Op-Ed

A different take on the Valkyrie issue

To continue – even elevate – discussions on this, Outrage Magazine is publishing a different take on the Valkyrie issue, courtesy of Atty. Bruce V. Rivera who agreed to share his (in his own words) rants. “Cross-dressers and transgenders are human beings. As citizens, they are entitled to all the rights and obligations granted by law. The problem is how we define the meaning of discrimination,” he says.

Valkyrie cited for transphobia

Everyone close to me knows how I love my cross-dressing sisters. So I know my comment will raise eyebrows and elicit negative reactions. But this is the reality of the matter. Cross-dressers and transgenders are human beings. As citizens, they are entitled to all the rights and obligations granted by law. The problem is how we define the meaning of discrimination.

Is a democracy allowed to discriminate? The answer is YES. Provided there is a valid classification. Hence, private schools can choose to accept only male or female while some choose to accept both. We do not allow foreigners to own lands because it is only reserved for Filipinos. We only allow biological women to join Bb. Pilipinas in the same manner we do not allow them to join Queen of the Philippines. Those are forms of discrimination but they are allowed. Why? Because there is a valid classification.

The problem with our laws is that there are only two sexes, male and female, and it is determined by birth. Even with gender re-assignment, the classification has not changed. Is this sad? Of course. But from the point of view of law, you cannot discriminate something that is not legally recognized and defined. The same law that forces a transgender to write M to the question of sex even if the heart wants to write F.

If the controversy was about denying a cross-dresser the right to vote. Or denying a transgender the right to own property or denied the right to practice a profession, I would have taken the cudgels for the community. Clearly, it is discrimination when someone is denied a basic right as a citizen because of his or her perceived difference.

But this is denial of entry to an exclusive bar. Veejay will not be denied life or liberty if she is not allowed entry to Valkyrie because her right to party was denied. She can just go to another bar that welcomes her with open arms. A bruised ego does not mean discrimination. “No cross-dressing” is a rude policy, but is it prohibited? The answer is NO. Every business person knows this is merely a business decision.

READ:  15 Reasons Philippines is not gay friendly

Bars and night clubs are operated targeting a specific market. Some are open to everyone based on the concept of a free market economy. However, there are clubs that market itself through its exclusivity. It has a guest list. It decides who it allows in. It does not make money on the few nuggets of pesos by the common man but on the millions spent by the chosen clientele. That is business. These clubs cater to the taste of their target clientele and specified groups of people their clientele wants to party with. Sadly, most of them do not wish to party with cross-dressers. It is unfortunate that while most of us endeavor to advocate for LGBT equality, there are still so many of them who do not share our tolerance and acceptance. The harsh reality of business.

This same harsh business reality is the reason why clubs in Greenwich Village who cater to purely gay clientele turn away straight customers. Or a bar in Thailand that only allows transgenders and straight men to party while shunning straight acting homosexuals. Or a bar in Brazil that only caters to fat people. It is not discrimination. It is just business.

Just because there is a bar called Valkyrie does not give everyone the human right to be admitted inside.

ON JUNE 23, 2015, VEEJAY FLORESCA APPEARED ON ABS-CBN’S ‘AQUINO AND ABUNDA TONIGHT’

FOLLOWING THE APPEARANCE OF FLORESCA IN THE TV SHOW, ATTY. RIVERA POSTED HIS “LAST WORDS” ON THE ISSUE

I watched the Aquino and Abunda interview of Veejay and I realized that she was the Project Runway finalist (if my memory serves me right) whose talent is undeniable.

Let me lay-out some things at the onset. Was there damage? Yes, the feeling of being turned away is shameful and demeaning and I will not wish it on anyone. I had my share of being turned away in a breakfast buffet in a hotel in Manila because the hotel receptionist did not recognize me. She told me the slot was reserved for a school administrator and that I did not look old enough to fit the description. I intended to sue but the hotel was very apologetic. So I let it go. See, I was discriminated based on how I looked.

READ:  My life as a Maranao transwoman

Should Veejay feel bad? Yes. She has earned her status as a priestess of fashion. And she may choose to vindicate or be the bigger person and let it go.

