Ban of transgender women at local clubs.

Reader Mark wrote to us with an unpublished letter to the Straits Time Forum written by his friend, SM. The letter seeks clarification from the people at Zouk on an apparent blanket ban on transgender women at the establishment's Velvet Underground: (dated 21 Jul 2009)

Last Friday night, my friends and went clubbing at Zouk's Velvet Underground. However, arriving at the club's entrance, I was shocked to learn that my transgender friend was not allowed into one of Singapore's most well-known clubs.

Upon clarification with the bouncer, it was explained that a policy of disallowing all transgender patrons applies, although only to Velvet.

These patrons are still welcome to merry-making in the other parts of the greater establishment, including the main Zouk club, Phuture and Winebar.

I would very much like to know why Velvet Underground has such a blatantly discriminatory blanket ban in place, that denies entry to a whole class of people.

A bar-ban may be an entertainment spot's prerogative, but it is usually applied individually to patrons who have without mitigating factors incurred serious transgressions that disrupt the enjoyment or prove to be a threat to the safety of patrons, staff or the environment.

Does Velvet Underground mean to suggest that all transgender people are disruptive or threatening simply by existing or being present? This belief has no justification. Zouk should know this from direct experience since transgender people are, under its own policy, able to access the rest of the club.

Also, by what criteria does Velvet Underground determine whether a potential patron is transgender?

SM

In his letter to us, Mark relates that he knows of "another big club frequented by Caucasian expatriates, at CHIJMES" that has a similar discriminatory policy in place. His understanding is that these bans have been argued to be "purely for the pecuniary benefit of their shareholders, and that it was within their power to exclude any (class of) people they deem unsavory."

Exclusionary policies are fine if indeed "unsavory" people are banned individually as SM points out above. The problem with a blanket ban, however, is a matter of ignorantly playing to stereotypes that are difficult to justify or in fact enforce. It is the case for race in a predominantly White countries, race in early education, race on the dumbbox, reasons for adultery and children of wedlock, what makes a feminist, and fat people.

In this case, Mark notes:

Firstly, all transwomen are necessarily made out to be sex workers [by the ban], when obviously this isn't the case.

Practically speaking, clubs have no real way of excluding other sex workers of any gender, except by doing it the good old traditional way--when someone gets reported, they ban the individual.

Just as how clubs can't exclude all cis sex workers, there's no real way the bouncers are capable of excluding all transwomen just by looks. This means that the management really only excludes better-known transwomen, or/and any (trans)woman who does or doesn't fit certain bills.

I make especial note on "certain bills" to maybe mean what transphobic feminist, Julie Bindel calls “fuck-me-boots and birds-nest hair”?

We at the barn are very disturbed by this, and fully agree that this needs to be aired. Not only so that, as Mark hopes, "everyone who gives a damn might consider bringing their buying power to more inclusive venues", but also that we can avoid places where the likely intolerant types maybe concentrate.

Voice Out. I encourage concerned readers to write in to Zouk to demand they change their policies: email them at zoukclub@zoukclub.com, or call them at (+65) 6738 2988.

Tell Us More. If anyone else knows of other non-inclusive venues, please write to us (email address on the side) so that we can compile a list.

Thanks to Mark and SM for bringing this to the table! You're welcome to party in the barn with us any day!!!