Gender ideology run amok in Canada

[TitanTiger 20,510]

 

Quote

The Yaniv scandal is the end-product of trans activism

Does inclusivity mean the Canadian state should compel women to handle a penis?

Meghan Murphy

In some ways, Jessica/Jonathan Yaniv is the most perfect gift. Not even Titania McGrath could have dreamed up a more effective character to demonstrate the dangers of gender identity ideology. Unbelievably, though, Yaniv is real. And the truth is that we could have predicted his story. In fact, we did.

Until last week, Yaniv could only be referred to by the initials, ‘JY.’ A member of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Devyn Cousineau, had determined that, as a ‘transgender woman,’ Yaniv would be vulnerable to threats and harassment identity were his ‘identity… published in connection with these complaints.’ Ironically, it is Yaniv who has been revealed as the perpetrator of harassment. The publication ban on Yaniv’s name was lifted this week, yet numerous mainstream media outlets have chosen not to report the details of the complaints or the hearings.

In 2018, Yaniv filed 13 Human Rights complaints against female aestheticians in the Vancouver area, claiming he was discriminated against when these women declined to give him a ‘Brazilian bikini wax.’ In some cases, Yaniv, who is male and maintains male genitalia, used fake Facebook profiles, displaying photos of women (in at least one case, he used the profile of a pregnant woman) to request the service via Facebook Marketplace. When the aestheticians realized he was male, they told him they only performed the service for women (indeed, waxing male genitals is an entirely different procedure, which requires particular training and wax). Yaniv went so far as to tell Sandeep Banipal, proprietor of Blue Heaven Beauty Lounge, that he was on his period, and asked if she could work around the string.

Under normal circumstances, we might assume any sane person would laugh at the idea of a man attempting to bring over a dozen women to a Human Rights Tribunal because they didn’t want to touch his genitals. But we are not living under normal circumstances. We are living in a brand new world, wherein men are women the moment they say so, no matter what material reality exists. To question this claim amounts to hate speech and, apparently, could make one guilty of a hate crime.

Here in Canada, we seem to have swallowed all that gender identity ideology entails with enthusiasm. We love to think of ourselves as the most kind, inclusive, and progressive of all nations. And apparently that means immigrant women, for whom English is a second language, working out of their homes, often with young children present in the home, are obligated to touch a man’s genitals if he makes an appointment.

Jay Cameron, the lawyer representing three of the women Yaniv targeted, explained, during the hearings:

‘Some of my clients are adherents to the Sikh religion. They believe that they marry for life to one husband, and that it is not permitted for a married woman to touch the genitals of a biological male (penis/scrotum) who is not their husband.’

No matter. In progressive Canada, litigious men who claim to menstruate, wonder about how to help young girls insert tampons in the women’s washroom, and believe immigrants ‘aren’t the cleanest of people’ are the most marginalized of all, and their desires usurp the safety and comfort of all women and girls.

Indeed, this is precisely what feminists tried to warn politicians, the media, activists, and the public would happen, should we accept the notion that it is possible for men to ‘identify’ as female. How can we possibly protect women’s boundaries, spaces, and rights, if men can be women, regardless of their male biology? What even is a woman, if not a female?

One of the oddest aspects of this story is the deafening silence on the parts of the LGBT community and Canadian media who have invested so much in celebrating and promoting gender identity legislation and transgender ideology. The CBC, Canada’s public broadcaster and the organization with the most resources available to cover important stories, has acted as a cheerleader for ‘trans rights,’ refusing to engage with the concerns women have attempted to bring into the conversation. They have reported on gender identity endlessly, yet have remained mysteriously silent on the Yaniv scandal. Why?

Perhaps it is too difficult for the CBC and the many others who promoted the very ideas and policies that Yaniv is now using to destroy the livelihood of women (two of the aestheticians were forced to close their businesses as a result of this ordeal, and several settled in mediation, paying Yaniv out as they did not want to go through the court process) to admit that they were wrong to dismiss our concerns and to label those attempting to discuss these concerns as ‘bigots’ and ‘hateful.’

