Jonathan Yaniv

[invinoveritaserum]

Having familiarised myself with this person, how in the name of holy fuck has he not been arrested? He seems to be laughing at people while hiding in plain sight. So very, very disturbing.

God I remember an MD (female) sending her (female) PA home to change when she has the audacity to wear trousers to work! Another (male) MD didn’t bother when his female staff turned up in short suits (is shorts and jacket).

This is probably outing, but there is a person who comes into my work, identifies as female, name changed to a porn star style name, insisting on being referred to as she. They dress in a mankini à la Borat, a tutu, ripped fishnets, heels and a boob tube. The full makeup is offset by a fetching full beard. They have made sexually inappropriate comments to female staff, asking for makeup tips, and questioning them about their sex lives. Managers have told us that we have to treat them as a woman and answer their questions where appropriate. This is despite the fact that they always approach women, never men, and make us feel extremely uncomfortable.
I have recently refused to toe the line on this - I fully expect to be disciplined at some point.

I would have thought that it's perfectly reasonable to refuse to answer questions - from a colleague or client - about one's sex life. "I don't think this topic is appropriate in the workplace." is a polite answer to those questions.

And that one can also refuse to give make-up tips - again, quite reasonable. "I'm not really interested in make up." is a polite answer to those questions.

But I do understand your reluctance to challenge, and justified fear of consequences. Apart from the fact that we women are socialised to be kind & polite (oh the burden of "nice"), one can't help feeling sorry for this sort of person. There's clearly some kind of personality issue or imbalance going on.

One can't help feeling sorry for this sort of person

That's generous of you, but my sympathies go to the women being used in this male's fantasies and games, while the management insist they cannot protect themselves against it or refuse to be used. It's abusive and it's sexual.

Reminds me of that total git who posted in the Guardian about buying women's underwear while involving the younger members of staff in helping them with their detailed choices and enjoying their embarrassment, and who put, in the article, how they like to end at the cash desk with a smirk at those women that says, in their own words 'I know you're not enjoying this but I am'.

This is the new flashing.

Oh yes @Michelle you're right! I was just trying to articulate why many women still seem to go along with this - not because we want to, but faced with an individual in that moment, in front of us, sometimes it's difficult to overcome the conditioned socialised response.

That's why it's helpful to discuss & rehearse it here.

I don’t feel sorry.

I remember going to one of those awful theatre shows where the actors keep in character and mooch around during intervals.

I was cornered in the ladies loos by a stupid woman dressed in 1950s wedding gear with an awful Nip Yoyk access ‘ahhhhh youse here for the wedding? Hoooos side are yoooo on then? Didn’t I meet yoooo at Joes bar mitzvah?’ Etc etc etc. No leave me alone!

I can’t access KF since the Australian government asked my IP provider to block it post-Christchurch massacre. Summary?

Interesting indeed.

I wish the judge had shared their semantic meaning of 'hateful' and how that standard had been reached.

It is helpful to see in writing that the gravity of the process and the impact on others around them should be recognised by the claimant.

Although I still completely lack understanding of how someone who is simply not trained and equipped to wax a scrotum as opposed to a vagina, as these are two different skills, is committing discrimination against TW.

NotBad:

"
This decision addresses three applications in respect of JY’s waxing complaints:
a. JY’s application to limit publication of any information that may identify her in these proceedings. The application is granted.
b. JY’s application for costs against the respondent, Laser Cut Beauty Inc. [Laser Cut]. The application is denied.
c. LaserCut’s application for costs against JY. The application is granted."

Yaniv issued and withdrew numerous complaints against waxing salons.

The judge could not confirm that this pattern was for financial gain and/or that Yaniv is targeting the Asian community. Nevertheless, Yaniv was ordered to pay costs. Make of that what you will

The judge clearly has Yaniv's card marked, but is giving them the benefit of the doubt - for now - and a warning slap on the wrist. Whether the judgment would have been the same without Morgane Oger's intervention/'permission' is the $64000 question though, isn't it?

The judge could not confirm that this pattern was for financial gain

I think the money was a secondary goal. It was about having power over those women who refused to touch his balls.

That judgement is fascinating to read. JY is clearly a racist as well as disturbed in other ways - there's a lot on line about the way they ask about offering 10 year old girls pads or tampons. And that is the most SafeForWork bit of JY's online presence ...

TheGoal - the journey she has not commented on that aspect

The judge has not!

The judge could not confirm that this pattern was for financial gain

...but, interestingly, she wasn't dismissing the possibility either.

Update on this old thread - Alicia Hendley.

Hendley became GC because of issues related to this thread. She wrote an article about it and was thrown off Twitter as a result. She became very passionate about the GC cause. Two years later, she's done a complete about turn and is now back supporting genderism. Details here: aliciahendley.medium.com/turncoat-aa08c2dd5881

Reading her latest article, I don't see logical, intellectual arguments for rejecting gender criticism. It seems to be based on concern about what others think of her. It looks like she fell in with some right-wingers and some feminists who are willing to ally with anyone if they are all opposing genderism. She also says that no one she knows would support gender critical feminism.

Thinking about this, she is in the same position as an atheist in a religious society. The other atheists she meets might have completely different views on other things (for example, they might see the non-existence of God as an excuse to commit crime). She would also encounter embarrassment and hostility from those around her.

But that doesn't mean atheism is wrong, any more that gender critical feminism is wrong. Hendley says she had 'thrown emotion, authenticity, and self-identity out of the equation'. Now, in order to be liked again, she's throwing logic out of the equation.

Interesting. There aren't many case studies of "ex-GC" that are even vaguely coherent.

It sounds like she is quite agreeable in character, and wants to be part of a group. Being in Canada there just isn't enough of a left-wing GC group for her to feel she can slot in with. I don't think any group there feels able to say "we don't associate with the right" - they're desperate for anyone...

My kid is disappointed in me? What?

And she's gone all Butlerian, thinking questions are somehow answers:

What if ... it had been me who possibly had been missing the point? Could my insistence...? Could my insistence...? Relatedly, could the trans community’s demands...? What if science...? What if science...? Finally, what if my eldest child’s...?

Sorry, it's not sufficient to just raise the questions. You have to answer them.

That's just basically sowing enough doubt to morally justify the desire to be agreeable. Without actually finding evidence you were wrong.

I had a friend share this on social media with glee, so I've read this recently and my heart sank when doing so. All very much 'I'm not like those nasty right wing feminists, I'm too nice'.

For me personally one of the most enlightening things about getting into this issue has been getting over my own prejudices of those on traditional the other side - I'd still never vote Tory, but eg Emma Nicholson is bloody amazing and very worthy of support. I don't think I'd judge an, eg, Brexit voter as harshly as I used to. I wouldn't apologise before sharing a Mail article anymore.

Similarly if women I supported an gender issues started spouting dubious far right politics or anything harmful I would call that out, but wouldn't feel personally stained by it for having some common ground with them.

It really isn't all or nothing - which is possibly at the heart of this issue all round.

in my opinion that person is making others an unwilling participant in their autogynephilia. I'm beginning to see it as a kind of sexual assault.

Couldn't agree more, when we are unwillingly recruited to participate in someone else's sexual fantasy our interactions with them are validating and contribute to their sexual gratification; there is no consent and I can't understand why this isn't obvious to more people.

Sorry, it's not sufficient to just raise the questions. You have to answer them.

That's just basically sowing enough doubt to morally justify the desire to be agreeable. Without actually finding evidence you were wrong.

It's all about providing a counterweight for one's own doubt, isn't it? Just enough to make those scales tip over.

What if science never catching up was okay, because human experience isn’t solely tethered to “absolute” material reality?

This is someone with a Ph.D in clinical psychology basically throwing everything we know about the human brain in the bin, in favour of ghost-in-the-machine supernaturalism, because... be kind?

It does tickle me, though, that in trying to avoid acknowledging the sex binary, Hendley takes the complexity of politics and tries to force that into an artificial binary.

It's as if she's saying - "Oh no, I can only align with people I agree with on everything."

Well, good luck with that. Sounds very lonely.

We all know the courage it takes to care about women too these days.

For me it always boils down to one basic question. All the rights to self identify and authenticity and best life and other psychobabble stuff:

do you believe that the feelings and needs of male people should be regarded as more important than those of female people, and that female people should lose needed rights and resources which will exclude some of them and distress and reduce access for many of them in order to better meet male needs?

Yes or no. Do you believe that all this stuff applied equally to females too, or should females lose out so that male people can be happy and better cared for?

Because you cannot believe in all this and at the same time extend those rights equally to female people. You can't. Some people's feelings have to matter more while other people's feelings don't. Some people's rights and identity and inner passion and sincere beliefs must be respected - and this means telling other people to shut up and their rights and identity and beliefs don't matter. And you can split the benefitters and the losers on clear sex class divisions.

Which makes this male rights activism, and if you want to be a male rights activist that's your business, you crack on. But be honest about it and be prepared to defend that it is not morally superior, it's just that medieval attitudes to women are the new black. And be prepared that not all of that half the populace are not going to joyfully embrace their assigned lesser status.

The issue of how far you buddy up with people with whose views you might not totally share, in order to get one issue prioritised, is a real one and hardly a new one in politics. Mrs America, the show based on Phylis Schlafly, showed that quite vividly.

However, I don't really see its relevance to one's own beliefs or priorities? How you live your life, unless your life is actively politicking? You can agree with some aspects and disagree with others - in fact it's probably the norm. I'm sure I don't agree on hundreds of small (or big?) issues with my very good friends.

Sorry, it's not sufficient to just raise the questions. You have to answer them.

Yes - found this baffling in her piece.

It looks like she fell in with some right-wingers and some feminists who are willing to ally with anyone if they are all opposing genderism.

I think politics - broadly defined - work differently in north America. Very differently in the United States, but also in Canada.

The influence of the Christian right is much stronger - certainly in the US. And it seems to be difficult to avoid alliances with the Christian right on some matters particularly in relation to safeguarding of girls & women. I think WoLF found this, and certainly Posie Parker & Julia Long have allied with the right in the US, in order to achieve their own woman-centred aims.

I think it's really tricky to negotiate, but I don't dismiss them for doing so.

I really don't get why he is protected. I don't get it. Kiwi Farms and Miranda Yardley were the only ones telling the truth at one point. So disturbing

Gallus Mag and Transgender Trend paid the price. She revealed his name (after it was published elsewhere, but since that, IIRC, was a man, he got away with it) and was censored from the internet. Last time I tried to google her, I found nothing for several pages. She is being censored yet even though she has stepped back a bit from her noteriety and become less visible.

I got into the subject of because this was going on and no one could talk about it. When you cannot jail or even reprimand an abuser, legally orgainize his victims to better guard their rights, nor publish their name to at least warn others because of their 'protected' status, it damages more than just the people who have had the misfortune of encountering them, the entire system is compromised and illicit at that point. That's why his case matters.