Do we have the “right” to crossdress?

[Kaz]

This is a great thread! I like Freddie's initial premise and I must say that Annebelle has made some points I would certainly agree with. In the UK we are struggling at the moment with the European Court of Human Rights because the government see it as getting in the way of what they want to do.

I am with Annabelle in that I prescribe to no particular religion and therefore do not feel compelled by an externally imposed moral code. However, I have a very strong personal moral and ethical set of 'guiding principles' some of which have remained unchanged over the years and others that have been modified as I have grown and matured as a person, listening to and taking on board the points raised by others. I do not believe in an 'absolute' set of principles and 'rights'. There is a basic premise I stand by and this concords with Annabelle, that we all have a personal right to be who we are and live how we want to live. I believe we all live at a basic human and individual level. However, we are also a social animal and living and interacting with others can lead to a clash of motives and desires etc.. So we have to establish social 'norms' and ultimately laws to protect individuals and their interactions.

Legislation usually follows incidents that demonstrate the need for it. Once upon a time society did not accept homosexuality and legislated against it (in the UK). This view changed and the law changed to accommodate the social change. At the moment, I do not know of any law in the UK or USA that denies a person's right to cross-dress in public... mainly because it was never really felt to be needed. Other countries have different views.

However, social norms are not yet that accepting. So yes, I believe that we have a right to crossdress in public, but people who do not wish us to be dressed in public also have a 'right' to object to it and make their views known... and there we are. One day, if there is a need, the law may intervene to either make it illegal to cross dress in public (as in Dubai) or to make it illegal to take actiuon against crossdressers. At the moment, in the UK, police officers are trained to accept the rights of crossdressers to dress in public and defend those rights in the event of trouble. Ultimately, social norms currently dictate how people will respond... and that... is we know... is highly variable. And that is where many of our problems lie.

[Alice Torn]

Frederique, Another outstanding masterpiece! I could not agree more with you. We have to respect the "rights" and "lefts", that reality is throwing at us, like them or not. I am a rather passive, or passive aggressive being, from a very passive/aggressive, dysfunctional family. I also am not a society shaker, at least not quite yet, but, i do shake it, just by who i am. I live in Illinois, a little more liberal, than your area, but still a lot of John Deere/ Billy Bob rednecks around. In my town, it would be quite dangerous for me to go out dressed up, as there are five taverns within a block! Very well written, and insightful thread!

You mention "tradition'! In Fiddler on the Roof, there is a song, "Tradition"! EWven Jesus Christ blasted the "traditions" of the elders and Pharisees and other religious, and judges of that time. Tradition has caused wars, and untold persecution and ostracizing and suffering, when those too loyal to them, will not bend, and change rigid traditions. Did n't the one who society bases its morals on, say, "Condemn not, lest you be condemned?

[elusivebeauty]

We're all born naked. A parent or guardian clothes us in the apparel they see fit. We are taught these traditions and pass them on. We're taught not to question them, only to continue them. Those who don't, we ostracize. I believe there are good traditions and bad traditions. Good traditions give us a since of community and history. Bad traditions effect the way we choose to live our lives, through outdated customs that inhibit are destiny's for the sake of keeping it. It's not just a right, it's a responsibility. The tradition of the day is ignorance. When we go out, we change the landscape and leave an impact on people. The more who do it, the less socially awkward it is. Most importantly, what we do now effects the future. If we do nothing, nothing happens. The burden is passed on. I don't know about you, but I'm tired of these ridiculous rules we follow as a society that make no sense.

[Frédérique]

We all have rights and Cding in public is one of them. It's up to us to choose that path or not. However people's rights are trampled on every day, everywhere. Knowing your rights is important.

[SIZE="2"]I was going to weave in your excellent idea of MtF crossdressing being the “final frontier” of intolerance, Marleena, and graft it into my discussion of rights, but the OP was already too long!
[/SIZE]

So Freddy, "rights" do exist whether you think so or not! The question is how do you use them?

