Activism, Culture Wars, Law, Recommended, Sex

A Canadian Human Rights Spectacle Exposes the Risks of Unfettered Gender Self-ID

There’s an important category in logic known as reductio ad absurdum, according to which you contradict an argument by showing that its general application will produce absurd results. It has been in my mind over the past fortnight or so, as I’ve followed a human-rights tribunal in British Columbia, Canada, and watched it deal with complaints made by trans woman Jessica Yaniv (or “Jonathan Yaniv”: The person apparently goes by both names) against three aestheticians. When it comes to the notion that “gender identity”—the self-declared, subjective feeling of being a man or woman—can reasonably be taken to trump biological sex in law and daily life, Yaniv presents us with a reductio ad absurdum on two legs.

For those who have not been following the case (which, oddly, has been covered by the international media, but mostly ignored by Canada’s own press), the details will sound unbelievable. Last year, Yaniv used social media to contact 16 female aestheticians in the Vancouver area, most working out of their own homes, who advertized Brazilian waxing—the removal of some or all of a woman’s pubic hair by applying and then yanking off strips of heated wax.

Sometimes, Yaniv would use the name Jonathan and a clearly male profile pic. Only then, upon being told that Brazilian waxing is for women only, would Yaniv reply to the effect of “I am trans.” The women would then convey that they were unwilling or unqualified to wax male genitalia. At this point, Yaniv would put in a complaint to the human-rights tribunal, alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity, a protected characteristic under British Columbia’s human-rights code.

Last year, I spoke to one of the women thus targeted, Shelah Poyer. Her name had been made public, though the tribunal originally ordered anonymity for Yaniv (that order was lifted last week). The whole thing had been hugely distressing for her, she said. People who read about the case in its early stages assumed she must be a bigot (though that has presumably changed now that more facts have been disclosed). And she had stopped advertizing her services, instead relying on personal recommendations, meaning she has lost a good deal of her income. Several other women settled in mediation, paying Yaniv thousands of dollars so they could be rid of the proceedings.

But Poyer did not. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, a libertarian non-profit, offered to represent her and two other women facing Yaniv’s claims. Jay Cameron, one of the Centre’s lawyers, applied to have the tribunal’s order for anonymity lifted on the grounds that Yaniv was open in public about being transgender, and so had forfeited any need for privacy. Cameron presented evidence to the tribunal that included social-media posts in which Yaniv talked about using women’s public facilities, such as toilets and a gym, and asked for advice on matters of etiquette—such as when it might be appropriate to approach a pre-teen girl to ask for a tampon, or whether it might be okay to accompany such a girl into a stall to show her how to use it. (Yaniv claims that such messages came from hacked accounts, but has provided no proof in this regard.)

In the past couple of weeks, the tribunal has been hearing three of Yaniv’s complaints together. At first, a lone observer who tweets as @goinglikeelsie was the only source of information about what was going on. Canadian journalists apparently had little interest in whether B.C.’s human-rights code covered the right of males who identify as women to have their genitals treated as female, even to the point of coercing women working alone in their homes (in some cases, with children in attendance), and to come in and strip, and then to handle said genitals.

Here is my attempt to set out the aestheticians’ position as clearly as possible. The pubic-waxing service they offered was not something they were willing to provide to males with male genitalia. They did not want to handle a penis and scrotum, and did not see why a willingness to touch the area around a female client’s genitals should be taken as implying they did. They were happy enough to have unknown females in their homes, but not unknown males. They also mentioned religion (one woman was Sikh); safety (another went to her clients’ homes, instead of vice versa); and general discomfort (an expert witness who provides genital waxing for males from a large salon said that it involves extensive handling of the penis as well as the scrotum, and that males commonly get erections and demand sexual services, and can become abusive when these are refused). Moreover, waxing a man’s genital region was not something they were even qualified to do. The skin of the scrotum is thinner and looser than that of a woman’s pubis, and would be severely damaged by the same wax and the same techniques.

And now for Yaniv’s position—which is that under British Columbia’s human-rights code, the aestheticians had no right to offer pubic-waxing services to biological women—that is, to females—but not to trans women—that is, to males who declare a feminine gender identity. In the trans-activist catchphrase, “trans women are women; period.” Yaniv asserts that Yaniv is a woman in every meaningful way, and Yaniv’s genitals are therefore those of a woman. An aesthetician who rejects Yaniv for a treatment that she is willing to offer to female women is committing improper discrimination. Not even the difference in technique should be accepted as an excuse. Any aesthetician willing to wax female women’s pubis should take it upon herself to learn the right techniques for a trans woman, too. Or as Yaniv put it in a reply to me on social media: “This is not about waxing. This is about businesses and individuals using their religion and culture to refuse service to protected groups because they don’t agree with it or the person and use that to illegally discriminate contrary to the B.C. Human Rights Code.”

One argument that’s been made in the social-media commentary surrounding this case is that while Yaniv may be opportunistic and even reprehensible, Yaniv should not be taken as a “true” trans woman. In the alternative, it is argued that even if Yaniv is a true trans woman, this is the rotten apple of the barrel, and should not be taken as representative of the larger group. A third variation is that the case has nothing to do with trans rights or gender self-ID, but is merely about a malicious predator who has been accused of flirting sexually with at least one 15-year-old—the sort of toxic outlier who may exist in any group. A fourth approach presents the case as a difficult conflict between the rights of women and the rights of trans people. A fifth is that the defendants are bigots and Yaniv’s position is correct. I’ll take each of these in turn.

The first is what I have taken to calling the No True Trans Woman fallacy, following on from the well-known logical fallacy known as No True Scotsman, which runs like this:

Person A: No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Person B: But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman, and he does it.
Person A: But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

The central point of gender self-ID is that you are taking someone to be a woman or a man solely on the basis of what they claim—so you cannot then exclude a particular trans person after the fact. If you say that Yaniv is not “really” trans, then logically you must reject gender self-ID and accept that being a trans person involves some conditions beyond mere self-declaration—a position which, in the current climate, is apt to get you smeared as a transphobe.

I don’t know what Yaniv’s motives are: whether they emerge from a sincere and strongly held feeling of being a woman, or a sadistic desire to torment women or extort money from them, or something darker still. I’m not a mind-reader. But this question is irrelevant for my purposes, since the point of gender self-ID is that all it takes is a declaration. According to British Columbia’s human-rights code—and analogous laws in various other parts of the world (though not yet the UK, where I live, even if such laws are under consideration)—if Yaniv says “I’m a woman,” then Yaniv is a woman. Good faith or bad faith has nothing to do with it.

That Yaniv is not “representative” of trans people is surely true. Since I became interested in the malign consequences of gender self-ID laws, I’ve gotten to know quite a few trans people, and some have become good friends. But again, Yaniv’s atypicality is irrelevant. These cases concern not only a male who seeks to coerce women into handling male genitals, but laws that can be leveraged to facilitate that coercion.

It is quite correct that there are horrible people in every subgroup, male and female, straight and gay, cis and trans. But Yaniv’s behaviour doesn’t stand in isolation from the politics of gender: Yaniv’s behaviour has been enabled by trans-rights activists in two separate ways.

The first relates to the fact that gender self-ID has been a central demand of trans-rights activists for years, and that is precisely the policy that Yaniv is applying to further a human-rights case. These same activists cannot now wash their hands of the issue. The second is that any woman who has tried to point out the obvious risks of allowing biological males to present themselves as women at will has been mobbed, deplatformed and defamed as a bigot. Meetings to discuss safety worries related to gender self-ID have attracted violent protests and been shut down. Women have been doxxed, had their jobs threatened and been kicked off Twitter for such word crimes as referring to Jessica/Jonathan Yaniv as “he.” These include Canada’s own Meghan Murphy and Lindsay Shepherd.

What about the idea that this is a “conflict of rights”? I suppose that depends on whether you think that women have a right to boundaries, and if so, where it is reasonable for them to draw those boundaries. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for women to distinguish between female-bodied people and male-bodied individuals, and to express willingness to be in vulnerable situations with female-bodied people to the exclusion of their male-bodied counterparts. Women commit much less violent or sexual crime than men, and are the target of a great deal more of it, almost all perpetrated by males.

And trans women are biologically male: Human beings are, like all mammals, sexually dimorphic and incapable of changing sex. What motivates some males who declare themselves women isn’t relevant to women who must share their private spaces with them, or who may be coerced into handling their genitals, either. Nor does it change the form of those genitals.

What exactly is the “right” that is supposedly being weighed against women’s rights to set boundaries? In deciding to hear these cases, the tribunal described scrotum-waxing for a trans woman as “critical gender-affirming care.” Which is somewhat bizarre given that the vast majority of women get along quite nicely without having their pubic hairs waxed. I don’t see much of a conflict here at all.

And then there are those who think Yaniv, though perhaps unpleasant or predatory, is essentially correct. Among the arguments I’ve seen online in the past week are: that doctors and nurses touch both male and female private parts as part of their job, so beauticians should be willing to, too; that a trans woman with male genitals is merely a woman with an “unusually shaped vulva,” so no one unprejudiced would make a distinction; and that a woman who is willing to touch a natal woman’s vulva but not a trans woman’s genitals is like a woman who is willing to touch a white woman’s vulva but not a black woman’s.

Some of the people presenting such arguments may have been trolling, but some certainly weren’t. And they echo the language of educational materials produced by trans-activist groups for use in schools, where male genitals are described as “outy” and female genitals as “inny,” or similar babyish words, with the intention of minimizing and dismissing the differences as if these were belly buttons.

There are many remarkable aspects of these attempts to defend Yaniv. The racism—imagine arguing that an unwillingness to touch male genitalia under the guise of female ones is similar to thinking that black genitals are “different”; the disingenuousness—yes, doctors and nurses have to touch and examine the genitals of people of both sexes, but they are in a position of power vis-a-vis patients, and work in institutional settings rather than alone, and with chaperones when necessary. But what stands out most is the faith they display in the power of words to override material reality. When a woman is anyone who declares womanhood, the matter of whether that person has genitals that can get an erection, penetrate, impregnate and rape becomes unspeakable. But the genitals themselves do not change.

What might the tribunal decide? It could reject Yaniv’s complaints on narrow grounds. Those might be religious freedom for at least some of the women, or that there is a material difference between the tasks of waxing male and female genitals. Such a ruling would be in line with a case a few years ago in which two trans women approached a cosmetic surgeon who offers breast enlargement. He refused to take them on as patients, saying they needed a surgeon who specialized in trans women because male frames are unlike female frames. They took him to a human-rights tribunal, but their complaints were dismissed.

Or—and I hate to say it—Yaniv could win. The outrage the case has (belatedly) aroused makes me think that unlikely. But B.C.’s human-rights code is clear that gender identity is a protected characteristic, and being of the female sex isn’t. A woman is anyone who says they are a woman, and your gender identity is your personal sense of being a man or woman or something else. The code is silent on the meaning of the word “woman” beyond such circular definitions.

I sadly doubt that that tribunal will say what I think it should say: that laws that threaten women with public vilification, fines and bankruptcy if they refuse to handle male genitalia against their will are unconscionable. In some cases, they could lead to state-facilitated sexual assault.

Yaniv’s demands flow logically from the claim that “trans women are women, period”—that in literally no circumstance is it acceptable to distinguish between males and females, provided the males self-identify as women. And as with any form of logical argumentation, a false premise will lead to a false—and in some cases dangerous—result.

 

Helen Joyce is finance editor for The Economist. She is writing here in a personal capacity. Her previous work for Quillette includes The New Patriarchy: How Trans Radicalism Hurts Women, Children—and Trans People Themselves. Follow her on Twitter at @HJJoyceEcon.

Featured image: “Totes Trans, Totes Ally,” Human Rights Campaign, at the 2016 Capital Trans Pride event in Washington, D.C.

Comments

  1. I’ve read and viewed opinions by several transwomen about this issue, ones who supported the accused women, and what struck me was their statements they would have been horrified to have their unwanted and hated male genitals seen and, worse still, handled by someone.

    To trans people who are genuinely transitioning to one gender or the other, undertaking or have completed all the procedures, I wish you well on your path.

    But there is another altogether different group that’s using transgenderism for other goals. Yaniv is one of these people. Yaniv is not only a fraudulent trans woman, video showing him running after a reporter to beat him with his cane shows Yaniv’s need of a mobility scooter and special government-provided transport services for the disabled to be fraudulent as well.

    Yaniv’s case exposes two flaws. Firstly, the “right” to self diagnose, be it for transgenderism, PTSD, autism, or anything else is subject to abuse. People, including very disturbed ones, have learnt they can game the system, make claims, and the system will bend due to their special status. This leads to the second flaw. The establishment of human rights agencies and extra-judicial tribunals to advocate on behalf of certain favoured groups has led to it being abused. It’s one thing to go at it mano a mano in civil court, but these human rights agencies provide all the resources - the might - of the state on behalf of the complainant to pile drive the accused. As a way of self preservation, people are coerced to bend to the abusive delusions by the self-diagnosed gendertrenders and the state’s bullies because the cost of legal representation and damage to one’s work and reputation are too great. These systems were established with this goal in mind: abusing some establishes the examples and causes the masses to cave.

    It takes an especially courageous person, often one who has been pushed to one’s limit, to take on the power of the state. I commend these women for standing up to Yaniv and British Columbia. Not only are the women due compensation from Yaniv, and $2000 each is really a slap in their faces given the costs and stress of this, but the British Columbia human rights advocates who took on Yaniv’s frivolous case because the always-believe-the-victim-no-matter-what modus operandi is malformed, easily abused, and stupid owe these women compensation too.

  2. That’s great that Yaniv lost this case. No person should ever be required by law to touch another person’s genitals for any reason.

  3. It’s almost as if reality-denial is harmful and failure to respect negative rights imposes the consequences of one person’s stupidity on others.

Continue the discussion in Quillette Circle

Participants

Comments have moved to our forum

234 Comments

  1. codadmin says

    Full on erections are now part of the female anatomy.

    Period.

    • Geary Johansen says

      @ codadmin

      Great article. Should have called it ‘The Vestigial Penis’ though.

    • Walter Schmenky says

      Its not a penis just a really large clitoris

  2. Mark says

    Forcing someone to touch your body used to be called rape.

    • Eric Liskey says

      Excellent point. And actually, it still is. Unless you’re trans, then the state will aid you in your rape.

  3. Marko Novak says

    Here’s another case from Windsor, Ontario, Canada that pits trans rights against Muslim rights. The shop only had one waxer that day and as a practicing Muslim she only touches males that are family members. Of course the trans person is suing. And don’t tell me she can wax a female penis, because there is no such thing as a female penis.

    https://beta.windsorstar.com/news/local-news/transgender-woman-files-human-rights-complaint-against-windsor-spa/wcm/d16fbdde-7205-4103-bbab-0adc4304cbb9/amp/

    • 370H55V says

      The Muslim will win because in the hierarchy of PC dogma, multiculturalism trumps everything else. But apart from that, the Muslim will win because if the tranny pursues the matter strongly enough, (insert preferred pronoun here) will find (insert preferred pronoun prefix here)-self decapitated and left in a dumpster in Detroit. All of which proves that this is nothing more than a power struggle which must be resisted by any means necessary, otherwise we will yet see same-sex weddings at the Westboro Baptist Church and abortions required in Catholic hospitals.

      • Jerjapan says

        Nonsense. To start, ‘tranny’ is an offensive pejorative. Next, by law, no church in Canada can be forced to perform a marriage against its beliefs – only a civil servant can. And of course, ‘abortions required in Catholic hospitals’ is an insultingly idiotic straw man.

        • jappy says

          shut up tranny
          you are only bringing “the day of the rope” quicker

          • Jerjapan says

            Yeah, nice one. For those looking for what is meant by hate – I present you ‘jappy’.

        • Kauf Buch says

          TO Jerjapan
          “…an offensive pejorative.” TO WHOM?
          I’M so old, I remember when BLOWING A TRANNY was an automotive problem.
          (bada bing bada band bada boom)

          You CryBullies are a joke…a totalitarian JOKE.

        • @jerjapan.

          Ignore these trolls. I’d guess a strong 50% of commenters here are reasonably intelligent people who honestly discuss and are open to the ideas in the articles quillette presents.

          Then there are a few sjw types who show up and troll (mostly cultural issue articles) and most recently there’s been a run of screaming bigots trying out their ideologically insulated talking points.

          What’s kind of funny is that some of the sjw types have quoted comments from the bigots in their own comments as though those comments are part of the content here.

          It’s been interesting to watch this symbiotic weirdness evolve and sometimes I wonder if it’s all just one person trolling themselves in a never ending chain of crazy shitposts.

          Anyways, if you don’t mind some unsolicited advice, engage with people who look like they are thinking about their comments and less with those who look like they are reacting.

          • Jerjapan says

            Ike, that is a thoughtful response, and I thank you for it. But I don’t think that the screaming bigots are an exception here, I feel they are empowered by the respectable veeneer provided by the often-good content, and by the reasonable 50 percent of posters that you and I both agree are found in the comments. By now, I assume you aware of this as a pattern amongst alt-right trolls who hide behind the rational conservative majority.

            I myself have quoted multiple prejudicial terms and phrases in this thread alone – ‘monkey’, ‘tranny’ ‘go back to Africa’ and ‘the day of the rope’ off the top of my head. Seriously, people should recognize that as a lynching threat. This is the only social media site that I frequent in which that sort of comment is even possible – it simply isn’t tolerated elsewhere.

            So yes, ultimately I do think these comments, to a degree, are the responsibility of, and a reflection on, the communtiy as a whole. If Quillette is truly a forum for unconventional thinking and free speech, my fairly obvious comments should be seen as constructive.

        • Is it really a straw man? Legislation, though usually (but not always), defeated that would require Doctor’s to provide, if not abortions, information on how to get one. Legislation has also been introduced that would require hospitals to provide abortion services. In 2016, the Catholic ran Trinity Hospital was sued but the ACLU in Michigan to force them to provide abortions. The case was eventually dismissed. Also, in 2016 a judge in Washington state ordered that any public hospital that provides maternity care must also provide abortions. Well this case dealt with public hospitals, most ob-gyn and family practice doctors refuse to provide abortions. Washington laws states they could be forced to. The USSC overturned a California law in 2018 that would require Religious based organizations that offer alternatives to abortions to also state abortion is an option and to provide information as to how one can get an abortion.
          The Church of England had been sued for force it to perform gay and lesbian marriages. In Ohio a LGBT+ group in 2017 was formed with the expressed purpose of suing churches that hold wedding ceremonies to force them to hold homosexual marriages. A Catholic Church in Portland was sued because it refused to allow a business to hold a LGBT+ event in a church owned building. Gay couples have sued Catholic and other church adoption agencies to try and force them to adopt to gay couples (some states have passed laws to this effect, only to have the courts overturn them). Though largely unsuccessful, these cases are actually increasing and in response most traditional churches have began carrying insurance to cover the cost of lawsuits aimed at them in regards to the stances on homosexuality. So none of it was a straw man because, even in the US were religious freedom is explicitly granted in the Constitution, many churches and individuals have been sued to go against their religious beliefs. States and municipalities have also proposed laws that religious preference would be subservient to public accommodation laws.

        • lsmith76 says

          Jerjapan, you have no right to tell anyone that their wording is “offensive” or “pejorative.” That’s simply your opinion. You are not the keeper of language or truth

          • Jerjapan says

            Ismith, sorry, but you don’t have a logical leg to stand on. I have just as much right to express my opinion as you do yours.

            The very premise of your argument is that free speech – even speech viewed as prejudicial by a vast majority of people, including the wide majority of conservatives I know – is protected.

            So my comments are free speech, as this is a public forum.

            Honestly, you have more of a problem with my comments than the person that talked about ‘the day of the rope’?

            Like, my apparently ‘liberal’ opinion is worse than a threatening reference to lynching? I continue to think this community needs to hold itself to a better standard.

        • “Tranny” is an offensive pejorative to you. Nothing more than opinion, an assertion. There are plenty of gay people who could give a shit about being called a bundle of sticks. It is all about who is saying the word and whether the object of the phrase wishes to hold a club over the speakers head. Secondly, the performing marriage against a churches belief statute, merely temporary. Activists in the US have been trying for years to force Catholics into accepting all kinds of progressive dogmas and ideologies. As much as I hate the term, what you are doing fits the definition to a T, you are gas lighting. You’re doing the exact same thing with Catholic hospitals and abortion. Maybe you’re just unaware of whats been going on to the south, but we had a supreme court case where the complainant sued a Catholic run business in that they should be forced, by the state, to provide abortifacients. If they had won that case, and in Canada I can easily see that being the case, it is a short logical jump to forcing churches to do the same. In the US there are numerous activists groups who implicitly make this claim in that religious people are just rejecting progressive ideological dogmas and bullying behind a facade of religious belief. Finally, I’m not religious, but I know a bully when I see one, and religious people worrying about the state forcing them to do things they don’t want to do is all together too real.

  4. OWG says

    If Yaniv hasn’t managed to get waxed yet, then Yaniv is only in it for the money and fame.

    • TarsTarkas says

      If Yaniv keeps up his campaign he’s risking being permanently waxed, paved, shined, and interred. Of course that sort of outcome would only ‘help’ the toxic male transgender movement. But it’ll be smlal consolation to him.

  5. bumble bee says

    When are we all going to speak of the elephant in the room here?! This self gender IDing defies all logic, reason, facts, science, common sense, so why are people playing along here.

    First of all the plain and simple fact that such issues, such social issues now have the full backing of politics and in some cases laws, everyone must now suspend logic and reason and as written in the article legal ramifications as well. When are people going to embrace reality. Now this by no means that cruelty, violence, or any form of bullying people who have identity issues, but there needs to be a clear line drawn as to instances such as those listed above.

    Since this is political, perhaps the solution is as well. Voting against those who want to keep us all in wonderland because they are too weak to speak up when things turn surreal. This example of a male who believes he is female demanding services that are contrary to fact is nothing new and is just going to get more ridiculous.

    There are men who go to gynecologists for a pelvic exam when they do not have female anatomy to even give one. Then there is the female who wants a prostate exam when she does not have a prostate exam. When are people going to stop being sheeple and end this insanity. Where is the mental health field here. Where are they helping these deluded people accept who they are?

    So if I now want to identity as a ficus tree I can pot myself and demand the local arborist water me and fertilize my soil? Can I identify as a bird and demand the local vet to trim my wings? When is reality going to kick in here, because this is not the end, it just going to get more absurd and people who refuse to accept the lies are going to pay dearly, like these women for it. Vote out those who will not accept reality, and end this once and for all.

    • Morgan Foster says

      @bumble bee

      “When are we all going to speak of the elephant in the room here?!”

      The elephant everyone pretends not to see? That would be mental illness.

      • DiamondLil says

        not if the elephant identifies as sane.

    • Anonymous says

      The mental health field is the root of the problem. These people are good customers, and “the customer is always right.” A psychiatrist or psychologist who tells these guys “You are not a woman. You have a delusion that you are a woman.” may have difficulty paying the bills, even in places where it is legal to do so.

    • Captain Obvious says

      “When are people going to embrace reality?” When we tell freaks and “activists” to STFU and go away. Ignore them. Don’t give them the ink and pixels that today are social traction. Keep them out of the schools, off the TV and deny them influence. You’d think this would be sort of easy for the 99.996% to accomplish, wouldn’t you?

    • Kencathedrus says

      @bumble bee: ‘When are we all going to speak of the elephant in the room here?! This self gender IDing defies all logic, reason, facts, science, common sense, so why are people playing along here?’

      Here’s why:

      “In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”

      ― Theodore Dalrymple

      • Morgan Foster says

        @Kencathedrus

        Speaking of Theodore Dalrymple, I’d enjoy seeing him write for Quillette.

      • Julian McNally says

        “To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.”
        This so well explains the current US presidency. The latest straw on the pile being “I am the least racist person anywhere in the world.”

    • Jerjapan says

      Bumble bee, I think you are misunderstanding trans identity with your ‘elephant in the room’ comment. Trans people are not oblivious to their sex at birth. It is their identity that they struggle with, and identity is personal. If you tell me that you are Jewish, I will not argue with you, even if some people are more observant than others, or have different concepts of Judaism, or if your identity entitles you to holidays that I am not entitled to.

      Yes, there are complex situations (assuming the best intentions for the plaintiff, which are obviously not guaranteed) such as the one described in the article above. These cases will unfortunately have to be decided by the courts, and like with any legal challenges, some will be spurious. I assume nearly everyone here agrees that these aestheticians should have the right to choose who the work with. I assume a near-universal majority believe in individual freedom of thought. I personally have major problems with people who insist that the world is 7000 years old, or that the planet is flat, but they have every right to do it, even though these beliefs have much less evidence behind them than the history of gender dysphoria, a condition recognized in the DSM-5.

      Can you even provide examples of pre-surgery trans women going to gynecologists? Is this an actual thing?

      There are apparently a handful of people in the world who ‘identify’ as plants or animals. This is not comparable to people who suffer from gender dysphoria, a debilitating condition.

      Ultimately, why worry yourself about what someone else thinks? There is literally no evidence that trans rights form a meaningful threat to the rights of others, aside from the odd spurious lawsuit. Why not go after the anti-vaccers, who are genuinely putting lives – of their children and others – at risk?

      • Aerth says

        @Jerjapan
        Anti-vaxxers are pretty much a laughing stock by now and meme materials. Yes, they are dangerous, but some local governments in my country (Poland) are already introducing a laws aimed at them, laws that in most other situations would produce outrage and be considered discriminatory. It is not that they are left alone to their lunacies and ignored.

        At the same time trans people are “holy cows”, virtually untouchable. Even people like Yaniv, who by any standards is nothing but creep with obsessions pointing to possible pedophilia.

