[POLITICS] Incident in Canada regarding a transgender woman sueing for not getting a brazilian wax.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Silent Protagonist:

Saelune:

CM156:

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

Maybe take a step back and try to imagine the same situation but with a cis man suing instead of a trans woman. Would you care about what reasons she gave for not wanting to wax the man's genitals? I think you seeing this as a case of "trans woman denied service for religious reasons" and that quite reasonably sets off just about every alarm bell in your head, but I think if you step back you will see the situation is actually simpler than that. Gender identity and religion aren't really all that relevant in this situation. This woman was not comfortable waxing male genitalia regardless of whether they were attached to a man or a woman and she shouldn't need to justify her discomfort with waxing male genitals

I stand by my stance. Again, some people actually aren't hypocrites.

Saelune:

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:
But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

"It's gross" is enough of a reason to not want to touch someone's penis. In fact "I don't want to" is enough reason to not force a woman to touch a penis. Remember Saelune, no means no.

Are you actually making the argument that there are times when women should be forced to touch penises against their will?

See, this is what I was talking about when I was worried about people 'throwing BS at me'.

No, I am not making that argument, and you know it. I am making the argument that taking a job that involves genital touching is giving consent to touch genitals when doing your job. She is free to quit.

I know that you know that there is a fundamental difference between a job that involves waxing the female pubic region and one that involves waxing any pubic region, and that this job is the former. Unless you want to make the argument that penises and vulvas are basically the same and that if a person is fine with touching one they must be fine with touching the other.

Saelune:

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:
But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

"It's gross" is enough of a reason to not want to touch someone's penis. In fact "I don't want to" is enough reason to not force a woman to touch a penis. Remember Saelune, no means no.

Are you actually making the argument that there are times when women should be forced to touch penises against their will?

See, this is what I was talking about when I was worried about people 'throwing BS at me'.

No, I am not making that argument, and you know it. I am making the argument that taking a job that involves genital touching is giving consent to touch genitals when doing your job. She is free to quit.

Her job doesn't require that though. I can have a Brazilian without ever having my genitals touched because my genitals are not in the way in the area that is being worked on and they do not protrude from my body as testicles and penises do. You are not even asking her to do the same thing she always does to wax someone with a penis.

In addition agreeing to work with vulvas does not mean she agreed to work with penises. Agreeing to work with penises does not mean you agree to work with vulvas. This works both ways here. The penis wielder is free to go somewhere that works with penises. There is no reason for her to change her job as that was never her job to begin with.

Saelune:

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:
But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

"It's gross" is enough of a reason to not want to touch someone's penis. In fact "I don't want to" is enough reason to not force a woman to touch a penis. Remember Saelune, no means no.

Are you actually making the argument that there are times when women should be forced to touch penises against their will?

See, this is what I was talking about when I was worried about people 'throwing BS at me'.

No, I am not making that argument, and you know it. I am making the argument that taking a job that involves genital touching is giving consent to touch genitals when doing your job. She is free to quit.

So you are now saying that "implied consent" is a thing with regards to forcing a woman to touch penises.

How do you not realize how rapey everything you're saying sounds?

If a man said ANY of what you're saying you'd be treating them as a rapist. Just because someone has a specific job doesn't mean that they should be forced to sexually interact with people they don't want to sexually interact with.

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:

Dirty Hipsters:

"It's gross" is enough of a reason to not want to touch someone's penis. In fact "I don't want to" is enough reason to not force a woman to touch a penis. Remember Saelune, no means no.

Are you actually making the argument that there are times when women should be forced to touch penises against their will?

See, this is what I was talking about when I was worried about people 'throwing BS at me'.

No, I am not making that argument, and you know it. I am making the argument that taking a job that involves genital touching is giving consent to touch genitals when doing your job. She is free to quit.

So you are now saying that "implied consent" is a thing with regards to forcing a woman to touch penises.

How do you not realize how rapey everything you're saying sounds?

If a man said ANY of what you're saying you'd be treating them as a rapist. Just because someone has a specific job doesn't mean that they should be forced to sexually interact with people they don't want to sexually interact with.