[SIZE="2"]I once heard a gentleman say that rights make us feel noble, even though we are barely out of the jungle in terms of human behavior. Rights do exist, on paper, no less, but what backs them up? If I told someone in my little Kansas community that I have the right to crossdress, I would expect an “OH, BROTHER…” reaction! If someone feels that I have a right to utilize MY rights, they will not speak in my defense for fear of damaging their own right to belong. I may get a little bit of support in private, away from the madding crowd, but I’m most definitely going against the grain, doing something that others don’t want me to do. If you’re saying that I need to use my rights before I lose them, you have a point, but I have the right to protect my “self,” don't I?

No doubt about it, many individuals fight for our rights, but do they ever take a close look at what is going on? Rights amount to privileges, but you need to behave a certain way to cash in on this “promise.” We, as crossdressers, willingly violate certain tenants of masculinity, which puts us outside any special consideration that may be forthcoming. Since masculine individuals fight for the rights that have been outlined by their forebears, I assume they never consider the plight of those who question their OWN masculinity…[/SIZE]

Imagine that you’re lying in a hospital bed dying of some incurable disease at the age of 22, and you shake your fist and cry out, “I have a right to live!” Who are you talking to? If the doctors can’t save you, who’s going to intervene and let you carry on? As far as I can see there’s no power in the universe that cares whether we live or die, eat or drink, find happiness or misery. So I don’t think we have any natural rights.

[SIZE="2"]Yes, I agree that saying, “I have a right to live!” is basically talking to yourself. The Universe is a cruel place, so humans are doing all they can to obviate the nothingness that surrounds them, as well as the sense of isolation that drives us along. We want to feel special, I suppose, and that means putting forth certain rules of conduct to ensure the growth of future generations. Enter the crossdresser, who has a right to exist, but he/she is neither encouraged nor protected – I mean, you’re encouraged to “be all you can BE,” but only if your take on living jibes with those who stick to the so-called rules, or unwritten laws…

Meanwhile, you wish to push the proverbial envelope and try something really interesting, but in doing so you’re going against the rights of others to be sheep-like and never leave their enclosure. If you venture forth, stretching rights in the process, you will become a pathfinder, a maverick, and an intrepid explorer, all the while either inverting rights or creating your own. While you’re alive (truly so), you will be vilified, ignored, or humiliated by those who cannot grasp the concept of personal expression. However, once you’re gone, you will be seen as a hero (I mean heroine), a true iconoclast that did things YOUR way, either using rights to your advantage or bringing the whole imaginary façade down to let in some much-needed light…

It’s a paradox – if you have the "right" to crossdress, why is it wrong to exercise that right? [/SIZE]

At the moment, I do not know of any law in the UK or USA that denies a person's right to cross-dress in public... mainly because it was never really felt to be needed.

[SIZE="2"]I was going to mention that there’s no LAW that prevents someone from crossdressing in public, at least I don’t know of one here in my little home on the prairie, but there may be an unwritten law, never voiced aloud or acknowledged, that amounts to intolerance for all forms of deviant human behavior. Like it or not, we are all deviants, albeit passive, friendly ones, living amongst those who see anti-masculinity or effeminacy as a kind of sin, even if our crossdressing is temporary or recreational in nature. If I went out, dressed to the nines, in this volatile climate of “I’m right, you’re wrong,” I would feel very vulnerable – if I was beaten up or humiliated, who would defend my “right” to crossdress in public? Maybe in a liberal place I could expect some justice, or maybe not – it all depends on lack of ignorance and this idea of “human rights” that everyone delivers via lip service. I certainly have the right to express myself, or express my “opinion” about my own human condition, but do I need rights to accomplish this?[/SIZE]

???

[SIZE="2"]Didn’t you post in this thread? I thought I saw a long ramble about rights as they pertained to the colonists in New England. Maybe I was seeing things...

I used to live near Boston, and rights are in the hearts and minds of the liberal populace that still lives there. Well, the eastern part of New England, anyway. The idea of rights fueled the American Revolution, leading to the birth of the U.S., and the rest is history. When I lived in Massachusetts, it was just as difficult to exercise my “right” to crossdress, in fact I felt just as vulnerable as I do now, since this imaginary right doesn’t amount to much when expression along gender lines happens to be the topic of conversation. It may be easier to shed ALL of my clothes and walk in my birthday suit all over town, for I am not eschewing my masculinity in any way by doing so. I would soon be picked up by the police, though, since nudity is “indecent.” Maybe MtF crossdressing is indecent to those who think masculinity is decent, and rights don’t apply under these curious circumstances…
[/SIZE]

[Antoinette]

We do have the right to dress however we want. There's just a time and a place. Just like we have a right to dress in jeans and a shirt but would you do so for a job interview, of course not. As for crossdressing in my opinion if you're not a transsexual then certain place may not be a good idea to dress up (ex: a funeral, hanging with guy friends doing guy things, etc.)

[Veronica27]

In a free society, we have the "freedom" to do whatever we want provided it does not break any law, or contravene any societal taboo. If we break the law, we face the punishment of prison or a fine. If we break a societal taboo, we risk the possibility of ostracism or disrespect. Governments in a free country cannot grant any rights to do anything, as that would be somewhat of an oxymoron. They can only legislate restrictions on doing certain things. Similarly, the constitution of a free country places limitations on the power of government, which is what makes it a free country.

The gay marriage question has been raised, but there is nothing in the laws of most free countries preventing any persons of whatever persuasion from co-habiting conjugally. They can formalize their union in any manner they wish, and with the approval and assistance of any religious institution they so choose, that is willing to conduct the formalizing of the union. Marriage is a contract between the individuals involved, along with any authority conducting the marriage service, as well as the relevant government service with whom record of the contract is filed. As governments may be involved, they now make it a requirement to licence the transaction, which serves as evidence and registration of the contract for any subsequent legal considerations. Any prohibiting of same sex marriage is through the terms of the marriage licence regulations, carried out by the licencing authorities, in the same way as any prohibitions on the issuance of a driving licence. It is illegal to drive without being licenced, as a matter of public safety, but it is not illegal to cohabit without a marriage licence as public safety is not involved. An unlicenced marriage is simply not necessarily entitled to the same protections, benefits and privileges under any laws, as a licenced one. The granting of same-sex marriage privileges is a matter of amending the licencing regulations, more than the granting of a "right". The "right" already exists in a free society.

Recognition of mans' liberty may be looked upon as the only "right" to which we are entitled, but no government can grant that, they can only take it away. Whether that right is looked at as being derived from a higher spiritual authority, or simply what should be from a moral and ethical standpoint is irrelevant. In this context, we are perfectly free to crossdress if we live in a free society, bearing in mind that we may be contravening a societal taboo and risk facing its censure. Freddie has elaborated on this point quite well. This risk of censure can not be eliminated by enacting a "right", because our freedom to do so already exists. The best that we can expect is recognition of that freedom.

Veronica

[Roxie X]

I follow the charter of human rights, plenty in there giving equal opps to all. (Read here)
It is then down to laws and interpretation of US to fight for our rights.
In my working life I am frequently challenging stereotypes.
Lets face it up until about the Victorian times men wore red, pinks and women blues.
Dress is individual and optional.

Roxie X

[kimdl93]

Heres my brief take on the issue of when ones behavior infringes upon those of another. My presence itself is not an imposition. when i go out dresses there is a good chance that someone who sees me might take offense. That is not an infringement upon that individual's right. We do not have an uninalienable right not to be offended. If I sought to enter their home or engage them in conversation against their will...that would be an imposition and they would have the right to ask me to leave. The boundaries are pretty clear.

[Acastina]

Oh for goodness sake ladies! Of COURSE you have a right to crossdress.

This debate against crossdressing "rights" smack of the absurd reasoning of the religious right claiming that my demand for the "right" to control my own body interferes with their "right" to practice their religion.

Bull twaddle!!

Certain rights trump all others, personal rights among them.

And BTW, how you dress in public is a personal right. And also, BTW, you will find, once you get past your own guilt and shame over this, that NOBODY gives a sweet flying patootie WHAT you wear in public. Dress like a clown, dress like a cowgirl, dress like an idiot. People may make fun. After all, you have to own your own behavior. But you do have that right to dress how ever you choose. All arguments to the contrary are specious and absurd.

