Cross-dresser sues Cedar Point
Posted
A Cleveland man who has been cross-dressing for 32 years claimed he was unfairly removed from Cedar Point for dressing as a woman at an unofficial "gay day" last Father's Day at the park, according to a lawsuit filed at Erie County Common Pleas Court. The park, which has a policy of not allowing adults to wear costumes, said he violated that policy.
Read more from the Morning Journal.
Related parks
Maybe it's the weather here, or maybe it's something else, by my energy for this topic is waning. It's nearly as if all the intelligent, logical, coherent discussion, or people wishing to take part in it, have moved on to greener pastures. While that's a shame, I'm beginning to not blame them.
First - Gender and sexuality are *unrelated.* This is a key concept for this discussion. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that might even indicate slightly that this individual was gay. To suggest, even, that all transgendered people are gay does the world a great disservice. Treat each case on an individual basis, and please read carefully and understand that there's every chance this person isn't gay. So, for all the intelligent posturing that's been done about the existence of gay people, their place in society, and at Cedar Point, it's a bit irrelevant. Sorry.
CPLady - again, you're a light of common sense in what's increasingly become a dark void of political and moral discourse, without consideration of the facts and realities of the situation. Thank you.
While my own feelings regarding bathroom use are somewhat conflicted, and even paradoxical, I deal with them as best as I can. I don't use public restrooms whenever I can avoid it and I will always seek a unisex handicap restroom when possible. This is as much because of outside, societal pressure as it with my own discomfort in such a situation. I try not to push buttons when I don't have to, you see. But, in the end, I go to the bathroom to take care of natural business, and I can see no legitimate reason why there needs to be any separation whatsoever. Concern over sexuality in bathrooms isn't black and white, nor easily squashed, I'm afraid. Keeping transgendered people out of restrooms solves nothing. That's all I'll postulate about that, I think.
CPismyhome - That'd be discriminatory, I'd think. It's a fuzzy, fuzzy line. That's been the point all along. From what I can see, though, we've been making an effort at bring some focus to that line, to see what the real issues might be, and how we might solve them. At least, that's what I've been trying to do.
Ghostrider2001 - I pray for you and the sake of your children that none of them should ever express any sort of transgendered behavior or feelings. Further, I am sorry that they may grow up in an environment that fosters misunderstanding, intolerance, and the presupposition of the truth, for they will be truly missing out on the greatest wonder of life - humanity.
No Fear - I challenge you to find my anyone who is happy with every single aspect of their life, or at every single moment of their existence. Such a thing is impossible, of course.
I am certainly not happy with every aspect of my life, and it appears as even this subject troubles you some, as you ascribe the value of your family to it. And, while again your assertion that this individual is representative of being gay, or of other gay people, OR, for that matter, other transgendered people, is patently false, as all generalizations are, your evidence strikes me as being common.
Again, I'm not overly ecstatic with every aspect of my life, but I take great offense that I be considered disturbed, or living in a fantasy, and no less by someone who claims themself to be a mental health professional. I am none of those things, and a great deal of my happiness and self-acceptance comes with the knowledge that I am no less valuable, or able to contribute my experience and knowledge to those around me because of the clothes I wear, or the attitude I take, or the way I feel about my body. If you feel otherwise, that's your prerogative, though I suspect you'll never quite realize the opportunities for education, enrichment, and friendship that you and your children may forever miss.
Edit: As an added note, I wanted to mention that I did see a number of hateful, hurtful posts last night that Jeff has since deleted. While I respect each individual's right to speak their mind, whether they do so maturely and with care, or with blatant disregard for the consequences and effect on others, I am still glad Jeff has removed them. I wish, however, there were some other medium to take them to, so they can be dealt with or ignored on their own merit. In any case, they didn't foster discussion as these forums were meant to, in my opinion. So, thanks, Jeff.
