Hello, Elliot Page

[tstorm823]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Yaniv's actions had nothing to do with molestation at all. She attempted to bring baseless lawsuits against a few companies, and was prevented from doing so. That's all I'm aware of. And those actions don't have any bearing on whether or not she's trans.

I envy your ignorance of the individual in question, and now I'll ruin it for you too! Yaniv has allegedly:

-Sued people for not giving a physiologically impossible brazilian wax.
-Asked pubescent girls for detailed descriptions of menstruation, including the suggestion he might, as a woman, need to personally help someone apply their first tampon.
-Taken pictures in women's bathrooms with girls in the background.
-Attempted to organize a no-parents-allowed underage topless swim party.
-Told an underage girl that Yaniv had clicked a link on facebook that opened up child pornography, and then offered to show her the contents.

I understand that as those went on, the trans factor became increasingly irrelevant, but that right there is a child sex predator in action.

 

[Silvanus]

I envy your ignorance of the individual in question, and now I'll ruin it for you too! Yaniv has allegedly:

-Sued people for not giving a physiologically impossible brazilian wax.
-Asked pubescent girls for detailed descriptions of menstruation, including the suggestion he might, as a woman, need to personally help someone apply their first tampon.
-Taken pictures in women's bathrooms with girls in the background.
-Attempted to organize a no-parents-allowed underage topless swim party.
-Told an underage girl that Yaniv had clicked a link on facebook that opened up child pornography, and then offered to show her the contents.

I understand that as those went on, the trans factor became increasingly irrelevant, but that right there is a child sex predator in action.

I had a quick google based on some of this... good lord, there's a lot there I was unaware of.

 

[Trunkage]

I had a quick google based on some of this... good lord, there's a lot there I was unaware of.

She is a piece of work

 

[Trunkage]

I envy your ignorance of the individual in question, and now I'll ruin it for you too! Yaniv has allegedly:

-Sued people for not giving a physiologically impossible brazilian wax.
-Asked pubescent girls for detailed descriptions of menstruation, including the suggestion he might, as a woman, need to personally help someone apply their first tampon.
-Taken pictures in women's bathrooms with girls in the background.
-Attempted to organize a no-parents-allowed underage topless swim party.
-Told an underage girl that Yaniv had clicked a link on facebook that opened up child pornography, and then offered to show her the contents.

I understand that as those went on, the trans factor became increasingly irrelevant, but that right there is a child sex predator in action.

As far as I remember, other than the first point, there was no other court cases on her. Is that right?

 

[tstorm823]

As far as I remember, other than the first point, there was no other court cases on her. Is that right?

There was an arrest at some point, I believe for assaulting a "journalist" trying to get the Jessica Yaniv scoop on film, at which point I willfully stopped paying attention because I don't want to be the audience that encourages the witch hunt behavior.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Yes, that's generally what it costs to acknowledge a person's basic freaking humanity, yes.

I'm not talking about someone's humanity. I don't think we should take any one aspect of ourselves as being the thing that encompasses us so fully that we feel that if it is attacked that it means someone is saying we're not human.

I'm autistic, I'm an introvert, I'm a brother, I'm a writer, I'm a son, I'm a friend, I'm a gamer, I'm a reader. All of these are aspects of myself but they are just aspects of myself. To have any one of them questioned does not make me feel that my own worth as a human is being questioned.

In the case of Yaniv, I don't even think he himself thinks of being trans as being a part of himself but is using it as a mask and shield to get what he wants.

You see, that's a "Yaniv" problem, or a "diddler" problem, not a "trans" problem. Would they be any more or less capable of doing it as a cisgendered man? Or would it just not fly across the right-wing rage merchant grift-o-sphere as quickly and broadly?

Yes! YES! He WOULD be less capable if we all treated him as a man! You're talking about the right wing media but what about the left wing media? If Yaniv wasn't using being trans as a shield then the left wing media would be up in arms over him invading the spaces of women but because he claims he's trans they all either just buy into it or are too scared of backlash of going after him and are hoping the problem just "fixes itself", which is the solution a lot of people on this forum also seem to be hoping for. And maybe it DOES fix itself before someone gets hurt, but even if it does, what happens when we get the next Yaniv? Do the same thing? How many times can you do that before it bites us in the ass?

