I think this particular issue, of women being ‘butch,’ differs from someone choosing to dye their hair blue or get pierced. When a man dresses as a woman or in an ‘effeminate’ manner, he is ceding the power that comes with being Man. He is tolerated on TV and in films (yeah, this argument is mostly made regarding the media and why there are no butchy dykes on TV) because he’s non-threatening as well as physically attractive, enhancing the landscape. By acting and dressing ‘masculine,’ a butch lesbian (or straight woman) is taking power that some believe she has no right to and refusing to make herself an object of visual pleasure to whoever’s looking her way.
Not only that, but what’s coded ‘masculine’ is almost always more comfortable and less flashy. Butch women are being portrayed as deviants for not wanting to ddye their hair, do their nails, wear make-up, push-up bras or high heels.
See, it’s not that simple. To achieve “normal” female appearance is not simply a matter of refraining from doing things that appear male. The default low-maintenance “simple and comfortable” dress (jeans, T-shirts, Chuck Taylors, etc) is marked as “masculine,” simple as that.
Some women look quite feminine, and can dress like butch dykes, and nobody will mistake them for being males, because of other indicators (feminine features, body shape, etc). Other women can wear the exact same outfits and be mistaken for men all the time. For such a woman to dress in a way that you would consider “normal” (i.e. one that would immediately mark them as female) would require quite an imposition of effort. Traditional markers of femininity - blowdried hair, make-up, heels, pantyhose, skirts, etc - all of these require substantial time, effort and money to maintain.
I am fortunate to be one of the former sorts of women, I can keep a low-maintenance look and I only get mistaken for a dyke when I shave off all my hair (the rest of the time, it is ponytailed; still, my Blundstones and jeans and bike jackets are not enough to mark me as “male,” although they would be if some of my friends were wearing them). But for me to mark myself as female, to put on make-up and high heels and a skirt, would be a substantial imposition on me, probably as much as it would be to any man or woman of any gender identification (in other words, it would be as difficult for me, a non-dyke-identified female, to dress in traditionally feminine ways, as it would be for magellan or buttonjockey or anyone else).
To require me to do this in order to be permitted to use a public bathroom would be incomprehensibly rude, so much so that I don’t have the words to adequately describe how unacceptable it would be. To the naysayers, what would your response be if someone told you your dress was inappropriate and barred you from peeing in a public place? I submit that your response is dependent on the degree to which your usual dress matches the expected norms. If you were barred from the mens room because of your kilt, would you be okay with that?
The only difference between me and Ms Farmer is that my hair is longer and my skin is a different colour. So I have no trouble sharing her horror at her experience.
Can I please repeat my non-rhetorical question for anyone who is still listening and who thinks the violation was not all that bad: Where was she supposed to pee? The men’s room? If you were barred from the mens room because of your kilt, would you be okay with simply using the womens?
Can’t you see what an impossible position it is for any such person to be in?
Oh for fuck’s sake. Who are the naysayers? Who is saying you should be required to dress a certain way to be allowed to use the washroom? Who? Quote them please.
Everyone, including the bar, seems to know it was a rude mistake.
(I understand this is meant to be ironic, but if so the point of it is lost on me.)
which I read as implying that “if you’re going to dress like that, you have to expect people to do things like not let you pee in the ladies room.”
I have also quoted people above: the ones calling her a menace, the ones claiming that letting people use the bathrooms they identify with is a “detriment.” I am asking for someone to back up that claim because I cannot see the menace or the detriment.
I am still also asking for someone to defend the status quo, on a basis other than their own personal discomfort.
That cannot be a serious statement. Jeans, T-shirts, Chuck Taylors are absolutely a staple of the American female wardrobe, The Gap, Old Navy and the big box-ers like Wal-Mart and Target sell just this type of thing in great numbers. Granted, the age appropriate-ness of this type of gear hovers somewhere between 15 and 21, but still.
Again I disagree. You can dress in precisely female attire and not do any of the things you mention, unless you want to. Which, really is what it boils down to, truthfully, you do what you want to do, to be where you want to be in society.
This is simply a manifestation of the desire to be apart from the majority of society, which again, is totally cool, but you cannot be righteously angry at a society that won’t conform to YOUR desire to be apart from them.
Well, here’s where we split cultural hairs and get honest, all at the same time. First, a kilt IS men’s wear in certain cultures, so the reason WHY I was denied access to the trough will determine how insensitive the denial “We don’t let no skirt wearin fairies in here to piss” OR “We hate Scotsmen, get out” Both are insensitive, however neither necessarily against the law, further, both are perfectly fine reasons to deny someone access to the bathroom that a) You don’t own, b)You’re asking permission to use and c) Isn’t paid for OR maintained by tax money. Granted, they’re politically incorrect, and yes, even insensitive, but that is where, IMO, it starts and ends.
Can’t you see what an impossible position it is for any such person to be in?
[/QUOTE]
Was it an embarrasing thing? I haven’t a second of doubt. Is it worth tying up court for? Good lord no. I would think the press alone would rile the gay community (they’re a vocal and activist bunch, Goddess love em) enough to keep the pressue on this joint until he was driven out of business the old fashioned way.
Hell yes I’d use the women’s. The women probably wouldn’t like it very much, but I’d go in, if the owners demanded it. I’m crazy like that. Besides, I’ve always wanted to see how much better the bathrooms are anyway, I hear tell of couches, and footstools and cold water dispensers.
Finally, I think this needs to be stressed above everything I’ve said so far; when you go out into the world, you are ON YOUR OWN. No one HAS to let you pee, no one HAS to let you shit in THEIR bathroom. Many places do because it just makes them good citizens, but no place is really obligated to allow this.
