[parmnion]

Any tibb women willing to come and cradle mine in an ice cold basin right now..... £250

[Amy Jade]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Any tibb women willing to come and cradle mine in an ice cold basin right now..... £250

'Hello? Police please!'

[Ammi]

...I honestly don’t know what’s true with this person...some really disturbing stuff...

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/ex...iv-speaks-out/

[smudgie]

I would have a go.
But shave it with a Sweeny Todd razor and make sure I wasn’t too careful.
Disgusting pervert

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Any tibb women willing to come and cradle mine in an ice cold basin right now..... £250

are you hot Parmy

[Cherie]

Remember when we were told this would never happen

[Toy Soldier]

Using an obvious example of extreme behaviour - so extreme that it borders on parody - to justify general anti-trans views and shout "TOLD U SO".

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Using an obvious example of extreme behaviour - so extreme that it borders on parody - to justify general anti-trans views and shout "TOLD U SO".

That's unfair. It isn't anti trans, it's pro women.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Remember when we were told this would never happen

I remember. I remember being told I was anti-trans. I remember women being laughed at and told self-IDing was "no threat" to women.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

I remember. I remember being told I was anti-trans. I remember women being laughed at and told self-IDing was "no threat" to women.

Luckily you now have the justification you need to curb stomp those dirty buggers into the floor, because there's a pedophile in Canada abusing the law. Whew!

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Luckily you now have the justification you need to curb stomp those dirty buggers into the floor, because there's a pedophile in Canada abusing the law. Whew!

Look at your hysterical language.

You think I'm anti trans and that you yourself are virtuous.

I am not against trans people, I am against people self-IDing. And frankly it's insulting that I have to explain this to you. Again.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Using an obvious example of extreme behaviour - so extreme that it borders on parody - to justify general anti-trans views and shout "TOLD U SO".

It's an example of how self IDing can be abused TS which is all I and a few others have been saying. It isn't the first example either by the way, there are numerous examples in the sporting field also, there are quite a lot of examples in a very short space of time in fact. The point is it's putting trans rights above womens rights, that is very very unfair. It's putting gender above sex which is illogical, unfair and quite frankly dangerous

[Toy Soldier]

I can accept that purely in the context of this thread, I may have gone in a little hard based on past experiences of these threads. Past threads on these topics have gone in a distinctly angry general anti-trans direction. I know there'll be people who will argue that they haven't, but for me that's not an opinion that's going to change.

I also can't agree that a thread about an obviously extreme example of a disturbed individual works well to support a general point. Does it mean things need to be looked at? Maybe, as a tiny fragment of a much broader discussion, but this is not the "Gotcha!!" moment that people want it to be. That would be like seeing a story about a dog attacking a child and announcing that "clearly" the regulations around dog ownership must be changed "and if you don't agree, you aren't considering the children".

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I can accept that purely in the context of this thread, I may have gone in a little hard based on past experiences of these threads. Past threads on these topics have gone in a distinctly angry general anti-trans direction. I know there'll be people who will argue that they haven't, but for me that's not an opinion that's going to change.

I also can't agree that a thread about an obviously extreme example of a disturbed individual works well to support a general point. Does it mean things need to be looked at? Maybe, as a tiny fragment of a much broader discussion, but this is not the "Gotcha!!" moment that people want it to be. That would be like seeing a story about a dog attacking a child and announcing that "clearly" the regulations around dog ownership must be changed "and if you don't agree, you aren't considering the children".

it may be an extreme example, but it shows the routes that are available and being used to exploit the system. To me this is exactly the same as Trump and his enabling of racists. When new routes are opened up to prey again on previously exploited groups, it has to be stamped out. No ifs or buts. To me, if these issues are not treated the same across the board, it shouts hypocrisy loud and clear.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I can accept that purely in the context of this thread, I may have gone in a little hard based on past experiences of these threads. Past threads on these topics have gone in a distinctly angry general anti-trans direction. I know there'll be people who will argue that they haven't, but for me that's not an opinion that's going to change.

