📚 Megathread Yaniv in the News

[heathercho]

Except this troon is better than all the other mentally ill troons. Look at all the negative videos about those other troons! This one's one of the good ones, guys.

Seriously, there is a big difference between "troons" and trannies. It's like no one even reads the ratking threads and just buzzword latches onto shit....

 

[elucid]

EXCLUSIVE FOOTAGE: Jessica Yaniv ASSAULTS Rebel reporter with CANE! | David Menzies

http://bit.ly/2KD3HKB David Menzies of TheRebel.media reports: Are you familiar with Jonathan, a.k.a., Jessica Yaniv? He’s the dude who has filed more than a...

www.youtube.com

archive
insert video fails, tried all 3 browsers, chrome/ff/brave(chrome)

 

[theshep]

Trans birth certificate shift is an Orwellian step too far
NewspaperAugust 17, 2019 | Australian, The/Weekend Australian/Australian Magazine, The (Australia)
Author: Brendan O’Neill | Page: 16 | Section: Inquirer

Society cannot allow the eroding of what clearly is the truth

There is something chilling about Victoria’s rush to allow transgender people to change the sex on their birth certificates. It is presented as a trans-rights issue; as the decent thing to do for people who feel they should be the opposite sex to the one they were born as.

But there is an Orwellian streak to this idea that birth certificates can be rewritten. It feels like an erasure of historical truth. It would literally involve rewriting the past. It would give rise to a situation where an officially recorded fact — that a boy or a girl was born on a certain date — could be scrubbed from the public record and replaced by what is, to all intents and purposes, a lie.

The bill that would allow transgender people to alter their birth certificates was passed in the Victorian Legislative Assembly on Thursday. If it passes in the Legislative Council too — and it is expected that it will — it will become law in Victoria.

This will mean that an individual could apply to have the sex on their birth certificate changed even if they haven’t undergone any kind of surgery. All they would need to do is make a statutory statement about their new sex and get a supporting statement from someone they’ve known for 12 months or longer. And hey presto — that birth certificate declaring that a boy was born on August 12, 1989, say, will now declare that a girl was born on that day.

This should make us feel uncomfortable for the simple reason that it is not true. It is not true that a girl was born. The midwives and doctors who delivered a baby with a penis were telling the truth when they said: “It’s a boy.” And their truth was recorded, faithfully and dutifully, by the public registrar.

The end result was a birth certificate, one of society’s essential documents. The birth certificate is the measure of society itself: it tells us who was born, when and where they born, and who their parents were. To alter such documents — to falsify them — is to interfere with the history and knowledge of society itself.

This is very different to when a trans person changes their name by deed poll, which it is absolutely their right to do. It is even different to when a trans person changes the sex on their passport, which also makes me feel uncomfortable, but I can live with it. Because when we change sex on a birth certificate we sanction lying; we deceive future generations.

We subjugate the collective interests of society — in this case our collective interest of knowing the truth of who has been born — to the personal whims of small cliques of people. We would create a society in which individuals with male chromosomes and male genitalia could possess a birth certificate claiming they were born as girls. This is a lie. And everyone, if they’re honest, knows that it is a lie.

Here’s the thing: individuals are perfectly at liberty to lie to themselves. We all do it. The individual in possession of male genitalia has the right to think of himself, in his own mind, as a woman.

But should an individual be at liberty to lie to society? To force society to accept his lies? Should he have the right to alter official records so that they reflect his own view of himself, regardless of what the rest of us feel or know to be true?

I say no. Some right-wing critics of trans birth certificates claim that making it ridiculously easy for people to “change sex” could lead to a situation where predatory men will pose as women and invade women’s spaces — changing rooms, rape-crisis centres, and so on. This is true, and it should concern anyone who cares about women’s rights and women’s safety.

But there is a greater problem with the rise of what we might call trans Orwellianism — the way it makes social norms subservient to individual conceits.

In Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Party is constantly rewriting the past. It puts inconvenient historical facts into a “memory hole”: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified … Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” Trans Orwellianism takes us scarily close to this situation. Trans birth certificates would shove down the memory hole those truths told by midwives and parents, and replace them with the untruths held by some transgender people.

This cuts to one of the key problems with the transgender ideology, and with the therapeutic politics of recognition more broadly. Which is that there is often tension — conflict, in fact — between an individual’s own convictions and the collective rights of society.

I fully support the right of people to adopt opposite-sex names, opposite-sex dress and even to seek sex-change surgery (though I don’t think society should pay for this surgery, given it is essentially a cosmetic procedure). But the rest of us, and in particular public institutions, should not have to buy into people’s beliefs about themselves.

Take the case of Jessica Yaniv, the Canadian with a penis and testicles who identifies as a woman and who is suing female waxers who refused to wax his genitals. His view of himself, his belief that he is a woman, absolutely should not override female beauticians’ certainty that he is a man and their refusal to go anywhere near his genitals.

