By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Salon Closed after Refusing to Wax Trans Woman's Scrotum

o_O.Q on 30 July 2019
gergroy said:
o_O.Q said:

"That’s not discrimination"

its discrimination on the basis of genitals, the argument for trans people is that we should instead of discriminating on the basis of genitals discriminate on self identification

I’m sorry, but no person should be forced to work around an opposite genders genitals against their will.  It would be discrimination if she offered the service to other males or trans people but not her, but that isn’t the case here.  

"I’m sorry, but no person should be forced to work around an opposite genders genitals against their will."

fair enough so that means therefore that people would be discriminating on the basis of biological sex and not gender as progressives define gender

"It would be discrimination"

it was discrimination on the basis of biological sex, the argument of jessica yaniv is that this type of discrimination should not occur and only self expression should be used as grounds for discrimination

what do you understand the word discrimination to mean?



Around the Network
o_O.Q on 30 July 2019
JWeinCom said:
thismeintiel said:

Well, there's sharing your opinion, which the OP did, then there's just being a jerk because you don't like their opinion. If you can argue your opinions well, you should be able to debate it without name-calling or just wanting the other person to shut up.

No, the OP isn't sharing their opinion.  The OP is pretending they are neutral on the topic to bait people in.  People see through it, which is why you see the reaction, and why people agreed with it.  It's not about the OPs actual opinion, it's about their dishonest style of presenting it. 

do you have something relevant to add to this discussion? or will there be more posts simply attacking me? I've counted 3 now, how many more can I expect?



Ganoncrotch on 30 July 2019
jason1637 said:
gergroy said:

How exactly was it discrimination?  If somebody doesn’t want to touch the opposite genders genitals they should not be forced to.  

The appointment had been made through phone already.  The person decided not when they realized the customer was trans.

Kinda what the insurance industry does for the most part, if you apply online for insurance as a woman teenage driver... but was born a guy you are not going to get a womans final quote on what your insurance is going to cost you, simply because you say you feel like a woman doesn't change the higher risk category you are on the road and that is of being a teenage male.

It's one thing to cause grief at some mom and pops waxing booth, but large insurance firms to accept trans people as being women for the sake of getting a lower insurance quote would never fly, it would be quashed faster than the woman in the OP's testicles!

A link to how insurance companies do it, basically they rule on "gender at birth" and nothing else.

https://www.valuepenguin.com/transgender-applicants-confusion-purchasing-auto-insurance



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

o_O.Q on 30 July 2019
SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

"I’m sorry, but no person should be forced to work around an opposite genders genitals against their will."

fair enough so that means therefore that people would be discriminating on the basis of biological sex and not gender as progressives define gender

"It would be discrimination"

it was discrimination on the basis of biological sex, the argument of jessica yaniv is that this type of discrimination should not occur and only self expression should be used as grounds for discrimination

what do you understand the word discrimination to mean?

What part of qualifications do you not get?  She was not trained for male genital salon therapy nor was her operation founded upon male genital salon therapy.

That's not discrimination.  That's refusing to perform a service that you are unqualified for nor is your business intended for.

"What part of qualifications do you not get?"

I understand your point but her business could still be considered to be discriminatory because she catered it exclusively for female genitalia

and i'm not saying that's a bad thing, I don't believe discrimination to be a bad thing inherently since everyone does it across different situations



JWeinCom on 30 July 2019
o_O.Q said:
JWeinCom said:

No, the OP isn't sharing their opinion.  The OP is pretending they are neutral on the topic to bait people in.  People see through it, which is why you see the reaction, and why people agreed with it.  It's not about the OPs actual opinion, it's about their dishonest style of presenting it. 

do you have something relevant to add to this discussion? or will there be more posts simply attacking me? I've counted 3 now, how many more can I expect?

I'm not attacking you.  I'm attacking your behavior.  There is a difference.  Because despite pretending not to have an opinion, you've repeated the thesis you want to soapbox on twice already.  



Around the Network
o_O.Q on 30 July 2019
JWeinCom said:
o_O.Q said:

do you have something relevant to add to this discussion? or will there be more posts simply attacking me? I've counted 3 now, how many more can I expect?

I'm not attacking you.  I'm attacking your behavior.  There is a difference.  

do you have anything to add to the discussion? or do you intend on continuing to derail to attack me?



