Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

Vic_08

Gatling wrote: »

But in this case there was no feinging of offence the person said they were female when asked .
There was nothing else , there's no real reason to speculate or hypotheticalise what could have happened in his mind if they were there ,but alas they were not and there is no claims he feinted offence when he declared he was female ,

Only those special people such as OEJ have the special transdar that allows them to instantly identify the "fake" trans people/right wing activists in their midst. The rest of us must at all times just be kind and fully accept as a woman any bloke claiming to be in "girl mode" no matter what aspect of womanhood they wish to be a part of.

50 years ago all of this nonsense would only have existed as a third rate Monty Python sketch, not real life.

Gatling

Vic_08 wrote: »

Only those special people such as OEJ have the special transdar that allows them to instantly identify the "fake" trans people/right wing activists in their midst. The rest of us must at all times just be kind and fully accept as a woman any bloke claiming to be in "girl mode" no matter what aspect of womanhood they wish to be a part of.

Which is comical when you think the loudest voices have been men demanding men are women and that cannot be challenged because it's exclusionary , transpobic , bigotry yet we have another bloke he can exclude , discriminate ,ban someone entering an even based off a his belief on piss taking which hasn't been expanded on other than I would know .

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No it doesn't. Unless of course, there is an intrinsic link between sex and gender (which I thought people claimed there wasnt)

In Irish Law there is, regardless of what anyone claims. That’s why while I don’t particularly care much for the whole gender stuff, I’m still aware of the fact that it matters in Irish Law, and in terms of protection from discrimination - sex and gender are intrinsically linked. That’s fundamentally relevant if you’re going to make the claim that men are discriminated against in terms of decisions made by the Courts in the area of Family Law.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Men (fathers) undeniably are at a disadvantage the majority of the time I'm in family court settings.

Contrary to your belief, it’s easily deniable, demonstrably so, as I did earlier with the example of the landmark case in which the father of the child was referred to as a sperm donor in mainstream media reports, the child was being raised by a lesbian couple who were making moves to have the father excluded from the child’s life, and the Courts were simply having none of it because decisions regarding the child’s welfare were made in the best interests of the child. There’s no “men are at a disadvantage” or “women have an advantage” in individual cases, because decisions aren’t made based solely upon either the gender or the sex of the children’s parents. Essentially, there is no discrimination against men on the basis of their sex.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Or is your opinion on self id that trans people actually become the other sex/gender by virtue of saying so (unless of course you use your super power to decide they are "taking the piss")?

That’s not an opinion I’ve ever espoused, so the answer to your question is no. I don’t subscribe to that particular belief. However, I’m still aware that Irish Law has a very different approach, which is the only approach that actually matters, regardless of anyone’s individual opinion, their rights are determined by Irish Law, not by individuals who think they have the authority to invent rights that don’t exist and expect that everyone in society should adhere to their beliefs. Super powers are not required to determine when someone is taking the piss, the Courts do it all the time without requiring super powers to read anyone’s mind in order to determine their true intent.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Essentially, there is no discrimination against men on the basis of their sex.

[/QUOTE

Your opinion would be in the minority there especially in family court where something like 90+ % of all decisions side with the mother ,

Explain how you would have been legally able to discriminate at this person who took part in an event where they declared themselves as female , being you cannot discriminate against on gender ,sex , appearance

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

I think most people's idea, particularly a womans idea, of taking the piss are very different to yours. I, as a woman, think that any biological male taking part in sports with biological females is taking the piss, regardless if they have signed a form or chosen female on the race entry form.

I’ve no doubt you derive comfort from the belief that most people share your opinions. I wouldn’t nearly be so certain that you can speak for anyone else who isn’t you, be they a woman or otherwise, certainly not if I were to base my opinion on my experiences of people I know of both sexes. I harbour no such beliefs that most people would agree with my opinions, I’m very well aware that people generally don’t care much for things that have no direct or immediate impact on their lives.

ingalway wrote: »

Is this taking the piss?

On the basis of that picture alone, I’d say no, I don’t think it’s taking the piss.

