And regardless whether you call it stereotypical bullshit or currently accepted cultural norm, if the vast majority of people conform to it, it is a distinguishing trait between garments that are coded female and garments that are coded male. It is irreevelant whther the garment itself is male or female.
For the judgement of whether you are crossdressing, the important point is whether the garment is currently coded male or female in the public consicousness (or idely accepted stereotypical bullshit, if it makes you happy) of your culture.
No, it's quite relevant, because we're talking about a religious creed, which believes that a higher power condemns people who ignore this distinction. So, with that in mind, the fact that fashion is mutable makes this distinction pretty arbitrary. Even if "society" decides something is "for men" and "for women", society is a group of people, which means it's also subject to subsects and individuals. So, is a circus clown acting against God's will if he wears a flower and pink shirt? Is a working woman doing it when she wears pants? What about a men who wears panties because boxers chafe?
What you're talking about does nothing but advocate tyranny of the majority.
Using this criterion, non would be, with the possible exception of bras.
Sure. Crop tops for example are sometimes worn by men. Yet the vast majority of men won't wear one, because they are currently coded predominantly female, and therefore widely regarded as female garment. Frilly shirt-blouses are sometimes worn by men ( mostly LARPERS and goths ) and yet the vast majority of men won't consider them appropriate apparel for them, because frills are currently coded female, and most would likely see a man wearing one as crossdressed.
And yes, some garments are currently coded unisex (mostly sprtswear), so regardless of who wears them, they don't consitute crossdressing. But I really don't see how this leads you to the assumption that no garments are coded gender-specific.
Because they aren't. Again, everything you're talking about is a prescriptive assumption. Again, it's Circular Reasoning
. "Skirts are for girls because skirts are for girls." There's no reason for this to be the case other than you believe it in the first place. But your belief does not make it inherently
Eh, no. The point of contention was whether it is feasible to enforce a prohibition of crossdressing, when fashion leads over time to changes in which garments are understood as male garments or female garments.
Which is still problematic. There are tons of examples of people wrongfully arrested for wearing "indecent" or "obscene" clothing because it's not considered "appropriate" for their gender when the clothing in question was meant
for their gender.
For example, what about the train operators in Europe who decided to wear skirts to work because the transit company banned shorts? Should they be arrested? Are skirts still "for women" in this context if a group of men all decide to do it?
According to your argument, yes, because "society" still says it's wrong.
edited 4th Oct '13 1:34:47 PM by KingZeal