Thanks for letting me know I don't pass

[Intertwined]

So I walked in and the lady behind the counter was nice and wished me a good morning. Then called for someone in the back to help her. An older man walks out asks me what I wanted and I gave him my order. As he was putting the doughnuts in the bag he says..."do you want anything else...SIR" OH thanks for noticing the wig, the breasts, the skirt, the nylons. I guess the only saving grace was that the 3 men didn't say a word. Maybe I'll try another doughnut shop next week.

1st, the lady seamed polite, in wishing you a good morning. I am kind of curious why she asked for help tho, when from what you said, there were only 4 customers in the shop.

2nd, the gentleman asked if you wanted anything else, and addressed you as SIR, sounds to me, he was being polite and addressing you as he saw (read) you. What I am trying to say, wouldnt it be wrong for him to address you as Ma'am when he thinks your a male, that could start a nasty confrontation.

Take me for example, I don't try to pass, I make it more that obvious, I am a guy in womens clothing, shoes, accesories. I can only once remember being addressed as Ma'am once, and I just gave them a funny look.

I wish there was a neutral greeting that is the equivellant of Sir or Ma'am.
--
[SIZE="1"]The above thumbs are linked to the full size image, just click[/SIZE]

[Ralph]

Clear, and completely false. I didnt mean to give you the idea we were talking about laws, here, or the Constitution. We were, as far as I can tell, talking about basic, decent civility. About living in a society where certain rules and codes regarding respect and citizenship still, believe it or not, do apply.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. In two days I have seen more quotes taken out of context, turned around, and misapplied than I did during all the presidential debates.

Someone originally said he... she... whatever... has a "right" to be called however h/s/w wishes. MC pointed out that there is no such right. Someone else retorted that yuh-huh, is too. MC asked where in the Constitution this right is enumerated.

Do any of you folks understand what a "right" is? In a legal context, a right is something you have a written guarantee to expect, and when that right is not provided, you have the power of the courts to defend it. You have a right not to be enslaved, and if someone violates that right, you can get the courts to force the violator to comply and/or punish them for not complying. You have a right to move about freely within the country, to speak your mind verbally or in print, vote for whomever you wish... all of these rights are guaranteed in writing, and can be enforced if necessary.

You do NOT have a right to be addressed by the pronoun of your choice. You're perfectly free to wish people would do so, but they are also perfectly free to use a different pronoun if they feel it is more appropriate. No law enforcement agency in the country will punish that donut shop for using the wrong form of address.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Furthermore, while you certainly have a right to demand that people address you however you ask to be addressed... the key point in the original story is that NOBODY ASKED. The manager made a quick judgement call based on visual cues. If the OP had specifically said "I prefer to be called ma'am" and the manager still said "sir", I'd be on the dogpile agreeing the guy was being a jerk, but that didn't happen. Yet most of the folks here are so high on moral outrage you put words in his mouth, thoughts in his head, and crucify him for what you are sure he must have been thinking. Get over yourselves, will you?

If you're a guy, and you look like a guy, how about assume that someone calling you "sir" is just trying to be polite? And if you look like a guy in a dress, you're going to attract gawkers because whether you like it or not, you're an unusual sight. If someone walked in my donut shop juggling chainsaws I'd probably call to the back of the store for my friends to come look - not because I think the juggler is a freak or less than human or not deserving of respect, but because it's something you don't see every day. So what if the server called her friend to take a look? "Hey Bob, check it out - a guy at the counter is wearing a dress! AND juggling chainsaws!" If I were Bob, I'd be curious to take a peek too. Curiosity about the unusual is human nature.

It all comes down to whether you choose to be offended by not only obvious, deliberate insults but also every subtle, ambiguous signal that may or may not be intentional. Sure, call everyone a jerk who doesn't automatically know without being told how you prefer to be addressed. Boycott every store where your appearance as a guy in a dress draws stares. Fire off a stream of invective against everyone who fails to live up to your "unwritten code" of how to address various flavors of transgendered people.

