Dressed in public - Is it Legal

[Lesi]

I know it sounds like a crazy question but is it legal to dress in public. I've read where everyone dress' and goes to the store, and their experiences etc. but is it legal? Can I get arrested for this?

[aggi123]

It's not illegal. It's legal. Though make sure you dress tastefully, then you might run into some problems if you don't.

[Suzy Harrison]

It's only illegal if your wear a red top with green bottoms - as over here you'd get arrested by the fashion police if you did.

When I landed in Atlanta last year, the first thing I did, as I walked out of the air terminal, was to ask one of your police officers where the taxi stand was - I didn't get arrested. Mind you, with my accent, he was probably trying to work out which planet I came from......


hugs Suzy

[tiffanyjo89]

Suzy, I wouldn't doubt that.

But yeah, if it were illegal to be dressed in public, upwards of 85% of this forum would be in jail.

[Simply_Vanessa]

just dress to blend, not to stand out. even if you dont entirely pass, if you arent drawing attention to yourself then you shouldnt have anything to worry about.

[MissKara]

I think the only real time you may get arrested in public for dressing would be if you went into a department store and was caught going into the girls changerooms (Although I think you would just be kicked out of the store, not arrested) :doh:

I like the looks on the fitting room attendants face when I come up with some tops, skirts and dresses and go into the male changeroom, it is priceless :D

Lots of Love,
Miss Kara

[Brandi Wyne]

It's legal unless you are arrested by the fashion police or get caught in thre wrong restroom at the wrong time. Just be confident and smile and most folks are ok with it and you. Big Brother hasn't started charging folks with dressing differently - yet.

[pamela_a]

I know for a fact you'll get arrested if you're NOT dressed

[BLUE ORCHID]

It's only illegal if your wear a red top with green bottoms - as over here you'd get arrested by the fashion police if you did.

When I landed in Atlanta last year, the first thing I did, as I walked out of the air terminal, was to ask one of your police officers where the taxi stand was - I didn't get arrested. Mind you, with my accent, he was probably trying to work out which planet I came from......


hugs Suzy



Don't get caught wearing Denim in Western PA.
.
.................................................. ..........ORCHID

[Rachel Morley]

Yes, it's perfectly legal no matter how much you do or don't pass. :)

I'm not an expert but I believe, as Miss Kara mentioned, that the only time there "might" be a cause for concern is if you were to be in the women's rest room, you got read, and a woman in the rest room gets offended and calls the police .... however you still haven't broken the law (yet) not unless the police officer considers your dressing is a means for you to be a threat and are in some sort of "breach of the peace" or somehow you're deemed to be causing an offense against public order by causing an unnecessary disturbance.

[Chickhe]

I think it is in Chicago.

[Stephanie Anne]

All joking aside it is illegal only if you break your state and local modesty laws (exposing parts of flesh deemed immoral and sure to fry brain cells if seen). In other words don't dress like a hooker who's clothes when through the dryer one too many times and you will be ok.

[NathalieX66]

New Jersey now has laws protecting gender expressionism & identity and transgenderism. But I bet if you walk down the street in a black sheer teddy, nylons & garters, and 7 inch heels, the cops are going to haul you in for indecent exposure.

[sissystephanie]

It's only illegal if your wear a red top with green bottoms - as over here you'd get arrested by the fashion police if you did.
When I landed in Atlanta last year, the first thing I did, as I walked out of the air terminal, was to ask one of your police officers where the taxi stand was - I didn't get arrested. Mind you, with my accent, he was probably trying to work out which planet I came from......
hugs Suzy

Suzy, don't feel bad. Some of the Police officers at the airport here in Atlanta seem to have trouble understanding me! Although I am from the Pacific Northwest, I have lived near Atlanta for 27 years! I do have a very good speaking voice of radio quality. BTW, I love Australian accents!!

