Printable View
I know laws against crossdressing used to exist and I've seen them mentioned in other posts. I know I've heard of some old ridiculous laws that are technically still on the books. Are there any of these laws still in existence anywhere? I would think anyone could fight them if they did, but still.
Dana, I am sure there are a few places in the US that have some relic laws / ordinances still on the book. But with saying that there are literally thousands of laws on the books that are often forgot about or never enforced.
I would think like you though if such a relic is on the books and the enforced action against a person you could fight it and win.
But I cannot think of a place that has a current law being enforced prohibiting crossdressing.
I am not an attorney but I stayed at a Holliday Inn Express last night!
There may or may not be laws specifically against men dressing as women in various places but they are not typically enforced. There is a good chance of finding laws against wearing a disguise in public and if one were to rub a law enforcement officer the wrong way or otherwise cause a commotion, one could be charged with that.
I'm not sure why the question was asked in the first place, but if anyone really wants to know, some Internet research (not asking on a forum) would probably find the answer.
A lot of times the violation was not of a specific law, but the violation of a "public nuisance" or "public disturbance" ordinance. Those catch-all laws are still generally in effect for any time a policeman can't figure out specifically what a citizen has done wrong.
Eryn,
In the UK the "catch-all" is "Behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace". Essentially it give the police the power to nip a disturbance / incident in the bud by arresting and removing whoever they believe is provoking the disturbance / incident. It's not unknown for the police to arrest (and quietly release) the 'victim' simply to defuse a situation. Used properly, discretion can be a very good thing!
I think the UK and Europe still have medieval laws to cover just about anything.
In some places not carrying a shovel and bucket for cleaning up horse manure left behind by your horse and cart can bring a five penny fine.
Here there was a law against carrying an ice cream cone in your pocket.
Krisi you worry too much.LOL
I did find a city with an anti-crossdressing ordinance on the books, Walnut, CA:
Shall we all go line up for permits? It would be an interesting souvenir!Quote:
No man or boy shall dress as a girl or woman without a permit from the sheriff, except for the purpose of amusement, show or drama. (Code 1959, § 4237.1)
This is a good article, see the section "The Rise and Fall of Cross-dressing Ordinances":
http://fashionlawwiki.pbworks.com/w/...nd%20the%20Law
If there are such laws still on the books, you will not find a judge today who will prosecute you for it. This would go against anti-discrimination laws.
In California there is protection for gender identity under state law, and with state law trumping local law, this is an invalid ordinance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eryn
For disclosure purposes, I am not an attorney.
Here in Scotland we just say it's a kilt.
Eryn, you mean we don't do this for "amusement"....LOL
Not sure about CDing prohibition but I do know that it is still illegal to drag a dead horse down Younge Street in Toronto on Sundays. So if you are dressed on a Sunday in Toronto and dragging a dead horse down the road, you could be arrested :)
Cheers
Marcelle
I'm just trying to answer the question. I took it to be a serious question. Perhaps it was not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracii G
I've been known to do that just walking into an area in drab.Quote:
Originally Posted by Judith96a
Me: "Hey y'all, having a good day?"
U/I Brit: "YOU'RE A YANK!!!"
Me: <glares> Son, don't tell someone from the Southern US that they're a "yank"...
:D
~Melissa
I am an attorney, licensed in California since 1978, and I have made quite a study of the legal aspects of transgender over the years. Grace has it absolutely right. There is no way to successfully prosecute a crossdresser under disguise laws or similar appearance codes in jurisdictions that have comprehensive civil rights statutes that include gender identity and gender expression protections. Such statutes commonly (as in California, Washington, and at least a half-dozen others) prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in a variety of settings (employment, housing, public accommodations), then define"sex" to include biological, anatomical, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. It's the last that protects CDs, and that's what allows us to use whichever public restroom matches our presentation.
For all the histrionics in Houston recently, there is simply no evidence that TG folk of whatever level of seriousness about their differentness have used crossdressing to enter the forbidden sanctuary of the ladies' loo for ulterior voyeuristic or predatory motives. That sick political campaign was based entirely on a conservative religious fantasy without a factual basis in the real world; you know, the one where people have to pee from time to time while away from home.
If anything, crossdressed biological males are probably the best-behaved restroom users, being fearful of confrontation or worse. And the converse, entering the mens' room while presenting as female, is much more likely to lead to trouble.
