|
Author
|
Topic: DMV Orders Gender Nonconforming Teen To Remove Makeup!
|
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 172589
From: I hold a Juris Doctorate (J.D.) and a Legum Magister (LL.M.)!
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted June 19, 2014 02:05 PM
  
Chase Culpepper is a teen who wears women's clothing and makeup on a regular basis. That is, until he was forced to remove said makeup for his driver's license picture.
WFXB reports:REPORTER: "The DMV says it does not allow anyone to wear a disguise in photos."
CULPEPPER: "This is how I am every single day, this is who I am and this is how I choose to express myself." The DMV says it will not allow 16-year-old Culpepper, who identifies as gender non-conforming, to retake his picture because it goes against policy. His mother is upset, too: She told WHNS "My government was telling my son 'you must conform to our ideals of what a man should look like.' ... I'm very proud of him.'"
"The card says that he's male, he needs to look like a male." WLTX spoke with DMV spokesperson Beth Parks, who "tells us the current policy was put in place in August of 2009. Parks says the policy is not up for review at this time." The Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund is supporting Chase, writing about the case on its homepage. "TLDEF contacted representatives of the South Carolina DMV and requested that Chase be given the opportunity to retake his license photo." But The Huffington Post spoke with the DMV, and chances of that happening are unlikely – the department again cited that 2009 policy, which states, "At no time can an applicant be photographed when it appears that he or she is purposefully altering his or her appearance so that the photo would misrepresent his or her identity." Culpepper took his driving test in March, but his story has just caught media attention.
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/06/19/dmv-tells-gender-non-conforming-teen-to-remove-makeup/20915761/?ncid IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 172589
From: I hold a Juris Doctorate (J.D.) and a Legum Magister (LL.M.)!
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted June 20, 2014 02:35 PM
Video also at the link.IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 172589
From: I hold a Juris Doctorate (J.D.) and a Legum Magister (LL.M.)!
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted June 23, 2014 02:07 PM
Might move this to Sweet Peas.IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 172589
From: I hold a Juris Doctorate (J.D.) and a Legum Magister (LL.M.)!
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted June 24, 2014 01:27 PM
Sending it over.IP: Logged |
Barbiegirl19
unregistered
|
posted June 24, 2014 02:41 PM
Okay two things. 1) He is a child and until he's an adult that's just how the system works I guess I don't know. He could legally change and then it would be fine I'm assuming... 2) I don't get why it needs to stir up more drama. I'm so sick of hearing about stuff like this. Why can't we all just be who we wanna be at home and keep it there, stop making it everybody else's problem. Follow the rules of society and call it a day. Some want these wars amongst the people and it's really upsetting. No way am I trying to offend anyone I really just don't get it and want to see it stop. IP: Logged |
DeepFreeze
unregistered
|
posted June 24, 2014 02:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Barbiegirl19:
Okay two things. 1) He's a child and until he's an adult that's just how the system works I guess I don't know. He could legally change and then it would be fine I'm assuming... 2) I don't get why it needs to stir up more drama. I'm so sick of hearing about stuff like this. Why can't we all just be who we wanna be at home and keep it there, stop making it everybody else's problem. Follow the rules of society and call it a day. Some want these wars amongst the people and it's really upsetting. No way am I trying to offend anyone I really just don't get it and want to see it stop.
Agree.
You can't even smile in my state. No hats, glasses removed, etc.
It's standard. I could see people arguing next that they want to smile because their "grill is a part of their identity" or some crap.
 OK that's my thoughts. Out before inevitable fight. IP: Logged |
ariestaurus
Knowflake Posts: 426
From:
Registered: Feb 2013
|
posted June 24, 2014 03:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Barbiegirl19:
Okay two things. 1) He's a child and until he's an adult that's just how the system works I guess I don't know. He could legally change and then it would be fine I'm assuming... 2) I don't get why it needs to stir up more drama. I'm so sick of hearing about stuff like this. Why can't we all just be who we wanna be at home and keep it there, stop making it everybody else's problem. Follow the rules of society and call it a day. Some want these wars amongst the people and it's really upsetting. No way am I trying to offend anyone I really just don't get it and want to see it stop.