But as the rest of the world opens its eyes to the disturbing truth about where trans activism has taken us, those turning a blind eye are only solidifying themselves as enablers — lacking in ethics, integrity, and plain decency.

No woman should be bullied into touching a man’s penis against her will. And the fact this needs to be said out loud, in 2019, in Canada, is shameful.

Meghan Murphy is a writer in Vancouver, B.C. Her website is Feminist Current.

https://spectator.us/yaniv-scandal-end-product-trans-activism/

For a moment, let's just table discussions of genuine gender uncertainty:  hermaphroditism, etc.  Let's just for a moment contemplate the situation we find ourselves in where a man who possesses male genitalia and no female genitalia at all can walk into a salon demanding a Brazilian bikini wax and tell the person he's on his period and asks if they can work around the string, and no one is allowed in polite, non-bigoted company to call a spade a spade here.  This person is delusional.  He has serious mental health problems.  He does not need to be indulged and affirmed, he needs mental health counseling and possible prescription medication.  And this laugher of a court case should have been tossed from the beginning.

Why are we so averse to just speaking the truth about this stuff?

[toddc 13,194]

18 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 

For a moment, let's just table discussions of genuine gender uncertainty:  hermaphroditism, etc.  Let's just for a moment contemplate the situation we find ourselves in where a man who possesses male genitalia and no female genitalia at all can walk into a salon demanding a Brazilian bikini wax and tell the person he's on his period and asks if they can work around the string, and no one is allowed in polite, non-bigoted company to call a spade a spade here.  This person is delusional.  He has serious mental health problems.  He does not need to be indulged and affirmed, he needs mental health counseling and possible prescription medication.  And this laugher of a court case should have been tossed from the beginning.

Why are we so averse to just speaking the truth about this stuff?

Your answer is in the article-labeling those who do speak out!

[metafour 4,969]

Its not a slippery slope, right? 

BTW; this deviant is also in the process of organizing some "all ages" nude swimming party - no PARENTS or GUARDIANS allowed of course.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

This dude is utterly ridiculous.  Not sure what else there is to say about it other than that.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

This dude is utterly ridiculous.  Not sure what else there is to say about it other than that.

He is.  But his ridiculousness has been enabled by the the new, ever-changing, and largely unwritten rules that have sprung up surrounding discussions of this issue.  The second you even question the notion of a person being able to simply declare that they are a different gender from their biological sex they were born, accusations of bigotry, "erasing [my] existence", hatred and so on get tossed about.  Honest discussion and questioning gets thrown out the window and the only opinions that matter are ones based on a person's stated feelings.

[homersapien 11,447]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

 

 This person is delusional.  He has serious mental health problems.  He does not need to be indulged and affirmed, he needs mental health counseling and possible prescription medication.  And this laugher of a court case should have been tossed from the beginning.

Why are we so averse to just speaking the truth about this stuff?

This ^

And the article was not clear regarding the "court case" (tribunal hearing).  For all we know, the plaintiffs "case") was - or will be - tossed.

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

25 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

He is.  But his ridiculousness has been enabled by the the new, ever-changing, and largely unwritten rules that have sprung up surrounding discussions of this issue.  The second you even question the notion of a person being able to simply declare that they are a different gender from their biological sex they were born, accusations of bigotry, "erasing [my] existence", hatred and so on get tossed about.  Honest discussion and questioning gets thrown out the window and the only opinions that matter are ones based on a person's stated feelings.

Fair enough.  Guess I've dealt with enough people who have gone through transitions with gender that I see it a little differently.  Folks I know have never been like this jackass and are just normal people living their lives.

I see it like free speech in many ways.  There's a lot of good, but some people will always take it to an extreme and use it for less than pure reasons.  It doesn't mean that the overall intent isn't positive though.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

This ^

And the article was not clear regarding the "court case" (tribunal hearing).  For all we know, the plaintiffs "case") was - or will be - tossed.

