Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Waxing dilemna
Comments
-
I can honestly say apart from a gay foreigner who sometimes dresses like a woman, I've never encountered any one here who identifies as anything other than their obvious sex, when you consider how difficult/dangerous being gay can be here, it hardly comes as a surprise that people may hide their 'true feelings'.SantaClaus said:Stu_of_Kunming said:Then they would be wrong, I have no problem with people identifying however they please, but science is science.
How do the Chinese view these kind of debates? Are there similar movements over there?
A gay friend of mine moved across China and bought an apartment with his lesbian friend, they tell their parents they are married but can't have kids, rather than admit their homosexuality to their families, it's sad really, but family roles are so strong here - anyone not getting married and having babies are basically failures - I can totally understand it.
One thing I do know for sure is there's no way anyone would able to use toilets based on how they identify here.0 -
What would happen if they did?Stu_of_Kunming said:
I can honestly say apart from a gay foreigner who sometimes dresses like a woman, I've never encountered any one here who identifies as anything other than their obvious sex, when you consider how difficult/dangerous being gay can be here, it hardly comes as a surprise that people may hide their 'true feelings'.SantaClaus said:Stu_of_Kunming said:Then they would be wrong, I have no problem with people identifying however they please, but science is science.
How do the Chinese view these kind of debates? Are there similar movements over there?
A gay friend of mine moved across China and bought an apartment with his lesbian friend, they tell their parents they are married but can't have kids, rather than admit their homosexuality to their families, it's sad really, but family roles are so strong here - anyone not getting married and having babies are basically failures - I can totally understand it.
One thing I do know for sure is there's no way anyone would able to use toilets based on how they identify here.0 -
Abuse, violence, family rejection and by a lot of people, total acceptance, I'd imagine.
The problem here is people tend not to 'get involved' in other peoples problems, so whilst in the UK if I stood calling someone a 'dirty f*****' I'd hope someone is gonna step in and but a stop to it, that's almost certainly not going to happen here, it's just not the done thing. I've had to intervene in the past with a man literally battering a woman in a shopping centre, no one else did a thing!0 -
It's either ok to discriminate between customers based on their gender, or it's not. I suggest it's not.LouisMend said:
“Should a woman be forced by law to touch a penis she doesn’t want to touch?” is the crux of this case really. It shouldn’t be considered discriminatory if a female waxer doesn’t want to touch a male sexual organ that she doesn’t want to.Chizz said:I have just read that article and it genuinely sickens me.
How many times do we have to read stuff like this? It's genuinely xenophobic and it would be easy to conclude that language like that is actually intended to cause offence and be as divisive as possible.
For those that have read it, I am truly disappointed and saddened that you've been exposed to neanderthal imagery and biased, schismatic rhetoric.
And for anyone who hasn't yet read it: be warned. I am going to repeat it here, just to emphasise the point. So, if it causes offence, please understand that it's only by pointing out the terribke language like this, that you get to make changes. Unless we call out people who communicate in this way, we will never see the change we want to see.
The article actually describes Ricky Gervais using the phrase "the creator of the UK version of The Office". Absolutely unnecessary and unforgivable.
(As far as the waxing thing is concerned, just get on with it. And don't discriminate between customers based on their gender. It's pretty simple).
Forcing women, by ways of some sort of anti-discriminatory law, to touch a penis they don’t want to would be very odd.
In other circumstances, bus drivers were upset at having to allow "coloreds" to sit wherever they wanted to in a bus. Eventually, it was decided that the rights of the passengers were seen as more important than the feelings of the bus drivers.
There is no legal insistence that the person administering the treatment is a specific gender. So there would never be a question of "forcing a woman" to do this.
I think that customers shouldn't be discriminated against by their gender.0 -
Oh my god! Is it the heat. You aren't seriously comparing where black people sat on buses to some woman not wanting to touch a blokes genitals? What a stupid comparison.
7 -
As a child of the 50s I don't understand the need to wax anywhere anyway.1
-
You gotta be on a wind up here mate surely?Chizz said:
It's either ok to discriminate between customers based on their gender, or it's not. I suggest it's not.LouisMend said:
“Should a woman be forced by law to touch a penis she doesn’t want to touch?” is the crux of this case really. It shouldn’t be considered discriminatory if a female waxer doesn’t want to touch a male sexual organ that she doesn’t want to.Chizz said:I have just read that article and it genuinely sickens me.
How many times do we have to read stuff like this? It's genuinely xenophobic and it would be easy to conclude that language like that is actually intended to cause offence and be as divisive as possible.
For those that have read it, I am truly disappointed and saddened that you've been exposed to neanderthal imagery and biased, schismatic rhetoric.
And for anyone who hasn't yet read it: be warned. I am going to repeat it here, just to emphasise the point. So, if it causes offence, please understand that it's only by pointing out the terribke language like this, that you get to make changes. Unless we call out people who communicate in this way, we will never see the change we want to see.
