A (Skirted) Man Walks into a Bar...

[Bob]

There's some federal legislation going around now that would protect "gender identity" and "gender expression" --- both in terms of employment discrimination and in terms of making crimes against people for reasons of their "gender identity or expression" into a hate crime.

The million dollar question at SkirtCafe is: if a man walks into a bar (or workplace) with a floral skirt, a beard, a flat chest, a polo shirt and calling himself "Joe," should (or would) these laws apply to him? Or could he be legally fired because he didn't call himselkf "Sally"?

[JRMILLER]

Bob,
Do you have a link to the legislation so we can read it and render our opinion?

[RichardA]

no he can still call himself Joe as Joe is short for Joesphine

[r.m.anderson]

I thought that there would be a joke here and then the PUNCH LINE that I am waiting for!

Wearing a kilt in a bar and someone might buy you a drink thinking that you have or had
something to do with a military or fraternal organization.

Now wearing a skirt might get you some other opposite effect depending on the locale of
the bar; be it your local corner bar, town tavern, legion club, etc.

At least at this time of the year the Halloween factor could be presumed. But unless you
are a regular at your drinking establishment some eyebrows will be raised at other times
of the year. The more colorful and shorter the skirted event is the more attention that
will be showered your way - even so much as to be showered (shown) the exit door!

"Kilt-On"
rm

[AMM]

... But unless you are a regular at your drinking establishment some eyebrows will be raised at other times of the year [i.e., not Hallowe'en] The more colorful and shorter the skirted event is the more attention that
will be showered your way - even so much as to be showered (shown) the exit door!

Do you base this on actual experiences, or is it just an assumption? I'm not saying it could never happen, but so far, no one here has reported being invited out of a "drinking establishment," other than at places where formal attire is required. If you've seen this happen, it would be useful to add this to our "database."

I can't say that I've even seen raised eyebrows, though I have certainly gotten some second looks and maybe a brief startled expression.

[crfriend]

Well, I can certainly state that I am no stranger to bars, and if I happen to be wearing a skirt and feel the desire to slake my thirst I do not hesitate to nip in for a pop. Nobody even bats an eyelash at my regular establishment any more -- which is as it should be. Even in bars that I haven't been to in positively years, I don't get so much as a sideways glance; staff tends to be very professional at the sorts of places I frequent, so I can state I've not so much as once had any sort of issue.

I understand that the corner of the world I live in may not be representative of Everytown, USA, but I have never felt overtly discriminated against or threatened whilst wearing a skirt instead of trousers.

In my case, the "punch line" to this would be, "... sits down, orders an ale, has a good conversation with the barkeep and a few fellow patrons, pays his tab, and goes home." I know, that's a bit on the boring side, but that's the way it is here.

[r.m.anderson]

I was merely trying to make light hearted humor as the straight man waiting for the boring punchless punch line.

As I noted anything can go at this time of the year (Halloween).
Wearing a kilt is easy anytime.
Raised eyebrows an expression; but more like a stare.
As for the short skirt now that can be all you want it to be and then some.
I have not been asked to leave any establishment but in my earlier days have
had the uncomfortable feeling of not being wanted. Had my drink or two and
left. Times change and so do attitudes.

Now where was that punch line I was looking for; boring or otherwise?

"Kilt-On"
rm

[Milfmog]

I was merely trying to make light hearted humor as the straight man waiting for the boring punchless punch line.

Now where was that punch line I was looking for; boring or otherwise?

You could always borrow from the late, great Tommy Cooper:

"A man walks into a bar...

...ouch!"

Have fun,


Ian.

[PatJ]

And I was waiting for,

"A skirted man walks into a bar.....




...but the guy behind him ducked!"

[RyeOfTheDead]

I guess I don't see what the million dollar aspect to the question is. If the law protects against discrimination for gender expression, why wouldn't that cover a guy in a skirt? Unless you think the person who might harass you is going to be someone familiar with the male skirted movement and just doesn't care for Freestylers? Of course knowing that a crime committed against you is legally considered a hate crime will likely be small comfort if the crime was already committed.

[Bob]

I guess I don't see what the million dollar aspect to the question is. If the law protects against discrimination for gender expression, why wouldn't that cover a guy in a skirt?