      • Kauf Buch says

        TO Jerjapan
        Yes, they’re struggling with their identity…as a mentally ill person.

      • 2bits says

        “Jewish” is cultural and ideological, both subjective. Identity can be subjective, but in this case it’s forcing its way into the objective. That’s exactly the point, and what you are ignoring.

        • Jerjapan says

          2bits, I think you are wrong, but even if you are right, why is this issue seen as a big deal? I repeat from my above post – aside from the odd ridiculous case like this person Yaniv, who cares what someone says is their identity?

          The only possible concern – assuming you agree in individual freedom as a key principle – is the ‘predatorial’ trans bugbear that objectively does not exist.

          I guess people might be afraid that they are going to be required to use pronouns by law or something? I live in Ontario – where Jordan Peterson thinks this is a very real threat – and this issue is of no real concern to the vast majority of people, anywhere on the political spectrum.

          This story is not news of some worrisome social trend. Social trends require more than a handful examples to have any meaning, you know, given sample size and other such basics.

          • Photondancer says

            “‘predatorial’ trans bugbear that objectively does not exist.”

            You, jerjapan, are a liar. There’s already a number of documented cases of trans men attacking women and their campaign to infiltrate all female institutions is a direct attack on women’s rights.

            Attacking women is the whole raison d’etre of predators like Yaniv, but you refuse to condemn him and merely say him he is ‘ridiculous ‘. You illustrate my theory that nobody is as misogynistic as a mysogynistic leftist.

          • Lisa J says

            2bits, I think you are wrong, but even if you are right, why is this issue seen as a big deal? I repeat from my above post – aside from the odd ridiculous case like this person Yaniv, who cares what someone says is their identity?

            There are lots of reasons to care. There’s a women’s rape center being forcibly shut down because it’s not inclusive to trans women. How many women who have suffered trauma now have nowhere to turn because trans activists were irritated that they weren’t included in this one shelter? Who are these trans women to judge if a woman who has been raped has “the right” to feel uncomfortable around trans women? Like how you feel after a horrible attack is a “right” and not something completely out of their own control.

            How about the shutting down of scientific studies because it doesn’t fit the trans narrative? Here’s a quote from another Quillette article…

            “In August, Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island was criticized for removing a news release about a peer-reviewed study published in PLoS One by one of its academics—Lisa Littman, a physician and researcher at Brown’s School of Public Health. Littman’s article, titled “Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports,“ discusses the phenomenon by which social media and peer pressure seem to have fuelled the recently observed trend by which young teenagers (typically girls) suddenly declare themselves transgender. The paper infuriated transgender activists, who claim that the entire notion of rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is a transphobic invention. Both Brown and PLoS One also were attacked as Brown’s enablers.”

            Seems the trans activist community are just as guilty as those anti vaxxers you were saying we should all be up in arms about.

            How about athletics? Women are now being shut out of college scholarships because trans women (men just a few short months ago) are knocking down records that women can’t hope to achieve unless they take some very dangerous and illegal drugs to compete. Some of those illegal (in sports) drugs trans athletes are taking daily as part of their transition. In the elite level of many sports long standing women’s records are being blown away by trans athletes yet we are supposed to turn off our brains and think that it has nothing to do with their biology. Just good luck and superior training I guess.

            How about putting children as young as 3 on puberty blocking medication? We know most children experience confusion involving their sexual identity, we also know a whopping 99% of those children resolve those issues themselves upon entering puberty. What we don’t know (because there have been no long term studies on this) is what prematurely assuming a child’s gender might be and putting them on drugs designed to thwart the natural development of that child’s body can do to both the child’s body and the child’s mental stability. But hey, as long as they pass better amirite?

            I am the mother of a handsome, intelligent son. I love him as fiercely today as I did 23 years ago when he was placed in my arms as a baby girl. I will fight for his right to be who he is and to live how he wants but I will not do so at the expense of other people’s rights. To do so would be wrong and selfish. If you wish to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are very real issues involved in self identifying with absolutely no ground rules or standards then by all means do so, but do not judge the rest of us who have legitimate concerns about these issues as making a “big deal” about something just because you want to deny the issues yourself.

            Sorry for the book 🙂

      • ccscientist says

        “There is literally no evidence that trans rights form a meaningful threat to the rights of others, aside from the odd spurious lawsuit. ” –sorry wrong. In multiple places schools are forcing children to accept pre-surgical persons of the opposite sex in locker rooms and showers: boys in the girls room and conversely. This is a threat to privacy and decency.

        • bbear says

          Quite right. And in the U.S. there’s the assault on women’s sports, particularly in athletics. In the UK there have been cases in which male rapists claiming to be women have been incarcerated in women’s prisons, where they continued to prey upon actual women with no place to hide.

    • tim says

      @ Bumble I think the elephant in the room is the fact that the educated West is gradually losing it’s mind to moral relativism. It is wasting inordinate amounts of time, money and intellectual resources engaging in complex academic and legal discussions around a subject that is skewered by the first quote in this comments section: “Full on erections are now part of the female anatomy.”

      Why are we wasting so much time and effort on this nonsense? Has our intellectual and philosophical nature now gone too far when we are trying to justify all of this, or present long winded academic articles on the subject?

    • Quadrivial says

      Thank you for this. If a person looks in the mirror and sees Napoleon or Jesus, we call them delusional. If a white person looks in the mirror and sees a black person, we call them delusional (think Rachel Dolezal.) But if a man or woman looks in the mirror and sees someone of the opposite sex, according to current theories they are not delusional.

      Unfortunately, the theoretical underpinning includes a dubious metaphysical presupposition: that of a Cartesian dualism where the mind is somehow independent of the body. This is manifestly false. We observe that minds are very dependent on brain chemistry – as anyone who has ingested (or seen someone ingest) intoxicating or psychoactive chemicals can attest. Butlerian theory suggests that hormones are somehow exempt from having any such effect, and evidence be damned.

      Some people convince themselves that living a life as a member of the opposite sex will somehow improve their lives. I think their problems may be much more deep-seated than that.

  6. Lance says

    “trans women are women; period”
    I think you mean, “except for the period

    • Trevor Pickersgill says

      And except for all the testosterone.

    • Rachel says

      I suggest you go a little further down the rabbit hole that is Twitter – many trans identifying males go to great lengths to attempt to replicate periods…….

      • Lance says

        @Rachel – Heh. Stunts like this are prime examples of why I like to remind people that dysphoria, in every other context, is a pathology and might need treatment. But, if you throw the word “gender” in front of it and the woketariat are quick to point out how that’s different and should be encouraged.

    • Geary Johansen says

      @ Lance

      Nice. Last night we had a particularly spectacular thunderstorm. In the aftermath, the internet went down. With no internet and no firestick, I had to reconnect my DVD player to the telly (only two HDMI ports) and eventually found myself re-watching Little Britain.

      My question is this- has anyone tried making an ‘I’m a lady!’ meme, for these most egregious users of PC power? Because, I have to say- watching the very first episode, with the bloke hitting on her in the bar, only to find her peeing in a urinal when he goes to the blokes tiolet- is pure comedy gold, that has aged rather well- especially for those of us who are fed up with the whole intersectional feminism, clown world, oppression Olympics thing.

      Now I have to say, that I am for equality under the law, for everyone. I personally would use EITHER pronoun, because I was brought up to be polite and civil- with a teacher for a mum, I didn’t have much choice in the matter. But I don’t own a mobile phone- I tried one once, but people kept ringing me- so I am pretty much stuffed when it comes to remembering 71 different pronouns and how they apply to varied people, from memory.

      But in this case though, it probably wouldn’t matter- because we are beginning to see a far more nasty side of this cultural movement, in that the chancers and self-promotionists seem to be coming out of the woodwork, with ever increasing frequency. The shame of it is, that there are probably an awful lot of vulnerable and sensitive people out there, who will probably end up getting tarred with the same brush. Anyway, back to my Little Britain.

      And wouldn’t you just know it- half-an-hour after I got back from the library with two new DVD hires for tonight (just in case), my internet was back up and running.

      • Lance says

        @Geary I don’t know Little Britain, but it sounds funny and Amazon Prime is telling me they stream it (as Little Britain USA?).

        • Geary Johansen says

          @ Lance

          Probably as good. I would give it a try. Found the Steven Spielberg’s ‘Taken’ on the UK Prime the other day- classic sci-fi mini-series. Which is great, given that many amateur streaming services have problems dealing with the plethora of Taken’s available.

          • Jonny Sclerotic says

            Lance & Geary – if you’ve never seen the Lucas and Walliams pre-Little Britain show Rock Profile, I highly recommend it. Most of them are freely available on YouTube. The Bee Gees episode is a belter.

  7. Tony Shreck says

    “Women commit much less violent or sexual crime than men, and are the target of a great deal more of it, almost all perpetrated by males.”

    If I parse this sentence correctly, it contains three claims.

    1, Women commit much less violent or sexual crime than men.
    2. Women and are the target of a great deal more violent or sexual crime than men.
    3. Almost all violent or sexual crime is perpetrated by males.

    I see these 3 claims combined in a similar way fairly often, but I can’t convince myself that the middle claim as such is correct. 1 and 3 seem established, but is 2 accurate? Every attempt I have made (by which I mean nothing more than Googling and looking at various articles and reports) leads me to the conclusion that men are generally more likely to be victims of crimes against person while women outnumber men as victims in specific categories of confinement, sexual assaults, and harassment. For example, searching by “gender gap in violent victimization” leads me to sources that specifically and plainly say that men are more often victims.

    • All the stats I’ve seen are that males are more often victims of violence. Mostly from other males.

      • ga gamba says

        I wonder, in the world where words are violence does this increase significantly the violence perpetrated by women?

        • Martin28 says

          That’s funny, ga gamba. And apparently you are correct. These aestheticians (a new word for me) were all women and all got into trouble for committing violence against Yaniv’s humanity.

      • Aristodemus says

        Yes, men are more biologically violent than women, and inflict most of it on each other.

    • Anonymous says

      Most violence is domestic, and it’s unclear if the stereotype is true and women are much more likely to be assaulted by male partners than vice versa. Outside of domestic cases there is no question men are far more likely to be both the victims and perpetrators of non-sexual violent crimes.

      Being every sexual act with another person in a jail or prison is a crime and there are many more men incarcerated than women men may be the victims of more sexual crime as well.

    • Some-woman says

      Your own statement subtantiates 2- women outnumber men as victims in sexual harassment and harrasment.

      Generally, it is known that men are more likely to be victims of violent crime. But it simply follows that since 95% of men are straight and most perpetrators of sexual crime are male, that most victims of sexual crime will be female.

      • Tony Shreck says

        Some-woman:

        “Your own statement subtantiates 2- women outnumber men as victims in sexual harassment and harrasment.”

        I don’t think it does. To substantiate #2, one must show that the total number of female victims of [sexual or violent crime] is “a great deal” larger than the number of male victims of [sexual or violent crime].

        If your point is that if you treat harassment as a sexual or violent crime then the number of female victims exceeds the number of male victims, then someone ought to be able to show those numbers. I actually have one example of that. See the (Canadian) data here:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime

        Obviously Canada doesn’t represent the whole world (and since the topic is whether Canadian law has been overly expansive in creating categories of victimhood it’s kind of question begging to rely on these numbers for anything) if you total the columns you get 1157 female to 1150 males, which makes victimization for all [sexual or violent crimes] more or less equal, not different by “a great deal” in either direction.

        My overarching point is that if we could just be clear and precise about the quantifiable statements, then we could move on to the interpretive work. If we can’t agree on what we’re measuring then there’s no way to compare anything.

        • Some-woman says

          Not all harrasment is a sexual crime. I’m rather perplexed why you think there is a dearth of data pointing to the fact that women are more likely to be targets of sexual violence. My google search yielded dozens of sources that affirmed they were. For example-

          https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence

          The above notes that 82% of juvenile rape victims are female and that 90% of adult rape victims are female.

          As for sexual harrasment in general, sometimes that falls under workplace harrasment and other times it is treated as a crime. I don’t see a report for the us but a report on Singapore says that 78% of victims of sexual harrasment at work are female.

          • Tony Shreck says

            “I’m rather perplexed why you think there is a dearth of data pointing to the fact that women are more likely to be targets of sexual violence.”

            And I am perplexed how you concluded that from reading my post. I’ve seen plenty of that data and do not contest it. The problem statement was one that conflates the categories of specifically sexual crime and all violent crime. If we look at only sexual crimes (plus harassment and confinement) women are disproportionately the victims by substantial margins. When we combine the categories of sexual crimes with all violent crime (e.g. simple assault and murder) and claim a disparity, we need to show the data for that disparity or the statement is false.

            Maybe if the inflammatory gender angle is out of it, it will be easier to see the issue, which is one about statistics and counting. The 2nd statement has form

            More left-handed people eat tomatoes or vegetables than right-handed people

            I picked tomatoes and vegetables deliberately because there is “debate” over whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable, which depends on whether you use scientific biology or US government rulings to make the call.

