Alleged predator Jessica Yaniv arrested, home searched
UPDATE: According to the National Post, after the Monday afternoon Blaire White livestream in which the prohibited weapon was brandished, Yaniv was arrested and brought to an RCMP holding cell. Yaniv was released Tuesday morning.
Two stun guns, pepper spray, and bear spray were seized from Yaniv’s apartment.
For trans ideology to truly spread, it needs to become an inherent part of our core belief system. As natural as the sky being blue, and the earth being round, we must all have the truth of trans as a foundational element of our understanding about the world for it to thrive. Convincing adults is one thing, but to really make this wash, it’s children that need to taught the dogma of multiple gender identities and the ability of humans to swap their sex for its opposite. The purported goal behind teaching children that male and female are nothing more than feelings is compassion, empathy, and anti-bias.
The work to bring children into the trans fold is pervasive and growing, and we’ve seen it in the US and Canada. In Sweden, the government is pouring money into an educational program for drag queens to read to children with disabilities. Meanwhile, in the UK, where trans advocates have a major head start, the BBC is airing educational programming to teach children that there are as many genders as stars in the sky. Both of these programs bring new dictates on gender to young kids. And kids, malleable as they are, typically believe what adults tell them.
Presumably, both the Swedish government and the BBC believe they are doing the right thing, a good thing, taking a positive step in the education of their nations’ children. But why does the Swedish federal government and the BBC want children open to the idea that gender and biological sex are different entities, and that biological sex differences are not meaningful with regard to anything at all?
The Swedish program, implemented on a federal level, is funded by a cache of cash left behind by those Swedes who died without any heirs, and is administered by Kulturforenigen Mums, which has brought in drag storytelling outfit Among Dragons and Drag Queens to create the curriculum. Among Dragons and Drag Queens’ plans is to rewrite those staid, boring, cis heteronormative fairy tales and replace them with stories where perhaps damsels rescue themselves, and handsome princes realize they’d rather fight for their right to be princesses than aspire to true love and responsibility.
The idea behind drag story hour is that children’s concepts of gender are uprooted and questioned by having grown men dressed fantastically and comically as women. While they’re at it, Among Dragons and Drag Queens should bring in some women and men and who have truly bucked gender stereotypes, like dads who prioritize raising their kids over a full-time career, or women who build bridges. Wardrobe is fashion, but life choices are what actually matter.
In the BBC video, children read questions about gender, such as “What are the different gender identities?” The answer is that this is a “that’s a really, really, exciting question to ask.” And another specialist tells children, in a voice rich with wonder and discovery, “do you know there are so many gender identities. So we know we’ve got male and female, but there are over a hundred, if not more, gender identities now. So we know that some people might think they are two different genders, so people might think they are bigender, and then you’ve got some people who might call themselves genderqueer, who are just like I don’t really want to be anything, in particular, I’m just going to be me.”
If this is all so innate, as male and female were considered to be only a few short minutes ago, why do kids need specialized education to understand it? If the goal is compassion, empathy, and instilling an egalitarian mindset, drag story hour and blatant televised lies about there being over 100 genders are not the answer.
So why do the BBC and the Swedish federal government want to make sure children know that men who don’t feel like adhering to male stereotypes and women who don’t want to adhere to female stereotypes are necessarily something other than male and female?
Is this about making sure kids are not prejudiced against people who present and act differently from the expected stereotype? Is the goal to make sure that kids know that they personally do not have to adhere to these stereotypes? Maybe the goal is to break down sex-based stereotypes altogether so that kids know that their capabilities are not limited by their sex?
What these educational programs actually do is solidify and entrench different expectations other than the traditional ones. While these programs have the tinge of compassion, consideration, and inclusiveness, that is actually an illusion. Instead of breaking down the limiting factors of socially constructed sex-based stereotypes and leaving that space open, it fills it with new rules about how not adhering to stereotypes means you are the opposite gender from that which your sex determines you are.
The message behind telling children there are people who are bigender, or multi-gender, or people who “just want to be me,” is that children must choose their gender, not that some people do, but that everyone must. Affirming these delusions is confirming them. What child doesn’t want to “just be me?” And if the way to “just be me” is to say “I’m different from my body,” then that’s what kids will do. These are guidelines to rebellion against the body, they are not telling children “here are some paths,” they are saying “this is the path, walk down it.”
