top of page

The Canadian-Wax | Canada's gender equality laws do full-frontal, and it isn't pretty

Updated: Aug 20, 2019

In a recent controversy involving an immigrant, hot wax, a transgender woman, and her penis (I think you know what I'm referring to), Canadian tribalism and logicphobia have pulled a full-frontal for the whole world to see. My apologies if you didn't get my reference to The Office.

Marcia Da Silva (who is ironically, a Brazilian) runs a waxing service from her home, or at least she used to. Marcia has now been subjected to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for refusing to perform a ball-kini wax on a transgender woman. The problem? The transgender woman, Jessica Yaniv, is actually a biological male who still has the male genitalia to prove it. Apparently, Yaniv must have forgotten to order the "total package."

Okay, I think I officially exhausted every possible pun. Now it's time to get serious.

The British Columbia Human Rights Code aims to "prevent discrimination and harassment because of race, colour, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, disability, creed, age and other grounds."

The big picture

"Tribalism" has now became a part of every day life in 2019. You are black, or you are white. You are a man or a woman. You are a Republican, or a Democrat. You are gay, or you are straight.

In the leftist ideology, people are not to be thought of as individuals, but have instead taken on a their group-first identity. You are no longer (your name here), and the sum of every unique experience you've had in your life.. You are (in my case) white. Worse yet, you're White, and a Man. To add fuel to the fire, you're a white man, who is also straight. Notice that the fact that you are straight, white, and a man, tells others absolutely nothing about where you grew up. It doesn't tell people about your likes, your dislikes, or your goals and aspirations. None of those things matter because to progressive leftists you're the member of a group, and nothing else.

What do Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Nazism, and all the other bad "isms" have in common?

The problem with tribalism? It divides people into groups, and pits them against each other. Tribalism is dangerous, as we've seen throughout the beginning of the 20th century. When humans are placed in groups, they proceed to claim oppression by each group they see as above them in the alleged "dominance hierarchy."

Maybe you are a woman, and you've been oppressed by everyone that isn't a woman. That's not good, but what if you are a black woman? Well then.. you've likely been oppressed by everyone that isn't a woman, and in addition, all white women. But, what if you're a Brazilian immigrant? You've probably been oppressed by all blacks and whites, male or female. But, what if you're a female Brazilian immigrant? Then the male Brazilian Immigrants have probably oppressed you, as well as all the previous groups mentioned.

So what if you're a white male who self-identifies as a gay female? Apparently in Canada you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who wasn't oppressive. Including all other women.

The problem once again with the "group-first" mentality is that it provides an endless supply of victimized groups. Historically, when human beings are divided into tribes, they gravitate towards destroying the other tribes. That gets extremely dangerous when you allow for an infinite number of tribes to which all people can be divided and subsequently pitted against one another.

Take the "squad" of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, and their decision just two weeks ago to single out Nancy Pelosi as potentially racist for criticizing AOC. Sure, it was well and good when they were all one group of "Progressive Democrats." Then, they needed to be Progressive Democrats who were Women. When the time was right, they were Progressive Democrats who were Women, but also women of color. In that moment they needed to single out their opponent as an oppressive white woman. Trust me, it was beautiful to watch the snake start to eat itself, but it's scary to think of the larger implications.

Wait, don't women have rights?

There's a particularly complicated and hypocritical situation presenting itself, much to the dismay of Marcia Da Silva. Women have rights. Most would say that all people, regardless of their group, should have the same rights. Does a woman have the right to start a waxing service, with the specifications that she only wants to perform bikini waxes on female genitalia? If you start a Brazilian wax company, do you have to wax innies AND outties? I would suppose a feminist would say that a woman should have the choice of whether or not shes going to wax a fellow female's testicles.. but hey, that's just me. To paraphrase a line from George Orwell's Animal Farm, apparently in Canada, all people are equal, but some people are more equal than others.

Why does this have to be only about a transgender woman?

Could a man walk into a beauty parlor and demand a wax-job from an establishment that only performs female bikini waxes? This principle dictates it should illegal for them to say "Hey, testicles are a completely different specialty, you'll have to find a shop that provides that service." Call me crazy, but I thought the British Columbia Human Rights Code was enacted so that everyone, regardless of their group, would be equal. In reality, something tells me most people would think it's completely acceptable for a man to be denied that service. By the way, it is completely acceptable for a man to be denied that service.

At the end of the day, the question is whether or not a human being has the right to their own time, and their own labor performed during that time. If the answer is yes, then this is a non-issue.

Do you have the right to decide what you do with your time, or is that "right" simply subject to the whims of the next batch of elected officials?