I would think the evil is more in the lie they are trying to perpetuate as opposed to the clothes they are wearing.
Exactly, but people perpetuate other "lies" in their lives, and bring those to Mass with them, such as living in invalid non-marriages, yet asserting to society that they are indeed "married". In that case, if they are normal, healthy, reasonably young people, they are invariably committing either fornication or adultery. Someone wearing dress that is regarded by society as the province of the opposite gender is only doing just that, cross-dressing. They haven't necessarily taken the patently immoral step of receiving mutilative surgery (which cannot easily be reversed) or taking medication to make them somewhat seem to be the opposite gender (which can be discontinued but remains sinful as long as they are taking it).
I think there is a big difference between what you describe and an obvious man wearing a dress.
But I do understand you have framed well what I believe is a slippery slope. Where exactly is the line?
Of course, that one cannot define the precise line is not a reason to allow something that is obviously wrong.
There is indeed a difference, and in our times, society has generally agreed that a woman may wear traditionally "male" clothing with no aspersions necessarily cast upon her sexuality, whereas traditionally "female" clothing worn by a male still calls matters into question and is treated with disgust by many. There are also cultural considerations. In Scotland, men wear kilts, at least in a formal or ceremonial setting, and these are held to be very masculine, yet they are essentially pleated skirts. And in earlier centuries, some men wore powdered wigs and, I believe, even a flavor of makeup.
My question here...is the TV show playing up laughs or are they trying to portray something that occurs with regularity?
Or worse, something the TV producers want to occur regularly?
Dressing as the opposite gender, for whatever reason, has been played for laughs throughout the TV era. In addition to "Ralph" Monroe (
Green Acres was a disbelief-suspending, quirky show with an abundance of in-jokes, and nobody thought Ralph was actually a man), and there was Corporal Klinger on MASH, who dressed in drag to try and get a Section 8, his sexuality was never at question. And let's not forget Milton Berle, whose sexuality was never at question either, far from it. There were also entire movies and TV series devoted to the theme, such as
Some Like It Hot and
Bosom Buddies.
All that said, my first impression here is my sticking point. It is a lie.
The difficulty is that is many cases, the individual has a real disorder, and the medical community has told them their only treatment is this lie.
So, is our cross-dressing church attendee intending to scandalize and lie...or have they been lied to themselves and are unaware of the truth?
Hard to say. In many cases, a cross-dressing man is still very obviously a male. If he has crossed the Rubicon of actually having his body modified (which can be very convincing these days), that's another story entirely.
I hope nobody thinks I am favoring men doing this, I just don't wish to make any more of cross-dressing, taken all by itself, than it actually is. It would probably be seen as more acceptable in cosmopolitan urban areas, than in the small towns of the heartland.
www.ncregister.com