The reason for indoctrinating children early in the ways of society is to make sure they know exactly what concepts and constructs cannot be questioned and must be adhered to, both in thought and action. If trans ideology were about acceptance, something more along the lines of “people are different, don’t judge people for those things about themselves that they can’t control,” we would be in the realm of anti-bias initiatives. If the message were “you don’t have to be limited by traditional gender roles,” that would be about breaking down stereotypes.
In the current merry multi-gender climate, the way that gender stereotypes are bucked is by showing men in dresses, and women speaking up for themselves. This is a strange dichotomy where what male gender warriors are fighting against is wardrobe, and female gender fighters are railing against traditional gender roles. But the thing is, those roles have already been turned on their heads. Women and men have far more freedom than they used to and are free live as they choose. The fact that adults want to transition and live as the opposite sex, or perform drag shows for other adults, has been pretty well accepted. The problem here is that children are being told lies to uphold adult desires.
The Manchester Evening News ran a story claiming the comedian Ricky Gervais has suffered “a huge backlash” over a joke. The only problem was that there wasn’t that much backlash. Also, it’s a hilarious joke.
In fact, most of the responses to the tweet were laudatory, laughing emojis and gifs. The “backlash” was based in the journalistic bad habit of journalists finding a few Twitter accounts here and there that post distaste for something and then claiming that those couple of dissatisfied remarks quantifies a thorough backlash. It doesn’t.
A joke like Gervais’ isn’t controversial—it’s actually speaking truth to power. Gervais was vocal throughout the media coverage of Yaniv’s case over the summer. One wonders how a comic like Gervais would have been able to keep even the illusion of a straight face over a story about a woman who demanded that other people wax her balls.
It was with the full backing of legislation that Yaniv was able to harass women small business owners and bring the absurd charges. Yaniv received all of the protections under the law, complete with privacy of her name, until she revealed it herself all over social media, and the media ban on Yaniv’s identity was lifted.
Yaniv, as everyone is thankfully now aware, is emblematic of the abuse of the system that is now possible if you are from a protected class. This is why the definition of protected classes cannot include those who claim to be oppressed based on a conflation of identities that are void of any basis in biological reality.
The fact that Manchester Evening News journalist Helen Carter refers to both Yaniv (the jerk who tried to force immigrant women to touch his hairy dick and balls and then punished them when they refused by running them out of business) and Gervais (the man who simply made fun of the jerk) as equally “divisive” tells you all you need to know about her agenda.
Carter mischaracterizes Yaniv’s complaint, as well, writing that “while the tweet could have been regarded as offensive at face value, it was in relation to Jessica’s fight after trying—and failing to find a beauty salon in Canada willing to wax her male intimate area.” This is not quite the story. Yaniv sought out small business owners instead of taking her hairy balls to any of the Vancouver salons that specialize in male waxing.
Yaniv lost her case to force estheticians to wax her balls, but as Carter notes, has vowed to continue her fight for transgender rights. Perhaps the next step can be prohibiting any jokes about the absurdity of her original undertaking, or the myriad women she’s had banned from social media platforms for speaking honestly about her gender conundrum, or making sure that more leftists are blinded by their own compassion into ignoring the very serious problems this kind of inquest entails.
It would be unkind to tell a comedian that he can’t make a joke about a lady who wants to wax her balls. At some point, we have to admit that shutting off our critical faculties just so that we can force ourselves to believe that which we know is untrue, namely that ladies don’t have scrotums, is not reasonable. Gervais refused to lie to himself, and we should all do so as well.
In The Spectator, the great Twitter troll Jarvis DuPont takes all those who would bemoan Gervais’ joke to task “Despite how many times [Gervais] is educated by people with their pronouns listed in their Twitter, this only appears to make him more impervious to criticism.” He’s being sarcastic, for all those wokesters who couldn’t tell.
What we assume Carter meant to say was that there was “a huge backlash” in her gated community of elite establishment media friends who fritter away their days patting themselves on the back for the empty virtue-signalling and shrill woke-scolding they perform in 800-word think pieces day in and day out. Gervais is not the problem. Even Yaniv is not the problem. The problem is the preponderance of people wagging their fingers and telling us what is and isn’t funny.
We’re thankful for Gervais. Not only is he one of the brave comedians who will actually stand up to political correctness and the excesses of identity politics, but he consistently reminds us of how we will eventually win this wretched culture war. The key is to never stop laughing.
I was involved in an accident the moment I arrived at the Meghan Murphy event. Less than 200 meters away from the Toronto Public Library that hosted the event, a skateboarder careened out of nowhere and hit the Uber car before skating off on his way. We pulled over immediately and I looked to find the injured person but he was long gone.
Thankfully there were three police officers immediately available to take witness statements and I was keen to give my information so I could get to the event. Unfortunately, a helpful bystander kept pointing at me and saying “She’s wrong! I saw everything!!”
This problem of people not wanting to let someone else speak first is precisely the reason Meghan Murphy, an outspoken feminist with hard views on whether or not people born male can actually be women, rallied hundreds of chanting protesters.
Outside the library, slam poetry artists spoke through a megaphone and when they “dropped the mic” to say a line the crowd was cued to repeat that line like a human amplifier. But nothing said actually related to what Meghan Murphy said, because she hadn’t spoken yet.
Just like the “victim” in the car accident that happened moments ago, the only evidence left was a bewildered group of spectators unsure of exactly what was happening. The one thing we were told to be sure of was that the police were “lazy pigs” for protecting Meghan Murphy from the mob outside.
The police in attendance now have my number so they can call me later if they need a witness that they, in fact, were not being lazy.
Inside the event, it was hard to understand what all the fuss was about. Members of the media lined the back wall having made it past security in a sold-out event. Regardless of the words that might come out of Murphy’s mouth in the immediate future we all sensed a major disparity. So much anger against a single, physically small woman.
One of the first things Meghan Murphy said was how strange it was that people responded to her as if the things she was saying didn’t represent what 99% of the population believe: men cannot be women.
“Bigotry” is defined as an intolerance and ignorance for opposing points of view and Murphy quickly made the point that the people calling her a bigot were the ones showing the most intolerance. And surely, insulting police simply for ensuring a person’s physical safety is morally questionable.
Outside the event the poets gave anecdotes of trans people who had suffered attacks and inside the library Meghan Murphy gave anecdotes of women who had been forced to share rooms with male-bodied people who identified as women. The people of whom both sides spoke aren’t just anecdotes, they have real experiences that should be heard. But how do we decide which person’s experiences are more important?
If we choose who we listen to by deciding who can’t speak then it doesn’t seem the problem is properly resolved.
Murphy said she doesn’t have a problem with people pursuing surgery to obtain their “perfect body” but that she worried about the stereotypes at play in pursuit of that perfection. And where the questioning of what makes a person “a woman” somehow became the equivalent of being “non-trans” instead of just human. Murphy criticized that the term “CIS” now substituted as “you identify as a woman at birth.” To Murphy that is insulting.
She described the trans advocacy groups as authoritarian and despaired that events like her speech were mostly only getting attention because of the protesters.
In part, Murphy blamed the media for misrepresenting her point of view and demonizing her. Comically, Murphy specifically mentioned columnist Tabatha Southey who “apparently has a Twitter account” and objected to Murphy being given a platform. Murphy, herself, has been permanently banned from Twitter for the crime of misgendering. Also mentioned was Toronto mayor John Tory who claimed he was disappointed in the public library for allowing Murphy to speak.
One comment that received applause was Murphy’s opinion that “women’s rights are being thrown under the bus so that people can virtue signal online.”
I thought back to my arrival when I tried to explain to the other helpful witness on the scene that I was perfectly happy to let him give a police statement of his own after I finished speaking and understood that he’d seen the car accident from the other side of the street. I’d just seen it as a passenger in the car. Of course both of us were neutral witnesses. It was just an Uber and I had no vested interest. For him, he didn’t know any of us either.
But the man wouldn’t let me speak and I don’t know why. The police actually had to intervene so that I could give my account as best as possible and be on my way. They literally had to move the man away so I could finish my statement and write my information down for later contact. And luckily I had a pen and paper because I was, in fact, on my way to cover the protest of Meghan Murphy just around the corner.
And just as the missing “victim” of the car accident quickly absconded from the scene of the “crime” the angry mob I encountered moments later seemed just as incredibly abstract.
In the end, whether you agree with Meghan Murphy or not, the biggest round of applause must go to Toronto Library’s Palmerston Branch for being brave enough to stand up for freedom of speech despite the intense backlash they faced. As a result, the library will likely be banned from the next Pride parade but it’s a small price to pay for honest conversation.
I can’t imagine there is a single person in Canada—apart from the complainant’s mother—who didn’t feel a great wash of relief when transwoman Jessica “Jonathan” Yaniv lost the case brought to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal against the waxologists who refused to wax Yaniv’s balls.
Even the most fervent trans activist knows in his or her heart that, given Yaniv’s public truculence, combined with a weird and disturbing history of expressed fantasies around menstruation and adolescent girls, this individual does not project an image that is helpful to the transgender brand.
The sordid chronicle was covered by this publication in-depth, but it was hardly mentioned by our national broadcaster, the CBC, even though the preposterousness of all its elements had made it an international phenomenon. The only explanation is ideology, and the CBC is certainly not alone in its journalistic fail.
On Oct 23, Kara Dansky—a self-described left-winger and lifetime Democrat—representing the feminist organization Women’s Liberation Front, spoke to Fox News host Tucker Carlson about her organization’s objection to transwomen in sport. She cited transwoman Rachel McKinnon’s triumph in the Manchester, UK cycling championships, where McKinnon set a new world record for women, as a distressing example of the unlevel playing field trans entitlement has brought to sport.
Of course, McKinnon did not really set a new record for women, as she is a biological male, with all the attendant advantages that confers in athletics. I was very interested in what Dansky had to say. But I would not have known about her if I did not watch Fox News. Like other radical feminists such as Meghan Murphy, who has suffered and continues to suffer greatly for her common-sense views, Dansky and her organization don’t get the time of day from the mainstream media, apart from being criticized for transphobia.
Dansky thanked Carlson several times for having her on his show, stating that her organization’s views are routinely rebuffed by outlets such as NPR and the Washington Post. “No one will hear us … no one will publish us,” she said. Carlson expressed his complete bewilderment that even feminists of the left are cold-shouldered by media that are normally friendly to all things feminist.
Sometimes there really is a conspiracy. The left-leaning media has decided that in the battle for rankings on the intersectionality ladder, trans oppression trumps women oppression. Even when the CBC does report on trans stories, like the Toronto Public Library’s refusal to bow to pressure to cancel Meghan Murphy’s appearance Oct 29, the reportage is extremely skewed, as CBC host Carol Off’s interview with TPL librarian Vickery Bowles demonstrates in spades.
Don’t look for rationality or coherence in left-wing shunning of feminists who actually defend the natural rights of women over the alleged rights of men who want to be women. Any movement that is comfortable in defining a woman as a person with a vagina or a penis according to their subjective feeling—and fully on board for all the social and cultural and legal rights that follow from that definition, however harmful they are to women—is not receptive to rational debate on the subject. As the great satirist Jonathan Swift said, you cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into in the first place.
The betrayal of women by the LGBT community, as well as by politicians, legislators, social service institutions, mental-health professionals, educational establishment, athletic associations and media is surely one of the great mysteries of our time, and will doubtless be remembered by historians as a shaming indictment of gender ideology run amok. Meanwhile, victims of the craziness are mown down with Leninesque satisfaction in the name of “equality” and “rights.”
Which is why the HRT decision against Yaniv is a beacon of hope in a dark place. HRTs are generally regarded as bastions of political correctness. If even a left-leaning HRT can so decisively rule against Yaniv, and can so plainly see the frivolousness of the complaint, and can come down so squarely on the side of a truth that is screamingly obvious to anyone with common sense—that no woman should ever be forced to handle male genitals against her will—then a useful precedent has been set.
Naturally, not all trans claims will be so black and white as the Yaniv case, and one could question why it should have been accepted for a hearing at all on those grounds, but we in the business of promoting reason must take what crumbs we can find. The important takeaway here is that the HRT recognized that trans entitlements have “reasonable limits,” according to the Charter, and that those limits are set by biology, not feelings. That is a victory for reason.