To think no woman should be forced to wax male genitalia

[Campervan69]

www.thepostmillennial.com/another-b-c-woman-forced-out-of-business-in-transgender-male-genitalia-waxing-case/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

This is where self id has got Canada to.

A male identifying as a woman is suing 16 mainly immigrant women who work from home as beauticians because they only provide brazilian waxing services for females.

Many others have settled out of court for a quiet life.

AIBU to think that no-one working from home in a vulnerable situation as these women are should be forced to wax the genitals of anyone they don't feel comfortable waxing?

If you are frisked/searched at the airport or by police it is always done by the same sex officer. This is the same thing and should be considered as such. There is no discrimination by not providing men with the same service as women them suing for this reason is absurd

a transwoman who wanted an intimate wax (and who wasn't a horrible human being) would just approach a salon where the service is available.

If nobody was a horrible human being we wouldn't need any laws.

If you are trying to argue that Yaniv cannot be a tw because Yaniv is a scumbag then what definition of tw are you using?

This must be so fucking awful for all the women defendants. It's tempting to think it would be best if the whole lot of cases were thrown out for being vexatious bullshit.

Having come this far I hope the cases are seen through to a clear ruling that a female aesthetician who advertises women only services is not ever obliged to touch a penis or a scrotum, no matter how nice the tw who owns them.

Genuine question.....

What if a transwoman has an operation to remove their penis? Do you require additional/different training for waxing them then? Are they deemed (legally and medically) to have a "vulva"?

@starzig
What about female doctors? Should they be allowed to refuse to examine a man's testes.

Yes, if they are a gynaecologist offering a woman only service.

No, if they are a urologist.

They would also be chaperoned during a procedure for both their protection and the patient's safety.

I think people are missing the genuine occupational qualification when it comes to the equality act. This means that if it is reasonable then you can discriminate against someone with a protected characteristic.

If I refuse to bake a cake for someone who is male/ female/ trans then I am wrong.

If I am employing a carer or someone to work in my own home I have the right to refuse if I can provide good cause. Only wanting a woman to be my carer is fine.

Refusing to touch a penis and testicles, when you don't offer that service to a biological man is not wrong.

@NeonLights I am not an expert on surgically created vulvas but would wonder if they would have scar tissue etc which would make them more fragile and prone to damage?

Should the female beautician be forced to wax a transgender woman's vulva when they offer this service to biological women? I don't know.

@Gingerkittycat

That’s exactly what I’m wondering.... my (admittedly lacking) understanding is that it would not be the same due to scar tissue/surgery. I imagine this issue will arise in Canada in the not too distant future....

The other issue that makes me see red here is that so many women have appealed to sex discrimination or human rights or equal opportunity boards over issues as diverse as sexual harassment, men's predatory behaviour, being grossly underpaid, etc. or sacked while they are pregnant and so many women and their claims have been mimimised or dismissed. But this manifest bully gets air time ...

What if a TW sets up as a beautician, advertising intimate waxes, and then a woman client arrives, realises that it is actually going to be a MAN waxing her genitals, and refuses the service because she doesn't want a TW (male person) touching her so intimately.

Would that TW have the right to sue the client for discrimination?

This is the natural consequence of Self ID. This is where saying women must be “kind” ends- in over-riding women’s rights to set their own boundaries, whether that relates to toilets or beauty therapy or domestic violence shelters or prisons or book groups. This is why we’ve been boring on about it for the past couple of years, and why we haven’t backed down and played nice. This is where it ends. With a creepy, aggressive man being given the LEGAL RIGHT to force women to touch him when they don’t want to. Opposing Self ID isn’t about being mean to the most oppressed people on the planet. It’s about protecting all of us, and all of put daughters, from this kind of shit. This should matter to all of us.

As there seems to be an opinion amongst a few people, that this does not have to be a natural consequence of self ID (or any mechanism by which you can change sex), I've been trying to get my head around how you could preserve the transwomen are women concept, but exclude certain 'women' from your services On the basis of their genitals.

And I don't see one.

JY has argued that they are intersex, and have both sets of genitals. Right up to the point they get undressed, it appears no one can actually disprove that.

And even if you separated the categories into women with penises and women with vulvas? Firstly, that's insane. But secondly, it's outing, right?

It has to come down to the fact that transwomen are men. Otherwise, how do you find in favour of these women, based on the fact they don't want to touch male genitals.

It will be an incredible fudge if they decide to find in favour of the women because they lived out of area, or aren't qualified. Does a woman have to keep proving that she doesn't have the qualification, to stop herself from being intimidated by a predator?

What if a TW sets up as a beautician, advertising intimate waxes, and then a woman client arrives, realises that it is actually going to be a MAN waxing her genitals, and refuses the service because she doesn't want a TW (male person) touching her so intimately. Would that TW have the right to sue the client for discrimination?

No, not under UK law. The client is neither a service provider nor a person exercising a public function.

I think the crux of this is how they advertise themselves. Personally I believe that nobody should be allowed to do a job if they aren’t capable of fully doing that job.

