Decision of the Great Transgender Brazilian Wax Case By Mrs Vera West

     So now we know, the decision of the most exciting case in legal history, according to some. A transgender individual with a penis and scrotum wanted Brazilian waxing of said scrotum, but three non-white immigrant waxers refused to do so, claiming not to have experience waxing male genitals, which requires, I don’t know, some sort of diploma. Maybe an Arts degree?! Anyway, the decision went against the transgender individual. An interesting technicality to preserve damage to Canada’s crazy laws:

“A Canadian official ruled against Jessica Yaniv, the transgender Canadian plaintiff who had accused three women of unfair “discrimination” when they declined to give his testicles a “Brazilian wax” treatment. But the official minimized the damage to Canada’s pro-transgender laws by suggesting that women may need to provide the sexually intimate service to male bodies if they have been trained for the task. “Human rights legislation does not require a service provider to wax a type of genitals they are not trained for and have not consented to wax. … There are differences between waxing the genitals of a person with a vulva and a person with a penis and scrotum,” said the deciding official in the quasi-judicial British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The 61-page decision implies that women will have to provide the intimate service to men if the Canadian licensing boards require cosmeticians to learn how to do the service. “I agree generally with [the transgender plaintiff] Ms. [Jessica] Yaniv that a person who customarily offers women the service of waxing their arms or legs cannot discriminate between cisgender and transgender women absent a bona fide reasonable justification,” said Devyn Cousineau, a far-left human rights lawyer, who added: There is no material difference in a cake which is baked for a straight wedding, and one that is baked for a gay wedding. Nor does baking a cake for a gay wedding require you to have intimate contact with the client. Taking another example, there is no material difference in renting a room to a gay couple or to a straight couple, and renting out rooms does not require intimate contact with the client.

In contrast, in the case of genital waxing, I have found there is a material difference in waxing different types of genitals and that, because of its intimate nature, service providers must consent to provide service on a particular type of genitals. What the law requires is that, having chosen to provide a particular service, they must provide that service without discrimination. For example, a person who customarily waxes vulvas cannot discriminate amongst their clients with vulvas, and likewise for a person who customarily waxes scrotums. However, human rights legislation does not require a service provider to wax a type of genitals they are not trained for and have not consented to wax. Cousineau repeatedly defended Yaniv’s claim that he is a woman and protected by pro-transgender legislation, amid plentiful evidence to the existence of Yaniv’s testicles: I accept that Ms. Yaniv is partly motivated by her desire to fight what she perceives as pervasive discrimination against transgender women in the beauty industry. In that sense, her motives do align with Code’s purposes of eradicating discrimination and providing victims of discrimination with a means of redress. Further, if not for this application, I would likely have concluded that at least one of Ms. Yaniv’s complaints about arm and leg waxing was justified. Throughout the controversy, Yaniv has insisted he is a woman, even to the point of claiming that he suffers from period pains.

     It could happen just as easily in Australia. Indeed, if the waxers were not vulnerable non-white migrant women, highly politically correct, ticking many boxes, the results would have been different, such as white cis male waxers who refused.



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Wednesday, 29 September 2021
