Jessica Yaniv refused service at gynaecologist's office

ingalway

Brian? wrote: »

My first post in this thread was to point out that Yaniv’s actions were ridiculous.

But surely if Yaniv is a trans woman then she legally should have free access to all womens spaces? A gynaecologists office would in the olden days (pre 2008) be recognised as a place for females only but legally now as trans women are women why shouldn't Yaniv go there if it makes her happy and helps with her dysphoria? Isn't it the duty of everyone, especially women, to support trans women be their true beautiful selves, stunning and brave. Surely she is brave going to a gynaecologist?

ingalway

Gynoid wrote: »

Examples
Womens sports usurped
Male bodied rapists in womens prison in Ireland
Women being refered to as pregnant people instead of mothers in the Dail post repeal referendum.
Sex ed that teaches children erroneously that they could be born in the wrong body
Use of experimental and dangerous drugs on scores of children from Ireland refered to Tavistock
Etc etc
But you know all this stuff. You prefer to argue from the deceitful position of the nit picking semantic pedant. It is wearisome and boring, but I suspect that is the intention. To literally bore people out of engagement.

Fantastic response. Thank you.

Rodin

ingalway wrote: »

But surely if Yaniv is a trans woman then she legally should have free access to all womens spaces? A gynaecologists office would in the olden days (pre 2008) be recognised as a place for females only but legally now as trans women are women why shouldn't Yaniv go there if it makes her happy and helps with her dysphoria? Isn't it the duty of everyone, especially women, to support trans women be their true beautiful selves, stunning and brave. Surely she is brave going to a gynaecologist?

What's a gynaecologist going to do with a penis and testicles and the complete absence of uterus, ovaries, cervix etc. There is simply no need for one. Waste of their time.

Brave? Deluded.

ingalway

Rodin wrote: »

What's a gynaecologist going to do with a penis and testicles and the complete absence of uterus, ovaries, cervix etc. There is simply no need for one. Waste of their time.

Brave? Deluded.

Irony - It's a psychiatrist Yaniv needs

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

Irony - It's a psychiatrist Yaniv needs

I don’t think Yanniv needs a psychiatrist at all tbh, they’re the embodiment of 4chan gone sentient. They’re well aware of what they’re doing and the consequences of their actions.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think Yanniv needs a psychiatrist at all tbh, they’re the embodiment of 4chan gone sentient. They’re well aware of what they’re doing and the consequences of their actions.

If you’re saying he’s a troll I think you’re wrong. It’s the twitter echo chamber effect of blocking/turning down alternative views/not willing to have a discussion on the matter that has this person genuinely believing they’re in their rights to do this. This fella is absolutely bananas and needs help before...

1. He hurts someone.
2. He kills himself.

Both HIGHLY likely to happen.

Unfortunately those in power are scared absolutely shïtless to do anything about him for fear of backlash from the twitter mob. He will continue to reek havoc until either 1 or 2 happens.

Effects

ingalway wrote: »

Why shouldn't Yaniv go there if it makes her happy and helps with her dysphoria? Surely she is brave going to a gynaecologist?

They shouldn't have to accept her if they don't think they can do anything for her.
Just keep looking a gynae that will.

One eyed Jack

Hunky Monster wrote: »

If you’re saying he’s a troll I think you’re wrong. It’s the twitter echo chamber effect of blocking/turning down alternative views/not willing to have a discussion on the matter that has this person genuinely believing they’re in their rights to do this. This fella is absolutely bananas and needs help before...

1. He hurts someone.
2. He kills himself.

Both HIGHLY likely to happen.

Unfortunately those in power are scared absolutely shïtless to do anything about him for fear of backlash from the twitter mob. He will continue to reek havoc until either 1 or 2 happens.

What could be done about them though other than just ignore them? They do it precisely because of the attention it attracts, whether that be positive or negative. I’ve seen some of the interviews they’ve done and they thrive on getting a reaction out of people, even when the interviewer thinks they’re being clever by giving Yanniv enough rope, Yanniv is the sort of arsehole that would leave you thinking that’s hiding in plain sight. I think that’s why nobody is all that motivated to do anything about Yanniv because they’re aware it would turn Yanniv into a martyr, and I can’t help but get the feeling that’s exactly what Yanniv wants.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know who you hang out with, but I've never experienced that. I know a few guys with borderline sexist tendencies... but nothing even remotely close to what you're suggesting. Yes, I'm a male, and have many male friends across a wide spectrum of nationalities and ages.

