Dear Abby, Transvestites, and California

[Monkeyleg]

I read the Dear Abby column in the newspaper every night, and have been doing so for years. Why? I don't know. Probably for the same reason people slow down to look at car wrecks on the interstate.

Anyway, one of tonight's letters, and Dear Abby's response, upset me so much that I just have to vent. And where better to vent than on APS?

Here's the letter and reply:

DEAR ABBY: Last night at a restaurant, my husband and I were surprised to see a male server wearing a blond wig and full makeup. I was, to say the least, shocked and very glad we hadn't brought the children, ages 11 and 14, with us. How do you explain something like that to an 11-year-old? The 14-year-old would be able to "get it."
What kind of policies are in place for restaurants in cases like this? What if customers are offended? Could I request a different server or just leave? Your comments would be appreciated. -- TAKEN ABACK IN CALIFORNIA

DEAR TAKEN ABACK: In California, people have the legal right to dress in a style not typical of their gender without fear of discrimination or retaliation. That right is protected by state law. If customers find it offensive, they can either request a different server or take their business elsewhere. Presumably, the customer would pay for food that had already been prepared.

Because children today grow up quickly and are less sheltered than in past decades, I recommend you explain to your 11-year-old that not all people are alike, and the importance of treating others with respect. It's called reality.

While the woman didn't have her kids with her, and so didn't have to 'splain anything, some other folks likely did. And some of those folks probably had to explain things as best as they could to their kids. Or maybe they just give some non-answer answer, and never come back to the restaurant again. That's mildly irritating to me.

One of the things that really gets me is that there will be many people who will be upset, some may never come back, and the owner and/or manager can do nothing. It's the law, as Abby so cheerfully points out (her cheerfulness in this is another thing that irritates me). How this came to be law in CA is something I just can't fathom.

Abby irritates me even more when she refers to people having the "right" to cross-dress while working with the public. Somewhere along the line the business owner lost some rights that are more concrete. This may help to explain California's mad rush to bankruptcy.

Abby's almost flippant comment that "kids today grow up quickly" got me hot under the collar, too. They don't grow up any faster than they did 20 or 30 or 40 years ago, but instead are just bombarded with more sexually explicit messages than ever before. This may make them seem more grown up, but they're not. They're just more confused, and having a waiter with a blond wig, lip gloss and a Richard Nixon 5 o'clock shadow doesn't help clarify things.

Abby's final comment about customers just taking their business elsewhere was irritating and hilarious at the same time. It was hilarious because, in every state and city where smoking bans have been proposed or enacted, the mere suggestion that those sensitive to smoke go elsewhere meets with howls of protest. "You can't make people go to another restaurant just because the owner of this one chooses to allow smoking", they'd fume. "People should have the right to go wherever they want without being offended". Funny how that only seems to work one way.

Ah, but what do I know? I'm just some 61 year-old curmudgeon who didn't grow up fast enough.

[gunsmith]

One time in San Francisco, I lived on a street with a bunch of strip clubs.
For some reason there was a "party" bus going by in the daytime but it wasn't full of drunken office types-it was a field trip.
for elementary kids! 
The amount of "eww" & "that's gross" I heard from them was heartwarming-but I wanted to strangle the driver.
 

[Fitz]

This topic is probably doomed, but here's my take.

I fully support the right of people to cross-dress if they choose.

However, in my mind it seems extremely wrong to force an employer to allow it at his business.

Self-expression is one of the many things that we must sacrifice or limit in the name of professionalism

An employer allowing cross dressing at work willingly is fine... But for the state to force him to allow it, in my mind, is wrong.

I feel the same way about concealed carry, by the way, although that opinion may be unpopular here

[cambeul41]

Is it really the law in California that employers do not have any say as to what employees wear at work?  The owner/manager can't tell them, "You are not  waiting tables in my place dressed like that"?

I would agree that there should be no law forbidding cross-dressing when working with the public.  There should also be no law preventing an employer from forbidding dress or behavior likely to drive business away.

In any case, if it were I who found my self in such a situation, with children or not, I would probably just have my meal then decide whether or not to return.

The 11 year old mentioned probably knows more than their mother imagines.

[BlueStarLizzard]

 


If your eleven year old is so sheltered that he/she can't handle a dude cross dressing, you've got a lot bigger issue.
Second, transgender issues are not the same as sexual orinentation issues. Yes, they are often related and have a strong assosiation, but they are not the same issue. Bitching about kids being exposed to things that are "sexually explicited" is pretty much retarded anyway, but in this case, is just downright stupid. You do not need to explain the down and dirty mechanics of non traditional sex to your kid. Some boys "like" boys, some girls "like" girls, some boys dress like girls and some girls dress like boys, and it really doesn't need much more explination then that.

Finally, business owners rarely follow both the letter and the spirit of the law when it comes to bigotry, making money and such, and very few emplyees are capable of making much of a stink about it. If a business has an openly and obvious transgender working for them, ten bucks says they don't have an issue, don't give a crap what you say and, should you complain, may be very likely to politely tell you to take your business elsewhere.
These kinds of things, it's not about what actually happens, it's about what can be proved.
And of all the frivolous laws out there, this is the least of my worries.

[Fitz]

Is it really the law in California that employers do not have any say as to what employees wear at work?  The owner/manager can't tell them, "You are not  waiting tables in my place dressed like that"?.

This is one of the funny things about California. I'm sure an employer can object to me wearing a Mötley Crüe shirt, but objecting to me in a dress and platinum blonde wig would probably be verboten

[Ron]

...Finally, business owners rarely follow both the letter and the spirit of the law when it comes to bigotry, making money and such, and very few emplyees are capable of making much of a stink about it...

Not wanting a cross-dresser being the face of your company to the public is not bigotry.

Using the force of law to make someone hire a cross-dresser, esp for a customer facing position is bureaucratic tyranny.  

People need to learn to work out their psychological problems on their own dime. That's called growing up and being an adult.

[Stetson]

How many x-dressers work for the state of CA?  Just wondering

[White Horseradish]

They don't grow up any faster than they did 20 or 30 or 40 years ago, but instead are just bombarded with more sexually explicit messages than ever before. This may make them seem more grown up, but they're not.

What exactly is sexually explicit in a fully dressed guy in a wig? Unless that kind of thing turns your crank, that is.

BTW, somehow this really wasn't a problem for my then-11 year old. He really didn't need a whole lot of an explanation when the subject came up beyond the fact that some men like to dress as women for reasons other than comedy. He basically said "oh, okay" and went on with his business. Adults tend to way overthink things like this and see sex everywhere. 

[lupinus]

Abby can kiss my arse and then borrow his stiletto and use it to autofornicate. Her smugness and the general attitude is more offensive then a guy dressing up in a skirt and high heels itself will ever be.

Some boys like to dress up as girls. They have every right to do so, just as a tom boy has every right to jeans and t shirts. BUT, the business owner also has the right to tell him to dress in whatever uniform he deems appropriate for his male staff or get the hell out of his establishment, the rights of the property/business owner supersede the employees right to express themselves while on the clock.

[Jamisjockey]

The sad part is the death of private property rights. If I as an employer choose to discriminate it should be my right.  But in reality the rights of some trump the rights of the many.  Straight irony.

[Hawkmoon]

The sad part is the death of private property rights. If I as an employer choose to discriminate it should be my right.  But in reality the rights of some trump the rights of the many.  Straight irony.

ALL hiring involves discrimination, unless there's only one applicant for each job. The boss "discriminates against" the less qualified applicants by hiring the best qualified applicants. If part of being best qualified means being the best dressed or the best mannered or having the personality the boss thinks the paying customers will react to most favorably, that's part and parcel of the process.

Discrimination becomes unlawful only when the .gov passes a law saying "Thou shalt not discriminate on the basis of ___." The list used to be basically color, religion/creed, gender, and marital status. Then ethnicity was added to the list. Then sexual orientation was added to the list. I've never heard of clothing choice being included as a prohibited criterion, but I don't live in California. Nonetheless, I wonder if perhaps Dear Abby's fact checkers may have dropped the ball on this one.

FWIW, I seriously doubt that Dear Abby wrote that. The late "Ann Landers" was Abby's twin sister, and she died several years ago. It came out after she died and her assistants took over the column that they had been doing much of the writing for several years. I'm sure Abby must be in her 90s by now and I suspect her staff writes her column for her.

[charby]

FWIW, I seriously doubt that Dear Abby wrote that. The late "Ann Landers" was Abby's twin sister, and she died several years ago. It came out after she died and her assistants took over the column that they had been doing much of the writing for several years. I'm sure Abby must be in her 90s by now and I suspect her staff writes her column for her.

Abby's daughter writes the column now

[HankB]

Abby's daughter writes the column now

So there IS a hereditary component to insanity after all . . .

[Hawkmoon]

Abby's daughter writes the column now

You're right. I knew that, and I forgot.

[Monkeyleg]

If your eleven year old is so sheltered that he/she can't handle a dude cross dressing, you've got a lot bigger issue.
Second, transgender issues are not the same as sexual orinentation issues. Yes, they are often related and have a strong assosiation, but they are not the same issue. Bitching about kids being exposed to things that are "sexually explicited" is pretty much retarded anyway, but in this case, is just downright stupid. You do not need to explain the down and dirty mechanics of non traditional sex to your kid. Some boys "like" boys, some girls "like" girls, some boys dress like girls and some girls dress like boys, and it really doesn't need much more explination then that.

Finally, business owners rarely follow both the letter and the spirit of the law when it comes to bigotry, making money and such, and very few emplyees are capable of making much of a stink about it. If a business has an openly and obvious transgender working for them, ten bucks says they don't have an issue, don't give a crap what you say and, should you complain, may be very likely to politely tell you to take your business elsewhere.
These kinds of things, it's not about what actually happens, it's about what can be proved.
And of all the frivolous laws out there, this is the least of my worries.

It's not about a kid being sheltered, it's about a parent being able to decide what to explain to a child and when. Maybe the kid already knows about cross-dressers. Hell, maybe the kid knows more about LGBT matters than the parents do. That doesn't mean that restaurants by law have to provide visual aids.

I'm aware of the difference between transgender and orientation. Thank you.

Bitching about things being sexually explicit is not retarded. This all may seem normal to you, because you're young and have had these messages thrown at you for years. It does make a difference, though, in what kids do. Marketing slut clothing to pre-teens, having a president say that oral sex is not sex, having just about every music video show things that would have been R-rated in movies 30 years ago...all of this stuff adds up. The sum is insanely high rates of out of wedlock births, sexual activity at much, much younger ages than in years past, high rates of STD's, and changing the dynamics between boys and girls, with girls often being more aggressive in using sex to attract boys. That's just part of the sum. The whole notion of "sex without consequences", a notion that was born when I was very young, is bull. Sex has consequences on both parties involved, and the consequences can hurt.

But that wasn't my point, it was Dear Abby's (kids grow up faster these days).  

My hot buttons are the rights of customers and business owners, the state, and some liberal bliss-ninny columnist championing the rights of the state to impose ridiculous laws on the majority.

[SteveS]

What exactly is sexually explicit in a fully dressed guy in a wig? Unless that kind of thing turns your crank, that is.

BTW, somehow this really wasn't a problem for my then-11 year old. He really didn't need a whole lot of an explanation when the subject came up beyond the fact that some men like to dress as women for reasons other than comedy. He basically said "oh, okay" and went on with his business. Adults tend to way overthink things like this and see sex everywhere. 

I am not going to tell people what they should be offended by, but I wouldn't put this thing into the same category as sexual acts or provocative clothing.  My 9 year old saw a table full of transvestites at one of the Disney restaurants last year and asked about them.  I told her that some people liked to dress that way and got the "oh, ok" response.  No big deal. 

[BlueStarLizzard]

It's not about a kid being sheltered, it's about a parent being able to decide what to explain to a child and when. Maybe the kid already knows about cross-dressers. Hell, maybe the kid knows more about LGBT matters than the parents do. That doesn't mean that restaurants by law have to provide visual aids.

I'm aware of the difference between transgender and orientation. Thank you.

Bitching about things being sexually explicit is not retarded. This all may seem normal to you, because you're young and have had these messages thrown at you for years. It does make a difference, though, in what kids do. Marketing slut clothing to pre-teens, having a president say that oral sex is not sex, having just about every music video show things that would have been R-rated in movies 30 years ago...all of this stuff adds up. The sum is insanely high rates of out of wedlock births, sexual activity at much, much younger ages than in years past, high rates of STD's, and changing the dynamics between boys and girls, with girls often being more aggressive in using sex to attract boys. That's just part of the sum. The whole notion of "sex without consequences", a notion that was born when I was very young, is bull. Sex has consequences on both parties involved, and the consequences can hurt.

But that wasn't my point, it was Dear Abby's (kids grow up faster these days).  

My hot buttons are the rights of customers and business owners, the state, and some liberal bliss-ninny columnist championing the rights of the state to impose ridiculous laws on the majority.

My point is that transgender is not about being "sexually explicited"

For the most part, I agree with laws protecting those who are discriminated against, including sexual orintation and gender orintation.

If the guy follows the dress code of a particular business, then he can present himself as whatever freeking gender he wants and that is his business.
And if the business owner doesn't like it, well, he probably should have thought of some other reason not to hire the person in the first place.

Don't sit on your high horse an tell me that the business owners have no choice in who they hire and that the .gov can force them to hire anyone. Real life doesn't work like that.

In this case, this example, I highly doubt this guys employer had any issue with his employee at all and Abby's presentation of the law in california is a complete and total non sequitor.

As for being "allowed to choose" what you explain to your kids,   their is plenty of crap I wouldn't really want to explain to my kids, but I won't have a choice. If you want to wrap your children in a bubble or refuse to discuss what they will encounter in life, fine, but don't get pissy at other people because you don't want the questions to come up.
This whole speil of "OH NOEZ IT'S FOR TEH CHILDRENS!!" is just the excuse people come up with so they don't have to deal with the real world.
Yes, I am young and have been exposed to a diffrent culture then you grew up with. I face diffrent issues and have diffrent expectations.
Guess what? That is how culture evolves and I bet your elders where screeching about sex, drugs and rock and roll when you where coming along. BTW, thanks for that. I really appreciate you judging me for simply accepting the culture YOUR generation started.