~ Maddy
*** This post was edited by Chernabog on 6/15/2002. ***
Coastaplaya- Of cpourse the name calling starts right away!! And apparently you havent seen Rush in years as he has lost alot of weight and isnt over weight or fat anymore, not that that would matter in the least(of course some who complain about stereotyping are guilty of the same). And of course he is RIGHT about FMLA!!! It will be paid for in great part by empoloyers who will have to emply more people while the employee isnt working for his 12 week vacation, and while it will start at the current equation it will change to be more anti-employer than it already is. And none of your links show any type of bigoted activity in the least , unless of course you a liberal where everything you disgaree with is bigoted!!! And Rush is right and correct which explains why he has the most listened to show on the radio bar none!!!
Mark W. Baruth
"The line is crossed when your actions are preventing people from enjoying their day at a park. An amusement park is not, IMHO, the place to make a social statement. Why? For many reasons, but mainly that the other guests have paid for their right to enjoy themselves and no individual has the right to prevent them from doing so. If flamboyant displays of an alternative lifestyle would prevent the majority of guests from enjoying their day, then it has no place in the park. "
I can not agree more. Hopefully this frivolous case will be thrown out.
Chernabog, you stated that it would be hard to pick you out in a crowd, I don't know what your lifestyle is, you haven't stated or I missed it, and I don't care, I would not object to it. If you don't stand out in a crown, you will not cause dicomfort. I can hear all the wheels spinning about those poor people that are deformed or burned or handicapped. That is totally different, those people have no choice in their appearance.
What I do object to is a man in a dress. How do you explain that to a young child who asks "Why is that man in a dress" or something to that effect? As for those who ask about a women in mens clothes, just about every women dresses in jeans and tee-shirts these days.
This whole issue is basically the same as the little sign in the store window that says No shirt, No shoes, No service.
Cedar Point is a Family park and should be able to do what they need to do to maintain that image. I am sure that any other park would have acted in the same manner.
I PRAY (MIEN GOTT IN HIMMEL!!!) that you that think this way never have children that exhibit these tendencies. Not because I think something is wrong with the behavior. NO, I feel you all would be ill-equipped to handle the situation.
Oh and I'd be really eager to see ratings regarding Rush's show. I wouldnt be suprised if Howard Stern actually had more listeners.
lata,
jeremy
--who thinks that right-wing extremists give real conservatives a bad name.
And none of your links show any type of bigoted activity in the least
I kinda forgot you have to type in really big letters and type in small sentences when talking with dittoheads. Allow me.
FMLA issue: If you can call taking time off at HALF-PAY a vacation, bully for you. Most people can't.
My first link--from Rushonline.com--asserted that feminism helps unattractive women integrate into society. If you don't consider that bigoted, that says enough about you already.....you'd think. Just wait until you click on link #4.
Paragraph 5 of my fourth link cites no fewer than eight racial epithets allegedly used regularly by a NEC supervisor cited in a class-action lawsuit. Paragraph 6 mentions her devotion to Rush Limbaugh. Paragraph 7 mentions the disciplinary action she said people of color deserve.
Of course, none of this is bigoted in Bob O's mind.
To him, this is all...how'd that go? right and correct.
-'Playa
PS-Perhaps I could see how less fat Rush Limbaugh is if he was still on broadcast television...okay, even cable television. Ohhh, that's right--isn't he down to a webcam now?
Jeff, sorry I wasted your bandwidth on a has-been who--like his followers--continues to fade into ignominy. I'll get back to my other 7 TRs now.
-----------------
The CPlaya 100--6 days, 9 parks, 47 coasters, 2037 miles and a winner.....LoCoSuMo.
*** This post was edited by CoastaPlaya on 6/15/2002. ***
I'll start tonight's installment with this tidbit - remember that, at one time, most of the world believed that the Earth was flat. Just because the majority listens to something, or watches something, or wears someone's clothes, it doesn't make it right or true or justifiable. It may be, but it's not an absolute indicator.
