Many transgender people suffer from major mental health problems. Although not all, the prevalence of such is alarming. It’s understandably a depressing position. The problem is that other people cannot be expected to bend over backwards to accommodate them.
Transgender people should not be maligned or abused. They do not, however, have the power to undermine others’ feelings or personal rights. A recent decision by a Canadian court plainly supports this position regarding a “hairy scam”.
Jessica Yaniv is a 32-year-old who proclaims to be a transgender woman. That’s all fine. Jessica can declare herself to be whoever or whatever she wants to be. But in this court case, a few biological facts determined how the court ruled.
Apparently, Jessica hasn’t completely made the transition to female. Either that or she suffers from some serious bisexual fantasies. For whatever reason, Jessica kept going to beauty shops, trying to get the employees to give her/him a “Brazilian” wax.
Now, a Brazilian wax is a process females apply, painfully we might add, that keeps things neat and trim around their bikini line. We’re uncertain why Jessica felt it necessary to “tighten things up” around her still fully developed scrotum.
Yes, Jessica, despite claiming to be a woman, was still packing “a set”. Jessica Yaniv is a person who acts like a woman but still lugs around a penis. Yes, it’s strange. Jessica has been refused her Brazilian wax at no less than a dozen beauty shops across Canada.
So, like most of these radically mixed-up individuals, Jessica played the poor, poor little me card. She proclaimed that these beauticians were discriminating against her “based on gender identity and gender expression.” Jessica was asking for $15,000 from each beautician.
It sounds to us like Jessica thought she had a nice scam to pad her/her bank account. The beautician’s defense was pretty simple. It asserted some solid points based on human anatomy. These professionals are trained to apply a Brazilian wax to a “Sheila”, not a “Bloke”.
They argued that they did not have the training, or the capability, to wax safely alongside a man’s “block and tackle.” These women were actually afraid that they might hurt poor Jessica. Other arguments by the beauticians involved their own personal rights.
They didn’t feel they signed up to fondle male genitals. That might fall into the category of being slightly “above their pay grade.” The court’s ruling stuck to the facts. It read, “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.”
But the ruling went even further. The decision determined that Jessica “engaged in improper conduct,” and “filed complaints for improper purposes.” One human rights tribunal member insisted, “The most likely scenario is that Ms. Yaniv was trying to make the beauticians feel uncomfortable or awkward for her own amusement, or as a form of revenge.”
The court also envisioned Jessica’s primary motivation to be financial gain. In the end, the court turned the tables on “Mr. Jessica”. Yaniv was ordered to pay $2,000 to three of the named beauticians. Jessica might be able to scam people about his gender, but this court took a closer look “under the hood.”