I also can't agree that a thread about an obviously extreme example of a disturbed individual works well to support a general point. Does it mean things need to be looked at? Maybe, as a tiny fragment of a much broader discussion, but this is not the "Gotcha!!" moment that people want it to be. That would be like seeing a story about a dog attacking a child and announcing that "clearly" the regulations around dog ownership must be changed "and if you don't agree, you aren't considering the children".

The dog example is flimsy considering you can also flip that to work the other way round. At the end of the day you're arguing, pretty much the same as Yaniv did in the interview I posted in the OP. Trans rights trump womens. Do women have the right to say NO? Nope, not anymore apparently. Under his eye

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Using an obvious example of extreme behaviour - so extreme that it borders on parody - to justify general anti-trans views and shout "TOLD U SO".

Also, just to pick up on this point here, I agree with you wholeheartedly and it would be hilarious if not for the fact that he was actually allowed, by law to extort money from some of these women and actually sue the ones who didn't hand over any money.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

The dog example is flimsy considering you can also flip that to work the other way round. At the end of the day you're arguing, pretty much the same as Yaniv did in the interview I posted in the OP. Trans rights trump womens. Do women have the right to say NO? Nope, not anymore apparently. Under his eye

Why is it flimsy? It's pointing out that extreme examples are not a good benchmark for advocating sweeping change.

We could take asylum seekers as another example, then. Have people abused the asylum system to enter nations with malicious intent? Yes, there are obvious and clear examples of this happening. And people have been hurt and killed. There are many, MANY people who would use this - the fact that there are dangerous individuals willing to exploit the asylum system - as evidence that we must "rethink the system". And who would argue that anyone who disagrees " clearly doesn't care about the victims or potential victims of those people". Is a traitor or unpatriotic.

It is a direct comparison. It is more or less exactly the same thing.

Do I think that extreme examples of violent individuals gaining access to countries full of people they want to attack is a problem? Obviously, yes I do. Do I think it means we need to halt, reconsider, or have a sweeping overhaul of the asylum system? No absolutely not.

So why would I think that we need a sweeping overhaul of trans rights for the same reason? I'm not willing to be that sort of hypocrite.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Why is it flimsy? It's pointing out that extreme examples are not a good benchmark for advocating sweeping change.

But sweeping change is what's been asked for (and his been done on the quiet in some countries) for the benefit of a small minority at the risk of a majority but that's ok with you? (why wouldn't it be I guess, it's never going to actually effect your rights in any real way, is it?)


We could take asylum seekers as another example, then. Have people abused the asylum system to enter nations with malicious intent? Yes, there are obvious and clear examples of this happening. And people have been hurt and killed. There are many, MANY people who would use this - the fact that there are dangerous individuals willing to exploit the asylum system - as evidence that we must "rethink the system". And who would argue that anyone who disagrees "doesn't clearly doesn't care about the victims or potential victims of those people". Is a traitor or unpatriotic.


It is a direct comparison. It is more or less exactly the same thing.

Do I think that extreme examples of violent individuals gaining access to countries full of people they want to attack is a problem? Obviously, yes I do. Do I think it means we need to halt, reconsider, or have a sweeping overhaul of the asylum system? No absolutely not.

So why would I think that we need a sweeping overhaul of trans rights for the same reason? I'm not willing to be that sort of hypocrite.
Rethink the system? You're talking like Self IDing has always been a thing and not the other way round? The re thinking the system happened the opposite way round to what you're claiming TS, it's all sounding like double think now. Womens rights to sex segregated areas and sports and now apparently the right to refuse to touch a strangers penis are the rights that have been taken away without pretty much any consultation or discussion, it's been done so quietly and under the carpet that I'm willing to bet a vast majority of the general public don't even know Self IDing happened at all or even what it is.

.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Rethink the system? You're talking like Self IDing has always been a thing and not the other way round? The re thinking the system happened the opposite way round to what you're claiming TS, it's all sounding like double think now. Womens rights to sex segregated areas and sports and now apparently the right to refuse to touch a strangers penis are the rights that have been taken away without pretty much any consultation or discussion, it's been done so quietly and under the carpet that I'm willing to bet a vast majority on the general public don't even know Self IDing happened at all or even what it is.

Has seeking asylum "always been a thing"? Were the public made totally aware when the right to do so was written into law? Were the public polled and consulted before it happened (seems unlikely, as I doubt it would ever have happened if they were).

I'm not even arguing that there isn't a conversation to be had about self-ID but a proper one is never going to happen when the issue is muddied with extreme examples and over-exaggerated risk factors, and when pointing that out is scoffed at with a "you clearly don't care about womens rights" strawman.

IMO everyone (even in the beauty trade) should have the right to refuse to serve without it being classed as discrimination - ANYONE should be able to refuse to touch ANYONE ELSES genitals, for any reason they want. That's a personal autonomy issue not a trans rights issue. It'd be a problem if they "couldn't refuse" no matter who it was.

Sports have been discussed to death and more or less everyone agrees. But again it's a sports regulatory issue and not a legal one.

Toilets and changing areas are a more complicated discussion with the most sensible solution for everyone being - in my opinion - individual unisex units becoming the norm over communal areas although there are obvious logistical issues there.

But honestly I have to go back to the point that there can't be any reasonable or rational discussion about any of this when all that's being thrown around are emotionally heated and extreme examples like this one. It's just counter-productive and unhelpful. This individual - male, female or trans - is clearly deeply disturbed by all accounts and should obviously be being investigated as potentially dangerous. Is it a good example to bring up in an everyday discussion about self-ID? Nope. No more than one extremist bomber is a reasonable argument against immigration.

[Niamh.]

I think Asylum seeking has been a "thing" for a very long time TS yes.

You saying it's a sports regulatory issue is passing the buck somewhat, wouldn't trans people have a case to sue sports authorities for example if Self IDing was legal but the sports regulators said no? I think so.

What would be the point in legalising Self Id at all if individual organisations could just over rule the law?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Also, just to pick up on this point here, I agree with you wholeheartedly and it would be hilarious if not for the fact that he was actually allowed, by law to extort money from some of these women and actually sue the ones who didn't hand over any money.

Yes that is the point, the case is ridiculous, yet it is being entertained because anyone who will not entertain is immediately labelled and their job would probably be at risk

[Ammi]

...it feels as though it’s all about control and power with this person ...and self iD-Ing as a female is just one of his disturbing behaviours...

[Alf]

This guy sounds like a pervert to me.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...it feels as though it’s all about control and power with this person ...and self iD-Ing as a female is just one of his disturbing behaviours...

Exactly Ammi it is one small factor in the story of, when looking into it, it seems a deeply disturbed and probably quite dangerous individual. Why the hyper-focus on self-ID as though that's the over-riding issue with this person? They are abusing and manipulating the system to selfish and worrying ends but the message people are keen to be taken from it, is that the problem is with the entire concept of self-ID, and not the individual. People abuse legal systems literally every day, and they require tweaking and adapting to try to ensure that there are fewer and fewer loopholes... it doesn't require a "baby out with the bathwater" rejection of the entire concept, because the risk is quite clearly in going too far the other way, i.e. the requirement of medical or psychiatric confirmation of identity. And anyone who thinks that is a good idea has far too much faith in those professions. Psychology is a complex, diverse and ever-changing discipline and there is literally no such thing as a beyond-question "expert". The idea that someone's personal identity would need to be "confirmed by a professional" to be taken seriously, is not a very comfortable route to go down.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Alf

This guy sounds like a pervert to me.

yes, he clearly is, the worrying issue is that he is able to exploit the imbalance in existing systems to perpetuate his behaviour and be protected by those systems at the same time. The fact that a section of the population has that much power over others should be worrying to everyone