Cross-dresser sues Cedar Point

---

Thank you Bill Clinton and all the other liberals out there for bringing these people out of the closet.

---

And thank you John Ball, for making what could be perhaps the stupidest thing ever said on CoasterBuzz. I must have missed that era of the Clinton administration. Must have been the State of The Union address where he said, "Come on out and join the party!"

It still amazes me that anyone in 2002 uses "these people" to describe any minority group. It's a wonder "these people" manage to function in society.

-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com, Sillynonsense.com
"As far as I can tell it doesn't matter who you are. If you can believe, there's something worth fighting for..." - Garbage, "Parade"

''She said, ÔNo, this is how I dress.' They said, ÔNo, you're in costume,' and they expelled her from the park,''

I love how they refered to him as "her"

Now to Mr.John Ball's comments...

As Shakespeare said in Henry V... "Once more into the breach, dear friends..."

Now that the posts have turned hateful, no use trying to dance around the subject. We tried playing nicely, but, now that it has turned ugly, just like in a good hockey fight, may as well throw off the gloves and jump right in to the fray...

In all of my above posts I was trying to remain very objective... and very fair. For crying out loud, I even refrained from taking jabs at liberals. One person, Mr.Ball, however did not refrain from this. His opinion is this "They can do what ever they wish as long as it does not effect me and they do not ask me to accept it."

The problem is... he is right. For years, we were preached to that we must "tolerate" activities of those who we do not agree with. Then, once the "toleration" was there, we were told that we must "accept" it. Now however it seems that that "acceptance" is no longer good enough... now we are expected to "embrace it".

If we do this, we are considered "open minded", "accepting" etc. As long as we agree with it is okay. However... let someone state a differeing opinion, then the name calling begins... names like "narrow-minded pinheads", "miseducated, misguided"... even accusing him of being responsible for the suicide of others.

You want to see hateful and narrow minded posts, look at the few that followed that of John Ball. Because he disagreed with you.. and because he had the guts to speak his mind... you have labeled him. Because of his belief, you have done to him what you said we were not supposed to do to this cross dressing man at CP. You slapped a label on him. Some probably consider what Mr.Ball said to be "Hate Speach". Well people, it is a two way street. It is amazing how anything that disagrees with your "opinion" of what is right and acceptable is considered hateful.

You ask for tolerance and acceptance... then be tolerant and accepting that there are those out there that have opinions different than you. Mr.Ball said "I do not care what people do. They can do what ever they wish as long as it does not effect me and they do not ask me to accept it. " He says it right there... he does not care what people do... however, you who have aimed the flame throwers in his direction certainly can not say this. You have proven that you are intolerant of any other ideas that differ from yours.

You demand tolerance? You expect accepance? Then please show that same regard to those of US who, like Mr.Ball, do not see eye to eye with you on this topic. *** This post was edited by SLFAKE on 6/13/2002. ***

chris's grandmother said: "If people don't accept you for who you are, then F@#$ 'em. They're not worth it."

....and people wonder why old age and wisdom go hand-in-hand....she seems like a fantastic lady, chris....

Since when is obvious hatred towards others acceptable? I must have missed that lesson somewhere along the way.

Sorry to poop on your parade SFLAKE.

Oh I forgot, put religion behind it and everythings okay. Terrorism anyone?

Suddenly I am reminded of a comic's vain.. "With great humility comes great hilarity". Let's just examine our comic lineup shall we?

Introducing on your left the one the only, "We can't let anyone feel left out." Liberals! On your right allow me to present the impenetrable (unless you're a young boy), "God is good and you are bad." Conservatives! And standing in the middle let's give a big yet indecisive welcome to the, "You're all wrong! But I really don't have a better suggestion." Libertarians! And finally your host tonight the infamous, "You all take this stuff to seriously." Cynic (guess there's where I fit in, eh?).

Ahh yes. When you learn to endure the cattle prod from all angles everything just starts to make sense. :-)

What is the issue that you're dancing around, SLFAKE? You still haven't spit it out.

