We've got a long way to go, baby (or NO, you can't try that on)

[Sara Jessica]

There are so many things I'd like to respond to above but I can address these pretty quickly...

Wow...great thread and responses.

my 2 cents....

i tend to be less harsh on SA's or any others than seem to be 'critical' of us. They are simply trying to do their job. They are presented with rules by the management and /or owners. This is what allows them to keep their job. Pretty simple as it works for say 99% of their customers i am sure. As a society, we have trained people to follow the rules. People are not trying to be mean or critical, they are simply taking the easier protocol path...can we blame them until they learn more then they can make a different decision. I think as a society we all too often judge others on our first impression when we expect others not to judge us on the same. Easy answer, nope. Empathetic answer, i hope so.

And you have added to the great responses Stefanie. But one point that I'd like to make is that I don't perceive my initial actions or reaction as harsh, nor spiteful or some of the other critical adjectives that were previously used. It was simply as matter-of-fact as the SA's original reaction, nothing more & nothing less.

Sara,

I applaud you for bringing this incident to such a happy conclusion, and despite a few hiccups along the way, you appear to have made a new ally (and possibly a friend) in this SA who is now clearly ready to count you among her favorite and more valued customers. It is always wonderful when an initially troubling story is brought to a successful resolution and results in a happy ending like this one - especially when a "win-win" situation is created out of a better understanding of the other person's position and the spirit of compromise is invoked. In the end, it all comes down to respect, which is really what most of us are seeking when it comes to our interactions with "mainstream" folks.

You have done us all a great service, not only by educating this SA as to what we CDers are (and aren't), but also by breaking down the barriers of mistrust and suspicion that arose between the two of you in your initial meeting. I am sure that this has left a very positive impression on her, and she will henceforth bend over backwards when serving other members of our community, should the occasion arise again.

This is the same philosophy that I follow when out and about as "Leslie". I may not always be completely passable, but I dress and conduct myself in a manner that is respectful to women, and the amount of goodwill and superior service that I have been able to attract in the process borders on the amazing. Aretha Franklin's "R.E.S.P.E.C.T" mantra is really at the core of this, especially when this respect flows in both directions and in equal measure.

You have pointed out the true essence of this entire scenario in a single post. And the part that I put in bold in your third paragraph could have been written by me (and I'm sure it has been in different words elsewhere). This is exactly what I strive for when I go out.

In all honesty, I do have to agree with you BUT. . .
The business owner made her choice and now gets the consequences, both good and bad. She chose not to risk alienating her female clients and she lost at least one sale, and the possibility of more future sales, from Sarah and anyone Sarah might share this information with.
So, the owner made her choice, and Sarah made hers. Both people were well within their rights and both people left the experience unhappy.
Kind of screwed up huh?

Very screwed up, something which isn't likely to be solved any time soon given the number of variables we all encournter when we go out and about, whether it has to do with how we present or the unexpected reactions of those we enounter. But let me clarify something. Choices were made, things were said, but trust me when I say I am in no way unhappy about this whole thing. It's an outfit, that's all. Nostalgia was it's call to me and I know I can live without it. Of course I could return to get it at any time now if I choose to do so but really, it really wasn't all that important. I am the type of shopper that if I leave something behind in a store, if it calls to me in the days to follow, I know I must return to buy it. In this case, that call isn't there and it has zero to do with the initial reaction of the SA.

At the end of the day, whether I return to that shop someday or someone else from our community happens into there, I think the road is paved for a positive result.

[sandra-leigh]

Sandra and Kelly are having a friendly debate.

We are? I just thought we were educating each other about the situations in our respective legal jurisdictions.


{Canada} Charter {of Rights and Freedoms} cases based upon dissimilar treatment of the sexes do get accepted by courts here, and (in general terms) their outcome typically depends upon whether the defendant had made considered and researched policy choices (vs ad-hoc decisions), upon whether the policies were written (vs oral tradition) and made available to the public, and upon whether the defendant had offered reasonable accomodation of broadly similar respectability.

e.g., if a store had investigated the costs involved in adding an additional change room, found that it could not be done in a cost effective manner due to engineering or by-law limitations, and posted a clear sign about their policy, then probably a court here would rule that they had done enough and that the exclusion was logistical rather than discriminatory. The courts here are not hard-nosed about absolute equality, but they do require that there be reasons.

