[POLITICS] Incident in Canada regarding a transgender woman sueing for not getting a brazilian wax.
- Thread starter Specter Von Baren
- Start date
This is the Trans Bathrooms and Christian Bakery discussion all over again, isn't it? But this time with some pervert riding the coat tails of civil rights activism and wielding anti discrimination laws like a club to force unwilling women to touch their penis.
And you know what, told you so. I, and people like me, have been warning since Day 1 to not let an impetuous desire for minority rights trample all over the necessary discussion about protecting the rights of those who object to being made party to things they don't consent to, whether on grounds of religion, personal discomfort, morality, or whatever. But none of you upstanding "allies" were willing to entertain the discussion, were you? "People might abuse all these new loopholes and exceptions for self-serving ends? HERESY! No trans person could ever be an abuser! Trans people are ALWAYS the victims! Let people use the bathrooms and changing rooms they want, right now, or you're a bigot!" - and that was that, apparently.
This is the rod you created for our backs, fellas. You decided that the right to refuse service should be stripped from private business owners - because, again, who could conceive of a legitimate reason to decline service? Only a racist or homophobe or some other variety of boogeyman would ever do that. What terrible transphobes these self-employed beauticians must be.
And, just in case anybody is still unsure about whether Yaniv is the victim here, please do a Google search for their readily retrievable chat logs wherein Yaniv asks at length and in detail about looking at naked underage girls in changing rooms and whether it's acceptable to assist pubescent girls to use tampons. I'm learning today that Yaniv is trying to organise underage nude swim sessions from which the kids parents will be conveniently barred - yikes. This is who you are defending here, Saelune. To your credit you're being utterly consistent in your reasoning, as ever, but I do wonder if your dogmatic partisan side ever takes a day off and you try seeing things from an opposing point of view.
Once again: congratulations to all the right-on progressives who shoved half-baked legislation through the door because it made them feel warm and fuzzy to be "on the right side of history", and who weren't interested in entertaining any kind of dialogue with "small minded bigots and regressives". Try putting the genie back in the bottle now; I'll be over here enjoying my popcorn.
And you know what, told you so. I, and people like me, have been warning since Day 1 to not let an impetuous desire for minority rights trample all over the necessary discussion about protecting the rights of those who object to being made party to things they don't consent to, whether on grounds of religion, personal discomfort, morality, or whatever. But none of you upstanding "allies" were willing to entertain the discussion, were you? "People might abuse all these new loopholes and exceptions for self-serving ends? HERESY! No trans person could ever be an abuser! Trans people are ALWAYS the victims! Let people use the bathrooms and changing rooms they want, right now, or you're a bigot!" - and that was that, apparently.
This is the rod you created for our backs, fellas. You decided that the right to refuse service should be stripped from private business owners - because, again, who could conceive of a legitimate reason to decline service? Only a racist or homophobe or some other variety of boogeyman would ever do that. What terrible transphobes these self-employed beauticians must be.
And, just in case anybody is still unsure about whether Yaniv is the victim here, please do a Google search for their readily retrievable chat logs wherein Yaniv asks at length and in detail about looking at naked underage girls in changing rooms and whether it's acceptable to assist pubescent girls to use tampons. I'm learning today that Yaniv is trying to organise underage nude swim sessions from which the kids parents will be conveniently barred - yikes. This is who you are defending here, Saelune. To your credit you're being utterly consistent in your reasoning, as ever, but I do wonder if your dogmatic partisan side ever takes a day off and you try seeing things from an opposing point of view.
Once again: congratulations to all the right-on progressives who shoved half-baked legislation through the door because it made them feel warm and fuzzy to be "on the right side of history", and who weren't interested in entertaining any kind of dialogue with "small minded bigots and regressives". Try putting the genie back in the bottle now; I'll be over here enjoying my popcorn.
I think everyone can understand that assholes come in all shapes and sizes, whether they be LGBT or not. Though it is rather hard to ignore that the news outlets and people sharing the news outlets just so happen to be the ones who relish in particular narratives that demonise people different from them. In particular, trans and migrants/refugees; happy to highlight when anyone from those demographics are not acting wholesome and perfectly in line, but fuck em when it comes to anything else.
Ugh Quit comparing apples to orangutans. Making a cake is not the same as using a bathroom and neither of those is the same as handling genitals so quit trying to act like they are the same thing. Not letting a trans person ride in a taxi or making a gay couple a cake are no where near the equivalent of handling someone's penis. Every situation is different and should be treated as such. This is on a case by case basis. No, girls in changing rooms, showers or bathrooms should not be forced to see penises, nor should women doing waxes be forced to touch penises. That does not mean that trans persons need be prevented from using facilities that have the privacy available to allow them to do so without having that be an issue, as they have been for a very long time already.Batou667 said:
I'm happy to have a discussion about that, but popping up to snarkily shout "bigot!" doesn't achieve much, does it?Avnger said:
Precisely. That's why it was so premature to set legal precedents that introduced such exploitable loopholes.Lil devils x said:
Jumping the gun a it there, no verdict has been reached.Batou667 said:
I think it's good that such a bad actor is the one championing this particular scenario, so that moving forward when this case sets precedent it draws a line between a trans rights issue and a right to deny service issue.
This is actually the law working, albeit slowly. At least, I hope it works and this Yaniv person is given marching orders. If it swings the other way... okay, that'd be a problem.
That doesn't work. The primary tool of my trade is a pen, which I use to show people mistakes they've made (usually a big circle with 'see me' written next to it). If someone came to me and asked me to check something I was just uncomfortable checking (let's say a white nationalist manifesto, which is a bit like a penis), I'd say 'No, I'm not checking that. Goodbye!' (Though I might draw a big red ring round the whole thing and say 'That's your mistake, right there.')Saelune said:
Ownership of a pen (and the ability to use it responsibly) doesn't oblige me to do so.
As opposed to popping up to shout about progressives and trans allies, which obviously is terribly productive.Batou667 said:
Yes, trans people can be bad people. I don't remember anyone saying they can't. Hell, currently the most famous trans person in the world is probably Caitlyn Jenner, ask an LGBT rights supporter what they think of her. Doesn't mean she should be banned from using bathrooms.
It really, really isn't. Handling someone else's balls isn't the same as handling cake dough.Batou667 said:
I've had this discussion with my esthetician before, and..."mechanical"...differences aside, one thing she does sawmill about is she wishes she had a male esthetician on staff. Apparently a large number of her women clients are less comfortable with women estheticians and would prefer a man, but work with women anyway just to get it done. I had to pick my jaw up off the floor after that one, because of all possible situations, that's one I would never have expected. It's actually something I've considered of late because it's better money and preferable hours to most jobs available to me, but I can't swing the financial burden of the classes.Lil devils x said:
That said, yeah, the simple fact of waxing male pubic hair is one has to get pretty damn familiar with the frank and beans. The fewer details shared, probably the better, least of all for keeping the conversation away from juvenile humor. And, indeed, there is always the likelihood of certain involuntarily physical responses, but frankly the chance of it is minimal if all parties keep things professional, and if it happens, the way to proceed is to stop for a minute and let things return to normal. Assuming the client isn't being a creep about it. It's a beauty service, not sex work.
And, one has to use different types of wax to get the best results, with different melting and application temperatures (almost always hotter), and on skin that's more sensitive to boot. There is definitely a greater risk of harming a client with a twig and giggleberries than there is a vulva, and that requires commensurate experience and expertise. I can definitely understand why some estheticians wouldn't be comfortable with the notion, and can't fault them for refusing men and trans women. I think it's a little silly to refuse service due to social convention, but on the other hand, I get it.
But frankly, in light of this individual's other proclivities, I get the feeling there's more to this story than what's at face value. Estheticians talk, and I get the feeling this individual may have said or done some things that creeped out one or more of them, especially if they have a track record of harassing estheticians. Least of all if this dubious source's assertions Yaniv was sending dick pics to estheticians [https://torontosun.com/news/national/balls-to-that-human-rights-hearing-in-b-c-trans-waxing-war] is correct.
It is if you find the right dominatrix. Sorry, couldn't help myself, I'll see myself out.MrCalavera said:
Eh, someone was going to make a joke. Was thinking of something involving food safety inspectors, but couldn't get it to work.Eacaraxe said:
Waxing may not be on the importance of medical care, but if someone trained in medical care refused to do their job cause 'ew a penis', I would hope they get fired.
LilDevils, I think I know why you are bothered by this, that you are coming from a good place when you disagree with me on this. I think your motives are fine, but you are miss perceiving my point. CM156, I think you are genuinely debating me. I think the rest are arguing in bad faith, making baseless claims and letting their own biases of me make it impossible to see my point.
LilDevils, I think I know why you are bothered by this, that you are coming from a good place when you disagree with me on this. I think your motives are fine, but you are miss perceiving my point. CM156, I think you are genuinely debating me. I think the rest are arguing in bad faith, making baseless claims and letting their own biases of me make it impossible to see my point.
Okay, look.Saelune said:
First, this isn't the first time Yaniv pulled this shit. She's done it to like sixteen different providers [https://www.thepostmillennial.com/the-truth-about-jessica-yaniv-is-beginning-to-emerge/] (here's a second source [https://www.jccf.ca/justice-centre-representing-three-more-bc-aestheticians-facing-human-rights-complaints-over-refusal-to-perform-waxing-service/]). The pattern's been basically the same as what was first established last year [https://www.jccf.ca/victory-for-bc-aesthetician-who-faced-human-rights-complaint-for-refusal-to-perform-waxing-service-on-transwoman/]: approach a provider asking for service, get denied for perfectly practical reasons, sue, settle out-of-court or outright lose.
The pattern is so firmly established and present, one would not be remiss to wonder if she's doing it not to prevent discrimination, but rather to extract settlement money from well-meaning but politically-vulnerable service providers. Yaniv is clearly not a good-faith actor, especially after having continued these antics in light of the testimonies and findings of the first case.
