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

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

If it is a single sex service (for the purposes laid out in the Equality Act) then a man is legitimately excluded. Whether his name is stereotypically female or not is irrelevant.

No, of course they shouldn't be forced. We were a liberal democracy last time I checked.

I'm not religious but I don't like men touching me so I have a lady dentist and I would refuse a male hair stylist. Can't think of anything worse than a strange man touching intimate parts of me, bleurgh!

No-one should be forced to have physical contact with anyone.

No, of course they shouldn't be forced. We were a liberal democracy last time I checked.

Indeed, the intrusion, if forced, would be severe. If "anti-discrimination" laws forced anyone providing a service to women to also provide it to men, that would immediately exclude a large number of women running their own small hair/beauty-care business, often from their own home, from being able to carry out that trade at all. Many women would not feel comfortable inviting male clients into their home.

@teawamutu

No-one should be forced to have physical contact with anyone.

Agree. But part of that is accepting that there are a range of jobs you cannot do if you do not wish to touch someone of the opposite sex: nearly all medical roles, police force, life savers, firefighters, childcare. It is not legitimate to expect to be part of these professions and discriminate against people on the basis of sex. Even in other roles there must be a legitimate reason for sex discrimination as a service provider (individuals accessing a service have more freedom but even then it is limited eg you can't refuse to speak to a female tax inspector).

The single-sex exemptions for beauticians are a little bit complicated. What the guidance says is:

"If you run a beauty-related business and want to provide separate services for men and women or a single-sex service for men or women only, then you need to be able to objectively justify providing your service in this way. You must meet other conditions as well, such as that a joint service would be less effective, or that men’s needs and women’s needs are different."

So I guess the question is whether the beauticians can objectively justify providing a single-sex service. I think the fact that the customer was non-binary doesn't come into it - the question is whether they are in their rights to refuse to provide the service to a man.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/equality-law-hairdressers-barbers-and-beauty-salons

What a ridiculous person. How many thousands of places can you get a manicure in London?

I am not making assumptions about the set up of this particular beauty provider: if they meet the criteria for a single sex service then that should be protected. But many of the responses here fall wider. It is not just women who have religious (or other) reasons for refusing to provide services to the opposite sex and in cultures where these religious reasons are accepted the outcome for women is calamitous.

@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?

Does it occur to you that scheduling someone's working hours to avoid any times a man might be in a small unisex salon is completely unrealistic?

What if he believes he's female?

That is irrelevant.

It could become increasingly relevant because of the muddying of the waters around the law. One organisation has spent many years trying to create confusion in this area. It's helped to create a sense of entitlement.

@ArabellaScott

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.

There have been at least 2 threads on here from women expressing outrage they were refused service by a male barber working out of traditional barber shops. From memory they got a lot of support for their views.

Here's the tweet posted to encourage a pile-on:

twitter.com/andreadgiovanni/status/1395050765123719168

The replies mostly make clear that a woman's protected characteristics should wither away in the face of a man's demand for validation.

Look at where it goes:

twitter.com/andreadgiovanni/status/1395060428800151552

@Cleanandpress

What a ridiculous person. How many thousands of places can you get a manicure in London?

Utterly ridiculous. l. I think the salon is on very thin ice but I'm sure The Daily Mail is setting them up for a deserved fall.

Maybe so, MissBarbary. It seems reasonable to me.

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

This is where religion comes into it. If your religion says you are not able to touch a member of the opposite sex, then you are protected under the Equality Act. If you just don't want to touch someone of the opposite sex, then that becomes more complicated (and am not a lawyer so don't know how that would play out in court).

What's important to remember about this customer is that their non-binary status isn't recognised in law. If they had said that they were undergoing a process of reassignment to become female, their status would have been protected under the Equality Act.

The alleged 'abuser' being from a religious or ethnic minority also seems to be part of the pattern.

Yaniv targets ethnic minority women too. This time is just a manicure but if you think beauticians shouldn't be allowed to be single sex only how long will it be before a man claiming to be 'they or she' demands intimate waxing from females.

Absolutely if you work on a unisex Salon you should treat both sexes. We shouldn't pander to anyone's religion you take the money you do your job.

"He/she/they"
So putting that in my work email signature.

I think this is Islamophobia. Forcing a Muslim woman to go against her religion and “deal” with touching a male or being out of a job. I think it is disgusting.

If they had said that they were undergoing a process of reassignment to become female, their status would have been protected under the Equality Act.

Yes, but that still wouldn't mean they had to be treated as if female. They just couldn't be treated worse than other males who weren't "undergoing reassignment".

(I'm fairly certain that's where the law stands. I'm less certain about the situation post-GRC. We still await case law to sort this out, as we're apparently not getting the judicial review.)

@Whoarethewho

Absolutely if you work on a unisex Salon you should treat both sexes. We shouldn't pander to anyone's religion you take the money you do your job.

The beauty salon service is single sex. But the issue is that many individuals feel entitled by the manipulation of the narrative (and the law) by organisations like Stonewall to push boundaries.

Absolutely if you work on a unisex Salon you should treat both sexes.

The salon may be unisex, but why should that require all people working there to be unisex?

I can see conflict if the salon had that view and an employee didn't, and the law would need to take a position there.

But if the salon and employee are in agreement that an employee does female-only, are you saying the law should say "no, sorry, you aren't allowed to have female-only staff, you have to make all staff do both sexes". Really?