So, if you're in one of those enlightened jurisdictions with comprehensive civil rights laws that include gender expression, no dusty old artifact of a local ordinance can be successfully used against you. This is real progress, and it has come about through the dedication of gay-rights and TG-rights advocates who bridged what once were divides between them and worked together against the voices of intolerance and irrational fear.
No laws against crossdressing in Scotland but does not mean the police will not be dick heads about it.
A lot of anti-discrimination laws are taken with a pinch of salt.
I'm not from Houston, but from an article I saw it was the black community that killed it. Whoever convinced their ministers that it was going to cause damnation did a good job of it. I think the other voters were about 50/50. It surprised me that it didn't pass given the woman mayor is married to a woman. Houston is pretty evenly divided between the conservative and liberal.
Who needs a permit? We "show" our true selves, to our (and often others') "amusement", and there's likely to be "drama" of one kind or another.:smug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eryn
Aw NO!!! Walnut Creek? It's like right next door! There is a meeting there on Monday nights! I have only been to one and not even dressed!!! And here I thought I had found a safe place....Damn it's a mean world.....
As a related issue, (not realized by many) it was ruled unconstitutional in NY state a while ago that it's legal for a female to appear in public topless..
The state ruled that it a male can appear in public topless, a female has aright to do so also.
I assume that any lawyer could successfully argue that the same applied for cross dressing also... ..adding that it OK for female to wear male clothes .
However as stated by others, the police could claim that you violated other laws like disturbing the peace or other catch all charges... whether it's a male CD or a topless female.
So legally, a male CD has solid grounds to stand on but you still have to deal with any potential homophobic police.
i believe that as late as 2011, one could still be arrested for dressing as a woman in new york!!
maybe thats why i waited to january 2012 to join this forum... lol
Rest easy. It's Walnut, CA, not Walnut Creek. It's in LA County. Both are in California, so the Walnut ordinance is a nullity under the civil rights statutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by SusanCACD
Give my regards to the girls at DVG. Glad to hear that they're still active. I used to go down from time to time years ago, but it's a 2+ hour one-way drive. Nice bunch of folks.
[SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE]
I'm not sure I understand your first sentence. A quick search revealed that a 1992 case set aside convictions of two women arrested and convicted of appearing topless in public, but on narrow grounds that their conduct was commercial in nature. A more recent dispute arose last summer over the "Desnudas", women who go topless but with body paint and solicit tips as street performers. Is that commercial? Still undecided. But your sentence is confusing. On equal protection grounds (a constitutional concept under the 14th Amendment and analogous state provisions), the court reasoned as you explain: If it's OK for men, it has to be for women as well, provided it's not for commercial purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Jo
Without getting overly lawyerly here, I'm not at all sure that equal protection is a sound argument for challenging crossdressing laws. Due process, EP's companion in the 14th, is better; there has to be a sound state interest in the ban, and I can't imagine making a successful argument in the 21st Century that any genuine considerations of public safety, order, or morals would support banning males from wearing female attire while saying nothing about the opposite.
Your point about cops with an attitude or agenda thumbing their noses at laws meant to protect us, or invoking irrelevant laws to harass us, is well taken. Always best to be respectful, well-behaved, discreet in general, and doubly so and honest when interacting with a badge. That said, it's extremely unlikely to be successfully prosecuted for disorderly conduct or some other vague catch-all law, especially when any such enforcement would run afoul of state civil-rights protections.
I think the ruling stemmed from a case where a woman was arrested for breast feeding her baby in public and hence exposing her breasts.
it was eventually ruled that a law baring that that was discriminatory as men can exposes their nipples which have the same basic appearance even it they have different functions.
It's unconstitutional to discriminate against someone because of their sex .
I have to assume that it does no cover public performers though.
EDIT... keep in mind that it's always legal for a female to exposes their breast publicly in any state .
The issue always is exposing one's nipples.
Remember too, that just because you can definitely beat the rap, you will still have to go through the trouble of being arrested, call your lawyer, have your hearing, appealing the redneck judges' decision, etc.. How much trouble is it worth? Only you can decide. That said, I'd probably err on the side of caution in any place that doesn't appear to be CD friendly. You know, like maybe a redneck bar in a town of 800 that has 9 churches, in the center of the bible belt.