Shave my balls, bigot!

FoxEye said:
O
That is to say, male gender traits and female gender traits. Such that boys should not normally exhibit female gender traits and vice versa.

Please could you give an example of some of these traits. That is all I am asking from you.
Click to expand...

I'll give a couple

1) Darryl came into our lives around mid 1989 at around 6 months old and the same age as my youngest daughter. My wife was a registered child minder and we had loads of kids over the years and they had all displayed traits of whatever sex they were. Now this can cause a massive debate alone about traits & stereotyping roles but boys did boys stuff and girls did girls stuff.
Now even from an early age Darryl always grabbed female toys. Yes I know I'm naughty but I would give him boys stuff to play with and as he got older I'd tried to do masculine sporty stuff but he would just play dress up and play with dolls and push prams. I came home one day, went upstairs to kiss my 10 year old daughter and she had a new female friend with her. I went downstairs to ask where Darryl was and it was him with a dress on and bows in his hair. It came as no surprise that at the age of 18 he decided to become a she.

2) Jay is my nephew and the youngest of 3 brothers. He had great role models to look up to to teach him the way of the male but with no luck. Once again he spent all his time with girls and playing with dolls. She is now transitioning but doing a really bad job of it.
 
Yaniv lost.....


But as I expected it seems not because a company in Canada can universally refuse to provide a 'womens' service to biological men complete with associated genetalia who self ID as women but (in this case) more down to the people providing the services not having the training to deal with (female? ) penises and so being able to refuse to wax a certain 'type of genitals' (presumably whether they are on a 'man', on a'woman' or some other category of human...

The decision noted, “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.” The decision further found that the complainant Jessica Yaniv “engaged in improper conduct”, “filed complaints for improper purposes”, and concluded Yaniv’s testimony was “disingenuous and self-serving.” Finally, noted the Tribunal, Yaniv was “evasive and argumentative and contradicted herself” while giving evidence.
Click to expand...


Note the use of 'a type of genitals' rather than using 'male genitals'

And therefore pretty much as per my previous comments...


Caracus2k said:
Personally I think the tribunal in this particular case will dodge the monster the law has made for itself by ruling that the beauticians could refuse service on the basis that they don't wax penises and testicles (as they don't have the specific training and materials required) rather then the don't provide services to men in general.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom