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

[KateSpade83]

If the Federal government passes anti gay discrimination laws and it protects crossdressers at work, would you go to work in drag?

For me, I'd wait to see what happens to other crossdressers when they do this. Then if things do go ok I would sometimes dress up for work in my beautiful skirt suit collection. Only problem is the dry cleaning bill so I guess I would also dress as a guy to save money.

Yeah, I have a better skirt suit collection than most real women!

[Karren H]

Ya can pass all the laws ya want but peoples opinions will not be mandated by govenrment... I'd rather maintain my good working relationships with my coworkers and keep the job I love than risk it all.. Laws or no laws..

IMHO

Karren

[KateSpade83]

I fear what you say Karren that's why I'd wait and see what happens to other crossdressers first. Like maybe if our forum members do it.

If I have a current job that pays well and I love it, then maybe I wouldn't take the risk. And that's my current job too! Good salary, when overtime is approved I can do up to 20 hrs of it, and I'm working on the parts for the space shuttle, space station, and maybe in the future - the next space shuttle! This definitely is the most interesting job I've ever had!

And when you work for a company that has a big NASA contract, they have the money to pay you big bucks! My coworkers are driving nice cars - even the drafters! And there's a drafter checker who looking to live in a luxury Apt!

[Michelle04240]

Ya can pass all the laws ya want but peoples opinions will not be mandated by govenrment... I'd rather maintain my good working relationships with my coworkers and keep the job I love than risk it all.. Laws or no laws..

IMHO

Karren

Well said. Big difference between legal and accepted. Now...if it was accepted and viewed as "normal" I'd be in a skirt everyday.

[jaina]

If the Federal government passes anti gay discrimination laws and it protects crossdressers at work, would you go to work in drag?

For me, I'd wait to see what happens to other crossdressers when they do this. Then if things do go ok I would sometimes dress up for work in my beautiful skirt suit collection. Only problem is the dry cleaning bill so I guess I would also dress as a guy to save money.

Yeah, I have a better skirt suit collection than most real women!

Lots of crossdressers will "wait to see what happens"
Unfortunatly transgender and gender expression had to be dropped from the current work protection bill.

It really was a "win something" or "win nothing" scenerio.
The gay community has exended a hand to transgender and crossdressers over and over again, often only encountering hate and homophobia. The perfect cant be allowed to be the enemy of the good this time.

Remember this when you go to a gay club for the safe atmosphere on friday, but support anti-gay stances on sunday morning and vote against gay issues on tuesday. Transgendered and Crossdressers really need to start jumping in and fighting the fight. They can't sit it out and expect the gay community to get bloody and always hand them their rights on a platter.

If you assume the this forum is a valid cross section of TG/CDs, Most won't even stand up for equal rights in their own personal relationships nevermind the workplace or government agencies. So why should the gay community risk losing even one fight simply to carry such dead weight with them? If you want TG/Cd equal rights stop hiding and get them, don't blame the gay community for leaving you behind.

Personallyy I'm NOT going "wait to see what happens to other crossdressers" I'm not one of the ones cowering in their closet hoping others do all the work.

[Jamie001]

Why did transgender and gender expression have to be dropped from the current work protection bill? What was the reason?



Lots of crossdressers will "wait to see what happens"
Unfortunatly transgender and gender expression had to be dropped from the current work protection bill.

[carolinewalker_2000]

Absolutely Karen!! I fear that prejudices against TV's run deeper than we would like to acknowledge. I'm afraid "discretion" will have to be the better part of "valour" for some time yet.

[jaina]

Why did transgender and gender expression have to be dropped from the current work protection bill? What was the reason?

It was a matter of losing 2 fights and having to fight them both again, or winning one and only having to fight one again later.

[Cindi Johnson]

Protections for TG's/crossdressers were stripped from the gay rights bill that recently passed the House and will soon be passed by the Senate. Removing protections for TG's was the only way the Democrats could muster a majority in favor of the bill. Unfortunately, Bush will veto the gay rights legislation and there is no way enough legislators will be convinced to override. So, gays (and us TG's) will continue to exist as second class citizens, at least until we elect a new president and a more reasonable congress.

