Feminine Troubles

[Katie Ashe]

I was written up at work Thrusday for being too Fem. Men are not suppost to wear high heel, make-up etc. I looked absolutly professional and very conservative. Have any of you had problems during employement?

[Helen MC]

My sympathy to you. I don't dress at work, apart of course from panties under my drab, and I keep my CD activities totally unknown from my co-workers . 30 years ago I had the misfortune to be discovered by accident wearing pretty floral patterned panties under my trousers in an employment where the others, mostly macho males, were most unsympathetic so now I am very careful indeed.

Here in the UK you might have some Legal Protection under the Human Rights Laws , but I understand that in the USA these vary greatly depending in which State you live.

Unfortunately being good at your job and a well behaved Employee doesn't save you if the Bosses want to give you the push . Don't do anything rash in a panic, but it might be a good idea to start looking around for another job, and this time I would be careful on how you dress at work unless of course you know it to be a place with a sympathetic attitude to CDs, TVs and TGs . As a test find out their policies towards Homosexuals and Lesbians. If they are easy with them then they should not have problems with TVs.

GOOD LUCK! :thumbsup:


I see you live in Massachusetts? I thought it was quite a Liberal State being Democratic or is this the Roman Catholic morality kicking to equal that of the Evangelical Deep South?

As to your Poll Questions, I have not had problems from EMPLOYERS themselves but as stated above did get a rough time from co-workers many years ago. Perhaps you should amend your Poll to have an option "Suffered abuse or forced to leave by hostile Co-Workers"

[uknowhoo]

I, likewise, have never gone to work dressed, and so the issue has never comeup for me. I do wish you good luck with your situation. Hugs, Tammi

[JoAnnDallas]

Where you dressed as a female or was it just you manners, voice, posture and ect. If the later, then that is "Sexual Discrimination", illegal and you could sue. Also if your boss just wrote up as "being TOO fem" and did not go into details, that too is "Sexual Discrimination". If you were dressed then, it depends on you company policy.

IMHO.... In any case, I would point it out to your HR person/office. He/She no matter what thier view is, HAS to consisder all sides and you could get some relief in this matter.

Weither your TOO Fem or not has no baring in your work performence, unless it is upsetting clients that you interact with. Then you boss has clause to worry. It also depends on the company policy.

[Julia Cross]

Katie, are you a CD or in transition to becoming a woman? Depending on your status will result in vastly different ways you will be percieved by your employer.

I think you, and all of us need to keep this in mind. When employeed, you are working for a business, and as such need to respect the owners rights as well. They have worked hard to create a business which employes you and countless others and gives them rewards as well. They also took the risks to get where they are today. As such, they have, in my opinion their rights to expect a certain amount of cooperation from their employees. While dressing as you feel fit should be your right, you need to respect the rights of those around you who may be uncomfortable with it, likely due to misinformation, but that is another issue at the moment.

Compromise is required, and also sensibility. If you need a job, sometimes you need to compromise. We all do this day to day, at work, in public and many of us at home.

If you are transitioning, then this is obviously more complicated and direct correspondence with your employer should be had and education of your fellow employess as well. These are progressive times but we have a long way to go.

Obviously there is much more to be said and I can't and am not informed enough to keep going on. But in my opinion, you may need to tone it down at work, that's just reality.

Julia

[melissacd]

Katie,

I have to agree with Julia. If you are in a place of business you have to respect their rules, however, this does not mean that you cannot approach them and open a dialog to see if you can get those rules changed.

Regardless of whether you are a CD or a male transitioning to a female you need to work with their human resources to find out if they are supportive of this and in what manner they will provide that support to you. Times are changing and there are sympathetic employers out there, you just need to give them the opportunity to show that support.

If you are brave enough to go to your place of employ en femme then you should be brave enough to approach human resources about this. I applaud your intent and by having more cross dressers cross this bridge we will begin to enlighten the rest of the world.

Thanks for sharing this with us.

Mel

[Katie Ashe]

I knew I should have put more info in. I suffer from Gender ID Dysphoria. I would rather CD 24/7 if I could. I check the employee handbook, and law sites. I even asked around. We had a FTM working here for some time. They employee many gays, from what I'm told. I presented my self more & more fem over the past few months. I came in dressed very conserv & professionally. More pro than the girls that work here. I am seeking medical help for GID, but do not wish to SRS at his point in my life. They even admitted I violated no rules or dress guidelines set forth, Which were written Gender neutral on purpose !!! They say it was not a personal attack, But I feel it was. I need this job, yes, but I need to be myself also. They clam there just tring to run a business. My appearance is disruptive to others, "Reported". I was born a male and dress like as tradit. one is what I was told in short. I am tring to find a workable solution to this. Mostly I'm upset and put myself in the situation. But...I can't change how I feel or who I am.

I sited "Lie v. Sky Publishing" for law text. One of many...

I asked If I could dress up for the company X-Mas party this weekend, waiting for a response still. I didn't include Harassment in the poll, because I'm sure we all have been at one point or another, I want to site Violation Discipline here. I understand they have I right to run the business, and I'm pushing for acceptance as a human. If I was FTM or Gay I'd be perfectly ok...

My bosses are supportive, and unsure what to do, I am the first MTF they ever had. FTM's and Gays come and go. They are more or less worried of losing business, Understandable. Yet I sit here writing this pulling my hair out. HR is on my side.

More to come I'm sure, Thanks for your support Ladies, I mean it. Please Vote.

[Lauren_T]

If you have been diagnosed, officially - that is, by an MD - you legally have a disability, and therefore it seems that you would be Federally protected under the Americans With Disabilities Act. But check with an attorney knowledgeable about ADA or gender discrimination law - or better, both...

If HR and your bosses are behind you, who is it wrote you up?

[Katie Ashe]

If you have been diagnosed, officially - that is, by an MD - you legally have a disability, and therefore it seems that you would be Federally protected under the Americans With Disabilities Act. But check with an attorney knowledgeable about ADA or gender discrimination law - or better, both...

If HR and your bosses are behind you, who is it wrote you up?Thanks Lauren dear... Respectfully, I am aware of this. My Company Forman wrote me up, because of to many inquiries of customers and other co-workers. It was a written warning to dress as a male.

They were unsure how to handle the situtation. I agreed at the time to dress as a man, but hate it. I could push the issue, but won't right now. They understand I'm transgendered & under medical treatment... but hope things will get better with time. Most of the people here are supportive in me being fem as I tend to work better. I'm unsure also how to handle this, right now. I still need to eat. I have been here for over 3 years, in the current postition. I am not a traveling Tech, the computers come to me. I am on display, as Customer simply walk through my work center on tours. They tend to wear full suits and such.

[Helen MC]

Do you have to work with Customers or are you away from the Public? If you are in the Customer/Client domain then your Bosses may have a case that they could lose trade, (whatever the morals of the argument, it does hold water). If you do NOT work in the Public Eye then they are on weaker ground. The fact that they have employed both Male Homosexuals and F to M Transexuals may also be in your favour. Of course women who are TV/TS have it a lot easier clothingwise as they, and indeed ANY woman, can wear the most Butch and Macho of clothes, wear no make up, have short hair and nobody gives a damn, but a "girly" man attracts attention and often criticism.

