Let's talk again about Canadian transwoman Jessica Yaniv (now Jessica Yaniv Simpson), because in the crazy world of transactivism she is one of the characters we all agree on, regardless of our point of view: she's crazy. In a strictly clinical, psychiatric sense. As evidenced by the fact that she has just posted on her Twitter the injunction letter from the fire brigade in the city where she lives (Langley), who after being called 30 times in 15 days to help her get out of the bathtub (Yaniv is obese) instructs her to stop wasting their time, or she will be billed for any unnecessary call.
As the icing on the cake, she is asked to stop flirting in a "lewd" way with the firemen, to which she comments that such line is certainly because of the fact that they do not like trans vagina. I guess the firefighters realized they were dealing with a psychopath and were indulgent with her, hoping (in vain) that she would get tired, because reacting only after 30 calls implies a good dose of tolerance.
However, remember that Yaniv is the same person who sued 10 female beauticians, mostly immigrants, who served only women, and sued them because of "transphobia", for refusing to shave the scrotum of her "trans vagina". The story ended, thanks to the help offered to the victims by an association for the defense of civil rights, before the Canadian court against discrimination, where Yaniv not only lost, but in the course of the trial emerged as a decidedly racist person, who purposely selected immigrant women as targets and who made racist remarks about them. It's impossible, at this point, to be on her side.
Now, Yaniv is a valuable example because, in the beginning, she was endorsed by the whole LGBTQWERTY rainbow as a victim of cruel transphobic violence. Even in Italy. And this shows that it is not enough to cry out for violence for the accusation to be true. A second reason for interest in her case was that her legal action was made possible by a very (intentionally) poorly written anti-discrimination law, which objectively allowed her to do what she did, because refusing to take a trans person's self-ID for granted, even in the absence of a transition, is treated as discriminatory.
Therefore, the "exaggerated" (according to the transchilists) request of the Italian feminist movement to add a clear explanation of what is meant by "gender identity" and "orientation" is not extraneous to this example, in a preamble to the Zan law project (which I am in favor of), which is currently blocked in the Italian Senate.
On Yaniv, I said, we all agree. She's crazy, so clearly she is not a "typical representative" of transactivism, although she proclaims herself "ambassador" of LGBT liberation and influencer. Even if she were perfectly "cisgender", but she called the firefighters 30 times to save her drowning goldfish, no one would certainly dream of saying that Yaniv represents the non-trans world.
The question that arises is: if we all agree that this person is not using the anti-discrimination law but is abusing it, why we cannot agree that anti-discrimination laws must contain anti-abuse clauses against people like her? They may be rare, but they aren't non-existent. And they do a lot of damage. Many of the women Yaniv targeted have closed their businesses, unable to afford the costs of the lawsuit, but above all they faced a lot of social shaming in their very morally strict immigrant communities. One Yaniv was enough to ruin many lives.
And if today the image of Yaniv stranded in the tub like a beached whale while flirting with the firefighters makes us laugh, let's remember that in the real world she, who calls herself a "lesbian", campaigned to organize topless afternoons for 12-year-old girls in Langley's swimming pool, in his presence, claiming that denying him was, again, transphobic discrimination.
I know, I know, it's the classic case of the single person who unfairly gives a whole category a bad name.
I know, I know, "it is like the case of the gay pedophile used against all gays to present them as predators of minors".
I know ... etc., but here is an important difference: no gay man has ever defended the right of gay pedophiles to enter children's locker rooms, arguing that denying it was "homophobic".
And no gay father or mother has ever argued that such individuals should be granted the slightest "freedom". And no gay has ever attacked the mothers of children for not wanting any adult with a penis (not even us gays, not even me) in the locker room or bathroom.
The problem actually isn't with trans women: it's with penises. As evidenced by the fact that there is no controversy about the access of trans men to either male or female bathrooms. The problem is therefore not the “phobic” fear of the trans condition, as it is stated, but of the penis. Fear that has also a reason, given that something like 97% (or so) of rapes are carried out by penis owners ...
Here the principle of prudence and precaution prevails. Parents themselves keep an eye on those who approach their children without a reason. Perhaps only one in a thousand intends to harm them, but the problem is that 100% of the harm is committed by that one in a thousand. Therefore, you keep the remaining 999 out. It is not unfair: it makes sense.
I am convinced that without some form of confrontation and compromise we will not emerge alive from the current mutual massacre between the feminist and homosexual activism on the one hand and the "intersectional" queer transactivism on the other. Having established that the Jessica Yanivs exist (they are rare, very rare, unrepresentative, not to be taken as typical of the T community and everything else, for heaven's sake, but they exist) what is it legitimate to say and do to prevent them from ruining someone's life?
