Lady can't have her hairy balls waxed [mod notes/warnings in post #1]

Hobosan · 21-07-2019 2:26pm

mad muffin wrote: »

So then the article is valid.

I'd say every boards member has a story which has as as much merit to appear in The New York Times than this.

If crazy stuff like this sells, then expect alot more crazy stuff. Let's see where that gets us.

Glass fused light · 21-07-2019 2:33pm

_blaaz wrote: »

I hate to be pedantic...but deos this mean beauty treatments can be forced through??

But i do think a business should be allowed cite a risk.of being sued as a valid reason to turn away business.....i know where i used work,boss turned away customers who were known to sue over petty things regularly,didnt want hassle

There is a difference between turning away someone for being a suspected extra cost to the business and turning them away if they fall under a protected class

So say you turned a pregnant person ( woman is transphobic ) away as the treatment could be dangerous to the health of the pregnant person you could argue that section L applied.

However section c would allow the refusal for (non essential) services where there is physical contact required

But these are defences so you have spent the money to argue your case. Your insurance company is likely to have settled the matter before it ended up in court.

5.—(1) A person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of—

(a) an activity referred to in section 7 (2),

(b) a service related to a matter provided for under section 6 , or a service offered to its members by a club in respect of which section 8 applies,

(c) differences in the treatment of persons on the gender ground in relation to services of an aesthetic, cosmetic or similar nature, where the services require physical contact between the service provider and the recipient,

(d) differences in the treatment of persons in relation to annuities, pensions, insurance policies or any other matters related to the assessment of risk where the treatment—

(i) is effected by reference to—

(I) actuarial or statistical data obtained from a source on which it is reasonable to rely, or

(II) other relevant underwriting or commercial factors,

and

(ii) is reasonable having regard to the data or other relevant factors,

(e) differences in the treatment of person on the religion ground in relation to goods or services provided for a religious purpose,

(f) differences in the treatment of persons on the gender, age or disability ground or on the basis of nationality or national origin in relation to the provision or organisation of a sporting facility or sporting event to the extent that the differences are reasonably necessary having regard to the nature of the facility or event and are relevant to the purpose of the facility or event,

(g) differences in the treatment of persons on the gender ground where embarrassment or infringement of privacy can reasonably be expected to result from the presence of a person of another gender,

(h) differences in the treatment of persons in a category of persons in respect of services that are provided for the principal purpose of promoting, for a bona fide purpose and in a bona fide manner, the special interests of persons in that category to the extent that the differences in treatment are reasonably necessary to promote those special interests,

(i) differences in the treatment of persons on the gender, age or disability ground or on the ground of race, reasonably required for reasons of authenticity, aesthetics, tradition or custom in connection with a dramatic performance or other entertainment,

(j) an age requirement for a person to be an adoptive or foster parent, where the requirement is reasonable having regard to the needs of the child or children concerned,

(k) a disposal of goods by will or gift, or

(l) differences, not otherwise specifically provided for in this section, in the treatment of persons in respect of the disposal of goods, or the provision of a service, which can reasonably be regarded as goods or a service suitable only to the needs of certain persons.

seamus · 21-07-2019 2:49pm

Glass fused light wrote: »

There is a difference between turning away someone for being a suspected extra cost to the business and turning them away if they fall under a protected class

There was a similar but far more reasonable case here in Ireland a year or two back.

A trans man went into a barbers for a haircut and was turned away by the barber because they "don't do women's hair".

Ultimately the nub of the issue was that if the customer had asked for something the barber didn't know how to do, or wasn't qualified to do, then that's perfectly fine and legal.

But if someone asks you for a service which you are capable of doing (and offer to others), then you don't have the right to turn them down based on the gender ground (or any of the nine others).

So if a person of any gender goes into a barber asking for a number 2 all over, the barber cannot say, "No, we only do men's hair here". And that's right and correct. If you offer a service you should not be permitted to refuse any reasonable request for it.

This is relevant to the case in question because there seems to have been crossed wires. Rather than explaining that bollox waxing was not a service they were capable of offering, they instead turned the customer down on the gender basis. Or at least that's the allegation.

Naturally every moron who thinks that trans people will cause the end of civilisation as we know it, is jumping up and down about "irreperable damage to society" and "slippery slope". When in reality it's one sue-happy moron looking for a payout wherever they can find it. We have plenty of these, but they're rarely entertaining enough to make the news.

Glass fused light · 21-07-2019 2:53pm

SlowBlowin wrote: »

My ex-colleague is a pretty tough cookie, we don't stay in contact so no idea how things are now, but I think there must have been support otherwise the tribunal would not have found as it did.

No matter how tough a person is it only takes one incident of failed safeguarding to put a person through the gossip mill and official investigations. Any allegations will likely follow the person irrespective of there ever have been any truth in an allegation.

The rules are there to protect the adults as well as the children.
That's what the leaders who questioned the policy were objecting to.
They were asked to pretend that the risk of sexual activity among the teens had not changed.
With the additional risk sexual assaults from non consent to under the legal age etc.
If anything went "wrong" it's the leaders in place at the time of the event who would be held responsible.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 21-07-2019 3:01pm

seamus wrote: »

There was a similar but far more reasonable case here in Ireland a year or two back.

A trans man went into a barbers for a haircut and was turned away by the barber because they "don't do women's hair".

Ultimately the nub of the issue was that if the customer had asked for something the barber didn't know how to do, or wasn't qualified to do, then that's perfectly fine and legal.

But if someone asks you for a service which you are capable of doing (and offer to others), then you don't have the right to turn them down based on the gender ground (or any of the nine others).

So if a person of any gender goes into a barber asking for a number 2 all over, the barber cannot say, "No, we only do men's hair here". And that's right and correct. If you offer a service you should not be permitted to refuse any reasonable request for it.

This is relevant to the case in question because there seems to have been crossed wires. Rather than explaining that bollox waxing was not a service they were capable of offering, they instead turned the customer down on the gender basis. Or at least that's the allegation.

Naturally every moron who thinks that trans people will cause the end of civilisation as we know it, is jumping up and down about "irreperable damage to society" and "slippery slope". When in reality it's one sue-happy moron looking for a payout wherever they can find it. We have plenty of these, but they're rarely entertaining enough to make the news.

I’d be a bit less inclined to call everybody a moron if I knew as little about this case as you.

There were multiple businesses targeted and many did make that defense, that waxing testicles isn’t what they do. The case is ongoing.

MrFresh · 21-07-2019 3:19pm

JustAThought wrote: »

Same is going on here up North with a middle aged man demanding to be let dress up in his tutu and do ballet lessons with little girls. And a lot more. Childrens ballet class teacher sued & usual hell breaking out. Its not just the insurance industry who are at fault. As one poster has said -when is common sense and basic human dignity and cop on going to click in.

I would have said kick in except no doubt I'd be screamed down for projecting violence -hence the bad english.

This planet driven by lawyers has gone to the dogs.

Have you a link to that story? I can't find it.

_blaaz wrote: »

I would imagine management have right to refuse business for any reason?

(Plus id imagine this would be painful beyond belief :eek: )

Not for a discriminatory reason. They're better off not giving a reason.

mad muffin wrote: »

I have to disagree with you. It’s representative of everything that is wrong with society today. This person should not be able to do this and should not be able to harass and threaten women. Should not be able to waist the laws time. Should not be able to do what ever they want without any consequences.

If I went out and asked women to give me a Brazilian and then start threatening them because they refuse, I’d be arrested.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Whether they will be successful or not is another matter entirely.

Charmeleon · 21-07-2019 3:21pm

seamus wrote: »

There was a similar but far more reasonable case here in Ireland a year or two back.

A trans man went into a barbers for a haircut and was turned away by the barber because they "don't do women's hair".

Ultimately the nub of the issue was that if the customer had asked for something the barber didn't know how to do, or wasn't qualified to do, then that's perfectly fine and legal.

But if someone asks you for a service which you are capable of doing (and offer to others), then you don't have the right to turn them down based on the gender ground (or any of the nine others).

So if a person of any gender goes into a barber asking for a number 2 all over, the barber cannot say, "No, we only do men's hair here". And that's right and correct. If you offer a service you should not be permitted to refuse any reasonable request for it.

This is relevant to the case in question because there seems to have been crossed wires. Rather than explaining that bollox waxing was not a service they were capable of offering, they instead turned the customer down on the gender basis. Or at least that's the allegation.

Naturally every moron who thinks that trans people will cause the end of civilisation as we know it, is jumping up and down about "irreperable damage to society" and "slippery slope". When in reality it's one sue-happy moron looking for a payout wherever they can find it. We have plenty of these, but they're rarely entertaining enough to make the news.