Should the LGBT react the way it has reacted? Honestly, I think there was an overreaction. The community wishes for equality and acceptance. Equality can be achieved when the law finally recognizes our existence and our rights be given. Acceptance is another thing. We do not just want tolerance, we need to be accepted. When you tolerate, you do not need to like the person. It is merely an acknowledgment of our existence. When we aim for acceptance, there is a positive act involved because when you accept, there must be a favorable feeling towards us.

What have we been doing so far? Sadly, and this is my personal opinion, not very much. It is because the LGBT suffers from a perception problem. People do not take us seriously and it is in situations like this that we are losing sympathy from the very people who we want to accept us. We fight bigotry with reason. We fight indifference with humanity. We fight, but we should choose our battles.

I am a huge fan of Miss Rocero for breaking boundaries plus the fact that she is Cebuano (According to her Wikipedia profile, Ms Rocero is actually from Manila, though she is now an American citizen – Ed). But not all situations involving beautiful transgenders treated badly should there be a reason to wage war. Why? Because instead of gaining friends, we are losing sympathy even from our own kind. Miss Floresca can fight her own wars and we should not put the stamp of LGBT war cry because it worsens how people perceive us.

Let me enumerate:

First, a California license stating you are a female will only be valid in the United States. If Miss Floresca was American, the Civil Code will force us to follow how her citizenship sees her (as a woman) because status is governed by the nationality of the person. But Veejay is still Filipino. And as Filipino, we will have to classify her as male since that was the sex assigned to her by birth. Sad but true. Miss Rocero, being American, can insist she is a woman, but Miss Floresca cannot.

READ:  Love-love: 'Fly high if you feel like flying'

Second, at mag-ta-Tagalog ako para maintindihan ng lahat. ‘Yung mga pinaglalaban natin, napaka-shallow. Karamihan ng Pilipino, nagugutom, salat sa buhay at pagod sa pagbabanat sa buto. Tapos maririnig nila na galit na galit tayo kasi may isang kakosa natin na hindi pinapasok sa mamahaling club. Naman! Maghanap tayo ng situation na yung isang beki ay tinanggal sa trabaho, hindi tinanggap sa trabaho kahit qualified, hindi binentahan ng gamot or di kaya binugbog dahil bakla. Then the common man can relate and sympathize. But when our battle cry is… boo hoo, hindi kami pinapasok sa bar, hindi kami tao kasi hindi kami pinayagang maging masaya at mag-party. Sa isang ordinaryong Pilipino na yung isang buwang sweldo ay katumbas ng gagatusin ng isang beki sa isang gabi ng pag-pa-party, ang sasabihin niya… ‘Tang-ina! Hindi lang kayo napapasok, hindi na tao agad. Eh kami nga walang makain.’

I am not saying we stop fighting for equality and acceptance. What I am trying to tell you and I am risking my life and limb for being too outspoken about this is:

Hindi tayo tira lang ng tira. Away lang ng away. Patulan lahat at discrimination agad. Kasi sa totoo lang, pati babae at lalake biktima din ng discrimination. Siguradong mas madaming babae at lalake ang hindi pinapasok sa club na yan kesa sa beki. Mas madaming straight ang hindi nakapasok sa mga tindahang napasukan natin dahil wala silang pera, hindi nakakain ng kinakain natin dahil salat sila sa buhay. Naging masyado tayong maselan. Nagiging paandar at pag-i-inarte na. Let us be relevant. Let our advocacy have essence. Hindi yung parade lang tayo ng parade, mag-sponsor ng inuman at naka-itim or puti or pink ang lahat ng a-attend at awayin sa social media ang lahat ng galit sa atin.

Because the only way to be accepted, is when people will see our similarities rather than our differences.

How does this story make you feel?
  • Fascinated
  • Happy
  • Sad
  • Angry
  • Bored
  • Afraid
16 Comments

16 Comments

  1. Pingback: 5 Reasons why you should head to the nearest gay bar - Outrage Magazine | Outrage Magazine

  2. Pingback: Outrage Magazine launches #KaraniwangLGBT - Outrage Magazine | Outrage Magazine

  3. Pingback: Finding Veejay Floresca - Outrage Magazine | Outrage Magazine

  4. Mark Austria

    Jun 29, 2015 at 9:41 pm

    Oh my God. Your ignorance of the law is astounding.

