[Greg!]

After he explained he was a trans man and not a woman he should have got his hair cut. End of. It was discrimination

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Greg!

After he explained he was a trans man and not a woman he should have got his hair cut. End of. It was discrimination

and if the barber thought she was just lying just to get a haircut cheap

what then?

[Withano]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

and if the barber thought she was just lying just to get a haircut cheap

what then?

Probably nothing... well literally nothing because he wasnt lying.

But if they wasnt trans, then probably nothing. Maybe the hairdressers would get compensation from the customer.

The barber ****ed up, and others will hopefully learn from his mistake.

[Beso]

His solicitor mustn't be very good at his job.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by parmnion

His solicitor mustn't be very good at his job.

there must be more to this story as it does not add up

woman who looks like woman tells a barber she is a man

he does not believe her and she sues him?

[ethanjames]

interesting case as I can genuinely see both sides I think the hairdresser most likely did not mean any harm from it but if the guy did clear up that he was in fact a guy the hairdresser should have apologised and that's it. pretty big fine for something quite small though but I have a feeling a lot led up to it

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Seems like a ridiculous contract in the first place tbh. It's a bit strange to sperate hairdressers by gender in any case. There are some men with long hair, so would be better served by a barber more used to cutting and styling longer hair (e.g. a "women's" barber) and some women who would be better served by someone more used to cutting short hair (a "men's" barber).

Seems more sensible to have a policy based on what sort of haircut a person wants than what's between their legs.

[Northern Monkey]

This transman doesn’t pass tbh.Barber maybe thought the transman was trying to pull his plonker for a cheap haircut

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by AProducer'sWetDream

Seems like a ridiculous contract in the first place tbh. It's a bit strange to sperate hairdressers by gender in any case. There are some men with long hair, so would be better served by a barber more used to cutting and styling longer hair (e.g. a "women's" barber) and some women who would be better served by someone more used to cutting short hair (a "men's" barber).

Seems more sensible to have a policy based on what sort of haircut a person wants than what's between their legs.

Well yes, its a bit of an odd contract.

Hairdressers are not really separated by 'gender' anyway, but barbers are generally for blokes and blokes only, where hairdressers will do either sex.

I think its a bit of a disgrace the difference in price between the two mind. I have a friend with short hair who gets it done at the hairdressers and it costs her 15 quid, where the local barbers would do it for 6. She has asked in the barbers before actually and been told the barbers is only insured to cut mens hair...not sure how true that is BUT I don't see why the barbers would turn down custom and make up bollocks reasons.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Withano

Because it would have been the hairdressers that would have been discriminatory, and not the barbers... if anything the hairdressers would have been fined.... but I have a strong suspicion that the hairdressers would accept this transman was not a woman because most of the western world do.

It depends how the contract is worded tbh. Thats what I meant by the how. Like, the contract may just say woman, but if it clarifies that whats meant by woman in this case is adult human female, not just anyone who identifies as a woman then yeah...and if it does not clarify that woman means adult human female, then possibly the contract is worth nothing anyway, as any woman can go get her hair done there and just say she identifies as a man for the day (not that this transman is doing that, but thats the loophole in it I guess).

Then what would need to happen is a court case to decide if 'woman' means anyone who identifies as a woman (which is a nonsense definition, especially from a legal perspective as 'identity' is subjective and anyone can say anything) or if a woman is an adult human female (including transwomen who have GRCs...as those with GRCs are legally the other sex for all intents and purposes)

Mind given the outcome of this, it seems the Irish courts decided that woman is 'anyone who identifies as' and vice versa. So the contract the barber has is officially meaningless anyway. Which is probably good news as it sounds a bit ridiculous anyway. I do wonder if the insurance thing is true though..like if you need different insurance/training or whatever to cut the hair of the opposite sex. I don't see why you would do, but as I said, I also don't see why our barbers would turn down custom based on nonsense reasons.

[RichardG]

there's so much petty nonsense in this world. a contract defining the type of person whose hair is allowed to be cut? if someone walks into your business and wants to pay you money to cut their hair, cut their damn hair! why is something as simple as getting your hair cut now the basis for another bloody gender debate! this is all so boring!

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

And all these traders told you how anti LGBT they are? Hhhmm

He might have been buying anal beads or amyl nitrate..They might have told him how anti lgbt the others are.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

It depends how the contract is worded tbh. Thats what I meant by the how. Like, the contract may just say woman, but if it clarifies that whats meant by woman in this case is adult human female, not just anyone who identifies as a woman then yeah...and if it does not clarify that woman means adult human female, then possibly the contract is worth nothing anyway, as any woman can go get her hair done there and just say she identifies as a man for the day (not that this transman is doing that, but thats the loophole in it I guess).

Then what would need to happen is a court case to decide if 'woman' means anyone who identifies as a woman (which is a nonsense definition, especially from a legal perspective as 'identity' is subjective and anyone can say anything) or if a woman is an adult human female (including transwomen who have GRCs...as those with GRCs are legally the other sex for all intents and purposes)

Mind given the outcome of this, it seems the Irish courts decided that woman is 'anyone who identifies as' and vice versa. So the contract the barber has is officially meaningless anyway. Which is probably good news as it sounds a bit ridiculous anyway. I do wonder if the insurance thing is true though..like if you need different insurance/training or whatever to cut the hair of the opposite sex. I don't see why you would do, but as I said, I also don't see why our barbers would turn down custom based on nonsense reasons.

I hink youre overthinking it. The barber wouldnt have been fined by anybody for cutting the transmans hair. We know this because the contract would have been presented when the barber was fined for not cutting their hair.

[Wizard.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

There's more to this story then what's been said I think. The contract with the other business would not have overridden equality laws and the other business would not have been able to seek compensation for breach of contract if it meant discriminating against someone.

Courts don't just hand out large fines like this for no reason. My guess is that there was compelling evidence of actual discrimination.

Yeah this.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Withano

I hink youre overthinking it. The barber wouldnt have been fined by anybody for cutting the transmans hair. We know this because the contract would have been presented when the barber was fined for not cutting their hair.

I would assume what happened in court is that the barber was told the contract is unenforceable anyway. Especially given the sheer numbers of people who 'identify' as the opposite sex these days. However, he wasn't really to know that at the time.

I agree that it should be 'split' by hair style so to speak tbh. Its quite ridiculous that it seems many barbers will turn away female people even though they are asking for short back and sides or something. I do wonder if the insurance thing is correct though. Obviously given this fine its not the case in Ireland, that you have to have separate insurance to cut the hair of the opposite sex, but I do not see why our barbers would use that as a reason if it was not true...so many its just an English thing or something, or our barbers has gone for the cheapest insurance option or something..

[Wizard.]

The whole 'contract' thing is probably bull. I go to a barbers where they cut men and women's hair. I have been to salons where they cut men and women's hair. If you choose to go to either or that's their choice. I have never heard of such a thing.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

There's more to this story then what's been said I think. The contract with the other business would not have overridden equality laws and the other business would not have been able to seek compensation for breach of contract if it meant discriminating against someone.

Courts don't just hand out large fines like this for no reason. My guess is that there was compelling evidence of actual discrimination.

Again though, the contract in itself is surely discriminating against female people? Saying a barbers is not allowed to cut the hair of female people, presumably for cheaper than the hairdressers would do it for (given the difference in price between the two generally), is discrimination against females to start with, which I think if a breach of equality law So they would not have been able to seek compensation either way, it seems.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Riley.

The whole 'contract' thing is probably bull. I go to a barbers where they cut men and women's hair. I have been to salons where they cut men and women's hair. If you choose to go to either or that's their choice. I have never heard of such a thing.

All hairdressers I have ever been to to both men and womens hair.

However I know of only one barbers that will do women.

[bots]

i think this is a fabricated case designed to test the water and allow the hairdresser to do other types of hair. There is no other way this would ever get to court

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Riley.

The whole 'contract' thing is probably bull. I go to a barbers where they cut men and women's hair. I have been to salons where they cut men and women's hair. If you choose to go to either or that's their choice. I have never heard of such a thing.

They're rival businesses so it's probably used as way of a truce. You do men and I'll do women that way we both get a fair shot at a customer base.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i think this is a fabricated case designed to test the water and allow the hairdresser to do other types of hair. There is no other way this would ever get to court

Trans people have types of hair that needs to go through courts before it can be cut?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Trans people have types of hair that needs to go through courts before it can be cut?

I think what he means is the barber wants to cut the hair of both male and female people, and can now use this case against the other business

I don't think thats it though, as he would surely not bring such a large fine on himself for something like that. Unless he did not expect such a large fine I guess.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Riley.

The whole 'contract' thing is probably bull. I go to a barbers where they cut men and women's hair. I have been to salons where they cut men and women's hair. If you choose to go to either or that's their choice. I have never heard of such a thing.

The irish are known for the gentlemans handshake.....perhaps that is all this story needed.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Trans people have types of hair that needs to go through courts before it can be cut?

No, what I am saying is that the plaintiff and the accused set this up between themselves to blur the legalities of the agreement with the other hair dresser. It's got everything to do with increasing the barbers reach at the expense of the other hair dresser.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

No, what I am saying is that the plaintiff and the accused set this up between themselves to blur the legalities of the agreement with the other hair dresser. It's got everything to do with increasing the barbers reach at the expense of the other hair dresser.

The trans community is not that large that it would significantly increase his customer base and be worth a court case.

Not to mention if there were that many they'd have faced this "problem" head on long ago.