This one focuses a bit more on the tribunal hearing itself:

https://vancouversun.com/news/canada/accusations-fly-at-human-rights-hearing-into-transgender-womans-brazilian-wax-complaint/wcm/ed70ae18-595d-4ec9-8a47-69240abfefdf

As far as the difference in a court case vs tribunal hearing, the end effects are largely no different in Canada.  The tribunal can issue enforceable fines and order the losing side to do or not do certain things under the force of law.  One single mother who was operating a business like this out of her home paid this jerk $2500 to withdraw the complaint just to avoid further legal expenses.

And even if it is tossed or not ruled in the plaintiff's favor, his/her actions have caused all manner of problems for these women - legal expenses, lost business, closed businesses, time away from work, stress, and so on and there is no guarantee the tribunal will force Yaniv to pay their legal expenses even if they manage to win.  

[homersapien 11,447]

30 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

He is.  But his ridiculousness has been enabled by the the new, ever-changing, and largely unwritten rules that have sprung up surrounding discussions of this issue.  The second you even question the notion of a person being able to simply declare that they are a different gender from their biological sex they were born, accusations of bigotry, "erasing [my] existence", hatred and so on get tossed about.  Honest discussion and questioning gets thrown out the window and the only opinions that matter are ones based on a person's stated feelings.

First, how would you expect a transgender person to react if someone suggests they don't have a right to their own sexuality? 

Second, I don't think "honest discussion and questioning" has been "thrown out" the window at all.

I think both are occurring with the same intensity as would occur in any other emerging issue concerning the psychology of sexuality and human rights.  No one is trying to shut down honest discussion and questioning.

In opinion, as with all other psychological conditions, long as other people are not harmed, live and let live. (And I do consider the above example of essentially trying to force women to handle your penis to be an example of "harm" to others.)  I will be gobsmacked if this complaint is taken seriously.

My feelings on the matter are predicated on the assumption that transgenderism - as a genuine psychological condition - actually does exist.  Isolated incidents of extreme or inappropriate behavior - such as the example above - certainly don't prove otherwise. 

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

 

[homersapien 11,447]

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

This one focuses a bit more on the tribunal hearing itself:

https://vancouversun.com/news/canada/accusations-fly-at-human-rights-hearing-into-transgender-womans-brazilian-wax-complaint/wcm/ed70ae18-595d-4ec9-8a47-69240abfefdf

As far as the difference in a court case vs tribunal hearing, the end effects are largely no different in Canada.  The tribunal can issue enforceable fines and order the losing side to do or not do certain things under the force of law.  One single mother who was operating a business like this out of her home paid this jerk $2500 to withdraw the complaint just to avoid further legal expenses.

And even if it is tossed or not ruled in the plaintiff's favor, his/her actions have caused all manner of problems for these women - legal expenses, lost business, closed businesses, time away from work, stress, and so on and there is no guarantee the tribunal will force Yaniv to pay their legal expenses even if they manage to win.  

Like I said, this jerk is causing direct harm to others and should be condemned and sanctioned for it.  But frivolous or harassing lawsuits are certainly not particular to transgenderism.  We can only hope the Canadian system does the right thing.

 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Just now, homersapien said:

First, how would you expect a transgender person to react if someone suggests they don't have a right to their own sexuality?

I would expect that normal thinking people would understand that there are going to be questions about how to properly handle situation surrounding an issue that society is literally being asked to simply take someone's word on, in the face of biological fact.  Again, we aren't discussing intersex, hermaphroditism, and the like.  We're talking about people who have no known (or even tested) chromosomal abnormalities, present no ambiguous genitalia, who possess perfectly functioning genitalia of their biological sex and zero evidence of any genitalia of the opposite sex, and in many cases are declaring themselves to be the other sex having had no surgical alterations to their bodies to reflect this declared belief.

If you can't handle some questioning and people having some issues with how the rest of society is supposed to react and handle sensitive situations, I'd suggest the problem isn't that you don't have the right to your sexuality, it's that you have unrealistic expectations.

 

Just now, homersapien said:

Second, I don't think "honest discussion and questioning" has been "thrown out" the window at all.

I think both are occurring with the same intensity as would occur in any other emerging issue concerning the psychology of sexuality and human rights.  No one is trying to shut down honest discussion and questioning.