The article actually describes Ricky Gervais using the phrase "the creator of the UK version of The Office". Absolutely unnecessary and unforgivable.
(As far as the waxing thing is concerned, just get on with it. And don't discriminate between customers based on their gender. It's pretty simple).
Forcing women, by ways of some sort of anti-discriminatory law, to touch a penis they don’t want to would be very odd.
In other circumstances, bus drivers were upset at having to allow "coloreds" to sit wherever they wanted to in a bus. Eventually, it was decided that the rights of the passengers were seen as more important than the feelings of the bus drivers.
There is no legal insistence that the person administering the treatment is a specific gender. So there would never be a question of "forcing a woman" to do this.
I think that customers shouldn't be discriminated against by their gender.
I very much doubt that this will be the Rosa Parks moment for the transgender community,
How are you defining gender here?
0 -
You've finally lost the plot, you've just done the civil rights movement a massive disservice.Chizz said:
It's either ok to discriminate between customers based on their gender, or it's not. I suggest it's not.LouisMend said:
“Should a woman be forced by law to touch a penis she doesn’t want to touch?” is the crux of this case really. It shouldn’t be considered discriminatory if a female waxer doesn’t want to touch a male sexual organ that she doesn’t want to.Chizz said:I have just read that article and it genuinely sickens me.
How many times do we have to read stuff like this? It's genuinely xenophobic and it would be easy to conclude that language like that is actually intended to cause offence and be as divisive as possible.
For those that have read it, I am truly disappointed and saddened that you've been exposed to neanderthal imagery and biased, schismatic rhetoric.
And for anyone who hasn't yet read it: be warned. I am going to repeat it here, just to emphasise the point. So, if it causes offence, please understand that it's only by pointing out the terribke language like this, that you get to make changes. Unless we call out people who communicate in this way, we will never see the change we want to see.
The article actually describes Ricky Gervais using the phrase "the creator of the UK version of The Office". Absolutely unnecessary and unforgivable.
(As far as the waxing thing is concerned, just get on with it. And don't discriminate between customers based on their gender. It's pretty simple).
Forcing women, by ways of some sort of anti-discriminatory law, to touch a penis they don’t want to would be very odd.
In other circumstances, bus drivers were upset at having to allow "coloreds" to sit wherever they wanted to in a bus. Eventually, it was decided that the rights of the passengers were seen as more important than the feelings of the bus drivers.
There is no legal insistence that the person administering the treatment is a specific gender. So there would never be a question of "forcing a woman" to do this.
I think that customers shouldn't be discriminated against by their gender.
How many blokes do you reckon work in female waxing salons?0 -
This specific case, which I read on a more new-sy site than the rather sensationalist one linked at the top of the thread, had the person in question going after specific female beauticians because they refused to wax their penis. Hence what I was saying with said person trying to force their will upon certain women. There are, apparently, waxing places that are happy to work on males/females/anyone who would have done it for the person - common sense dictates going to those shops rather than work-at-home female beauticians who don't offer a penis-waxing service and then suing them because they refused to touch what is literally a penis.Chizz said:
It's either ok to discriminate between customers based on their gender, or it's not. I suggest it's not.LouisMend said:
“Should a woman be forced by law to touch a penis she doesn’t want to touch?” is the crux of this case really. It shouldn’t be considered discriminatory if a female waxer doesn’t want to touch a male sexual organ that she doesn’t want to.Chizz said:I have just read that article and it genuinely sickens me.
How many times do we have to read stuff like this? It's genuinely xenophobic and it would be easy to conclude that language like that is actually intended to cause offence and be as divisive as possible.
For those that have read it, I am truly disappointed and saddened that you've been exposed to neanderthal imagery and biased, schismatic rhetoric.
And for anyone who hasn't yet read it: be warned. I am going to repeat it here, just to emphasise the point. So, if it causes offence, please understand that it's only by pointing out the terribke language like this, that you get to make changes. Unless we call out people who communicate in this way, we will never see the change we want to see.
The article actually describes Ricky Gervais using the phrase "the creator of the UK version of The Office". Absolutely unnecessary and unforgivable.
(As far as the waxing thing is concerned, just get on with it. And don't discriminate between customers based on their gender. It's pretty simple).
Forcing women, by ways of some sort of anti-discriminatory law, to touch a penis they don’t want to would be very odd.
In other circumstances, bus drivers were upset at having to allow "coloreds" to sit wherever they wanted to in a bus. Eventually, it was decided that the rights of the passengers were seen as more important than the feelings of the bus drivers.
There is no legal insistence that the person administering the treatment is a specific gender. So there would never be a question of "forcing a woman" to do this.
I think that customers shouldn't be discriminated against by their gender.
The racist bus drivers from back in the day were clearly in the wrong but unless they were being asked to touch a penis against their will rather than just sit near someone, it's a ridiculous comparison. The rights of the passengers to ride a bus are of course legally enshrined now and it's crazy it ever wasn't.
