Waxing developments

If I were a sole trader, offering services out of my home or visiting someone's house - suppose fixing computer glitches, or maybe helping with something less personal than waxing - then I would not want JY in my house, or to go to hers, because she is big and scary and unstable and I wouldn't feel safe. I would absolutely refuse to have her in my home or go to hers, and I would feel that it is my right to choose with whom I treat.

Is that legal?

In the UK, as long as it's because they are behaving strangely/dishonesty and you would do the same whether or not they were trans, you'd be fine.

in the UK don't w have something called 'the right to treat'? If a seller decides that they don't want to sell a thing to a particular person they are able to refuse the sale - I think the item has to be removed from sale completely at that time but can be put back on sale later. Obviously, can't be quite that simple.

"Offer to treat" specifically refers to the fact that the advertisement is not an agreement to a contract. So let's say you advertise waxing services for a particular price, somebody contacts you to say they want to be waxed for that price, there is no contract until you (the waxer) accept that request for waxing.

So you can say no but the difficulty becomes when you are saying no to someone because of a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. Eg if I ran a shop and when black people came to the till I refused to sell the items to them, I wouldn't have a contract law problem (because the prices displayed in the shop are only offers to treat) but I would have an Equality Act problem. Does that makes sense?

A judgement has been made that MTF trans can be treated differently.

Which is why you won't see the Guardian or Pinknews covering this.

Has there been any news coverage of this in the mainstream media given what an important story it is? A MTF trans was claiming it was a human right to pay women to handle their male genitalia, and that women should be punished if they refused. Yet it looks like only the outlying right wing press is covering it. A judgement has been made that MTF trans can be treated differently. This is significant.

I hope there are laws which cover offering services as a sole trader which protect the person in the event they don't feel safe treating with a potential customer too.

I have colleagues who work out of their home like this. Most don't advertise and only take clients who are either people already known to them, or who are family or friends of people known to them.
Several have horror stories of times they worked in clinics where a male client behaved inappropriately and for that reason many don't take male clients at all, or only male clients they know very well. However they keep nothing on paper about such a policy, they're not advertising, so no one is ringing in cold and there's no issue about needing to turn down clients and justify their reasons.

These are also older, confident women well experienced in the system, not financially in need of every possible client booking, and speaking English as their first language. They're able to be in a much more secure situation than Yaniv's defendants were.

I am loving this today. It's absolutely brilliant news. I also read that the women had free legal representation which is something I wasn't aware of.

One Twitter writer did say though that the fact that JV displayed racism would have helped to push this through against him. Hopefully even without that we'd have had the same outcome..?

Here we go. Not before time.

www.jccf.ca/aestheticians-justified-in-refusing-to-handle-male-genitals-against-their-will-bc-human-rights-tribunal/

A member of the Farms has just called JY an “unwaxed and offending member” - I really hope the pun at the end was intended.

If I were a sole trader, offering services out of my home or visiting someone's house - suppose fixing computer glitches, or maybe helping with something less personal than waxing - then I would not want JY in my house, or to go to hers, because she is big and scary and unstable and I wouldn't feel safe. I would absolutely refuse to have her in my home or go to hers, and I would feel that it is my right to choose with whom I treat.

Is that legal?

I wonder, Inebriati. It may be different in Canada, but in the UK don't w have something called 'the right to treat'? If a seller decides that they don't want to sell a thing to a particular person they are able to refuse the sale - I think the item has to be removed from sale completely at that time but can be put back on sale later. Obviously, can't be quite that simple.

I hope there are laws which cover offering services as a sole trader which protect the person in the event they don't feel safe treating with a potential customer too.

Yes, Yaniv only lost those claims about the leg-waxing because the judge ruled Yaniv was making the complaints in bad faith. A complainant regarded as sincere would be allowed to force their way into a woman's home, with her children around.

The women shut their business down because they could see the writing on the wall.

