Should Muslim women be forced to give beauty treatments to males?

[HecatesCatsInFancyHats]

"Unisex salon stand by their decision to REJECT a gender-fluid singer from a nail appointment - because they thought they were 'a man' so Muslim beautician objected"

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9601197/Nail-salon-refuse-manicure-gender-fluid-singer-beautician-Muslim.html

Colour me shocked that someone born and raised male, however they identify now, feels entitled to expect women to go along with whatever they want and for the world to revolve around them

Meeeeeeeeeeeeee

@Tibtom

As a unisex salon that provides haircuts for men, I think the sex of the recipient of a manicure is not relevant. It is not a beauty treatment that is done in private and the salon is not sex segregated.

What if the person providing that particular service on that day is precluded by their religion from offering services to men? In that case, it's entirely relevant.

It's interesting that the delightful Andrea refers to himself as he on his own website. Mind you, he also writes about himself in the third party, so that's another clue that he should really be identifying as a twat in addition to whatever else he identifies as.

It's a unisex hair salon. The beautician service is women only.
Ah! I was wondering why they didn’t just reschedule his appointment, if the service was unisex. Now I understand that that particular provision is single sex.

What always gets me in these cases is the 'victim' always seems to have a portfolio of images of themselves ready to hand to the press. The alleged 'abuser' being from a religious or ethnic minority also seems to be part of the pattern.

This doesn't seem to be a publicity shy individual.

Even to be segregated by sex there has to be a legitimate reason for those in receipt of the service (not those providing it I think??). If manicures are being provided in the same space as the hair cuts then I can't see how you could say single sex is needed for privacy, safety or dignity. Or how you are providing those things if sitting just feet away from a male receiving a hair cut.

If you provide a single sex beautician service and have female staff who are Muslim and a person who is "gender fluid" books under the name Andrea...

Gender identity is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. The Act also allows beauticians to offer single-sex services. Legally, the customer in this case doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

Yes, Tibtom, that was the outcome of the Yaniv case, wasn’t it? The judgment referenced that waxing males was a different skill set which the beauticians did not have, therefore there was a risk for them to provide that service.
I wonder if there has been an issue before necessitating the salon making that particular service single sex. Didn’t see this in the article.

What if the person providing that particular service on that day is precluded by their religion from offering services to men? In that case, it's entirely relevant.

You mean like catholic doctors being able to refuse to have anything to do with abortions?

Of sharia law? Do we have to recognise that? I think if we say individuals are allowed to discriminate against others in service provision based on the religion of the service provider then we will quickly find it is women who start to lose out big time.

Ok, so religion aside, what about if the woman is married to an extremely jealous man, who would abuse her if he knew or thought she had touched another man in any capacity?

What about a woman who has experienced violence/ S.A. from men and wants to avoid any physical contact with men as it is triggering?

Does it occur to you that the woman works her appointments around times when males receiving haircuts won't be present?

The salon is wrong but not stating all beauty treatments are women only- they only specified massage on the website. However once the explanation was given to he/she/them (the article states they use all these pronouns) they should have moved on and not tried to destroy a small business in the media.

@TedImgoingmad

Ok, so religion aside, what about if the woman is married to an extremely jealous man, who would abuse her if he knew or thought she had touched another man in any capacity?

What about a woman who has experienced violence/ S.A. from men and wants to avoid any physical contact with men as it is triggering?

Does it occur to you that the woman works her appointments around times when males receiving haircuts won't be present?

What about if a man held string views about women? Should he be able to refuse to serve them?

Would you say the same for a female muslim doctor?

Not if she was employed by the NHS. Nor should a person who won’t touch the opposite sex be trained by UK medical schools with NHS resources. But if someone like that had completed their medical training elsewhere and wanted to set up a private practice here, why not?

I think we need to be very careful in deciding under what circumstances it is appropriate for a service provider to be allowed to discriminate. Yes there absolutely are circumstances where services need to be single sex and these should be protected and single sex.

In my very scant understanding of Islam, touch between sexes is prohibited unless necessary. The example I read was 'if a woman faints' and a man catches her, that's okay. I guess doctor/health situations may come under this, too?

But a manicure, that's not a 'necessary' situation.

As far as I can see, Muslim women are discouraged from even being alone with a male, let alone touching them.

' There are three forms of ikhtilaat or intermixing that are forbidden:

First, the touch is a form of non-verbal communication. Islam frowns upon any form of physical contact or touching between men and non-mahram women. '

[mahram is a family member]

www.islam.ru/en/content/story/islamic-guidelines-gender-interactions

What about if a man held string views about women? Should he be able to refuse to serve them?

Sure, why not? I wouldn't insist on anyone having to touch someone unless it's in a necessary/unavoidable situation. Bodily autonomy is a pretty hard boundary for me.

It sounded like the owner of the beauty business side was the person going to be doing the nail treatment.

It may well be due to covid that she is the only person doing the beauty side or that if she had notification that the appointment was for a male, she could have organized another nail person. But it sounds like this person booked the appointment under the feminine name and she had no time to reorganize.

It reads to me the fact that she didn’t reschedule is an indication she has no other people working her side of the business at the moment. She may not be able to change the website for various reasons due to covid and not having money coming in.

Those stating it is not an intimate procedure, this women knows what she can and cannot do within her faith boundaries. She is very clear about it. So, I wouldn’t question her rights under the protection of her religion. It may have everything to do with being alone in the salon with this male. She has made that decision based on her religious boundaries. Does she not get that respect?

@Tibtom

I think we need to be very careful in deciding under what circumstances it is appropriate for a service provider to be allowed to discriminate. Yes there absolutely are circumstances where services need to be single sex and these should be protected and single sex.

Do you think there's any issue with a man booking a single sex service with a female name? Because this is the territory we're in.

"The singer, who identifies as he/she/they"

What even is the point of stating your pronouns if they are pick and mix. I suppose at least there's an honest defence for any perceived misgendering or are people meant to know which time of day/day of the week to use a specific pronoun?

What if a woman was menstruating and therefore 'unclean'? Should she be allowed to come into work?

What about if a man held string views about women? Should he be able to refuse to serve them?

Serve them where? In a shop. No. In a barber? Happens all time, and not because they have strong views, because they can offer a single sex provision if they want to in this context. Context being everything.

No woman should be forced to give beauty treatments to a man.

@KimThomas

Gender identity is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. The Act also allows beauticians to offer single-sex services. Legally, the customer in this case doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

That is helpful. Thank you.

Yes there absolutely are circumstances where services need to be single sex and these should be protected and single sex.

And one of the basic circumstances might include where the service provider is a woman working alone. For any service. It may be that a woman is only comfortable, for her own safety, offering the service to women.

In any sort of larger organisation, clearly the organisation has the ability to arrange providers to support both such women and clients.

But for a sole service provider, the rights of the provider can outweigh the needs of clients to not be "discriminated against". A sole provider is not doing to be dominating the market, so clients are not going to be significantly impacted by having that provider not cater to them.

I believe this principle is not generally controversial in this sort of legislation - balancing the rights of clients versus providers, depending on provider size.

@Tibtom: The man has the right to refuse; he doesn't have the right to a job that requires serving women. The beautician has the right to work on only women, and the salon has the right to provide a single-sex service.