As absurd as it is, the Jessica Yaniv case has serious implications
For its wider implications, but also for its looniness, our history books will marvel—if and when cultural sanity returns—at the singular “human rights” case of alleged transwoman Jessica Yaniv—sometimes self-presenting as Jonathan Yaniv—vs the waxologists.
Yaniv retains his male genitalia. But, thanks to the recently invented, but imprecisely defined right of “gender expression” having been enshrined in legislation, Yaniv has been permitted to wreak havoc in the lives of 16 B.C. waxologists. These women, many of them immigrants, earn a modest living by performing intimate hair-removal services for other women. They refused to wax Yaniv’s balls, and here their troubles began. Some, under the strain of the pressure Yaniv has brought to bear on them, have abandoned their livelihood.
The story has been widely disseminated. The crux of it is that innocent women have been martyred so that an unhinged biological male, who has demonstrated on social media what any reasonable person would call a sick frame of mind can, with the state’s blessing and collusion, target and abuse culturally and economically vulnerable women to satisfy “her” kinky drives. I say collusion, because even when such victims “win,” the process is often the punishment in human rights cases. There has certainly been mental and economic punishment for these women throughout this process, but Yaniv seems to enjoy persecuting them.
This story is important because if human rights tribunals were guided by reason and objectivity, none of Yaniv’s complaints would have passed their smell test. The licence afforded Yaniv cements the factitious notion that when it comes to rights, gender identity may be held by ideologues and their legislative surrogates to trump biology, even in an area that is so simply and fundamentally anatomically based, there is no wiggle room for interpretation.
As the targeted waxologists explained, a woman’s genitals require one kind of treatment, with one kind of wax, a man’s genitals another. The women were trained to wax female genitals only, and were not competent to wax male genitals without risk of harm to the scrotum.
Some of the women worked alone at home, with children present, and some had religious scruples against touching male bodies, but let us set these considerations aside for the moment, because even if a woman has no religious scruples about touching male bodies and even if she works in a salon, she would still have the same basic case for refusal as the more modest women.
The bottom line is, when an individual is getting his or her genitals waxed, there is no “gender” involved. And that is easy to prove. Imagine that Jessica Yaniv is now a corpse, and has left instructions for burial with waxed genitals. Who would do the job? Someone practiced in the waxing of female genitals or someone practised in the waxing of male genitals? At this point Yaniv’s “gender” would not even be moot; it would have vanished entirely, so it would be ludicrous to call for a woman-centric waxologist. But don’t you see that the fact that Yaniv is alive makes no material difference in the realm of waxology? Whether Yaniv thinks he is a woman is as irrelevant to genital waxing as if he were dead, since Yaniv’s anatomy remains ruthlessly male.
Yaniv says if the case is lost, it sets a dangerous precedent for trans people. The HRC claims the hearings revolve around the question of whether a business should be allowed to deny service on the basis of gender identity. But as Brendan O’Neil noted in a recent Spiked! column, the real question is more like “‘Should a woman be forced by law to touch a penis she doesn’t want to touch?’—that’s a franker, more honest way of putting it, though it’s obvious why people don’t put it like that, given it would expose the fundamental misogyny at play in this demented case.” If Yaniv or any other mischief-maker of his sort were to win such a case, it would open the door to similar attacks on actual professions, also 100% anatomy-based, that cater exclusively to females.
Who can see to the bottom of this precipitous slope? Women in track and field and other sports based in speed or power, demonstrably related to physiology, are now sliding down it to full erasure, while their enabling sports associations look on with self-righteous complacency, and nobody in authority reaches out a hand to save them.
What other fields are in peril? The Yanivs of the world are obsessive and unfiltered. They have no moral compass. They are ruled by passions that are unfathomable to normal people. Give an inch to the waxology Yaniv—Yaniv 1.0—and Yaniv 2.0 will find encouragement to up the ante.
Ten years ago I would have found inconceivable, but now readily imagine that one fine day a gynecologist will be held to be transphobic if she refuses to accept a transwoman as a patient. She may find herself explaining ever so nicely to Yaniv 2.0 that she is not competent to deal with male bodies and find herself up against the stone wall of “I am a woman. You treat women. The law agrees I am a woman if I say I am a woman. The law says you must treat me.”
She may then politely ask Yaniv 2.0 to seek examination and medical advice elsewhere, and Yaniv 2.0 may leave with a curse, after which the gynecologist will think the matter closed. A week later she will be shocked to learn that Yaniv 2.0 has filed a complaint against her with her professional association. The association will be baffled and at first rally to her side. Then the association—and the doctor—will find themselves deluged with denunciations of transphobia on social media.