Nobody has the right to insist a person touch their penis when they don't want to.
1 - Sponsored links:
-
Whst is a dilemna anyway? Is it hairy?0
-
4 -
Oh I don't think it will be either. I am just illustrating my point that it's better to live within a rules-based society and, if one of the rules is that people shouldn't be denied services based on their gender, that's a good thing.SuedeAdidas said:
You gotta be on a wind up here mate surely?Chizz said:
It's either ok to discriminate between customers based on their gender, or it's not. I suggest it's not.LouisMend said:
“Should a woman be forced by law to touch a penis she doesn’t want to touch?” is the crux of this case really. It shouldn’t be considered discriminatory if a female waxer doesn’t want to touch a male sexual organ that she doesn’t want to.Chizz said:I have just read that article and it genuinely sickens me.
How many times do we have to read stuff like this? It's genuinely xenophobic and it would be easy to conclude that language like that is actually intended to cause offence and be as divisive as possible.
For those that have read it, I am truly disappointed and saddened that you've been exposed to neanderthal imagery and biased, schismatic rhetoric.
And for anyone who hasn't yet read it: be warned. I am going to repeat it here, just to emphasise the point. So, if it causes offence, please understand that it's only by pointing out the terribke language like this, that you get to make changes. Unless we call out people who communicate in this way, we will never see the change we want to see.
The article actually describes Ricky Gervais using the phrase "the creator of the UK version of The Office". Absolutely unnecessary and unforgivable.
(As far as the waxing thing is concerned, just get on with it. And don't discriminate between customers based on their gender. It's pretty simple).
Forcing women, by ways of some sort of anti-discriminatory law, to touch a penis they don’t want to would be very odd.
In other circumstances, bus drivers were upset at having to allow "coloreds" to sit wherever they wanted to in a bus. Eventually, it was decided that the rights of the passengers were seen as more important than the feelings of the bus drivers.
There is no legal insistence that the person administering the treatment is a specific gender. So there would never be a question of "forcing a woman" to do this.
I think that customers shouldn't be discriminated against by their gender.
I very much doubt that this will be the Rosa Parks moment for the transgender community,
Other people are entirely welcome to the opposite view and argue that gender discrimination is a good thing and we would all be better off if only we could deprive some groups of people of the privileges that the rest of us are able to take for granted, of course.0 -
At least the salon is shut down now though, for refusing. Good result...
"The Brazilian waxing request at the heart of the complaint was refused by Marcia DaSilva, the owner of a home-based salon that has since reportedly been forced to close. According to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which is representing many of the salons before the Tribunal, DaSilva, like many of the other estheticians, was not comfortable performing such a service on a person with male genitalia."
If i were a trans woman i would probably prefer to entrust my balls to a beautifician that specialised in waxing them. And i would be pretty gutted that i had someone's business closed down.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/trans-woman-who-was-refused-waxing-services-kicks-off-identity-wars-online-194820806.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKpYsBMfYgKdQSbwP0yWSwShgzxbArIPJxDMVIB6fS5O-R-CWO8qz_BZGFxDORXxtRr7nRpWSTniE68i-53BDWjmBZlV8eiuf7XufQowbUe_WAptkMiSGjm06N_vjgA3zdKrefBBayp5Wj1LWU87EBCBj8O7I-SZBw8mdGt2Znvn
0 -
I think some of you really need to understand the difference between sex and gender
0 -
Chizz said:
Oh I don't think it will be either. I am just illustrating my point that it's better to live within a rules-based society and, if one of the rules is that people shouldn't be denied services based on their gender, that's a good thing.SuedeAdidas said:
You gotta be on a wind up here mate surely?Chizz said:
It's either ok to discriminate between customers based on their gender, or it's not. I suggest it's not.LouisMend said:
“Should a woman be forced by law to touch a penis she doesn’t want to touch?” is the crux of this case really. It shouldn’t be considered discriminatory if a female waxer doesn’t want to touch a male sexual organ that she doesn’t want to.Chizz said:I have just read that article and it genuinely sickens me.
How many times do we have to read stuff like this? It's genuinely xenophobic and it would be easy to conclude that language like that is actually intended to cause offence and be as divisive as possible.
For those that have read it, I am truly disappointed and saddened that you've been exposed to neanderthal imagery and biased, schismatic rhetoric.
And for anyone who hasn't yet read it: be warned. I am going to repeat it here, just to emphasise the point. So, if it causes offence, please understand that it's only by pointing out the terribke language like this, that you get to make changes. Unless we call out people who communicate in this way, we will never see the change we want to see.
The article actually describes Ricky Gervais using the phrase "the creator of the UK version of The Office". Absolutely unnecessary and unforgivable.
(As far as the waxing thing is concerned, just get on with it. And don't discriminate between customers based on their gender. It's pretty simple).
Forcing women, by ways of some sort of anti-discriminatory law, to touch a penis they don’t want to would be very odd.