            Making this claim true requires that we count the number of left- and right-handed people who eat tomatoes or any other vegetables (call them L(T+V) and R(T+V)) and compare them asking the question “is L(T+V) >> R(T+V)?”. We can’t just count that more left-handed people eat tomatoes (L(T)) than right-handed people do (R(T)) and conclude the whole statement were we to count tomatoes and vegetables is true. That is, L(T) >> R(T) does not imply L(T+V) >> R(T+V).

            Now, back to the ambiguity over whether tomatoes are vegetables, which is the proxy for sexual crimes being crimes of violence. Politically we want them to be because it permits us to treat them with equally severity, something that has not been historically done across a wide swathe of cultures, most especially in the domestic arena. The problem is that even if we do categorize sexual harassment, etc as violence, we are still left with the need to count all other categories of violence like simple assaults and murder in which men are more frequently victims than women.

            I posit that are political goals impede logic, that people make bad statements of fact in the attempt to bolster a political position or assumption. Mathematically impossible or statistically dubious statements impede the goals of any moral or social argument one is trying to make. We don’t need to conflate two categories of crime to understand that both are serious and both require our best efforts at reduction.

        • Tony Shreck says

          I noted that too, but I wasn’t going to call it out. 🙂 See my reply above to Some-woman. It’s right on point with those numbers, which are for a specific subset of violent crime and with which I don’t argue.

      • I would reply that male sexual assault victims are underreported either because people disbelieve that males can be victims of assault by females or because the males are ashamed to report it. This doesn’t disprove that women are greater victims but it does question how big the disparity is. It is impossible to know for certain. Another thing to take into account is up to a third to half of lesbian and bisexual women report being raped/assaulted by other females and that at least some heterosexual women have been raped/sexually assaulted by other women. It is also believed these cases are underreported and investigated for a variety of reasons.

        • ga gamba says

          Indeed. Men haven’t learnt of the many types of sexual assault, abuse, and harassment they face in their daily lives. They’ve been socialised to accept it without question. In the world of workplace policies and even law where one’s perception exclusively matters and intent matters not one smidgen, a person is able to claim low-cut cleavage revealing blouses are a form of harassment.

          Surely, a conscious raising movement is in order.

  8. Once a tactic proves profitable, expect to see it repeated. says

    “Several other women settled in mediation, paying Yaniv thousands of dollars.”

    So it’s a shakedown.

  9. NashTiger says

    I can’t believe all the hate in this comment section

    • TarsTarkas says

      Sorry, NashTiger, but sane males tend to get upset and protective and violent when obviously disturbed toxic males harass and threaten and bully women. Especially when they’re related to said females (which I’m not). It’s a male thing. In the genes.

    • TommyT says

      What’s with hate. You have no self awareness. Was it love that got the CEO of Firefox terminated because he contributed to Prop 8 in California? You are a closed minded, horrible person. These people are ruining our society. This should anger most decent people.

    • I r ad it all and saw no “hate”. Lots of indignation and frustration at the law’s embracing of what to most people is clearly nonsense, but no hatred of anyone.

      • Martin28 says

        In social justice speak, hate is anything that disagrees with social justice theory. By that definition, these comments are full of hate.

    • derek says

      Hate is a good word. I hate people who use the law to impose costs and difficulty on people for no reason except their self centered satisfaction. I hate people who impose their sexual piccadillos on people. I hate people who meddle with children sexually. I hate people who use the force of law to push a lie. This person might be mixed up as to what he is, but I’m not.

      I really don’t care what people do to themselves, or their personal delusions. It is none of my business. But when you start touching kids or forcing women to touch your privates it becomes my business. It becomes my responsibility to not let you do that. Because i hate people who would do that.

      • Joe Clave says

        I don’t understand how it is that hate become criminalized. It’s bonkers. There are a million things I can legally hate about a person, but if I hate their gender expression it becomes this big thing. How about, I hate your face, go to hell.

        Also, 99 times out of 99, nobody is hating anyone in these cases. It’s just a BS word that is used to play on decent people’s sensibilities.

        • Martin28 says

          It’s social justice theory, Joe. Anything that contradicts social justice theory is considered hate, anything that agrees with social justice theory is not hate. For hate, you can now be fired or ex-communicated from society. This is a circular, faith-based belief system. Even science is considered hate if it contradicts the social justice narrative.

      • Barney Doran says

        @ NashTiger
        Why don’t you spell out clearly, succinctly, and persuasively your opinion on the subject?

        • Morgan Foster says

          @Barmey Doran

          This is drive-by trolling. He isn’t going to invest any time here.

          • Barney Doran says

            @ Morgan Foster
            He would fit in and be so much happier over at Politico.

      • El Uro says

        @NashTiger, no, only one! And you know his name 🙂

    • Harold Porter says

      To paraphrase George Orwell…”Truth becomes hate in a world of lies”

    • Fred says

      @NashTiger. I think you may be a victim of Poe’s law here. Just to clarify, is your comment sarcastically calling attention to the unfortunate fact that sanity=hate in Woketopia, or do you actually believe the perfectly sane (and incrdulous and frustrated because they are sane) commenters here are actually expressing hate?

      • Jerjapan says

        Fred, so you missed terms / phrases like ‘monkey’, ‘tranny’ and ‘go back to Africa’ in this thread? Cause they are right in front of you.

        I don’t understand why this community doesn’t self-regulate when someone is genuinely hateful. Then we can actually have meaningful debates around contentious issues. The fact that everyone seems fine with the above comments – which we all see, regularly, in all sorts of threads, on all sorts of discussions – debases the conversation, and diminishes the credibility of the bystanders.

        • Don't Feed The What? says

          Jerjapan : Not necessarily. Because these comments aren’t moderated many commenters have realized that the best way to deal with obvious trolling — which often takes the form of deliberate, conspicuous slurs — is to ignore it. When you’re used to all such comments magically disappearing, it can be disconcerting, but once you realize that nobody is taking the bait, you realize it could be worse.

          As a rule, if you’re on a site where everyone seems to be oddly in agreement at all times, it’s probably moderated.

          • Jerjapan says

            Thanks for the reply DFTW. I have a different belief as to trolls – I feel they reflect not just on themselves but on their community – but I recognize that mine is the minority opinion both here and elsewhere.

        • Stephanie says

          Jerjapan, nothing too egregious about “tranny” that would inspire people to white knight. This forum isn’t filled with Progs who get off on such displays of piety to PC.

          If you had spent any time here, you would have realised that Ray’s comments about monkeys and going back to Africa were because Ray is a dolphin. I don’t know how you construed them as offensive when we’re not talking about black people.

          • Jerjapan says

            Stephanie, ‘tranny’ is plenty offensive if you care about trans rights – clearly, you and many here don’t.

            If you can’t understand what is offensive about ‘monkey’ and ‘back to Africa’ on a public forum, you should avoid public forums. Requiring readers to be ‘in on the joke’ is an impossibility.

            And of course, please check out jappy’s post about ‘the day of the rope’. Or is that about basket weaving?

        • Kauf Buch says

          TO Jejapan
          OOH! WE HAVE A HATECRIME BELIEVER!!!
          Orwell is calling you on the Non-White Courtesy Telephone.

          You’re just full of Leftist buzzwords and phrases
          which are fig leaves for the Left’s totalitarianism.
          “Self-regulation” is just a coward’s way of saying you want to step on someone’s throat until they say, “2 + 2 = 5.”

          • Jerjapan says

            Kauf Buch, nicely done. I assume you just cut and paste this nonsense off alt-right websites? Or perhaps you are not a troll?

            Okay then, I will reply in earnest. I never used the term ‘hatecrime’.

            I assume that you disagree that this board should regulate itself then? So are you okay with the ‘day of the rope’ comment specifically?

            I don’t know what ‘leftist buzzwords’ I used that offend you so, perhaps you could point them out and explain what your problem is with them? The ‘left’s totalitarianism’? What are you referring to there? I thought the cold war was over.

            FWIW, I have massive problems with left wing rhetoric as well as right wing rhetoric. Frankly, I dislike all dogma, regardless of politics, and you sound pretty dogmatic to me.

    • Martin28 says

      @Jerjapan
      Speaking as a Dolphin, Ray has every right to hate human beings. And as a member of a species that has often called Dolphins “fish,” how dare you judge him for using a general term for two-legged land mammals?

      “Tranny,” I believe, is a term of endearment, like I am sometimes called “Marty.”

      Now the rope thing, I agree, is genuinely creepy—but I believe that came after NashTiger’s comment.

      • Jerjapan says

        Martin, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I guess there is some lengthy inside joke here with Ray being a Dolphin. I read through these comments on a semi-regular basis, and read several articles here a month, and I have no idea about this joke, so my point is still the same – reasonable people might not get that someone is riffing on a racist joke among friends, they might just perceive the comment as a racist joke and feel unwelcome, thus reducing the diversity of opinions discussed.

        ‘Tranny’ is most definitely not a term of endearment. It’s more like calling a black person ‘negro’. Respectfully, the more I see this term being described as harmless in this thread, the clearer it is to me that nobody here knows any trans people.

        The rope comment was after Nash’s, correct. But it’s still up, and it is still super creepy.

        • Cassandra says

          It’s not a joke about racism, pet, it’s a satirical riff on the practical problems of self identification (or as some might say, claiming to be other than you are, and getting grumpy when other ‘people’ don’t go along with you).

          PS ‘pet ‘ is a Northumbrian term of endearment, not a biological identity slur.
          Xxxx

  10. This story is only possible because of Yaniv PLUS the Human Rights Commission Yaniv can bring his complaints to the commission at no cost, and he has profited from harassing women into paying him to go away. Mark Steyn has written extensively on the illogical, ideologically-driven Human Rights Commissions of Canada in previous years. There are many more crazy stories like this one.

  11. DNY says

    Ordinarily a contrafactual belief, firmly held with great emotional conviction, that causes the holder great distress and causes the holder to interact inappropriately with other people is considered a delusion and a sign of mental illness. The normal approach to such delusions is to try to gently dissuade those afflicted with them from continuing to believe them, or, failing that, to dissuade the deluded from acting on their delusions in ways harmful to themselves or others.

    I have never heard a satisfactory explanation offered as to why the belief that one is the opposite sex from that manifested in both one’s chromosome and physiognomy should, quite the contrary, be approached by having all of society play along and pretend that the person is the opposite sex, while offering them surgery and hormone treatments that will among other things, destroy their normal sexual function and render them sterile.

    • TommyT says

      Reversible gay conversion therapy is condemned. Irreversible mutilation is encouraged. We have gone insane.

      • Jonny Sclerotic says

        @ TommyT

        Irreversible mutilation of babies has been encouraged for thousands of years. We’ve been insane for at least that long.

  12. Ray Andrews says

    The thing about you monkeys is that you spend most of your time harassing each other and making trouble for everyone else besides. Go back to Africa and climb a tree.

    • DiamondLil says

      Your cetacean privilege is showing, Ray.

      • Ray Andrews says

        Ok Lil, sorry. It’s hard to be humble when you’re a dolphin but I’m doing as best as I can. We do appreciate that some of you monkeys try to act respectable.

  13. ccscientist says

    One insane consequence of such laws is demanding that doctors do inappropriate procedures (impossible actually), keeping from the doctor the fact that the patient could be pregnant (a female taking male hormones and looking male), and so on.
    Also objectionable is that most women strongly object to men in their personal spaces such as locker rooms and showers. People who defend trans rights repeatedly turn this aside with a statement about toilet stalls (ie you still have privacy) as if this is the only thing–but group showers and locker rooms do exist including in schools. People get naked together. The “rights” of 1 out of a 1000 cause distress to many.

    • Ray Andrews says

      @ccscientist

      As many as one in a thousand? More like a tenth or a hundredth of that I’d estimate. To this day I’ve never seen a single instance of trannie rights nor a single instance of any person who had any problem with being expected to access the facilities appropriate to their physiology.

  14. Ray Andrews says

    BTW congrats to the author for gracefully avoiding any use of female pronouns when referring to Yaniv. Would that be a micro-aggression tho? A crime of omission? We now have forced speech and it could be charged that Ms. Joyce is failing to Affirm Yaniv’s True Gender and might therefore be forced to speak those pronouns. Perhaps we should all be forced to testify to our acceptance of the reality of self-professed gender. Like Thomas More, our silence might not be acceptable and the right of private conscience is now gone. Private dissenting opinion is Violence after all.

    • Martin28 says

      I work in a small office (about 10 employees) and a coworker recently suggested that we put pronouns on our email signatures. The explanation is that this would be a kindness to transgender people. Essentially, this is a request to show support for the movement. Several of the coworkers quickly complied, but I have ignored this. I have never been “mispronouned,” would find it funny if I was, and think (he/his) would look ridiculous. And why both, doesn’t one imply the other? Should I put he/her? But that’s they way they all do it. Although this sort of request may be sincere, it does tend to “out” people who are unwilling to do something like this. And I think it causes others to virtue signal even if they would never do this on their own.

      • The Firefox bug tracker has some sort of pronoun integration built into it. Every time someone makes a post it tacks their moongender at the end of their name. It’s so damn annoying and has absolutely nothing to do with fixing bugs in a web browser.

  15. Luke Langsjoen says

    This trans stuff has obviously gotten way out of hand, but the real elephant in the room, in my opinion, is how easily decent society can disintegrate when you casually dismiss the right to free association. This unfortunate story is a perfect example of why a purveyor of services to another individual should be able to refuse said services for any reason whatsoever.

    There are more dogmatic libertarians than I who would apply the same principle to public spaces like restaurants and bars. I find these arguments interesting, but not fully compelling or practical. If a place is open to the “public”, I can see the benefit in outlawing refusal based on a demographic characteristic. Maybe that’s a debate for another time, but if you are personally baking someone a cake, singing them a song, or for God’s sake waxing their genitals, you have the right to do so or not as you damn well please. What else does it mean to live in a free society?

    • I live in Toronto, in one of those neighbourhoods that’s mostly safe, but has its rough edges. There’s a restaurant nearby that has a sign up on the wall that reads “NO GANG COLOURS”. So far they seem to have gotten away with that, though I wonder if the local thugs took to Twitter to vent their frustrations if that situation would quickly change.

      • Jerjapan says

        ‘No gang colours’ is an accepted convention across the political spectrum here in Toronto. What an absurd post.

        • I’m just playing devil’s advocate, I’m not saying it’s unacceptable. What do you think I am, a Galloway Boy who moonlights on Quillette debates and discussions? Fuck those criminals.

          I’m just saying, who knows, give it some time, eventually the woke left Twitterati could be painting gang members as victims because “they just didn’t have enough opportunities, and the racism systemic in society forced them into a bad life, their colours are just a part of their culture, blah blah blah”. They’ve defended worse people before. Pedophiles, etc.

          • Jerjapan says

            B, that’s a classic slippery slope fallacy right there. And come on, people on all ends of the political spectrum condemn pedophiles. What are you referring to with that example?

    • Jerjapan says

      Luke, I used to live in Tokyo, and I can tell you from experience that ‘no foreigners’ signs feel a lot worse than you seem to imply.

      • Cassandra says

        I’m afraid you are incorrect about paedophilia and politics. The Labour politician Harriet Harman was heavily and openly involved in an organisation which attempted to legalise sex with minors, her party has steadfastly refused to deny or sanction this involvement.

        Everyone has a right to express themselves sexually, you see.

  16. Extraordinary says

    It simpler than that. Men aren’t women. If a man thinks he is a woman, he has a problem, and our pity if he wants it. If the government thinks he is a woman, than, indeed, we do have the problem, a problem with the government. And our problem will inevitably grow worse and worse until one day our problem becomes the government’s problem. The only issue unresolved is the distance from here to there.

  17. Raoul says

    “Human beings are, like all mammals, sexually dimorphic and incapable of changing sex.”

    Correct. And anyone who plays along with this bullshit is an enabler of it. There’s no such thing as a trans sexual. There’s only people suffering various afflictions of and straight up liars and opportunists. If you cant speak this simple truth, then fuck you – you’re part of the problem

  18. Philip says

    The root of the problem is the legal one of ‘protected characteristics’. This breaks the fundamental principle in law that all are treated equally. It means that some have rights that others don’t, it means some are favourites before the law, it means they have privileged status. There is nothing so divisive in society than that. It not only sets one group against another, it takes us back to pre- Magna Carta times when people won cases on the basis of who they were not on the rights of the case.

  19. Harold Porter says

    “Waxing the scrotum is a gender affirming act”….yes because all women regularly have their scrotums waxed…

  20. ga gamba says

    Yes, they want to change the rules. What can be more satisfying than using their own rules against them? A waxer, or waxologist, no longer provides services to males or females. S/he handles vulvas and/or penises and limits the conversation to his/her qualifications to perform these services. “Do you wax women?” “I wax vulvas because my training is limited to that. Do you have a vulva or a penis and scrotum?” This removes their gender game from their arsenal.

    Is it an absolutely foolproof way to exclude trans people? No, but most things aren’t foolproof. Is a person who isn’t medically trained able to differentiate a genuine vulva from one that was constructed from scrotal tissue? I don’t know. If not, then a post-operative MtF transsexual could slide through, but this person doesn’t pose the same potential risks mentioned as the reasons to refuse service to penis possessing people. Presumably, a MtF transsexual who fully transitioned and no longer has a penis could be refused service by a person qualified to wax vulvas because the scrotum is used to construct the vulva, so this tissue is still scrotal, which the training didn’t address.

    One may encounter a dingbat who declares her penis and scrotum is a vulva, but this is objectively an untruth. “Sorry, I’m not trained to wax that.” If the client claims to have a vulva and presents a penis, a waxer could claim that s/he was flashed, which is a crime of indecent exposure and often gets the convicted flasher added to a sexual offender registry.

    A lot of these gendertrenders are motivated to twist people to their wills and assertions by forcing them to say and do things they think to be untrue. By removing male and female as well as the gender pronouns when dealing with them, you’re ignoring what they deem very important. You’re not recognising what they want you to recognise, and you’re doing so in ways that limits your legal risk until this mess is corrected, if ever.

    In the market economy we allow people to specialise. We don’t require Ferrari mechanics also mend school buses, tanks, and even aeroplanes because they have engines too. We don’t demand urologists provide gynecological services as well.

    • I endorse your excellent proposal. The problem lies in the fact that trans-women are determined to be classified as true women. We should have a system which identifies people as male, female and everything else. Identification is the problem here. Lying about biology on paper is the problem here.

      There should be international laws, which would seem reasonable given peoples’ tendency to fly around the world, that require you to state your biological sex on your passport; M, F or T. Sorted. It is not unreasonable to have certain spaces which remain only accessible to a particular sex.

      • There should be international laws, which would seem reasonable given peoples’ tendency to fly around the world, that require you to state your biological sex on your passport; M, F or T.

        I can see that working for national or state I.D., depending on levels of social tolerance, but internationally? You know how many countries would arrest you at the airport just for having that letter T on your passport? Bad idea.

        • Stephanie says

          “You know how many countries would arrest you at the airport just for having that letter T on your passport?”

          It wouldn’t be a bad thing for awareness to be raised that certain countries are not nice places.

          • It wouldn’t be a bad thing for awareness to be raised that certain countries are not nice places.

            Okay then, you first! Go ahead, be a hero! Fly over to Tajikistan with a transgendered passport to “raise awareness” and see how much of a good thing it is for you. Buy a one-way ticket, though, otherwise you’ll be wasting money that your family could put towards your empty-casket funeral.

            I’m not saying it’s right that this happens, but Jesus Christ, be realistic! These are real, actual lives we’re talking about, not some silly college protest bullshit! That sort of change doesn’t happen by having foreigners shove their western concept of gender identity down an 8th-century culture’s throat. They will kill you for trying to change their minds. That is a reality beyond your control. Yes, it sucks to feel so powerless. Welcome to Earth, where you learn to pick your battles in order to survive.

            Transgendered isn’t even supposed to be a gender; the moment we started thinking of it as such is when things started to get crazy, in my opinion. I’m from a time where “transgendered” meant “I was once Gender A, and now I’m Gender B, or at least in the process of becoming Gender B”. There wasn’t a concept of transgendered being your actual gender identity, it was a word used to describe a process and journey that you are either in the middle of, or have completed, with a clear endgame of either “male” or “female” being the goal in sight. Furthermore, the concept of “passing” as your new gender was very important, and would be the source of considerable grief for transpeople who failed to do so. Looking like a transperson wasn’t the goal, looking like the opposite gender was the goal.

            That being said, what’s wrong with sticking with M and F? If you were born M, but became F, then your passport should read F! Congratulations, you’re a woman! Isn’t it demeaning to a transwoman to keep referring to her as a transwoman, to keep constantly reminding her that her gender isn’t ever going to be recognized without that “trans” qualifier? A woman is a woman, or at least that’s what my outdated liberal programming has taught me. That’s my problem, I guess, I’m a liberal on old software and I refuse to upgrade to the latest neural operating system. Modern liberals today identify by their struggles, not by their accomplishments. That’s why I like the old software — much less “security issues”.

      • Kauf Buch says

        TO Jonathan JG
        Yeah, sure…GO TELL THAT TO ISLAMIC COUNTRIES FIRST…and get back to us.
        (or whatever part of you is left over)

        • ga gamba says

          Transgendered isn’t even supposed to be a gender

          Correct. Once it was transsexual. The prefix trans tells us the person is crossing from one state to another, e.g. from male to female and female to male. If you are a male who identifies as female the last thing you’d want is to be in a perpetual in-between state.

          Intersex has recently popped up to address this in-between state, a substitute for hermaphrodite. Yet, this is a birth defect, an anomaly. We don’t deem those with gigantism and dwarfism as altogether different types of humans, do we?

      • ga gamba says

        The problem lies in the fact that trans-women are determined to be classified as true women.

        Yes, and therefore removing male/female man/woman dichotomy from the services provided is the solution. A trans person may continue believing whatever s/he wants, and the waxer isn’t compelled to play along. There’s no need for the client and service provider have a debate about a person with a penis wanting to be called a woman. Are you a man with a vulva? You see those who are certified to wax vulvas. Are you a woman with a penis and scrotum? You see those who are certified to wax those.

        This may even be applied to lavatories, locker rooms, and other spaces traditionally deemed men’s and women’s. Instead of male and female stick figures and the like mounted on the doors, we may develop a universal symbol for the vulva, for example (|), and for the penis and scrotum, for example 8==D .

        • Azathoth says

          “Are you a man with a vulva? You see those who are certified to wax vulvas. Are you a woman with a penis and scrotum? ”

          This is the problem right here though.

          You’re not a ‘man with a vulva’. Men don’t HAVE vulvas. You’re a woman.

          This is denying biology to cater to feelings. It says that the most basic parts of science are wrong.

          And your solution–do you not understand it?

          You’re saying don’t say ‘men and women’, say ‘penis and vulva’

          What do you think ‘men’ and ‘women’ is supposed to denote?

          If you have 8==D, that’s ‘man, and if you have (I), that’s ‘woman’

          You’re trying to say man and woman with new words that mean the exact same thing.

    • Ray Andrews says

      @ga gamba

      “but this is objectively an untruth”

      Which the HRT has very clearly adjudicated to be no defense. Actually a null defense because there is no such thing as objective truth, there is only declaration of identification. If one can get away with pointing out that a penis is not a vulva then there is no reason why one could not get away with saying that a man is not a woman, therefore, since the latter is forbidden the former must be forbidden too.

    • D.B. Cooper says

      @ga gamba

      Is a person who isn’t medically trained able to differentiate a genuine vulva from one that was constructed from scrotal tissue?

      This question has been long in the coming as far as I’m concerned. But before I fall headlong into a market analysis on healthcare clinicians who are classically trained to bird-dog a genuine vulva from one that was constructed from scrotal tissue with a degree of sensitivity and specificity well north of the three-sigma rule of thumb; you Mr. Gamba, deserve a degree of good language, notoriety even, for your uncanny ability to assess the low hanging first order problems and then extrapolate to unforeseen secondary and tertiary problems with a level of precision that would surely make even the best vulva examiner blush.

      And for that, here’s an overdue tip-of-the-hat to you good, Sir.

      Formalities having been adequately satisfied, let us return to the business of examining vulva. Despite your obvious skills of divination, you may be surprised to learn that Canada is running a deficit of serviceable information regarding the what is in all likelihood a rising niche market ready to explode. It’s worth mentioning the lack of actionable intelligence is, to my mind, dispositive proof that further confirms your status as a next level operator. It’s clear to me you hit the mark with this question. Your clairvoyance notwithstanding, forecasting market demand with information gleaned from the ever-fickle invisible hand is tough enough under the best of conditions. Although any market analyzer worth the hair on his balls (or constructed vulva) knows that complete information is neither needed nor expected for an analysis, it is also no less true that some minimal level of information is. And while the threshold for this information void will vary from market to market, unfortunately it appears you may have gotten out over your skies by recognizing the impending market needs for competent vulva examiners. So, while the dearth of credible info means dispensing a summary judgement for this market will have to wait, take solace in the knowledge that you were the first and only and hopefully last person to think of and be concern with the status of aesthetically pleasing vulvas within the Canadian trans community.

      As a quick aside, and not only because I’m enjoying myself, I feel somewhat compelled to mention that while I technically lack the requisite formal training, having been schooled on a multi-decade OJT, and come out the other side, having weathered both the high points and one or two closing time/wingman low points I’d rather not get into. The important point here, is that I always soldiered on in good times and in bad, no matter the terrain, or the amount of dignity I had to forfeit, I always ensured mission success.

      In many ways, the training I received was not unlike those acquired by U.S. postal workers. There were times were someone would ask me to deliver them a package and I would be like, “Hey lady, I don’t know who you are, I don’t know if what kind of package you want. If you expect to see me in the morning, I can tell you I don’t have money.” But even when the answer wasn’t clear, I would always make sure by the end of my shift, the customer received the package they wanted. Why? Because OJT gave me a very particular set of skills. Skills I acquired over a very long career, so on and so forth.

