LiuBang wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 1:48 pm
I live in San Diego, and I'd wager that virtually everyone would assume any man in a skirt to be trans and address the man as "Ma'am/she/her." Today's urban America is very tolerant towards transwomen, but if you're a cis-gender man who wants to wear a skirt to an office job, zero tolerance. Even if you're wearing a plain, muted skirt with a guy's polo shirt and guy's shoes.
Nothing against trans-people, but it really is too bad that a guy can't just wear a tasteful skirt to the office without having to invoke the "protected class" of being transgender.
...although, I do think if push came to shove, the SCOTUS decision a few years back would still protect cisgender men who wear skirts. Note that in the courts decision, it was never about protecting "trans rights", it was simply stating that an employer can't give one sex privilege over another. Being trans has nothing to do with it. Thus, an employer CAN prohibit a man from wearing a skirt to the office, however that employer must also prohibit women from doing the same. An employer can not allow a women to wear a skirt but not a man, doing so it discriminates based on sex, whereas if a man simply had different plumbing he would be free to choose.
This is actually the same argument I pitched back in 2016 when I got into some hot water over this.
At the end of the day, there's really no reason to over-complicate this.
"Why are you wearing a skirt?"
"Because I want to."
That's really the only reason a man needs.
As for identity, I know that "identity politics" is a hot button issue these days, so if someone were to ask me how I "identify", I'd just say "I am what I am." If that's not good enough, "crazy old hillbilly" seems to shut them up!