Auntie Stephenie

Agreed, in all respects. I still shake my pretty head at the notion that a polite CD nicely dressed is more of an affront to "upright" ("uptight?") society than the appearance of what seems to be becoming a majority of slovenly, profoundly unattractive humans among us, and I would suspect that the latter phenomenon is vastly more prevalent in exactly those places like Kansas (or California's 2nd Congressional district, where I come from) where simple tolerance is in shorter supply than elsewhere. I have a forty-something nephew who views Larry the Cable Guy as a role model; he just doesn't realize that it's an ACT...

[Denise Somers]

Hello frederique, Interesting points and well-said but I disagree with the "rights are an illusion" part of it. If Rosa Parks thoought rights were an "illusion" she never would have rfused to go the back of a nearly empty transit bus in Montgomery, Al on 1 DEC 1955. In her mind, and indeed of all people of color, there was nothing illusionary about it but indeed a fight for the ages would be forthcoming.

[Tara D. Rose]

This is a very excellent question. But just according to me,there is yes and there is no. You make exceptional points about the law of the land. And that IS how it IS. If I had been born in Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and any other muslim governed countries and was walking the streets there as a woman, I would be stoned and beheaded. But here in america, I can,, we do have the right up to this point in history and time to walk down any street in public as a woman., but, can we exersise that lawful right without getting attacked by members of the public that have lack of concern nor consider, and or abide by the law of the land themsleves? Yes we can, and yes we do as americans, but the risk of any of us, (CD"S), go to the mall that we have the LAWFULL right to do, still run the risk of attacks and or be killed for doing what we have the american right to do.
I could go on, but my answer is, yes we do have the right, at least here in america, but with the sharia law pushing it's way down out doorsteps closer than most of us realise, for many of gavels have dropped in amreican courts with a muslim judge giving rulings to his own religion opposed to the law of america, but for now we still have the right to crossdress, but I know not for how much longer till we're imprisoned for life or beheaded for it.

Tara

Tara

[drushin703]

frederique. Article 5 of the bill of rights:


Provisions Concerning Prosecution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on the presentment of a grand jury, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces. Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Nor
shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself, nor be DEPRIVED of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law. Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.


Not only do you have the right to crossdress, if someone deems it criminal, neither the male or female Frederique cannot be held as a witness
against him or her self, nor can your stash of clothes be taken for public humiliation and paraded about without just compensation, you have the
duty to. dana

[NathalieX66]

1. Choose free will..........(My favorite song from Rush , btw)

2. Smoking kills 5.4 million people a year worldwide, crossdressing kills zero.

[sometimes_miss]

Of course we have 'the right' to crossdress. We just have to understand, accept, and deal with all the problems that go along with it. As the saying goes, 'there's no free lunch'.

[jillleanne]

We have two rights in life; the right to pay taxes and the right to die. Everything else is a choice.

[Helen_Highwater]

Is it the case that as long as something isn't banned or prohibited by law or statute then it's allowed? Others may have objections to an activity based on religious or other ethical reason but that isn't grounds for stopping an individual for doing that activity, so by default there exists a "right". Perhaps we should substitute right with entitled or permitted or even perhaps freedom?

[Veronica27]

Perhaps we should substitute right with entitled or permitted or even perhaps freedom?

You have hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head. Freedom is what allows us to do as we wish. We have total freedom within the confines of nature's whims, just like animals, birds and insects. The establishment of governments, religions and a social structure place certain limitations on that freedom, or at least attempt to do so. This is why the establishment and terms of a constitution are so important, because they place limitations on the ability of a government to curtail our freedom. Rights, while appearing to be giving us something, in reality are just saying it will not be taken away, which cannot happen anyway if the constitution is being followed.

Entitlements do not exist in a natural state, but are granted by an authority if it falls within their constitutional capability. Permission is usually for something we have freedom to do, but for which we have negotiated reasonable conditions with another party as to time and place. Therefore, as you concluded, I feel that freedom is the best way to describe our crossdressing independence and immunity.

Veronica

[cute_chelsey]

not only do we have the right, it's our duty to share ourselves with the world