Bridal Shop Refuses Transgender Customer

[Bryan]

Well, the OP is about a transgender woman going to a store to try on a dress. People took it in all sorts of silly directions because a male looking person trying on a dress in a store just isn't outrageous enough.

He's not a woman. He's a man.

[Canuckistani]

[bush_cheney2004]

From across the pond....

Fashion chain New Look tells trans woman fitting room is 'not for men'

A young trans woman was left upset and puzzled after being told she couldn't use the changing rooms at international fashion chain store, New Look.

M (whose name has been withheld at her request) was visiting the chain’s branch in Brixton, south London, England where she spent half an hour browsing, picking up clothes before heading to the changing room.

There, she says, her way was barred by a staff member who challenged her explicitly, stating: ‘Oh, you are a man.’

M attempted to explain she was transgender and just wanted to try on clothes like anyone else.

However, the response was the same: ‘This is a women’s changing room, we don’t have any changing rooms for men.’

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/fashion-chain-new-look-refuses-trans-woman-use-fitting-room190313

Edited May 6, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Canuckistani]

In March, Canada’s House of Commons passed a bill making it a hate crime to discriminate against transgender people. The bill now needs to be passed through the Senate for a second reading.

http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine-on/saskatoon-bridal-shop-refuses-let-transgender-woman-try-161320080.html

[jacee]

So? Human rights tribunals cannot change peoples attitudes.

So stay out of the bridal shops and let the women handle it.

[BC_chick]

SSM is legal, folks. That means whether you consider Singh a man or woman, she has a right to go shopping for a wedding dress.

Some people really need to be dragged into the 21st century kicking and screaming in lawsuits it seems.

Edited May 6, 2013 by BC_chick

[jacee]

From across the pond....

Fashion chain New Look tells trans woman fitting room is 'not for men'

A young trans woman was left upset and puzzled after being told she couldn't use the changing rooms at international fashion chain store, New Look.

M (whose name has been withheld at her request) was visiting the chains branch in Brixton, south London, England where she spent half an hour browsing, picking up clothes before heading to the changing room.

There, she says, her way was barred by a staff member who challenged her explicitly, stating: Oh, you are a man.

M attempted to explain she was transgender and just wanted to try on clothes like anyone else.

However, the response was the same: This is a womens changing room, we dont have any changing rooms for men.

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/fashion-chain-new-look-refuses-trans-woman-use-fitting-room190313

And after stumbling afoul of the law, this was the company response:

As they do not have communal changing rooms, it would appear that New Look's blanket policy on transgender customers forcing anyone suspected of having a gender variant history to make an appointment outside usual hours is breaking the Equality Act.

A spokesperson for New Look told GSN: Everyone absolutely everyone, regardless of age, size, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender is welcome to shop at New Look.

And who made a fuss? The clerk not the patrons.

[TimG]

So stay out of the bridal shops and let the women handle it.

I am all for business owners being entitled to set rules for their shops. In fact, the HRC has already ruled:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopps_v._Just_Ladies_Fitness

So ladies only gyms are allowed to discriminate against men.

It would be absurd to say that a man can override that ruling by simply claiming to be transsexual.

IOW - here is clear evidence that women only places are a part of our society whether you like it or not and the HRC will defend them.

Edited May 6, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

SSM is legal, folks. That means whether you consider Singh a man or woman, she has a right to go shopping for a wedding dress.

SSM and cross dressing are two different things. This is also not about whether a man could wear a wedding dress - this is about whether a shop owner can decide that she does not want man to be trying on her dresses in her shop. Edited May 6, 2013 by TimG

[BC_chick]

So you were there?

Wedding shops aren't in the habit of providing open-space change-rooms, now are they? I don't know about you but personally I don't like men OR women looking at me while I'm trying on clothing.

So I'd say the chances of her trying on a dress behind closed doors is much more plausible than whatever you're suggesting.

Perhaps you were there?

[BC_chick]

SSM and cross dressing are two different things. This is also not about whether a man could wear a wedding dress - this is about whether a shop owner can decide that she does not want man to be trying on her dresses in her shop.

Even if he were a man, he has a right to get married. Hence, a right to wear a wedding dress.

[TimG]

Even if he were a man, he has a right to get married. Hence, a right to wear a wedding dress.

Sure. But that does not mean he has a right to try on a dress in private establishment.