Now, that’s not to suggest that I wouldn’t see when someone is taking the piss, such as Jessica Yanniv when they tried to claim they were the victim of unlawful discrimination. That’s a clear cut example of someone who could only have been taking the piss. My issue wasn’t with the idea that they experience gender dysphoria, my issue was with the fact that they claimed to be the victim of unlawful discrimination. Yanniv is clearly not the full shilling, but I wouldn’t discriminate against anyone on that basis either as I know that there is no correlation between ill mental health and the idea that they present an immediate threat to anyone in society but themselves on that basis. I’m also aware that there are plenty of people wouldn’t share my opinions in that regard either and would discriminate against a person on the basis that they experience ill mental health, particularly in employment.

I know that for people who experience gender dysphoria their difficulties are exponentially multiplied by the social stigma they experience as a result of people’s prejudices, whereas while many people are aware that discrimination on the grounds of disability is unlawful, they’re often not aware that ill mental health is regarded in Irish employment and equality legislation as a disability -

Equality and mental health: what the law means for your workplace


Obviously I’m more concerned about discrimination in areas such as employment, education, healthcare, housing, goods and services and so on, than I am about judging people based solely upon their appearance or which bathroom they use when they go for a piss. I’ve known women in my life who were in their own words often mistaken for men, and it’s pretty hurtful when it happens, so I wouldn’t be encouraging anyone to intimidate people on the basis that they believe they have that right because they question a person’s entitlement to be seen out in public, never mind participating in public life doing something as ordinary as going for their weekly grocery shopping. It takes a special sort to go up to a person thinking they need to hear your opinions of them, but some people are like that.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

On the basis of that picture alone, I’d say no, I don’t think it’s taking the piss.



I know that for people who experience gender dysphoria their difficulties are exponentially multiplied by the social stigma they experience as a result of people’s prejudices, whereas while many people are aware that discrimination on the grounds of disability is unlawful, they’re often not aware that ill mental health is regarded in Irish employment and equality legislation as a disability -




Obviously I’m more concerned about discrimination in areas .

But yet you have repeatedly claimed you could and would discriminate against someone based off you believing they are taking the piss ,not taking their trans seriously.

Seems as odds with the I'm so concerned about discrimination statements, I'd imagine those who read that would more than likely to tell you to take a hike ,

[QUOTE=One eyed Jack; It takes a special sort to go up to a person thinking they need to hear your opinions of them, but some people are like that.[/QUOTE]

Yes they are. The types of people who just know when someone else is taking the piss.

Jessica yanniv is a funny case to bring up. They have been posting pictures on their Twitter showing clearly their "period" and graphic pictures of their new "coin slot vagina".

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Your opinion would be in the minority there especially in family court where something like 90+ % of all decisions side with the mother ,

I’m well aware that my opinion would be in the minority among people who are ignorant of how our legal system functions, no matter how many times I would point out that the Courts take all factors into consideration in determining how Irish law is applied for everyone involved in any particular case, and if there are children involved, the Courts make determinations based upon what they believe is in the best interests of the children, not what is in the best interests of their parents. Naturally parents will feel hard done by and claim they were discriminated against, but I wouldn’t base much on their opinions tbh, because most family breakdowns are horrible experiences for everyone involved, not just men, not just women, with hardly a thought given to the children who are often used as pawns in their parents games of getting one over on the other parent or parents when a relationship breaks down.

Gatling wrote: »

Explain how you would have been legally able to discriminate at this person who took part in an event where they declared themselves as female , being you cannot discriminate against on gender ,sex , appearance

People can discriminate against other people for any number of reasons which do not constitute unlawful discrimination. Rather than me listing off an infinite number of reasons, why don’t you explain to me how telling someone to piss off constitutes unlawful discrimination?

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now, that’s not to suggest that I wouldn’t see when someone is taking the piss, such as Jessica Yanniv when they tried to claim they were the victim of unlawful discrimination. That’s a clear cut example of someone who could only have been taking the piss. My issue wasn’t with the idea that they experience gender dysphoria, my issue was with the fact that they claimed to be the victim of unlawful discrimination. Yanniv is clearly not the full shilling, but I wouldn’t discriminate against anyone on that basis either as I know that there is no correlation between ill mental health and the idea that they present an immediate threat to anyone in society but themselves on that basis. I’m also aware that there are plenty of people wouldn’t share my opinions in that regard either and would discriminate against a person on the basis that they experience ill mental health, particularly in employment.

