Miranda Yardley calls out the predator

It’s a wedge argument

Which is why the answer is no.

"Yes, of course those ideas are ridiculous. But all we're asking for is access to ... which isn't unreasonable, is it?"

Seen frequently when the GRA is discussed that women will make some compromises - and this is a kind and reasonable response. It's also demonstrated frequently that once one small slice is achieved, the focus immediately shifts to the next small step that pushes further. Because if that's ok then really it's a bit unreasonable to deny this too/this law now looks a bit silly and out of date doesn't it? Such as that it will look a bit silly insisting that children can't have tattoos or make decisions around sexual consent if they can however consent to life changing drugs and surgery.

Salami tactics.

Any parent is surely familiar with this negotiating tactic. Your child asks for something outrageous, and the obvious answer is a clear no, but all they were doing is setting up the barter so that the lesser demand seems more reasonable.

I mean, yes, I know there are complete nutbars who believe those demands are reasonable. But there others who play a long game, as we have seen, for kicks or power or whatever, and the purpose of the extremes for them is to be able to say "Yes, of course those ideas are ridiculous. But all we're asking for is access to ... which isn't unreasonable, is it?"

And that works two ways: it encourages the belief that applying typical standards is 'unkind' and 'transphobic' to inhibit people showing their typical responses and expectations, or maintaining their boundaries, while at the same time emboldening those who have an enjoyment of pushing boundaries as to what they can get away with.

The issue around changing rooms and bathrooms and lesbians in a nutshell.

There is every attempt from the TRA lobby to groom all official bodies and the public that trans people should be given a special pass from the expectations and boundaries that apply to everyone else, such as law, waiting lists, bureaucratic procedures, safeguarding, other people's rights, and social behaviour (we have already seen the claim from middle aged late transitioners that they are having a 'delayed adolescence' to excuse unacceptable behaviour). It extends as far as AFTH's 'demand' in their manifesto that all trans prisoners (hello Karen White, Ian Huntley and Mighty Almighty) be immediately released, and the claim that trans people cannot commit rape or be guilty of anything.

Eeeek. Yaniv is disgusting. As far as I can see he is taking advantage of the self ID so hasn't broken the law.
Clearly, if women see a blatant male in a changing room they won't get naked and will be pretty irritated.

the public might condone such behaviour from transwomen in a way that they would not from men.

It's probably this.

Trying to adjust to thinking that the person acting male, is female, gives rise to the unfamiliarity maybe.

It's the feeling that this disgraceful behaviour which could normally, quite easily be called out, is somehow untouchable.

You can't say, hey buddy, enough of that, ladies present. Or anything like it. It's hand tying.

I see what you are saying Thingy and I think I agree with you. Also wondering whether its about whether the public might condone such behaviour from transwomen in a way that they would not from men. Whatever way you look at it, though, the behaviour does not fit a pattern for how women behave.

It was bog standard Duluth wheel behaviour.

Sorry I can't articulate it any better but I'll repeat that I find the aggression particularly frightening.

It is frightening. Aggressive behaviour intended to dominate & control is.
Perhaps have a look at the resources by The Freedom Programme?
Links to their website and others:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3452784-Coercive-Control-a-need-for-better-awareness

Most of the aggressive males I've ever known do the talking over others, stabby fingered, bug eyed thing. Sure, the ones we're talking about here are also trying to approximate 'femininity', so it may present slightly differently to the shaven headed bully boy stereotype, but it's essentially the same ime.

Ok I accept my statistics are nothing more than an internal gut feeling. Maybe nobody agrees with me put I'll try again to make the point I was trying to make.

Yes I know there is a behaviour pattern known as 'typical male aggression'. I also know there are many men that display it (although of course not all) it's just that India's behaviour didn't seem to quite fit that profile to me but it certainly didn't fit female pattern aggression either. My gut feeling is that it is something different. It's something I'm not familiar with and wouldn't have a clue how to best deal with it if faced with it. For that reason I find it particularly frightening.

Can I ask you to think of a particularly aggressive male you know. Now can you imagine them in that kitchen, with a group of women behaving like India? Yes maybe he would scream and shout about something but would he behave like India did? Now do the same for the Hyde Park incident, the stairwell incident and the misgendered gamestore customer, when a female tried to intervene. Can you imagine your aggressive male behaving in the same manner?

Can anyone else see that the aggression shown by those transwomen was different? It was male yes but with a toddler tantrum element and a complete lack of awareness to the power differential.

Sorry I can't articulate it any better but I'll repeat that I find the aggression particularly frightening.

*waif (d'oh)

pitching that kids as young as 18 months can know gender and 3 yr olds make life changing decisions is laying the way for "kids can consent to sex"

And the fact these children will one day be adults, so legal sexually, but with more child/waife like bodies due to puberty blockers, has to be an added bonus 😷

Clarification: source for that idiotic statistic.

You got statistics to back up that idiotic claim, Thingybob?

What R0 said. Male pattern abusive behaviour is carried out overwhelmingly by males. It's NAMALT to say that not all males are abusive. We all know that.

99.99% of all men?
Does that statistic come from the ministry of bullshit?

It was typical male aggression.
This pattern includes admonishing women relentlessly, including anonymously on feminist boards.

But it wasn't typical male aggression as 99.99% of all men would never behave like that towards a woman they hardly knew.

'Male agression' means a pattern of behaviour which is demonstrated by males (as opposed to females).
Not that all males demonstrate it (NAMALT)

I saw male aggression

But it wasn't typical male aggression as 99.99% of all men would never behave like that towards a woman they hardly knew. Almost all men have the self restraint and awareness to know that the public will never condone bullying behaviour like that (even the ones who are privately abusive to family members)

And 99.99% of all people, male and female, know that speaking like that to someone who is 82 is totally out of order even if she looks amazing for her age.

I'm not sure either why Yaniv hasn't made the mainstream press. The UK press aren't bound by Canadian laws so it must just be that they don't think it's a big enough story.

Just watched the video of India in the House. I would have let her carry on until she'd finished, then said, Amanda made a mistake, the world hasn't ended has it? Worse things happen at sea, and any other cliché I could think of. Oh and by the way, what do you mean by being a real woman'? I saw male aggression and women trying to smooth things over which is what we do.

I think it's as simple as the Canadian press are intimidated and the overseas press don't yet understand how outrageous the case is (which makes it relevant across borders).

It’s about time some of the mainstream media grew some balls and reported this dick head. I honestly believe there’s some kind of conspiracy. I don’t expect the liberal lefty ones to like the Guardian here but why haven’t shithouses like the Daily Mail or even further right wing ones bothered like Breibart? I know there’s court orders. I know it’s illegal and they’ll get sued. But it doesn’t seem to have stopped them in the past. DM had no quarrel with fucking that Gatwick couple up for example. The publicity and sales normally more than makes it for the court action and damages. Perhaps the issue is the general public doesn’t care enough to make it worthwhile