I wish you well in any Legal Case you may bring but would advise that this can be a "Doomsday" solution as you may not only find your situation at work untenable afterwards but could be on a "blacklist" of other similar Employers , a very difficult thing to prove, and have difficulty getting another in that area or trade.

As to the work's Xmas party, I would forget it! Go out instead with people who are your true friends and who are sympathetic and really enjoy yourself with no worries. I go to work to work and do not get involved socially with my Co-workers in any way, what I do in my own time and in my private life is none of their damned business!

[celeste26]

I dont know so much about Massachusets but in my state a company may fire someone for ANYTHING or ANY REASON or even no reason. Ironically it is called a right to work state (boy did they lie on that one). That said, Oregon is a rather agreeable culture and we generally have good relationss with all the GLBT issues. It is the left coast as you know.

[sidney_girl]

I was given a "verbal warning" (the first and least serious step in disciplinary action at my company) for my choice of attire. I was wearing a very nice light blue ladies' sleeveless top that day, and was reprimanded for having my shoulders showing. (Bare shoulders! Oh no! What is this world coming to?) I panicked, and immediately put on a men's polo shirt.

Two interesting points here. First, my immediate supervisor said that he doesn't care how I dress, but that management forced him to talk to me. The management at the company where I work is, shall we say, very, very unprogressive. They all come from a particular non-European culture that's not open to new ideas (other than shipping American jobs back to their homeland), and they're quite sexist on top of that. Which brings me to my second point.

Second point: Women here are allowed to bare their shoulders, calves, feet, but men must keep themselves completely covered, no matter how hot the weather. Specifically, I've seen ladies here wearing sleeveless tops, but I'm not allowed to do so. Is that fair?+?

Of course, I dare not point that out, dare not rock the boat. I mean, they've already threatened to "outsource" my job to China. (Oops! So, now you know who my bosses are. Can't blame the Catholics or Southern Baptists this time.)

By the way, I live in California. Specifically, the San Francisco Bay Area. If I can't have fashion freedom here, then where?:(

[Julia Cross]

There's no easy answer. Each of us faces our own unique set of circumstances. We need to weigh the importance of freedom to dress and present ourselves as we choose with our need for employment.

Julia

[Darlena]

I suppose that there might be need for further legislation regarding the civil rights for us girls in this matter. I myself, am a blue collar worker type. Therefore I would rather sacrifice an article of boy clothing than one of my pretty dress/skirts in some industrial malfunction of the wardrobe. But PULEASE! Use some common sense in your approach to your tasks in the working enviroment. I don't see GG's working in anything other than befits the situation(boy type clothing,i.e.) Which brings us full circle to the fact that society needs to be more flexible when it comes to freedom of choice. But I do envy you girls who work in the office. You should be able to dress in a more liberal manner.(loose fitting,more feminine)(don't forget to accessorize) Let's hear it for the girl! Love you all, kiss, kiss, hug, hug, Darlena the fashon queen:yrtw:

[Kera_Efflorescence]

You might want to at least talk to a lawyer about the situation for their advice, if you're really concerned about this.

This sounds similar to a case involving a transwoman working as a firefighter. If I recall, the court decided that it was sexual discrimination not to allow dressing as the opposite gender, as long as that clothing obeys the company's dress code for that gender.

I believe you have to be careful about what angle you take with this sort of legal action though --- on another forum, there was this long discussion about how this particular case was won only because she sued for sexual discrimination, not for anything related to trans-phobia.

[Stephanie Brooks]

I would point it out to your HR person/office. He/She no matter what thier view is, HAS to consisder all sides and you could get some relief in this matter.
In an unrelated matter, a manager at my company told me the job of HR was to protect the company, NOT the employees.

[KathrynW]

I was written up at work Thrusday for being too Fem.

You're not giving many details here. WHY exactly were you written up?
What did you wear to work that is considered too femme?

[susancheerleader]

I was written up at work Thrusday for being too Fem. Men are not suppost to wear high heel, make-up etc. I looked absolutly professional and very conservative. Have any of you had problems during employement?

Isn't that called discrimination? If a GG were to wear men’s combat boots to work, would she get written up for being too manly? I doubt it. In fact probably no one would think twice about it.

GGs have fought for equal rights. Now many have and do the things normally associated with men and it is accepted. But when a man wants to do things normally associated with femininity, he gets laughed at, spit at, or at least made to feel insecure.
So what about MENS equal rights?????

[crossing_over]

what were you wearing? were you totally en femme? if not then i dont see what the problem was :/

[KathrynW]

Isn't that called discrimination? If a GG were to wear men’s combat boots to work, would she get written up for being too manly? I doubt it. In fact probably no one would think twice about it.

GGs have fought for equal rights. Now many have and do the things normally associated with men and it is accepted. But when a man wants to do things normally associated with femininity, he gets laughed at, spit at, or at least made to feel insecure.
So what about MENS equal rights?????
Equal Rights? What Equal Rights?
How much spare change do you have to pay atty fees?
You play by the employer's rules or you're out the door, it's pretty simple.
and even stranger things have happened...
http://www.ntac.org/support/winndixie.html

[Helen MC]

Stephannie is correct. HR are part of Management. Just like IT or Transport / Logistics or R&D etc, part of the Business. They are there to protect, advise and support the Bosses and stop them dropping themselves in it over Employment Law, Health and Safety etc. For EMPLOYEE Protection you need a Trade Union, or are those still considered a bit too "Commie" in the USA?

[kneehighs]

Thought some of you might be interested in how the American Courts have dealt with the issue being discussed in this thread. While the following is by no means an exhaustive collection of crossdressing friendly case law, its sampling is enough to inspire us to fight for our rights. We really live in a day and age when the American Judicial System is beginning to reflect advances in crossdressing culture. Its kind of heavy reading for those of you not into law, but the snippets surely provide some insight into legal rights.

Most of the cases center around violations of Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was recently amended in 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e. The relevant subsection K stating, “(k) The terms "because of sex" or "on the basis of sex" include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of this title shall be interpreted to permit otherwise. This subsection shall not require an employer to pay for health insurance benefits for abortion, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or except where medical complications have arisen from an abortion: Provided, That nothing herein shall preclude an employer from providing abortion benefits or otherwise affect bargaining agreements in regard to abortion.”

The Supreme Court in the Price Waterhouse case ruled that failure to conform to sex stereotypes is a form of discrimination. The 9th Circuit court of appeals in Schwenk v. Hartford concluded the same stating, “Price Waterhouse sets a rule that bars discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes.” The 6th Circuit in Smith v. City of Salem also concluded the same providing persuasive argumentation that failure to conform to sex stereotypes is discrimination.

Supreme Court Ruling:

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109 S.Ct. 1775

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=490&invol=228

There were clear signs, though, that some of the partners reacted negatively to Hopkins' personality because she was a woman. One partner described her as "macho" (Defendant's Exh. 30); another suggested that she "overcompensated for being a woman" (Defendant's Exh. 31); a third advised her to take "a course at charm school" (Defendant's Exh. 27). Several partners criticized her use of profanity; in response, one partner suggested that those partners objected to her swearing only "because it's a lady using foul language." Tr. 321. Another supporter explained that Hopkins "ha[d] matured from a tough-talking somewhat masculine hard-nosed mgr to an authoritative, formidable, but much more appealing lady ptr candidate." Defendant's Exh. 27. But it was the man who, as Judge Gesell found, bore responsibility for explaining to Hopkins the reasons for the Policy Board's decision to place her candidacy on hold who delivered the coup de grace: in order to improve her chances for partnership, Thomas Beyer advised, Hopkins should "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry." 618 F.Supp., at 1117.
Dr. Susan Fiske, a social psychologist and Associate Professor of Psychology at Carnegie-Mellon University, testified at trial that the partnership selection process at **1783 Price Waterhouse was likely influenced by sex stereotyping. Her testimony focused not only on the overtly sex-based comments of partners but also on gender-neutral remarks, made by partners who knew Hopkins only slightly, that were intensely critical of her. One partner, for example, baldly stated that Hopkins was "universally disliked" by staff (Defendant's Exh. 27), and another described her as "consistently annoying and irritating" (ibid.); yet these were people who had had very little contact with Hopkins. According to *236 Fiske, Hopkins' uniqueness (as the only woman in the pool of candidates) and the subjectivity of the evaluations made it likely that sharply critical remarks such as these were the product of sex stereotyping--although Fiske admitted that she could not say with certainty whether any particular comment was the result of stereotyping. Fiske based her opinion on a review of the submitted comments, explaining that it was commonly accepted practice for social psychologists to reach this kind of conclusion without having met any of the people involved in the decision making process…

…In the specific context of sex stereotyping, **1791 an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender…

…Indeed, we are tempted to say that Dr. Fiske's expert testimony was merely icing on Hopkins' cake. It takes no special training to discern sex stereotyping in a description of an aggressive female employee as requiring "a course at charm school." Nor, turning to Thomas Beyer's memorable advice to Hopkins, does it require expertise in psychology to know that, if an employee's flawed "interpersonal skills" can be corrected by a soft-hued suit or a new shade of lipstick, perhaps it is the employee's sex and not her interpersonal skills that has drawn the criticism….

9th Circuit Ruling:

Binding in Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington


Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, C.A.9 (Wash.),2000.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9735870

…The initial judicial approach taken in cases such as Holloway has been overruled by the logic and language of Price Waterhouse. [FN12] In Price Waterhouse, which was decided after Holloway and Ulane, the Supreme Court held that Title VII barred not just discrimination based on the fact that Hopkins was a woman, but also discrimination based on the fact that she failed "to act like a woman"--that is, *1202 to conform to socially-constructed gender expectations. [FN13] Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. 228, 240, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989). What matters, for purposes of this part of the Price Waterhouse analysis, is that in the mind of the perpetrator the discrimination is related to the sex of the victim: here, for example, the perpetrator's actions stem from the fact that he believed that the victim was a man who "failed to act like" one. Thus, under Price Waterhouse, "sex" under Title VII encompasses both sex--that is, the biological differences between men and women--and gender. Discrimination because one fails to act in the way expected of a man or woman is forbidden under Title VII. Accordingly, the argument that the GMVA parallels Title VII and applies only to sex is in part right and in part wrong. The GMVA does parallel Title VII. However, both statutes prohibit discrimination based on gender as well as sex. Indeed, for purposes of these two acts, the terms "sex" and "gender" have become interchangeable…

…Sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII to the extent it occurs "because of" the plaintiff's sex. Oncale, 523 U.S. at 79, 118 S.Ct. 998; see also Schonauer, 905 P.2d at 400. Sanchez asserts that the verbal abuse at issue was based upon the perception that he is effeminate and, therefore, occurred because of sex. In short, Sanchez contends that he was harassed because he failed to conform to a male stereotype….
Sanchez's theory derives from Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989), in which the Supreme Court held that a woman who was denied partnership in an accounting firm because she did not match a sex stereotype had an actionable claim under Title VII. Hopkins, the plaintiff in Price Waterhouse, was described by various partners as "macho," in need of "a course in charm school," "a lady using foul language," and someone who had been "a tough-talking somewhat masculine hard-nosed manager." Id. at 235, 109 S.Ct. 1775. Hopkins was advised that she could improve her partnership chances if she would "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Writing for the plurality, Justice Brennan held that "n the specific context of sex stereotyping, an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender." Id. at 250, 109 S.Ct. 1775; see also id. at 272-73, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment) (characterizing "failure to conform to [sex] stereotypes" as criterion of discrimination)….
[19] Sanchez contends that the holding in Price Waterhouse applies with equal force to a man who is discriminated against for acting too feminine. We agree. See Oncale, 523 U.S. at 78, 118 S.Ct. 998 ("Title VII's prohibition of discrimination 'because of ... sex' protects men as well as women."); see also Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1202 (9th Cir.2000) (comparing the scope of the Gender Motivated Violence Act with the scope of Title VII, which forbids "[d]iscrimination because one fails to act in the way expected of a man or woman"); Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., 194 F.3d 252, 261n. 4 (1st Cir.1999) ("[J]ust as a woman can ground an action on a claim that men discriminated against her because she did not meet stereotyped expectations of femininity, a man can ground a claim on evidence that other men discriminated against him because he did not meet stereotyped expectations of masculinity.") (citing Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 250-51, 109 S.Ct. 1775).
At its essence, the systematic abuse directed at Sanchez reflected a belief that Sanchez did not act as a man should act. Sanchez was attacked for walking and carrying his tray "like a woman"--i.e., for having feminine mannerisms. Sanchez was derided for not having sexual intercourse with a waitress who was his friend. Sanchez's male co-workers and one of his supervisors repeatedly reminded Sanchez that he did not conform to their gender-based stereotypes, referring to him as "she" and "her." And, the most vulgar name-calling directed at Sanchez was cast in female terms. We conclude that this verbal abuse was closely linked to gender.

