Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Update on Canadian Ball-Waxing Case: Now JY Might Be Named!

62 replies

Vegilante · 06/01/2019 22:55

www.nelsonstar.com/news/human-rights-complaint-lodged-by-transgender-woman-against-surrey-spa-revisited/

I initially had trouble figuring out exactly what this article is saying, but I think I got the gist & it's good news:

Last August, as we all know, a Canadian claiming to be a "transgender woman" identified publicly as only JY filed a human rights complaint against Mint Tanning Lounge, Shelah Poyer and Jeremy Paradis for discrimination because of their refusal to wax "her" scrotum on the grounds that they are trained, equipped & willing to wax female genitals only. But once MTL et al went ahead & hired their own lawyers, JY immediately dropped the complaint against them - while leaving intact the 14 similar complaints JY also made against 14 other waxers, all of them women, who refused to wax JY's lady balls as well.

MTL responded by asking for the case to be re-instated so they can defend themselves against JY & "her" accusations face to face - & now Human Rights Tribunal member Devyn Cousineau has granted that request. So apparently there will be a (public?) hearing of some sort in the JY vs. MTL et al case.

At the same time, Cousineau has decided that allowing JY to retain "her" protected, privileged status as The Person Who Must Not Be Named might not be fair to the defendants in the MTL case or the 14 other women JY has filed human rights complaints against. So the Human Rights Tribunal is now considering allowing JY's name to be made public:

...Cousineau found “simply no evidence” that JY’s complaint (against MTL et al) was frivolous, vexatious, egregious or false. She reasoned, though, that the respondents to JY’s other complaints have an interest in following the progress and outcome of the other similar complaints.

“This cannot happen if (JY’s) name is not associated with the complaints. Depending on my ultimate findings in respect of this complaint, there may — or may not — be a public interest in publishing (JY’s) name.”

Cousineau also noted JY “does not provide any evidence to explain the apparent inconsistencies between the basis on which she sought a publication ban and her public profile on the internet.”

And most of the world knows what JY's public profile on the internet reveals about "her"...

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Melarnee · 11/01/2019 08:50

Of course. I have read the thread and will not utter anything that would close down this discussion. Honestly had got very angry about the stifling of discussion on twitter so literally self sabotaged myself.

CisMyArse · 11/01/2019 06:11

Melarnee Welcome to Mumsnet. I'm not usually a trawler of T&M's but perhaps it's worth you having a read so that you're aware of the current climate. We've had whole threads deleted in the past and this one is just too important to risk.

The Feminist Chat board is a god send.

Melarnee · 10/01/2019 13:29

That sounds reasonable, and I'm a reasonable person :-) as you no doubt know, Twitter is no longer a place for free speech, even if it is just stating a fact. Best behaviour :-)

nauticant · 10/01/2019 13:11

Welcome! Just so you know MN, isn't a place of absolute free speech (I'm not obsessive over it being absolute either) but so long as you go along with the very variable rules, there's much you can discuss here.

Melarnee · 10/01/2019 13:02

New to Mumsnet. Got kicked off Twitter for uttering its name and stating it's sex, which it decides it is on a daily basis. Glad to see that its name may be out in open soon. Amazed the mainstream media haven't really mentioned this, but then it's more like a story you'd read in Chat or That's Life !

nauticant · 10/01/2019 09:30

KF is probably the best source to keep an eye on for further news.

I have reservations about KF (I got a telling off for suggesting that people should inform themselves about the nature of KF), but since these matters are so serious, and are ignored/actively suppressed by the media and the establishment, it's better to have and use KF than not.

PencilsInSpace · 10/01/2019 07:54

This is still up. I don't think they've written anything on their site since.
As far as I know they're only handling Poyer (which has been dropped) plus one other, who may not want any details reported. She wasn't named in the article I linked. KF is probably the best source to keep an eye on for further news.

WTFIsAGleepglorp · 10/01/2019 01:17

JY has been hunting down anyone on Twitter who retweeted an image of him with one of the Twitter founders and complaining to Twitter about breach of copyright.

To appeal against the complaint, one has to effectively dox oneself.

