So holds Galbreath v. City of Oklahoma City (W.D. Okla. Jan. 27, 2012), holding that the plaintiff “faces a credible threat of future prosecution” and thus has standing to seek an injunction against the ordinance’s application to cross-dressing. The plaintiff had been arrested for disorderly conduct before — apparently with little basis, other than being a pretty obvious cross-dresser — and the charge was eventually dropped.
I should note that I’m skeptical of the claim that either a man or woman is likely to be “doing [one’s] morning exercises” when wearing shoes with a 2.5 inch heel, though that surely doesn’t mean that the plaintiff was indeed guilty of disorderly conduct.