I don't think you've been paying much attention then if you think honest discussion and questioning is truly being permitted.  

 

Just now, homersapien said:

In opinion, as with all other psychological conditions, long as other people are not harmed, live and let live. (And I do consider the above example of essentially trying to force women to handle your penis to be an example of "harm" to others.)  I will be gobsmacked if this complaint is taken seriously.

My feelings on the matter are predicated on the assumption that transgenderism - as a genuine psychological condition - actually does exist.  Isolated incidents of extreme or inappropriate behavior - such as the example above - certainly don't prove otherwise. 

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

If "live and let live" were actually happening, this would largely be a non-issue.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

20 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Like I said, this jerk is causing direct harm to others and should be condemned and sanctioned for it.  But frivolous or harassing lawsuits are certainly not particular to transgenderism.  We can only hope the Canadian system does the right thing.

I wasn't suggesting that frivolous lawsuits are particular to transgenderism.  But the lack of honest discussion and questioning of the issue creates the breeding ground for this kind of garbage.  This same jackass, who flips between identifying himself/herself online as male or female depending on the moment and what the mission is, got two people banned on Twitter for "misgendering" him/her.  She goes and picks fights with people and goads them into some infraction that she can then cry to Twitter about to get their account suspended.  

And what happens if the Canadian system doesn't do the right thing?  Would civil disobedience be the right course of action?  At what point do we as a society say, "Hit the brakes on this stuff for a second.  There needs to be a LOT more research into this and solutions found that don't railroad people into situations they have good reason to be uncomfortable with in terms of how one person's choices and feelings intersect with the rights of the rest of society."

[homersapien 11,447]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I would expect that normal thinking people would understand that there are going to be questions about how to properly handle situation surrounding an issue that society is literally being asked to simply take someone's word on, in the face of biological fact.  Again, we aren't discussing intersex, hermaphroditism, and the like.  We're talking about people who have no known (or even tested) chromosomal abnormalities, present no ambiguous genitalia, who possess perfectly functioning genitalia of their biological sex and zero evidence of any genitalia of the opposite sex, and in many cases are declaring themselves to be the other sex having had no surgical alterations to their bodies to reflect this declared belief.

If you can't handle some questioning and people having some issues with how the rest of society is supposed to react and handle sensitive situations, I'd suggest the problem isn't that you don't have the right to your sexuality, it's that you have unrealistic expectations.

True.  But people also have a right to their own expectations. But telling a transexual they are a freak or pervert is not exactly honest "questioning".  And like it or not, you will likely get a similar response, at least from some of them. Hate speech naturally begats hate speech. And sometimes, honest discussion might begat hate speech.  In this country one has a right to either.

 

I don't think you've been paying much attention then if you think honest discussion and questioning is truly being permitted.  

Don't "go victim" on me Titan.   

You know damn well you can say anything you want regarding this topic in a public forum without being sanctioned by government.  

I don't know of any "honest discussion or questioning" that has been prevented.  (I don't consider a intemperate reactions from "activists" to said discussion to be suppression.)  Again, free speech. 

Regardless, there is plenty of honest discussion and questioning occurring daily by professionals in the field.

 

If "live and let live" were actually happening, this would largely be a non-issue.

Agreed

 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

True.  But people also have a right to their own expectations. But telling a transexual they are a freak or pervert is not exactly honest "questioning".  And like it or not, you will likely get a similar response, at least from some of them. Hate speech naturally begats hate speech. And sometimes, honest discussion might begat hate speech.  In this country one has a right to either.

Nothing in here I've said or even suggested would lead one to believe I'm talking about the right to simply insult a person with names like "freak" or "pervert."  I'm talking about being able to question transgenderism as it is presented.  To be able to question if or how some of our laws and policies should be affected.  To be able to ask whether it's reasonable for instance to have some sort of objective standard of proof for transgender claims rather than simply taking someone's word for it.   These are questions that have just been blown aside and to even raise them gets people accused of bigotry.  It is not bigotry to probe these sorts of issues and effects on society.

 

Quote

 

Don't "go victim" on me Titan.    