In other circumstances, bus drivers were upset at having to allow "coloreds" to sit wherever they wanted to in a bus. Eventually, it was decided that the rights of the passengers were seen as more important than the feelings of the bus drivers.
There is no legal insistence that the person administering the treatment is a specific gender. So there would never be a question of "forcing a woman" to do this.
I think that customers shouldn't be discriminated against by their gender.
I very much doubt that this will be the Rosa Parks moment for the transgender community,
Other people are entirely welcome to the opposite view and argue that gender discrimination is a good thing and we would all be better off if only we could deprive some groups of people of the privileges that the rest of us are able to take for granted, of course.
I agree with you....only I think my rules based society rules would differ to yours....
ie - Born with cock = Man
Born with fanny = Woman
0 -
So you think it's ok to force a woman to touch a penis, that she does't want to touch?Chizz said:
Oh I don't think it will be either. I am just illustrating my point that it's better to live within a rules-based society and, if one of the rules is that people shouldn't be denied services based on their gender, that's a good thing.SuedeAdidas said:
You gotta be on a wind up here mate surely?Chizz said:
It's either ok to discriminate between customers based on their gender, or it's not. I suggest it's not.LouisMend said:
“Should a woman be forced by law to touch a penis she doesn’t want to touch?” is the crux of this case really. It shouldn’t be considered discriminatory if a female waxer doesn’t want to touch a male sexual organ that she doesn’t want to.Chizz said:I have just read that article and it genuinely sickens me.
How many times do we have to read stuff like this? It's genuinely xenophobic and it would be easy to conclude that language like that is actually intended to cause offence and be as divisive as possible.
For those that have read it, I am truly disappointed and saddened that you've been exposed to neanderthal imagery and biased, schismatic rhetoric.
And for anyone who hasn't yet read it: be warned. I am going to repeat it here, just to emphasise the point. So, if it causes offence, please understand that it's only by pointing out the terribke language like this, that you get to make changes. Unless we call out people who communicate in this way, we will never see the change we want to see.
The article actually describes Ricky Gervais using the phrase "the creator of the UK version of The Office". Absolutely unnecessary and unforgivable.
(As far as the waxing thing is concerned, just get on with it. And don't discriminate between customers based on their gender. It's pretty simple).
Forcing women, by ways of some sort of anti-discriminatory law, to touch a penis they don’t want to would be very odd.
In other circumstances, bus drivers were upset at having to allow "coloreds" to sit wherever they wanted to in a bus. Eventually, it was decided that the rights of the passengers were seen as more important than the feelings of the bus drivers.
There is no legal insistence that the person administering the treatment is a specific gender. So there would never be a question of "forcing a woman" to do this.
I think that customers shouldn't be discriminated against by their gender.
I very much doubt that this will be the Rosa Parks moment for the transgender community,
Other people are entirely welcome to the opposite view and argue that gender discrimination is a good thing and we would all be better off if only we could deprive some groups of people of the privileges that the rest of us are able to take for granted, of course.
Madness.3 -
All I will say is this.
If my wife or daughter worked in a waxing sallon would I be happy for them to wax someone's meat and veg.
If they didn't feel comfortable doing this I most certainly wouldn't want them pressured into doing it.5 -
Wonder what the gynecologist is gonna say when they go for their smear.....0
-
I'm not clear why you have to qualify where you read the story? I quoted the story from this site because of the headline value - the story appears much the same whetever I've read it.LouisMend said:
This specific case, which I read on a more new-sy site than the rather sensationalist one linked at the top of the thread, had the person in question going after specific female beauticians because they refused to wax their penis. Hence what I was saying with said person trying to force their will upon certain women. There are, apparently, waxing places that are happy to work on males/females/anyone who would have done it for the person - common sense dictates going to those shops rather than work-at-home female beauticians who don't offer a penis-waxing service and then suing them because they refused to touch what is literally a penis.Chizz said:
It's either ok to discriminate between customers based on their gender, or it's not. I suggest it's not.LouisMend said:
“Should a woman be forced by law to touch a penis she doesn’t want to touch?” is the crux of this case really. It shouldn’t be considered discriminatory if a female waxer doesn’t want to touch a male sexual organ that she doesn’t want to.Chizz said:I have just read that article and it genuinely sickens me.
How many times do we have to read stuff like this? It's genuinely xenophobic and it would be easy to conclude that language like that is actually intended to cause offence and be as divisive as possible.
For those that have read it, I am truly disappointed and saddened that you've been exposed to neanderthal imagery and biased, schismatic rhetoric.
And for anyone who hasn't yet read it: be warned. I am going to repeat it here, just to emphasise the point. So, if it causes offence, please understand that it's only by pointing out the terribke language like this, that you get to make changes. Unless we call out people who communicate in this way, we will never see the change we want to see.
The article actually describes Ricky Gervais using the phrase "the creator of the UK version of The Office". Absolutely unnecessary and unforgivable.