You are not arguing in good faith at all and you know it.

Saelune:
*snip*

Can I please point out that you're currently defending a child predator?

Saelune:

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:
See, this is what I was talking about when I was worried about people 'throwing BS at me'.

No, I am not making that argument, and you know it. I am making the argument that taking a job that involves genital touching is giving consent to touch genitals when doing your job. She is free to quit.

So you are now saying that "implied consent" is a thing with regards to forcing a woman to touch penises.

How do you not realize how rapey everything you're saying sounds?

If a man said ANY of what you're saying you'd be treating them as a rapist. Just because someone has a specific job doesn't mean that they should be forced to sexually interact with people they don't want to sexually interact with.

You are not arguing in good faith at all and you know it.

Could you then clarify what you mean about implied consent requiring someone to touch a penis just because they have a job that involves touching vulvas?

Saelune:

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:
See, this is what I was talking about when I was worried about people 'throwing BS at me'.

No, I am not making that argument, and you know it. I am making the argument that taking a job that involves genital touching is giving consent to touch genitals when doing your job. She is free to quit.

So you are now saying that "implied consent" is a thing with regards to forcing a woman to touch penises.

How do you not realize how rapey everything you're saying sounds?

If a man said ANY of what you're saying you'd be treating them as a rapist. Just because someone has a specific job doesn't mean that they should be forced to sexually interact with people they don't want to sexually interact with.

You are not arguing in good faith at all and you know it.

I'm arguing that no one should be forced to touch anyone else's sexual organs if they don't want to for any reason. It's a pretty clear and consistent argument. For someone who doesn't want to be a hypocrite you're sure being a hypocrite.

Saelune:

Silent Protagonist:

Maybe take a step back and try to imagine the same situation but with a cis man suing instead of a trans woman. Would you care about what reasons she gave for not wanting to wax the man's genitals? I think you seeing this as a case of "trans woman denied service for religious reasons" and that quite reasonably sets off just about every alarm bell in your head, but I think if you step back you will see the situation is actually simpler than that. Gender identity and religion aren't really all that relevant in this situation. This woman was not comfortable waxing male genitalia regardless of whether they were attached to a man or a woman and she shouldn't need to justify her discomfort with waxing male genitals

I stand by my stance. Again, some people actually aren't hypocrites.

Do you think not being a hypocrite means never changing your mind on anything? It isn't hypocrisy to admit your hot take on an issue isn't in line with the values and ideals you hold to be important. As I said before you seem to look at this situation and see "trans woman refused service for religious reasons" but just about everyone else is seeing "Woman sued for refusing to touch someone's penis." While you might perceive people arguing against you as supporting the idea that it is ok to refuse service to transwomen for religious reasons, they could just as easily perceive you as supporting the idea that it is ok to sue a woman for refusing to touch your genitals. You don't need to get defensive. You don't need to double down. Considering things from a different perspective doesn't make you a hypocrite.

No matter how much one disagrees with the gender roles associated with their biological sex, they still have the biological body of the sex they were born with.

No amount of saying you're a woman and acting like a woman will make one's penis and balls go away and there are places where this can cause issues, like when going to a wax shop that only works on women's genitals.

Lil devils x:
A podiatrist would have no reason to handle a person's genitals

I understand that when a gentleman reaches a certain age it becomes an increasingly likely risk.

This is the Trans Bathrooms and Christian Bakery discussion all over again, isn't it? But this time with some pervert riding the coat tails of civil rights activism and wielding anti discrimination laws like a club to force unwilling women to touch their penis.

And you know what, told you so. I, and people like me, have been warning since Day 1 to not let an impetuous desire for minority rights trample all over the necessary discussion about protecting the rights of those who object to being made party to things they don't consent to, whether on grounds of religion, personal discomfort, morality, or whatever. But none of you upstanding "allies" were willing to entertain the discussion, were you? "People might abuse all these new loopholes and exceptions for self-serving ends? HERESY! No trans person could ever be an abuser! Trans people are ALWAYS the victims! Let people use the bathrooms and changing rooms they want, right now, or you're a bigot!" - and that was that, apparently.

