Sunday Times JY

So much for "The Thunderer" eh?

PS They put enough information in the story and allow comments to point a slightly interested reader into the direction of the more ‘contentious’ detail - they have made themselves the Mumsnet equivalent in the MSM - Public enemy number one for - Stonewall, Mermaids et al -

Please don’t criticise the Times for being either under researched or lacking courage. They are subject to a range of litigation surrounding The Trans Issue - some ongoing - they allow comment (if carefully checked) they are open minded allow debate and have made themselves a target for all the usual rubbish

Yes I'm inclined to agree, nauticant.

I'd say that's mission accomplished by The Times. They published something bland and attracted loads of comments either filling in the blanks or encouraging people to go looking themselves to learn more.

Basically all the comments are revealing and not in a good way for JY.
YAY Times.

This comment is spot on.... Copied below

This article doesn’t quite tell the full story about Yaniv.

As far as I am aware, he has an obsession with women’s menstrual cycles, and has been banned from hundreds of women’s groups online for repeatedly asking women questions about the use of their tampons - including a strange obsession with how to help young girls with them.

A prime example of the type of type of sexual predator women do not want to have to share their spaces with.

Ditto on the brazilian waxing - a case in which women are being told by the government they must touch a mans (sorry... woman’s...) genitals against their will, or else be accused of transphobia.

The levels of misogyny we have reached over these issues are unprecedented.

There are some great comments

God that comment is going to be deleted too because I accidentally misgendered:

so here it is with mandatory capitulation:

My comment - written twice, didn't make The Times. It outlined some discrepancies in the article including the deadnaming/outing conundrum which silenced people. I know it isn't going to appear as two later comments have. It isn't even clear from the article that Yaniv would have required a 'Manzillian' not a Brazillian which is a different skill set requiring different equipment and wax nor the fact they were accepted at other salons but that wasn't enough.

My comment - written twice, didn't make The Times. It outlined some discrepancies in the article including the deadnaming/outing conundrum which silenced people. I know it isn't going to appear as two later comments have. It isn't even clear from the article that Yaniv would have required a 'Manzillion' not a Brazillian which is a different skill set requiring different equipment and wax nor the fact he was accepted at other salons but that wasn't enough.

There's a strong likelihood that Yaniv has access to funds from a third party source if Yaniv wants to pursue litigation. Maybe with the employment tribunal currently going on with the trans former member of staff, the Times/Sunday Times thought they had enough on their plate. But it's hard to make sense of the article if you don't have all the relevant info to hand.

I understand the paper might be wary of litigation

I think they basically just can't be arsed with the hassle for the minute. They've done the bare minimum and that's enough for now.

Actually, just had a bit of a dig, and I think the author is completely aware of the issue.

You might be right nettie434. Maybe the author didn't know.

I mean, this particular biological male did some inexcusable creepy things, and fetishised periods, and no one can legally say it?

What the fuck?

So ... Anyone who has done anything at any time can now say "I now identify as Girl McGirlyGirl (or Boy McBoylyBoy) ... and then Twitter and social media and google will vigorously remove all the references to their former name, deeds, and lives, and ban people who don't comply?

What the fuck?

How has this become acceptable?

I see what you mean, Datun. Maybe they have not seen everything. I find that a lot of topics discussed in Feminist Chat are covered in more detail here. They should have asked us to write the article! Or 🥝 farms.

I understand the paper might be wary of litigation. It's what form that litigation could take is my question. What stops them using yaniv's comments online? What law?

Alwayscominghome

How can a newspaper like The Times be afraid of litigation?

Wasn’t the address used in the waxing suit the same building where a famous opponent of Vancouver Rape Relief is based? People get banned from Twitter on this person’s say so. May not have personal wealth but has access to those who do.

I can only guess that the beauty pageant picture was public whereas JY might argue the bathroom selfie was his copyright. Didn’t he do this somewhere else when people used that photo which really is very disconcerting?

I agree that the photo and article give the impression of an essentially harmless person who wanted a wax and the meanie ladies would not do it. However, I am sure that this is because The Sunday Times are being really careful. Better that a sanitised version is in a newspaper than not at all.

And seriously, how the fuck can a newspaper like The Times be afraid of litigation from somebody who lives with their mother and who’s finances come from reviewing dildos?

As far as I can tell they aren’t even allowing reference to Miranda Yardley.

Can anyone enlighten me as to why they can't be more detailed or even mention the girl/tampax thing?

I'd like to know what the line is that the Times has decided not to cross.

Can anyone enlighten me as to why they can't be more detailed or even mention the girl/tampax thing? What the reason is.

Because I thought Canada had said you cannot link JY to being trans, or something. But the times has just done that. So why can't they do the rest.

It would make Murphy's comments instantly understandable and subsequent banning rather suspicious. It would also clear up this latest trope about feminists spreading disinformation. It wouldn't occur to many people that any man, with any fetish, can easily leverage transgenderism.

Entitled to a smear test.

Knowing Yavin they'll sue when the doctor is unable to find their cervix.