Skip to main content

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ruled against a transgender woman with male genitalia who sought personal waxing services from several salons, concluding that human rights legislation does not require a service provider to wax genitalia they are not trained for and have not consented to wax.

The decision released Tuesday concerned complaints filed by Jessica Yaniv, a transgender woman who sought waxing services from a number of providers in the Lower Mainland. In five cases she requested waxing of her scrotum, the decision said; in two, her arms and legs. In all the cases, when she told the service providers she was a transgender woman, they refused to provide the service.

Ms. Yaniv argued that amounted to discrimination on the basis of her gender identity and expression, in violation of B.C.'s Human Rights Code.

Story continues below advertisement

Tribunal member Devyn Cousineau disagreed, noting in her decision that most of the service providers are racialized, worked out of their own or clients’ homes and did not speak English as their first language. She said Ms. Yaniv “has engaged in a pattern of filing human rights complaints which target small businesses for personal financial gain and/or to punish certain ethnic groups which she perceived as hostile to the rights of LGBTQ+ people.”

Ms. Yaniv did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The case was heard over six days of hearings in July in Vancouver. It generated debates on social media and pushed services typically conducted behind closed doors into the public domain, including discussions of waxing services and terms such as “brozilian” and “manzilian.”

There was also discussion of Ms. Yaniv’s genitals and a request for an independent medical examination, which was turned down.

Based on evidence presented in the hearings, Ms. Cousineau concluded Ms. Yaniv “was seeking to have hair removed from a scrotum,” the decision states.

The tribunal concluded that Ms. Yaniv had a financial motivation – in 10 of 13 complaints, she sought an apology and $3,000 in damages – and wanted to punish certain ethnicities.

“I accept that Ms. Yaniv is partly motivated by her desire to fight what she perceives as pervasive discrimination against transgender women in the beauty industry,” Ms. Cousineau said in the decision.

Story continues below advertisement

“However, 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 gains. 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. These motives are not consistent with the Code’s purposes," the decision states.

The tribunal ordered costs against Ms. Yaniv of $2,000 for each of the three respondents who presented a defence at the hearings.

The decision to award costs is “a recognition of the hardship that my clients have suffered over the last year and a half,” said Jay Cameron, litigation manager with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which represented five respondents in the case.

His clients found the process stressful and debilitating, he said.

No woman should be compelled to touch male genitals against her will no matter how the client identifies, Mr. Cameron said.

Morgane Oger, vice-president of the B.C. NDP and founder of the Morgane Oger Foundation, said she “applauded” the tribunal’s decision.

Story continues below advertisement

“You can’t ask someone – especially someone who is working alone or a business with only one worker – you can’t expect that worker to be proficient in all skills coverable by that discipline,” said Ms. Oger, who is also transgender. “There’s a difference between keeping away trans women [by refusing services] and having to take on new skills.”

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies