Two different posts have called out that specific part, and I don't get why. It fits just fine, in context. The overall tone of the article, I get criticizing, but that part seems entirely fine to me.
(the context is that the author's parents seem to have disliked the store, and ran a press that published a book that was sharply critical of Wal Mart, with the result that the author went many years without visiting one—this context is presented right before that entirely reasonable and appropriate use of "transgressive")
(the context is that the author's parents seem to have disliked the store, and ran a press that published a book that was sharply critical of Wal Mart, with the result that the author went many years without visiting one—this context is presented right before that entirely reasonable and appropriate use of "transgressive")