Bridal Shop Refuses Transgender Customer

[bush_cheney2004]

...The women's only gym issue went to the courts - I don't know what the ruling was. In any case, that's an interpretation of the law. If you read below, they allow for some discrimination, for example family discounts or seniors' discounts.

Right, so clearly we do have approved discrimination as legislated or ruled by the courts; "separate but equal" has long been the norm for public and most private rest rooms, showering facilities, and other gender based discrimination. There is also discrimination based on marital status, height, weight, etc.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I think that Curves and Spa Lady can exclude men for the same reason that the Augusta Golf and Country Club and the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo can exclude women. I think that gyms are operated as private clubs rather than places of public accommodation.

Except that some of the gyms ran afoul of employment law, which is much less forgiving of such discrimination. Male employees had to be permitted, which meant males in the gym.

Edited May 4, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Right, so clearly we do have approved discrimination as legislated or ruled by the courts; "separate but equal" has long been the norm for public and most private rest rooms, showering facilities, and other gender based discrimination. There is also discrimination based on marital status, height, weight, etc.

Yes. So does she go to his ... or to hers ? Or should we do the Canadian thing and mandate a national construction project for 3rd sex / who-knows / maybe-yes-maybe-no bathrooms ?

Or can we all just relax ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes. So does she go to his ... or to hers ? Or should we do the Canadian thing and mandate a national construction project for 3rd sex / who-knows / maybe-yes-maybe-no bathrooms ?

Or can we all just relax ?

"We" can probably relax until the next incident involving ??? gender perps using video cameras, leering, peeping, etc. in a rest room. My old company solved the problem by designating one restroom as unisex. Many millions of dollars were spent over the past 25 years in the U.S. to accommodate disabled persons in rest rooms and other barrier removal...not sure what the case is for the provinces.

[Bryan]

"He smelled horrible" is a valid reason to kick somebody out of your restaurant...

Only until someone decides to use the term "scentphobic".

[GostHacked]

I wasn't doing that, I was characterizing your position. Whether it's a sign or it's just an unwritten policy, it's discrimination and it's illegal.

That's what the law says.

The women's only gym issue went to the courts - I don't know what the ruling was. In any case, that's an interpretation of the law. If you read below, they allow for some discrimination, for example family discounts or seniors' discounts.

The thing is that this is a place for women. If this person has completely made the transformation, well then, no big deal. But until that time, he (purely on physical gender and not what the person associates with) can't try on dresses.

Sure it sucks for him/her but instead of making a big stink out of it ... simply take your business somewhere else. There are options out there. If the first one does not accommodate ... move on.

[jacee]

The thing is that this is a place for women. If this person has completely made the transformation, well then, no big deal. But until that time, he (purely on physical gender and not what the person associates with) can't try on dresses.

It's a store serving the public and they cannot discriminate. And they can't check people's genitals.

If I, a woman, go to a 'men's store' to buy a tuxedo, I expect good service and a private changeroom.

This is no different. Why I might want to wear a tux, and a man a dress and what's under our clothes is nobody's business.

Edited May 5, 2013 by jacee

[Guest American Woman]

I support rights for transgenders, but not at the expense of others' rights. Other people have the right to feel comfortable, too. We are really only hearing one side of the story here. If this person were denied simply because it went against the store owner's beliefs, that would be one thing. But if other women in the store were uncomfortable with a "man" being there, that's something that needs to be considered. Is all of the trying on done in private? Or does the bride-to-be come out and discuss fittings in a larger, public area? Such discussions often involve, among other things, a bit of lifting of the dress here and there.

This bride-to-be hadn't undergone the physical transformation yet, so I would like to know if the legal status was M or F. Perhaps there's going to have to be some public facilities that are open to all (along with M and F facilities), and anyone who wanted to, regardless of sex, could use these facilities. In the meantime, I can't see a public school allowing a visibly male student in the shower room with females because he says he feels like a girl. How many would be ok with that?

And on that note - A question for all who say what a person says they feel is all that matters - you have a 16 year old daughter. She has a visibly male friend who says he feels like a female. Would you let this friend sleep with your 16 year old daughter same as you do her girl friends?

[jacee]

I support rights for transgenders, but not at the expense of others' rights. Other people have the right to feel comfortable, too. We are really only hearing one side of the story here. If this person were denied simply because it went against the store owner's beliefs, that would be one thing. But if other women in the store were uncomfortable with a "man" being there, that's something that needs to be considered. Is all of the trying on done in private? Or does the bride-to-be come out and discuss fittings in a larger, public area? Such discussions often involve, among other things, a bit of lifting of the dress here and there.

This bride-to-be hadn't undergone the physical transformation yet, so I would like to know if the legal status was M or F. Perhaps there's going to have to be some public facilities that are open to all (along with M and F facilities), and anyone who wanted to, regardless of sex, could use these facilities. In the meantime, I can't see a public school allowing a visibly male student in the shower room with females because he says he feels like a girl. How many would be ok with that?

And on that note - A question for all who say what a person says they feel is all that matters - you have a 16 year old daughter. She has a visibly male friend who says he feels like a female. Would you let this friend sleep with your 16 year old daughter same as you do her girl friends?

What you do in your own home is your business.

If you serve the public, you cannot discriminate, and what someone's genitals look like is nobody's business.

[Guest American Woman]

What you do in your own home is your business.

If you serve the public, you cannot discriminate, and what someone's genitals look like is nobody's business.

It's the business of those being seen by the person with said genitals. Which is why a public school would not let a visibly male student shower with the girls even if he said he felt like a female, right?

So your answer to my question is obviously "no;" you wouldn't let a visibly male friend who says he feels like a female sleep with your 16 year old daughter. Just proves my point, that gender isn't only about how one feels, as you had claimed.

Edited May 5, 2013 by American Woman

[Canuckistani]

Funny how everyone argues about showers and washrooms, to make it a black and white proposition, when this case is not. (And unisex washrooms are increasing all the time.) This is about a business that's open to the public. If I want to go in and buy and bridal gown, with my genetalia and everything, they should no more be able to refuse me than they would a person of color. These women aren't getting changed out in the open, they have dressing rooms, so I see no reason to refuse service except bigotry.

[Guest American Woman]

Funny how everyone argues about showers and washrooms, to make it a black and white proposition, when this case is not. (And unisex washrooms are increasing all the time.) This is about a business that's open to the public. If I want to go in and buy and bridal gown, with my genetalia and everything, they should no more be able to refuse me than they would a person of color. These women aren't getting changed out in the open, they have dressing rooms, so I see no reason to refuse service except bigotry.

I already stated that when trying on bridal gowns, one isn't generally confined to a small, private dressing room the entire time. But the ones trying to make it black and white are those saying that it's all about how a person feels, not about their genitals. I'm simply pointing out that it's not. Furthermore, unisex bathrooms may have to be a requirement; that was my point. Furthermore, I doubt if the intention of this thread was to discuss just this one incident.

As a side note, how one "feels" is hardly comparable to one's race. They are not "the same."

Edited May 5, 2013 by American Woman

[Canuckistani]

He doesn't have to feel anything, he could be a red blooded American hetero male. If he wants to buy a wedding gown, he should be served. You say the gowns are tried on in public - of course they are. Just as a man trying on pants might come out of the dressing room to get his wife's opinion. No genitals are exposed in this public showing, and it's a strange wedding gown that would expose genitalia while worn. This shop just needs to get over its bigotry. Imagine a tux shop refusing service to a woman.

Edited May 5, 2013 by Canuckistani

[jacee]

It's the business of those being seen by the person with said genitals. Which is why a public school would not let a visibly male student shower with the girls even if he said he felt like a female, right?

So your answer to my question is obviously "no;" you wouldn't let a visibly male friend who says he feels like a female sleep with your 16 year old daughter. Just proves my point, that gender isn't only about how one feels, as you had claimed.

So you would check your daughter's friend's genitals? This just gets more and more ridiculous, as is often the case when one attempts to discriminate.

It's none of your business what I do in my own home.

It's nobody's business what someone's genitals look like.

Businesses can't discriminate.

[Guest American Woman]

So you would check your daughter's friend's genitals? This just gets more and more ridiculous, as is often the case when one attempts to discriminate.

It's none of your business what I do in my own home.

It's nobody's business what someone's genitals look like.

Businesses can't discriminate.

Speaking of "ridiculous".....this is ludicrous beyond belief. Believe it or not, I knew if my kids' friends were boys or girls before I let them have/go to sleepovers. And I didn't "check their genitals."

Just to forewarn, you'll be wasting your time responding to my posts with such nonsense in the future as I'll be giving such responses exactly as much time as merited - which is nothing.

Edited May 5, 2013 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

This is great.....as a male, I can't wait to be welcomed with open arms at a department store or mall fitting. It's hard to rock a merrywidow or bustier with only an 'A' cup, but dammit, I want service as a "public accommodation". I always wondered why Victoria's Secret never had any jock straps.

[Guest]

Yeah, I never thought about Victoria's Secret.

Mmmmm, Satin...

Edit> By the way, if I don't post for the rest of the day it's because I'm watching the soccer on tv.

Yes, that's it, the soccer...

Edited May 5, 2013 by bcsapper

[Guest American Woman]

This is great.....as a male, I can't wait to be welcomed with open arms at a department store or mall fitting. It's hard to rock a merrywidow or bustier with only an 'A' cup, but dammit, I want service as a "public accommodation". I always wondered why Victoria's Secret never had any jock straps.

Why not set your sights higher? Why not be welcomed with open arms in a women's locker room?

‘Transgender’ man may continue using girls’ locker room, says college

A Washington state college has decided it will not prevent a 45-year-old man from lounging naked in a women’s locker room, in an area frequented by girls as young as six.

The 45-year-old man, who calls himself Colleen Francis, presents himself as a transgender “female.”

On September 26, teenage girls on a high school swim team were using the facilities when they saw “Colleen” Francis exposing male genitalia through the glass window in a sauna.

Edited May 5, 2013 by American Woman

[Bonam]

Why not set your sights higher? Why not be welcomed with open arms in a women's locker room?

‘Transgender’ man may continue using girls’ locker room, says college

A Washington state college has decided it will not prevent a 45-year-old man from lounging naked in a women’s locker room, in an area frequented by girls as young as six.

The 45-year-old man, who calls himself Colleen Francis, presents himself as a transgender “female.”

On September 26, teenage girls on a high school swim team were using the facilities when they saw “Colleen” Francis exposing male genitalia through the glass window in a sauna.

Seems all you have to do as a guy these days is claim you are "transgendered" and you should be allowed free and unimpeded access to all locations normally reserved for women only. What's to complain about guys? Just go and enjoy viewing the women in your local gym/sauna/locker room/etc. I'm sure there are plenty of guys out there who wouldn't mind using the "I'm transgendered" password to enter these locations, since, as jacee says, no verification is possible or necessary.

[TimG]

---

Edited May 5, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

Speaking of "ridiculous".....this is ludicrous beyond belief. Believe it or not, I knew if my kids' friends were boys or girls before I let them have/go to sleepovers. And I didn't "check their genitals."

.

Really? But how else would a person - parent, storekeeper, etc be able to tell for sure whether the 'man' who identifies and dresses as a woman has fully completed the lopping of of the penis required to pass those requirements?

In Ontario, btw, she would not have to lop the penis to be a legal female. (Posted earlier)

[bush_cheney2004]

Really? But how else would a person - parent, storekeeper, etc be able to tell for sure whether the 'man' who identifies and dresses as a woman has fully completed the lopping of of the penis required to pass those requirements?

They could just ask, no ?

In Ontario, btw, she would not have to lop the penis to be a legal female. (Posted earlier)

OK, but the world does not revolve around Ontario.

[jacee]

They could just ask, no ?

No. Nobody's business.

[bush_cheney2004]

No. Nobody's business.

They can still ask....free speech.

[Guest American Woman]

Seems all you have to do as a guy these days is claim you are "transgendered" and you should be allowed free and unimpeded access to all locations normally reserved for women only. What's to complain about guys? Just go and enjoy viewing the women in your local gym/sauna/locker room/etc. I'm sure there are plenty of guys out there who wouldn't mind using the "I'm transgendered" password to enter these locations, since, as jacee says, no verification is possible or necessary.

Even better, apparently if you don't "show your genitals" they won't even know you're a man!