Month: July 2019

New Study Suggests Living Near Oil Fields Could Cause Birth Defects In Babies

A new study has determined that families living near oil and gas fields have a 40 to 70% higher probability of having their children develop congenital heart defects (CHDs) compared to those living at greater distances, reported CU Anschutz Today.

“We observed more children were being born with a congenital heart defect in areas with the highest intensity of oil and gas well activity,” said the study’s lead author Lisa McKenzie, Ph.D., MPH, of the Colorado School of Public Health at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.

More than 17 million Americans and 6% of Colorado’s total population live within one mile of an active drilling rig.

The study was published last Thursday in the peer-reviewed journal Environment International, studied 3,324 infants born in Colorado between 2005 to 2011. Researchers studied infants with several types of CHDs.

CHD is one of the most common birth defects in the country and a leading cause of death among infants. Infants with CHD have low rates of survival due to severe developmental problems and are more vulnerable to brain injury.

McKenzie’s study comes after a paper that analyzed 124,842 births in rural Colorado between 1996 to 2009 and discovered that CHDs occured near oil and gas drilling facilities.

Another study in Oklahoma studied 476,000 births, found several variants of CHDs near oil wells.

Anschutz Today noted that the studies had several issues, including not being able to identify correctly if an oil and gas facility was in the development or production phase, and researchers didn’t confirm specific CHDs by reviewing all medical records.

“We observed positive associations between odds of a birth with a CHD and maternal exposure to oil and gas activities…in the second gestational month,” the study researchers said.

The new study discovered that rural areas with high active oil and gas activity are the epicenter of CHDs rather than in urban areas.

What’s not entirely understood by researchers are how toxic chemicals lead to CHDs.

McKenzie said the study doesn’t exactly prove a causal relationship between the various stages of an oil and gas drilling rig and that another study will be completed soon.

“This study provides further evidence of a positive association between maternal proximity to oil and gas well site activities and several types of CHDs,” she said. “Taken together, our results and expanding the development of oil and gas well sites underscore the importance of continuing to conduct comprehensive and rigorous research on health consequences of early life exposure to oil and gas activities.”

The Colorado Oil and Gas Association criticized the lastest study in a statement:

“This study is not new. It’s a reexamination of her 2014 report using the same old data from 2005 to 2011—data that has no relevance to current regulations or to the common practices used by today’s operators,” a spokesperson for the Association said. “Interestingly, this study says particulate matter from oil and gas operations could lead to these health effects, but that contradicts the conclusions of another McKenzie study published just last month that found particulate matter levels near Colorado oil and gas operations were three times lower than EPA national air standards. Bottom line, the data is old and no air samples were taken.”

“However, air samples that have been taken by Colorado’s health department, for many years now, are conclusive,” the statement read. “After thousands of thousands of air samples, many of which have been collected near oil and gas operations, not one exceeds state or federal protective health guidelines. Dr. McKenzie’s studies have been called ‘misleading’ in the past, and this seems to be par for the course.”

It remains to be seen if the oil and gas industry is poisoning the unborn whose families live within a mile of oil and gas drilling facilities.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30YeyEl Tyler Durden

Trans Activist Organizes Topless Swimming Session For Girls As Young As 12, Parents Not Allowed

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit.news,

A trans activist who gained notoriety for attempting to force beauticians to wax their balls and penis is now arranging a swimming session for girls as young as 12 where parents will not be allowed to be present.

Yes, really.

Jessica Yaniv, who was born a man, has filed complaints with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal against fifteen female aestheticians for their refusal to wax her male genitalia.

The controversy prompted comedian Ricky Gervais to wade into the debate.

“How did we get to the point where women are having to fight for the right to choose whether they wax some big old hairy cock & balls or not? It is not a human right to have your meat & 2 veg polished,” tweeted Gervais, who was accused of “transphobia” for defending a woman’s right not to wax male genitalia.

But the situation gets even more bizarre.

Yaniv has now organized a “youth all bodies swim” event at the Al Anderson Memorial Pool in Langley, British Columbia.

The promotional material for the event states, “Parents and/or caregivers are not permitted in the event”.

This has caused widespread concern because Yaniv previously made comments described by some as “perverted” about naked girls getting changed in locker rooms.

“If there’s like 30 girls in the change rooms, how many of them would you say are out there changing freely with their vaginas and tits out?” asked Yaniv in one post.

“Went really well,” states another post. “I expected more though. I only saw one girl in her panties.”

“I was really expecting to walk in and see girls with their boobs out,” comments Yaniv in another post.