What are these hard won safe spaces? I'm an egalitarian btw. I don't care what gender, race, etc you are. If you're qualified then, go for it. Even, if you're not qualified, go for it, but your lack (experience, qualifications, physical prowess etc) is against you.

You haven’t? Sadly, I have. A delightful couple of family members that I know very well.

Venom

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What could be done about them though other than just ignore them? They do it precisely because of the attention it attracts, whether that be positive or negative. I’ve seen some of the interviews they’ve done and they thrive on getting a reaction out of people, even when the interviewer thinks they’re being clever by giving Yanniv enough rope, Yanniv is the sort of arsehole that would leave you thinking that’s hiding in plain sight. I think that’s why nobody is all that motivated to do anything about Yanniv because they’re aware it would turn Yanniv into a martyr, and I can’t help but get the feeling that’s exactly what Yanniv wants.

I agree that Yanniv being made a martyr would be a bad move overall but the fcuker is causing serious damage to innocent peoples lives with bull**** lawsuits, resulting in 14 different beauticians being sued by this clown causing at least 2 of them having to declare bankruptcy so far.


https://www.thepostmillennial.com/carpay-16-vancouver-women-facing-human-rights-complaints-for-refusing-to-wax-transgender-womans-male-genitalia/


Hoping this ****ehawk will get bored and go away does not appear to be working, seeing as gynaecologists are now being added to the target list.

Sir Oxman

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The only misogyny here is from those who are trying to distract attention from the very real issues of the actual violence against women that happens every day in every town in the country to address their own personal discomforts with some very small degrees of improvements in the treatment of some very vulnerable people.

You're some boyo.


Women do not know the good guys from the bad guys, understand?
The bad guys being the ones who brutalise, rape, perve and murder them.


Therefore, women have the right to single sex spaces which help exclude the bad guys.

brendanwalsh

Gynoid wrote: »

Examples
Womens sports usurped
Male bodied rapists in womens prison in Ireland
Women being refered to as pregnant people instead of mothers in the Dail post repeal referendum.
Sex ed that teaches children erroneously that they could be born in the wrong body
Use of experimental and dangerous drugs on scores of children from Ireland refered to Tavistock
Etc etc
But you know all this stuff. You prefer to argue from the deceitful position of the nit picking semantic pedant. It is wearisome and boring, but I suspect that is the intention. To literally bore people out of engagement.

This is a great response


Society is gone too far PC and it won’t stop until people are allowed marry their dogs or their children

Gender dysphoria is a mental illness

The numbers of people transitioning back are being kept suppressed

If you’ve got a prostate, you’re a man!!!!! And you can get prstate cancer even if you get surgery to make you a woman, cause the prostate is left in. And only MEN have prostates.

Ironicname

Brian? wrote:

My first post in this thread was to point out that Yaniv’s actions were ridiculous.

So do you agree or disagree that a person born a man can be a woman?

Or do you realise that's an impossibility, yet are willing to ignore facts and agree because "it's how society is these days"?

What is more ridiculous? The fact that an obvious **** stirring man wants a a gynecologist to treat him, or that people like you insist that he should be referred to as a she?

I think it's the latter. You admit it's absurd yet you are too afraid to call it out for what it is.

ingalway wrote:

Irony - It's a psychiatrist Yaniv needs

No. It's not a mental illness. You dirty transphobe.

ceadaoin.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, women are abused sometimes, all around the world. Not all women are abused, many women are never abused and many of those abused are never abused again. Some are. Your attitude is too extreme. You talk about Misogyny, but you're coming across as very pro-misandry right now, unless you're including female on female abuse (which is rather high) and even then, you'd come across as quite extreme. Foaming in the mouth radical feminist extreme, that is.

Did I say that all women are abused? No. You know, the phrase "All the time" doesn't literally mean on a constant basis. It means frequently. When I say "women", I dont mean every single woman, but women as a class of people. Women are frequently abused all around the world. Is that not true?

The poster I quoted stated that there are loads of women in every single town in Ireland being abused daily. I'm a raging man hating feminist for making a general comment in response but Andrew isnt? I didnt even mention men but ok

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Did I say that all women are abused? No. You know, the phrase "All the time" doesn't literally mean on a constant basis. It means frequently. When I say "women", I dont mean every single woman, but women as a class of people. Women are frequently abused all around the world. Is that not true?

