Crossdressers-Haven.com

I was not really sure where to post this, and if it has already been posted, my apologies. . .

https://screen.yahoo.com/popular/dmv-fo ... 22481.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Given the fact that he is a minor child he could be not going through the SRS process - counseling, hormones, name change, gender marker change, etc. - so right now he is just a 16-year old minor male child who likes to wear makeup. Pursuant to the SC DMV policies and procedures a guy wearing makeup is doing so to disguise his appearance and that is not permitted; females are expected to wear makeup, males are not.

Other than makeup and clothes Chase is still a male, and you will note that his mother always referred to Chase as "he" and "my son" - not once did she refer to Chase in the feminine form as 'she' or 'my daughter', and Chase himself said he is just a 'gender non-conformist' who is still trying to figure everything out. You will also note that if/when Chase does choose to go down the SRS path and all that entails - including getting the gender marker changed - the SC DMV will allow a DL photo complete with makeup as permitted by SC law.

Therefore, at this point in time the DMV was correct in making him re-take his DL photo without the makeup.


- SL

I agree with Chase and her mother completely. Women wear make-up when they get their passport photos taken so what the difference, especially in chases case as it didn't alter her appearance. You could identify chase with or without make-up, not like she was alternating her appearance, good luck to chase, she well on her way of being a beautiful young lady, if chase was trying to look more masculine then she would be altering her appearance. Good to see younge people with such big courage and determination. cudoos to you Chase. ty Wesley for showing us this.

Chase is a cutie, eh? The regimentarians at the DMV should lighten up. This a double standard based on narrow-minded medieval thinking. Make-up OK for women, not men?

This is an interesting and fascinating case of individual rights bumping into other rights. On the one hand, Silverlady legal point is, in my humble opinion correct, HOWEVER. . .

Chase still has freedom of expression. Where exactly does the state draw the line. I would submit that the issue is vague at the least. Let's consider a few examples:

Men have been wearing hair long for some time. If a man with long hair elects to have a discernibly feminine cut, is he "attempting to disguise his appearance? What if he wears long bangs in front that obscure 3% of his face. . what about 5 or 10%? Where is the line drawn.

Suppose you/me/we are in the 14 to 18 age range, and we have a bad case of acne. Clearasil comes in clear and tinted varieties. If my skin is very light, how much cover may I legally use 5% 10%. .

What about the case of equal treatment? We all know GG's can alter their appearance significantly with makeup. Is there an edict that women may not be photographed with makeup? How do you discern the acceptable amount of makeup before a woman starts to "disguise" her appearance?

What if the person has had a horrible and disfiguring accident or injury and has a significant prosthetic to their face? Is it permissible to wear it as it significantly alters ones appearance, or should you be required to remove it?

What if someone enjoys wearing a light breezy blouse instead of a work shirt, uniform or other "Gender specific" clothing? Permissible? It could cause confusion. . . especially if the person has long hair. . .

What about "wearing a rug," if you will. . .

My presumption is that "makeup" allows for cosmetics such as lipstick or powder applied to the face, used to enhance or alter the appearance.

Disguise implies, "a means of altering one's appearance or concealing one's identity."

So the crux of the argument would come down to intent. Is the person in question attempting to conceal ones identity or just improve their appearance?

Looking at Chase, he has not attempted to conceal his identity. It was easy to see they two images were one and the same person.

I wish I were that cute and that young!

Addendum: I just spent a few minutes perusing the SC DMV site for posted rules or directives. .

http://www.scdmvonline.com/dmvnew/defau ... tification" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.scdmvonline.com/dmvnew/defau ... er_license" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.scdmvonline.com/dmvnew/defau ... OldDrivers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't see mention of any such rule. (Not to say there is not such a rule, but it is not explicitly and clearly spelled out on the official page.

SC Laws: TITLE 56. MOTOR VEHICLES CHAPTER 1. DRIVER'S LICENSE
Makes no mention of how one is to appear in a drivers license photo.

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t56c001.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Apparently, according to the South Carolina DMV's photo policy (which no one seems to be able to produce), updated in 2009:

"At no time will 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."

If he wears makeup all the time, then his photo won't match his appearance anyway, since his photo won't be of him in makeup.

Here is the latest. . .

http://news.yahoo.com/teen-sues-dmv-bei ... 05963.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

not there anymore.

Re read the article, this one really has nothing to ad and seems a reprint.

Sorry All. .. .

http://transgenderlegal.org/headline_show.php?id=490" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

September 2, 2014 - TLDEF today filed a federal lawsuit against the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles on behalf of a 16-year-old gender non-conforming teen who was targeted for discrimination last March.