…Price Waterhouse sets a rule that bars discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes. That rule squarely applies to preclude *875 the harassment here. That rule squarely applies to preclude *875 the harassment here. [FN7] The only potential difficulty arises out of a now faint shadow cast by our decision in DeSantis v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., Inc., 608 F.2d 327 (9th Cir.1979). DeSantis holds that discrimination based on a stereotype that a man "should have a virile rather than an effeminate appearance" does not fall within Title VII's purview. Id. at 331-32. This holding, however, predates and conflicts with the Supreme Court's decision in Price Waterhouse. And, in this direct conflict, DeSantis must lose. To the extent it conflicts with Price Waterhouse, as we hold it does, DeSantis is no longer good law. Under Price Waterhouse, Sanchez must prevail…

6th Circuit Ruling:

Binding in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee

Smith v. City of Salem, Ohio, 378 F.3d 566. C.A.6 (Ohio),2004.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=6th&navby=case&no=04a0262a

However, the approach in Holloway, Sommers, and Ulane--and by the district court in this case--has been eviscerated by Price Waterhouse. See Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1201 (9th Cir.2000) ("The initial judicial approach taken in cases such as Holloway [and Ulane ] has been overruled by the logic and language of Price Waterhouse."). By holding that Title VII protected a woman who failed to conform to social expectations concerning how a woman should look and behave, the Supreme Court established that Title VII's reference to "sex" encompasses both the biological differences between men and women, and gender discrimination, that is, discrimination based on a failure to conform to stereotypical gender norms. See Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 251, 109 S.Ct. 1775;

Schwenk, 204 F.3d at 1202 (stating that Title VII encompasses instances in which "the perpetrator's actions stem from the fact that he believed that the victim was a man who 'failed to act like' one" and that "sex" under Title VII encompasses both the anatomical differences between men and women and gender);


Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co., 260 F.3d 257, 262-63 (3d Cir.2001) (stating that a plaintiff may be able to prove a claim of sex discrimination by showing that the "harasser's conduct was motivated by a belief that the victim did not conform to the stereotypes of his or her gender");

Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 256 F.3d 864, 874-75 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that harassment "based upon the perception that [the plaintiff] is effeminate" is discrimination because of sex, in violation of Title VII), overruling DeSantis v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co., Inc., 608 F.2d 327 (9th Cir.1979);

Doe v. Belleville, 119 F.3d 563, 580-81 (7th Cir.1997) (holding that "Title VII does not permit an employee to be *574 treated adversely because his or her appearance or conduct does not conform to stereotypical gender roles" and explaining that "a man who is harassed because his voice is soft, his physique is slight, his hair long, or because in some other respect he exhibits his masculinity in a way that does not meet his coworkers' idea of how men are to appear and behave, is harassed 'because of his sex' "), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 523 U.S. 1001, 118 S.Ct. 1183, 140 L.Ed.2d 313 (1998).

After Price Waterhouse, an employer who discriminates against women because, for instance, they do not wear dresses or makeup, is engaging in sex discrimination because the discrimination would not occur but for the victim's sex. It follows that employers who discriminate against men because they do wear dresses and makeup, or otherwise act femininely, are also engaging in sex discrimination, because the discrimination would not occur but for the victim's sex. See, e.g., Nichols, 256 F.3d 864 (Title VII sex discrimination and hostile work environment claim upheld where plaintiff's male co-workers and supervisors repeatedly referred to him as "she" and "her" and where co-workers mocked him for walking and carrying his serving tray "like a woman"); Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., 194 F.3d 252, 261 n. 4 (1st Cir.1999) ("[J]ust as a woman can ground an action on a claim that men discriminated against her because she did not meet stereotyped expectations of femininity, a man can ground a claim on evidence that other men discriminated against him because he did not meet stereotypical expectations of masculinity." (internal citation omitted)); see also Rosa v. Park West Bank & Trust Co., 214 F.3d 213 (1st Cir.2000) (applying Price Waterhouse and Title VII jurisprudence to an Equal Credit Opportunity Act claim and reinstating claim on behalf of biologically male plaintiff who alleged that he was denied an opportunity to apply for a loan because was dressed in "traditionally feminine attire").

The court concluded:
[i]"Sex stereotyping based on a person's gender non-conforming behavior is impermissible discrimination, irrespective of the cause of that behavior"

[Jesse69]

I was written up at work Thrusday for being too Fem. Men are not suppost to wear high heel, make-up etc. I looked absolutly professional and very conservative. Have any of you had problems during employement?

I think it's suicide to dress up femme for work. I wouldn't want to lose my coworker's esteem. And I have been fired from past jobs because of gossip that I was a crossdressor. Never had the money to sue, and in the past it wasn't illegal to discriminate against crossdressors.

I think you should just be happy being femme after work.

[Katie Ashe]

I was told to dress as a man, as it is a company function. Being the meal is paid for, Dawn and I will show up, eat and leave. We have found a baby sitter for the night. We will be shoe shopping and picking up last min X-mas things. I am not pressing the issue right now of dressing at work. I'm mostly upset because it seems like discrm. Due to I followed the rules for Females in the company.

Jesse, It's not suicide, if you were ment to be this way. I did continplate killing myself years ago, but couldn't pull the trigger. I don't think it would solve anything. I will help the laws change, then I will win. 1 or 2 people in the company ruined it for me.

The problem my state as it protects: Sex and Sex preference. Not Sex ID. Confusing as it is, FTM's will work here and Gays/Lesb will come and go. Once the laws are passed, I will push the issue. I will be writing more letters to my congressman this week. Someday we will be treated human.

Kneehighs Thanks for the references, I will keep them on hard copy.

:troll: on the :titanic: and never :surrender . :meditate:

[KathrynW]

Jesse, It's not suicide, if you were ment to be this way.
Katie ~ You have YET to give details on exactly WHY you were written up.
What DID you wear to work that got you in trouble? (several have asked in this thread)
Why am I starting to feel there is something fishy about this?

[Helen MC]

I admire your courage Katie in attending your Work's Xmas Party. I have never gone to work externally en-femme, I only Crossdress at home not outside and would never pass, (I would have in my teens and early 20s but not now).

I never attend Works Social Functions of any kind. I keep my personal life and my work as separate as I can and those friends I have are all outside of my employment. For the 40 hours I work each week I am dilligent in my duties and try to be as courteous to my co-workers both Management and other Workers as I can but that is all the company gets, 40 hours, out of work I simply do not want to know about them and trust that they will keep out of my personal and private life. So you won't see me at the Work's Xmas Dinner , not even in drab far less in female clothing.

[Katie Ashe]

Thanks Montfort, I do not wear a wig or breast to work, and no foundation, but have a clean shave all the time.

I, with HR's help wrote this letter, names have been changed for protection of everyone. Mostly out of respect. Here is what was wrote to contest my write up. I was miss informed and did further checking into local laws... The format is all goofed but here it is...