This is the rod you created for our backs, fellas. You decided that the right to refuse service should be stripped from private business owners - because, again, who could conceive of a legitimate reason to decline service? Only a racist or homophobe or some other variety of boogeyman would ever do that. What terrible transphobes these self-employed beauticians must be.

And, just in case anybody is still unsure about whether Yaniv is the victim here, please do a Google search for their readily retrievable chat logs wherein Yaniv asks at length and in detail about looking at naked underage girls in changing rooms and whether it's acceptable to assist pubescent girls to use tampons. I'm learning today that Yaniv is trying to organise underage nude swim sessions from which the kids parents will be conveniently barred - yikes. This is who you are defending here, Saelune. To your credit you're being utterly consistent in your reasoning, as ever, but I do wonder if your dogmatic partisan side ever takes a day off and you try seeing things from an opposing point of view.

Once again: congratulations to all the right-on progressives who shoved half-baked legislation through the door because it made them feel warm and fuzzy to be "on the right side of history", and who weren't interested in entertaining any kind of dialogue with "small minded bigots and regressives". Try putting the genie back in the bottle now; I'll be over here enjoying my popcorn.

I think everyone can understand that assholes come in all shapes and sizes, whether they be LGBT or not. Though it is rather hard to ignore that the news outlets and people sharing the news outlets just so happen to be the ones who relish in particular narratives that demonise people different from them. In particular, trans and migrants/refugees; happy to highlight when anyone from those demographics are not acting wholesome and perfectly in line, but fuck em when it comes to anything else.

Batou667:
Snip

Your bigotry is neither excused nor correct just because there are complications and nuances when the various rights and responsibilities of multiple parties conflict.

Batou667:
This is the Trans Bathrooms and Christian Bakery discussion all over again, isn't it? But this time with some pervert riding the coat tails of civil rights activism and wielding anti discrimination laws like a club to force unwilling women to touch their penis.

And you know what, told you so. I, and people like me, have been warning since Day 1 to not let an impetuous desire for minority rights trample all over the necessary discussion about protecting the rights of those who object to being made party to things they don't consent to, whether on grounds of religion, personal discomfort, morality, or whatever. But none of you upstanding "allies" were willing to entertain the discussion, were you? "People might abuse all these new loopholes and exceptions for self-serving ends? HERESY! No trans person could ever be an abuser! Trans people are ALWAYS the victims! Let people use the bathrooms and changing rooms they want, right now, or you're a bigot!" - and that was that, apparently.

This is the rod you created for our backs, fellas. You decided that the right to refuse service should be stripped from private business owners - because, again, who could conceive of a legitimate reason to decline service? Only a racist or homophobe or some other variety of boogeyman would ever do that. What terrible transphobes these self-employed beauticians must be.

And, just in case anybody is still unsure about whether Yaniv is the victim here, please do a Google search for their readily retrievable chat logs wherein Yaniv asks at length and in detail about looking at naked underage girls in changing rooms and whether it's acceptable to assist pubescent girls to use tampons. I'm learning today that Yaniv is trying to organise underage nude swim sessions from which the kids parents will be conveniently barred - yikes. This is who you are defending here, Saelune. To your credit you're being utterly consistent in your reasoning, as ever, but I do wonder if your dogmatic partisan side ever takes a day off and you try seeing things from an opposing point of view.

Once again: congratulations to all the right-on progressives who shoved half-baked legislation through the door because it made them feel warm and fuzzy to be "on the right side of history", and who weren't interested in entertaining any kind of dialogue with "small minded bigots and regressives". Try putting the genie back in the bottle now; I'll be over here enjoying my popcorn.

Ugh Quit comparing apples to orangutans. Making a cake is not the same as using a bathroom and neither of those is the same as handling genitals so quit trying to act like they are the same thing. Not letting a trans person ride in a taxi or making a gay couple a cake are no where near the equivalent of handling someone's penis. Every situation is different and should be treated as such. This is on a case by case basis. No, girls in changing rooms, showers or bathrooms should not be forced to see penises, nor should women doing waxes be forced to touch penises. That does not mean that trans persons need be prevented from using facilities that have the privacy available to allow them to do so without having that be an issue, as they have been for a very long time already.

Avnger:
Your bigotry is neither excused nor correct just because there are complications and nuances when the various rights and responsibilities of multiple parties conflict.

I'm happy to have a discussion about that, but popping up to snarkily shout "bigot!" doesn't achieve much, does it?

Lil devils x:
Every situation is different and should be treated as such. This is on a case by case basis.

Precisely. That's why it was so premature to set legal precedents that introduced such exploitable loopholes.

Batou667:

Jumping the gun a it there, no verdict has been reached.

I think it's good that such a bad actor is the one championing this particular scenario, so that moving forward when this case sets precedent it draws a line between a trans rights issue and a right to deny service issue.

This is actually the law working, albeit slowly. At least, I hope it works and this Yaniv person is given marching orders. If it swings the other way... okay, that'd be a problem.

Saelune:
She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

That doesn't work. The primary tool of my trade is a pen, which I use to show people mistakes they've made (usually a big circle with 'see me' written next to it). If someone came to me and asked me to check something I was just uncomfortable checking (let's say a white nationalist manifesto, which is a bit like a penis), I'd say 'No, I'm not checking that. Goodbye!' (Though I might draw a big red ring round the whole thing and say 'That's your mistake, right there.')

Ownership of a pen (and the ability to use it responsibly) doesn't oblige me to do so.

Batou667:

Avnger:
Your bigotry is neither excused nor correct just because there are complications and nuances when the various rights and responsibilities of multiple parties conflict.

I'm happy to have a discussion about that, but popping up to snarkily shout "bigot!" doesn't achieve much, does it?

As opposed to popping up to shout about progressives and trans allies, which obviously is terribly productive.

Yes, trans people can be bad people. I don't remember anyone saying they can't. Hell, currently the most famous trans person in the world is probably Caitlyn Jenner, ask an LGBT rights supporter what they think of her. Doesn't mean she should be banned from using bathrooms.

Batou667:
This is the Trans Bathrooms and Christian Bakery discussion all over again, isn't it?

It really, really isn't. Handling someone else's balls isn't the same as handling cake dough.

Lil devils x:
Her job doesn't require that though. I can have a Brazilian without ever having my genitals touched because my genitals are not in the way in the area that is being worked on and they do not protrude from my body as testicles and penises do. You are not even asking her to do the same thing she always does to wax someone with a penis.

In addition agreeing to work with vulvas does not mean she agreed to work with penises. Agreeing to work with penises does not mean you agree to work with vulvas. This works both ways here. The penis wielder is free to go somewhere that works with penises. There is no reason for her to change her job as that was never her job to begin with.

I've had this discussion with my esthetician before, and..."mechanical"...differences aside, one thing she does sawmill about is she wishes she had a male esthetician on staff. Apparently a large number of her women clients are less comfortable with women estheticians and would prefer a man, but work with women anyway just to get it done. I had to pick my jaw up off the floor after that one, because of all possible situations, that's one I would never have expected. It's actually something I've considered of late because it's better money and preferable hours to most jobs available to me, but I can't swing the financial burden of the classes.

That said, yeah, the simple fact of waxing male pubic hair is one has to get pretty damn familiar with the frank and beans. The fewer details shared, probably the better, least of all for keeping the conversation away from juvenile humor. And, indeed, there is always the likelihood of certain involuntarily physical responses, but frankly the chance of it is minimal if all parties keep things professional, and if it happens, the way to proceed is to stop for a minute and let things return to normal. Assuming the client isn't being a creep about it. It's a beauty service, not sex work.

And, one has to use different types of wax to get the best results, with different melting and application temperatures (almost always hotter), and on skin that's more sensitive to boot. There is definitely a greater risk of harming a client with a twig and giggleberries than there is a vulva, and that requires commensurate experience and expertise. I can definitely understand why some estheticians wouldn't be comfortable with the notion, and can't fault them for refusing men and trans women. I think it's a little silly to refuse service due to social convention, but on the other hand, I get it.