(As far as the waxing thing is concerned, just get on with it. And don't discriminate between customers based on their gender. It's pretty simple).
Forcing women, by ways of some sort of anti-discriminatory law, to touch a penis they don’t want to would be very odd.
In other circumstances, bus drivers were upset at having to allow "coloreds" to sit wherever they wanted to in a bus. Eventually, it was decided that the rights of the passengers were seen as more important than the feelings of the bus drivers.
There is no legal insistence that the person administering the treatment is a specific gender. So there would never be a question of "forcing a woman" to do this.
I think that customers shouldn't be discriminated against by their gender.
The racist bus drivers from back in the day were clearly in the wrong but unless they were being asked to touch a penis against their will rather than just sit near someone, it's a ridiculous comparison. The rights of the passengers to ride a bus are of course legally enshrined now and it's crazy it ever wasn't.
Nobody has the right to insist a person touch their penis when they don't want to.
The biggest concern is that a minority of extreme trans activists will just create trouble for the sake of it and force people to lose their jobs. Targetting probably poorly paid beauticians is not a pleasant tactic.3 - Sponsored links:
-
I wasn't aware of that element. This alters the story significantly, in my view and, to some agree is aligned with what I posted about there being no legal insistence that the person administering the treatment is a specific gender.LouisMend said:
This specific case, which I read on a more new-sy site than the rather sensationalist one linked at the top of the thread, had the person in question going after specific female beauticians because they refused to wax their penis. Hence what I was saying with said person trying to force their will upon certain women. There are, apparently, waxing places that are happy to work on males/females/anyone who would have done it for the person - common sense dictates going to those shops rather than work-at-home female beauticians who don't offer a penis-waxing service and then suing them because they refused to touch what is literally a penis.Chizz said:
It's either ok to discriminate between customers based on their gender, or it's not. I suggest it's not.LouisMend said:
“Should a woman be forced by law to touch a penis she doesn’t want to touch?” is the crux of this case really. It shouldn’t be considered discriminatory if a female waxer doesn’t want to touch a male sexual organ that she doesn’t want to.Chizz said:I have just read that article and it genuinely sickens me.
How many times do we have to read stuff like this? It's genuinely xenophobic and it would be easy to conclude that language like that is actually intended to cause offence and be as divisive as possible.
For those that have read it, I am truly disappointed and saddened that you've been exposed to neanderthal imagery and biased, schismatic rhetoric.
And for anyone who hasn't yet read it: be warned. I am going to repeat it here, just to emphasise the point. So, if it causes offence, please understand that it's only by pointing out the terribke language like this, that you get to make changes. Unless we call out people who communicate in this way, we will never see the change we want to see.
The article actually describes Ricky Gervais using the phrase "the creator of the UK version of The Office". Absolutely unnecessary and unforgivable.
(As far as the waxing thing is concerned, just get on with it. And don't discriminate between customers based on their gender. It's pretty simple).
Forcing women, by ways of some sort of anti-discriminatory law, to touch a penis they don’t want to would be very odd.
In other circumstances, bus drivers were upset at having to allow "coloreds" to sit wherever they wanted to in a bus. Eventually, it was decided that the rights of the passengers were seen as more important than the feelings of the bus drivers.
There is no legal insistence that the person administering the treatment is a specific gender. So there would never be a question of "forcing a woman" to do this.
I think that customers shouldn't be discriminated against by their gender.
The racist bus drivers from back in the day were clearly in the wrong but unless they were being asked to touch a penis against their will rather than just sit near someone, it's a ridiculous comparison. The rights of the passengers to ride a bus are of course legally enshrined now and it's crazy it ever wasn't.
Nobody has the right to insist a person touch their penis when they don't want to.
The important thing about the racist bus drivers is that, actually, they weren't doing anything wrong. They were acting completely within the law (at the time). The law changed and, subsequently, they were no longer allowed to discriminate in that way.
I would argue that it's right not to discriminate against customers based on their gender. I know that not everyone will agree. (But it's refreshing that at least some people can avoid the ad hominems and, instead argue the case).1 -
No. As you can see from what I posted.Stu_of_Kunming said:
So you think it's ok to force a woman to touch a penis, that she does't want to touch?Chizz said:
Oh I don't think it will be either. I am just illustrating my point that it's better to live within a rules-based society and, if one of the rules is that people shouldn't be denied services based on their gender, that's a good thing.SuedeAdidas said:
You gotta be on a wind up here mate surely?Chizz said:
It's either ok to discriminate between customers based on their gender, or it's not. I suggest it's not.LouisMend said:
“Should a woman be forced by law to touch a penis she doesn’t want to touch?” is the crux of this case really. It shouldn’t be considered discriminatory if a female waxer doesn’t want to touch a male sexual organ that she doesn’t want to.Chizz said:I have just read that article and it genuinely sickens me.
How many times do we have to read stuff like this? It's genuinely xenophobic and it would be easy to conclude that language like that is actually intended to cause offence and be as divisive as possible.