  21. Yaniv’s complaint before the human rights tribunal caannot be reductio ad absurdum because the idea f gender self identification was already absurd built on another absurd concept, that the differenence sbetween men and women are entirely learnt and essentially arbitray and in a system of absurd clearly counter-factual and contradictory ideas relating to sex and sex differences such as ‘the patriarchy’, or that while sex differences are entorely societal and learnt a man can be born in a womand body or vice versa.

    The deeper issue is how and why such a system of beliefs have come to dominate public discourse, morals and the legal system despite being absurd and despite being believed by only a tiny fraction of the population.

    • Martin28 says

      Philosophy. Social justice theory. Developed over decades among academics and so-called intellectuals and now this thinking has become mainstream among the woke crowd who want to appear virtuous and with-it. The good news is that this philosophy is so filled with contradictions, double-standards, absurdities, and nastiness that it ought not be too hard to discredit it and come up with a better alternative.

  22. Morti says

    In this case it seems to be the end of most if not all businesses that have to discriminate based on genitalia. If you want to run such a thing in Canada better reconsider and change your plans.

    I wonder what mental gymnastics will they invent to keep gynecologists runnning.

    • Speaking of gymnastics, does this now mean I get to sue a bunch of women’s only gyms by swinging my dick around and demanding membership? I sure could use some extra cash. If I sue enough of them, I might be able to actually afford a gym membership!

      • Cora says

        It’s already been done. Google it.

        The ignorance on this topic is astounding coming from men who claim some kind of intellectual superiority. (As Quillette commentariat do). Women have been fighting this for more than a decade, with men like you thinking it’s not important, or not even aware because it doesn’t lose you anything. You think…

        Thanks to the men who see what’s going on and are determined to speak out. Jon Kay and many others.

    • Alouise says

      After reading many of these posts, this is the one issue I kept thinking about. What about the rights of physicians? A non-modified male person goes to an OB-GYN and demands a Pap smear and ovarian exam and physically cannot get either procedure accomplished, and so can then sued? Even if it is thrown out of court, the legal costs and potential harm-causing publicity could devastate that physician!

      And another thought, I am a female (no re-identification) and have NEVER been asked by another female in a public restroom, (I cannot imagine a young woman I didn’t know even asking), how to use products related to menstruation. This aspect of Yaniv’s story is disturbing. Why is this even a topic on which Yaniv dwells?

      In this case, Yaniv wants a service by a woman who only serves women, and is hurt and angry when turned down. If the procedure is really all that is wanted, then Yaniv should be okay with it being provided by the most qualified, someone who has been trained appropriately, man or woman. Yaniv seems to only seek untrained (for treating males), unwilling women. I agree with an earlier post that states, ‘So this is just a shakedown!’

      One more thought I just can’t resist, some strong-minded, confident woman, adequately trained or not, should provide the service for Yaniv. It will likely be the last time it is requested!

  23. C Young says

    Mostly good, neutral analysis, but the section beginning “any woman who has tried to point out the obvious risks of allowing biological males to present themselves as women at will has been mobbed, deplatformed and defamed as a bigot” is rubbish.

    Trans lobbyists often shroud wave in pursuit of special moral status. They’ve been persecuted (which is true). If they dont get their way, kids will commit suicide etc etc.

    The truth is that radfem world has more than its fair share of bitter misanthropists who would cross the road for a punch up. “Gender critical” women should not play the same game by overplaying their own victimisation.

    • Cora says

      Please stop commenting where you have no #^*% clue. You just make a fool of yourself.

      Many many women on Twitter, FB and other social media have lost their accounts, jobs, had to engage lawyers to protect themselves, their children and elderly parents, gone underground to protect themselves, hired security, been to emergency– to protect the rights of all women. Even MRA suckups.

    • GRPalmer says

      “Trans Rights” campaign is nothing but a sociopathic campaign of toxic masculinity that uses the “Law” to bully women and violate their human rights.

      They should be prosecuted for human rights violation and attempted sexual assault.

  24. This case is so disgusting and it beggars belief. Sadly, it is another example of women being unable to defend themselves from men encroaching on their personal spaces. It is so unbelievable that we have got this point with contemporary feminism.

    Here is my wildly misogynistic interpretation which, unfortunately, is the only one that seems to make any sense. (BTW I am purely a first-wave Feminist in the Greer mould). With this JY slob, and all the concurrent sports problems, it is really tempting to think this is just more evidence of women’s inability to stand up for themselves. They are inherently weak, in body and mind, and just crumble every time a man bullies them. This explains millennia of domination and today’s problem with trans-women strutting around in their bathrooms, prisons and sports fields.

    I cannot understand why women don’t grow a huge, hairy pair and just tell the men to fuck off out of it. Are they really that soft? I don’t want to think so. I can’t accept that having lower body strength means you have be the constant victim of male abuse, especially in this day and age. What we have now is lots of millennial sky-screamers telling people like Greer to fuck off instead of the men from whom they should be protecting themselves.

    I truly despair. Should men have to step in to save women? From themselves? From men pretending to be women? What the hell is going on please?

    Note: I am sure the only way of sorting this out is to have a third category, men, women and everyone else. This would obviously require separate facilities; prisons, toilets, sports competitions, beauty, whatever. And the trans themselves can damn well pay for it. Problem is solved and women are safe from this BS. They can be welcomed in public places like shops as long as they don’t start smashing stuff up.

    • Some-woman says

      The most politically influential women, as a category, tend to be masculine ones, which include lesbian butch dykes and whatnot. Apart from transwomen dominating discourse, there was the prior issue of radical lesbians dominating discourse in gender related policy. It might be that most radical lesbians are favorable to trans women’s claims.

      Transwomen have the support of plenty of ciswomen. It’s not merely an issue of them bullying their way into female spaces. It is that they have been invited by the cisfemale social justice warriors that are currently empowered.

    • Kauf Buch says

      TO Jonathan JG
      Sounds like you would benefit by visiting the mental health professionals those “IGottaDickAndThinkI’mAGirl” need.

      Just about EVERY suggestion you’ve made here requires a totalitarian globalist governing body to FORCE this insanity on ALL people.

      Like I wrote earlier, TRY FORCING YOUR MESSAGE ON ISLAMIC COUNTRIES FIRST, SEE HOW FAR YOU GET, THEN GET BACK TO US….

    • Cassandra says

      I know ( and have known for many years) a trans woman. They are six foot two Andreasonably brawny, though run terribly to fat since the hormone treatments. So I would be fairly careful, as a small-boned , five foot, seventy year old woman, telling someone like that to ‘fuck off out of it’.

      Not that I would ever tell anyone of any persuasion to do that. I would speak to them with courtesy, in the hope that it might be returned.

  25. Maybe we should make “freedom of association” an absolute. Then it doesn’t matter how you identify.

    • DiamondLil says

      But it’s not that simple. Absolute freedom of association could return us to the days of Jim Crow.

      • Fred says

        @ DiamondLil, Not necessarily. Keep in mind, Jim Crow was a legal regime. A restaurant owner in the Jim Crow South could not have allowed black people to eat with white people even if he had wanted to. It was against the law. Because it was illegal, black people did not have the option of simply eating someplace else more hospitable to them. When those laws were declared unconstitutional, that option became open. And boycotts of discriminati g businesses could be effective, c.f. the Montgomery bus boycott. If a businessperson’s racism is so important to him that he is willing to go bankrupt over it, fine. Black folks and sympathetic white folks can simply go someplace else.

    • Sardonicus says

      “Maybe we should make “freedom of association” an absolute”

      But then Racists would be legally entitled to operate restaurants while refusing service to people on the basis of their Race and Religionists would be legally entitled to operate restaurants while refusing service to people on the basis of their Religion and Sexists would be legally entitled to operate restaurants while refusing service to people on the basis of their Sex. Many Jews and Muslims would be intersectionally doubly or even triply discriminated against and we can’t have that. And anyway, “Race”, “Religion” and “Sex” are mere words the meanings of which are Socially Constructed and since The Map (words) is not the Territory (elaborately organized heaps of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons) this whole Scandal is a quarrel over distinctions of Form devoid of distinctions of Substance.

      • Stephanie says

        It’s really telling that people think freedom of association would turn their neighbours into racist POSs that would rather see their businesses collapse than to serve blacks/Muslims/Jews. Speaks volumes about the character of your friends and family. You should reconsider your voluntary associations if this is your perspective on humanity.

        A people that need their government to mandate decency are not a decent people. If they are not a decent people, how are they to become decent? Government coercion? That can only force people to hide their true thoughts, which is an infringement on fundamental liberty. The only way to correct this behaviour is through socialisation. Let those who choose to wrongly discriminate face the social consequences, however long they may take to manifest.

    • Douglas Levene says

      Or you could just limit the accommodations for men who identify as women to areas that don’t infringe in the rights of women to sexual privacy and modesty, to safety, and to fair athletic competition.

  26. C Young says

    Note that Joyce’s analysis firmly roots in the modern feminist tradition.

    Modern feminism is a form of radical social constructionism that denies any role for biology in the social world, just as Janiv does.

    Just like Yaniv, it asserts that our world can be completely reconstructed through political action, with biology no impediment. It also sees language as playing a central role in this reconstruction effort and has imposed any number of language codes on the rest of the population.

    For the radical social constructivist, if everyone calls a trowel ‘a spade’, it becomes one. Just as for Janiv a man becomes ‘a woman’ if everyone can be intimidated into saying it is so.

    Thus, Janiv isn’t just a reductio of trans ideology, he’s a living reductio of the type of feminism, now mainstream, that incorporates radical social constructionism.

    • Some-woman says

      The transadvocates like to ignore the internal contradictions in their belief here. Supposedly language and social construction alone can determine who is a woman. Yet, they claim that insurance companies should pay for trans people under 18 to physically transition- admitting there is some biological component. For if language alone can construct someone’s gender identity, what is the need for hormone therapy?

      Reality is that we currently simply do not have anything close to the science to turn men into women. Perhaps one day with vast advances in in vitro genetic engineering, a person born male can be effectively transformed into a biolocal female and this discussion will be resolved. But that seems at least a century off.

      • Ray Andrews says

        @Some-woman

        “if language alone can construct someone’s gender identity, what is the need for hormone therapy?”

        Bigot! Because someone conceived and born and raised under The Patriarchy and under it’s Oppressive Social Constructions is physically damaged by them and needs medical care to recover. If a woman is violently raped she might need medical treatment, no? In the same way, if a trannie is Violently misgendered from birth (or even earlier) then it is quite proper that medical treatment would be needed to repair the Violence. Get it?

    • Martin28 says

      Thank you. This is ultimately a problem with philosophy. Philosophy is much more powerful than most people think—it can kill millions and bring civilizations down. Few people agree with details behind modern feminism and social justice philosophy yet it seems to be running our culture. We can’t fight this just politically—we have to go deeper than that.

  27. Agent Smith says

    This ‘conflict of rights’ scenario is the basic flaw underlying all identity-based systems.

    Attempting to give everyone ‘equal rights’, while the groups of people who makeup ‘everyone’ have different cultures, ideologies and values, will eventually take us into situations where we simply cannot cater for everyone, no matter how hard we try. The cognitive dissonance will become unbearable.

    Which is why we, as a culture, have to stand up for a set of values which work for us and everyone has to exist within that framework. If they don’t want to they can go somewhere else.

    The problem is that there is an ideological stance these days whicn seems to state that everyone is welcome and tolerated.

    But not only can such tolerance result in our tolerating intolerance, for the sake of inclusivity, it also means we are vulnerable to manipulation by using the rules of such a system against us.

    we’ve been trying to keep the lid on all of this for sometime now but soon it will become untenable. We will soon have to take a stand and clarify that there are some aspects of behaviour and belief which we don’t agee on and will not allow,

    So gay rights v certain religious beliefs for example, will have to be confronted. Similarly with women’s rights – and indeed trans rights.

    Currently ‘diversity’ can – and has – resulted in simmering resentment, because everyone thinks they have ‘equal rights’. But in reality they do not and at some point in the future we will have to disavow certain people of this notion for the sake of clarity and peace.

    The irony is though, that we used to have such systems in place but we demolished them over the years because it was supposed to be ‘better’ that way.

    Instead, all we’ve done is created a myriad of grievances and dissolved the glue which keeps our societies together.

    Which is precisely what some people wanted all along of course. But that’s a whole ‘nother matter.

    • Attempting to give everyone ‘equal rights’, while the groups of people who makeup ‘everyone’ have different cultures, ideologies and values, will eventually take us into situations where we simply cannot cater for everyone, no matter how hard we try

      The problem is that it has become mandated by law to accept beleives that almost no one beleives and which are complete nonsense from a scientific point of view. The idea of gender identity being seperate from the sex of an individual is nonsense and almost no one believes it yet is enshrined in law. Laws that close to no one believes in are always going to be a problem.

      • Ray Andrews says

        @AJ

        How do you make things show up in italics like that? Where can we learn the formatting tricks?

