Luck certainly wasn’t a lady for transvestite, Paul Hurst recently when he was rejected from a casino for being dressed ‘inappropriately’. Last month ‘The Age’ reported from Australia in its article, ‘Stuck Between a Frock and a Card Place’ that transvestite, Paul Hurst or Anne Marie to his friends had been asked to leave a casino because of his appearance. Australian lawyers are now debating whether transvestites are protected in law.
Dressed in one of his best frocks, Mr Hurst was photographed in a glamorous sequined dress partying at the launch of Priscilla, Queen Of The Desert at Star City's Lyric Theatre. A month later he and a friend again donned their dresses for a night out the casino's new spin-off bar, Priscilla's. Unfortunately Mr Hurst found his way barred by 2 bouncers on the night. A security guard had deemed him to be a "man" and "inappropriately dressed" when he was refused entry to the casino at 9.15 on the night of November 1, 2006.
Mr Hurst, of Coogee, filed an action alleging the casino has discriminated against him because of his sexual gender and was refused service and asked to leave. Mr Hurst told the panel of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (Equal Opportunity Division), that "I have always regarded myself as a woman and lived my life as a woman,"
The casino changed it’s stance at the initial hearing claiming that that Mr Hurst was "wearing an extremely short skirt that barely covered his groin region, white underwear and garters … were visible". Previous evidence provided stated however, that it was Mr Hurst’s friend, "Russell" who was inappropriately dressed in the short red skirt and white pants and garters, and that Mr Hurst had been welcome to stay.
Deputy president of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, Nancy Hennessy granted an order to obtain a copy of the casino's security video of the incident. The solicitor for the casino told Mr Hurst that under the Anti-Discrimination Act the tribunal can only hear transgender cases.
"The Anti-Discrimination Act does not protect transvestites, it protects transsexuals, but you said you live as a woman," Ms Hennessy said. "Before the tribunal can hear the case what you have to be able to prove to the court is that sexually you are a transsexual."
The parties have been asked to reappear before the tribunal in July to resolve the matters.

In the UK, Discrimination against transsexuals in an employment or vocational context has been unlawful in Britain since 1st May 1999 (under the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999, SI 1999/1102).
Discrimination against homosexuals (ie discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation) in an employment or vocational context became unlawful in Britain on 1st December 2003 (under the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 SI 2003/1661. Even before May 1999 (for transgender persons) or December 2003 (for homosexuals) a person who had been discriminated against on grounds of change of sex or on grounds of sexual orientation could in appropriate circumstances claim for a breach of human rights under the Human Rights Convention. The Gender Recognition Act 2004. allows people who change sex the right to marry in their acquired gender and be given new birth certificates that recognise the acquired gender.
Although the law has not been tested with regards to transvestites it would seem that they do not fall into either strict category of trans gender or necessarily homosexual. This is not to say that a company which allows staff to bully their colleagues will not fall foul of the law. It is important for companies to introduce anti bullying and harassment training and policies covering the treatment of transvestites to avoid facing tribunal proceedings.

By Charles Price, barrister No5 Chambers

www.charlesprice.net

Hi Christine

Charles

Chalice, the first paragraph was a summation by an eminent  Barrister. for consideration as a point of law.   The subject is the appeared exclusion of transvestites,

note the various aspects regarding laws in the UK regarding Transsexuals and Gays were noted and covered.

Interesting news item here in the UK, Several police forces have now at their discression included goths and other diverse groups when reporting hate crime.

This is not included in law, as to if the DPPS would go as far as endorsing the police authorities decisions is debatable.

Just as I said before, all the laws, medical directives do no specifically mention transvestites.

Although the law has not been tested with regards to transvestites

    it would seem that they do not fall into either strict category of trans gender or necessarily homosexual.

Please quote the actual, section of the GRA. EHRC or any UK law that specifically mentions the term 'TRANSVESTITE'  in relation to discrimination or hate  crime.

The considerations above are by an eminent UK Barrister.

PS. I have under the HZ zones, requirement, contacted the original writer for permission to reproduce, as information only, none financial gain.'

By Charles Price, barrister No5 Chambers

www.charlesprice.net

Hi Christine, Please be my guest.

Cristine points out 'A simile. If the law was passed that Bannanas, had to be indivually wrapped in tin foil when sold, that does not mean that grapes , oranges or any other fruit would have to be wrapped in the same way'.
 

Chalice its a UK law forum, I am reading and quoting from the Gender Recognition act, the example quote  above (with permission) was by a UK Barrister.   As to IF transvestites fell into a protected group under UK law, not Australian law, Chinese law or any other foreign law.

Its my understanding that Chief Constables do have discresionary powers where criminal charges are brought, to add ''hate crime'' as in threatening behaviour, assault, criminal damage.   nice to see Carols area  is being proactive.    The problem arises and the question is under the terms and definitions of the discrimination Act.   Under this ACT some offences against listed ''Gender (added Transexual/Transgendered undergoing supervised medical transiton),.. transvestites which is defined under various acts as, (Transvestism definition, the practice, especially of men, of wearing clothing usually associated with the opposite sex for psychological gratification. See more.) with an adage  (not to be confused with TG's and TS's  NHS directives, GRA, etc)''   So it is arguable if they have the same rights and protection under the various acts of criminal law and  employment, goods and service aspect of the discrimination act.   This would have to be brought under a civil presentation to court,  A solicitor would make an application to court, as the case proceeded to the High court a barrister would make representation, IF a judge ruled in favour. it would set a legal precedent, the judge would give leave to appeal, if the appeal was not taken up and repealed by the house of lords,  within the ''leave to appeal duration''. the term Transvestite would be added to all the aspects of law that was referred to or applicable.   

