Crossdressing Laws?

[Acastina]

Aw NO!!! Walnut Creek? It's like right next door! There is a meeting there on Monday nights! I have only been to one and not even dressed!!! And here I thought I had found a safe place....Damn it's a mean world.....

Rest easy. It's Walnut, CA, not Walnut Creek. It's in LA County. Both are in California, so the Walnut ordinance is a nullity under the civil rights statutes.

Give my regards to the girls at DVG. Glad to hear that they're still active. I used to go down from time to time years ago, but it's a 2+ hour one-way drive. Nice bunch of folks.

[SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE]

As a related issue, (not realized by many) it was ruled unconstitutional in NY state a while ago that it's legal for a female to appear in public topless..
The state ruled that it a male can appear in public topless, a female has aright to do so also.
I assume that any lawyer could successfully argue that the same applied for cross dressing also... ..adding that it OK for female to wear male clothes .

However as stated by others, the police could claim that you violated other laws like disturbing the peace or other catch all charges... whether it's a male CD or a topless female.

So legally, a male CD has solid grounds to stand on but you still have to deal with any potential homophobic police.

I'm not sure I understand your first sentence. A quick search revealed that a 1992 case set aside convictions of two women arrested and convicted of appearing topless in public, but on narrow grounds that their conduct was commercial in nature. A more recent dispute arose last summer over the "Desnudas", women who go topless but with body paint and solicit tips as street performers. Is that commercial? Still undecided. But your sentence is confusing. On equal protection grounds (a constitutional concept under the 14th Amendment and analogous state provisions), the court reasoned as you explain: If it's OK for men, it has to be for women as well, provided it's not for commercial purposes.

Without getting overly lawyerly here, I'm not at all sure that equal protection is a sound argument for challenging crossdressing laws. Due process, EP's companion in the 14th, is better; there has to be a sound state interest in the ban, and I can't imagine making a successful argument in the 21st Century that any genuine considerations of public safety, order, or morals would support banning males from wearing female attire while saying nothing about the opposite.

Your point about cops with an attitude or agenda thumbing their noses at laws meant to protect us, or invoking irrelevant laws to harass us, is well taken. Always best to be respectful, well-behaved, discreet in general, and doubly so and honest when interacting with a badge. That said, it's extremely unlikely to be successfully prosecuted for disorderly conduct or some other vague catch-all law, especially when any such enforcement would run afoul of state civil-rights protections.