Crossdressing is perfectly legal in most of the U.S.A. as long as you are decently covered! I say most of the U.S.A., because there are a few areas that I have not been in! For the 5 years since my wife passed away, I have been going out dressed almost every day. Shopping, eating, going to the P.O., or wherever! The difference is that I never wear a wig or makeup. Just a guy in a skirt or dress!! This will probably jinx me, but in the 5 years I have never had a bad comment made to me. Many compliments on my outfits, or shoes, but no bad ones. I dress to please myself, not the rest of the world. So my attitude is a happy one!!

[Schatten Lupus]

The only time it is illegal is in some states and cities it is illegal to dress in away to confuse the public from identifying you should you commit a crime. So unless you plan on robbing the local 7-11 in drag so the general public thinks it was a woman who robbed it rather than a man, you will be ok.

[giuseppina]

Hello Lesi

The only places I've heard of people running into legal trouble with how they are dressed (assuming they are not indecently dressed by Western standards) are certain Middle Eastern countries and one or two in the Far East. It's *not* my intention to be intolerant, but the regimes that regulate dress tend to be based on Islamic principles.

If there are any laws on the books against crossdressing, they aren't usually enforced. In Canada, they are unenforceable, as any judge will strike the law down as unconstitutional without a second thought as long as the individual charged is otherwise behaving properly.

Crossdressing is only illegal when it's used as a disguise in the commission of another crime.

[StaceyJane]

Crossdressing was illegal in Houston until 1980. It was one of the last places to change their law.

[MrKunk]

It might be illegal if you only wore ladies under garmets and walked around town, other than that as long as you cover yourself tastefully no one seems to care.

[Lover girl]

That's a good question. I have not been out yet but on Saturday the 8th I'm getting educated on some final touches that hopefully will get me out and about. As far as the law. I haven't heard of any law against crossdressing in public so long as the right parts are covered.good luck!!!!

[CharleneT]

No worries, it is legal. Curiously though, in years past - and not that long ago - it was illegal in many states. I have a friend who was arrested for cross dressing and ended up spending a night in jail over it. That occurred in Colorado in the 70's.

[sandra-leigh]

The only places I've heard of people running into legal trouble with how they are dressed (assuming they are not indecently dressed by Western standards) are certain Middle Eastern countries and one or two in the Far East.


You indirectly raise an important issue: that of jurisdiction. A fair number of the statements in this thread are inaccurate or incomplete because they make implicit claims of world-wide legality when the truth is more complex and depends on the legal jurisdiction.

Sometime, probably 20-ish months ago, I did a thread in which I researched specific legal citations -- and found some places where cross-dressing is illegal, and some places where use of the bathroom that does not correspond to one's legal gender to be illegal. And those were in the USA. Someone else posted a reference to a location in which cross-dressers cannot legally use any gendered bathroom, because there were simultaneously laws against using the other bathroom and laws against using the bathroom that did not correspond to how you were dressed.

Ah yes, recall that "saggy pants laws" have been passed in several parts of the USA; although they claim to be about indecency, some of them have been phrased in terms of clothing that is appropriate to the "modesty" of the person's (legal) sex; I do not recall the exact wording right now, but it was sufficiently vague and had a gender-specific component such that some of the laws could be used to against cross-dressers by way of claiming that dressing up is not "appropriate" clothing.




It's *not* my intention to be intolerant, but the regimes that regulate dress tend to be based on Islamic principles.


France and Belgium recently enacted laws against Islamic dress. Quebec recently brought forward a legal interpretation that required women to raise their veils to prove their identity, and which allowed public officials to refuse service to women in veils. France and Quebec are very firm about attempting to "retain their culture". I am not familiar with the reasons for Belgium, but I do know that Belgium has significant internal struggles between the Flemish majority and the French minority in which the Flemish have felt it necessary to enact restrictive laws to "protect" their culture. Strange things happen in politics. :sad:



If there are any laws on the books against crossdressing, they aren't usually enforced. In Canada, they are unenforceable, as any judge will strike the law down as unconstitutional without a second thought as long as the individual charged is otherwise behaving properly.