You know damn well you can say anything you want regarding this topic in a public forum without being sanctioned by government.  

 

Tell me you honestly didn't think I was saying I expect the US government to come and sanction me or anyone else for discussing this subject.  That's the very definition of a straw man argument.

 

Quote

 

I don't know of any "honest discussion or questioning" that has been prevented.  (I don't consider a intemperate reactions from "activists" to said discussion to be suppression.)  Again, free speech.  

Regardless, there is plenty of honest discussion and questioning occurring daily by professionals in the field.

 

It gets stifled in public forums - social media and the like.  Try being a politician in some areas of the country and ask, even respectfully, some of these questions.  Misgender someone or question some public policies and you can lose a job in some places.  Just because the government isn't doing anything (as of now) doesn't mean there aren't heavy prices to pay for some people who don't just get on board with it.

When you can't discuss a subject without a horde of activists hurling insults and accusations at you, that's not a forum for honest discussion.

[homersapien 11,447]

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I wasn't suggesting that frivolous lawsuits are particular to transgenderism.  

Didn't mean to imply you did.  I was just making the point.

But the lack of honest discussion and questioning of the issue creates the breeding ground for this kind of garbage.  This same jackass, who flips between identifying himself/herself online as male or female depending on the moment and what the mission is, got two people banned on Twitter for "misgendering" him/her.  She goes and picks fights with people and goads them into some infraction that she can then cry to Twitter about to get their account suspended.

I agree there is a lack of honest discussion.  (But seems we are doing what little we can to rectify that. ) 

A jackass is gonna be a jackass.  Such efforts to irresponsibly coerce others using the legal system - or twitter - is just one of the unfortunate side effects of living in a free society.  I hope he is sanctioned for it. (I use "he" because I have no reason to believe he is a true transgender.)

Regardless, there is no grand conspiracy by transgenders or anyone else to prevent honest discussion.

 

And what happens if the Canadian system doesn't do the right thing?  Would civil disobedience be the right course of action?  

What do you mean by civil disobedience?  You are certainly free to demonstrate but not to riot or beat up transexuals.

At what point do we as a society say, "Hit the brakes on this stuff for a second.  There needs to be a LOT more research into this and solutions found that don't railroad people into situations they have good reason to be uncomfortable with in terms of how one person's choices and feelings intersect with the rights of the rest of society."

Well obviously, we as a society will react when the evidence that tremendous harm is being done by transexuals to large numbers of innocent people becomes sufficiently apparent that such a reaction is appropriate. Isolated incidents such as the above hardly qualify. 

Furthermore, outliers aside, there is absolutely no reason to believe that transexuals as a whole are inclined to inflict such widespread harm on everyone else. They just want the privilege of living their lives honestly.  It's incumbent on the rest of us to allow them to do so without considering it an attack on us. 

 

 

[homersapien 11,447]

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Nothing in here I've said or even suggested would lead one to believe I'm talking about the right to simply insult a person with names like "freak" or "pervert."  I'm talking about being able to question transgenderism as it is presented.  To be able to question if or how some of our laws and policies should be affected.  To be able to ask whether it's reasonable for instance to have some sort of objective standard of proof for transgender claims rather than simply taking someone's word for it.   These are questions that have just been blown aside and to even raise them gets people accused of bigotry.  It is not bigotry to probe these sorts of issues and effects on society.

 

You currently have the right to question whomever you want regarding this issue.  But whomever you question has the right to respond however they wish.

I really don't get this "they won't allow us to have an honest discussion" perspective.  It's not really an issue. You have a right to free speech and so do they.

[homersapien 11,447]

17 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Tell me you honestly didn't think I was saying I expect the US government to come and sanction me or anyone else for discussing this subject.  That's the very definition of a straw man argument.

No, it's not a straw man argument.  It goes to the essence of your claim.

You keep insisting SOMEONE is preventing you and others from having an honest discussion on this.  If it's not the government, then WHO is doing it?

You sound as if you don't understand the concept of free speech. There is NO ONE keeping you from speaking your mind on this.  The fact you may get blowback from those who disagree is because NO ONE  is keeping them from speaking their mind either.

