Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Bridal shop refuses to let transgender shopper try on gowns

A Saskatoon woman who identifies herself as transgender says a bridal shop in the city refused to let her try on dresses as she planned her wedding.

Rohit Singh says she was looking at outfits in Jenny's Bridal Boutique but when she asked to try one on, she was refused.

The shop owner thought Singh was a man and felt other people in the store were uncomfortable with Singh trying on dresses.

"She said, sorry we don't allow men to wear dresses here," Singh recalled. "I said I'm not a man, I'm transgender."

When contacted Thursday by CBC News, the bridal shop owner, Jenny Correia, said she stands by her decision.

"To me it doesn't matter," Correia said. "He looked like a man. There was quite a few brides in the store. If you see a man trying on dresses, you're going to feel uncomfortable."

Singh later found a red gown at My Lynh Bridal, on Idylwyld Drive North, where she described the service as excellent. Singh's marriage took place on Monday.

Picture of the happy couple at link

by Anonymousreply 20105/07/2013

Any sympathy I had for her went right out the window when she chose to wear red.

by Anonymousreply 105/05/2013

The boyfriend is hot hot hot.

by Anonymousreply 205/05/2013

I'm in two minds about this. On one hand, the transgender bride has every right to buy from whatever store she chooses, and part of buying a dress would be trying it on. On the other, the store owner has the right to refuse service to anyone they think is making other customers uncomfortable. Whether it's fair or not, that's the store owner's call to make.

Maybe they could've come to an arrangement to try on dresses after hours, I know that a lingerie shop near to me does that (no, I don't shop there, I know the owner).

You can't force others to be comfortable with your gender issues. It's just not that simple, and trying to force it just makes people combative. I also can't shake off the impression that the bride is an attention whore looking for some other local business to gift a dress to her.

by Anonymousreply 405/05/2013

I wish the transgendered weren't glued on to the gays... they are much different than us and rightly or wrongly plays into the whole notion of same sexuality being some kind of disorder, as if the gays are the common cold and the transgendered are pneumonia but both are on the same scale. Transgender is much more complex.

That said, IMO she's got a perfect right to expect to be able to shop wherever she wants and the discomfort of others shouldn't be a factor. She is who she is.

by Anonymousreply 505/05/2013

In this market? If I were a shopkeeper, I'd be selling a wedding gown to any woman, man, he-she, or Golden Retriever who wanted to buy one.

by Anonymousreply 705/05/2013

[quote]In this market? If I were a shopkeeper, I'd be selling a wedding gown to any woman, man, he-she, or Golden Retriever who wanted to buy one.

Leave me out of this!!

by Anonymousreply 805/05/2013

It was not like she was undressing and trying on the gown in the middle of the store.

She was using the dressing room.

by Anonymousreply 905/05/2013

The mannequin in the background is LIVID! Boyfriend is not hot.

by Anonymousreply 1005/05/2013

He looka lika man.

by Anonymousreply 1105/05/2013

The store has the right to refuse service. Like another poster said, the bride could have phoned to make alternate arrangements if the manager had an issue.

Question - is there an onus on transgender people to look "passable," or is that a personal choice?

by Anonymousreply 1205/05/2013

Not defending her, but a friend worked in a porn store that sold clothing, and he said that the transgenders would destroy more than they bought.

Bitches would try on stuff 3 sizes too small and tear the seams right out of the pieces then hide them back on the rack.

by Anonymousreply 1405/05/2013

Let me guess, R4, you're fine and dandy with gay (or transgendered) men being refused service based on their sex or looks, but you'd be the first cunt to express OUTRAGE here if some fundamentalist pharmacist refused to sell you RU486 or if some all-male college refused admissions to a woman, right?

Yeah, I thought so.

by Anonymousreply 1605/05/2013

R16 You're a fucking idiot. Firstly, I'm a MAN, and secondly, you are a fucking idiot.

What bit about my post said anything about sex or looks?

by Anonymousreply 1705/05/2013

[quote] Like another poster said, the bride could have phoned to make alternate arrangements if the manager had an issue.

She is suppose to be a mind reader? Should he phone every clothing store and ask in advance if it is okay to try clothing at their store?

by Anonymousreply 1905/05/2013

[quote]Should he phone every clothing store and ask in advance if it is okay to try clothing at their store?

R19, you called the person "he." If "he" is obviously male to all outward appearances, then yes, "he" should call the store in advance and see if it is OK with them for "him" to come in and try on their dresses.

by Anonymousreply 2005/05/2013

If it had shopped at the Hob Goblin Haberdashery, there wouldn't have been an issue.

by Anonymousreply 2105/05/2013

Weddings are for the tacky and stupid - of any gender, sexual orientation, or mental disorder.

by Anonymousreply 2205/05/2013

[quote]Any sympathy I had for her went right out the window when she chose to wear red.

Any thoughts that you had even a modicum of intelligence went out the window when you made this stupid comment.

