Laws are just on paper, Society needs to change, and that won't happen, not in our lifetime.
Laws are just on paper, Society needs to change, and that won't happen, not in our lifetime.
If the pass the anti gay law. You will not be protected because the doesn't include transgender people such crossdressers
Sometimes changing laws does make a difference though.Quote:
Originally Posted by michellebesweet
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth
Hugs
Kay
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
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
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
if they would arrest people for discrimating me... HELL YES!
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by BarbaraTalbot
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
[SIZE="3"] 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.[/SIZE]
I work in a machine shop. Not exactly the best place for nylons, skirts and heels.
..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.
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?
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.
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
You can wear whatever you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by nikki_t
Exactly what I was saying. :happy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashly
BTW....looking goood ;)
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-
Thanks Paula! I specifically had the 1st Amendment in mind:Quote:
Originally Posted by Paula_A
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.