A Canadian official ruled against Jessica Yaniv, the transgender Canadian plaintiff who had accused three women of unfair “discrimination” when they declined to give his testicles a “Brazilian wax” treatment.

But the official minimized the damage to Canada’s pro-transgender laws by suggesting that women may need to provide the sexually intimate service to male bodies if they have been trained for the task.

“Human rights legislation does not require a service provider to wax a type of genitals they are not trained for and have not consented to wax. … There are differences between waxing the genitals of a person with a vulva and a person with a penis and scrotum,” said the deciding official in the quasi-judicial British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.

The 61-page decision implies that women will have to provide the intimate service to men if the Canadian licensing boards require cosmeticians to learn how to do the service.

“I agree generally with [the transgender plaintiff] Ms. [Jessica] Yaniv that a person who customarily offers women the service of waxing their arms or legs cannot discriminate between cisgender and transgender women absent a bona fide reasonable justification,” said Devyn Cousineau, a far-left human rights lawyer, who added:

There is no material difference in a cake which is baked for a straight wedding, and one that is baked for a gay wedding. Nor does baking a cake for a gay wedding require you to have intimate contact with the client. Taking another example, there is no material difference in renting a room to a gay couple or to a straight couple, and renting out rooms does not require intimate contact with the client.

In contrast, in the case of genital waxing, I have found there is a material difference in waxing different types of genitals and that, because of its intimate nature, service providers must consent to provide service on a particular type of genitals. What the law requires is that, having chosen to provide a particular service, they must provide that service without discrimination. For example, a person who customarily waxes vulvas cannot discriminate amongst their clients with vulvas, and likewise for a person who customarily waxes scrotums. However, human rights legislation does not require a service provider to wax a type of genitals they are not trained for and have not consented to wax.

Cousineau repeatedly defended Yaniv’s claim that he is a woman and protected by pro-transgender legislation, amid plentiful evidence to the existence of Yaniv’s testicles:

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. In that sense, her motives do align with Code’s purposes of eradicating discrimination and providing victims of discrimination with a means of redress. Further, if not for this application, I would likely have concluded that at least one of Ms. Yaniv’s complaints about arm and leg waxing was justified.

Throughout the controversy, Yaniv has insisted he is a woman, even to the point of claiming that he suffers from period pains.

Cousineau echoed the transgender ideology by repeatedly downplaying the biology-based cultural preferences between men and women. For example, she reduced them from cultural differences to a crude biological distinction by describing a woman as “a person with a vulva” and a man as “a person with a penis and scrotum.”

But Yaniv engaged in bad faith, and so undermined the political standing of Canada’s pro-transgender policies, said Cousineau:

Ms. Yaniv’s overriding purpose was to manufacture the conditions for human rights complaints against unsophisticated and vulnerable respondents, in order to secure a financial settlement and punish individuals involved. In a majority of her cases, she also had the added motivation of punishing racialized and immigrant women whom she stereotypes as hostile to the interests of the LGBTQ+ community. Far from advancing the cause of LGBTQ+ people, Ms. Yaniv’s conduct would, if condoned, threaten this Tribunal’s integrity and its mission to foster an equitable, tolerant, and respectful society.

To protect the pro-transgender law, Cousineau ordered Yaniv to pay a token penalty of $2,000 to each of the three plaintiffs despite many months of trauma and stress for the three immigrant women:

In all the circumstances I am satisfied that $6,000 strikes the right balance in expressing the Tribunal’s condemnation of Ms. Yaniv’s conduct while not exacting too harsh a punishment on her. In the circumstances, although Ms. Yaniv’s conduct has likely impacted all of the Respondents to her complaints, I can only issue this order against those Represented Respondents who attended the hearing and advanced this application. I order Ms. Yaniv to pay $2,000 to each of Ms. Benipal, Ms. DaSilva, and Mrs. Hehar.

The official said the penalty was kept low out of sympathy for Yaniv, despite his harassment of the women:

Other factors weigh in favour of a lower award. Ms. Yaniv has already faced serious  consequences as a result of these complaints. Once her identity and role in these complaints was revealed, she faced a torrent of backlash and hatred, and from that point onward was representing herself in very difficult circumstances.

…

Finally, I must note that Ms. Yaniv was polite and deferential throughout the Tribunal’s hearings.

Opponents of the transgender ideology celebrated the win: