Do we have the “right” to crossdress?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Annabelle Larousse

Do I have the right to crossdress in public? I think so.

---

[SIZE="2"]Recently, there was a thread, begun by Ms. Larousse, where the idea of “rights” was put forth during the discussion. I chimed in, stating that rights are imaginary, or an illusion. This happens to be a theme of mine – whenever someone mentions rights, I will say they don’t exist, and this often leads to further discussion behind the scenes. In this case, I got a PM about my declaration (was I trolling?), since the author of the OP didn’t want to derail her own thread. I explained myself, and, in response, I received the words quoted above. I’ve been trying to write about something else, but this concept of having the RIGHT to crossdress in public fascinates me...

What exactly is a “right?” A right is a just and fair claim to anything whatever (like a power or a privilege) that belongs to a person by law, nature, or tradition. A right is also that to which one has a just claim according to law, justice, etc, in an upright way. Speaking of justice, in order to do justice to this idea of “rights,” we need to think about law, nature, tradition, and belonging...

Laws are rules of conduct established and reinforced by the authority, legislation, or customs of a given community. Also, a law is any rule or principle expected to be observed. I find the phrase “given community” to be telling in regards to rights – surely I have the right to express myself by dressing contrary to my birth gender, but, in my given community they would rather I stay out of sight, for the good of the people (children) who cannot understand such a thing. If I saunter forth in my cute schoolgirl outfit, in broad daylight, placing myself perpendicular to all straight-line thinking the locals may possess, am I not bumping into their right to have a world with clearly-defined gender roles? I wonder. Do I have to yield my right to crossdress in public in favor of majority rule? After all, I doubt if anyone considered the plight (or existence) of the crossdresser when the rules were drawn up for “upright behavior,” so does my purported right hold water?

What about the laws of nature? These so-called laws are a sequence of events in nature or in human activities (same thing!) that has been observed to occur with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions. Since I have declared on several occasions that crossdressing is natural AND inevitable, I think we must have the right to crossdress in public under the laws of nature. I mean, we’re stuck on this spinning ball, with few options in regards to gender expression, and the progress of civilization has created space for LIVING. Therefore, wouldn’t it be human to try everything, even if it questioned these human laws that constrain expression and emotion? I saw the phrase “question everything” on TV the other night, put forth as an empty challenge. If I, or we, actually do question everything, then we have the human right to dress as we see fit, since it is a form of questioning. I suppose I have the right to question everything, correct?

Let’s talk about tradition. A tradition is a statement, opinion, or belief that has been handed down from one generation to another. A tradition is also a long-established custom or practice that has the effect of an unwritten law. No doubt about it, crossdressing is a human tradition. It has existed for thousands of years, so, by rights, it should be seen as an entrenched custom or practice, and thus accepted for what it is. Of course, attitudes towards crossdressing change like the weather, and we are now in a stormy period of intolerance. In my little corner of the prairie, there is NO tradition of crossdressing, but traditions, real or imagined, drive the blinkered minds of the locals. If I were to say “There is a tradition of crossdressing throughout history,” THEY would surely reply “Not around here, it ain’t....” and the censure, either voiced or delivered, would shortly commence. It is an unwritten law that you shouldn’t crossdress in such a place, and I wouldn’t expect to find many champions of transgendered “rights” in the Land of Nod...

There’s one more thing to discuss, namely the concept of “belonging.” The right to crossdress in public surely belongs to me, but do I put myself at risk to verify its existence? I have a very close relationship with my “self,” and I have the proper qualities to “be” who I choose. The world sees me as a crossdresser, if they see me at all, but I just see my “self,” dressed appropriately for true living. Surely I have the right to do this AND belong in the family of humans, but I am very much in the minority, a queer individual, meek by definition, so the laws and traditions of those in charge tend to exclude people like me. Rights should be the same for everyone, regardless of how they are dressed, but immense effort is required to affect change, effort I would rather employ in the pursuit of happiness. I belong in the transgendered community, but out there, out in the world of gender-specificity, I don’t belong, even though I have a “right” to...

I keep thinking about this concept of rights as it pertains to me, the semi-closeted crossdresser. I don’t have a SO at the moment, and I don’t expect to have one in the near future, but if I DID have a significant other, one who was disturbed by my penchant for crossdressing, I could say, “I have the right to crossdress!” What if she said, “Well, I have the right to not like it, and I have the right to express my displeasure about it....” She has a point, which I why I dislike this idea of trotting out “rights” to claim that something we feel belongs to us – we’re stepping outside the rules of conduct that have been established to keep everyone in line, and that means that I, or you, the gender-queer explorer, are going a little too far. Do the powers that BE have the right to constrain us? Apparently, since they are by-and-large elected or sanctioned by the public, charged to wield power as they see fit. We may be seen as a type of threat, not to unseat the powerful, but to undermine the upright traditions that a given community bases itself upon. All because I want to wear panties in lieu of uncomfortable male underwear, or enhance my lips with a little color...

Do we have the right to crossdress in public? I guess so, if you want to put it that way, but I prefer to avoid this idea of “rights” and do what I can, when I can, according to my own relationship with the real world. I’m not a foundation-shaker, and I’m not an activist seeking change – I crossdress for pleasure, in an attempt to distance myself from a reality, or a human community, that either cannot or will not incorporate me into its distracting traditions. That’s fine by me – I can be happy and leave rights to the righteous. They’ll never see me as a moralist, even though I am a law-abiding citizen that never creates a scene for the sake of creating one. I could certainly tap into my “right” to crossdress in public by walking out the front door of my house, skipping across the street to see my male neighbor, the former mayor. I could say to him, in my best approximation of a female voice, “I’m expressing my right to crossdress!” As soon as he realizes there is no costume party nearby, and no joke forthcoming, I will know, purely by facial expression alone, just how meaningless my purported “rights” are...

It’s not easy out there, but we certainly have a right to do whatever we want to do in private, I suppose, unless someone (like a SO) would prefer we didn’t. I’m very lucky in that regard...
:straightface:

PS – Keep in mind that I live in an area of the country where Larry the Cable Guy is not only a cultural icon, but a paragon of fashion as well. In this heady atmosphere of severe appearance deficits, any “right” to crossdress is ethereal at best…

PPS – I wash to thank Annabelle Larousse for sparking my interest in this topic… :)[/SIZE]

Excellent points, Freddy. I've often pondered this concept of 'rights' as well, and have thought of many such 'rights' that I probably shouldn't exercise. I have the right to sing 'I'm a little teapot' in the middle of a church service. I have the right to climb a high mountain without any safety gear. I have a right to call my boss an idiot in front of his peers. None of these seem like very good ideas, and I have to live with the reality that exercise of rights carries certain risks, sometimes impinge on the rights of others, and should not be incurred lightly.

I may exercise my 'right' to dress as I like in public, but I think I'll stick to the notion of doing so only when the risks can be managed appropriately.

Miriam

Very well said Frederique! I exercise my 'right' to dress as I desire daily! Even though my nic' of the woods is surrounded by Larry the cable guys! I'm just a plain redneck girl 'til I get all fancied up and head into town! Hugs!

With rights and freedom comes responcibilities. The problem is that most people want the rights and freedoms, without any of the responcibliity that may come with it. Do others have the right to impose their ideas of what is right on the masses? If an individual is not infringing on another person, or doing any harm, then any wouldn't anyone not be able to dress as they pleased!

Very well presented. I do believe that there are certain inalienable rights that as humans we all possess. Nearly all of the others that are laid claim to are not rights, but privileges or abilities that must be protected by consensus. True rights can never be subjected to any form or consensus. Having said that, i will defend to my death your "right" to cross dress and confront the mayor as you wish, because I believe this is the right consensus for those of us who possess the ability to cross dress, and do not abuse the privilege. And thank you for sparking our interests in this.

Barbara

I believe that people have many rights that are either implied, self declared or provided by law. However, exercising a right is no guarantee of free passage. Denying anyone their rights puts the offender at risk of legal or physical consequences.:gg:

I have read and also believe that "rights" are bounded. Responsibiliity is a bound. But really my rights end where your rights start. So, I would conclude that We don't necessarily have the "right" to crossdress anywhere. Just my opinion.

Edy

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.
Kind of says it all in my mind. :)
But everyone else is free to dislike crossdressing and to react however they want as well. So long as you can live with the reactions, and the reactions don't cross the line, you have liberty to protect crossdressing whereever you want.

Interesting Frédérique, thank you. I've never particularly discussed that topic, but have debated rights before. Generally leaning in the same direction as you. This is good food for thought.