To whom it may concern,

First off, I would like to say I like working at X-Company. I have enjoyed being a part of the team. I would like to keep my position and status with in the company. I feel a slight injustice was done with the recent write up. I do not wish to paint the company bad, or unjust.
As I have explained to you, Katie Ashe is transgendered, which means that his birth sex (male) does not match his gender (female). Sex refers to an individual’s biological or anatomical identity as male or female, while gender describes the collection of characteristics that are culturally associated with maleness or femaleness. Most people experience their gender as correlating to, or in line with, their physical sex. That is, most people born with female bodies also have a female gender (i.e., an internal sense that “I am a woman”), and most people who are born with male bodies have a male gender (i.e., an internal sense that “I am a man”).
For a transgendered person, however, there is a conflict between the individual’s physical sex and gender. This conflict gives rise to a condition known as gender identity disorder. Gender identity disorder (also known as gender dysphoria) is a mental and physiological condition characterized by a strong and persistent desire to be a member of another sex, coupled with a continued discomfort with one’s biological sex. See Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV at 532-538. Treatment may include psychotherapy, hormone therapy and sex reassignment to conform an individual’s physical sex to his or her gender identity. Id. I at this time do not wish to surgically change my Physical sex.
To politely inform the company, under Massachusetts Non-Discrimination Law: Gender identity is protected. Gender identity is encompassed in the terms "sex" and "disability," according to two October 2001 Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination rulings. Millett V. Luttco, MCAD No. 98-BEM-3695 (Oct. 11, 2001) and Jette v. Honey Farino Mini Market, MCAD No. 95-SEM-0421 (Oct. 11, 2001). Federal and state courts have held explicitly that transgender people are protected from discrimination under Title VII and other sex discrimination statutes.
My intentions are simply put forth. I do not wish to cause undo hardship or lose of business to the company. I do not wish to loose my position or be reprimanded further. My goal is to dress comfortably and do my job as assigned. I wish to dress as I may feel for that day, Dressing respectfully and appropriately to the company and myself.

I am not in a high visibility position nor deal with customers on a regular basis. I have followed all of the company handbook rules set forth and violated none at any giving time. I have remained professional and conservative at all times. I do work better when more comfortable. I would be willing to dress as a male when VIP’s are expected. I will continue to use the private restrooms X-Company has provided to easy others discomfort. Others in my work center have not displayed discomfort, nor treated me differently. One can not please everyone, it’s simply impossible.
I wish no hardship to the company or to myself. I can’t help the way I am. I do not expect others to understand me, but request to treated human. I do not request to have my name change within the company, as it would just complicate things further. I am under medical care for my disorder and on medications for depression. I must continue to get medical, please do not take that from me or my family. I am willing to work with X-Company on this to find a happy medium. Female transgender persons have been employed here before, I ask for the same fair treatment.
The X-Company handbook was written gender neutral in dress and appearance and in sexual harassment. I noted the Sex and Sex orientation is mentioned. Please consider adding Gender expression to the handbook. I agree respectful attire should be always worn for each persons gender. Please understand I mean no disrespect to X-Company .

Thank You for you time, Respectfully,

[Helen MC]

We set out and I hope it works for you in this difficult situation.

[jennig]

hi kiti i hope thing work out for you on this matter. about six months ago i got tired of removeing my acrilic nails to go to the office so i made the choice to go to work with them on. now granted theay were long and i had them in a pink and white well nothing was said till the end of the day and i was called in to hr after she beated around the bush she says what up with the nails.i said to her i like them that way and said is their anything else with that i got up and walked out. i got home and i realey rubbed me the rong way
you know woman can have long nails long hair whear skirts and also have short nails hairpants ect so theay can hove it both ways. so the next day i put my wig on used a little makup kept my nails ect and was called in th hr
so she asked me what going on so i went into my tiread about the class difference between men and woman and told her i was takeing a stand. she said that i needed to dress like a man i asked her if woman could wear pants sh said yes i asked can woman have no nails she looked at me and said iam not makeing any sence isaid you have a dobble standered and i will dress how i want. its been maby four monts and i have not herd a word from her.
i kept the wig nails makup most of the time now i have not gone in with a dsress or skirt i have kept my nails i even painted them red once .take a stand
i dont think theay will fire you for this thier is to much to loose if you sue them.
thay will make some noise but in the end theay will drop it. i read your cos hand book that you posted and i dont think theay will push this to far.
as for me i think by standing up to them made them back down .most of the men in my office stay clear of me you know we are weird but for the most part the woman are nice to me

best of luck jennig

[Helen MC]

Where I work in the UK it is very male workforce, I'd say about 98% men in the workshop, many women in the Office and Admin of course, but only 4 female direct operatives. We have two openly Homosexual men but they are tolerated and there had never been any trouble involving them and I think that two of the women may have a Lesbian relationship but they are both quite femme not butch, "lipstick lesbians" not "diesel dykes".

To my knowledge there are no openly TV, TG or TS men or women come to that. I do wear panties as I have for 40 years under my perfectly ordinary male clothing , trousers (pants) or jeans, polo shirt etc, but as I do not dress outside the question would not arise for me.

I do not know how my Employers would react to a TV or TG male if one was to come out at work. According to the noble sentiments expressed in our Staff Handbook the Company has outlawed Sexual Discrimination and Harrassment and anyone doing so could well be dismissed. However, how such a heavily male workforce would react to one of their male co-workers if dressed externally en-femme in the workplace I can only guess.

[Katie Ashe]

Sorry to ignore a Q. I was asked what I was wearing. Over 4 weeks time I wear long sleeve button up shirts, in pink, black 2.5 inch block heeled boots, mascara everyday, small dangly earrings, and nuetral (white) color nail polish, mens black dress slacks. I am told there are not typical mens clothing... very double standard here...

On some days, I dress up, some days I wouldn't. I wear black boots mostly, some times pink eye shadow to complement my shirt. My watch and earrings, being pink are offensive to some, I guess. I would dress up only once a week on most ocassions. I remain within the dress code and wear what the other girls in office wear, I truely do blend, maybe that's the problem. I would like to expand my clothing selection, and have been increasing the amount of fem items slowly over the past 6 weeks. Time to press on with mens lib... :dom:

[Wendy me]

i could not vote as i am retired , when i did work it was not too overly freindly to be fem as much as we just try to be ourselfes we find road blocks
i just hope that one day we can look at the person for who thay are and not for what outhers think we should be....

[KathrynW]

Sorry to ignore a Q. I was asked what I was wearing. Over 4 weeks time I wear long sleeve button up shirts, in pink, black 2.5 inch block heeled boots, mascara everyday, small dangly earrings, and nuetral (white) color nail polish, mens black dress slacks. I am told there are not typical mens clothing... very double standard here...
Ok, I'm pretty sure my opinion won't be popular...but, I have to be honest here...
The pink shirt would be ok, if it was a man's shirt. IMHO...2.5 inch heeled boots in guy mode is unacceptable. Mascara in guy mode is unacceptable. Dangly earrings in guy mode are unacceptable. The neutral nail polish, you might be able to get by with, if your nails aren't long.

On some days, I dress up, some days I wouldn't. I wear black boots mostly, some times pink eye shadow to complement my shirt. My watch and earrings, being pink are offensive to some, I guess.
Pink eye shadow, watch, and earrings would be completely unacceptable in guy mode.

