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?

From sadkoala link

Her refusal to wax his ass, balls, and the area surrounding his penis discriminated against his rights as a male, on the grounds that recognizing his male sex infringed on his own “sense of himself” as female.

British Columbia defines ‘Gender Identity’ as “a person’s sense of themselves”. Specifically:

What does that even mean??

Recognising his male genitalia offends him because male genitalia is attached to males?

People are dying in the world. And this is what we get???

meditrina Thu 18-Jul-19 09:23:44
"Nobody should ever feel pressured to touch anyone else’s genitals for whatever reason"

Those people should not be working in a journey b which includes genital contact tyhen.

Just like Christians cannot any longer offer services only to Christians, really. The core principle was established long ago. No-one came forthe Christians, said actually they are right and should be able to offer services only within their belief system. They said they must change mods or close.

This is, unfortunately, exactly the same. And the principle that if you offer services they must be inclusive, has been the established norm for a couple of decades now.

These service providers probably need to change the range or type of services they offer. Just as all those who went before them have had to do, so that all goods and services are inclusive.

I don't see the parallels to the Christian B & B owners. It would be more analogous to someone forcing a devout Muslim to eat pork, as the waxing involves the woman handling Yaniv's penis and scrotum, which imo any woman should be entitled to refuse.

Plus being qualified to wax vulvas doesn't qualify you to wax penises and scrotums. They're two separate courses and none of these women are qualified. So if any of these women had agreed to perform the waxing Yaniv requested and caused injury to the sensitive loose scrotal skin they would have been liable for a lawsuit for personal injury, and of course any insurance they had would be void. It's a real Catch 22 situation for these poor women.

That is one sick individual.

I don't know how they can even make a legal ruling without using a legal definition of the words female and woman.

It's a farce. Canada will be the laughing stock of the world if they collude in this nonsense.

Still, at least it adds weight to the reasons why women in the UK are against self ID.

Reading this reminded me of something from years ago.

Does anyone remember the salon? A female waxer in the salon was asked to do a back crack and sack wax. She felt uncomfortable, and refused. Guy left without his wax. Wonder what reaction that would get now.

I'm undecided.

Part of offering intimate waxing means contact with genitalia and I don't think it should matter whether that male or female. As long as the beautician has the requisite training to carry out the service, obviously.

I think crying rape culture for such matters is way over the top. How do others in professions which they choose to enter deal with it - medical professions, carers etc?

I've no issue whatsoever with anyone being treated as female if that's their wish, it doesn't impede me in any way.

But this example seems to be a little more complex, like they're trying to set people up.

I kind of wish one of them agreed to do it and caused some injury down there and upon JYs tantrum and threat of court promptly pointed to messages between them with her declaring she isn't actually qualified in waxing a penis and scrotum and he was aware of it when he accepted the services.

Maybe that would've taught a good lesson although I doubt it reading all the other stories associated to it.

@WelcomeToShootingStars I don't think there's anything to be undecided about.

If you read more about it online you will see there is a lot of known and popular salons and beauticians offering the services JY was looking for. But instead JY decided to go out of the way and target research and contact females who did not offer these services and most of whom worked from home on their own and demanded they handle a penis.

Haven't read the thread and probably missing the point. I have a qualification in female intimate waxing. I have no qualification or experience in male intimate waxing and obviously its a completely different area.

Refer you back to the Christian B&B owners. The judgement was that they did not get to say what happened in their own home once they had chosen to open it up for the provision of services

I remember that and I still feel that the court made the wrong decision - (though I disagree with the Christians who felt homosexuality is wrong).

Barber's aren't always trained in doing females hair.

I was going to say something similar. A lot of women's hairdressers aren't licensed to cut men's hair - barbering is a separate qualification, as I understand it.

The majority of transgender individuals are not like this, but a minority of individuals can and will take advantage of self-ID.

I agree - and violent/ aggressive/ bloody-minded individuals who claim trans status will harm the quiet majority who just want to live their lives in a way in which they are most comfortable.

JY and his like do no-one any good - except themselves, of course.

I can't really fathom being told there's nothing for me to be undecided about. I've quite clearly explained why I'm undecided on the matter.

But it's attitudes such as yours @zzzap that turn me off to the whole campaign.

Part of offering intimate waxing means contact with genitalia and I don't think it should matter whether that male or female

And that's the problem. Deciding there's no difference between men and women is wilfully ignoring where the power lies.

Men commit 99% of all sexual crimes. And 90% of violent crimes.

That is the reason why sex segregation happens.

Being unable to see the motivation behind a man insisting a woman touch his penis in her own home, using intimidatory tactics, is the problem. Not accepting that this is overwhelming male behaviour, not female behaviour, is the problem.

The frightening thing is how often men who claim to be pushing for trans rights have recently been revealed to have possibly been trying to gain access to women and children.

JY has a sinister history of inappropriate behaviour with pre-teen girls. He claims he is pursuing these waxing cases in a brave quest for trans rights but it's possible that really his aim is to get more access to vulnerable children. At least one of the women he targeted would have had her children at home while he was undressed.

Just yesterday we heard that Councillor Dave Smith, who has also been campaigning for trans rights, had a far more sinister reason for wanting public toilets to be gender neutral. He was charged with 9 accounts of child sex abuse.

Similarly David Challenor also campaigned for trans rights and to allow trans women to go to sleepovers with girl guides. He is currently serving 22 years for the brutal rape and torture of a 10 year old child. Challenor was dressed as a female during the rape (which makes him trans under the Stonewall definition) and was a scout leader.

I'm not implying that all trans rights activists are dodgy by any means, I'm not even saying these alleged predators are genuinely trans. But it shows beyond doubt that predatory men are hiding under the trans umbrella.

We all know that paedophiles put a lot of work and planning into accessing victims. They will go out of their way to exploit legal loopholes.

These recent cases are a wake up call and show we need to work harder to oppose self-id and protect single-sex spaces.

heathspeedwell

Plus Jess Bradley, who advised the government about trans equality, and was caught exposing their penis and having child rape cartoons on their blog.

Aimee Challoner who is in a relationship with someone who has just told the whole of Twitter how attracted they are to minors, and whose nappy fetish is no secret. Advises girl guides and is part of the stonewall trans advisory committee.

Jane Fae, who advocates for extreme pornography and lowering the legal age of participants - also advised the government.

Even Shon Faye, whose advice to kids is 'suck dick and get tits early'.

Monroe Bergdorf, encouraged minors to contact them in personal messages. And sees nothing wrong with an 11-year-old boy twerking on stage while adults throw him money.

And that list is by no means exhaustive.

If you are advocating for an ideology that blurs boundaries and lowers safeguarding, it's bound to attract dodgy characters.

I don't know if I'm preaching to the choir here, but when you hear about someone like JY being allowed, quite legitimately, to conduct what is a barbaric farce, it makes you wonder where the fuck all the grown-ups have gone.

We all know that paedophiles put a lot of work and planning into accessing victims. They will go out of their way to exploit legal loopholes.

These recent cases are a wake up call and show we need to work harder to oppose self-id and protect single-sex spaces.

This can't be stressed too much. I think it's telling that I've seen old school transsexuals say they don't use woman only spaces because they don't want to increase the risk to women by normalising men being there. They don't identify as us, but they empathize with us.

Nobody should be forced to touch another person's genitals.

How on earth have we, by which I mean the western world generally, got to a place where this is even up for debate?

I am also very, very concerned as to where we are headed regarding protections for lone workers.

I was for many years a lone worker, and am only not now because I now work in a shared facility with other service. I am still the only worker from my service on the premises. This is in the public sector to be clear.

When I first started in the late 90s I was told clearly and unambiguously that as a lone worker I had the absolute right to refuse any customer that made me uncomfortable. That I could trust my instincts and that management would always back me up because of my lone worker status.

By 2010 that had changed. I had an incident with a man who continuously behaved inappropriately and who I eventually told to leave the premises. As it happens this man was disabled. Physically, visibly so. When I asked him to leave he made some veiled threats regarding his rights as a disabled person. I contacted management immediately to alert them to the situation expecting them to support me.

Long story short, they did not. His vulnerability trumped mine. This change of position was never discussed with me.

I did not, and do not, wish to refuse service to people, especially those with particular vulnerabilities. But we seem to have lost sight of workers safety in all of this.

The man in question did not come back or pursue the matter as it happens. I'm not sure what would have happened if he had. It bothers me a lot to this day that the rules changed without me ever being informed.

How do Gentleman's Only and Women's Only clubs get round these issues?

It’s like expecting a doctor who specializes in vasectomies to do a tubal ligation. They are completely different procedures, training, and areas of expertise.

This case is a reminder in how much the trans movement has been hijacked by a very troubling union of people who share a common deep-seated misogyny and who exploit those that seek a fair society free from discrimination. It’s gaslighting of women on a grand scale. JY has been described as an Incel by those who knew him at college. He has been exposed as a sexual predator and he is exploiting self-ID. I have been following the whole story for the past year and been incensed by the breath-taking level of entitlement and the fact that so much money and time has been devoted to his vexatious legal actions. He had no actual interest in this service and did not go ahead with bookings by those that offer to wax male genitalia. It was a malicious campaign to target vulnerable women and to extort money from them. Even though, he has a track record of racist and discriminatory behaviour, the tribunal agreed to represent him against vulnerable minority groups. It’s an outrageous example of white privilege. It completely highlights that when it comes to a vulnerable woman of colour, religious freedom and being from an ethnic minority, in the ‘discrimination Olympics’, the spurious and vexatious demands by a man will still trump all! My only consolation is that this outrageous action will tip the balance and people will begin to realise the disastrous implications of self ID and how it endangers women. Hopefully, it will expose the rapey nature of Trans activists’ demands that seek to remove women’s right to consent.

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?

The problem is that, as the person who has brought the case, JY is technically the victim in this and those poor women defendents are the 'abusers'.

The world is going bonkers.

"That is one sick individual."

Yup.

Offer to insert a tampon???!!!

Didn't do that with my daughter!

And pretending to be a woman, wtf was all that about?

Asking for a different wax to what they need.

Honestly, they need therapy, not a justice system making them think that they have any point whatsoever.

The problem is that, as the person who has brought the case, JY is technically the victim in this and those poor women defendents are the 'abusers'.

Yes, that's correct. It's absolutely barking.

But it would be a mistake just think it's crazy. It's a legitimate, targeted campaign towards women and children. And it's everywhere. This is just the most recent, and shocking manifestation.

Topshop allowing middle-aged men to use the same changing rooms as teenage girls. Girl guides allowing teenage boys to share tents and showering facilities with 10-year-old girls, without the parents' knowledge.

The feting and celebration of 10-year-olds drag queens.

The bloody NSPCC seeing nothing wrong with their male employee in a rubber fetish gimp suit, urinating and masturbating at work, and then uploading a film of it to social media. Ffs.

The NSPCC!!