One of their members who identifies as trans will make an impassioned public plea for inclusivity, and pray that the claimant does not commit suicide as a result of being turned away (something Yaniv 2.0 may well threaten to do). LGBTQ activists will call for a legislated solution to this injustice in the universal-healthcare system. Politicians, tumbling over themselves for pride of place in the virtue-signalling pecking order, will promise a solution. One of them will propose a bill to end gender “privilege” in medicine.
Consternation will rage at the various medical schools. University administrations will find themselves in the hot seat. How can they be harbouring in their midst an entire medical discipline that caters only to cis-women? Committees will be struck to study the matter. A recommendation will be made that the discipline of Gynecology add a year to its curriculum for the study of male anatomy and its pathologies. Those students already in the program can be “grandmothered,” but incoming students must commit to the additional year, and must further commit to a statement of gender inclusivity in their practice.
A few shocked practitioners of high standing will speak up publicly, ridiculing the idea that gynecologists must treat biological males as absurd. They will not find the ensuing mobbing comfortable and they will soon shut up. Those that refuse to shut up may find themselves isolated and shunned, the kind of shunning that has already happened in the fields of endocrinology and psychiatry.
For a good example of what is happening in the latter field, I suggest you consult the case of Dr. Allan Josephson, a distinguished psychiatrist who, since 2003, has transformed the division of child and adolescent psychiatry and psychology at the University of Louisville from a struggling department to a nationally acclaimed program. He was demoted and effectively fired for appearing on a panel (on his own time, and not as a representative of his university), run by a conservative think tank in order to express his concerns about wholesale affirmation and medical alteration of children.
The trouble with democracy—one trouble anyway—is our complacency. We are too trusting. We think our liberties are well protected in law. We have no sense of how easily and perniciously laws can be amended when ideologues infiltrate the law schools and populate the benches, the bar associations and the law societies. The whole idea of human rights is being transmogrified before our eyes, and we sit there watching, superannuated classical-liberal deer in the progressive headlights.
I wish my imaginary scenario with the gynecology discipline were a satirical proposition. It is for the moment. But I have no faith that it will remain imaginary. The following words have—in format—become a cliché, but only because the insight the original words represent is so often the most fitting commentary on a democracy’s demise, which always begins with the sacrifice of individual freedoms on the altar of irrational dogmas: “First they came for the waxologists, but I did not speak up because I was not a waxologist …”
Via Rail announced this morning that CN has notified them that partial routes between Quebec City, Montreal, and Ottawa will be back up and running as early as Thursday, Feb. 20.
Only trains that serve full trips between Quebec City and Ottawa will resume service. This comes after the better part of two weeks of being shut down as a result of protests in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en people who are against the Coastal GasLink pipeline.
Trains 22, 24, 26, 28 leaving from Ottawa will be resuming as well as trains 33, 35, 37, and 39 leaving from Quebec City.
All other train services remain cancelled until further notice with the exception of Sudbury–White River (CP Rail) and Churchill–The Pas (Hudson Bay Railway).
The Minister of Indigneous, Marc Miller met with blockade protestors Saturday in Belleville in hopes to negotiate a swift and peaceful resolution. The meeting took place in a nearby community centre and lasted over eight hours, although the minister wasn’t able to give the press many details about what was discussed in said meeting.
If you reward something, you get more of it.
If you punish something, you get less of it.
It’s one of the most basic precepts of human nature, and it should be the bare minimum level of knowledge a government official possesses in the execution of their duties.
It’s the entire reason we have laws.
We punish behaviour that is illegal, in order to discourage that illegal behaviour.
Of course, no system is perfect, and we don’t want a “perfect system”, particularly not in a democracy.
But it has to work most of the time, particularly when the illegality is obvious and potentially damaging to the entire nation.
And when it comes to “rewards”, often the reward is in the elevation and respect of those who act in a way that helps that country and makes Canada a better place.
That’s what the majority of community members and the ELECTED Wet’suwet’en Chiefs were doing when they worked to get a good deal for their community, approved the Coastal GasLink pipeline, and worked to help encourage jobs and prosperity.
They followed the rules. They worked for the good of their community.
And what did they get in return?
They got betrayed by Justin Trudeau and the Liberals.
Meanwhile, the radical blockaders–many of whom don’t even represent the Wet’suwet’en community–broke the laws, are damaging Canada’s economy, and are ignoring repeated court injunctions.
In short, they broke the rules, and they’re working against the good of their community.
And what did they get in return?
They got rewarded, by Justin Trudeau and the Liberals.
Trudeau has elevated them, offered meetings, sent a Minister to talk to them, and has in effect given them control over the country by refusing to enforce the rule of law.
Now, as you read at the top of this article, when you reward something you get more of it, and when you punish something you get less of it.
And the consequences are clear:
Trudeau has shown that illegal protests will be rewarded with a gain of status and an ability to meet with government leaders.
