[POLITICS] Incident in Canada regarding a transgender woman sueing for not getting a brazilian wax.

[Saelune]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

If I go to a kosher deli and demand a steak sandwich with Swiss cheese, both of those being products they stock, are they not entitled to refuse to combine them into a product to serve to me on the basis of religion?

That sort of reminds me of when I was bartending in college and this fine dining restaurant. The chef there was from El Salvador and was an amazing chef, but eccentric and extremely temperamental. We had this guy come in and attempt to order a steak and asked if we could ask the chef to chop it up and serve it as an appetizer. The customer was of course told that was not possible so he then asked to speak to the chef directly. The chef was so enraged by this request he literally grabbed a meat cleaver screaming like a psycho and chased the man from the restaurant and banned him for life. If a customer's request is just refused and that is all that happened, they should be glad they didn't ask this chef... who might just be crazy enough to find out where you live.

Are we supposed to side with the crazy chef who thinks assaulting people is the proper response to this request?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

If I go to a kosher deli and demand a steak sandwich with Swiss cheese, both of those being products they stock, are they not entitled to refuse to combine them into a product to serve to me on the basis of religion?

Not like they have to eat it themselves.

Have you ever been to a kosher deli? They're great places, but they don't serve non-kosher food, or non-kosher combinations of kosher food. No dairy with meat is a big one. And it doesn't matter that they don't eat it themselves: They are not require to provide a combination of their products that they religiously object to.

All religions have silly rules that serve no benefit. I don't give any religion excuse, I just don't focus on things beyond outright bigotry, but doesn't mean I think these rules are reasonable. I just try to abide a 'live and let live' philosophy.

You're sidestepping the question. Should a kosher deli be required to provide me with a swiss cheese and steak sandwich upon request, even if that violates their religious rules? Yes or no?

Assuming you're not about to throw some BS at me, yes. I side with consumers over businesses, and I think religion is a terrible excuse.

I'm not going to "throw some BS at [you]"

It's good to know that you are consistent in your view. I just find this statement to be laughably unworkable as a matter of law and of policy. Oh, and of morality, too. If you want a steak sandwich with swiss, go to a non-kosher deli. If you want your testicles waxed, go to a testicle-waxing place

Waxing hair is not a demand to touch penises, nor is it a demand to sexually assault someone. Both of you are dragging this into a BS argument.

If she cant be proffesional, that is her failing.

If you can figure out how to wax testicles without touching any part of the penis, please explain how.

You have also yet to establish how this is a matter of "professionalism."

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

"It's gross" is enough of a reason to not want to touch someone's penis. In fact "I don't want to" is enough reason to not force a woman to touch a penis. Remember Saelune, no means no.

Are you actually making the argument that there are times when women should be forced to touch penises against their will?

 

[Leg End]

...I'm sorry, are we talking about this person? The same one who wants to host topless female child spool parties, tries to send CP to girls and look at their tampons, and... well, generally grooms kids? Yeah, no. This is clearly for sexual gratification and not in regards to any kinds of trans issues.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

"no means no."

That's the biggest issue for me. Pretty much no matter who you are or what job you have, you should never be forced to touch anyone's penis.

I know many people on multiple sides of the emerging debate around the issue of trans rights. Not one of them wants to die on the hill of "wax my testicles, bigot." At least as far as I can tell.

 

[Saelune]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

If I go to a kosher deli and demand a steak sandwich with Swiss cheese, both of those being products they stock, are they not entitled to refuse to combine them into a product to serve to me on the basis of religion?

Not like they have to eat it themselves.

Have you ever been to a kosher deli? They're great places, but they don't serve non-kosher food, or non-kosher combinations of kosher food. No dairy with meat is a big one. And it doesn't matter that they don't eat it themselves: They are not require to provide a combination of their products that they religiously object to.

All religions have silly rules that serve no benefit. I don't give any religion excuse, I just don't focus on things beyond outright bigotry, but doesn't mean I think these rules are reasonable. I just try to abide a 'live and let live' philosophy.

