1. Wrong. We don't cover HRC cases, normally. They usually get scant mention.
Jesse Brown and Mary Rogan wanted to know why media is focusing on Yaniv as a representative of trans people rather than somebody (like say Morgane Oger) who would be a more positive representation of trans people. This is the question I answered.
For better or worse, Yaniv is the one out there "pushing the envelope". Oger's own HRC case, ruled on earlier this year, didn't get a lot of press, because there wasn't anything novel about it.
2. Not proven. I have reviewed cases and they are all unique. This one really differentiates itself because it's a sensational hot button case. I'll find an example of a trans rights case from earlier and we'll see if it's well-known.... Googling...
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/42948/1/Tam_Michael_WH_201311_LLM_thesis.pdf
Kind of a bigger case and I haven't heard of it.
HRC cases really aren't all unique. During the time Yaniv's hearings were ongoing, I looked at the HRC docket for the schedule, and most of the cases appearing before the HRC were refreshingly "normal" in nature.
Your example is of a case that's really irrelevant to pretty much anybody except trans people. You seem to be operating from the assumption that every case is equally deserving of our attention. That's certainly not the case. Yaniv's case has the potential of setting a precedent that affects a lot of people and could be applicable way beyond the issue of Yaniv's ball-sack.
3. I would contend some of these are justifiably more important, like a major publication being accused of hate speech vs. some rando wanting a wax. BTW there was already a case in Ontario that was remarkably similar, in that a trans man wanted a haircut from a Muslim as I recall. Almost no coverage, but some because there was a Muslim angle.
Yes I am cynical about media coverage.
There has been the US stories involving the baker who wouldn't bake a cake for a gay wedding, and the photographer who wouldn't take wedding pictures for a gay wedding-- which were widely covered. And at the risk of pointing out the obvious, taking some pictures or baking a cake or cutting someone's hair is a different kettle of fish from waxing someone's genitals.
The potential fall-out from this case and the precedent that could be set is, to me, much more newsworthy than hate-speech complaints against Western Standard or whatever it was that Ezra Levant was publishing at the time. We already have a pretty clear body of law regarding hate-speech and nothing is going to change much on that front. Bill C-16, on the other hand, is very new and its implications haven't been tested in court and this HRC case could be a clue as to how sex-based protections for women are going to be affected by the newly declared right to gender expression.
4. The issue is the volume and kind of coverage it gets in "the" media though.
So who decides what's an appropriate level of coverage? I have to mention that while this case has been picked up internationally, it's not getting the sort of wall-to-wall coverage that Brown seems to think it is. He and Rogan, and perhaps yourself, seem to be of the view that perhaps any amount of coverage is too much.
5. As I said I think there have already been such cases, with less coverage. This fits the sensational FOX-bait criteria and it gets white males angry so we have it covered like she's the single spokeswoman for trans people.
It gets me angry too. This case is a big deal regardless of whether Yaniv is a sympathetic representative for trans people or not.
6. An HRC case is arguably "newsworthy" but this is being milked for the outrage set.
If beauticians are going to be legally compelled to handle Yaniv's lady-wang and nut-sack, I think some outrage is justified.
7. It's not binary ( 
) How much coverage and what kind of coverage does this warrant is my question and why do we have to discuss trans rights around these types of circuses ?
Because this circus is where trans rights are going to be defined.
Bills prohibiting discrimination against trans people have been passed by provincial and federal government with very little debate or clarification, possibly because the politicians were all scared of being branded transphobic if they objected. So now this is law in Canada, and this case is among the first real tests of what these laws actually mean in practice. This is where we find out what this stuff actually means in the real world. And people are understandably concerned and talking about it. If Yaniv wins his case, people are going to be talking about this a lot more.
Normally you'd drop some platitude at this point-- "this is a starting point for a conversation." Instead, you seem to feel that people shouldn't be talking about this at all.
-k
Home
Contact
Login
Register