The tradition of red wedding dresses started centuries ago. In China, a red wedding dress symbolized joy and luck. This wave hit India too, where they believe the color stands for luck and good grace. In North America, at the time of the Revolutionary War, brides would wear red wedding dresses to indicate their independence from their home country, Great Britain.

by Anonymousreply 2305/05/2013

R23, it was joke. Perhaps, in your learned world, not a funny one, but then again, no one ever accused an bookworm of being a hit at a party. Soldier on, learnedly, o fun sponge.

by Anonymousreply 2405/05/2013

Not to mention we aren't in India, china, or the 1700s

by Anonymousreply 2505/05/2013

I AM THE ANGRY BOOKWORM! Hear me MEW!

by Anonymousreply 2605/05/2013

[quote]Not to mention we aren't in India, china, or the 1700s

No doubt you are unable to connect the name Rohit Singh with an Asian background.

by Anonymousreply 2805/05/2013

[quote] [R23], it was joke. Perhaps, in your learned world, not a funny one

Not funny in any world, just a freakishly arbitrary out-of-nowhere comment.

by Anonymousreply 2905/05/2013

Humans are the only animals who feel it necessary to mutilate their genitals.

by Anonymousreply 3005/05/2013

Um, R1's red dress comment was no more or less legit of a sarcastic, random remark to post on the fucking internet than others........

by Anonymousreply 3105/05/2013

I don't know about that. The fact that r1's mind would even conceive of such a thing makes him seem like a freak. I mean who thinks of such things?

by Anonymousreply 3205/05/2013

Well, apparently R23 not only thinks of them, but retains an encyclopedic knowledge thereof.

So who's the freak: the snarker drawing reference to the article or Wearipedia?

by Anonymousreply 3305/05/2013

[quote] No doubt you are unable to connect the name Rohit Singh with an Asian background.

No doubt Rohait Singh should have gone to an Asian wedding shop to begin with.

by Anonymousreply 3405/05/2013

This is 1852, dumplin,' 1852. Not the Dark Ages. Girls don't have to simp around in white just because they're not married.

It's gorgeously red!

by Anonymousreply 3505/05/2013

Saskatoon is a great city for trannies and for tranny tolerance!

by Anonymousreply 3605/05/2013

My lord, I thought that was a nickname for Saskatchewan

by Anonymousreply 3705/05/2013

Looks like somebody, R40, is a pre-op

by Anonymousreply 4405/05/2013

R43. Because they would be in the same changing areas, etc

by Anonymousreply 4505/05/2013

[quote]the store owner has the right to refuse service to anyone they think is making other customers uncomfortable. Whether it's fair or not, that's the store owner's call to make.

This isn't Saudi Arabia. Men and women routinely shop in the same stores in Canada. They've these nifty inventions called dressing rooms, dear. If a man trying on gown in a dressing room makes you uncomfortable, it's because you're some kind of bigot.

Blacks made US Southerners so uncomfortable they had separate bathrooms and drinking fountains and such. Does you compassionate understanding extend to those poor uncomfortable Southerners?

The majority of your coworkers may feel uncomfortable working with you after they learn you're gay. Would you be understanding when you got sacked to increase their comfort level?

by Anonymousreply 4705/05/2013

I dunno. If the verdict was that a Canadian barber can turn down a lesbian for a haircut, then it would follow that the store manager in this case had it right.

While they're not bridal shops, I know that most huge-corporation chain stores can't stop men from trying on women's clothing. I believe they have to use the men's dressing room though, if noticed that it's a man.

by Anonymousreply 4805/05/2013

r42, actually, many trans people are gay. (Yes, I mean post-transition, as in, FTMs who like men, and MTFs who like women-not people.)

by Anonymousreply 4905/05/2013

[quote]I wish the transgendered weren't glued on to the gays...

I feel the same way, but my cerebral cortex overrides it because in the end it's a human rights issue. No one deserves less than equal treatment because of who they sleep with or whether they look like the accepted stereotype of their gender.

by Anonymousreply 5005/05/2013

Trolldar is VERY enlightening on this thread

by Anonymousreply 5405/05/2013

As a dare this twink from England decided to try on women's lingerie in an all-women's store in Bratislava, Slovakia.

No one in the store stopped him.

Take a look at Video below

by Anonymousreply 5605/05/2013

If the hubby is marrying the trans person. Is the hubby gay, straight or bi?

After surgery trans would be a full-fledged woman. So would the hubby be straight.

But now he is a man, so would the hubby be gay or at least bi?

by Anonymousreply 5705/05/2013

It's a retail shop, r52, not a battered women's shelter. And while I understand that the shop owner was doing what she perceived to be in her best financial interest, I am with r47 on this one--you don't get to discriminate against one group of people just because their presence alone makes other, bigoted groups feel icky or annoyed or uncomfortable.

by Anonymousreply 5805/05/2013

when a man dress in womens clothes is that what they mean by "lesbian"?

by Anonymousreply 5905/05/2013

R58 so do they have the right to trample over the feelings of the other people in the store? In your perfect cut-and-dried world who gets to be the one who gets to do whatever they want and who gets to be the one who gets to be trampled on?

Some people aren't comfortable with transgendered people. That's a fact of life and for many it is a visceral, deep seated psychological reaction and not something about which they are making a conscious decision.

Like it or not, other people are entitled to have their own views and feelings and they can't be ignored because one shouty drama queen thinks her feelings matter more than everyone else's.

For the record I don't see why it should be a problem, but these people obviously do and they are entitled to feel that way. Nobody broke the law here, nobody made threats, there was no hate crime, just a hissy fit over not getting to try on a dress. There are other, better, ways to deal with it.

by Anonymousreply 6005/05/2013

[quote]Some people aren't comfortable with transgendered people.

Or gays, or blacks, or women, or Jews, or...

by Anonymousreply 6105/05/2013

[[R58] so do they have the right to trample over the feelings of the other people in the store?

Again, r60, do you have the right to "trample" on the feelings of colleagues, neighbors, shoppers, etc. who may not want a gay person in their midst? Do blacks have the right to trample on the feelings of whites who don't want to share public facilities with them? Of course you do and of course they do, because the fact is, nobody's truly getting trampled in any of those situations. Your coworkers might not feel happy about working with a gay guy, but it's not stopping them from doing their jobs and earning a living, the way you'd be stopped if you got fired from your job for being gay.

[quote]In your perfect cut-and-dried world who gets to be the one who gets to do whatever they want and who gets to be the one who gets to be trampled on?

I have no idea what the hell makes you think I imagine a "perfect cut-and-dried world," but in my admittedly highly imperfect world, but in my world, being free to mind your own business and go about the normal activities of daily living is a right; feeling comfortable at all times is not.

If you make others uncomfortable by waving a gun in their faces, say, or taking a shit in the bridal shop dressing room (as DL has taught us is a not-uncommon activity) that's one thing, and of course, you should be stopped. If, however, your mere presence in a public place makes others uncomfortable, through no fault or action of your own, but simply because they don't care to be around people like you, that's a different story--and no, their feelings of discomfort should not trump your right to live your life as you see fit within the boundaries of law and reason.

[quote]Some people aren't comfortable with transgendered people.

And some people aren't comfortable with gays, straights, whites, people of color, women, men, xtians, muslims, atheists, blah, blah. Doesn't mean those people get to just make any group who bothers them disappear from wherever they are so that they can feel comfortable at all times.

[quote]Like it or not, other people are entitled to have their own views and feelings

Of course they are, but they are not necessarily entitled to impose those views and feelings on other people.

[quote]and they can't be ignored because one shouty drama queen thinks her feelings matter more than everyone else's

Actually, yeah, they can and should be ignored when they believe that their nonexistent "right" to feel comfortable wherever they go trumps somebody else's right to live, work, do business, use public facilities, etc., where he or she pleases. Those brides could still shop and try on garments in that bridal shop, after all. No one was harming them, or stopping them from doing as they pleased, the way the shop owner stopped the transgender woman.

by Anonymousreply 6205/05/2013

Okay, every time I go to the big Macy's on Union Square San Francisco, I see queeny gay men buying skinny jeans in the women's department.

Should Macy's embrace the extra business, or make the space more comfortable for little old church ladies?

by Anonymousreply 6305/05/2013

I wonder how R62 feels about FTMs who use the male bathrooms or male locker rooms at the gym. The vast majority of this site was vehemently against those practices.

by Anonymousreply 6405/06/2013

R64. I would feel like they were shopping for the day they could actually get a cock.

by Anonymousreply 6505/06/2013

[quote]On the other, the store owner has the right to refuse service to anyone they think is making other customers uncomfortable. Whether it's fair or not, that's the store owner's call to make.

Not it's not. If it's discrimination based on a person's gender and sexual orientation, which it sounds like it was, it's a human rights violation. In Canada we have laws against things like that.

by Anonymousreply 6605/06/2013

That wildebeest is not a woman, but went into a women's shop, without changing rooms for men. You can't tell me it didn't know it was going to cause trouble,

by Anonymousreply 6705/06/2013

I think that the transgendered person should legally be allowed to try on the dress, but I am nonetheless very uncomfortable with this. Something just does not feel right about it.

by Anonymousreply 6805/06/2013

R67 these are not communal changing rooms. They are PRIVATE changing rooms for both men and women.

by Anonymousreply 6905/06/2013

R68. I agree. I think it went looking for trouble and found it. On no planet world that swarthy thing be called transgender.

by Anonymousreply 7005/06/2013

I'm shocked at the vile comments and transphobia on this thread.

I can only assume this is coming from straight people. Surely my gay brothers and sisters aren't this bigoted.

by Anonymousreply 7105/06/2013

Then how come a barber shop in Toronto was recently able to discriminate against someone on the basis of gender AND religion, R71?

by Anonymousreply 7205/06/2013

R72 that case was recently settled using outside arbitration, with neither side admitting fault.

by Anonymousreply 7305/06/2013

R65: In other words, you're assuming that FTMs in men's changing areas are looking for something sexual? What exactly are you saying?

by Anonymousreply 7405/06/2013

The husband does NOT look straight. He's clearly a gay dude, which means he's into men. My guess? This is all for attention.

by Anonymousreply 7505/06/2013

Sorry, I meant R66.

And R73, it doesn't MATTER how that case was settled. Legal proceedings tend not to review how substantial or inadequate laws are. The conversation about this still remains.

by Anonymousreply 7605/06/2013

[R55] Nan dear sister womyn, we must remember when referring to our special Eden to capitalize, hence The Land. I am awash with emotion knowing that as the event is less than one 1/4 of a year in the future. My nightly dreams of bleeding on The Land without the fear of a penised person for miles has me dampening my cruelty free hemp g string! See you in Build a Beaver Workshop!

by Anonymousreply 7705/06/2013

[quote]The husband does NOT look straight.