You are forgetting the particularly distressing part of this, where the completely innocent parties are being abused and ‘called out’ by hordes of crazies on the internet. That has to be extremely disturbing, especially to the vulnerable women that were targeted. That kind of thing doesn’t happen when some fool takes a typical vexatious case.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 21-07-2019 3:33pm

Anyway if legal women have testicles now, it stands to reason that a waxing service that excludes that category of legal women is discriminatory. This philosophy needs to be owned by those who espouse it.

take everything · 21-07-2019 3:37pm

Definitely headline of the year for me

SlowBlowin · 21-07-2019 3:38pm

take everything wrote: »

Definitely headline of the year for me

I agree, the thread title is a classic...

MrFresh · 21-07-2019 3:52pm

The Specialist wrote: »

Women don’t have balls and never will, the people referring to this man as a “she” are part of the problem - it’s a fella in a dress and that delusion is his alone, nobody else should be expected or required to suspend biological fact just in case his feelings get hurt.

Deliberate misgendering is just so unnecessary

seamus · 21-07-2019 3:55pm

Charmeleon wrote: »

You are forgetting the particularly distressing part of this, where the completely innocent parties are being abused and ‘called out’ by hordes of crazies on the internet. That has to be extremely disturbing, especially to the vulnerable women that were targeted. That kind of thing doesn’t happen when some fool takes a typical vexatious case.

You can criticise paedophiles, rapists and racists on twitter and you'll have hordes of crazies abusing you and sending you death threats on the Internet.

It doesn't make it right, but there's not exactly anything any of us can do about the actions of some random lunatics online. Maybe if the media stopped publishing stuff based on how angry people will get about it, the crazies would have less to latch onto.

If the media weren't publicising the actions of this idiot, it would be some unknown random failed frivolous lawsuits on the other side of the planet, just like the thousands of others every day.

mad muffin · 21-07-2019 3:56pm

MrFresh wrote: »

Have you a link to that story? I can't find it.

Not for a discriminatory reason. They're better off not giving a reason.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Whether they will be successful or not is another matter entirely.

This person has been successful in their goal of creating havoc and misery.

MrFresh · 21-07-2019 3:56pm

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Anyway if legal women have testicles now, it stands to reason that a waxing service that excludes that category of legal women is discriminatory.

That's not correct. It requires a separate skill to do what the person in question was requesting. Refusing someone because you don't know how to wax testicles is unlikely to fall foul of the law.

super_furry · 21-07-2019 3:57pm

Really all that needs to be said here is that 'unfortunately our staff have neither the training or experience to wax a penis or testicles'.

Noone working in a beauty salon should be forced to do work that they're uncomfortable with, regardless of gender.

dudara · 21-07-2019 3:59pm

@The Specialist & the dunne - one day ban for discriminatory comment.

Posters - any further deliberate misgendering will result in cards or bans.

dudara

petros1980 · 21-07-2019 4:06pm

super_furry wrote: »

Really all that needs to be said here is that 'unfortunately our staff have neither the training or experience to wax a penis or testicles'.

Noone working in a beauty salon should be forced to do work that they're uncomfortable with, regardless of gender.

Or alternatively, feck off you weird pervert you're not a woman...

Dante7 · 21-07-2019 4:15pm

Do not discuss mod action in thread. Please contact a mod directly or use the Help desk.

dudara

drunkmonkey · 21-07-2019 4:19pm

Same as before

Sonny noggs · 21-07-2019 4:24pm

Would a man having sex with this woman be considered heterosexual sex?

Is it transphobia if a man does not want to have sex with this woman?

Still waters · 21-07-2019 4:30pm

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Would a man having sex with this woman be considered heterosexual sex?

Is it transphobia if a man does not want to have sex with this woman?

2 lesbians obviously

Blatant transphobia, he should be made ride him/her so he/she doesn't feel bad

Gatling · 21-07-2019 4:31pm

Could they not just buy a razor or slap some veet on them hairy testicles.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 21-07-2019 4:44pm

MrFresh wrote: »

That's not correct. It requires a separate skill to do what the person in question was requesting. Refusing someone because you don't know how to wax testicles is unlikely to fall foul of the law.

Why would society accept that some legal women can never get their genitals waxed?

Own it.