Or consider Freddy McConnell, a trans man and Guardian writer in Britain. Freddy identifies as a man but Freddy has female genitals. How do we know? Because Freddy recently gave birth and is now seeking the right to be publicly registered as the child’s father.

No, sorry. If you get pregnant and give birth to a child, you are not the child’s father — you are its mother. Words have meaning. Ideas have meaning. Mother and father are longstanding, historical roles.

If a born woman wants to refer to herself as the father of the child she gave birth to, that’s her business. But society should not have to play along with her and in the process denigrate language and reason. To register McConnell as a father would be an Orwellian lie.

Trans people have the right to think of themselves and present themselves in any way they like. But they do not have the right to cajole society and their fellow citizens into accepting their eccentric views.

Truth matters.Brendan O’Neill is the editor of Spiked.

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

 

[Slap47]

We Need To Talk About Jessica Yaniv

When stories like this break, trans folks aren't given a seat at the table, but we’re left bearing the responsibility of being spokespeople nonetheless.

www.canadalandshow.com

Canadaland is an independent leftwing media and podcast site.

We need to talk about Jessica Yaniv. I wish we didn’t have to, but Yaniv has forced our hand. We need to talk about Yaniv, and we need to talk about how we’re talking about her. When I say “we,” I’m talking about the media landscape that exists around trans people, but doesn’t always do the best job of including us.

It’s important to note from the get-go that I am not the official spokesperson for the transgender community. I speak as a trans person, and as a member of our community, but not for it.

For the uninitiated, I’ll provide context: Yaniv is a transgender person, who is claiming discrimination due to being refused service by several estheticians in British Columbia. The services she was requesting were varied, according to her, but the focus of the current claims and subsequent case with the human rights tribunal is her testicles. Specifically, she wanted a beautician to wax her balls.

This is a delicate subject, to put it lightly. Yaniv is a problematic figure. There are myriad rumours and unsubstantiated allegations against her of things such as pedophilia, menstrual fetishes, and more (which she has denied). She has admitted to making racist remarks. She is a trans person who, at least on Twitter, has nearly 150,000 followers. It’s worth noting that she is not followed by or following anyone I know, which covers a decent amount of ground within the trans community. Taking a closer look, it would appear that this number is likely paid for, and a false representation of her base.

In short, there is reason to believe we’re talking about a bad-faith actor here.

But she still exists, and is a very real person who has managed to force businesses to shut their doors and is currently taking people to the human rights tribunal. And yet, to date, the media outlets covering her story have tended to be far-right-leaning places. It wasn’t until Yaniv had her most recent tribunal hearings that more mainstream media outlets picked up her story at all. By then, the conversation around her was already dominated by sources that are known to be transphobic, or the slightly less-menacing-sounding “gender-critical.” They have warned us enough about people like her, they say, and now she’s been given form. Like Bloody Mary of the transgender set.

If we are indeed going to talk about Yaniv, we need to talk about all of Yaniv. These allegations exist, and trans-exclusionary radical feminists have been talking about her for a while now. To ignore these things in reporting about her is to act like we don’t care that said allegations exist.

This is fuel for a fire that has been raging for some time now: the idea that she is a predator being painted as a victim in order to appease the overly woke left. Following a recent episode of CANADALAND Short Cuts, Twitter was awash with people demanding a denouncement of Yaniv, wondering why those allegations about her were not aired. To portray her as a trans woman that wanted someone to wax her genitalia, was refused service, and then raised herself up as a champion of human rights gives us an incomplete look at who this person is.

When those demands for more were met with relative silence, they were shifted to the trans community. Transphobic individuals have come out of the woodwork to hold her up as an example of everything they warned would happen with our right to self-identification, protected thanks to Bill C-16 in Canada. She is the bad apple — according to the many vocal critics of her and of self-ID and of trans people in general — that spoils the bunch.

Many of the allegations against her are, at this stage, unsubstantiated. We don’t know if they’re true or if she’s being used as a weapon against us. The issue is that, whether real or not, it makes us seem like we’re actively obfuscating when we don’t talk about them.

There is an issue with reporting about the trans community. When stories like this break, trans folks are not given a seat at the table to begin with, but we’re left bearing the responsibility of being the spokespeople nonetheless. So often we see stories about trans people written without the context of the community: stories written by cis people about trans people. Someone like Yaniv is acting on her own, regardless of the fact that she paints herself as an activist. She does not speak for the 2SLGBTQ+ community, but that nuance and those details are lost when no one is there to provide them.

We need to do better at providing representation. When we’re talking about issues pertaining to the trans community, to our rights and freedoms, and even to the bad actors within, it’s paramount that trans voices be in that number. There’s no denying the Yaniv case is tricky. When trans voices are not asked to speak about trans issues, it’s easy to misconstrue the situation, or paint with the same broad brush as the trans-exclusionary and -critical right. The current media landscape has need for trans voices, and now’s the time to make the room.

We need to talk about Jessica Yaniv because she has forced us to. We just need the right voices to be heard in the conversation.

They're upset about Yaniv but refuse still commit to saying that most of the accusations are "unsubstantiated".

 

[Koby_Fish]

If I was a Venezuelan and my whole country was sliding into socialist inspired economic collapse and tyranny, I reckon the Yaniv story would actually cheer me up. Something along the lines of 'I may have to worry about starvation and civil war but those wannabe socialist fuckers in rich Canada have to worry about enforced ball waxing'.

Particularly as if you find people defending the Venezuelan government on the Internet, most of them are fucking Canadians.

There's a whole subset of NDP cucks in canada who've been defending Venezuela (and also Cuba, of course), even before Chavez came to power, but especially after Hugo the Grifter got into office in Venezuela, praising Saint Hugo of Chavez for making gasoline 14 cents a litre for Venezuelan gas stations, whining about how we should do the same. Some NDP exceptional individuals who have since passed on and shuffled off the mortal coil, used to print up kooky conspiracy theory laden newsletters in Microsoft Word ( they were THIS close to mentioning "evil j00ish bankers" and I have it on good authority they actually believed that, though had the sense to not mention that particular detail publicly) and print them out and put them in the library for anyone to read. Too bad they can't see what's going on in Venezuela now, though I'd suspect they'd do what they did every other time and blame the USA. These people were basically the left wing Alex Joneses of the town before Alex Jones was a thing.

With all the trooning out, I'd be surprised if Jonathan wasn't NDP.

 

[Next Task]

Canadaland is an independent leftwing media and podcast site.

Several paragraphs to basically say, 'This Yaniv character is kind of gross, but we don't like anyone who's talking about it. So only trust what trans voices have to say about it - and we're ignoring most of the evidence because we don't like it.'

And of course, by claiming that there's no trans voices reporting on the story, they're ignoring Rose of Dawn and the other trans woman who came in at the start of the year to voice their concerns about Yaniv. And, much more damningly, they're ignoring the contributions of one Morgane Oger, who protected Yaniv until it was no longer politically expedient to do so. Showing that there have been trans voices involved, they just don't like what they have to say, so they feel free to ignore it.

The whole point of Yaniv reflecting poorly on his fellow troons is that he shows how self-identification, as both a woman and an activist, can be abused in ways that harm other people - and by other people we inevitably mean women. He exposes a basic flaw in a couple of centrally-held tenets of current troon discourse, and as far as I can tell there's no real comeback to that except to call everyone transphobes and hope that works as well as it has in the past.

But this article just wants to say that Yaniv is a tough subject but troons need to talk about her - without actually talking about her. Or acknowledging that yes, trans voices have had a seat at the discussion about him, they're just not voices that make it easier to answer to the difficult questions Yaniv's behaviour puts to the rights troons are fighting for.

They're right about one thing, though, that if they don't start talking about Yaniv then the narrative will be written by people they don't like, and their silence will read as them being complicit. Because there's three troon responses I've seen, which are a) ignoring it, b) claiming No True Scotsman on Yaniv's troonery, or c) skipping over any of the challenges to their orthodoxy, or issues with Yaniv's predatory pedophilia, to just complain that he makes their side look bad.

They know they can't defend things like self-identification when Yaniv's running around, but I certainly want to see them try.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

We Need To Talk About Jessica Yaniv

When stories like this break, trans folks aren't given a seat at the table, but we’re left bearing the responsibility of being spokespeople nonetheless.

www.canadalandshow.com

Canadaland is an independent leftwing media and podcast site.



They're upset about Yaniv but refuse still commit to saying that most of the accusations are "unsubstantiated".

That CanadaLand article links to Feminist Current which has this interesting argument between Meghan Murphy and some sort of transactivist.

Meghan Murphy on gender identity and women’s rights at the Vancouver Public Library

On January 10, 2019, Meghan Murphy spoke on a panel at the Vancouver Public Library about gender identity and women's rights.

www.feministcurrent.com

Spoiler

lizdhm • 7 months ago
It absolutely shouldn't be illegal to be a nasty transphobic bigot. It should just be socially unacceptable.

CATTYCAT lizdhm • 7 months ago
It is socially unacceptable.

Meghan Murphy Mod lizdhm • 7 months ago
I would argue it should be socially unacceptable to label people who acknowledge material reality as 'nasty' or 'phobic'. I suppose it is, in some ways. You all wouldn't have to resort to bullying, smear campaigns, or violent threats if you were capable of making reasoned, rational points.

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 7 months ago
Yet human minds and identities exist as a part of our physical reality.

disqus_rZGYLd2N0k Blood Lilly • 2 months ago
Do you not know what the word "physical" means? Or is it "identities"? Both, I think.

FierceMild Blood Lilly • 7 months ago
As do human bodies, which come in male, female or intersex without even asking.

