Author Topic: Canadaland Podcast  (Read 333 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7527
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #15 on: January 10, 2019, 05:47:11 am »
@cyber - also great to see you back, Bud.  Don't be a stranger.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7527
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2019, 07:43:24 pm »

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #17 on: August 22, 2019, 01:36:53 am »
https://www.canadalandshow.com/podcast/291-why-are-trans-issues-suddenly-everywhere/

THE best take on the Jessica Yaniv issue....

I've taken the time to listen to this podcast, and I have to disagree with you.  This is not a good take at all.  I wish I had a transcript so I could rip this apart in detail.  Instead I'll just remark on some of the more egregious aspects of it.

In his intro he starts by riffing on Quillette and gives his listeners the false impression that trans issues are an "obsession" of Quillette. (they aren't.  Even right now, when trans issues are allegedly "everywhere" I don't see a single article on the Quillette main page on that topic.)   To demonstrate his point he reads some headlines from past Quillette articles.  Titles referencing things like women's athletics, silencing feminists, the campaign against "terfs", homophobia in the trans movement, trans-radicalism's effect on kids, and so on.  He implies that these are topics without merit and that Quillette is simply scaremongering.   But these are real and valid topics; we've discussed most of them in some depth in the "Gender Culture" thread.  That people like Jesse Brown are so dismissive of these topics is one of the main reasons that sites like Quillette can brand themselves as "a platform for free thought."  Brown proposes that the transgender movement is just about "basic human rights", but things like male-bodied people demanding to compete in women's sports or demanding that lesbians not exclude your lady-**** from their dating pool, or  taking an aesthetician to the Human Rights Commission because she wouldn't wax your lady-testicles certainly stretch far beyond the notion of "basic human rights".   Brown suggests that since transgender people make up about 0.6% of the population, they're getting far too much much attention.  That's a stupid argument, because while trans people might make up only around 0.6% of the population, trans issues make up a much larger portion of new and changing practices in our society.  Straight white males might be a large segment of our population, but there's not a lot of new issues regarding the straight white male role in our society that is going to keep people up at night.  "It continues to be pretty great to be a straight white man in Canada!" isn't really that newsworthy.  Aboriginal people, like trans people, are actually a small portion of Canada's population, but I bet Jesse Brown wouldn't say "Aboriginal people only make up 4% of Canada's population, so why are there so many news articles about Aboriginal people?"   Jesse, assuming he's not a moron, understands that because of numerous historical and ongoing issues, news revolving around aboriginal topics will continue to occupy a place in the national conversation that is outsize compared to their actual portion of the Canadian populace.  And if Jesse isn't a moron he should be able to figure out that evolving legal issues surrounding transgender people are in the headlines for pretty much the same reason.    And, it bears repeating, that Jesse hasn't actually established that Quillette (or anybody else) is actually giving an outsized share of attention to trans issues; reading a handful of headlines doesn't make the case that they're over-reporting the topic.  So Brown is off to a shitty start, in my estimation.  He goes on to suggest that this allegedly outsized share of attention is because people are bigoted, at which point he introduces the Yaniv issue and argues that Yaniv is in the headlines because she's the perfect trans bogeyman that bigots have been waiting for. But "nobody has ever actually been forced to wax Yaniv's genitals," Brown smugly informs us.  Well, there's a disclaimer with that, which Brown neglects to mention for some reason.  The disclaimer is that some of the people who refused to wax Yaniv's balls were forced out of business, others who refused to wax his balls had to pay a settlement because they didn't have the resources or ability to defend themselves in the HRC process, and most importantly, if Yaniv does win his HRC cases, a precedent will be set such that yes, aestheticians pretty much will have to wax his testicles.  So that's why this HRC issue is actually a pretty big deal.  But Brown doesn't mention any of those things, because he's either an ignoramus or a propagandist.