You're sidestepping the question. Should a kosher deli be required to provide me with a swiss cheese and steak sandwich upon request, even if that violates their religious rules? Yes or no?

Assuming you're not about to throw some BS at me, yes. I side with consumers over businesses, and I think religion is a terrible excuse.

I'm not going to "throw some BS at [you]"

It's good to know that you are consistent in your view. I just find this statement to be laughably unworkable as a matter of law and of policy. Oh, and of morality, too. If you want a steak sandwich with swiss, go to a non-kosher deli. If you want your testicles waxed, go to a testicle-waxing place

Waxing hair is not a demand to touch penises, nor is it a demand to sexually assault someone. Both of you are dragging this into a BS argument.

If she cant be proffesional, that is her failing.

If you can figure out how to wax testicles without touching any part of the penis, please explain how.

You have also yet to establish how this is a matter of "professionalism."

Some people try to not be hypocrites.

She didn't want to do her job. Her job at times involves touching genitals. If she doesn't want to touch genitals, which I do not think is unreasonable on its own, she needs to take a different job that definitively avoids genital touching.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

If I go to a kosher deli and demand a steak sandwich with Swiss cheese, both of those being products they stock, are they not entitled to refuse to combine them into a product to serve to me on the basis of religion?

Not like they have to eat it themselves.

Have you ever been to a kosher deli? They're great places, but they don't serve non-kosher food, or non-kosher combinations of kosher food. No dairy with meat is a big one. And it doesn't matter that they don't eat it themselves: They are not require to provide a combination of their products that they religiously object to.

All religions have silly rules that serve no benefit. I don't give any religion excuse, I just don't focus on things beyond outright bigotry, but doesn't mean I think these rules are reasonable. I just try to abide a 'live and let live' philosophy.

You're sidestepping the question. Should a kosher deli be required to provide me with a swiss cheese and steak sandwich upon request, even if that violates their religious rules? Yes or no?

Assuming you're not about to throw some BS at me, yes. I side with consumers over businesses, and I think religion is a terrible excuse.

One's belief that their penis should be touched by another person is not more important than the other person's belief that they don't want to touch penises. Trying to force someone who only works with vulvas to work with penises against their will is infringing upon their rights.

Working with a penis =\= working with a vulva, and no giving Brazilian waxes to people with vulvas does not mean they have to give waxes to people with a penis. They are not the same thing, do not have the same requirements and the person is entitled to their own beliefs and not have other's beliefs forced upon them against their will.

EDIT: and yes we are talking about having them touch their penis and balls in order to have a Brazilian wax because the penis and balls are in the way and would have to be moved to wax. Have you ever had a Brazilian? OF course they would have to touch it to get one.

 

[Silent Protagonist]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

Maybe take a step back and try to imagine the same situation but with a cis man suing instead of a trans woman. Would you care about what reasons she gave for not wanting to wax the man's genitals? I think you seeing this as a case of "trans woman denied service for religious reasons" and that quite reasonably sets off just about every alarm bell in your head, but I think if you step back you will see the situation is actually simpler than that. Gender identity and religion aren't really all that relevant in this situation. This woman was not comfortable waxing male genitalia regardless of whether they were attached to a man or a woman and she shouldn't need to justify her discomfort with waxing male genitals

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Some people try to not be hypocrites.

Good for them.

She didn't want to do her job.

Unless you can prove it's in her job description, it isn't her job

Her job at times involves touching genitals.

Not male ones

If she doesn't want to touch genitals, which I do not think is unreasonable on its own, she needs to take a different job that definitively avoids genital touching.

She seems to have no problem waxing female genitalia. So it looks like the only problem is the penis, which is outside her job as far as we can tell.

 

[Saelune]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

"It's gross" is enough of a reason to not want to touch someone's penis. In fact "I don't want to" is enough reason to not force a woman to touch a penis. Remember Saelune, no means no.

Are you actually making the argument that there are times when women should be forced to touch penises against their will?

See, this is what I was talking about when I was worried about people 'throwing BS at me'.

No, I am not making that argument, and you know it. I am making the argument that taking a job that involves genital touching is giving consent to touch genitals when doing your job. She is free to quit.

 

[Saelune]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

Maybe take a step back and try to imagine the same situation but with a cis man suing instead of a trans woman. Would you care about what reasons she gave for not wanting to wax the man's genitals? I think you seeing this as a case of "trans woman denied service for religious reasons" and that quite reasonably sets off just about every alarm bell in your head, but I think if you step back you will see the situation is actually simpler than that. Gender identity and religion aren't really all that relevant in this situation. This woman was not comfortable waxing male genitalia regardless of whether they were attached to a man or a woman and she shouldn't need to justify her discomfort with waxing male genitals

I stand by my stance. Again, some people actually aren't hypocrites.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

"It's gross" is enough of a reason to not want to touch someone's penis. In fact "I don't want to" is enough reason to not force a woman to touch a penis. Remember Saelune, no means no.

Are you actually making the argument that there are times when women should be forced to touch penises against their will?

See, this is what I was talking about when I was worried about people 'throwing BS at me'.

No, I am not making that argument, and you know it. I am making the argument that taking a job that involves genital touching is giving consent to touch genitals when doing your job. She is free to quit.

I know that you know that there is a fundamental difference between a job that involves waxing the female pubic region and one that involves waxing any pubic region, and that this job is the former. Unless you want to make the argument that penises and vulvas are basically the same and that if a person is fine with touching one they must be fine with touching the other.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

"It's gross" is enough of a reason to not want to touch someone's penis. In fact "I don't want to" is enough reason to not force a woman to touch a penis. Remember Saelune, no means no.

Are you actually making the argument that there are times when women should be forced to touch penises against their will?

See, this is what I was talking about when I was worried about people 'throwing BS at me'.

No, I am not making that argument, and you know it. I am making the argument that taking a job that involves genital touching is giving consent to touch genitals when doing your job. She is free to quit.

Her job doesn't require that though. I can have a Brazilian without ever having my genitals touched because my genitals are not in the way in the area that is being worked on and they do not protrude from my body as testicles and penises do. You are not even asking her to do the same thing she always does to wax someone with a penis.

In addition agreeing to work with vulvas does not mean she agreed to work with penises. Agreeing to work with penises does not mean you agree to work with vulvas. This works both ways here. The penis wielder is free to go somewhere that works with penises. There is no reason for her to change her job as that was never her job to begin with.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

"It's gross" is enough of a reason to not want to touch someone's penis. In fact "I don't want to" is enough reason to not force a woman to touch a penis. Remember Saelune, no means no.

Are you actually making the argument that there are times when women should be forced to touch penises against their will?

See, this is what I was talking about when I was worried about people 'throwing BS at me'.

No, I am not making that argument, and you know it. I am making the argument that taking a job that involves genital touching is giving consent to touch genitals when doing your job. She is free to quit.

So you are now saying that "implied consent" is a thing with regards to forcing a woman to touch penises.

How do you not realize how rapey everything you're saying sounds?

If a man said ANY of what you're saying you'd be treating them as a rapist. Just because someone has a specific job doesn't mean that they should be forced to sexually interact with people they don't want to sexually interact with.

 

[Saelune]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

"It's gross" is enough of a reason to not want to touch someone's penis. In fact "I don't want to" is enough reason to not force a woman to touch a penis. Remember Saelune, no means no.

Are you actually making the argument that there are times when women should be forced to touch penises against their will?

See, this is what I was talking about when I was worried about people 'throwing BS at me'.

No, I am not making that argument, and you know it. I am making the argument that taking a job that involves genital touching is giving consent to touch genitals when doing your job. She is free to quit.

