Jessica Yaniv refused service at gynaecologist's office

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gynoid wrote: »

Thats not good.
People cannot change their biological sex. That is a fact.

I’m so confused. I’m constantly hearing “gender and sex are different” so how does what she said contravene that? Is there more to it?

Lefty Bicek

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

No, I reckon she won’t. She has a huge amount of fans who will defend her to the hilt. I hope she doesn’t cave.

We can but hope.

suicide_circus

Gynoid wrote: »

Thats not good.
People cannot change their biological sex. That is a fact.

the thing is, i dont think that the majority of trans people actually believe that transitioning changes your biological sex. this is sheer madness. its the death of truth. the death of science.

Gynoid

suicide_circus wrote: »

the thing is, i dont think that the majority of trans people actually believe that transitioning changes your biological sex. this is sheer madness. its the death of truth. the death of science.

Yes, people can change their gender identity, they can use hormones and surgery to mimic the appearance of the opposite sex for their comfort and psychological well being. But no one can actually change biological sex. Even Crispr tech in the womb on a foetus could not as the genes involved in biological sex are too many and too interconnected in cascading ways we do not understand. Maya just said people cannot change biological sex and the judge described this as an absolutist position not to be respected in a democracy.
May you live in interesting times - a Chinese curse

If they can change chromosomes at a cellular level get back to me. In the mean time

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

If they can change chromosomes at a cellular level get back to me. In the mean time

And, yes, there are intersex chromosomal conditions but they are so, so rare and generally the people with extra chromosomes still can be categorised as male or female. Most people who change gender won’t have an intersex karyotype so I don’t know why it’s brought up. If the person who wants to change gender isn’t intersex, it’s irrelevant.

jaxxx

JK Rowling criticised for defending a woman who was fired after Tweeting that she does not recognise a trans woman as an actual woman, and of course in come the hordes of people condemning her for refusing to ignore basic biology. If today's world wants to defy natural biology, be my guest, but forgive those of us who respect the natural world for refusing to jump off that same bridge with you. Insanity.

Sir Oxman

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And, yes, there are intersex chromosomal conditions but they are so, so rare and generally the people with extra chromosomes still can be categorised as male or female. Most people who change gender won’t have an intersex karyotype so I don’t know why it’s brought up. If the person who wants to change gender isn’t intersex, it’s irrelevant.

Many, many intersex people (a miniscule, tiny amount of humans) are absolutely sick of being used by the extreme activists and AGP's as a shield for their insanity.

Sir Oxman

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Judge rules against researcher who lost job over transgender tweets
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/18/judge-rules-against-charity-worker-who-lost-job-over-transgender-tweets

A researcher who lost her job at a thinktank after tweeting that transgender women cannot change their biological sex has lost a test case because her opinions were deemed to be “absolutist”

There will be an appeal.
The judge is caught up as some member of an 'equality and diversity' board somewhere in the UK which is somewhat of a pointer to something...

If I can find the link again I'll post it.


The judgment is outrageous and ridiculous.

Calhoun

Sir Oxman wrote: »

There will be an appeal.
The judge is caught up as some member of an 'equality and diversity' board somewhere in the UK which is somewhat of a pointer to something...

If I can find the link again I'll post it.


The judgment is outrageous and ridiculous.

Do you mean to say there is evidence of the judges bias?

One eyed Jack

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Judge rules against researcher who lost job over transgender tweets
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/18/judge-rules-against-charity-worker-who-lost-job-over-transgender-tweets

A researcher who lost her job at a thinktank after tweeting that transgender women cannot change their biological sex has lost a test case because her opinions were deemed to be “absolutist”

Context, in fairness -


But in a 26-page judgment released late on Wednesday, Tayler dismissed her claim. “I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”


The judgement against her wasn’t because of her opinions, it was because of her actions and what would result for others as a consequence of her actions, an approach which isn’t worthy of respect in a democratic society.

The full judgement is here -

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12P9zf82TicPs2cCxlTnm0TrNFDD8Gaz5/view


There is nothing to stop the Claimant campaigning against the proposed revision to the Gender Recognition Act to be based more on self-identification. She is entitled to put forward her opinion that these should be some spaces that are limited to women assigned female at birth where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. However, that does not mean that her absolutist view that sex is immutable is a protected belief for the purposes of the EqA. The Claimant can legitimately put forward her arguments about the importance of some safe spaces that are only be available to women identified female at birth, without insisting on calling trans women men.

ceadaoin.

What is that judge on? That sex is immutable is not an " absolutist view". Its an actual verifiable scientific fact.

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

What is that judge on? That sex is immutable is not an " absolutist view". Its an actual verifiable scientific fact.

That’s what an absolutist view is though -

relating to or supporting absolute principles.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s what an absolutist view is though -

relating to or supporting absolute principles.