Or just smile, enjoy life, and don't sweat the small stuff. I'd much rather go through life known as a cheerful guy who ignores the occasional snickering behind my back than a bitter tyrant with a hair-trigger temper who takes everything as a personal insult.

ralph

[ReineD]

I wish there was a neutral greeting that is the equivellant of Sir or Ma'am.

This may seem flippant, even though it is not my intention, but an alternative could be "Sam" (Sa'am). Isn't there a thread going on in the M2F section about all the Sams in the forum? Just trying to lighten things up a little. :p

... maybe it is the late hour.

[battybattybats]

Crossdressers follow many other types of people who have been treated very badly in public situations, and it has been historically proven that being aggressive almost always backfires.

Suffragettes were aggressive. Women got the vote. Womens Liberationists were aggressive. Women got equal rights in law. African Americans were aggressive. The picture in your own post is history. South African Blacks were aggresve. Apartheid is history. Ghandi's non-violence was nonetheless aggressive, passive aggressive. India regained independance from England.

Historically proven? WHERE?

Race riots in the 60's and now the USA has a black president. Stonewall Riots and Homosexuality got decriminalised.

Please present this historical proof cause when I look at history I see the opposite.

[Intertwined]

Reine, me and my movie quotes

Data from Star Trek: Ladies and gentlemen and invited transgender species.

hmmm Sa'am, too much like Sam, normaly a male name except when used as short for Samantha.

Good start tho....

[battybattybats]

Someone originally said he... she... whatever... has a "right" to be called however h/s/w wishes. MC pointed out that there is no such right. Someone else retorted that yuh-huh, is too. MC asked where in the Constitution this right is enumerated.

Rights don't come from law, or religion. They come from philosophy!

Do any of you folks understand what a "right" is? In a legal context, a right is something you have a written guarantee to expect, and when that right is not provided, you have the power of the courts to defend it.

Legal rights are simply protections of philosophical rights. It is in fact considered acceptable to break a law to assert a right. If that were not so then no law in the USA is legitimate as it is still the rightful colony of England!

The very legitimacy of the Governemnets of France, the USA and the modern parliament of the UK all depends on the legitimacy of Rights being OVER the law. They all came from civil wars or revolutions. People disobeying the law of the time violently because of rights.

You do NOT have a right to be addressed by the pronoun of your choice.

Please read up on the following: Veil of Ignorance. Ethic of Reciprocity. (optional are State of Nature. Social Contract.) Universal Decleration of Human Rights. and then the Yogyakarta Principles. You know what, just the wikipedia entries on those will likely do.

You're perfectly free to wish people would do so, but they are also perfectly free to use a different pronoun if they feel it is more appropriate. No law enforcement agency in the country will punish that donut shop for using the wrong form of address.

The law exists to serve rights, that is it's sole validity. The Yogyakarta Principles show there is in fact a right to Self Identification, including Gender Identity and Expression. We DO have that right!

Why is that so hard to understand?

Exactly! Read some philosophy, read where Rights really come from. It's not so hard to understand.

[wendy360]

When you are out and about and feel or demand that you should be treated by the way you are dress is wishful thinking.......you are just going to get your feelings hurt.

You need to have a open mind when out and about and understand that society really knows very little about us and is just trying to understand us all.

Getting dress up and walking out your front door into society can be very scary, that is why passing is so important to so many, lets face it the better you pass the better you are going to get treated............sometimes.

LA CINDY LOVE

I had no idea when I posted this I would start a legal battle that appears to be headed for the Supreme Court or a question of rights and if we are suffering as much as African Americans in the 50's and 60's. I was bowing off some steam. I guess I was hoping the clerk would have been more discrete or accepting. As someone new to going out in public and the first time going into a store of any kind, and after the woman clerk greeted me so nicely it hit me kinda by surprise to be called sir. It may be easy for some to speak there minds at those times but my mind essentially said get the f#@% out of here and what the hell were you thinking!!
And I have to admit that as I was walking home I thought to myself, That should give them something to talk about all day.
I still plan to go out, just need to decide where. As for pictures I don't have a tripod and the only people who know I crossdress are you. I may dress some day and go to the wig shop and ask her to take my picture. She was accepting of the life style.
Wendy

[MissConstrued]

Do any of you folks understand what a "right" is? In a legal context, a right is something you have a written guarantee to expect, and when that right is not provided, you have the power of the courts to defend it.