For those that have read it, I am truly disappointed and saddened that you've been exposed to neanderthal imagery and biased, schismatic rhetoric.
And for anyone who hasn't yet read it: be warned. I am going to repeat it here, just to emphasise the point. So, if it causes offence, please understand that it's only by pointing out the terribke language like this, that you get to make changes. Unless we call out people who communicate in this way, we will never see the change we want to see.
The article actually describes Ricky Gervais using the phrase "the creator of the UK version of The Office". Absolutely unnecessary and unforgivable.
(As far as the waxing thing is concerned, just get on with it. And don't discriminate between customers based on their gender. It's pretty simple).
Forcing women, by ways of some sort of anti-discriminatory law, to touch a penis they don’t want to would be very odd.
In other circumstances, bus drivers were upset at having to allow "coloreds" to sit wherever they wanted to in a bus. Eventually, it was decided that the rights of the passengers were seen as more important than the feelings of the bus drivers.
There is no legal insistence that the person administering the treatment is a specific gender. So there would never be a question of "forcing a woman" to do this.
I think that customers shouldn't be discriminated against by their gender.
I very much doubt that this will be the Rosa Parks moment for the transgender community,
Other people are entirely welcome to the opposite view and argue that gender discrimination is a good thing and we would all be better off if only we could deprive some groups of people of the privileges that the rest of us are able to take for granted, of course.
Madness.0 -
No, I can't "I would argue that it's right not to discriminate against customers based on their gender" would still suggest you believe a woman does not have the right to work with a customer, based on their gender.0
-
It works both ways for customers and providers of services. If you self identify as a woman despite having a full set of male genitalia does that mean a beautician has to treat you - you surely can understand why some beauticians wouldn't want to.Chizz said:
I wasn't aware of that element. This alters the story significantly, in my view and, to some agree is aligned with what I posted about there being no legal insistence that the person administering the treatment is a specific gender.LouisMend said:
This specific case, which I read on a more new-sy site than the rather sensationalist one linked at the top of the thread, had the person in question going after specific female beauticians because they refused to wax their penis. Hence what I was saying with said person trying to force their will upon certain women. There are, apparently, waxing places that are happy to work on males/females/anyone who would have done it for the person - common sense dictates going to those shops rather than work-at-home female beauticians who don't offer a penis-waxing service and then suing them because they refused to touch what is literally a penis.Chizz said:
It's either ok to discriminate between customers based on their gender, or it's not. I suggest it's not.LouisMend said:
“Should a woman be forced by law to touch a penis she doesn’t want to touch?” is the crux of this case really. It shouldn’t be considered discriminatory if a female waxer doesn’t want to touch a male sexual organ that she doesn’t want to.Chizz said:I have just read that article and it genuinely sickens me.
How many times do we have to read stuff like this? It's genuinely xenophobic and it would be easy to conclude that language like that is actually intended to cause offence and be as divisive as possible.
For those that have read it, I am truly disappointed and saddened that you've been exposed to neanderthal imagery and biased, schismatic rhetoric.
And for anyone who hasn't yet read it: be warned. I am going to repeat it here, just to emphasise the point. So, if it causes offence, please understand that it's only by pointing out the terribke language like this, that you get to make changes. Unless we call out people who communicate in this way, we will never see the change we want to see.
The article actually describes Ricky Gervais using the phrase "the creator of the UK version of The Office". Absolutely unnecessary and unforgivable.
(As far as the waxing thing is concerned, just get on with it. And don't discriminate between customers based on their gender. It's pretty simple).
Forcing women, by ways of some sort of anti-discriminatory law, to touch a penis they don’t want to would be very odd.
In other circumstances, bus drivers were upset at having to allow "coloreds" to sit wherever they wanted to in a bus. Eventually, it was decided that the rights of the passengers were seen as more important than the feelings of the bus drivers.
There is no legal insistence that the person administering the treatment is a specific gender. So there would never be a question of "forcing a woman" to do this.
I think that customers shouldn't be discriminated against by their gender.
The racist bus drivers from back in the day were clearly in the wrong but unless they were being asked to touch a penis against their will rather than just sit near someone, it's a ridiculous comparison. The rights of the passengers to ride a bus are of course legally enshrined now and it's crazy it ever wasn't.
Nobody has the right to insist a person touch their penis when they don't want to.
The important thing about the racist bus drivers is that, actually, they weren't doing anything wrong. They were acting completely within the law (at the time). The law changed and, subsequently, they were no longer allowed to discriminate in that way.
I would argue that it's right not to discriminate against customers based on their gender. I know that not everyone will agree. (But it's refreshing that at least some people can avoid the ad hominems and, instead argue the case).