People shouldn't have to change themselves because society doesn't "agree" with their concepts of what a man or woman 'should' look like. The way I see it, the police officer is the one creating the drama. The policeman could have just as easily let this person take the damn picture, couldn't he? What would be the harm, really? Regardless of the moral aspect, I think a driver's license pic should reflect what a person looks like day-to-day. IP: Logged |
Barbiegirl19
unregistered
|
posted June 24, 2014 03:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ariestaurus:
People shouldn't have to change themselves because society doesn't "agree" with their concepts of what a man 'should' look like. The way I see it, the police officer is the one creating the drama. The policeman could have just as easily let this person take the damn picture, couldn't he? What would be the harm, really? Regardless of the moral aspect, I think a driver's license pic should reflect what a person looks like day-to-day.
If he were legally a woman then it'd be a different story. He's not so that's why they didn't allow it to be changed. It's all for security reasons and I agree with it. If he changes and its legal then they wouldn't be allowed to deny him. We have legal systems and rules for a reason. Some people change frequently so that wouldn't fly with making the picture a day-to-day one. That's why there are guidelines. It's unnecessary drama in my book. IP: Logged |
ariestaurus
Knowflake Posts: 426
From:
Registered: Feb 2013
|
posted June 24, 2014 03:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Barbiegirl19:
If he were legally a woman then it'd be a different story. He's not so that's why they didn't allow it to be changed. It's all for security reasons and I agree with it. If he changes and its legal then they wouldn't be allowed to deny him and that I do agree with. It's unnecessary drama in my book.
Maybe he doesn't identify himself as a 'woman'. As you can see in the article, he identifies as a gender non-conformist, which is different than a transgendered person. Unnecessary drama from the police, yes. Take the picture and stop making such a big deal out of it. IP: Logged |
DeepFreeze
unregistered
|
posted June 24, 2014 03:22 PM
I think the idea is to have as much as "unnatural" things removed as possible. (no smiling because you probably won't be smiling if you are a suspect or detained) It's all just to make it easier to identify in the end. Those things can be easily removed.
But hair, etc is a natural part of your body. So they leave it. I think that's the whole idea.
For public safety in the end. Not to screw with your whatever you got going on in your personal life.
IP: Logged |
DeepFreeze
unregistered
|
posted June 24, 2014 03:36 PM
Whatever he is in the eyes of the law is what he is required to register as, period.
For public safety in case he turns out to be dangerous criminal and needs identified, or ends up murdered. They are not trying to squash his rights, etc.
Go about it the correct way and when the government recognizes him for whatever he is...
Done. But right now, he's a boy in the laws eyes.
Simple as that. IP: Logged |
PixieJane
Knowflake Posts: 9849
From: CA
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted June 24, 2014 03:39 PM
If he typically goes out the way he wanted to be photographed then making him conform to the standard that he normally doesn't would not be to more easily identify him. It would actually do the opposite, especially as if he was allowed to take his pic as he want then his ID would stand out even more given the listed gender with pic. Whether they insist because they're unable (or too scared) to think about what they're doing (that is following procedure in an unthinking way like robots and/or frightened of some unknown liability if they don't do it exactly by the book), or if they ARE thinking about what they're doing and hoping this will apply subtle pressure to conform isn't something I can say, however. IP: Logged |
DeepFreeze
unregistered
|
posted June 24, 2014 03:40 PM
Look at what you have to do for a name change. Stop whining - do it the right way. IP: Logged |
DeepFreeze
unregistered
|
posted June 24, 2014 03:42 PM
Guys, not what you think or what is logical to you. It's the government and what is logical to them.
How hard is it too just do it the legal way.
All it does is cause confusion and the legal system is well aware of this. IP: Logged |
PixieJane
Knowflake Posts: 9849
From: CA
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted June 24, 2014 03:44 PM
So it won't be confusing if he tried to get into an R-rated movie dressed as he normally does and he doesn't look anything like his pic?Or that it won't be confusing if his pic looks very different from how he looks when he shows it to a cop? IP: Logged |
Barbiegirl19
unregistered
|
posted June 24, 2014 03:48 PM
Then he better start using his mom to get in or look like his id. Or pick a gender and go with it legally. You can't just pick gender non-conformist that's not how it works. IP: Logged |
PixieJane
Knowflake Posts: 9849
From: CA
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted June 24, 2014 03:56 PM
Yes, I suspect that's what's going on. They're hoping to force an arbitrary conformity by taking his pic as they want him to look. That is it's not about security, it's about control, but of course the truth of it doesn't sound good so they say "security" when that's obviously a lie.Of course it's not how it works today, at least until it's challenged. Just because "it's how it works" doesn't mean "therefore it's right and should never be challenged." South Carolina history had a way things were done during the days of racial segregation but luckily that was challenged. Now this is challenged. Times change, and South Carolina will eventually adapt. IP: Logged |
Barbiegirl19
unregistered
|
posted June 24, 2014 03:59 PM
 IP: Logged |
ariestaurus
Knowflake Posts: 426
From:
Registered: Feb 2013
|
posted June 24, 2014 04:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by DeepFreeze:
I think the idea is to have as much as "unnatural" things removed as possible. (no smiling because you probably won't be smiling if you are a suspect or detained) It's all just to make it easier to identify in the end. Those things can be easily removed.