Possible he's transgender, too. He's very small.

by Anonymousreply 7805/06/2013

R76 are you saying it is ok for someone to deny service to someone based on their own personal religious beliefs?

by Anonymousreply 7905/06/2013

I think what most of you are missing is that the shop owner probably assumed that the shopper was just a silly queen playing dress-up and wasting her time. Yes, I know that there are a lot of straight girls who go into bridal shops and waste time playing dress-up; and, I am sure the owner would have thrown them out as well. If she thought the shopper was serious, she would have found a way to make the sale, either after hours or in another way. Unfortunately, one of the downsides of a bridal shop or formal gown store, particularly the popularly priced variety, is people who think it is a playhouse not a shop.

by Anonymousreply 8105/06/2013

It is in the USA. But Canada is much much more progressive in this area.

by Anonymousreply 8205/06/2013

No r74, I am sure they would use the chance to do some cock gazing so when technology/medicine allows they would know just what cock they wanted. Similar to when women get new tits.

by Anonymousreply 8305/06/2013

I'm not, R79. I'm being fascinated by the differences of "opinion" between the incidents, among this particular pocket of the internet.

by Anonymousreply 8405/06/2013

Didn't anyone see "Muriel's Wedding"? You cannot just saunter into a bridal shop and start trying on gowns willy nilly as you would in a retail clothing store.

by Anonymousreply 8505/06/2013

R80. Exactly! You can't go in looking like an oil rig worker on shore leave, tell them you are transgender and expect them to believe you!

by Anonymousreply 8605/06/2013

[quote]No [R74], I am sure they would use the chance to do some cock gazing so when technology/medicine allows they would know just what cock they wanted. Similar to when women get new tits.

You're really sure? You're sure that they don't just want to rinse off in their own shower stall or put their clothes back on?

by Anonymousreply 8705/06/2013

I think it’s safe to wager that Jenny’s Bridal will suffer some capital losses just by way of Singh dropping its name in this context. Correia’s own remarks aren’t helping the business much, either.

Singh has also said that by filing a complaint, she hopes to spare another transgender woman the embarrassment of being denied service at the boutique. But chances are, much of the LGBTQ community in Saskatoon already knows Jenny’s Bridal’s address. Indeed, a protest was already held outside the store on the weekend. Going through the Commission to force some sort of official inclusion policy won’t have much practical purpose for transgender women who, I suspect, will now choose to boycott the store.

Unlike the case of the Toronto woman who went to the Ontario Human Rights Commission after a Muslim barber refused to cut her hair, this situation is not one of competing human rights. But like that case, Singh wasn’t left without options — she ended up going to another boutique, buying a wedding gown, and got married on April 29. There are lots of places to cut your hair and lots of places to buy a gown, and unfortunately, some of them are run by people who deny customers service for arguably bigoted reasons. You can set loose the bureaucracy on them, or you can shame them, and move on.

by Anonymousreply 8805/06/2013

[quote]You can set loose the bureaucracy on them, or you can shame them, and move on.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic but I think by filing a complaint against businesses like these you're forcing them to think about their beliefs and prejudices and hopefully encouraging them to see how unfair they are. And then hopefully change.

by Anonymousreply 9005/06/2013

[quote]I'm in two minds about this. On one hand, the transgender bride has every right to buy from whatever store she chooses, and part of buying a dress would be trying it on.

No. Regardless of what the "law" might require, a store is private property and the store owner has a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The law is wrong.

[quote]On the other, the store owner has the right to refuse service to anyone they think is making other customers uncomfortable. Whether it's fair or not, that's the store owner's call to make.

Correct.

by Anonymousreply 9105/06/2013

But, Ms. Jenny (the store owner) seems to make a habit out of booting potential customers from her store, as she did this once before when she told Alyssa Pomfret, a girl shopping for a graduation dress to leave her store because her wheelchair would get the floor dirty. Apparently the wheels were wet. Wow, how low can a person go?

This happened in 2011

by Anonymousreply 9205/06/2013

R93 read R88

by Anonymousreply 9405/06/2013

And you would be wrong, R83.

When I go to the restroom it is with one thing in mind only, and looking at someone's cock isn't it.

by Anonymousreply 9505/06/2013

I'm sorry, but if her decision to prohibit a wheel chair bound woman enter her store did not destroy her business, this transgender male thingy may give it a boost.

by Anonymousreply 9605/06/2013

Anyone else find it disturbing just how homophobic Canada has gotten over the years?

by Anonymousreply 9705/06/2013

R95 does it distress you by all the negative and trans bashing comments on this thread?

by Anonymousreply 9805/06/2013

R97 welcome to Harper Land.

by Anonymousreply 9905/06/2013

Yes R98 it does. But it's always been that way on here, and I've been around since DL 1999.

by Anonymousreply 10005/06/2013

R100 (FTM) have you ever had problems going to try on clothes in a men's clothing store?

by Anonymousreply 10105/06/2013

The husband does not want a woman.

by Anonymousreply 10205/06/2013

No, R101 I have not. Nor has anyone ever given me a second look when I've walked into the Men's bathroom.

by Anonymousreply 10305/06/2013

How is this different than Reese telling that cop "Do you know my name?" It's simple entitlement. "I'm special so my demands should be met."

by Anonymousreply 10405/06/2013

R103 I think it is wonderful that you are such a staunch and strong defender of the trans community here at DL.

We need more people like you to try and be more positive about the trans community here at DL.

by Anonymousreply 10505/06/2013

[quote]It's simple entitlement. "I'm special so my demands should be met."

It's not entitlement. It's the expectation of being treated like everyone else. To receive the same service as anyone else. To not be discriminated against because you're different.

