Entirely in keeping with the cult of gender self-identification
Brendan O’Neill adds his take on the Yaniv Frolics:
A born male who identifies as female, and whose male genitalia is still intact, is suing female-only waxers on the basis that their refusal to wax his bollocks – sorry, her bollocks – is an act of discrimination. Yes, this person believes that because he identifies as female he should therefore have access to every female service, including the most intimate female services. Any female beautician who refuses to tend to his testicles is being ‘transphobic’, apparently, because they are denying his womanhood. Even though he has a penis. And testicles. And is a man. That’s hate speech, I know.
It’s parody-leftism, it’s made for people like O’Neill, and it’s a huge mistake.
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.
Usually our Brendan isn’t all that good at spotting misogyny or giving a shit when he does. The Yaniv Movement is a gift to people like him.
There is a temptation to view Yaniv as simply an eccentric trans activist. But in truth this case is entirely in keeping with the cult of gender self-identification where one can now become a woman simply by declaring it.
Yes it is. I hate it when our Brendan’s right, but he is. Yaniv is clearly an abusive creepy asshole in every way, but he’s also exploiting the existing ideology. He didn’t make it up; it was sitting there waiting for him.
I know this whole episode is absurd, but…
Are the waxers guilty of discrimination on the basis of gender identity? They didn’t refuse to wax him because he’s trans, or because he identifies as a woman. They refused because he’s got male parts. In other words, they denied service in spite of his gender identity.
Again I ask: What am I missing?
Oops. I hadn’t read your thoughts about this in the other post.
The beauticians are not misgendering him, they are correctly sexing him.
It really shows how regressive the trans movement is, when it gives Brendan “Contrarian Bellend” O’Neill free feminist cred.