        • Jonny Sclerotic says

          This is an an italic tag cock up but if you use the same tags without the space before the first and last letters you can emphasize words or say things in latin, like Delphinus delphis

          • Ray Andrews says

            @Jonny Sclerotic

            Yabut aren’t there sorta shortcuts? I’ve seen sites that have basic formatting without the official HTML tags. Mind there’s nothing wrong with just doing it proper-like.

          • Ray Andrews says

            – Bold text
            – Important text
            – Italic text
            – Emphasized text
            – Marked text
            – Small text
            – Deleted text
            – Inserted text
            – Subscript text
            – Superscript text

  28. the gardner says

    I think the accused women should get together, get an informed consent from him, heat up that wax, dip his testicles and rip away. And post it all on social media.

    • Bonus points if they “accidentally” use the wrong wax and technique.

      • V 2.0 says

        I volunteer to wax this man’s (yes, man’s) penis and testicles. He may not like it but on the plus side he will actually be somewhat of a woman (or at least not a man) afterwards 😛

        • mirrormere says

          Instead of wax – how about a hot glue gun? You know, not being trained and all…

  29. I feared it would eventually come to this. The gender-neutral bathrooms gave predators an out, the trans-friendly changing rooms gave predators an out. I hated this, but the odds were not in favour of the trans people just trying to quietly live out their lives as a person. “Pre-op” people are actually terrified of being found out in a public place. (If they haven’t gotten “bottom”/”top” surgery, if they decide they want to at all. Some don’t and just choose hormones, hormone-blockers and body binding instead.)

    Predators out themselves for the thrill, trans or not. Why else humiliate yourself on purpose?

    Back on topic: if Yaniv is equally intelligent enough to have gotten this far, and yet deeply committed to the idea of getting that wax from an unqualified woman, Yaniv may bleed to death by having skin ripped forcibly off the scrotum.

    That’s what happens at the worst when you don’t know the proper waxing technique; and it would be all Yaniv’s fault if the case is in their favour.

    • I personally have no problem with them going to bathrooms. Where else are they supposed to shit? I’d rather it not be on the sidewalk, thank you very much. Like ’em or not, something that that men, women and trans people have in common is bowels and the need to empty them. It’s cruel and medically dangerous to ask anyone to hold it. I don’t even agree with “customers only” policies. The only ethical reason for refusing someone bathroom service is if it’s out of order. Anyone with a bowel condition like IBS or Chron’s knows what I’m talking about. It’s not as easy as just finding another place to go.

      Hell, my girlfriend always uses the mens room at busy events like sports games because the women just take too fucking long, since 80% of the time they spend in there is used for TALKING. Seriously, of all the most inconsiderate things a person could do, hogging the can has to be among the worst of them! Sure, she gets funny looks, sometimes a guy will kindly correct her (as if she had just innocently made a mistake, hah!), but she’s never been assaulted or arrested for it. Lucky her, I wish I could go in the ladies room sometimes, just so I don’t have to deal with the fags in the stall next to me tapping their feet for a blowjob when I’m trying to concentrate on getting rid of my morning fiber. Of course, I can’t do that, because as a male I would easily be a bigger target for assault and arrest if I ever entered the wrong bathroom. People would justify it, too.

      Since we’ve already got two bathrooms in so many establishments, reducing to a single bathroom would be too costly an infrastructural change. What I propose is that we change all female bathroom signs to read “Social Shitter”, and let anyone who needs to enter the bathroom with five friends and 100 things to talk about go into those. Finally, women can bring their fag hags with them! Then, change the male bathroom signs to read “Silent Shitter”, and people who use that one will be expected to just shut the fuck up and get their business over with as quickly as their bodily functions allow.

      • My bad, didn’t really see it in that reductionist, simple way. True, trans people would feel better knowing they won’t get attacked or accused for just trying to enter a washroom stall.

        Getting rid of just one kind of bathroom wouldn’t get rid of people getting attacked in bathrooms in general. Attacks in regular bathrooms aren’t as reported on, though they have happened. And I never did look into the specifics of those “attack” cases in the news, it could just as easily be a regular trans person just trying to go to the washroom and glancing at someone on the way out.

        Hard to keep grounded nowadays, easy to let the sensational manipulate you if you think it’s correct. Apologies for not thinking it through, and thanks for the brain jump-start. 🙂

    • Cora says

      This isn’t about waxing: It’s about sexual fetish and getting one’s rocks off over abusing women.

      • Aristodemus says

        @Cora, Suspect you’re right. Wouldn’t claim to know it beyond any doubt in a given case though.

      • Rev. Wazoo! says

        @Cora
        True but more to it. It’s about asserting power, arbitrary authority based on a faith, bullying the women concerned but also making an example of them to bully everyone else.

        And cuz the guy is such a dick (and unemployed) it’s also just a shakedown for cash.

  30. Bad pun maker says

    This spltting pubic hair in four… Im waxing weary of it all.

    • mirrormere says

      Hey – at least you got your name right!

  31. I find it helpful to conceive of transgender people as people who prefer, or even feel a desperate need, to live as the opposite sex from the sex that their body is. If they decide to take this so far as to changing their body to more nearly resemble the body of the other sex, fine; do that. Then, they can refer to themselves as a transwoman or transman, meaning someone who is living as the sex that they feel more akin to. I’m aware of people who refer to themselves, insistently, not as a member of the sex that they now more nearly resemble, but as a trans person to make it clear that they have changed their bodies.

    But if they have not changed their body through hormones and surgery, they are still their original sex, with a preference for the behavior and social interactions of the other sex. That type of person, like Yaniv, is trying to have it both ways, and cannot realistically expect others to ignore their bodies and cater to their self-concept.

  32. Heather says

    As a practicing Catholic Canadian, I must admit, I can’t wait for Sharia Law to finally be the law if the land. NO MORE gender absurdities. There are only two biological genders. The rest is MENTAL ILLNESS.

    • Sharia Law probably won’t be too compatible with your Catholicism. Might wanna look at the fine print before signing off on that one.

    • Citizen XY says

      Irony aside, Islam/sharia won’t resolve this issue the way you’d like, Heather.
      Iran for example, bans homosexuality, but trans is fine, even encouraged as a ‘solution’ for gayness.
      Do a search on “Iran women’s soccer team”.

    • Anonymous says

      @Heather If given a choice, I would rather have gender absurdities than a Shariah society. By the way – you being a woman would be the one forced to walk around in a black potato sack, in the rare event that you father or husband let you outside the house.

      That said, I do get your point and kind of sympathize with it.

  33. Sadly, Ambrose Bierce is no longer with us for seems we need some new entries in the Devil’s Dictionary.

  34. MMS says

    The sad thing here is that there are people among us who have legitimate concerns and have taken legitimate action to correct gender related issues at birth. For example, in the past (not sure about the present) a baby born without functional genitals may be surgically addressed as female but as they grew they were/ are clearly male. Then there a good people like Chaz Bono who was born physically female but in every other way male and had the resources to have surgery. Chaz is a male…. This is very different that what goes on in the Transvestite community which is really its own thing as I understand… I feel bad for everyday people that have physical issues regarding gender they have corrected or have attempted to correct that somehow get swept up in all this…

    • markbul says

      “Then there a good people like Chaz Bono who was born physically female but in every other way male …”

      I have no idea what you mean by that.

      • MMS says

        @markbul I am giving you an example of a perfectly reasonable, decent, and rational person who has had to deal with a serious gender issue. Chaz is not a person (as far as I know) who is trying to create a political uproar or prove a point. He is just a person, like you or me, who has had to deal with a serious personal challenge and has done so… It is too bad many people who deal with a situation where their gender and their sex do not match have to also be brought into the political context outlined in this commentary…

        • Martin28 says

          @MMS
          You are not addressing markbul’s point, which is a good one. What else is there besides the physical? Are you saying that Chaz is spiritually male, born inside of a female body? If so, how could you tell? Chaz’s body is female down to the chromosomes inside each cell, and yet Chaz’s sex and gender do not match? What the hell is gender?
          I assume you think of yourself as a rational, scientific person. You realize that you are spouting something that sounds like pseudoscience and is based entirely on unproven theory?
          Before you go off the deep end, I don’t claim the theory is 100 percent wrong. But it is unproven and so falls in the realm of belief.

    • Confused women who transition do better largely because, still being women, they are accepted as sex partners by lesbians. Since so many confused men are straight, they find themselves shut out after transition, and being men, they get vicious if deprived of sex partners.

  35. Kevin Herman says

    Sadly Yaniv is quite representative of trans people. Many change genders like socks one day acting like a man and the next day a woman. And many of them are straight preferring women when they are in either guise. Many of them are bullies. As for the Canadian press we all know why they didnt cover it. It reflected poorly on Canada and trans people. But lets not kid ourselves nothing surprising about this story at all. I find center left people are often quite clueless to how things really are because they get there news from the same place as the far left and those places suppress stories like this. Center right media covers this stuff all the time and if the author read more center right news she wouldn’t be quite as suprised.

    • Citizen XY says

      The Canadian press aren’t all ignoring it.
      The National Post has had two articles about it in the past two weeks.

      Predictably, the CBC has made no mention of it.
      In contrast, they did have an article regarding the twitter ban of Lindsay Shepherd re Yaniv.

      The CBC are utterly biased.
      Oops, rephrase in PC: the CBC are utterly woke.
      The hijab-torn-off-schoolgirl story was nation-wide on multiple CBC platforms within minutes.
      Covington kids ‘racist smirk’ initially covered.
      Smollett ‘racist attack’ initially covered.
      All quietly dropped when they turned out to be hoaxes/false.

      The Andy Ngo beating by Antifa was ignored. Normally, the CBC would be all over a journalist-attacked story.

      The Washington ICE detention center attack was covered – when the identity of the attacker was unknown. Story quietly dropped when it turned out to be Antifa.

      Hilariously, a week or so ago the CBC had an article about how to detect media bias and “fake news”.
      One of the recommendations was to stick to mainstream outlets and be suspicious of the independants/small outlets. No self-interest there. And no mention of highly-selective curating and presentation.

      • The CBC did cover the Jonathan Yaniv story on Friday night, July 26, after 7 pm.

        Technically.

        It was on the digital site around 7 pm Friday. It wasn’t picked up by Google search, and I had to use several search term combos before I raised it.

        CBC eds sent out an intern/newbie from Radio-Canada, the French language CBC, one too low to refuse and probably also eager to get assignments. One whose Twitter is mostly in French. CBC knows almost no-one in English Canada pays any attention to Radio-Canada or understands enough French to be following a Francophone Twitter account. Well, almost no one. 🙂

        Rather than use a news photog (I’m sure they all would have had serious family illness to attend if they had been given the assignment) CBC hired a freelance art photographer to accompany Lois Lane. This artist did a staged shot of Jonathan and mother. From the middle of the story, Jonathan smirks holding a sign saying “The Voice”. Mom, looking stricken, holds a sign pleading love not hate.

    • Jerjapan says

      Kevin Herman, try using evidence to support your gross generalizations. Otherwise, you just look clueless.

  36. Heyblinkin says

    Would it still be considered discriminatory if they were to advertise that they only offer their services to people with XX chromosomes?

    • David of Kirkland says

      That seems hard to prove, but I had the similar thought of whether they could offer it regardless of gender to all vaginas.

      • V 2.0 says

        Unless, of course, the argument becomes that there is no difference between a vagina and penis (‘innie’ vs ‘outie’). Yeah…it’s a real possibility. Sadly

      • Azathoth says

        You’ve just replaced the word ‘woman’ with the word ‘vagina’

        You’re just coming up with another way to say ‘female’.

  37. Richard says

    “I don’t think it’s unreasonable for women to distinguish between female-bodied people and male-bodied individuals, and to express willingness to be in vulnerable situations with female-bodied people to the exclusion of their male-bodied counterparts. Women commit much less violent or sexual crime than men, and are the target of a great deal more of it, almost all perpetrated by males.”

    See the logical inconsistency in the cited part of the article. Female- and male-“bodied” persons are identified and then it’s stated (correctly) that WOMEN commit much less violent sexual crime than MEN. Even the author, who tries very hard to make a logical point, uses expressions somewhat corrupted by the prevailing “transphobia phobia.”

    In other words, this is insanity and it needs to stop before real violence breaks out. How long can governments impose facially unreasonable demands on their citizens before the citizens revolt?

  38. markbul says

    “Women have been doxxed, had their jobs threatened and been kicked off Twitter for such word crimes as referring to Jessica/Jonathan Yaniv as “he.” These include Canada’s own Meghan Murphy and Lindsay Shepherd.”

    Jonathan Yaniv is a man. A delusional man. A sick man. There was once a Man Who Thought His Wife Was A Hat. He was sick. His wife was not a hat.

  39. David of Kirkland says

    Can they offer such waxing service on vaginas? This will get around saying they offer it to women. Instead, this offers that they can give you the service regardless of gender so long as you have a vagina. Nobody thinks a vagina and a penis+scrotum are the same.