Glass fused light · 21-07-2019 4:46pm

seamus wrote: »

This is relevant to the case in question because there seems to have been crossed wires. Rather than explaining that bollox waxing was not a service they were capable of offering, they instead turned the customer down on the gender basis. Or at least that's the allegation.

Naturally every moron who thinks that trans people will cause the end of civilisation as we know it, is jumping up and down about "irreperable damage to society" and "slippery slope". When in reality it's one sue-happy moron looking for a payout wherever they can find it. We have plenty of these, but they're rarely entertaining enough to make the news.

Might want to read the link to the court report

The first woman, waxing in her home, was approached on facebook by an account with a female picture and asked if she could provide waxing (Brazilian and body )while the person was menstruating and using tampon. After further contact on another account with a male picture and checks if the person is a male, and rejects on the basis being preop trans woman.

Second lady, waxing in clients home, was approached on Facebook by an account with a male picture asked if she could provide waxing (Arms/legs ) she checks if the person is a male, on hearing what a trans woman is rejects on the basis having to go to house of biological male

I can't see the report for the third lady yet.

So yes it's about having to provide a personal service to someone who has been legally recognised as having the same gender as that of the service providers client base while having a different biological body.

So the Canadian judge must decide if the legistation obliges a service provider to provide a service which would otherwise be classed as sexual assault.

Prehaps it's just because I am a female moran that I am objecting to what I see a tiny part of male population start explaining that female biology and female experience can be replicated by someone who was socialised male, with a male body and is keeping that male body.

Or that in the UK someone who had the equivalent of FGM preformed on their child being allowed to drive the trans agend that Irish childern are being treated under.

If the stats are to be believed 80% of childern with issues will have resolved it by the late teens early twenties (most of these will be gay)
20% will need medicalised help
If the policy is to medicate early with puberty blockers and hormones how many of these 80% will be locked into a medical pathway when what they needed specialist mental health care to support them.
The medication is cheaper than training and paying professional help to support these children

MrFresh · 21-07-2019 4:46pm

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Why would society accept that some legal women can never get their genitals waxed?

Own it.

Who said never? They just have to go to someone who is able to do what they want.

drunkmonkey · 21-07-2019 4:46pm

Gatling wrote: »

Could they not just buy a razor or slap some veet on them hairy testicles.

This review is from: Veet for Men Hair Removal Gel Creme 200 ml (Personal Care)

I decided to buy some of this for my husband who was looking untidy in the trouser dept. I left him to it while i went to the supermarket, fully expecting to arrive back home to see him laid out on the bed with 2 hardboiled, shelled eggs and a big smile. Wrong!!

Instead i arrived home to him shouting ‘ oh yeah, thats good…ooooh so good. Bursting into the lounge, i was confronted by the sight of my naked husband with his todger in the arse end of a frozen chicken, that i was intending to use for sunday lunch the following weekend! By the time i had recovered from my horror at this sight and coaxed the cowering alsation out from behind the chair, he had crawled from the sofa, which had a large burn all the way through the cushion, springs and wood flooring beneath it, towards the bathroom, still with the chicken attached to his manhood but with the rest of the bird wedged between his legs and plumes of smoke coming from his plums.

Confused, i followed him as he crawled up the stairs ( by now the chicken was defrosted and beginning to cook )He was screaming something about firemen, ambulances and divorce, but i was more concerned with wondering why the scotchguarding on the stair carpet wasn’t stopping it from melting.

Eventually, he managed to get to the bathroom, where he slid into the bath ( with the chicken still attached to his knob ) and assumed birthing position with one leg over either side before turning the cold water tap directly onto his sizzling and spitting garden. Imagine the snap, crackle and pop sound of Rice Krispies, but magnify it by several decibels. Three weeks later, he was still there!!

Once the burns healed and all the scabs fell off, I can honestly say that this stuff worked.

Plus points…

It will strip oil and grease from driveways in less than 5 seconds.

It will defrost and cook a chicken faster than your microwave will.

It’s a great contraceptive.

Minus points.

It will melt or set fire to anything coming into contact with it.

If you’re planning on having a family, forget it!

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 21-07-2019 4:48pm

seamus wrote: »

If the media weren't publicising the actions of this idiot, it would be some unknown random failed frivolous lawsuits on the other side of the planet, just like the thousands of others every day.

The media isn’t publicising the case at all. Until a few days ago it wasn’t a public hearing. There’s one or two independent bloggers. And the case hasn’t failed yet.

