After a transgender woman claimed she was denied medical care for a body part she didn’t even have, a controversy erupted that has since divided global opinion and sparked intense discussions about healthcare, identity, and discrimination.

Jessica Yaniv, who now goes by Jessica Simpson, is a Canadian transgender activist who first attracted public attention in 2018. At the time, she filed a series of human rights complaints against beauty professionals who refused to provide intimate waxing services. Simpson, who still has male genitalia, had requested a Brazilian wax — a treatment typically performed on individuals with female anatomy. The version of this procedure for male anatomy is often referred to as a “brozilian” or “manzilian,” and it requires specialized training due to the significant anatomical differences. Despite this, Simpson accused five independent estheticians of discrimination when they declined to perform the service on her, seeking damages of up to $15,000 from each.

According to reports from the Telegraph, Simpson told the court that none of the beauty workers objected until she revealed she was transgender. However, the tribunal eventually ruled against her in 2019. In what became a landmark decision in Canadian law, the court ordered her to pay $2,000 in compensation to three of the women involved in the case. The ruling also noted that Simpson had demonstrated hostility toward certain cultural, racial, and religious groups.

The estheticians involved in the case were mostly women from minority backgrounds who offered services from their homes. Many of them had limited English proficiency and lacked the training or equipment to handle male anatomy. The fallout from Simpson’s complaints forced some of them to close their businesses entirely. When asked by a reporter from the Calgary Herald whether she felt any remorse over the business closures, Simpson replied, “No, why should I feel bad? I was the victim. In my view, all women should be offered the same services.”

Simpson’s legal activism didn’t end there. Over the years, she has filed complaints against beauty pageants, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), healthcare providers, and even media outlets. Her reputation as a “prolific litigant” was acknowledged by a judge from the British Columbia Supreme Court.

One particularly unusual incident involved the Langley Fire Department. In early 2021, the department issued a formal warning to Simpson after receiving over 30 non-emergency calls from her requesting help to get out of the bathtub. In a letter, the department stated that her repeated requests were not medical emergencies and alleged that she had engaged in inappropriate behavior toward the firefighters. The letter further declared that such conduct created an unsafe environment for emergency personnel and would no longer be tolerated. Simpson responded with a now-deleted tweet threatening to sue the township for defamation and other claims.

In another controversy, Simpson filed a complaint against a gynecology clinic after allegedly being told, “We don’t serve transgender patients.” She posted about the incident on social media, expressing that she was “shocked, confused, and hurt” by the rejection. In her now-deleted Instagram post and follow-up tweet, she questioned the legality of the clinic’s actions and tagged the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (CPSBC), the regulatory body for medical professionals in the province.

Simpson shared with followers that gynecologists are an essential part of transgender healthcare, particularly during and after transition surgeries. She argued that gynecologists should be trained to treat transgender and non-binary individuals, and claimed the CPSBC supported her view. However, since she made the complaint in 2019, no public update has confirmed any resolution.

The incident drew sharp reactions from both critics and supporters. Kirralie Smith, speaking on behalf of the advocacy group Binary, rejected Simpson’s argument, stating, “Having plastic surgery and taking artificial hormones doesn’t magically turn a male into a female.” Smith added that Simpson should consult with a transgender healthcare specialist rather than expecting a gynecologist, who is trained in women’s health, to treat her.

British comedian Ricky Gervais also weighed in with his signature satire. Commenting on Simpson’s demands, he tweeted, “It’s disgusting that a qualified gynecologist can refuse to check a lady’s cock for ovarian cancer. What if her bollocks are pregnant? She could lose the baby. I’m outraged.” He later joked about dressing up as Jessica Yaniv for Halloween, saying it would allow him to avoid shaving his “big old hairy balls.”

Beyond the media frenzy and legal fireworks, the situation raises important issues within transgender healthcare. Medical experts emphasize the critical distinction between natal female anatomy and surgically constructed neo-vaginas. While gender-affirming surgery can create the outward appearance of female genitalia, the anatomy differs significantly in structure, sensitivity, and long-term health risks.

According to professionals in the field, regular gynecological care is essential for anyone who has a cervix, uterus, ovaries, or related reproductive organs, regardless of gender identity. This means transgender women who have not undergone gender confirmation surgery typically do not require gynecological care, since they lack these internal organs. Only those who have had vulvoplasty or vaginoplasty — surgical procedures to construct a neo-vagina — may need such care, and even then, from doctors specifically trained in trans healthcare.

At the time of her complaint, Simpson had not undergone genital reconstruction surgery. Therefore, many in the medical community argue that her case was less about discrimination and more about ensuring clinical safety, training, and appropriate care for patients based on their actual anatomy rather than their gender identity.

The ongoing debate raises the question: should healthcare systems prioritize a patient’s self-identified gender, or should anatomical realities guide medical treatment? It’s a complex issue that touches on ethics, safety, and inclusivity in modern medicine.

What do you think? Should the world adjust medical standards to align with identity rather than biology? Share your opinion and let others know how you feel — because these conversations matter.