Brown goes on to argue that we shouldn't take Yaniv seriously because there's reason to believe Yaniv is acting in bad faith and isn't a real activist.  Well, guess what: Yaniv's case is going to set a precedent whether Yaniv is acting in good faith or not. Yaniv might well be a creep or a predator or a racist or a goon trying to shake down immigrants by filing bogus HRC claims, or all of the above. But the HRC has decided that they have to give these complaints a fair hearing, and rule on the merits of the complaint regardless of how scummy Yaniv's character may be, and when the ruling is delivered it will affect real people in the real world who have to live with the results.  Jesse Brown seems oblivious to all of this.  He seems to think that since Yaniv is a scumbag the HRC process isn't real, or something. Brown is wrong.


So that's just the intro.  Then he introduces trans journalist Mary Rogan, and they talk about a lot of stuff that for the most part doesn't have much to do with Yaniv. They talk about Jordan Peterson's rise to fame. They talk about pronouns, and how hard it is to get the media to talk about "real" trans issues (implying that Yaniv's HRC cases are somehow not "real".)

A couple of things I did want to point out.  First off, they keep dismissing those who have criticisms or concerns about trans ideology as being "afraid that western civilization is gonna fuckin' collapse if they use my pronouns."  They don't acknowledge that there are any reasonable concerns; they keep rewinding "western civilization is gonna fuckin' collapse if they use my pronouns".

They mock the "we're protecting the children" angle.  They mockingly talk about the hysterical fear that "some trans cabal is trying to get tomboys to transition" or something like that. But there has been a major controversy at the UK's Tavistock clinic over a report that says young people are being fast-tracked for medical transition without adequate evaluation, so maybe it's not so hysterical after all.   And they imply that the "man in a dress preying on young girls in a bathroom" is a preposterous boogeyman scenario, even though Yaniv is literally exactly that, and then immediately move on to "we don't need to talk about Yaniv, because Yaniv is just an outlier, he's the worst case scenario, he's not representative of trans people in general."

(a transgender writer at Canadaland, Niko Stratis, wrote this MUCH BETTER take on Yaniv, explaining why Brown and Rogan are completely wrong in saying "we" don't need to talk about Yaniv. Give it a read here:  https://www.canadalandshow.com/we-need-to-talk-about-jessica-yaniv/  )

And then they go back to talking about Peterson, pronouns, "the downfall of western civilization", and so on. They rant about how people won't defend their arguments, while they themselves talk about pronouns and completely ignore any real issues that have been raised.

And then they complain about how Yaniv somehow got to be considered an activist or a representative for trans people.  Well, Yaniv is the one before the HRC arguing their case.   The HRC has ruled that these cases need to be heard. The HRC representative, Devyn Cousineau, ruled that she can't throw out these charges based on the possibility that Yaniv may be playing the system. Cousineau also isn't allowed to consider that Yaniv might be a scumbag or a child predator either. She has to consider the merits of the case.  They don't get to "no true Scotsman" Yaniv out of the movement just because she's not a very appealing activist.

They also mock the conservatives who suddenly care about the marginalized immigrant women who Yaniv targeted.  But that argument cuts both ways.   Why are the progressives who'd normally fight tooth and nail for marginalized immigrant women so silent on this?  Why do progressives no longer give a **** about standing up for feminists, or for women's sports, or for lesbians?  Why are progressives so quiet when it comes to trans issues?  And as I've said before, I reject the notion that these women's racial or cultural background changes the case anyway: I think that all of these women, be they marginalized immigrants or white and affluent, have the right to refuse to handle a dong.     And why do Jesse and Mary think that conservative "concern trolling" on the issue is a reasonable response?  "Conservatives don't really care that Yaniv targeted marginalized immigrant women, therefore we should not care about the marginalized immigrant women that Yaniv targeted either."  Is that the argument? Is that what they're saying?  Not really, it's just a deflection. They think they've found a "gotcha"-- that by pointing out conservative hypocrisy, they don't have to address the much tougher question of whether women should be compelled to handle a ****. It's a dodge. It's cowardly.


I could go on and look at more of this podcast.   But basically my complaint is that none of it is balanced. It dismisses opposing viewpoints out of hand, either mocking, trivializing, or dismissing them out of hand. It's less a "take" on the Yaniv situation and more a pro-trans public relations piece.  So overall, Michael, I don't agree that this was "THE BEST" take on the Yaniv situation.  In fact I'd say it's a steaming pile of dogshit.


 -k
Masked for your safety.
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7527
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #18 on: August 22, 2019, 06:40:29 am »
Wow - long response !  I'll have to look later....
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline cybercoma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2705
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #19 on: August 22, 2019, 09:33:55 am »
kimmy, I think you need to stop thinking that trans people and the fight for their acceptance is even remotely defined radicals online. They're scumbags. Trans people just want to be accepted in society without being beaten and abused. These idiots who call for raping lesbians and beating and murdering cis people are radicals. More importantly, you ought to be careful about the information war that's going on right now, where radical posts and memes are created to discredit people. Since they're sensationalized, they're easily spread on social media, giving the appearance of credibility. Just the other day, I saw a news article about someone getting accepted into an Ivy League school. It looked like a "friend" was calling them out for white privilege. The whole thing was faked, but people accepted it as real because they want to believe that "libruhl progressives are the REAL racists." This is the psychological manipulation that is being worked to divide us these days. It's a concerted effort to divide and conquer, making democratic governance completely dysfunctional. It's propaganda, plain and simple. It does not at all reflect the reality of what's being fought for by marginalized people. Spend some time talking to actual advocates and trans people in REAL life. Hear their stories and find out what real people want. Reacting to sensationalized cyberwarfare that's put into the social media stream is counterproductive and just serves the ends of the radical nationalists who are trying to divide us.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2019, 09:35:35 am by cybercoma »
Disagree Disagree x 1 View List

Offline the_squid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2692
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #20 on: August 22, 2019, 10:16:20 am »
Quote
In fact I'd say it's a steaming pile of dogshit.

This is a theme in Canadaland podcasts.
Informative Informative x 1 View List

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7527
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #21 on: August 22, 2019, 10:18:37 am »
Hear hear on the info wars.... we all fall for them @cyber.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7527
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #22 on: August 22, 2019, 10:33:45 am »
Kimmy - although your criticism of Brown and Rogan's talking points have merit, what you are missing is that this is a media criticism podcast.  The issue is that people like Yaniv are picked up as the focus of discussion of trans rights.  That's why the podcast is right-on.

Why do organizations like The Sun and The Post care about this ?  It's not because a bad-faith actor may be gaming the HRC.  They don't pay attention to such things in other HRC cases, as far as I have found.  For that matter, HRC cases don't get that much coverage anymore - I looked.

This is a 'hot button' and white males will be the anger-bearers that will be brought to pass judgment on this matter... to the detriment of trans women's safety.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3614
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #23 on: August 22, 2019, 12:00:04 pm »
This is a 'hot button' and white males will be the anger-bearers that will be brought to pass judgment on this matter... to the detriment of trans women's safety.

member kimmy thought to wedge-play the waldo... asking me to speak for/qualify why non-ConMedia outlets weren't covering every damn daily nugget running through the blogosphere. As I pointed out, when warranted, coverage was given... like when non-ConMedia outlets waited until a ruling was released by the BC Human Rights Tribunal before providing summary details of l'affaire Yaniv!

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #24 on: August 24, 2019, 02:21:06 am »
member kimmy thought to wedge-play the waldo... asking me to speak for/qualify why non-ConMedia outlets weren't covering every damn daily nugget running through the blogosphere. As I pointed out, when warranted, coverage was given... like when non-ConMedia outlets waited until a ruling was released by the BC Human Rights Tribunal before providing summary details of l'affaire Yaniv!

