News, Culture & Society

Transgender activist that sued salon for refusing to wax her complains gynecologist won’t see her

A Canadian transgender woman whose legal complaints against several beauticians who refused to wax her male genitalia were dismissed, has said now a gynecologist won’t see her. 

Jessica Yaniv, 32, claimed numerous Vancouver estheticians discriminated against based on her ‘gender identity and gender expression’ when she requested a Brazilian bikini wax.

But last month a court found the claims were found to be ‘unjustified’ and ‘improperly motivated’ by financial gain.

On Monday, Yaniv said she was ‘shocked.. and confused… and hurt’ after a gynecologist office allegedly told her ‘we don’t serve transgender patients’.

‘Are they allowed to do that, legally? Isn’t that against the college practices,’ she tweeted at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia.

Jessica Yaniv, 32, posted Monday: ‘So a gynecologist office that I got referred to literally told me today that “we don’t serve transgender patients”‘ 

Yaniv said she is 'shocked.. and confused... and hurt' and asked: 'Are they allowed to do that, legally? Isn't that against the college practices?'

Yaniv said she is ‘shocked.. and confused… and hurt’ and asked: ‘Are they allowed to do that, legally? Isn’t that against the college practices?’

The organization protects the public by establishing and enforcing high standards in the practice of medicine.

Yaniv tweeted to her 140,000 followers: ‘Gynaecologists form a part of the multidisciplinary team who engage with transgender and non‐binary patients, either as part of the transition stage performing surgery or managing pre‐ or post‐transition gynaecological problems.’

Yaniv’s Twitter profile describes her as an ‘LGBTQIA+ Advocate, Friend, Daughter & Tech Blogger. She/Her/Hers. Human rights advocate. Model. Global Internet Personality. Social Justice Warrior. Marketer’.

She added Tuesday that the CPSBC confirmed the refusal is discrimination under the BC Human Rights Code and against their code of Ethics.

DailyMail.com has reached out to the CPSBC for comment.  

Yaniv added: ‘I’ll file a complaint with you today about that clinic. Trans people need to be included, not excluded from society. Pre and post gender affirming surgery care is super important!’ 

She added Tuesday that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia confirmed  the refusal was discrimination - and prompted Yaniv to file a complaint

She added Tuesday that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia confirmed  the refusal was discrimination – and prompted Yaniv to file a complaint 

Last month she sought justice after she said she was told by women at salons that they were unable to provide a service as they were not trained to wax male genitals – and could cause her serious injury.

Yaniv claimed they cited religious reasons and the fact they shouldn’t be forced to touch genitals they don’t want to.

She filed various complaints against estheticians in the Vancouver area, causing two to go out of business, and she was seeking as much as $15,000 in damages from each place.

However, the British Human Rights Tribunal dismissed her complaint, ruling that: ‘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 Tribunal also found Yaniv to have ‘engaged in improper conduct’ including filing ‘complaints for improper purposes’, and called her testimony both ‘disingenuous’ and ‘self-serving’ along with ‘evasive and argumentative and contradictory’.

Her initial order for $500,000 in damages was also branded ‘divorced from reality and reason’.

Jessica Yaniv, 32, had previously attempted to claim that several Vancouver beauticians discriminated against based on her ‘gender identity and gender expression’ on separate occasions when she requested a Brazilian bikini wax and they refused

Jessica Yaniv, 32, had previously attempted to claim that several Vancouver beauticians discriminated against based on her ‘gender identity and gender expression’ on separate occasions when she requested a Brazilian bikini wax and they refused

Respondents in the complaint included Blue Heaven Beauty Lounge (above) and Sandeep Benipal; Sukhdip Hehar and Sukhi Dream Salon; Judy Tran; Marcia DaSilva; Hina Moin; Pam Dulay; and Merle Norman

Respondents in the complaint included Blue Heaven Beauty Lounge (above) and Sandeep Benipal; Sukhdip Hehar and Sukhi Dream Salon; Judy Tran; Marcia DaSilva; Hina Moin; Pam Dulay; and Merle Norman

‘I find that Ms. Yaniv’s predominant motive in filing her waxing complaints is not to prevent or remedy alleged discrimination, but to target small businesses for personal financial gain,’ adjudicator Devin Cousineau determined.

