Fascinating tweets about JY’s waxing case. Read here. (cont. thread 2)

[GirlDownUnder]

Thread 1 here
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3632380-Fascinating-tweets-about-JY-s-waxing-case-Read-here-Thread-title-edited-by-MNHQ

This is a continuation of all that is JY and their waxing cases bought against minority women in Canada.

We are a fair way in, and still are no closer to knowing what the final judgment will be, but we have lots of info. and are finally seeing this case, and all the attending issues with self ID, in the public eye and main stream press.

Yaniv is legally female, so I guess anyone in Canada has to be careful how they refer to JY on a personal level. It's just bizarre.

Yaniv is legally female

is he though? what's the process for changing your legal sex over there? I'd have thought that if he had a GRC he'd go on about it all the damn time

He's apparently got female on birth certificate and driving .license, so in Canada I guess he is legally female (if it's true, of course, he's one of those liars who is constantly making things up in answer to any situation he finds himself in - hence his supposed ability to get pg and his periods since 13 years old).

Regardless, most of us aren't in Canada. Use of pronouns is a courtesy.

Regardless, most of us aren't in Canada. Use of pronouns is a courtesy.

Is it a courtesy though? What about the judge there who insisted the victim address her assailant with female pronouns? The suits brought by TRAs there against people who’ve misgendered them on social media? Even here on mumsnet we’re not allowed to misgender. It seems to me it’s rapidly becoming an obligation rather than a courtesy.

Apologies, had a brainfart about the name of the victim, it was Maria Maclachlan

There is a Canadian politician on twitter who has broken the silence

He said that Yaniv is a man

His name his maxime bernier. So far he has not been banned from twitter for saying that Yaniv is a man

Is it a courtesy though? What about the judge there who insisted the victim address her assailant with female pronouns? The suits brought by TRAs there against people who’ve misgendered them on social media? Even here on mumsnet we’re not allowed to misgender. It seems to me it’s rapidly becoming an obligation rather than a courtesy.

In UK, it is very much a 'courtesy'. There is nothing written in any statute about use of pronouns, so-called 'mis-gendering' or so-called 'dead-naming'. To write such requirements in law is a breach of international human rights law.

While an organisation can impose rules about courtesy that facilitate participation, compelled speech, expression or belief is a breach of international human rights law.

You may remember that legal case in N Ireland involving the bakers' Ashers, wherein the UK Supreme Court last year protected the human right to freedom of conscience, belief, speech etc:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45789759

I know it’s not actually enshrined in law there JackyHolyoake - yet - but it seems to me more and more that it might as well be given the number of people who are falling afoul of the gendering ‘courtesy’.

In UK, it is very much a 'courtesy'. There is nothing written in any statute about use of pronouns, so-called 'mis-gendering' or so-called 'dead-naming'. To write such requirements in law is a breach of international human rights law

While an organisation can impose rules about courtesy that facilitate participation, compelled speech, expression or belief is a breach of international human rights law

I'm not sure that's entire true. Section 22 of the GRA makes it a criminal offence to disclose the birth gender [the Act uses 'gender', not 'sex] of someone who has a GRA. People often disbelieve me about this, so I'll quote the Act:

It is an offence for a person who has acquired protected information in an official capacity to disclose the information to any other person.

Protected information in this context means birth gender or that someone has applied for a GRA.

The criminal offence doesn't apply to people acting as private citizens, but does apply to a very wide range of people in their work - including HCPs, the police, civil servants etc.

So that's millions of people in the UK who would commit a criminal offence if they disclosed the birth 'gender' of someone with a GRA while at work. Obviously, if you use male pronouns or a male 'dead name' about someone who now identifies as female, you are effectively disclosing their birth sex. So, by the back door, millions of people are compelled in their working lives to pretend to believe that trans people have changed sex. At present, the offence is only committed if a trans person has applied for, or has, a GRA, but the principle of compelled speech is thus already part of UK statutory law.

goinglikeelsie is tweeting.

Benjamin A Boyce talking about JY

JY is tweeting.The comments are not going well...

twitter.com/trustednerd/status/1155600955032788992?s=19

Their tweet

We haven't quite yet got a law about self-id here though. Anyone with a GRC has gone through the actual process and so it's not so ur to use their preferred pronouns in those cases.

The judge in the Maclachlan case was very odd. I do wonder whether, if he'd actually been challenged on that instruction by a lawyer who knew what they were about whether that instruction would have stood.

Can you challenge a judge's instructions in their own Court? It ought to be possible especially in a case like that where Maclachlan was speaking the truth, having just sworn that she would. It was very bizarre.

We haven't quite yet got a law about self-id here though. Anyone with a GRC has gone through the actual process and so it's not so ur to use their preferred pronouns in those cases

I don't share your optimism. The principle of forcing professionals to comply with a lie has been established in statute. All that remains now is to broaden the number of trans people who benefit from it.

The GRA 2004 allows anyone with a GRC to amend their birth certificate to a lie, and to be officially recognised by the State as having changed sex, with a criminal offence committed if professionals disclose the truth.

All mainstream political parties are committed to reform of the GRA, to allow self-ID. Once amended to allow self-ID, anyone who IDs as trans will be protected by the Act's criminalisation of disclosure of biological sex. Hey presto, misgendering is illegal.

@GirlDownUnder

The criminal offence doesn't apply to people acting as private citizens, but does apply to a very wide range of people in their work - including HCPs, the police, civil servants etc.

Yes, sorry, I should have been clear that I was referring to private citizens here. Thank you .

I have no idea how the name Girl Down Under appeared in my post .. it was intended as a direct response to @XXcstatic

goinglikeelsie is tweeting.

Jackyholyoake it happens to me too, it appears on my phone and iPad that typing @ sometimes brings up a dropdown list of usernames and inserts the top one. It’s really frustrating, I was trying to insert a link in one post and it kept doing it and then deleting everything I’d typed. Don’t know if it’s a device blip or a Mumsnet blip.

Reading those tweets.... bloody hell. To quote: is female, is intersex, was a man, has male and female genitals, but one 'set' is deformed, menstruates, (has previously on tweets said has penis)

Surely medical evidence and proof of JY's actual physical state is going to have to be required here? Since this is confusing to put it mildly and JY is the one repeatedly raising this as relevant?

In the conversations with waxers shared by JY in testimony, JY says first JY is a woman, then adds that JY is transgender (with the male name and photo on some social media, this is also confusing) and no further conversations seem to ever take place about exactly what the waxers would be waxing to make this relevant.

More tweets about the case available. Elsie is providing a valuable resource.
mobile.twitter.com/goinglikeelsie?lang=en

A view from MO mobile.twitter.com/kate12503/status/1156447007525019648

Not going to link to the article but PN have written in defence of JY 🙄