Cross-dressing debate

Feb 16, 2009 Editorial

Last week, acting Chief Magistrate Melissa Robertson ruled on a case brought before her that involved seven men who were arrested on charges of damage to property, theft, and “dressing in female clothing”.

It appears that, according to the Laws of Guyana, Section 153 (1) (xlvii) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act, Chapter 8:02, it is an offence for anyone “being a man, in any public way or public place, for any improper purpose, (to appear) appears in female attire; or being a woman, in any public way or public place, for any improper purpose, (to appear) appears in male attire…” The men were fined $7,500 each.

The magistrate’s action has re-awakened the simmering debate that has swirled for years over the intertwined issues of sexual orientation and invidious discrimination; and, for good measure, religious freedom.

Evidently, on imposing sentence, she felt compelled to inform the transvestites that not only were they “confused” about their sexuality and gender, but that they were “men” whose behaviour was a “curse on the family”. She exhorted them to, “go to church and give their lives to Christ.”

We declare unequivocally that the goodly magistrate stepped outside the bounds of her remit when she uttered this latter bit of dicta. As with all dicta, it is not the basis for precedence, and we hope that the comment will not serve to distract from the necessary national discourse on sexual orientation.

On its face, the fine on the cross-dressers was legal: the men broke the law even though there was some ambiguity as to whether they were so attired “for any improper purpose”. That the law is not applied to females who routinely appear in “male” apparel, such as trousers, and is thus deployed in a discriminatory fashion, only exposes the underlying biases on gender orientation.

This was confirmed by the magistrate’s gratuitous advice to the cross-dressers that they were “men” who were not fulfilling their “proper” role. Her recommendation that they seek salvation in Christ further points us to the source of her outlook – Christianity.

The Christian community, in fact, has been in the forefront in the opposition to the efforts of those who believe that it is discrimination against persons because of their sexual orientation, which is embodied in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

They fought against its inclusion in Article 149 of our constitution, and the pursuant anti-discrimination laws are therefore silent about such discrimination. In fact, the seven men charged with cross-dressing explained to the magistrate that “they were unemployed because no one wanted to give them a job.”

The sentiment against men who express “feminine” behaviour is very widespread in Guyanese society, even though traditional Indian and Eastern religions do not share the hard-line disavowal of such expressions as Christianity and Islam do.

In the ancient Indian epic, Mahabarata, a famous warrior is an open cross-dresser who does not elicit any opprobrium. In modern Thailand, there are national beauty contests for transvestites.

What was extremely disturbing about the wider society’s reaction to the cross-dressing episode was that no one felt it necessary to condemn the incident that led the police to arrest the men. Some boys were “interfering” with the cross-dressers, and after bottles were hurled at the latter group, one was forced to seek refuge in a mini bus.

Whatever one’s religion may say about the need for “men” to behave in a prescribed fashion, we do not believe that those religions deny the humanity of those who stray from the “straight and narrow.” Surely, our laws do not condone the ancient punishment of public stoning, or its modern variant, “bottling,” for “deviant” behaviour.

Modern societies now argue about human rights and responsibilities in international fora such as the United Nations, where the widest gamut of perspectives can be shared on the human condition. In 2006, a group of twenty-nine international human rights experts met in Yogyakarta, Indonesia and adopted the “Yogyakarta Principles” that were presented to the United Nations in 2007.

The principles outlined binding legal standards which are in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We believe that such a document should become the basis of the incipient national discourse. We are past the point where we can deny the humanity of our fellow citizens.

Latest News

Cross-dressing debate

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| February, 10th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Khalil, Pollard and Barker reign supreme as BCQS Int’l Masters...

Cricket West Indies passes historic governance...

Archery Guyana hosts thrilling 2024 National...

Prashad claims victory at the recently concluded...

West Indies & Sri Lanka top their respective...

Allicock, Amsterdam named in GBA training squad...

Features/Columnists

Are we better off today than we were before first oil?

OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus

Jagdeo on contract awards

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Cross-dressing debate

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| February, 10th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]