Blood Lilly FierceMild • 7 months ago
Yup, the question is do we value both, either, or neither?
I would say that the context of the situation guides the answer to the question.
Is this wrong in any way? How so?

corvid Blood Lilly • 7 months ago
Women "identify" as human, but patriarchy doesn't care how we identify. Our bodies automatically make us subhuman under patriarchy. Wish we had the luxury of having our human identities recognized or "valued."

Blood Lilly corvid • 7 months ago
I think get what you are saying, I would just say it differently. Our humanity exists, yet is ignored by culture, government, and capitalism, and yes patriarchy is the biggest component to all of those.
Identify is a conscious action, when I refer to identity I am talking to the unique mind.
If we value identities over meat bags we cannot so easily deny cisgender women or transgender men and women.
My conversation partner lends more to the meat bag side of things by defining herself as a set of sex organs rather than a mind-body union, where identity and body are both recognized.
If you believe as you say, then good ole Meg is a participant and upholder of patriarchy.

corvid Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
I find it hilarious that radical feminists are being accused of being sex-negative and body-negative while here you are describing human bodies as "meat bags" and making genitalia sound like something shameful. You really need to work on your body-image issues and stop projecting them on other people.
Recognizing that the female sex exists is not "upholding patriarchy." What a ridiculous thing to say.

Blood Lilly corvid • 6 months ago
I am not describing humans as defined solely by our flesh, that megan doing that. I am saying that true human respect and compassion comes from valuing identity. I dont value a human body because it's a body, I respect human identity and by virtue of identities requiring a body, of any kind, I also find bodies to be valued. If you are a genital essentialist you tend to skip placing value on the mind and can easily dismiss the identity and its experiences and values.
Why should anyone listen to Megan's mind if she wants to devalue other people's lived experiences in l'eau of policing gender with a good ole game of pin the genitals on the meat sack?

Mythandry Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
It’s more than pin the genitalia on the meat sack. I’m not a meat sack for my “identity.” As long as one other meat sack can subjugate me based on their power over my genetalia due to their own, then physical reality of sex-based hierarchies must be acknowledged. Those whom are wishing to opt out of acknowledgment of that reality have the enviable luxury of doing so, but it doesn’t change reality, just your perception of it. Those wishing to deny that reality completely are not doing women and girls any favors, and can therefore fuck right off. Those wishing to deny others the right to acknowledge factual reality, as trans activists seem to, can eliminate themselves for all I care, and IMO would better serve humanity to do so rather than limiting our conversation about our human rights.

Blood Lilly Mythandry • 6 months ago • edited
Does a meat sack do the subjugating or is the meat sack helmed by the identity do it?
Ideologies which ignore human identities in favor the flesh aren't ever going to be all that accurate and therefore the goals of creating positive change in the world less successful.
The idea that those who have a particular set of genitals will or will not rape ignores that the lines are not black and white. There is enough data to support this. I do not mean to discount the overwhelming stats on men being the majority of rapists, their minds ideate and initiate that rape.
Tell me, how many men aren't rapists?
How many women are?
Acknowledging the reality of human identity of cisgender and transgender people is in no way ignoring physical reality, in fact quite the opposite.
I must ask again why must identity be ignored under the ideologies of folks like you or good ole Meg?
Do you only acknowledge the identities of your in group? That's sounds pretty fascist.
It's not like you dont have access to the history of humans on the planet which contains all sorts of gender transgression by hated minorities?
Have you fallen victim to the benefit of Male patriarchy, that transgressing gender norms is a bad thing?
I dare you to think about transgender men. Do you think they are women because you assume they have a vagina? Haven't you ignored their identity and lived experiences if you do?
And wouldn't that make you a monster hypocrite since you value women so much?
Thanks for the reply!

Mythandry Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
That’s all very nice, but I live in this world, not your idealistic utopia where individuals identify themselves for the rest of us. Identity and the subsequent behavior one engages in is based on how one is seen and perceived by others, not just how one sees themselves. Women are seen as lesser-than, regardless of how little we see ourselves as such. It matters, how you’re born and perceived, but maybe less so if you’re born of the sex that benefits from ignoring these matters.
Trans men are something like 25% of trans folk so there’s definitely a phenomenon occurring that disproportionately affects one sex, which I have some theories about, but I won’t go into with you. It seems convenient theories about yourself is the best way to approach things, while I prefer to think less of the individual, and focus on the collective reality we all share. Not saying one is wrong or right, just an impasse we probably won’t get around.

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
"Does a meat sack do the subjugating or is the meat sack helmed by the identity do it?
Ideologies which ignore human identities in favor the flesh aren't ever going to be all that accurate and therefore the goals of creating positive change in the world less successful."
It's very odd that you think bodies don't matter at all. That they are somehow disconnected from our existences.

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
Understanding that males are, in general, the perpetrators of rape, is not 'ideology.'

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago
It is when when you look at how many men haven't raped another human. Even though men are the vast majority of rapists, we cannot discount the data, that many men are not rapists and some, although few, women are.
To ignore the data is to misrepresent reality, I am certain you would not want to do that.

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
But the argument is not 'all men are rapists'. The argument is 'most perpetrators of rape are men'.

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago
I can agree with that statement, but what next?
Do we view all men as potential rapists or do we look for the root causes and try to deal with them?

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
We look for the root causes and try to deal with them and also ensure particular spaces, wherein women might be vulnerable, are women-only, in order to allow women to feel safe and to be protected from potential predators.

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago
What data do you have that demonstrates I am nor who I am?

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
I have no idea what you are talking about.

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago
In general, that's how we should look at things. We shouldn't look any closer than about fifty feet away. Thousands of an in inch aren't a thing, microns arent a thing!
Let's base our worldview on a person who needs glasses!
Long slow clap my dear friend!
(Ps, I appreciate you letting me speak freely, it is gracious of you it not a display of your power on this forum. I honestly do appreciate it and at the same time appreciate the absurdity of a feminist granting speech rights to her audience.)
So, in essence I agree that most rapes are perpetrated by men (identity), but not that genitals are the root cause.

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
No one said genitals are the root cause.

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago
Then why do you define people by their genitals and not their identity?

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
Biology decides people's genitals/sex, not me.

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago
Biological processes also give rise to the human brains and the identities within, so I guess you are just choosing to treat people as sacks of meat?

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
You are the only one here who keeps referring to humans as 'sacks of meat'.

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago
No I am calling you on your fascisistic cries to reduce human lives, experiences, identities to the bodies we inhabit.
I am simply describing your ideology back to you in a way that is apparently accurate enough for you to constantly side step, instead of addressing the point raised in an honest manner.
How's your freedom of speech lawsuit going with that private business?
In the end I do kinda side with you, but then I remember that we can't tell fire in a crowded theater and we probably dont need to elevate fascism to the level of civility.

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
Biology isn't fascisistic.

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago
Every single time you referred to men by their genitals and women by theirs you did. You have repeatedly reduced womanhood to the flesh that women inhabit.

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
Nope. Stop being manipulative. Males have penises, women have vaginas. This is not the same as reducing people to genitals, it is simply stating biological facts.

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago
I think you meant to say that females have vaginas, but I get what you are saying.
So how does your very simple dichotomy account for transgender and intersex people?

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
Women are female. Identifying as transgender doesn't change your sex.

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago
You are just defining women as a set of sex organs again!
Certainly you are aware that sexism affects identities of cis and trans folk alike! You must understand already that nobody goes around with chromosome tests or cray specs! There is a distinction between the physiological, physical sex, and the sociological, gender.

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
lol how ridiculous to understand that biological sex and reproductive organs matter to the human race!

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago
That's true, we all use our genitals in daily life, greeting each other with genital bumps, opening jars, and so forth. Way to focus on what's important and when!

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
Yes, that's exactly why the human race exists. Because people open jars with their genitals. Lord to be so detached from reality!

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago
Perhaps, in my effort to be humorous about your declaration:
"to understand that biological sex and reproductive organs matter to the human race"
in the context of our conversation where we have been talking about transgender rights within society and basic daily life, I did not make it clear that your and my genitals are mostly not involved.
You see, when this older guy at the liquor store repeatedly asks me to go to the backroom and have a shot with him, and I get the idea that he has something really bad planned for me, based on how he reduces me to a pleasant sexy little flower, and not an equal human being...
Perhaps we share common experiences, not because our genitals are identical, or even all that similar (I dont know anything about your genitals, you could be intersex, you could have any number of differences from the population average and I do not care, nor do I want to know) but because of our gender and the sick twisted ideas that some people have about gender.
Your efforts to define gender as always equal to physical sex ignores so many aspects of reality and not just transgender people in the US. You ignore different definitions of gender throughout time and over the entire planet, you erase intersex people.
And you do this to keep normative females safe? From the transgedner woman who is treated by society as a woman and for whom there is no data to suggest I or my fellow transgender folk commit rape and other sexual crimes at a rate even close to cisgender males?
I think you just like thinking about our genitals WAY too much. Its creepy.
But back to the point at the beginning. When are peoples genitals relavant to any given situation? Sex? absolutely! Opening jars, nope. A discussion on the internet, I dunno, I guess sometimes. The lived experiences of human beings as they are treated within the context of society, I guess you might say always, but my experiences and those of many transgender people I know kinda show that to not be true.
Its more often the assumed sex and imagined genitals that people use to malign and rape. You see, people who focus that much on the genitals of fellow humans are creepy. So, in closing, please stop using the same thought patterns as rapists!

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
"Your efforts to define gender as always equal to physical sex ignores so many aspects of reality and not just transgender people in the US. You ignore different definitions of gender throughout time and over the entire planet, you erase intersex people."
I do not define gender as equal to physical sex. I do the opposite, and argue that 'gender' is not wired to sex, but rather that people have diverse personalities and likes, regardless of sex. If you can't argue in good faith and continue to lie, I'm not going to keep approving your comments. It's a waste of time.