The coverage at CBC omits mention of problematic aspects of Yaniv's antics.  They mention the racial aspect to this story, but portray his conflict with the immigrant beauticians as a clash between emerging trans rights versus conservative immigrant cultures.  They don't mention his racist screeds about immigrants or that he appears to have deliberately targeted immigrants with this demands for ball-waxing service and subsequent HRC filings.  Our friends at the Ceeb also do not mention the girls who've come forward with complaints regarding Yaniv's predatory behavior towards them when they were in their early teens, or the Taser incident, or his doxxing of fellow trans-person Blaire White.

In short, the CBC is presenting Yaniv's HRC cases as a good-faith human rights effort to secure "gender-affirming services" for trans-people, and omitting information that might cause their reader to question whether that's true.

Meanwhile, Jesse Brown in the Canadaland podcast Michael linked to, rails against the notion that Yaniv should be considered a "real" trans rights activist.  There's plenty of reason, Brown says, to believe that Yaniv is not acting in good faith, and therefore Yaniv shouldn't be treated as a "real" trans activist. Brown seems to suggest that Yaniv shouldn't be given any coverage at all.

Those positions are in direct conflict, so who is right?

The CBC approach paints an incomplete picture of Yaniv; Brown would have us put our fingers in our ears and shout "LALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU" in regard to Yaniv, even though Yaniv's case will set a precedent that will impact people well beyond Yaniv.


Niko Stratis, also at Canadaland, writes:
Quote
If we are indeed going to talk about Yaniv, we need to talk about all of Yaniv. These allegations exist, and trans-exclusionary radical feminists have been talking about her for a while now. To ignore these things in reporting about her is to act like we donít care that said allegations exist.

This is fuel for a fire that has been raging for some time now: the idea that she is a predator being painted as a victim in order to appease the overly woke left. Following a recent episode of CANADALAND Short Cuts, Twitter was awash with people demanding a denouncement of Yaniv, wondering why those allegations about her were not aired. To portray her as a trans woman that wanted someone to wax her genitalia, was refused service, and then raised herself up as a champion of human rights gives us an incomplete look at who this person is.

When those demands for more were met with relative silence, they were shifted to the trans community. Transphobic individuals have come out of the woodwork to hold her up as an example of everything they warned would happen with our right to self-identification, protected thanks to Bill C-16 in Canada. She is the bad apple ó according to the many vocal critics of her and of self-ID and of trans people in general ó that spoils the bunch.

The CBC are creating a misleading picture of this individual, and their activism, by omitting details of the story that readers need in order to have a fully informed view.


 -k
Masked for your safety.

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #25 on: August 24, 2019, 02:22:05 am »
kimmy, I think you need to stop thinking that trans people and the fight for their acceptance is even remotely defined radicals online.

I'll respond to this in the other thread.

 -k
Masked for your safety.

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #26 on: August 24, 2019, 03:07:17 am »
Kimmy - although your criticism of Brown and Rogan's talking points have merit, what you are missing is that this is a media criticism podcast.  The issue is that people like Yaniv are picked up as the focus of discussion of trans rights.  That's why the podcast is right-on.

Yaniv gets to be the focus because Yaniv is the one with cases before the BC HRC. You don't get to "no true Scotsman" them out of the trans community just because they're inconvenient. The HRC doesn't get to throw out Yaniv's cases just because Yaniv is a less sympathetic advocate than the trans community might hope for.

Why do organizations like The Sun and The Post care about this ?  It's not because a bad-faith actor may be gaming the HRC.  They don't pay attention to such things in other HRC cases, as far as I have found.  For that matter, HRC cases don't get that much coverage anymore - I looked.

It's certainly true that most HRC cases don't get a lot of attention. That's because most HRC cases don't cover much new ground. "I was treated badly at work because of my race/sex/ethnicity" is not a new story; person evicted from housing for hateful reasons, things like that.  It might be helpful for people to understand that these cases still happen when people are talking about the usefulness of the HRC.

But some HRC cases do get some ink.  One concerned a complaint against a religious group publishing homophobic materials. Complaints against Ezra Levant alleging hate speech against Muslims. BC trans activist and NDP big-wig Morgane Oger recently won an HRC ruling against a guy who distributed a bunch of transphobic material in the riding where Oger was running in the provincial election. These cases get some amount of attention because they're contesting important ground: the boundary between what is hate speech and what is permissible free expression or religious expression.

This Yaniv case is newsworthy for the same reason. Regardless of what you think of Yaniv, there is a case before the BC HRC and a ruling is going to be issued whether Jesse Brown and Mary Rogan think Yaniv is a "real" trans rights activist or not.

The Yaniv case is newsworthy because it appears to be among the first tests of what "the right to gender expression" is going to actually mean under C-16.  One way or the other it's going to set some sort of precedent that extends well beyond Yaniv's lady-scrotum.  It's also newsworthy because this HRC process has already put at least one of these aestheticians out of business, and several more have given money to Yaniv as a settlement.  That's not something Brown and Rogan can just wish away.  That has happened, and it's an aspect of this story that deserves to be talked about as well.  And I'd imagine that under other circumstances if vulnerable immigrant women were being shaken down for money or put out of work, Brown and Rogan would have something to say about it.

This is a 'hot button' and white males will be the anger-bearers that will be brought to pass judgment on this matter... to the detriment of trans women's safety.

Your position seems to be that we shouldn't talk about Yaniv or their HRC complaint because if we do, straight white men will get angry and beat up trans people.  I think that's problematic.

 -k
Masked for your safety.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7527
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #27 on: August 24, 2019, 07:33:06 am »
1. Yaniv gets to be the focus because Yaniv is the one with cases before the BC HRC.

2. It's certainly true that most HRC cases don't get a lot of attention. That's because most HRC cases don't cover much new ground.
 
3. But some HRC cases do get some ink.  One concerned a complaint against a religious group publishing homophobic materials. Complaints against Ezra Levant alleging hate speech against Muslims. BC trans activist and NDP big-wig Morgane Oger recently won an HRC ruling against a guy who distributed a bunch of transphobic material in the riding where Oger was running in the provincial election. These cases get some amount of attention because they're contesting important ground: the boundary between what is hate speech and what is permissible free expression or religious expression.

4. This Yaniv case is newsworthy for the same reason. Regardless of what you think of Yaniv, there is a case before the BC HRC and a ruling is going to be issued whether Jesse Brown and Mary Rogan think Yaniv is a "real" trans rights activist or not.

5. The Yaniv case is newsworthy because it appears to be among the first tests of what "the right to gender expression" is going to actually mean under C-16. 

6. It's also newsworthy because this HRC process has already put at least one of these aestheticians out of business, and several more have given money to Yaniv as a settlement.   

7. Your position seems to be that we shouldn't talk about Yaniv or their HRC complaint because if we do, straight white men will get angry and beat up trans people.  I think that's problematic.

 -k

1. Wrong.  We don't cover HRC cases, normally.  They usually get scant mention.

2. Not proven.  I have reviewed cases and they are all unique.  This one really differentiates itself because it's a sensational hot button case.  I'll find an example of a trans rights case from earlier and we'll see if it's well-known.... Googling...

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/42948/1/Tam_Michael_WH_201311_LLM_thesis.pdf

Quote
Just months before the amendments explicitly including gender identity and gender expression
protection into the Ontario Human Rights Code, a case which could have been recognized as
trans discrimination came before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. The passage of Toby's
Act amending the Ontario Human Rights Code to include gender identity and gender expression
as a grounds for protection occurred on June 19th, 2012. The case X.Y. v Ontario (Minister of
Government and Consumer Services) was decided on April 11, 2012.145 XY was a
transgendered person applying for an order that the Minister's requirement, that she certify that
she had "transsexual surgery" in order to obtain a birth certificate which accorded with her
gender identity, infringed her right to equal treatment without discrimination on the basis of sex
and or disability contrary to the Human Rights Code. The requirement of surgery in order to
change the birth certificate resulted in distinct and disadvantageous treatment of XY on the basis
of her trans status. It was found discriminatory because it "exacerbates the situation of
transgendered persons as a historically disadvantaged group, and thus perpetuates their
disadvantage".146 The requirement of surgery was "substantively discriminatory because it
perpetuates stereotypes about transgendered persons and their need to have surgery ...

