Jessica Yaniv case

[Superfraggle]

This comes back once again to the distinction between gender and sex. If the person is saying they do not want to wax a penis, that isn't about Yaniv's gender identity. It's about her sexual organ. The way it is communicated may need to be improved, but to me that's a valid refusal.

If Yaniv was post-op (ie. had no penis) and they refused to wax her because they consider her to be a man, that would be discriminatory.

[troutman]

Is it a human right to have your gay wedding cake made by a baker that doesn't want to bake your cake?

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Here's the problem with your second question, "Sexual orientation" has nothing to do with sex, gender, or genitals. Those are the things in question here.

The real issue here is the disconnect between sex (genitals) and gender identity.

Should someone be refused service based on their gender identity?
Absolutely not.

Is that the case here? Well that's a little more difficult to say.
The issue here isn't gender identity, it's the fact that this person still has biologically male genitals.

Presumably, the waxer is in the business of waxing female genitals.
This person wants male genitals waxed, which is not something this person does in the regular course of business, so I would say this doesn't qualify as a case of discrimination (gender based or otherwise).

Now if this person/company regularly did wax men's genitals, or if they were refusing to wax this woman's armpits or eyebrows, then sure, I would say that meets the criteria for discrimination, but since that's not the case, I would say the person not doing the waxing is in the right here.

Beat me to it.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by troutman

Is it a human right to have your gay wedding cake made by a baker that doesn't want to bake your cake?

If we define not being discriminated against based on your sexual orientation a human right then yes, it would be.

The baker bakes wedding cakes as a normal course of business, so refusing to bake a wedding cake for someone simply because they are gay would be discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation, and therefore a violation of their human rights.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by troutman

Is it a human right to have your gay wedding cake made by a baker that doesn't want to bake your cake?

Yes. But only if that Baker is a wedding cake maker.


This is akin to a baker who only makes bundt wedding cakes being told they’re discriminating for refusing to make a loaf wedding cake.

You can’t be discriminating for refusing to do something you don’t do in the first place, for anyone, regardless of their gender/race/whatever.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

...
Should someone be refused service based on their gender identity?
Absolutely not...

Absolutely?
If a man identifies as a woman and wants to receive service in a place catering to women only, should service providers be obligated to have proper training in place to perform the service (even though the person has male genitals) and provide the service then?

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Absolutely?
If a man identifies as a woman and wants to receive service in a place catering to women only, should service providers be obligated to have proper training in place to perform the service (even though the person has male genitals) and provide the service then?

Read the rest of the post to find your answer. Yes, they can refuse based on genitalia.

[Wormius]

Would it be discrimination if they simply referred the person to somebody with the proper training, at possibly another location? Maybe that would have been the best course of action, although it sounds like the women were new immigrants and might not have very many contacts.

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Here's the problem with your second question, "Sexual orientation" has nothing to do with sex, gender, or genitals. Those are the things in question here.

The real issue here is the disconnect between sex (genitals) and gender identity.

Should someone be refused service based on their gender identity?
Absolutely not.

Is that the case here? Well that's a little more difficult to say.
The issue here isn't gender identity, it's the fact that this person still has biologically male genitals.

Presumably, the waxer is in the business of waxing female genitals.
This person wants male genitals waxed, which is not something this person does in the regular course of business, so I would say this doesn't qualify as a case of discrimination (gender based or otherwise).

Now if this person/company regularly did wax men's genitals, or if they were refusing to wax this woman's armpits or eyebrows, then sure, I would say that meets the criteria for discrimination, but since that's not the case, I would say the person not doing the waxing is in the right here.

Nailed it.

Next!

[81MC]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Would it be discrimination if they simply referred the person to somebody with the proper training, at possibly another location? Maybe that would have been the best course of action, although it sounds like the women were new immigrants and might not have very many contacts.

In what crazy world is the responsibility to find a suitable service provider on the person not performing or requesting the service?
If you take your 84 Chevy to Mr.Volvo, they are under no obligation at all to work on your Chevy, and it would be crazy to expect them to give you a card to Mr.Chevy.

Identity and physiology are not the same. Would a female transitioning to a male go to a vasectomy clinic and demand they tie her tubes? Some people are just outright goofballs with a desire for attention. What a waste of ####ing time.

[Wormius]

^^^ The quoting isn’t working at the moment, but That was more directed at the poster that was suggesting training to do the waxing on either set of genitalia. Instead of going through that effort, why not direct the client to somebody who has that training instead?

[8 Ball]

So I wonder how this played out? Book an appointment as a woman wanting a Brazilian wax, show up and bare your male junk, and act indignant when they go wtf, I don’t do that service?

[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.

Yaniv is disgusting and not only engages in disgusting behaviour but abuses what little good will the transgender community has fought for in order to further his own predatory tactics.

Shantz pretty much said it perfect. How people think baking a cake, which is a cake all the same no matter who it’s for, is the same as doing two physically different activities, is still beyond me. Lots of learning to do yet, but people have come a long way.

[rubecube]

Is this where all the TERFs hang out?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Is this where all the TERFs hang out?

This forum doesn't have enough women posting on it to have a large subsection of TERFs.

IMO it's hard to classify anti-Trans men as TERFs, because I doubt they ever met the second wave criteria to be labelled RF in the first place.

TERFism is honestly one of the saddest things; a vulnerable group finding an even more vulnerable group to hate on.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Is this where all the TERFs hang out?

anyone else have to google TERF to find out what it was?

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

anyone else have to google TERF to find out what it was?

No, but only because I googled it after seeing it tweeted by Titania McGrath.

[ynwa03]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

This comes back once again to the distinction between gender and sex. If the person is saying they do not want to wax a penis, that isn't about Yaniv's gender identity. It's about her sexual organ. The way it is communicated may need to be improved, but to me that's a valid refusal.

If Yaniv was post-op (ie. had no penis) and they refused to wax her because they consider her to be a man, that would be discriminatory.

[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?

[CaptainCrunch]

maybe they should. To me its not discriminatory, again according to what I understand from the person that ran the home waxing business, she explained that she wasn't trained on male genitalia and that it was a different process, that's reasonable to me. I mean looking at the past history of Yaniv, if she would have been injured by an improperly trained waxer, she would have have probably gone running to the supreme court with an argument that it was a malicious act and an intentional injury.


Most people when confronted, with a don't want to pour screaming hot wax on your junk and take the chance of hurting you with a "roger that and gone on". But Yaniv with her past history decided to pick a fight and get some attention.


Realistically the HC should be saying, this is stupid get out. But they won't.


I feel more sorry for the lady that shut down her business because she got steam rolled by an attention seeker.