Display your b*****s in public? Can a pre-op (Currently male) transgender man expose his b*****s legally?

Question

I saw a transvestite man downtown in NYC wearing a tight top over his REAL b*****s. I wondered if he was legally allowed to fully expose his surgically created b*****s as he is still legally a man (I assumed).

Answer 1

I find this interesting as I have brought this question up before in other circles. It would seem that Zerk has the closest logical answer thus far. The key word is in fact exposure. Lewdness or indecent exposure is how it would likely be worded. I am a pre-operative Transsexual woman and would not dare to bare my b*****s in public for just this reason. Bear in mind that if the ACLU or other similar watchdog organizations wanted to fight such an accusation they would quite possibly have legal grounds in that as a pre-op I am considered legally male and hence why could I not do the same as any other male in the same venues where it is legal for them to be bare chested?  If we are to be considered female for one law why not all laws then?

BTW the person was not a transvestite as a TV does not do anything permanent such as surgical intervention. IF this person identified and preferred to remain legally male he is then a s*****e. If this person identifies female she is not a man nor TV etc. She would then be a transsexual woman.

Sharon

True Transsexual Woman and American Trucker!

Answer 2

friggin new york...

probably  

Answer 3

This is actually a fascinating question, from a legal perspective....

I live no where in New York but it is also perfectly legal for anyone, male or female, to expose their b*****s in my town. So the short answer is: consult the local "exposure" laws in your city, county, and/or state.

If you do happen to live in one of the many jurisdictions where it is illegal for women to expose b*****s (or more typically, nipples) but it is legal for men to do so, there actually isn't much precedent to fall back on. And again, if this trial actually came before the court, they would carefully study the wording of the exposure laws in your jurisdiction.

The trick here is that for all the laws we have saying "women can do this but men can do this" there's actually no legal definition of s*x! In trials where the s*x of an individual is relevant to the case the court attempts to address whether the individual is male or female for the purposes of whatever the case is about. Most frequently this comes up in marriage/inheritance cases. The case then seeks to define whether the transsexual in question could fulfill the "marriage role" expected of their gender (variously interpreted as child rearing, s*x, or love), NOT to address whether they are unambiguously male or female in the eyes of the law. Evidence submitted can involve anything from documentation of corrected gender, indicators of acceptance as their gender in their community, surgical and hormonal status, and so on.

In the case of indecent exposure, i strongly suspect that courts would interpret a transsexual woman (ie male-to-female) to be female for the purposes of not exposing b*****s if she had been on estrogen and/or had breast enhancement surgery. Since her b*****s would be perceived by most people to be typically female, and the law is intending to keep female b*****s concealed.

Answer 4

In New York, even a biological woman can expose her b*****s in public if it is not being done for sexual or prurient purposes. This was decided several years ago due to the fact that men were allowed to be topless in public but women were not.

Answer 5

He sure can. He does not even need to be a transgendered or pre-op. Just look around at all the large men exposing their man-b***s. Some men have naturally bigger b*****s than some women.

To me, they are just b***s, no big deal, and we as a society need to get away from b***s being vulgar.