But gee whiz, Ralph, don't words just mean what we want them to mean? :Angry3:

Thank you. I get sick of explaining this, and it's mostly to folks who haven't bothered to learn the actual meanings of words, and thus probably will find your incredibly eloquent explanation equally opaque.

Rights don't come from law, or religion. They come from philosophy!

No, Batty, they don't. The idea of rights; the concept of rights -- that comes from philosophy.

Rights come from guns, so to speak. The Magna Carta did not exist because of philosophers scribbling treatises in their parlors. It came about because the commoners, in sufficient numbers, were no longer willing to live without it, and were willing to use violence to assert themselves.

As much violence is abhorrent to you leftist softies, it nevertheless reigns supreme historically. Where people retain the capability for violence against oppression, there will be freedom. When government holds the sole ability and will to use it, there is slavery. And you goddamn well know it, if you have half a brain.

My people fought a war for independence. Blood was spilled to get those certain rights we have enumerated on a document that government is supposed to obey, but now only pays lip service to, if that. We'll no doubt have to do it again.

But I sure as shit ain't gonna depend on philosophers to protect my rights. Rights are imaginary without force to back them up. If you wouldn't risk your life, or take another, to defend them, then rights don't mean much to you.

[MissConstrued]

But MC, you have made similar observations before? And you didn't answer my question - what do you think?

I have made this clear before. Wearing a saddle doesn't make me a horse; and wearing a dress doesn't make me a woman. Hang an artificial udder from a bull; he's still a bull.

If someone wishes to humor me with a "ma'am," dandy. If they don't, fine. I've been called a lot of things in my life, and if I let them bother me, I'd be a gelatinous bubble of whimpering goo on the floor. Hell, nowadays it's pleasant to hear anyone use "Sir" or "Ma'am" for any reason.

Maybe too many here are getting the idea that we are a majority because this is a big, busy forum. But we're not. And I find the notion that we should go about forcing our ideas of pronoun usage down the throats of the public quite stupid.



----------------

All you CD Pronoun Nazis: You are not a woman. Get the f*** over it. Take the occasional "Ma'am" you get, smile, and save it in a jar for when you're lonely; and stop expecting the whole f***ing world to bend to your desires. Chide someone if you wish, express your opinion if you must, but you have no right to not be offended.

[Melissa A.]

What we have here is a failure to communicate. In two days I have seen more quotes taken out of context, turned around, and misapplied than I did during all the presidential debates.

Someone originally said he... she... whatever... has a "right" to be called however h/s/w wishes. MC pointed out that there is no such right. Someone else retorted that yuh-huh, is too. MC asked where in the Constitution this right is enumerated.

Uh...yeah. I guess there IS a communication problem here...Amazingly, you posted one of my own quotes, then went on about "rights", as if I had never said that very thing! I also made it very, very clear elsewhere that I was not talking about laws. Giving me a lecture on constitutional law or what a legal right is strikes me as pretty unnecessary, and indicates that you didn't read anything I wrote very carefully. When I said "Yuh huh, is too"(thanks so much for the complimentary paraphrasing), I was, I thought, pretty obviously discussing whether or not this was person was being rude and/or obnoxious. My entire premise was that all of this was intentionally, and in my humble opinion, unecessarilly insulting. Again, *sigh* THAT is what was being disscussed here! (originally, at least)

I mean, Jeez, does everybody here have to explain EVERYTHING they write? Provide footnotes?? Yeah, I said I had certain "rights". That was within the context of human interaction, social constructs, and standards of decent behavior and citizenship, as people interract out in the world. NOT whether or not my right to be adressed as I wish was enumerated somewhere on paper. I know this. Most people do, I believe. And if I was so sloppy as to not explain this originally, I certainly made it clear in subsequent posts, as did a couple of others. And yet, the lesson on what a "right" is goes on, and on, and on.

