Canada can do what Canada wants but I'm not sure how forcing people to work on genitalia they don't want to is a good thing.

it's not genitalia they don't want to work on

What do you base this on?

you mean in lolcanada or in usa#1?

if you want to know canada laws then you should probably look into them yourself, the USA#1 crowd, myself included, aren't going to see much point in arguing different countries laws.

in USA#1 we have a very clear set of federal anti-discrimination laws, along with accompanying state laws and clarifications..

In recent years Canada has passed a lot of (allegedly) very poorly worded and thought out anti-discrimination human rights laws, of which Jordan Peterson initially rose to fame protesting.

Ironically this is the type of seeming abuse of the allegedly poorly thought out laws that Peterson and others were warning about.

Yeah this is all downstream from ideology. I actually challenged the previous poster who called me a transphobe to explain to feminists how this all works before it was rudely deleted. I used some sarcasm to try and extract their best attempt at actually formulating an articulate argument since we know this will stay at the level of discourse where you call anyone who you don't agree with a bigot.

Dear government enforced junk waxing crowd,

Could you articulate an argument directed at feminists in regards to this case? You don't need to address me as a transphobe in this exercise

Looking forward to.... nothing of the sort

I'm sure I don't know enough to have a strong opinion on this case, but with that caveat in mind:

I probably wouldn't support the application of anti-discrimination laws in public accommodation to this case, provided it's true that the salon in question usually doesn't do waxing for men (which would presumably be true if it's also true that the business was brand new). The business owner's reasons for declining seem prima facie acceptable to me. It also seems plausible that the complainant is pushing this kind of activism a bit further than is really helpful.

if a person wants to take female only clients all they need do is do business only by appointment, that allows them to pick and choose their clientele.

i dont understand how this is possibly hard to grasp. open a store to walk-ins, then you serve everyone that walks in the service you are advertising. if you want to run the business out of your home and advertise by appointment only and not have a store front boutique, then do that.

According to the National Post article, this incident did involve an appointment.

Well. There has been at least 16 incidents involving Yanez, but that was one of them.

My comment is only about the linked article.

The fact that yaniv has mental health issues isn't up for debate or really the key point in the hypothetical or legal sense. I think the more interesting issue is the ideology and morality behind the legal/political actions

You can view the interactions with minors here

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/ex...ent-of-minors/

They also tried to organize a no parent allowed topless swimming event for adults and minors in "the community". Once people got wind of this and spoke up they had it cancelled. The gubberment asleep at the wheel again

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/lg...rents-allowed/

Yeah. I know most people aren’t going to look into the background, so I thought it relevant to acknowledge this isn’t a one-off. This is an activist with an axe to grind.

canada.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/th...ing-to-emerge/

I mean it's possible this is only one side and counter evidence is being ignored here but I'd hold serious reservations about going into bat for Yaniv right now given the state of the evidence within that article. This looks on the face of it that someone with question aspects of character is targeting mostly vulnerable people who she has issues with, knowing that the nature of the situation is easy to distort in her favour for anyone who doesn't care enough to look closer.

for those of you pointing out that the plaintiff has challenged this law multiple places as this huge negative, let me ask you a question.. how do you think social change like anti-discrimination happens in the real world?

for example do you know why US highschools have girls sports teams, facilities, or equipment? it certainly wasn't because they just decided "hey girls can play sports too.' it wasn't even really through title 9 legislation, most schools just lied and said "well we dont have girls that want to play sports. so we aren't going to allocate any money to that" it was through lawsuits. people "targeting" the schools not complying and suing them.

Trying to find anything about this that wasn't from a right wing source was difficult, and that in itself seems problematic to me as it means that left wing sites aren't talking about it. It is vitally important to push back against the mischaracterization of all trans-women as predators that is common from the right. However it's also important to realise that while that stereotype is hateful and supremely bigoted, it doesn't mean that the trans community is somehow unique and immune from having members who are predators, literally any group of people will have some minority of them. I understand the reticence of trans and trans-allies to discuss this because it is obviously going to be used as ammo by bigots, but it's still important to address the issue and condemn predatory behaviour in the community when it's justified - otherwise the only voices being heard are the bigots.

This post I eventually found on medium is really good imo and explains the complicated nature of the issue a lot better than I would have been able to and helped me flesh out the thoughts in the previous paragraph:

https://medium.com/@jackmahar000/we-...v-eda77d09ceed

It seems like a very manufactured controversy to me. Most trans people I know are not struggling to find a good waxing salon. We're struggling to be allowed to use public bathrooms, access health services, serve in the military, adopt children etc. In fact, this whole controversy feeds into one of our biggest complaints, which is the frequent cis obsession with our genitals.

It's a whole lot harder for Juan to fume about trans people not being able to adopt children, so of course the conversation here is always framed around frivolous **** like Brazilian waxes and women's wrestling. Engaging in this at all legitimizes his approach and belittles actual problems.

Instead of manufactured I might be tempted to say that it's unrepresentative, or blown out of proportion, but I think the idea is the same.

It's something we noticed a lot of in the research project I participated in which looked at discourse in the online MRA reddit, but I suspect it's pretty common in politics in general. I've heard the basic idea referred to as the fallacy of the dramatic instance, which is a name I like. That is, it's the idea that people pick out some unrepresentative but dramatic example of bad behavior within some group (a social movement, political party, whatever) and use it as a proxy with which to criticize the larger movement. And it works best when the example is not, in fact, manufactured (just unrepresentative).

So I think the person facing the suit in the article may have a very legitimate complaint. And, depending on the way the legal system decides, it would seem legitimate to me to criticize some applications of public accommodations laws. But it doesn't make sense to try to turn it into some broad-brush criticism of trans activism as a whole.

As far as I know no one is stopping anyone from discussing any other trans issue itt.

Sure, if that's a response to me then I will note my comment wasn't really about this thread at all.

Predictably this doesn't answer the question a woman or a feminist would ask and that I posed. Explain how any of this relates to the government forcing woman to wax scrotums against their will.

Why should a woman have to be compelled to wax someones balls by law?

Still not holding my breathe

I was responding to Trolly. You snuck in on me.

I already answered - I don't think they should be legally compelled. If they have a clear policy they only do vaginas, then that's their policy *shrug*.

But most professionals who deal with the human body, whether in the healthcare business or the esthetics business (e.g. piercing, tattoo artists, and hair waxers) are capable of dealing with both penises and vaginas. Its just the human body. Wouldn't you find it weird if you went to your primary care physician with an itchy dick and they said to you, "sorry, I only diagnose vaginas"?