    I was arguing with you on the wrong premise. That you actually know at least something about laws. This is why you can’t come up with anything that has legal basis. And that is why you keep saying citing the law is fallacious when you appeal to it so that you could make certain unethical–and supposed to be illegal–actions correct and this article is infected with appeals to law .

    As I said, the law need not be moral! Get that inside your head! That is why, even though killing is unethical, given the right circumstances (like mere trespassing),it is legal. At least we can agree that killing is unethical right? And you would possibly back someone who did so legally. It is legal for a manager to shout and curse at an employee (without crossing the line of verbal abuse) for doing something wrong or stupid yet it is unethical because it embarrasses the person. It is legal for a head of a country to commit a crime in another country (Diplomatic Immunity) but it’s unethical. And the list goes on. Why? because the law guarantees to be fair and unbiased, no matter your moral upbringing or ethical conundrums. Laws are set in place to be the foundation of the republic.

    Do you want all laws to be moral? Good for you! But the reality is it’s not going to be ever. Because there will always be overlapping morals. Want constitutional examples? It’s unethical to not confess to a crime but it’s your right (The right against self-incrimination). And it’s also the right of the aggrieved to seek justice. You see the overlapping rights? This is why laws are in place – to be unbiased and to be the common ground. And if you’re still going to dispute my arguments because it is appealing to law, then we surely will be going around in circles for we have no common ground. And the reality is, LAW supersedes morality as common ground. Because the law need not be moral.

    We are going in circles because you refuse to acknowledge the law and its powers. That’s why if you still think morality should be the focus of this issue, then don’t read my legal argument below, and don’t reply anymore.

    First of all, this is why this argument should be discussed in the legal manner. Because this is a dilemma between the right to secure one’s property and the right not to be discriminated. Which is where Ayn Rand’s quote comes into place. The transpinay’s using of her right from discrimination necessitates the violation of the property owner’s rights. Both parties have equal rights (yes, rights have no ranking). But as you can see, the transpinay did not file charges not because she doesn’t want to but because she has no case. Simply because her right is the one overstepping its boundaries.

    Second, YES, Property rights! The same property rights that lets you control who enters your home! Have you even read the article?

    “Is a democracy allowed to discriminate? The answer is YES. Provided there is a valid classification. Hence, private schools can choose to accept only male or female while some choose to accept both. We do not allow foreigners to own lands because it is only reserved for Filipinos. We only allow biological women to join Bb. Pilipinas in the same manner we do not allow them to join Queen of the Philippines. Those are forms of discrimination but they are allowed. Why? Because there is a valid classification.

    To elaborate, isn’t it a human right to be educated? Then per your argument, since they are, not only violating this human right, but also the right to not be discriminated based on gender, they should be in the spotlight the same way Valkyrie is right now.

    And what Valkyrie has just done is classify their clientele, as it is their right as a private establishment. They are not a public establishment hence the velvet rope!

    [And what property rights of Valkyrie states that it can refuse a crossdresser entrance?] It’s a private property. And it is subject to the protection of the crime: trespassing.

    [So I’m asking justifiable on what grounds? Policy? What’s the rationale behind the policy?] Justifiable on the grounds of property rights. Which you so conveniently dismissed because of morality. Rationale behind property rights? What you’re arguing is that property rights should be trampled and make way for freedom from discrimination. But property rights are generally free from loopholes. While freedom from discrimination is full of loopholes. Why? Because freedom from discrimination is broad.Too broad. That’s why giving a precedent on the matter is usually stricken down for reason of overstepping its boundaries.

    For you to understand this, you must first get out of your shoes and recognize the other party’s rights. Because property rights even if you argue its immorality is still a right equal to every other right.

    [[Why is no one in the male and female spectrum charging discrimination to clubs? Aren’t their gender also a reason why they don’t get inside clubs?] Congratulations for making another red herring fallacy. I guess it’s your favorite dish.]

