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
SpokenTruth 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

You and Yanniv both intended to turn the Trans anti-discrimination points against them but you both have failed because you are too busy looking for gotcha moments than any real substance of discourse.

Being hired or fired is irrelevant to sex - hence the trans anti-discrimination efforts.  A Brazilian wax is very relevant to sex - hence why it's not discriminatory.

"You and Yanniv both intended to turn the Trans anti-discrimination points against them"

yanniv is a transsexual, yanniv has a vested interest in going after businesses like this that from yanniv's perspective enforce the link between biology and gender

on the other hand for me I'm just using the word discrimination as I've always seen it used when it comes to social contexts like this

"Being hired or fired is irrelevant to sex - hence the trans anti-discrimination efforts."

anti trans discrimination efforts are not primarily focused on hiring but on the perception of whether someone is a woman or a man



Around the Network
KLAMarine on 30 July 2019
JWeinCom said:
KLAMarine said:

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

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.

I don't think it's wrong to post an OP that is neutral and then let it be known where one stands on an issue later on in the thread.



tsogud on 30 July 2019
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.

Thank you for this informative post. I think considering the past history of the client and the nature of the salon's business, this shouldn't be counted as discrimination and the salon shouldn't be sued.

In this instance genitalia of the client is important and if it was understood that the salon wasn't willing to wax male genitalia and only did female genitalia, then it shouldn't be held against them.

Personally, I think this is a non-issue and distracts  people from actual discrimination, social stigma, and the copious amount of struggles trans individuals have to go through on a daily.



 

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

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

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.

does patriarchy theory not generalise the actions and status of a minority of men out to men as a group?



DarkD on 30 July 2019

I don't even understand how this can be perceived as a gray area. Is VGChartz that hopelessly woke? A transwoman (male who identifies as female and still has a penis) is suing someone because they don't want to touch said persons penis. This is practically forced prostitution. This is exactly why liberals are on a losing streak around the world right now. This person is a predator.



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

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

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.

I figured that was pretty much obvious from yanniv's actions and the actions of transsexual people in general?

I thought the very bedrock of their stance is that discrimination between what is a woman and what is a man should only occur on the grounds of self identification?



JWeinCom on 30 July 2019
KLAMarine said:
JWeinCom said:

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.

I don't think it's wrong to post an OP that is neutral and then let it be known where one stands on an issue later on in the thread.

No, it's not that the post is neutral.  It's that the OP is specifically claiming that THEY are neutral in the comments.  That they"don't know what they think about" the topic.  But you can see from OP's subsequent posts that they clearly have an opinion.

It's because a lot of people would simply avoid responding if they knew that they were in for an argument.  Pretending to be neutral gets people to respond that otherwise would not have, and then before they know it, they're in an argument, and because of the way we're wired, they feel compelled to defend it and keep posting.

OP wants to argue about it.  And if he wants to spend his time doing that, more power to him.  But he's trying to bait people into arguing who may not normally be inclined, which is why you saw such a strong reaction.



Cubedramirez on 30 July 2019

We live in a world where those preaching science at every turn are in fact the most unscientific people out there.

It's a man. How is this even a debate? Have we lost our minds?



JWeinCom on 30 July 2019
Cubedramirez said:
We live in a world where those preaching science at every turn are in fact the most unscientific people out there.

It's a man. How is this even a debate? Have we lost our minds?

This person pretty clearly is a piece of crap, so I'm not defending them.  But, gender is more complex than that.  For example, they've found that there are physical differences between a trans brain and the brain of a cis-gendered person.  

o_O.Q said:
JWeinCom said:

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.

I figured that was pretty much obvious from yanniv's actions and the actions of transsexual people in general?

I thought the very bedrock of their stance is that discrimination between what is a woman and what is a man should only occur on the grounds of self identification?

So... if this is the point you so clearly want to discuss, why didn't you just post it in the OP, instead of pretending you had no opinion?



o_O.Q 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.

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

you are confusing gender with biology, I believe a term being thrown around now is "menstruators"

http://blog.gladrags.com/4429/why-menstruator-should-be-in-your-vocabulary/

"Sadly very true and exceptionally messed up. This is a male looking for attention"

this person identifies as a woman

according to the other reports I have seen they are a predator for sure but that doesn't mean that they don't identify as a woman