All TRAs should answer for JY

[buttertoasty]

They should, because the movement has been predicated on the lie that something like this wouldn't happen and that people like this don't exist, and it's damn right transphobic to suggest otherwise.

They have given him a platform. And they need to call him out without the pathetic excuse that he isn't trans because he is a predator- trans people can be predators.

Why can trans people decide who is or isn't trans arbitrarily (like those declaring Yaniv isn't) yet whenever women suggest a rapist is lying to access victims we're transphobes?

The cynic in me says they won't speak out or even have any reasoned discussion on it because it could compromise self ID for them

This is why. Women and girls are viewed as acceptable collateral damage in order to further the rights of men.

I don't like it but it's where we're at. For now.

yes, I agree. There are very sensible exceptions inn the GRA - there was no legal reason why Karen White was in a women's prison for example. The problem we have is organisations being advised by the likes of Stonewall into believing that those exceptions don't exist, or the applying them is wrong in some way.

Step 1 has to be getting back to the original spirit of the 2004 GRA, which placed sensible(ish) limitations on the legal fiction

step 2 would be removing the GRA altogether. It does no good, and actively does harm.

and yes Jacky, my understanding is that the legislation itself is OK, but the explanatory notes introduced this concept of 'case by case basis', so you start from the assumption that all males are allowed to access female services and spaces and they have to decide person by person who to exclude

which is bonkers. as you say, that needs to be 180 reversed

Well it is in the sense that, as LangCleg points out, there is only self ID. 'Trans' is not a measurable, observable reality. It only exists at all as an ephemeral 'feeling'.

Yes. That's what I was getting at.

The current list of "symptoms" required to qualify for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is just an I want wish list anyway.

step 2 would be removing the GRA altogether. It does no good, and actively does harm

And step 3 would be telling men to be more accepting of their non conforming brethren. Legislating to force them if necessary.

No greater proof that we're living in a patriarchy is that this actually happening is utterly unthinkable.

The problem we have is organisations being advised by the likes of Stonewall into believing that those exceptions don't exist, or the applying them is wrong in some way.

It's very difficult for MPs to admit that these exceptions exist or talk about them coherently if they don't feel able to say that trans women aren't women.

I suspect that is (or was) the govts plan for getting this all through in law without causing a major kick off: no to self ID, everything through GRC, BUT GRCs will be handed out like smarties, and JY, IH, anyone else who wants it, can have the legal status of woman and women are still in the exact same position.

Rather like the 'we will protect single sex spaces (BUT any male can be any sex he likes)' line so frequently trotted out.

I'm sure JY would have been delighted to show JY's copy of a GRC to a woman he wanted to compel and evidence still further that they say yes to JY or get out their cheque book.

Well no one is ready to hear the " I told u so" yet are they.

I'm sick to death of seeing that people are who they say they are then the MRAs chucking out anyone who is predatory or violent etc.

Take them. They are yours. You cant pick.and choose

but the explanatory notes introduced this concept of 'case by case basis', so you start from the assumption that all males are allowed to access female services and spaces and they have to decide person by person who to exclude

The EHRC earlier this year clarified that 'case-by'case' does not apply to individual people but to any service. For example, one case of disallowing a man to make use of a specific woman only service would then apply to all similar services.

This is why a lot of the ones who are calling him out are just using the using they "he's not trans and therefore not welcome in lgbt" rhetoric.

Anyone using this argument needs tube asked how they define woman. Because over and over we have been told that a woman is ‘anyone who says she’s[sic] a woman’

This is their definition, offered over and over.

For example, one case of disallowing a man to make use of a specific woman only service would then apply to all similar services

Which makes sense - otherwise it's just excluding people on a whim, which seems really unfair.

The EHRC earlier this year clarified that 'case-by'case' does not apply to individual people but to any service

that's really good to know, thanks Jacky - your encyclopedic knowledge of the GRA and the EA are invaluable and appreciated as always

No greater proof that we're living in a patriarchy is that this actually happening is utterly unthinkable

isn't it just. some males are sad and feel threatened by other males. the solution is not to deal with the behaviour of males, but to tell women what to do and compromise their safety

it's like society tattooing 'you're not very important' on the back of every woman and girl's hand, just so we can be aware of it at all times.

This is a useful read, if you haven't already done so [it's quite long but very useful]

fairplayforwomen.com/changing_rooms/

isn't it just. some males are sad and feel threatened by other males. the solution is not to deal with the behaviour of males, but to tell women what to do and compromise their safety

The stark difference between men cheering loudly to be rid of their non-conforming brethren and doing everything they possibly can to force women to accept them, and women rushing to welcome their detransitioning sisters back into the fold - it always strikes me.

We can't stop people believing that the earth is flat, but we can ensure they don't design air traffic control systems.

It’s a great analogy but flawed in that, in these post-truth times, we can’t ensure they’re not designing air traffic control systems as we speak!

They’re bloody everywhere and in the most unlikely of industries. I know of one flat-earther who is an external source inspector employed by a leading aerospace company (CEO’s surname rhymes with dusk). He goes out to manufacturers to inspect the components they make for that company - components that wind up in rockets and spaceships. He’s quite open about his beliefs apparently, incongruous though they are with his work which actually is fucking rocket science, no idea how he reconciles the two.

Sorry for the derail but it’s kinda pertinent too.

Thing is, Yanniv is the sort of shitbag who would be bringing 'dicrimination' lawsuits against poor, vulnerable women even if you took the whole self-id factor out. Yanniv would be pursuing lawsuits on the grounds that the women have no right to 'discriminate' against men who want a genital wax. Because Yanniv is not, and never was. interested in genital waxing, and Yanniv is not, and never was, particularly bothered about other transpeople. Anti-hate laws can take some effort to formulate in a way that doesn't allow for people to run crying to the court because they were the 'victim' of anti-white hate crime

Anti-hate laws can take some effort to formulate in a way that doesn't allow for people to run crying to the court because they were the 'victim' of anti-white hate crime

the important thing is to be able to understand and name the power dynamics

understanding that men do not suffer from systemic discrimination due to their sex, and that Yaniv is a man would be very helpful to the Canadians at this point

But isn’t that the point, SGB? If sex is a protected characteristic, female service providers can, legally cater to female clients only.

That is why having a protected class matters.

Canada has bizarrely replaced “sex” with “gender,” enabling a predatory male to:

(A) join the protected class; and
(B) sue women for not providing a service they provide only to female clients.

If JY was legally a man, JY would not have grounds for case. His abuse of these women has been facilitated by Self-ID, just as the rape of women (and 12yo girl) in a Canadian Women’s refuge was.

Yes predatory individuals will target vulnerable people. The law should seek to prevent it - not facilitate it.

for this* case

It's the dishonesty that bothers me. It was said that there is no evidence that predatory men would take advantage of self-id, that it was transphobic to even suggest that it might happen.

I would have been much more respectful of the TRA argument if they acknowledged that such things might happen, but that there was still a net benefit, or that the risk was comparatively small etc.

But I never saw them say that, instead any concerns about abusive men were met with "OMG you think trans people are all racists!!!" or something equally histrionic.

Grr, rapists not racists.

Thing is, Yanniv is the sort of shitbag who would

And in every society there are shitbags who would. They would bring vexatious claims, they would use loopholes, they would seek advantage, they would predate on the vulnerable. Which is why self-id shouldn’t happen so those shitbags who would don’t get given a free ride to do so. This is the whole point of the opposition to self-id. It’s because there will inevitably be shitbags who will seek advantage of it, regardless of their true gender identity.

And in every society there are shitbags who would

And almost all of them in possession of a penis.

Presumably you also think that all Christians should have to answer for the Westboro Baptist Church, and all those who initially voted Leave answer for fucking Yaxley Lennon, too?

Christian churches disavow Westboro, whereas Trans groups routinely shout "Free all trans prisoners now" and nobody (except Morgane Oger, who got far too close to JY for comfort, and has done a 180 degree U turn for nothing more than self preservation) in the TRA movement has disavowed JY.