Fascinating tweets about JY’s waxing case. Read here. (Thread title edited by MNHQ)

Has anyone got an address for postcards?

This is appalling.

Surely the law we all want is a legal standard which states a woman has the right to refuse to see or touch a naked body of any gender.

Although that still creates a problem with changing rooms, unless we demand non communal changing rooms...

That's a great idea ahumanfemale I really feel for those women and I'm sure an array of cards on the window sill or wherever would be very cheering for them. I shall send one shortly.

dontdoxmeneither assuming the information is correct it's certainly not justice as we know it or expect it to be delivered.

ahumanfemale, it is the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

www.jccf.ca/

Lawyer is Jay Cameron (male).

twitter.com/juriscameron?lang=en

@FannyCann Bloody hell! I'm dumbfounded

Just a bit of background to the human rights tribunals, harvested from the farm. Basically it's a case of presumption of guilt and the onus is on the defendant to prove they are innocent (of discrimination).

Does anybody know the name of the lawyer or legal firm representing? Was it mentioned? I think it would be nice to send postcards (not anything in an envelope because then it's easy to screen for hate mail) of support to be passed on to SG and the two other women appearing at the tribunal.

I would like to think that the women involved are part of networks in their respective (or common) communities and could get around reporting restrictions by "aunties" having tea and the like. However, I'm betting it's more the case that they're silent because they feel this is shameful and the last thing they want is anybody to know or be talking about it.

SO SICK OF THIS SHIT.

It's ludicrous this is in the courts. If it was JY being accused, ideal, but, this?

Absolute madness.

I suspect that this is not an "open & shut case" because JY stands by his assertion that he is a woman. Even though he:

• still has male primary & secondary sexual characteristics
• has a public (and internet) presence under a male name
• doubtful that he has legal gender reassignment status

This is where self-ID gets us. Or more accurately, the assumption that self-ID will become law.

I'm hoping that the Human Rights Tribunal is going to give him enough rope ...

Didn’t matter if the person who comes though the door looks like miss world - if they want their undercarriage waxes there are no secrets.

The member who allowed this to go on should be ashamed. This should have been shut down with the first racist thing out of JY's mouth.

At one point she was going to agree to have SG look at photos and try to decide who is trans

It wasn't until JY brought the member into the scenario that she stopped it, seems like she doesn't like having her intimate business talked about.

Even if Canadian media is scared to report this, it seems like a perfect DM article

I can't think of any other way to phrase this then pondering that there seem to me a number of similarities between JY and comparable prominent figures:

assertion of developmental disorders;
assertion of cognitive disorders;
mobility issues;
assorted *philias;
lack of empathy for vulnerable groups and desire to trump others in oppression stakes;
belief that self is a key figure with celebrity rather than notoriety;
ostensible libertarian views;
IT involvement.

However, maybe it's the lack of numbers of people who are more akin to Stephen Whittle - and this would change with ROGD if those transitions are taken to completion in a young cohort - but some of the above list don't seem to be as widespread.+

+I can write English when I can use pronouns or express my thoughts without multiple edits to them.

Why isnt thus an open and shut case? Religion is a protected characteristic. It's against her religion to touch a penis that isnt her husband's. Done.

It should be even easier than that. I don't want to touch a penis that isn't my husband's. Or indeed I don't want to touch that particular penis. I don't want to do it full stop!

Why isnt thus an open and shut case?

Because a legal standard which states a woman has no right to refuse to see or touch a naked male body is very beneficial to a certain large powerful section of society.

It's that simple.

If ever there was a case where all the targeted people need to come together to put up a united defence this is it.

Yes. IIRC Cosby only eventually got convicted because of corroborating testimony from more than one of the women he abused. If there are a number of people who have the same experience (including similar details) the weight of evidence changes the equation in 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. When it went to court previously and only one woman was allowed to speak, they didn't convict.

This seems to be a clear case of a vexatious litigant - SURELY in this sort of case there should be a way of the abused women mounting a class action against the state (and JY?) for allowing continued abuse via the courts. JY doesn't even listen to the Member who is constantly telling JY not to do things and JY never listens and just does it again. Surely by now JY should be in contempt of court.

The courts are just allowing this horrible predator to use them to continue to abuse.

Why isnt thus an open and shut case? Religion is a protected characteristic. It's against her religion to touch a penis that isnt her husband's. Done.

Lang I don't think I'd fully grasped that until now - that you can refuse service for any reason as long as it's not discriminating against a protected characteristic. Is this what the Christian bakers/ gay cake thing was about? (Sorry to say I did not keep up with the ins and outs of that). It must be very hard to prove someone's reasons for doing/not doing something if they insist the reasons are not to do with protected characteristics? How many people post 'is this a red flag' on here; most of those might seem minor on their own but we know the potential danger they could lead to? (Bit of a tangent, sorry...)

Just checking back in as this thread has dropped off my active list.

That would be case to go down in the anals of fame!

Watching this with complete bemusement...

Can you imagine a person with male genitalia presenting at A&E because the string had come off their tampon and they were unable to retrieve it. Said tampon had been pumped full of tomato paste/red dye and inserted into the anus to imitate menstruation. It was inserted into the anus as there was no vagina, functioning or imitation.

How could any medic keep a straight face? That would be case to go down in the anals of fame!

As for JY - well they are disturbed and yes, loving all the attention. A case where you could easily use the definition 'narcissist'. I hope this case doesn't start a worrying precedent.
If a beautician is has no training in the 'back, sack & crack' wax then they should not perform it. Common sense.

Also, as I mentioned before, but I still can't understand why a single person, lone operative shouldn't have the right to pick and choose clients as they please. I genuinely thought they did, and I think, in the UK at least, most of them think they do.

You can. With limits. The limits being refusing clients with a protected characteristic on the basis of that protected characteristic.

Protected characteristics sometimes conflict. That is why there are legislative exemptions - in the UK, the sex exemptions that limit the rights of GRC holders, for example - and why some cases go to court so that the legal system can balance those conflicts.

I think that if after informing JY that I wasn't trained to preform intimate male waxing, JY continued to push for me to do so I would have complied.

I would have tried my hardest to provide a service that would have remove his male bits. Problem solved.

Also, as I mentioned before, but I still can't understand why a single person, lone operative shouldn't have the right to pick and choose clients as they please. I genuinely thought they did, and I think, in the UK at least, most of them think they do.

This case has massive implications for any person, who most likely will be someone who isn't a big earner, trying to make a modest living from a small business. If they refuse business for any reason and piss off someone of a vexatious nature they could potentially find themselves on the sharp end of a case like this. Especially, obviously, in Canada where it seems these human rights tribunals are accessible to anyone who can represent themselves, at no cost to themselves, whilst having the opportunity to bully the poor person on the receiving end.

In particular someone like SG who goes to a person's home. We all know that one has to be careful about meeting people you make contact with on the Internet. "I had a bad feeling about this (potential) client" should be the only reason you need!

My comment is about the YouTube link at the bottom of the previous page on this thread.