It's very disingenuous to refer to it as a "view" though. It's not a "view" any more than it's a "view" that the world isn't flat.

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Context, in fairness -


But in a 26-page judgment released late on Wednesday, Tayler dismissed her claim. “I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”


The judgement against her wasn’t because of her opinions, it was because of her actions and what would result for others as a consequence of her actions, an approach which isn’t worthy of respect in a democratic society.

The full judgement is here -

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12P9zf82TicPs2cCxlTnm0TrNFDD8Gaz5/view


There is nothing to stop the Claimant campaigning against the proposed revision to the Gender Recognition Act to be based more on self-identification. She is entitled to put forward her opinion that these should be some spaces that are limited to women assigned female at birth where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. However, that does not mean that her absolutist view that sex is immutable is a protected belief for the purposes of the EqA. The Claimant can legitimately put forward her arguments about the importance of some safe spaces that are only be available to women identified female at birth, without insisting on calling trans women men.

What actions? Has she actually been harassing and intimidating trans people? No she hasn't and she does not "insist on calling trans women men." She insists that trans women are male and sometimes that is an important distinction. Is she incorrect in that statement?

47. Believing that the material reality of sex is important does not preclude accommodating a person’s wish to not have their biological sex declared or emphasised in official, professional or social situations in situations where their sex does not matter.
48. I do not harbour any ill-feeling towards people who do not share my belief, or who identify as transgender or transsexual. Nor would I would seek to humiliate or harass anyone because of their transgender identity or their “gender nonconforming” gender expression. I believe that transgender people can be included in public life, and their human rights protected, while recognising that in some situations — such as in sexual relationships and reproduction, healthcare, demo­graphic statistics, bodily privacy, sports and single sex provisions that exist to repair the historic marginalisation of women — it is sex that matters.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's very disingenuous to refer to it as a "view" though. It's not a "view" any more than it's a "view" that the world isn't flat.

It’s not the least bit disingenuous. There are people who are of the opinion that the world is flat, it’s complete nonsense of course in exactly the same way as claiming a person can change their sex is complete nonsense, but they are absolutist views by virtue of the fact that they are definitive one way or the other.

That they are also scientific facts is neither here nor there, and that’s why I objected to another posters suggestion earlier in the thread that Debbie Hayton was worth listening to - Debbie Hayton is leaning on the idea that because they’re a scientist with a PhD, their opinions are more worthy of acknowledgement than someone who is neither a scientist nor has a PhD. I don’t think they are, personally, especially when that person’s opinions consist of obfuscating language to conflate two very different concepts as though they are one and the same thing. That’s disingenuous.

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

What actions? Has she actually been harassing and intimidating trans people? No she hasn't and she does not "insist on calling trans women men." She insists that trans women are male and sometimes that is an important distinction. Is she incorrect in that statement?

Section 25 -


In later September 2018 the Claimant made a number of comments about Pips/Philip Bunce, who is a senior director at Credit Suisse, wears dresses and a wig as Pips, according to press reports states “for me, being gender fluid means I am non-binary, at no fixed point on the gender expression spectrum. I personally have no desire to transition” and was awarded a place on a list of the Top 100 Women in Business. The comments were mainly made on twitter. They included the following:

““I’ve got a Q for my male twitter friends who have pledged not to appear on all male panels - if u were invited on a panel w Pip Bunce – one of FT’s top 100 female champions of women in biz & another guy would u say yes or call the organisers & say sorry I don’t do manels”

[A manel is a panel with only men on it]

““Bunce does not ‘masquerade as female’ he is a man who likes to express himself part of the week by wearing a dress”

“Yes. & weird he felt entitled to accept the award, instead of saying “sorry there has been a mistake I am a man who challenges gender norms”

“He is a part-time cross dresser who mainly goes by the name of Phillip”

“Yes I think that male people are not women. I don’t think being a woman/ female is a matter of identity or womanly feelings. It is biology”

“Bunce is a white man who likes to dress in women’s clothes”


That constitutes intimidation and harassment of another person. I don’t think she’s incorrect, and I do agree with her opinion. I just don’t agree with the manner in which she chooses to express her opinions, or her approach, if you will. There is nothing stopping her having an opinion, it’s how she chooses to express it that matters.

