A recent controversy out of Canada is reigniting heated discussions about transgender rights and medical care after Jessica Yaniv, a transgender woman, was reportedly denied treatment by a gynecologist solely based on her gender identity. Yaniv has filed a formal complaint following the alleged refusal, claiming that the clinic told her directly, “we don’t serve transgender patients.”
This situation is not the first time Yaniv has brought attention to transgender discrimination in service industries, as she previously filed multiple human rights complaints against beauty salons that declined to perform waxing services on her. Now, the spotlight has shifted to the medical field, prompting debate around whether healthcare providers are allowed to refuse care to transgender individuals based on the nature of their medical practice or personal beliefs. Yaniv, visibly distressed by the experience, turned to social media to express her frustration and confusion, describing the encounter as shocking and hurtful.
She also questioned the legality of the clinic’s decision and tagged the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia in her post, asking whether the refusal was a violation of medical guidelines or discriminatory in nature. Yaniv claimed that someone from the College had told her over the phone that refusing to treat transgender patients amounts to discrimination. However, the College later clarified its stance, stating that its staff do not give official legal opinions on individual cases discussed informally over the phone. Instead, they guide patients to consult the college’s practice standards and decide whether a formal complaint is appropriate.
While the gynecologist’s specific reasons for denying care have not been publicly detailed, the case has sparked broader discussions about the obligations of doctors, particularly specialists like gynecologists, when it comes to treating transgender patients. Critics argue that if a medical professional is not trained or equipped to provide certain types of care, especially care that may not fall within their usual scope of practice, it may be reasonable for them to decline treatment and refer the patient elsewhere. Supporters of Yaniv, however, view the refusal as a clear-cut example of transphobia and call for better training and accountability in the medical profession to ensure all patients receive respectful and inclusive care. Yaniv is no stranger to controversy.
In 2019, she became widely known after filing complaints against several Vancouver-area estheticians who declined to provide Brazilian waxing services. The core issue in those cases centered around Yaniv requesting waxing services for her male genitalia, which many of the service providers stated they were neither trained nor comfortable performing. Some of the small business owners were working from home and servicing primarily female clientele. These cases led to significant backlash and had real consequences, including the closure of at least two small businesses. Yaniv had sought monetary compensation of up to $15,000 from each provider. However, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ultimately dismissed those complaints, ruling that Yaniv’s primary motivation appeared to be financial rather than a genuine attempt to address discrimination. The tribunal concluded that Yaniv had been motivated by personal gain and had targeted vulnerable, small-scale businesses rather than seeking systemic change. This latest incident has once again placed Yaniv at the center of a national conversation on where the line should be drawn between personal rights and professional responsibilities. While many agree that no one should be denied medical care based on gender identity, others caution that forcing a specialist to perform services outside their area of training or expertise could pose risks to patients and doctors alike. The case remains under review, and it’s yet to be seen whether any formal disciplinary action or changes in policy will result from it. For now, it continues to fuel a deeply polarizing debate over how Canada’s medical community should respond to the evolving needs of transgender patients while also respecting the boundaries and competencies of healthcare providers.