They could not refuse to allow a trans woman in to their home, and could not refuse to wax their arm or leg.

Oh phew!

Thanks for the clarification.

They won because they didn't wax male genitalia and weren't trained to do so. A white non religious woman who only waxed female genitalia would have won too.

*will add that the judgement states about cases not being made in good faith and I'm quoting that, not giving a personal opinion HQ.

Reading the judgement, there were a few things the judge looked at that are interesting to this debate and it was more than just the religious aspect:

• Yaniv's inappropriate behaviour was taken as a justified reason in at least one case for the woman saying no, nothing else needed.
• A clear distinction is made as to whether this was a service provided to others with the same body, and the judge is sympathetic to the reality of this being upsetting to Yaniv but clear that these women did not wax scrotums for anyone, therefore it was not discrimination to say no to Yaniv's scrotum. The refusal wasn't based on Yaniv being transgender while other people with scrotums were welcomed. (And yes, this is a helpful distinction that reality and biology continues to exist and in some circumstances have to be regarded.)
• The judge makes mention of the women perceiving Yaniv as male bodied while mentioning too that they were respectful of Yaniv's gender. Sex and gender are not seen as the exact same thing in all situations, and the women's circumstances in making that perception are taken into account.

Yaniv's approach has allowed the judge to slide over some potentially very tricky bits, where had it been one or two cases made in good faith the nitty gritty would have really had to be dug down into, which is a shame in a way as the legal precedents are really needed.

Canadian law stats that trans women are women. Women have no legal status or protection under Canadian law; they only 'won' because of their religion, which prohibits them from touching male genitalia.

Oh fuck - that is not so good.

So without the religious part, Yaniv could have won. A white non-religious woman would have lost.

www.jccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/222_Yaniv_v_Various_Waxing_Salons_No_2_2019_BCHRT_222.pdf?mc_cid=db660e2e1f&mc_eid=825184ea53

[199] Suggests $6000 costs, so that along with the $2000 for the three women mean a total of $12000 that Yaniv has to pay out? Did Yaniv also have to pay their own legal costs in this or was Yaniv self represented?

They cant go to a human rights tribunal as they have no protection based on their sex.

Canadian law stats that trans women are women. Women have no legal status or protection under Canadian law; they only 'won' because of their religion, which prohibits them from touching male genitalia.

This mixed up situation is the end result of self ID.

The judge refers several times critically to the response Yaniv has elicited from social media and attributes only some of it to Yaniv's own behaviour. But does mention that Yaniv's behaviour has a part to play in it. The most interesting things from my POV:

Mentions that boil down to biological sex being a fact and existing separately from a person's chosen gender, and recognising that there are times and situations in which this sex is of importance and has to be recognised.

Mentions that while it may be distressing to a person when encountering language or responses to their biological sex as opposed to their chosen gender identity, others may perceive them as their biological sex and this is valid.

Recognition of one protected characteristic not being of greater importance than another, and that individual people's personal circumstances are relevant to their responses in some circumstances, when asked to respond to someone's gender identity rather than the biological sex the person recognises them as.

The judge notes

Ms Yaniv's animus toward certain racial, religious and cultural groups

but compeltely fails to note Yaniv's animus towards women.

I hope these women take Yaniv to a Human Rights Tribunal themselves, based on their sex.

So many of these women apologised to Yaniv for keeping themselves safe from Yaniv. It's heartbreaking.

"A grocer is not required to service a bicycle"

I feel there's a message in there for a certain world champion cheating cyclist.

Yaniv refused to confirm whether or not Yaniv had a penis and scrotum, The defense counsel asked that Yaniv submit to a medical examination but the judge refused to allow it, calling it "disproportionate' aka getting to the truth of the matter.

Yes, I wondered about this too - wouldn't it have cut to the chase, so to speak, if they'd just done the examination?

Those poor women. It's good that sanity prevailed in the end, but what a horrible experience JY put them through.