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Section 25 -


In later September 2018 the Claimant made a number of comments about Pips/Philip Bunce, who is a senior director at Credit Suisse, wears dresses and a wig as Pips, according to press reports states “for me, being gender fluid means I am non-binary, at no fixed point on the gender expression spectrum. I personally have no desire to transition” and was awarded a place on a list of the Top 100 Women in Business. The comments were mainly made on twitter. They included the following:

““I’ve got a Q for my male twitter friends who have pledged not to appear on all male panels - if u were invited on a panel w Pip Bunce – one of FT’s top 100 female champions of women in biz & another guy would u say yes or call the organisers & say sorry I don’t do manels”

[A manel is a panel with only men on it]

““Bunce does not ‘masquerade as female’ he is a man who likes to express himself part of the week by wearing a dress”

“Yes. & weird he felt entitled to accept the award, instead of saying “sorry there has been a mistake I am a man who challenges gender norms”

“He is a part-time cross dresser who mainly goes by the name of Phillip”

“Yes I think that male people are not women. I don’t think being a woman/ female is a matter of identity or womanly feelings. It is biology”

“Bunce is a white man who likes to dress in women’s clothes”


That constitutes intimidation and harassment of another person. I don’t think she’s incorrect, and I do agree with her opinion. I just don’t agree with the manner in which she chooses to express her opinions, or her approach, if you will. There is nothing stopping her having an opinion, it’s how she chooses to express it that matters.

So a woman merely questioning why a man who comes to work on some days dressed in womens clothes (and clothes that an actual woman would certainly not consider professional wear), who does not claim to be a woman, and who has progressed up the career ladder as a man is being given awards for females in business is "intimidation and harrassment"? Ok then.

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So a woman merely questioning why a man who comes to work on some days dressed in womens clothes (and clothes that an actual woman would certainly not consider professional wear), who does not claim to be a woman, and who has progressed up the career ladder as a man is being given awards for females in business is "intimidation and harrassment"? Ok then.

You’re perfectly free to downplay what she is doing as “merely questioning” something in the same way as I am perfectly free to suggest that what she is doing is using a public social media platform to provoke and incite other people to intimidate and harass a person infringing upon their human rights in a way which I view as completely inappropriate and unnecessary. I don’t support her actions and in this particular case, neither did her employers, and that is why they chose not to renew her contract.

In the same way as she enjoys rights to freedom of expression and freedom of speech and indeed freedom of belief, those rights do not allow for her to intimidate, harass and infringe upon the human rights and dignity of other people. She lost her case against her employer because her opinions do not amount to a protected belief under equality legislation. It’s reminiscent of similar circumstances in which George Hook assumed he could shoot his mouth off with impunity, and his contract with his employer was terminated. Some people maintained his right to freedom of expression was being infringed, it wasn’t. It was simply the case that his employers maintained the right to end his contract as they were no longer willing to allow him to use their platform to air his opinions and didn’t want to be associated with his opinions.

Similarly, in this particular case, her employers didn’t want themselves to be associated with her opinions. She is perfectly entitled to hold those opinions, but how she chooses to express those opinions will determine the consequences for doing so, and if one of the consequences is that she is unable to gain employment in her chosen field, that doesn’t qualify as discrimination. She isn’t being discriminated against under current equality legislation, the same laws which she seeks to use to say employers should be able to discriminate against people who don’t share her opinions. She chose to put herself in the position she currently finds herself, nobody else did anything to put her in that position.

Gynoid

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So a woman merely questioning why a man who comes to work on some days dressed in womens clothes (and clothes that an actual woman would certainly not consider professional wear), who does not claim to be a woman, and who has progressed up the career ladder as a man is being given awards for females in business is "intimidation and harrassment"? Ok then.

Apparently it is the "manner in which she chooses to express her opinion" that the poster has a problem with, not whether her opinion is factual or not. Maya and the rest of us naughty harridans should perhaps be more ladylike when we speak or maybe only speak when spkken to...

One eyed Jack

Gynoid wrote: »

Apparently it is the "manner in which she chooses to express her opinion" that the poster has a problem with, not whether her opinion is factual or not. Maya and the rest of us naughty harridans should perhaps be more ladylike when we speak or maybe only speak when spkken to...

I’d say the same of anyone expressing themselves the same way and the impact of their actions upon other people, regardless of their sex or gender. That’s why I also agreed with the decision of the BC Human Rights Tribunal in Yanniv’s case, because their claims didn’t constitute discrimination any more than the claimant in this particular circumstance had a legitimate case against their employer.

brendanwalsh

The gynascologist should have told the patient if they wanted their male anatomy examined they should make an appointment with a urologist to assess the size of the balls and prostate .

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’d say the same of anyone expressing themselves the same way

Which part in particular do you object to?

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Which in particular do you object to?

It’s not any one thing in particular, it’s the whole context of how she’s going about expressing her opinions is what I find objectionable. I’d feel the same way if it were anyone doing what she’s doing. I couldn’t care less for the attempts to legitimise being an arsehole by saying an opinion is supported by scientific facts, that doesn’t make how the person conveys their opinions any less an arsehole. One can express an opinion without being an arsehole about it, and then trying to claim they’re being discriminated against, or that their rights are being violated.