The point is this: if a guy wearing a skirt is simply borrowing fashion "across the aisle," then it maybe it's not gender expression. It's just a guy wearing a skirt. Laws don't protect employees against poor fashion choices.

But if a guy wearing a skirt has a recognized alternate gender identity, then it is gender expression.

On the other hand, even if the guy is NOT involved in gender expression, if he is PERCEIVED to be expressing his ("her") gender through a skirt, then depending on the way a law is worded, it might apply anyway.

The larger point is this: the transgender movement has become politically recognized in recent years. But the fashion freedom movement is still invisible --- the idea that a guy wearing a skirt would NOT be expressing gender is rather new. The lawmakers who are thinking up these laws may be making some laws that are difficult to interpret. I'm not sure they're really thought through these laws from the fashion freedom perspective.

I'm sure things will get amusing when some lawsuits crop up from these laws. Then we'll find out what "gender expression" really means, on a case-by-case basis.

[crfriend]

I guess I don't see what the million dollar aspect to the question is. If the law protects against discrimination for gender expression, why wouldn't that cover a guy in a skirt?

What happens if the skirt-wearing is not a matter "gender expression" but, rather, simply a "fashion statement"? My skirt-wearing falls solidly into the second notion. Would I be "protected" by this law? Quite probably not.

A follow-on question to that might well be, "Am I entitled to protection because of my fashion sense?" Heinous "fashion crimes" happen each and every day; does anybody really shed a tear?

Here's my take on the matter. The basic documents that describe the functioning of the local government (and yours may well differ) subscribe to the tenet that "all men are created equal" (the problem comes in interpreting the word "men"; I take it as "people") and provide equal protection under the law for them. Hence, new law is not necessary, but rather proper interpretation and adherence to extant law.

My current understanding is that if something is not specifically proscribed by law it is explicitly permitted. This includes "shopping across the aisle" (except in places where such behaviours are proscribed). If some random individual takes a dislike to my fashion sense, he is allowed to do so, so long as he does not violate my rights of personal safety and security; if he does violate those rights, I am within mine to put up a vigourous defence up to and, in extreme cases, the use of lethal force. Liberal application of "common sense" will virtually assuredly remove the possibility of the latter case.

[r1g0r]

I guess I don't see what the million dollar aspect to the question is. If the law protects against discrimination for gender expression, why wouldn't that cover a guy in a skirt? Unless you think the person who might harass you is going to be someone familiar with the male skirted movement and just doesn't care for Freestylers? Of course knowing that a crime committed against you is legally considered a hate crime will likely be small comfort if the crime was already committed.

well, in minnesota "gender expression discrimination" is pretty simply laid out.

if you, in expressing your gender, are not breaking some other law (walking about with your jibbly bits hanging out of your zipper, as example) you are protected against anybody discriminating against you because of it.

2 examples now arise...

1: i wear some items of female clothing. if somebody pointedly discriminates me regarding a part of that (won't hire me / refuses to rent to me / arrests me), then i am fully protected by law. they can be arrested, fined, and jailed. i can sue them for the discrimination.

2: i wear some items of female clothing and a prospective employer does not hire me because i refuse to shave my beard (part of my gender expression) for food handling purposes. they are fully protected, and i have no support from the local laws in the matter.

it can be tricky. however, most employers don't find it worth the cost/effort/aggravation to not hire somebody who is good for the job. the potential for bad news headlines is WAY too high!

these sort of examples also apply to service in restaurants, doctors, any situation i can think of.

hope this helps.

[RyeOfTheDead]

Carl and Bob,

I think you're looking at it backwards. The law isn't written in regards to why you're wearing what you're wearing, it's written in regards to why someone is discriminating against you. The law is about the perpetrator, not the victim of the discrimination.

So for example, if hypothetical "Joe" from the first post is wearing his floral skirt out to a bar, and when he's leaving some ape follows him out to the parking lot and beats him up because of how he is dressed, this would be discrimination for gender expression, because it is highly unlikely that this attack happened because the assailant did so because of a perceived crime against fashion. ("You're gonna regret wearing white after labor day when I get done with you!")

To address the beard issue, establishments and businesses do withhold the right to dictate clothing and grooming standards for their employees. Restaurants are known to fire employees who don't shave, and for example I just started a new job at a national home improvement chain store, and some employees are allowed to wear shorts in the warmer months, but for my job I'm not allowed. This is because I am doing a job that requires a lot of one on one customer interactions and generating contractor leads, so I'm required to be slightly more professional looking than some other employees depending on their position in the store. Now, if I were working in one of the "shorts are ok" positions, I would potentially float the kilt or, even better, Workman's Utilikilt options, but honestly they even recommended that women working in the store don't wear skirts either because it's a warehouse type store and there's just a lot of safety issues that could come up so I'll just save skirts and kilts for my off hours.

I'm sure things will get amusing when some lawsuits crop up from these laws. Then we'll find out what "gender expression" really means, on a case-by-case basis.

I doubt we will. Laws like this already exist in a lot of cities and states, the only real change this new legislation enacts is that it makes it a federal law.

[crfriend]

So for example, if hypothetical "Joe" from the first post is wearing his floral skirt out to a bar, and when he's leaving some ape follows him out to the parking lot and beats him up because of how he is dressed, this would be discrimination for gender expression, because it is highly unlikely that this attack happened because the assailant did so because of a perceived crime against fashion. ("You're gonna regret wearing white after labor day when I get done with you!")

The above scenario of one person kicking the living snot out another is already well covered by quite a few statutes, and said act, being felonious, would trump the "gender expression" laws rather handily. Looking at it might establish motive, but the act proper would be dealt with by the assorted interpersonal-violence statutes.

It's a case of, I don't care why the individual was beaten up, just that they were; the facts of the case control the outcome.

To address the beard issue, establishments and businesses do withhold the right to dictate clothing and grooming standards for their employees. Restaurants are known to fire employees who don't shave [...]

Certain standards of grooming are expected of people in the food-preparation industry, and, for the most part, I suspect people in those roles approach the matter in a professional manner. Note that the restrictions do not state, for instance, "no beards or long hair", but rather that such features be properly restrained whilst at the workplace.

[...] and for example I just started a new job at a national home improvement chain store, and some employees are allowed to wear shorts in the warmer months, but for my job I'm not allowed. This is because I am doing a job that requires a lot of one on one customer interactions and generating contractor leads, so I'm required to be slightly more professional looking than some other employees depending on their position in the store.

Now, this is something where the law, as intended, might apply. Note that women can look perfectly professional in either trousers or skirts, and can go either way depending on the audience. If the intended audience was rough-and-ready tradesmen, then likely dressing in a manner closer to their own style would yield more benefit than a "fancier" style; if the clientele, on the other hand is architects and designers, one might well go the other way. So, if your chain permits women in "professional settings" the skirt option, but prohibits it on men, they might find themselves on the receiving end of a "gender discrimination" suit on behalf of a guy who feels the need to wear a skirt to project his "gender" (or simply wants to "game the system").

Now, if I were working in one of the "shorts are ok" positions, I would potentially float the kilt or, even better, Workman's Utilikilt options, but honestly they even recommended that women working in the store don't wear skirts either because it's a warehouse type store and there's just a lot of safety issues that could come up so I'll just save skirts and kilts for my off hours.

And there it is: there exist safety concerns where loose garments could get caught on things leading either to personal injury (very bad for the employer), injury to stock (not good for the employer), or injury to the garment (bad for the employee). In this case, I'd opt for trousers anyway -- even if there was a shorts option present. The question still goes begging, however: "Are women permitted the skirt option?" It's mentioned that women are encouraged to wear trousers when out on the floor (it might be different in the front office). "Encouragement" is not the same as prohibiting the undesired option. If they wanted to be truly gender-blind in this regard, they'd institute a uniform for the floor staff and be done with.

Finally, reserving one's "alternate attire" for times when he's "off the clock" has its benefits. For the longest time, I would never dream of wearing a skirt to work (other than a couple of times on Halloween), and instead consciously chose to use them as a very sharp dividing line between my "on the clock" look and my "off the clock" one. I have found, though, that I am perfectly accepted at work if I decide to wear a skirt, and I regard myself fortunate that I work in a field were I can (usually) exercise the option without a great deal of hassle. There are exceptions, however; crawling around on one's knees running cables whilst wearing a skirt is a definite nuisance, and whilst I am tall enough that one or two steps up on a step-ladder allows me to reach clean to the ceiling in our main computer room if I was shorter than I am, I might risk exposure by having to get farther up the ladder.