And yes, there were crossdressers and non-op transsexuals in England and France in the 1700's. India's history of partial op transsexuals goes back 4000 years if I remember correctly.

I love your posts Freddy! All I can say to this is you gotta fight for you right!

Now let's PARTY!!!

Of all the responses so far, I agree most strongly with Barbara (post #5).
Babette (post #6), I'm not quite sure what you meant by rights "provided by law". Our constitution doesn't provide rights to us, it protects the rights that we are born with. Such as, the right to free speech/expression (read: crossdress). As people organize, they have agreed to reasonable restrictions (can't yell FIRE! in a crowded theater-it's dangerous).
If law provides us with rights, it can take them away.

Absolutely!!!!!!! Women wear pants.

Now my serious reply. We all have rights and Cding in public is one of them. It's up to us to choose that path or not. However people's rights are trampled on every day, everywhere. Knowing your rights is important. Sometimes they hope you don't know what your rights are and use it to their advantage. Knowlege is power. So then it becomes a matter of ignoring the trampling, explaining your rights, or following up through the legal system.

Maybe I'm a milquetoast, but this is what I teach my kids; you have the right to be and do what you like, until that infringes upon the rights of others. Call me silly, but I really care about the rights of others - and have defended those rights for over 31 years, so far.

Kathi

This is an excellent discussion. I agree with the contention that there is no such thing as a "right"; there are only "restrictions. Whether it is decreed by the laws of the land, or imposed upon us by the moral teachings of our family and our faith, there are certain things that we are not allowed to do. The U.S. constitution, which is a very good example of an understanding of this concept, does not create any rights, but merely imposes restrictions upon the government that prevents it from disallowing certain specific things. It does not prevent the government from passing laws that are designed to ensure such things as public safety, as long as it does not contradict one of the specified restrictions.

Following this logic, governments pass laws which prohibit things such as murder, robbery, forgery, and a myriad of other felonies, as well as rules of the road, zoning requirements and on and on. When governments are lobbied to pass such things as transgender rights, any resulting legislation is simply an illusion. It is already a criminal offense to assault anyone or cause them harm. In most modern societies there are laws concerning firing someone from their job without just cause. The right of an employee to dress as he or she prefers conflicts with the right of the employer to specify what is appropriate apparel for the job. In fact, everything that we like to think of as a "right" opposes someone else's right in the opposite direction. Legislated rights do little more than reinforce the status quo.

Others mentioned that along with "rights" we have to also consider responsibilities, which are the opposite of rights. In fact the two go hand in hand to ensure an orderly society. It is my responsibility to protect other's rights just as it is their responsibility to protect mine. But just as rights are an illusion, so then are responsibilities. Nobody, including the government, can impose a responsibility on us if it contravenes one of its constitutional restrictions, or breaks the law of the land.

Veronica

Oh for goodness sake ladies! Of COURSE you have a right to crossdress.

This debate against crossdressing "rights" smack of the absurd reasoning of the religious right claiming that my demand for the "right" to control my own body interferes with their "right" to practice their religion.

Bull twaddle!!

Certain rights trump all others, personal rights among them.

And BTW, how you dress in public is a personal right. And also, BTW, you will find, once you get past your own guilt and shame over this, that NOBODY gives a sweet flying patootie WHAT you wear in public. Dress like a clown, dress like a cowgirl, dress like an idiot. People may make fun. After all, you have to own your own behavior. But you do have that right to dress how ever you choose. All arguments to the contrary are specious and absurd.

Auntie Stephenie

This is the most REPRESSED, puritantical question I have ever heard. YES, we have the right, as human beings, to dress as we want, with the catch that, like ANYTHING ELSE, it cannot harm another person in the process, unless they're an adult who consented to it. No one is harmed by you wearing a dress unless you wear it in front of your children or SO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophie_C

This is the most REPRESSED, puritantical question I have ever heard. YES, we have the right, as human beings, to dress as we want, with the catch that, like ANYTHING ELSE, it cannot harm another person in the process, unless they're an adult who consented to it. No one is harmed by you wearing a dress unless you wear it in front of your children or SO.

---

I don't think it is a simple as that... my kids, but no-one else's? Come on, the broader discussion is about how expressing our 'rights', perceived or otherwise, 'impact' on others...