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago
Could you show me a time when you defined womanhood or transgenderhood via human identity (sociologically, psychologically, or physiologically) and not purely from a biological essentialist (genital essientialist, since we all know we dont walk around with xray specs and chromosome tests) perspective?
I like how you once again ignored the bulk of my reply to you and only chose a single statement to reply to.
In fact the main point of my reply is the one you have chosen to ignore, that if we are to define humans by their bodies, specifically genders by their genitals, than we are no better than a rapist who fixates on the imagined genitals of his of her victims.
You are all like, "that penis cant be in this room"!
Normal humans are like, "that man, whose genitals I know nothing about since I havent thought about them at all, can't be in this room".
Seriously, I dont want you to look bad here. Please try to come up with arguments that aren't genital essentialist and dont make you come off as some genital obcessed oddball!
Back to your oppression via Big Social Apps, did you pay Twitter for services? If so, you can probably sue for a refund, minor damages, and even court costs.
Were their services free? Are there comprable free services you could have used instead? Perhaps Disqus, Facebook...
Has it been demonstrated that these privately held and free use services constitute a legal freedom under the constitution? I know, that I felt I had been wrongly kicked of from Twitter I would be upset and seek recourse. But upon what grounds does this action stand?
Sorry, I am feeling a bit fiesty. I again express my gratitude that you post my replies and reply to them. Who knows, perhaps we can make youtube videos about eachother one day
Restated question from earlier, exactly when are human genitals relevant with respect to society and daily lives? When is it the case that assumed or imagined genitals play a part and when do our actual physical genitals play a part? I really hope this is the one thing you reply to.

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
Dude. "Gender" is not a material thing. It is just people's personalities and likes and dislikes. Bodies matter. Sorry. (Also, I don't have time to read or reply to your comments in depth so I only skim and sometimes respond to aspects.)

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago
Phantom limb syndrome. Under your model of reality it wouldn't exist. However if you take into account the human brain which contains human identity, you would know an aspect of that identity contains a map of the body and so an amputee sense a disharmony between mind and body.
Why is it you dont turn hate towards that particular group when their very existence demonstrates the inaccuracy and falseness of your blind worldview?

Tired Of The BS Blood Lilly • 4 months ago
How about children with body identity dysphoria should Drs chop off a fourteen year old's leg?

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
So if a person has phantom limb syndrome and, say, believe they have a leg when they do not, do they literally have a leg?

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago
Nice, you betray humanity again in favor of your biological essentialism!
Are you trying to make my points for me?

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
You don't understand what the term biological essentialism is. You are clearly not intelligent enough to participate in this conversation. Move along.

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago • edited
"ou don't understand what the term biological essentialism is. You are clearly not intelligent enough to participate in this conversation. Move along."
This is the reply of a person who aas nothing else but attack upon intellitgence to repy upon. I accept your unwitting white flag and thank you for your time.

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
Try again when you sober up.

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago
I appreciate you spirit of good faith and honest conversation...

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
xo

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago
I was being sarcastic and you know it. You have been intellectually dishonest in almost everything you have said to me. You deny human identity in favor of the genitals you assume people have. You deny points raised in favor of dishonest rhetoric, sidestepping, false representation, and simplistic bumper sticker platitudes.

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
Next time you see your therapist you should ask her to explain 'projection' to you.

corvid Blood Lilly • 6 months ago • edited
Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
Female
(1) : of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs
Male
1a : a male person : a man or a boy
b : an individual of the sex that is typically capable of producing small, usually motile gametes (such as sperm or spermatozoa) which fertilize the eggs of a female
Has any "trans woman" produced eggs or gestated young?
Has any "trans man" produced sperm?
Why don't you go after the dictionaries for being "genital essentialists" and see how that goes.

Blood Lilly corvid • 6 months ago
Is a common usage dictionary the authority of truth? Are you as fascist as you imagine all men to be?
If yes, then the world is a black and white thing wherein you must obliterate your enemy until such time as the human species can no longer reproduce.
If no, then the world is a nuanced thing where WE must struggle together for an equal place among those who identify as men. I would rather have a world in which we are allies than to be separated against the men!

disqus_rZGYLd2N0k Blood Lilly • 2 months ago
My god, but you are dumb. There's no excuse for ignorance of this kind. It must be borne of delusion.

corvid Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
Women's oppression is based on our reproductive biology, not our "identities." Your oppression, as a non-conforming male, is an offshoot of this but it is not exactly the same. Trying to obscure and deny our differences will not lead to allyship, it's deeply counterproductive, and until your movement understands this we will collectively get nowhere.

FierceMild Blood Lilly • 7 months ago
All. That means one group’s needs do not get to be cast as another group’s responsibility to fulfill.

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 7 months ago
Your mind doesn't change your physical body though. Your body exists regardless of how you feel about it.