So, in the interest of being exact, Let me try again, and be as clear as I can:

The OP was presenting female. Expecting to be addressed as such is not some vague, "unwritten rule", as you put it. If you called, say, an unfortunately ambiguous GG "sir" and she corrected you, I assume you would apologise and make the appropriate correction. If you then refused to, that would, WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ACCEPTED SOCIAL BEHAVIOR, make you very rude and obnoxious. No, you didnt violate her civil "rights". But words have connotations, as well as written definitions. When I say she has a "right" to expect to be called ma'am and not sir, I don't think I'm being too far off when I assume people know what I mean by "right". Some things are just given. I once saw a guy in Provincetown who was 6'5" with a beard, hairy legs and arms, walking around with beautiful red dress and red pumps on. I'm pretty darn sure this person would not be insulted if you called him "sir". He wasn't all that quiet, either. I think it's safe to say that this was a parody, and not an attempt to be percieved as a woman. This is the closest real-life example I can come to your analogy of "a guy in a dress juggling chainsaws". In that instance, you are right. It's not something you see every day, and might be a perfectly legitimate cause for disscussion, and surprise.

Most Crossdressers who venture out in the world, as well as Transsexual women like myself, (who have no choice, btw), are not parodying anything, and would just like to be percieved, and adressed as who they are. They shouldn't have to say it, or wear a sign around their neck. This is the point. It IS rude to do otherwise, and the overwhelming majority of people who do so know very well what it is they are doing. The world is changing, due, in no small part, to the people who came before us, and had the courage and determination to put themselves out there, into the world. Isn't this the whole point of transawareness? to change perceptions, to let people know we're human, and just request some respect and decency in our lives? This isn't 1950. Those who behave rudely are behaving rudely. And in most cases they are going out of their way to let you know they are doing so.
NO ONE should have to "get over themselves" and get used to it. No one should be arrested for being rude, but if that's what is happening, we point it out, politely and with civility, and hopefully with some humor and grace.

One more thing-I'm not a "bitter little tyrant" who takes personal insult at every percieved slight. I wouldnt be where I am without thickness of skin, and a good sense of humor. Pointing out right from wrong, consideration from meanness, awareness from ignorance, does not necessarilly make you an angry person. I'm glad you are cheerful. Good for you. Making a stark contrast between how you percieve your demeanor and My opinions on civil and decent behavior is a false and misleading comparison.

Hugs,

Melissa

[battybattybats]

No, Batty, they don't. The idea of rights; the concept of rights -- that comes from philosophy.

Rights come from guns, so to speak.

Nope. Rights have been asserted through violence when neccessary, and it could be argued the defence of and assertion of then is the only excuse for violence, but to say rights come from guns is to say might makes right, that's invalid. But the defense of and assertion of equal rights does allow the use of force.

The Magna Carta did not exist because of philosophers scribbling treatises in their parlors. It came about because the commoners, in sufficient numbers, were no longer willing to live without it, and were willing to use violence to assert themselves.

Nope, Magna Carta, The French Revolution, the American Bill of Rights and far more involved both the philosophers in the parlours and on the battlefields arm in arm with the commoners. They did not come from the commoners alone but from the educated explaining the ideas to the commoners and working with them to overthrow or at least reduce the power of the aristocracy.

As much violence is abhorrent to you leftist softies,

Look again at history. The left has often been violent both in persuing wars when in power as well as supporting revolutions and in violent uprising. Only in recent decades has the left gone all hippy and pacifist in the main.

it nevertheless reigns supreme historically

Does it? The re-evaluation of the Dark Ages for example finds them actually to have been a time of great prosperity and advancement, but few wars and wars are favourites of historians. That speaks more of the bias of historians doesn't it? The times of great peace in the holy lands when Jews Muslims and Chsristians got along.. mostly ignored. The Crusades are much more studied and noted.

Where people retain the capability for violence against oppression, there will be freedom.

Often thats where tyranny and genocide comes from also. Tell me how many minorities get protected by violence compared to oppressed by it?

