• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Manger Douse said:
Women who want a fellow female examining them after a sexual assault are as bad as Nazis is a red-hot take :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

I was specifically responding to the question about " a private club for gender-critical political lesbians"

I wasn't aware that feminist reading groups were big vendors of crisis medical care.

I don't see how trans inclusive policies would prevent clinics from respecting the wishes of patients in medical and psychological distress. Care to explain?
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
I was specifically responding to the question about " a private club for gender-critical political lesbians"

I wasn't aware that feminist reading groups were big vendors of crisis medical care.

I don't see how trans inclusive policies would prevent clinics from respecting the wishes of patients in medical and psychological distress. Care to explain?
Click to expand...

As long as we agree there are some cases where its acceptable to discriminate against transwomen then I'm good
 
Manger Douse said:
As long as we agree there are some cases where its acceptable to discriminate against transwomen then I'm good
Click to expand...

I don't see why institutional discrimination is justified in this case. Individual patients can have preference, and in extreme enough circumstances, such as a rape crisis center, it's probably wise to just accede to their prejudicial requests.

A case by case exemption is no excuse for bigoted institutions that try to have blanket anti-trans hiring policies, as was the case in of the women's shelter in Canada that lost government funding for a blanket refusal to train or serve trans women.

Nothing is stopping this place from continuing operations as a trans-exclusionary organization, they just no longer receive government money.
 
Last edited:
Is there not a better term than prejudice to describe the fear a woman might have of men after being raped by one?
 
Manger Douse said:
Is there not a better term than prejudice to describe the fear a woman might have of men after being raped by one?
Click to expand...

What do you call it when a stranger is presumed dangerous based on such characteristics?

I am of the opinion that someone at a rape crisis center should be broadly allowed to veto their care providers for pretty much any reason, including based on prejudicial reasons such as gender, race, religion, etc. Respecting bodily autonomy and establishing a sense of safety is absolutely pivotal for people in psychological distress.

I don't see this as adequate reason for institutions to have exemptions to violating anti-discrimination laws. It's entirely possible to provide individualized care to these patients without relying on sweeping discriminatory practices at the institutional level.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
A case by case exemption is no excuse for bigoted institutions that try to have blanket anti-trans hiring policies, as was the case in of the women's shelter in Canada that lost government funding for a blanket refusal to train or serve trans women..
Click to expand...
Do you happen to know how Canada deals with women's shelters who refuse to train or serve cisgender men?
 
d4m10n said:
Do you happen to know how Canada deals with women's shelters who refuse to train or serve cisgender men?
Click to expand...

I don't. I did some cursory searching to see what the requirements are for legally running sex-segregated facilities, both in the US or Canada, but it involves some pretty deep reading.
 
Ziggurat said:
Boudicca and Emily will never reach a consensus. So what do we do?
Click to expand...

Rapiers at dawn. I've always wanted to be someone's second in a duel.

On a more serious note this is one of those issues which doesn't have a fully-solvable resolution, and it's just an eternal struggle to find where to draw the lines to minimize harm and maximize good. Unfortunately people being what they are and social media being the thing it is the loudest voices, not the most reasoned arguments, are the ones which get the attention and exert an undue influence on things.

Which is why I cling to those rare moments of sanity like 'no, you can't force someone to wax your ladyballs' in hope that it signals a clawing back from the PoMo brink we all too often seem headed for.
 
Joe Random said:
Rapiers at dawn. I've always wanted to be someone's second in a duel.

On a more serious note this is one of those issues which doesn't have a fully-solvable resolution, and it's just an eternal struggle to find where to draw the lines to minimize harm and maximize good. Unfortunately people being what they are and social media being the thing it is the loudest voices, not the most reasoned arguments, are the ones which get the attention and exert an undue influence on things.

Which is why I cling to those rare moments of sanity like 'no, you can't force someone to wax your ladyballs' in hope that it signals a clawing back from the PoMo brink we all too often seem headed for.
Click to expand...

You should question if "we" were ever actually at the brink. The people opposing trans rights are wildly hyperbolic about what will happen as a consequence. The reality, as you see, rarely lives up to predictions from the anti-trans doomsayers. There are absurd levels of bad-faith arguments employed by anti-trans activists, and we should all remember the ludicrous smears that were employed against gay people during the debates around their rights at the time.

Canada added trans status as a protected civil right and nobody came to lock up Peterson for refusing to use trans people's pronouns and Jessica Yaniv is no more successful in court than any other vexatious litigant.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
How they are expected to behave, IMO. There are plenty of people actively defying or at least queering those expectations.
Click to expand...

No, you're talking about gender stereotypes, gender norms, statistical patterns, or some other concept that is concerned with the frequency of a certain behaviour. All those things are part of a gender, but so are all the outliers, and in its most basic form, gender describes what a sex does. That's why every female will always be a woman, no matter how much of an outlier she is, because claiming otherwise would be ridiculous.

"But what about females who feel that they are men?" I hear you ask. Well, they are men because they feel that they are men (due to gender dysphoria). That's the only argument for them being men. As we've seen, scientifically minded individuals might be a little bothered by the circular nature of this argument, but that's the only argument there is, no matter how much verbiage it is hidden behind.

Whether that's enough of an argument ...
 
IIRC two people lost their business because of Jessica Yaniv but I assume all the people she litigated against have been fully reimbursed their legal fees right?
 
Manger Douse said:
IIRC two people lost their business because of Jessica Yaniv but I assume all the people she litigated against have been fully reimbursed their legal fees right?
Click to expand...

Vexatious litigation is a real problem well beyond the scope of trans rights. Pro-se cranks are filing frivolous lawsuits of all sorts all the time and disrupting people's lives. It's a nasty consequence of our "pay to play" legal system where people without money often cannot effectively advocate for themselves in court.


Canada is more progressive on this issue and ordered Yaniv pay money to the victims of this pointless litigation. In the US, they likely would have got nothing after the case was dismissed, which is awful.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Vexatious litigation is a real problem well beyond the scope of trans rights. Pro-se cranks are filing frivolous lawsuits of all sorts all the time and disrupting people's lives. It's a nasty consequence of our "pay to play" legal system where people without money often cannot effectively advocate for themselves in court.


Canada is more progressive on this issue and ordered Yaniv pay money to the victims of this pointless litigation. In the US, they likely would have got nothing after the case was dismissed, which is awful.
Click to expand...
And has Jessica Yaniv paid any of that money back because as it stands this is far from a happy ending

I'm taking it that you agree beauty treatments are another field you agree it's acceptable to discriminate against trans-women - how would you suggest I convince people like Bodiccia and Archy Gemil?
 
Manger Douse said:
IIRC two people lost their business because of Jessica Yaniv but I assume all the people she litigated against have been fully reimbursed their legal fees right?
Click to expand...

IIRC at least one of the recent three folded completely, but supposedly Yaniv had to pay them back (small consolation).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Yaniv#2020

In August 2020, Yaniv filed a new civil suit for $11,800 against three of the female beauticians involved in the Tribunal case. In an email to the National Post, she said that she paid the money owed to the beauticians in the tribunal case, but they had failed to remove related liens placed against her; so, she had to sue to protect her assets.
Click to expand...

Reading the Wiki page it [Yaniv] seems to be a professional grievance monger. I wasn't aware of the weapons charges until just now.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Vexatious litigation is a real problem well beyond the scope of trans rights. Pro-se cranks are filing frivolous lawsuits of all sorts all the time and disrupting people's lives. It's a nasty consequence of our "pay to play" legal system where people without money often cannot effectively advocate for themselves in court.


Canada is more progressive on this issue and ordered Yaniv pay money to the victims of this pointless litigation. In the US, they likely would have got nothing after the case was dismissed, which is awful.
Click to expand...

That's not really true. In the US if you get sued and win (by judgment or dismissal), you can often recover attorney costs from whomever sued you. That's very common. But yes, the system is still prone to abuse.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I am of the opinion that someone at a rape crisis center should be broadly allowed to veto their care providers for pretty much any reason, including based on prejudicial reasons such as gender, race, religion, etc. Respecting bodily autonomy and establishing a sense of safety is absolutely pivotal for people in psychological distress.
Click to expand...

What happens when a patient wants to veto another patient?
 
Collin237 said:
What happens when a patient wants to veto another patient?
Click to expand...

Patient preferences should be respected as much as feasibly possible. No patient should be able to eject a well-behaved fellow patient, but there is often room for reasonable accommodation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom