• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teen sues DMV after being told to remove makeup

roguenuke said:
They asked people to smile in the DMV just a couple of weeks ago when I went to get my learner's permit. They also didn't make me take off my glasses.

There wouldn't be an issue if everyone was made to remove their makeup, if no one could wear makeup for their photo. The issue comes from the fact that he was only asked to remove his makeup because his license identifies him as male. If he isn't going to be dressing like a "male" normally dresses while out on the rode, in public, driving, then there is no reason for him to fit the stereotypical male appearance for his license. It doesn't represent him.

It would be like asking me to wear makeup because someone can't tell that I'm "female".
Click to expand...

The DMV doesn't make me take off my glasses either. I need them to drive. It's on my license. And?
 
shrubnose said:
A 16-year old in South Carolina sued the states Department of Motor vehicles on Tuesday because the agency won't allow him to take a driver's license photo wearing makeup.

Read the article here: Teen sues DMV after being told to remove makeup


I predict that this young person will win this lawsuit.

This is all about the state of South Carolina trying to control people.


"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think he should win. It's legitimate state interest for government to ban costumes and disguises for official state ID. They already do so, I don't think this is outside precedent. It's not controlling people since there is no general law against it.
 
CanadaJohn said:
To quote Yogi Berra, this seems like deja vu all over again. Didn't we have this discussion about 8 months ago?

Anyway, my position remains the same - if the government, the issuer of the privilege, believes you are in costume or disguise when getting your driver's license ID pic, they have the right to deny you the license. You should appear as natural as possible in such pics, in my view. A driver's license is not a right.
Click to expand...


Then we have a serious problem in Canada, where Muslim women can vote with their faces hidden in a Burkha.

Which raises the standard here a tad, as if this is the rule, an orthodox woman cannot get a license without removing her obligatory religious garment.

I agree on what "should" be here, but what has been missed is that if this is for identification then shouldn't the photo be as the person would look in normal day-to-day life?
 
tres borrachos said:
Um, excuse me? I never said that a male is identified by what he wears. A male is identified by virtue of his chromosome makeup.
Click to expand...

Actually, legally, on a license, a "male" is identified by his birth certificate, not his DNA or chromosomes. That is what puts that "male" indicator on a state ID, the birth certificate or how what sex they are identified by the state as.

If he isn't identified as male by whether or not he wears makeup, then there is no reason he should have been forced to remove his makeup just because he is identified as male on his photo ID.
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, legally, on a license, a "male" is identified by his birth certificate, not his DNA or chromosomes. That is what puts that "male" indicator on a state ID, the birth certificate or how what sex they are identified by the state as.

If he isn't identified as male by whether or not he wears makeup, then there is no reason he should have been forced to remove his makeup just because he is identified as male on his photo ID.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything? His birth certificate says he's a male because he was born with a penis. He's a male because of his chromosomes.

For the second time, I never said anyone is identified by a male or a female based on makeup or what the person wears.
 
tres borrachos said:
The DMV doesn't make me take off my glasses either. I need them to drive. It's on my license. And?
Click to expand...

In the earlier thread about this (from June I think), it was being said that people were being made to remove their glasses on their passport photos and licenses for the same reason that you can't smile, because it screws up computer identification software that is working from photos the states/government has on file, such as your license photo or passport photo.
 
CanadaJohn said:
To quote Yogi Berra, this seems like deja vu all over again. Didn't we have this discussion about 8 months ago?

Anyway, my position remains the same - if the government, the issuer of the privilege, believes you are in costume or disguise when getting your driver's license ID pic, they have the right to deny you the license. You should appear as natural as possible in such pics, in my view.
A driver's license is not a right.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



We'll see what the court(s) have to say about this.
 
tres borrachos said:
What does that have to do with anything? His birth certificate says he's a male because he was born with a penis. He's a male because of his chromosomes.

For the second time, I never said anyone is identified by a male or a female based on makeup or what the person wears.
Click to expand...

Then there is no reason he should have had to remove his makeup just for being male. It wasn't a disguise. It was what he normally wears, even if he identifies as a male, as he does. He has said he doesn't feel he is transgendered, only that he is gender nonconforming.
 
tres borrachos said:
The DMV doesn't make me take off my glasses either. I need them to drive. It's on my license. And?
Click to expand...

They have never asked me to shave off a mustache or beard, and I look very different without either. They never make anyone get their hair color changed to "normal" or people with colored contacts to remove them.

Any of these could be described as "disguise"
 
roguenuke said:
Then there is no reason he should have had to remove his makeup just for being male. It wasn't a disguise. It was what he normally wears, even if he identifies as a male, as he does. He has said he doesn't feel he is transgendered, only that he is gender nonconforming.
Click to expand...

I never said it was a disguise. I also never said he was a transgender. You seem to be confusing me with someone else.

I can change my appearance tomorrow. I can dye my hair black, cut it short, get brown-colored contacts, and stop waxing my eyebrows and I wouldn't look anything like I do today. That's the case with anyone in SC and unless the state catches the people whose appearances change dramatically from their last taken photo ID, they're going to have this problem no matter what they decide to do here. I see this as them controlling what picture they take today that gives off what appearance that matches what is identified as the official sex on the ID. Like someone else said, a driver's license isn't a right.
 
tres borrachos said:
I never said it was a disguise. I also never said he was a transgender. You seem to be confusing me with someone else.

I can change my appearance tomorrow. I can dye my hair black, cut it short, get brown-colored contacts, and stop waxing my eyebrows and I wouldn't look anything like I do today. That's the case with anyone in SC and unless the state catches the people whose appearances change dramatically from their last taken photo ID, they're going to have this problem no matter what they decide to do here. I see this as them controlling what picture they take today that gives off what appearance that matches what is identified as the official sex on the ID. Like someone else said, a driver's license isn't a right.
Click to expand...

Which is why they should not make men remove makeup for a driver's license unless they have some evidence that it is meant to be a disguise, rather than trying to rely on gender stereotypes.

There is no way to know what any person's appearance should look like according to their sex because our outside appearance does not determine our sex, so it is stupid and wrong to base sex off of appearances.

No, a driver's license is not a right, but equal protection of the law and equal treatment of the government or of government agencies is a right. This includes equal treatment of the genders, unless the government can show an important state interest is furthered by not treating them equally. There is no important state interest furthered by not allowing boys/men to wear makeup for their driver's license photo, but allowing girls/women to, especially if the makeup is barely noticeable, as I have shown it was in this case.
 
To me, this article helps to better explain the bigger issue here.

A Photographer Provides an Inside Look at the Stunning World of the Gender Non-Conforming - Mic

We mistakenly like to view gender as either one or the other when it comes to appearances. To many, a person should either look like a girl or look like a guy, but they shouldn't look like both or neither. I hate this fact.

This is more an issue for men/guys because women have already gained our ability to look more like a man without much fuss. I can wear most of my husband's clothing and not have people bat an eyelash. But if my husband wore the vast majority of my clothes, he would be viewed as deviant, socially wrong, a problem, and he would be looked at as being wrong by many in doing it.
 
roguenuke said:
They can't. They told him and the news that he was told he couldn't wear it because he is a guy, not for any other reason. Plus, his makeup was really conservative. You can barely tell he is male. Likely the main reason they knew was because of it being on his license.
Click to expand...

If that was the reason, then the state may very well be screwed. Although never say never when it comes to how a court case will turn out.
 
roguenuke said:
Because he is not transgendered. He is gender nonconforming, meaning he does not uphold normal gender stereotypes, including what his gender normally wears, how his gender normally acts, and/or any other gender based standards people hold others to.
Click to expand...

No he has a mental disorder, just like someone who professes to be Spiderman, cannot, well actually dress up like Spiderman and expect the DMV to acquiesce. ;)

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
No he has a mental disorder, just like someone who professes to be Spiderman, cannot, well actually dress up like Spiderman and expect the DMV to acquiesce. ;)
Click to expand...

What if he's a politician?

Mumbai, India (CNN) -- Forget going door-to-door, Gaurav Sharma, 31, campaigns from window-to-window. He's an independent candidate running for a seat in India's general election from South Mumbai.
Unlike the politicians he's up against, who wear traditional Indian clothes, Gaurav Sharma dresses like a man with extraordinary powers -- the Marvel superhero Spider-Man.
.
.
"It takes a higher level of thinking and great organized thought," Sharma says, adding that a candidate needs these qualities to help the citizens of Mumbai.

India's 'Spider-Man' pledges to use powers for good - CNN.com
Click to expand...
 
Fearandloathing said:
Then we have a serious problem in Canada, where Muslim women can vote with their faces hidden in a Burkha.

Which raises the standard here a tad, as if this is the rule, an orthodox woman cannot get a license without removing her obligatory religious garment.

I agree on what "should" be here, but what has been missed is that if this is for identification then shouldn't the photo be as the person would look in normal day-to-day life?
Click to expand...

Firstly, even in Canada, the woman in a burkha would have to remove the burkha when getting an acceptable ID card, like a driver's license or health card, and if there is any question about her ID in the voting station, she may have to remove it for an election's official to verify her identity.

Secondly, how is the DMV or the equivalent here supposed to determine what any given person looks like normally in their day-to-day life? All the clerk sees is a person who presents themselves before them and they have to judge whether or not they are reasonably presented. As I mentioned in previous threads on this subject, to take it to an extreme, why wouldn't a professional, very busy clown who's always in costume and makeup, everywhere he/she drives, be allowed to take their driver's license pic in full clown makeup?

This is one of those occasions where I personally oppose the vast majority bending over backwards to accommodate the whims of a minute minority for no legitimate reason. It's just vanity and narcissism and society has too much of that already.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Firstly, even in Canada, the woman in a burkha would have to remove the burkha when getting an acceptable ID card, like a driver's license or health card, and if there is any question about her ID in the voting station, she may have to remove it for an election's official to verify her identity.

Secondly, how is the DMV or the equivalent here supposed to determine what any given person looks like normally in their day-to-day life? All the clerk sees is a person who presents themselves before them and they have to judge whether or not they are reasonably presented. As I mentioned in previous threads on this subject, to take it to an extreme, why wouldn't a professional, very busy clown who's always in costume and makeup, everywhere he/she drives, be allowed to take their driver's license pic in full clown makeup?

This is one of those occasions where I personally oppose the vast majority bending over backwards to accommodate the whims of a minute minority for no legitimate reason. It's just vanity and narcissism and society has too much of that already.
Click to expand...

First off, Quebec has ruled that women DO NOT have to remove their Bukhas and I suspect that rule will soon follow here.

I also oppose a vast and politically correct over correction and ask why the above the above at all.

In saying "day to day life" there is no government role there merely common sense. In this case the argument is it is a "disguise" which is clearly not the case since this guy appears to consider make up his norm. If that's the way he's likely to look when asked for ID then let him do it and that can be resolved with a question.

And no, I am not a fan of legislating "might happens" which seem to be the way of the left, at least in Canada who have become ban-crazy making it an offense to sell bottled water on or in an City owned facility. This bureaucratic decision appear to me to be the thin edge of the wedge in that direction
 
Fearandloathing said:
First off, Quebec has ruled that women DO NOT have to remove their Bukhas and I suspect that rule will soon follow here.

I also oppose a vast and politically correct over correction and ask why the above the above at all.

In saying "day to day life" there is no government role there merely common sense. In this case the argument is it is a "disguise" which is clearly not the case since this guy appears to consider make up his norm. If that's the way he's likely to look when asked for ID then let him do it and that can be resolved with a question.

And no, I am not a fan of legislating "might happens" which seem to be the way of the left, at least in Canada who have become ban-crazy making it an offense to sell bottled water on or in an City owned facility. This bureaucratic decision appear to me to be the thin edge of the wedge in that direction
Click to expand...

I won't argue your points - not because I necessarily believe you're right or wrong but because I've already wasted too much time on this little publicity hound who gets off on being the center of attention. If American courts want to waste their time on this nonsense, more power to them.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I won't argue your points - not because I necessarily believe you're right or wrong but because I've already wasted too much time on this little publicity hound who gets off on being the center of attention. If American courts want to waste their time on this nonsense, more power to them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm kind of done here too..
 
Hicup said:
No he has a mental disorder, just like someone who professes to be Spiderman, cannot, well actually dress up like Spiderman and expect the DMV to acquiesce. ;)

Tim-
Click to expand...

Wearing clothes that are normally worn by the other sex or wearing makeup when it is normally worn now by the other sex is not "a mental disorder", at all. No one is allowed to dress up like Spiderman. And this boy is not professing to be a girl. He is merely wearing attire that is normally worn by women. And yes, the DMV should have to acquiesce because there is no law that says men cannot wear makeup or women's clothing.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Firstly, even in Canada, the woman in a burkha would have to remove the burkha when getting an acceptable ID card, like a driver's license or health card, and if there is any question about her ID in the voting station, she may have to remove it for an election's official to verify her identity.

Secondly, how is the DMV or the equivalent here supposed to determine what any given person looks like normally in their day-to-day life? All the clerk sees is a person who presents themselves before them and they have to judge whether or not they are reasonably presented. As I mentioned in previous threads on this subject, to take it to an extreme, why wouldn't a professional, very busy clown who's always in costume and makeup, everywhere he/she drives, be allowed to take their driver's license pic in full clown makeup?

This is one of those occasions where I personally oppose the vast majority bending over backwards to accommodate the whims of a minute minority for no legitimate reason. It's just vanity and narcissism and society has too much of that already.
Click to expand...

Because that clown is in a profession, not living as a clown, even if the clown is in that makeup a lot.

Here's an easy way to determine if it should be alright or not, would he be allowed to get on a plane dressed as he is without getting further screening? The answer is almost certainly "yes", so then the DMV has no place to tell him he needed to remove his makeup. This is gender discrimination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom