It raises an interesting dilemma for Farmers. We know engaging cows directly is frowned upon, but what happens if a cow engages you?
Be as civil as possible and keep any interaction to a bare minimum might be the best advice. Don't pozload my neghole, and don't let it unnecessarily touch you.
No asthma inhaler or other respiratory meds despite the fact he's showing up on fb wearing a cannula.
Does JY even know realize how much conflicting information has been self-posted on social media? This aspect of JY's behavior reminds me of other cows such as Brianna Wu who say one thing and then contradict it a short time later.
ETA: I just read Devyn's decision to deny publication for all ballwaxing complaints due to JY's privacy and reputation risk. JFC, he gave a named press interview about this to the Daily Caller in February. The Sunday Times of London has also named him. He's on Twitter telling Morgane Oger that he's called Devyn and her assistant numerous times over being suicidal. And then Devyn asserts THIS is the reason for the ban;
While it could be a perceived conflict of interest for JY to be privately confiding suicidal thoughts to the same person making this written decision involving a case filed by JY, I will give Devyn credit for being as impartial as possible and taking JY to task for the number of complaints being filed in a short time, those that have been dropped at the first sign of defense, and JY's inappropriate comments towards the opposite side's attorney after complaining that his client made inappropriate comments in the form of misgendering. No wonder the ruling includes a mention of "unclean hands" in paragraph 58.
I'd like to know what Devyn or other tribunal members would recommend someone do when a person presents one's self with a one name and gender on Twitter and a different name and gender on Facebook if using "he/she" or "him/her" is now considered to be an inflammatory and unacceptable way to address or point out the ambiguity.
It appears Devyn felt Laser Cut Beauty Salon raised valid points about JY publicly discussing the case after requesting and receiving anonymity. However, Devyn chose to side with JY's claim that the latter is the target of both on- and offline anti-trans behavior relating to these complaints. While most of us here might disagree with the determination to maintain anonymity, these tribunals seem to give more leeway, benefit of doubt, and protection to oppressed and marginalized complainants.
The decision doesn't seem to actually make any findings regarding if these women should be forced to touch Jonathan's testicles or not if they want to continue running their business, and includes some bizarre bullshit like comments about how waxing services are "gender-affirming." This essentially implies that if someone who didn't make racist comments and didn't file a dozen complaints at once had tried to get some cash out of this, that it would have worked. Fortunately, the court seems to be onto Jonathan and sick of his shit in general, so I doubt any payout is going to be made until another troon comes along and tries to run this scam. The general tenor of the document seems to point in the direction of being Jonathan's side re: if he deserves to force women to wax his testicles, they just didn't like the way he filed his paperwork.
I'm no law expert, but I believe this ruling was solely to address:
- JY's anonymity in these filings/pending cases, and
- Both sides' request to demand a monetary judgement against the other.
Further, it sounds as if the actual issue of whether women should be required to give a MtF transgendered person female waxing services on male genitalia would be decided only if at least one of JY's pending cases gets heard by the tribunal. I'm not sure how waxing services are "gender affirming" when there are countless people that have never received such services for whatever reason and have no problems with their gender identity.
Also $150 is nothing for the amount of time and stress that he has put Laser Cut through. It's not a penalty, it's Jonathan's cost of doing business and won't make him think twice at all about pulling this time and time again.
Given the in-document comment that JY hasn't reached vexatious status yet, the tribunal may have limited options in such a situation. In addition to the $150 cost payment to Laser Cut, JY has been ordered to not file any more similar cases until the existing ones get heard. Also, Devyn seems to have strongly suggested to JY that these cases should be followed through on and not be withdrawn if the issues presented are that important to have filed them in the first place, otherwise it's a waste of time and resources that could be used to address more important and legitimate cases.
Do you know if JY might also be "X" in "X v Hot Mess"?
I'm curious how JY managed to be labeled as X for the Hot Mess case. Is it because "JY" has been tied to JY's real name and really isn't all that anonymous any more?
It's a shame that the salons don't all band together and hire a decent lawyer to put a foot on Tampon Johnny's neck.
If it's true that the majority of the salon owners involved in the still-pending cases are immigrants with English as a secondary language, they may not realize these complaints are more than just someone complaining about bad service and are such that they require a written response and/or tribunal hearing where they could be compelled to alter their business practices -- possibly against their (religious) beliefs -- or pay fines, or both.
That said, it would nice if there was some way for the salons that had complaints withdrawn to contact the salons with pending cases and recommend they put up a defense if such contact could be done in a way that doesn't violate the anonymity order.
Leave it up to JY to ignore the issue of the tastelessness of (fake) body parts clearly hanging out the dress and instead claim that the dress should be deemed acceptable solely for its alleged price.
ETA:
As a bit of a cow crossover, I also noticed that
Oger v. Whatcott was cited twice in this document:
- Paragraph 33 (I agree with JY, and accept, that transgender women are disproportionately likely to be exposed to violence and hate: Oger v. Whatcott (No. 7), 2019 BCHRT 58 at paras. 60‐65.), and
- Paragraph 53 (For transgender and gender diverse people, a key component of that is the right to have their gender identity respected throughout the process. And, at its most basic level, this begins with using the correct gender pronouns. I made this same point in Oger v. Whatcott (No. 3), 2018 BCHRT 183: )
