Quote from: Shantel on October 28, 2012, 11:40:07 AM
Granted there are more than a few cis women who would pass as men rather than as the women they are, but let me play the devil's advocate here for just a moment and point out that there was something about Brooke's appearance or demeanor that tipped the sales woman off which says that Brooke didn't pass. So yes, given the fact that it's a women's dressing room the woman disallowed Brooke, not to be mean to her, but in consideration of the sensibilities of the cis women there who would possibly be uncomfortable and offended. There is always the feelings of others that need to be considered rather than assert ourselves in the usual passive/aggressive way. What the saleswoman did may be discrimination and it may be illegal, and yet the word itself isn't as evil as the stigma society has assigned to it. In other words there is a time and place for being discriminating. I am discriminating about how I dress, what I like to eat and drink, who my friends are and where I go based on my own common sense rather than some malevolent intent. Given the fact that Brooke had recently mentioned in another thread that she isn't out at work yet speaks volumes about the entire situation as I see it, and that's why I had offered a post on how I deal with purchasing women's fashions at Macy's and the fact that if I am not invited by the saleswoman to use the woman's dressing room, I won't. Better than create a mountain over a molehill and working myself into having a prolapse over it later. Lastly, I wouldn't require Macy's to fire the woman over it because that would be equally evil, obviously Macy's hasn't done a good job of educating their staff and Brooke's letter should make that assertion and point out that possibly litigation may be in the offing.
I understand exactly what you are saying but in this case you are wrong. (sorry I tried to consider if I should word that more gently like "I think you're wrong," but it's not that I think you are wrong. You are definitely wrong.)
The sales woman had a right to question Brooke. In fact she had an obligation to do so for the reasons you mention. However once Brooke stated that she was a woman the sales woman should have let her in the dressing room.
There is no reason for ciswomen to be offended unless it was a shared lockeroom style dressing room. OMG this makes me so infuriated so excuse me if I come across aggressively because it isn't directed at you.
If a ciswoman is so offended she can pick her frickin' butt up and leave and come back later. We all have choices in what we can do. It's the same thing about using a bathroom. It's not as if a transgender woman is going to be peeing at the sink and freaking out the ladies. We're all in stalls and the cisgender women are not chained to the toilets. If a transgender woman comes in and they don't like then they can leave.
The same thing here. Brooke is trying on bras to see if they fit. She's not going into the dressing room to oogle the other women.
This isn't discriminating in the fine sense of the word in which you have used it. It's the ugly brutish type of discrimination. If Brooke says she's a woman but she's kind enough to admit she doesn't pass, then all she needs to do is tell the sales woman "Oh I understand, I'm a transgender woman" and the sales clerk should then say "Oh I see, tell you what let me find you a dressing room"
Even that is wrong but the worst case scenario situation.
How in the world is a woman supposed to prove she's really a woman? And what if she WAS a cisgender woman. Would the sales clerk have asked her to drop her drawers to see her vagina and then let her in?
No
What exactly is the problem here? The problem is that society is only acknowledging binary gender codes instead of the reality of more. Macy's is PROVIDING the dressing room for the public to try on clothing. Therefor they need to meet the needs of the customer. In reality this issue is going to come up a lot more in a store with a dressing room than it will for any other type of industry.
Let's create a really different situation. Say for example a black man comes into a fancy restaurant and orders a $100 bottle of wine. The waiter is racist and resents having to serve him. So he cards the man saying "I can't serve it to you unless I see some ID" and then man pulls out the "ID" and then the waiter says "Well since the wine is so expensive I'm going to have to charge you up front" and the man says "No problem" and pulls out two hundred dollars and gives it to the waiter. The waiter goes to the front and says "I think this is fake ID and money" then he comes back to the table and says I don't believe these are real and gives it back to the black man and refuses to serve him. What is that black man supposed to do. Now imagine he's out with a woman on a date. The waiter is using him power of control to ruin the man's day because can.
He's doing it because he's racist. Not because he doesn't believe the man. He's just using it as an excuse. It's the same thing. And there's no pretending here that it's not exactly what it is.
If I was a sales clerk at Macy's and a transgender woman came in to use the dressing room I would be thrilled to be in a position of making her day a lot easier than normal.
And I'd escort her in and ask her to let me know if she had any problems. If some cisgendered woman came out frazzled and annoyed and complained, I'd say "Nope that's a woman in there don't you worry but if you see her doing anything weird let me know, otherwise if it makes you that uncomfortable why not come back later."
