A new branch of rape culture
A BC human rights tribunal has been hearing Jonathan “Jessica” Yaniv’s complaint that a woman who did genital waxing for women out of her living room refused to wax Yaniv’s balls. It got rowdy.
At one point, the complainant compared the business owner to a neo-Nazi. The lawyer for the business owner accused the complainant of engaging in “half-truths and fabrications.” Tribunal adjudicator Devyn Cousineau frequently had to interject to maintain decorum and to keep the hearing from careening off course.
But a substantive question remained at the core of the raucous daylong hearing: should a business be allowed to deny service on the basis of gender identity?
But that is not the substantive question. That’s pretty much the opposite of the substantive question. The substantive question is: should a woman be allowed to refuse to wax a man’s balls in her living room regardless of how he “identifies”?
To put it another way, the issue isn’t “I refuse to wax your balls because of your gender identity,” it’s “I refuse to wax your balls because I wax women only and you’re a man.”
(Frankly I don’t think anybody should wax anybody’s genitalia, because I don’t think people should wax their genitalia in the first place, and I think the whole stupid porny trend is sick, but that’s another matter.)
Jessica Yaniv, the complainant, told the hearing she was entitled to receive the advertised wax service and that if the tribunal ruled against her it could lead to a “dangerous” precedent.
“You cannot choose who your clientele is going to be,” she said.
When you’re going to be fiddling around with their genitalia in your living room with no one else around? Yes you can. When the two sets of genitalia are not identical and require different training to wax and you have only one kind of training? Yes you can.
The complaint heard Wednesday is one of more than a dozen filed by Yaniv, who describes herself as a digital marketing expert and LGBTQ activist. All allege she was the subject of discrimination by salons. A few complaints have been settled without hearing or withdrawn.
That is to say, Yaniv has been systematically seeking out women who offer waxing services in private in order to sue them. Yaniv is an evil human being.
Earlier this month the JCCF also represented two other aestheticians who were the subject of similar complaints from Yaniv. One of them, a Sikh woman, said she declined to provide the waxing service for religious and safety reasons, according to a column posted by John Carpay, the centre’s president, on the website The Post Millennial.
Businesses shouldn’t be allowed to use religion and culture to refuse service, Yaniv said.
Yanivs shouldn’t be allowed to use trans ideology to persecute women.
Yaniv is taking perfectly valid arguments that have been used with varying degrees of success, and turning them into an absurdism. I am usually on board with not allowing religion and culture to be used to deny people services, and I am on board with that in this case, as well. I think they need to allow them to deny services not because of religion, but because women should not be forced by men to put themselves into dangerous situations for the comfort and convenience of male people (even if those male people believe they are female people, announce it extremely loudly and stridently, and try to twist your arm to make you agree).
I hope they throw out the religious argument, because letting that in the door can hurt LGB people, mixed race couples, same sex couples, women who don’t follow strict gender stereotypes, and lots of others. This case isn’t, or shouldn’t be, about religion. It is about the safely and well being of women, the right of women to say no. Period. No other reason needed.
If the court would rule there is no such thing as a “girl dick”, that would be even better.
This is literally entertaining a dangerous psychopath.
Yes, I’m not arguing in favor of the religious argument. The whole thing has too many strands to keep track of.
Yaniv orders a ballswax with all the trimmings. Waxeuse asks him if he would like the house’s electric special, appropriately called ‘The Electric Special.’
He says “bring it on…!”
So he gets the house special: applied with a 2 horsepower industrial-strength floor waxer, which the house keeps for clients it wants to get rid of.
It’s astonishing just how overcomplicated this has been made by the ridiculous excesses of Mr. Yaniv and trans theory. The service being offered is: waxing the female body. The defendant is not obliged to offer the service Yaniv wants, namely waxing male genitals. This should be an open and shut case: the defendant does not have to offer the service Yaniv wants, Yaniv can go fuck himself and pay the defendant’s costs for an obviously frivolous suit.
I should have read the full post before hitting post…
Further than that, it need not be about training at all. Suppose the defendant has training to do both, she can simply elect not to wax certain anatomy if she does not want to. She can refuse to wax sexed anatomy e.g. penis, scrotum; she can refuse to wax non-sexed anatomy e.g. anuses. It’s all a matter of choice of what service to offer.
Some years ago I was in a relationship with a beauty therapist. She was quite happy to do “Back, sack & crack” waxes on males, but a) That was her choice and b) they were gay men. I know exactly what she would have done to any male who demanded said service if she felt disinclined and would not have ended well for him. :-)
I also agree with OB that it isn’t a procedure anyone should have done. She came home one night and revealed her naked pudenda; I went out looking for a merkin shop. :-)
At most, he’s a “T” activist. Can’t see how this helps LG or B people (and no he’s fucking well not a lesbiasn, thank you very much). More like he’s a pervy, self-serving, narcissistic asshole, or “dangerous psychopath” as Josh succinctly put it. Is JY’s previous girl’s bathroom stalk/weeting fair game for evidence in a hearing like this, I wonder? It shows form.
Funny how Yaniv and Oger’s actions aren’t so much “pro-T” as they are anti-woman. Just like MRAs who spend zero time helping men or fighting for things that would actually help men, but spend all their time attacking women. Wonder why there’s so much similaity? I really have no idea…
Further to my #6, it just occurred to me that there is an easy parallel which illustrates the point of selectively offering services, which I should have included in #6.
A car mechanic shop can advertise as being open to any car, but it could also advertise itself as manufacturer specific – Mercedes only, Toyota only, etc.. This is perfectly legal and humdrum, everyone accepts that this is the case. Even though a Toyota falls within the purview of ‘car mechanic’, it does not necessarily fall within the service the manufacturer-specific mechanic has chosen to offer.
This is all entirely legal. The only way the waxer could actually be guilty of anti-trans discrimination with Yaniv is if the waxer was open to waxing male genitals, but then refused to perform that service for him upon learning that he identifies as trans.
Sounds like JY was specifically targeting immigrant/minority service providers. I wonder if he sought the services of any women who were not innthis demographic? If not, maybe this is part of his power-tripping/paraphilia? Or just that he’s racist AF.
“You cannot choose who your clientele is going to be,” she said.
What?
That is the first thing addressed in any business plan – ie who are you “selling” to?
“Businesses shouldn’t be allowed to use religion and culture to refuse service, Yaniv said.”
Hmmm . . . perhaps “he” said more than intended?
In Canada there are ongoing battles about religious iconography . . . is “he” inadvertently admitting the effectively religious nature of the “trans” movement?
The report manages to ignore Yaniv’s other activities. Especially the bathroom stalking and menstruation fetish.