A transgender woman is taking legal action after being turned away by a gynecologist’s office for seeking treatment related to male genitalia—something not typically within the scope of gynecological care.
The case has sparked heated public debate and stirred renewed controversy around the line between gender identity and medical practice.
Jessica Simpson (formerly Jessica Yaniv), a well-known trans rights activist from Langley, British Columbia, first rose to prominence in 2018 when she filed multiple human rights complaints against estheticians who declined to wax her male genitalia. These professionals, who specialized in Brazilian waxes for female anatomy, said they were neither trained nor equipped to perform similar procedures on male bodies—a service often referred to as a “manzilian.”
Simpson, 37, accused five independent beauty technicians of discrimination and demanded up to $15,000 in compensation from each.
In court, Simpson stated, “Everything changed the moment I said I was transgender,” according to The Telegraph.
Legal Ruling Against Simpson
In 2019, Simpson lost her discrimination claim. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ordered her to pay $2,000 to each of three respondents and criticized her conduct, noting hostility toward various cultural and religious communities.
Many of the estheticians she targeted were immigrant women working from home with limited English proficiency. As a result of Simpson’s actions, some were forced to shut down their small businesses.
Asked by The Calgary Herald whether she felt remorse, Simpson said: “Why should I feel bad? I was the one being wronged. Women deserve equal treatment, period.”
A Pattern of Legal Complaints
Simpson’s legal battles didn’t stop there. She later launched complaints against a local police department, a beauty pageant organization, a health authority, and a news outlet.
In 2021, the Langley Fire Department sent her a formal warning after responding to more than 30 non-emergency calls for help getting out of the bath. Officials also alleged that Simpson’s behavior toward first responders was inappropriate, creating an unsafe environment. In response, she threatened to sue the township for defamation in a now-deleted tweet.
New Lawsuit Against Gynecologist
Simpson’s latest complaint involves a gynecology clinic that reportedly declined to see her after learning she was transgender. In a social media post, she said she felt “hurt” and “confused,” questioning whether such a refusal was legal under medical ethics standards.
She tagged the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, claiming that denying care amounted to discrimination. However, no public ruling has emerged since the complaint was filed in 2019.
Simpson argued online that gynecologists should be part of the care team for transgender individuals, including during and after surgical transition.
Public Response and Debate
Critics argue that Simpson’s demands blur the line between inclusive healthcare and clinical overreach.
“Having surgery or taking hormones doesn’t instantly qualify someone for female-specific care,” said Kirralie Smith of Binary Australia, a group opposing radical gender policies. “Jessica should be seeing a specialist in transgender health—not an OB-GYN who focuses on female anatomy.”
Even comedian Ricky Gervais weighed in with satirical comments online, sparking further debate. In one post, he mockingly referred to Simpson’s situation, joking about male anatomy and gynecological exams.
Healthcare vs. Identity
Medical professionals emphasize that gynecologic care is tied to anatomy, not gender identity. Those with female reproductive organs require different screenings and treatments than individuals assigned male at birth.
For trans women, gynecological care typically becomes relevant only after undergoing surgical procedures to create neo-vaginas. At the time of her complaint, Simpson had not had this surgery.
Experts say this issue centers on patient safety and provider expertise—not bias.
So, where should the medical line be drawn? Should providers be compelled to serve based on identity alone, or should clinical boundaries prevail?
We’d love to hear your thoughts. Join the conversation by sharing this story and letting us know what you think.
