In a country where movie violence and gore is the norm, and where boys are encouraged to prove their masculinity with firearms and conflict, and children as young as 14 are recruited for the Junior ROTC Military program... in a country where the indoctrination of patriotic atrocities and criminal aggression is the norm, someone please tell me why we make such a big deal about a guy wearing a skirt.
The transgender mayor of Silverton, Oregon, Stu Rasmussen who identifies as a heterosexual male came under fire due to his wardrobe selection when speaking to a bunch of teenagers this week. Apparently, the same kids who are old enough to play video games in which people's heads are blown off and criminal behavior such as car theft, assault and murder are rewarded, would be thoroughly traumatized by viewing the legs of a transgender person. Stu is a rare bird: he goes by male pronouns and does not identify as gay; apparently, he simultaneously identifies as male and female. He gets a lot of heat from both sides of the fence who would prefer to be able to pigeon-hole him into one classification or another. Due to the ambiguity of his preferences, it is a bit difficult to know how to refer to him – as a female or a male – but, as previously stated, he goes by male pronouns, and I respect his clarification on the matter. It is upsetting to transgenders, gays, and straight people all across the board that they cannot place him into a neat, fitted, premade category. It is further upsetting to people who already dislike him that they cannot dissuade him from wearing clothing that reminds them of his less than typical status. All sides have been having a good laugh at his expense; the people on FOX News chuckling about needing a flow chart in order to better comprehend his identity, and debating the trauma that may have occurred had he “dropped a pencil” during the meeting (obviously, he'd have picked it up discreetly, as would any other woman in a skirt). They laughed about how the “basement” was still equipped; they continually reinforced the idea that since he still owned a penis, he was still male (a sentiment that most transgenders would - rightly - strongly disagree with).
There are two real issues at hand here: one of them is the persistent insecurities regarding the naked body and the other is hatred and fear regarding transgender/transsexual people. I'm not saying that, had he approached the meeting nude, I would advocate the exposure of his entire body to anyone, including grown men and women or even senior citizens. But to allow the issue of whether the clothing he wears is “appropriate” or not dominate the news stations and cause Bill O'Reilly to indicate that children need protection from the mere viewing of a transgender person underlines the obvious disparities in logic and judgement that we have as a nation.
Had it been Sarah Palin, we'd have likely laughed at her and called her a whore. This was instead practically turned into a national security issue. Bill-O and others could barely contain themselves as they saw what looked like a window to openly criticize someone whom they hold in such contempt simply due to their lifestyle or proclivities. The media, and even your average Joe Blogger, pounced on it as an opportunity to trash the object of their disdain. It was kind of like when the democrats attempted to claim that George Bush was a bad president because he kept reading to the kids after receiving word of the terrorist attack. Don't get me wrong; he was a bad president, but not because he didn't tear off his suit to reveal his cape and leap out the window on 9/11.
Was Stu's outfit kinda slutty? Hmmm, guess it depends on your definition; to me, it seemed fairly “conservative-slut” if I had to put a label on it. Was it going to traumatize the attendees of the meeting? Likely not. Did he deserve a reprimand? Perhaps... but the threat of being knocked out of office? Over a pair of heels and a skirt? Meh... I think that's a little extreme. But then again, I guess I'm just biased.