Nothing that doesn't go on already?

It can easily get worse. Much much worse.

Well gee, it's not as if spreading negative stereotypes about LGBTQ's that have been around since the days we administered electroshock therapy and chemical castration in asylums doesn't already do that or anything...

How does allowing a man to walk around and be a terrible stereotype HELP?! The trans community not calling him out just means he can be the perfect bad example for the people that hate trans people. And all for what benefit?

And, frankly, why are we talking about Yaniv in a thread about trans men anyhow? Like, I just got done arguing for six or seven pages about how trans men get erased on all sides by laser targeting basically all conversation about trans people, on trans women.

That's between you and Agema. I still get confused about whether trans-men means a man who's become a woman or a woman who's become a man, you two can debate that particular nomenclature.

 

[SupahEwok]

That's between you and Agema. I still get confused about whether trans-men means a man who's become a woman or a woman who's become a man, you two can debate that particular nomenclature.

Easy memory guide: they don't call themselves something that implies they are what they don't want to be.

 

[Trunkage]

Yes! YES! He WOULD be less capable if we all treated him as a man! You're talking about the right wing media but what about the left wing media? If Yaniv wasn't using being trans as a shield then the left wing media would be up in arms over him invading the spaces of women but because he claims he's trans they all either just buy into it or are too scared of backlash of going after him and are hoping the problem just "fixes itself", which is the solution a lot of people on this forum also seem to be hoping for. And maybe it DOES fix itself before someone gets hurt, but even if it does, what happens when we get the next Yaniv? Do the same thing? How many times can you do that before it bites us in the ass?

So... we should segregate all areas into male and female? Including personal and rented houses

 

[Kae]

I'm not talking about someone's humanity. I don't think we should take any one aspect of ourselves as being the thing that encompasses us so fully that we feel that if it is attacked that it means someone is saying we're not human.

I'm autistic, I'm an introvert, I'm a brother, I'm a writer, I'm a son, I'm a friend, I'm a gamer, I'm a reader. All of these are aspects of myself but they are just aspects of myself. To have any one of them questioned does not make me feel that my own worth as a human is being questioned.

I mean keep in mind that an important aspect of being trans is having some form of identity crisis, for me, I actually have a lot of trouble even considering myself human and am under constant existential despair over what the fuck does my existence even mean or if I even exist at all, which I often think I don't, of course I'm also clearly losing my mind so I'm probably not the best example, but due to thus phenomena it's probably quite different how you think about identity vs how a trans person does.

Also, you definitely care about people insulting or implying something about something you identify as, I've seen you get mad over people saying anime fans are pedophiles, you're doing the same thing here.

In the case of Yaniv, I don't even think he himself thinks of being trans as being a part of himself but is using it as a mask and shield to get what he wants.

Maybe, maybe not can't read minds and I'm not about to be the thought police and make that decision for other people, their gender identity is hardly relevant, it's the predatory behaviour that is worrying, behavior that isn't exclusive to trans people and while I can't speak for women here because that's not where I have experience (Because of course I have experience with this, my existence is nothing but misery after all) but cis men definitely predate male bathrooms, and I don't see you making the same fuss over that, and it's not even necessarily older men predating on young kids either, teens do shit to other teens, but whatever I won't go into detail with that, point is that sexual predators do fucking horrid stuff and no one gives a shit about it, unless it serves their political agenda.

Yes! YES! He WOULD be less capable if we all treated him as a man! You're talking about the right wing media but what about the left wing media? If Yaniv wasn't using being trans as a shield then the left wing media would be up in arms over him invading the spaces of women but because he claims he's trans they all either just buy into it or are too scared of backlash of going after him and are hoping the problem just "fixes itself", which is the solution a lot of people on this forum also seem to be hoping for. And maybe it DOES fix itself before someone gets hurt, but even if it does, what happens when we get the next Yaniv? Do the same thing? How many times can you do that before it bites us in the ass?

Yes, congratulations you have figured out everyone are hyporites and while Yaniv should definitely be arrested for being dangerous and predatory, but the same can be said of all the rapist, cops, priests and teachers that nobody gives a shit about despite the fact that they are abusers far more frequently than trans people.

It can easily get worse. Much much worse.

It's already worse, there's plenty of people that can abuse with impunity, look at the US President for example, the worst part is that's true for both the current and future one, don't see you complaining about that.

How does allowing a man to walk around and be a terrible stereotype HELP?! The trans community not calling him out just means he can be the perfect bad example for the people that hate trans people. And all for what benefit?

I mean we're not a collective, we don't share a universal opinion on this, the main reason you don't hear many trans people talking about Yaniv is that there's a heavy element of trans panic attached to the discussion, and generally what we have to say is that it's not a problem with the trans community, it's just a problem in general, otherwise it's just an argument you tune out because you're tired of hearing the same old trans people are just rapists in disguise argument, which is old and tired.

 

[Houseman]

point is that sexual predators do fucking horrid stuff and no one gives a shit about it, unless it serves their political agenda.

I dunno, I think there's a clear difference between living with an risk that we've already accepted and contemplating a new avenue for risk that makes a situation more dangerous than it already is. Just because one occasionally drinks, it doesn't mean that one should take up smoking too.

Just because men can harass men in bathrooms, it doesn't mean we should just open the floodgates and let men harass women in bathrooms too.

 

[Kae]

I dunno, I think there's a clear difference between living with an risk that we've already accepted and contemplating a new avenue for risk that makes a situation more dangerous than it already is. Just because one occasionally drinks, it doesn't mean that one should take up smoking too.

Just because men can harass men in bathrooms, it doesn't mean we should just open the floodgates and let men harass women in bathrooms too.

They already do that, they have been doing it for decades and literally no one gave a shit about it until it had to do with trans people, you're not trying to stop a new crime wave you're just pretending an issue is new and projecting it into a demographic as an excuse to oppress them, which is so transparent it's pathetic to be honest.

Tell me Houseman why would a cis-man rapist go to the trouble of medically and socially transitioning into a woman just to be a rapist when it would be both easier and also less likely for them to be caught if they remain as they are?

Sure, some very insane people might, but the scenario is so absurd it's really not very likely, probably why you people keep using the exact same example over and over again.

 

[Houseman]

They already do that, they have been doing it for decades and literally no one gave a shit about it until it had to do with trans people

Nobody cared about something illegal that people have been doing for decades?
Like how nobody cares about murder because it's already illegal?

No, we already care about it... that's why we made it illegal.

"Hold on", you'll say, "It'll still be illegal afterwards!"
"Yes", I'll reply, "but now it's more likely to happen".

As a general rule, it's bad to make illegal things easier to do.

Think about the creepy stalker who'll follow around a woman. Now you've allowed him to follow him into the bathroom so he can record her tinkle sounds and smell her farts. And now he'd have plausible deniability for being there, when normally he wouldn't go in there.

Like I said, just because one occasionally drinks, it doesn't mean that one should take up smoking too.
Just because someone drinks and smokes, it doesn't mean they should try cocaine.

Just because a lot of the population in the US has guns, it doesn't mean we should hand them out for free.

You're just increasing the danger. You agree with this, right? True or false, it would increase the danger? Answer me that.

Tell me Houseman why would a cis-man rapist go to the trouble of medically and socially transitioning into a woman just to be a rapist when it would be both easier and also less likely for them to be caught if they remain as they are?

Who said anything about medically and socially transitioning into a woman just to gain access to a woman's bathroom? I certainly didn't.
Why not just put on a wig?
Heck, why not even do anything and just claim to be female?
You don't want to "dehumanize" people just because they don't pass, right? So where do you draw the line? What are the rules?

This is the flaw in your argument, where you have to assume all these prerequisites are met, but you never cleared that with your interlocutor first, so it seems like you're just making up requirements on the fly, which seems like moving the goalposts, or at least obscuring them and then revealing them at the last second.

So, what do you want? Are we proposing that all bathrooms be unisex? Do we require someone to "pass"? No requirements at all? Tell me what you want the rules to be and I'll tell you how they would be worse than what we currently have.

 

[Gordon_4]

Sure, some very insane people might, but the scenario is so absurd it's really not very likely, probably why you people keep using the exact same example over and over again.

Insane people don't long form plan, they're basically incapable of it. As for Yaniv, if the list of offenses Tstorm posted is true, then why no prosecutions?

 

[Kae]

Nobody cared about something illegal that people have been doing for decades?
Like how nobody cares about murder because it's already illegal?

No, we already care about it... that's why we made it illegal.

"Hold on", you'll say, "It'll still be illegal afterwards!"
"Yes", I'll reply, "but now it's more likely to happen".

As a general rule, it's bad to make illegal things easier to do.

Think about the creepy stalker who'll follow around a woman. Now you've allowed him to follow him into the bathroom so he can record her tinkle sounds and smell her farts. And now he'd have plausible deniability for being there, when normally he wouldn't go in there.

Like I said, just because one occasionally drinks, it doesn't mean that one should take up smoking too.
Just because someone drinks and smokes, it doesn't mean they should try cocaine.

Just because a lot of the population in the US has guns, it doesn't mean we should hand them out for free.

You're just increasing the danger. You agree with this, right? True or false, it would increase the danger? Answer me that.

You have entirely misunderstood my point if you think I believe we are increasing the danger, my point is that it's already dangerous and you people are pretending there's an increase to fit your agenda, the truth is that no silly sign of a triangular figure is going to stop any predators anyways and that you're just using a this as an excuse to rag on trans people, my point is that if you really were concerned about sexual abuse there are far bigger fish to fry that you claim have already been taken care of just because it's already illegal even though under your logic the theoretical trans rapists (I'm not going to pretend they don't exi3, but again there's a reason why you always bring up the same name) have also been taken care of because that also is already illegal, my point is that there's no consistency or logic to your argument, it's purely emotional and irrational.

Who said anything about medically and socially transitioning into a woman just to gain access to a woman's bathroom? I certainly didn't.
Why not just put on a wig?
Heck, why not even do anything and just claim to be female?
You don't want to "dehumanize" people just because they don't pass, right? So where do you draw the line? What are the rules?

If they're already breaking the law why would they bother with such a huge circus when (again) they have always been able to walk through the door if they wanted to?
Even if you make it illegal, why wouldn't they still do it if they're going to break the law?
Why don't they just disguise themselves as janitors that also has access and is even more inconspicuous?
I mean if they are going to be bothering with disguises anyway.
Your logic is garbage.

This is the flaw in your argument, where you have to assume all these prerequisites are met, but you never cleared that with your interlocutor first, so it seems like you're just making up requirements on the fly, which seems like moving the goalposts, or at least obscuring them and then revealing them at the last second.

At least my argument has basis in reality rather than sounding lile theplot of a bad slasher movie, there are no goalposts just your imagination Houseman.

So, what do you want? Are we proposing that all bathrooms be unisex? Do we require someone to "pass"? No requirements at all? Tell me what you want the rules to be and I'll tell you how they would be worse than what we currently have.

You do know unisex bathrooms have always existed, right?
It's not a new idea at all, as for what I want?

I don't feel very strongly about it, I've always been able to use either bathroom since I'm very androgynous, but I guess I'm fine with unisex or just letting people use the one they want to use, it's not like you can check if they're telling the truth, as far as I know there are no gender inspectors in bathrooms making sure everyone goes to the correct one so your argument is basically bullshit.

Insane people don't long form plan, they're basically incapable of it. As for Yaniv, if the list of offenses Tstorm posted is true, then why no prosecutions?

I'll just take their word on it this time, whether they're true or not doesn't really change my argument TBH.

But yeah I guess that's true insane people don't form such long absurd and impractical plans when they can easily just do the damned thing.

 

[Casual Shinji]

So do people who believe in this whole 'trans-women will invade female safe spaces and start molesting non-trans-women' think women in bathrooms and locker rooms normally just have free reign in feeling eachother up? Because that's what it sounds like. 'Oh no, if a man in a wig just enters a women's bathroom he'll be able to molest with impunity.' Now I don't know a lot about ethics in women's bathrooms, but I would assume if some strange woman went up to another woman in the bathroom and started to get handsy, the one getting molested would very likely treat it as an offense and not be like 'Oh you're a woman, go right ahead and feel me up'.

You might as well not allow ANY woman into a women's bathrooms if you're so scared women might get molested, because it's just as likely to happen with a cis-woman as it is with one who is trans or a lesbian. Heck, a dude could just walk in wearing a maintenance uniform. It'd be a lot easier and less taboo than pretending to be trans.

 

[Baffle]

I'm autistic, I'm an introvert, I'm a brother, I'm a writer, I'm a son, I'm a friend, I'm a gamer, I'm a reader.

Meredith Brooks is waiting outside your house with a cease and desist order.

 

[Agema]

Insane people don't long form plan, they're basically incapable of it.

It depends on what sort of insanity we're talking about. We might draw a distinction between disorders such as psychosis and personality disorders (sociopathy etc.). The latter definitely can be capable of it - potentially to a disturbing degree. Psychosis is probably what people might most commonly associate with insanity; it is fair to say people in psychosis tend to be extremely impulsive and have disordered thoughts which will severely disrupt their ability to plan, but that's not quite the same thing as incapable either. If we think about insanity in terms of extreme forms of depression and anxiety, people surely can carry out long-term planning.

As for Yaniv, if the list of offenses Tstorm posted is true, then why no prosecutions?

Presumably there's not been enough evidence to successfully prosecute.

Although that being the case, I'm slightly curious why we aren't hearing the usual arguments about "trial by media" or "court of public opinion" we usually hear for oh so many other individuals.

 

[tstorm823]

So do people who believe in this whole 'trans-women will invade female safe spaces and start molesting non-trans-women'

Pause, reconsider the premise of your question. Exceptionally few (and terrible) people believe trans-women are all rapists trying to rape people. That's not the issue of concern. The issue of concern is male rapists gaining access to female spaces. That's neither condemning nor qestioning the motives of trans people who need to use the bathroom. That's fear of presenting opportunities to people of any gender with bad motives.

Think for a moment: sexual predators already lie about who they are to trap their victims. It's no insult to trans individuals to say that sexual predators will lie about their gender. That's something that already happens plenty using the anonymity that the internet provides. Men lie and say they are girls to get closer to girls. If the rule is "if you say you're a woman, you can follow girls into the bathroom with impunity", sexual predators will say they are women. That's not a condemnation of trans people.

 

[Thaluikhain]

the same can be said of all the rapist, cops, priests and teachers that nobody gives a shit about despite the fact that they are abusers far more frequently than trans people.

It depends on what sort of insanity we're talking about.

I was going to say much the same as both these points, with the addition to the first that a lot of people (not meaning people in this thread) who call for stronger measures to prevent trans people posing a threat also argue against stronger measures for cis men doing the same.

 

[Houseman]

the truth is that no silly sign of a triangular figure is going to stop any predators anyways

I actually think it will.

There are degrees of creeps.
#1 Some people will stay within the boundaries of law and social expectations, and creep when they can.
#2 Others will skirt the law, and do borderline-illegal things if they think they can get away with it.
#3 Some people will break into your house or your car, or attack you in broad daylight, in a public place, or even in a bathroom.

Let's not pretend that all creeps are automatically #3. The sign will stop #1 and #2. By removing the sign, you're just making it easier for #1 and #2-type creeps to creep, are you not?

I'll put it another way. How about we just remove all the locks on people's cars and houses? I mean, they weren't doing anything anyway, because break-ins have always existed, so why not, right? Would you be in favor of that? Let's make it so that anybody can just open up any of your doors and windows without any resistance. Oh, what's that you say? It's a bad idea? That locks, even though they can be easily circumvented, serve a purpose of "keeping honest people out"? That the difference between something being slightly more difficult is enough to dissuade a thief? See, there you go, you understand the point.

Lots of people would be willing to commit a crime of opportunity, if only they had the opportunity. You're just willing to grant so many more people the opportunity, and allow them to "level up" from dreamers to criminals. Yes, a plastic sign makes all the difference to everyone except the most brazen.