Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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:
PencilsInSpace · 07/01/2019 01:34

As I understand it, MTL wanted to reopen the case in order to settle costs. The judge agreed and then did not award costs. I don't think there'll be a hearing on this specific case.

However, judgments made on this case will affect all of the other cases. JY needs to be publicly nameable as soon as possible so all those other women can end this shit.

I couldn't see any new info in the article though, this is all stuff that came out over Christmas.

CarolDanvers · 07/01/2019 01:24

I'm speechless at that photo. WTAF?!

CisMyArse · 07/01/2019 00:55

*they, not he.

Not respecting pronouns - just don't want to be deleted

< rolls eyes>

CisMyArse · 07/01/2019 00:53

FFS this utter gob-shite knows what he's doing - posting a seemingly innocuous question but with a dildo placed strategically in the shot.

Where is that screen shot from?

MilesAwayGirl · 07/01/2019 00:12

I don't often post, but... this

AngryAttackKittens · 07/01/2019 00:01

The commission certainly are being petulant about the notion that anyone might find their handling of the case inappropriate, aren't they? There's a "how dare you question us" tone to it.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 06/01/2019 23:51

Maybe all waxers will be compelled to do training in waxing lady balls before they can offer services at all?

Vegilante · 06/01/2019 23:32

Seems to me JY's complaints are the textbook definition of frivolous, vexatious, egregious & false.

Agreed. I wonder if the official who said that is just thick, or the whole Human Rights Tribunal is feeling defensive about not immediately rejecting all JY's complaints as frivolous in the first place.

OP posts:
AncientLights · 06/01/2019 23:18

Seems to me JY's complaints are the textbook definition of frivolous, vexatious, egregious & false.

Ereshkigal · 06/01/2019 23:06

...Cousineau found “simply no evidence” that JY’s complaint (against MTL et al) was frivolous, vexatious, egregious or false.

Really? Hmm

Cwenthryth · 06/01/2019 23:06

What a waste of everyone’s time and money to keep pretending that the whole world and her wife don’t already know exactly who JY is, and all about JY’s niche interests and habits. It isn’t exactly a well kept secret is it.

Spero · 06/01/2019 23:01

Really interesting, thanks for that. Will be keen to see how this develops.

Swipe left for the next trending thread