The old rugged cross-dresser

Posted: May 04, 2006 12:05 AM
Recently, a man dressed as a woman – who happens to teach at UNC-Chapel Hill ( - wrote a letter to my Chair, Dean, Provost, Chancellor, and every member of my department. Although he gave my work some unexpected exposure, his intentions were far from benevolent.

In the letter, which complains about my recent editorial (titled "Perversity and diversity at my little university") this man (claiming to be a “former” man after a sex change) stated that he has “no quibble with (my) right to (my) political beliefs nor (my) right to express them in a public forum.”

After supporting my rights to free speech, he says he is “appalled however by the bigoted and intolerant tone of (my) essay, written as it was by a Professor of Criminal Justice in the fine State of North Carolina.” He added that he is “especially concerned that (my) bigoted writings influence (my) students towards perpetuation of a long-standing culture of police and law enforcement stigmatization and persecution of transgender people.”

For the record, let it be known that I do not talk about methods of trans-gendered law enforcement in any of my classes. I seem to be behind the times.

This man dressed as a woman further stated that I ridicule “four courageous young students who are now undergoing gender transitions at other universities – ridiculing them openly by name and in grossly sexualized terms at this particularly difficult time in their lives.”

Having seen “The Vagina Monologues” I would contest the assertion that I have used “grossly sexualized terms” but, for the record, I plead guilty to the other charges.

My condemnation of these student sex changes is driven by more than my interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5. I simply believe that it is immoral to applaud young people who want to surgically alter their genitalia before they are old enough to consume alcohol.

But this man who thinks he is a woman has greater insight:

“Adams has gone well beyond his usually rather clever liberal-baiting attention-seeking, and instead reveals a darker, less well-controlled, discriminatory side of his personality.”

He goes on to lament the “extreme level of violence against the trans community” and “incidents of terrible hate crimes against trans people” that is producing a “growing public outcry.” And, he reminds us that “The growing awareness of anti-trans violence has also led many cities to provide police special training on the dangers facing trans people.”

Finally, he asked the following “Questions for the Criminal Justice Program at UNC”:

1. Do the other UNC CRJ faculty members take offense at what Adams says about young gender transitioners?

2. Do they sense how he is propping-up an old-time “cop culture” that ridicules and dehumanizes gender minorities?

3. Do they see how this adds fuel to the fires of violence against trans people?

All of this terminates in the following appeal for a condemnation of my political and religious views:

“… you have a civic obligation to go on record in opposition to (Dr. Adams) discriminatory teachings…If in your subsequent individual and/or collective opinion, you agree that Dr. Adams's article should not go unanswered, we urge you to publish your own individual views, or even better a joint manifesto clearly distancing UNCW and the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice from his teachings…”

Of course, I am deeply offended by the use of the term “manifesto.” While it does reveal the relationship between the campus diversity movement and the communist party, it also has sexist overtones. In light of Vicci’s assertion that those who have had sex changes are not an “insignificant sector, perhaps as large as a half percent, of the general population” I think the term should be changed to “wo-manifesto.” This probably will not require any significant surgery.

I am also offended that anti-religious bigots are not honest about their agenda. They seek to immediately stigmatize anyone holding orthodox religious beliefs – those that do not affirm even the most depraved of “alternate lifestyles.” And, ultimately, with total disregard for the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, they seek official condemnation – preferably on university letterhead - of all religious views not in accordance with the philosophy of moral relativism.

This latest attempt to get me in trouble with my so-called superiors shows what the leaders of the gay rights movement in America really want. They want more than to be left alone. They want more than to be safe from harm. They want more than to have equal protection of the laws.

They want our unconditional approval. And if we refuse to give it, they want our jobs.