‘In many of these complaints, she is also motivated to punish racialized and immigrant women based on her perception that certain ethnic groups, namely South Asian and Asian communities, are “taking over” and advancing an agenda hostile to the interests of LGBTQ+ people.’

Yaniv’s motives were therefore ruled not to be consistent with the B.C. Human Rights Code by Cousineau, and she was ordered to pay $6,000 for improper conduct.

Her improper motives were determined because she was found to have used deception to manufacture some of the complaints. She also sought punish the respondents by filing numerous complaints against each beautician.

Cousineau also said Yaniv made an over insistence on settling the claims financially and showed ‘animus toward certain racial, religious and cultural groups.’

Eight of the respondent she filed complaints against were non-white women, who were typically working out of their homes.

Her improper motives were determined because she was found to have used deception to manufacture some of the complaints. She also sought punish the respondents by filing numerous complaints against each beautician. Cousineau also said Yaniv made an over insistence on settling the claims financially and showed ‘animus toward certain racial, religious and cultural groups’

Her improper motives were determined because she was found to have used deception to manufacture some of the complaints. She also sought punish the respondents by filing numerous complaints against each beautician. Cousineau also said Yaniv made an over insistence on settling the claims financially and showed ‘animus toward certain racial, religious and cultural groups’

‘I found aspects of Ms. Yaniv’s testimony to be disingenuous and self‐serving. In cross‐examination, she was evasive and argumentative, and contradicted herself,’ Cousineau wrote, elaborating that Yaniv first claimed to have male genitals but then later said she was intersex with ‘other stuff’.

At one hearing, Yaniv claimed to have a vulva, which Cousineau accepted as fact while denying a request from the respondent’s lawyers to have her undergo medical examination.

Regardless, Cousineau said, Yaniv has a scrotum and ‘there are differences between waxing the genitals of a person with a vulva and a person with a penis and scrotum’.

Yaniv attempted to argue that being refused a wax was similar to the high profile case in the US of a gay couple being denied a wedding cake order on religious grounds.

‘There is no material difference in a cake which is baked for a straight wedding, and one that is baked for a gay wedding,’ wrote Cousineau. ‘Nor does baking a cake for a gay wedding require you to have intimate contact with the client.

‘There is a material difference in waxing different types of genitals and that, because of its intimate nature, service providers must consent to provide service on a particular type of genitals.’

Yaniv was also accused of being deceitful on a number of occasions. In one instance, she asked a beautician, Sandeep Benipal, how she would wax around a tampon string.

Though she testified the purpose of the question was to test Benipal’s ‘professionalism’ and to see it her Blue Heaven Beauty Lounge was a ‘legitimate business’, the explanation was admonished by Cousineau.

‘If Ms. Yaniv were genuinely curious about the legitimacy of Ms. Benipal’s business, she could have asked questions related to training, licencing, facilities or other matters relevant to the business,’ he wrote.

Yaniv’s case sparked international outrage and the tribunal was fiercely criticized for allowing her case to advance so far.

The case was finally dismissed and Yaniv was ordered to pay $6,000 for improper conduct.

Cousineau lowered the penalties against Yaniv after considering the ‘torrent of backlash and hatred’ against her online following the exposure of her claim last summer.

On Twitter, Yaniv appeared gracious in defeat, congratulating lawyer Tako Van Popta on his ‘win’ and added, ‘You and I will be meeting quite a bit over the next 4 years. We have a lot to work on to advance #LGBTQ equality. Let’s get started!!!’

She then tweeted a Helen Rowland quote, urging her followed to take a chance because, ‘You will never win if you never begin.’

Read more at DailyMail.co.uk


Comments are closed.