CPismyhome, you seem to have entered this discussion a bit late, so I'll spare you my wrath for not being up on my biography. Don't let it happen again, okay? ;)
My lifestyle is that of a college-aged girl. I work, I go to school, I talk with friends, shop, sketch, listen to music, and ride roller coasters. I happen to be transsexual, by circumstance. I've previously mentioned that there are some significant differences between cross-dressing and transsexualism, but in the context of this discussion, they are nearly irrelevant. The fact is that both this individual and myself have gone to parks in clothes traditionally associated with opposite sex.
Now, perhaps my assertion that I wouldn't stand out in a crowd is with context. As many of us seem to suspect, myself included, this individual may not have been blessed with the raving good looks of someone like your's truly, and may stick out more. I don't feel that this is valid grounds for dismissal from the park. While the difference in motivation between myself and this individual may be quite staggering, the act alone isn't all too much different. I have never encounted a problem at any park, precisely because I fit in. Should we expect Cedar Point to inspect genitalia upon entrance? If not, then they can't eject someone precisely because they're ugly. If the clothing was something that would've been considered upon a male or female, as I suspect it may have been, I have no further issue.
Again, like Jeremy mentioned, should I child ask why there's a man in dress, I'd ask that you explain. In truth, you don't know, but there must be a better explanation than to say, "They're disturbed," as one other Coasterbuzzer has suggested, or worse yet, hide them from it so they get an even stronger message that it's wrong.
Jeremy, I'd just like to thank you, again, for your contributions. They ring true deep within me in many cases. Your last post's comment, "I feel you all would be ill-equipped to handle the situation," in particular, is something that I've had plentiful experience with.
-----------------
~~~ Maddy ~~~
FMLA-The employer still has to get the work done while the employee is suppsoedly giving attention to a family matter. I have seen the results of said policy first hand and have seen the abuses first hand and this is just the first step, next will come either full pay or 3/4 pay. These programs ALWAYS start small and then incremental increase in size/scope/cost.
Rush's statement was said in jest, humor if you can understand that. And is in fact true when you see people like patricia ireland etc.
Paragraphs 5-7 are meaningless. Or are you going to say al gore was responsible because him and the unabomber agreed on enviromental issues and he had al gores book. And if he wanted to be on TV he would be, but when getting paid over 220 million for 8 yrs on a radio deal why lower himself to be on tv!! the only bandwidth you wasted was on your links!!
Wow...I think this item is getting more post then any coaster discussions!
My 2 cents....I am wondering why Cedar Point doesn't want anyone wearing a wedding dress there, but yet another of their properties KBF, has a church and does weddings right inside the park! I know Cedar Fair inherited this from Knott's but still, I find it interesting. I never ceased to be amazed at how the different parks operate so differently even though they may be part of the same chain.
My take on the case...I think this person has one, although I question the actual "damages" done. Still, I do not buy the "safety" issue. If there were mostly blacks or mostly whites one day would the other race be excluded for "their safety"? I think not. You can't exclude people based on what "might happen". Unless they have some sort of crystal ball and can see into the future, then Cedar Point could maybe make the case.
As a side note, just a few days ago I saw a cross dresser at Disneyland. I never saw that there before, although I have seen some at the local steak house bar. Both times, no commotion, no fights. Just a lot of stares. Let's face it people, we ALL see things we don't want to see in a public place. Some people don't want to see crying babies, or the mothers who breast feed them, or fat people, or old people, or people with one leg or a whole slew of other things that make people uncomfortable. Well, that's just life. And it comes in all sorts of flavors. Get used to it. Seeing a man in a dress will not ruin anyone's life or their vacation, nor will it tramatize kids. If you're THAT sensitive, may I suggest staying in your house with the covers pulled over your head keeping you safe from the big bad world out there. Sheesh!