If you take this argument to its logical conclusion how will you deal with healthcare? Is the term gynaecologist now redundant if gender is to be determined by each individual and presumably can vary from day to day. How far do you want to take this nonsense?2 -
As someone, who lives and works as a trans women im happy to have debates like this. while people like me have been around in all societies since time began its only now we are being recognised in the current society. Past cultures have accepted us no problem. I do not put my life down peoples throats (some bone head will comment on that) its actually the other way round. I actually agree that no woman or man should be forced to touch anothers bits. But many people would disagree if the woman or man advertises as waxing. The same applies, is it ok for a hotelier not to allow people of colour or gingers or people who shop at Tesco. the issue of gender is huge,but as a society we need that debate. Unfortunatly it will be to much for the homophobic, transphobic fans on here
3 -
We either get rid of gender labels entirely or we go down the other path as labels are proliferating at present. How do we define if someone is 'male' or 'female' ?LMHR said:As someone, who lives and works as a trans women im happy to have debates like this. while people like me have been around in all societies since time began its only now we are being recognised in the current society. Past cultures have accepted us no problem. I do not put my life down peoples throats (some bone head will comment on that) its actually the other way round. I actually agree that no woman or man should be forced to touch anothers bits. But many people would disagree if the woman or man advertises as waxing. The same applies, is it ok for a hotelier not to allow people of colour or gingers or people who shop at Tesco. the issue of gender is huge,but as a society we need that debate. Unfortunatly it will be to much for the homophobic, transphobic fans on here
0 -
OK.Stu_of_Kunming said:No, I can't "I would argue that it's right not to discriminate against customers based on their gender" would still suggest you believe a woman does not have the right to work with a customer, based on their gender.
Well, have a look at the bit where I said "there would never be a question of "forcing a woman" to do this" and then consider whether you still think I "think it's ok to force a woman to touch a penis, that she does't want to touch".
Just so that it's completely clear (although I thought it already was) I don't think it's ok to force a woman to touch a penis that she doesn't want to".
Now, if you still think that I think that, I will have to find some other way of disabusing you of that thought. But I am not sure how I will be able to, really.0 -
If you self identify as a woman despite having a full set of male genitalia does that mean a beautician has to treat you - I think it does (if by "a beautician" you mean a business; but if you mean an individual, female beautician, I think she should have the right not to offer that service).hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
It works both ways for customers and providers of services. If you self identify as a woman despite having a full set of male genitalia does that mean a beautician has to treat you - you surely can understand why some beauticians wouldn't want to.Chizz said:
I wasn't aware of that element. This alters the story significantly, in my view and, to some agree is aligned with what I posted about there being no legal insistence that the person administering the treatment is a specific gender.LouisMend said:
This specific case, which I read on a more new-sy site than the rather sensationalist one linked at the top of the thread, had the person in question going after specific female beauticians because they refused to wax their penis. Hence what I was saying with said person trying to force their will upon certain women. There are, apparently, waxing places that are happy to work on males/females/anyone who would have done it for the person - common sense dictates going to those shops rather than work-at-home female beauticians who don't offer a penis-waxing service and then suing them because they refused to touch what is literally a penis.Chizz said:
It's either ok to discriminate between customers based on their gender, or it's not. I suggest it's not.LouisMend said:
“Should a woman be forced by law to touch a penis she doesn’t want to touch?” is the crux of this case really. It shouldn’t be considered discriminatory if a female waxer doesn’t want to touch a male sexual organ that she doesn’t want to.Chizz said:I have just read that article and it genuinely sickens me.
How many times do we have to read stuff like this? It's genuinely xenophobic and it would be easy to conclude that language like that is actually intended to cause offence and be as divisive as possible.
For those that have read it, I am truly disappointed and saddened that you've been exposed to neanderthal imagery and biased, schismatic rhetoric.
And for anyone who hasn't yet read it: be warned. I am going to repeat it here, just to emphasise the point. So, if it causes offence, please understand that it's only by pointing out the terribke language like this, that you get to make changes. Unless we call out people who communicate in this way, we will never see the change we want to see.
The article actually describes Ricky Gervais using the phrase "the creator of the UK version of The Office". Absolutely unnecessary and unforgivable.
(As far as the waxing thing is concerned, just get on with it. And don't discriminate between customers based on their gender. It's pretty simple).
Forcing women, by ways of some sort of anti-discriminatory law, to touch a penis they don’t want to would be very odd.
In other circumstances, bus drivers were upset at having to allow "coloreds" to sit wherever they wanted to in a bus. Eventually, it was decided that the rights of the passengers were seen as more important than the feelings of the bus drivers.
There is no legal insistence that the person administering the treatment is a specific gender. So there would never be a question of "forcing a woman" to do this.
I think that customers shouldn't be discriminated against by their gender.
The racist bus drivers from back in the day were clearly in the wrong but unless they were being asked to touch a penis against their will rather than just sit near someone, it's a ridiculous comparison. The rights of the passengers to ride a bus are of course legally enshrined now and it's crazy it ever wasn't.
Nobody has the right to insist a person touch their penis when they don't want to.
The important thing about the racist bus drivers is that, actually, they weren't doing anything wrong. They were acting completely within the law (at the time). The law changed and, subsequently, they were no longer allowed to discriminate in that way.