In the same way that I don’t believe Dr’s should be allowed to refuse to perform abortions...etc I don’t believe beauticians should be allowed to turn away male clients.

That being said, barber shops advertise as male only and I don’t think that’s discriminatory. So if these women advertise as a female only beauticians - fine nothing wrong with that.

If they don’t make it clear though then it’s not really fair, I imagine being transgender can start to feel like a lot of doors being slammed in your face!

If they don’t make it clear though then it’s not really fair, I imagine being transgender can start to feel like a lot of doors being slammed in your face!

Eh? JY went through umpteen women, who agreed they would wax male genitals, and JY hung up and went onto the next person. The picture on JY's profile is of a pregnant woman. As soon as JY found someone who wouldn't do it, when they found out JY was not a pregnant woman, JY threatened to sue.

It's got nothing to do with women's discrimination against JY. And everything to do with JY using a loophole in the law to target women.

JY could have gone to other waxing places, but picked on those women who were rightfully not willing to wax him, he is a bloody bully and a pervert, and there will be hell to pay in Canada if he wins.

A person can be both trans and a scumbag. I am not saying that JY is not a transwoman just because JY is a scumbag - but the issue is that JY is a scumbag rather than that JY is a transwoman, because a nice transwoman would not be launching this type of vexatious legal action.

And our hypothetical transwoman with post-surgery genitalia would, again, be more likely to seek out a beautician who is willing and able to provide the relevant service rather than try to force someone unwilling to do it. Because there are beauticians and salons who are perfectly happy to take trans clients.

As for that silly example of a client finding that the beautician was trans and running away in horror - again, a client can choose not to deal with a service provider, particularly when it's an 'intimate' service, for any reason. If you go for a fannywax and the salon is dirty, or the beautician seems lazy, hostile or drunk or whatever, you are breaking no laws by saying you have changed your mind and leaving. Even if your actual reason is that the beautician is a member of a different ethnic group/religion or other protected characteristic.

The issue is that JY is a scumbag and a transwoman. Both of those things were required for this situation to arise.

Clearly he isn't doing this just because he's trans. Being trans doesn't make you a piece of shit. But because he is trans, he is able to use self ID laws to be abusive. If he weren't trans, he would use whatever other tools were at his disposal, some of which would be less effective at enabling predators than self ID laws are.

but the issue is that JY is a scumbag rather than that JY is a transwoman, because a nice transwoman would not be launching this type of vexatious legal action.

No, the issue is that if you agree that transwomen are women, then JY has every right to take these women to a tribunal for not facilitating a female wax.

It's not because he himself is bad, but that the ideology is bad and the law based around this ideology is bad.

No one would be speculating about what kind of woman has a penis, or whether a penis constitutes part of being a woman, if it weren't for the trans ideology.

If they don’t make it clear though then it’s not really fair, I imagine being transgender can start to feel like a lot of doors being slammed in your face!

How do they make it clear ?

You can't just say women, woman, or female as TWAW, and have always been women, woman, or female

You can't say cis women because that's discrimination

You can't advertise that you only wax sacks or vulvas because reasons

You can't say only cis women and transmen, but only transmen who've not had bottom surgery cos transphobic and discrimination and anyway some TWA cis W, because they have always been women, woman, or female and now their sexed body and gender ID match

I'm sure there are lots more.

But also they'll always colonise any words we pick.

And there'll always be a BCHRT to rinse you on their behalf

And if you're in for eg the UK and English is your second language, good luck working that lot out.

Lastly, most of the population outside of some limited boards eg MN have not a Scooby any of this is happening or what the law or terminology even means.

So yeah, let's make it clear

So yeah, let's make it clear hmm

🤣

Well, precisely. The whole point of the trans ideology is to make it as unclear as possible.

Transwomen are women, but they can't define women, and anyway it's only their gender, except they want all the rights based on sex.

I mean, when you are talking about the penis as a female organ, it couldn't get more bloody unclear.

As for that silly example of a client finding that the beautician was trans and running away in horror

I'm sorry you thought my query was "silly" Reanimated. it was genuine question. The laws as they apply to trans people seem infinitely flexible in favour of the trans individual - almost invariably a self-ID trans woman.

I do not doubt that there are trans women who are respectful of women and just want to live quiet lives as their preferred gender, but the ones who get the publicity are vile pieces of crap who are pushing the boundaries further and further for their own perverted reasons - they are making the world an increasingly dangerous place for vulnerable women and girls. Self-ID is too open to abuse by misogynistic men who see it as an opportunity to invade women's safe spaces.

Oh - and I didn't say "running away in horror" - you'll have the client clutching her pearls next - I said refuse the service.

It is just to be hoped that JY loses the case and is also barred from bringing new ones. There seems to me to be enough evidence that JY is a shit-stirrer and a predatory creep rather than a victim of discrimination.

I agree with that Reanimated

there will be hell to pay in Canada if he wins.

I very much doubt it as there seems to be an embargo on any news reporting of "unfortunate" self id cases in Canada. You have a case where supposedly the most liberal country in the world is the most draconian if the news is deemed to be "wrong".