Why don't you get that?

by Anonymousreply 10605/06/2013

But he IS getting the same treatment as any other man who walked into the store and demanded to try on dresses. A man can call himself a woman but that doesn't make him one.

Why don't you get that?

by Anonymousreply 10705/06/2013

I can't walk into a store and say "I'm an employee here, give me an employee discount". That doesn't work unless I'm an actual employee.

by Anonymousreply 10805/06/2013

[qutoe]But he IS getting the same treatment as any other man who walked into the store and demanded to try on dresses. A man can call himself a woman but that doesn't make him one.

She's not a man. She's a transgendered woman. She's not calling herself a woman. She IS a woman.

by Anonymousreply 10905/06/2013

R107, the person in question is going through the process of having sex-change surgery. With that comes LEGAL recognition as the gender that person has had surgery to become. In some places, surgery is not even required to change legal documents to reflect the gender a person wished to represent.

Once LEGAL recognition of the person's gender has been achieved, bigots like this dress shop owner do not have a leg to stand on, based upon the ignorant statements the owner made.

Why don't you get that?

by Anonymousreply 11105/06/2013

R109, if she is a woman, why is she marrying a gay man? Gay men are attracted to other men.

by Anonymousreply 11205/06/2013

[quote] to be correct, rather than politically correct, he is a man and will always be a man

But not LEGALLY, which is all that matters, R110.

by Anonymousreply 11305/06/2013

The point is, does the store owner want to lose her female clientele in the store for one TG? Answer is no of course.

by Anonymousreply 11405/06/2013

R113, he is still LEGALLY a man.

by Anonymousreply 11505/06/2013

How do you know, R115? As I said, many places do not require surgeries be done before allowing individuals to change gender markers and names on legal identification, and even to have birth certificates changed.

by Anonymousreply 11605/06/2013

R111/ R113, but one could easily challenge that "LEGAL" recognition because it is based on a lie. I think that any person who claimed that his or her religious beliefs prevent him/her from accepting a lie/untruth, even a legally recognized falsehood would win.

by Anonymousreply 11705/06/2013

[quote][R109], if she is a woman, why is she marrying a gay man? Gay men are attracted to other men.

How do you know he's gay? How do you know ANYTHING about him or his emotional and sexual desires? You saw a picture of him and jumped to conclusions.

I swear, Datalounge is littered with complete morons these days.

by Anonymousreply 11805/06/2013

R111, most business owners will tell you that they have the LEGAL right to refuse service to anyone.

by Anonymousreply 11905/06/2013

One could NOT challenge legal recognition, R117, because the laws of the state or federal government ALLOW those changes to be made as such, thereby making them LEGAL throughout the land.

by Anonymousreply 12005/06/2013

Yey R118 goes into every male celebrity thread calling others "fangirls" if they don't agree the celebrity is gay.

by Anonymousreply 12105/06/2013

Would she be a bigot if he went into the store without a shirt and shoes and asked him to leave?

by Anonymousreply 12205/06/2013

And if they do so making a statement that clearly is in violation of laws of that particular area, then they can still be sued and lose.

by Anonymousreply 12305/06/2013

Perhaps in that case, R123, the store owner should claim that she was afraid the LEGALLY-FEMALE was going to stain the dresses with her menstrual blood.

by Anonymousreply 12405/06/2013

I can call myself a doctor, but if I'm only in my first year of medical school, I'm not a doctor. You can call yourself a woman, but if you're still a man, you're not a woman just because you hope to be able to afford sex reassignment in the future.

by Anonymousreply 12505/06/2013

[quote] And if they do so making a statement that clearly is in violation of laws of that particular area, then they can still be sued and lose.

You can't be sued and lose for refusing someone service in a store. It's not a legal right to be waited upon.

by Anonymousreply 12605/06/2013

R126, if you walked into a store and were told by the shopkeeper that "they don't serve faggots" and there are laws in your city or state that prohibit discrimination against people based upon sexual orientation, you could ABSOLUTELY sue them.

by Anonymousreply 12705/06/2013

You can tell the freeper fraus are on DL today by the pro-discrimination posts.

by Anonymousreply 12805/06/2013

R127, you're ridiculous. That's not even close to what happened here. You might as well say "If you walked into a door and the owner shot you in the face"...

by Anonymousreply 12905/06/2013

Discrimination laws are in regard to employment, housing and other things that are necessary for life. Not shopping for dresses. Sorry. They cannot be sued.

There are tons of cases where this happens. Someone won't make a wedding cake for someone who is gay because their religious beliefs are against gay marriage. You cannot legally force them to make you a wedding cake. You just go somewhere else and do not patronize that shop.

Besides, he's not a woman just because he says he is one.

I can walk into Bloomingdales kids department and claim I'm 12 years old and need to use the little boys bathroom, but just because I say I am 12 years old doesn't mean the store has to let me into the kids bathroom.

Singh claims to be transgender but a transgender woman is not a man. Right now, he's just a transvestite, not a transgender MTF.

by Anonymousreply 13005/06/2013

R1340, you obviously don't know that the term transgender covers a multitude of cases. It does not just refer to those individuals who have had or completed gender reassignment surgery.

by Anonymousreply 13105/06/2013

Sorry, meant to address my last post to R130, not 1340

by Anonymousreply 13205/06/2013

[quote]Transgenders can't even agree what transgender men's.

Means.

by Anonymousreply 13405/06/2013

[quote] Transgenders can't even agree what transgender means.