The poster I quoted stated that there are loads of women in every single town in Ireland being abused daily. I'm a raging man hating feminist for making a general comment in response but Andrew isnt? I didnt even mention men but ok

Aww shucks... I should have picked out both posts? Oh. I'm sorry, and what I quoted had plenty to say about males... But I can see there's no point furthering this, since you haven't responded to what I posted, as opposed to arguing semantics.

The gray bird

It still has a flute and wants to see a fanny doctor ?? Ah here shoot me with a rubber bullet and wake me up when this madness is over.

Gynoid

Yaniv is an unwell person.
But they are far from being the only unwell person in this story, and many of the other unwell people are causing terrible damage to the children in their care.
And yet so many try to drown out those who say stop to the insanity of the trans cult with lines like ''Why do you care about this so much?'' or ''Why does this stuff rile you?''
To the posters in THIS thread who have said these exact comments to me, I answer with these recently leaked screenshots from a closed Facebook group for ''Moms'' of trans kids. Yaniv is sick, but these people are a whole lot sicker and far more numerous.
If you are one of the posters on boards who has stood back while this goes on because ''who are you to judge'', or called others bigots getting ''worried about men in frilly panties'' when those people are reasonably expressing worry about all this, or actively defended this with your ''trans friends'' stories, then shame on you for being actively part of this movement.


https://twitter.com/4th_WaveNow/status/1203412783066501120

https://twitter.com/4th_WaveNow/status/1203412785075544066

https://twitter.com/4th_WaveNow/status/1203412786732249088

https://twitter.com/4th_WaveNow/status/1203412788485541889

https://twitter.com/4th_WaveNow/status/1203412790658109441

https://twitter.com/4th_WaveNow/status/1203412792579174400

https://twitter.com/4th_WaveNow/status/1203412794583986182

and finally the delightful ''Moms'' wanting stand to pee packers for their little girls, risking the health of their urinary systems with ''urethra lifting devices'' for small children, not to mention absolutely fcuking with their mental health.

https://twitter.com/4th_WaveNow/status/1203449887221788672

Brian?

Gynoid wrote: »

Examples
Womens sports usurped
Male bodied rapists in womens prison in Ireland
Women being refered to as pregnant people instead of mothers in the Dail post repeal referendum.
Sex ed that teaches children erroneously that they could be born in the wrong body
Use of experimental and dangerous drugs on scores of children from Ireland refered to Tavistock
Etc etc
But you know all this stuff. You prefer to argue from the deceitful position of the nit picking semantic pedant. It is wearisome and boring, but I suspect that is the intention. To literally bore people out of engagement.

Jesus wept. My only intent is to point how absurd it is to apply such a black and white standard to the debate.

It's a an incredibly complex issue that can't be answered with "if you had or currently have a penis, you're not a woman".

But it's clear some people just want simplicity.

Brian?

ingalway wrote: »

But surely if Yaniv is a trans woman then she legally should have free access to all womens spaces? A gynaecologists office would in the olden days (pre 2008) be recognised as a place for females only but legally now as trans women are women why shouldn't Yaniv go there if it makes her happy and helps with her dysphoria? Isn't it the duty of everyone, especially women, to support trans women be their true beautiful selves, stunning and brave. Surely she is brave going to a gynaecologist?

Neither of us think that, so why sat it?

Brian?

Ironicname wrote: »

So do you agree or disagree that a person born a man can be a woman?

Hah? It's a fact right now that a person born a man can transition to be a woman. For the millionth time, it's not debatable.

Or do you realise that's an impossibility, yet are willing to ignore facts and agree because "it's how society is these days"?

I'm not the one ignoring facts. I'm presenting facts that conflict with your opinion.

What is more ridiculous? The fact that an obvious **** stirring man wants a a gynecologist to treat him, or that people like you insist that he should be referred to as a she?

I think it's the latter. You admit it's absurd yet you are too afraid to call it out for what it is.

I actually don't insist anyone should be called by any pronoun. Bit of a Straw man there horse. I think if someone asks to be called by a pronoun it's polite to do so and I'm a very polite man.

