DMV Asks Boy To Remove Makeup

Well, search him online Chase Culpepper. You'll find pics and vids and he looks like a girl, not a boy. What's it say on his drivers license? BOY.

You get pulled over, you look like a girl, your license says you're a boy. #fieldday

If you have a picture of yourself looking like a girl on your license and it identifies you as a boy, it's going to be a lot less of a nightmare to convince the cop that you are a crossdresser than it would be if your license showed you as a boy AND your sex on the license was male.

In the first scenario, you're going to be able to explain to a marginally reasonable cop that the question has already been brought up and addressed at the DMV, using the discrepancy on your liscense as evidence.

In the second scenario, you're probably going to get taken into custody and fingerprinted to confirm ID, blowing your whole day every time you happen to be pulled over. The other option, scrubbing off all of your makeup, is also going to be very distressing (and a monumental inconvenience) for a biological male identifying as female who is trying to go about their daily life as the gender they identify as.

On the whole, it's just really, really inconvenient on a day-to-day basis to have to go through life looking nothing like your license/identification.

Without makeup, and with make up.


Without.


With.


I think if you saw his license without, and then pulled him over with, you could tell it was the same person.

For him? Probably. For a RuPaul? Probably not so much. The legal case isn't about his specific case so much as the legal precedent it sets, which will apply to genderqueer people who alter their appearance much more radically.

If that's the guy's every day appearance, that's what I'd want on his ID.

It has the potential for fraud. That's why they won't let him do it.

In what way (that couldn't be accomplished by the much, much simpler route of getting an ID as a male and then dressing as a woman to commit fraud)?

I've asked this question several times now, and have yet to see a satisfactory explanation.

I could have sent my brother to get my ID and they'd never know, we don't look similar, just they didn't know what I looked like before I got an ID. If the argument is gaming the system, they have their work cut out for them...

The story is getting more details as the day progresses. Yeah his make-up wasn't at all excessive. It's what ChaosX pretty much posted. Very simple mineral powder make-up.

I do stand by my belief that extreme cosmetic usage in which the individual is purposely trying to portray and alternate identity should not be accepted, but this boy's case is anything but extreme.

EDIT:

DMV Forces ‘Gender Non-Conforming’ Teen To Remove Makeup ‘Disguise’ For License Photo


The fact that The Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund is trying to go about this via the free speech route is key here. This boy is a boy, he isn't a transgender, no mention in any of the articles or even the legal group are they identifying him as someone with gender dysphoria, so he can't use the medical reason clause.

But as @Anesthesia said this sets a much larger precedent here regarding the usage of cosmetics at the DMV.

on the first point you were generalizing that criminals would typically act/think in a certain way when that's simply untrue, often crimes are performed spontaneously or out of desperation, then of course there are times that they would premeditate it but how often are these ppl really putting thought into what they're doing. this had nothing with the gender swapped license, i was simply stating that not everyone is some great criminal mastermind that puts alot of forethought into what they're doing.

on the second issue, yes it can go both ways, but the point is after said disguise is taken off that man looks like he does on the license, where as a person who basically has a "disguise" on when having their license picture taken has that said "disguise" removed they look nothing like what is on the license, which is where the problem lies. the license/state issued ID is a means of identifying a person on their base appearance for legal purposes, and thus should be taken as such.

and on the third issue, yes i do believe that is how it should be as again, this is legal documentation to identify an individual on their base appearance within reason of normal altercations (i.e. hair gets cut/grown, facial hair grown/shaved, etc.). as such if the person does not match the base appearance of the ID that will lead ppl, likely authority figures or ppl who sell alcohol/tobacco, to believe that it is not you and is a fake ID, thus defeating the purpose of the ID to begin with. yes with enough digging and looking into they could still find out you are who you say you are, but you're making a process that should be simple to address not so simple.

edit: after reading over some of the other posts, yes being that it was not dramatic altercations to their appearance this should not have really been an issue, but i also stand by the logic that dramatic altercations to ones base appearance should not be in a legal ID.

edit 2: also on how this can help someone commit a crime is the same as other deceptions can help someone with getting away with a criminal act. if the person looks like a woman in their ID that is what authorities are going to be looking for upon initial knowledge of the criminal activities by looking into their records and pulling up said info on their appearance. it's not until after they speak with possible witnesses or loved ones that they may find out he is actually a man and could have taken off all said make up/altercations in an attempt to deceive the authorities to buy themselves more time to escape.