Mr Comerford that I know of who have blocked me on Twitter!
Paragons of free thought, speech and debate unite!

I'm very wary of Aidan Comerford. He seems to have a strong interest in supporting people transitioning, and blocks anyone who questions him. Puts me in mind of Arthur Chu, the American trans activist who was discovered to have a fetish for trans porn.

Sir Oxman

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Him blocking you doesn't block your thought or your speech. You have no entitlement to debate with him or with anyone else.

Funny how you weren't too worried about 'paragons of free thought, speech and debate' when you chose to ignore people on boards;

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111172235&postcount=1645

It shows he is in an echo chamber and you know it.
I have zero reason to go looking for him really, is he a noted person or something?


And that is truly pathetic - trawl away, I have ignored two people on boards in almost 15 years - sometimes WUMs get too much and it doesn't correlate to someone using a blocklist.

One eyed Jack

Dante7 wrote: »

At least we're back on track, but that's nonsense.
What human rights are being denied to trans?

Well the specific right we’re talking about is one you don’t want anyone to have - the right to be identified in law as their preferred gender. Only people who are transgender are likely to want to avail of that right, and they have to apply to be able to avail of it. Nobody should be denied that right because of people abusing the law for their own ends. Those individuals should be punished, or at the very least shouldn’t be entertained, and in Yanniv’s most recent attempt, they weren’t.

That shouldn’t mean someone like Lydia Foy should be denied the right to be identified in law as their preferred gender. We don’t deny people their human rights on the basis that some people will inevitably try and take advantage of others. The whole concept of human rights places an obligation on everyone to respect the human rights of others. Yanniv doesn’t do that, and that shouldn’t mean that other people who aren’t Yanniv should be denied their human rights.

Sir Oxman

Dante7 wrote: »

I'm very wary of Aidan Comerford. He seems to have a strong interest in supporting people transitioning, and blocks anyone who questions him. Puts me in mind of Arthur Chu, the American trans activist who was discovered to have a fetish for trans porn.

Ah.
That explains it.
You see, that is my biggest annoyance over this whole subject - the ones advocating for it are determined to stifle any debate and that is a massive redflag.


Shine a light on it and what they are up to and hoping to achieve and they scurry back to their safe spaces and echo chambers.

AndrewJRenko

Dante7 wrote: »

I'm very wary of Aidan Comerford. He seems to have a strong interest in supporting people transitioning, and blocks anyone who questions him. Puts me in mind of Arthur Chu, the American trans activist who was discovered to have a fetish for trans porn.

So what if Chu or Comerford have a fetish for trans porn? Who cares about what kind of porn people look at, once it is legal? Why do you care about what kind of porn people look at. Would you like to share your porn history here and let's all see what's going on?


This of course is a pile of nonsense, an attempt to throw some excrement at the wall in the hope that some of it will stick.

Sir Oxman wrote: »

It shows he is in an echo chamber and you know it.
I have zero reason to go looking for him really, is he a noted person or something?


And that is truly pathetic - trawl away, I have ignored two people on boards in almost 15 years - sometimes WUMs get too much and it doesn't correlate to someone using a blocklist.

Yeah right, he's in an echo chamber but for it's just some people 'get too much'. You're a funny guy.

AndrewJRenko

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Ah.
That explains it.
You see, that is my biggest annoyance over this whole subject - the ones advocating for it are determined to stifle any debate and that is a massive redflag.


Shine a light on it and what they are up to and hoping to achieve and they scurry back to their safe spaces and echo chambers.

A quick glance at Comerford's current twitter history clearly shows that this is nonsense. He's doing the exact opposite of stifling debate - he is taking on many, many people in the debate.


But again, the desperation to throw excrement and try to score points on peripheral issues when you can't actually address the core issue is noted.

Sir Oxman

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So what if Chu or Comerford have a fetish for trans porn? Who cares about what kind of porn people look at, once it is legal? Why do you care about what kind of porn people look at. Would you like to share your porn history here and let's all see what's going on?