Other posts repeatedly show Yaniv asking girls how young they are as well as other disturbing posts such as one which states, “Have you ever seen a tampon string hanging out of another girls thing?”

Last week, Yaniv also celebrated getting free speech activist Lindsay Shepherd banned by Twitter after Shepherd suggested Yaniv was not a woman.

Clown world never fails to deliver the insanity, but this is perhaps the clearest example of someone hiding behind a ‘protected identity’ to engage in what critics assert is predatory behavior.

*  *  *

There is a war on free speech. Without your support, my voice will be silenced. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30OJWoH Tyler Durden

Deutsche Bank Flagged Jeffrey Epstein Overseas Transactions For Suspected Sex-Trafficking

Deutsche Bank uncovered suspicious transactions in which Jeffrey Epstein moved money out of the United States, according to the New York Times. 

The bank reported the transactions to a federal agency in charge of policing financial crimes after the bank began to look for signs that Epstein was using his funds for sex trafficking, according to the report. 

Epstein is said to have moved his moey to Deutsche Bank’s private-banking division after JP Morgan Chase cut ties with himn in 2013, five years after he pleaded guilty to state prostitution charges – one of which involved a minor. 

Deutsche Bank executives are still trying to understand the depth and scope of the bank’s relationship with Mr. Epstein, who has been a client of its private-banking division since at least 2013 — years after his conduct became public in a prostitution case involving a teenage girl.

Deutsche Bank has been contacted by prosecutors and other government authorities investigating Mr. Epstein. Joerg Eigendorf, a Deutsche Bank spokesman, said the bank was “absolutely committed to cooperating with all relevant authorities.” –New York Times

Following a series of investigative reports by the Miami Herald earlier this year, Deutsche Bank followed suit, severing ties with the wealthy financier. Doing so proved difficult for the bank, as its antiquated systems. “On a number of occasions, Deutsche Bank executives had thought they had shut down all of Mr. Epstein’s accounts, only to learn that there were others that they had not previously been aware of,” according to the Times. By late spring, there were still transactions occurring in Epstein’s Deutsche Bank accounts, however company officials now believe they have closed them all down. 

Epstein, who is currently sitting in a Manhattan jail cell pending trial, has been accused of operating a sex-trafficking ring involving dozens of victims – some as young as 14. 

He has a byzantine network of businesses and personal holdings, which include real estate, an island and private planes valued at more than $500 million. –New York Times

Deutsche Bank first flagged Epstein’s accounts in 2015 and 2016, after anti-money laundering compliance officers in the bank’s New York and Jacksonville, FL offices raised a wide spectrum of concerns over the bank’s relationship with the financier. 

The employees were concerned that the bank’s reputation could be harmed if it became public that Mr. Epstein was a client, according to the people familiar with the internal processes.

In addition, the compliance officers on at least one occasion noticed potentially illegal activity in one of Mr. Epstein’s accounts, including transactions in which money was moving outside the United States, the people said. The compliance officers produced a so-called suspicious activity report, but it is unclear whether the report was ever filed with the Treasury Department’s financial-crimes division.

Despite the compliance officers’ misgivings, the bank continued to do extensive business with Mr. Epstein. –New York Times

“We’re still trying to get our arms around it,” said a bank employee.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2ObhxHQ Tyler Durden

U. Florida Prof: ICE Is An “American Nightmare” Aimed At “Institutionalizing Racism”

Authored by Faith Allen via Campus Reform,

A University of Florida professor claimed that ICE is President Donald Trump’s tool to “make America whiter again” in a Friday New York Times op-ed.

Darlena Cunha, an adjunct professor at the University of Florida and freelance journalist, made the remarks while outlining the case of Tracy Neutzi, a Trump voter and Florida resident who had an invalid birth certificate and was unable to obtain a passport, in a piece for The New York Times.

“ICE is not, of course, just a run-of-the-mill government bureaucracy doing necessary work to keep our borders intact,” Cunha argued.

“Under President Trump, a wildly invigorated ICE has become an American nightmare, nothing less than the main thrust of an attempt to institutionalize racism against a scapegoated minority – undocumented, nonvoting, mostly voiceless brown people.”

Furthermore, the professor contended that:

“ICE is Trump’s main instrument for the dirty work of trying to make America whiter again, without regard for family values, due process, human rights, or even plain human decency.”

She described cases in which ICE detained or sought further proof of citizenship from individuals who were, indeed, citizens. She claims the current cases were resolved without deportation, but warns “the people caught up in ICE’s looming roundups won’t have the three months Ms. Nuetzi had.”

