Latest update September 3rd, 2026 10:25 AM
Cross-dressing explorers
The Parrot is vindicated for pronouncements on the abundance of creative humour here. I felt compelled to comment on the cross-dressing case that is still being talked and, in many instances, laughed about. Cross-dressing has been around since ever; however, not many were aware that it’s an offence.
Those who had legitimate reasons to traverse during the nights in the vicinity of a prominent cathedral downtown, would have seen individuals who were not reluctant to conceal their, sometimes good, attempt to impersonate a female and, by extension, their sexual preferences.
I say legitimate to include regular travel routes and the intention to have an encounter with the individuals referred to.
Even if one was not contemplating taking part in an encounter with these individuals, the individuals’ vociferous attention-grabbing mechanisms always succeeded in them being noticeable. Reactions from the conservatives include disdain and shock. The open-minded tend to see humour in the demeanour of such individuals.
Sometimes this serves as a legitimate reason to traverse the area. After all, laughter is good medicine. These individuals have been “plying their trade” for years, even though there were times when law enforcement would intervene to curb such displays.
This “trade” is illegal even though it might not be a priority of the force. Likewise, cross-dressing, better known as impersonating a female, is illegal.
What then could have led to some recently appearing before the Chief Magistrate to answer charges of cross-dressing? Whom did they have, if at all, an encounter with? Did they attract the “wrong” person? Was their impersonation that poor?
Whatever the reasons, I have to admit that I can only find humour in the story. Now, I am cognisant that some crimes were committed by males dressed as females. This is dangerous, since it presents a situation of uncertainty and makes identification difficult to the point of being almost impossible.
This must not be condoned. However, in relation to the case mentioned, the excuses given by the individuals are laughable.
In Guyana, some issues become “big deals”. I am not insinuating that cross-dressing is not a “big deal”. But the way some individuals (not those referred to in this squawk) and organisations have reacted to the case, I cannot help but ask: what’s the big deal? Guyana’s laws are clear on the issue; it’s an offence.
While the timing for enforcement may be questioned, it doesn’t change the fact that it is an offence. This fact should not be overlooked by those who are attempting to exploit the situation for self-promotion in the media. While this is a free country, it’s not a free country to break the law.
One reason for individuals to indulge in cross-dressing is to explore their “inner selves” and “femininity”. Those charged said they felt “nice” doing so. Another reason could be that they were “undercover” in an effort to ascertain suspected infidelity of their spouses.
In both scenarios, I believe that, if they feel like a woman, then do it at home; model with all the apparels in the confines and privacy there. It would eliminate accusations of being involved in a crime and being charged as they did. If they were “undercover”, then that’s a long-shot and a whole different story.
It would make for interesting satire. Being discreet may not be bad advice. How will this case affect cross-dressing? Let’s see. The curious one will converge to the area mentioned. Don’t call if you see my Uncle Adam. Squawk! Squawk!
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.