Hello, Elliot Page

[Dwarvenhobble]

Something I think is being missed: Jessica Yaniv is nothing more than an excuse to continue opposing trans rights. Because once you've decided you don't give a shit about trans rights, all you need is an excuse.

Something I think is being missed is than Yaniv is an example of the kind of abuse that will happen if you blunder ahead with feel good proposals without fleshing them out and just yelling anyone who dares object to the grand push of ill thought out policies just hates Trans people.

This has nothing to do with the trans law, this has to do with issues with the court system in Canada.

Except once n law such things would always have to be examined as harm wouldn't play into it anymore in other countires

No, you don't want things air tight. Because that would lock out too many people who were in the muddle middle ground just to make sure abusers could not abuse things. I don't really get your point here since we have already established that Yaniv is abusing things, so what is your point?

That Yaniv is already able to abuse things without more lax rules in place that could be abused even more easily.

A law would have to be passed that the denial of service would have to be for something deemed reasonable due to specifics requirements or training because as is Yaniv is determined to push every single grey area to try and get people to settle. E.G. Yanivs case against a gynaecologist for not giving a gynaecology examination of her cock and balls............

As Silvanus pointed out, you're only pointing at abuses and exploitation of the system, things that have been around since there was a system to abuse and exploit; those cases are not indicative of the motives of the larger LGBTQ community. Fine, some assholes call around until they find someone they can throw the law at; shame on them as it's a proper waste of theirs and the system's time and effort. But what if someone in a similar situation, who truly just wanted those services and was similarly and unfairly denied, had made that call? They'd be well within their right to use the law and it'd have been a proper use of it, am I right?

Yes they're not however opening the laws to further abuse seems like a ill considered move. Better specific regulations are very much required. If some-one wanted those services they should be what I'd call "Reasonable consideration" for others. So if they have a fairly legitimate reason to not do it and the service is easily accessible and available from others then you go somewhere else.

I'm going to pull out my "card" of sorts here. I have Coeliac, for those who don't know that means eating wheat or gluten makes me rather ill. I literally can't eat in a good 80% or more of places that serve food. You know what I do? Find a place I can eat instead of demanding places all cater to me. In my case I wouldn't want everyone else to have to deal with Gluten free stuff which can often tastes different (Read as Worse). It's not even really specialised skills or religious beliefs that would stop people changing to cater to me but simple ingredients but I instead find a place I can eat and go there, some companies are ready to cater to me so they get my money that simple.

Wow, I'm sure no other legal troll has shopped around for targets before. Truly, your points have swayed me.

Anyway, grats to him (Elliot).

Plenty do but it's much harder for them to do.

 

[Buyetyen]

Something I think is being missed is than Yaniv is an example of the kind of abuse that will happen if you blunder ahead with feel good proposals without fleshing them out and just yelling anyone who dares object to the grand push of ill thought out policies just hates Trans people.

Yeah, exactly, she's a convenient excuse for you to not support trans rights. We've established this, you don't need to repeat it.

 

[Worgen]

Except once n law such things would always have to be examined as harm wouldn't play into it anymore in other countires

You might want to rework this sentence since it makes no sense.

That Yaniv is already able to abuse things without more lax rules in place that could be abused even more easily.

A law would have to be passed that the denial of service would have to be for something deemed reasonable due to specifics requirements or training because as is Yaniv is determined to push every single grey area to try and get people to settle. E.G. Yanivs case against a gynaecologist for not giving a gynaecology examination of her cock and balls............

Again, you might want to make a rework of this since I don't really understand what you mean. Best I can get is that it sounds like you want to remove a law literally because one person has abused it.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Yes they're not however opening the laws to further abuse seems like a ill considered move. Better specific regulations are very much required. If some-one wanted those services they should be what I'd call "Reasonable consideration" for others. So if they have a fairly legitimate reason to not do it and the service is easily accessible and available from others then you go somewhere else.

I'm going to pull out my "card" of sorts here. I have Coeliac, for those who don't know that means eating wheat or gluten makes me rather ill. I literally can't eat in a good 80% or more of places that serve food. You know what I do? Find a place I can eat instead of demanding places all cater to me. In my case I wouldn't want everyone else to have to deal with Gluten free stuff which can often tastes different (Read as Worse). It's not even really specialised skills or religious beliefs that would stop people changing to cater to me but simple ingredients but I instead find a place I can eat and go there, some companies are ready to cater to me so they get my money that simple.

Plenty do but it's much harder for them to do.

But Yaniv didn't win anything. In fact, she was ordered to compensate the salons she initially defamed and sued as her complaints were found to be frivolous and financially motivated, as they were and should have been. The law worked as designed, weeding out those that would abuse it while being there to protect those who might be legitimately discriminated against. Everything was "reasonably considered," and Yaniv got bit in the ass; if anything, she helped set a precedent that human rights and the laws protecting them are real and serious issues, and those that want to play with them won't be tolerated. I don't see how the law working as intended is opening the doors for more potentially overly zealou$ litigant$ to abuse it...

And as for your personal example, you're right; it'd be unreasonable for you to expect a restaurant to change or make something it's not intended to just to accommodate your unique needs... just as the courts found to be the case with Yaniv's complaints. What's your point? Yaniv and those like her are cases of the exceptions being loud and flamboyant enough as to make the larger whole they'd pretend to represent look bad to those who only read the headlines, i.e.: I highly doubt a significant enough percentage of trans women who still have man parts would throw a litigious fit if they were refused services in a salon that isn't equipped/trained to handle male genitalia.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Yeah, exactly, she's a convenient excuse for you to not support trans rights. We've established this, you don't need to repeat it.

No all we've established is I was right. You do want to blunder ahead without thinking passing any law you think will in any way be beneficial to Trans people without thinking it through and don't give a shit how many people end up hurt a result all you care about and thinking you're doing good while claiming anyone who doesn't agree just hates trans people. You'll happily leave everyone else to clean up the mess.

You might want to rework this sentence since it makes no sense.

In the USA harm caused is generally analysed as part of the case.
In other countries the actual harm caused doesn't matter so much as the rights arguments.

So cases can't be so easily dismissed.

Again, you might want to make a rework of this since I don't really understand what you mean. Best I can get is that it sounds like you want to remove a law literally because one person has abused it.

Yaniv is abusing laws already.

The proposed laws would be even more lax than the ones already being abused.

The only way to stop it would be a very specific law targeting just the likes of Yaniv's abuse.

But Yaniv didn't win anything. In fact, she was ordered to compensate the salons she initially defamed and sued as her complaints were found to be frivolous and financially motivated, as they were and should have been. The law worked as designed, weeding out those that would abuse it while being there to protect those who might be legitimately discriminated against. Everything was "reasonably considered," and Yaniv got bit in the ass; if anything, she helped set a precedent that human rights and the laws protecting them are real and serious issues, and those that want to play with them won't be tolerated. I don't see how the law working as intended is opening the doors for more potentially overly zealou$ litigant$ to abuse it...

And as for your personal example, you're right; it'd be unreasonable for you to expect a restaurant to change or make something it's not intended to just to accommodate your unique needs... just as the courts found to be the case with Yaniv's complaints. What's your point? Yaniv and those like her are cases of the exceptions being loud and flamboyant enough as to make the larger whole they'd pretend to represent look bad to those who only read the headlines, i.e.: I highly doubt a significant enough percentage of trans women who still have man parts would throw a litigious fit if they were refused services in a salon that isn't equipped/trained to handle male genitalia.

Didn't she?

Yaniv was exposed to be a huge racist before and part of the reason for the suits is suspected to be her hatred of people of a different racial background to herself. So Yaniv putting ~9 women from said ethnicities out of work for most of a year. Forcing 3 of them to even go so far as to take the stand and endure the bullshit that went down in the court house where the judges multiple times had to step in because Yaniv was more trying to attack their cultural beliefs rather than anything else. Then in the end it's only $2,000 each to those who actually went to the court and won against her?