One eyed Jack

Gynoid wrote: »

those people are reasonably expressing worry about all this

I’m not speaking for anyone else but for me there’s a difference between reasonably expressing concerns, and then there’s whipping up hysteria and fuelling paranoia. I could right now go searching the Internet and find all sorts of people with all sorts of weird and wacky views and beliefs, but I think it’s important to maintain perspective at the same time. How much of a threat to society are the people with these views, really? I’d have to say they’re really not any sort of a threat to society. They’re hardly a danger to themselves, let alone anyone else. Presenting such extreme opinions as though they are in any way commonplace is anything but reasonable and is just whipping up hysteria fuelling paranoia IMO.

There are of course legitimate concerns about policies, but when one is getting down to the level of individuals or parents with wacky views and beliefs, then it’s no longer about the issue of the politics of transgenderism, but it’s an argument about individuals freedoms and parental rights. I wouldn’t want anyone else as an individual deciding for me what my individual freedoms or parental rights are or what the punishment should be if I choose not to comply with their beliefs and values which I disagree with, so I don’t focus on individuals or parents who’s wacky views and beliefs I disagree with either, nor am I interested in thinking in what way they should be punished for refusing to comply with my individual beliefs and values. For me I’m more concerned with policies than with individual cases.

Gynoid

Here are some other people who said there cannot be simplicity...
Aimee Challenor, youth spokesperson for the Green Party before leaving to be warmly welcomed into the Lib Dems until their boyfriend tweeted explicit pro-pasdophila material in November of this year, and their child raping heinous father David Challenor - both heavily involved in UK gender politics ...

It's not black and white, you see...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHk_tdn-ga0

Gynoid

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not speaking for anyone else but for me there’s a difference between reasonably expressing concerns, and then there’s whipping up hysteria and fuelling paranoia. I could right now go searching the Internet and find all sorts of people with all sorts of weird and wacky views and beliefs, but I think it’s important to maintain perspective at the same time. How much of a threat to society are the people with these views, really? I’d have to say they’re really not any sort of a threat to society. They’re hardly a danger to themselves, let alone anyone else. Presenting such extreme opinions as though they are in any way commonplace is anything but reasonable and is just whipping up hysteria fuelling paranoia IMO.

There are of course legitimate concerns about policies, but when one is getting down to the level of individuals or parents with wacky views and beliefs, then it’s no longer about the issue of the politics of transgenderism, but it’s an argument about individuals freedoms and parental rights. I wouldn’t want anyone else as an individual deciding for me what my individual freedoms or parental rights are or what the punishment should be if I choose not to comply with their beliefs and values which I disagree with, so I don’t focus on individuals or parents who’s wacky views and beliefs I disagree with either, nor am I interested in thinking in what way they should be punished for refusing to comply with my individual beliefs and values. For me I’m more concerned with policies than with individual cases.

Just quoting this piece of sickening moral relativism about the abuse of children by their parents, because if I said what I want to say to you laissez- faire Jack I would be instantly banned.

Brian?

Gynoid wrote: »

Here are some other people who said there cannot be simplicity...
Aimee Challenor, youth spokesperson for the Green Party before leaving to be warmly welcomed into the Lib Dems until their boyfriend tweeted explicit pro-pasdophila material in November of this year, and their child raping heinous father David Challenor - both heavily involved in UK gender politics ...

It's not black and white, you see...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHk_tdn-ga0

What's your point here? I'm trying to figure out if you're calling me a deviant. Because some of my beliefs overlap with a child rapist.

Gynoid

Brian? wrote: »

. Because some of my beliefs overlap with a child rapist.

Nothing wrong with that. If your overlapping beliefs involved hot or cold milk on Weetabix, or such like.

Brian?

Gynoid wrote: »

Nothing wrong with that. If your overlapping beliefs involved hot or cold milk on Weetabix, or such like.

So what was your point?

Ironicname

Brian? wrote:

Hah? It's a fact right now that a person born a man can transition to be a woman. For the millionth time, it's not debatable.

That is not a fact. A man can not transition to become a woman.

For **** sake. If a law was passed tomorrow saying gravity was repealed, stuff wouldn't just start floating.

One eyed Jack

Gynoid wrote: »

Just quoting this piece of sickening moral relativism about the abuse of children by their parents, because if I said what I want to say to you laissez- faire Jack I would be instantly banned.

