Accusations fly at human rights hearing into transgender woman's Brazilian wax complaint

[Craig_]

On all of 30 seconds reflection, I refuse to believe that anyone posting here is actually as stupid as ZoomZoom appears.
So, whoever is impersonating a silly, empty-headed, non-reasoning female...you can stop now.

You are a little mistaken on that....

 

[Zoomzoom]

Hold your horses right there.
I have been a total supporter of gay rights probably for longer than you've been alive, and I have never equated gay people with predators.
But I am an analyst by profession, and the stats tell us - clearly, unambiguously - that males are the prime perpetrators of harm against women and children.
No males in female/children's safe spaces.

OMG but what you clearly fail to see / check / infer is that not all men are bad. You simply can't throw them all under the same bus.

What about dads out with their kids? Which bathroom must they use? What if they need to change a nappy? The baby station is usually in the ladies bathroom. Do they take their daughter into the men's bathroom or the ladies? Or send her in by herself?

You can't just make blanket statements like that. Shades of grey!!!

 

[Sl8er]

You are a little mistaken on that....

Shh...don't interfere...just watch
Here ->

 

[Zoomzoom]

On all of 30 seconds reflection, I refuse to believe that anyone posting here is actually as stupid as ZoomZoom appears.
So, whoever is impersonating a silly, empty-headed, non-reasoning female...you can stop now.

No the problem is that a nuanced world is too hard for people.

 

[Zoomzoom]

Shh...don't interfere...just watch
Here ->

Can I have some too please. Thanks.

 

[Sl8er]

Can I have some too please. Thanks.

Sure.
I may not agree with 92.3% of the things you say, but I'm always willing to share ->

 

[Zoomzoom]

Sure.
I may not agree with 92.3% of the things you say, but I'm always willing to share ->

Don't worry, you are safely in the majority there. People want to shape the world around them in accordance to their personal beliefs and forget that there are other people who also want to shape the world around them according to their beliefs and society functions by trying to skirt a fair path in which most people can have enough things their way to be comfortable without infringing so much on any one person's beliefs that they feel discriminated against. The challenge of being an evolving society where people who exist on the fringes of society feel sufficiently empowered to come forward and say 'what about me and how I feel?' is that that we need to find ways to be more inclusive without being threatening to those who don't like change.

 

[Cius]

Don't worry, you are safely in the majority there. People want to shape the world around them in accordance to their personal beliefs and forget that there are other people who also want to shape the world around them according to their beliefs and society functions by trying to skirt a fair path in which most people can have enough things their way to be comfortable without infringing so much on any one person's beliefs that they feel discriminated against. The challenge of being an evolving society where people who exist on the fringes of society feel sufficiently empowered to come forward and say 'what about me and how I feel?' is that that we need to find ways to be more inclusive without being threatening to those who don't like change.

An interesting way of putting it. So how is someone like me meant to distinguish which fringe thing is OK and which are mental health issues? If we have to fully accept all the letters of the alphabet when will I have to one day accept Pedophiles, people who like sex with animals, necrophiliacs, etc? After all that is the way they feel, just like the GBT crowd. This seems to only move in one direction and that is not always a comfortable feeling, especially when the left try make everyone accept all these letters of the alphabet or else you will be very very sorry.

I don't advocate hate or abuse for anyone, but I for one do not agree that acceptance is the answer for some of the things that are currently being forced down our throat as normal. I am watching someone with gender confusion go through a gender transformation and frankly it's like watching a train wreck unfold, mostly due to the persons choices and all the "enablers" who tell him he is normal when in actual fact its clear he has serious mental issues and needs a good therapist a lot more than he needs another estrogen shot.

 

[Zoomzoom]

An interesting way of putting it. So how is someone like me meant to distinguish which fringe thing is OK and which are mental health issues? If we have to fully accept all the letters of the alphabet when will I have to one day accept Pedophiles, people who like sex with animals, necrophiliacs, etc? After all that is the way they feel, just like the GBT crowd. This seems to only move in one direction and that is not always a comfortable feeling, especially when the left try make everyone accept all these letters of the alphabet or else you will be very very sorry.

I don't advocate hate or abuse for anyone, but I for one do not agree that acceptance is the answer for some of the things that are currently being forced down our throat as normal. I am watching someone with gender confusion go through a gender transformation and frankly it's like watching a train wreck unfold, mostly due to the persons choices and all the "enablers" who tell him he is normal when in actual fact its clear he has serious mental issues and needs a good therapist a lot more than he needs another estrogen shot.

This isn't really about telling you that wrong is right. It is about society finding ways to ensure as many people as possible have their own personal rights and beliefs protected. And that is an evolving conversation, that basically must never stop. So within society you have the security of holding your own personal beliefs safely but at the same time stopping you from imposing your beliefs on someone else in a way that is hurtful or discriminatory.

So let's take a really wild example - you think purple grapes are sacred, should never be eaten, and think that anyone who disrespects the grape will burn in brandy-fueled flames for all eternity. Now that is absolutely fine - you believe whatever you want to believe about grapes but you can't start making a law protecting all purple grapes especially when down the road there is another group who thinks that the only way to treat purple grapes correctly is to squish them and make purple grape jam which you then smear all over your body and have someone lick it off.

A tolerant society says that you can't tell them how to treat grapes and they can't tell you how to treat grapes. That you can worship grapes in your way, and they can worship in their way. (And no fighting about it!) The problem comes (and we see it all the time) is when people think their rules on how to live are more right than someone else's rules. So the anti-gay bunch think it is OK to discriminate and the pro-abortionists think it is OK to force people to perform them against their beliefs and the gay rights folks have hissy fits when someone says 'but you can't force me to make you a wedding cake' and everyone is screaming, 'my way, my way'. And the big problem is that no-one is saying STFU it is NONE of your ways, but some way in between.

In my world there is absolute separation of church and state so that all religions can coexist without any one of them attempting to make laws in accordance to the tenets of their faith. The state does not have the luxury of a personal belief system so it must recognise that there are circumstances in which it is right to allow people the right to have an abortion, but there are also circumstances in which it is now too late to have an abortion. ... Walking that fine line between the lines ... It is right to grant a person a safe place to go to the blinking loo, but whatever solution is found for that, must also take into consideration that the bathroom/change room is a place that people feel vulnerable and want a certain degree of privacy. I honestly don't know what the solution is with this one.

And to answer your specific questions - I think we can all agree that sexually molesting a child (or anyone) is a universal hard 'no' - up there with murder and theft and other things we have laws against. The grey area is in how we treat them after they have paid their debt to society. Do we put them on a list? Is that discriminatory or simply sensible? And all the time there is the delicate balancing act of ensuring rights of one without impacting the rights of another.

And the middle ground doesn't have to make anyone happy, what it has to do is make sure that everyone can believe whatever they like without discrimination, or being discriminatory themselves.

So abortions are OK, but it is also OK to believe they are not. People have a right to have them, and people also have a right to refuse to perform them (still need to work on this one). Gay people have a right to get married, and adopt kids and have a wedding cake, but it is also ok to believe that God, Allah, or G-d says that being gay is wrong (all 3 major religions agree on that one btw) and it is most certainly OK to refuse to perform a ceremony for them or bake a cake for their reception because they can't infringe on your beliefs any more than you can tell them they can't get married. If you want to dress as the opposite gender and cut your genetically proscribe sexual organs off - go for it - you have a right to do that without discrimination or shaming but you can't force someone else to see or touch your junk if they don't want to. Society has a right to be protected from criminals but it is also right to understand that people turn to crime for many different reasons and they can be rehabilitated back into society with the appropriate help. Etc. etc.

 

[Swa]

But he not only insisited he was a transwoman, he had the full-throated support of the trans community.
They are only now starting to realise what he actually is - after a lot of damage has been done.
How are you going to know what the transwoman in your daughter's changing room is?

Good actually. The more damage is done to that sector the better.

Women and children are always vulnerable, but not all men are bad. Do you honestly think that bathrooms are inherently higher risk places than say any of the other places people get sexually assaulted?

You see this is the problem - if you equate homosexuality, transgender etc with something inherently bad / wrong, then yes I see your point. Keep the bad people away from women and kids. But here's the small teensy weensy problem with that - gay, trans, rest of the alphabet people are not inherently bad people just waiting for an opportunity in a bathroom to leap on some unsuspecting person and assault them.

This is where I get so upset with the whole lib/conservative paradigm we always find ourselves in in these discussions. Here's a newsflash for everyone on BOTH sides - the world ain't black and white. It's finely nuanced shades of grey ... all the way.

So back to the trans issue - they suffer even worse hatred, bullying, prejudice etc than gay people do (and that's bad enough) plus they have all the body dysphoria issue because of their situation - so when they finally have the courage to dress how they feel so that the outside matches their belief system - they would like to a. be able to go to the bathroom that matches how they present and b. do so without incurring further hatred, prejudices, etc. This is not an unreasonable request.

I presume if someone came to you and said - every time I go to the bathroom I face prejudice and discrimination and I would just like to be able to go pee in peace and safety, you wouldn't be so hardhearted and indifferent to their problem that you would refuse them the right to have a place to pee.

Now that has to be balanced against the fact that not everyone wishes to see other people's genitals, especially not if the genitals are different from the sign on the door. A desire which is also very fair and reasonable. So the solution lies in accommodating both requirements. A decidedly difficult task!

When you start throwing total bullshit into the mix about kids have to be kept safe from predators with the clear implied meaning that gay / trans / etc etc etc are the perverts that the kids need to be kept safe from you lose the plot completely, and just expose your intolerance and prejudice which started the whole problem in the first place - i.e. it was intolerant folks and their prejudices that made the bathroom unsafe for the people you now want to exclude and discriminate against even more ..

As to the question of sexual predators - again, unless you are going to lock up every person on the planet because they 'might' do something - we judge people on their behaviour, like this Yaniv person. He exhibits every textbook behaviour of a sexual predator with fetishes, and pretty much zero behaviour of a person with gender issues. He is a man who is very clear in his own mind about what he wants, and how he is going to get it. The whole crossdressing thing may also be a part of his fetishist fantasy, although I suspect it is simply a means to an end. Sexual predators will play any role that gets them close to their preferred targets.

You miss the point. There is no reason for a male to be in a real female room when they have an alternative. I think we would all want a society where it doesn't matter and you can go where you please but until there's a way for that to happen there's the path of least resistance. It also happens that most cases of child sexual abuse are amongst gay men. There's already an abnormality so it's not inconceivable there will be others. Doesn't mean that all gay men are bad but there is a correlation of higher risk. So why would people be comfortable with an inherently male acting like a female sharing a safe space with females?

 

[Zoomzoom]

most cases of child sexual abuse are amongst gay men.

You lose me when you sprout such utter garbage. The old 'gay = paedophile' garbage is just that, garbage.

 

[Aghori]

You lose me when you sprout such utter garbage. The old 'gay = paedophile' garbage is just that, garbage.

Have a read at the facts.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

 

[Grant]

It also happens that most cases of child sexual abuse are amongst gay men. There's already an abnormality so it's not inconceivable there will be others.

where do you suck this crap from - your bible study group ?

how about a little credible data to back up your claim

 

[Grant]

Have a read at the facts.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

here, take a read:

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To determine if recognizably homosexual adults are frequently accused of the sexual molestation of children.
DESIGN:
Chart review of medical records of children evaluated for sexual abuse.
SETTING:
Child sexual abuse clinic at a regional children's hospital.
PATIENTS:
Patients were 352 children (276 girls and 76 boys) referred to a subspecialty clinic for the evaluation of suspected child sexual abuse. Mean age was 6.1 years (range, 7 months to 17 years).
DATA COLLECTED:
Charts were reviewed to determine the relationships of the children to the alleged offender, the sex of the offender, and whether or not the alleged offender was reported to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
RESULTS:
Abuse was ruled out in 35 cases. Seventy-four children were allegedly abused by other children and teenagers less than 18 years old. In 9 cases, an offender could not be identified. In the remaining 269 cases, two offenders were identified as being gay or lesbian. In 82% of cases (222/269), the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child. Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community.
CONCLUSIONS:
The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8008535

 

[Swa]

here, take a read:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8008535

So the Catholic church is just an anomaly then? Why is it predominantly priests and boys then and not nuns and girls?

 

[Countcrypto]

Jussus thats just a man in makeup.

There's another type ?

 

[Swa]

There's another type ?

Man in no makeup.

 

[Countcrypto]

Man in no makeup.

Exactly.

 

[The Free Radical]

A trans activist who gained notoriety for attempting to force beauticians to wax their balls and penis is now arranging a swimming session for girls as young as 12 where parents will not be allowed to be present.

Yes, really.

Jessica Yaniv, who was born a man, has filed complaints with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal against fifteen female aestheticians for their refusal to wax her male genitalia.

The controversy prompted comedian Ricky Gervais to wade into the debate.

“How did we get to the point where women are having to fight for the right to choose whether they wax some big old hairy cock & balls or not? It is not a human right to have your meat & 2 veg polished,” tweeted Gervais, who was accused of “transphobia” for defending a woman’s right not to wax male genitalia.

But the situation gets even more bizarre.
Yaniv has now organized a “youth all bodies swim” event at the Al Anderson Memorial Pool in Langley, British Columbia. The promotional material for the event states, “Parents and/or caregivers are not permitted in the event”.

