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?

Toads!

I had a phone call in the middle of that... bloody post moved on without me!

Sorry, I kow... looks like I couldn't be arsed etc...

surely the waxer simply had to say "I dont have the diploma that allows me to do this, but I can recommend XYZ salon/I'll ring round industry collegues for you" and all this could be avoided.

This point was made in the hearing as it is what several of the therapists offered. However, JY argued that the places that do this tend to be in the city and more expensive and JY should be entitled to use cheaper, home-based, sole trader services rather than incur extra salon and travel costs.

YABU: 2%
YANBU: 98%
Total votes: 606

So that's 12 people who think JY was entirely reasonable in their request.

I wonder what the correlation is between voters who have established posting histories and those ghost accounts (or brand new sign ups). We all know the "shut them up!" klaxon goes off whenever women start getting uppity.

If the U-ers are genuinely all "known" MNers, then please do come and tell the group why you think they way you do. Have the courage of your convictions FFS!

I think those that voted YABU because they think JY should have had his non existent vulva waxed just didn't understand the problem. It's impossible right?

I had the misfortune of doing this as one of my first jobs in a different country and time. Waxing a male is different to waxing a female. Very, very different. Most would be visibly aroused whilst on all fours holding their arse cheeks open so I could get the wax in the crack. And that's after having handled the front.
I wouldn't fucking do it again and no woman should be forced to.

JY should have had [JY's] non existent vulva waxed just didn't understand the problem

And that would be a vulva containing a tampon as JY questioned the therapists in extensive detail about whether they were willing to work around JY's tampon string.

And if you offer genital waxing, you wax genitals.

No, because genitals are not the same, and these women aren't trained in waxing male genitals. In BC you have to do two separate courses.

And an untrained person could easily rip the loose scrotal skin. If they had complied with this person's request, tried to wax genitals they weren't competent to wax, and had caused an injury this individual could then have sued them for personal injury. The poor women were in a Catch 22 situation.

There is no shortage of salons locally offering to wax male genitals. But the complainant only approached women operating from their own homes, women who have not done the training for male genitals. And, oddly enough, women who for religious reasons could not ever offer male genital waxing.

I do not think the Christian B&B case is comparable. If these women, for example, ran clothes shops but refused to sell women's clothes to the complainant then that would be comparable. But the law recognizes that intimate services are different.

Because waxing Yaniv would force these women to touch male genitals a better comparison would be forcing a devout Muslim to eat pork.

No, the law does not say testicles are the same as vulvas

It just means the penis and balls are female.

Agreed. But if the law says a person is female, any other opinion is therefore a personal belief, therefore may well be inadmissible as a defence. (I would think, not being a lawyer or anything!)

It's a mess. It has long-reaching and complex consequences. It's going to be tricky for courts to sort out and I wonder whether they'll take the path of least resistance.

I really, really hope that one day JY carries out his nasty little subterfuge on a beautician who, regardless of their training or qualifications, agrees to wax JY's 'lady balls'. JY will have to either allow the unqualified beautician to wax said delicate area or will have to admit that they don't actuallywant someone who doesn't know what they're doing pouring hot wax on JY's balls and ripping their pubes out, and is just trying to put women into a position of having to refuse to wax them, so they can sue.

@medetrina - do you think it is OK that JY contacts these women using a female name and a photo that isn't JY, in order to fool them into offering waxing services, and then discloses their transgender status and that they don't have a vulva, in order to force these women into a corner where they either have to agree to offer a service they aren't qualified to offer, or be sued?

A beautician is, in my opinion, allowed to learn and practice only those skills they choose. I go to a local salon for pedicures. I have asked if they do laser hair removal, because I have some facial hair I'd like removed - they don't have a therapist who is trained to do that. So are my human rights being violated because they haven't got a suitably trained therapist, or because they won't perform a service they aren't trained to perform? Of course they aren't!

Since waxing male genitalia and female genitalia require different training, it is entirely legitimate and fair for someone to do one lot of training, and not the other, and, having done only one lot of training, to decline to wax clients of the other sex.

It is also entirely legitimate for someone to decide they don't want to wax men in their own home, and therefore to do only the training that allows them to wax women's genitals.

It is NOT legitimate or reasonable for anyone to insist that someone handles their genitals.

JY has spoken about hanging out in the Ladies' loos and changing rooms, hoping to see a tampon string hanging out of a girl's vagina. He has asked whether, if a pre-teen girl started her first period whilst JY was in the Ladies' loos, JY could offer advice on using a sanitary towel or tampon - or even offer practical assistance.

I would not want this person in my home - they are a danger to women and girls, and their sole aim, with the waxing thing, is to abuse women. I cannot understand any person who thinks this is OK.

Fairenuff "I think those that voted YABU because they think JY should have had his non existent vulva waxed just didn't understand the problem. It's impossible right?"

You can change your vote just be re-clicking though. And anyone with any intelligence would surely take the time to read at least a few more posts explaining it in detail, if only to see what the fuss is about....right?

I mean, we haven't been inundated with the usual cries of "MN is a transphobic hotbed" either.

This could have been resolved if she specified the types of genitals she was and wasn’t trained to wax. Having female genitals (or a vagina) isn’t the same, legally, as being a female.

This is the problem with pretending that there is no power dynamic inherent between men and women. Or ignoring that men commit 99% of all sex offences.

Men and women are not the same, either physically, or in their behaviour pattern.

Waxing male genitalia, apparently, often results in an erection and a subsequent request for sex and then hostility or aggression if refused.

That will not be the reaction of a woman 🙄

And again, this isn't about trans people specifically. It's about men. And every single predator on the planet who can now do this.

JY has expressed a repellent attitude to young girls. But, because of the ideology, can now go into girls' toilets and photograph JYself in the mirror, with young girls milling around in the background. Which JY does.

Because the trans ideology pretends there is little to no difference between men and women, this is what happens. The reality is it will almost always be men who do this.

The judge (called a member), in this case is a trans advocate. JY was awarded a ban on publicising their identity, to protect them because they are trans.

The entire court proceedings were also subject to a media blackout. This has just been lifted. I imagine, that even the judge is finding it difficult to go along with most of what's happening.

It absolutely is state sanctioned sexual assault if the judge finds in favour of JY. Of course it is.

What laws are in place to stop JY photographing themself in the mirror with young girls in the background in toilets???

This is all about power, and everyone knows exactly who has it.

I, too, wonder where this will lead if JY wins.

In Canada, there is an individual named Stefonknee Wolscht. Stefonknee (yes, the name is quite deliberate) was born a man and now identifies as a 6 year old girl.

How long before Stefonknee, and other middle aged men who have identified as little girls and babies, start to demand their affirmation from childcare settings and schools?

Having female genitals (or a vagina) isn’t the same, legally, as being a female

But equally the beautician's wouldn't have had to if JY hadn't misrepresented him/herself when making the appointment.

As an aside, many women did say they could wax JY. He hung up, and phoned the next woman.

One of the women in question is 'developmentally challenged'. She only made $500 for waxing last year. She has an autistic child. She needed an interpreter. And her father and husband spoke on her behalf, also through an interpreter.

JY is on record as calling Sikhs dirty and liars. And so JY has deliberately targeted them.

This tribunal is an absolute farce.

It's not about whether JY is right or wrong. Anyone can see that they are not.

It's the fact that, in the name of progression, these laws have been allowed to be implemented in the first place.

There is no way legislators were not warned. The catastrophic result on women was not important enough.

Well, as self ID isn’t law in this country

Not yet - but Stonewall, Mermaids et al are pushing hard for legal self id. As are the Lib Dems, any number of the Labour Party and swathes of the media.

This is what all the 'nasty terf transpobes' have been talking about in Feminism Chat for years.

The Feminism Chat that some MN users think should be closed, that some MN users hide because we should all 'be kind'. The Feminism Chat where posters were doxxed by a now ex-member of the MN staff because we're awful to poor, marginalised, vulnerable people like JY.

The Feminism chat that's been well aware of the 'female penis' and women being referred to as 'womb havers' and 'bleeders'.

Feminism Chat has been the canary in the coal mine. The concern has always, always been around safeguarding for the vulnerable, to prevent situations like the JY case happening in the UK.

As a lawyer working on this case, surely you must be thinking: is THIS what I went to law school and slogged all those hours for? To indulge the playing out of the sexual fantasies of a person who appears to have the entire Canadian judicial system jumping through their hoops?

Terrifying how the trans issue has got everyone so terrified that predators are now allowed to operate openly without being officially challenged.

Maybe be the lady should offer to wax him in court .
Set him up in open court then ask the judge where his vag is.

I’m a big advocate of trans rights but I actually agree simply because I don’t think anyone should be required by law to touch another person’s genitals, regardless of the genders involved. It isn’t a case of ‘they shouldn’t have to wax trans women’. It’s a case of ‘they should be entitled to refuse service to any person’.

This has nothing to do with self-ID, by the way (though I know it’s common to use self-ID as a kind of lazy shorthand for ‘everything I disapprove of regarding trans people’).

As a lawyer working on this case, surely you must be thinking: is THIS what I went to law school and slogged all those hours for?

Apparently JY is representing themself. So they get to cross question the women in court. Which they have done, asking all sorts of irrelevant and upsetting questions.

As far as I'm aware, in this country, an abuser is not allowed to cross question the victim, as it is abusing them twice. I believe this is a recent law change?

This has nothing to do with self-ID, by the way.

This has everything to do with self-ID.

www.google.com/amp/s/breaking-news.ca/cant-take-no-for-an-answer-jonathan-yaniv-files-16-human-rights-complaints-against-women-who-dont-want-to-wax-his-balls/amp/

Thought this made for a more enjoyable read. Says it as it is.

This article has (actually quite disturbing) screenshots allegedly from conversations with JY where JY is asking young women about nakedness in changing rooms, whether he should offer to go into a stall with a young girl to help her insert a tampon, whether you can see the string if a girl wearing a tampon is naked... in fact there appears to be a rather disturbing obsession with tampons.