I would argue that it's right not to discriminate against customers based on their gender. I know that not everyone will agree. (But it's refreshing that at least some people can avoid the ad hominems and, instead argue the case).
If you take this argument to its logical conclusion how will you deal with healthcare? Is the term gynaecologist now redundant if gender is to be determined by each individual and presumably can vary from day to day. How far do you want to take this nonsense?
You surely can understand why some beauticians wouldn't want to - yes, I can (if you mean individual, female beauticians, as above)
0 -
And on the healthcare question?Chizz said:
If you self identify as a woman despite having a full set of male genitalia does that mean a beautician has to treat you - I think it does (if by "a beautician" you mean a business; but if you mean an individual, female beautician, I think she should have the right not to offer that service).hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
It works both ways for customers and providers of services. If you self identify as a woman despite having a full set of male genitalia does that mean a beautician has to treat you - you surely can understand why some beauticians wouldn't want to.Chizz said:
I wasn't aware of that element. This alters the story significantly, in my view and, to some agree is aligned with what I posted about there being no legal insistence that the person administering the treatment is a specific gender.LouisMend said:
This specific case, which I read on a more new-sy site than the rather sensationalist one linked at the top of the thread, had the person in question going after specific female beauticians because they refused to wax their penis. Hence what I was saying with said person trying to force their will upon certain women. There are, apparently, waxing places that are happy to work on males/females/anyone who would have done it for the person - common sense dictates going to those shops rather than work-at-home female beauticians who don't offer a penis-waxing service and then suing them because they refused to touch what is literally a penis.Chizz said:
It's either ok to discriminate between customers based on their gender, or it's not. I suggest it's not.LouisMend said:
“Should a woman be forced by law to touch a penis she doesn’t want to touch?” is the crux of this case really. It shouldn’t be considered discriminatory if a female waxer doesn’t want to touch a male sexual organ that she doesn’t want to.Chizz said:I have just read that article and it genuinely sickens me.
How many times do we have to read stuff like this? It's genuinely xenophobic and it would be easy to conclude that language like that is actually intended to cause offence and be as divisive as possible.
For those that have read it, I am truly disappointed and saddened that you've been exposed to neanderthal imagery and biased, schismatic rhetoric.
And for anyone who hasn't yet read it: be warned. I am going to repeat it here, just to emphasise the point. So, if it causes offence, please understand that it's only by pointing out the terribke language like this, that you get to make changes. Unless we call out people who communicate in this way, we will never see the change we want to see.
The article actually describes Ricky Gervais using the phrase "the creator of the UK version of The Office". Absolutely unnecessary and unforgivable.
(As far as the waxing thing is concerned, just get on with it. And don't discriminate between customers based on their gender. It's pretty simple).
Forcing women, by ways of some sort of anti-discriminatory law, to touch a penis they don’t want to would be very odd.
In other circumstances, bus drivers were upset at having to allow "coloreds" to sit wherever they wanted to in a bus. Eventually, it was decided that the rights of the passengers were seen as more important than the feelings of the bus drivers.
There is no legal insistence that the person administering the treatment is a specific gender. So there would never be a question of "forcing a woman" to do this.
I think that customers shouldn't be discriminated against by their gender.
The racist bus drivers from back in the day were clearly in the wrong but unless they were being asked to touch a penis against their will rather than just sit near someone, it's a ridiculous comparison. The rights of the passengers to ride a bus are of course legally enshrined now and it's crazy it ever wasn't.
Nobody has the right to insist a person touch their penis when they don't want to.
The important thing about the racist bus drivers is that, actually, they weren't doing anything wrong. They were acting completely within the law (at the time). The law changed and, subsequently, they were no longer allowed to discriminate in that way.
I would argue that it's right not to discriminate against customers based on their gender. I know that not everyone will agree. (But it's refreshing that at least some people can avoid the ad hominems and, instead argue the case).
If you take this argument to its logical conclusion how will you deal with healthcare? Is the term gynaecologist now redundant if gender is to be determined by each individual and presumably can vary from day to day. How far do you want to take this nonsense?
You surely can understand why some beauticians wouldn't want to - yes, I can (if you mean individual, female beauticians, as above)0 -
Then it's ok to discriminate against customers based on their gender, you can't have it both waysChizz said:
OK.Stu_of_Kunming said:No, I can't "I would argue that it's right not to discriminate against customers based on their gender" would still suggest you believe a woman does not have the right to work with a customer, based on their gender.
Well, have a look at the bit where I said "there would never be a question of "forcing a woman" to do this" and then consider whether you still think I "think it's ok to force a woman to touch a penis, that she does't want to touch".
Just so that it's completely clear (although I thought it already was) I don't think it's ok to force a woman to touch a penis that she doesn't want to".
Now, if you still think that I think that, I will have to find some other way of disabusing you of that thought. But I am not sure how I will be able to, really.0