Trudeau has also shown that the majority of community members who followed the rules and followed the laws will be ignored and betrayed, with their majority voices drowned out by the more extremist minority.
As a result, Canada can expect more and more illegal protests, while fewer communities will choose to follow the law.
You can already imagine what a massive disaster that will be.
Transport Minister Marc Garneau has confirmed that anti-pipeline protestors tampered with railroad crossings, specifically, the lights that indicate a coming train.
Garneau appeared on CBC’s Power and Politics on Monday, explaining the situation “I have with concerns with respect to safety here. There have been instances with the railroads where people have climbed on railway cars, that happened over the weekend. There have been instances where unexpected blockade was put in an area where a train was, in fact, operating and the railway company was not aware of that, and that can be extremely dangerous,” said Garneau.
Garneau went on to mention tampering instances that have taken place. Tampering with rail is considered a very serious offence, as previous instances of rail tampering involve full police investigations along with the CN Police Service.
“There have also been instances of tampering on the railways… One that concerns me is disabling the signalling that occurs at a road crossing… We accept peaceful protests and demonstrations in this country that are peaceful and lawful, but it is concerning if people aren’t respecting the fact that they injure themselves and other people.”
No further figures or specifics were provided by Garneau.
Hours before, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gave an update to the situation to media in Ottawa, though no mention was given of any potential tampering with train tracks or disabled signalling.
“We had a good meeting with morning with the incident response group, discussions with ministers, I made some phone calls to Indigenous leadership as well as a number of premiers,” said Trudeau.
“I understand how worrisome this is for so many Canadians and difficult for many families across the country. We’re going to continue to focus on resolving the situation quickly and peacefully, and that’s what we’re going to do”
Over 83,000 VIA rail passengers have been affected by the blockades. CN has also temporarily laid-off employees in several provinces.
A lesbian event has been removed from Sydney, Australia’s LGBT Pride after a vocal minority protested the participation of a popular lesbian YouTuber with critical views towards transgender self-ID.
Arielle Scarcella runs an LGBT-centred YouTube channel with over 630,000 subscribers.
She has also spoken out against self-ID laws which have enabled biological males to be transferred to women’s prisons after the commission of serious offences, such as sexual assaults. In 2018, Scarcella collaborated on a video with Blaire White discussing how lesbian sexual preferences that do not include an attraction to biological males who transition to female were not “transphobic.”
Les-Talk was originally planned to be one of the events featured at Sydney Mardi Gras, the local Pride parade and festival. A panel-style discussion also featuring Tania Safi of Buzzfeed, the event began to draw ire from trans rights activists for including Scarcella. A petition was launched on February 15 demanding Scarcella be removed and replaced “preferably by someone of intersectionality.”
The petition was launched by Johnny Valkyrie, a transman and drag performer most notorious for a January incident at the Brisbane National Library. Valkyrie hosted Drag Storytime at the library, and was one of the two performers confronted by demonstrators from the University of Queensland National Liberal Club chanting “drag queens are not for kids.” The protestors were filmed and doxed.
The doxing resulted in one of the protestors, an openly gay student named Wilson Gavin, committing suicide the next day. Valkyrie used the opportunity at the library to raise funds for his “top surgery,” including a post on the day-of Gavin’s death—later updating the post to claim it was made prior to knowledge of his passing.
According to Valkyrie’s petition, Tania Safi of Buzzfeed has already dropped out of Les-Talk stating “I do not agree with Arielle’s transphobic and biphobic beliefs.”
10 Hours ago, Valkyrie uploaded an update to the petition, celebrating the “deplatforming” of Scarcella and Les-Talk.
Les-Talk was not officially cancelled, but was disassociated from Mardi Gras, according to a Facebook post made on the event’s official page. According to the post, the event is going forward being “privately held” by the “POC Queer women” organizing it.
Scarcella has not been disinvited from the event, and the event will proceed at another venue, separate from the LGBT Pride festivities.
Les-Talk’s Facebook page was littered with offers of support posted to the page’s wall by individuals outraged by Scarcella’s treatment.
Even multiple transpeople defended Scarcella’s beliefs, asserting she was not transphobic. One transwoman pleaded with the community to give Scarcella a “second chance,” while a transman praised Scarcella for “saying things no one else talks about.”
Scarcella is dismissive of the claims of transphobia, asserting she is anything but. “People have labeled me transphobic for being critical of trans ideas. I have no issues with being transgender. I’ve had more trans people in my videos than any other YouTuber to date,” she told The Post Millennial, noting that her only issue is with self-identification laws which might put women in danger.
“To those who truly believe I’m transphobic, I hope you change your hive-mind mentality and see how much you’re hurting your own community by acting so hateful.”