Original poster
Vegilante · 10/01/2019 01:05

Pencils There is no mention of JY or Poyer or anyone else involved with the JY complaints on the JCCF website at present. There's a page listing & explaining the JCCF's current cases, but nada about any waxing cases or JY. When I put the names (full names as well as with initials) of each of the parties involved in the site's internal search bar, zip came up.

Has the JCCF dropped the JY case(s)? Or has the BCHuman Rights Tribunal told them not to publish any info that might seem to be about JY? Or are they just being cautious so JY won't lodge complaints or lawsuits against the JCCF itself? At this point, there's no way to tell.

OP posts:
Datun · 09/01/2019 10:08

That article is nice and clear pencils. It's quite astonishing that this situation has evolved. There seems to be a push from all sides to stick it to these poor bloody women.

Surely it will be resolved in their favour, though. At some point.

Otherwise you can have the ridiculous situation of every bloke in the country doing the same thing.

PencilsInSpace · 09/01/2019 09:54

According to this article, JCCF are representing another of the women as well as Shelah Poyer.

So assuming that case hasn't also been dropped they could still now push for the reporting ban to be lifted. If I was them I'd be pushing for this now as a matter of urgency - with a separate hearing just to decide this if necessary. I'm not a lawyer though and I'm not in Canada so I might be talking out of my hat Grin

AspieAndProud · 08/01/2019 23:55

For example, it is discrimination to fire an employee based on a concern that they are at risk of developing a disability that might affect their abilities.

I'd be fascinated to know what issue prompted this wording.

It would presumably be illegal to discriminate against anyone at risk of developing a disability by refusing to wear safety gear or drinking cleaning products.

Ereshkigal · 08/01/2019 22:20

It's a huge thread. I read it when it was first posted, thought I should catch up and now it's about 120 pages! Catching up gradually!

CarolDanvers · 08/01/2019 20:45

I've read that thread. He's dangerous. He's going to lose control of himself. Canada eh? What a country. Where this can go on and on and the pervert doing it is the victim. Terrifying.

Bowlofbabelfish · 08/01/2019 20:17

The kiwifarms thread is an eye opener...

There’s also another reason to get the case to tribunal. Once it’s part of public record then I think (I may have misunderstood ) then it becomes much harder for JY to use reporting/takedown methods to keep people from reporting.

The KF thread screenshots make it plain that this person has a specific age range and specific setting/scenario for their paraphilia. This is extremely worrying .

I fear it will take an actual offence for action to be taken.

Really, go read the kiwifarms thread. It’s shocking.

Datun · 08/01/2019 01:19

For example, it is discrimination to fire an employee based on a concern that they are at risk of developing a disability that might affect their abilities.

I'd be fascinated to know what issue prompted this wording.

Ereshkigal · 08/01/2019 00:34

I'm coming to the conclusion that the Canadian Human Rights Code was written by Titania McGrath.

Grin

And I was reading earlier how libel laws are weighted in favour of the plaintiff and truth is not always a defence.

Original poster
Vegilante · 08/01/2019 00:30

Many of the other protected personal characteristics in Canada's Human Rights Code are similarly defined in a totally bonkers way:

Physical Disability
Physical disability includes physical conditions that affect or are seen as affecting a person’s abilities.

For example, it is discrimination to fire an employee based on a concern that they are at risk of developing a disability that might affect their abilities.

Physical disability includes conditions that impair a person’s ability to carry out the normal functions of life. It includes addiction, amputation, asthma, acne, diabetes, cancer, epilepsy, high blood pressure, hypertension, obesity and impairments to mobility. It includes people who are Deaf, hard of hearing, or blind. It does not include short-lived conditions such as a cold.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the Canadian Human Rights Code was written by Titania McGrath.

OP posts:
Datun · 08/01/2019 00:02

Sexual orientation includes being heterosexual, gay, lesbian or bisexual.

But they will be singularly unable to define any of those terms.

If sexual harassment is a sex, then a sexual orientation could be a pregnant person being attracted to a sexually harassing person!

What utter guff. No wonder they are tied and gagged.