I just don't understand how you go from "trans women are women because they say they are" and as Yaniv is in law a 'woman' how you can for a minute not support Yaniv's 'right' to have a crack and sack wax by people who offer their beauty services for women? Is Yaniv a woman and why do you not think she was descriminated against?

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People can discriminate against other people for any number of reasons which do not constitute unlawful discrimination. Rather than me listing off an infinite number of reasons,

But you gave no reasons how you could legally discriminate against anyone taking part in an event,

None whatsoever

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes they are. The types of people who just know when someone else is taking the piss.

There’s nothing special about that, unless you’re suggesting it’s impossible for anyone to know when someone is taking the piss? There’s often sufficient evidence to suggest that they are, such as feigning offence when there appears to be a mistake on their application form that they might not have been aware of, and there’s nothing wrong in seeking clarification in those particular circumstances. If someone feigns offence upon being asked a question, it’s obvious they’re taking the piss. The important factor in the exchange is the feigning of offence in determining whether a person is taking the piss or whether they are genuine. That’s why Jessica Yanniv is a good example of someone feigning offence and taking the piss, and it was obvious to the Judges too what they were at, which is one of the factors they will have taken into consideration. It’s not as unusual as you appear to think it is (just a recent high profile example in Ireland) -


'Awful lot of witnesses not telling the truth,' claims tribunal judge

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Jessica yanniv is a funny case to bring up. They have been posting pictures on their Twitter showing clearly their "period" and graphic pictures of their new "coin slot vagina".

Well, that’s disgusting. It’s exactly the sort of thing I would expect though as a consequence of Gruffalox’s idea of being vulgar and imagining people needed to know about their biological functions. I don’t think it’s unusual either that most people would rather not be exposed to that sort of vulgarity, which is why I suggested to Gruffalox that such behaviour would be unlikely to have the outcome they thought it should.

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well, that’s disgusting. It’s exactly the sort of thing I would expect though as a consequence of Gruffalox’s idea of being vulgar and imagining people needed to know about their biological functions. I don’t think it’s unusual either that most people would rather not be exposed to that sort of vulgarity, which is why I suggested to Gruffalox that such behaviour would be unlikely to have the outcome they thought it should.

Yaniv publicly posted the pictures, very graphic pictures, of 'her' new anatomy.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well, that’s disgusting. It’s exactly the sort of thing I would expect though as a consequence of Gruffalox’s idea of being vulgar and imagining people needed to know about their biological functions. I don’t think it’s unusual either that most people would rather not be exposed to that sort of vulgarity, which is why I suggested to Gruffalox that such behaviour would be unlikely to have the outcome they thought it should.

Oh for the everloving cheesus sake...there is an exponential difference between women (or men) talking about the real biological nitty gritty of life as a female (or male) and that fecken attention-seeking moron posting pictures of their new fanny and their imaginary ''period'' on Twitter.

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

I just don't understand how you go from "trans women are women because they say they are" and as Yaniv is in law a 'woman' how you can for a minute not support Yaniv's 'right' to have a crack and sack wax by people who offer their beauty services for women? Is Yaniv a woman and why do you not think she was descriminated against?

I never held that position in the first place? I thought I was clear in saying that I don’t subscribe to that particular belief. Maybe the confusion came about because I said I also recognise that Irish Law takes a very different approach? I don’t deny Yanniv has the right to have a BSC wax, they just don’t have the right to compel anyone who doesn’t normally provide a service to anyone, to provide the service to them. It’s because the aestheticians don’t provide the services Yanniv was requesting that they weren’t the victim of unlawful discrimination -

On October 22, 2019, the Justice Centre was pleased to announce that BC Human Rights Tribunal ruled in favour of home estheticians’ right to refuse to handle male genitalia against their will. The decision noted, “human rights legislation does not require a service provider to wax a type of genitals they are not trained for and have not consented to wax.” The decision further found that the complainant Jessica Yaniv “engaged in improper conduct”, “filed complaints for improper purposes”, and concluded Yaniv’s testimony was “disingenuous and self-serving.” Finally, noted the Tribunal, Yaniv was “evasive and argumentative and contradicted herself” while giving evidence.