The professor explained that the ICE raids are “meant to happen quickly” and that agents will be using dated files. 

“These raids are meant to target those with children, increasing the risk of separating families, as well,” Cunha said. “The raids won’t leave room for the meticulous detail work required for the burden of proof.”

“Deporting people is deplorable in and of itself; deporting people without proof that they are here illegally is obscene.”

She tells NYT readers that “ICE cannot be allowed to function as it is, and it certainly should not be given more power. People will be ousted from the country with no recourse and no due process. And ICE is often wrong.”

“It is disappointing to see a professor from the University of Florida helping The New York Times with such contributions,” UF College Republicans Chair Jared Rossi told Campus Reform.

“This article is typical of the left. It mainly uses baseless attacks on the President and anecdotal evidence to appeal to people’s emotions instead of logic.” 

Campus Reform reached out to both Cuhna and Nuetzi but received no response in time for publication.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Y2p9kz Tyler Durden

Iran Announces Military Will “Secure” Contested Strait Of Hormuz

Hopefully it doesn’t lead to a let’s roll! moment at the White House, where super-hawk national security adviser John Bolton has no doubt been itching for escalation: moments ago Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister announced military forces will “secure” the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran will “not allow disturbance in shipping in this sensitive area” Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was quoted as saying in state media, Reuters reports. However, it’s unclear at this point how far Iran is willing to go in this escalating game of chicken with the US and UK – both of which have warships and other military assets in the gulf region. 

Image source: AP

The announcement comes amidst threats and counter threats ongoing between London and Tehran, with each demanding the release of their tanker. Early this month the Royal Navy seized the Grace 1, carrying 2 million barrels of oil, off Gibraltar; and in turn Iran last Friday captured the British-flagged Stena Impero in the Strait of Hormuz. 

To be sure, this is not the first time Iran has made such a threat: back in April and before that in December Iran warned it would close the global oil chokepoint, when it said that “if someday, the United States decides to block Iran’s oil (exports), no oil will be exported from the Persian Gulf.”

Meanwhile, Iranian vice-president, Eshaq Jahangiri, said that Iran rejects UK-led attempts to establish a “joint European task force” to monitor and patrol the Persian Gulf in order to protect international shipping, countering that it would only bring “insecurity”.

“There is no need to form a coalition because these kinds of coalitions and the presence of foreigners in the region by itself creates insecurity,” he said. And added, “And other than increasing insecurity it will not achieve anything else.”

 

Is Iran now making good on its threats to block global oil shipping out of the vital strait? 

developing…

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30QHoGr Tyler Durden

The Jeffrey Epstein Case Offers a Rare Opportunity to Focus

Perhaps, at long last, a serial rapist and pedophile may be brought to justice, more than a dozen years after he was first charged with crimes that have brutalized countless girls and women. But what won’t change is this: the cesspool of elites, many of them in New York, who allowed Jeffrey Epstein to flourish with impunity. For decades, important, influential, “serious” people attended Epstein’s dinner parties, rode his private jet, and furthered the fiction that he was some kind of genius hedge-fund billionaire. How do we explain why they looked the other way, or flattered Epstein, even as they must have noticed he was often in the company of a young harem? Easy: They got something in exchange from him, whether it was a free ride on that airborne “Lolita Express,” some other form of monetary largesse, entrée into the extravagant celebrity soirées he hosted at his townhouse, or, possibly and harrowingly, a pound or two of female flesh.

– From the New York Magazine article: Who Was Jeffrey Epstein Calling? 

An honest assessment of the current state of American politics and society in general leaves little room for optimism regarding the public’s ability to accurately diagnose, much less tackle, our fundamental issues at a root level. A primary reason for this state of affairs boils down to the ease with which the American public is divided against itself and conquered.

Though there are certain issues pretty much everyone can agree on, we simply aren’t focusing our collective energy on them or creating the mass movements necessary to address them. Things such as systemic bipartisan corruption, the institutionalization of a two-tier justice system in which the wealthy and powerful are above the law, a broken economy that requires both parents to work and still barely make ends meet, and a military-industrial complex consumed with profits and imperial aggression not national defense. These are just a few of the many issues that should easily unite us against an entrenched power structure, but it is not happening. At least not yet.