    And yours is accusations of red herring fallacies. Don’t you see it’s just begging the question and I want you to be the one to realize it: Can straight men and women file charges of discrimination? If so on what grounds? What specific law are night clubs breaking? You said freedom from discrimination is a human right. LGBT is new, sure, but male and female discrimination laws are in place since post ww2. So if you really have a foundation for your argument that backs up gender discrimination, where is it?

    • Peter Jones Dela Cruz

      Jun 30, 2015 at 7:22 pm

      I typed a long response, but what a waste of precious space. Valkyrie just lifted the ban on cross-dressing. Or so I read. So I guess arguing with you is already pointless. 🙂

      • Mark Austria

        Jun 30, 2015 at 10:29 pm

        Sure, but if you still stick with your principle that citing the law is fallacious , you will be haunted by it for the rest of your life.

  5. Pingback: On democracy, citizenship, difference, and the advocacy of connivance: A reply to Bruce Rivera (Part 1 of 2) | The Philippine Online Chronicles

  6. Pingback: On democracy, citizenship, difference, and the advocacy of connivance - Outrage Magazine | Outrage Magazine

  7. Mark Austria

    Jun 26, 2015 at 12:45 am

    Hello Chris De Vera,
    Honestly, You do not have a valid argument when you stated the club’s dress code policy. Leaving out a statement that loses your argument’s validity does not make the said argument valid.

    The statement is as follows: Any other related concerns will be dealt with upon management discretion.

    I’d say your argument just went out the window. If you still believe your argument holds ground, think about these:

    A man, dressed formal, got splashed by a roaring sports car just outside the club, dirtying his whole outfit with mud. Would he still be allowed inside? Probably not. Was there anywhere in the signage prohibiting muddy clothes? No.

    A woman dressed gorgeous but wearing make-up similar to that of a clown, would she be allowed inside? Definitely not unless there’s some cosplay event inside. Was there anywhere in the signage prohibiting clowny make-up? No.

    You can think of many instances that has no explicit prohibition in the club’s dress code but management would still decline entry. And they will always be on the right.

    Next, you will say, “But this is different. It’s not about solvable problems, It’s about a person’s identity.” You will have forgone your previous argument and introduced a new one. This will go on and on with you and the law will always crush you… until you pull out the morality card. Then you would have to read the article again, and you would still shake your head.

    Is it moral for the club to do this? Surely, no. But the law isn’t about morality. The law is the law. The writer was on the right track. The club simply has the right to refuse entry.

    It’s just business. Do men hold it against the club when we aren’t granted entry simply because we’re men? No, and we don’t cry sexism or discrimination. We know it’s just business. There are simply too many men in the club at the time.

    • Peter Jones Dela Cruz

      Jun 26, 2015 at 11:28 am

      Citing exceptions to rules is a dishonest and fallacious way of dismissing someone’s argument. Of course a drenched man with soiled clothes may not be allowed entrance because of sanitation reasons. A girl, on the other hand, who looks like a clown because of her make-up may not be allowed, too, but the validity of the reason behind that is debatable.

      You’re trying to divert the issue from a transpinay dressed fine and decently entering a posh club to an issue about people dressing awfully. Do not reduce the argument and try to misconstrue it so that the rationale behind discrimination in this case gets a fighting chance.

      Citing the law and the internal policy and discretion of the company to dismiss calls for fighting discrimination against one’s gender identity is equally fallacious. This is exactly a reason LGBT advocates lobby the Anti-Discrimination Bill in Congress. We’re trying to change the law that is either cissexist or discrimination-tolerant.

      It’s just business? You’re appealing to the norm of the business. It’s also fallacious. Just because you think it’s just business doesn’t mean it’s right.

      [Do men hold it against the club when we aren’t granted entry simply because we’re men?] Quit making red herrings like this one. Just because there are men who didn’t complain about being banned from bars or clubs or other commercial establishments doesn’t mean everyone else shouldn’t either. Just because you didn’t cry sexism or discrimination doesn’t mean everyone else shouldn’t either.

      • Mark Austria

        Jun 27, 2015 at 12:35 pm

        Hello Peter,
        As you probably read, I just replied to Chris’s comment and decided to focus on his argument. So now, I’m replying to you.

        First and most importantly, citing the law is never fallacious. The law is the law for without it there will be chaos.

