Muslim rights vs Transgender rights

[DJLippy]

A beauty Salon in Ontario in Canada is being sued because a Muslim beautician refused to wax a transgeder woman's legs for religious reasons. It's being likened to refusing to serve gay people.

Is the Muslim community in the UK aware of the impact that self-ID would have on their right to practice their religion?

windsor.ctvnews.ca/human-rights-application-launched-against-windsor-body-waxing-business-by-transgender-woman-1.3925911#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=twitter&_gsc=2lV42Ii

OP's post is quite misleading and should be reported, there is quite a difference between 'waxing legs' and a 'Brazillian'!

The salon describes the service clearly

"**THE FULL BRAZILIAN
OUR SPECIALTY - YOU'LL FEEL SMOOTH AND FREE LIKE NEVER BEFORE. REMOVES ALL HAIR WITHIN AND AROUND THE BIKINI LINE."

This sevice is clearly not the same if performed on someone with a penis. Are you supposed to wax their balls, shaft? It makes no sense.

Completely indefensible.

There is equalities legislation such that it some situations a business would be in breach of the law for refusing to wax your balls.

Not if they are not qualified or trained the waxing of the balls. That would be dumb. Because of that soft skin, it would be a specialist field. So the salon could argue that point.

Frankly, I think these TRAs are going into these places (not places that specifically wax of the balls) and are prepped up to sue, when it goes horribly wrong.

Litigious is their middle name after all.

Not if they are not qualified or trained the waxing of the balls. That would be dumb. Because of that soft skin, it would be a specialist field.

Yes agreed, that's why I said I didn't think the salon was in breach in this case. A more likely scenario where this would be a breach would be if they advertised ball waxing but not for black men.

I think that perhaps what sometimes happens is that someone who is transgender feels aggrieved because they have been refused access or being challenged for using women/ girls' school loos, beauty salons, changing rooms, refuge etc. They may express their distress online and find people there with both the political influence, media connections, social media power, legal expertise and/or finance to take up the claim.

It may also be the case that some activists deliberately seek out opportunities to challenge the policy in one place to set precedent elsewhere.

It is not dissimilar to how individual experiences have been picked up by some from religious lobbies who have then provided the backing eg the B&B owners who sought to refuse a gay couple This may have also been the case with the teacher who was disciplined for his use of pronouns in a class with a child who identified as transgender. (I can't be sure but this was my impression when he was interviewed on the daytime program with Philip Schofield?)

The comparison with the women with cancer diagnosis (upthread) is that she would also describe her distress / offence at being refused treatment but this would not prompt a powerful lobbying 'machine'.

I run a business and work one to one with people. I reserve the right to refuse any customer at any time, giving no reason. This is for my many reasons but I have been stalked 4 times with some serious consequences. A business has the right to refuse custom - but not to misgender someone, I think. So it is fine to say "I am not waxing your balls, find another salon" but not to refuse to do it because the person is trans, which is not what the beautician did.

DS is at a very diverse school and they had their gender workshop last week (featuring the gender bread person no less). This has run the last 3 years and each time DS, 3 feminist identifying female friends and 3 sikh girls make gender critical points - thats all in the year group. The muslims either accept the ideology or do not speak out about this topic in school, whereas they do openly discuss different views on other matters.

I reserve the right to refuse any customer at any time, giving no reason.

You would be at risk of being in breach of the law if you apply this right in a discriminatory fashion though. The law does fetter your discretion in this way if you run a business.

The whole thing of her being Muslim is not really relevant.

I don’t want there to ever be a situation where someone can demand that a woman touch their cock and balls or they will sue them.

It reminds me of a case in the news a while back where a religious Christian couple were in trouble for refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple's party as they said they didn't approve

Yes because baking a cake is exactly the same and touching someone’s penis.

I don’t want there to ever be a situation where someone can demand that a woman touch their cock and balls or they will sue them.
My thoughts entirely. Baking a cake is in no way comparable. While the cake is being baked there is no difference to he baked. Once the cake is baked and handed over it could be given to anyone. No ones physical personal boundaries are challenged.

To have to touch someone’s genitalia is something one should ALWAYS be able to refuse. Indeed any physical contact Such as frisking at an airport for example. Women should always have the right to be searched by a woman and the person doing the searching should not be forced to search someone of the opposite sex.

So force someone to engage in physically touching you is behaviour which suggests paraphilia. Or seeking vexatious litigation.

I do hope the waxer in question has good support through this.