But hair, etc is a natural part of your body. So they leave it. I think that's the whole idea.
For public safety in the end. Not to screw with your whatever you got going on in your personal life.
So, why don't they tell me to remove my make-up when I go to the DMV for a picture? Make-up is indeed unnatural. I'm a make-up person. I go with a face full of make-up and they never say a thing. You seem to think that make-up makes such a huge difference in the way a person looks, that a person wouldn't be able to identify someone if they had make-up on. If that were the case, women would be forced to go make-up free as well. Why should I get to go in with make-up while he has to take it off? IP: Logged |
ariestaurus
Knowflake Posts: 426
From:
Registered: Feb 2013
|
posted June 24, 2014 04:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by PixieJane:
Yes, I suspect that's what's going on. They're hoping to force an arbitrary conformity by taking his pic as they want him to look. That is it's not about security, it's about control, but of course the truth of it doesn't sound good so they say "security" when that's obviously a lie.Of course it's not how it works today, at least until it's challenged. Just because "it's how it works" doesn't mean "therefore it's right and should never be challenged." South Carolina history had a way things were done during the days of racial segregation but luckily that was challenged. Now this is challenged. Times change, and South Carolina will eventually adapt.
Let's hope so! IP: Logged |
Barbiegirl19
unregistered
|
posted June 24, 2014 04:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ariestaurus:
So, why don't they tell me to remove my make-up when I go to the DMV for a picture? Make-up is indeed unnatural. I'm a make-up person. I go with a face full of make-up and they never say a thing.You seem to think that make-up makes such a huge difference in the way a person looks, that a person wouldn't be able to identify someone if they were make-up free. If that were the case, women would be forced to go make-up free as well. Why should I get to go in with make-up while he has to take it off?
It's because you're a women. He is dressing like a women and trying to look like one therefore giving the idea of him being one. He's a boy, a legal boy so he has to look like one in his picture. Gender non-conformist isn't acceptable when trying to get legal documented identification. Unless I've been hiding under a rock and missed it... 
This is so much bigger than it needs to be... IP: Logged |
PixieJane
Knowflake Posts: 9849
From: CA
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted June 24, 2014 04:13 PM
South Carolina is well known for its strong conservative, traditional stances so I'm not surprised by this at all.But fun fact, first cousins can marry in South Carolina as well (full recognition, children, everything). It may be the way things are done there but they seem to get upset when you point this out to them, at least if you throw in, "It explains a lot." IP: Logged |
DeepFreeze
unregistered
|
posted June 24, 2014 04:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Barbiegirl19:
It's because you're a women. He is dressing like a women therefore giving the idea of him being one. He's a boy, a legal boy so he has to look like one in his picture. Gender non-conformist isn't acceptable when trying to get legal documented identification. Unless I've been hiding under a rock and missed it...
People don't get it.
Law doesn't recognize logic. Its defined what is logic already. IP: Logged |
Barbiegirl19
unregistered
|
posted June 24, 2014 04:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by PixieJane:
South Carolina is well known for its strong conservative, traditional stances so I'm not surprised by this at all.But fun fact, first cousins can marry in South Carolina as well (full recognition, children, everything). It may be the way things are done there but they seem to get upset when you point this out to them, at least if you throw in, "It explains a lot."
I don't think we brought up marriage anywhere?  We are talking about legal identification right? South Carolina is following federal law in that aspect. The way a state marries varies in each state. So.....
 IP: Logged |
earthypisces
Knowflake Posts: 544
From: Greenville, South Carolina
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted June 24, 2014 04:19 PM
wow, I just realized this happened like 20 minutes from where I live lol but I'm not surprised. People here are ridiculous and very forceful about religion.------------------
My chart: http://i.imgur.com/N9w5x4Z.gif IP: Logged |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