KLAMarine on 30 July 2019
JWeinCom said:
KLAMarine said:

Whoa, what seems to be the problem?

The OP has a habit of posting things like this in a "gee golly what do you think" manner, when they clearly have a strong opinion and agenda on the matter.  

Did that strong opinion and agenda make itself known in OP's post?

SpokenTruth said:
The proprietor operated a women's only salon. The potential client never advised the salon owner of their genital status during booking. That is misleading and intentionally violating the purposeful function of the salon.

While the potential client may be in the process of transitioning from male to female, the genitalia have not yet. The notion of a 'women's only' salon is very allusory to genitalia. It is implied that the genitals of clientele will be vaginal in nature, not penile.

This is not a discriminatory act against transgenders because the crux of the business is specifically about genitalia and not the identifying or expressive nature of the potential client's gender/sex.

Let is also be known the potential client has a known history of entrapments, illegal requests and has sued 16 other salons for this exact same issue. Some of those other illegal requests are a topless pool part with girls aged 12 - 24 with no parents permitted. She also engages young girls in public bathrooms to discuss (and attempts to apply) menstruation products. All of which took place prior to Yanniv's announcement about identifying as a women and was ~30 years of age.

Yanniv is currently under investigation for child exploitation.

F***ed if true. Wow.



JWeinCom on 30 July 2019
o_O.Q said:
JWeinCom said:

I'm not attacking you.  I'm attacking your behavior.  There is a difference.  

do you have anything to add to the discussion? or do you intend on continuing to derail to attack me?

Again, not attacking you.  Attacking your behavior.  It's a side conversation.  Those things happen.



JWeinCom on 30 July 2019
KLAMarine said:
JWeinCom said:

The OP has a habit of posting things like this in a "gee golly what do you think" manner, when they clearly have a strong opinion and agenda on the matter.  

Did that strong opinion and agenda make itself known in OP's post?

SpokenTruth said:
The proprietor operated a women's only salon. The potential client never advised the salon owner of their genital status during booking. That is misleading and intentionally violating the purposeful function of the salon.

While the potential client may be in the process of transitioning from male to female, the genitalia have not yet. The notion of a 'women's only' salon is very allusory to genitalia. It is implied that the genitals of clientele will be vaginal in nature, not penile.

This is not a discriminatory act against transgenders because the crux of the business is specifically about genitalia and not the identifying or expressive nature of the potential client's gender/sex.

Let is also be known the potential client has a known history of entrapments, illegal requests and has sued 16 other salons for this exact same issue. Some of those other illegal requests are a topless pool part with girls aged 12 - 24 with no parents permitted. She also engages young girls in public bathrooms to discuss (and attempts to apply) menstruation products. All of which took place prior to Yanniv's announcement about identifying as a women and was ~30 years of age.

Yanniv is currently under investigation for child exploitation.

F***ed if true. Wow.

No, it didn't make itself known in the OP, which is kind of the problem.  It's posing as neutral, but it's not.  And you could see that as soon as someone took the bait, OP pivoted to

"it was discrimination on the basis of biological sex, the argument of jessica yaniv is that this type of discrimination should not occur and only self expression should be used as grounds for discrimination"

That's the actual point they want to make.  They want to talk about using gender identity as a grounds for discrimination.  Which is fine, but if that's the case, just say it in the OP, instead of pretending that you have no opinion on the matter when you have a clear thesis you want to talk about.



JWeinCom on 30 July 2019
SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

"What part of qualifications do you not get?"

I understand your point but her business could still be considered to be discriminatory because she catered it exclusively for female genitalia

and i'm not saying that's a bad thing, I don't believe discrimination to be a bad thing inherently since everyone does it across different situations

So a women's health practitioner would be discriminating against men if they refused male genital clients?

KLAMarine said:

F***ed if true. Wow.

Sadly very true and exceptionally messed up. This is a male looking for attention, openly admits to wanting to have sex with underage girls because they are 'tighter', and is doing far more harm to the LGBTQ community than any other activist I know of right now.

THe only reason it's doing damage to the LBGTQ community is because when you're in a minority, your actions are assumed to represent the whole group.  Don't get me wrong, this person is fucked up, but if it was a white non-trans person in a similar situation, you wouldn't assess all white males based on that.  You'd just say it's a fucked up person.  But because it's a trans they're doing damage to their whole community as if they're representative of that.