The Poyer case in particular should shed light on the issues at heart: providers are, bare minimum, being accused of bigotry and discrimination for inability to provide service. They even brought other estheticians, including those specialized in male waxing, to testify on their behalf. Even setting aside the creepy sex stuff, including other providers who specified they refuse services on account of inappropriate past behaviors from male and trans clients, it's a cut-and-dried case this is not discriminatory.
Especially in cases where estheticians (may have) refused service due to Yaniv's clear and undeniable history of being a fiercely litigious and problematic individual for others in the field. Were I a Vancouver-area esthetician, I'd deny her service too; not because she's trans, but because she's a shithead, and I'd gladly walk into court with the mountain of evidence she's a shithead, and proudly assert my right as a business-owner to deny service to shitheads.
While offering a limited-time "not all trans people are shitheads" discount to trans people, at least as long as the suit is before court.
And, frankly, as far as the technical stuff, they're right. I'm going to spoiler the squick.
Yeah, there's absolutely a difference in waxing male versus female genitalia. Huge difference, that can actually lead to negative health consequences if the esthetician isn't experienced or equipped to provide the service.
First, you have the fact male genitalia have looser, thinner, and more sensitive skin the relevant portions of women's. The skin of the scrotum and penile shaft are less keratinized than the outer labia. And because the scrotal skin is so heavily folded and wrinkled, hair growth doesn't follow a specific pattern or "grain". This all means the esthetician has to pull the skin incredibly taut, and apply wax to smaller patches of skin at a time, making the process slower and more painstaking, and demanding of a much lighter touch than waxing the outer labia.
Male pubic hair is denser, thicker, and more firmly rooted than female pubic hair. And even in the case of trans women taking a regime of androgen blockers and estrogens, the HRT only goes so far and results are highly individualized. An esthetician has to use hard wax to do the job, because hard wax doesn't adhere to the skin, while adhering to hair more strongly and to a higher surface volume, compared to soft wax. Meanwhile, hard wax can be re-applied due to not exfoliating the skin, and the application of hard wax forces pores open for easier and less painful hair removal. And, because hard wax hardens as it cools, the esthetician doesn't need to continue holding the skin, and in fact the skin's plasticity works in the esthetician's favor.
The downside to this is hard wax is more expensive, more difficult to apply correctly, and has a much higher melting point than soft wax which means the chance of burning the skin goes up dramatically. Especially for the fact that hard wax has to be applied in thicker layers than soft wax, the wax cools from the outside-in, and because of this while cooling the wax conducts heat into the skin. This is why it forces open the pores, but also while burns from hard wax are way, way worse than burns from soft wax. To the point it's second- and third-degree burns are a distinct possibility when improperly using hard wax, especially on thin and sensitive skin such as that of the genitals.
First, you have the fact male genitalia have looser, thinner, and more sensitive skin the relevant portions of women's. The skin of the scrotum and penile shaft are less keratinized than the outer labia. And because the scrotal skin is so heavily folded and wrinkled, hair growth doesn't follow a specific pattern or "grain". This all means the esthetician has to pull the skin incredibly taut, and apply wax to smaller patches of skin at a time, making the process slower and more painstaking, and demanding of a much lighter touch than waxing the outer labia.
Male pubic hair is denser, thicker, and more firmly rooted than female pubic hair. And even in the case of trans women taking a regime of androgen blockers and estrogens, the HRT only goes so far and results are highly individualized. An esthetician has to use hard wax to do the job, because hard wax doesn't adhere to the skin, while adhering to hair more strongly and to a higher surface volume, compared to soft wax. Meanwhile, hard wax can be re-applied due to not exfoliating the skin, and the application of hard wax forces pores open for easier and less painful hair removal. And, because hard wax hardens as it cools, the esthetician doesn't need to continue holding the skin, and in fact the skin's plasticity works in the esthetician's favor.
The downside to this is hard wax is more expensive, more difficult to apply correctly, and has a much higher melting point than soft wax which means the chance of burning the skin goes up dramatically. Especially for the fact that hard wax has to be applied in thicker layers than soft wax, the wax cools from the outside-in, and because of this while cooling the wax conducts heat into the skin. This is why it forces open the pores, but also while burns from hard wax are way, way worse than burns from soft wax. To the point it's second- and third-degree burns are a distinct possibility when improperly using hard wax, especially on thin and sensitive skin such as that of the genitals.
Well, that depends on how short Yaniv's shorts are... wait, you meant the legal ruIing, right?Abomination said:
I understood at least some of the beauticians involved have already paid legal costs and/or gone out of business, so in a sense the damage is already being done. If there's a further ruling pending I'll be interested to see how that plays out.
Oh wow, I did not seeing that coming. She's a scam artists using the trans identity to construct awkward situations, ie schedule me for a vagina wax and BOOM! surprise penis!, then sue for discrimination/hate-crime/penis-is-not-vagina-reaction.Eacaraxe said:
Well I guess it was a matter of time. You're not a real group unless someone is using it for a scam
Actually I heard about this while I was eating at a gas station before work (Two women were talking about it at the table next to me) I just grabbed whatever sites I could from Google to post for this discussion. Probably should have taken more time to choose which ones I grabbed.Saelune said: