Jessica Yaniv case

[craigwd]

How old is Licia Corbella? Does she still really refer to a penis or a vagina as her "private parts"?

How very PostMedia of her.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by stang

I don’t know, if someone owned a restaurant or bar or waxing place could you get away with making a distinction on genitalia?

Like instead of men and women on the door of the washrooms you put penis and vagina?

Do waxing places have to put a “no balls” sign?

To me Stang, its a yes because its a different process completely. Businesses are allowed to specialize.


With a bakery to me its more cut and dried on the gay wedding cake, because a cake is a cake is a cake.


There's a injury potential with waxing, and a liability.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by stang

I don’t know, if someone owned a restaurant or bar or waxing place could you get away with making a distinction on genitalia?

Like instead of men and women on the door of the washrooms you put penis and vagina?

Do waxing places have to put a “no balls” sign?

Men’s and women’s bathroom’s building code requirements. An owner doesn’t get to decide to have a short person bathroom and a tall person bathroom. There are Men’s and Women’s bathrooms or unisex bathrooms with the number of each required to be provided defined in the code.

So the requirements of the code must be met. If the building code identified Penis washrooms and Vagina washrooms you could have this discussion.

As for the OP I think it is well covered. It is only discrimination if you wax men who have balls but refuse to wax Women who have balls.

The test case would me if a pre op trans-women transitioning to a man came in an requested service would he be refused. That would be discrimination.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

Are you embarrassed by the words, or do you just not understand what I meant by the difference between gender and sex?

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by stang

I don’t know, if someone owned a restaurant or bar or waxing place could you get away with making a distinction on genitalia?

Like instead of men and women on the door of the washrooms you put penis and vagina?

Do waxing places have to put a “no balls” sign?

This person requested a Brazilian wax and then when they showed up, demanded an entirely different procedure that the business was not qualified to deliver. Then claimed that because they are claiming to be a woman, it shouldn't matter and the female esthetician should be forced to touch their penis and perform said service they were not qualified to deliver.

That's without going into their entire history of complaints to the HRC for this exact same thing, which makes it obvious they are seeking out this conflict and seeking it from women they feel are less likely to be able to defend themselves. Factor in their comments regarding minors and there is probably a 75% chance they are claiming to identify as a woman for financial gain and attempting to put themselves in a position where they could victimize children. The "testimony" that was allowed by the HRC is absolutely asinine and this whole debacle is a good example of why complaints should be handles in a court of law and not by what is essentially a kangaroo court.

[The Yen Man]

Huh, I've never heard of this Yaniv person until this thread. Just reading up after a quick google search. What a vile person. Really puts into doubt whether or not he's even really transgender. Seems like he's using it to prey on young females and gain popularity.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

This person requested a Brazilian wax and then when they showed up, demanded an entirely different procedure that the business was not qualified to deliver. Then claimed that because they are claiming to be a woman, it shouldn't matter and the female esthetician should be forced to touch their penis and perform said service they were not qualified to deliver.

That's kind of the thing. If Yaniv didn't think it was a big deal to get the waxing, why did they mention that they were transgender at all? Since Yaniv claimed to have had Brazilian / Manzilian waxing performed before, then they should have known it was different procedure that not everybody is necessarily trained in. It just would have been wiser for the defendents to say that, but Yaniv probably took advantage of the language barrier.

[CaptainCrunch]

If you look at the HRC and what's going on that's exactly what the defendent stated that she had told Yaniv that she wasn't trained in doing the procedure on male genitalia and wasn't comfortable doing it.


Instead of doing what most people would do, and appreciate the honesty of the business, She decided to make this a whole, she doesn't want to do it because I'm transgender.


To the business, and the owner this wasn't about transgender issues, its about not being comfortable waxing someone's male genitalia.


At the end of the day the owner was effectively screwed, if she said no, Yaniv was going to once again go screaming to the HRC, if she did it and bungled it Yaniv would probably run to the press and a lawyer.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Wormius

That's kind of the thing. If Yaniv didn't think it was a big deal to get the waxing, why did they mention that they were transgender at all? Since Yaniv claimed to have had Brazilian / Manzilian waxing performed before, then they should have known it was different procedure that not everybody is necessarily trained in. It just would have been wiser for the defendents to say that, but Yaniv probably took advantage of the language barrier.