Until you come out and say it, that whole rant you made in defense of John Ball is meaningless.

-------------
"drop rides, not bombs."

If Cedar Point is private property, than they should have the right to allow whoever THEY want at their park. If they feel that a man dressed at a woman would be offensive to a majority of people or even a sizable number, and moreover if they have a rule stating that they could expel violators of their rule, than this man has no intelligent argument. What is acceptable to a few, might not be acceptable to the larger amount of the populace, and while perhaps in a public setting, people may feel they have the right to dress a certain way, at an amusement park where people have to pay to get in, one person is not allowed to behave in a way that may infringe upon the experience by other paying guests. It's like the old saying, "The needs of the few don't outweigh the needs of the many." Well, in a more blatant sense perhaps it should be acknowledged that despite how understanding society may attempt to be towards those who don't follow norms, at the same time, people should draw the line somewhere.

If Cedar Point is private property, than they should have the right to allow whoever THEY want at their park.

WRONG!! That is not the American way. There are such things as civil rights you know

As this seems nearly directly applicable to me in both good and bad ways, and that the topic hasn't been closed yet, let me continue rambling.

Chris - the irony of your statement, "that took some real balls," is noted.

Cricket - you'll note that only the individual's lawyer referred to her as she, while the article's author did not. Pronoun usage is a matter of preference, sometimes, as well of appearances.

SLFAKE - I, for one, appreciate your candidness. In my eye, a lot of people are really asking for apathy rather than tolerance, and apathy is a bad, bad thing. For, with apathy, not only will people not care about or judge someone's lifestyle, but they will not care nor judge someone's actions. Apathy devalues the meaning of a human life, and that's something our society cannot afford. We're all people, and we're all capable of giving and caring and being as productive as one another, and *that's* what's most important. At least, I think so. Your mileage may vary.

I think, however, the thing that struck a chord with me in John Ball's post was one particular line, reading, "Though, their lifestyle may be harmless, I don't want to see it." While innocuous on the surface, this reveals a lot about their attitude, and their intention, I think. This is, perhaps more than anything else, what struck a chord with me. I do not hurt anyone. In fact, I'd bet you wouldn't be able to pick me out of a crowd. Some like me aren't nearly as fortunate, and stick out like sore thumbs. Fundamentally, I'm not a cross-dresser, however, and that may disqualify my next question. How, though, is what we're 'doing' any different? It's not, I think, and so it seems like judgement is coming prematurely, and based solely on subjective, phenotypic evidence. This, surely, isn't fair. I'd rather that attitudes such as that not exist, but so long as they do, you'll never see me trying to hide them away somewhere. Instead, I'm glad people share them, as it allows me the opportunity to better understand myself and those who have to live with me on a daily basis. Life's not easy.

About suicide - while John Ball's and SLFAKE's comments alone probably would not drive any normal, functioning individual to kill themselves, the prevailing attitude in our culture suggests that it is still acceptable to insult and demean the character, intentions, and accomplishments of transgendered people. Circumstance of birth or otherwise, I'd hope that, at the very least, we could all agree that no individual should be so ostracized and devalued as to be brought over that edge. Their life is worth more than we give them credit for, I'd hope.

Personally, I have been at that edge a number of times, and thankfully lived to tell about it. I hope that I've demonstrated myself to be an intelligent, articulate young woman with the potential and drive to do good things, and I hope that you all realize that there are many, many people like me lost every year - and it's due, primarily, to the social attitude that so strictly reenforces antiquated gender stereotypes.

Phyter - I'm a *proud* libertarian! Thanks for the humor

Finally, in general, if Cedar Point decided one day to make homocide legal within its gates, would it be okay? Of course not, as Cedar Point must still abide by the laws of the local, state, and federal governments. Similarly, though transgendered individuals are tragically unprotected in a number of municipalities, if this were a discriminatory act on their part, they must be made to face the consequences. There *should* be consequences. Beyond that, the politics get hairy. I'm not terribly up on it all, honestly, and I tend to disagree with the very notion of group political activism, so you won't get much out of me regarding that.

