Thank you all for your replies. I am working up the nerve to finally get out there. This only helps. I didn't think there was but just wanted to get others input. It's not like I can walk into work and ask co-workers their opinions (unless they all cross-dress) they would have no idea what I was talking about.
LEXI
Two clicks on Google
"illanois transgender laws"
http://www.transgenderlaw.org/ndlaws/index.htm
Hope it illuminates!
Mirani - [meer-rahn-nee] Beauty to Behold; to "See" beauty
Those of you who live on the opposite side of the pond to me, might find the Human Rights Campaign's transgender-related publications useful
Check out this link if you are wondering about joining Safe Haven.
This above all: To thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any
Galileo said "You cannot teach a man anything" and they accuse ME of being sexist
Never ascribe to malice that which can be easily explained by sheer stupidity
So trueOriginally Posted by tiffanyjo89
Well as long as your not in North Carolina!
It's legal as long as you adhere to the same laws every other person has to. For example there's a town where I grew up where they made wearing spandex illegal if you're overweight... and no I'm not joking, they even did a police raid on some heavy people wearing it in public...
Can I be her cell mate if someone is in jail like that?
It takes a true Erin to be a pain in the assatar.
Where I am (Buenos Aires, Argentina), wearing as a female (being a male) was punished by a city law. I don't know if it's still in place but hasn't been enforced in ages.
Never got included in the penal code though.
I never tried myself. You can see transvestites in some places but they're all in prostitution. If there are regular CDers going around, they're just a few or very very good at it
That sheriff Karren will get you!
----
To the OP; yes, it's perfectly legal for a male to wear feminine attire in public in all states in the union. There are some communities that might try to arrest you if you use a women's restroom while dressed en femme (see multiple, multiple threads on this forum about such issues). But as for dressing and being out and about? You can do whatever you want for a normal day and not get arrested for wearing a dress or whatever. Perfectly legal. Women wear men's clothes all the time without getting arrested. Men are no different in their rights.
Last edited by JulieC; 05-05-2010 at 03:16 PM.
Can I be her cell mate if someone is in jail like that?
Check out this link if you are wondering about joining Safe Haven.
This above all: To thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any
Galileo said "You cannot teach a man anything" and they accuse ME of being sexist
Never ascribe to malice that which can be easily explained by sheer stupidity
Now with all this talk about being Legal,The Government in all its wisdom
might put a tax on being crossed dressed.
Lets see; a man in a skirt, woman in pants.........$ 25.00
a man in a dress, woman in overalls...$ 100.00
a man in heel's, $ 20.00 per inch
women in flats $ 25.00 Except in snow etc.
and so on. So lets not give them any ideas, I like to keep our law-makers
as dumb as they are.Rader
There is no specific protection for gender identity or gender expression or modes of dress in the US's Civil Rights Act, or under any of the other constitutional Amendments. It is thus not considered a Federal Right, and comes under the control of the Constitution and laws of the various states (and D.C., which is technically not in any state.) The constitutions and laws of different states vary on this matter; some of them have explicit protection and some of them do not. In the ones that do not, then the maxim that "That which is not forbidden is permitted" applies -- and unfortunately _discrimination_, not being forbidden, is permitted, including at the by-law level.
The only US federal bar to discrimination against crossdressers arises from the First Amendment, by way of cross-dressing being considered a "manner of speech". The problem with that is that the First Amendment is not considered to be absolute, and in particular is not considered to protect against Indecent or Obscene speech -- and in some courts is considered not to protect against "sufficiently offensive" speech. And although some things have been specifically identified as being Indecent or Obscene, in other respects there is an element of "community standards" in their definition -- so if a community decided that cross-dressing was unacceptable by their standards, there is some legal leeway under which it could be so upheld by some courts. "Sufficiently offensive" speech falls under the "community standards" legal approach to the First Amendment.
And if you think that banning cross-dressing by state or city by-law cannot happen, keep in mind that a number of states have been successful in passing laws requiring that all government business be transacted in English, including when two government employees whose native language happens to be something else talk directly to each other. Choice of language is a far more fundamental "mode of speech" than choice of clothing is, but the states have gotten away with those laws for close to 20 years.
It has been said of the first round of US anti-terrorism laws that no one (at the Senate or Congress level) read the entire bill before it was passed -- that it was just too big for anyone to get through in the time allotted. What exactly was effectively enacted by the two rounds of anti-terrorism laws? We don't know -- parts of it enabled secret orders.
What should we expect, going ahead, in the United States? We should probably expect some states to enact anti-burka laws that are overgeneralized enough as to affect cross-dressing on the grounds that cross-dressing is "hiding one's identity". With the Republicans currently under the sway of the upsurging xenophobic Tea Party, I would guess that the process would start at the state level. If the laws offer an escape clause, the escape clauses will probably be primarily phrased in terms of the need of law enforcement and intelligence agencies and private detectives to conceal their identities, so these laws I predict might be phrased in terms of banning the concealment of identity "without a permit". And perhaps cross-dressing would even be one of the permitted cases for such permits ("except for convicted felons"): that would satisfy the understanding of the First Amendment (since it wouldn't be banned, just controlled -- the same way that requirements for a Parade Permit are considered to be reasonable under the First Amendment.) Yes, a sufficiently enlightened Supreme Court might eventually rule that such permit laws presented sufficient "chill" as to be unconstitutional -- but I doubt that the current USC is that enlightened.
If laws such as I describe do indeed appear, they would be written in terms of "public places", probably extended to commercial establishments (which would, however, be permitted to waive the restriction, so as to allow for acting and to allow willing businesses such as night clubs to make business decisions). No cross-dressing (without a permit) in dealing with the government or public transportation, possibly not even while driving.
I fully expect that some of you will disagree strongly with me about the plausibility of these scenarios. They are not intended to be fully researched positions: they are intended as food for thought, to illustrate that there is no "of course" about cross-dressing being legal, and that there are some circumstances and attitudes coming into current politics that could lead to restrictions on cross-dressing -- restrictions that could arguably hold up to USC challenge.
Cross-dressing has not yet been seen as enough of a cultural threat to be worth the trouble of going after, especially with the possibility of a First Amendment based ruling if cross-dressing in itself was the stated target of the legislation. We should consider, however, that gender protections were left off of the recent federal rights laws because enough people were convinced that leaving it in would be a deal-killer. That tells us that there is enough real or perceived opposition to cross-dressing and gender rights that people would be willing to kill legislation they otherwise supported in order to avoid gender protections. That should be a warning to us about the possibility that cross-dressing will be opportunistically targeted by way of "incidental" inclusion in other legislation such as disguise / security legislation. Whether such legislation passes or not, bigotry will ensue.
don't be so fast to say it is legal.
It's illegal to appear in public dressed "in the attire of a person of the opposite sex," in Oakland, at the moment, and has been since 1879.
There will be a vote by the city council on the 18th of this month to make it legal.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news...nclick_check=1
DonnaT
Well this was in today's news about Oakland, CA.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Not content to let sleeping laws lie, the Oakland City Council is moving to strike a 130-year-old ordinance that bans cross-dressing in public.
The council voted 7-0 on Tuesday to remove the ban from the city's municipal code. A second vote, which is needed to seal the repeal, is scheduled for May 18.
The ordinance, adopted in 1879, bans people from dressing"in the attire of a person of the opposite sex."
Officials say the law is little known and never enforced.
But Rebecca Kaplan, the council member who proposed the repeal, says such laws have a history of being used as tools of oppression against the gay, lesbian and transgender community.
[SIZE="3"]*** Barbie Lanai ***[/SIZE]
This is taken from my motorcycle club page, I how ever believe it applies here.
DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF CLOTHING OR CLUB MEMBERSHIP IS ILLEGAL
Any person whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with may institute and prosecute a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief including the award of compensatory monetary damages. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Cohen vs. California, 403 U.S.15 (1971) that individuals have the constitutional right under the First Amendment to wear clothing which displays writings or designs. In addition, the right of an individual to freedom of association has long been recognized and protected by the United States Supreme Court. Thus, a person's right to wear the clothing of his choice, as well as his right to belong to any club or organization of his choice is constitutionally protected, and persons or establishments who discriminate on the basis of clothing or club memberships are subject to lawsuit.
Kymmie
Just your average harley riding crossdressing biker
Why be normal??????
Even when it's legal to dress in public (which it usually is), what about usimg a ladies public restroom (which seems like the natural choice)?
There was this one guy around here a few years ago that wore nothing but a pink bra and thong and rolled around town on a segway that got arrested, but anyone going out in nothing but that should be. the funny thing is though the next year he ran for public office
One slight problem. State law over ides this city law. they could arrest but then they would be violating California state law or atleast subjected to a very big law suits.
Business is the the art of extracting money from another mans wallet with out resorting to violence
9 out of 10 Dr say I'm sane. The 10th one never made it to the hearing. Did you know that California has drop bears ?
First a groom then a bride. Never again.
where I live it is dangerous , you might be arrested and locked for it....mine should stay in secret all my life
Great post
Good post. I heard that it was illegal to use a public ladies restroom in Las Vegas, but that it was ignored. (The trick is to find it... Hint: Look in the casino.) Did they repeal the law?
Just thought i would share this. I found This from a link on this fourm
http://www.thetaskforce.org/download...7_09_color.pdf Makes me sad that others havent followed suit
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I am Evil Monkey..... ooops wrong panties 
Constitution should be enforced over any state, county or city law. However, that's not the way it works. Not where you are, not where I am. You'll get fined or arrested, then you are allowed to raise the issue to the court and up and up as long as you want. The burden is on you, not on the offending body, being it the police, city hall, state congress.
This morning I came to the office thinking about this thread. I take a detour on Fridays because the traffic is heavy all around the city. It's half a kilometer more but it's totally worth it. At one point, I have to pass one of busiest transexuals corners in town. There are three or four "love hotels" and the girls walk around waiting for "customers". I have to tip my hat to them. Today was a very cold morning and I saw two with very very very very short skirts. No need to tuck, it was all shrunk in
Anyway, the thing is there was one detained by the police. I don't think it was the way he/she dressed but the prostitution that is not allowed there (there are "zones"). My point is that the law is pretty much useless. Why this one was detained while there were at least 4 others around the same corner doing exactly the same? In the end, the police has the power to enforce or not the law.
It also applies to going out cding. You can be detained for whatever reason if by doing it you are spotted as the odd one.
The Courts have ruled that there is no such thing as a right to not be offended. As long as what you wear is not blatantly obscene, the government cannot stop you from wearing. American legal tradition is that the government must prove a compelling governmental interest in regulating or censoring speech, which covers what clothes you. A guy wearing a dress is not a threat to the government, therefore it can not be banned.
Regarding the baggy pants laws. Those were passed because of violent and obnoxious gang members who were running around harassing and intimidating people. There was a legit government interest in instituting that ban.
No they weren't! They were passed because a number of high school students had adapted the saggy look, and people thought it looked ugly! They were "public decency" laws, passed in accordance with the standards of the communities -- but they were often overwritten to the point where they could be applied to cross-dressers because they were written in terms of clothing "appropriate" to the person's sex, with no definition of "appropriate", so if the local law enforcement considered it "inappropriate" for a male to wear a dress, then the sanctions under the laws could be enacted.
The issue of "chill" on cross-dressers and transsexuals was specifically brought up in the discussions in some communities that still choose to pass the laws without making it clear that cross-dressing was not to be grounds for being considered "inappropriate" -- and that implies that in those places, they did want cross-dressing to be included, or else they would have worded the laws differently, since they had foreknowledge that people did consider it to be "chilling".
My perspective is think ahead and use good judgement rather than what you want and think is right. I have been questioned by LEO several times and only once the officer treated me like a male dressed as a female while several did not know I was a man but told them rather than them finding out but was not treated any differently.
A good example of using good judgement when in doubt is use of rest rooms. Yesterday I was out at a Saturday market which I have been to many times and know that in some areas there are men/lady rest rooms while other areas that have uni sex rest rooms. I always use the uni-sex restrooms as there are so many type of people there that if by chance one of them notices and detects me that they may call for someone to out me and who knows what may happen.
SRS January 27
Posting Permissions
