"This is the case of Jessica Yaniv, born Jonathan Yaniv, who has filed complaints against more than a dozen female waxers with the Human Rights Council (HRC) in British Columbia. Yaniv claims that the women’s refusal to give him a Brazilian – that is, to handle his penis and testicles and to remove his pubic hair, activities these women did *not* want to carry out – is discrimination. Yaniv says that self-identifying as a woman is sufficient to be treated as a woman and to get access to services typically reserved for women. In the words of the *National Post*, the HRC hearings revolve around the question, ‘Should a business be allowed to deny service on the basis of gender identity?’ Or perhaps, ‘Should a woman be forced by law to touch a penis she doesn’t want to touch?’ – that’s a franker, more honest way of putting it, though it’s obvious why people don’t put it like that, given it would expose the fundamental misogyny at play in this demented case."
Yeah I’d say ok to deny assuming they don’t do males.
In principle, yes, they should be able to deny service to anyone, particularly in this situation. In reality, I can imagine most of the nurses I work with don’t want to handle penises day in and day out, and yet that’s exactly what they do, because it’s part of health care. The whole “I identify as…” nonsense shouldn’t really apply here; either you’re getting intimate with genitals to remove pubic hair for a living, or you don’t. Pick one.
i could have it wrong but don’t believe you have to handle anything with ladies – spatula on, rip the cloth, boom.
Male bits are going to be more fiddly and time intensive, specialist work. Plus a different order of inflicting pain, which may also factor in.
Surely Jessica could find someone willing to do this service, but instead pushes the social justice agenda in this bold new direction.
Your title is wrong. Based on the articles linked in your post, the title should be: “Canada Forces Immigrant Woman to Handle Penises and Wax Testicles.”
i could have it wrong but don’t believe you have to handle anything with ladies – spatula on, rip the cloth, boom.
Male bits are going to be more fiddly and time intensive, specialist work. Plus a different order of inflicting pain, which may also factor in.
Surely Jessica could find someone willing to do this service, but instead pushes the social justice agenda in this bold new direction.
Bingo! According to the article, she intentionally sought out female-only waxing services.
Duffy has his balls waxed and windywave gets his crack done every-other week, so, there are places who will handle male genitalia.
i could have it wrong but don’t believe you have to handle anything with ladies – spatula on, rip the cloth, boom.
**Male bits are going to be more fiddly and time intensive, specialist work. Plus a different order of inflicting pain, which may also factor in. **
Surely Jessica could find someone willing to do this service, but instead pushes the social justice agenda in this bold new direction.
Johnny-boy should sign an agreement that says if he screams like a bitch, or, even utters a peep in the event of pain (which he does not understand will be) he should be made to pay all legal costs. This would be the legal definition of pain and suffering. Not to mention, it would stop this crap.
If self-identifying becomes a legal way to change your sex were in trouble. Every horny guy in the world that can’t get a woman will become self identifying as a woman so he too can get a Brazilian wax job…
Somewhere there are a bunch of fascists who are smiling.
– that’s a franker… way of putting it,
I see what you did there.
This “identify as…†is getting a little ridiculous. Any medical textbook would show a penis being male genitalia. End of story. I can’t believe a court case could deny those simple facts.
I can’t wait until 60 year old men start claiming they “identify†themselves as 25 for the dating scene. I see no issue there… right?
This “identify as…†is getting a little ridiculous. Any medical textbook would show a penis being male genitalia. End of story. I can’t believe a court case could deny those simple facts.
I can’t wait until 60 year old men start claiming they “identify†themselves as 25 for the dating scene. I see no issue there… right?
Down boy, down, we get it.
People can claim whatever, that doesn’t mean it will stand in court.
This “identify as…†is getting a little ridiculous. Any medical textbook would show a penis being male genitalia. End of story. I can’t believe a court case could deny those simple facts.
I can’t wait until 60 year old men start claiming they “identify†themselves as 25 for the dating scene. I see no issue there… right?
Down boy, down, we get it.
People can claim whatever, that doesn’t mean it will stand in court.
Unless you are in Canada …
I can’t wait until 60 year old men start claiming they “identify†themselves as 25 for the dating scene. I see no issue there… right?
Too late for that.
linky
Surely Jessica could find someone willing to do this service, but instead pushes the social justice agenda in this bold new direction.
Go bake a cake.
It likely won’t be court rather kangaroo court. Human rights tribunal.
This “identify as…†is getting a little ridiculous. Any medical textbook would show a penis being male genitalia. End of story. I can’t believe a court case could deny those simple facts.
I can’t wait until 60 year old men start claiming they “identify†themselves as 25 for the dating scene. I see no issue there… right?
Down boy, down, we get it.
People can claim whatever, that doesn’t mean it will stand in court.
Unless you are in Canada …
In a different Canada kangaroo court…
Whatcott’s lawyer, Dr. Charles Lugosi, intended to give evidence that Oger was, in fact, a biological male as a defense.
Tribunal judge Devyn Cousineau, however, ruled “**the ‘truth’ of the statements in the flyer is not a defense.**â€
“Therefore, to the extent that Mr. Whatcott intends to call witnesses to establish the truth of his impugned publications, that evidence is simply not relevant to the legal issue and will not be heard by this Tribunal,†she wrote.
Not sure if it applies precisely to this thread but I think you should be allowed to deny a person service if they’re an asshole, douchebag, or similarly distasteful disposition. Last I checked, those attributes apply rather equally to all races, religions, and genders so it should qualify as non-discriminatory.
"This is the case of Jessica Yaniv, born Jonathan Yaniv, who has filed complaints against more than a dozen female waxers with the Human Rights Council (HRC) in British Columbia. Yaniv claims that the women’s refusal to give him a Brazilian – that is, to handle his penis and testicles and to remove his pubic hair, activities these women did *not* want to carry out – is discrimination. Yaniv says that self-identifying as a woman is sufficient to be treated as a woman and to get access to services typically reserved for women. In the words of the *National Post*, the HRC hearings revolve around the question, ‘Should a business be allowed to deny service on the basis of gender identity?’ Or perhaps, ‘Should a woman be forced by law to touch a penis she doesn’t want to touch?’ – that’s a franker, more honest way of putting it, though it’s obvious why people don’t put it like that, given it would expose the fundamental misogyny at play in this demented case."
https://www.spiked-online.com/…-waxing-controversy/
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/...nitalia-waxing-case/
The fact that cases like this get any legitimacy through media and court systems just makes me wonder how far astray we’ve gone.
Not sure if it applies precisely to this thread but I think you should be allowed to deny a person service if they’re an asshole, douchebag, or similarly distasteful disposition. Last I checked, those attributes apply rather equally to all races, religions, and genders so it should qualify as non-discriminatory.
Pretty sure they can, none of those are protected classes.