One wonders if this is democracy – charging men for wearing women’s clothing. It is ridiculous, with all the constraints on public spending, that taxpayers’ dollars and the time of public officials should be wasted on farcical charges. What about rights of choice by an adult member of society, and who defines what dress codes are right for men, given the evolving and radical trends in the fashion world, where unisex apparel has attained an unprecedented popularity?
Several years ago there was an incident where a great brouhaha was created by the media and women’s organisations in Guyana in protest at the eviction of a female from a courtroom for breaching the dress code of the courts and wearing a trouser suit to court.
Today, even female lawyers are wearing trouser suits into courts, but some public offices still adhere to an outdated dress code and only recently a correspondent of this newspaper was exiting a Ministry building when she witnessed a guard refusing entry to a female of European descent, who was attired in a tasteful mid-length cotton dress, but with a sleeveless bodice. The woman was explaining to the guard that she was dressed that way for comfort because of the heat, to which she was unaccustomed.
How is Guyana to boost its tourism drive with these out-dated, out-moded laws that do not subscribe to the norms of other nationalities?
The guard refused to reconsider and unceremoniously ejected the woman from the compound of the Ministry, despite her pleas of time-constraint and urgency.
While one recognises the need to be dressed circumspectly as the occasion warrants, certainly in this day and age a sleeveless ensemble cannot seriously compromise the standards required by any institution, especially when one takes into consideration that dress codes have probably not been revised since colonial times, when anything shorter than floor-length skirts were absolutely unacceptable and would have scandalised the society.
However, standards in dressing were considerably relaxed (along with morals) during the war years, and trends in the fashion industry have taken circuitous routes and until today it is not considered abnormal for a woman to wear men’s clothing, especially those women who work outdoors and for whom such clothing is in keeping with the requirements of their jobs.
So cross-dressing is not static, and the boundaries are not delineated. If there is a law that addresses this issue then surely it should apply to all; but in such case the police would have a massive headache – bigger than they had catching the ‘Fineman’ gang, in determining the guidelines for such a charge, whom to charge, and what direction the prosecution should take in instituting those charges.
While this publication does not – in any way – advocate homosexuality, these sad fellow humans have the right to live their lives unmolested like other citizens. No-one in their right mind would choose the lifestyle of a trans-gender that would make them an outcast in society, but once their relationship is between two consenting adults and does not cause harm to a third party why penalize them? They are already sentenced to a lifetime of imprisonment in a body that is alien to their genetic identity. Isn’t that punishment enough? Why demean them further?
What is abhorrent is the flaunting of their sexual preference. One’s sexuality, whatever direction it takes, should be one’s private business, not open to scrutiny or discussion, unless it benefits the general good in educative and awareness exercises; and certainly public declarations of such liaisons should not be tolerated because it sends the wrong signals, especially to easily-influenced youths, whose sexual preferences could go either way.
So what next? Are the police going to invade the venues of theatrical productions and arrest actors who cross-dress for contextual roles?
Incidentally, the courts have a ban on females wearing red. Many persons travelling from far-flung areas have unknowingly worn that prohibited colour to attend the High Court in Georgetown, only to be restricted from entering the courtroom because of the colour of their apparel. Now how ridiculous is that? Worse than females being banned for wearing trousers or sleeveless outfits in public places, especially in view of the hot weather peculiar to most seasons in Guyana and our tourism drive.