Original poster
Vegilante · 07/01/2019 17:27

Grinitch Another reason the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal process as you note is wide open to abuse is that it's based on a Human Rights Code that forbids discrimination based on 18 (!) different "personal characteristics" (aka "protected characteristics" or "grounds for discrimination") that are very poorly defined, & are also bound to come into conflict with one another in certain cases.

Four of these characteristics are most relevant here, & the way they're defined, three of them protect against discrimination based on being or claiming to be transgender. There is no protection against discrimination based on sex specifically, because sex has been defined to mean transgender as well:

Gender Expression
Gender expression is how a person presents their gender. This can include behaviour and appearance, including dress, hair, make-up, body language and voice. This can also include name and pronoun, such as he, she or they. How a person presents their gender may not necessarily reflect their gender identity.

Gender Identity
Gender identity is a person’s sense of themselves as male, female, both, in between or neither. It includes people who identify as transgender. Gender identity may be different or the same as the sex a person is assigned at birth.

Sex
Sex includes being a man, woman, inter-sexed or transgender. It also includes pregnancy, breast-feeding and sexual harassment.

Sexual Orientation
Sexual orientation includes being heterosexual, gay, lesbian or bisexual.

I especially love that in Canada pregnancy is now apparently a sex, & as is breastfeeding! Bet JY is already lobbying to get the law expanded so the category "sex" also will include male tampon-inserting, menstrual pad-changing, using vibrators to get "vag" stim when out & about in public, & perving on little girls.

IAMNAL but Jeez Louise most of us could come up with more precise, legally sound definitions in an instant. Starting with clarifying what is meant by "gender" & "transgender", terms that are centered in the HRC's definitions but which are never defined themselves. What a clusterf*ck.

www.bchrt.bc.ca/human-rights-duties/characteristics.htm

OP posts:
GrinitchSpinach · 07/01/2019 17:10

I'm going to drop this link here and on the longer thread about Miranda's JY post:

tol.ca.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=538

Video of meeting of Langley Township Council in which JY boasts of getting Meghan Murphy banned from Twitter and further advocates for her to be prosecuted for "hate crimes" because of her feminist speech. Also wants to install sanpro machines in school bathrooms...

Original poster
Vegilante · 07/01/2019 17:02

SMH. If there were more media coverage of this - & some journalist actually had actually interviewed the tribunal member & asked her to explain what the hell she meant in plain English - maybe it wouldn't be so hard to figure out. Thanks for helping illuminate the muddle.

OP posts:
PencilsInSpace · 07/01/2019 16:30

I think I've worked out the confusion - this is shit reporting.

The article quotes Cousineau as saying:

“This cannot happen if (JY’s) name is not associated with the complaints. Depending on my ultimate findings in respect of this complaint, there may — or may not — be a public interest in publishing (JY’s) name.”

  • which gives the impression the tribunal are now considering making JY's name public. But if you look at the decision document (para 10), it's a quote from Cousineau's letter on June 21 when she first approved the publication ban and before JY withdrew the complaint.
Update on Canadian Ball-Waxing Case: Now JY Might Be Named!
PencilsInSpace · 07/01/2019 16:12

And in the text of the OP I was also careful to say, in bolded typeface, the Human Rights Tribunal is now considering allowing JY's name to be made public.

I don't think they are though.

The respondents applied for the case to be reopened purely to consider an award of costs. They didn't request that the publication ban be lifted so this wasn't considered as part of this decision. It was only discussed here because the respondents had argued they should be awarded costs because JY had 'intentionally misled the Tribunal by claiming that [her] name needed to be anonymized because [she] did not identify in public as female'.

The judge - sorry, the tribunal member Hmm - rejected this claim because she had already deferred a decision on the validity of JY's privacy concerns until after the hearing (which never took place) so she could not at this point make a finding that JY had misled the tribunal.

There's nothing in there that says the tribunal are now considering allowing JY's name to be made public. I think they're just waiting for the next case.

I would be extremely happy to be proved wrong.

DisrespectfulAdultFemale · 07/01/2019 15:47

All in all, an obvious marginalized victim of terrible bigoted women, amirite?

A member of the most marginalised group on earth, oppressed by us women who are bigoted by biology.

(Or some such nonsense.)