In this country a person has the "right" to do anything that is not expressly forbidden by law!! So Yes, You do have the "Right" to crossdress unless your state has specific laws against it, which I doubt exist! Now if you are going to be harming someone else by dressing enfemme, such as children, than you should think twice before putting on that dress. But that has nothing to do with your "right" by itself. It has everything to do with how your "right" inpacts on others. And that is the one thing that many CD's don't consider!!

So Freddy, "rights" do exist whether you think so or not! The question is how do you use them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeeInGeorgia

And yes, there were crossdressers and non-op transsexuals in England and France in the 1700's. India's history of partial op transsexuals goes back 4000 years if I remember correctly.

---

You are absolutely correct. Crossdressing and transsexuality actually has a broad history. We (TS & CDs) have probably always been around.

Yes, we certainly have the "right" to crossdress in private... and we should exercise that. It would be nice to have the
freedom to exercise that right safely, in public. That is hard or dagerous to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Debutante

Yes, we certainly have the "right" to crossdress in private... and we should exercise that. It would be nice to have the
freedom to exercise that right safely, in public. That is hard or dagerous to do.

---

Debutante, it may be hard or dangerous to crossdress in public where you live, but that is certainly not true all over. That is a common misconception that, unfortunately, many crossdressers have. Usually because they have never gone out in public dressed enfemme! I have been going out like that for the better part of 60 years, in various parts of the United States, and have never had a problem. Since my wife, who always did my makeup and fixed my wig, passed away 7 years ago I had to change my style of going out enfemme. I still dress totally enfemme, but wear no makeup and no wig. In other words, I am a man dressed enfemme. I go everywhere I feel like going, and have never had any problem at all!! Unless you are dressed totally inappropiately, meaning not covered properly, nobody is going to care!! The problem is with the crossdresser, not the public!!

I am not a constitutional scholar but as I read the US constitution especially the first and fourteenth amendments i do not believe we have a right to crossdress, however the state (meaning all governments) does not have the ability to limit what we may or may not wear.

Hi, Freddy!

I thought I might summarize my views on this question since I didn’t really do that in the PM’s we exchanged. There I was waffling a bit and asking more questions than I was answering.

This question of rights is a vexed one because it depends on your world view as a whole. E.g., if you believe in a god or some sort of power higher than humanity, you’ll have one view of rights. If you don’t, your view of rights can be very different.

Whenever someone says, “I have a right. . .”, my immediate question is, “Who says?” That is, it seems to me that rights are things that are granted to us by some higher authority—God, law, tradition, etc. I think that rights can be divided into two classes: “natural rights” (sometimes called “human rights” or “God-given rights”) and “societal rights”. “Natural rights” are those rights we have for the fact that we’re born human; they’re rights granted to us by our creator or some power higher than humanity. “Societal rights” are those rights that we humans grant to each other. We decide among ourselves what we’ll be allowed to do and what we won’t.

As far as natural rights go, I believe they’re nil because I don’t believe in any conscious power higher than humanity—or at least no one’s ever given me what I consider persuasive evidence of such a thing. Some may say it’s a pretty bleak view, but I believe that we human beings stand on our own in this universe and it’s up to us to make our lives as good as we can.

Imagine that you’re lying in a hospital bed dying of some incurable disease at the age of 22, and you shake your fist and cry out, “I have a right to live!” Who are you talking to? If the doctors can’t save you, who’s going to intervene and let you carry on? As far as I can see there’s no power in the universe that cares whether we live or die, eat or drink, find happiness or misery. So I don’t think we have any natural rights.

This isn’t to say that I object to talk about natural rights. “All (wo)men are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”: I don’t mind talk like that, even though I don’t think it’s true, because in my view what we’re doing is enunciating certain ideals that we’d like to respect among ourselves. And I believe that such things are very good things and we’d all be better off if we respected each other’s rights to them.

As far as societal rights go, we may or may not have them. The question I raised was, “Here in Ireland do I have the right to crossdress in public?” I think I do, in the sense that, as far as I know, there’s no law against it. But suppose I live in a community where if I do appear dressed in public, people make my life so uncomfortable that I feel it isn’t worth my while? What will we say about the situation: given that societal rights are ultimately rights that we grant to each other, will we say that I don’t have a right to crossdress since people won’t allow me to do it, or will we say that I do have the right but that people are preventing me from exercising it?