I believe that test cases have been raised in situation in Quebec, but it is difficult as the number of people directly affected is not very large, and many of the people directly affected are apparently people who have no intention of deliberately causing cultural clashes... after all, wearing what you want to (especially with a religious basis) has been generally understood to be a Right in Canada, especially considering the famous cases focusing on the rights of Sikhs to wear turbans and the ceremonial dagger, leading up to the RCMP being forced to change their regulations about uniforms in order to allow Sikhs to serve without having to cut their hair.

But... that was all before. Now, with the anti-terrorism laws, and with the right wing of the Conservatives holding a minority government in Canada, it is no longer a clear legal situation, and controls on wearing what you want (that isn't immodest or a violation of the hate laws) could potentially be deemed to be "demonstrably necessary in a just and free western civilization". The Supreme Court of Canada has not tossed out the anti-terrorism laws, only required the government to modify fairly specific sections of them (e.g., relating to the use of "Security Certificates" for indefinite detainment). The SCC knows that there is significant public and government backlash against "judicial activism" (revoking a law passed by Parliament or passing an order directing the establishment of a new law), and thus treds very carefully when it rules on the validity of laws (as opposed to ruling on facts or jurisdiction or the like.)



Crossdressing is only illegal when it's used as a disguise in the commission of another crime.

The legal position with respect to bathroom use has never been tested by a high court in Canada. No provinces or territories have bathroom laws as such; I do not recall at the moment whether any provinces have gender equality laws. The legal position is apparently that bathroom use would fall under provincial "disturbing the peace" laws in Canada, but due to the lack of law on the matter, bathroom usage can be regulated at the municipal level or via city by-law.

Oh yes, in theory a province in Canada could regulate cross-dressing while driving, under the various Highway Traffic Acts. The provinces have the authority, but haven't seen reason to use it yet. The evidence with respect to provincial laws on cell-phone use is that decisions will get made on the basis of fear instead of on the basis of scientific evidence.


(The issue for cell phones: scientific evidence shows that the safety of voice calls does not vary meaningfully between hand-held and hands-free calls, that both are notably detrimental to safety -- but the laws have allowed hands-free usage while banning hand-held usage. Why? Because banning hands-free usage as well would be a precedent based upon "distraction" of the driver, which can be very significant for matters such as trying to calm down or control children, and it would be politically impossible to ban "driving while screaming at your kids". That and because banning hands-free sets would be difficult to enforce: you can see someone using a hand-held set, but you have to infer use of a hands-free set based upon mouth motion or the like. The old legal truism: don't make a law that you cannot enforce, especially if the lack of enforcement could be used as a basis to overturn a similar law that you can enforce.)

[Tranny Tee]

While there may be a few jurisdictions which make wearing the clothing of the opposite sex an offense the laws are never enforced. I have never seen a post on this forum about someone being arrested for crossdressing.

[sterling12]

There are some Arcane Statutes that still might be on The Books in some isolated places. But, it's been a very long time since A Prosecutor's Office would even think about taking such an Arrest Case. Fear of a Harassment lawsuit, interfering with your Right of Free Speech, (Yes, Virginia sometimes A Dressing Statement can be considered Free Speech) would seem to put The Kibosh on such Shenanigans in The 21st Century. Your local Cops know this, and they have better things to do with their time!

But, you get "tanked up" and get caught driving, or do a disturbance, or in some way Break The Law while your dressed. You will probably go to Jail! Just not cause' your dressed, but because you would be a Felon!

Check your Local Ordinances, but I would be real shocked if you got arrested in Chicago. I know of at least three support groups up there, they all meet regularly, and many of The Members go "Out" after The Meetings. Do they get arrested for Crossdressing? What do you think?

Peace and Love, Joanie

[sandra-leigh]

While there may be a few jurisdictions which make wearing the clothing of the opposite sex an offense the laws are never enforced. I have never seen a post on this forum about someone being arrested for crossdressing.

Then you haven't been following the postings in the Media section about Iran or other parts of the Mid-east.

Not cited before, but how about the 10 arrested in Baharain (http://www.queerty.com/bahrain-police-arrest-9-cross-dressing-men-on-new-years-eve-20100105/) on New Years? Or 67 arrested last year in Saudia Arabia (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/06/saudi-arabia-crossdressing-men-arrested-at-a-drag-party.html), or the 17 arrested in 2008 in Dubai (http://lgbtqnews.com/gaynews/dubai-cops-arrest-dozens-on-charges-of-cross-dressing.aspx)

The arrests in Saudia Arabia were reportedly dropped a week later (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/24/saudi-arabia-drop-cross-dressing-charges). That article says,



Shari'a law, as interpreted and enforced in Saudi Arabia, remains uncodified; no written and accessible legal standards exist that criminalize the wearing of women's clothing by men. Nevertheless, Saudi judges have in the past imposed sentences, ranging from imprisonment to flogging, on men accused of behaving like women.

In recent years, Saudi authorities have periodically raided parties and gatherings where men allegedly wore women's clothing. In March 2005, over 100 men were arrested for imitating women and sentenced in unfair trials to imprisonment and flogging after police raided a private party held in a rented hall in Jeddah. In July of that year, all of the men were pardoned and released.


Active arrests last year in Guyana (http://caribbeanfever.com/forum/index.php?topic=2950.0), with it made clear that cross-dressing was the specific offence

Do you still think that "the laws are never enforced" ??

Note: the arrests in Dubai were of foreigners visiting the country, so don't think that it can't happen to you if you visit a place you have not investigated beforehand.


By the way, as long as I am here: cross-dressing has been illegal in Oakland since 1879 (http://oaklandlocal.com/article/cross-dressing-illegal-oakland-1879), and still was as of April 26, 2010.

[eluuzion]

You can research your own laws and location here...


http://www.hrc.org/issues/gender-identity-city-county-laws.htm

States with Restroom Laws
http://www.hrc.org/issues/workplace/equal_opportunity/9602.htm

Transgender Laws for each State
http://www.hrc.org/issues/transgender/transgender_laws.asp

Transgender Legislation for each State
http://www.hrc.org/issues/transgender/transgender_legislation.asp

Transgender Law and Policy Institute
http://www.transgenderlaw.org/

[Lesi]

Thank you all for your replies. I am working up the nerve to finally get out there. This only helps. I didn't think there was but just wanted to get others input. It's not like I can walk into work and ask co-workers their opinions (unless they all cross-dress) they would have no idea what I was talking about.
LEXI

[Mirani]

Two clicks on Google
"illanois transgender laws"
http://www.transgenderlaw.org/ndlaws/index.htm
Hope it illuminates!

[Rianna Humble]

Those of you who live on the opposite side of the pond to me, might find the Human Rights Campaign's transgender-related publications (http://www.hrc.org/about_us/publications.asp) useful

[victoriamwilliams1]

Suzy, I wouldn't doubt that.

But yeah, if it were illegal to be dressed in public, upwards of 85% of this forum would be in jail.

So true:)


Well as long as your not in North Carolina:eek:!

[Alicia.80]

It's legal as long as you adhere to the same laws every other person has to. For example there's a town where I grew up where they made wearing spandex illegal if you're overweight... and no I'm not joking, they even did a police raid on some heavy people wearing it in public...

[Nicole Erin]

New Jersey now has laws protecting gender expressionism & identity and transgenderism. But I bet if you walk down the street in a black sheer teddy, nylons & garters, and 7 inch heels, the cops are going to haul you in for indecent exposure.

Can I be her cell mate if someone is in jail like that?
:D

[JustAlex]

Where I am (Buenos Aires, Argentina), wearing as a female (being a male) was punished by a city law. I don't know if it's still in place but hasn't been enforced in ages.
Never got included in the penal code though.