NO FEAR: A special message for you. You might want to change your name as judging from your post it's clear you are fearful of at least one thing! Do your gay "friends" know that you refer to them as disturbed? And for the record, you have now met (electronically speaking) a gay person who is happy and just fine thank you. :)
RememberIdora said "Whats he sueing for? Emotional abuse. lmao"
The guests should be sueing for the same thing for having to watch that guy trot around the park in a dress. It's offensive clothing. If i had kids, I wouldn't want them to be exposed to this guy, and if I wouldn't be able to bring my kids, then you could just forget about the family atmosphere that Cedar Point is trying to incorporate into its park experience. It's perfectly ok to have rights until your right infringe on the rights of others, which is basically happening here.
-----------------
"Maybe the restraints will work better next time!"
Which rights are those? The right not to see a man in women's clothing? You've been able to see that in some of their shows in recent years.
-----------------
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"
I say:
No, they remove the unborn for a price, of course. The original lawsuit had nothing to do with money - look it up. Money is a component of the greater issue, not a factor in the case at all. But i'm liberal, so you'll likely disagree for some reason (see below).
Bob O said: "unless of course you a liberal where everything you disgaree with is bigoted!!!"
I say:
Sort of like how you disagree with everything open-minded, fair and equal?
There's not a shred of equality in anything you've said mr. o. So far, It's all about YOU YOU YOU!
*** This post was edited by coasterfreaky on 6/17/2002. ***
As for some of my friends knowing what I think about being gay or cross-dressing, some do, some don't. Those who know me more closely do. The reason some don't is because I do not normally make it an issue, especially in a public setting. I can accept a person for who he/she is, not what he/she does, but that does not mean I have to agree with or endorse their lifestyle.
I am well aware of many hetrosexuals who have done far worse than this man in an attempt to fulfill their inner needs, but neither would I pay money to subject my family to have to observe their behavior in a public.
If this man has an inner need to express himself in this manner then their are plenty of places more appropriate to do so. I am sure no gay or cross-dressing person, enjoying their day at the park with their friends and family, would want me to walk through wearing a shirt stating "I find gay behavior disturbing." Nor do I wish to pay money for the purpose of enjoying the thrills of an amusement park to instead be subjected to a man whose need is to cross-dress in front of my family at an amusemant park.
-----------------
Not All Coasters are Created Equally
*** This post was edited by No Fear on 6/18/2002. ***
*** This post was edited by No Fear on 6/18/2002. ***
Roe vs Wade of course had a money componet and it is very big business, sad that people profit from the death of innocent unborn children but that is how far things have come today.
Conservatives have always been for equality/fairness and didnt push polices like affirmitive action on society where it is ok to profile based on race!! I have made no comments on ME but commented on the ability of a private business to be able to run the company in the manner they want too!! If people dont like how the business is run they arent forced to go their and visit.
And parks shouldnt be used as a place to go on fathers day in a attempt to make a political statement. This is what the person did IMHO hping to get removed from the park so he could push his agenda and get some publicity and make some money if he wins the suit!
Let me spell it out for you since your view is skewed obliviously by the dollar. In 1970 a woman with a fictictious name, Jane Roe, took her case to the TX state supreme court headed by the district atty. Henry Wade, b/c the laws were vague and unconstitutional regarding the anti-abortion statute. The case ultimately went to the US supreme court, where it was determined that it was in fact an unconstitutional statute. Okay MR O - I don't believe in my heart of hearts that this woman, Ms. Doe, had money on her mind during any of this. She was fighting for her rights, as many of us have tried to do so on here, or at least clarify our views for others. So - you keep your blinders on and keep on thinking the way you do. I hope that none of your children, heaven forbid, mature and discover that they are anything other than a het. white fat dull entrepreneur. Just so that you'll feel good about yourself preventing others from living their lives in an Equal world.
No i dont care at all if the guy was in the park or not as he presenece wouldnt in the least bother me offend me or have affected my enjoyment at the park, But i believe a private business should have the ability to refuse service to anybody they want too and a patron has no right to demand a business allow him on the property if the company beleives his behavior/attire is viloating their polices. if the patron doesnt like it he doesnt have too frequent the business.