Or, since there are laws on the books forbidding murder and assault, will we say that I have a right not to be murdered or assaulted? As I mentioned in one of my PM’s to you, there have been cases in recent times here in Ireland where killings and serious assaults went virtually unpunished. So if I can be killed or assaulted and the culprit goes unpunished, will we say I don’t have a right not to be murdered or assaulted, or will we say I do have those rights but they’re not being protected? You’ve talked about rights being illusory and given examples (e.g., those Japanese-Americans who were interned during WW II in contrast to German- and Italian-Americans), and I think you’re making a good point. If rights can come and go, are they truly rights?

I believe that it’s useful to talk about rights. E.g., I know that if I go down to the station and buy my ticket, nobody’s going to prevent me from getting on the train. I will have the right to ride it. There’s a referendum coming up shortly, and I know I will have the right to vote in it. Nobody’s ever stopped me from voting before, and they won’t do it this time. So I believe that we do have certain societal rights.

The problem is that they can come and go, they can be temporary, and they can be uncertain because they may not be respected or protected. It’s why it’s good to keep an eye on things, so that you’ll know (at least reasonably well) where you stand. Presently in Ireland, you don’t have the right to marry someone of the same sex. That may possibly change in the relatively near future. Then you’ll have the right. Though possibly you could lose it again later on.

That is, I do believe we have certain societal rights. But they’re slippery things.

Best wishes, Annabelle

This is a great thread! I like Freddie's initial premise and I must say that Annebelle has made some points I would certainly agree with. In the UK we are struggling at the moment with the European Court of Human Rights because the government see it as getting in the way of what they want to do.

I am with Annabelle in that I prescribe to no particular religion and therefore do not feel compelled by an externally imposed moral code. However, I have a very strong personal moral and ethical set of 'guiding principles' some of which have remained unchanged over the years and others that have been modified as I have grown and matured as a person, listening to and taking on board the points raised by others. I do not believe in an 'absolute' set of principles and 'rights'. There is a basic premise I stand by and this concords with Annabelle, that we all have a personal right to be who we are and live how we want to live. I believe we all live at a basic human and individual level. However, we are also a social animal and living and interacting with others can lead to a clash of motives and desires etc.. So we have to establish social 'norms' and ultimately laws to protect individuals and their interactions.

Legislation usually follows incidents that demonstrate the need for it. Once upon a time society did not accept homosexuality and legislated against it (in the UK). This view changed and the law changed to accommodate the social change. At the moment, I do not know of any law in the UK or USA that denies a person's right to cross-dress in public... mainly because it was never really felt to be needed. Other countries have different views.

However, social norms are not yet that accepting. So yes, I believe that we have a right to crossdress in public, but people who do not wish us to be dressed in public also have a 'right' to object to it and make their views known... and there we are. One day, if there is a need, the law may intervene to either make it illegal to cross dress in public (as in Dubai) or to make it illegal to take actiuon against crossdressers. At the moment, in the UK, police officers are trained to accept the rights of crossdressers to dress in public and defend those rights in the event of trouble. Ultimately, social norms currently dictate how people will respond... and that... is we know... is highly variable. And that is where many of our problems lie.

Frederique, Another outstanding masterpiece! I could not agree more with you. We have to respect the "rights" and "lefts", that reality is throwing at us, like them or not. I am a rather passive, or passive aggressive being, from a very passive/aggressive, dysfunctional family. I also am not a society shaker, at least not quite yet, but, i do shake it, just by who i am. I live in Illinois, a little more liberal, than your area, but still a lot of John Deere/ Billy Bob rednecks around. In my town, it would be quite dangerous for me to go out dressed up, as there are five taverns within a block! Very well written, and insightful thread!

You mention "tradition'! In Fiddler on the Roof, there is a song, "Tradition"! EWven Jesus Christ blasted the "traditions" of the elders and Pharisees and other religious, and judges of that time. Tradition has caused wars, and untold persecution and ostracizing and suffering, when those too loyal to them, will not bend, and change rigid traditions. Did n't the one who society bases its morals on, say, "Condemn not, lest you be condemned?

We're all born naked. A parent or guardian clothes us in the apparel they see fit. We are taught these traditions and pass them on. We're taught not to question them, only to continue them. Those who don't, we ostracize. I believe there are good traditions and bad traditions. Good traditions give us a since of community and history. Bad traditions effect the way we choose to live our lives, through outdated customs that inhibit are destiny's for the sake of keeping it. It's not just a right, it's a responsibility. The tradition of the day is ignorance. When we go out, we change the landscape and leave an impact on people. The more who do it, the less socially awkward it is. Most importantly, what we do now effects the future. If we do nothing, nothing happens. The burden is passed on. I don't know about you, but I'm tired of these ridiculous rules we follow as a society that make no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marleena

We all have rights and Cding in public is one of them. It's up to us to choose that path or not. However people's rights are trampled on every day, everywhere. Knowing your rights is important.

---

[SIZE="2"]I was going to weave in your excellent idea of MtF crossdressing being the “final frontier” of intolerance, Marleena, and graft it into my discussion of rights, but the OP was already too long!
:eek:[/SIZE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sissystephanie

So Freddy, "rights" do exist whether you think so or not! The question is how do you use them?

---

[SIZE="2"]I once heard a gentleman say that rights make us feel noble, even though we are barely out of the jungle in terms of human behavior. Rights do exist, on paper, no less, but what backs them up? If I told someone in my little Kansas community that I have the right to crossdress, I would expect an “OH, BROTHER…” reaction! If someone feels that I have a right to utilize MY rights, they will not speak in my defense for fear of damaging their own right to belong. I may get a little bit of support in private, away from the madding crowd, but I’m most definitely going against the grain, doing something that others don’t want me to do. If you’re saying that I need to use my rights before I lose them, you have a point, but I have the right to protect my “self,” don't I?

No doubt about it, many individuals fight for our rights, but do they ever take a close look at what is going on? Rights amount to privileges, but you need to behave a certain way to cash in on this “promise.” We, as crossdressers, willingly violate certain tenants of masculinity, which puts us outside any special consideration that may be forthcoming. Since masculine individuals fight for the rights that have been outlined by their forebears, I assume they never consider the plight of those who question their OWN masculinity…[/SIZE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Annabelle Larousse

Imagine that you’re lying in a hospital bed dying of some incurable disease at the age of 22, and you shake your fist and cry out, “I have a right to live!” Who are you talking to? If the doctors can’t save you, who’s going to intervene and let you carry on? As far as I can see there’s no power in the universe that cares whether we live or die, eat or drink, find happiness or misery. So I don’t think we have any natural rights.

---

[SIZE="2"]Yes, I agree that saying, “I have a right to live!” is basically talking to yourself. The Universe is a cruel place, so humans are doing all they can to obviate the nothingness that surrounds them, as well as the sense of isolation that drives us along. We want to feel special, I suppose, and that means putting forth certain rules of conduct to ensure the growth of future generations. Enter the crossdresser, who has a right to exist, but he/she is neither encouraged nor protected – I mean, you’re encouraged to “be all you can BE,” but only if your take on living jibes with those who stick to the so-called rules, or unwritten laws…

Meanwhile, you wish to push the proverbial envelope and try something really interesting, but in doing so you’re going against the rights of others to be sheep-like and never leave their enclosure. If you venture forth, stretching rights in the process, you will become a pathfinder, a maverick, and an intrepid explorer, all the while either inverting rights or creating your own. While you’re alive (truly so), you will be vilified, ignored, or humiliated by those who cannot grasp the concept of personal expression. However, once you’re gone, you will be seen as a hero (I mean heroine), a true iconoclast that did things YOUR way, either using rights to your advantage or bringing the whole imaginary façade down to let in some much-needed light…

It’s a paradox – if you have the "right" to crossdress, why is it wrong to exercise that right? :idontknow:[/SIZE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaz

At the moment, I do not know of any law in the UK or USA that denies a person's right to cross-dress in public... mainly because it was never really felt to be needed.

---

[SIZE="2"]I was going to mention that there’s no LAW that prevents someone from crossdressing in public, at least I don’t know of one here in my little home on the prairie, but there may be an unwritten law, never voiced aloud or acknowledged, that amounts to intolerance for all forms of deviant human behavior. Like it or not, we are all deviants, albeit passive, friendly ones, living amongst those who see anti-masculinity or effeminacy as a kind of sin, even if our crossdressing is temporary or recreational in nature. If I went out, dressed to the nines, in this volatile climate of “I’m right, you’re wrong,” I would feel very vulnerable – if I was beaten up or humiliated, who would defend my “right” to crossdress in public? Maybe in a liberal place I could expect some justice, or maybe not – it all depends on lack of ignorance and this idea of “human rights” that everyone delivers via lip service. I certainly have the right to express myself, or express my “opinion” about my own human condition, but do I need rights to accomplish this?[/SIZE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple8229

???

---

[SIZE="2"]Didn’t you post in this thread? I thought I saw a long ramble about rights as they pertained to the colonists in New England. Maybe I was seeing things...

I used to live near Boston, and rights are in the hearts and minds of the liberal populace that still lives there. Well, the eastern part of New England, anyway. The idea of rights fueled the American Revolution, leading to the birth of the U.S., and the rest is history. When I lived in Massachusetts, it was just as difficult to exercise my “right” to crossdress, in fact I felt just as vulnerable as I do now, since this imaginary right doesn’t amount to much when expression along gender lines happens to be the topic of conversation. It may be easier to shed ALL of my clothes and walk in my birthday suit all over town, for I am not eschewing my masculinity in any way by doing so. I would soon be picked up by the police, though, since nudity is “indecent.” Maybe MtF crossdressing is indecent to those who think masculinity is decent, and rights don’t apply under these curious circumstances…
:doh:[/SIZE]

We do have the right to dress however we want. There's just a time and a place. Just like we have a right to dress in jeans and a shirt but would you do so for a job interview, of course not. As for crossdressing in my opinion if you're not a transsexual then certain place may not be a good idea to dress up (ex: a funeral, hanging with guy friends doing guy things, etc.)

In a free society, we have the "freedom" to do whatever we want provided it does not break any law, or contravene any societal taboo. If we break the law, we face the punishment of prison or a fine. If we break a societal taboo, we risk the possibility of ostracism or disrespect. Governments in a free country cannot grant any rights to do anything, as that would be somewhat of an oxymoron. They can only legislate restrictions on doing certain things. Similarly, the constitution of a free country places limitations on the power of government, which is what makes it a free country.

The gay marriage question has been raised, but there is nothing in the laws of most free countries preventing any persons of whatever persuasion from co-habiting conjugally. They can formalize their union in any manner they wish, and with the approval and assistance of any religious institution they so choose, that is willing to conduct the formalizing of the union. Marriage is a contract between the individuals involved, along with any authority conducting the marriage service, as well as the relevant government service with whom record of the contract is filed. As governments may be involved, they now make it a requirement to licence the transaction, which serves as evidence and registration of the contract for any subsequent legal considerations. Any prohibiting of same sex marriage is through the terms of the marriage licence regulations, carried out by the licencing authorities, in the same way as any prohibitions on the issuance of a driving licence. It is illegal to drive without being licenced, as a matter of public safety, but it is not illegal to cohabit without a marriage licence as public safety is not involved. An unlicenced marriage is simply not necessarily entitled to the same protections, benefits and privileges under any laws, as a licenced one. The granting of same-sex marriage privileges is a matter of amending the licencing regulations, more than the granting of a "right". The "right" already exists in a free society.

Recognition of mans' liberty may be looked upon as the only "right" to which we are entitled, but no government can grant that, they can only take it away. Whether that right is looked at as being derived from a higher spiritual authority, or simply what should be from a moral and ethical standpoint is irrelevant. In this context, we are perfectly free to crossdress if we live in a free society, bearing in mind that we may be contravening a societal taboo and risk facing its censure. Freddie has elaborated on this point quite well. This risk of censure can not be eliminated by enacting a "right", because our freedom to do so already exists. The best that we can expect is recognition of that freedom.

Veronica

I follow the charter of human rights, plenty in there giving equal opps to all. (Read here)
It is then down to laws and interpretation of US to fight for our rights.
In my working life I am frequently challenging stereotypes.
Lets face it up until about the Victorian times men wore red, pinks and women blues.
Dress is individual and optional.

Roxie X

Heres my brief take on the issue of when ones behavior infringes upon those of another. My presence itself is not an imposition. when i go out dresses there is a good chance that someone who sees me might take offense. That is not an infringement upon that individual's right. We do not have an uninalienable right not to be offended. If I sought to enter their home or engage them in conversation against their will...that would be an imposition and they would have the right to ask me to leave. The boundaries are pretty clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephenie S

Oh for goodness sake ladies! Of COURSE you have a right to crossdress.

This debate against crossdressing "rights" smack of the absurd reasoning of the religious right claiming that my demand for the "right" to control my own body interferes with their "right" to practice their religion.