    • Aerth says

      @David of Kirkland
      Brazilian wax is for female private body parts. In normal world, that would be enough to reject any complaints that it was not performed on male genitals. But, of course, our world went banana some time ago

  40. Morgan Foster says

    I see a time when Canadian women are forced to seek out illegal, back alley waxing, risking infection and possibly death.

  41. V 2.0 says

    A private business should be allowed to refuse service for any reason whatsoever unless doing so would result in physical injury or death (eg. if you own the only grocery store within a hundred miles). Hospitals and such should be considered public services even if run by religious organizations and thus exempt from the service refusal right. A few bigots would get away with some not niceness but since most of us are good people I can’t see how this would result in a big problem (other than the obnoxious woman who frequents my cafe and always seems to want to speak to the manager having no access to fancy coffee)

  42. Chris says

    Sixth possibility: Yaniv is using reductio as absurdum quite correctly in disproving transgender ideology. The waxing ladies etc are unavoidable and necessary steps in his disproof.
    He is a grade 1 troll, and perhaps a grade 1 nutjob, grifter and perv. These are not mutually exclusive.

  43. Kauf Buch says

    What are the pedophilia laws in Canada?
    Can Canada short-circuit this “human rights” (sic) CIRCUS
    by convicting and killing Yaniv for soliciting sex from minor girls?…and doing so REPEATEDLY?
    Calling him “mentally ill” is too much of a Fig Leaf for this type of scum.

  44. Douglas Levene says

    “In the trans-activist catchphrase, ‘trans women are women; period.’” I’d put that a little differently. I’d say, men who identify as women are men who identify as women, period. Men who identify as women deserve some accommodation for their psychological disorder, but not at the expense of women’s rights to sexual privacy, modesty, safety and fair athletic competition.

    • Kauf Buch says

      TO Douglas L

      Yeah, the “reasonable accomodation” for such mental illness
      is a straightjacket and electroshock therapy
      in an asylum, one removed far, far away from the rest of us.

      The “ad absurdum” KARMA will come
      when those “tranny” men start beating
      the @$$es off of real women in every woman’s sport.
      EVERY. SPORT.
      Which “victim” supercedes which “victim?!?

  45. Aerth says

    Splendid.

    This case is almost worst case scenario for trans activists. No wonder some of them are now trying to deny Yaniv’s transgenderism. Of course, it is clear contradiction to what they usually say, but they at least have enough brains to see this is complete trainwreck and throwing Yaniv under the bus (especially that he is a creep obsessed with tampoons and periods) is much better on the long run. The more important to keep pushing trans activists and Left politicians over it. Remind them constantly that this is not some unfortunate incident. They are responsible for making a way for people like Yaniv.. No washing hands allowed.

    For Canadian Leftist media it is a hard place as well – reporting on it would require choosing a side and, considering who Yaniv targeted, it would either mean looking like transphobes or like xenophobes. So, what a surprise, they pretend nothing is happening.

  46. Pingback: The Whole Ball of Wax acquires a new meaning | Anglican Samizdat

  47. Matthew Temis says

    While Yaniv seems likely to be a garden-variety deviant and provocateur, the debate does also reveal the double standards and lack of intellectual consistency of the feminist movement.

    For decades, we have been force-fed the absurd idea that gender is entirely a ‘social construct’ or perhaps, for the Butlerian crowd, a ‘performance’. Any objection that men and women may have differences in their psychological make-up, interests or preferences has been met with shrill denunciations. You are called an ‘essentialist’ or a ‘biological determinist’ or accused of wanting to force limiting stereotypes on people.

    To find some of the radical feminists now insisting that, well, actually biology may matter and gender may be more than just a social or linguistic performance, it smacks of hypocrisy. It shows that the real core of the movement is female advocacy and sometimes even female supremacism. They are not so much social constructionists as insisting on their own moral superiority and victimhood in every instance. The Trans Activists are their Frankenstein’s monster.

    • Martin28 says

      @Matthew Temis
      Good comment. Feminism is a house of cards based on moral superiority, and when that falls apart due to the double standards and intellectual inconsistency, feminism falls apart.

    • AnyWhereGirl says

      Radical feminists have never wavered in their belief as to the importance of biological sex. Women have historically been oppressed due to the reproductive capability of their sex class. It is liberal feminists who have introduced the notion of gender and queer theory, and absurdly centre gender-confused (or outright predatory opportunis like Yaniv) biological males in their “feminism”. The claim that they are breaking down gender stereotypes is utterly perverse in that transgenderism effectively is the promotion and consolidation that sex is a performance of gender stereotypes.

      We frequently ask “What is a woman”? If a woman is someone identifies as a woman, or gender stereotypes are referenced, you are safe. If you say “Adult Human Female” you are denounced as transphobe, bigot or T*RF or worse terfisalur.com.

      Those of us who have spoken out or criticised transgenderism HAVE been been deplatformed, doxxed, silenced, arrested, threatened, kicked off SM. This debate may be new to you, but it certainly isn’t to us.

      Fortunately for radfems and gendercrits Yaniv is the gift that keeps on giving – this is exactly what we have been warning about for years. We couldn’t have dreamt up a better poster boy to demonstrate the terrible “logical” conclusion of this gender identity theory. TRAs are now trying to distance themselves (Morgane Oger), or are remaining silent, but here is the crux of it – you are trans if you say you are. So they need to own it.

  48. GRPalmer says

    This is clearly a case for the

    “Spanish Inquisition”

    I am sure they will hot wax, and polish with emery paper his/hers/it’s testicles with religious enthusiastic joyous glee.

    With apologies to Monty Python.

    • DNY says

      @GRPalmer

      Your too-long-to-be-functional “inclusive” pronoun made from slashes brings to mind a proposal my late father made, long ago, in perhaps the late 1980’s when this nonsense was just a vague dark cloud on the cultural horizon. A little background — my father was a soft-spoken Presbyterian country parson, whom most people would have thought never used foul language, which wasn’t strictly true. Rather he felt that “cussing” was ineffective unless it was used very sparingly. That said, he had suggested that if people really wanted gender-neutral (or what would now be called a “gender inclusive”) pronouns in English, the nominative case pronoun should be “s/h/it”.

  49. Pingback: A Tale of Twitter – @MRKHVoice

  50. TofeldianSage says

    Human Rights Tribunals were a bad idea from the get go, and they need to be disbanded.

  51. Debbie Molina says

    This issue is one for our esteemed leader to address. He pushed to create this mess and it would be great fun to hear him “talk” his way out of it.

  52. Jonathan Yaniv is an autogynephile, a narcissist, a pedophile, and a sexual predator. He’s the one who should be put on trial for sexual harassment and for soliciting a minor, then sent to prison, where his self-identification as a woman will surely be warmly embraced.

  53. Michael Sean Edwards says

    Things are gonna slide, slide in all directions…
    I’ve seen the future, Brother it is murder…
    Leonard Cohen, “The Future”

  54. John Savage says

    The real absurdity is that this whole issue is debated at length. Men are men and women are women. Gender fluidity is mental illness or worse. God help us.

  55. Ryan says

    The government will soon require that online dating sites not suppory a filter for trans individuals. If you are a man, you should be attracted to trans women and their genitals. Trans women already claim this as bigoted.

  56. Yankee says

    Only a few days after reading this essay did I beget the curiosity to see what said Yaniv looks like. Having done so, I now wonder how anyone wouldn’t be just delighted to yank pubic hair from his or her pudenda.

  57. Kevin W says

    Abraham Lincoln said that the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it strictly. Instead of hoping that the Canada commission will be able to thread some kind of needle to strike down this particular set of complaints by this particular trans person, we should hope instead that they rule completely in (her?) favor.

    We should hope that men who identify as women start claiming scholarships for women in STEM. We should encourage boys who don’t make the varsity squad on their school teams to try out for the girls’ teams instead.

    Feminists decided to champion transgendered people, and declared that anyone who wondered if this was a good idea is a bigot, a transphobic, and a despicable person. So let’s play along.

    I truly hope that in a future Olympic Games, most of the women’s medals are claimed by men who claim to be women. I hope that women’s-only colleges are sued by transgendered males who demand athletic scholarships and leadership positions in sororities. I hope that the PGA and WTA are dominated by men who couldn’t compete at men’s professional golf and tennis.

    The USA Women’s Cup team was beaten by a group of teenage boys 5-2 in a scrimmage match. Does anyone really doubt that a mid-ranked boys soccer team could beat any woman’s team in the world? So let’s get it to happen.

    Then the radical feminist left might see there’s a problem, and fix it. And if not—and if they don’t care, why should I?

  58. Lucius Severus Pertinax says

    “…paying Yaniv thousands of dollars so they could be rid of the proceedings.”

    I would much sooner be paying somebody thousands of dollars to have Yaniv’s kneecaps re-adusted…with a Nail Gun.

  59. CocoN8 says

    I’ll grant the argument that gender is a social construct and is distinct from biological sex. But it is a leap without any support to then argue that social-gender should trump biological-sex in any and all contexts. When the context is all about (or primarily about) the biological shape or function or capability, then biological-sex should be the primary concern.

    Sports? The biological male body has greater muscle and aerobic capacity, so biological-sex should be determinative.

    Medical care? Male biological bodies have different needs and communicate different things than a biological female body. For example, a male body that tests positive for pregnancy is a possible sign of cancer. So biological-sex should trump social-gender in this context as well.

    Bathrooms and locker rooms may be a little more tricky. But I would argue that in locker rooms where biological sex is on full display, then biological sex should serve as the primary characteristic for locker room usage. I’m more agnostic about bathrooms, where most functions are done privately, with no biology on public display.

  60. Pingback: Can Lesbians Have Penises? - Conservative Action News

  61. Francisco d'Anconio says

    Abraham Lincoln asked “How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Answer: Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” In the article “Yaniv asserts that Yaniv is a woman in every meaningful way, and Yaniv’s genitals are therefore those of a woman” One meaningful thing about Yaniv that is not “a woman” is her evidently hirsute penis and balls. That’s kind of meaningful. This is just all so silly. And what’s the bit about asking teens how to use a tampon? Where is this tampon going? Absurd indeed.

  62. Davo says

    This is what happens when a mental illness becomes a Human Right that is to be sanctioned, accommodated and celebrated.

  63. Md Muskert says

    A nicely written article covering all the bases but the most important one.

    The point here, as always, being one of responsibility.

    The people of this province, the Canadian people, are not ‘subjects’ but citizens all, vote for people that make the laws under which they ‘willingly’ live. If you don’t like the laws, change your legislators.

    All else is empty editorial, sometimes referred to as whining or better, as good old fashioned BullShit!!!

  64. johno says

    Some years ago, long before it became a ’cause celebre’ for the moral indignation crowd, I knew a person who went through the transgender process. You had to really mean it to do it back then. My thinking at the time was – I had known this person to be of sound mind and have good judgment, so if they felt it necessary to take that step, there must be something to it.

    The irony is – this person, like most of the very rare cases of genuine gender dysphoria, doesn’t want the attention. They don’t want to be hoisted aloft as the latest victim, by a group that has victimization down to a fine art. They just want to take up their new life in their new identity, with no fanfare. Done right, no one is the wiser as to their origins, and life goes on.

    So, who do the ‘trans activists’ serve? Certainly not the genuine cases.

  65. Part of the problem in BC is section 8 of the law itself, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender self-identification without a valid reason/excuse. This shifts the onus and the cost to the respondent, while the complainant has to do nothing, and may be given a Tribunal lawyer to present the complainant’s case.

    The respondent either pays the complainant to go away or has to hire a lawyer at a probable cost today of $50-200K Canadian. Then, even if the reason for the respondent’s refusal to provide the service is upheld the Tribunal will almost always decline to exercise its power to award legal costs to the successful respondent (so as not to deter future complainants). So the successful respondent is out a lot of money, while the complainant faces no consequences. This creates opportunities for legalised blackmail. The law should require the awarding of substantial costs to a successful respondent in all but extraordinary cases.

    The BC Tribunal cannot refuse to hear a complaint merely because the complainant is seen as a “bad person” or is raising a novel complaint. It has to decide on the evidence, unless the case is settled in mediation or is merely “frivolous and vexatious”, which is lawspeak for disclosing no legally recognized complaint. That’s not this case. And mediations don’t normally settle without substantial payment to the complainant.

    If a respondent in the BC case has a good lawyer they should be able to present valid reasons for not treating this complainant. But none of these low income immigrant women could afford that defence. And that is why most lawyers won’t represent them. They won’t get their fees paid and the case is too big and costly for most to take on a pro bono (free) basis.

    Think of a human rights complaint as an investment with no cost to the investor beyond an hour of time to write and mail a complaint, no risk of loss and a high likelihood of extensive compensation for professed injury to your feelings. That’s a wonderful risk free investment compared to stocks and bonds. If the Tribunal normally awarded at least some portion costs to successful respondents in such cases many lawyers would take the case on a contingent basis, but there would be a lot fewer complaints presented. That might not be such a bad thing.

Comments are closed.