This of course is a pile of nonsense, an attempt to throw some excrement at the wall in the hope that some of it will stick.






Yeah right, he's in an echo chamber but for it's just some people 'get too much'. You're a funny guy.

?


At this stage, Squats n Coke was adding more to the thread than you are with this line of quackery.

One person has enough of walls of text bull****tery from one person
versus
An activist(?) who I guess uses Twitter to spread his message likely utilising a blocklist of hundreds maybe thousands maybe hundreds of thousands of users some of which (me) have never interacted with him.
Of course he's welcome to do that - just like Gemma.



Non-bubble
versus
Bubble.

Sir Oxman

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

A quick glance at Comerford's current twitter history clearly shows that this is nonsense. He's doing the exact opposite of stifling debate - he is taking on many, many people in the debate.


But again, the desperation to throw excrement and try to score points on peripheral issues when you can't actually address the core issue is noted.

How can I be sure, the big guy has me on block.
See?

AndrewJRenko

Sir Oxman wrote: »

?


At this stage, Squats n Coke was adding more to the thread than you are with this line of quackery.

One person has enough of walls of text bull****tery from one person
versus
An activist(?) who I guess uses Twitter to spread his message likely utilising a blocklist of hundreds maybe thousands maybe hundreds of thousands of users some of which (me) have never interacted with him.
Of course he's welcome to do that - just like Gemma.



Non-bubble
versus
Bubble.

Have a look at his posts tonight, the ones in the last hour, and tell me again about what bubble he is in.

Dante7

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well the specific right we’re talking about is one you don’t want anyone to have - the right to be identified in law as their preferred gender.

Anybody can identify as any gender they wish. I don't know where you got the idea that I don't want people to have that right. I'll ask you again, what human rights are trans being denied?

One eyed Jack

Dante7 wrote: »

Anybody can identify as any gender they wish. I don't know where you got the idea that I don't want people to have that right. I'll ask you again, what human rights are trans being denied?

Well yeah, they can, but y’know those self-ID laws you’re opposed to? They’re the human rights that are recognised in law, which means that while anyone can indeed identify as any gender they wish, their identification is meaningless without legal recognition.

Dante7

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well yeah, they can, but y’know those self-ID laws you’re opposed to? They’re the human rights that are recognised in law, which means that while anyone can indeed identify as any gender they wish, their identification is meaningless without legal recognition.

Hang on, that makes no sense. You say that self-id laws are recognised in law, yet they are not legally recognized?
So, seeing as people can legally identify as they wish, what human rights are they being denied? Spell it out please.

One eyed Jack

Dante7 wrote: »

Hang on, that makes no sense. You say that self-id laws are recognised in law, yet they are not legally recognized?
So, seeing as people can legally identify as they wish, what human rights are they being denied? Spell it out please.

You made the point that anyone can identify as they wish, which is true, but their self-identification is meaningless unless it is recognised in law. That’s the reason for self-ID laws which you are attempting to argue shouldn’t exist.

At least that’s what I think you’re arguing, unless you’re now about to turn around and say that you’re not arguing that people shouldn’t be recognised in law as their preferred gender, because to argue otherwise would be arguing that people should be denied a human right.

Rodin

People can call themselves whatever they want.

But doctors deal with biological entities, not legal ones.

This person is not a woman who needs a gynaecologist. And no court order can change that.

The difference between biology and legal gender is grossly underappreciated.

Dante7

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You made the point that anyone can identify as they wish, which is true, but their self-identification is meaningless unless it is recognised in law. That’s the reason for self-ID laws which you are attempting to argue shouldn’t exist.

At least that’s what I think you’re arguing, unless you’re now about to turn around and say that you’re not arguing that people shouldn’t be recognised in law as their preferred gender, because to argue otherwise would be arguing that people should be denied a human right.

Again, what human rights are trans people being denied?