Kind of a bigger case and I haven't heard of it.

3. I would contend some of these are justifiably more important, like a major publication being accused of hate speech vs. some rando wanting a wax.  BTW there was already a case in Ontario that was remarkably similar, in that a trans man wanted a haircut from a Muslim as I recall.  Almost no coverage, but some because there was a Muslim angle. 

Yes I am cynical about media coverage.

4. The issue is the volume and kind of coverage it gets in "the" media though. 

5. As I said I think there have already been such cases, with less coverage.  This fits the sensational FOX-bait criteria and it gets white males angry so we have it covered like she's the single spokeswoman for trans people. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/barbershop-won-t-cut-women-s-hair-evie-ruddy-plans-human-rights-complaint-1.2751215

That may be the case I was thinking of, not sure: "She added that when she pressed the point and asked how the shop would respond to a transgender person seeking a haircut, she was given an emphatic answer.

 He launched into this rant saying if they start accepting trans clients and lesbians then what if a lesbian with long hair wants their hair cut? Where do you draw the line?," Ruddy told CBC News."

Or it could have been this:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/bridal-shop-refuses-to-let-transgender-shopper-try-on-gowns-1.1306121

Again - FOX didn't pick these up, and I don't remember them being covered much.

6. An HRC case is arguably "newsworthy" but this is being milked for the outrage set.

7. It's not binary (  :-\ ) How much coverage and what kind of coverage does this warrant is my question and why do we have to discuss trans rights around these types of circuses ?

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3614
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #28 on: August 24, 2019, 08:34:59 am »
member kimmy thought to wedge-play the waldo... asking me to speak for/qualify why non-ConMedia outlets weren't covering every damn daily nugget running through the blogosphere. As I pointed out, when warranted, coverage was given... like when non-ConMedia outlets waited until a ruling was released by the BC Human Rights Tribunal before providing summary details of l'affaire Yaniv!
The coverage at CBC omits mention of problematic aspects of Yaniv's antics.  They mention the racial aspect to this story, but portray his conflict with the immigrant beauticians as a clash between emerging trans rights versus conservative immigrant cultures.  They don't mention his racist screeds about immigrants or that he appears to have deliberately targeted immigrants with this demands for ball-waxing service and subsequent HRC filings.  Our friends at the Ceeb also do not mention the girls who've come forward with complaints regarding Yaniv's predatory behavior towards them when they were in their early teens, or the Taser incident, or his doxxing of fellow trans-person Blaire White.

In short, the CBC is presenting Yaniv's HRC cases as a good-faith human rights effort to secure "gender-affirming services" for trans-people, and omitting information that might cause their reader to question whether that's true.

kimmy, just how are less discriminating click-baiting ConMedia outlets confirming the veracity of your favoured twitter/blog positions and statements?

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4756
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #29 on: August 24, 2019, 11:09:43 am »
This Yaniv character certainly is getting a lot of run for their antics.  This person is clearly mentally unstable, and shouldn't be a reflection on trans people in general. 

But just because Yaniv is trans, doesn't mean they should be given special treatment.  A lot of ignorant conservatives are eager to bash a trans person, and a lot of virtue signalling progressives are eager to look past these antics to defend a member of a marginalized group.  Luckily i think a lot of people just see this for what it is: a nutter being nutty.
"The economy has been relatively strong but Trudeau has chosen to run deficits year after year & has said will continue to do so well into the future.  This means we'll be in a worse & more vulnerable financial position when a recession hits when we HAVE to run deficits again." - Me, Oct. 3, 2019