I mean, here’s two biological females expressing themselves and their objections to each other’s opinions (may want to sit back a bit before you click play ). The idea that all biological females are in fear of their safety is just promoting paranoia IMO, but I’m curious to hear what you make of these two -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAo8zRNmwgU

This is Buck Angel btw.

Sir Oxman

Calhoun wrote: »

Do you mean to say there is evidence of the judges bias?

https://www.middletemple.org.uk/bencher-persons-view?cid=45357


If you read the judgment, it is peppered with TRA lines such as '...sex assigned at birth'
The whole section on intersex conditions may as well have been lifted from Stonewall's website.

So yeah, I think there is something there.


This woman was not in anyone's faces at her workplace yelling the 'wrong' pronouns at them or lecturing her work colleagues face to face - that would be harassment.

She was discussing her fact based opinion on biological sex v gender identity which she is entitled to do - not in the workplace.
The law is wrong if this judgment holds up - it is basically saying you may hold as an opinion the fact no-one can change sex but you dare not ever say it in public or in a debate re-women's sex-based rights otherwise your livelihood is at risk.
The law is denying the possibility of engaging in free speech and debate.
Just digest this:
"Even paying due regard to the qualified right to freedom of expression, people cannot expect to be protected if their core belief involves violating others' dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for them.”

Human beings cannot change sex.
A human female is female.
A human male is male.
Saying this in public in a discussion/debate now involves "violating others' dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for them.”

It's proof of the pudding that social policy enacted behind closed doors and captured/led by one or two NGOs is bad.
Very bad.


As for JK Rowling, just the highest profile person to be subjected to the tedious, hyperbolic 'cancel' culture which is the TRA's main weapon as to allow any talk about this in public is their biggest fear.

The ordinary, mainly female victims of this disgusting extremism are many and daily.

Sir Oxman

http://mrkhvoice.com/index.php/2019/12/18/what-is-dignity/

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not any one thing in particular, it’s the whole context of how she’s going about expressing her opinions is what I find objectionable. I’d feel the same way if it were anyone doing what she’s doing. I couldn’t care less for the attempts to legitimise being an arsehole by saying an opinion is supported by scientific facts, that doesn’t make how the person conveys their opinions any less an arsehole. One can express an opinion without being an arsehole about it, and then trying to claim they’re being discriminated against, or that their rights are being violated.

I mean, here’s two biological females expressing themselves and their objections to each other’s opinions (may want to sit back a bit before you click play ). The idea that all biological females are in fear of their safety is just promoting paranoia IMO, but I’m curious to hear what you make of these two -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAo8zRNmwgU

This is Buck Angel btw.

Nice way to not answer the question there. So its the whole way she is doing it? Like what though? That it's on twitter? That she specifically names a person (who is already out there and public about their cross dressing)? I dont see any insults, all she is doing is laying out the facts. A man who is a director of a large financial institution who comes to work sometimes in mini skirts and fishnets was named as a top woman in business. So women cant talk about that, and name the person because harassment.. is that it?

Last I heard buck angel was a terf too. It seems females cant identify out of that label either just like they cant identify into aristocratic titles and sporting glory. It's almost like the advantages only go one way. I wonder why that is?

Haven't had a chance to watch the video though, sorry.

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Nice way to not answer the question there. So its the whole way she is doing it? Like what though? That it's on twitter? That she specifically names a person (who is already out there and public about their cross dressing)? I dont see any insults, all she is doing is laying out the facts. A man who is a director of a large financial institution who comes to work sometimes in mini skirts and fishnets was named as a top woman in business. So women cant talk about that, and name the person because harassment.. is that it?

Last I heard buck angel was a terf too. It seems females cant identify out of that label either just like they cant identify into aristocratic titles and sporting glory. It's almost like the advantages only go one way. I wonder why that is?

Haven't had a chance to watch the video though, sorry.

I answered the question honestly. I’m guessing you’ve read the same specific circumstances in the case as I have and you see nothing wrong with her behaviour, then I can’t offer anything to counter that which you’re aware of already. Fair enough.

Of course females can disassociate themselves from any label they want. There’s nothing stopping them from doing so. I disassociate myself from being labelled all the time by other people. It’s not a big deal, I just don’t acknowledge that they have any legitimate authority in the first place, kinda like when a person leans on their credentials as a scientist to make all sorts of silly claims that amount to nothing more than unsubstantiated obfuscated nonsense. Just because they’re a scientist doesn’t and shouldn’t lend any credibility to their claims.

1800_Ladladlad

Appears he's at it again.:rolleyes:

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/breaking-jessica-yaniv-sues-more-women-salon-owners-for-wax-job-refusal/

Sir Oxman

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Appears he's at it again.:rolleyes:

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/breaking-jessica-yaniv-sues-more-women-salon-owners-for-wax-job-refusal/

Racists do what racists do.
Vexatious horrible get.