But frankly, in light of this individual's other proclivities, I get the feeling there's more to this story than what's at face value. Estheticians talk, and I get the feeling this individual may have said or done some things that creeped out one or more of them, especially if they have a track record of harassing estheticians. Least of all if this dubious source's assertions Yaniv was sending dick pics to estheticians is correct.

MrCalavera:
It really, really isn't. Handling someone else's balls isn't the same as handling cake dough.

It is if you find the right dominatrix. Sorry, couldn't help myself, I'll see myself out.

Eacaraxe:

MrCalavera:
It really, really isn't. Handling someone else's balls isn't the same as handling cake dough.

It is if you find the right dominatrix. Sorry, couldn't help myself, I'll see myself out.

Eh, someone was going to make a joke. Was thinking of something involving food safety inspectors, but couldn't get it to work.

Waxing may not be on the importance of medical care, but if someone trained in medical care refused to do their job cause 'ew a penis', I would hope they get fired.

LilDevils, I think I know why you are bothered by this, that you are coming from a good place when you disagree with me on this. I think your motives are fine, but you are miss perceiving my point. CM156, I think you are genuinely debating me. I think the rest are arguing in bad faith, making baseless claims and letting their own biases of me make it impossible to see my point.

Saelune:
Waxing may not be on the importance of medical care, but if someone trained in medical care refused to do their job cause 'ew a penis', I would hope they get fired.

Fairly certain that most medical professionals you probably have in mind are trained in general care. Penis, boobies, varguba, it's just a thing.

Saelune:
Waxing may not be on the importance of medical care, but if someone trained in medical care refused to do their job cause 'ew a penis', I would hope they get fired.

Okay, look.

First, this isn't the first time Yaniv pulled this shit. She's done it to like sixteen different providers (here's a second source). The pattern's been basically the same as what was first established last year: approach a provider asking for service, get denied for perfectly practical reasons, sue, settle out-of-court or outright lose.

The pattern is so firmly established and present, one would not be remiss to wonder if she's doing it not to prevent discrimination, but rather to extract settlement money from well-meaning but politically-vulnerable service providers. Yaniv is clearly not a good-faith actor, especially after having continued these antics in light of the testimonies and findings of the first case.

The Poyer case in particular should shed light on the issues at heart: providers are, bare minimum, being accused of bigotry and discrimination for inability to provide service. They even brought other estheticians, including those specialized in male waxing, to testify on their behalf. Even setting aside the creepy sex stuff, including other providers who specified they refuse services on account of inappropriate past behaviors from male and trans clients, it's a cut-and-dried case this is not discriminatory.

Especially in cases where estheticians (may have) refused service due to Yaniv's clear and undeniable history of being a fiercely litigious and problematic individual for others in the field. Were I a Vancouver-area esthetician, I'd deny her service too; not because she's trans, but because she's a shithead, and I'd gladly walk into court with the mountain of evidence she's a shithead, and proudly assert my right as a business-owner to deny service to shitheads.

While offering a limited-time "not all trans people are shitheads" discount to trans people, at least as long as the suit is before court.

And, frankly, as far as the technical stuff, they're right. I'm going to spoiler the squick.

Eacaraxe:
esthetician

Who's a what how now?!

Abomination:
If it swings the other way... okay, that'd be a problem.

Well, that depends on how short Yaniv's shorts are... wait, you meant the legal ruIing, right?

I understood at least some of the beauticians involved have already paid legal costs and/or gone out of business, so in a sense the damage is already being done. If there's a further ruling pending I'll be interested to see how that plays out.

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
Waxing may not be on the importance of medical care, but if someone trained in medical care refused to do their job cause 'ew a penis', I would hope they get fired.

Okay, look.

First, this isn't the first time Yaniv pulled this shit. She's done it to like sixteen different providers (here's a second source). The pattern's been basically the same as what was first established last year: approach a provider asking for service, get denied for perfectly practical reasons, sue, settle out-of-court or outright lose.

The pattern is so firmly established and present, one would not be remiss to wonder if she's doing it not to prevent discrimination, but rather to extract settlement money from well-meaning but politically-vulnerable service providers. Yaniv is clearly not a good-faith actor, especially after having continued these antics in light of the testimonies and findings of the first case.