[Jamisjockey]

It's not about a kid being sheltered, it's about a parent being able to decide what to explain to a child and when. Maybe the kid already knows about cross-dressers. Hell, maybe the kid knows more about LGBT matters than the parents do. That doesn't mean that restaurants by law have to provide visual aids.

I'm aware of the difference between transgender and orientation. Thank you.

Bitching about things being sexually explicit is not retarded. This all may seem normal to you, because you're young and have had these messages thrown at you for years. It does make a difference, though, in what kids do. Marketing slut clothing to pre-teens, having a president say that oral sex is not sex, having just about every music video show things that would have been R-rated in movies 30 years ago...all of this stuff adds up. The sum is insanely high rates of out of wedlock births, sexual activity at much, much younger ages than in years past, high rates of STD's, and changing the dynamics between boys and girls, with girls often being more aggressive in using sex to attract boys. That's just part of the sum. The whole notion of "sex without consequences", a notion that was born when I was very young, is bull. Sex has consequences on both parties involved, and the consequences can hurt.

But that wasn't my point, it was Dear Abby's (kids grow up faster these days). 

My hot buttons are the rights of customers and business owners, the state, and some liberal bliss-ninny columnist championing the rights of the state to impose ridiculous laws on the majority.

Parental morals and values on sex trump society.  If the parent doesn't educate the kids, society will.  I call bullshit on restricting freedoms just "for the childrens"
The parent teaches the child about consequences of action in all aspects of life.  Allowing society first crack is a cop out.

[gunsmith]

I was looking for work in the 90's when I got back from Ireland & living in FLA with no transportation.
A bookstore, one of the chain ones were hiring and I could have got the job but didn't want to wear a tie for minimum wage work.
I noticed the gals had basically the same uniform but no tie & I asked "why?" - I was told it was because they wear a skirt...
I asked them if I wore a skirt if I could also skip the tie, but they didn't find it as amusing as I did.

[White Horseradish]

Bitching about things being sexually explicit is not retarded.

What is sexually explicit about someone dressed in a waiter's uniform, male, female, or otherwise?

[Monkeyleg]

If the guy follows the dress code of a particular business, then he can present himself as whatever freeking gender he wants and that is his business.
And if the business owner doesn't like it, well, he probably should have thought of some other reason not to hire the person in the first place.

If the guy followed a dress code that says guys dress like guys and women dress like women (assuming the owner has a dress code), then there's no issue at all.

White Horseradish, again, my point about "sexually explicit" was a comment about Dear Abby's claim that kids grow up faster today.

[Strings]

Ummm... Dick? The same argument ("I should be able to decide what I have to explain to my child and when") could be made to prohibit open carry. And, actually, I believe it has been...

[BlueStarLizzard]

If the guy followed a dress code that says guys dress like guys and women dress like women (assuming the owner has a dress code), then there's no issue at all.

White Horseradish, again, my point about "sexually explicit" was a comment about Dear Abby's claim that kids grow up faster today.

Dress code meaning he's got all the pertinate parts covered. Beyond that a "dress code" is what the employer makes of it, and this law mearly prevents him from telling a person with male sex orgins that they HAVE to present themselves as male, or firing them for being who they are.

Because THAT is what this law is about. Gender idenity is an induvidual "choice" (choice is in quotations as much of gender ideinty is not based on what you choose to be but what you are. The law mearly allows a person to have the freedom to accept it)* and should not be dictated by society. And part of gender idenity is DRESSING AS THE GENDER TO WHICH YOU IDENTIFY.

* go ahead, everyone with an issue with that, and try to pick a fight with me on it. I am not defending what is fact, so you can argue over it till your blue in the face. All it will do is make you look stupid and me think you are a tool.

[Ron]

Dress code meaning he's got all the pertinate parts covered. Beyond that a "dress code" is what the employer makes of it, and this law mearly prevents him from telling a person with male sex orgins that they HAVE to present themselves as male, or firing them for being who they are.

Because THAT is what this law is about. Gender idenity is an induvidual "choice" (choice is in quotations as much of gender ideinty is not based on what you choose to be but what you are. The law mearly allows a person to have the freedom to accept it)* and should not be dictated by society. And part of gender idenity is DRESSING AS THE GENDER TO WHICH YOU IDENTIFY.

* go ahead, everyone with an issue with that, and try to pick a fight with me on it. I am not defending what is fact, so you can argue over it till your blue in the face. All it will do is make you look stupid and me think you are a tool.

Being an internet bully doesn't change any hearts or minds, nor does it advance the discussion in any profitable manner.

It might even make folks think you are stupid or a tool 

Those of us who know you, know that isn't the case, but casual readers who don't agree with you...