skirtcafe.org

moonshadow wrote: But that's just me. I'm a little strange, but then again, if I were normal, I probably wouldn't be here!

There is no such thing as "normal". I told all 5 of my kids that as they grew up. Normal only exists in text books.

Gordon wrote:There is no such thing as "normal". I told all 5 of my kids that as they grew up. Normal only exists in text books.

Normal is so rare as to be an exception.

Hmmm....Normal is when everybody does exactly what I'm doing when I do it. At least that's what it should be. A'int gonna happen, and if it does I'll be the first one to be scarred. And if you are scarred say your scarred... And I'm a scarred........

moonshadow wrote: Nah... seriously, I suspect the biggest reason for your observation is the crossdressers you speak of, with the more welcoming social climate in regards to transgender rights have just reconciled their inner self and realized they were transgender all along.

Moonshadow,

Your comment has stuck with me since I first read it. Needless to say, I have given it some serious thought. Let me step back a bit and reiterate that much of it stems from my attempt to reestablish a Tri-ess chapter for heterosexual crossdressers in the area. As I had noted, when I first encountered the group 24 years ago, It was a small somewhat cohesive group, The focus was quite specific with regards to heterosexuality and family inclusiveness. Today, there seems to be a simular community, but focused on transgender people. . .

Which is somewhat confusing. Only one or two people have stepped forward with an interest in a heterosexual group. . .

The corrundrum is perplexing. But it does seem to support your suggestion.

moonshadow wrote:Don't get me wrong, I could care less what any one of us wears under our skirts, dresses and so forth. I just find the topic of underwear uninteresting. I don't find it particularly flattering, elegant, or anything of the like.

To me, underwear (men and women's) is like a picture hanger in a wall (a nail). By itself, it's quite boring and bland... it's a nail after all. It's necessary yes- to hold up the picture. I'd much rather discuss the painting the nail supports however.

But that's just me. I'm a little strange, but then again, if I were normal, I probably wouldn't be here!

I like that analogy a lot.

whorton wrote:

moonshadow wrote: Nah... seriously, I suspect the biggest reason for your observation is the crossdressers you speak of, with the more welcoming social climate in regards to transgender rights have just reconciled their inner self and realized they were transgender all along.

Moonshadow,
Your comment has stuck with me since I first read it. Needless to say, I have given it some serious thought. Let me step back a bit and reiterate that much of it stems from my attempt to reestablish a Tri-ess chapter for heterosexual crossdressers in the area. As I had noted, when I first encountered the group 24 years ago, It was a small somewhat cohesive group, The focus was quite specific with regards to heterosexuality and family inclusiveness. Today, there seems to be a simular community, but focused on transgender people. . .
Which is somewhat confusing. Only one or two people have stepped forward with an interest in a heterosexual group. . .
The corrundrum is perplexing. But it does seem to support your suggestion.

Oh there's so much complicating this now, including the unsupportable concept that there is even such a thing as an "inner self" that can be different from one's total self. People are choosing trans as the closest approximation because we lack a recognised third gender, and since "trans" implies transit from one side to the (only available) other side, we get people concluding they must be "female inside" or "male inside" instead of just "me inside". "Cross" has the same connotation as "trans" but "trans" is now effectively functioning as our (still missing) third gender, and conceptually leads people to complete the transit across the gender binary, or at least declare it for the sake of fitting into a recognised category...a category that demands recognition as legitimate...and people do need to feel legitimate.

Man, that was quite a sermon. Sorry! Let me make up for it by dropping a few concept phrases I've been working on, just for fun.

"pronoun reassignment surgery"

"TBGL"

"cis-gendered hetero trans-normative"

Daryl wrote: "cis-gendered hetero trans-normative"

That one is in homage to Moonshadow.

moonshadow wrote:Don't get me wrong, I could care less what any one of us wears under our skirts, dresses and so forth. I just find the topic of underwear uninteresting. I don't find it particularly flattering, elegant, or anything of the like.

To me, underwear (men and women's) is like a picture hanger in a wall (a nail). By itself, it's quite boring and bland... it's a nail after all. It's necessary yes- to hold up the picture. I'd much rather discuss the painting the nail supports however.

But that's just me. I'm a little strange, but then again, if I were normal, I probably wouldn't be here!

I have to disagree Moonshadow, i.m.o. there is more to a nail as there are nails for various purposes. Not all materials are suitable at all times and under all circumstances. And even contrary to underwear, nails are needed to keep things together.