So you are now saying that "implied consent" is a thing with regards to forcing a woman to touch penises.

How do you not realize how rapey everything you're saying sounds?

If a man said ANY of what you're saying you'd be treating them as a rapist. Just because someone has a specific job doesn't mean that they should be forced to sexually interact with people they don't want to sexually interact with.

You are not arguing in good faith at all and you know it.

 

[Leg End]

*snip*

Can I please point out that you're currently defending a child predator?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

"It's gross" is enough of a reason to not want to touch someone's penis. In fact "I don't want to" is enough reason to not force a woman to touch a penis. Remember Saelune, no means no.

Are you actually making the argument that there are times when women should be forced to touch penises against their will?

See, this is what I was talking about when I was worried about people 'throwing BS at me'.

No, I am not making that argument, and you know it. I am making the argument that taking a job that involves genital touching is giving consent to touch genitals when doing your job. She is free to quit.

So you are now saying that "implied consent" is a thing with regards to forcing a woman to touch penises.

How do you not realize how rapey everything you're saying sounds?

If a man said ANY of what you're saying you'd be treating them as a rapist. Just because someone has a specific job doesn't mean that they should be forced to sexually interact with people they don't want to sexually interact with.

You are not arguing in good faith at all and you know it.

Could you then clarify what you mean about implied consent requiring someone to touch a penis just because they have a job that involves touching vulvas?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

"It's gross" is enough of a reason to not want to touch someone's penis. In fact "I don't want to" is enough reason to not force a woman to touch a penis. Remember Saelune, no means no.

Are you actually making the argument that there are times when women should be forced to touch penises against their will?

See, this is what I was talking about when I was worried about people 'throwing BS at me'.

No, I am not making that argument, and you know it. I am making the argument that taking a job that involves genital touching is giving consent to touch genitals when doing your job. She is free to quit.

So you are now saying that "implied consent" is a thing with regards to forcing a woman to touch penises.

How do you not realize how rapey everything you're saying sounds?

If a man said ANY of what you're saying you'd be treating them as a rapist. Just because someone has a specific job doesn't mean that they should be forced to sexually interact with people they don't want to sexually interact with.

You are not arguing in good faith at all and you know it.

I'm arguing that no one should be forced to touch anyone else's sexual organs if they don't want to for any reason. It's a pretty clear and consistent argument. For someone who doesn't want to be a hypocrite you're sure being a hypocrite.

 

[Silent Protagonist]

Maybe take a step back and try to imagine the same situation but with a cis man suing instead of a trans woman. Would you care about what reasons she gave for not wanting to wax the man's genitals? I think you seeing this as a case of "trans woman denied service for religious reasons" and that quite reasonably sets off just about every alarm bell in your head, but I think if you step back you will see the situation is actually simpler than that. Gender identity and religion aren't really all that relevant in this situation. This woman was not comfortable waxing male genitalia regardless of whether they were attached to a man or a woman and she shouldn't need to justify her discomfort with waxing male genitals

I stand by my stance. Again, some people actually aren't hypocrites.

Do you think not being a hypocrite means never changing your mind on anything? It isn't hypocrisy to admit your hot take on an issue isn't in line with the values and ideals you hold to be important. As I said before you seem to look at this situation and see "trans woman refused service for religious reasons" but just about everyone else is seeing "Woman sued for refusing to touch someone's penis." While you might perceive people arguing against you as supporting the idea that it is ok to refuse service to transwomen for religious reasons, they could just as easily perceive you as supporting the idea that it is ok to sue a woman for refusing to touch your genitals. You don't need to get defensive. You don't need to double down. Considering things from a different perspective doesn't make you a hypocrite.

 

[bluegate]

No matter how much one disagrees with the gender roles associated with their biological sex, they still have the biological body of the sex they were born with.

No amount of saying you're a woman and acting like a woman will make one's penis and balls go away and there are places where this can cause issues, like when going to a wax shop that only works on women's genitals.