Your response is exactly what I mean - I don’t agree with your opinion and I think you’re just looking for any example to support your attempts to whip up hysteria and fuel paranoia so I’m a moral relativist? You say that like it’s a bad thing. You’re berating me because I don’t agree with your views about what you think is child abuse, but you’re not prepared to risk being banned from a tiny social media site for expressing what you really want to say. That’s not anyone else censoring what you can or cannot say or compelling you to be silent, that’s your own decision to self-censor yourself.

For what it’s worth, you’d hardly be the first person to accuse anyone else of being complicit in the abuse of children because they didn’t comply with your values. Happens quite a lot on Boards, let alone other larger social media platforms, but like I said - maintaining perspective is important.

Otherwise I might actually begin to lose all sense of perspective and begin to believe those people whom I disagree with are actually a credible threat to society, like the person who comes out with comedy gold such as “men are a threat to women”, and then comes out with “us men must stand up for our sisters, mothers and daughters”, says there’s a need for debate, puts people who disagree with them on their ignore list, or just plain out accuses other people of moral relativism as though there is any such thing as an objective standard for raising children. It’s easy to throw labels like child abuse at other people when you think everyone else should adhere to what you imagine are “reasonable worries”. You don’t appear to be at all unreasonable of course.

AndrewJRenko

Brian? wrote: »

What's your point here? I'm trying to figure out if you're calling me a deviant. Because some of my beliefs overlap with a child rapist.

It's a fairly standard technique in these discussions. Anyone with any particular concern for basic human respect will get labelled a perv or a paedo. We've already had porn-shaming on this thread.



It's just about getting people to shut up with all those inconvenient opinions and facts.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not speaking for anyone else but for me there’s a difference between reasonably expressing concerns, and then there’s whipping up hysteria and fuelling paranoia. I could right now go searching the Internet and find all sorts of people with all sorts of weird and wacky views and beliefs, but I think it’s important to maintain perspective at the same time. How much of a threat to society are the people with these views, really? I’d have to say they’re really not any sort of a threat to society. They’re hardly a danger to themselves, let alone anyone else. Presenting such extreme opinions as though they are in any way commonplace is anything but reasonable and is just whipping up hysteria fuelling paranoia IMO.

There are of course legitimate concerns about policies, but when one is getting down to the level of individuals or parents with wacky views and beliefs, then it’s no longer about the issue of the politics of transgenderism, but it’s an argument about individuals freedoms and parental rights. I wouldn’t want anyone else as an individual deciding for me what my individual freedoms or parental rights are or what the punishment should be if I choose not to comply with their beliefs and values which I disagree with, so I don’t focus on individuals or parents who’s wacky views and beliefs I disagree with either, nor am I interested in thinking in what way they should be punished for refusing to comply with my individual beliefs and values. For me I’m more concerned with policies than with individual cases.

Again, fairly standard techniques from alt-right 101. Present lots of links to sources that may look credible at first glance, but the slightest level of scrutiny shows that these aren't actually newspapers or magazines - they are activist sites with the sole purpose of undermining any sensible or balanced debate. Have a look at Gemma O'Doherty's timeline if you want a master class in this technique.

Brian? wrote: »

Jesus wept. My only intent is to point how absurd it is to apply such a black and white standard to the debate.

It's a an incredibly complex issue that can't be answered with "if you had or currently have a penis, you're not a woman".

But it's clear some people just want simplicity.

It's not so much simplicity that they want. They just want to take us back about fifty years where they could publicly sneer and snigger at anyone who is different to them.

Gynoid wrote: »

Yaniv is an unwell person.
But they are far from being the only unwell person in this story, and many of the other unwell people are causing terrible damage to the children in their care.
And yet so many try to drown out those who say stop to the insanity of the trans cult with lines like ''Why do you care about this so much?'' or ''Why does this stuff rile you?''
To the posters in THIS thread who have said these exact comments to me, I answer with these recently leaked screenshots from a closed Facebook group for ''Moms'' of trans kids. Yaniv is sick, but these people are a whole lot sicker and far more numerous.
If you are one of the posters on boards who has stood back while this goes on because ''who are you to judge'', or called others bigots getting ''worried about men in frilly panties'' when those people are reasonably expressing worry about all this, or actively defended this with your ''trans friends'' stories, then shame on you for being actively part of this movement.

Ah, the old 'won't someone please think of the children' Maud Flanders hysterics - completely ignoring the strong child protection regimes that exist specifically to protect children. Have you make reports to the relevant authorities where you believe a child is being abused, or do you prefer to use the 'evidence' to rile people up online?


I'm very happy to be part of the movement to provide basic human dignity and a very small degree of basic human rights to people who are different to you.

brendanwalsh wrote: »

This is a great response


Society is gone too far PC and it won’t stop until people are allowed marry their dogs or their children

You may have taken a wrong turn, this isn't the marriage equality debate. We heard all this nonsense in the marriage equality debate, about marrying their horses and their children. And it was just nonsense - we have marriage equality, and we don't have people marrying their dogs and their children


It's just people who like stirring things up.

Sir Oxman wrote: »

You're some boyo.


Women do not know the good guys from the bad guys, understand?

Is this for real? Are you really saying that women are too stupid and need your wisdom or the wisdom of men in general to guide them?



You might want to go back to the 1950s and see if you can find anyone to agree with you.

Venom wrote: »

I agree that Yanniv being made a martyr would be a bad move overall but the fcuker is causing serious damage to innocent peoples lives with bull**** lawsuits, resulting in 14 different beauticians being sued by this clown causing at least 2 of them having to declare bankruptcy so far.


https://www.thepostmillennial.com/carpay-16-vancouver-women-facing-human-rights-complaints-for-refusing-to-wax-transgender-womans-male-genitalia/


Hoping this ****ehawk will get bored and go away does not appear to be working, seeing as gynaecologists are now being added to the target list.

Didn't Yaniv lose those cases? Here's a report from a vaguely reputable, vaguely mainstream outlet reporting what happened - not a fake news site.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/23/canadian-transgender-woman-loses-case-against-beauticians-refused/

ingalway wrote: »

But never biologically and there are only biological males and biological females you can never change either.

Ironicname wrote: »

No. I am 100% correct. A person born with a penis is not a woman. A person born with a vagina is not a man.

It may come as a surprise to you, but life, and indeed nature, isn't quite so black and white. You may not have direct personal experience of gender dysphoria, but it does happen.

Deleted User wrote: »

TBPH, I'm kinda used to it. The vast majority of legal changes happen without the permission of the general public. Unless you're hooked into the system in some way, most changes happen without anyone noticing. That's not any sense of approval Btw.

Fact is, I'm not discussing the legal aspect because I'm not living in Ireland right now, and I don't expect to be back any time soon. It doesn't affect me. However, the social aspects do possibility affect my family members especially the children who may be exposed to propaganda within schools to promote "gender change". We're already seeing such happening in parts of the US, and I wouldn't be surprised to see something similar happen in Ireland under a more limited campaign.

But I'm not going to get involved in the discussions about the legal aspects here. Not my scene.

It sounds like you're fairly well disconnected from what is happening in schools in Ireland. Most schools in Ireland still have religious services for students. The idea that 'gender change propaganda' (whatever that is) would be publicised in Irish schools would be fairly wide of the mark.


What's your definition of 'promoting gender change'? Does simply telling children that gender dysphoria exists come under the heading of 'promoting' in your book?

JayZeus wrote: »

There's no harm in it. It might help some folks to understand that nature has spoken and the message it clear, despite their reluctance to hear it. Men are not women and women are not men.

Nature has spoken in terms of producing people with gender dysphoria. You may not have direct personal experience of this, but it's an established medical and social fact for a couple of generations.

Gynoid wrote: »

So it is not relevant to you to have public policy enacted (policies that have concrete effects outside the tiny cohort you mention) that compels you to accept things that are untrue?
I have not seen it happen before. Outside of tyrannies, that is.

No-one is compelled to accept anything. You can lock yourself in your bedroom and continue to pump out your propoganda in your echo chamber if you like. In the real world, the only things you're compelled to do is

1) Not discriminate against people when providing goods or services
2) Not incite hatred against protected groups.


Apart from that, knock yourself out with your bigoted bile.

Brian?

Ironicname wrote: »

That is not a fact. A man can not transition to become a woman.

For **** sake. If a law was passed tomorrow saying gravity was repealed, stuff wouldn't just start floating.

It is a fact. Legally someone who was born a man can change their gender and live as a woman. That is a fact. I’m not sure what you’re struggling with here.

I’m happy to debate whether that should be legal if you want, but you can’t just deny the truth of it.