Bowl, we're going to see a lot of vexatious litigation. But surely the words 'opposite sex' are where the problem lies. If a GRC means you are the opposite sex from the one you were born, then the GRC holder is technically correct in saying 'I am a woman', even when in possession of male genitalia. So the therapist is refusing to provide her service to a woman? .

I have just been messaging an old school friend who runs a waxing salon that does 75% male customers. She said she refuses customers on the basis of simply not wanting to serve them fairly frequently. She has also asked people to leave mid treatment if they behave inappropriately. They always have 2 technicians in the room when waxing a male body and has the same rules for trans women.

*To have to touch someone’s genitalia is something one should ALWAYS be able to refuse. Indeed any physical contact Such as frisking at an airport for example. Women should always have the right to be searched by a woman and the person doing the searching should not be forced to search someone of the opposite sex.

So force someone to engage in physically touching you is behaviour which suggests paraphilia. Or seeking vexatious litigation.*

Earlier in the year Lily Madigan accused a nightclub of transphobia when searched by a male.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3195201-Madigan-wants-to-be-searched-by-a-woman

My thoughts entirely. Baking a cake is in no way comparable. While the cake is being baked there is no difference to he baked. Once the cake is baked and handed over it could be given to anyone. No ones physical personal boundaries are challenged.

Because it's important to be accurate, this isn't actually what happened. The bakery made custom cakes to order with bespoke decorating. The same-sex couple wanted something specific to them and the bakery said they couldn't do that because of their religion. They recommended another bakery that would. This mattered because it changed it legally from a case of refusing service to compelled speech (speech in the USA includes artistic expression).

No system is perfect. The fact of the matter is that there is a common principle at work here, even if one manifestation of that principle is dismal and the other we agree with. Compelled service is a two-edged sword.

But I'm with everyone else - the religious angle isn't necessary here. It's used because pitting a protected social group against someone buys "argument points". But it's a dangerous tactic. Soon you end up having to give justifications for not doing something, when you should never have moved from your choice being all that's needed in the first place.

The religion is a complete red herring. The whole cake baking debacle is nothing like this.

‘I refuse to do this this because what it signifies is against my religion’

Is very different to

‘I refuse to physically touch a penis, because of my religion.’

Whereas for me, and I expect many other women, it would be

‘I refuse to do this because I don’t want to be forced to touch male genitalia.

I expect a lot more women would feel uncomfortable about this and just the women who follow certain faiths.

Where will this lead us? Will female security guards and prison guards be expect to perform intimate searches on male bodied persons?

if a GRC means you are the opposite sex from the one you were born, then the GRC holder is technically correct in saying 'I am a woman', even when in possession of male genitalia..

It doesn't, it mean you have the right under the law to be treated as the opposite sex except in where sex specific spaces and services are a legitimate and proportionate response to user needs.

I think they go for these salons to get a law like the Seattle law where it's illegal to not cater for both sexes. So a salon can't say 'not trained' because it will be illegal to not train your staff to cover men and women. I think this manager being male is probably going to be an unpleasant surprise for his trans complainant.

And because men don't work in salons like that it will be women forced to do it and it's like a free jolly for the AGPs.

Last week there was a very distressed woman on Twitter saying that she'd been bodily searched by a Transwoman at an American airport and there was nothing she could do about it, so it's already happening.

Sigh.

I read an article earlier today with the salon owner saying the person wanted a Brazilian wax, not a leg wax. Salon owner was very clear on that. Said the person is now saying they requested a leg wax but that is not true. That the person is changing their story.

Person rang up, said they have a penis and would like a Brazilian wax. Salon owner said no that they wouldn’t be able to help. That their only male waxer was in long term sick.

The bakers were self righteous bigots, there is no comparison. They said they wouldn't bake the cake because they disapproved of the customers lifestyle.

if a GRC means you are the opposite sex from the one you were born, then the GRC holder is technically correct in saying 'I am a woman', even when in possession of male genitalia..

No. Humans cannot change sex.

do you believe human beings can change sex?

I'm aware and concerned. I've had a look into it and my understanding is that Islam would only consider the gender they were at birth. As there are a lot of gender segregated spaces in Islam there are obviously implications. I would also be concerned about asking for a female doctor for intimate treatment.

I sighed on the wrong thread there.
My point still stands though.

Re airports...
If that happened to me I might have a meltdown and a common response that I can't control is to scream until the threat goes away.
I would probably be locked up.
Or tasered.

Why is the rights of a man with a fetish more valid than the rights of an autistic woman with a history of sexual abuse?
Can I just not fly anymore?
Will I be awarded pip on this basis so I can travel with a carer?