Seems like ultimately she won there by helping harm or shut down businesses. Causing losses to the people and actually having some of them quit or being scared to carry on with their work lest they run into another Yaniv. Her victory wasn't legal it was a victory of the immoral (meaning her abusive actions).

The law generally exists to cover exceptions. Murderers are the exception in the general population. But there are laws to prevent it. To go with a lesser one drink driving, most people don't likely drink drive but laws exist to cover it to try and protect people.

Most Trans women won't throw a fit you're right. But a small minority will and the laws if not written right would actually help support their bullshit not prevent it.

 

[Worgen]

The only way to stop it would be a very specific law targeting just the likes of Yaniv's abuse.

Then they should look into passing such a law.

Most Trans women won't throw a fit you're right. But a small minority will and the laws if not written right would actually help support their bullshit not prevent it.

So what is your point, cause so far you haven't really shown a small minority, you've shown 1 person. What is your point here, what are you trying to say? It sounds like you're trying to say they should repeal the protections for trans people. Are you saying that?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Then they should look into passing such a law.

Which takes time which people wanting to look good aren't prepared to put in

So what is your point, cause so far you haven't really shown a small minority, you've shown 1 person. What is your point here, what are you trying to say? It sounds like you're trying to say they should repeal the protections for trans people. Are you saying that?

No I'm saying be careful with bringing in new laws when we can see what laws that weren't fully thought out are already causing.

As for only 1 how many other examples would you like how many are specifically needed?

It's 1 case but it impacted ~9 other women and their families.

 

[Trunkage]

snippet

I am assuming your against murder laws then?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I am assuming your against murder laws then?

No cause said laws are designed to try and protect people from murderers

 

[Trunkage]

No cause said laws are designed to try and protect people from murderers

But they have failed. On numerous occasions. With tens of thousands of people.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

But they have failed. On numerous occasions. With tens of thousands of people.

How many others have been saved by the convictions especially of the more deranged killers?

 

[Trunkage]

How many others have been saved by the convictions especially of the more deranged killers?

You needed a some being convicted of murder to tell you murder was bad?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

You needed a some being convicted of murder to tell you murder was bad?

No. Did you?

Because literally no-where have I said such a thing. So very strange that's what came into your head and that's what you were thinking about.

 

[Trunkage]

No. Did you?

Because literally no-where have I said such a thing. So very strange that's what came into your head and that's what you were thinking about.

Then what’s with this?

How many others have been saved by the convictions especially of the more deranged killers?

I learnt that murder was bad elsewhere. I didn’t need someone being convicted. Apparently, neither did you

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Then what’s with this?

I learnt that murder was bad elsewhere. I didn’t need someone being convicted. Apparently, neither did you

You do get the idea of spree killers being a thing right? Thus tracking down and convicting them ends their spree and means less people dead right?

 

[Trunkage]

You do get the idea of spree killers being a thing right? Thus tracking down and convicting them ends their spree and means less people dead right?

Yes. Also conviction do fuck all to stop them

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Yes. Also conviction do fuck all to stop them

They tend to stop the Sprees carry on............

 

[Trunkage]

They tend to stop the Sprees carry on............

Yes. After people have committed crimes. It’s not a prevention (for starting. It is a prevention for keeping going)

The US has very similar laws to other Western countries. Shouldnt they, therefore, have the same murder rate most of the West. Or is there a variety of things that keep the US murder rate high, and that laws contribute a little to preventing them

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Yes. After people have committed crimes. It’s not a prevention (for starting. It is a prevention for keeping going)

The US has very similar laws to other Western countries. Shouldnt they, therefore, have the same murder rate most of the West. Or is there a variety of things that keep the US murder rate high, and that laws contribute a little to preventing them

Yeh no. If you want to talk about 2A go make your thread on it. As is your attempted points comes of as a whataboutism.

 

[Trunkage]

Yeh no. If you want to talk about 2A go make your thread on it. As is your attempted points comes of as a whataboutism.

I’m saying laws don’t do what you think they do. They prevent little.