Thoughts?
Was the human rights court right to claim her human rights weren't violated? Also not sure what to think about them making the claim she specifically targeted small businesses for financial gain, when there's no real proof of that.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Canadian Human rights tribunal rules against Transgender woman over refusal of waxing services
- Thread starter MilesQ
- Start date
- Status
Thoughts?
Was the human rights court right to claim her human rights weren't violated? Also not sure what to think about them making the claim she specifically targeted small businesses for financial gain, when there's no real proof of that.
What are the court documents or accounts supporting the financial benefit claims? It sounds like an absolute mess of intersecting problems.
There's also a reasonable argument here for separating gender and genitals as a purely practical matter of expertise.
Ultimately I feel like I agree with the defendants argument mentioned in the article:
I guess the line in the sand here for me is not forcing a beautician into a procedure that would violate their own human rights.
I guess the line in the sand here for me is not forcing a beautician into a procedure that would violate their own human rights.
Being trans doesn't make you automatically a good person, she sounds like a racist who targeted asian minorities who just wanted to make a living in their new country. Surprise, LGBT can be just as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc as anyone else.
Thats also why laws need to be extremely clear and impartial and not based on imprecise language. Anytime someone puts in "identifies as" in any sort of trans protection law its a huge mess, you cannot base laws on what people say or think, only on concrete facts (with a record of alterations) like drivers licenses, doctors records, civil registrations, etc. Identify as whatever you want wherever you want, but that is not legal protection and should not be codified as such because its too easy to abuse by people with bad intentions.
This sort of thing - Title IX protections in the USA for example - and sports/athletic participation by trans is going to be big hot button issues in the next decade. They are difficult questions and I don't think anyone has really good answers.
This also happened over 2 weeks ago, I would assume there are a few locked threads about it already.
Thats also why laws need to be extremely clear and impartial and not based on imprecise language. Anytime someone puts in "identifies as" in any sort of trans protection law its a huge mess, you cannot base laws on what people say or think, only on concrete facts (with a record of alterations) like drivers licenses, doctors records, civil registrations, etc. Identify as whatever you want wherever you want, but that is not legal protection and should not be codified as such because its too easy to abuse by people with bad intentions.
This sort of thing - Title IX protections in the USA for example - and sports/athletic participation by trans is going to be big hot button issues in the next decade. They are difficult questions and I don't think anyone has really good answers.
This also happened over 2 weeks ago, I would assume there are a few locked threads about it already.
Ms Yaniv sounds like a very annoying individual.
Of most beauticians, English wasn't their first language, which makes them more vulnerable when they get accused of breaking the law, which is a very difficult topic for natives, let alone if you're from a minority background and don't speak the language well.
Two of them even had to close shop because due to complaints, which in my book - if all those complaints come from Yaniv - is simply online harassment.
And I haven't even brought up the beauticians' claims about lack of expertise (why would you even want to get service from someone who even tells you they're not qualified??). We outsiders can't confirm whether those claims were true, but the judges most likely could.
So to me, Ms Yaniv acted very selfishly, not caring about the other person in this dispute at all. I'm with the judge here. LGBT rights aren't there for nothing, but that doesn't mean a LGBT person can simply draw the harassment card for their personal gain. I actually think that does more harm than good for the community. So yeah, she can fuck off.
Of most beauticians, English wasn't their first language, which makes them more vulnerable when they get accused of breaking the law, which is a very difficult topic for natives, let alone if you're from a minority background and don't speak the language well.
Two of them even had to close shop because due to complaints, which in my book - if all those complaints come from Yaniv - is simply online harassment.
And I haven't even brought up the beauticians' claims about lack of expertise (why would you even want to get service from someone who even tells you they're not qualified??). We outsiders can't confirm whether those claims were true, but the judges most likely could.
So to me, Ms Yaniv acted very selfishly, not caring about the other person in this dispute at all. I'm with the judge here. LGBT rights aren't there for nothing, but that doesn't mean a LGBT person can simply draw the harassment card for their personal gain. I actually think that does more harm than good for the community. So yeah, she can fuck off.
