RANSVESTIA

#7-State Police Barracks

I talked with the "officer in charge," who was very brusque, and punctuated his replies with much profanity. He didn't really want to discuss the subject, and made each answer sound as though the con- versation were over!

When he heard the situation, concluding with "my friend believes he is breaking NO law ..." he interrupted with, "There's no law against that, unfortunately."

I asked him why it was "unfortunate"-did he wish he could prosecute? His reply, with profanity removed, was "No, I don't give a ...' I wouldn't touch it with a ... 10-foot pole. With this... liberation movement these days, nothing can be prosecuted." I asked, "What might he be charged with-impersonation? The reply: "Who's he impersonating?—No one!"

I asked him how he felt about it personally: "I couldn't care less. I don't feel about it one way or the other."

I asked him about the case of a TV, snared in a minor offense or a traffic violation, but producing a male driver's license-what would the officer do about the discrepancy? "Not a damn thing—he's only interested in the traffic violations." I asked, "There'd be no charge on anything else?" His reply: "Of course not!"

I ventured, "I presume he'd be in trouble if he went into a ladies room." Reply: "Not necessarily. Don't know what the charge would be, unless it were for exposing himself."

He concluded by repeating, "There's no law against it."

Whatever you do, dear reader, DON'T conclude from this report that the millenium has arrived, and that it's OK to mix freely in public. These discussions relate to the above-average TV who passes well enough not to attract attention from the average observer.

Even in this small sampling, there was a wide range of police reactions. Admittedly the majority were unconcerned with TVism, but in a random sampling, you are just as likely to encounter the anti- eonist official, who will seek every opportunity to pin an unrelated

62