What can we do to render them harmless without harming the rights of those who are harmless? What is it that the sensitivity of a trans person admits as socially acceptable and necessary to prevent the Yanivs from doing damage not only to "cis" people, but also to the image and cause of the T community? This is the question, this is where you never get an answer. Why?
The eruption of queer transactivism took everyone by surprise at first. Especially the older generation, not yet conscious or capable of using the instantaneous speed of transmission of ideas (and controversies) on social media, which the blue-haired youngsters use in a "native" way. The resistance at the beginning was therefore disorganized and weak, also due to the splits produced in the opposing front: it had then seemed possible that queer integralism would pay off, and that a Blitzkrieg would end up delivering the victory.
However, this was not the case: feminism survived the aggression and reorganized itself, to the point that today the exploits of a thousand Jessica Yanivs, self-appointed spokespersons for the T community, are causing silent but growing repercussions on a global level. And I'm not talking about the internet bubble of social media, but about real life. For a year now, given the impossibility of finding agreements in a rational (ie political) way, we have moved to the courts, especially in the United Kingdom. A myriad of trials have already started on cases ranging from defamation complaints, to claims for damages, to union lawsuits.
And when the courts come into play, the battle rises to a totally different plan. We have precedents of similar "bubbles" of collective hysteria that seemed invincible - such as the one on "repressed memories", which in Italy had little echo, or the one on satanic rites (which instead also arrived in Italy with the case of the kindergarten of Rignano, the most expensive trial in our history) - which deflated with impressive speed when the verdicts arrived, and above all the requests for damages to the "experts" who had mounted them.
Well, what will remain of the trans community when this anti-feminist and anti-homosexual soufflé of hysteria is deflated? When a movement of double or triple or quadruple size of the transactivist one will be formed to react to the madness of the Jessica Yanivs? Typically, the Yanivs of the situation are like pigeons that enter the scene, smash everything, crap everywhere, and then take flight leaving the pieces to those who have to live in that place.
I want to remind everyone that women, trans, gays and lesbians have lived together for decades without this level of hostility. I'm not saying we've always loved each other, we often just put up with each other. But the burning and stubborn hatred that I read in the posts of the "keyboard revolutionaries" is a new thing for me. But I certainly know that nothing will come from a discussion delegated to the scarce or nil negotiation skills of these self-appointed representatives.
I have no doubt that the advantages achieved in previous years will guarantee them still two or three years of "cultural hegemony", because if you are young and an activist, and you don't pledge to their religion, you can forget about hanging out with your peers. But as this mechanism creates outcasts, expelled for not having bowed their heads, a new substrate will form, determined to do without the LGBTQUIAA clergy and their Holy Inqueerition. It has already happened in the past. The gay movement itself formed crystallizing around people who had suffered a wrong, a discrimination, a condemnation, and had said "enough". It will happen, it is already happening.
In many countries, groups have already been born under the name "LGB Alliance". In Italy it is still early for this: I have seen that a Facebook page takes its name, but its tone, unlike the page it is inspired by, is aggressive and sometimes insensitive towards trans people, which makes the Italian page part of the problem and not the solution. But some things take time to mature.
I know I'm repeating myself. But I also know that with each passing month, the probability that the "absurdities" I write will appear less absurd to some of those who slander me today, increases. The various Jessica Yanivs sooner or later will make one too many hysterical scenes, impose too much arrogance, demand that everyone believe in too many absurdities, slander and insult one time too many, threaten one time too many.
We will be able to discuss when enough people realize that the Battle of Stalingrad has already taken place, that the attackers have lost it, and that from this point on, they can no longer win. By now the element of surprise has disappeared, the counterattack increases in strength every month, and they have now run out of fuel. The Transchilists themselves admit, complaining about it, that for a year now the resistance to their impositions has been growing everywhere ("transphobia is rampant"). Therefore the phenomenon is real.
Is it possible that in the future there could also be a separation between the homosexual liberation movement and the queer soup of heterosexuals with dyed hair? In fact, the queer movement and the homosexual liberation movement are already two different movements, with different objectives, despite the pious fiction that says that one is the modern transformation of the other.
But it is not: it is something else, with different objectives, often in contradiction with those of homosexual liberation. It's a bit like when, at a certain point, Christians stopped being one of the many sects of Judaism and became a religion in itself. We might as well get over it. The old homosexual movement wanted to free lesbians and homosexuals from oppression, the queer movement instead wanted to free them from lesbianism and homosexuality. I really don't think the two aspirations are compatible with each other.
We'll see if I'm wrong or not.