We currently find ourselves at a unique inflection point in American history. Though I agree with Charles Hugh Smith’s assessment that “Our Ruling Elites Have No Idea How Much We Want to See Them All in Prison Jumpsuits,” we have yet to reach the point where the general public is prepared to do something about it. I think there are several reasons for this, but the primary obstacle relates to how easily the citizenry is divided and conquered. The mass media, largely owned and controlled by billionaires and their corporations, is highly incentivized to keep the public divided against itself on trivial issues, or at best, on real problems that are merely symptoms of bipartisan elitist plunder.

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg https://ift.tt/30ReOol
via IFTTT

Occupational Licensing Stops Workers From Moving Across State Lines. Andrew Yang Wants To Fix That.

Bipartisanship may seem to be going out of style. But at least one issue continues to unite Republicans and Democrats: licensing reform. Democratic presidential candidate and venture capitalist Andrew Yang—who is running on a platform centered around a Universal Basic Income—has just released his plan to chip away at licensing requirements in an attempt to “get America moving again.”

Mobility is an important source of economic dynamism, yet it is hampered in many parts of the country by onerous regulations. According to Garrett Watson, Special Projects Manager at the Tax Foundation, 22.2 percent of Americans moved in 1948. That fell to an all-time low in 2015-2016, when just 11.2 percent packed their bags for greener pastures.

Yang’s plan endeavors to change that by helping lower-income individuals move to areas with better job prospects. Most notably, his proposal seeks to increase state-by-state recognition of occupational licenses, a practice that only three states—Arizona, Montana, and Pennsylvania—have adopted so far.

Licensing requirements often trap workers in the states in which they began their careers. Why? Because those licenses are not recognized out-of-state. If such workers want to relocate to a new state, and stay in the same profession, they will have to start the costly and burdensome licensing process all over again.

More than 33 percent of professions in the U.S. now require a license. “Nationwide, workers whose jobs require a state-issued license lose out on between $178 million and $711 million they could have earned by moving to a different state, according to a 2017 paper by Janna Johnson and Morris Kleiner, a pair of labor economists at the University of Minnesota,” wrote Reason‘s Eric Boehm in April. “Johnson and Kleiner examined 22 professions that are licensed across most states, and they found that workers in those professions were, on average, 36 percent less likely to move across state lines than workers in non-licensed professions.”

Yang also proposes a tax credit—capped at $1,000—for moving expenses. The tax code previously provided for an above-the-line deduction for similar claims, although that provision was eliminated by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

Watson of the Tax Foundation says that Yang’s proposed tax credit for moving expenses may well help energize the economy. But he cautions that it would need to be part of much bigger reforms.

“This would have to be one prong of many that would have to be advance to make a dent in things,” Watson says. “Other items—reducing licensing burdens, reducing zoning laws that drive up the cost of housing—all these other non-tax issues would have to be part of a robust plan to move the needle here.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YdppZc
via IFTTT

Tech Stocks Tumble After DOJ Announces Broad Antitrust Review Of “Big Tech”

Just one week after the tech world’s most visible conservative and entrepreneur to back President Donald Trump, Peter Thiel, slammed “treasonous” Google for agreeing to work closely with China, trying to get its search engine back into the Chinese market, while deciding to let a US defense department contract that gave the military access to its artificial intelligence tools lapse, Thiel’s lament has made its way to the very top, and moments ago the WSJ reported that the DOJ was opening a broad antitrust review into whether dominant technology firms are unlawfully stifling competition, adding a new Washington threat for the FANGs

According to WSJ sources, the review is geared toward examining the practices of online platforms that dominate internet search, social media and retail services; the report notes that the new antitrust inquiry is “the strongest signal yet of Attorney General William Barr’s deep interest in the tech sector, and it could ratchet up the already considerable regulatory pressures facing the top U.S. tech firms.”

To be sure, the review, which is designed to go above and beyond recent plans for scrutinizing the tech sector that were crafted by the department and the Federal Trade Commission, has certainly spooked investors and the US mega tech names have promptly tumbled after hours, dragging the Nasdaq lower.

As the Journal adds, “the two agencies, which share antitrust enforcement authority, in recent months worked out which one of them would take the lead on exploring different issues involving the big-four tech giants. Those turf agreements caused a stir in the tech industry and rattled investors. Now, the new Justice Department review could amplify the risk, because some of those companies could face antitrust claims from both the Justice Department and the FTC.”

As we reported at the time, the FTC in February launched its own task force to monitor competition in the tech sector; that team’s work is ongoing.

Meanwhile, the DOJ will examine issues including how the most dominant tech firms have grown in size and might—and expanded their reach into additional businesses. The Justice Department also is interested in how Big Tech has leveraged the powers that come with having very large networks of users, government sources told the WSJ.