Hate crime by definition must show aspects of behavour to indicate it was directed against a specific group or person, for what they are.   ie  ''I am going to smash your face in you tranny pervert''   threatening behaviour.  If the perp did smash the persons face in it would be Criminal assault occasioning grevious bodily harm, end endorsed hate crime.

many minor hate crimes are lodge under the harassment act, on reporting the crime, the police would apply to the courts for a warrant. the person would be taken before the court and be given an order, any subsequent action against the same person/group they would be arrested for contempt of court and the initial charge would be added for consideration.

for example firstly  Threatening verbal abuse,  Then  followed up by spraying a persons car with ''dirty king tranny''

A typical precedent was a case in Reading Crown Court, The rape of a transsexual,   The defence at the time was that it was not relevant, because The term Vagina was referred to clinically and by definition, the sexual organ of a Natal female, so it did not apply. and asked that the charge be reduced to common assault.  The Judge ruled. that the term Vagina should and in future be all inclusive. and a legal precedent was set.

Transvestism (also called transvestitism) is the practice of cross-dressing, which is wearing clothing traditionally associated with the opposite sex or gender. Transvestite refers to a person who cross-dresses; however, these are clinical terms that carry potentially negative connotations and/or implications of mental illness. Cross-dresser, a word that more accurately describes the behavior and avoids clinical or pathological implications, is the preferred term.^[1]

In some cultures, transvestism is practiced for religious, traditional and/or ceremonial reasons. For example, in India some male devotees of the Hindu god Krishna, especially in Mathura and Vrindavan, dress in female attire to pose as his consort, the goddess Radha, as an act of devotion.^[7] In Italy, the Neapolitan femminielli (feminine males) wear wedding dresses, called the matrimonio dei femminielli (marriage of the femminielli), a procession takes place through the streets, a tradition that apparently has pagan origins.^[8]

Chalice, I'm not familiar with any official term to describe that, What a person believes themselves to be is the important issue here. not what they appear to others or what they see in a mirror. I should think that many suffer that particular aspect of their lives. I was born a boy perse and as a kid would look in the mirror and feel disgusted that I did not look like a boy. but people who ask a question and then state they don't know the answer usually think they do know the answer other wise why ask the question, just to make someone else look stupid, ignorant or try and prove they are more intelligent 

I am familiar with Blanchards work Autogynephilia and autoandrophilia Blanchards work is somewhat controversial and in parts I find offensive and demeaning. Scientific criticism of the research and theory has come from John Bancroft, Jaimie Veale, Larry Nuttbrock, Charles Allen Moser, and others who argue that the theory is poorly representative of MtF transsexual people, reduces gender identity to a matter of attraction, is non-instructive, and that the research cited in support of the theory has inadequate control groups or is contradicted by other data. Supporters of the theory include J. Michael Bailey, Anne Lawrence, James Cantor, and others who argue that there are significant differences between the two groups, including sexuality, age of transition, ethnicity, IQ, fetishism, and quality of adjustment. The theory has been the subject of protests in the transsexual and larger LGBT community, although it has its supporters. The controversy over the distinction peaked among both transsexuals and clinicians with the publication of Bailey's The Man Who Would Be Queen in 2003. Following the publication of Bailey's book, Blanchard distinguished between the value of the theory as a behavioral description, versus as an explanation of transsexualism and that only further scientific research could resolve latter question

.[ perhaps this should be taken up in the Transgender Psychology forum.] as its not really a law matter.   http://gendersociety.com/forums/28/transgender-psychology

Chalice said '' And more to the point, the legal standpoint towards transvestities is clear and unencumbered'':  

I say so why are australian lawyers wasting time, debating the issue.

Being not illegal is not neccessarily the same as being included by definition in law. as with transsexual, gay, coloured, sex, age, race or religion. it could make a difference between redress under an act of criminal law. (a crime) against specified named groups or a civil suit, its not the same cover of protection.

One does not become a prosecutor for rights, one becomes a defender of rights (when there is existing legislation protecting those rights.), when those particular rights are violated, against an established statute,  when individuals, organisations or corporate groups break those  laws.   you can be a campaigner for rights, but you cannot prosecute people if the laws are not already in existence,   but you said all the laws were all encompassing in Australia.   I would have thought the Gays get enough attention and representation,, as a ''transsexual'' perhaps you should concentrate in that area a totally separate field and more complex, it incorporates, rights to medical treatment recognition, marriage laws, the right to change documentation, gender certificates, and change of gender. pensions, work, even rape and sexual motivated crimes.

Got a bit heated and side tracked, but I think I got my point over in the end???

Another example of people who ignore facts and interpretate things to suite their own way of thinking