I never tried myself. You can see transvestites in some places but they're all in prostitution. If there are regular CDers going around, they're just a few or very very good at it :heehee:

[JulieC]

Don't get caught wearing Denim in Western PA.
.
.................................................. ..........ORCHID

That sheriff Karren will get you! :lol2:

----
To the OP; yes, it's perfectly legal for a male to wear feminine attire in public in all states in the union. There are some communities that might try to arrest you if you use a women's restroom while dressed en femme (see multiple, multiple threads on this forum about such issues). But as for dressing and being out and about? You can do whatever you want for a normal day and not get arrested for wearing a dress or whatever. Perfectly legal. Women wear men's clothes all the time without getting arrested. Men are no different in their rights.

[Rianna Humble]

New Jersey now has laws protecting gender expressionism & identity and transgenderism. But I bet if you walk down the street in a black sheer teddy, nylons & garters, and 7 inch heels, the cops are going to haul you in for indecent exposure.

Can I be her cell mate if someone is in jail like that?
:D

:rofl:

[RADER]

Now with all this talk about being Legal,The Government in all its wisdom
might put a tax on being crossed dressed.
Lets see; a man in a skirt, woman in pants.........$ 25.00
a man in a dress, woman in overalls...$ 100.00
a man in heel's, $ 20.00 per inch
women in flats $ 25.00 Except in snow etc.
and so on. So lets not give them any ideas, I like to keep our law-makers
as dumb as they are.:2c: Rader

[sandra-leigh]

To the OP; yes, it's perfectly legal for a male to wear feminine attire in public in all states in the union. [...] But as for dressing and being out and about? You can do whatever you want for a normal day and not get arrested for wearing a dress or whatever. Perfectly legal.

There is no specific protection for gender identity or gender expression or modes of dress in the US's Civil Rights Act, or under any of the other constitutional Amendments. It is thus not considered a Federal Right, and comes under the control of the Constitution and laws of the various states (and D.C., which is technically not in any state.) The constitutions and laws of different states vary on this matter; some of them have explicit protection and some of them do not. In the ones that do not, then the maxim that "That which is not forbidden is permitted" applies -- and unfortunately _discrimination_, not being forbidden, is permitted, including at the by-law level.

The only US federal bar to discrimination against crossdressers arises from the First Amendment, by way of cross-dressing being considered a "manner of speech". The problem with that is that the First Amendment is not considered to be absolute, and in particular is not considered to protect against Indecent or Obscene speech -- and in some courts is considered not to protect against "sufficiently offensive" speech. And although some things have been specifically identified as being Indecent or Obscene, in other respects there is an element of "community standards" in their definition -- so if a community decided that cross-dressing was unacceptable by their standards, there is some legal leeway under which it could be so upheld by some courts. "Sufficiently offensive" speech falls under the "community standards" legal approach to the First Amendment.

And if you think that banning cross-dressing by state or city by-law cannot happen, keep in mind that a number of states have been successful in passing laws requiring that all government business be transacted in English, including when two government employees whose native language happens to be something else talk directly to each other. Choice of language is a far more fundamental "mode of speech" than choice of clothing is, but the states have gotten away with those laws for close to 20 years.

It has been said of the first round of US anti-terrorism laws that no one (at the Senate or Congress level) read the entire bill before it was passed -- that it was just too big for anyone to get through in the time allotted. What exactly was effectively enacted by the two rounds of anti-terrorism laws? We don't know -- parts of it enabled secret orders.

What should we expect, going ahead, in the United States? We should probably expect some states to enact anti-burka laws that are overgeneralized enough as to affect cross-dressing on the grounds that cross-dressing is "hiding one's identity". With the Republicans currently under the sway of the upsurging xenophobic Tea Party, I would guess that the process would start at the state level. If the laws offer an escape clause, the escape clauses will probably be primarily phrased in terms of the need of law enforcement and intelligence agencies and private detectives to conceal their identities, so these laws I predict might be phrased in terms of banning the concealment of identity "without a permit". And perhaps cross-dressing would even be one of the permitted cases for such permits ("except for convicted felons"): that would satisfy the understanding of the First Amendment (since it wouldn't be banned, just controlled -- the same way that requirements for a Parade Permit are considered to be reasonable under the First Amendment.) Yes, a sufficiently enlightened Supreme Court might eventually rule that such permit laws presented sufficient "chill" as to be unconstitutional -- but I doubt that the current USC is that enlightened.

If laws such as I describe do indeed appear, they would be written in terms of "public places", probably extended to commercial establishments (which would, however, be permitted to waive the restriction, so as to allow for acting and to allow willing businesses such as night clubs to make business decisions). No cross-dressing (without a permit) in dealing with the government or public transportation, possibly not even while driving.

I fully expect that some of you will disagree strongly with me about the plausibility of these scenarios. They are not intended to be fully researched positions: they are intended as food for thought, to illustrate that there is no "of course" about cross-dressing being legal, and that there are some circumstances and attitudes coming into current politics that could lead to restrictions on cross-dressing -- restrictions that could arguably hold up to USC challenge.

Cross-dressing has not yet been seen as enough of a cultural threat to be worth the trouble of going after, especially with the possibility of a First Amendment based ruling if cross-dressing in itself was the stated target of the legislation. We should consider, however, that gender protections were left off of the recent federal rights laws because enough people were convinced that leaving it in would be a deal-killer. That tells us that there is enough real or perceived opposition to cross-dressing and gender rights that people would be willing to kill legislation they otherwise supported in order to avoid gender protections. That should be a warning to us about the possibility that cross-dressing will be opportunistically targeted by way of "incidental" inclusion in other legislation such as disguise / security legislation. Whether such legislation passes or not, bigotry will ensue. :sad:

[DonnaT]

don't be so fast to say it is legal.

It's illegal to appear in public dressed "in the attire of a person of the opposite sex," in Oakland, at the moment, and has been since 1879.

There will be a vote by the city council on the 18th of this month to make it legal.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_15016428?source=rss&nclick_check=1

[barbie lanai]

Well this was in today's news about Oakland, CA.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Not content to let sleeping laws lie, the Oakland City Council is moving to strike a 130-year-old ordinance that bans cross-dressing in public.

The council voted 7-0 on Tuesday to remove the ban from the city's municipal code. A second vote, which is needed to seal the repeal, is scheduled for May 18.

The ordinance, adopted in 1879, bans people from dressing"in the attire of a person of the opposite sex."

Officials say the law is little known and never enforced.

But Rebecca Kaplan, the council member who proposed the repeal, says such laws have a history of being used as tools of oppression against the gay, lesbian and transgender community.

[kymmieLorain]

This is taken from my motorcycle club page, I how ever believe it applies here.
DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF CLOTHING OR CLUB MEMBERSHIP IS ILLEGAL

Any person whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with may institute and prosecute a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief including the award of compensatory monetary damages. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Cohen vs. California, 403 U.S.15 (1971) that individuals have the constitutional right under the First Amendment to wear clothing which displays writings or designs. In addition, the right of an individual to freedom of association has long been recognized and protected by the United States Supreme Court. Thus, a person's right to wear the clothing of his choice, as well as his right to belong to any club or organization of his choice is constitutionally protected, and persons or establishments who discriminate on the basis of clothing or club memberships are subject to lawsuit.

Kymmie

[sfwarbonnet]

Well this was in today's news about Oakland, CA.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Not content to let sleeping laws lie, the Oakland City Council is moving to strike a 130-year-old ordinance that bans cross-dressing in public.

The council voted 7-0 on Tuesday to remove the ban from the city's municipal code. A second vote, which is needed to seal the repeal, is scheduled for May 18.

The ordinance, adopted in 1879, bans people from dressing"in the attire of a person of the opposite sex."

Officials say the law is little known and never enforced.

But Rebecca Kaplan, the council member who proposed the repeal, says such laws have a history of being used as tools of oppression against the gay, lesbian and transgender community.

Even when it's legal to dress in public (which it usually is), what about usimg a ladies public restroom (which seems like the natural choice)?

[wickedfruit]

There was this one guy around here a few years ago that wore nothing but a pink bra and thong and rolled around town on a segway that got arrested, but anyone going out in nothing but that should be. the funny thing is though the next year he ran for public office

[Niya W]

Well this was in today's news about Oakland, CA.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Not content to let sleeping laws lie, the Oakland City Council is moving to strike a 130-year-old ordinance that bans cross-dressing in public.

The council voted 7-0 on Tuesday to remove the ban from the city's municipal code. A second vote, which is needed to seal the repeal, is scheduled for May 18.

The ordinance, adopted in 1879, bans people from dressing"in the attire of a person of the opposite sex."

Officials say the law is little known and never enforced.

But Rebecca Kaplan, the council member who proposed the repeal, says such laws have a history of being used as tools of oppression against the gay, lesbian and transgender community.
One slight problem. State law over ides this city law. they could arrest but then they would be violating California state law or atleast subjected to a very big law suits.

[rian]

where I live it is dangerous , you might be arrested and locked for it....mine should stay in secret all my life

[Tina Dixon]

You can research your own laws and location here...


http://www.hrc.org/issues/gender-identity-city-county-laws.htm

States with Restroom Laws
http://www.hrc.org/issues/workplace/equal_opportunity/9602.htm

Transgender Laws for each State
http://www.hrc.org/issues/transgender/transgender_laws.asp

Transgender Legislation for each State
http://www.hrc.org/issues/transgender/transgender_legislation.asp

Transgender Law and Policy Institute
http://www.transgenderlaw.org/

Great post :thumbsup:

[sfwarbonnet]

You can research your own laws and location here...


http://www.hrc.org/issues/gender-identity-city-county-laws.htm

States with Restroom Laws
http://www.hrc.org/issues/workplace/equal_opportunity/9602.htm

Transgender Laws for each State
http://www.hrc.org/issues/transgender/transgender_laws.asp

Transgender Legislation for each State
http://www.hrc.org/issues/transgender/transgender_legislation.asp

Transgender Law and Policy Institute
http://www.transgenderlaw.org/

Good post. I heard that it was illegal to use a public ladies restroom in Las Vegas, but that it was ignored. (The trick is to find it... Hint: Look in the casino.) Did they repeal the law?

[KerryLynn]

Just thought i would share this. I found This from a link on this fourm
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/issue_maps/non_discrimination_7_09_color.pdf Makes me sad that others havent followed suit

[JustAlex]

One slight problem. State law over ides this city law. they could arrest but then they would be violating California state law or atleast subjected to a very big law suits.

Constitution should be enforced over any state, county or city law. However, that's not the way it works. Not where you are, not where I am. You'll get fined or arrested, then you are allowed to raise the issue to the court and up and up as long as you want. The burden is on you, not on the offending body, being it the police, city hall, state congress.

This morning I came to the office thinking about this thread. I take a detour on Fridays because the traffic is heavy all around the city. It's half a kilometer more but it's totally worth it. At one point, I have to pass one of busiest transexuals corners in town. There are three or four "love hotels" and the girls walk around waiting for "customers". I have to tip my hat to them. Today was a very cold morning and I saw two with very very very very short skirts. No need to tuck, it was all shrunk in :)
Anyway, the thing is there was one detained by the police. I don't think it was the way he/she dressed but the prostitution that is not allowed there (there are "zones"). My point is that the law is pretty much useless. Why this one was detained while there were at least 4 others around the same corner doing exactly the same? In the end, the police has the power to enforce or not the law.
It also applies to going out cding. You can be detained for whatever reason if by doing it you are spotted as the odd one.

[vetobob9]

The Courts have ruled that there is no such thing as a right to not be offended. As long as what you wear is not blatantly obscene, the government cannot stop you from wearing. American legal tradition is that the government must prove a compelling governmental interest in regulating or censoring speech, which covers what clothes you. A guy wearing a dress is not a threat to the government, therefore it can not be banned.
Regarding the baggy pants laws. Those were passed because of violent and obnoxious gang members who were running around harassing and intimidating people. There was a legit government interest in instituting that ban.

[sandra-leigh]

Regarding the baggy pants laws. Those were passed because of violent and obnoxious gang members who were running around harassing and intimidating people. There was a legit government interest in instituting that ban.

No they weren't! They were passed because a number of high school students had adapted the saggy look, and people thought it looked ugly! They were "public decency" laws, passed in accordance with the standards of the communities -- but they were often overwritten to the point where they could be applied to cross-dressers because they were written in terms of clothing "appropriate" to the person's sex, with no definition of "appropriate", so if the local law enforcement considered it "inappropriate" for a male to wear a dress, then the sanctions under the laws could be enacted.

The issue of "chill" on cross-dressers and transsexuals was specifically brought up in the discussions in some communities that still choose to pass the laws without making it clear that cross-dressing was not to be grounds for being considered "inappropriate" -- and that implies that in those places, they did want cross-dressing to be included, or else they would have worded the laws differently, since they had foreknowledge that people did consider it to be "chilling".

[Karen__Starr]

My perspective is think ahead and use good judgement rather than what you want and think is right. I have been questioned by LEO several times and only once the officer treated me like a male dressed as a female while several did not know I was a man but told them rather than them finding out but was not treated any differently.

A good example of using good judgement when in doubt is use of rest rooms. Yesterday I was out at a Saturday market which I have been to many times and know that in some areas there are men/lady rest rooms while other areas that have uni sex rest rooms. I always use the uni-sex restrooms as there are so many type of people there that if by chance one of them notices and detects me that they may call for someone to out me and who knows what may happen.

[sherri52]

It is completely legal if you goe as you. You can wear any type of clothing and makeup. It becomes questionable when you do it to hide your features, like wearing a mask.

[Fab Karen]

... I don't think it was the way he/she dressed but the prostitution that is not allowed there (there are "zones"). My point is that the law is pretty much useless. Why this one was detained while there were at least 4 others around the same corner doing exactly the same? In the end, the police has the power to enforce or not the law.
It also applies to going out cding. You can be detained for whatever reason if by doing it you are spotted as the odd one.
Police have the right to stop anyone they suspect of committing some crime. They CANNOT stop you for "being the odd one." It should be obvious I was only speaking of MY country. Encouraging paranoia is senseless.

[sandra-leigh]

Police have the right to stop anyone they suspect of committing some crime. They CANNOT stop you for "being the odd one."

Karen, I don't know which country Alex is in, but she used kilometers rather than miles so she probably isn't in the USA; she said there are zones for prostitution, so she isn't in Canada. Somewhere in Western Europe I would suspect, but Africa or Asia are also possible. Probably not the Middle East as Alex clearly had some expectation of basic democratic rights. {Edit: The reference to "love hotels" would make Japan relatively likely rather than Europe.}

The laws about who can be stopped and for what reasons differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some places, "being the odd one" is more than enough reason for someone to be stopped: being odd is considered a threat to the security or ideology of the country in some places.

I recently posted specific news articles about several countries in which cross-dressing is considered illegal, and within the last couple of days, there was a thread about a COPS show in which a cross-dresser in Fort Worth Texas was threatened with a charge of solicitation, and I discussed how little "evidence" is needed even here in Canada to establish enough suspicion of solicitation to lay a charge. Though in Canada, prostitution is not a crime, "communicating for the purposes of solicitation" is a crime, and is the primary weapon used by police to arrest "johns". Being dressed the wrong way at the wrong time and place is enough to establish "suspicion" here.

[Jilmac]

I could be wrong with this opinion, but I don't believe there's a law on the books prohibiting or demanding any sort of attire. Any sort of illegal activity would be in how the dresser presented in public. For example an ulterior motive such as a disguise to commit a crime. Otherwise, the pure enjoyment of dressing and being in public is perfectly legal.

[taylor027]

legal