I remain within the dress code and wear what the other girls in office wear, I truely do blend, maybe that's the problem. I would like to expand my clothing selection, and have been increasing the amount of fem items slowly over the past 6 weeks. Time to press on with mens lib...
Men's Lib? Are you serious? This isn't a question of Men's Lib at all. You state that you wear nothing out of the norm from what the other girls would wear. One big problem with that...you're NOT a girl.;) The dress code for women doesn't apply to you.
Unless you have a letter aalready on file with this company from a medical doctor or psychiatrist stating that you're a transsexual, and you're in transition...you don't have a leg to stand on.
You're being WAY out of line on this job. How bad do you want to keep this job?
It seems like you don't want to keep it very badly. If you decide to push your issues...HOW MUCH money do you have for legal fees? A LOT, I hope...
Katie, I'm sorry, but I'm being very honest here...I can't support your actions at all.

[Julia Cross]

Kathryn, I am glad you had the guts to speak up, I didn't. I agree totally. While I appreciate and support our (CD's) right to self expression, one must remain realistic. You are in the working world, you work with others, many who do not understand or appreciate what transgendered people are coping with. They need to be educated, but assaulting their senses by wearing clothes and accessories to an environment where this is not the norm is asking for trouble. You need to appreciate the fact that you are still perceived as male and most men don't wear pink anything, shirts and ties at the most. Heels are absolutely out. As are dangly earrings. although it may seem unfair to you, perhaps try being far more subtle. I will give you an example. I am a CD but like to express my femininety as well, and I also work in a large office, many women, many men. My work deals with sporting goods, so the men, are men, or at leats from what I see at work. All the same, I do get away with blouses, have been complimented by both men and women, I wear studs in my ears, I have long hair, and have worn women's boots as well. But, in all cases, the items I choose to wear are more androgynous than overtly feminine. The blouses are romantic and look modern, hence no raised eyebrows, the earrings are black onyx studs or dark ruby, trendy but not tangly, my hair is kept stylish and contemporary, and the boots, well they are cold weather items, I wear them in, as most would, then I put on office footwear. If I know I am going to have a day with clients or the boss, I tend to avoid being too feminine. So, use common sense, don't try to force your rights on everyone else and be realistic.

I'll stop now as this reply is getting too long.

Julia

[kwebb]

Why is it not appropriate?

I know , straight common sense aught to tell me that men are not supposed to dress like that in this day and age and esp at work. Says who?
Damm near everybody I know. What is the point of this challenging of society, it ain't gonna change.

Lord help me to accept this truth.

[Katie Ashe]

The problem is I'm programed different than you. What right do you say I can't follow the rules for women in a gender nuetral work place. They may wear sneakers, I'm required to wear dress shoes. They wear any clothing, no limits, male or female type. I do follow the rules, and that is the problem I'm having. If not mens lib what in the world would you call it?????

Maybe I should just kill Katie and let Bryan run around like an idiot. I can't help the way I am, it took 30 years to accept I'm transgendered. You think it was easy. Since when does clothing make the person. Maybe I should beat up every girl I see wearing mens pants. Why can't I challenge society. Crap people do it every day with drinking and driving, yet they still do it. Hate crimes aren't on the decline, are they... If I sound offended I am. You have the right to your oppinion, but who's side are you you on. If I previal here, everyone after me will be allowed to be themselfs. On a foot note, why do U think so many :Pullhair: people are still closeted? It's becuase society is in greater numbers. Well we are still human aren't we. Why should our pets have more rights than us. If your religous your protected, if your gay, your protected, if your a girl, your protected, if your Les, you good, if your stuck in the middle :sorry: your :spank: and F:swear:cked. I'm tired of watching from the side lines, I taking a stand good bad or indifferent. My grand pops said to me be before he died 6 years ago... "Stand up for yourself and what you believe in." Well I'm 30 years old and my time is now. Tired of window shopping, and going main stream. :smashcomp

[Christina Nicole]

Good for you standing up for what you believe. Many others have gone before you and suffered for their beliefs. Some have done good work that has had a positive lasting impression on the world. Some were too far out on the fringe and just wasted a lot of time, effort, and personal suffering.

You can fight this fight. Just remember that the nail that sticks up is the one that gets pounded down. You need to answer the question, "How much will you sacrifice for being able to dress as you like?" Note that the questions is not "how much are you willing to sacrifice?" You may be forced to pay far more than you bargained to pay because once you start down a path, is can be difficult to change directions.

Warm regards,
Christina Nicole

[Julia Cross]

Well Katie, you are right in that I can't fully appreciate what deamons you are fighting inside of you. I apologize for that. Please keep in mind, and I posted a thread about this earlier and it was shuffled off to another area where likely it will not get read as much. We, the readers, can only respond to what information is initially shared. Your post, and many others was not entirely clear and you yourself opened up more after much more dialogue. We all make assumptions based on what information is provided.

I do respect you standing up for yourself. Do it as you feel best. My only caution was, the more "in your face" you are, the more you will be pushed away.

Julia

[KathrynW]

The problem is I'm programed different than you. What right do you say I can't follow the rules for women in a gender nuetral work place. They may wear sneakers, I'm required to wear dress shoes. They wear any clothing, no limits, male or female type. I do follow the rules, and that is the problem I'm having. If not mens lib what in the world would you call it?????
My first question would be - Are you a WOMAN? No, you're not. (so the women's dress code doesn't apply to you)
Are you a TRANSSEXUAL? Do you have a legitimate medical and/or psychiatric reason to dress as a woman? Is this information documented in writing with your workplace? I'm guessing Not.
I don't believe making a simple statement of your personal choice of attire is going to cut it in this case. This is NOT an issue of men's lib. It's your own personal issue. See the difference?

Maybe I should just kill Katie and let Bryan run around like an idiot. I can't help the way I am, it took 30 years to accept I'm transgendered. You think it was easy.
I don't think anyone insinuated that it was easy.

Why can't I challenge society.
If you don't need your job, you can certainly do WHATEVER you want. Nobody is stopping you from doing anything. Life is about choices. Since you're the employee and not the EMPLOYER, I believe you have some choices to make.

Well I'm 30 years old and my time is now. Tired of window shopping, and going main stream
Well, do whatever makes you happy... I just hope you have enough money in the bank to indefinitely sustain your family when you get fired, because that's what will eventually happen. There's a time and a place for cd-ing, the workplace is not it.

[Katie Ashe]

My first question would be - Are you a WOMAN? Are you a TRANSSEXUAL? Do you have a legitimate medical and/or psychiatric reason to dress as a woman? Is this information documented in writing with your workplace? I'm guessing Not. This is NOT an issue of men's lib. It's your own personal issue. See the difference? don't think anyone insinuated that it was easy...when you get fired, because that's what. There's a time and a place for cd-ing, the workplace is not it.

I was born a man. Transexual, no. Medical reasons, Yes I am under care of a doctor. Workplace documented... it is now!!! No I don't see the difference? Seemed like you implied it was easy. I though of killing myself 3 times in my life, because I was different, almost did it twice. I'm hanging on the best I know how Kathryn. Work placed CD'ing... please explain that to society, cause I don't think women understand that... and when would we CD deary, I think your supporting a double standard world. How do we take a stand? Lie'ing down? If I lose the second time around I will let it go for now. But If I get fired they have no chance of winning in court. MA court sides in our favore here. I saw my doc yest, she is aware of my troubles and doubled my meds. LIFE sucks, my wife is die'ing and your not helping, so back off :wall:

Now I'm really :angry: . I don't expect you to understand.

This poll was to be a nice informal gathering of info, friendly at that. I didn't want to spill the beans at first. So much for that.

[KathrynW]

Workplace documented... it is now!!!
Documented by who? YOU? and NOT a medical professional? If it's just some letter you wrote, trust me when I say - it will mean nothing to your employer.
Oh boy...you're just not getting it, are you Katie?

How do we take a stand? Lie'ing down? If I lose the second time around I will let it go for now. But If I get fired they have no chance of winning in court. MA court sides in our favore here.
Katie - You seem to only want people who will agree with you and take your side and NOT tell you the truth. Sorry, but I don't play that game.
You better re-think how you use the word "we" here. Because it's about YOU, not "we". You can't expect people to take your side on something this foolish. You are not going about this the right way. You don't have a leg to stand on...and you're setting yourself up for a long drawn out legal hassle here, and you don't even seem to realize that. I wish you the best, but PLEASE wake up before it's too late. enough said.

[JoAnnDallas]

I deceided to lookup what is my companies offical standing on this issue. This is what I found.

The Company will not permit or condone any acts of retaliation against anyone who files harassment complaints or cooperates in the investigation of same.

The term "harassment" includes but is not limited to unwelcome slurs, jokes, verbal, graphic or physical conduct relating to an individual's race, color, religious creed, sex, national origin, ancestry, citizenship status, pregnancy, physical disability, mental disability, age, military status or status as a Vietnam-era or special disabled veteran, marital status, registered domestic partner status, gender (including sex stereotyping), medical condition (including, but not limited to, cancer related or HIV/AIDS related) or sexual orientation.


Sexual harassment consists of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature where:

Submission to such conduct is an explicit or implicit term or condition of employment;
Employment decisions are based on an employee's submission to or rejection of such conduct; or,
Such conduct interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.

As you can see, my comapny is TG friendly.

[Helen MC]

Ok, a middle aged British take on all this.

Now I am a Indoors CD, plain and simple. I do not go out dressed, I don't want what the man in the street would call a "sex change" , I am sexually aroused by Women not men and by wearing women's clothing, especially undies. Enough about me!

Now on to the subject of this Thread, Katie Ashe. Here is a person born a biological male who is emotionally and psychologically Female. The condition "Gender Dyphoria" is now recognised as a genuine medical problem. If Katie considers themselves as more female than male and happier in female clothing then where is the harm in that?

I can remember when Employers would refuse to hire a Black, as this "would upset both the existing workforce and their customers" and later this argument was used to refuse to employ Homosexuals and Lesbians. Nowadays such discrimination is illegal in the UK and many other Nations, and the world has not fallen to bits over it.

So is the employment of a biological male who is happier in themselves wearing some female clothing such an impossible siutuation for a Business and its Proprietors to accept? It is not as if Katie has some communicable disease, she does not come on strong to other workers be they male or female , and behaves as any good employed does, performing her work duties during the hours she is paid for with dilligence and courtesy to both other workers and customers- what more can an employer ask of a worker and that only in the hours that they are on work premises and for which they are paid.

I hope that the situation will settle down, but fear that Katie will have to leave that job and find alternative employment where she will be tolerated .

If I have any condemnation it is for the Supervisor who did the "writing up" of Katie for being a CD.

[KathrynW]

Now on to the subject of this Thread, Katie Ashe. Here is a person born a biological male who is emotionally and psychologically Female. The condition "Gender Dyphoria" is now recognised as a genuine medical problem. If Katie considers themselves as more female than male and happier in female clothing then where is the harm in that?
There's NO harm in that. Katie and anyone else is free to dress however during time away from work...but absolutely NOT during work time. Yes, "Gender Dyphoria" is a recognized medical condition. HOWEVER...unless Katie under a Doctor's care, and has received an official diagnosis of this condition from a Dr. and has filed this official information with the company, Katie doesn't have a leg to stand on. Imagine the scenario...Katie comes along and says "oh, I feel like a girl, so that's how I'll dress at work..." Another person comes along and says "oh, I feel like I'm Dracula, so that's how I'll dress at work..." Need I say more? There would be no end to it.

I hope that the situation will settle down, but fear that Katie will have to leave that job and find alternative employment where she will be tolerated
I agree...

If I have any condemnation it is for the Supervisor who did the "writing up" of Katie for being a CD.
It wasn't the supervisor's fault whatsoever. I'm sure he was just doing his job and following company policy.

[Bridget]

They all come from a particular non-European culture that's not open to new ideas (other than shipping American jobs back to their homeland), and they're quite sexist on top of that.

...

Of course, I dare not point that out, dare not rock the boat. I mean, they've already threatened to "outsource" my job to China. (Oops! So, now you know who my bosses are. Can't blame the Catholics or Southern Baptists this time.)

By the way, I live in California. Specifically, the San Francisco Bay Area. If I can't have fashion freedom here, then where?:(

As both a crossdresser and a Chinese and Japanese American activist, I'd advise you to mind your thoughts about all of Chinese culture. It's somewhat hypocritical to pass judgement on the Chinese, when you yourself are a member of a group having judgement being passed on you. Namely, the traditional stereotype here of Chinese being clannish, and inassimailably foreign.

And in case your wondering why a lot of Asian males are intolerant of transgenders, gays and the like, it's for the exact same reason that Blacks are also intolerant of such groups. Historically both ethnic groups were (and in the case of Asians, still are) effeminized by mainstream culture. Honestly, when's the last time an Asian male was a sex symbol? So, in defense of their masculinity, many of these males feel the need to bash people who they feel detract from their racial masculinity. Some "activists" in the APA community have even gone so far as to say there are no gays or transgenders in the population, despite the fact that one notable activist, Helen Xia, is a lesbian. And so, on, sorry for hijacking the thread and getting up on my soapbox.

[Imogen_Mann]

I was written up at work Thrusday for being too Fem. Men are not suppost to wear high heel, make-up etc. I looked absolutly professional and very conservative. Have any of you had problems during employement?

Not me... I get in enough trouble for looking too agressive, and have on occasion been asked not to attend situations because some vulnerable females and males might find my general masculine apperance overwhelming (I look like a bit of a thug at work sometimes, it's the nose that does it :o ).


Live for the day someone calls me too femminine :rolleyes:

XX

Jayme

[Megan_Renee]

Documented by who? YOU? and NOT a medical professional? If it's just some letter you wrote, trust me when I say - it will mean nothing to your employer.
Oh boy...you're just not getting it, are you Katie?

Katie - You seem to only want people who will agree with you and take your side and NOT tell you the truth. Sorry, but I don't play that game.
You better re-think how you use the word "we" here. Because it's about YOU, not "we". You can't expect people to take your side on something this foolish. You are not going about this the right way. You don't have a leg to stand on...and you're setting yourself up for a long drawn out legal hassle here, and you don't even seem to realize that. I wish you the best, but PLEASE wake up before it's too late. enough said.


I've heard this type of argument used before... Where was it... (hold on, I'm shuffling through my memory...)

...

....

OH YEAH! This was the kind of thing my moderately racist grandfather used to say. "Don't make waves." "Society won't support that kind..." "It'll just be more trouble..."

look, if you're content to leave the status quoe, great. Simply don't object when people look for change where you are comfortable.

From what I have learned in management, as long as a person's attire does not affect a person's performance or presentation, it cannot necessarily be modified. (If your interested in this, you can follow the NBA's attempt at a dress code.) A Dress code can only be enforced with certain highly visible representatives of a company or for safety reasons. For example, any McDonald's Employee is highly visible, and must be prepared to represent the company. A mill worker is not highly visible, but wearing certain articles of clothing would be dangerous.

An engineer, for example, who sits in his or her cubicle drawing up plans for space ships is essentially free to dress as he or she feels, as long as it is non-offensive (which they might have an argument here) and conforms to state laws of decency.

Where you are strongest is that you have Gender Dysphoria. (I have thought long and hard about this because of the dresscode at work). Given a documented disability, a company must make *reasonable* accomodations to help. If a company hires a hearing impaired person, that company must purchase telephone amplification systems if they require their employees to talk on the phone. The company must, if you can provide documentation of your disability, allow you to dress as you naturally would.

My two cents...

Megan

[Clarissa3d]

Ok all

I think that Katie Ashe is taking a big step foward in working with her compnay and that is comemdable. Lets keep the coments constructive as to help guide not hurt.

Remember we are just all in this together and here to help each other!

We all need to take a step back for a bit and take in the bigger picture.

Ok Group hug

[shellyrichardsoninsc]

hey...i live in the south...south carolina to be exact. and of all places in the south, being a CD/TS/TV/TG is accepted here. especially in the city where i live. (columbia). the local university (USC) actually teaches a course on being transgendered and crossdressing. needless to say it is a well attended course, by both men and women, of all types. i had the priviledge to speak to this group earlier this semester, en femme of course, and i enjoyed it thoroughly. the hard part was convincing the guys that there was indeed a man under the womanly clothes. i had on a red suit, cami top and heels. i looked every bit the woman business executive. totally blew the kids away. by the way, that is the way i dress at work, so it was normal for me to walk in there like that...

[Helen MC]

Quote from Kathryn W "It wasn't the supervisor's fault whatsoever. I'm sure he was just doing his job and following company policy."

That argument could be applied to Adolf Eichman but the Israelis still hanged him when Mossad caught him hiding in South America in the 1960s.

We have here the classic argument as to how much power an Employer should have over their Workers . Obviously if someone is in a high profile position meeting with customers and clients then the Employer can mandate the clothing they must wear in work time and at work premises or when working at a client's premises for that Employer. Some companies stipulate a Uniform that the Worker must wear , eg "Crew" members in MacDonalds, Burgerking, etc . In other cases there are Health and Safety considerations which determine the clothing worn by a Worker when at work or performing the duties of their Employment elsewhere. Other than that I can understand that if the mode of attire of an Employee is causing unrest and disturbance in the rest of the workforce an Employer may feel that they have to remove the cause of the problem. However, if one then substitutes "Homosexual" or "Black" or "Jew" or "Disabled" for "Crossdresser" or "Transgendered" then the Employer is breaking the Law in many States and Countries.

In the end I would recommend to Katie that she DOES obtain a letter or certificate from a Doctor declaring that she has Gender Dysphoria, this will strengthen her case if not at present then in the future and as I feel that the well is poisoned at her present place of work she should seek alternative employment where she will be happpier and can make a fresh start and , as it says in the Bible "If they will receive thee not cast the sands from thy shoes" In a word get out of that bigotted hell hole as soon as you can Katie, and good luck!

[KathrynW]

In the end I would recommend to Katie that she DOES obtain a letter or certificate from a Doctor declaring that she has Gender Dysphoria, this will strengthen her case if not at present then in the future and as I feel that the well is poisoned at her present place of work she should seek alternative employment where she will be happpier and can make a fresh start
Real nice...
you accuse me of making Hitler-esque comments and then you basically agree with what I've said. A bit ironic at best...
what goes around, comes around...

[Helen MC]

Not at all Kathryn. I am facing the facts that the Employer is this situation is holding all the aces and therefore Katie has to protect herself in the short term from being sacked whilst seeking alternative employment with a more tolerant Employer. This is NOT to say that I agree with that position, far from it! I would like to see Employers made by sanction of Law to give the same equality of treatment to Crossdressers as they are forced to give to Homosexuals and Lesbians, and most Ethnic Groups.

As to the Nazi argument, that was the one put up at Nuremburg by various high ranking captured Germans after World War Two "I was only obeying orders" . No doubt the Supervisor in this case would plead that too, but I would respond that if what they were doing was offending to a higher value then that is no excuse and again I blame them totally for the situation that Katie is now in. They could have ignored the situation or had a friendly word off the record with Katie in private and come to a compromise that would have been acceptable to both parties.

[Katie Ashe]

:cheer: This morning I received a formal appoligy and my write up was retracted. I may dress in any manner I feel at work, male or female. They are changing the company policies to be more gender supportive and open. I was asked to keep make-up respectful, and earrings not longer than 1" for safety reasons. All persons are to wear slack or kackies. The employee handbook will be written in a more supportive and gender nuetral manner. Basicly I may wear whatever I want, but need to remain professional. Thanks Montfort and others for hanging in there with me. As of today, A good side note, they are increasing my responsiblities also. Other changes will be made, to be more of a gender friendly company. :cheer:

I choose to be a part of the solution, follow my lead...

P.S. I can't spell, so sue me :p

[KathrynW]

I may dress in any manure I feel at work, male or female.
Well that should be interesting...dressing in female manure... :spank:

[Sharon]

Good for you, Katie. Congratulations! :clap:

[Stephanie Brooks]

Congratulations Katie! This is very good news. I did *not* expect a good outcome. Please keep us posted as to how all of this evolves. Words from an employer are fine, but actions are what count.

[Helen MC]

EXCELLENT! A success case! What a Christmas Present!

Happy New Year!

[Marlena Dahlstrom]

Congratulations Katie!

[Katie Ashe]

Thank you for your support. since the last update... I have been dressing fem everyday, from shoes to makeup, nails done nice and all. Work is been great and no more talk of it. All seems well and pleasant. Just wanted to drop you a good note today.

See, not everything has to end in a negative way. :bs:

[Stephanie Brooks]

Wow Katie, that is So Cool. Thank you for the update!!!!!!! I'm very happy for you that things have worked so well, and that your employer is standing by their word. Actions count. :thumbsup: