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

Our human rights tribunal abuse vulture keeps circling- responding to a tweet about discussing “privacy swims.” The first tweet had the piece from New Westminster Record...

It's as though people's mental faculties have all but combusted.

The number of words, analysis, and time spent writing about all this without acknowledging that the motivation is the blatant targeting of women, is extraordinary.

The wilful blindness is one the most illuminating things I think I've ever seen.

As is the weird assumption that other women can't see it.

It's as though people's mental faculties have all but combusted

Nah, they've just been been taught over many years not to think.

This is why I have an issue with ‘human rights’ it covers more ‘human wants’ these days.

When you think of how people are living/dying in this world and some creature decided that their desire to have a waxing is a human ‘right’?

What about the rights of the woman they are forcing to handle their testicles? Oh sorry - only women/foreigners huh?

There’s not enough money or hand sanitiser in the world for me to do that job.

So Muslim-only women's privacy swimming is discrimination against males who are non-Muslim? Right.

But the LGBT-only swimming session is not discrimination against people who are not LGBT? They get to keep that for themselves. Because of reasons.

But the LGBT-only swimming session is not discrimination against people who are not LGBT? They get to keep that for themselves. Because of reasons.

From the tweet thread:

? Does JY acknowledge that SG also has human rights?
JY - yes but is balancing act

Uh huh, balance. Because reasons.

How is waxing gender critical? Women have pubes. If it were a boob job or dick removal, there would at least be a logic to that

Gender affirming I mean

?How is waxing gender affirming?

Because of the sexualisation of women.

You have to remember the idea of what a woman is to JY.

although saying that it might be because JY likes kids.

Apparently men can also get waxed so i literally have no idea why it's female-gender-affirming.

Does that make me a transman because I don't wax there?

How is waxing gender affirming?

Because it is one of the few services that is generally split by sex, so obviously for someone to feel all womanly they have to be able to get it done. The actual waxing is irrelevant (there are probably dozens of places JY could have got waxed at if that was what they actually wanted), but it is forcing women to acknowledge JY as a woman, even when touching their dick, that is 'affirming'.

I think that to a certain type of person, gender affirming= ego affirming.
And for some, it seems their ego can’t be affirmed(=gratified) without stepping on others.

And this person is so obviously trying to provoke.
I wish there was a way to find out how many salons have been contacted by this creep show of a nightmare...

This from a few hours ago from JY. I don’t think the refusing someone with JY’s reputation would be hard to “explain.”

Can you imagine running a salon with someone like JY in the area?

OvaHere

"Whilst I understand it's important to the defendant it misses the point that no woman (or man) should be compelled by law to touch any kind of genitalia against their will."

This is what I have been thinking ever since hearing about JY. This is the legitimisation of sexual abuse.
Canada is a very messed up country.

Regarding human rights , it's a human right for a single man to buy a baby from a woman. So he has more money than women because of his class, and then he uses that money to buy a baby off a woman who doesn't have much money because if her class

https://rightsinfo.org/a-human-rights-legal-challenge-means-the-law-has-changed-to-allow-single-parents-to-have-a-child-through-surrogacy/

Sorry wrong thread

Trip that is shocking. So the judge in the JY case has ordered a media blackout but the same judge is a sponsor of pro-trans groups?

This is corruption of the highest degree in the Canadian judiciary.

Why is the media not appealing this??

The wilful blindness is one the most illuminating things I think I've ever seen.

Look at ideologically-driven far-left or far-right regimes in modern history and you'll find multiple examples of this occurring among large, educated sections of the population.

Does that make me a transman because I don't wax there?

I'm sure I must be by their logic. Never waxed in my life and gave up plucking things/shaving things years ago.

And don't get me started on 'gender affirming'. It needs a deafening rebuttal every time it's mentioned.

Utterly Neanderthal attitudes.

Been following this and just came on to say I am appalled. I can’t actually find any other words just now. Just appalled and horrified that this is happening in so called civilised progressive society.

The quote posted by Maniak doesn't make clear whether it's the result of having no hair in certain places which is considered to be 'gender affirming' or whether it's the actual waxing (by a woman, as a service which is only for women).

If it's the resulting lack of hair, this is clearly not gender affirming, since many women don't wax and some men do, so it's extremely sexist to suggest that this is 'gender affiming' with its implication that it's something all women do or should do.

If it's the 'treated as a woman' which is important, then it's clearly not 'critical' that someone gets 'gender affirming' treatment to help them 'feel like a woman'. Forcing someone to do something which makes them feel uncomfortable and threatened in order to prop up someone else's delusion is not 'critical', it's abuse.

I read somewhere (possibly in one of the earlier threads about this case) that there are a number of unisex waxing salons in the area where JY could have found someone willing to provide the service, but he chose to target these women instead.

It's not just being 'treated as a woman' which is important to this person. It is 'being treated as a woman by people I suspect might have a problem with treating me as a woman so I can try and force my belief system onto them'.

In this case though, I suspect their belief system is not TWAW, but based on the pleasure they get out of making women feel uncomfortable.

I'm confused. Is Cousineau the current member in these hearings? And is they a cunty woman?