To be honest - the thing that disgusts me the most about this story are the sniveling hypocrites who will justify all kinds of discrimination against men unless they happen to be transgendered - then (and only then) it is unacceptable.

Sorry, I have no interest in philosophies which are basically 'we will make up whatever garbage rules we want and use the law to force people to conform'. Freedom means the freedom to choose who you wish to serve in your business.

Edited May 6, 2013 by TimG

[BC_chick]

Sure. But that does not mean he has a right to try on a dress in private establishment.

Yes, of course. I think the only establishments that have that loophole are churches in whether or not they will perform the ceremony.

[The_Squid]

Yes, of course. I think the only establishments that have that loophole are churches in whether or not they will perform the ceremony.

And what about the case of women's only gyms? Why is discrimination ok in that case?

A certain amount of discrimination is ok and happens all the time. Women's only gyms are a good idea.... Not allowing men to be trying on dresses in a women's shop is ok too....

It's not that big of a deal.... Or at least it shouldn't be. It doesn't mean people are bigots or anything.... And some people bringing up other races is simply a red herring. Perhaps another bridal gown place will pick up this person's business by being more welcoming. Good on them.

Edited May 6, 2013 by The_Squid

[jacee]

Sure. But that does not mean he has a right to try on a dress in private establishment.

Yes she does. Men's shops don't have dresses.

To be honest - the thing that disgusts me the most about this story are the sniveling hypocrites who will justify all kinds of discrimination against men unless they happen to be transgendered - then (and only then) it is unacceptable.

Because they identify as women. Hello.

They're likely not knuckledraggers.

We sniveling hypocrites just don't want no knuckldraggers leering at us while we're trying on dresses.

Edited May 6, 2013 by jacee

[bush_cheney2004]

Even if he were a man, he has a right to get married. Hence, a right to wear a wedding dress.

Non sequitur....anybody can wear a wedding dress if they wish.

[jacee]

Non sequitur....anybody can wear a wedding dress if they wish.

And buy one.

[Guest American Woman]

Wedding shops aren't in the habit of providing open-space change-rooms, now are they? I don't know about you but personally I don't like men OR women looking at me while I'm trying on clothing.

So I'd say the chances of her trying on a dress behind closed doors is much more plausible than whatever you're suggesting.

Perhaps you were there?

I don't know what the circumstances were, which I why I haven't made any claims. You, on the other hand, seem to know how it all went down. The women weren't uncomfortable, the store owner is simply prejudice. In order to know such a thing, one has to assume you were there. Why else would you make such definite claims? So I ask again - were you there??

"The store-owner's actions were merely a reflection on her personal views about gender and I think it would be a lot more respectful to just come out and say that she can't accept Singh as a woman than to come up with these ridiculous excuses about making the 'customers' uncomfortable."

Since you know what the store owner's views are on gender, I can only assume you were there discussing it with her. Since you know that the other customer's weren't uncomfortable, I can only assume that you were there witnessing it.

As for what you personally are comfortable with, if you are uncomfortable with women looking at you while you try on clothing, are you saying you wouldn't be even more uncomfortable if it were a man??

[Guest American Woman]

I said it was inappropriate for a children's show to be portraying women in this fashion and I stand by that. I'm sorry that you can't seem to grasp why that has nothing to do with the issue in this thread.

But evidently it's not inappropriate for a female child to see a man changing at a public pool. "What difference does would it make," eh?

Edited May 6, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

What about the other options of going to another dress shop? Why is that option not on the table?

[Michael Hardner]

What about the other options of going to another dress shop? Why is that option not on the table?

I suppose the person in question could have done that, but they chose to assert their rights to service.

[GostHacked]

I suppose the person in question could have done that, but they chose to assert their rights to service.

Do you really want to give money to an establishment that won't take you as a customer? Edited May 7, 2013 by GostHacked

[Canuckistani]

She left the store and went to another where she was served no problem. But she's thinking of filing a HR complaint, and I think she should.

[Guest American Woman]

I suppose the person in question could have done that, but they chose to assert their rights to service.

I have to wonder - couldn't he, for a minute, think about the feelings/rights of others, too? He knows what it's like to feel uncomfortable in society, so couldn't he realize that until he is post-operation that women could, understandably, feel uncomfortable being around him in such a situation?

[Canuckistani]

She walked into a store and asked to try on a dress. She was refused and left in tears. Guess the store should have a big sign "this store run by bigots." Or "we don't serve people who fit into our narrow gender definitions so get lost" or just "No weirdos."