My referencing the government as the only legal agent that can possibly threaten your right to have an honest discussion is just a way of illustrating my point.  There is no one preventing you or anyone else from having a discussion on transgenderism, honest or not.  It's a false claim that implies transgenders are victimizing you or us. 

 

[homersapien 11,447]

39 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It gets stifled in public forums - social media and the like.  Try being a politician in some areas of the country and ask, even respectfully, some of these questions.  Misgender someone or question some public policies and you can lose a job in some places.  Just because the government isn't doing anything (as of now) doesn't mean there aren't heavy prices to pay for some people who don't just get on board with it.

 

Any given social media has the right to stifle anything the owners feel like stifling.  And there are social media sites on both sides of the issue.

Likewise employers have the right to set their own employee standards. You have the freedom to work for employers who have standards you agree with.

I think you are grossly exaggerating the persecution or sanctioning of "honest discussion" of this issue.  You seem determined to put yourself in the position of someone who is having their rights infringed. 

I suggest that if you are paying a "heavy price for "not getting on board with it" (presumably meaning the validity of the transgender condition), I suggest you are probably going way beyond the standards of a "honest discussion".

And if you - or a politician - feel  persecuted by the blowback from your "honest discussion" by "hoards of activists" then you need to understand that's just one of the things that comes naturally with living in a free society.

Perhaps you would feel better if you organized a vigorous opposition to transexuals and their desire to be themselves.  Start a blog. (But expect some blowback from those "hoards of activists". )

 

[AuburnNTexas 7,171]

Obviously we have the right to discuss this as we are doing it right here. The point is in this case because it was not thrown out as soon as case was brought it has done harm to people one woman paid this blackmailer $2500.00 dollars as she could not afford the money to fight the case and another closed her business. A penis is a penis whether it is on a person who identifies as a male or as a transgender as such a female should have the right to say I will not touch it. It is that simple. The problem is that common sense has been thrown out the door and this case was not thrown out as soon as it was opened.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

You currently have the right to question whomever you want regarding this issue.  But whomever you question has the right to respond however they wish.

I really don't get this "they won't allow us to have an honest discussion" perspective.  It's not really an issue. You have a right to free speech and so do they.

Let me see if I can put this particular line of argument to bed once and for all:  I'm not talking about government involvement.  I never was.  I'm talking about the ability of certain groups to curtail discussion or questioning not by having better arguments, but simply by shouting you down or repeating enough scare words and insults to shut down an honest exchange.

For instance, let's say me and you and a handful of friends of mine decide to go to lunch and discuss matters of religion.  You begin to offer some of your reasons for why you think religion in general and Christianity in particular are wrong and nothing more than human imagination run amok.  You then expect, in an honest discussion, for someone to then present their reasoning for why you are wrong, to show evidence they feel points to Christianity being true, etc. but instead, everyone at the table gets really offended.  They start hurling names at you.  They call you an anti-religious bigot and accuse you of hatred for people of sincere faith.  Do you feel like there was really a valid opportunity presented in this situation for you to engage in honest discussion and reasonable questions?  

Now imagine that as frustrating (or comical as it were) that whole scene was, it's no longer just some one off you had at a table with a handful of religious wackos, but instead it's widespread in the culture.  The government doesn't seem to be all that involved, but you find that you cannot even bring up some of the questions and thoughts you have on religion in polite company without the majority looking at you the same way they look at a racist.  You find that if you ask some of these questions on Twitter or Facebook, you get warnings that you've "violated community guidelines" and threatened with your account being banned. Do you feel like you are able to have a real discussion on these matters? 

 

[homersapien 11,447]

17 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Let me see if I can put this particular line of argument to bed once and for all:  I'm not talking about government involvement.  I never was.  I'm talking about the ability of certain groups to curtail discussion or questioning not by having better arguments, but simply by shouting you down or repeating enough scare words and insults to shut down an honest exchange.

