Sunday Times JY

[Badgerthebodger]

Sunday Times being brilliant again

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fur-flies-over-brazilian-wax-for-trans-woman-jessica-yaniv-gm7f9mltx?shareToken=d7ce64ef19c527951d344992de95aa2a

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.

Will keep reading now. Hope it improves.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

I hope the comments open!

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.

Comments are open now.

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

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

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.

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

Entitled to a smear test.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.