Where for example are the straight militia fullfilling their duty to protect the rights of Gays? That too is a rights issue and everyone is obligated to defend the rights of others or the rights won't be protected as equal, if the rights aren't considered equal their validity ceases to exist. And without that validity all you have is unethical abuse of power.

But I sure as shit ain't gonna depend on philosophers to protect my rights.

But you do need them to understand and know what your rights are, and the rights of others you have a duty to not impede and a duty to protect! Or better yet, learn the philosophy yourself and take back the intellectual power. Insist on it being taught to others...

Thats the most dangerous idea of all... teaching philosophy to the masses. It's what terrified Athens when Socrates taught the young to question authority and how to determine truth for themselves. And even when they tried him and had him executed he won by the power of his arguments. Even his own death was a victory.

Rights are imaginary without force to back them up.

No. Rights are unprotected without it and easilly violated. But they are also violated by misusing force too.

If you wouldn't risk your life, or take another, to defend them, then rights don't mean much to you.

You don't need to take a life, but risk it.. perhaps. You know MissConstrued, I think your going to find yourself really aggreeing with Socrates. When you read enough of him I think you'll find a hero in him. I mean that seriously.

I dare you to read enough about Socrates to understand what I mean. And before you know it I am sure you will agree with Ethics of Reciprocity too when you consider it objectively with ll the pro and con arguments. In fact I dare say you have the potential of being a potent philosopher of the most dangerous kind, one who can easilly discuss these ideas in simple everyday language.

And I'm sure once your willing to risk your current opinions as much as your life that you'll find Socrates was right, I'm right and thr Yogyakarta Principles are largely right.

[Sallee]

i wouldn't make a big deal out of it. I have used the wroung pronoun with real women. It was just a mistake on my part and I correct myself But it was more just habit of making a polite comment a salutation "Good Morning Sir" If he only heard your voice and didn't notice you that could be the reason also.the important part is they all treated you politely

[Joni Marie Cruz]

Sometimes things take on a life and momentum of their own, don't they?

Hugs...Joni Mari

I had no idea when I posted this I would start a legal battle that appears to be headed for the Supreme Court or a question of rights and if we are suffering as much as African Americans in the 50's and 60's. I was bowing off some steam. I guess I was hoping the clerk would have been more discrete or accepting. As someone new to going out in public and the first time going into a store of any kind, and after the woman clerk greeted me so nicely it hit me kinda by surprise to be called sir. It may be easy for some to speak there minds at those times but my mind essentially said get the f#@% out of here and what the hell were you thinking!!
And I have to admit that as I was walking home I thought to myself, That should give them something to talk about all day.
I still plan to go out, just need to decide where. As for pictures I don't have a tripod and the only people who know I crossdress are you. I may dress some day and go to the wig shop and ask her to take my picture. She was accepting of the life style.
Wendy

[Angie G]

They just don't understand hun.Maybe some day they will.
Angie

[kobe]

That is totally my worst fear

[LA CINDY LOVE]

I am sorry but it is starting to get to me the way some people in this thread and others try to compare crossdressing to the human rights of people of race and the struggles that they had to go through.....I do not see it or feel it, and that photo that was posted was in poor taste.

LA CINDY LOVE

[MissConstrued]

No. Rights are unprotected without it and easilly violated.

Isn't that what I said, in somewhat different words? Unprotected rights are essentially (for practical purposes) nonexistent? Do you just like to argue so much you forget where you agree?

I dare you to read enough about Socrates to understand what I mean.

Have you then made the assumption that I have not read Socrates? Just as I've read Adam Smith and Karl Marx... I don't have to agree 100% with one work of philosophy. It's just another part of how one might form the "big picture."

[Nicki B]

Do you honestly believe there are only two possible options?

I have made this clear before. Wearing a saddle doesn't make me a horse; and wearing a dress doesn't make me a woman. Hang an artificial udder from a bull; he's still a bull.

So... Was that a yes? 'Cos I'm not sure..

I get sick of explaining this, and it's mostly to folks who haven't bothered to learn the actual meanings of words, and thus probably will find your incredibly eloquent explanation equally opaque.

Did you ever hear of the pot and the kettle?

[josephine69]

So education is needed, not sarcasm or snottiness (though I know how you feel). You could have said, "I prefer to be called ma'm."

-Tracy

i agree, a positive outlook will get you much furtherthen getting wound up.

[JulieC]

I am sorry but it is starting to get to me the way some people in this thread and others try to compare crossdressing to the human rights of people of race and the struggles that they had to go through.....I do not see it or feel it

It's based on the presumption that we crossdressers are born the way we are.

Throughout human history, people have been discriminated against for what they were born as. If the presumption is true, then crossdressers are really no different in some respects than many other groups of humans who have been discriminated against for what they were born as.

Even if you remove the presumption, there's still a nearly infinite supply of discrimination against crossdressers based on something that doesn't hurt anyone else any more than a woman wearing pants hurts someone else.

[Lorileah]

I am sorry but it is starting to get to me the way some people in this thread and others try to compare crossdressing to the human rights of people of race and the struggles that they had to go through.....I do not see it or feel it, and that photo that was posted was in poor taste.

LA CINDY LOVE

Not really the thread to get into this. There are many other threads that point out that in many ways CD is very much like being a race, religion or gender that is oppressed. It is just that we can hide easier from the general public. If you like we can discuss this in another area, a thread or by PM.

[VeronicaMoonlit]

I have made this clear before. Wearing a saddle doesn't make me a horse; and wearing a dress doesn't make me a woman. Hang an artificial udder from a bull; he's still a bull.

You're not saying TS's aren't women, are you?

If someone wishes to humor me with a "ma'am," dandy.

Ahhh. I don't see it as humoring at all, if someone ma'ams me they're being respectful of my transgender identity.

Maybe too many here are getting the idea that we are a majority because this is a big, busy forum.

Oh no, that's not the case at all. But it wouldn't matter what numbers there are, it's not okay to be disrespectful. Just like how even though there aren't a huge number of Downs syndrome folks people shouldn't use the "m"-word" or the "r"-word in reference to them. (My job involved disabled people, so I'm familiar with them)

But we're not. And I find the notion that we should go about forcing our ideas of pronoun usage down the throats of the public quite stupid.

It's not forcing, at all. It's kind of like what I referenced above, it's not socially acceptable to use those words anymore, times have changed, expectations have changed. And, at least here, many know that you simply address transgendered people in the gender their presenting as. No ones holding a gun to their head, they just know that's what you do and that it's the acceptable way of doing so.

Veronica
Rondelle (Ron) Rogers Jr.

[MissConstrued]

It's not forcing, at all. It's kind of like what I referenced above, it's not socially acceptable to use those words anymore, times have changed, expectations have changed. And, at least here, many know that you simply address transgendered people in the gender their presenting as. No ones holding a gun to their head, they just know that's what you do and that it's the acceptable way of doing so.

Veronica
Rondelle (Ron) Rogers Jr.

I am wholeheartedly in agreement when it comes to civility, politeness, courtesy. I have no problem if you tell others you'd prefer to be called thus or such. It's the sense of entitlement expressed by some (not you) that I take issue with.

[Bridget Fitzgerald]

While I think it sucks to get sir'd, social norms are dictated by a society as a whole. There is no right at all. Matter of fact, if the issue is pushed too hard, your liable to get backlash and the public swings the other way. Peoples perceptions have come a long way, and they will probably improve farther in time.

[JackieInPA]

As he was putting the doughnuts in the bag he says..."do you want anything else...SIR"


From the way the sir is capitalized i get the feeling that he emphasized it when saying it, thus making sure everyone heard it. Seems to me the only reason to do that is to humiliate them in front of the other customers. I have had that done to me, so i know how it feels. The problem is that its not against the law to hurt someone's feelings, to be mean to them, to mock them, to make them feel like shit. The only way you can legally retaliate is to boycott the store or make mean remarks back, and since the people making the remarks are small-minded, mean hearted jerks its almost impossible to make a remark that will score.

Personally if someone treated me like that my answer would have been, to ask for the owner/manager, and if he was one or the other never returned, if he wansnt i would have asked their opinion of rude people that feel the need to remove money from their wallets.