MrFresh · 21-07-2019 4:48pm

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

The media isn’t publicising the case at all. Until a few days ago it wasn’t a public hearing. There’s one or two independent bloggers. And the case hasn’t failed yet.

i thought the Times reported it a month ago. Isn't that what someone in the first page or two said?

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 21-07-2019 4:50pm

MrFresh wrote: »

Who said never? They just have to go to someone who is able to do what they want.

What does that mean? Is it a place specialised for female grooming, or do trans women have to go to a male grooming establishment?

we don’t know the outcome of these cases yet.

drunkmonkey · 21-07-2019 4:58pm

MrFresh wrote: »

i thought the Times reported it a month ago. Isn't that what someone in the first page or two said?

The UK times back in march it was over a feminist suing twitter, it's a paid for article I can't link to it. It's been going on for a while.
It's transphobic not to be supporting her so I'm not surprised the papers have kept away from it especially here as we're one of the only countries in the world to give special rights to gender identity.

Ted Johnson · 21-07-2019 4:58pm

The anglosphere was a mistake.

I'm emigrating to Russia. Lads, have fun with the transexual 'women' and 10 year old drag queens.

MrFresh · 21-07-2019 5:14pm

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

What does that mean? Is it a place specialised for female grooming, or do trans women have to go to a male grooming establishment?

Just one where they do scrotums. It doesn't have to be one dedicated to a particular gender. I always went to a hairdressers instead of a barber to get my haircut when I was younger. It didn't cause society to collapse.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The UK times back in march it was over a feminist suing twitter, it's a paid for article I can't link to it. It's been going on for a while.
It's transphobic not to be supporting her so I'm not surprised the papers have kept away from it especially here as we're one of the only countries in the world to give special rights to gender identity.

You don't have to support something to report it.

CIARAN_BOYLE · 21-07-2019 5:19pm

Honestly I don't think there's much of a story until we get a judgement.

Dante7 · 21-07-2019 5:36pm

MrFresh wrote: »

Just one where they do scrotums. It doesn't have to be one dedicated to a particular gender. I always went to a hairdressers instead of a barber to get my haircut when I was younger. It didn't cause society to collapse.

You don't have to support something to report it.

You seem to be saying that the only reason the women shouldn't have had to perform the waxing is because they don't have the necessary skills. What of a female beautician did have the skills, and in fact she regularly waxed her husband, but she only offered a commercial service to women. Do you believe that she should be compelled to touch someone's genitalia against her wishes. Think very carefully about this.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 21-07-2019 6:04pm

MrFresh wrote: »

Just one where they do scrotums. It doesn't have to be one dedicated to a particular gender. I always went to a hairdressers instead of a barber to get my haircut when I was younger. It didn't cause society to collapse.

A female grooming service that does scrotums? Might be hard to find if they can opt out. I don’t think the law will allow that form of defacto discrimination. We’ll see.

Nobody is suggesting society is going to collapse by the way, that’s a strawman.

Oranage2 · 21-07-2019 6:14pm

Crazy crazy world now, this person has to accept that it was born a male and use the correct services that cater to people who are born male or else seek an alternative service that caters to people that that believe they're something else!

MrFresh · 21-07-2019 6:22pm

Dante7 wrote: »

You seem to be saying that the only reason the women shouldn't have had to perform the waxing is because they don't have the necessary skills. What of a female beautician did have the skills, and in fact she regularly waxed her husband, but she only offered a commercial service to women. Do you believe that she should be compelled to touch someone's genitalia against her wishes. Think very carefully about this.

No, it's up to them what service they offer to the public, they just can't discriminate who they offer it to.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

A female grooming service that does scrotums? Might be hard to find if they can opt out. I don’t think the law will allow that form of defacto discrimination. We’ll see.

What's wrong with unisex service?

Glass fused light · 21-07-2019 6:22pm

MrFresh wrote: »

Just one where they do scrotums. It doesn't have to be one dedicated to a particular gender. I always went to a hairdressers instead of a barber to get my haircut when I was younger. It didn't cause society to collapse.

The legal argument is that as the ladies provided female waxing and she is now a female.
she has a legal right to access any service provider for female waxing and that the service provider must provide the service irrespective of the assigned at birth genital presentation

The case was filed without the need to establishing what the current status was. [pre op or post op]

Think on that the court did not think that it was relevant to establish that fact [about her genital] before the case could proceed.