Oddly, a few Republican representatives were against stripping TG protection from the bill. No, not because they believe we shouldn't be fired for, say, piercing our ears (let alone dressing completely at work). No, these cynical legislators just wanted to use the vote in their ads for next year's elections ("And, did you know my opponent voted to require your church to accept into their congregation men wearing dresses and high heels!!! The Bible forbids it, but yet my opponent votes to make crossdressing the law of this land. We must save our great nation from such depravity!!!")

So, as to whether I would crossdress to work were crossdressing protected by law, the question is moot. It's not protected now, and won't be protected anytime within the foreseeable future, at least here in Texas.

I suppose if you are a very valuable employee, very hard to replace, and you work for an "enlightened" company, then you may get away with it. But for most of us, if we were to even look at all feminine on the job, we'd soon be shown the door. And there is nothing at all that we can do about it.

Cindi Johnson

[Sinthia]

In California it is illegal to discriminate based on gender appearance, gays, lesbians, etc., but I do not think it would go over very good at my job, wearing dresses and heels. First, the work is manual, walking about sixmiles a day, so my feet would be killing me. And as I work at a high school, I would probably be rediculed by too many students. The views here at school are great. Tons of beautiful girls, quite often in minis. But keep my eyes, and thoughts, off of them. I do occasionally see guys in colored pantyhose, shaved legs, and quite a few wear earrings.

[mollytyler]

Have been fulltime as Molly with no problems for last year...before that just VERY androgynous though all co-workers knew...even wiht a "law" to protect you you still need acceptance.......just because murder is against the law doesn't mean it does not happen....just proceed with extreme caution

[Kate Simmons]

I doubt it Kate. I always wear functional clothing for work. CDing is totally for fun for me. No law would change that.:happy:

[pamela_a]

Oddly, a few Republican representatives were against stripping TG protection from the bill. No, not because they believe we shouldn't be fired for, say, piercing our ears (let alone dressing completely at work). No, these cynical legislators just wanted to use the vote in their ads for next year's elections ("And, did you know my opponent voted to require your church to accept into their congregation men wearing dresses and high heels!!! The Bible forbids it, but yet my opponent votes to make crossdressing the law of this land. We must save our great nation from such depravity!!!")Well said...and of course we all know that Democrats don't care one bit about being re-elected because they love everyone, well, spending everyone's money and running everyone's life.

Please, I'm trying very hard to be nice and you're not helping.

As to the question posed. I probably wouldn't change my current dress. I am lucky enough to work for a very open company and with some great people. Over the past few years I have slowly changed my look and attire to where I am currently and except for some occasional good natured ribbing (especially the first day I wore a fuscha colored top), nothing has changed.

Would I start wearing skirts to work? I don't think so. I'm comfortable with what I currently wear to work and there is no need to include more. However I do keep hoping someone in the office will bet me I wouldn't wear a skirt or dress to work. :)

-Paula-

[sterling12]

I think Cindi understands The Political Game very well. She covered the whys and wherefores pretty well. The Bill will be vetoed anyway....and we are expendable! It is a vehicle for all Politico's to try and make certain points for The Upcoming Elections.

I never did imagine a mad rush for everyone to start wearing heels and hose at work. We would still have to deal with our fellow workers and other hostile individuals. The desire to present as female in The Workplace is probably important to TS Folk, but not a major deal for most CD's. For me, what would have been important about that Bill would have been the idea that I would have SOME protections. If somebody went and whispered in The Boss's Ear, "I saw Joanie down at The local Walmart in femme clothes," at least he would have to find another excuse for firing me. What happened a few years back at Winn-Dixie, what happened to Susan Stanton, incidents like that might finally come to an end.

Just a few days ago, we had a good friend who is beginning her TS journey get fired off of her job. The Boss called her in and said, "People are complaining about you!" "I hear you want to cut your w****e off, is that true?" Maybe if there was an ENDA Law on the books, such outrageous actions might come to an end.

Peace and Love, Joanie

[Nicki B]

I usually get the impression on these boards that the very last thing most people here want is to be thought gay.... :strugglin

:wall:


Just a few days ago, we had a good friend who is beginning her TS journey get fired off of her job. The Boss called her in and said, "People are complaining about you!" "I hear you want to cut your w****e off, is that true?" Maybe if there was an ENDA Law on the books, such outrageous actions might come to an end.

Is there a lawyer in the house?

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

[karynspanties]

Michigan is an "at will" state. An employer really does not need an excuse to terminate you. No anti gay law can protect you from this. Besides...just because I wear womens clothes does not make me gay.:mad:

[Ruth]

Going back to that comment about attitudes, we have these laws on the statute books here in the UK, but offices and factories are not awash with men in skirts. What the law allows and what your neighbours approve are two different things.

[serinalynn]

I work in a very masculine envirenment and even with laws I would not dress as a women for work. It still boils down to acceptance and at my job that would not happen.

[sissy_she_boy]

In about 100 years I think I would go to work in drag. Unfortunately, I will not be alive anymore. The reason that I say 100 years is because I read someting (but I forgot where) and it was a study on how long from now it would take before the country is accepting of the GLBT community. I don't remember excatly how they based the results, but it was based on the fights that the GLBT currently has now vs. years past. How accepting people are now and in the past. So on and so on. Anyway, they came to the conclusion that in about 100 years, our society would be very accepting of the GLBT community. So, the good news is that if any of you have great great great grandchildren and they discover that they are GLB or T, they will probably be able to grow up the way that they feel most comfortable, not the way society feels the should.

kisses
sissy dana

[Deborah Jane]

Even if i wanted to i couldn,t because :1 I work in a vehicle restoration bodyshop and it wouldn,t be practical, and :2 I,d never hear the end of it from everyone else there and i need the job!!

[BarbaraTalbot]

Transgendered expression was COMPLETELY amputated from the bill. Some in the gay community have suggested that if they get what they want we TG''s can hide under their skirts by claiming to be gay (even if we are not).

Great plan. Why didn't blacks think of that? Turns out - we didn't need civil rights act of 1964, just make it the gay act and black guys can just talk with a lisp if they don't want to get fired.

I personally will try to be understanding of others as individuals, but I will never champion gay 'rights' in any form after reading all too many 'who cares' comments on gay blogs about leaving trans issues in the wake of this bill. Personally I would favor a bill that bans service in the US government for all gay men named Barney Frank.

[jaina]

Transgendered expression was COMPLETELY amputated from the bill. Some in the gay community have suggested that if they get what they want we TG''s can hide under their skirts by claiming to be gay (even if we are not).

Great plan. Why didn't blacks think of that? Turns out - we didn't need civil rights act of 1964, just make it the gay act and black guys can just talk with a lisp if they don't want to get fired.

I personally will try to be understanding of others as individuals, but I will never champion gay 'rights' in any form after reading all too many 'who cares' comments on gay blogs about leaving trans issues in the wake of this bill. Personally I would favor a bill that bans service in the US government for all gay men named Barney Frank.

So go out and fight for gender expression bill. Get out, get out in public, make statements. Do lots of work.

The gay comunity wasn't going to risk losing this one to carry an added on rider. A nice rider, but none the less a rider that was risky and benefits people that just won't shoulder a lot of the load. maybe next time. Or if its REALLY important to you, get out in the real world and fight for it. don't blame people for not fighting the fight alone.

Be smart, if the gay employment bill goes through, use it as a precedent for a gender expression bill. Thats how proggress is really made.

[Nicole Erin]

Where I work, I would not want to ruin any of my nice clothes. My daily work wear is a tee, shorts, and tennies.

Plus, I would get tired of explaining myself umpteen times a day as to why I dress en femme. That and hearing the stupid jokes from a couple morons I work with who seemed obsessed about what i look like already.

[BarbaraTalbot]

So go out and fight for gender expression bill. Get out, get out in public, make statements. Do lots of work.

The gay comunity wasn't going to risk losing this one to carry an added on rider. A nice rider, but none the less a rider that was risky and benefits people that just won't shoulder a lot of the load. maybe next time. Or if its REALLY important to you, get out in the real world and fight for it. don't blame people for not fighting the fight alone.

It isnt important to me...the point is they have campaigned for the hearts and minds of heterosexuals who are willing to be open minded. Not the bill, but their callous attitude of us being a "rider" on THEIR bill galls me. If they don't think my issues are important or relevant despite the fact that the very reason I might get beat up in public is because of stereotypes about GAY behavior, then I have no interest in their struggles. Nothing more nothing less. They owed me nothing, and gave me nothing. I owe them less.

Their campy use of alternative gender expressions in their entertainment and as symbols of rebellion in their STUPID pride marches, will some enlightened day be the equivalent of Republicans using minstrel shows in black-face at campaign fund raisers and at political rallies. My point is they as a community do not respect us.

This generalizes the gay community of course. However any GLB person who says nothing or laughs along at the vicious slurs I have read on gay blogs about "trannies" as they use in a derisive manner is no better than a white person laughing along or staying silent when the "n" word is used or black jokes are told.

There are some decent human beings in their community and when I see one of them standing up for us in these diatribes I send a thank you, but I have no interest in interacting in any way with people that decry bigotry only when their 'ox' is being gored.

[battybattybats]

No anti gay law can protect you from this. Besides...just because I wear womens clothes does not make me gay.

Actually the bill was an anti-discrimination based on sexuality and gender perception bill originally. It covered everybody.

Many states in the US already have transgender protections, many do not.

A naturally masculine woman or an effeminate man would be protected as much as an outright transexual or homosexual. Originally.

Now in ENDA only striaght-acting gays and lesbians are covered.

It's a common tactic through history, get a lot of groups together to fight together then dump the most marginalised groups right at the end so the majority look more acceptable. Look at the history of the black vote, once it was campained for hand-in-hand with the vote for women. Then women were dropped.

Feminist rights advocates kicked out the lesbians and dropped lesbian issues at the last minute.

Now one part of the straight-acting gay community have dropped the drag queens and kings, the camp and butch as well as all the T: transexuals and all of transgender so they can appear more acceptable at the last minute. Except with a veto likely it seems a really stupid tactic.

As for gay groups and T groups, almost every single GLBT group argued against voting for legislation that dropped the gender aspects. I've only heard of just one, HRC, that didn't and it has had a history of betraying transgender issues. They even promised (there is video of this) that they would oppose a gender-less ENDA but by the end they actually campained for the gender-less ENDA.

Still the majority were still on our side.

In fact some have claimed that there was behind-the-scenes campaining for dropping the gender provisions by people who were supposed to be campaining for retaining them.

And if I wasn't disabled sure I'd go to work in a skirt. Even if I weren't protected by the law I'd do it anyway! As it is they could probably sack me for my long black nails or long hair.

[michellebesweet]

Laws are just on paper, Society needs to change, and that won't happen, not in our lifetime.

[Glenda58]

If the pass the anti gay law. You will not be protected because the doesn't include transgender people such crossdressers

[battybattybats]

Laws are just on paper, Society needs to change, and that won't happen, not in our lifetime.

Sometimes changing laws does make a difference though.
Hate crime legislation for example has a big impact on securing justice.
When (if) companies end up in the press getting sutibly chastised and finacially punished for firing transexuals and at-home crossdressers that would send a message to the rest of the community that can help advance social change.

It won't do the job all by itself but it can indeed make a difference and support endeavors to change society.

[janet1234]

may change, but I doubt that I would simply because dressing is a hobby, giving me lots of satisfaction but being public and putting up with some amount of crap would be a downer.
Also consider the fun scene of CDers trying to outdress each other.