Bull twaddle!!

Certain rights trump all others, personal rights among them.

And BTW, how you dress in public is a personal right. And also, BTW, you will find, once you get past your own guilt and shame over this, that NOBODY gives a sweet flying patootie WHAT you wear in public. Dress like a clown, dress like a cowgirl, dress like an idiot. People may make fun. After all, you have to own your own behavior. But you do have that right to dress how ever you choose. All arguments to the contrary are specious and absurd.

Auntie Stephenie

---

Agreed, in all respects. I still shake my pretty head at the notion that a polite CD nicely dressed is more of an affront to "upright" ("uptight?") society than the appearance of what seems to be becoming a majority of slovenly, profoundly unattractive humans among us, and I would suspect that the latter phenomenon is vastly more prevalent in exactly those places like Kansas (or California's 2nd Congressional district, where I come from) where simple tolerance is in shorter supply than elsewhere. I have a forty-something nephew who views Larry the Cable Guy as a role model; he just doesn't realize that it's an ACT...

Hello frederique, Interesting points and well-said but I disagree with the "rights are an illusion" part of it. If Rosa Parks thoought rights were an "illusion" she never would have rfused to go the back of a nearly empty transit bus in Montgomery, Al on 1 DEC 1955. In her mind, and indeed of all people of color, there was nothing illusionary about it but indeed a fight for the ages would be forthcoming.

This is a very excellent question. But just according to me,there is yes and there is no. You make exceptional points about the law of the land. And that IS how it IS. If I had been born in Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and any other muslim governed countries and was walking the streets there as a woman, I would be stoned and beheaded. But here in america, I can,, we do have the right up to this point in history and time to walk down any street in public as a woman., but, can we exersise that lawful right without getting attacked by members of the public that have lack of concern nor consider, and or abide by the law of the land themsleves? Yes we can, and yes we do as americans, but the risk of any of us, (CD"S), go to the mall that we have the LAWFULL right to do, still run the risk of attacks and or be killed for doing what we have the american right to do.
I could go on, but my answer is, yes we do have the right, at least here in america, but with the sharia law pushing it's way down out doorsteps closer than most of us realise, for many of gavels have dropped in amreican courts with a muslim judge giving rulings to his own religion opposed to the law of america, but for now we still have the right to crossdress, but I know not for how much longer till we're imprisoned for life or beheaded for it.

Tara

Tara

frederique. Article 5 of the bill of rights:


Provisions Concerning Prosecution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on the presentment of a grand jury, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces. Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Nor
shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself, nor be DEPRIVED of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law. Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.


Not only do you have the right to crossdress, if someone deems it criminal, neither the male or female Frederique cannot be held as a witness
against him or her self, nor can your stash of clothes be taken for public humiliation and paraded about without just compensation, you have the
duty to. dana

1. Choose free will..........(My favorite song from Rush , btw)

2. Smoking kills 5.4 million people a year worldwide, crossdressing kills zero.

Of course we have 'the right' to crossdress. We just have to understand, accept, and deal with all the problems that go along with it. As the saying goes, 'there's no free lunch'.

We have two rights in life; the right to pay taxes and the right to die. Everything else is a choice.

Is it the case that as long as something isn't banned or prohibited by law or statute then it's allowed? Others may have objections to an activity based on religious or other ethical reason but that isn't grounds for stopping an individual for doing that activity, so by default there exists a "right". Perhaps we should substitute right with entitled or permitted or even perhaps freedom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helen_Highwater

Perhaps we should substitute right with entitled or permitted or even perhaps freedom?

---

You have hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head. Freedom is what allows us to do as we wish. We have total freedom within the confines of nature's whims, just like animals, birds and insects. The establishment of governments, religions and a social structure place certain limitations on that freedom, or at least attempt to do so. This is why the establishment and terms of a constitution are so important, because they place limitations on the ability of a government to curtail our freedom. Rights, while appearing to be giving us something, in reality are just saying it will not be taken away, which cannot happen anyway if the constitution is being followed.

Entitlements do not exist in a natural state, but are granted by an authority if it falls within their constitutional capability. Permission is usually for something we have freedom to do, but for which we have negotiated reasonable conditions with another party as to time and place. Therefore, as you concluded, I feel that freedom is the best way to describe our crossdressing independence and immunity.

Veronica

not only do we have the right, it's our duty to share ourselves with the world