Pero_Bueno · 21-07-2019 6:26pm

Pat Condell is spot on in this as always

https://twitter.com/patcondell/status/1152147642404745218?s=20

Dante7 · 21-07-2019 6:28pm

MrFresh wrote: »

No, it's up to them what service they offer to the public, they just can't discriminate who they offer it to.

So answer the question. Should the woman in my scenario be compelled to offer a waxing service to a transwoman?

Glass fused light · 21-07-2019 6:28pm

MrFresh wrote: »

No, it's up to them what service they offer to the public, they just can't discriminate who they offer it to.

So the ladies offer waxing to women
The claim is based on the fact that the person is now a woman
Therefore the ladies can not discriminate by not offering the service to all women.

Have you got your head around that it's a woman looking for waxing of her lady bits?

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 21-07-2019 6:29pm

MrFresh wrote: »

No, it's up to them what service they offer to the public, they just can't discriminate who they offer it to.

What's wrong with unisex service?

It’s intimate work so very few females, who traditionally do this, will work there.

It was you who suggested female grooming was a speciality. The goalposts keep moving to hide the absurdity of the case.

And this, far from being an outlier is merely the ice bergs tip.

Gatling · 21-07-2019 6:31pm

"That prompted Yaniv to tell the tribunal that she was intersex and that she had female body parts."

Pretty obvious that this fool is a troll nothing more

Glass fused light · 21-07-2019 6:33pm

seamus wrote: »

If the media weren't publicising the actions of this idiot, it would be some unknown random failed frivolous lawsuits on the other side of the planet, just like the thousands of others every day.

The gender act is has been reviewed as it was an obligation within the current act. You may want to do some investigation as to the number of changes which are proposed.

MrFresh · 21-07-2019 6:35pm

Dante7 wrote: »

So answer the question. Should the woman in my scenario be compelled to offer a waxing service to a transwoman?

If they offer a service waxing male genitalia, then yes. If they don't offer a service waxing male genitalia then no.

Glass fused light wrote: »

So the ladies offer waxing to women
The claim is based on the fact that the person is now a woman
Therefore the ladies can not discriminate by not offering the service to all women.

Except it is a different service.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

It’s intimate work so very few females, who traditionally do this, will work there.

It was you who suggested female grooming was a speciality. The goalposts keep moving to hide the absurdity of the case.

I've been very specific about referring to the part that is waxed and not the gender of the person being waxed.

Gatling · 21-07-2019 6:35pm

So can a man sue a doctor or hospital or health service for not providing him cervical smears and other female specific examinations and treatments even though they don't actually have a cervix or female reproductive systems

Sardonicat · 21-07-2019 6:38pm

What if she develops problems with her reproductive organs? Would she sue the gynaecologist for not treating her even though the specialist required would be a urologist?

Dante7 · 21-07-2019 6:41pm

MrFresh wrote: »

If they offer a service waxing male genitalia, then yes. If they don't offer a service waxing male genitalia then no.

Ok, great. So we are in agreement that women should not be obliged to wax trans women as they have male genitalia. The logical progression of this is that Trans women aren't women as they are biological males and as such don't automatically have a right to female only spaces or services.

Shield · 21-07-2019 6:42pm

I feel it's important to state the obvious, so here we go:

There is a gigantic section of society who refuse to accept this person is a woman, never can be, and never will be. It's one of the most divisive and contested issues we face because of what impact it could have on biological women in the future.

My personal opinion on this issue is that Jessica Yaniv is a man, possibly an autogynephilic, who has become a vexatious litigant.

I encourage you all to read this play by play Twitter thread of the cases as they happened, followed by a later thread when reporting restrictions were lifted.

I ask the mods/cmods/admins to allow people to air their personal views on this controversial issue in a similarly respectful manner.

Cheers.

dudara wrote: »

I read a few articles on this earlier. One of the beauticians said that she had refused as she was not trained/experienced in waxing male parts.

Dig out some of the articles and have a read. The woman at the centre of all this is quite a character (to put it mildly)

MrFresh · 21-07-2019 6:45pm

Gatling wrote: »

So can a man sue a doctor or hospital or health service for not providing him cervical smears and other female specific examinations and treatments even though they don't actually have a cervix or female reproductive systems

There would be no physical way for them to perform such a procedure.

Lady can't have her hairy balls waxed [mod notes/warnings in post #1]

Comments