It's an umbrella term that covers anyone from cross dressers to transsexuals.

Transsexual is the only term that unequivocally means they have undergone gender reassignment surgery.

by Anonymousreply 13505/06/2013

No one can argue that it looked like it was probably in day one of becoming transgender. It still had a full on 5'oclock shadow and honestly I have never seen a tranny pick out such a horrible dress. If I were the shop owner, my first instinct would have been this was a joke. The second would have been that I had a very strange situation on my hands and that I should get he/she out of my store. If you are a man that is going to call yourself a woman, at least make an effort to look the part and not like someone who just walked off with first price in a bugger drag competition.

by Anonymousreply 13605/06/2013

Oh goodie, does this mean we can now start banning butch dyke he/she-beasts from shopping in the men's section for clothes?

by Anonymousreply 13705/06/2013

I am absolutely amazed that there is still such ignorance and bigotry about transgender people.

From GAY people, no less.

It's shameful.

by Anonymousreply 13905/06/2013

R139, You cannot say you are something and it automatically be true. If that were the case, I'd be Bill Gates and be done with working. The simple fact is that thing had made zero effort to actually appear as a female. Did you see the picture? I believe the reactions on this thread would be quite different if he had truly begun the transition. As it was, that was a man, in a dress, going into a store for women.

by Anonymousreply 14005/06/2013

R140 - First of all, to call another human person "that thing" is absolutely hateful. Shame on you.

Second, have ever seen or met an actual transgendered person? MTFs don't all look like porn sluts and sex dolls. Some work hard to achieve that look, absolutely. But most don't. Most MTFs look like plain, ordinary women. Some are even, GASP, unattractive. Some retain their masculine facial features and don't look like women at all. I suppose it all depends how far they want to go in their transition. They can have extensive (and expensive) surgeries to look like movies stars, but not everyone wants that. Most are content to be recognized by the state and their inner circle as women, whatever they look like to the outside world.

It's a heavy cross for most transgenders to bear. To make it that much more difficult for them is impossible for me to understand.

As I said in my previous post, these remarks and attitudes are shameful.

by Anonymousreply 14105/06/2013

She HAS begun transition, R140. But the processes including many electrolysis sessions, hormone replacement therapy, facial feminization surgery, breast implants, etc., are neither cheap nor do they happen overnight.

by Anonymousreply 14205/06/2013

I have seen many, many many real transgenders. That was not. With that skin tone, a little bit of MAC makeup would have taken care of that 5 o'clock shadow. The dress was an exercise in poor form that no self respecting transgender would have done. I have seen some of the best transgenders in Asia, and some of the absolute worst, in Eastern Europe, but have never seen one that bad. One cannot escape the feeling that HE went looking for trouble and HE found it and now HE is going to enjoy his 15 minutes of fame. Honestly this reeks of the 2 incidents where lesbians reported hate crimes which turned out to be completely false (1) the ones with their garage door defaced and (2) the one who carved anti-lesbian slurs in her own skin. This person seems to have the same mentality.

I could be wrong, but have to say having been an investigator for many years, this one doesn't look good.

by Anonymousreply 14305/06/2013

Really R143? I've known transgender and even true transsexual women over the past 20 or 30 years and I can tell you that compared to some of them, this woman looks very feminine and passable.

by Anonymousreply 14405/06/2013

Same here, R144. I've seen several MTFs around town that are obviously MTFs despite the feminine clothing they wear.

Does the fact that they can't "pass" and aren't pretty make them less human? Apparently on Datalounge is does.

by Anonymousreply 14505/06/2013

[quote]But he IS getting the same treatment as any other man who walked into the store and demanded to try on dresses.

And why, exactly, shouldn't men be able to try on wedding dresses if they wish?

by Anonymousreply 14605/06/2013

R145. I would expect one to be more self aware, especially I that environment. If he looked like a man in a dress, and he really did, he shouldn't expect to be treated as a woman just because he "says" he is.

by Anonymousreply 14705/06/2013

R147, I've also known several biological women that look like linebackers, over 6 feet tall and not the least bit feminine looking.

Should they also be asked to leave because they don't look feminine enough by that store owner's standards?

by Anonymousreply 14805/06/2013

[quote] I would expect one to be more self aware, especially I that environment. If he looked like a man in a dress, and he really did, he shouldn't expect to be treated as a woman just because he "says" he is.

There are few people more self aware than transgendered people. They've done a lot of work to figure our who they are and most have been in years of therapy. They know who they are and they know what they look like.

You seem to want MTFs to fit into some feminine Hollywood stereotype. Or to put some effort into looking more feminine to make YOU more comfortable. All they want is to feel comfortable in their bodies and to look however they want.

I know a MTF construction worker, believe it or not. She's pretty masculine looking, especially on the job. She has long hair and wears jewellery all the time, but very little makeup unless she's going out. She has masculine facial features and a stocky body and there's no doubt that this woman is transgendered. She has had the reassignment surgery and a boob job, but beyond that isn't interested in any more painful, expensive surgeries to look the way other people want her to look. She's finally happy with who she is and what she looks like. She knows that there are assholes like you who stare and mock and criticize. It hurts, but she's finally who she wants to be.

by Anonymousreply 14905/06/2013

A shop owner's number one interest is that their clients are happy. In this case, a majority were uncomfortable with the situation. It's better to upset one customer than many.