OP
OP
There's a crazy amount of bullshit from the right over this case, so it's proving difficult to find impartial souces (at least for me, maybe someone with better googling skills can find the relevant documents).
I found this though,
I was thinking this pretty much. Personally I'm siding with the defendants on this one.
If she's tried to use the case to extort money and push a racist agenda forward, then she's a fucking idiot. She's not done herself nor the LGBT+ community any favours.
Edit: and fs, the right wingers are only going to use this to their advantage 😩
People of all walks of life can be fucking rotten, it's a shame that Yaniv in this case isn't "just" financially ruining small businesses, she's directly fueling right-wing propaganda that will hurt other members of the LGBT community.
That's quite the image there.
That's quite the image there.
Yaniv is a racist that specifically targeted women of color in vulnerable financial positions. She's a disgrace.
1. A penis is not "male genitalia".
2. Racist rhetoric is not worth defending, so I have no interest in defending her. Fuck racism as much as transphobia.
3. Just about the only valid reason to have denied her service would if you're worried you'll hurt her due to a lack of expertise waxing around a penis. Religion is not a valid excuse.
edit:
for clarification, here is where I'm at now
If you don't want to touch someone's genitalia, that's fine. what's not fine is to use religion or your perception of the gender binary to deny someone's gender identity
2. Racist rhetoric is not worth defending, so I have no interest in defending her. Fuck racism as much as transphobia.
3. Just about the only valid reason to have denied her service would if you're worried you'll hurt her due to a lack of expertise waxing around a penis. Religion is not a valid excuse.
edit:
for clarification, here is where I'm at now
If you don't want to touch someone's genitalia, that's fine. what's not fine is to use religion or your perception of the gender binary to deny someone's gender identity
Last edited:
This. Yaniv is in the wrong and is going to make the fight for trans rights even harder for those who are actually discriminated against for being trans instead of crying wolf with their gender identity
The courts are trying to say it's one shitty person and ruling as such. Jessica Yaniv is trying to make it out to be a larger discrimination issue for LGBTQ people, when it's not.
Not sure if I agree there. "I do not want to touch a penis" should maybe not be disregarded as ab invalid reason. But this is really really tricky as far as situations go.
Yes, it is tricky. If somebody's had a past traumatic experience involving a penis, I'd certainly be okay with them objecting to having to touch or even see one. But legislating this becomes difficult because that also opens up a huge area to allow discrimination against trans people. It also somewhat feeds into the common notion that trans people are inherently sexual existences.
I'm sorry what? Lmao explain to me please
And
2 is completely correct
3 or you're not forced to touch someone's penis or vagina if you dont want too.. like bruh if this was about cutting hair you'd have a point but nah
After reading more about this case, it is really not a delicate, grey area situation at all
applied to 10 waxing salons
specifically targeted ethic minorities (reseached their ethnicities before applying)
racist sentiments expressed on Twitter, in her written complaints to the tribunal and during the hearing itself
wanted to resolve each complaint financially aka 0 shits given about human rights
none of the places she applied advertised waxing services for penises so, cisgender men would be turned down too. that isn't a rights violation either.
applied to 10 waxing salons
specifically targeted ethic minorities (reseached their ethnicities before applying)
racist sentiments expressed on Twitter, in her written complaints to the tribunal and during the hearing itself
wanted to resolve each complaint financially aka 0 shits given about human rights
none of the places she applied advertised waxing services for penises so, cisgender men would be turned down too. that isn't a rights violation either.
Last edited:
I mean... yeah. Having a penis directly affects the job these women are doing. It's not like she was asking for a haircut or a manicure.
I'm a girl who has a penis, and don't ever plan to get rid of it. I certainly wouldn't consider it male genitalia because I'm not a male.
This. I read about this case a while back. Sounds like a fair judgement.
The thing is, as long as genitalia are used for and thus associated with sex, you will always have people unwilling to touch genitalia. Obviously, you'll also have a group of people unwilling to touch the type of genitalia they don't have, while not minding contact with the genitalia they do have.
Now, those views are clearly based on some social construct stuff, as touching genitalia for hair removal is not something sexual, and thus shouldn't be an issue. The question is, how do you make it so that people can't get denied service (if there is no health or safety issue)? Ideally, only people who will touch everyone would be in that profession, but clearly, that's not realistic. So I'm not sure how legislation (for example) could prevent issues. Can't really force people who already hold that job out. Idk.
It's a conundrum, I'm just rambling.
User Banned (1 week): Transphobia
You know what ima back out of this because yea but agree to disagree tho
Not really. If you don't want to touch a penis, you shouldn't have to touch a penis. Coercing someone into doing that is basically sexual assault.
The article mentions that there is specific training to wax penises. I'm sure there are places that provide such services.
But like I said in my rambling above, that's only if you see genitalia as something inherently sexual.
Which is something we should move away from as a society IMO, partly because of exactly situations like these, but I wouldn't know how to properly start moving in that direction.
Like I said: "if there is no health or safety issue". My rambling is partly hypothetical, I think viewing genitalia as inherently sexual is something we should move away from in general. I once talked to a man who would't show his genitals to female doctors. That kind of shit is actively harmful in some situations, imo.
People should not have to touch at penises or vaginas if they don't want to. It doesn't matter if they belong to a man, a woman, neither or anyone inbetween.
User Banned (permanent): Transphobia
Dude was calling for appointments all over the place and if they were ok with his request he didn't book - he was looking for those who would refuse him and specifically targeted brown business owners. He chronically filed lawsuits that waste tax payer moneys that could go to better causes.Thankfully there is still some shred of sense in this country - is this pedophile still planning his topless party with minors where no parents or guardians are allowed?
Yeah it's difficult and in a lot of ways it's similar to the whole trans bathroom debate, a lot of people don't wanna share a bathroom with people who have different genitalia. But just as there it can be a difficult pill to swallow when you're denied service because you're trans, as being trans isn't really something you can help. Going about your daily life doing average things becomes a minefield because many of those things are now seen as sexual in nature because of your gender identity
Ok
When you go too far Left you become a gift for the Right. Era has shut me down for warning about this kind of thing before, and here we are.
Exactly this.
As dumb as this may sound at first glance, I think spending loads of time on nude beaches as a kid really helped me open my mind to genitalia as not inherently sexual. I saw penises, vaginas, breasts, bodies of all shapes and sizes, and it was just... normal. There was nothing sexual about it, and I wish people could just "switch on" this non-sexualising mode.
But I know that's not realistic. Sadly.
Feel free to debate anything I mentioned. It's all been covered by national news sources <3
Luckily none of this however involved touching them when you didn't want to. That is what the case is here. These women would have been forced to touch a penis when they didn't want to. You can be perfectly fine with seeing one as non-sexual, and you know, still not want to be forced to touch one.
Targeting minorities is a very rightwing thing to do.
It's the purposefully misgendering that is slimey bruh ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm saying that if people weren't inherently sexualising genitalia, far less people would have a problem professionally touching genitalia they don't have themselves. And in the ideal and unrealistic world I'm describing, it's, in my opinion, quite likely that these women would not have minded touching a penis. If they had the expertise to safely do hair removal, which they seemingly didn't have anyway.
I'm not saying they should have touched a penis. I'm saying that if people viewed things differently, the problem probably wouldn't be there.
What's there to debate? See the post above mine, that's all there is to it.
Denying that a trans woman has female genetalia is denying that they are women.
I just want to say that I support and agree with you.
Understood. Yani comes off more as an opportunist and vextatious lawsuit type, who is exploiting a loophole in the system to try and win court cases. I don't consider him trans, in fact I would say he's more likely a plant to disparage trans from the right than anything else.
- Status