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

As I said, there are inconsistencies between the web site 166stylestudio.co.uk/, the Treatwell site widget.treatwell.co.uk/place/style-studio-wimbledon/ and the article in the Daily Mail, whose URL I provided.

And I maintain that to book a manicure through the Treatwell site - you need to book this way unless you email or telephone - it states "ladies manicure".

[quote AlfonsoTheTerrible]This is the URL of the site I am looking at: 166stylestudio.co.uk/index.php.[/quote]
And it very clearly offers massage and wax for men. How can you (general you) say it doesn't?

And it very clearly offers massage and wax for men. How can you (general you) say it doesn't?

They have said they're short staffed due to Covid. They may not have updated their website. As long as it's clear on the booking site I have no idea why this matters.

Even if it's not clear on the booking site I don't see why it matters - it might not be very professional but the beautician's right to turn down clients she's not comfortable with is more important than whether this small business's website is 100% up to date.

I don't think Muslim women (or anyone, come to think of it) should be forced into doing something which goes so fundamentally against their morals or beliefs.

In this case, I would just say that it's OK for beauty treatments to be single sex, so religious objection doesn't even need to come into it.

But er, what about Christian bakers having to bake cakes for a gay marriage? Or having to create a cake with a message that they strongly disagree with?

And what if your religious beliefs are hostile to Western society? So you don't believe in free speech? You don't believe in religious freedom for other people?

Should that be protected?

I think they must have two websites saying different things, very strange.

"There’s also a menu of beauty treatments and massages. The salon uses a range of professional products such as Goldwell, John Frieda, Label.m and Lycon. All massage treatments are female only"

style-studio-wimbledon.mytreatwell.co.uk/

No one should be forced to touch another human being.

And it very clearly offers massage and wax for men. How can you (general you) say it doesn't?

Does it matter?

Massages are normally provided by a massage therapist who is usually a different person from a beautician.

The only thing that matters here in my view is the manicure part of the service, which on the website is listed as "Ladies" throughout. If you want to book the service, the Treatwell website then specifies this is "Ladies only".

That is entirely consistent. Phoning up to confirm an appointment made through an online booking site is common, although I would assume that the salon here phoned specifically to make sure the client was female as the only beautician available only works on female clients.

The owner further confirms that they have had other enquiries from male individuals seeking to book a manicure and have informed them it's a service offered only to female customers without encountering any issues.

Now I understand that Andrea is annoyed about having an appointment cancelled just an hour before. That is indeed inconvenient, and should have been done earlier. I do wonder if that happened though because it didn't occur to the staff in the salon that this might be a male person until looking at their schedule and seeing the surname was Italian.

[quote andyoldlabour]I think they must have two websites saying different things, very strange.

"There’s also a menu of beauty treatments and massages. The salon uses a range of professional products such as Goldwell, John Frieda, Label.m and Lycon. All massage treatments are female only"

style-studio-wimbledon.mytreatwell.co.uk/[/quote]
That's helpful and explains the discrepancies.

Thank you!

But er, what about Christian bakers having to bake cakes for a gay marriage? Or having to create a cake with a message that they strongly disagree with?

Wasn't that already sorted out in UK law? Bakers can't refuse to sell an off-the-shelf cake for a gay marriage but they can refuse to create a cake with a message they strongly disagree with. Seems entirely reasonable and sensible.

I don't know why people keep trying to make this difficult. There aren't that many edge cases, and a beautician who doesn't want to work with male clients is not an edge case, it's her absolute right to refuse.

Ah. That's Treatwell rather than the direct site itself. Again, the site refers to "ladies" under the category of "Hands, feet and nail treatments".

And on that web site, under "Team" it states "Tala
Beautician. Tala works on female clients, thank you for your understanding."

Tala is the only beautician listed.

They appear to have three sets of services:
Some restricted to ladies
Some restricted to men
Some no restriction stated (which would lead me to believe available for either)

Nail treatment booking does clearly state Ladies though I would think that manicure/pedicure is one of the few treatments some young men would actually want. It may be that the muslim girl is their nail person which is why they have the restriction. This Andrea character is a prat because they should have seen when booking it was for ladies and no doubt there are many alternative places available.

*This is quite different imo from the abortion issue. I don't think people should have to be involved in abortions

Quite. The NHS should not employ doctors who refuse abortion care. But what private practices do is different.

Why do people on Mumsnet continually try to insist that Muslim women must follow the most extreme patriarchal interpretations of Islam?

", she potentially puts herself in danger, as an adulterer in the eyes of an orthodox religion that often doesn't treat females who transgress strict sex segregation rules well."

Da fuck?! What a load of absolute nonsense.

Andrea sounds like an attention seeking twat who thinks his/her/their rights trump anyone else’s.

The decision was made on the fact that his/her/their voice was clearly that of a male, so nothing whatsoever to do with gender fluidity.

On the subject of gender fluidity- if you can’t make up your own mind, how the fuck do you expect the rest of us to keep up?

Wasn't that already sorted out in UK law? Bakers can't refuse to sell an off-the-shelf cake for a gay marriage but they can refuse to create a cake with a message they strongly disagree with. Seems entirely reasonable and sensible.

Yes, although it may still be under appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

Many people may still disagree with the principle whichever way it goes.

I don't know why people keep trying to make this difficult. There aren't that many edge cases

With religious freedom, you get everything from drug use (e.g. peyote used by Native Americans), to people carrying weapons (Sikhs), to bans on the burka.

So various interesting questions here about what should/shouldn't be tolerated in the name of religion.

So various interesting questions here about what should/shouldn't be tolerated in the name of religion.

This isn't about religion; any beautician should be able to refuse male clients if she wants to. (Or refuse female clients if that's what they want.)

Excellent points, @CharlieParley.

Quite. The NHS should not employ doctors who refuse abortion care. But what private practices do is different.

I think there needs to be room for moral objections to things like abortion and not forcing doctors/nurses in the NHS to be involved in it.

The biggest issue that I can see is where a GP is refusing to do a referral, as that would have a practical impact on access to services.

But not having to perform abortions, doesn't really have an impact on anyone unless all doctors in the NHS refuse to do it.

This isn't about religion; any beautician should be able to refuse male clients if she wants to. (Or refuse female clients if that's what they want.)

Yeah I already made that point myself. But some people are bringing up the religious freedom angle, and so I responded on that.

Surely ALL women must have to right to refuse to perform intimate services on a male bodied person, Muslim or not. I know I would refuse in that situation. Same as if a customer came in and was abusive/unpleasant/smelly or whatever. Just as a shop can refuse to sell to someone - why should this be any different?

Everyone is allowed their own beliefs and to try to live according to them as long as it doesn’t impact too much on others.

A specific Muslim woman wants to wear a burqa and not touch men. I may not find that ideal but ultimately I won’t try to stop her.

A Muslim woman wants me to wear a burqa and not touch men. That is a big problem.

A transgender male believing that they are a woman and dressing like a woman. Not my problem or a Muslim woman’s problem. Go for it!

A transgender male believing that they are a woman and wants to force everyone to treat them as a woman. Especially Muslim women. That is a big problem.

Why do this people always search for women who disagree with them? Why book in a place where “ladies only” was specified? I am sure that there are dozens of places where they could have had nails done, hair cut, balls vaxed, a glass of champagne and lots of libfems saying “go sister”. Why not go there?

I would extend that sentiment to include men having the right to say no, too.

To clarify: my comment was in response to @ginghamstarfish.

Me me me me me me me me me.

What a monumental should have been wankstain. It's almost always the male bodied people in the trans community who feel like they have the right to demand that females accept them and touch them. Going around demanding bodily autonomy in terms of being their "authentic selves" whilst actively denying women trying to exercise their right to bodily autonomy.

Good old fashioned misogyny at work here.