        I dismissed his argument because his argument was tackling rules. And the rules simply were not leaning in his favor.

        Sure, I am diverting the issue of transpinay. Because this is not an issue of LGBT discrimination. For the law applies to everybody or none at all. And for you to understand this, I recommend:

        First, you have to reread the article again on what is the right approach to this issue. This is a simple denial of entry to a private property. As Atty Bruce explicitly stated, the transpinay was not denied life or liberty when she was refused. The constitutional right of the club trumps that of the imaginary right of the transpinay. And I will say it again, it may not be moral but it is the law.

        Second, you must first define and understand discrimination. Was the refusal of entry arising from the individual’s gender? Yes. But was it ONLY specific to one group of people? No. Men and women, also dressed fine and decently are being declined entry by posh clubs EVERYDAY. For it to have been discrimination, there must arise a specific instance that the rule is targeting a defined group.

        Now, you will realize and say “Yes, they are definitely targeting transpinays by not giving them permission to enter.” You would be on the right line of thinking but you will have done so fallaciously. For it is not because they are transpinay, but because they are ‘crossdressing’. It’s a loophole and it’s valid. Because there is simply no law stating otherwise.

        Next, and with the approach of Atty Bruce, “the right to party is NOT a human right.” Do you know the story of Manny Pacquiao and Manila Yacht Club? He was denied membership for personal reasons by the existing members. He cannot argue discrimination for it is NOT a human right to be a member of a club.

        You go in here spewing accusations that my arguments are fallacious in sense, while your arguments, having NO LEGAL BASIS are not? I gave no red herrings, you just saw it the way you want it. You only think it’s red herring because you see yourselves as special. Why do men not scream discrimination? Not only was it ‘just business’ but BECAUSE IT’S NOT DISCRIMINATION. Their right as a private establishment is superior to our right as individuals trying to get in. Because trespassing is a crime while refusing entry is not.

        LGBTs ARE NOT SPECIAL. Stop victimizing yourselves and start taking responsibility as a community. Pick your battles as Atty Bruce said.

        “Any alleged ‘right’ of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.” -Ayn Rand

        One more thing, if citing laws, internal policies, company discretion to discriminate is fallacious, then you might as well move to Somalia. Don’t ever go to a country that has LAWS if you just want everything to go your way.

        • Peter Jones Dela Cruz

          Jun 27, 2015 at 10:14 pm

          Excuse me, Mark Austria, but citing the law is fallacious when you appeal to it so that you could make certain unethical–and supposed to be illegal–actions correct.

          I disagree that without laws alone, there would be chaos. There are missing adjectives there. I would change it to: Without humanistic, reasonable laws, there would be chaos. Have you read about anti-gay laws in many countries in Africa as well as in the Middle East? Are you going to appeal to their laws now, and say, oh, persecuting and oppressing gay and trans people in those countries is okay because it’s according to their laws. See the major flaw in your argument now?

          The thing is, I read the whole article, and you know what, it is infected with appeals to law, red herring arguments, and fallacies of relative privation. So you telling me to reread the article offers a meaningless counterargument to what I said.

          I have nothing against Atty. Bruce, but I completely disagree with what he said.

          Why are you trying to qualify discrimination in this case? Why are you saying that this is simply refusing someone to party? That is misconstruing it. That is misrepresenting the situation so you could dismiss it as unimportant. You’re attacking a strawman, Mark.

          [You only think it’s red herring because you see yourselves as special.] Lay off the ad hominem fallacy. If you missed why your arguments are red herring fallacies, then it’s your problem, not mine.

          Stop citing issues unrelated to this one.

          I agree that LGBT people are not special. Who’s saying we are? That’s not the argument here. Please stop disgressing.

          [“Any alleged ‘right’ of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.” -Ayn Rand] EXACTLY! The “right” to discriminate against crossdressers and transgenders is a questionable, debatable right that I argue is not and cannot be a right! The right to not be discriminated against on the basis of my gender identity is a basic human right!

          Excuse me, but your last paragraph is a desperate reductio ad absurdum. Guess what, laws can and should be challenged when they are unreasonable and partial. But guess what again, we’re not only talking about existing laws that should be challenged in this case; we’re also talking about laws that don’t exist, but should.