This has caused widespread concern because Yaniv previously made comments described by some as “perverted” about naked girls getting changed in locker rooms.

“If there’s like 30 girls in the change rooms, how many of them would you say are out there changing freely with their vaginas and tits out?” asked Yaniv in one post.

“Went really well,” states another post. “I expected more though. I only saw one girl in her panties.”
“I was really expecting to walk in and see girls with their boobs out,” comments Yaniv in another post.

Other posts repeatedly show Yaniv asking girls how young they are as well as other disturbing posts such as one which states, “Have you ever seen a tampon string hanging out of another girls thing?”

Clown world never fails to deliver the insanity, but this is perhaps the clearest example of someone hiding behind a ‘protected identity’ to engage in what critics assert is predatory behavior.

 

[Ponderer]

This isn't really about telling you that wrong is right. It is about society finding ways to ensure as many people as possible have their own personal rights and beliefs protected. And that is an evolving conversation, that basically must never stop. So within society you have the security of holding your own personal beliefs safely but at the same time stopping you from imposing your beliefs on someone else in a way that is hurtful or discriminatory.

So let's take a really wild example - you think purple grapes are sacred, should never be eaten, and think that anyone who disrespects the grape will burn in brandy-fueled flames for all eternity. Now that is absolutely fine - you believe whatever you want to believe about grapes but you can't start making a law protecting all purple grapes especially when down the road there is another group who thinks that the only way to treat purple grapes correctly is to squish them and make purple grape jam which you then smear all over your body and have someone lick it off.

A tolerant society says that you can't tell them how to treat grapes and they can't tell you how to treat grapes. That you can worship grapes in your way, and they can worship in their way. (And no fighting about it!) The problem comes (and we see it all the time) is when people think their rules on how to live are more right than someone else's rules. So the anti-gay bunch think it is OK to discriminate and the pro-abortionists think it is OK to force people to perform them against their beliefs and the gay rights folks have hissy fits when someone says 'but you can't force me to make you a wedding cake' and everyone is screaming, 'my way, my way'. And the big problem is that no-one is saying STFU it is NONE of your ways, but some way in between.

In my world there is absolute separation of church and state so that all religions can coexist without any one of them attempting to make laws in accordance to the tenets of their faith. The state does not have the luxury of a personal belief system so it must recognise that there are circumstances in which it is right to allow people the right to have an abortion, but there are also circumstances in which it is now too late to have an abortion. ... Walking that fine line between the lines ... It is right to grant a person a safe place to go to the blinking loo, but whatever solution is found for that, must also take into consideration that the bathroom/change room is a place that people feel vulnerable and want a certain degree of privacy. I honestly don't know what the solution is with this one.

And to answer your specific questions - I think we can all agree that sexually molesting a child (or anyone) is a universal hard 'no' - up there with murder and theft and other things we have laws against. The grey area is in how we treat them after they have paid their debt to society. Do we put them on a list? Is that discriminatory or simply sensible? And all the time there is the delicate balancing act of ensuring rights of one without impacting the rights of another.

And the middle ground doesn't have to make anyone happy, what it has to do is make sure that everyone can believe whatever they like without discrimination, or being discriminatory themselves.

So abortions are OK, but it is also OK to believe they are not. People have a right to have them, and people also have a right to refuse to perform them (still need to work on this one). Gay people have a right to get married, and adopt kids and have a wedding cake, but it is also ok to believe that God, Allah, or G-d says that being gay is wrong (all 3 major religions agree on that one btw) and it is most certainly OK to refuse to perform a ceremony for them or bake a cake for their reception because they can't infringe on your beliefs any more than you can tell them they can't get married. If you want to dress as the opposite gender and cut your genetically proscribe sexual organs off - go for it - you have a right to do that without discrimination or shaming but you can't force someone else to see or touch your junk if they don't want to. Society has a right to be protected from criminals but it is also right to understand that people turn to crime for many different reasons and they can be rehabilitated back into society with the appropriate help. Etc. etc.

I agree with most of what you are saying, but your thinking is fundamentally flawed.
Here's why.

Law/s are essential - society simply cannot function without law/s.
Laws/s dictate what humans are not allowed to do, and punish those that transgress it so as to impose the law/s.
But who determines/dictates the law/s.
Human laws violate human rights - the moment a human (or group of humans) tell another human (or group of humans) what they are not allowed to do, you are (by definition) violating their human rights to do as they please.

So.
Where/how does human rights feature?
Is the whole "human rights" thing not just a load of BS?