In its time, this thread held quite a lively discussion.

Yesterday, June 15, 2020, I feel the US Supreme Court gave us a definitive "Yes!" to the question in the thread's title. After seven years of judicial dithering and an agonizing, emotional roller coaster for at least one of the plaintiffs (The other two died along the way ... talk about justice delayed being justice denied!), the US Supreme Court decided that the Equal Employment Act of 1964 protects people from being discriminated against in the work place on the basis of their sexual orientation or their gender identity. According to their 6-3 decision, if a man is allowed to do something on the job, so are women and vice versa. Period. Throughout all 50 states and the District of Columbia, effective immediately.

At least one of the dead plaintiffs was a trans-woman who just wanted to continue in her life's calling as an undertaker while transitioning. When she asked to be allowed to wear clothes similar to her female colleagues, rather than the menswear she had been wearing, and to be regarded as the woman she knew she was; she was refused and then fired. She sued in court to be reinstated and in time her case and two others were consolidated into the case that was ruled on today.

God knows what she suffered along the way, but there is no question that she fought hard for not only her right to wear a skirt to work but also for the right of every one of us who lives under the jurisdiction of US employment law to do likewise. It should go without saying that if organizations such as the Human Rights Commission had not advocated for Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgendered individuals, others who do not fit the Gender Binary, including men who wear skirts (aka, in today's definition of the term, Queers), the American Civil Liberties Union would not have been able to get this consolidated case in front of the Supreme Court.

So, if you can accept that wanting to wear skirts or dresses is part of your gender identity and get over whatever aversion you may have to labels, as of yesterday, you have the legal right to wear your skirt or dress to work and you have us LGBTQIA+ people to thank for it!

Congratulations, I think that is all very good, just and as it should be. I am happy for those who are helped by this determination.

I don't think it helps the likes of me wearing a mini skirt and having a short beard; purely a clothing choice ....... luckily I am finding that I don't need help

Considering it only applies to employers in the US and you're in Australia, no the US Supreme Court's decision wouldn't help you.

But if you were in the US and were comfortable with one or another of the recognized labels for people who don't conform to the social norms regarding gender, such as being a male and wearing skirts instead of pants, it would help you, beard or no beard.

This decision doesn't change anything for me personally because Oregon has had those protections for years. But it is nice to know if I were to land a job in Arizona say, I wouldn't have to drag out my old, drab wardrobe.

The best part is Dave, that I don't even think you'd have to identify as trans. They basically said that there will be no discrimination based on sex... point blank.

So unless they are requiring males and females to wear the same thing... then there isn't much an employer can do.

Yes it is a HUGE win for not only LGBT people, but pretty much anyone who skirts the rules with regard to what's socially traditional when it comes to gender...

(That includes us)

In other words... a man who wears a skirt has the same rights as a woman who wears pants, to say otherwise would restrict my choice on account of me being a male... that's no longer allowed..


... at least until they ammend the law... (and they will try...)

This is good news from the Supreme Court. Effectively in the USA, people are allowed to be who they are and wear what they want accordingly.

Makes no difference whether you are male/female/trans/non binary or whatever. Just be yourself and no employer is allowed to discriminate against you on that basis.

A man has as much right to wear a skirt to work as a woman does to wear trousers. About time.

steamman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:18 pmThis is good news from the Supreme Court. Effectively in the USA, people are allowed to be who they are and wear what they want accordingly.

I haven't read the text of the law yet, but I would not be overly surprised to see some details in there somewhere that stipulate that the law only applies if you identify in certain ways. We do not have a forward-looking judicial branch here.

crfriend wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:44 pm

steamman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:18 pmThis is good news from the Supreme Court. Effectively in the USA, people are allowed to be who they are and wear what they want accordingly.

I haven't read the text of the law yet, but I would not be overly surprised to see some details in there somewhere that stipulate that the law only applies if you identify in certain ways. We do not have a forward-looking judicial branch here.

Based on what I've read from the ruling... the hangup could be for religious reasons, but that shouldn't apply to businesses that are obviously secular... there is really nothing fundamentally religious about buying craft supplies (Hobby Lobby) or chicken sandwiches (Chic-Fil-A)... But a church pianist? Yeah, I could see that... and believe it or not, I think that would be reasonable (to expect comforming to gender roles).