Common sense in this case was not the argument you and others made but rather the fact that waxing male genitals required "special training" that the defendants did not have. The tribunal decided that they could not be forced to do something they weren't trained to do. It's pretty safe to assume if they had the training, they would have been required to do the work and denying Yaniv would have been a human rights violation. The entire decision hinged on their training and not on ideas of gender.
Lack of training was not the only defense offered by the defendants. Religious views and concerns over personal safety were also argued by the pro-bono attorney representing these women.
I haven't been able to read the full text of the ruling yet, but this article quotes tribunal chair Devyn Cousineau as saying:
“In the genital waxing cases, I find that scrotum waxing was not a service customarily provided by the Respondents,” Cousineau wrote. “As such, they did not deny Ms. Yaniv a service and did not discriminate against her.”
https://www.straight.com/life/1316916/racist-agenda-noted-bc-tribunal-dismissed-scrotum-waxing-complaint-transgender-womanShe doesn't specify lack of training as being the reason. To me that reads more like a more general statement of support for the aesthetician's right to establish boundaries such as "no dongs".
the waldo is grateful that the CBC covered the BC Tribunal outcome - cuz the usual suspect can't complain... again!
the kimmo would point out that the CBC has framed Yaniv as a good-faith human rights activist, and that as a result someone who relied solely on the Ceeb for their news might find themselves perplexed and shocked that Ms Cousineau was so thoroughly unsympathetic to Yaniv in the ruling. the kimmo remains of the view that the Ceeb's reporting of this case didn't give their reader the background to understand why Cousineau excoriated Yaniv in the ruling.
-k