Sunday Times JY

That single selfie of Yaniv in the girls’ bathroom would peak the entire nation.

I'm assuming they are purposefully being very careful. We all know what's happened to anyone who so much as breathes their name.

I would have liked to see more detail. Particularly about the obsession with tampons and the pictured they took but it's better to at least have this than have nothing I guess.

As far as I know, not a single MSM outlet has touched the JY subject yet. Does anyone know different?

Doesn’t look like they are allowing links to KiwiFarms.

Comments are open now.

i agree - good that they're covering Yaniv.

Any curious person could now search what has actually happened.

And now The Times can follow up on that case.

I hope the comments open!

I can only assume it's supposed to be an introduction to the situation, portraying MM as a feminist who was permanently banned from Twitter for using the "he" pronoun (most people would agree that's rather heavy handed) who is now suing Twitter, and JY as a transwoman who wanted to get their bikini line waxed then brought a legal case against "at least 7" (I thought the number was 16) beauticians. Most people would agree trying to sue them was a bit heavy handed.

Most people reading will never have heard of MM let alone JY so it looks like just an ice-breaker article. At least someone's writing about it!

If/when MM wins her case, it will be bigger news, no one has tried to sue Twitter for anything yet. More will come out after that point.

Agree that it doesn't explain the full and dire case of JY, but slowly, slowly.

Oh, and a picture paints 1,000 words, so I think The Times knows exactly what it is doing.

Interesting at the end it says "Twitter, which is fighting Murphy’s case, said its “hateful conduct” policy prohibited the promotion of violence or threats of attack against those in categories including sex and gender identity. "

As we know Twitter's hateful conduct policy does not include sex as a protected category --this is what Joanna Cherry was asking Katy Minshall of Twitter about in parliament! It says "It may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease."

I wonder if this is Twitter thinking "gender" means "sex" or the sub editors at the Sunday Tikes?

I agree that the article doesn’t explain that women who provide treatments from home were specifically targeted.

I agree that the writer doesn’t go into much detail about the Yaniv case but I think it’s great as an intro to the whole self ID/ media silencing background. Maybe that’s its purpose.

I think it's brilliant that they published it, but as a stand-alone article, I think unless you already have a knowledge/an opinion in the issues, it doesn't spell things out enough to really challenge any thinking. It just comes across as a niche infight.

And the headline is a bit jocular (fur flies) that it would be easy to pass over as 'Oh, you women, what are you like!'

It's not clear that different anatomy may need different training for the procedure.

It's not clear that if you are a lone worker performing something a bit intimate, consent really applies.

It isn't clear that for some, it may be sexually arousing not gender validating (and therefore engaging people in a sexual act without consent)

That sex and gender are different

That misgendering and preferred pronouns is not the same as being upset at Ms not being a recognised title years ago.

It's the only safe way to discuss the person in question at the moment. Slowly slowly. I just hope there's people who might go off and google the name.

Excellent use of photography in that article, though including JY’s own selfie in a women’s loo full of tween schoolgirls would have been even more illuminating.

Oh right. They do sort of clarify. But I thought he called himself Jonathan on twitter when he was supposedly misgendered? *
*Mumsnet allows correctly identifying sex for people who outrage community sensibilities, particularly if they are openly predatory about children.

Will keep reading now. Hope it improves.

That article is bullshit. It wasn't about him "attempting to book". It was about him harassing and suing lone women beauticians who worked at home.