What Exactly is Cross Dressing for ‘Improper Purposes?’

A judge in Guyana has ruled that cross dressing is not of itself a crime and that police should not pursue criminal charges unless they have evidence of “improper purposes.” What does this mean and why are LGBT rights groups frustrated by this ruling?

The judge in this case, Chief Justice Mr. Ian Chang, ruled Friday September 6 that Section 153 (1) of the Summary Jurisdiction Offences code was not breached by four transgender people who were arrested in 2009 and fined.

Section 153 had been interpreted to make it a crime for birth-assigned men to wear female clothing in public or for a woman to wear male clothing in public. However, in his ruling Judge Chang deemed that Section 153 should only be applied where there is reason to suspect “improper purposes” (more on that below) and not in the case of people “expressing or accentuating his or her personal sexual orientation in public.” That Judge Chang has confused gender expression with sexuality barely needs to be said.

Regardless, Chang also ruled in a surprising move that Section 153 is immune from constitutional challenge and that the four trans plaintiffs in this case and their supporting organizations cannot use the courts to overturn the law and instead must rely on lawmakers taking action because, he contended, trans people are not protected under the Constitution’s gender nondiscrimination clause.

The Chief Justice did, however, say police had violated the human rights of the four plaintiffs when they were arrested under Section 153, but not because the provision was improperly enforced. No, the judge awarded the four plaintiffs $40,000 (GYD) each for the breach of their human rights as they were not informed of the reasons for their arrest within an appropriate time frame.

This may sound quite legalistic and dense, but the ruling is very important for trans citizens, as is what action can be taken going forward.

Cautious praise has been issued by some, with Colin Robinson, manager of the CariFLAGS secretariat based in Trinidad, saying this ruling is a positive step because it affirms “It is not criminally offensive for a person to wear the attire of the opposite sex as a matter of preference or to give expression to or to reflect his or her sexual orientation.”

However, one of the plaintiffs in this case, Quincy McEwan,has explained both the positive and negative aspects of this ruling, saying “The Chief Justice was relatively clear that once you are expressing your gender identity, it’s not criminal for a man to wear female attire.But the law really stifles us, because what could be an improper purpose? The trans community is very worried, and still fearful of arrests, in light of this decision.”

According to the ruling, “improper purposes” might include trans citizens engaging in sex work, though exactly how one determines “improper purposes” remains unclear and as such the law could still be widely applied to criminalize Guyana’s transgender citizens.

An appeal is being worked on with the involved civil rights groups believing that Judge Chang failed to give proper thought or discussion to trans identity and the discrimination and issues trans and gender variant people face in Guyana society. They also argue that, on a technical point, there is clear provision in the Guyana Constitution for bringing a constitutional challenge on grounds of gender and that this will make up the second aspect of their appeal.

Said Zenita Nicholson, Secretary of SASOD’s board of trustees, which was involved in the case: “I feel the court lost a golden opportunity to give life to the Guyana constitution by vitiating this 1893 law against cross-dressing and establishing that all Guyanese are entitled to fundamental rights and freedoms, including our transgender citizens, who unfortunately will continue to be vulnerable to human rights abuses, with this dubious decision. We must appeal it.”

Image credit: Thinkstock.


Sonali G.
Sonali G5 years ago


BMutiny TCorporationsEvil


That is why this ruling has a double-edge. It is specific to GUYANA; it does not really "free" Trans people from the law and punishment for being who they are - only a SELECT FEW of them. Any Trans person can still be PERCEIVED as a Sex Worker, also, whether they are or not. This is not real "freedom" for Transexuality, in its actual manifestations.

BMutiny TCorporationsEvil

This Judges' ruling that it is okay to cross-dress "as long as it is not for improper purposes", would seem to apply to the upper classes and to wealthy tourists. Guyana like other Caribbean countries gains a lot from being a tourist and cruise ship vacation magnet. Gay tourism is a very big deal, and has special facilities just for them.

However, things aren't so great for the general Trans population. While poverty and unemployment are rife, Trans citizens have especial difficulties finding work - and so often turn to Sex Work {Prostitution}. Also, there is sort of a "tradition" of this, among some Trans people - also, some men who seek Prostitutes really "get off" on this "specialty".
This Judge's ruling sounds so involved, because he STILL wants to be free to punish and to regulate Trans Prostitutes. They often get beaten up, menaced, shaken down by the Police for part of their earnings, etc.
It is a dangerous occupation - because Homophobes are attracted to these "women", but finding out they are "men" physically, they feel "threatened" and often can break out in violence. As I said before, some men actually WANT and SEEK this scenario; and it is very lucrative for police and for other blackmailers.
That is why this ruling has a double-edge. It is specific to GUYANA; it does not really "free" Trans people from the law and punishment for being who they are - only a SELECT FEW of them. Any Trans person can still be PERCEIVED as a Sex Worker, also, whether they are or

Amy Fisher
Amy Fisher5 years ago

We've come a long way in the US, but there are still lots of countries where gender oppression takes place and men and women still forced into rigid gender roles.

Magdalen B.
Magdalen B5 years ago

"These backward countries" ?

Dale O.

Interesting post, Robert F. Yes it depends on what's going on. If it's transgender people, the law must allow for this, if it is a male who doesn't normally cross dress but does so to gain access to a washroom to watch women then it isn't a valid reason. Women wear pants and of course some men in Scotland wear the kilt and other cultures have what look like dresses that men wear.
As others have mentioned, using clothing for illegal purposes of a real criminal nature, not something that is simply 'transgender.' Obviously section 153 could be more specific. Would love to be a fly on wall when and if they rewrite that one.

Natasha Salgado
Past Member 5 years ago


Ken W.
Ken W5 years ago

Its easy just get rid of Men's Room & Women's Room and just have BATHROOM'S !!!

GGma Sheila D.
Sheila D5 years ago

Since I haven't had a dress on since about 1981, could I be considered a cross dresser?? Who cares. In this case, that law is very ambiguous - it leaves too much open and up to law enforcement. Confusing.

Luvenia V.
Luvenia V.5 years ago

Robert F. has one of the best posts on here. It was not that long ago that women wearing pants were frowned on and shunned in many circles. Babies and young children ALL dressed in dresses. Men played dress up for the stage because only Harlots tried to be actresses. Then we have the Priest and yes even the Pope that wear dresses that some women would like to have.

Cross dressing is not new but then again neither is the hate and the stupidity. Technology has come a LONG way but HUMANITY has not advanced so much.