Waxing developments

[Ali1cedowntherabbithole]

Have their been any? I've just seen this on twitter.

Here we go. Not before time.

www.jccf.ca/aestheticians-justified-in-refusing-to-handle-male-genitals-against-their-will-bc-human-rights-tribunal/

I am loving this today. It's absolutely brilliant news. I also read that the women had free legal representation which is something I wasn't aware of.

One Twitter writer did say though that the fact that JV displayed racism would have helped to push this through against him. Hopefully even without that we'd have had the same outcome..?

I hope there are laws which cover offering services as a sole trader which protect the person in the event they don't feel safe treating with a potential customer too.

I have colleagues who work out of their home like this. Most don't advertise and only take clients who are either people already known to them, or who are family or friends of people known to them.
Several have horror stories of times they worked in clinics where a male client behaved inappropriately and for that reason many don't take male clients at all, or only male clients they know very well. However they keep nothing on paper about such a policy, they're not advertising, so no one is ringing in cold and there's no issue about needing to turn down clients and justify their reasons.

These are also older, confident women well experienced in the system, not financially in need of every possible client booking, and speaking English as their first language. They're able to be in a much more secure situation than Yaniv's defendants were.

Has there been any news coverage of this in the mainstream media given what an important story it is? A MTF trans was claiming it was a human right to pay women to handle their male genitalia, and that women should be punished if they refused. Yet it looks like only the outlying right wing press is covering it. A judgement has been made that MTF trans can be treated differently. This is significant.

A judgement has been made that MTF trans can be treated differently.

Which is why you won't see the Guardian or Pinknews covering this.

in the UK don't w have something called 'the right to treat'? If a seller decides that they don't want to sell a thing to a particular person they are able to refuse the sale - I think the item has to be removed from sale completely at that time but can be put back on sale later. Obviously, can't be quite that simple.

"Offer to treat" specifically refers to the fact that the advertisement is not an agreement to a contract. So let's say you advertise waxing services for a particular price, somebody contacts you to say they want to be waxed for that price, there is no contract until you (the waxer) accept that request for waxing.

So you can say no but the difficulty becomes when you are saying no to someone because of a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. Eg if I ran a shop and when black people came to the till I refused to sell the items to them, I wouldn't have a contract law problem (because the prices displayed in the shop are only offers to treat) but I would have an Equality Act problem. Does that makes sense?

If I were a sole trader, offering services out of my home or visiting someone's house - suppose fixing computer glitches, or maybe helping with something less personal than waxing - then I would not want JY in my house, or to go to hers, because she is big and scary and unstable and I wouldn't feel safe. I would absolutely refuse to have her in my home or go to hers, and I would feel that it is my right to choose with whom I treat.

Is that legal?

In the UK, as long as it's because they are behaving strangely/dishonesty and you would do the same whether or not they were trans, you'd be fine.