The Poyer case in particular should shed light on the issues at heart: providers are, bare minimum, being accused of bigotry and discrimination for inability to provide service. They even brought other estheticians, including those specialized in male waxing, to testify on their behalf. Even setting aside the creepy sex stuff, including other providers who specified they refuse services on account of inappropriate past behaviors from male and trans clients, it's a cut-and-dried case this is not discriminatory.

Especially in cases where estheticians (may have) refused service due to Yaniv's clear and undeniable history of being a fiercely litigious and problematic individual for others in the field. Were I a Vancouver-area esthetician, I'd deny her service too; not because she's trans, but because she's a shithead, and I'd gladly walk into court with the mountain of evidence she's a shithead, and proudly assert my right as a business-owner to deny service to shitheads.

While offering a limited-time "not all trans people are shitheads" discount to trans people, at least as long as the suit is before court.

And, frankly, as far as the technical stuff, they're right. I'm going to spoiler the squick.

Oh wow, I did not seeing that coming. She's a scam artists using the trans identity to construct awkward situations, ie schedule me for a vagina wax and BOOM! surprise penis!, then sue for discrimination/hate-crime/penis-is-not-vagina-reaction.

Well I guess it was a matter of time. You're not a real group unless someone is using it for a scam

Saelune:

One, you need better sites. No wonder you disagree with me so often, that first link alone is some toxic bigoted BS.

Actually I heard about this while I was eating at a gas station before work (Two women were talking about it at the table next to me) I just grabbed whatever sites I could from Google to post for this discussion. Probably should have taken more time to choose which ones I grabbed.

Specter Von Baren:

Actually I heard about this while I was eating at a gas station before work (Two women were talking about it at the table next to me) I just grabbed whatever sites I could from Google to post for this discussion. Probably should have taken more time to choose which ones I grabbed.

Well, have fun with this one.

Baffle2:
Who's a what how now?!

That's the word for someone who provides waxing services -- esthetician.

Silentpony:
Oh wow, I did not seeing that coming. She's a scam artists using the trans identity to construct awkward situations, ie schedule me for a vagina wax and BOOM! surprise penis!, then sue for discrimination/hate-crime/penis-is-not-vagina-reaction.

Well I guess it was a matter of time. You're not a real group unless someone is using it for a scam

I'm normally reluctant to use such harsh/decisive language, but in this case it definitely seems to fit the bill. The only exception to your post I can take, is it seems in at least one case Yaniv was sending dick pics to the esthetician prior to the appointment.

Hell, the human rights court themselves noted Yaniv seemed to be racially profiling and targeting estheticians for litigation. Especially in light of the fact defendant's counsel was readily able to find local estheticians who provided male pubic waxing services to testify on their behalf.

Leg End:
...I'm sorry, are we talking about this person? The same one who wants to host topless female child spool parties, tries to send CP to girls and look at their tampons, and... well, generally grooms kids? Yeah, no. This is clearly for sexual gratification and not in regards to any kinds of trans issues.

You're going to need more sources than just a video to make those accusations stick...

Saelune:
Waxing may not be on the importance of medical care, but if someone trained in medical care refused to do their job cause 'ew a penis', I would hope they get fired.

LilDevils, I think I know why you are bothered by this, that you are coming from a good place when you disagree with me on this. I think your motives are fine, but you are miss perceiving my point. CM156, I think you are genuinely debating me. I think the rest are arguing in bad faith, making baseless claims and letting their own biases of me make it impossible to see my point.

To be fair couldn't they say the same about you? That you're letting your trans identity blind you to this person's predatory behavior? If the allegations are true, this woman is trying to organize a pre-teen topless swimming party where specifically no other adults are allowed, and goes around in women's changing rooms asking little girls if they need help putting a tampon in, and has sued 16 different salons for discrimination, and have called the immigrants who work there dirty and unclean.
I'm pretty sure that's not normal transgender behavior.

This woman is basically a millennial Jeffrey Epstein in Canada

Eacaraxe:

That's the word for someone who provides waxing services -- esthetician.

Fucking hell, had someone copyrighted waxer?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked