You Will Wax That Lady’s Scrotum
16 Vancouver women are facing human rights complaints for refusing to wax a transgender woman’s male genitalia. The anonymous individual “JY” has filed 16 separate complaints with the Human Rights Tribunal after being refused a Brazilian wax from businesses that only service women.
The faintly surreal news item is worth reading in full, though one passage seems to, as it were, brush against the nub of things:
In spite of the fact that JY is able to obtain a Manzilian in Vancouver, JY has filed 16 complaints against these women at the BC Human Rights Tribunal, claiming discrimination on the basis of “gender identity.” […] One of them, Shelah Poyer, is a single mom who works out of her home. JY was willing to withdraw his complaint in exchange for $2,500.
The term naked shakedown comes to mind. Via Claire Lehmann.
The women should sue for sexual harassment.
The women should sue for sexual harassment.
Opportunism aside, there does seem to be an element of taking revenge on the world.
Something’s leaking from Canada, isn’t it?
Ugh – just realised, this one’s Canada as well. It is the same person filing all the others?
Something’s leaking from Canada, isn’t it?
Given the context, I’m not sure ‘dignity’ is the word to go for.
I’m also pondering the fact that I now have a tag for intimate waxing.
I fear I may have opened Pandora’s box.
– Being Canajan {eh?} m’self, I can explain. Why? – oh, that’d be for the same reason our Province of Quebec threatens more “Separatisme!!!” every time the bean-counters in Ottawa won’t give them everything they’re demanding at the moment:
– Because they can.
Italics!
[ Fixes latest italics overflow. ]
Clearly, I’m going to need a bigger sign.
The women should sue for sexual harassment.
On reading the story, another phrase that came to mind was, “Don’t push it, love.” I mean, when your pantomime of injustice and personal victimhood entails a belief that, in the name of grooming, you should be able to compel women to handle a man’s genitals, and have them fined if they don’t, then this isn’t exactly the soundest ethical footing, or the most flattering.
Well, today I learned there’s such a thing as a “Manzilian.” So there’s that . . .
Well, today I learned there’s such a thing as a “Manzilian.”
See also, penazzling and dickoration.
I’m also pondering the fact that I now have a tag for intimate waxing.
I fear I may have opened Pandora’s box.
And before too–note the letter “o” and not a zero, BTW–long after that, the comment section here will have devolved into this.
I read that link as You Will Tax That Lady’s Scrotum. Which almost makes more sense. If grandpa was alive today…
the comment section here will have devolved into this.
You say that as if it hasn’t already been happening several times a week for at least ten years.
Hmm…thinking more about it…If we had real gender equality and truly free markets, Brazillian waxes would be free. Maybe that Marxism thing can work after all. I knew I should have voted a D ticket yesterday.
But it’s somehow not discriminatory to run a business that services only women?
The term naked shakedown comes to mind.
Scalp hunting.
Scalp hunting.
And how quickly we went from “Bake the cake!” to “Touch my hairy ladyballs!”
Just a thought, but forcing some broad to wax my nutsack after having dragged her through courts, isn’t likely to end well … for my nutsack. Just a thought? Wax your nuts? Sure, motherfucker, get on the table. I’ll be extra gentle. I promise!
Scalp hunting.
As others have noted elsewhere, it takes all of ten seconds to find a Vancouver waxing salon that pointedly welcomes trans customers and caters to their various requirements. Apparently, there are indeed differences in materials and training, depending on one’s, um, anatomy. Which rather lends weight to the suspicion that the trans woman above either (a) couldn’t use Google, or (b) was targeting salons where objections might be raised, resulting in opportunities to screw them over and indulge in a spot of woke extortion.
A suspicion underlined further by events as described here.
I knew I should have voted a D ticket yesterday.
Speaking of which, good work to you lot down there sending that Gillum ninny packing.
But it’s somehow not discriminatory to run a business that services only women?
Technically it’s against the law in Canada, but there are all kinds of de facto exceptions for women-only businesses that aren’t enjoyed by, say, private cigar clubs and golf courses.
Similarly, our various human rights tribunals simply refuse to hear any cases involving naked discrimination against The Usual Suspects.
“For ‘special’ women, we subcontract our services to Big Lars, affectionately known around here as “Lars The Plucker.”
Speaking of which, good work to you lot down there sending that Gillum ninny packing.
Thanks. Not to be all Debbie Downer n stuff but that was waaaay too close. People who are not-left (which of course in MSM and academic terms means us right wing fanatics) need to Wake The F up to the very hard reality that our academic and media institutions need to be rebuked with a very serious and well conceived, constructed, and executed effort to communicate the realities of economics. The demographics, the demographic transition especially, is likely to put western civilization on its heals if this problem is not adequately addressed in the next couple of election cycles. And before I forget, God help us if GA governor goes D. I gotta drive through Atlanta tomorrow to my second home in north GA. I’m not sure what to expect on how that ultimately is decided. That also should NEVER have been that close. One bright spot in FL is we kicked Nelson to the curb with as weak a candidate as Scott. Thank God I don’t have to listen to Nelson’s pronlongated, plodding, pedantic pontifications anymore.
R. Sherman,
Well, today I learned there’s such a thing as a “Manzilian.” So there’s that . . .
There’s a fetish about guys recording their “Manzilians” with their iPhones – and getting off on it in the process.
All kinds of decadence out there on the world-wide web.
(I case anyone wonders, I did not go looking for it. When 4Chan says their /b/ board is “random”, they’re not kidding.)
guys recording their “Manzilians” with their iPhones
I learn so much from our little chats.
Maybe it’s just my sense of foolish self preservation, but I would never force someone who objected to get within arms length of my naked scrotum with a sharp object.
WTP
Did you also notice this us the first election (that I can remember) where our betters in the media were NOT obsessing over the money spent in campaigns? Indeed they were spectacularly incurious over the $38 mil poured into fake-Hispanic Beto’s campaign.
Maybe it’s just my sense of foolish self preservation, but I would never force someone who objected to get within arms length of my naked scrotum with a sharp object.
That’s sort of the thing, isn’t it? Given such stories tend to occur in places where there’s no shortage of bakers, florists, waxing salons, etc., catering to every taste, why would you persist in coercing a particular business, as opposed to simply going elsewhere? It suggests, at best, vengefulness, or spite masquerading as piety.
Darleen,
…spectacularly incurious over the $38 mil poured into fake-Hispanic Beto’s campaign.
Perhaps because the majority of it came from their fellow NY/LA entertainment media friends? Or maybe because it was revealed that Señor Leprechaun is a billionaire? (Married into billions, but whatever. So is John Kerry.)
Darleen
I heard it was closer to $70 million. It’s been super fun, seeing his signs everywhere around here, envisioning the scene from The Dark Knight when the Joker lights pallets of cash on fire.
Fellow patrons, please allow me a little more dancing on “Beto’s” political grave. There was a fantastic meme showing how ham-fisted his LA campaign team was, appropriating the design of Texas fast-food legend Whataburger:
Did you also notice this us the first election (that I can remember) where our betters in the media were NOT obsessing over the money spent in campaigns? Indeed they were spectacularly incurious over the $38 mil poured into fake-Hispanic Beto’s campaign.
OK, please remember that I understand and appreciate that we’re all(ish) on the same team here, and also please try to understand where I am coming from and the details of which would both bore and cause some degree of eye rolling so double reason not to go there and i only ever mention such even in abstract just to, again, provide background on where I am coming from…that said…
I have been very much aware of this bias ( and again forgive me as you may very well have yourself) but I have been saying this and many, many similar things to what people are only today even sheepishly willing to acknowledge for TWENTY OR THIRTY YEARS. Ahem…apologies. The thing is is that I am not especially conservative in many of my beliefs (and yet in many much more so), but it sure would have helped this intravert when on the occasions when he simply could not shut up about the obviousness of the situation one minute longer, it sure wouls have helped if just ONE conservative would have spoken up PUBLICLY with me. If maybe even perhaps when I raised such concerns to my conservative, Presbyterian doctor, he would have refrained from suggesting this reality that is now being at least partially acknowledged in reality was not just something in my head.
Forgive me for that but there are times when I have had it to the gills with the thick headedness of “the grownups in the room”.
It is the same person filing all the others?
Unlikely, given that Windsor is almost exactly 4,000km away from Vancouver, it seems unlikely.
The more likely (and more irksome) explanation is that people like this are now everywhere, sadly.
There’s a fetish about guys recording their “Manzilians” with their iPhones – and getting off on it in the process.
Would it be indelicate of me to ask how you are aware of this?
The more likely (and more irksome) explanation is that people like this are now everywhere, sadly
Like I said, I tried to warn people.
Would it be indelicate of me to ask how you are aware of this?
You’re among friends. We won’t judge.
[ Quietly activates recording device. ]
[ Quietly activates recording device. ]
“Your silent recording will begin right after this word from our sponsor.”
