|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is it illegal anywhere to impersonate a woman?
WFMU brings me tales of the most interesting people:
Quote:
Is that still a specific, named offense anywhere? Was there some great Supreme Court case that makes it not a valid law under American jurisdictions anymore?
__________________
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them." If you don't stop to analyze the snot spray, you are missing that which is best in life. - Miller I'm not sure why this is, but I actually find this idea grosser than cannibalism. - Excalibre, after reading one of my surefire million-seller business plans. |
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Crossdressing was illegal for a long time. Patrons at lesbian bars would sometimes have to wear their jeans backwards in the 60s (since women's pants zipped up the backs) to avoid harassment by the police:
http://lostwomynsspace.blogspot.com/...d-chicago.html I would imagine things were at least as tough for men. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
I certainly can't think of any decision that would have invalidated such laws and local ordinances. They're bound to still be on the books in a lot of places.
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cross-dressing is illegal under Sharia law.
Last edited by gatorslap; 08-02-2012 at 01:50 AM. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am going to ask for a cite?
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are you asking us to guess whether you are going to ask for a cite?
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Indeed. Just skimming his statement made my mind parse that as "Am I going to ask for a cite?"
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
IIRC, Toronto in the 70's was famous for the gay Halloween parade (from one gay bar to another). The logic of the parade (admittedly, mostly word of mouth although I think I read it in a newspaper too) was that it was the one day "dressing up" was legal since it was an accepted custom to wear costumes on Halloween.
The rest of the time, the charge was "wearing a disguise". This was a charge that could be laid against someone who disguised their appearance, usually to avoid identification during a crime. It was fairly broad (sorry) so not just ski masks or lone ranger masks, but fake mustaches, wigs, etc. would qualify. Of course, you did not have to actually commit a crime. Often, like "possession of burglary tools" it was something the police could lay if they caught you before the actual crime. Presumably the macho police of the time were not above using the system for gay-bashing to harass someone wanting to enjoy their lifestyle. They evetually were raked over the coals for standing by during egg-throwing and other gay-bashing during one Halloween parade in the 1980's IIRC, and since then have enforced the laws to protect the parade. Then there's the practical consideration - you could likely be charged as a perv for using the wrong public toilet too while dressed up. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
There must still be some gender based requirements where impersonating a woman would be a crime. For instance if the TSA regulations say body searches of women must be conducted by female personnel, a male TSA employee impersonating a woman might be committing a crime.
|
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
![]() I can remember my mother wearing pants she bought at Bergdorf-Goodmans that zipped in front, and a few pair that zipped up the side [those were more dressy and she didn't want a fly in front look. I would really love to find the grey wool ones, they were fantastic looking.] My mother did not dress out of the mens department of anywhere. I had jeans as playclothes in the 60s as I refused to wear the cute little frilly girly clothes unless pretty much forced to, and my jeans zipped in front, and we shopped for me at Sibleys in Rochester, in the girls department. My jeans were not the same as my brother's jeans. I can't remember the brand names, but his had rivets and mine didn't. Mine had flowers embroidered on the back pockets. They were definitely made with girl playclothes in mind. [and of course I am discussing her clothing back in the 60s ]Now perhaps in one small area of the country like Alabama or someplace it was illegal, but we are talking New York State in the 1960s for my mother. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Joan of Arc was convicted of heresy for wearing men's clothing (contrary to some Bible rule), among other things. According to Wikipedia, execution for heresy required a repeat offense, so when she put mens' clothing back on again after some English lord tried to rape her in prison, she was doubly guilty. She was burned at the stake for this.
|
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, maybe at the Olympics....
|
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think impersonating a woman would be illegal under certain circumstances. For instance, a guy dresses as a woman to gain entry (for purposes of titillation) to female-only places such as washrooms, shower facilities, etc.
|
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
I remember watching a cartoon (not sure if it was a movie or a tv show, but I believe it was Disney), where an anthropomorphic male cartoon character was arrested for wearing a Scottish kilt, as the cop considered that to be crossdressing (because it's a skirt, duh), so it seems that the cartoon acknowledged the idea that crossdressing could be construed as a crime.
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
I remember reading an interview once by a female transvestite recalling her experiences earlier in the twentieth century. She said that there had been laws setting a maximum amount of articles of men's clothing a woman could wear - I believe it was four. So a woman could wear a man's hat and necktie and a pair of shoes and it would just be considered a fashion choice. But if she then put on one more article of male clothing, she'd have crossed the line and she could be arrested for dressing up as a man.
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It's also possible that the "4 articles of clothing" was a rule of thumb for prosecution in some jurisdiction set through precedent or custom - if you had more than X articles on, you were trying to disguise yourself by dressing as a member of the opposite sex. I also remember side-zippers (and rear zippers) were and still are found on women's pants from back in the 60's, but I never noted that the did NOT have front zippers. Women's pants just had a lot more options. With no front centre seam, I guess the camel-toe was more obvious. Last edited by md2000; 08-02-2012 at 04:21 PM. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
A reference where citations outweigh anecdotes.
|
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
You sure?
The Koran says: Quote:
Last edited by even sven; 08-02-2012 at 07:02 PM. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
In Randy Shilts's book about Harvey Milk, The Mayor of Castro Street, it's mentioned that San Francisco gay bars were often raided by the police in the '50s and '60s and there could be legal problems for men who were dressed as women. One thing some of these men did to protect themselves was wear a badge or nametag saying "I am a man" while otherwise dressed in full drag. I don't remember if the book said this actually worked, but it was supposed to provide a defense against charges that the man in question was trying to trick anyone.
|
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
No Gods, No Masters |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've read this in a couple of gay-oriented books. It could very well be old lesbians exaggerating, or maybe just a few overenthusiastic police officers.
|
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
In general, impersonation is illegal if done with fraudulent intent, which means for the purpose of gain that one would otherwise not be entitled to. Merely impersonating a women in order to be perceived socially as a woman would not be illegal, but could cross the line of done to gain access to something that is provided for women only, such as free admission or drinks on ladies night.
Technically, then, a female impersonation could be fraudulent, if intending to gain favor from a person who would not have offered such favor to a man. In short, impersonation per se is not illegal, unless it crosses a line into intent to defraud. Even impersonation of a police officer would need to be at least credible, and would not extend to a stripper dancing in a faux policeman's uniform. I would think any local laws that loosen that definition would be struck down as unconstitutional First Amendment violations, at least in the USA. As for "anywhere", your mileage may vary. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
As far as I know cross-dressing is illegal in Tasmania.
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|