In October 2019, the Tribunal further ordered costs against Yaniv in the amount of $2000.00 payable to each of Ms. Benipal, Ms. DaSilva, and Mrs. Hehar Gill.

“Self-identification does not erase physiological reality,” stated Jay Cameron, the Justice Centre’s Litigation Manager, and counsel for the estheticians. “Our clients do not offer the service requested. No woman should be compelled to touch male genitals against her will, irrespective of how the owner of the genitals identifies.”

On November 13, 2019, the BC Human Rights Tribunal released written reasons denying Yaniv’s application for reconsideration of the decision dismissing Yaniv’s complaints and the costs imposed on Yaniv.


Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons

It’s pretty similar to the circumstances in this case where it was obvious the bakers were targeted, but again the complainant was not being discriminated against because they were not provided with a service that the bakers don’t provide to anyone.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

Oh for the everloving cheesus sake...there is an exponential difference between women (or men) talking about the real biological nitty gritty of life as a female (or male) and that fecken attention-seeking moron posting pictures of their new fanny and their imaginary ''period'' on Twitter.

I know, and I know where you were coming from, and while I have no doubt it was a noble idea in your head, in practice it wouldn’t go quite as you might hope it would.

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never held that position in the first place? I thought I was clear in saying that I don’t subscribe to that particular belief. Maybe the confusion came about because I said I also recognise that Irish Law takes a very different approach? I don’t deny Yanniv has the right to have a BSC wax, they just don’t have the right to compel anyone who doesn’t normally provide a service to anyone, to provide the service to them. It’s because the aestheticians don’t provide the services Yanniv was requesting that they weren’t the victim of unlawful discrimination -

On October 22, 2019, the Justice Centre was pleased to announce that BC Human Rights Tribunal ruled in favour of home estheticians’ right to refuse to handle male genitalia against their will. The decision noted, “human rights legislation does not require a service provider to wax a type of genitals they are not trained for and have not consented to wax.” The decision further found that the complainant Jessica Yaniv “engaged in improper conduct”, “filed complaints for improper purposes”, and concluded Yaniv’s testimony was “disingenuous and self-serving.” Finally, noted the Tribunal, Yaniv was “evasive and argumentative and contradicted herself” while giving evidence.

In October 2019, the Tribunal further ordered costs against Yaniv in the amount of $2000.00 payable to each of Ms. Benipal, Ms. DaSilva, and Mrs. Hehar Gill.

“Self-identification does not erase physiological reality,” stated Jay Cameron, the Justice Centre’s Litigation Manager, and counsel for the estheticians. “Our clients do not offer the service requested. No woman should be compelled to touch male genitals against her will, irrespective of how the owner of the genitals identifies.”

On November 13, 2019, the BC Human Rights Tribunal released written reasons denying Yaniv’s application for reconsideration of the decision dismissing Yaniv’s complaints and the costs imposed on Yaniv.


Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons

It’s pretty similar to the circumstances in this case where it was obvious the bakers were targeted, but again the complainant was not being discriminated against because they were not provided with a service that the bakers don’t provide to anyone.

Are trans women women? Yes or No.

Gatling

Did someone have to mention Yaniv ,

I knew I should have stayed away from twitter

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

Are trans women women? Yes or No.

Well if I didn’t know what you meant and just took that sentence at face value, then it would seem like an obvious answer - are a subset of women, women? The question for me is more straightforward - whether men are women, or vice versa, and obviously the answer is no, no they’re not, clearly! However I do understand why you use the term ‘trans woman’ where I wouldn’t, and never have, unless it was the case where the person I was speaking to uses the term. I’m not going to get hung up on correcting their use of language, I’ll still understand what they mean, or what you mean.

suicide_circus

oh christ dont go on yaniv's twitter page

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well if I didn’t know what you meant and just took that sentence at face value, then it would seem like an obvious answer - are a subset of women, women? The question for me is more straightforward - whether men are women, or vice versa, and obviously the answer is no, no they’re not, clearly! However I do understand why you use the term ‘trans woman’ where I wouldn’t, and never have, unless it was the case where the person I was speaking to uses the term. I’m not going to get hung up on correcting their use of language, I’ll still understand what they mean, or what you mean.

