Thread by @onyxaminedlife

So transphobe twitter has become obsessed with a woman by the name of Jessica Yaniv, so let's talk about her, because while it might seem like a case that fits transphobic narratives well, even it reveals some of their weaknesses.

First off, there's the court case involving her and then there's allegations about her having creepy online behavior surrounding kids. The second thing is irrelevant to the first, and it's worth noting how few transphobes acknowledge that. It says something of their real beliefs

Incidentally, trans women, like cis women, are capable of being creepy or even pedophilic. To pretend that only cis men are capable of this is to deny victimized children. Trying to turn that into something about trans people rather than about her is sheer transphobia

Let's move to the case: Jessica Yaniv, a trans woman, wants to receive a Brazilian wax. Various places advertise offering that service to women. 16 of them in a row refuse it to her. She sues, the court agrees.

TERFs want to paint this as sexual, implying its about whether a woman can be forced to touch a penis. But that's ignoring the context of the matter, where it's really "Can a service provider be forced to provide a service they advertise providing?"

Note first that the businesses don't say "vagina only". They say "women only", and if they mean vaginas, this requires any trans person to misgender themselves to interpret their rule. Even if there is a signficant difference between a wax on a vagina and a penis, that's an issue

The first urge is to be on the side of these owners. They are sincerely uncomfortable and a Brazilian wax isn't a necessity. Especially when the story is presented with TERF emotional cues, we want to sympathize with them. And I don't think that's wrong!

But there's another side: note this woman went to SIXTEEN places, all of which said they accepted all women and all of which rejected her. The seemingly good principle "anyone can reject anyone they're uncomfortable with" leads to access issues for marginalized people.

For a Brazilian , the discomfort is relatable enough and the necessity is low enough that it feels like no big. But it escalates fast. Take Robert Eads, a trans man rejected by more than a dozen doctors until his cancer was incurable:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ea…

All of those doctors were legitimately uncomfortable. All of them would have faced consequences to their reputation. It led to a man dying. Any human rights law and court has to keep situations like that in mind when dealing with a lower stakes situation like Yaniv's.

This isn't just a slippery slope. People who want the laws that enabled Eads' death are explicitly using the Yaniv case to try and get them. It's their actual agenda, and when you listen they'll say they support rejecting trans people from access to about anything

Is this kind of a weird, fringe situation? Sure. The court judged on the law and this wasn't really what the law was made for. Is it a perfect resolution? Maybe not. Laws are like that. But protecting trans people's rights matters, and the people obsessed with this are dangerous.

The moral is be careful of small stakes cases that people with agendas make huge deals of, because they want them to justify big stakes changes that those cases don't support and that would be disastrous if they happened.

Importantly, one can be uncomfortable with the idea of forcing someone to perform a wax and still understand the people obsessed with this case are dishonest transphobes with a cruel agenda. That's where I am. And discussions of trans rights should start with trans people.

The raising the question as if "force a wax" or "decide trans rights are not worth protecting" is the central piece of the dominant transphobic framing of this case. Those aren't the options, and the attempt to make those the options manipulative.