I keep reading about the cross-dressing threat to our nation’s children, and I find myself wondering about the meaning of the term. I don’t think it’s inherently sexist language in the purely logical sense, but as applied, “cross dressing” almost exclusively means men dressing as women.
Similarly, the word “transvestite” is almost never applied to women. While there can be female to male transsexuals, women who dress as men simply are not called transvestites. If I saw a woman wearing men’s clothing and called her a “transvestite,” people would either think I was nuts or else they’d assume I thought she was actually a man trying to pass as a woman.
But regardless of what the term means, how big of a threat to our republic is cross-dressing? Does that depend on how many cross-dressers there are? If women wearing men’s clothes is cross-dressing, then I’d say we’ve already lost to the abject de facto tyranny of female majority rule (which probably explains why women wearing pants does not “count” but men wearing skirts does).
OK, then. Logic be damned. Cross-dressing is a guy thing only.
I looked at the bill people are complaining about and the section which pertains to cross dressing is gender-neutral:

“Nothing in this Act shall prohibit an employer from requiring an employee, during the employee’s hours at work, to adhere to reasonable dress or grooming standards not prohibited by other provisions of Federal, State, or local law, provided that the employer permits any employee who has undergone gender transition prior to the time of employment, and any employee who has notified the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition after the time of employment, to adhere to the same dress or grooming standards for the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning.”

What that means is that under the bill, an employer could not only prohibit men from wearing dresses, but could also prohibit women from wearing trousers — only provided that they were not undergoing gender transition.
I think that’s a pretty big loophole. Companies could in fact discriminate against transvestites of the straight variety (who do it for the sexual thrill) as well as gay drag queens with no desire to actually become women but who just enjoy aping women and camping it up. And they could even stop women from dressing as men — again, only so long as none of these people were actually changing their sex. (It might even nip in the bud the idea that it’s “discrimination” to make girls dress like girls.)
As to how many people actually change their sex, the numbers are pretty low. Estimates vary widely, but the closest thing to a consensus would seem to be about 1 in 10,000.
Now, I know they’re saying that they’ll soon be in every classroom teaching your kids, but if there are 6.2 million teachers in the United States, it would stand to reason that there would be approximately 620 transsexual teachers.
I realize that some might think that 620 transgendered teachers is 620 too many, but I don’t see how a group of that size could ever hope to come close to achieving the goal the “Traditional Values” people say these freaks of nature have.
Hmmm…
Speaking of traditional values, a good argument can be made that we’re lucky not to be rolling back the clock to the days of real traditional values — when cross-dressing was really inflicted on children, and boys were made to dress like girls.
But never mind that.
“Tradition” didn’t actually begin until the 1930s…..