As usual, clear as mud.

CtevenSrowder

ingalway wrote: »

As usual, clear as mud.

Ye I've no idea what he's getting at there. He has stated previously that he does not subscribe to the biologically incorrect belief that trans women are women.

So the answer to your question is a simple no, he does not believe trans-women are women, I do believe.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ye I've no idea what he's getting at there. He has stated previously that he does not subscribe to the biologically incorrect belief that trans women are women.

So the answer to your question is a simple no, he does not believe trans-women are women, I do believe.

That’s exactly it in a nutshell. I’m aware that some people will use terms like ‘trans women’ or ‘trans men’, but I have always referred to ‘people who are transgender’ in terms of their right to be protected from discrimination and treated equally in law, with the same rights and responsibilities as every member of society. In order for that to happen though, they had to be recognised in law in the first place, which, before the gender recognition act, they weren’t, and could be, and were, lawfully discriminated against on the basis of their gender identity. People who are transgender still do experience discrimination on the basis of their gender identity, but there’s a difference between lawful and unlawful discrimination.

Nobody is going to be prosecuted if they are propositioned by a person who is transgender and they turn that person down, that kind of discrimination is not unlawful, I discriminate all the time between people for example (be very unusual if I treated everyone the same as each other), and I’m well aware of what circumstances would constitute unlawful discrimination, and what circumstances don’t.

Gatling

suicide_circus wrote: »

oh christ dont go on yaniv's twitter page

Should have came with a pre warning

Cestmoi 111

Gruffalux wrote: »

Oh for the everloving cheesus sake...there is an exponential difference between women (or men) talking about the real biological nitty gritty of life as a female (or male) and that fecken attention-seeking moron posting pictures of their new fanny and their imaginary ''period'' on Twitter.

They are very different things for a woman to speak frankly about female biological events/functions versus trans identified men displaying photos of their genetalia and alleged periods post surgical penile reconfiguration.

I'm laughing at those who went to Yaniv's Twitter page, I mean come on, you knew what you were gonna see, right? I guess it's just the car-crash factor. Try clear your head before bedtime anyway!

Gatling

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

I'm laughing at those who went to Yaniv's Twitter page, I mean come on, you knew what you were gonna see, right? I guess it's just the car-crash factor. Try clear your head before bedtime anyway!

Not that , definitely wasn't expecting that , yaniv is your average troll who delights in trying to make people suffer in their belief they have been discriminated

Cestmoi 111

Gatling wrote: »

Not that , definitely wasn't expecting that , yaniv is your average troll who delights in trying to make people suffer in their belief they have been discriminated

Well Yaniv has certainly made you suffer tonight by the sounds of things!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ingalway wrote: »

I think most people's idea, particularly a womans idea, of taking the piss are very different to yours. I, as a woman, think that any biological male taking part in sports with biological females is taking the piss, regardless if they have signed a form or chosen female on the race entry form.


Is this taking the piss?

The women in the picture look happy enough. But the women on opposing teams might not be so chipper.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Jessica yanniv is a funny case to bring up. They have been posting pictures on their Twitter showing clearly their "period" and graphic pictures of their new "coin slot vagina".

Gatling wrote: »

Should have came with a pre warning

Gatling wrote: »

Not that , definitely wasn't expecting that , yaniv is your average troll who delights in trying to make people suffer in their belief they have been discriminated

I did warn you lads.

jam_mac_jam

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I did warn you lads.

I don't think I will be going looking for that. There is obviously other issues going on with Yaniv if publishing pictures of genitals on twitter.

Amazed that Twitter allows it to be honest.

Gatling

Deleted User wrote: »

I did warn you lads.

Still wasn't expecting that