On the subject of people demanding the law state things about them to be other than they, in fact, are:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6363439/amp/Pensioner-69-identifies-45-year-old-tries-change-age.html
Whenever anybody says ‘Manzilian’ from now on, all I will be able to say is ‘ouch’.
Bald, wearing a full length leather apron. All thumbs (or are they toes) and carrying a spatula with a boiling cauldron of wax. Ignore the sizzling sounds buddy, it is nothing to worry about.
Whenever anybody says ‘Manzilian’ from now on
Is this a word you encounter often?
No, and I was happy in my ignorance. David probably was too.
(Happy in HIS ignorance, I mean, though I suppose he could have been enjoying mine as well.)
R. Sherman,
Would it be indelicate of me to ask how you are aware of this?
From my original post:
4Chan /b/ is equal parts “Geez that’s dumb”, “What the hell? [laughing maniacally]”, and “Ohferfuckssake, where’s the brain bleach?”
Pauline Kael, courtesy phone please.
and carrying a spatula with a boiling cauldron of wax
Low melt solder might provide more lasting results.
I’ve said this a couple of times. Drop the euphemism, offer vaginal waxing. If a woman does not have a vagina, they get turned down.
Scalp hunting.
Again, see in the account here.
Imagine you’re a woman who works from home and earns a living as a beautician, including waxing ladies. And one day you get a call from a man wanting to be intimately waxed. You politely explain that you don’t wax gentlemen and haven’t trained to wax men, for whom different procedures and materials are required. The man in question then calls again, calls your boss, wanting to know more about why you can’t oblige. You decline to engage further.
And then, days later, you discover that you, your boyfriend and your employer are all being accused – by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal – of unfair discrimination and of violating a trans woman’s gender identity, and therefore you should cough up $2,500 in damages. Because apparently, you don’t have the right to decline to handle a man’s genitals.
Does this sound like the action of a well-meaning complainant, someone acting in good faith?
Sounds to me like we have all the makings of a solution in these comments.
Transgender woman comes in to get her scrotum waxed.
Signs waiver.
Two or three burly bouncers hold her down to make sure there is no unwanted movement. It’s ok, the bouncers are identifying as women for the next few hours.
Cauldron of boiling wax is brought in.
An unfortunate accident occurs.
Over the next few hours, the spillage is slowly removed using hot water, tweezers, and dremel rotary tools.
Customer flees before complimentary soothing balm can be applied.
Apologies for my above rant. Not handling this insanity very well. But as an example of how messed up this all is consider Drop the euphemism, offer vaginal waxing. If a woman does not have a vagina, they get turned down.. Now today, as messed up as things are, this seems like a reasonable solution. But at one time defining men as “the ones with penises” and women as “the ones with vaginas” was an obviously reasonable solution to certain issues. But what happens when loonies start asking, “Well what is a vagina, anyway?” And some can’t-find-find-work doctor (think of the ones who flunk out and get illegitimate degrees or those with numerous malpractice suits) gets fundeed to do scientific reasearch into how sex organs evolve, the similarities of sex organs starting at the embryonic beginning of their development. He (or she…or whatever) finds a wedge in the meanings of words to shove a crow bar into some very 1 in a billion exceptions and this “vagina” term gets blurred such that people can “identify as having a vagina”. My point is, the solution of “offering vaginal waxing” is just avoiding the issue. We must stop ceding ground to loonies.
Drop the euphemism, offer vaginal waxing.
I get your point, but at the risk of being pedantic, people calling the sum of female genitalia a “vagina” is tiresome. A vagina is that inner portion that extends from the external opening, the introitus, internally to the cervix, not the outer bits.
The sum of the external genitalia is the “vulva”, those are the bits that get waxed. If one is actually waxing a vagina, there are other more serious issues than wanting to be painfully depilitated.
“Well what is a vagina, anyway?”
Bearing in mind the above, if the waxing parlor customer doesn’t have one she came from the factory with, or he doesn’t have a fake one made by surgeons post scrotectomy, to quote Johnny Cochran, “If the speculum doesn’t fit, you must exit.”
Wax the sac, bigot
Does this sound like the action of a well-meaning complainant, someone acting in good faith?
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunals have never acted in good faith. When Mark Steyn was contending with them, he discovered that some 97%+ of all cases filed with the federal tribunal were filed by one person, and he had quite a compensation scam going. Similar things go on at the provincial level. This story is not an exception; it’s de rigueur.
Forget the wax. Use duct tape.
K… so discussed this with the wife, and yes we’ve been drinking, but the lady has a question…not that anyone here would know but someone here might possibly could know…when someone transitions from female to male, does the new member that gets attached be circumcised or uncircumcised, and is there a preference for the former such that a circumcision later be done? And also, could anyone with knowledge of Jewish law explain how such would apply in this…umm…circumstance? Any help in this regard would be greatly appreciated. Preferably before we sober up.
WTP – neither, the fauxjohnson is basically a tube made of skin that resembles a true johnson in much the same way a minivan resembles an Eagle Weslake. Regarding a “circumcision”, I am not a Rabbi, but as it was explained to me by one, someone who was already circumcised but converted would have to under go a “circumcision” that consists of pricking the prick to get a drop of blood. I imagine the same thing would be true for the holder of a fauxjohnson.
neither, the fauxjohnson is basically a tube made of skin that resembles a true johnson in much the same way a minivan resembles an Eagle Weslake.
Well, yeah. But is there even an attempt to recreate a foreskin? If not, why not? Seems relevant in an age where we blow up every little seemingly insignificant difference in these regards into a international court of human rights case.
Regarding a “circumcision”, I am not a Rabbi, but as it was explained to me by one, someone who was already circumcised but converted would have to under go a “circumcision” that consists of pricking the prick to get a drop of blood.
While I agree that such would seem to apply to the faux Johnson entities, it would seem that a foreskin still should be present beforehand. Per above, I submit that the failure to create a penis without a foreskin should constitute malpractice. Any lawyers care to comment on this?
But is there even an attempt to recreate a foreskin? If not, why not?
At this point in time, no, partially because of the nature of skin grafts, and partially because of of the lack of normal physiology.
In general, a penile reconstruction is done by fashioning a tube made from flaps taken from an arm or leg. This is OK for fashioning the shaft and even a glans looking bit, but with a full thickness graft, the graft always takes on characteristics of the donor site – if you take a full thickness graft from a buttock to fix a facial defect or injury, you wind up with a lump on the face because butt skin is thicker than facial skin. You would therefore have to find some other skin that is very thin, or a thin split thickness graft, to make a foreskin, but the thinner the skin, the less likely you will have a viable graft as you would be going edge to edge circumferentially and the blood supply would be dicey. The same problem occurs in trying to reattach bits of ears, for what it is worth. You would also have to fold the donor skin over itself (as there is an inner and outer surface, as it were, to a foreskin), which further complicates matters.
Next there is the issue of normal physiology. In a normal tumescent johnson, there will be an increase in both girth and length which causes a natural retraction of a foreskin. In a fauxjohnson, erection occurs via implants that operate hydraulically, and there is not an increase in either girth or length so a fauxforeskin would never retract.
Basically, assuming you overcame the technical difficulties, the thing would be about as functional and realistic as stapling on a set of Truck Nuts for the faux scrotum, so I think you would be hard pressed to make a case for malpractice for leaving off a completely non-functional bit of redundant skin on a thing resembles that a real johnson in much the same way as a silo does.
OTOH, because the skin is thin and similarly two sided, surgeons have tried to use foreskins to replace eyelids, but the patients always came out cockeyed.
WTP – well I had a long reply that went into the dumper, apparently, so the short version is this: 1) technically difficult to fashion one because it would require and edge to edge graft of a piece of folded over very thin skin. These sort of grafts rarely take because of lousy blood supply – it is a problem with reattaching torn off ear bits, for example; 2) the physiology isn’t there, in a real johnson the foreskin will retract with erection, in a fauxjohnson, erection is achieved via a hydraulic implant that changes neither length or girth, so no retraction.
The thing, assuming the technical difficulties could be overcome, would be as functional and realistic as using a pair of Truck Nutz for the fauxscrotum.
Besides, if you are going to cut it off anyway…
No malpractice…OTOH, because the skin is thin and double sided, surgeons have tried to use foreskins to replace eyelids, but the patients always came out cockeyed.
Oh, rabbis will and have argued their way through anything over the years.
A while back I was sitting in on a planning meeting where a possible halakhic complication arose. The director of the Jewish center we were in needed to get back to his other meetings and was leaving, but on the way to the door he commented that Don’t worry, there’s a rabbinical ruling on that one.
One of the other attendees suddenly looked very interested, asking, Oh, really? What is it?
And the director cheerfully announced Oh, I don’t know what it is, I just know there is one.
This thread contains the greatest amount of information I never wanted to know.
Interesting development
https://twitter.com/e8emma/status/1061902907765862400?s=21
Interesting development
And as the story unfolds, it doesn’t get less peculiar. I see that the complainant, Mr Jonathan (Jessica) Yaniv, a digital-marketer, offers a range of services, including, “reputation management.”