The pro-abortion-pro death movement used this case to furthur their agenda of having a right to kill a unborn child and too not not think that their was a financial componet in this would be naive. And im proud to say my children are being brought up to be staunch conservatives!!!
I will never need an abortion, and I tend to be pro-life and pro-choice. While I don't agree with it, I certainly don't think the government has any right to tell a woman what to do with her body. What does my opinion have to do with money?
-----------------
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"
It has always baffelled me that many of the so-called "conservatives" that claim to be pro-life are also in favor of captial punishment. That's a weird dicotomy that I doubt will ever be reconciled.
Though none of this has ANYTHING to do with the issue at hand. But it is suprising that so-called "conservatives" who "claim" to be against government interfering with the "lives" of its citizens are the one who are most adament about letting government decided who can actually "LIVE". Hinkey I tell you :)
lata,
jeremy
--a compassionate tree-hugging hippie conservative
Anyhow, I fail to see how this man's attire could be so outlandish that it would send small children into years of therapy, or anyone else for that matter, especially at an amusement park. These types of environments are places of magic and merriment for small children, like a circus or a parade, so for them to see a man in a dress in such a setting would just be one more whimsical oddity during their day. And how would you explain it to them? The same way that you would to anyone else. Sometimes men wear dresses. It's not very common, but it does happen sometimes, just like sometimes women wear men's suits. The man is just playing dress-up. Children understand this very well. Even most heterosexual men played dress-up in women's clothing or garments that they were pretending to be women's clothing when they were little. It's part of gender discovery. Before one can confirm or deny that they identify as one gender or the other, they must experiment with both roles to see which one feels right for them. Now if a child has the misfortune of being raised by less than tolerant parents, this phase of discovery can be very difficult for them, if they're even allowed to explore it at all, but rest assured their true nature will demand that they accept it for themselves sooner or later, whether anyone else does or not, and that includes mommy & daddy.
So, to say that seeing a man in a dress is traumatic to children is absurd. They're much too young to be offended by such things, unless mommy & daddy have already TAUGHT them to be offended by such things. Therfore, a man in a dress is only traumatic to certain narrow-minded adults who lack the social skills to deal with deviations from their accepted norms. Of course this isn't necessarily their own fault, as bigots were usually TAUGHT to be bigots by their own parents, so it's most likely that their reactions are more a result of their own upbringing than their own opinions.
Now, as for what is or isn't appropriate behaviour in public, this is for the most part purely subjective. Personally, I find it utterly disgusting to see straight couples practically having intercourse in a queue line, but this is commonly regarded as perfectly acceptable behavior. Not so if the pair happens to be two males, but ironically quite a turn-on for most of the heterosexual men if the pair happens to be two females. Now explain the reasoning behind that. It seems that homosexuality is quite fascinating to most heterosexual men, so long as it's lesbianism that might lead to them participating as well, but for some mysterious reason, these same men find male homosexuality extremely threatining to their own sexualities, as though they could possibly "catch it" simply by observing it.
And so the age-old double standards continue. Daddy wants to watch lesbian porn to get mommy in the mood, but he doesn't want to see any men wearing a dress. I think daddy has some real disturbing issues of his own to contend with. And I might add, I don't think that they have anything to do with who or what I am, or how I present or carry myself in public. I think they have much more to do with all those pent-up fantasies that daddy was never allowed to explore as a child, and certainly could never allow himself to explore as an adult. That's the real reason why some heterosexual men feel THREATENED by homosexual men, my friends. Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply in denial.
-----------------
Gay Roller Ride
http://www.gayrollerride.com
If you build it, they will come!
*** This post was edited by Iron Draggon on 6/20/2002. ***
About five years ago, myself and a parter attempted to give a group of college students green eggs and ham for breakfast. Immeadiately upon sight, many if not most of them started to gag and almost up-chuck.
