Another case of white racism?

[thx1138]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/crime/detail?entry_id=91446 Man flies in women's underwear.

[Mayrah]

What a joke lol

[SammiValentine]

i can see that persons nuts!!

outrageous ;-)

[nonnonnon]

he's single, ladies

it sounds like they let it happen once but decided no more underwear showing.

[robertlouis]

i can see that persons nuts!!

outrageous ;-)

Of course he's nuts. Why else would he fly with so little on?

Aircraft tend to be freezing, so at least once he got on board his parts wouldn't be quite so visible.

[natina]

Lawsuits: US Airways Passenger Flies In Lingerie; Meanwhile Black College Student Gets Kicked Off Flight For Sagging?

The hypocrisy! A college student gets kicked off a US Airways flight for sagging his pants but this guy gets to wear this girly a** get-up without question?! Bra, panties, thigh-highs … and a choker?

Six days before a college football player was arrested at San Francisco International Airport in a dispute that began when a US Airways employee asked him to pull up his sagging pants, a man who was wearing little but women’s undergarments was allowed to fly the airline, a US Airways spokeswoman conceded Tuesday.

A photo of the scantily clad man was provided to The Chronicle by Jill Tarlow, a passenger on the June 9 flight from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., to Phoenix. Tarlow said other passengers had complained to airline workers before the plane boarded, but that employees had ignored those complaints.

US Airways spokeswoman Valerie Wunder confirmed she’d received the photo before last week’s incident in San Francisco and had spoken to Tarlow, but said employees had been correct not to ask the man to cover himself.

“We don’t have a dress code policy,” Wunder said. “Obviously, if their private parts are exposed, that’s not appropriate. … So if they’re not exposing their private parts, they’re allowed to fly.”

So, does that mean Deshon Marman, the University of New Mexico player yanked from an Albuquerque-bound flight June 15 at SFO, was displaying his private parts when his pajama pants sagged to mid-thigh level?

Marman’s attorney, Joe O’Sullivan, said his client had been stereotyped by US Airways as a thug, and that the airline was guilty of racial discrimination for asking Marman to adjust his clothes. Marman is African American.

“It just shows the hypocrisy involved,” O’Sullivan said after he viewed the photo of the cross-dressing passenger. “They let a drag queen board a flight and welcomed him with open arms. Employees didn’t ask him to cover up.

http://bossip.com/403223/freaks92380/?amp
http://bossip.com/403223/freaks92380/?amp

[Merkurie]

You should have seen him in 1962.

[Miss Aeryn]

apparently he's known online in CD circles as the "Terminal" and does this all the time. Oh, and flies First Class.

[natina]

hook him up with phobun aka trollbun

[natina]

Six days before a college football player was arrested at San Francisco International Airport in a dispute that began when a US Airways employee asked him to pull up his sagging pants, a man who was wearing little but women's undergarments was allowed to fly the airline, a US Airways spokeswoman conceded Tuesday.
A photo of the scantily clad man was provided to The Chronicle by Jill Tarlow, a passenger on the June 9 flight from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., to Phoenix. Tarlow said other passengers had complained to airline workers before the plane boarded, but that employees had ignored those complaints.
http://imgs.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/crime/2011/06/21/us_airways_3275x368.jpg

Jill Tarlow
Acceptable airline attire.

US Airways spokeswoman Valerie Wunder confirmed she'd received the photo before last week's incident in San Francisco and had spoken to Tarlow, but said employees had been correct not to ask the man to cover himself.
"We don't have a dress code policy," Wunder said. "Obviously, if their private parts are exposed, that's not appropriate. ... So if they're not exposing their private parts, they're allowed to fly."
So, does that mean Deshon Marman, the University of New Mexico player yanked from an Albuquerque-bound flight June 15 at SFO, was displaying his private parts when his pajama pants sagged to mid-thigh level?
Wunder declined to comment on the incident directly. Police have said only that Marman's boxer shorts were exposed, and his attorney said surveillance video would prove Marman's skin had not been visible.
Police arrested Marman, 20, who grew up in San Francisco, after he allegedly refused an US Airways employee's request to pull up his pants to keep his underwear from showing. Marman's later refusal to comply with the pilot's orders to get up from his seat led to his arrest on suspicion of trespassing, battery and resisting arrest, police said. The San Mateo County district attorney has not determined whether he will charge Marman.
Marman's attorney, Joe O'Sullivan, said his client had been stereotyped by US Airways as a thug, and that the airline was guilty of racial discrimination for asking Marman to adjust his clothes. Marman is African American.
"It just shows the hypocrisy involved," O'Sullivan said after he viewed the photo of the cross-dressing passenger. "They let a drag queen board a flight and welcomed him with open arms. Employees didn't ask him to cover up. He didn't have to talk to the pilot. They didn't try to remove him from the plane -- and many people would find his attire repugnant."
O'Sullivan added, "A white man is allowed to fly in underwear without question, but my client was asked to pull up his pajama pants because they hung below his waist."
Tarlow, 40, who was returning home to Phoenix after helping her mother move, said she had been shocked when she noticed the older man in blue underwear and black stockings standing in the Fort Lauderdale terminal. Tarlow said the man had obliged when she asked to take his photo.
"No one would believe me if I didn't take his picture," Tarlow said. "It was unbelievable. ... And he loved it. He posed for me."
Wunder reiterated the airline's stance that Marman had not been removed from the US Airways flight last week because of his clothing, but because he had failed to comply with an employee's request.
"The root of the matter is, if you don't comply with the captain's requests," Wunder said, "the captain has the right to handle the issue because it's one of safety."


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/crime/detail?entry_id=91446#ixzz1Q44UwLB1

[robertlouis]

He has to be someone's congressman, surely?

[Merkurie]

A Tory MP my guess.

[robertlouis]

A Tory MP my guess.

Brilliant! :)

My guess: beleaguered Health Secretary Andrew Lansley. I know his mother - she lives locally. How such a nice woman gave birth to such a feckless fuckwit is beyond me.

[Merkurie]

Lol!

[robertlouis]

Lol!

Mind you - check that face closely. Could it be William Hague in a wig???

There have been rumours.....

[Silcc69]

This guy didnt even have the decency to put a wig on.

[Prospero]

A risky business. What if his flight had been diverted to Alaska or Newfoundland.

[natina]

he could of been arrested

Oakland

Atlanta Georgia


http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/2010/05/05/crossdressing-still-illegal/
http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/2010/05/05/crossdressing-still-illegal/

http://oaklandlocal.com/article/cross-dressing-illegal-oakland-1879
http://oaklandlocal.com/article/cross-dressing-illegal-oakland-1879


Crossdressing Still Illegal? (http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/2010/05/05/crossdressing-still-illegal/)

Posted by helenboyd (http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/author/helenboyd/) – May 5, 2010


Who knew? Crossdressing is still illegal in Oakland, California, & has been for 130 years. Maybe it won’t be soon:


“These laws have a history of being used as a tool of oppression,” said Kaplan, Oakland’s first openly lesbian elected official. She said laws similar to Oakland’s have been “an excuse for persecution” against the LGBT community and people who don’t conform to traditional gender rolls.
She noted that police in New York City used a similar statute when they raided the Stonewall Inn in 1969, setting off demonstrations in an event that became a seminal point in the gay-rights movement.
In Oakland, the cross-dressing ordinance is not enforced and hasn’t been in recent memory. City officials also believe it is unconstitutional. But a report from Kaplan’s office noted that under the existing language, women in uniform working in the police and fire departments could be subject to arrest and misdemeanor charges.


Attention divas, daggers, dykes, sissies and studs: sashay shante, y’all. According to Oakland's Code of Ordinances (http://library.municode.com/html/16308/Book.html), your style is illegal.

Immoral Dress Code 9.08.080 has been in place since 1879: “It is unlawful for any person in the city to appear in any public place nude or in the attire of a person of the opposite sex, or in any indecent or lewd attire.”
In terms of concentration of same sex couples, Oakland is ranked among the top five major metropolitan areas in the nation. Certainly our city is as socially conscious as it is diverse. Yet shockingly, in 2010, cross-dressing remains an offense “against public peace and decency.”
I first learned of this wacky time warp while attending an Oakland LGBT Roundtable (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Oakland-LGBT-Roundtable/121063566660) meeting. Stephanie McLeod, pictured above,an intern with City Council Member Rebecca Kaplan’s (http://www.rkaplan.org/) office, created a slide show presentation which contextualized the ordinance.
The civil war ended and the 15th amendment was ratified. Population explosions accompanied the gold rush and the transcontinental railroad; the latter saw Oakland grow from 1,500 people in 1860 to more than 36,000 in 1880. As the railroad’s western terminus, Oakland experienced a rush of new businesses, new manufacturing industries and new jobs. Migrants from the south, and immigrants from China and Southern Europe, changed the demographics of the area.
“People who were not perceived to be part of the social ‘norm’ were marginalized and criminalized,” said McLeod. “Everyone is affected by this, not just queer people. If this law was enforced today, all the women on the police and fire departments could be charged with a misdemeanor for cross-dressing.”
Though I have been out of the closet for 18 years, I admit sometimes I avoid learning about atrocities of the past; I'm already overwhelmed and frustrated by present day inequality. But after McLeod's presentation, I got curious.
San Francisco preceded Oakland with a similar law in 1866. By 1930, most cities in California had dress code laws. From the mid-19th century, the state enacted all kinds of legislation against LGBT behavior; convictions led to forced sterilization, castration, indefinite hospitalization and life imprisonment. The law lumped child molesters and homosexuals together as “perverts.” Women suffragists wore pants in protest. German theorist Karoly Maria Kertbeny disputed the criminalization of “homosexuality” (a term he coined). Racist medical texts linked the idea of "degenerate" races with "degenerate" sexualities.
In the wake of immigration legislation in Arizona, legislation that enables racial profiling, can we afford to leave vague laws on the books, laws that are subject to the interpretation of the times? Political climates change. In 1850, the state of California outlawed “crimes against nature.” Before 1900, this mainly applied to public sex, rape, and sex with a minor. But the early 20th century experienced a heightened anxiety over visible gender difference in urban communities, and homosexuals were increasingly arrested for “crimes against nature.”
As McLeod emphasized, “It could happen again.”
Shush! What’s that sound? Is it the bang of 1,000 fairies fainting in disbelief, falling to the floor? Nope. It’s the vogue boom of butch-queens dropping into suicide dips, their backs clapping the ground. An elegant tranny lip syncs Mary J. “You can’t keep a good woman down!”


http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/02/22/world/international-uk-guyana-transgender.html?_r=1

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gy.html

I wonder if it is illegal for women to wear trousers in
guyana? And if they are very strict about the enforcement
would that turn regular cops into "fashion police"?

GEORGETOWN (Reuters) - A group of transgender men in Guyana have asked the country's Supreme Court to strike down laws that leave them open to arrest following a police crackdown on male cross-dressers.

Police in the tiny South American country, where both homosexuality and transgender dress have been illegal for decades, detained and briefly held six transgender males in jail last February on charges of "cross-dressing."




A risky business. What if his flight had been diverted to Alaska or Newfoundland.

[natina]

at 21:15 INTO THE VIDEO they talk about how it was a crime to masquerade.


An 1845 statute made it a crime to masquerade. Drag was an arrest able offense.

cross-dressing laws (including a 1845 law making it a crime to masquerade) ...


you had to have three articles of male clothing on not including.....see video



http://www.dragqueendiaries.com/blogs/category/gay-pride/stonewall-riots40-years-ago-this-month/


http://cinemawithoutborders.com/reviews/2205-stonewall-uprising.html

In the conformist 50's (think "Suddenly Last Summer") gay people were often sent to insane asylums by family members: the victims of punitive cures: aversive electric shock therapy, lobotomies, sterilization even castration. California's Atascadero State Hospital (known as the 'Dachau for queers') practiced a sort of experimental pharmacological water boarding. Confined homosexuals were driven mad in institutions.




http://cinemawithoutborders.com/files.php?file=cat_126/2010/JanFebMarch/ur3.jpg

[Prospero]

is that a picture by Weegee... love his stuff.

[phobun]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/crime/detail?entry_id=91446 Man flies in women's underwear.


If there was a thread on HA forum dedicated to that guy and old CDs like him, it would undoubtedly get A LOT of hits.

I'd wager that more than one CD chaser here shot his load after seeing that picture.

[Prospero]

You have gotta be joking Lady Phobun

[natina]

trollbun only likes inverted penis
everything else is gay

he is a gay homophobe

homobuns is a homophobic troll

[natina]

hey hey hey

whata got to say?



trollbun only likes inverted penis
everything else is gay

he is a gay homophobe

homobuns is a homophobic troll

[robertlouis]

If there was a thread on HA forum dedicated to that guy and old CDs like him, it would undoubtedly get A LOT of hits.

I'd wager that more than one CD chaser here shot his load after seeing that picture.

Sorry Phobes, despite the occasional sight on HA of disturbingly and very obviously masculine CDs, I don't think so. Christ, I really hope not!

[SFTB]

An airline is a private business in a public venue, the airport. What might be considered alright walking around Folsom Street Fair isnt in an airport. Neither people should have been allowed to fly. The folks that let the drag queen on should be fired. I dont think it is a case of racism as much as it is a case of someone too stupid to keep their job.

[natina]

its a case of disparate impact and disparate treatment

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=57469
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=57469