they looked upon the entire diversity of the world, including everything from flowers having both male and female parts, to frogs and other animals that can change sex, and homosexual activity throughout the animal kingdom, and decided that *most* of the time,

male = man = xy = masculine = attraction to women
and
female = woman = xx = feminine = attraction to men.

that simple rule works north of 95% of the time, so they decided in all their religious humility, that the remaining 1-5% must be god making a mistake and that they should destroy any exceptions to this rule.


they are hateful idiots.

anybody have to accept their judgment on the matter?

How long will it be before the republikkkans make a law forcing women to wear dresses only?

That is where this is heading.

Other than it makes fundie xtians feel icky.


But in all honesty, we are heading towards another Stonewall moment.

If you don’t mean ownership… who says the clothes are “mens/womens”?

compare acceptable attire in the revolutionary war era : from powdered wig to pointy little slippers..... .

Deuteronomy 22:5 - “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God."

The opinions of iron-age shepherds continue to influence life in the 21st Century.

women have been wearing men's clothing for many decades now. At least in terms of wearing pants or slacks instead of skirts or dresses. Speaking as a female, I thank the deity if there is one. I haven't owned any kind of skirt or dress for many decades now. I will admit, that recently in clothing stores I've been looking at dresses and thinking I need to try some on.

Men can wear kilts with no problem, although that's hardly women's clothing. I think one "problem" is that men on average are not only bigger and taller than women (duh!) but other aspects of their bodies are different. Perhaps traditional "women's clothing" could be re-imagined to fit male bodies. Hmmm, that seems quite interesting. To see men in skirts or dresses designed for a male body. Alas, sexism of so many kinds is rampant, and there would not be the kind of social acceptance for men to wear such skirts or dresses as had been the case for women to wear plants or slacks for so many decades. Too bad. I bet a lot of men would wear skirts or dresses designed for them if given the opportunity.

Why can’t people just kind their own business.

should you worry about it?

This is just hateful people needing someone they can go after to feed their need to hate. Also known as “evil”.

Who the hell cares what other people wear? I certainly don't.

bugs is too "woke" for responsible gun owners to abide.

my fave troll of all time .

Wth???

Defining what is "masculine" and what is "feminine" is determined by the patriarchy with the intent of maintaining the privilege of heterosexual men.

Keeping the privileged and the unprivileged in their respective lanes is part of the deal.

helpfully,
Bright

Last edited Fri Mar 17, 2023, 04:37 PM - Edit history (1)

In fact, it begs the question what makes something men's clothes or women's clothes? Do you need a penis/vulva to wear it? Is it the intent of the manufacturer?

I am waiting for these anti-drag laws to blow up because eventually there will eventually be a performer that has an outfits that will be designed and made by LGBTQ people for drag. They could even have tags saying Dresses for Men or something like that. They would then technically not be wearing women's clothes...

There are certain kinds of clothes that are canonically women's clothes, such as dresses.
If a man wears those he is a "cross dresser".

But canonical men's clothes have been socially acceptable on a woman since the 1960s.
For example a woman wearing Levis and a work shirt might be stereotyped in some way, but not a "cross dresser".
And a woman's business suit differs from a man's only in cut.

If it were a high class formal occasion, a woman might get some comment if she showed up in a tuxedo, but nowhere near to the degree a man would in an evening gown.

I agree it's not fair, but "cross dressing" is definitionally pretty much a male thing in the prevailing culture.
YMMV with religious communities.

I think the advancing trend toward gender variety is chipping away at it, but we're far from there.

Just jeans and tops in public but have several dresses I relax at home wearing. Not brave enough to wear a dress in public yet and that's okay for now.

... mainstream OK for women to wear "men's" clothes.
Not even perceived as weird except maybe if it's something unusual such as a tuxedo.

The other way around, no.

As for religious types, remind them pants were not invented yet in Biblical times.