Moments after the WSJ report, the DOJ published a press release confirming, that “the Department of Justice announced today that the Department’s Antitrust Division is reviewing whether and how market-leading online platforms have achieved market power and are engaging in practices that have reduced competition, stifled innovation, or otherwise harmed consumers.”

The Department’s review will consider the widespread concerns that consumers, businesses, and entrepreneurs have expressed about search, social media, and some retail services online. The Department’s Antitrust Division is conferring with and seeking information from the public, including industry participants who have direct insight into  competition in online platforms, as well as others.

“Without the discipline of meaningful market-based competition, digital platforms may act in ways that are not responsive to consumer demands,” said Assistant Attorney General Mahan Delrahim of the Antitrust Division. “The Department’s antitrust review will explore these important issues.”

There a silver lining: according to the WSJ, unlike other government task forces which are, well, “tasked” in advance with a specific goal, there is no defined end-goal yet for the Big Tech review other than to understand whether there are antitrust problems that need addressing, but a broad range of options are on the table, and the “department’s inquiry could eventually lead to more focused investigations of specific company conduct,” officials said.

Meanwhile, in its own press release, the DOJ said that the goal of the Department’s review “is to assess the competitive conditions in the online  marketplace in an objective and fair-minded manner and to ensure Americans have access to free markets in which companies compete on the merits to provide services that users want. If violations of law are identified, the Department will proceed appropriately to seek redress.“

Such as demanding break-ups.

In their defense, the Big Tech companies have said they are highly innovative firms that create jobs and provide products and services that consumers love. They have said they have rightly won their places at the top of the tech pyramid and have to compete fiercely to stay there.

But while the top tech firms were once the darlings of the public, attitudes have shifted as some consumers, and politicians on both the left and the right, have grown uncomfortable with how much power and influence they wield in the economy and society. As the WSJ notes, “some Democratic presidential candidates have called for the breakup of companies like Google and Facebook, while lawmakers of both parties have sounded alarm bells, though at times for different reasons. Some Republicans have voiced concerns about whether tech companies disfavor conservative voices, claims that industry leaders have denied.”

President Trump has escalated his criticisms of Big Tech recently, openly suggesting the U.S. ought to sue Google and Facebook, comments that could hang over the Justice Department’s new efforts.

Aside from Justice Department and FTC scrutiny, a House antitrust subcommittee also is taking a broad look at potential anticompetitive conduct in the tech sector. Executives from Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon all testified before the panel last week. The seeds for the new Justice Department review were planted in January at Barr’s confirmation hearing, when he said that he believed antitrust issues in the tech sector were important.

“I don’t think big is necessarily bad, but I think a lot of people wonder how such huge behemoths that now exist in Silicon Valley have taken shape under the nose of the antitrust enforcers,” Mr. Barr told senators. “You can win that place in the marketplace without violating the antitrust laws, but I want to find out more about that dynamic.”

Justice Department officials said they would use the new antitrust review to seek extensive input and information from industry participants, and eventually from the dominant tech firms themselves. It isn’t yet known whether much of the information-gathering will be done on a voluntary basis or if companies eventually could be compelled by the government to turn over materials.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2OfisHo Tyler Durden

Occupational Licensing Stops Workers From Moving Across State Lines. Andrew Yang Wants To Fix That.

Bipartisanship may seem to be going out of style. But at least one issue continues to unite Republicans and Democrats: licensing reform. Democratic presidential candidate and venture capitalist Andrew Yang—who is running on a platform centered around a Universal Basic Income—has just released his plan to chip away at licensing requirements in an attempt to “get America moving again.”

Mobility is an important source of economic dynamism, yet it is hampered in many parts of the country by onerous regulations. According to Garrett Watson, Special Projects Manager at the Tax Foundation, 22.2 percent of Americans moved in 1948. That fell to an all-time low in 2015-2016, when just 11.2 percent packed their bags for greener pastures.

Yang’s plan endeavors to change that by helping lower-income individuals move to areas with better job prospects. Most notably, his proposal seeks to increase state-by-state recognition of occupational licenses, a practice that only three states—Arizona, Montana, and Pennsylvania—have adopted so far.

Licensing requirements often trap workers in the states in which they began their careers. Why? Because those licenses are not recognized out-of-state. If such workers want to relocate to a new state, and stay in the same profession, they will have to start the costly and burdensome licensing process all over again.

