Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Yaniv has lost.

146 replies

WomanBornNotWorn · 22/10/2019 18:52

The judgement:

Yaniv has lost.
OP posts:
Pixilicious · 22/10/2019 19:53

Yes!!

YouJustDoYou · 22/10/2019 19:56

I'm just glad someone in the world at least is protecting us from predators like Yaniv.

RaininSummer · 22/10/2019 19:57

That is good to hear.

SingingLily · 22/10/2019 19:57

Love the tweet from the Justice Centre:

"BC Human Rights Tribunal rules in favour of female estheticians (sic) who refuse to wax male genitalia"

So Yaniv might be female according to Canadian law but Yaniv's genitalia clearly is not.

A curate's egg law then 🤔

ScrimshawTheSecond · 22/10/2019 20:01

YAS!

Fandoozle1 · 22/10/2019 20:01

$2000 each on compensation? That nowhere nears remedies what JY has put these women through.
In fact JY deserves jail and I hope someone brings a criminal Case against “her”.

ArnoldWhatshisknickers · 22/10/2019 20:01

The correct decision but the hell these women have been put through and all because of woke idiocy.

I'm also slightly worried that this case rests on lack of training for the specific task and Yaniv's racism when all women should be free to refuse all men entry to their homes or private visits to clients homes, regardless of belief in 'gender identities' because they are not women.

Inebriati · 22/10/2019 20:06

$2,000 Canadian is about £1,200.

They 'won' because they are from religions which prohibit them from touching male genitalia. Would they have won if they were not?

AutumnRose1 · 22/10/2019 20:11

The reference to religion concerns me as well

I also don't know if the judgement is saying that a post op person would have been seen as a different case.

Mummyoflittledragon · 22/10/2019 20:12

🥳🥳🥳 Fantastic news!!

ShesDressedInBlackAgain · 22/10/2019 20:14

Tbh it's a derisory amount of money against a person who makes his livelihood from this kind of grift.

BreastedBoobilyToTheStairs · 22/10/2019 20:19

This is exceptional news!

Those poor women. At least they'll be able to rest easier tonight.

ArnoldWhatshisknickers · 22/10/2019 20:22

Not only is it a derisory sum but the Human Rights Tribunal does not have the power to force Yaniv to pay it.

If he refuses the vulnerable women who have already been put through hell would have to sue in a proper court with all the stress and cost that entails.

AFairlyHardAvocado · 22/10/2019 20:26

Terrible it even came to this but that's made my DAY! Thank goodness. Still absolutely ridiculous it got this far though.

StealthPolarBear · 22/10/2019 20:30

Excellent. Is it too much to hope that the next step is jail time for yaniv (in a men's prison?)

Sexnotgender · 22/10/2019 20:31

Praise fucking jeepers.

BlackForestCake · 22/10/2019 20:40

Did he just tweet suggesting that period hygiene products are for women? How transphobic.

Binglebong · 22/10/2019 20:42

I wonder why they didn't all get awarded cash that will never appear and why not all were listed as being sued for improper reasons?

zebrasdontwearbras · 22/10/2019 20:43

He won't pay.

Someone has just posted this on the other thread:

Canadian law stats that trans women are women. Women have no legal status or protection under Canadian law; they only 'won' because of their religion, which prohibits them from touching male genitalia.

Which is worrying and suggests other women could still fall foul of this sort of complaint.

TwatticusFinch · 22/10/2019 20:45

I hate to piss on the parade, but it reads to me like this judgement does not in fact allow women to say no to letting men into their homes. They're allowed to say no to a scrotum wax, if they don't know how to wax balls. They can't decline a man who asks for a leg wax if the man says he's transgender

I actually wonder whether they could refuse to wax the legs of a man (not trans) anyway or whether this would be sex discrimination. Under UK law you could refuse as long as it is objectively justified as there is an exception in the Equality Act in Sched 3, but I don't know whether there are similar provisions in Canadian law.

Gizmo79 · 22/10/2019 20:48

Oh thank fuck. This was a joke and sadly so are the compensation payouts, bit at least we as a sex, have this verdict.

GurlwiththeCurl · 22/10/2019 20:50

I think when it comes to intimate services, such as waxing, you should be able to refuse service to anyone, especially in the home. You are in a vulnerable situation, perhaps on your own. The client may not be clean, or may appear “dodgy”. This could apply to both male or female clients.

Does anyone know what the legal situation is in the UK?

NetballHoop · 22/10/2019 20:52

There is some sanity in the world. I hope this becomes a turning point.

Gizmo79 · 22/10/2019 20:53

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

AutumnRose1 · 22/10/2019 20:57

Gurl

Agree. I was also wondering what the status is in the UK.