No, I have to disagree. The current system is unfair to people who don't fit neatly into the binary. The binary is an artificial social construct in the mind, it does not reflect the actual distribution of traits in nature. Even though most people fit it, many cannot. Exclusion of them causes injustice.

Radical gender revolutionaries want to "smash" the binary altogether. I think that's unrealistic, because most people naturally cluster around the two ends of the gender continuum. I just think it needs to stop being so rigid and exclusionary, to be eased up to allow for those in the middle of the distribution.

sounds entirely fair to me tbh...
door staff had a group of people who didnt have id that matched them... ergo, no entry, as it could be false, and the establishment could loose its licence... end of story. trans or not, it doesnt matter... if the women had had ID that showed OTHER women it would ahve been the same scenario...
R

I don't agree susan, the crux here was inability
to assess identity. I'd be surprised the
bouncer actually latched on the male ID thing,
though I'm sure that's what the others think.

The first thing he saw was a photo mismatch, then
probably went to see the gender identificator
(unless the person was totally unpassable, which
is an untirely other question).

Are restaurants obligated to accept all gender variants
if they know it would incommodate their clients?
I'm pretty sure the US supreme court would NOT see
this as discrimination as company has a right to
set a certain standard within their walls. It is private
property after all. As an example of the rights
of private property owners, its legal to put video
cameras just about everywhere on private property
and there's not much the client can say about it
except being warned they are being filmed.

I have to disagree with some of the posts here. I think it was discrimination all the way. What was the reason for the ID check anyway. It probably has to do with their liquor license. Were they over 21, well the ID says they were. If the picture doesn't match the person, what was he looking at? Yes, it said male and she was dressed to look, in our society, female. What has that got to do with being over 21? Who looks like their picture on their Id, anyway. You could change in a few months, men could grow a beard or shave it off, grow their hair long, maybe could have been in a bad accident. Women could be using more or less make up, do their hair different or let it grow out or have had it cut or the color changed. Also could have had a bad accident. You don't go down and change your ID picture everytime you change your look. My God, I would be down there every month with a color change on my hair. If that doorman had a problem with the way they were dressed, then it was his problem and not theirs. I would sue the place. We need a few lawsuits against places like that, then maybe we can get some respect in Congress like we didn't get this last month.
Sheila

the doormen are doing thier job... some places ID EVERYONE... not just under 21s, or those who look it. someplaces thats thier RULES. if they let someone under 21 inside. and didnt id them, the company looses thier license. They loose the license, no jobs for staff... they do it because they have to.
i bet the trans angle to this was latched onto by the women because they were miffed at being turned away from a resteraunt for having mismatched ID and wanted to complain... its TOUGH working in a bar or club, I used to work bars in the city, and having to turn folk away is hard, but serving them when unsure is more than your job is worth... and as for my doorstaff friends, its the same. thier livelihood rests on them doing thier job, the women didnt match thier id, thus cant prove its theirs. male or female, trans or cis. it matters not. no match, id isnt valid, no entry.
R

Quote from: Enigma on November 23, 2007, 11:13:59 AM
They were stopped becuase they couldn't prove their identity.  That's not discrimination. 

Establishments have the right to refuse service to anyone, especially anyone that may jeopardize their liquor license.  In fact they are extemely protective of said license and will certainly overreact to preserve it (you didn't think they made all that money selling dinners did you?)

They had valid and legal identification, which the bouncer decided not to accept because they didn't look enough like the sex specified on the id. You are telling me that when somene presents as another sex a closer look with the included picture wouldn't allow anyone to see that they are in fact the person they said they were. I call BS. I am ashamed of those on my forum who are defending this discrimination. This is the very definition of hypocrisy.

QuoteHypocrisy is the act of condemning another person, where the stated basis for the criticism is the breach of a rule which also applies to the critic.

Are the defenders telling me these TG individuals were able to change their facial structure, their eye shape, eye spacing, their lip shape, jaw structure, skull shape, and their skin tone enough to not look like their id? No any reasonably experienced bouncer would have simply taken a closer look at the id's and matched them to the person in question then allowed entrance without making fuss. This was and is discrimination! Stop defending this or when it happens to you, it will simply be karmic justice, and don't come whining about it here...

thier pictures didnt match them, they didnt look like men, its rather simple imo...
R

And this is not discrimination how. They didn't look like men so they must be denied acccess to society. Are women who cut their hair or dye it denied access. Are men who shave their long hair for short denied. No they were penalized by this bouncer due to not looking like the GENDER that was specified on their drivers licenses by society...

um no, its fairly unilateral.
if the photo doesnt look like the person, no entry, as its not VALID photo id then is it? its not because thier trans, its because thier id wasnt valid.... end of story tbh.
the examples you mentioned would be barred too
i watched a guy get barred cos he grew a beard since his id.... its that simple... yeah, its discrimination.... against people who might cause the establishment to loose thier license... if your id is valid, no risk, if the staff arnt sure, they have to decline admitance or service... because that could risk the establishment, and thus thier jobs...
harsh, but reality
R

Then this is wrong and must be changed it's that simple. As I stated in my message above there are characteristics which can not be modified which can be used to match a person to a photograph even if that person has done some serious appearance modifications since it was taken. There is no acceptable justification on this. Topic Locked