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.
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.”