This person's MO is to target businesses or women they feel might not or can't fight back and target them with bull#### complaints. You don't rack up 16 or so complaints to the HRC over the same issue and with similar respondents without it being intentional and malicious. Pull a bait and switch and then complain or settle off to the side.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If you look at the HRC and what's going on that's exactly what the defendent stated that she had told Yaniv that she wasn't trained in doing the procedure on male genitalia and wasn't comfortable doing it.


Instead of doing what most people would do, and appreciate the honesty of the business, She decided to make this a whole, she doesn't want to do it because I'm transgender.


To the business, and the owner this wasn't about transgender issues, its about not being comfortable waxing someone's male genitalia.


At the end of the day the owner was effectively screwed, if she said no, Yaniv was going to once again go screaming to the HRC, if she did it and bungled it Yaniv would probably run to the press and a lawyer.

Yaniv knows they'll be able to cook up a complaint either way and is completely fine with exploiting both vulnerable women and actual transgendered people for their own personal gain. The fact that the human rights tribunals are enabling this behavior is ridiculous.

[CaptainCrunch]

More on this with an interview


https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...genitals-waxed

If the international controversy and media storm swirling around Jessica Yaniv is unsettling her, she does a great job of hiding it.


The now infamous transgender woman, who has taken 16 estheticians to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal for refusing to wax her male genitals, seems to be enjoying the notoriety and media interview requests streaming in from as far away as Israel and particularly from the U.K., where some of the tweets following news reports are fond of using the British term “bollocks” in every sense of that word.

Reached via telephone at her Walnut Grove home near the Vancouver suburb of Surrey, Yaniv says she is just as determined as ever “to cement the rights of trans people” as she was when she started this controversial fight.
“There’s a lot of interest in me right now,” said Yaniv, 32, who has had numerous racist comments made by her exposed online.


When asked why she didn’t just go to businesses that performed Brazilian waxes for male genitalia, she rejected the fact that special training is necessary.
Yaniv says she received a Brazilian wax at the Merle Norman salon in Langley but was denied that same service at the Merle Norman salon in Burnaby. She ended up filing a human rights complaint against the Burnaby salon — which has since shut down.


Did that business close because of her complaint?


“I really believe it did,” she boasted. She said another hair salon had to close because of her complaints, as did a home-based business.

nd therein lies the problem. While Yaniv self-identifies as a woman, do people who provide intimate services have to accept a client’s self identification if their genitals are not changed and those services involve one’s private parts? It’s one thing to use someone’s preferred personal pronouns. It’s quite another thing to be forced to wax their testicles.

“People who invoke fundamental human rights like freedom of belief and religion cannot cherry pick which rights they want, depending on their preferences,” continued Yaniv.


So, is it a human right to have your privates waxed by women who don’t want to wax your privates?


Yaniv wouldn’t answer that question directly. “Some of these places started turning me down for facials once they learned I was trans,” she said. If that’s true, that would be wrong for a public salon, but I think we can all agree that being forced to handle someone’s testicles is quite different from touching their face.

As far as this case goes, Calgary lawyer Jay Cameron — who is representing five of the 16 female respondents — says some of these women work from home and they don’t want to perform intimate services on individuals with male genitalia in their homes. That should be their right.


Cameron — who works for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms and is representing these women pro bono before the quasi-judicial kangaroo court that our human rights commissions have turned into — says many of these women don’t know how to wax male genitalia, they don’t have the specialized equipment to do so and, what’s more, they don’t want to.


During the multi-day hearing in Vancouver, Cameron called Angie Barnetson, the owner of Manscape Spa in Victoria, as an expert witness on July 4, to testify about how difficult it is to wax male genitals.


Barnetson, who also teaches esthetics at a Victoria college, rejected Yaniv’s claim Wednesday that waxing men’s genitals is no more difficult than waxing women’s.


“Yaniv is very misinformed,” said Barnetson, who was accepted as an expert by the tribunal.


Performing a Brazilian wax on a man is “much trickier and more time consuming. It’s kind of like comparing a gynecologist and a urologist — apples and oranges,” said Barnetson, who was reached Wednesday evening.

Cameron says many of the women respondents are impoverished, recent immigrants of colour and they are petrified by this process.


Yaniv, who has said racist things online, was asked if she is a racist and if she is targeting visible minorities with her complaints as a result.


She did not answer the question directly. When asked why she used offensive terms to describe some minority groups — or why she said online that she “hates” certain groups — she justified those comments because of the discrimination she has suffered from “those people,” after they stared at her or refused to perform a service on her.


The media storm around Jessica Yaniv is not weakening her. It’s bolstering her. Here’s hoping the ruling, expected later this year, will humble her.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Not really sure what CaptainYooh is thinking calling the actions of an alleged sexual predator “transgender fun stuff” and “hilarious,” but glad to see the thread went about how it should...

PepsiFree's a$$ must be hurting a lot from sitting so high on that horse. Or is it the head itching badly from that crown of thorns? PepsiFree has this awful ability to take a thread that could have been a lighthearted weekend fun and turn it into muddy glop of politically correct, social justice grandstanding. Checking all boxes: first, you question poster's motives and infer that they are bad; second, you redirect the argument and question the validity of an issue based on who is involved instead of what is involved, which is irrelevant to the discussion, really; and, finally, you make a quashing moral judgement. All you have left to do now is post a facepalm gif.

But I will respond:
I find it hilarious that some men want to have their dicks and balls waxed.
I find it hilarious that some men thinking they are women demand to have their dicks and balls waxed by women and, even more hilarious, that they demand that this right be confirmed by a tribunal.

Most of all, I find hilarious that the Human Rights Tribunal accepts the complaint for investigation instead of telling Yaniv to take a hike and to not waste anyone's time.

I actually didn't even know who this Yaniv person was until the discussion and links started to appear. But I did suggest not to focus on his(her?) persona and talk about, well, fun stuff, which you chose to not notice.

So, Pepsi, if Yaniv was not such a bad person, would you say a woman who had expected to see a vagina, but saw a dick instead, had the right to deny service? Or should the salon be REQUIRED to be equipped and trained to perform waxing on men who identify as women and have male genitalia?
__________________

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Wormius

That's kind of the thing. If Yaniv didn't think it was a big deal to get the waxing, why did they mention that they were transgender at all? Since Yaniv claimed to have had Brazilian / Manzilian waxing performed before, then they should have known it was different procedure that not everybody is necessarily trained in. It just would have been wiser for the defendents to say that, but Yaniv probably took advantage of the language barrier.

Why should it even matter if they have the proper training? What if they just don't feel comfortable touching someone else's male genitalia? Don't they have the right to refuse such a service?

[Ark2]

On the topic of trans related issues, what does everything think about what Mario Lopez said?

“I’m kind of blown away, too,” Lopez responded. “I’m never one to tell anyone how to parent their kids, obviously, and I think if you come from a place of love, you really can’t go wrong, but at the same time, my God, if you're 3 years old and you’re saying you’re feeling a certain way or you think you’re a boy or a girl or whatever the case may be, I just think it's dangerous as a parent to make that determination."

“It's sort of alarming, and my gosh, I just think about the repercussions later on,” he continued.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Why should it even matter if they have the proper training? What if they just don't feel comfortable touching someone else's male genitalia? Don't they have the right to refuse such a service?

Why would you invest your time and money to take training in something that you have no interest in ever performing?

[PostandIn]

Originally Posted by Ark2

On the topic of trans related issues, what does everything think about what Mario Lopez said?

He's right and he shouldn't have backed down.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Ark2

On the topic of trans related issues, what does everything think about what Mario Lopez said?

Lopez is an idiot for giving Owens/Prager U the time of day, and his comments come from a place of obvious ignorance.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

PepsiFree's a$$ must be hurting a lot from sitting so high on that horse. Or is it the head itching badly from that crown of thorns? PepsiFree has this awful ability to take a thread that could have been a lighthearted weekend fun and turn it into muddy glop of politically correct, social justice grandstanding. Checking all boxes: first, you question poster's motives and infer that they are bad; second, you redirect the argument and question the validity of an issue based on who is involved instead of what is involved, which is irrelevant to the discussion, really; and, finally, you make a quashing moral judgement. All you have left to do now is post a facepalm gif.

But I will respond:
I find it hilarious that some men want to have their dicks and balls waxed.
I find it hilarious that some men thinking they are women demand to have their dicks and balls waxed by women and, even more hilarious, that they demand that this right be confirmed by a tribunal.

Most of all, I find hilarious that the Human Rights Tribunal accepts the complaint for investigation instead of telling Yaniv to take a hike and to not waste anyone's time.

I actually didn't even know who this Yaniv person was until the discussion and links started to appear. But I did suggest not to focus on his(her?) persona and talk about, well, fun stuff, which you chose to not notice.

So, Pepsi, if Yaniv was not such a bad person, would you say a woman who had expected to see a vagina, but saw a dick instead, had the right to deny service? Or should the salon be REQUIRED to be equipped and trained to perform waxing on men who identify as women and have male genitalia?
__________________

If you read the rest of my post instead of diving into your frothing-at-the-mouth rant against political correctness, you would’ve had your answer.

Again, a cake is a cake, you can’t say a cake is for someone and not for someone else, that’s discriminatory. It’s a cake. Comparing it to this situation is wrong. If you wax vaginas, you wax vaginas. If you don’t wax testicles, you don’t wax testicles. The gender of the person should be irrelevant, and idiots like Yaniv can take a hike and fight a battle that actually matters.

And if you want to categorise a human rights battle between a potentially-racist sexual predator and immigrant workers as “a bit of lighthearted weekend fun” then go wild. If it’s just “transgender fun stuff” then do your thing. Just don’t throw yourself a little pity party when someone goes “hey look at this guy over here, what’s he thinking?” because it’s a little hard to figure out.

I already know you don’t give a #### about transgender issues and the whole thing is a lark to you, which is fine. But if you’re going to start getting laughs around the actions of a sexual predator, I’m going to raise an eyebrow.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If you read the rest of my post instead of diving into your frothing-at-the-mouth rant against political correctness, you would’ve had your answer.

Again, a cake is a cake, you can’t say a cake is for someone and not for someone else, that’s discriminatory. It’s a cake. Comparing it to this situation is wrong. If you wax vaginas, you wax vaginas. If you don’t wax testicles, you don’t wax testicles. The gender of the person should be irrelevant, and idiots like Yaniv can take a hike and fight a battle that actually matters.

And if you want to categorise a human rights battle between a potentially-racist sexual predator and immigrant workers as “a bit of lighthearted weekend fun” then go wild. If it’s just “transgender fun stuff” then do your thing. Just don’t throw yourself a little pity party when someone goes “hey look at this guy over here, what’s he thinking?” because it’s a little hard to figure out.

I already know you don’t give a #### about transgender issues and the whole thing is a lark to you, which is fine. But if you’re going to start getting laughs around the actions of a sexual predator, I’m going to raise an eyebrow.

Again, you are diverting. See, regardless of what you think that I do and don't give about transgender issues, my point was different. I think that there will come time, soon, when women-only service providers will be required by law to provide services to people with male genitalia. Ridiculous cases like this one support my assumption. My original post was to see what others think about this possibility. As usual, you've managed to turn what could have been an interesting (and funny) discussion into another one of your little wars, where either I have to keep defending myself, instead of my arguments, or just say f...k it . Good job. Oh, and please, not the eyebrow!

[ken0042]

And here I was was just appreciating that the thread title wasn't that descriptive- so that I can still have CP open at work.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Dr. Deborah Soh has written some great op eds on these topics based on actual neurological research rather than rhetoric. Unfortunately, it has also been met with backlash since it fails to adhere entirely to some people's ideas of what is politically correct.

I highly recommend the read, even if you think you might not agree with her.

Bonus: She's Canadian.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...210-story.html

Unlike gender feminists, transgender activists firmly believe that gender is a biological, rather than social, reality — but of course they don’t believe that it’s necessarily tied to sex at birth. They also believe that gender identity is quite stable early on, warranting a transition not only for transgender adults, but also young children who say they were born in the wrong body. From a scientific perspective, they’re partially right: Gender identity is fixed, but only in adults; the same can’t be said for children, whose gender identity is flexible and doesn’t become stable until puberty. Currently available research literature — including four studies published in the last nine years — suggests that 61% to 88% of gender dysphoric children will desist and grow up to be gay adults. (Or, in my case, a straight adult). They won’t continue to identify as the opposite sex in adulthood. In one study of 139 gender dysphoric boys, 122 (88%) of the boys desisted. While transitioning can be beneficial for transgender adults, it therefore doesn’t make sense to treat trans children in the same way.