This comment was deleted.
Meghan Murphy Mod Guest • 6 months ago
What does 'transgender' mean? Who is 'transgender'? How are we defining a 'transgender' person?

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago
That's a great question, and for someone who died on Twitter hill over it, I assumed you had an inkling of what it means.
Transgender is simply a person who experiences a mind to body disharmony with regards to physical sex or social gender norms. I leave the definition quite open because I want to be as inclusive as is possible.
I, on the other hand, fall under transexual, as distasteful as that term is.
Does this give you enough to continue hating who I am?
Or do we meet athe crossroads of identity and meatsack and build from there?

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
lol. I mean, I do not believe in the concept of transgenderism. I am asking you, someone who *does*, to explain what it is *you* mean when you use the term.
"Transgender is simply a person who experiences a mind to body disharmony with regards to physical sex or social gender norms."
That could be pretty much anyone and everyone. Is everyone transgender, in that case?

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago
To some degree I would say yes. If we are to look at population gender behavior as a graph it will inevitably be a big ole bell curve, with only a minority existing at either end.

Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
If trans is everything and anything it is nothing.

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago
Ah but I qualified it by mentioning varying degrees. Some people are more comfortable in their flesh than others and some people are more comfortable in their society with regards to social gender norms than othera.
Once again I refer you to the bell curve and its representation of human population distribution.
So how is it that your arguments are exactly the same as religious and political conservative patriarchy? Kinda weird huh?

−
Meghan Murphy Mod Blood Lilly • 6 months ago
You are very confused about 'political conservative patriarchy' believes about gender...
•Reply

 

[Odessa Norwood]

Blood Lilly Meghan Murphy • 6 months ago
That's true, we all use our genitals in daily life, greeting each other with genital bumps, opening jars, and so forth. Way to focus on what's important and when!

I don't think I've ever been greeted with a genital bump and just who on earth uses their genitals to open jars?!?

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

Winston Smith Taxi weighs in on 'Janive'

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

 

[Box of Shame]

Several paragraphs to basically say, 'This Yaniv character is kind of gross, but we don't like anyone who's talking about it. So only trust what trans voices have to say about it - and we're ignoring most of the evidence because we don't like it.'

And of course, by claiming that there's no trans voices reporting on the story, they're ignoring Rose of Dawn and the other trans woman who came in at the start of the year to voice their concerns about Yaniv. And, much more damningly, they're ignoring the contributions of one Morgane Oger, who protected Yaniv until it was no longer politically expedient to do so. Showing that there have been trans voices involved, they just don't like what they have to say, so they feel free to ignore it.

The whole point of Yaniv reflecting poorly on his fellow troons is that he shows how self-identification, as both a woman and an activist, can be abused in ways that harm other people - and by other people we inevitably mean women. He exposes a basic flaw in a couple of centrally-held tenets of current troon discourse, and as far as I can tell there's no real comeback to that except to call everyone transphobes and hope that works as well as it has in the past.

But this article just wants to say that Yaniv is a tough subject but troons need to talk about her - without actually talking about her. Or acknowledging that yes, trans voices have had a seat at the discussion about him, they're just not voices that make it easier to answer to the difficult questions Yaniv's behaviour puts to the rights troons are fighting for.

They're right about one thing, though, that if they don't start talking about Yaniv then the narrative will be written by people they don't like, and their silence will read as them being complicit. Because there's three troon responses I've seen, which are a) ignoring it, b) claiming No True Scotsman on Yaniv's troonery, or c) skipping over any of the challenges to their orthodoxy, or issues with Yaniv's predatory pedophilia, to just complain that he makes their side look bad.

They know they can't defend things like self-identification when Yaniv's running around, but I certainly want to see them try.

"Niko Stratis," the author of that Canadaland piece, is trying hard to believe he is a true and honest woman, but deep down seems to know the truth

.

 

[SourDiesel]

"Niko Stratis," the author of that Canadaland piece, is trying hard to believe he is a true and honest woman, but deep down seems to know the truthVer archivo adjunto 896604.

I don't understand this tweet. I don't see the difference between these two images.

 

[RodgerDodger]

I don't understand this tweet. I don't see the difference between these two images.

Golem is wearing a wig and pretending to be a woman in the left picture.

 

[malucifer]

OPINION August 18, 2019
Jessica Yaniv Does Not Represent the LGBT Community

[Archive]

 

[Slap47]

OPINION August 18, 2019
Jessica Yaniv Does Not Represent the LGBT Community

[Archive]

Black people literally rally to defend criminals in the name of racial solidarity though.

 

[Positron]

Chinatimes.com, 14 August 2019 -- based Taiwan uses the term "fake woman" (假女人) in news headlines.

The Skirmish of Transgenders: Fake Woman's Tweet Enrages Global Womankind

Caption: This self-claimed transgender, Jessica Yaniv, has been challenging the tolerance of society towards transgenders.

Sexual inclusivity seems to be the directive of this contemporary Progressive World; discussions and activism to further transgender rights have blossomed in the past few years. However, transgenders have been disregarding the Conservatives' warning: what if someone abuses transgender rights? A fake woman active in Canada, Jessica Yaniv, has been challenging the tolerence of society. Last month, "she" approached a beautician for waxing of "her" private parts and was refused service. Last week, "she" posted on Twitter, "Forgot my tampons in my other bag" and set women worldwide aroar. The tweet has subsequently been deleted, but it was a signal to the world that people so shameless indeed exist.

According to Sputnik News, Jessica Yaniv, whose old name was Jonathan Yaniv, is indeed a man, but "she" loves to dress as woman and "self-identify" as one. "She" loves to post eye-melting photos of herself in womenswear on social media, and comments how, as a trangender, "she" has always been ostracized.

Last month, she rang up beautician Marcia DaSilva, who only services women, to register for a Brazillian waxing. Because the very low voice of Jessica, DaSilva has to repeatedly ascertain "her" sex and, finally driven to distraction, quipped, "Are you mentally ill?" and hung up.

"Jessica" then sued DaSilva and 15 other beauticians for libel and gender discrimination. The cases are still proceeding, but some of the beauticians have been forced to close down. Most people on the internet are in support of the beauticians, and assert they have the right to refuse serving sexual perverts.

This person continues to generate drama. Last Sunday, Jessica posts on Twitter, "My period started so ya, couldn’t go into the pool. But it was so much fun! Forgot my tampons in my other bag fml. "

Many have taken issue at this tweet, not just because "Jessica" can't possibly have periods but also how frivolous her comment is. Some of the replies include, "Where do you stuff your tampons? The tip of your dick?" and "you're enraged all women in the world in one sentence, WAF?"

Some LGBT supporters have pointed out that there are indeed bad actors among them. "This is why we can't have nice things. Our legal right have been curtailed and the military distrust us, because society see perverts like this and conclude that we are all like this. And I can't find a reason to blame them."

Mr Yaniv is no stranger to scandals: just around the time of the lawsuits, it has transpired that he has been a pedophile: a woman saw his photo in the news and recognized Yaniv as the man who sexually harassed her on the internet when she was 15. She recalled Yaniv expressed an inordinate interest in girls' bathrooms, tampons, and menstrual pads, but did not mention he was transgender. Yaniv staunchly denies that he knew the girl. Yaniv has also arranged a controversial swimming party for LGBTQ youths aged 12-24 in which parents are not allowed. It is unknown whether the party was indeed held.

#Twitter #fake woman #transgender #LGBT

 

[theshep]

Mr Yaniv is no stranger to scandals: just around the time of the lawsuits, it has transpired that he has been a pedophile

 

[Positron]

Ver archivo adjunto 897213

"The LGBT Community does not exist" when a creeper is discovered among their midst, but then it totally exists whenever Mike Pence opens his mouth.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

Chinatimes.com, 14 August 2019 -- based Taiwan uses the term "fake woman" (假女人) in news headlines.

According to Sputnik News, Jessica Yaniv, whose old name was Jonathan Yaniv, is indeed a man, but "she" loves to dress as woman and "self-identify" as one. "She" loves to post eye-melting photos of herself in womenswear on social media, and comments how, as a trangender, "she" has always been ostracized.

Does it really say 'eye melting'? That's hilarious. However my Google translate renders it as

According to the Russian satellite network, Jessica Yaniv, formerly known as Jonathan Yaniv, is actually a man, but "she" likes to wear a woman as a woman, claiming to be "self-identity." Psychological women." "She" always posted a pretty eye-catching women's photo on her Twitter, and his transgender was always squeezed out.

Here's the clause

「她」總是在自己的推特上貼出相當瞎眼的女裝照，

Which unfortunately is beyond by Chinese capabilities to decode in time for this low effort post, but Google translate renders it as

"She" always puts a pretty eye-catching women's photo on her Twitter.

Interesting how, despite the left's insistence that the intersectional coalition includes LGBT and non whites, non whites hate political correctness more than whites.

Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture

Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness, and race isn’t either.

www.theatlantic.com

Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment. Instead, it is Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87 percent), and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness.

And if you look at someplace like Taiwan where political correctness hasn't been forced down on society by the media elite, they're openly amused/horrified by cases like Yaniv's.

 

[Positron]

瞎眼 is literally "blinding". There might be some intricacy in Tawianese slang that I'm not aware of, but "eye-melting" is a fair translation of "blinding" and I think it is more appropriate in the context.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

瞎眼 is literally "blinding". There might be some intricacy in Tawianese slang that I'm not aware of, but "eye-melting" is a fair translation of "blinding" and I think it is more appropriate in the context.

So 瞎眼的女裝照 is 'blinding women photos'. Hahahaha.

I the Taiwanese. This sort of insult is so typical of them.