If they pass the anti gay laws, would you crossdress to work?

[Cindi Johnson]

Regarding Nikki’s and Paula’s postings: On the one hand, you state that the constitution already allows us to dress as we please, and on the other hand, you say we should just move to another state if we aren’t allowed to dress as we please. So which is it? Seems to me, if the US constitution says we can dress however we please, that should be applicable in ALL states. But of course, the constitution does not actually directly address rights related to crossdressing. Or transsexuality. Or gay rights. Which is precisely the point of ENDA: to clarify rights which are protected by the constitution but which are not clearly stated within the document itself.

Laws do matter, whether we like it or not. For example, there is absolutely nothing in the constitution prohibiting marijuana use, yet there are at this moment approximately a million Americans behind bars because they possessed such an innocuous substance. And yes, Americans have been harassed and locked up because of crossdressing (Stonewall is the obvious example).

Dressing at work is a very important issue to transitioning transsexuals (and transitioned ones, as some states don’t allow you to alter your driver license). I’m not TS, but that doesn’t mean I don’t care about TS rights. They should have the right to dress at work without, as you so charitably suggest, moving to another state (which begs the question of what happens when all states deny rights – do we then move to Canada?). ENDA as originally drafted would put the law on the TS’ side.

I’m not gay, but that doesn’t mean I think employers should be allowed to fire all gays simply because they are gay (but again, they can always move to Massachusetts, or Canada, so who are they to complain?). ENDA will, if not vetoed by Bush, give gays a bit of peace of mind.

I am a crossdresser. As a crossdresser, my problem is whether, when I get dressed up during a weekend and go off to Target or Walmart to shop, and happen to be recognized by a co-worker, will my employer fire me because of it? Currently my employer has every legal right to call me into his office on Monday and fire me for crossdressing on my own time. Yes, you say the constitution allows me to dress as I like. But without a law to back it up, your interpretation of the constitution isn’t worth a whole lot. It sure won’t save my job. This is why the original draft of ENDA mattered to me, and it’s why it matters to many crossdressers. But of course, who am I to complain? All I need to do is move to Vermont – or Canada. Better yet, I suppose I can just dress in the closet and have lots of fun.

This post is too long. But it is important. ENDA, in some version, will come up again, and again. We need to back it.

Cindi Johnson

[Lucy Bright]

As related to jobs. When you got your job did you tell your employer you would be dressing as a woman? If not, when you were hired they entered into an implied contract with a male and that is who/what they expect to be working. If you gave them the information about you being a CD up front and they were ok with it then that would be different.

I can't speak to the distinction between states' and federal rights, but that seems a little strange, except perhaps in cases where how you dress is directly relevant to your ability to do your job effectively. There are all kinds of things you don't tell your employer when they hire you - things that are irrelevant to your job. You don't tell them which baseball team you support, for example. Supposing you were based in Boston but you were a secret Yankees fan, would that be grounds for dismissal? I doubt it. You don't tell them your favourite colour, or how you like your coffee - why should you? So how is crossdressing different here?

Kisses,

Lucy

[nikki_t]

Regarding Nikki’s and Paula’s postings: On the one hand, you state that the constitution already allows us to dress as we please, and on the other hand, you say we should just move to another state if we aren’t allowed to dress as we please. So which is it? Seems to me, if the US constitution says we can dress however we please, that should be applicable in ALL states. But of course, the constitution does not actually directly address rights related to crossdressing. Or transsexuality. Or gay rights. Which is precisely the point of ENDA: to clarify rights which are protected by the constitution but which are not clearly stated within the document itself.

Laws do matter, whether we like it or not. For example, there is absolutely nothing in the constitution prohibiting marijuana use, yet there are at this moment approximately a million Americans behind bars because they possessed such an innocuous substance. And yes, Americans have been harassed and locked up because of crossdressing (Stonewall is the obvious example).

Dressing at work is a very important issue to transitioning transsexuals (and transitioned ones, as some states don’t allow you to alter your driver license). I’m not TS, but that doesn’t mean I don’t care about TS rights. They should have the right to dress at work without, as you so charitably suggest, moving to another state (which begs the question of what happens when all states deny rights – do we then move to Canada?). ENDA as originally drafted would put the law on the TS’ side.

I’m not gay, but that doesn’t mean I think employers should be allowed to fire all gays simply because they are gay (but again, they can always move to Massachusetts, or Canada, so who are they to complain?). ENDA will, if not vetoed by Bush, give gays a bit of peace of mind.

I am a crossdresser. As a crossdresser, my problem is whether, when I get dressed up during a weekend and go off to Target or Walmart to shop, and happen to be recognized by a co-worker, will my employer fire me because of it? Currently my employer has every legal right to call me into his office on Monday and fire me for crossdressing on my own time. Yes, you say the constitution allows me to dress as I like. But without a law to back it up, your interpretation of the constitution isn’t worth a whole lot. It sure won’t save my job. This is why the original draft of ENDA mattered to me, and it’s why it matters to many crossdressers. But of course, who am I to complain? All I need to do is move to Vermont – or Canada. Better yet, I suppose I can just dress in the closet and have lots of fun.

This post is too long. But it is important. ENDA, in some version, will come up again, and again. We need to back it.

Cindi Johnson

Cindy you're confusing different aspects of this - go back and read my original post.

You can wear what you want. That's your first amendment right to free expression and it applies in all 50 states because it's guaranteed by the US constitution: the law-of-the-land. However, in the same document we also have the tenth amendment which forbids the Federal government from making any laws not granted to it by the constitution and leaves those law-making decisions to the states. This is why the founding fathers purposely made the US a representative republic and not a democracy.

Let me try and use a (silly) analogy to explain it to you...

Imagine we live in a country where there's only 2 car colors: black or white. Every 4 years everyone votes on which color to drive for the next 4 years. Let's say 51% vote black and 49% vote white. Now everyone has to drive a black car for 4 years which means 49% of the population are not happy for the next 4 years. This is democracy in action - the rule of the majority over the minority.

So, I hear you ask, what has this to do with ENDA and Federal laws and why the Federal government shouldn't be passing such laws? Well, let me explain further...

Using the above example you see how the 49% minority are not happy. Now imagine that we have 50 different car colors to choose from and split the country into 50 segments. You can see where this is heading right? All of a sudden you got more freedom of choice. If you like red you can vote for red. Now let's say everyone votes and in your segment the majority vote blue. If it really means that much to you, you can freely move to another segment where the vote results were more favorable to your requirements.

Having a representative republic rather than majority-rule-democracy gives the people more representation for the things that mean a lot to them. If someone is a close-minded redneck bigot and hates TGs more than anything then they can freely move to a state that is not very TG friendly. On the other hand, if you are TG you can freely move to a TG friendly state. A representative republic is a better vehicle for keeping the most people happy than a simple majority-rule-democracy.

EDIT:
I just wanted to add, to avoid any confusion, it's not that I don't support such laws per se, it's more that I think they should be done at state level rather than a "blanket" law at the Federal level. It is likely because this is a "blanket" Federal law that compromises have been made!!

On saying all that, I still believe it is society's attitudes that needs to change more than the law books.

[pamela_a]

But of course, the constitution does not actually directly address rights related to crossdressing. Or transsexuality. Or gay rights. Which is precisely the point of ENDA: to clarify rights which are protected by the constitution but which are not clearly stated within the document itself.

Exactly. they are not mentioned so they are not rights. The concept of "rights" has been expanded to the point where some people believe they have a "right" to not be offended. Your rights are specified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (thus it's name). If you are referring to the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I suppose this could be included in the "pursuit of Happiness" category, unfortunately we are afforded only the pursuit of happiness, not the attainment of it.
What ENDA and similar provisions do is create "protections" or protected classes of people , not rights.

On the one hand, you state that the constitution already allows us to dress as we please, and on the other hand, you say we should just move to another state if we aren’t allowed to dress as we please. So which is it?

I was referring to the original intent of the country's framers. The federal government's power is supposed to be limited resulting in the states being able to be different. Since the Constitution is being ignored the federal government has grown to the point where it no longer makes a difference in which state you live.

You don't tell them which baseball team you support, for example. Supposing you were based in Boston but you were a secret Yankees fan, would that be grounds for dismissal? I doubt it. You don't tell them your favourite colour, or how you like your coffee - why should you? So how is crossdressing different here?

A die hard Boston fan firing a hard core Yankees fan? I bet it's been done. Not stated that way I'm sure but I have no doubt that an employer's personal prejudice has been the only real motivation to terminate someone's employment. You are correct, it doesn't matter how you drink your coffee. if you support one team over another, or if you like to dress en-fem but how does that affect the synergy at work? How does it affect the company and the other employees?

I know this is a long forgotten principal but your rights end when it infringes on someone else's. Yes, you can dress how you want, you have the freedom (or right if you prefer) to make that decision yet you want to take away that very freedom from your employer to decide who they want to work for them?

Again, Nikki's original point was the federal government has no Constitutional power to do this. Has it stopped them before? No. Odds are it won't stop them in the future.

To me, this is the bottom line. If you owned a business, would you want the government to dictate who you could or could not hire or fire? What other parts of your life do you want the government to control?

Would I personally like to know I'm protected so if my employer lets me go for any reason whatsoever all I have to do is cry discrimination and sue? Sounds good to me.
But is it right? I guess that's a personal decision.

-Paula-

[nikki_t]

But of course, who am I to complain? All I need to do is move to Vermont – or Canada. Better yet, I suppose I can just dress in the closet and have lots of fun.

Also I should add (because I forgot to earlier)... seems your main "gripe" here is the inconvenience of moving to another (more TG friendly) state. Yet, in the USA, you are actually lucky to even have this option!!

To use another example would be gun laws. If my S.O. wanted to move to Chicago tomorrow I would say no because I don't like their gun laws there! At least I have that choice!

Also, to reiterate what Paula is saying: rights are granted to you at birth by your creator (God or whoever your particular creator is). They are not granted to you by your government!!! Interestingly, many of the founding fathers specifically didn't want a written Bill of Rights. Why? Because they felt the rights were so inalienable and "assumed" as natural rights that they shouldn't need a contract between the people and the government!!

[Tammy298]

Well, Cding and work will never happen for me. It's not that I think I would be fired, which probably wouldn't happen. First, I wouldn't do it since I'm sure it would really limit getting interesting tasks. I like doing what I do and get paid pretty well so it isn't worth risking. Second, since this part of the country is on the conservative side I just wouldn't want to offend anbody. My friends are important to and I don't feel, at least at this time of my life they need to know about that part of me. Third, I just don't feel I need to mix my personal life with work, and I don't in most aspects anyway.

Since I've not had the real inclination to go out dressed (or maybe it's just fear!) it not really that important to me.

[battybattybats]

On rights: It's simple really, a right not to be discriminated against is directly implied by freedom of speech. If someone is discriminating against someone because of an irrelevant trait or an associative generalisation (such as being fired or not hired because 'women are bad drivers' or blacks are athletic but not smart' etc) and especially from acts of expression (dress, expressed opinion etc) then they are directly interfering with the discrimination victims freedom of expression and the basic notion of meritocracy.

On the conflict of rights: One persons rights end only when they infringe on anothers rights, not on their sensitivities. So my right to express myself in a way you find offensive ends only if I shout so loud that you cannot respond in kind so no matter how much you may feel personally offended by my dress or my words you don't have the right to not be offended. Whereas my right to kill you ends at your right to control over your own body so I do not in fact have a way to kill you without your informed and sane consent.

This means someone who fires a CD is violating their right to free expression by making it punitatively conditional ('express yourself the way I like or your out on the street') even though it does not infringe the employers rights (there is a difference between saying 'I don't like the fact that you dress like a girl' and acting on that 'your fired for dressing like a girl').

On 'protected groups': There is a simple answer to this, roll all of the current protected groups and future protected groups into one simple and easilly understood principle of 'don't discriminate you dolts'. Currently there are many groups that have employment protection. For example there is religious expression protection. Why are some protected and some not?

Incrementalism. No one has had the guts to put in place the simple and universal version because a lot of people only wanted to give up a little bigotry at the time. So in fact this bill, like the others before it, is simply widening the canopy a little at a time until eventually everyone would be covered. There are two ethical options, support each and every incremental advancement or support a universal anti-discrimination one.

A non religious argument for rights: The recognising of other sentiences as being similar enough to be rendered equal and the intrinsic value of freedom and personal choice is the philosophical underpinning of all the rights of the enlightenment. That is why they can be applied even without a creator or a belief in one or despite such a belief.

Representative state-based democracy: Federated groups of states still involve the tyranny of the majority, they just alter the scale a little. That is why there need to be fair and philosophically valid protections for minorities from the abuses of majorities. Bills of rights do that. However they need legislative enactment and administration. Enda just appears to be extending the enforcement of a right (freedom of expression) to another oppressed minority incrementally rather than universally.
If defending the freedoms (i.e. protecting the rights) of the populace is the responsibility of the federal US government then surely ENDA should be a federal bill as it protects the freedom of expression of a minority from the tyranny of their local majority.

As for the ridiculous, 'don't like it then go somewhere you do' argument, that could only be considered valid if everyone had the actual capacity to do so which is just ludicrous. The poor, the impoverished, the invalided and the oppressed often do not have that capacity and often directly because they have been discriminated against.

If Enda was preventing an employer from speaking his mind about a subject that would be one thing, but it's about firing somone which is different. And in a work-based society employment discrimination is a substantial abuse of power and direct threat to freedom of speech.

People need work to eat. Plenty of TG's end up on the streets. This makes it a very important issue. It's life-and-death for some girls out there!

[sterling12]

Sorry Conservative Folk, I agree with Cindi and Batty. I believe like Hamilton, in a stronger central government. Don't get me wrong, you all can believe in State's Rights all you want to....we just disagree. Of course this disagreement has been going on just about as long as The Republic and people will be arguing about it long after we are dead.

But, the reason I believe in that Strong Republic, is it's ability to be a balance. Traditionally, the Courts, and even The Legislative, and Executive Branches have stepped in, when there was a clear situation of, "A Tyranny of The Majority, over The Minority." Think of Eisenhower sending The Troops to Little Rock, think of amendments to The Constitution that have been passed. And The Supremes make a good portion of their living interpreting the ever changing scope of what makes up a citizen's rights.

If we stuck with the concept of states rights in all situations, then in most southern states, (and a lot of northern states too) Black Folks would have never gotten the vote! ENDA, if it ever passes and doesn't get vetoed, will be a protection that has the Authority of Federal law, at least for Gay People. Maybe someday, Trans Folk will get some of that kind of protection too. Then, we won't have to worry about how we should live and where we should live, and how to get the money to move there!

Peace and Love, Joanie

[nikki_t]

Sorry Conservative Folk, I agree with Cindi and Batty. I believe like Hamilton, in a stronger central government. Don't get me wrong, you all can believe in State's Rights all you want to....we just disagree. Of course this disagreement has been going on just about as long as The Republic and people will be arguing about it long after we are dead.

But, the reason I believe in that Strong Republic, is it's ability to be a balance. Traditionally, the Courts, and even The Legislative, and Executive Branches have stepped in, when there was a clear situation of, "A Tyranny of The Majority, over The Minority." Think of Eisenhower sending The Troops to Little Rock, think of amendments to The Constitution that have been passed. And The Supremes make a good portion of their living interpreting the ever changing scope of what makes up a citizen's rights.

If we stuck with the concept of states rights in all situations, then in most southern states, (and a lot of northern states too) Black Folks would have never gotten the vote! ENDA, if it ever passes and doesn't get vetoed, will be a protection that has the Authority of Federal law, at least for Gay People. Maybe someday, Trans Folk will get some of that kind of protection too. Then, we won't have to worry about how we should live and where we should live, and how to get the money to move there!

Peace and Love, Joanie

Not saying there shouldn't be anti-discrimination laws - just disagree on the application and I believe your "strong central government" theory is exactly why TG's got dropped from it as a compromise. I would sooner lobby one state at a time for anti-discrimination laws and accept no compromises.

The argument is that if you pass one unconstitutional law today that you are in favor of, it becomes much easier for a government to pass an unconstitutional law tomorrow that you don't like!

Before you know it, government is running everybody's lives and making laws like there's no tomorrow. Your theory works fine so long as the government is taking care of your own personal interests but what then later on when the same government starts telling you that you can only have 1 child or restricts your right to free travel and so on?

Like I said, on the face of things today, we are lucky to live in a representative republic where we can all do our part and chip away at each state's legislature one at a time. Perhaps, if you lived in Iran or China or somewhere like that, you may appreciate the concept a bit more.

[charllote34]

i would wear what i felt comfy in and a basque wouldnt be what i would wear !!!

[Sally24]

I'd surely have thought, in the land of the free, that that was already discrimination.. Surely you can only be fired for doing your job badly - or is that just Europe?? :mad:

In almost all states we are employees "at will" and can quit or be fired for no reason at all! However, in most states you can't be descriminated against or fired for your:religion, race, sexual orientation, etc... There are now a few states that include gender presentation in this list of "protected classes". [SIZE=2]California, Colorado, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine,[/SIZE][SIZE=2]Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and [/SIZE][SIZE=2]Washington. Massachusettes has interpreted existing law to cover us even though we are not explicitly stated in any of the laws. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]One caveat to this is that most expect your appearance to be stable meaning you can't come in one day as a very masculine male and the next day as a prom queen. If you have gender issues you are allowed to find a presentation that makes you comfortable and stick with that presentation. You are also expected to follow the company dress code as it applies to whatever gender you are exhibiting.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]If you are more than just a private, recreational cd you might want to consider moving to a state that protects your rights, or moving to a company that has it's own protections for you.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]This doesn't mean that you will have no problems from your cooworkers. What it does mean is that most any problems they give you will be illegal. That does include "freezing you out" from most conversations and activities. That is considered to be creating a hostile work enviroment and is strickly prohibited. [/SIZE][SIZE=1]can you tell I just had a workshop about workplace descrimination?[/SIZE]

[livy_m_b]

It's interesting, isn't it, that transgendereds are considered farther out, more dangerous, etc. than gays - at least that's what the current bill seems to suggest. It's probably just a numbers issue - there are enough gays to have an impact on voting, but not enough tgs. Political judgments will almost always divide the baby when it comes to that.

[Jocelyn Quivers]

I can't speak to the distinction between states' and federal rights, but that seems a little strange, except perhaps in cases where how you dress is directly relevant to your ability to do your job effectively. There are all kinds of things you don't tell your employer when they hire you - things that are irrelevant to your job. You don't tell them which baseball team you support, for example. Supposing you were based in Boston but you were a secret Yankees fan, would that be grounds for dismissal? I doubt it. You don't tell them your favourite colour, or how you like your coffee - why should you? So how is crossdressing different here?

Kisses,

Lucy

Correct there are certain things you don't tell your employer, however for some jobs, employers can and will do very extensive background checks, where every aspect of your life is investigated, and cross dressing may or may not be discovered. I've read that some employers are now starting to check social networking sites on prospective applicants such as MySpace. Or god help us all this site.

A die hard Boston fan firing a hard core Yankees fan? I bet it's been done. Not stated that way I'm sure but I have no doubt that an employer's personal prejudice has been the only real motivation to terminate someone's employment. You are correct, it doesn't matter how you drink your coffee. if you support one team over another, or if you like to dress en-fem but how does that affect the synergy at work? How does it affect the company and the other employees?

-Paula-

Another example is your boss finding out your political beliefs. Which I'm sure everyone would agree do not bring up politics at work. I made the very big mistake at a previous job of outting myself as of to what party I vote for during a discussion about politics. Life was not very easy for me once my superivosr found out I voted for a party or candidate he did not like.

[Sally24]

I've read that some employers are now starting to check social networking sites on prospective applicants such as MySpace. Or god help us all this site.

Just another reason to use an alias or your fem name, but not your legal name. Sally has many sites on the Internet but ******* doesn't really have any.

[MsJanessa]

The proposed federal legislation does not have the language protecting TG, TSs and CDs that it had originally---that was taken out by the bills sponser Barney Franks to make it easier to pass in the House---some states including My home state of Maine have legislation that does protect Us---whether you dress at work or not is up to you---would take a whole lot of courage to go one day as a guy then show up as a girl the next---but in Maine at least they cannot fire you for it(although they may find a pretext to do so)

[KateSpade83]

We have had these laws passed in Australia for a long time. It's even written down in the policy of the company I work for that I can't be discriminated against for just about anything.

I could go to work tomorrow as Suzy and officially everything will be normal.

But I'd find myself out of a job within a week. (especially since I come into contact with all of our customers)

The usual way our company gets rid of people is to restructure a department, say your position in no longer required and off you go.

A month later they recreate a 'new' position, with a different job title and 'different duties' on paper - although the job will be exactly the same you had before - I've seen it happen time and time again.

So things won't change I'm afraid - sorry

What Suzy said has actually happened to me in Chicago. When I worked at Pentair there already was antigay laws in Illinois. I was doing good work at Pentair and in my 5th month they were talking about buying my contract and making me permanent. Then some weeks later they find out I cd, there gossip talk that I'm gay, and when asked about me the manager says "He's gay!" So in 7 months they replace my position due to dept restructuring and I'm out of a job.

So even if there are anti gay laws I guess companies will use other tricks to "fire you." Another company falsified my work and said I printed out 1000 bad manuals because of a manual error - totally cooked up.

Yeah, I didn't realize society has to accept us too! But I'd like to be one of the office girls at work!

[Melora]

An interesting question...
It depends upon both the Environment and the Atitude of the employer/company..
My current company = HELL No!! They would still rake me over the coals..