My issue is that the Rose City somethings were not an entirely T-girl organisation. In fact, they predominantly catered to crossdressers. He said he was worried about the place becoming a "tranny bar". Presumably tranny being transvestite.
In short, this was a clothing issue. That's what I was getting at very early in the thread when I talked about bikers. They weren't banned for gender identity: that's not what the owner said they were banned for, that's not what they claimed they were banned for and that's not what the court case found they were banned for. However, his policy was found to disproportionately and unfairly affect those with gender identity issues, hence him being found guilty (or liable or whatever the hell the term is for a civil case). As I've mentioned before, I don't particularly agree with the ruling but even the ruling as is didn't suggest they were banned for gender identity issues.
... and ...
According to the court records, yes. It was the Rose City somethings that were banned, not all of whom were T-girls or had other gender identity issues. One of the aggrieved was the boyfriend of a t-girl (IIRC he's the last one named but too lazy to check). The T-girls absolutely weren't banned on gender orientation, that's made pretty explicit by both sides. Link to documents and quote some parts you got this from, please?
Obviously the court disagreed at some level when they leveled the fine... But I'd like to know exactly what you're referring to. This is asking us to buy a wholesale summary of 'all' the documents, with no direct citations.
Beyond that: A society having gender issues, does not require all the people in the room to have and be concerned with that issue 100% and nothing else, that minute, for it to be a potential basis for discrimination. There is also no hard and fast rule that every issue is only
about gender OR orientation OR community ideas about how to talk (or not) about sex in public. You also seem to think that clothing choices of a TV are not comparable to any gender issues trans would ever be concerned about -- and I disagree completely. In fact, many of these things overlap too. So it's possible to end up discriminating against a group labeled as being "about" one, while looking supposedly at another.
But here, it sounds to me like you are saying: If in fact, some of them were trans and some were tv or cd.... Therefore, you conclude that because there was a mix in the group where some identified as "transgender' and some didn't, the decision couldn't have had anything to do with gender on the owner's part just because some of the people banned -- you think -- weren't at all concerned about gender? I'm skeptical. Now if the court
says there was discrimination but it wasn't about gender issues, then I dunno mayyyybe
-- but please show me where. By analogy:
If there are 4 black people and 1 white person in a group and they're asked to leave and told people will think the place is becoming a "ghetto," I honestly don't care what people in the group did or didn't think about race. It's entirely possible race wasn't on their mind at the time because they have lives to lead and things to do, too. Better, there might be some people in the analogous group who are only part black, don't have "dark" skin so much as a more celebrated tone of soft mocha -- but they have a few habits more common to black communities. That is similar to how American society, in a quite derogatory light, sees TV's in relation to trans and gender issues. But I wonder what was the owner thinking when he said "ghetto" directly to them, referring to them all
as a group that he
would -- positively -- deal with as a unit, and made it part of his justification.
And again, if you say having some tv/cd and some trans means there cannot be gender discrimination, then that is creating a very neat excuse for discrimination against trans groups, if you ask me. What's the difference between a non or pre-op trans and a cd/tv? Who is going to check under the pants to see which this is -- the court doctor?? Show me that all trans were never cd or tv, and show me that all trans may never cross dress... On and on and on. Bear in mind also, that it's the owner who is going to do the effort at banning. Again, it doesn't matter so much what how many people in the group say they are or not. Objectively, there's loads of room for discrimination based on gender issues. Whether it's nasty or careless, and how many people in the group identify as what particular shade of orientation or gender, does not change that.
What you wear can be a gender issue -- particularly so long as others
insist upon treating it as a gender issue. There isn't so much acceptance of transvestites and they don't have the same level of legal protection as transgender (in this sort of discussion, saying transsexual actually starts for once to seem more clear!). But clothing is
gendered and you still end up with a situation where essentially, someone is picking on someone over gender presentation. Whether he's looking at people changing sex, only taking hormones, or simply wearing feminine or masculine clothing without trying or managing to "pass" as male or female at the time... It's all a gender problem. It's all about what sort of performances (clothing, talk, displays of affection, what have you) people accept with what bodies or histories. Now in effect drawing a false division between trans and tv/cd when in fact they may be together regularly and for some good reasons (!), it seems to boil down to just: But, but, transvestites are not treated as nicely as transgender! That's true. That may be a convenient systemic explanation for part of the discrimination -- but still discrimination. And btw, often still about gender too.
I suppose you might find more to fuss about whether there are enough precedents for the law to even recognize
transvestites as people to be treated as a class for that purpose, or not... Although the federal government has
started to at least recognize the activity
of some less conventional choices of gendered dress as worthy of protection also
That is true even though I believe, they've been thinking of MtF trans in the cases I'm aware of. But if it applies to them, how can it not apply to TV's? Seems to me for the federal government to act that way, would violate equal protection, etc.
[Edit: Wrong. I forgot.
There was a case where a "plain old" (my " and sarcasm intended with the point) woman
was defended against allegations that her attire failed to conceal her ample curves at work... Still a gender problem! Okay, if it applies to a woman, how long can it not apply to TVs or CDs and meet "equal protection" when what it protects is a right to choice of dress?] So it's more a problem that more commonly, if anything people think TV's and CD's (particularly the "M dressing too feminine" angle) deserve
to be dissed, or oh that just can't be helped.
How you talk about sexuality, or what you display in public can be an orientation issue and I would say, also a gender issue too
-- again, is it okay for women who "pass" to hug and laugh and joke about sex, but maybe not for those who don't "pass"? If in fact trans groups or gay groups are sometimes more vocal and visible or more sex-positive in public, that's one thing. But it's some work to prove that other types of people are not allowed to do something precisely comparable in that space, or why what the trans/tv what have you does is unacceptable precisely. Particularly after many months of them attending the place.