Were they taught early on to dislike green eggs and ham by their parents . . . no. Most had read the famouse Dr. Seues book and liked it (Insert - Heather has Two Mommies here).
Did their dislike for green eggs and ham mean that they were bigots . . . no.
Did they have secret green egg and ham fantasies that they secrectly wanted to explore becuse some peaked at others who liked to eat green eggs and . . . no. The majority left the room.
Because some peaked at others did that mean that some secretly wanted to engage in eating green eggs and ham . . . no more than wanting to see a car accident secretly means that one wants to be in one.
Despite their best intentions . . . the very thought of seeing someone eat the stuff made them sick to their stomach and in some cases just seeing the event caused a need to talk about what happened (insert therapy here).
Nor did most of them have to experiment with green eggs and ham to know they did not like green eggs and ham, no matter what the "Sam I Ams" told them.
But in the majority of cases, most students did not want to see green eggs and ham while sitting down for breakfast, especially if they were paying for their meal. They actually had an expectation of what to expect when they sat down to eat. They were not going to seperate themselves from their friends who did like green eggs and ham. But they did not want to eat breakfast with them while they ate their green eggs and ham.
But why was green eggs and ham so revolting to them?
Did the fact that it almost make them barf on those who ate green eggs and ham mean that their strong adverse reaction was a deliberate attempt to get back at those who ate geen eggs and ham therefore making them green-egg-a-phobics . . . . no.
Green eggs and ham for the most part do not occur naturally in the food we eat. (Spare me the animal studies . . . the majority of all animals mate with the opposite sex and give birth that way, or else by default the species would cease to exist).
The color green on food is usually a sign that something is seriously wrong. For the students, their natural tendency to not want to become sick is the natural desire for self-preservation. Such a desire causes an adverse reaction in the body so as not to expose the body to that which may be harmful. (The desire to exercise wisdom in eating does not classify one as a type of phobic).
I realize that dropping off of a three-hundred foot hills at over 90 miles per hour does not exist naturally as well. Most of my family think it odd that I like this. So I come to an amusemant park to experience that particular oddity in life. But I do not force my family members to come along with me for the ride because I have too much respect for who they are.
To all of you "Sam I Ams" out there, there are other oddites in life that I have no desire to experience. And yes to come full circle, I and the majority of others find such practices disturbing. No one is denying your right to experience those oddities or your right to frequent an amusement park or any other place of business. But is an amusement park really the most appropriate place to practice such behavior knowing in advance what the reactions of others will be?
So to sum it all up, when I sit dow for breakfast, I like to eat where I know that green eggs and ham are not part of the menu.
-----------------
Not All Coasters are Created Equally
*** This post was edited by No Fear on 6/20/2002. ***
*** This post was edited by No Fear on 6/20/2002. ***
*** This post was edited by No Fear on 6/20/2002. ***
I and the majority of others find such practices disturbing.
That is without question the stupidest and most arrogant thing I've ever read (and I've said some pretty arrogant things). At what point did anyone make you a spokesperson for the "majority?"
Your analogy is terrible. The difference between food and sexuality (and in this case, it's not strictly a matter of sexuality in the first place) is so insanely not in the realm of being similar. Many psychologists would agree that no one is 100% "straight," only that societal boundries insist that one only "plays for the home team."
I read an interesting paper that showed a surprising number of college students (especially women) have experimented in bisexual encounters. Only a small percentage of those ever repeat the experience, and even fewer come to a realization that they're actually homosexual. The point? When all the rules are off after leaving the nest, many people try things out of curiousity. In the end, as the paper indicated, it may lead to disinterest in any further encounters, but at least those people can be sure, having tried it, of their sexuality. Can you be that sure?
What's natural and your perception of nature are two different things. If you think otherwise, you're bordering on megalomania.
And remember, Sam eventually ate the green eggs in ham.
-----------------
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"
You must be logged in to post
