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?

It's an objection to the possibility that the laws and culture of TWAW will change to keep people like Yaniv out. That can't happen

But this is just the point - why shouldn't it happen? I get what you said about validation, but I simply can't fit my head around the price that's being paid by women and innocent children

I'd have thought ANY decent human being would be screaming blue murder about infiltration by perverts, no matter what their sex, gender or anything else, but apparently not. Instead we seem to have reached a point where anything - anything at all, no matter how base or depraved - has to be tolerated, just as long as penis owners aren't offended in the slightest way

And it sickens me

I have somehow managed to read this thread in one sitting. Two questions:

One—Someone early on posted that a now ex-employee doxxed some posters in the Feminist Chat forum—wtf? I’ve lurked there regularly for years but knew nothing about this.

Two—people keep referring to Stonewall’s definition of trans, which gets wider by the minute. Why is this important? Stonewall isn’t the law. Is there a legal definition of transgender in the existing GRA?

Okay, that was more than two questions.

Stonewall are advising various organisations and lobbying government - I think that is why their definition (and our difficulties with it) is so important.

I can't give any details about 1 but I'll have a gp at 2, hoping someone better informed will be along soon.

Two—people keep referring to Stonewall’s definition of trans, which gets wider by the minute. Why is this important? Stonewall isn’t the law. Is there a legal definition of transgender in the existing GRA?

Oddly enough I don't think there is a legal definition of "trans_ or "gender identity" in the GRA. The GRA sets out the process by which someone can legally change their sex (though not without some caveats). It focuses more on the demands the Act makes of someone seeking a GRC rather than definitions.

An important oversight which I think may have been deliberate.

Stonewall is very important because of how influential it has become. Everyone wants Stonewall's training and this teaches the huge trans umbrella which has become mainstream. From the NHS to primary schools to multinationals, Stonewall is there. They and Mermaids have got it all sewn up.

Someone early on posted that a now ex-employee doxxed some posters in the Feminist Chat forum—wtf? I’ve lurked there regularly for years but knew nothing about this.

April 2018 - Mumsnet intern Emma Healey (not to be confused with the author of the same name):

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3225517-The-MNHQ-Moderation-team

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3226724-Mumsnet-Data-Breach-Q-A

www.mumsnet.com/info/mumsnet-data-qa

people keep referring to Stonewall’s definition of trans, which gets wider by the minute. Why is this important? Stonewall isn’t the law.

They're the biggest LGBTQWERTY organisation in the UK with a turnover of around £8M. Since we got equal marriage they've not had much to do except for campaigning for 'trans rights'. They're not the law but they have MAJOR influence over policy in all sorts of organisations from government departments to primary schools. They are listened to and feted by politicians who want to change the law.

Their motto is #AcceptanceWithoutException. They cannot therefore disown Jessica Yaniv, or Karen White, or Jess Bradley or anyone else who says the magic words.

If TWAW then Jessica Yaniv is a woman because she says she is.

Any other criteria you come up with will be deemed transphobic.

A previous poster was right, Yaniv is not a bug, she is a feature.

Is there a legal definition of transgender in the existing GRA?

Not as such. You can apply for a GRC if you are 'living in the other gender' (yes that is sexist AF) and if you have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The proposed changes are to get rid of the need for a diagnosis so the whole thing is based on 'living in the other gender'.

At the moment you have to show evidence you've been doing this for 2 years. The evidence required is 5-6 documents in your new name and gender, spanning the 2 year period - e.g. passport, drivers licence, but also benefit letters, bank statements, gas bills. TRAs want to get rid of this evidence requirement too - you'd just sign a form witnessed by a notary (£50 flat rate paid to the dodgy solicitors upstairs from your local chicken shop) to say you intend to continue 'living in the other gender' - whatever the fuck that means.

Yaniv would totally be eligible for a GRC under the proposed law changes. Yaniv would not be exploiting a loophole, Yaniv would be using the law exactly as intended.

It's very important that the requirement for a diagnosis in the GRA is retained because to give a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, or 'gender incongruence' as it is now called in the ICD, the psychiatrist first has to rule out 'Paraphilic disorders (6D30-6D3Z)'

icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f411470068

So nobody who has:

6D30 Exhibitionistic disorder
6D31 Voyeuristic disorder
6D32 Pedophilic disorder

6D33 Coercive sexual sadism disorder

6D34 Frotteuristic disorder

6D35 Other paraphilic disorder involving non-consenting individuals

6D36 Paraphilic disorder involving solitary behaviour or consenting individuals

6D3Z Paraphilic disorders, unspecified

... should be able to get a diagnosis of gender incongruence, and hence a GRC, and hence a birth certificate that says female, and hence access to all areas, jobs, opportunities and activities intended for women and girls only.

So Yaniv would be screened out under the current law (if the psychiatrist was doing their job properly, which is a big 'if' in this specialism) but not under the proposed new law.

This would not be exploitation of a loophole, this would be using the law as it is intended.

The GRA was pretty much obsolete. Very few people were bothered with it because we now have equal marriage and equal pension age and strong data protection laws. Those were the original reasons for the GRA in 2004.

The proposed reforms are not a simple administrative change they are a wholesale repurposing of an obsolete law to benefit a whole new group (paraphilic men) at the expense of women and children's rights, safety and wellbeing.

We said this would happen and we were called shitty names for pointing it out. Some of us lost our jobs, some of us lost our friends, some of us were doxxed and put in danger, some of us were pursued through the courts (civil and criminal), some of us faced threats and intimidation, some of us were physically attacked. And all that shit continues.

Shame on anyone still plugging TWAW or still calling us T*s or bigots. Shame on anyone still pretending Yaniv is an anomaly exploiting a loophole. The TRA agenda is designed to promote the rights of trans ladies like Yaniv. You can't feign ignorance any more.

@PencilsInSpace

I did not know that - the conditions under which gender dysphoria can be diagnosed.

No bloody wonder that want that dispensed with!!

Does AGP come under those paraphilias? The last one, or possibly 6D35?

I knew AGPs were historically denied a GRC, but I hadn't realised it was quite so emphatically laid out.

How would they determine whether someone had a paraphilia? I mean, people can lie, right?

Thanks for that, Pencils. I have a truly abysmal memory. I knew all that but could I remember it? No.

Helen Joyce's latest article on this:

quillette.com/2019/07/25/a-canadian-human-rights-spectacle-exposes-the-risks-of-unfettered-gender-self-id/

"The central point of gender self-ID is that you are taking someone to be a woman or a man solely on the basis of what they claim—so you cannot then exclude a particular trans person after the fact. If you say that Yaniv is not “really” trans, then logically you must reject gender self-ID and accept that being a trans person involves some conditions beyond mere self-declaration—a position which, in the current climate, is apt to get you smeared as a transphobe."

Does AGP come under those paraphilias?

If they keep it to their own bedroom or special clubs and don't involve anyone non-consenting, AGP could come under -

6D36 Paraphilic disorder involving solitary behaviour or consenting individuals
But they would only get that diagnosis if they were 'markedly distressed by the nature of the arousal pattern'.

So a man who was perfectly happy about his habit of secretly wanking in women's underwear (as long as he bought it himself), or wearing a rubber woman suit in a club with consenting others, would not be diagnosed with 6D36 and so would not be excluded from a diagnosis of gender incongruence.

AGP generally requires validation from others though and as soon as they involve their wife, insert themselves into women's spaces or otherwise impose themselves on non-consenting women (or men) it would come under -

6D35 Other paraphilic disorder involving non-consenting individuals

Paraphilias tend to come in clusters so there's usually at least a bit of voyeurism and/or exhibitionism going on as well, if not something much worse. I think we've seen the whole range from various individuals haven't we?

How would they determine whether someone had a paraphilia? I mean, people can lie, right?

Well yeah, that's the problem with psychiatry all over. You hear TRAs bragging about this now - 'we already have self ID, we just self ID to the psychiatrist'.

Still, it's better than nothing and probably puts off a lot of chancers. Also, many men with paraphilias are clearly not capable of hiding it, so at least some get weeded out.

Thanks pencils.

Does anyone know when the Canadian courts are likely to rule on this case?

I have a couple of Canadian friends who, despite following the news and living in Canada, knew nothing about this.

Hot hoc

Today is the final summing up of the 3 cases of JY vs women / salons, there'll be no respondents there.

JY and the waxers lawyer then have to EOB Aug 27, 2019 to written closing arguments.

JY then can submit a short reply by Sept 6th, 2019.

After that the member (judge) will make her finding. Could be months, but I think there'll be some pressure here as it's all over the media.

It's a long read but this thread might help..

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3644495-fascinating-tweets-about-jy-s-waxing-case-read-here-cont-thread-2?

Or this twitter unroll of all 3 cases

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1152403630974046208.html

@GirlDownUnder

Thank you for the updates on the case!

That Helen Joyce article is excellent.

You're welcome HotChoc hope it helps

I'd wax 'her' balls and make sure to Rio the skin too..

I'm sure there was something like this bought up a fee years ago, it was because they wasnt qualified or insured to wax Male genitals, only female.

A dentist cant take out a kidney.

There’s an artical on this in the Daily Fail this morning (not going to include link) and Ricky Gervais has also commented on twitter.

Article not artical.

Regarding the cake case from Northern Ireland (Ashers Bakery) and its relevance here:

The bakers won because the Supreme Court held there was no discrimination. The bakery would have refused to provide a cake with that slogan to anyone, not only gay people. So, they were treating them just the same.

It's that, rather than the free speech stuff that is really relevant here (unless, I suppose, the customer wanted a specific message waxed into their pubes).

Applied here, the logic would be that the beauticians weren't discriminating because they did not wax balls, regardless of whether the owner of said balls was* male, female of other.

The Ashers case will have been cited in this Canadian case as UK Supreme Court cases are considered important across the common law world.

*Self-Identified as.

Interesting interview with one of the solicitors involved in this case:

HotChoc thanks for that come check out FWR - JY has gone supernova and made death threats which have been reported to the RCMP!

There's a couple of threads, but the newest is just about the death threats.

@GirlDownUnder WOW I've just read through that thread - madness!

Will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.