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

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?

Why? On certain days or times of the day, haircut person is in doing their thing, on other days or at other times of day, female offering female only services in there. Many salons operate on the basis that you can only get certain treatments on certain days if a certain provider is working that day. Many women work part time/around school hours, so you have to go in on the days/times your preferred provider is working. Not great if you are wanting to attract passing trade, but doable if you operate on an appointments only basis.

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.

And the outcome would have been the same: the Muslim woman would have refused to touch an unrelated male, and would still have had to defend her actions. The protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' means that people with that characteristic must be treated the same as other members of their sex. But trans activism organisations have been misrepresenting the law and

Oops - hit post accidentally.

... and insusting that the law says that ' gender reassignment' means that the individual has to be treated as his or her preferred gender at all times. So the Muslim woman would still have had to fight for her rights.

But trans activism organisations have been misrepresenting the law

And at the moment this sort of thing happens is it likely that every member of staff in every organisation will be up to speed on the ins and outs of the 2010 EQA, or indeed the correct interpretation of the EQA. Obviously the law comes into play after the fact, but in the moment male entitlement can be hard to push back against. I'm impressed that they did in this instance.

I feel like something is missing from this story. Why did the salon phone he/she/they? It's all a bit odd.

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

To be clear I meant the DM is setting this person up for a fall, not the salon.

I liked this twitter comment.

Have you tried considering you’re not the centre of the universe? I know it’s difficult

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.

Sex is also a protected characteristic under the equality act and there are only limited circumstances where you can discriminate agaonst someone on the basis of sex. Belief does not trump other protected characteristicx.

It is predictable here that the pile on is entirely because Mumsnet users believe this person to be a man. And misandry is rife on Mumsnet. There were threads about women not being allowed in barbers that supported the female complaint. Either way this is a unisex Salon so the worker should just do her job and if she can't then she needs to find another. We live in a western liberal democracy and I woul expect that treatment from a Salon.

Women have boundaries that men don't experience.

It does not matter whether personally you don't agree with religion or think women should be allowed to enact ones you personally see as misogynistic. It's a fundamental naivety to the reality of those women and it's a bit colonialist really to see western white culture as superior and demand that people just get with your obviously better and more righteous way of life. This seems to me a really unpleasant attitude.

Those women are not all going to abandon their religion, culture, family, friends, and deal with all the fall out of that, because someone with no clue about their lives tell them to. Those religions and cultures are not all going to change by next week or next year either.

So do we abandon some women to not being able to work in their qualified field, or to have equal access to society, because their personal boundaries and protected characteristics are currently not helpful to those who see the shoehorning of male people into female spaces as the only protected characteristic that matters?

If we're going to respect that some male people wish to access women's single sex spaces because of their feelings, needs, identity, personal culture and beliefs, then those male people in turn need to respect those exact same things in some female people who cannot share a space with them. And we need to come up with solutions that work for all which is going to be accepting that sometimes some women say no, and cannot put a male born person's needs above their own.

Remembering that transideology is also a belief system whose members feel their belief should trump sex as a protected characteristic...

Well said @Artichokeleaves

@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.

Except that is not the issue. Gender identity is not a protected characteristic.

The hair salon is unisex. However, providing beauty services is single sex, ie female. The woman in question refused to provide a service to someone who is not female.

Tibtom

wait, are you saying that the point of sex being a protected characteristic is so that men can insist upon their right to use female only spaces or provisions?

Because i think the point of sex being protected is entirely to allow women to provide female only spaces.

I think im misunderstanding your point. Is that what you are saying - that they can not deny him a manicure because they cannot refuse to touch a man even if the 'spa' services are female only - because his sex is protected ?

@Whoarethewho

It is predictable here that the pile on is entirely because Mumsnet users believe this person to be a man. And misandry is rife on Mumsnet. There were threads about women not being allowed in barbers that supported the female complaint. Either way this is a unisex Salon so the worker should just do her job and if she can't then she needs to find another. We live in a western liberal democracy and I woul expect that treatment from a Salon.

The salon’s website specifies the nail clinician works with women only. This asshat it trying to force a woman to touch him when she objects.

@JellySlice

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.

And the outcome would have been the same: the Muslim woman would have refused to touch an unrelated male, and would still have had to defend her actions. The protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' means that people with that characteristic must be treated the same as other members of their sex. But trans activism organisations have been misrepresenting the law and

I'm not sure you're right in that interpretation.

I'm actually torn on this one. I don't think the Muslim women should have to go against the tenets of her religion, but I do think the salon behaved poorly. If the only 'available' beautician was for females only, couldn't they have swapped appointments around so that Andrea could be seen by another of the beauticians?

If it was genuinely impossible, the owner should have simply apologized, said they'd double booked/the beautician couldn't make the appointment and rescheduled. Hanging up the phone without further ado is very rude and does smack of negative judgement on the part of the salon employee making the call.

The salon’s website specifies the nail clinician works with women only. This asshat it trying to force a woman to touch him when she objects.

I suspect they're trying to enforce their political view on women that women may have no boundaries left to them that say no to people born male.

There's a word for that, and it is not 'inclusion'. It isn't 'kind' either.

Im interested that so many people have not encountered the business model of a unisex hair salon that provides female only spa/massage/manicure services.

Im obviously over pampered

Obviously done for the purposes of advancing an entertainer's public profile but not all publicity is good publicity:

twitter.com/search?q=andreadgiovanni%20yaniv&src=typed_query&f=live

for example Of course, a very minor league Yaniv. But the basic attitude seems the same.

@Puntastic

I'm actually torn on this one. I don't think the Muslim women should have to go against the tenets of her religion, but I do think the salon behaved poorly. If the only 'available' beautician was for females only, couldn't they have swapped appointments around so that Andrea could be seen by another of the beauticians?

If it was genuinely impossible, the owner should have simply apologized, said they'd double booked/the beautician couldn't make the appointment and rescheduled. Hanging up the phone without further ado is very rude and does smack of negative judgement on the part of the salon employee making the call.

As @NeedNewKnees said: The salon’s website specifies the nail clinician works with women only. This asshat is trying to force a woman to touch him when she objects.

couldn't they have swapped appointments around so that Andrea could be seen by another of the beauticians?

I think what I'm picking up here is that there is confusion because the hair salon is unisex, but the beautician service there is female-only.

Am I wrong?

I do think the salon behaved poorly.

There are many other salons providing unisex services to customers of both sexes. It is not poorly behaved to state 'we sell this service, we cannot meet your needs'. If I take my dog to the cat and rabbit care clinic on the grounds that they're all vets and qualified, they're not behaving poorly to say no, this is not the service they are providing and I need to shop elsewhere for what I want.

This is just all about politically stamping out single sex being female only.

Im interested that so many people have not encountered the business model of a unisex hair salon that provides female only spa/massage/manicure services.

It may be specifically men assuming that they could use the spa/massage/manicure services if they wanted to, even if they never have, so they've just never noticed that they were female-only.

And that would include this guy.

As @NeedNewKnees said: The salon’s website specifies the nail clinician works with women only. This asshat is trying to force a woman to touch him when she objects.

From the article, the website states that massage appointments are for females only. It does not specify anything about nails.

@Artichokeleaves

I do think the salon behaved poorly.

There are many other salons providing unisex services to customers of both sexes. It is not poorly behaved to state 'we sell this service, we cannot meet your needs'. If I take my dog to the cat and rabbit care clinic on the grounds that they're all vets and qualified, they're not behaving poorly to say no, this is not the service they are providing and I need to shop elsewhere for what I want.

This is just all about politically stamping out single sex being female only.

From the article, they didn't state it. They only stated it for massages, which Andrea said was, 'fair enough'.