          • Mark Austria

            Jun 28, 2015 at 4:34 pm

            So now who’s using fallacious arguments?

            [The right to discriminate?] Nobody said anything about the right to discriminate. Valkyrie’s rights were property rights! (AS I’M SAYING AGAIN AND AGAIN but you just choose to ignore it).And if you have no counter-argument to that except for your accusations of red herrings, then consider your argument dismissed.

            [The thing is, I read the whole article, and you know what, it is infected with appeals to law] And herein lies your problem. You still argue that law is not to be taken seriously. Or I don’t know, that in cases of LGBT discrimination the law means nothing? Don’t you see!? You want to pass an anti-discrimination law and yet you don’t even want to abide by any laws? You still have NO LEGAL BASIS! And yet you come back here disputing everything this article says and what I’m saying with what? Just because you disagree?

            I’ve already told Chris and you already read it. YOU WILL GO ON AND ON WITH THIS AND THE LAW WILL ALWAYS CRUSH YOU! What I’m saying here and stipulating is not what I believe but what the LAW states. You don’t even have the foundation of an argument!

            You need a good smack to the face to WAKE UP!

            Form your argument with an effin’ foundation rather than some red herring accusations. And for the record in the eyes of the law, your arguments are what constitutes as red herring and cherry-picking. For the fact of the case is: A transgender was refused entry due to the dress-code policy, under management discretion which they, as a private entity, has the right to impose.

            Tell me, and if you’re going to reply to this unproductive discussion, you better start with this.
            1 How is a discrimination issue top that of a property rights issue? Will discrimination hold any ground against the rights of the establishment?
            2 If you pass any anti-discrimination law, will Valkyrie still have the right to block anyone who wants to enter? Did you even think of anything, with the anti-discrimination law that the LGBT is proposing, that prohibits instances like these from happening again? If so, will it force Valkyrie to accept any transgender to just waltz in to their place and they have no say about it?
            Just think about it. If an anti-discrimination law is passed, what will stop Valkyrie from explicitly stating that crossdressing is not allowed? Will they be prosecuted? Will they face charges? I very well know the answer is NO. Because again: “Any alleged ‘right’ of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.” -Ayn Rand

            You know why I resorted to ad hominem attacks and the likes? Because you don’t have ANY argument other than ‘you disagree’. And I will not defend the law for the law needs no defending. You either abide by it or get the hell out.

          • Mark Austria

            Jun 28, 2015 at 4:44 pm

            One more thing, If this is an issue of discrimination, then why are the parties involved not filing any charges? You may say, “Oh that’s because there are still no LGBT discrimination laws in place” Okay, then why is no one in the male and female spectrum charging discrimination to clubs? Aren’t their gender also a reason why they don’t get inside clubs? Again because you think you’re so special and use your gender identity to strong-arm establishments to give what you want. And I so want you answering this argument so much to stop your useless bickering. So I will say it again.

            “Why is no one in the male and female spectrum charging discrimination to clubs? Aren’t their gender also a reason why they don’t get inside clubs?”

        • Peter Jones Dela Cruz

          Jun 29, 2015 at 12:32 am

          Property rights? Are you seriously saying we’re discussing property rights? And what property rights of Valkyrie states that it can refuse a crossdresser entrance? I’m sorry but that reasoning isn’t even valid to need a counterargument for it to be dismissed.

          [Or I don’t know, that in cases of LGBT discrimination the law means nothing?]

          Let me remind you that it wasn’t I who discouraged the fight against discrimination in this particular issue. So I don’t understand why you’re asking me this question. Maybe you didn’t understand what an “appeal to law” means. It’s a logical fallacy that happens when you say something is right/wrong because the law says so. Something maybe illegal or legal, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s ethical or reasonable. With all due respect, I presented situations with regard to this in my previous comment.

          [You want to pass an anti-discrimination law and yet you don’t even want to abide by any laws? You still have NO LEGAL BASIS!]

          Excuse me! Where in my comments did I mention not abiding laws? Criticizing laws or the non-existence of laws is not tantamount to not abiding by laws. I have no legal basis for what exactly? For saying that it is wrong for an establishment to ban transgenders and crossdressers? Didn’t I specifically mention this is why we’re supporting the Anti-Discrimination Bill?

          We’re just going around in circles here because you are recycling your fallacious arguments.

          [A transgender was refused entry due to the dress-code policy, under management discretion which they, as a private entity, has the right to impose.]

          This is exactly the core of your argument that I think is seriously fallacious. The dress code policy is unreasonably discriminatory. There is absolutely no valid rationale behind this dress code policy. But you can present some in the company’s defense if you can cite them.

          [1 How is a discrimination issue top that of a property rights issue? Will discrimination hold any ground against the rights of the establishment?]

          Excuse me, but freedom from discrimination is a basic HUMAN RIGHT. Now you may argue as you have argued that discrimination is justifiable in this case. So I’m asking justifiable on what grounds? Policy? What’s the rationale behind the policy? Therein lies the answer to whether your appeals to policy are reasonable or not.

          [2 If you pass any anti-discrimination law, will Valkyrie still have the right to block anyone who wants to enter? ]

          The anti-discrimination law will keep public establishments from discriminating against race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, or gender identity. If you’re worried it would mean they would no longer have the right to refuse gun holders or drug pushers or delinquents entry, then you’re making a strawman fallacy.

          [Did you even think of anything, with the anti-discrimination law that the LGBT is proposing, that prohibits instances like these from happening again? ]

          An anti-discrimination law will not completely discourage LGBT discrimination, but it will certainly afford the victims legal options to uphold their rights against unfair treatment. Laws against rape and murder do not prevent these crimes completely, but it doesn’t mean they are useless.

          [If so, will it force Valkyrie to accept any transgender to just waltz in to their place and they have no say about it?]

          Yes. What’s wrong with accepting trans people into their posh establishment? If they can pay for their drinks and don’t do anything harmful, what’s the problem?

          [Just think about it. If an anti-discrimination law is passed, what will stop Valkyrie from explicitly stating that crossdressing is not allowed? Will they be prosecuted? Will they face charges? I very well know the answer is NO. Because again: “Any alleged ‘right’ of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.” -Ayn Rand]

          I think I’ve mentioned that freedom from discrimination is a basic human right and is an internationally recognized human right! It’s not an alleged right. And that’s exactly why we ought to have an Anti-Discrimination Law. Supposing it gets passed and enacted, it will penalized companies and institutions guilty of unreasonably discriminating against certain individuals.

          [Why is no one in the male and female spectrum charging discrimination to clubs? Aren’t their gender also a reason why they don’t get inside clubs?]

          Congratulations for making another red herring fallacy. I guess it’s your favorite dish.

          I assume you’re talking about cisgender straight men and women, right? If so, let me ask, has any cisgender man and woman been discriminated for being cis and straight? If so, why didn’t they file complaints? That they didn’t file complaints doesn’t say anything about the importance of discussing and fighting discrimination. And as I mentioned in my previous comment, just because they didn’t complain doesn’t mean everyone else shouldn’t as well.

  8. Chris De Vera

    Jun 25, 2015 at 6:51 pm

    Hello!
    I understand the article’s point that it’s the establishment is allowed to be exclusive to a certain group of people, HOWEVER, I think I have a very valid argument when i say that nowhere in their signage does it say or imply that cross-dressing is not allowed.

    According to the signage

    The following are not allowed:
    FOR MEN:
    Sleeveless shirts, tank tops, sports jerseys, hoodies, sports jackets, shorts, cropped pants, slippers, sandals, and open shoes.

    FOR WOMEN:
    Slippers

    Since they have no rule against cross dressers, they should then simply enforce the dress code.

    If they recognize the transwomen as women, the only basis not to let them enter should be if they’re wearing slippers.

    If they refuse to recognize the transwomen as women, then they should’ve enforced the Men’s dress code on them, and there’s nothing there that says they can’t wear dresses. Basta no sandos, hoodies, jerseys, etc. The management could’ve easily included “dresses, blouses, heels” etc., but they did not.

    So there really is no basis for not letting them enter.

    I hope I got my point across 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Protected by WP Anti Spam
To Top