More than 33 percent of professions in the U.S. now require a license. “Nationwide, workers whose jobs require a state-issued license lose out on between $178 million and $711 million they could have earned by moving to a different state, according to a 2017 paper by Janna Johnson and Morris Kleiner, a pair of labor economists at the University of Minnesota,” wrote Reason‘s Eric Boehm in April. “Johnson and Kleiner examined 22 professions that are licensed across most states, and they found that workers in those professions were, on average, 36 percent less likely to move across state lines than workers in non-licensed professions.”

Yang also proposes a tax credit—capped at $1,000—for moving expenses. The tax code previously provided for an above-the-line deduction for similar claims, although that provision was eliminated by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

Watson of the Tax Foundation says that Yang’s proposed tax credit for moving expenses may well help energize the economy. But he cautions that it would need to be part of much bigger reforms.

“This would have to be one prong of many that would have to be advance to make a dent in things,” Watson says. “Other items—reducing licensing burdens, reducing zoning laws that drive up the cost of housing—all these other non-tax issues would have to be part of a robust plan to move the needle here.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YdppZc
via IFTTT

No Woman Should Be Forced to Give a Troll a Brazilian Bikini Wax

Canada’s human rights authorities are currently considering whether the country’s gender equality law requires a Brazilian waxing business that only takes female customers to perform the service on a trans woman who possesses male genitalia.

It’s a bizarre case involving a litigant—Jessica Taniv—with a long history of sordid activities and activism. Notably, the story has yet to pierce the bubble of the U.S. mainstream media. I have seen only conservative and contrarian outlets writing about it. But Taniv certainly deserves scrutiny. Her quixotic campaign to compel unwilling female business owners to provide an intimate service to which they are, for various reasons, resolutely opposed, is a reminder that even benign-sounding laws (equality, non-discrimination, human rights, etc.) are often easily abused by trolls.

According to The Toronto Sun, Yaniv appeared at a British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal hearing last week to press her case against Marcia Da Silva, who had advertised Brazilian waxing services for women on Facebook. Da Silva initially agreed to serve Yaniv, but canceled the appointment after she learned that Yaniv possesses male genitalia. Yaniv calls this discrimination against trans women, and has brought similar complaints against more than a dozen female-only Brazilian waxing businesses.

The business owners have offered a variety of compelling reasons not to accommodate Yaniv. One was a Sikh woman with a religious objection to touching men in an intimate manner. Others, including Da Silva, said they were not trained to perform a Brazilian wax on a person with a scrotum.

This is obviously a dispute that’s ripe for comedy—Ricky Gervais, in sympathy with Da Silva, tweeted sarcastically, “It’s a sad state of affairs when a lady can’t have her hairy balls waxed”—though it’s no laughing matter for the business owners. Their livelihoods are on the line, and they have to shell out money to defend themselves in court. Da Silva actually shuttered her business after the experience with Yaniv.

“This person is the walking, talking, living, breathing embodiment of what people fear when it comes to trans people,” said Blaire White, a trans YouTube star, in a recent video that notes Yaniv has been accused of various predatory actions.

Yaniv got into a nasty Twitter fight with Lindsey Shepherd, a free speech activist known for her informal associations with Jordan Peterson. As a result, Twitter permanently banned Shepherd for mis-gendering Yaniv.

It’s possible that Yaniv very, very sincerely believes she is a woman, and thus has a right to be treated as one in all respects. But it seems more likely that she’s a troll. I’m reminded of Steve Horner, a Minnesota-based activist who routinely sued bars for selling cheaper drinks to female customers as part of “ladies’ night” promotions. Horner charged that this practice violated the state’s Human Rights law, and won more than $6,000 in settlements.

Suffice it to say that Yaniv’s behavior is uncharacteristic of trans people, or even of social justice activists in general. But it’s hard not to draw some parallels to the high-profile dispute surrounding Masterpiece Cake Shop, a bakery in Denver, Colorado, that has faced lawsuits from gay couples who claim the Christian owner’s refusal to cater same-sex weddings violates anti-discrimination law.

“It’s certainly true that most transgender people aren’t trying to force random women to wax their balls, and most of us gay people are content without chasing down Christians and forcing them to bend to our will,” writes The Washington Examiner‘s Brad Polumbo. “So it’s important that we view these cases not as warnings of a pending LGBT apocalypse, but rather as isolated incidents that pose troubling philosophical and moral questions.”

We should also view these sorts of cases as periodic reminders that there are some unreasonably awful people out there, and even well-meaning laws can be dangerous in their hands.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2JSXCYI
via IFTTT