A World Without Crossdressing

Be careful what you wish for

Detail from The Garden of Earthly Delights by Hieronymus Bosch

Bukkake is a type of pornography originating in Japan, in which one kneeling woman is ejaculated upon by multiple men. The genre arose as a direct consequence of censorship. Japan had banned nudity and penetration in film, so instead of packing it up and going home, pornographers found a way to preserve the true spirit of pornography—the humiliation of women—without running afoul of the law. Films showing standard sex and uncovered skin could no longer compete with this hardcore but legal alternative, which only strengthened its popularity.

I mean not to suggest solutions for the pornography problem, but to illustrate how the cudgel of law often smashes everything except its mark. I could just as easily talk about how anti-drug program D.A.R.E. led to an uptick in suburban drug use, or how abstinence-only sex education results not in less sex among youth, but riskier sex.

A law is an intervention for an existing problem; it is not a terribly effective preventative on its own. In order to truly address society's most intractable problems, they must be curbed at the source. The social and material factors leading to porn use, or drug use, or teen pregnancy, must be examined. Environmental stressors, for example. Social contagion. Lack of meaningful responsibility. Poverty. When we address and correct causes, we can focus less on symptoms.

Imagine it's the future. Somehow radical feminists, who can't convince each other of anything, have managed to convince lawmakers to ban crossdressing on the grounds that it represents the public performance of a sexual perversion.¹

For proper enforcement, crossdressing has to be defined, of course. A committee is assembled to articulate exactly which clothing is meant for each sex. Dresses and skirts are reserved for women, obviously. Beyond that, it gets complicated. It's decided that men shouldn't wear heels that are pointy, or over an inch in height, necklaces with charms more than an inch tall, bras, lipstick, velvet or lace. What clothes are reserved for men? Women often wear pants and shirts indistinguishable from men's, so it's tricky. The panel can agree only on men's suits (women's suits exist, after all), neckties, bow ties, and cummerbunds.

Now properly defined, the law is put into effect. Musicians are the first to be arrested: Jay Z for his medallion necklace. Elton John for his platform boots. Marilyn Manson for his lipstick. k.d. lang for her suit vest.

Then homosexuals are targeted. A gay bar is raided; every drag performer is taken in, as well as a group of older lesbian activists who meet there weekly for a game of pool. Their bolo ties have been deemed neckties.

Lawmakers are overreaching, some argue. They're following the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. Others disagree. The law is meant to curb “sexual perversion,” after all. That's what the Bible calls homosexuality, argues a Christian cop, and even by its more secular definition—“contrary to accepted or expected practice”—it fits. For that matter, those riff-raff celebrities are living a life of decadence, too.

Now the door's been opened to fighting “sexual perversion” in the absence of banned clothing. After all, what's more important, the perversion, or its outward indicator? A conservative cop arrests a girl who's had too many boyfriends. A policewoman burned by cheating hauls in a married man dining with a female friend. Motorcycle bars are raided, as leather's a common fetish. Singles bars are raided, as fornication is sure to ensue.

Appeals will be filed, but not before people spend time in jail. And how to sort them out? Whose opinion of “sexual perversion” prevails? Christianity is a dominant religion in the West, so it's a plausible contender—proving many of the above arrests justified.

Meanwhile autogynephiles, like Japanese pornographers, have gotten creative. They're wearing heart-shaped sunglasses, ill-fitting t-shirts printed with anime schoolgirls, and pink high-top sneakers with glittered laces. They drape themselves in sheer and polka dot fabrics and wear tiny Hello Kitty backpacks. They've taken scissors to everything, slashing necklines and cropping hems. They've sewn ruffles on the butts of their short denim cut-offs.

Some want to stop these guys, but they can prove neither a dress code violation nor the sexual perversion such would imply.

“The clothes themselves are the perversion,” the radical feminists argue. So the new clothing is added to an ever-expanding ban list. Normal people grow weary of checking the list and fearful of its consequences. They let their wardrobes dwindle; drab pants and nondescript crew-necks become the norm.

Once vibrant and energetic young men and women—punk scenesters, fashion design students, aspiring musicians, vintage clothing thrifters—grow sullen, abandon their creative endeavors. Dating slows, the downtown walkway is cleared, fewer gather on Friday and Saturday nights, less pep in their step.

“You don’t need a list,” the radfems say. “When it comes to perversion, you know it when you see it.” But it turns out one man's deranged fantasy is another's youthful fashion experiment. Law enforcement devolves into mind-reading.

This scene seems familiar... ah, yes. It's pre-Enlightenment law, where single moms wear scarlet letters and “witches” are burned for presumed trysts with the devil. All it takes to be punished for sexual deviance is the right person's say-so, whatever their motivations, however disputed their claim. Moral authority is for everyone, especially the powerful, because crime is not so much an objective thing as something you feel in your bones. A sort of standpoint theory for authoritarians.

Crossdressing may decrease in this hypothetical world, if only to be replaced by its traditionally dressed but equally perilous cousin. But you will not be spared, dear reader, because you are not without stain in some busybody's eyes. Liberalism, with its “minimal intervention” by the law and its “freedom of religion, thought [and] expression”—however imperfect, however impotent to free us from every uncomfortable interaction—remains the shortest path to women's rights, human rights, and a civilized and free society.

1. This is an oft-repeated wish among a faction of this group on X/Twitter.