For instance, let's say me and you and a handful of friends of mine decide to go to lunch and discuss matters of religion.  You begin to offer some of your reasons for why you think religion in general and Christianity in particular are wrong and nothing more than human imagination run amok.  You then expect, in an honest discussion, for someone to then present their reasoning for why you are wrong, to show evidence they feel points to Christianity being true, etc. but instead, everyone at the table gets really offended.  They start hurling names at you.  They call you an anti-religious bigot and accuse you of hatred for people of sincere faith.  Do you feel like there was really a valid opportunity presented in this situation for you to engage in honest discussion and reasonable questions?  

Now imagine that as frustrating (or comical as it were) that whole scene was, it's no longer just some one off you had at a table with a handful of religious wackos, but instead it's widespread in the culture.  The government doesn't seem to be all that involved, but you find that you cannot even bring up some of the questions and thoughts you have on religion in polite company without the majority looking at you the same way they look at a racist.  You find that if you ask some of these questions on Twitter or Facebook, you get warnings that you've "violated community guidelines" and threatened with your account being banned. Do you feel like you are able to have a real discussion on these matters? 

I think those statements are overly exaggerated as similes.  

Intolerance or inappropriate behavior by activist transexuals is not "widespread" in our "culture". That's pure alarmism.

And you are hanging with far, far more liberal groups than I do if you cannot express doubts or criticism of activist transexuals, much less transexualism per se' without being ostracized as a bigot or xenophobe.

And I seriously doubt that expressing appropriate (non-inflammatory) criticism of extreme behavior - like that in the OP - will get you banned from Twitter or Facebook.  But if so, good for you. I have no use for either.

 

Regarding your hypothetical, well first, I wouldn't discuss religion in such a way with a group of people who might be offended by it. 

But even if I did, I wouldn't feel that my right to speech was being suppressed.  I would recognize it as a predictable reaction from people who have a right to express their point of view.  If they try to to shout over me it's a reflection on them. I can still exercise my right to speak, but I don't have a right to make them listen.

More to the point, I wouldn't later imply Christians as a class are suppressing my rights to express myself. 

The inference I have made from some of your statements is that transexuals - as a group or "movement"- are trying to suppress your right to discuss the subjectand therefore, the "movement" (for transexual rights) is inherently undemocratic and possibly dangerous. 

I see a group of individuals who are advocating for the right to live their own sexuality or identity without persecution.  (Unreasonable expectations of requiring others to accommodate that right - as in the OP - is a different matter.)

To put it another way, it's fine to accuse transexuals of shouting you down when they do so, but it's not fair to characterize transexuals - as a class - of being intolerant of other's opinions. 

Intolerance is not an inherent trait of being transexual.  I am confident there are many transexuals who aren't seeking attention and recognize the entitled behavior of the OP jerk as unreasonable and counter-productive to their cause.

The real issue here - the elephant in the room so to speak - is your disbelief that transexualism as a real condition, I think you are wrong but of course you have a right to your beliefs.

I have also inferred that you think the aspiration of transexuals to be treated according to their sexual identity represents a real threat to our society, which I also think is wrong, isolated incidents like the ones in the OP notwithstanding. 

The events in the OP simply proves that transexuals come in a wide variety of personality types, just like everyone else.  Just like Christians, conservatives, liberals, homosexuals, etc., transexuals have their share of unreasonable wackos.  But that doesn't make any of those groups an inherent threat to society.

 

[triangletiger 1,599]

A couple of random thoughts/questions:

• Ironically, people like the wacko in the OP may end up causing more damage to the transgender rights movement than anyone who overtly opposes it.  Are we sure that this guy's objective isn't really to sabotage the whole movement?
• One thing that I'm not clear on is the identity issue.  Outside of the obvious biological characteristics (the hardware), how is a gender defined?  Other than her physiological makeup, what makes a woman a woman?  One could say someone who behaves in a stereotypically 'feminine' manner could be a woman, but there are many biological females who do not act feminine.   Likewise, with men.  

[DKW 86 7,440]

Waxing his testicles? 

😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳

i am weirded out just thinking about that.  That s*** would hurt if not take the skin right off the scrotum. We live in a very very strange world. Hand him a safety razor and let him do it himself. 

