Let’s take as our point of departure the concept that all humans are deserving of dignity and respect and equal treatment under the law. We don’t “give” people equality, we explicitly recognize the equality they already have. It’s a subtle but important point.

Every person’s rights can potentially come into conflict with another person’s rights, which is where judicial discretion comes in. Freedom is not absolute and The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms begins by stating that it guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

I would naturally support Ms Yaniv’s wish to be addressed as she/her and her identification as female. B.C’.s Human Rights Code and the Charter would guarantee her the right to seek, for example, housing and employment and to enjoy security of her person without discrimination based on her gender identity.

Getting more situational, presumably, apart from the Brazilian wax, Ms Yaniv could attend these beauty salons for hair styling, manicures and pedicures, or any other services and would be entitled to receive equal treatment. I would support her case if she had been rejected out of hand for any of these services because of her gender identity.

But surely the average Canadian would also find it unreasonable to force women to deal with male genitalia against their will, because despite Ms Yaniv’s perfectly acceptable wishes regarding her gender identity, and her right to be treated equally under the law, grooming or otherwise handling her genitalia means that women who have chosen to deal with female genitalia now would be “forced” to handle male genitalia.

As a gay male I am proud to stand up and be counted as an ally of the transgender community and to state without qualification that I support their fight for equal rights and equal treatment.

But “the core of the right is more protected than the periphery.” Ms. Yaniv’s gender identity is female; but this does not alter the fact that her genitals are male. She has the right to demand equal rights under the Charter and the Human Rights Code, but it is reasonable to limit these rights for the very specific, intimate situation of having a bikini wax performed by a female esthetician whose expectation is that she will be dealing with cis-females.

The violation of the esthetician’s rights would be substantial because of the intimacy of the service; any violation of Ms Yaniv’s rights for being refused this specific, intimate service in these specific circumstances is marginal.

I am suspicious of this case, its insistent, aggressive visibility and its perverse choice of an example which inflates the specific and trivial into a Charter violation; its deliberate serving up of “what you feared has come to pass.” It is such a too-perfect gift to the right, the transphobic / queerphobic, and those who use phrases like “liberal ideology” to discredit any rethinking of gender norms.

I smell a rat, in other words, and I’ll bet you a bonus pack of Lady Schick disposables that Yaniv is acting in bad faith and on behalf of some entity or entities who have deliberately stirred up this controversy and want to use this egregiously offensive case to discredit trans rights generally.

Or I could just be paranoid.