If a store had no policy on the matter and had not investigated the possibilities, and the SA made an instant decision without seeking ways to accomodate the customer, then a court here might well rule against the store. Likewise, if the customer was directed to a dirty toilet as the only permitted change area, then even though that was a form of accomodation, it would probably be ruled to not be a substantially equal and dignified accomodation.


I do not have a case reference available, but when I went through an equality training seminar at work here in Canada (about a decade ago), they used an example of a person in a wheel-chair who was asked to use the service elevator: the trainer indicated that the person sued and won on the basis that the "message" being conveyed was that a handicapped person was equivalent to "freight", an object rather than a person.


In the hypothetical case you presented of you being a business owner who was concerned about the feelings of females in the change area, a "reasonable accomodation" would be to ask the person to wait until all the customers who were already in the change area were out, and then to offer the person their turn in sequence; with the consent of person who was asked to wait, additional (female) customers could be allowed to use the other cubicles after being informed of the situation -- after all, if the hypothesis is that they might object and they are given the relevant information and they do not object, then there is no barrier to them entering.


Anecdotally: in every situation I have been in in which the owner or SA was worried about what the female customers might think, the female customers did not mind; instead they smiled, and complimented me or asked for my opinion; or upon being informed that I was in a cubicle (in a bra store), said "That's okay" and went ahead in.

[Satrana]

In the hypothetical case you presented of you being a business owner who was concerned about the feelings of females in the change area, a "reasonable accomodation" would be to ask the person to wait until all the customers who were already in the change area were out, and then to offer the person their turn in sequence; with the consent of person who was asked to wait, additional (female) customers could be allowed to use the other cubicles after being informed of the situation -- after all, if the hypothesis is that they might object and they are given the relevant information and they do not object, then there is no barrier to them entering.

That is exactly what I was thinking, the SA's answer should have been Yes you can try this on but you must wait for either the cubicles to be empty or for any women currently using them to consent. There are no reasonable grounds to object to men using changing rooms in these circumstances.

In addition we do not know the layout of the cubicles. For example if there was only one then any objection is moot. Or if the cubicles were fully enclosed with floor to ceiling walls then again the objection would be deemed unreasonable.

Like I said earlier why are men deemed guilty until proved innocent? Fortunately Sara had the ways and means to prove her innocence so it ended on a happy note but this is screwed up.

This does not just happen in private businesses though. In some public swimming pools there are women-only days when men are barred because some women complain about being uncomfortable around men in bathing suits. It is illegal but it still occurs.

[kellycan27]

You are correct. I should have used "discussion".

Kel

In all honesty, I do have to agree with you BUT. . .
The business owner made her choice and now gets the consequences, both good and bad. She chose not to risk alienating her female clients and she lost at least one sale, and the possibility of more future sales, from Sarah and anyone Sarah might share this information with.
So, the owner made her choice, and Sarah made hers. Both people were well within their rights and both people left the experience unhappy.
Kind of screwed up huh?

That was pretty much my position from my first post. It takes two to tango.


Kel

[Nicole Erin]

I would have handled this a bit different -

OK so after the showing of the femme photos, and got to chatting, I would have went ahead and used the dressing room and assuming it fit well enough -

Then would have gone to the counter, said, "Well I don't know, it fits but kind of akward...

And then haggled for a discount. She probably would have knocked a little something off the price.
I mean at the very least the haggling would have put her in yet another pinch, but in the end I would have just bought the dress, discount or not.
I guess being dressed totally in male mode did catch her off guard.

See, I have this friend who has a habit of haggling. He says the best time to ensure discounts is when the salesperson messes up cause then they feel in a position to keep customers happy.

Had she offered the discount, then of course buy it, thank her, and bury the hatchet. All would be happy and your wallet would not lose as much green.

[sandra-leigh]

Hmmm, that might be good haggling strategy, but it isn't one that I personally would be willing to follow.

There are two local clothing stores that regularly give me discounts, one a consignment store and the other a boutique. I didn't ask for a discount either place: they offer it to me because they like me; each of them gave me a 50% discount within the last week (about $75 discount at each of the places.)

Haggling on guilt might work over the short term, but having the owners consider you in the category of "friends and family" is better

[Sara Jessica]

(what she said, too long to post here)

Kate, I think you were trying to read more detail into the situation than necessary. For instance, from what I can tell, guys typically don't shop in "boutiques" so there's not much of a question, at least in my mind, that it was a women's clothing store. Imagine, "hey honey, I'm gonna run down to "Ted's Boutique" to pick up a new sport coat." It just doesn't flow!

And despite your statement otherwise, you did ask if I said "nonny nonny boo boo" and I think I had already addressed that. NO!!! The outcome of the first visit wasn't spiteful in the least bit. The exchange happened, I left empty handed, end of story. I didn't reach into my wallet and grab a handful of cash to walk out the door saying "you won't be seeing any of this from me". Now that would have been "nonny nonny spiteful boo boo" on my part.

Sara what an entertaining and emotionally charged thread. Not unlike most of us that post here. There are so many salient points here it would take several pages to multi quote and comment on them all.

First Sara I must say you truly are confident in yourself and all that you do. You are a wonderful representative of our community. If more of us would do as you did by showing the shop owner our true selves I think our lives would be easier.

Your shopping experience and many of the comments in this thread show that we still have a long way to go baby. I don't fault the shop owner for her business decision. It was a decision driven by that fact that our society embraces repressive out dated gender stereotypes and roles. The stereotypes that paint someone that wants to dress like the opposite gender as a freak and the roles that still allow men act like cavemen to the point that women fear us. She had a choice and she chose to lose your business because at that moment because your were a man challenging those repressive boundaries.

Unfortunately her choice resulted in you not getting the outfit. I am sure it was fantabulous because I know your taste.

I guess I have a dream. A dream that one day those repressive gender lines will start to fall away. A dream that one day transgendered shoppers will be able to hold hands with non-transgenders shoppers and walk together as brothers and sisters browsing the newest fashions and enjoying the clearance racks together.

Not sure if I want to hold hands with all of them, have you seen how they sometimes leave the restroom without washing???

You are sweet Suzanne and I hope that you caught that Diane and I made up for our not meeting up with her the last time you were out this way. Of course, the whole thing would have had that extra bit of enjoyment if you were present as well.

Is it fair on men though that in this situation they are being judged as either: freaky tranny, potential rapist, thief, or pervert wanting to bash one out in the ladies' changing area? As someone else said previously, women don't get that treatment going into men's changing areas. No one would think twice about their motives. Why are men automatically subject to suspicion? I realise we are the ones venturing into GGs territory here, just think it's a bit of a sad reflection on how men are viewed in today's world really...

You know what they say, bad apple, meet barrel. It's unfortunate but it is what it is. All we can do is our best to represent well and hope to build bridges faster than the creeps can burn them.

This is the same philosophy that I follow when out and about as "Leslie". I may not always be completely passable, but I dress and conduct myself in a manner that is respectful to women, and the amount of goodwill and superior service that I have been able to attract in the process borders on the amazing. Aretha Franklin's "R.E.S.P.E.C.T" mantra is really at the core of this, especially when this respect flows in both directions and in equal measure.

Seems to be a common theme in terms of goals of many of us when we explore the wonderful world that we live in. Well said Leslie!!!

That is exactly what I was thinking, the SA's answer should have been Yes you can try this on but you must wait for either the cubicles to be empty or for any women currently using them to consent. There are no reasonable grounds to object to men using changing rooms in these circumstances.

In addition we do not know the layout of the cubicles. For example if there was only one then any objection is moot. Or if the cubicles were fully enclosed with floor to ceiling walls then again the objection would be deemed unreasonable.

Like I said earlier why are men deemed guilty until proved innocent? Fortunately Sara had the ways and means to prove her innocence so it ended on a happy note but this is screwed up.

This does not just happen in private businesses though. In some public swimming pools there are women-only days when men are barred because some women complain about being uncomfortable around men in bathing suits. It is illegal but it still occurs.

Layout was two side-by-side dressing rooms if I recall correct, separated from one another.

And I don't think we're having this discussion at all had the SA said anything reasonable beyond the emphatic "no". An offer to wait for the customer to leave, come back another time, or whatever. I may have still been miffed but not likely enough to have created this thread.

[Lara Smith]

Sara,

I think that was spiteful. The education took place when she saw the picture, her eyes got big, and thereby gained respect for you.

Remember, the public has been conditioned for umpteen years that we are psychos and sickos, and the daytime shows often reinforce that fact. You showed her how a normal looking and decent acting guy could be a great looking woman.

It's like you couldn't resist sticking it to her. Is that positive PR?

-- Diane

I agree completely with Diane.

[AllieSF]

The sales agent got what she deserved in a very tactful manner. No one has been "conditioned that we are sickos and psychos". The real problem is that they have not been conditioned at all. They just are not familiar with something or someone different and we are that to them. Nothing more and nothing less. Only the low life's with the wrong education react so negatively and crudely. That has been my experience and many others with whom I have discussed our acceptance by the general public. I think that a lot of people think that everyone is against us, when in reality they just don't know or understand us.

[sandra-leigh]

No one has been "conditioned that we are sickos and psychos". The real problem is that they have not been conditioned at all. They just are not familiar with something or someone different and we are that to them. Nothing more and nothing less. Only the low life's with the wrong education react so negatively and crudely.

In the decades I was going to elementary school (60's and 70's), the social context was of intolerance and hatred to homosexuality. The kids picked up on this.

Did they get the "wrong education"? Only if you mean at home and in the streets and in the newspapers and on TV and in restaurants and in public. The elementary schools I attended were decent ones that generally promoted love and tolerance -- but also did not specifically speak against homophobia or transphobia. Speaking against homophobia would have required speaking about sexuality, which those schools avoided (but so did pretty much all other elementary schools in the country at the time.) Speaking against transphobia would have required talking about a subject that was basically not on the horizon at the time: reassignment surgeries in North America only started about the time I entered the school system.

Transvestite phobia: we didn't know what it was. Transvestites were something you saw on British comedy shows (if you sought them out on public TV), or later something you saw on the Flip Wilson show. It was fun and games, not a serious lifestyle.

I may have given the impression that transphobia and gender-variant phobias did not exist in our area at the time. They did exist, but they weren't named or understood or recognized for what they were. But exist they did: one of the worst insults that could be placed against a boy in those days was to insist that he must really be a girl because of his behaviour or the way he did something. Now we would understand that as transgender discrimination: back then it would have been understood in terms of the message that girls and women were lesser people than boys and men.

North America went through a lot of social changes in the second half of the 1960's -- civil rights, women's lib, the Stonewall riots, Hippies, Yippies, LSD, the peace movement. Canada lagged behind on a number of those and avoided others of them. A lot that is taken as established fact or as "history" now was only just happening then, and it is not surprising that the elementary school system was not on top of the issues. That doesn't mean that the education at the time was "bad", just that it was a product of its times. And those are the times that produced the Baby Boomers who are the ones who are largely in power now (though some of the old guard is still around.) The tolerances and understandings of those Baby Boomers are things that they have had to learn as adults, as the times they grew up in taught otherwise.

[Ms Jennifer]

I shop in guy mode all the time and only shop at stores that are trully cd friendly when I first ask if they mind if I buy girly items for me.If they give me that bad look then I leave and do not go back.I am a repeat customer at the truly friendly stores .I have come back and they would tell me they have some items they thought I might like put aside just for me.I just love the resale shops since most of them are so eager to make sales.And when the pink fog moves in HA

[t-girlxsophie]

I remember a cpl years ago I heard that a certain Dept store in Edinburgh let men get fitted for a bra,well I thought finally get my real size,so me and a friend went to said store,well the SA was prob in her 60s,and I swear before I got the words out,the poor woman was going into shock,had visions of her fainting on the spot "Oh! we don't do things like that",well we may be making great strides,but theres a long road to full acceptance

Sophie xx