Thursday, May 24, 2018

No - A trans woman did not sue a spa over refusal to wax her genitals

Hate-site LifeSiteNews has an ongoing effort to shame and smear LGBT people. The folks at LSN see themselves as Defenders of the Faith and Warriors for Christ. Why else would their Lianne Laurence run a story tiled: Trans ‘woman’ sues spa over Muslim woman’s refusal to wax his genitals?

Every day people at LSN attempt to hurt others who have done them no harm in order to assert the validity of their religious dogma. Intentionally harming other people is inexcusable. At least it should be. It is also irrational which often means that people feel threatened. The threat is confirmation that the world does not conform to those ancient texts. Most of us have already figured that out, usually when we were children.

It is important for the folks at LSN to use incorrect pronouns and smear quotation marks when referring to trans people. It is their petty way of demonstrating disapproval. As in:
A biological male who says he’s a “woman” has filed a human rights complaint against a hair-removal spa in Ontario. The male claims he was discriminated against after he couldn’t get a Brazilian wax because the Muslim woman on staff doesn’t wax the male genital area for religious reasons.

The anonymous trans "woman" complainant alleges Mad Wax Spa in Windsor, Ontario, denied him services because of his gender identity and expression. The male is seeking $50,000 compensation for the “immense harm to my dignity,” CTV Windsor reported.
I will get back to the story but first, Ms. Laurence's approval and that of her colleagues is unnecessary for transgender people to live their lives. Those transgender people have an underlying medical condition (gender dysphoria) for which there is no known medical intervention. Gender affirmation is the medically endorsed method of mitigating the symptoms.

Attacking transgender people based on religious dogma is yet another way of extending faith to superstition. It amounts to attacking people because they are different. Doing so is an expression of ignorance. Attacking transgender people on the basis that the Church's prelates know more than medical science is staggeringly stupid.

The specifics of the complaint are less important than the fact that LifeSiteNews is always on the lookout for any story that they feel denigrates trans people. One thing is certain. There will not be one less trans person in the world due to LSN's disparagement.

As for this case, the woman claims that she was denied services for a leg wax. The spa's manager claims that she wanted a Brazilian wax which is the removal of pubic hair. I know first hand that consumers inflate, embellish and selectively edit their complaints. Even if the woman did request the more intimate service that still is not waxing someone's genitals as Laurence claimed in her headline.

I can tell from the link that this story was originally headlined with the Muslim woman's refusal to touch the individual's pubic hair.
That was not sufficiently incendiary for LifeSite so they dishonestly changed it to genitals. Apparently there is an escape clause that permits these sanctimonious people to lie about LGBT people.

The spa manager claims that his “waxer” is a Muslim woman who is uncomfortable. She probably needs a different job. However, even if the manager is 100% in the right, that does not excuse the bigotry on behalf of LifeSiteNews. They are trying to marginalize an entire minority group and that is unacceptable in a civil society.

Yesterday I wrote about the extreme bigotry of Gerard V. Bradley, a law professor at Notre Dame. Among other things, Bradley wrote that someone would have a problem if a gay couple moved into the same cooperative apartment building (implying that the application should be denied). He asserted that someone would have a real problem if a gay man served on his child's PTA. Bradley's world is one with sexual apartheid.

Bradley's explicit bigotry is what I might expect of a neo-Nazi or a Saudi extremist. I was going to send him an email.

The first draft of the email was a literal “fuck you.” The second draft was an implied “fuck you.” By the third draft I composed something worthy of a grownup. I did not send it. No matter how well I might have worded an email to Bradley he would interpret it to mean that I was angry that he did not approve of my “lifestyle” or that I was soliciting his approval. I have no intention of giving him that power. He is unworthy of my, or our, attention. We neither seek nor require his approval. If anything, Mr. Bradley should seek our forgiveness.

Related content:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.