[Jocelyn Quivers]

Even if it were protected by law and accepted in society. I would not want to go to work dressed up. When I'm at work I still try to function in male mode, or I need my male side to be in charge. Being dressed up would be too much of a distraction for me to do my job properly or safely. Jocelyn

[Cindi Johnson]

BattyBats is right. Most organized gay groups opposed dropping TG protections from the bill. They sided with us. Which is not to say that all gays support us (after all, many of us are less than 100% supportive of gay rights).

Barbara Talbots directs her anger at Barney Frank. Why not attack the Republican legislators (all of whom consistently oppose any laws which would help us, and most of whom would happily pass laws to make crossdressing illegal) rather than those Democrats who tried to help us but jettisoned us when they realized the votes just weren't there?

Look: this is the first time in history that national legislation in support of us was ever considered. Never, when the GOP controlled Congress, was such legislation ever considered. No, it didn't make it this time, but don't blame our friends. And don't give up.

Let's not go back to the time when the only gay or TG legislation being proposed was to ban gay marriage, of all things.

Cindi Johnson

[suchacutie]

I really like the separate lives that my two genders lead. I don't think I'd ever mix them together, so the familiar places and those important to my male self won't be part of my female side. Tina is just not interested in sharing herself and her life! She like being unique!

:)

tina

[Kimmie]

Tbhe state can mandate personal opionions as much as The city of boston can mandate all people cheer the red sox against the yankees. If you work in a liberal workplace that would be fine with it. then that would be great. But in all workplaces there is a pethora of political views, thats why its not talked about, because its a distraction. Going en femme would be a distraction that most employeers would frown upon. Better to go en femme on your own time.

[kay_jessica]

Going back to that comment about attitudes, we have these laws on the statute books here in the UK, but offices and factories are not awash with men in skirts. What the law allows and what your neighbours approve are two different things.

This is true Ruth, however, the decisive law only really came into effect relatively recently. There are many hundreds of girls now presenting en femme on a daily basis. I come and go from home, the naighbours may or may not see me. I do not care. I do not present en femme at work not because I fear dismissal, it is more a particle thing. I visit client sites and though it is not fear pursae it is that I don't want to have to prepare the client for a wee shock. I know off at least 10 girls in my immediate area living full time as women. About half are planning GRS.

Hugs

Kay

[Lucy Bright]

I can't speak for ENDA or the debate around it, not being in the US, but it's sad if the result is internal dissension between two marginalized groups whose shared interests are (if we can back up a few paces and get a little perspective) far greater than the things that divide them.

Even on this board we are a very diverse group. Close up, it may seem that fetishists, TGs, and pre-op TSs have very little in common, for example. Yes, we all cross-dress, but for such different reasons! Given that, I don't think we can stigmatize gays for 'camp' cross-dressing: maybe some of us CDers enjoy the camp aspect too? Are we going to start worrying that fetishists bring transsexuals into disrepute? Or are we going to recognize that we are all just doing what we must in difficult circumstances, and support each other? If the general public confuses CDers with gays it's surely because neither group looms that large in their consciousness - we're all just "weirdos". So, when we're dealing with the general public, that's all the more reason to stick together.

Having said that, there are some things that make standing and being counted potentially a bigger deal for CDers than for gays. One is visibility: being cross-dressed is very "in your face", whereas being gay isn't, or at least needn't be. Also, given that most CDers are straight they are more like than gay people to have spouses, children, etc. And I do think that this makes coming out a bigger deal - it's not just a personal choice, it's one that necessarily involves your entire family. And that's even if being CD were as acceptable as being gay at the moment, which it's clearly not. So, while I agree with Jaina that more direct action is desirable, I can see why it hasn't happened, or at least not in the same way. (Many of us are trying to effect quieter revolutions in our own immediate circle, meanwhile.)

Kisses,

Lucy

[Suzy Harrison]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jo_ann]

Unfortunately there is still a stereo-type that keeps women at the bottom of the corporate ladder, both in position and repect, and in pay.. And it's probably even worse for transgendered. Read this book elise elrod:
http://www.biasawareness.org/index.html

IYQYQR

[feminineandproud]

if they would arrest people for discrimating me... HELL YES!

