Fascinating tweets about JY’s waxing case. Read here. (Thread title edited by MNHQ)

[Whackitupto200]

JY’s parent sounds like an absolute loon. It would explain a lot.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1147905523347365888.html

such upsetting reading. i too would like to support SG if I could - fuck JY for bringing this trouble to her door.

Sorry, I've reported my post to remove as it names a name.

What a fucking monster. I couldn't read all that. Canada is beyond hope in allowing a racist pig to bully an immigrant family living on the poverty line in this way

It feels like the men are arguing in court over whether the woman is private property (of her husband and father) or public property (JY).

This.

And, once again, I find myself unable to comment further without breaking the Special Rules for Uppity Women on FWR.

An irony in itself.

This is just so fucking awful. I truly hope more people read and it helps them to understand the genuine concerns about the TRAs and the loopholes presented, instead of accusing us of transphobia.

Thanks to Elsie and solidarity to the women concerned.

The Canadian press seems hamstrung by the reporting restrictions imposed by the tribunal - which in turn means that the imposition of those restrictions themselves are not being questioned. If anything makes you realise how important press freedom is, it's this case, as the subject matter is most definitely in the public interest.

Holy fuck.

The lawyer says that SG had developmental disabilities and JY says "we all have developmental disabilities"

That is beyond words! I am stunned. Didn't think it was possible to peak again.

The worst of it is that this will change nothing, JY will do the same thing in a few months, it'll all start again.

Nothing will change.

Bet he wanted to touch himself when she cried.

I'm really haunted by the thought that there may be other, vulnerable women out there who were bullied and coerced into fulfilling JY's power-humiliation-validation fantasy, either in JY or their own homes that we just don't know about.

If this is what JY has done to women who have refused service, then wtf would they do to someone vulnerable who would have been too scared to say no, and probably scared to report anything that would happen. Imagine being trapped in a room with JY in those circumstances. I wonder if there are women out there, I really hope not for their sakes, but as shamelessly JY targets vulnerable people, I'd be surprised if there wasn't.

You can bet there are people he has bullied into doing all kinds of things.

I expect so. Fucking poisonous bastard.

I really hope that the anonymity order is lifted, as clearly it's just JY weaponising it so that they can carry on abusing with impunity and to get off on the power of that too.

Still can't get my head around the absence of any mainstream media interest or presence, in Canada & the rest of the world. If the order was lifted, and the nature and scale of these abuses were publicised, that might help any potential victims out there to come forward, and hopefully get help. I'm cynical that this will be the case.

If it wasn't down to one brave woman who attended, the world would probably only have JY's version of the tribunal events. We wouldn't understand the depravity of it all if it wasn't for her. It is shocking how all media is making such a big effort to ignore it. Can't get my head around it.

Yes - these reporting restrictions mean that if any other women have capitulated to this person, they won't now necessarily see this case and come forward. So the whole picture is not presented for scrutiny.

Why oh why are her husband and father telling the court about her problems? Why is the Member allowing all this? They're all still skirting (!) round the fact that the woman thought it was very likely that JY is an intact male and so inappropriate to demand her services.

This is a load of bollocks. Literally.

Cross post Helen

Interesting interview with a representative from the law firm representing the defendant regarding the seeming media 'boycott'

Indeed! A media boycott of coverage of the case because of the implicit awareness of the potential' embarrassment' when taking transgender ideology to its logical conclusion.

This is why there is so much non-coverage of the issues in British media too.....or refusal to answer straight questions......because there is no logical consistency in TRA ideology..and any consistency there is leads very rapidly to uncomfortable and untenable places.

What can we do to help SG? I feel so sorry for her. She already had a hard life and this dickhead has made it worse for no reason.

Yes - these reporting restrictions mean that if any other women have capitulated to this person, they won't now necessarily see this case and come forward. So the whole picture is not presented for scrutiny.

Iirc I think one of the court room tweets mentioned SG was unaware JY had targeted other women. If ever there was a case where all the targeted people need to come together to put up a united defence this is it.

The interviewer’s expressions are worth watching when the defence lawyer is speaking.

My comment is about the YouTube link at the bottom of the previous page on this thread.

Also, as I mentioned before, but I still can't understand why a single person, lone operative shouldn't have the right to pick and choose clients as they please. I genuinely thought they did, and I think, in the UK at least, most of them think they do.

This case has massive implications for any person, who most likely will be someone who isn't a big earner, trying to make a modest living from a small business. If they refuse business for any reason and piss off someone of a vexatious nature they could potentially find themselves on the sharp end of a case like this. Especially, obviously, in Canada where it seems these human rights tribunals are accessible to anyone who can represent themselves, at no cost to themselves, whilst having the opportunity to bully the poor person on the receiving end.

In particular someone like SG who goes to a person's home. We all know that one has to be careful about meeting people you make contact with on the Internet. "I had a bad feeling about this (potential) client" should be the only reason you need!

I think that if after informing JY that I wasn't trained to preform intimate male waxing, JY continued to push for me to do so I would have complied.

I would have tried my hardest to provide a service that would have remove his male bits. Problem solved.

Also, as I mentioned before, but I still can't understand why a single person, lone operative shouldn't have the right to pick and choose clients as they please. I genuinely thought they did, and I think, in the UK at least, most of them think they do.

You can. With limits. The limits being refusing clients with a protected characteristic on the basis of that protected characteristic.

Protected characteristics sometimes conflict. That is why there are legislative exemptions - in the UK, the sex exemptions that limit the rights of GRC holders, for example - and why some cases go to court so that the legal system can balance those conflicts.

Watching this with complete bemusement...

Can you imagine a person with male genitalia presenting at A&E because the string had come off their tampon and they were unable to retrieve it. Said tampon had been pumped full of tomato paste/red dye and inserted into the anus to imitate menstruation. It was inserted into the anus as there was no vagina, functioning or imitation.

How could any medic keep a straight face? That would be case to go down in the anals of fame!

As for JY - well they are disturbed and yes, loving all the attention. A case where you could easily use the definition 'narcissist'. I hope this case doesn't start a worrying precedent.
If a beautician is has no training in the 'back, sack & crack' wax then they should not perform it. Common sense.

That would be case to go down in the anals of fame!