It's not an ideal situation, and it perhaps could have been handled more gently, but there was no magic solution here that would have made everyone happy.

by Anonymousreply 15005/06/2013

R153 should have been directed to R149. Sorry

by Anonymousreply 15505/06/2013

[quote] HE had not done a lot of work. try again.

How do you know? Do you know her personally?

by Anonymousreply 15605/06/2013

R156 It's cute that you try to be so noble. However, Helen Keller, Stevie Wonder, and Ray Charles could look at him and tell he hadn't had work.

by Anonymousreply 15705/06/2013

R150, quit being rational!

by Anonymousreply 15805/06/2013

[quote] However, Helen Keller, Stevie Wonder, and Ray Charles could look at him and tell he hadn't had work.

For god's sake I'm talking about personal anguish and possibly therapy. THAT kind of work. Not surgery.

Jesus, some of you are mean AND stupid.

by Anonymousreply 15905/06/2013

R159 At no point did you say anything about therapy. All that was talked about was surgery. Still feel that everyone else is a great big stupid meanie?

The shop owner can serve who she wants. The bride is taking umbrage over not getting to try on a dress.

The bride doesn't look like she's had ANY work done, of any sort, and by that I mean a shave never mind gender reassignment. Clear enough?

This is NOT the heartwrenching story of the decade. Not even of the last 12 hours. There are so many real problems being faced every day by so many LGBT people that this just makes me annoyed with the self-entitled bride for being so fucking whiny.

Can't try on a frock? Really? My heart fucking bleeds.

by Anonymousreply 16005/06/2013

Trannies are always stirring up shit.

That being said, I am not comfortable with this "right to refuse business because customers were uncomfortable" justification.

That excuse could be used to discriminate against all kinds of people, including blacks and gays.

by Anonymousreply 16305/06/2013

r163, that's also crappy journalism. Notice how the reporters just take the owner's word for it that customers were uncomfortable.

No details are provided, i.e., did anyone else actually complain, did they threaten to take their business elsewhere, etc.

I honestly don't get the tranny hate here. I agree that it might be reasonable to separate them from the GLB community, but the dehumanization here is horrid.

And don't tell me eff em inate gay men and Nan Michiganwomyn dykes don't go around causing drama, either.

That drugged up JetBlue attendant or the TO dyke who insisted on a haircut in a men's (Muslim) barbershop come to mind.

by Anonymousreply 16405/06/2013

What's a tranny to do???

by Anonymousreply 16505/06/2013

[quote]What's a tranny to do???

www.dressbarn.com

by Anonymousreply 16605/06/2013

It's not so long ago gay people were routinely subjected to the kind of spiteful, 'they're mentally disordered' bigotry being so proudly displayed in this thread. Some of you people should be utterly ashamed of yourselves - that you're proud to discriminate against and vilify transgender people shows what little character and intellect you have.

by Anonymousreply 16705/06/2013

R167. Gender dysphoria IS recognised as a mental disorder so maybe using the correct terminology isn't bigotry. Potato, potahto.

by Anonymousreply 16805/06/2013

So was homosexuality, r168. TG people are still people and are still entitled to the same dignity and respect we all are, however they may look to others.

by Anonymousreply 16905/06/2013

[quote]That excuse could be used to discriminate against all kinds of people, including blacks and gays.

Your point is well worth taking but you have to consider that we are not discussing a trans-gendered person's right to go about in public in the general sense.

The activity at hand: the selection of a wedding dress, is a REALLY gender specific activity and it is considered a REALLY big deal in some women's lives. It is one of those "special moments" for a lot of brides, even for ones who are not "bridezillas" to any great extent. It is not beyond the bounds of decency or reason for the store owner to wish to spare her customers from any potential embarrassment or anger. Even if the store owner were personally okay with it, she still has to consider customers who might predictably feel uncomfortable and who might instantly take their business elsewhere.

by Anonymousreply 17005/07/2013

[quote] Gender dysphoria IS recognised as a mental disorder so maybe using the correct terminology isn't bigotry.

Will no longer be the case when the new DSM-V is released.

by Anonymousreply 17105/07/2013

Will MIADD be updated? (Man In A Dress Disorder)

by Anonymousreply 17205/07/2013

R171...incorrect. It will still be classified as a mental disorder, albeit a less serious one.

I HATE the comparison between gay people and transgender people. I did not have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to have myself physically mutilated to come out as gay. It's NOT the same thing.

It's hardcore sexism, first of all. The idea that people are born with an intrinsic gender is just old school sexism. And let's face it...most of these folks go from gay to straight, and that's not coincidental. A lot of it is homophobic self loathing.

No such thing as transgender.

by Anonymousreply 17305/07/2013

I guess the consensus here at DL is that shop owners should be allowed to decided who they can sell to.

So they next time a bakery refuses to sell a wedding cake to a gay male couple, everyone should be in agreement. Right?