So, that's my latest rant. You're all lucky you caught me on a boring day!

-----------------
~~~ Maddy ~~~
In life you start the same as when you're done. If you lose, you're just where you've begun. If you win, remember what I said, don't quit while you're ahead. Who cares? *** This post was edited by Chernabog on 6/13/2002. ***

I don't think this should be turned into a sexuality issue or anything of the sort. The park did not take this action because they didn't want guests seeing this person. They took this action because of safety reasons. They do have a no costume policy because in some situations, it is necessary that guests are able to be identified. That is their basis for doing this. They even gave him his money back because he probably did not know about the rule. I'm sure they also gave him the option to change into proper attire. He chose not to - that is his choice, but it is CP's choice (and duty according to their own policy) to ask him to leave. I'm not sure if anyone has determined if he walked into the park in his "costume." If so, I think it's unfortunate that CP granted him entrance in the first place. His best argument is "they let me in only to change their minds later." He certainly isn't going to get anywhere with a "CP is against homosexuals argument." Half the people that work at CP are homosexual. It's also probably important to point out for people that don't realize it that being a homosexual does not make you a cross dresser and being a cross dresser doesn't necessarily make you a homosexual.

-----------------
-Matt
2001 Magnum Crew

Their dress code says nothing about costumes. It does say "clothing generally considered offensive is prohibited". A man in a dress might be considered "offensive" to some (as pointed out so succinctly by John Ball). In which case CP exercised their right.

Is it my civil right to wear a T-shirt to CP that says "F*** the Lawyers" because I'm only exercising my freedom of speech, given to me by the constitution? You'd better believe they'd ask me to turn my t-shirt inside out or take it off (well, maybe not in front of them being that I'm female). Why? Because it's offensive to people and that's a rule in their dress code.

What about the girls who wear skimpy bathing suit tops (and the large or old women who SHOULDN'T) all day at CP? Is that against their dress code? Yes. So why are they not told to cover up?

But by not expelling the women who are in "swimwear that must be sufficiently covered", they've left themselves open, IMO, for a discrimination lawsuit.

-----------------
I'd rather die living than live like I'm dead *** This post was edited by CPLady on 6/13/2002. ***

Cricket,

Do you feel that the American way is to allow one person to make others unconfortable or to tell a business how to run things? If Cedar Point feels that they should not permit someone dressed inappropriately in their park for security reasons or reasons that mean preserving an image as a family park, then they should be permitted to do so. If someone disagrees, then they always have the option of taking their business elsewhere.

To further add to the fray - I've heard back from several other friends, several of whom have visited Cedar Point at one point or another in what might be described as a trans-gendered, or ambiguously gendered state. None report of any problems whatsoever.

So, this leads me to believe, even more so, that this isn't an issue of discrimination. I realize now that a lot of what I'd written previously was starting to get *way* off topic, so maybe this can be my redemption.

On the largest level, I think this situation warrants questions that address what it is about transgendered people that so easily offends our society, rather than if it's legally offensive for a man to wear a dress. On the Coasterbuzz level, I just think it's important that we be able to ascertain Cedar Point's honest intentions. Again, I don't think their action was discriminatory.

To paraphrase some folks who I've spoken with who have far greater insight into what might happen here - there is legitimate basis for a lawsuit. That is, there is no Cedar Point policy that says, explicitly, 'men' cannot wear dresses. Further, there is also no delineation as to what a man, or dress is. With that said, this individual can only rely on the notion of freedom of expression or sexual harrassment as grounds for the lawsuit. The former, it seems, may run into problems when it comes down to the legal definition of a costume. The latter stance is even more difficult to defend, in that cross-dressing isn't necessarily a matter of sex or sexuality. In fact, most cross-dressers consider themselves to be healthy individuals with a hobby. Again, to me, this suggests that the individual shouldn't have any issue with changing clothing, and casts doubt on their ability to win this lawsuit.

Either way, the more I think about it all, the more it pisses me off, because it's just going to make my life more difficult. Bah. But, that's the 'transgendered law' legal run-down, if you're interested. The concensus seems to be that this *isn't* the case you'd need for a violent legal upheaval of traditional gendered politics, and it's just a waste of time. Oh well. So, that's all, from a friend of mine who's somewhat in the know.

-----------------
~~~ M ~~~
In life you start the same as when you're done. If you lose, you're just where you've begun. If you win, remember what I said, don't quit while you're ahead. Who cares? *** This post was edited by Chernabog on 6/13/2002. ***

i think CP is gonna lose this one...

Wait a minute! This happened in 2001 right? Well I just so happen to have my Cedar Point 2001 "Guide & Map to Fun!" right in front of me and it reads:

---

"Dress - Shirts and shoes must be worn at all times, including entering and leaving. Swimwear must be sufficiently covered. Profanity, suggestive pictures and pictures of illegal substances on clothing are prohibited."

---

I see nothing else in the guide regarding garments. Noticeably absent is the use of the term "costume". I wonder where this "policy" is revealed to guests. I would figure that the "THIS IS YOUR 2001 Guide & Map to Fun!" would be the primo place to find such a statement. Makes me wonder if the "costume policy" really exists...;)

In Cedar Point's defense though, if the person in question was indeed wearing a dress, then it is fully reasonable to assume that they were NOT wearing a "shirt" :) :) :)
lata,
jeremy
--"I KILL me!"

Zar,

I actually do think that its the place for the individual(and his/her supporters) to tell buisness what to do, after all, who is this business serving?

As for the "comfort level" of the other guests- as you might have guessed by the generally tolerant level of support on this board, most people are not that freaked out or uncomfortable about gays, drag, or cross dressers. If you feel that CP should cater to the LCD, you are entitled to your opinion, but I suspect that the majority(THOSE WHO VOTED FOR GORE) really dont mind seeing the ocassional "different" person. this may even make our society, and our expierence MORE enjoyable

(just had to get that Gore thing in there)

I'm surprised at the people who consider this an issue of "private property."

You cannot do anything you want to based on the fact that you own the land. Yes Cedar Point is private property, but they sure as hell can't hang a sign out front that says "no blacks allowed." They can't refuse to sell someone a Mountain Dew because they're "clearly a fat-ass." They can't deny admission to someone because they really like the smell of bowling alleys, and there's no laws to protect the bowlers of this land, either.

I'm not gonna comment on this case except to say that I'll look at as many cross dressers as you wanna throw at me, as long as they don't go strict on that bikini top thing. I think it's a fair trade off.

Chernabog, you seem to be the most grounded person here, and you should be the most outraged at things that some people are saying. Maybe if everyone would act a little more like you, this kind of crap wouldn't happen.

-----------------
"When I was growing up, we were taught something called manners. You'd understand that if you weren't such an idiot." - Jack Handey *** This post was edited by kpjb on 6/13/2002. ***

Gator - My grandmother rules. There's something to be said for little old Italian ladies.

Chernabog - I didn't mean to offend. I was actually being very sincere and just trying to add a little levity to the whole thing. I admire your courage and your composure.

Hostyl - Wow, that throws an entire new twist into this. I wonder what the "rest of the story" is?

Chris -Give me Patty, Patty, Buch-Buch- Baran

Now who's the "conservative?"

Oh well, Cricket brought it up.

-------------
"He's blazin' away like the stars in the universe.." A. Vega + M. Rev "Ghostrider"

Someday there will be something here.

The park cause HIM embarassment? I'd say he did it to himself the day he decided to dress like a woman...

-----------------
A CoasterForum Member
www.thrillnetwork.com/boards/index.php?referrerid=211