[Nicki B]

Going back to that comment about attitudes, we have these laws on the statute books here in the UK, but offices and factories are not awash with men in skirts. What the law allows and what your neighbours approve are two different things.

But there are plenty of TSs around - maybe you just don't notice them? I could introduce you to lots, in many, many walks of life - there's a girl working on the floor above me?


My point is they as a community do not respect us.

I'm saddened you find that - because I would say it's not true where I live? A very odd one or two, maybe, but certainly not the majority and not the younger ones... I've been invited to join in volunteering for Mardi Gras's several years running, as a steward, committee member, trans-rep - they asked me, I didn't ask them?

Rally under the rainbow flag, we ARE both stronger together.

But going back to the question, I DON'T THINK I WOULD? Because I wouldn't want to do it all the time - and I think people relate much more easily to one version of you, than several? :strugglin

[Kristen Kelly]

How I dress at work wouldn't change much the mandated uniforms are gender neutral pants and shirts. How I dressed coming and going well that would change a little. Little would be done with my hair it is long and highlighted and styled as much as it is more feminine than masculine. The tops would me more feminine, already wear my womens lowrider Ryder jeans, trade in the 5/8" hoops for some long dangly earrings, and add a little makeup.

[Joni T]

I work in a machine shop. Not exactly the best place for nylons, skirts and heels.

[Ashly]

..I work part-time in a small company..Usually I wear skirts to work combined with a (unisex) T-shirt, sweater or shirt. I don't push it any further, because I would hate any kind of confrontation with some of the rednecks in the company.

[wishonastar]

The problem is they can fire you for any reason, not to mention make you life miserable so you leave. Then there is your co workers and the trouble from them.

Laws will not protect you and if they do, do you sue all the time?

[nikki_t]

The federal government actually has no business (under the constitution) in passing such laws just as it has no business (under the constitution) trying to define what marriage is or just as it has no business (under the constitution) sticking its nose in abortion issues or just as it has no business (under the constitution) telling people or the press what they can or cannot say - yet Democrats and Republicans keep trying because they all want to control our lives and find the constitution to be inconvenient.

These matters are supposed to be defined by state laws and all the states are supposed to be loosely tied together by a weak federal government with a weak federal president. The US is a representative republic for a reason. Yet we all seem to forget this and expect the federal government to cure all our ills for us and, therefore, allow the federal government to grow and control us (the exact same thing is happening in Europe with the European Union).

The benefit of this system is supposed to be that the entire nation cannot be controlled by a single tyrant. The framers of the constitution figured they'd been there, done that and bought the T-shirt and specifically limited the power of the federal government in the constitution. If you don't like the laws and/or taxes of one state you can always move and benefit from the laws and/or taxes of another state. The concept is that states will compete for taxpayer's business. For example, I believe Vermont is supposed to have some pretty damned good TG protection laws.

There is already a federal law that protects what you can wear. It's called the constitution and it's the law-of-the-land. It's society that needs to change its views on TG issues - no piece of paper will do that.

-

BTW, the US is known as the land of the free because it gained independence from a tyrannical King. Not because the people have more freedoms than other nations. In fact, the US Bill of Rights is a rehash of the English 1689 Bill of Rights.

[Angie G]

No I work on a produetion floor I run a press and you know how guys are.
Even if they keep it cool at work theres after work I don't need that besides ink on my girl tning I think not hun :hugs:
Angie

[Ashly]

..............
There is already a federal law that protects what you can wear....

You can wear whatever you want.

[nikki_t]

You can wear whatever you want.

Exactly what I was saying. :happy:

[Ashly]

BTW....looking goood ;)

[pamela_a]

Thank You Nikki, that was great. Here in the U.S. we CAN wear whatever we want. We have that freedom. It seems to me what people are looking for is the government to protect them from the repercussions of their choices.
Up until the 1940s during WWII a woman in pants was an oddity. I'm not aware of any laws that were passed protecting a woman who wore pants yet now it's an oddity to see one not wearing them.

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

As Nikki pointed out. The federal government has gotten too powerful. I refer to Article 1 section 8. I don't see anything about forcing an employer to accept how you dress there? The 10th amendment pretty much specifies that would be something possibly reserved for the states to deal with. The original idea of states was if you didn't like how your state did something you were free to go to another. With the power of the federal government so great, it really doesn't matter anymore. You have lost your choice and freedom to make the decision for yourself.

We need to be very careful of what we want the government to do for us, I, for one, would prefer they limit themselves to protecting me and my family (governments first job since they have the ultimate ability to use force). Every time we allow the government to do something "for" us we relinquish the ability to for ourselves. I would prefer to not have to rely on government.

-Paula-

[nikki_t]

As Nikki pointed out. The federal government has gotten too powerful. I refer to Article 1 section 8. I don't see anything about forcing an employer to accept how you dress there? The 10th amendment pretty much specifies that would be something possibly reserved for the states to deal with. The original idea of states was if you didn't like how your state did something you were free to go to another. With the power of the federal government so great, it really doesn't matter anymore. You have lost your choice and freedom to make the decision for yourself.

Thanks Paula! I specifically had the 1st Amendment in mind:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And if that right to free expression doesn't cover it, you're correct in stating that the 10th Amendment takes over:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, if TG protection laws are the most important issue to you then you have the right to move and live in a state that provides those statutes.

[Cindi Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cindi Johnson

[Lucy Bright]

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

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

Kisses,

Lucy

[nikki_t]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cindi Johnson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pamela_a]

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


On the one hand, you state that the constitution already allows us to dress as we please, and on the other hand, you say we should just move to another state if we aren’t allowed to dress as we please. So which is it?I was referring to the original intent of the country's framers. The federal government's power is supposed to be limited resulting in the states being able to be different. Since the Constitution is being ignored the federal government has grown to the point where it no longer makes a difference in which state you live.


You don't tell them which baseball team you support, for example. Supposing you were based in Boston but you were a secret Yankees fan, would that be grounds for dismissal? I doubt it. You don't tell them your favourite colour, or how you like your coffee - why should you? So how is crossdressing different here?A die hard Boston fan firing a hard core Yankees fan? I bet it's been done. Not stated that way I'm sure but I have no doubt that an employer's personal prejudice has been the only real motivation to terminate someone's employment. You are correct, it doesn't matter how you drink your coffee. if you support one team over another, or if you like to dress en-fem but how does that affect the synergy at work? How does it affect the company and the other employees?

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

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

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

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

-Paula-

[nikki_t]

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

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

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

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

[Tammy298]

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

Since I've not had the real inclination to go out dressed (or maybe it's just fear!) it not really that important to me.
:2c:

[battybattybats]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[sterling12]

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

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

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

Peace and Love, Joanie

[nikki_t]

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

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

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

Peace and Love, Joanie

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

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

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

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

[charllote34]

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

[Sally24]

I'd surely have thought, in the land of the free, that that was already discrimination.. Surely you can only be fired for doing your job badly - or is that just Europe?? :mad:
In almost all states we are employees "at will" and can quit or be fired for no reason at all! However, in most states you can't be descriminated against or fired for your:religion, race, sexual orientation, etc... There are now a few states that include gender presentation in this list of "protected classes". California, Colorado, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine,Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Massachusettes has interpreted existing law to cover us even though we are not explicitly stated in any of the laws.

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

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

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

[livy_m_b]

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

[Jocelyn Quivers]

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

Kisses,

Lucy

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



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

-Paula-

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

[Sally24]

I've read that some employers are now starting to check social networking sites on prospective applicants such as MySpace. Or god help us all this site.:eek:
Just another reason to use an alias or your fem name, but not your legal name. Sally has many sites on the Internet but ******* doesn't really have any.

[MsJanessa]

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

[KateSpade83]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Melora]

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