You may have heard the news a few weeks ago that the first openly transgender mayor, Stu Rasmussen had a complaint filed against him (his chosen pronoun) for inappropriate attire.
I won’t repeat the whole story, the Statesmen Journal, and Feministing (with a counter point) do a good job describing it all. The short, short version is that Stu attended a youth event in high heels, a very short skirt and a revealing halter top. The director of the youth event filed a formal complaint about Stu’s outfit with the city council president. News ensues.
Oregon’s Transgender Mayor
I’ve been stewing on this (pardon the pun), for a while now, quite unsure how to comment on this. On one hand Stu has tremendous courage running for public office as a transgender person. His self expression doesn’t fit within the ‘norms’ of the transgender community. He has breast implants, presents as a woman, and chooses to be referred to as “he”. More genderqueer, and less “crossdresser” or “transsexual”. I’m tremendously proud of the self assurance he has shown to overcome not just the biases of society, but even the labels the transgender community tends to use.
There is not doubt that certain news organizations will jump on any opportunity to reinforce biases. It’s not fair, but it’s the world we live in. Stu showed a lack of judgment when he wore a skimpy outfit to a youth event. Worse, his lack of judgment reflects poorly on all those in the transgender community.
Do We Thwart Self Expression?
Yet for all I’ve said about, it’s a thin line that divides “self expression” from “responsibility to a group”. Society tells us we cannot wear dresses and makeup. Are we just as wrong to deny Stu his right to self expression? Perhaps in fighting so hard for our rights we treat the rights of other’s as expendable.
Tell me what you think. Where is the balance between self expression and group responsibility. Was Stu wrong to wear that outfit? Or are we wrong to get down on our first transgender mayor for his choice of clothes?
The ladies who replied have it right, and I can’t add anything profound on top of what’s been said; just to agree.
No question, Stu Rasmussen has stepped way over the line on what’s appropriate for the occasion. It’s hard to believe this is something he does not understand. And that’s the hard part I have about his behaviour. By needlessly calling attention to himself, and surely understanding he’d get some complaints and bad press for so doing, he is setting back the progress all of us have been making toward public acceptance.
Is it all that hard for any and all of us to present ourselves as reasonable folk who want and need to fit in with and become accepted by mainstream society?
Is it asking too much of people like Stu to consider the PR damage they can create – - for all the rest of us – - and instead to try to fit in to the occasion, regardless of which gender they need to present themselves as?
Daisy
This is a very interesting situation. I feel I might have a bit of a different viewpoint about this being that I’m an older TS.
Bottom line for me, we have to pick and choose out battles and our rights. Did the mayor have the right to wear the outfit? Yes, but putting it bluntly where the hell was his common sense?
Just because we have the right to do something doesn’t mean it’s a right choice. Regardless of who or what we are we do have a responsibility to the community. I know that’s not popular in this “I’ll do what I want world” but it’s a fine pink line that we walk, especially being tansgendered and the mayor on top of it all.
“A wink is as good as a not to a blind horse”. My grandma!
Lori
Thanks to all the ladies who’ve replied! Phew, lots of interest in this area, I’m glad we were able to have a discussion to share each other’s opinions. Carolyn Ann expressed a point of view I’ve heard a few times in mail so far.
Back in the 1990′s, and early aught’s, miniskirts were in fashion. Hemlines have gone down a bit since then, but you still see some women wearing miniskirts. Not very often, but I still see it, and I still see ads for miniskirts and dresses in the fashion press.
Halter tops are a bit of a perennial. They are also quite difficult to wear. Not technically difficult, but on the wrong body they tend to look a little awkward.
If a woman had turned up wearing the same thing, and it looked good on her – she would not be subject to complaints. (I’ll grant that someone would be offended. But someone is always offended when it comes to fashion.) If a woman who couldn’t wear a miniskirt and halter top turned up, people would look and wonder if she looked in the mirror before leaving the house. But I sincerely doubt anyone would lodge a complaint – because no one wants to be seen dictating what a woman can wear. Except the aforementioned who would be upset if a woman turned up in anything except a burkha, or whatever the north west equivalent would be…
If Stu Rasmussen turned up in a miniskirt and halter top – and it looked good on him, I doubt anyone would complain. Unfortunately, his only sin here is that he couldn’t carry off his outfit with panache and style. It looked a little awkward on him.
Coupled with the fact that it was a youth event, and some prudes alarm bells went off. After all – the youth of our land need protecting against any and all diversity. Except the diversity we want them to understand, and perhaps even tolerate. [Taking tongue out of cheek...]
The complaint against Stu Rasmussen is more about anti-transgender and anti-Stu Rasmussen sentiment than it is about his fashion sense. It’s also meaningless – he faces no reprimand. He can’t be fined for his fashion sense. He can’t even be mildly told off! Someone can say “we didn’t like you wearing that”, but that’s all. Even the prospect of a censure is meaningless – no one can remove him from office because of his attire. It might hurt him politically, but I doubt that’s a frightening prospect – those who were against him because of what he wears are not likely to grow up because of this. And those who support him will likely perceive it as the bigoted witch-hunt it really is.
Was it inappropriate? No. Could he have worn something that looked better on him? Oh, I’m absolutely certain of that. The only thing wrong with his outfit was that he couldn’t wear it with the panache some can. If that’s a crime, then we’d better start locking up the population. A lack of sartorial elegance is not a crime.
Carolyn Ann
Haha, I’d say the northwest equivalent of a burkha is the ’5 years since I last shaved’ look combined with a ratty cami top, a pair of hiking shorts and REI hiking sandals (socks optional but encouraged).
Oops. I didn’t notice a couple of grammatical mistooks.
“prudes” should read prudes’.
LC (Little Cat; she’s a cat…
) practically destroyed the apostrophe key on my laptop when she decided it looked like a nice toy.
I should also point out that I do not consider anyone except the guy making the complaint a prude. He’s obviously a bigoted prude.
The hyphen at “After all – the youth ….” shouldn’t be there. It should be a comma. As should the one in “…halter top – and it looked …”. Terrible habit, and one I’m trying to break.
Carolyn Ann
You look like a slut, your percieved to be one. What a black eye for those of us who need understanding. This behavior takes some apologising for.