LGBTQ activist Jessica Yaniv, who has male genitalia but identifies as a woman now, has launched another battle against one of Vancouver's beauty salons, claiming they refused to wax her legs. The activist launched a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, the broadcaster CTV News revealed. It is expected to be heard this year.
As the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, representing the business in question, She Point Beauty Studio, Yaniv approached it for a Brazilian wax during the summer but the salon denied the request, citing their employees’ adherence to Sikhism. Yaniv’s request for waxing legs was also rejected, as it is said to take place “in private with the customer in their underwear or nude from the waist down.
"She Point Beauty Studio rejected Yaniv's request for services due to religious, cultural and safety reasons, and because the salon services are specialised to women", the organisation stated.
Yaniv reportedly launched half a dozen similar complaints earlier, which concerned mostly genital waxing, but also featured two requests to remove hair from her arms and legs. They were dismissed by the tribunal in October "on the basis that they have been filed for improper motives or bad faith". She was also ordered to pay $2,000 to each of the three workers who filed a defence.
"Having now heard the evidence in these complaints, I am satisfied that the pattern is deliberate and motivated by Ms. Yaniv's animus towards certain, non-white, immigrants to Canada and, in particular, members of the South Asian and Asian communities", its ruling says, also suggesting that she wants to "punish" immigrant women "whom she stereotypes as hostile to the interests of the LGBTQ+ community".
The activist, however, denied targeting immigrant women, arguing "You can't go anywhere, to any service-based business without it being an immigrant. I'm kind of stuck".
Social media users seem to be less than sympathetic to her battle, as well.
Even trans persons seem to be against the litigation.
Some suspect that she has an economic interest, something that was also brought up in the October ruling, which stated: “Yaniv was improperly motivated to bring these complaints in large part for financial gain”.