Now, I still think it was trashy and insensitive of the bouncer to boot her out, even after she was willing to produce ID, and it’s not something that I would have done, were I in the spot of the bouncer, but I don’t think suing is the correct course of action.
Right you are :rolleyes: First, this isn’t an endemic thing, one douchebag bouncer in the douchebag capital of the universe did a douchebag-y thing that offended the sensibilities of someone who decides every morning to show up, dressed outside of what she knows to be usual. At worst it was offensive, at best, a business exercising it’s right to eject who-so-ever they choose.
Then ask the person who said it. The woman is only a menace to herself.
cowgirl I don’t have to defend the status quo, the existance of the status quo is it’s own defense.
None of us are distant objective observers to the status quo. We are involved and participatory in it. That is what is frustrating to the people trying to change it during the shift towards the tipping point (where we are with respect to this issue, I believe).
[over-simplified model]
There are those who fight to move it in the opposite direction. (women wear dresses, men wear pants)
There are those in the center who fight to maintain it exactly where it is (in specific situations, when necessary or otherwise socially acceptable, women can sometimes wear pants, and men can sometimes wear dresses, but most of the time women should wear dresses and men should wear pants)
There are those in the center who acknowledge that it “isn’t fair”, but it “is what it is” and otherwise do nothing to one way or another. (I understand and accept that some women might want to wear pants most or all of the time, and I can understand and accept that some men might want to wear dresses most or all of the time, but that isn’t the way it is, so you’ll just have to deal with the consequences if you push the “sometimes” limits. Sorry.)
There are those who either directly challenge or lend their support to fight for a new status quo.
[/over-simplified model]
Of course it is actual a continuum, but the frustration comes in, for me, when discussing the issue with people in the third group, part of the center, because they can become a self-fulfilling prophecy towards the paradigm shift. By thinking to themselves “I am part of the status quo, and I can exert the control of an individual on it” they can change things.
Preach it! I still can’t wear my white shirt and pants, black boots, white suspenders, one false eyelash, black bowler, and exterior jockstrap without people staring at me like I’m some kind of demented thug.
Damn straight business can choose whoever the crap they want to serve. Why just the other day I had to run some colored boy away from drinking from the white folks fountain at the soda jerk shop. Damn fools, all of 'em…
Oh, wait. That’s right. This isn’t the 1950’s, and we’re societally enforcing racism anymore! Don’t lawsuits and legislature just ruin all the fun? But thank god we can still get really oddly worked up over women who happen to resemble men. Androgyny is almost as scary as the gays! :rolleyes:
Yeah, um, see the above statement of mine? The status quo is sometimes fucking stupid.
I fail to see how choosing to dress in the manner she does qualifies this lady as a “meance”. Menace to whom? Others? Society? Whom is she menacing, or are you just being a moron?
Sorry if you understand that to be “ironic”. It was meant to be playfully sarcastic.
So you made a claim, then when aske to substantiate it you come back with squat, hoping to pass off a playful remark as proof. This may be a clue that you don’t know what you’re talking about. And that is not meant ot be ironic or sarcastic.
This is true, we are involved in the modeling of the status quo, no matter what side of it we land, but I again submit that the core of what is considered “normal” with respect to gender identity will not change a great deal in our lifetime. Mainly because those that seek change in it, are simply too small in numbers to have a real and lasting effect.
[over-simplified model]
[/over-simplified model]
Which lends to my point precisely. Those on the opposite and those in the middle together (they are inexorably linked) will outweigh in influence, and out number, in, well, numbers, those desiring to challenge it.
Ergo…
I think you generally overestimate the desire of those in the center to have an effect on the status quo at all. Unless those on the challenging end spark within them the desire to either return to an old status quo, or at least maintain the current one, I don’t think many people even give issues like gender identity a second thought.
I think that the majority of the populace resides at some point in the center, and that the louder the fringe groups get, that the tighter the grip on the current status quo becomes.
Are you suggesting that anyone who does not (either via conscious choice, political/social advocacy, naivety/ignorance regarding status quo, or otherwise) dress themselves, groom themselves, and otherwise carry themselves in a manner that fits within the limits of society’s “undefinable yet obvious” paradoxical perspective of gender identity/presentation…to the point of attempting to emphasize physical features that comply with said paradoxical perspective and deemphasize physical features that do not comply with said paradoxical perspectives…should be considered a menace to themselves?
You are wrong to disagree. Almost always “movements” cause a “backlash” where the middle solidifies against the “movement”, which is what buttonjockey308 said. You can’t possibly deny that. Sometimes a movement catches on with the mainstream but it certainly is no sure thing which is what your statement seems to imply.
Your “oversimplified model” feels like a slightly more complex version of the old “You’re either part of the solution or part of the problem” line. While I suppose it’s technically true if your goal is to change some intrinsic part of society, I always found it an obnoxious battle cry.
We can get into a debate about what constitutes a “movement” and how their success or failure can measured if you want to. The point I was trying to make is that there have been many movements that have contributed to fundamental shifts in public perception, in spite of any backlash associated with them. I believe that awareness of gender fluidity is such a movement, as I believe that awareness of sexual preference fluidity is such a movement. They are both movements in and of themselves, and they share overlap between them and others.
(I don’t know how to do that nested quote thingie…
In this instance the case can be made that the bouncer was required to look at the ID. A public accomodation may not reserve to itself the right to violate the law, and Ms. Farmer, a female, was denied access to a public accomodation on the basis of her perceived gender (the customer and the bouncer perceived her as male).
At the very least, and excuse me if this has been mentioned previously in one of the various threads, how rock-headedly stupid does this bouncer have to be to refuse to look at the ID?
