The Identity Tribunals is one of 18 stories collected in my e-book Crime and Punishment – Stories of Law and Authority, available for only $3.99 USD from my creator site. Purchases support the creation of new, free content! (Click here to view.)
In a quick series of court cases, women found their rights vanish.
The first concerned Amanda Blake, who while drunk one night had gotten a facial tattoo which read, in large black letters across her cheek and forehead, “MEN ARE SHIT DIE IN A FIRE”. When she turned up to work the next day, her employer fired her. She took them to court for unlawful dismissal – but the court held that the right to free speech didn’t mean you couldn’t be fired for profanity and threats in the workplace. Her lawyers then argued that there was an inherent right for a person to determine their appearance – but the court held that choosing a deliberately offensive appearance could be grounds for dismissal.
The next case to test the legal position was that of Jess Kay, who had deliberately given herself a dramatic facial scar, and been fired. The court heard that her position was that of a receptionist. A core part of her job was to make people feel comfortable visiting her company and waiting in its waiting room. The court heard testimony from some of Jess’ friends that they thought the scar was hot, and made her *more* attractive – but the court ruled that in a battle of subjective views of beauty, the relevant one to her employment contract was her employer’s, and if her employer found that she was now distressing and offputting she could be fired.
Next was Dionne Wick’s case. Naturally large-breasted, she had had a surgical breast reduction to take pressure off her back. Her employer fired her, claiming again that being attractive was part of her job, and that she wouldn’t have been hired if she’d had a smaller bust when she applied. The court had some sympathy for Ms Wick, but couldn’t see any fundamentally distinguishing facts from the case of Jess Kay. Dionne had chosen to get the breast reduction, her employer found her less attractive as a result, being attractive was part of her job, so her firing was lawful.
Finally, the case of Katherine Dyer. She had been hired as a lawyer at a firm that had a habit of hiring young, pretty, busty, blonde women, while going under the name “Kitten”. At the time she got the job, she had been young, flirty, wild, and a little bit slutty. She had worn daring hems and necklines, dyed her hair blonde, and flirted with the men outrageously. However, after an incident where she had been raped while out nightclubbing, she had changed her behaviour, wearing more concealing clothes, changing her name back to “Katherine”, and letting her hair return to its natural brown.
Her employer had fired her. They claimed that ditzy, slutty women were part of their corporate branding – they attracted clients who wanted to dictate their wills and trusts to a bit of eye candy and were willing to pay for the privilege. They said Katherine had chosen to make herself less attractive – including by changing her name – and was therefore in breach of contract.
The court agreed with them.
After that, the legal position was clear. An employer could require a woman to look, act, dress, and name herself in whatever manner they wanted, and fire her if she didn’t. And what employer would want an unattractive woman when they could have a pretty one?
It was a pair of conservative news networks that instituted the first “Identity Tribunals” for female employees, but the practice spread quickly. Twice a year, every female employee would be called before the Tribunal. She would be called upon to try on a number of outfits in front of the (all-male) Tribunal, dressing and undressing in front of them. They would inspect her naked body, making her cup her tits for them, spread her ass cheeks, spread her pussy. They would grill her on her attitudes to men and her sexual history. Then they would tell her how to be a “better version” of herself – and she would comply, or be fired.
Lauren Parkes, working at an auditing firm, was called before the Tribunal. They stripped her and inspected her. They made her shave her pussy, right there in front of them, and then made her masturbate. They told her she was frigid and didn’t get aroused fast enough, and she would have to take daily aphrodisiacs. Then they led her through the process of legally changing her name to “Ellie Jiggletits”, and scheduled her for the boob job that would upsize her breasts to match her new name.
Bethany Weller, a university lecturer, was called before her university’s Tribunal. She was told she’d bring in more paying students if she was more attractive. They changed her name to Bambi Kisses, scheduled her a boob job, and sent her off to a course on how to use make-up properly. When she came back, she found her new “uniform” left her completely naked below the waist except for a vibrating butt plug.
Alexandra Beatriz thought she’d be exempt from Tribunals because she was an elected politician. But a late night vote of congress sent her, plus a harem of other female politicians, out to a humiliating “electorate Tribunal” process, where voters across the nation were invited to attend the polls and vote on her appearance. She was forced to campaign for months for the right to keep her identity, but it was to no avail, because at the end, the electoral commission announced that the electorate had spoken, and she would now do her job naked, on all fours, with painful weights clamped to the nipples of her newly-enlarged lactating tits, and that her name would be Slutvictim McWhore.
Rachel and Evelynn Innes were identical twins. They had spent their whole lives trying to distinguish themselves, dying their hair different colours and getting jobs on opposite sides of the country – although both in the federal government. When an enterprising manager at the Department of Agriculture discovered them, though, he had them transferred into the same office and sent both of them to the Tribunal together.
The Tribunal thought they would be *most* attractive if they were interchangeable. It scheduled them boob jobs to bring their tits to an identical size; ordered Rachel to get a butterfly tattoo on her hip identical to the one that Evelynn had gotten as a teenager; made both girls dye their hair platinum blonde; and renamed Rachel as “Cunt” and Evelynn as “Pussy”. It sent both girls to work in the same workgroup, stark naked, and made it clear to them that they would be *most* attractive if they had a sexual relationship with each other, and accepted the sexual advances of all their male co-workers, and never corrected anyone who got them confused.
Within three months of the Tribunal hearing, even the girls had trouble remembering which of them was which, particularly when they were 69ing each other’s cunts in such perfect rhythm that they began to feel like they were licking their *own* cunt, but it didn’t matter because there was no meaningful difference between their cunts, tits, or mouths, so they may as well have been the same person anyway.
And for poor Stephanie Collins, who worked as a secretary, not only did the Tribunal find that she would look better with bigger tits, pierced nipples and a pierced clit, and that her name should be Bitchmelons the Cow, they also agreed that she just looked *prettier* with fresh cum on her face, tits, and dripping from her pussy, and told her very sternly that it was up to her to live up to that expectation, and if they *ever* found her without wet sperm on her face, boobs and cunt, she would be fired on the spot….