Last night we had our 3rd annual Kilt show, as I posted here.
(I'll get a link to show photos up in a separate post)

The show went well, and all the performers were kilted...except one. He showed up wearing a woman's print dress. It wasn't something that could even remotely be disguised or "reconfigured" to look anything even remotely like a kilt. (Apparently he didn't own a kilt, so he borrowed the dress instead. I have no idea why he was cast for the show if he didn't have a kilt, but that's a separate rant.)

I'd like to say I was miffed, but in fact I was pissed. The point of doing this was to show off the Kilt as a Man's garment. To have a male performer wearing a dress would destroy the "unity" of the group onstage, and make it look like we were mocking the kilt - calling it the same as a dress.

The performer in question is pretty good, but he's got a reputation for pushing the envelope - not a bad thing in an improv troupe. I was hoping the directors would tell him he wouldn't be playing, but that was apparently not an option. There was talk about having him wear a shirt over it, or doing something else to hide the fact it was a dress.

In the end, I told him I thought he should wear it as is. If he was going to make a choice like that, he should own up to it and stand onstage. No shirt, no group logo. Just the damn dress.

The show started, and I was the host. I came out first, wearing a Stillwater Black Watch. I did my opening speech and the other players came out (all wearing Utilikilts). The last performer introduced was the one wearing the dress.

We all lined up, and I stood next to the cross-dressing performer. I told the audience, "Some people tend to get confused on this point, so I just want to make sure you all know the difference. THIS is a Kilt, and THIS is a dress. MEN wear kilts," and did a slow take at the cross-dressing performer.

There was a minor reaction from the crowd, and I think I got the point across.