[homersapien 11,447]

35 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

A couple of random thoughts/questions:

• Ironically, people like the wacko in the OP may end up causing more damage to the transgender rights movement than anyone who overtly opposes it.  Are we sure that this guy's objective isn't really to sabotage the whole movement?
• One thing that I'm not clear on is the identity issue.  Outside of the obvious biological characteristics (the hardware), how is a gender defined?  Other than her physiological makeup, what makes a woman a woman?  One could say someone who behaves in a stereotypically 'feminine' manner could be a woman, but there are many biological females who do not act feminine.   Likewise, with men.  

I think you are right on with your first point, at least to the extent this person is doing a lot of damage to the transgender "cause".

Regarding the second, it's not a question that is all that well understood.  But aside from the obvious physiological characteristics it's the brain as you might expect. 

As far as one's sexual identity or "sense" of sex, it's pretty much all the brain - which may be influenced by culture and behavior. 

Here's a relevant article that is exploring exactly that:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5953012/

Abstract:

Transsexualism refers to a condition or belief which results in gender dysphoria in individuals and makes them insist that their biological gender is different from their psychological and experienced gender. Although the etiology of gender dysphoria (or transsexualism) is still unknown, different neuroimaging studies show that structural and functional changes of the brain result from this sexual incongruence. The question here is whether these reported changes form part of the etiology of transsexualism or themselves result from transsexualism culture, behaviors and lifestyle. Responding to this question can be more precise by consideration of cultural neuroscience concepts, particularly the culture–behavior–brain (CBB) loop model and the interactions between behavior, culture and brain. In this article, we first review the studies on the brain of transgender people and then we will discuss the validity of this claim based on the CBB loop model. In summary, transgender individuals experience change in lifestyle, context of beliefs and concepts and, as a result, their culture and behaviors. Given the close relationship and interaction between culture, behavior and brain, the individual’s brain adapts itself to the new condition (culture) and concepts and starts to alter its function and structure.

 

And more:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hormones-and-the-brain/201706/how-the-brain-determines-sexuality

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

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2155810-what-do-the-new-gay-genes-tell-us-about-sexual-orientation/

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

I think you are right on with your first point, at least to the extent this person is doing a lot of damage to the transgender "cause".

Regarding the second, it's not a question that is all that well understood.  But aside from the obvious physiological characteristics it's the brain as you might expect. 

As far as one's sexual identity or "sense" of sex, it's pretty much all the brain - which may be influenced by culture and behavior. 

Here's a relevant article that is exploring exactly that:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5953012/

Abstract:

Transsexualism refers to a condition or belief which results in gender dysphoria in individuals and makes them insist that their biological gender is different from their psychological and experienced gender. Although the etiology of gender dysphoria (or transsexualism) is still unknown, different neuroimaging studies show that structural and functional changes of the brain result from this sexual incongruence. The question here is whether these reported changes form part of the etiology of transsexualism or themselves result from transsexualism culture, behaviors and lifestyle. Responding to this question can be more precise by consideration of cultural neuroscience concepts, particularly the culture–behavior–brain (CBB) loop model and the interactions between behavior, culture and brain. In this article, we first review the studies on the brain of transgender people and then we will discuss the validity of this claim based on the CBB loop model. In summary, transgender individuals experience change in lifestyle, context of beliefs and concepts and, as a result, their culture and behaviors. Given the close relationship and interaction between culture, behavior and brain, the individual’s brain adapts itself to the new condition (culture) and concepts and starts to alter its function and structure.

 

And more:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hormones-and-the-brain/201706/how-the-brain-determines-sexuality

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

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2155810-what-do-the-new-gay-genes-tell-us-about-sexual-orientation/

 

 

However, as we have been told many times, sexual orientation and transgenderism are not related.  In other words, just because a biological man feels like he is really a woman, that doesn't mean that he correspondingly is attracted to men.  So one can be a trans woman but still attracted to women.  Or they could be now attracted to men.  One could be a trans man and now be attracted to women, or still be attracted to men.  Or they could be asexual.  Or bisexual.  Or a trans woman could be attracted to a trans man.

Yay, post-modernism.