TOUGH CALL FOR MEN IN MINIS
http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-diary/a-big-day-for-mad-men-20100310-pzen.html (http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-diary/a-big-day-for-mad-men-20100310-pzen.html)
A new sartorial transgression has been added to the dress code at Star City casino: micro mini-skirts. Rather importantly, though, it only applies to men. That is the upshot of a decision by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Equal Opportunity Division, which has dismissed a complaint by Paul Hurst, a casino regular who said he was turned away from Star City because he was ''a transgender person''. Hurst and a companion, described in the proceedings as Mr Pitt, arrived at the casino in 2006 to attend the newly opened bar, Priscilla's. While Hurst had claimed a security guard told him that he could not come in because he was a man dressed in women's clothes, the tribunal found it was Mr Pitt's racy outfit that caused all the trouble.
QuoteThe tribunal members found Hurst was not refused entry and dismissed his complaint. ''Having come to that conclusion it is not necessary for us to decide whether Mr Hurst is a transgender person,'' they wrote.
Why would it be necessary for anyone to decide if another is transgender? That makes no sense to me.
Quotethe tribunal found it was Mr Pitt's racy outfit that caused all the trouble. An emailed security report described it as ''a brown jacket, red top, extremely short mini-skirt and black fishnet stockings with exposed suspenders''. It said that Mr Pitt was deemed ''not suitable to remain in the casino because the mini-skirt was too short and revealing, barely covering the buttocks and groin''.
Stupid trouble maker, got what he deserved.
Quote from: LordKAT on March 11, 2010, 01:31:23 PM
Why would it be necessary for anyone to decide if another is transgender? That makes no sense to me.
If there's a non-discrimination policy in place that lists "transgender" or "gender identity" as a class, then it might be necessary to come to an official finding of whether or not a specific person is covered under that class.
Which is one of the reasons why it's important to include "gender expression" in non-discrimination policies; effeminate men, masculine women, and genderqueers should be protected too, and "gender expression" ND policies would prevent gender-specific dress codes like this one.