After all it is the bakery's business and his right to decide who to sell to?

by Anonymousreply 17405/07/2013

I don't think so, R173. Some of these people definitely appear to be screwed up genetically, hormones or whatever, they appear and identify with the other gender from when then they are kids. And I don't see them all go straight either.

by Anonymousreply 17505/07/2013

R174. Yes. You simply move on and give your money to someone who wants it. That is much more powerful than making a statement.

by Anonymousreply 17605/07/2013

Yes, r174, they can refuse to bake that cake if they like. And if people also want to protest that, they can protest that. And if it damages their business, then it will damage their business. Same with this wedding dress shop: they can refuse to serve this customer if they want and if refusing to serve this customer is bad for their business then it's bad for their business. On the other hand, it might not be.

by Anonymousreply 17705/07/2013

Can they refuse service to Jews? Blacks?

by Anonymousreply 17805/07/2013

R176 & R177 it is what R88 had said. You make a much bigger statement that way.

by Anonymousreply 18005/07/2013

R179 we are generally saying does a shop have the right to decide who to sell to?

Whether it is someone's race, gender or sexual orientation.

by Anonymousreply 18105/07/2013

I've known two TGs...that I know of. One was M2F and the other was F2M. The F2M has done well. He still has a slight build with delicate features, but you'd never suspect he was born a she.

The M2F is a disaster, both mentally and physically. She looks and acts like an old, whorish drag queen. She now identifies as a lesbian (WTF?).

Of course, those are the only two I know of. I might have met dozens of others who made successful transitions but never let me know about it.

I get the impression the F2Ms have an easier transition than the M2Fs. Is that true?

by Anonymousreply 18205/07/2013

In Chicago, this would be a violation of the Human Rights Ordinance, which applies to "public accommodations," i.e., retail stores. I don't know what the law is in Canada but I would suspect it's the same.

Yes, this woman might lose customers but she might gain some, too. I can understand her reasoning as women fetishize every aspect of getting married to an unbelievable extent and expect trying on a wedding dress to be a major event. I think their reality is as silly as this guy's and one is not better than another.

This person may be an ugly and unconvincing woman but his/her beliefs should be respected.

by Anonymousreply 18305/07/2013

Tatts or piercings (because some people see this as "mutilation")? Can they refuse service then?

by Anonymousreply 18405/07/2013

R184 again the majority at DL feel that shop owner's have the right to sell to who they want to. Regardless of sex, race or orientation. And that includes piercings and tattoos.

by Anonymousreply 18505/07/2013

I don't see your majority, R185.

I hardly believe the majority of DLers would believe that.

by Anonymousreply 18605/07/2013

R186 you haven't read the comments to this thread? If you add them all up, it is the majority

by Anonymousreply 18705/07/2013

R178, I don't think being Jewish or black or gay and wanting to buy a cake is the same thing as being trasngender (as Singh describes herself) but still looking very biologically male and trying on a wedding dress in a store. I actually don't think there's anything wrong with men (and I mean male-identifying biological males, not transgenders) buying wedding dresses and believe people can wear what they want but I also understand that it might be a little disconcerting for some of the other customers in what, from the pictures, looks like a small shop.

by Anonymousreply 18805/07/2013

R187 I just went through the posts on this thread and your consensus is wrong. Only a couple of people say the shop owners have the right to refuse service to anyone outright. A couple more say so if the customers are "uncomfortable." Just as many or more say or suggest the shop owners do not have that right.

by Anonymousreply 18905/07/2013

R188 what about the woman that was refused service from that same store because she was in a wheelchair.

It was a small store, so was the owner right as well?

by Anonymousreply 19005/07/2013

At any rate, the bridal shop owner has not been arrested, so it looks like Saskatoon believes she is allowed to choose her customers.

by Anonymousreply 19105/07/2013

R191 she wouldn't be arrested anyways

by Anonymousreply 19205/07/2013

No, r190, I don't think that's right and I don't think it's necessarily right to refuse Singh and Jenny sounds like a bit of an idiot. But I also don't think either of those two issues equate with refusing service to Jewish or black people. As far as I'm aware, refusal to serve Singh went against local discrimination laws, in which case Jenny may have a problem on her hands. Otherwise, if there are no such discrimination laws in place, if a vendor refuses service then anyone who doesn't agree with that can protest. If Jenny refuses service to someone in a wheelchair or a transgender person because that supposedly damages the carpet or disturbs the other customers, then she should assess whether such refusal is actually going to help or damage her business.

by Anonymousreply 19305/07/2013

[quote] Only a couple of people say the shop owners have the right to refuse service to anyone outright.

Well, make it three then. The shop belongs to the shop owner. A shop owner has the right to serve and not serve anyone.

by Anonymousreply 19405/07/2013

Except for when governed by anti-discrimination laws.

by Anonymousreply 19505/07/2013

She looks a hot mess. She has every right to patronize a store open to the public, but she does look a mess. Aren't they given feminization classes during their transition?

by Anonymousreply 19605/07/2013

A shop owner's number one interest is that their clients are happy. In this case, a majority were uncomfortable with the situation. It's better to upset one customer than many.

It's not an ideal situation, and it perhaps could have been handled more gently, but there was no magic solution here that would have made everyone happy.

by Anonymousreply 19705/07/2013

[quote] A shop owner's number one interest is that their clients are happy. In this case, a majority were uncomfortable with the situation.

Really? Were you there to actually see this? Or are you just going by the shop owner's version of the story?

by Anonymousreply 19805/07/2013

Where is Lady Ga Ga when she's needed? I think this should lead to highly profitable law suit for the future bride and groom.

by Anonymousreply 19905/07/2013

You are deceiving yourself, R199, if you think a jury is going to award a huge pot of money to a person of any gender for not being allowed to try on some dresses.

by Anonymousreply 20005/07/2013

I think it is unfair.

I think it is fair.

by Anonymousreply 20105/07/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.