Crossdressing

Originally Posted by mattj

That's not at all the reason.

Perhaps not for you. I really do respect your position (keeping your beliefs as your own and not forcing them upon others), and I really wish more religious people would adopt it. However, it is very hard for me to believe that there aren't religious people that will point to that verse because they are disturbed by cross-dressing.

A LOT of picking and choosing has to go on with the Bible. People will always be people, and people hate what they don't understand. If people really weren't influenced by things like that, verses like those against homosexuality would not be risen so far above the others.

Lets face it, a lot haven't even read the Bible. They only know certain stories, and verses that they can pop out at any time they need - verses that agree with their personal prejudices and/or are relevant to pushing down whatever group is trying to gain their rights and acceptance in the society of the time.

Mattj, in your definition, stereotyping is one of the things listed. Men MUST wear pants. Women MUST wear dresses. stereotypes. I've crossdressed before and I've got to admit, its really fun! Expressing yourself in that way, well, its just really awesome.

Originally Posted by mattj

Concerning the first part of your questions, sexism is generally defined asForgive me for my ignorance but i don't see how requiring men and women to wear distinct clothing could be construed as prejudice, or discrimination. Stereotyping, yeah maybe. But it's not prejudiced one way or the other. Both sides are told "Don't mix". Deuteronomy 22:5 definitely would be sexist if it would have said "Women, you only get to wear dresses. Men, you can wear whatever you want." If anything, our current society is sexist in that women can pretty much wear whatever they want without fear of condemnation, but if a man wears a dress he's generally frowned upon. In that sense, our interpretation of the Bible here is less sexist than our current society.

that's a really skewed way of looking at it. Current society is sexist, in that women can generally wear whatever they want and men cannot. The Bible is doubly sexist, in that neither women nor men can wear whatever they want. Your interpretation is the exact opposite of how it really is—it is not less sexist, it is even more sexist.

Concerning the second part, its only as relevant or important as you, or anyone else deems it to be. I personally deem it to be very important because I accept its authority. If you don't, then its obviously not important to you. Live your life however you wish. This is just the God of the Bible's opinion on the matter.

Concerning the last part, the shortest answer would be that the God of the Bible cares what you and I and anyone else wears because he created men and women as two distinct genders. He doesn't want them to dress too similarly. He doesn't want them to wear their hair too similarly. He doesn't want them to share all of the same roles in life. And He definitely doesn't want them to share mating partners. Disagree with His position all you wish, but those are generally his positions. Think that's the stupidest thing you've ever heard? K. I'd disagree, but whatever.

so it all comes down to "because that's the way God likes it"? Why are his arbitrary opinions more important than your own? You can accept decisions made without reason or logic? You can accept a leader who commands based on his baseless personal opinions instead of caring about what you want and what is best for you?

why do people like you put themselves into such a position?

Originally Posted by mattj

Concerning the first part of your questions, sexism is generally defined asForgive me for my ignorance but i don't see how requiring men and women to wear distinct clothing could be construed as prejudice, or discrimination. Stereotyping, yeah maybe. But it's not prejudiced one way or the other. Both sides are told "Don't mix". Deuteronomy 22:5 definitely would be sexist if it would have said "Women, you only get to wear dresses. Men, you can wear whatever you want." If anything, our current society is sexist in that women can pretty much wear whatever they want without fear of condemnation, but if a man wears a dress he's generally frowned upon. In that sense, our interpretation of the Bible here is less sexist than our current society.

I see where you're coming from, but "discrimination" goes beyond the negative imagery associated with "one group is better than the other".

Originally Posted by Google Dictionary

dis·crim·i·nate/disˈkriməˌnāt/

Verb:
-Recognize a distinction; differentiate.
-Perceive or constitute the difference in or between.

Synonyms:
distinguish - differentiate - discern

By "requiring men and women to wear distinct clothing", there is definitely an element of discrimination by definition. There is an element of prejudice against people who don't conform to these "requirements".

Not to mention, the requirement itself is unjustified. Why must people be required to wear certain things? Because one group has boobs and a vagina and the other has a penis? Why does that have any bearing on what one should be required to wear?

@Envy:
Thanks. Its nice to meet other people who realize that we can disagree without getting at each other's throats.

And definitely yes. I can't deny that there definitely are Christians and other religious people out there who use Deuteronomy 22:5 and other similar scriptures as justification for plain old human prejudice. I haven't read any studies on the subject, so all I have to go off of is my personal experience, but in my personal experience the vast, vast majority of the Christians that I know (even ones that interpret Deut. 22:5 differently than I do) don't have a particular non-religious prejudice against cross-dressers.

@Rainbowdash:
Definitely. I didn't deny that. It definitely is stereotyping. I don't have any problem with that. My point was that, though it is stereotyping, it is most definitely not, as Lysis claimed (respectfully) sexism.

Originally Posted by Lysis

that's a really skewed way of looking at it. Current society is sexist, in that women can generally wear whatever they want and men cannot. The Bible is doubly sexist, in that neither women nor men can wear whatever they want. Your interpretation is the exact opposite of how it really is—it is not less sexist, it is even more sexist.

Again, that is not by any definition of "sexist", sexist. You may disagree with this scripture all you want, but its not sexist. Our current societal norms, however, are by definition sexist. Sorry. You may disagree with the Bible for all kinds of reasons, or think the Bible is sexist in all kinds of places, but its not sexist right there.

Originally Posted by Lysis

so it all comes down to "because that's the way God likes it"? Why are his arbitrary opinions more important than your own? You can accept decisions made without reason or logic? You can accept a leader who commands based on his baseless personal opinions instead of caring about what you want and what is best for you?

Why would you automatically assume its not what's best for humanity? If the God of the Bible is what it says He is, he knows what he's doing and has our best interests in mind. If one rejects the Bible outright, well then, one wouldn't care what the Bible says about God, or what Deuteronomy 22:5 has to say anyway. Just go on your merry way. But if one accepts what Deuteronomy 22:5 has to say, I don't see how one couldn't or shouldn't accept the parts that say that God is loving and benevolent and has our best intentions in mind.

Originally Posted by Double penetrAtion

I see where you're coming from, but "discrimination" goes beyond the negative imagery associated with "one group is better than the other".

By "requiring men and women to wear distinct clothing", there is definitely an element of discrimination by definition. There is an element of prejudice against people who don't conform to these "requirements".

Again, i can't deny this, but I don't really have a problem with it. I can't see what could be wrong with recognizing that there are numerous distinctions between men and women. That's really the whole point of Deuteronomy 22:5. "Hey. Don't forget. Men have penises and women have vaginas. Your'e not the same." I don't have any problem with the type of discrimination suggested here.

Originally Posted by Double penetrAtion

Not to mention, the requirement itself is unjustified. Why must people be required to wear certain things? Because one group has boobs and a vagina and the other has a penis? Why does that have any bearing on what one should be required to wear?

I have no desire to convince you of the reasonableness of God's dictate here. If you want to believe its unjustified, more power to you. I see a distinction between men and women, and accept that the God of the Bible is all-knowing, loving, and concerned with our well being. If you don't, cool.

If God is fair, then why can't we choose our sex? If a man chooses to dress like a woman but he's not allowed because of his sex, well, isn't that sexist right there? It's just like saying someone can't vote because they are black. Did that person get to choose the color of his/her skin? No. Should that deny them of the right? No. Same concept easily carries over.

---------- Post added at 10:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 PM ----------

I also don't think calling someone sexist is a fair way to win a debate. Besides, Lysis has not said a single sexist thing thus far. My two cents

Originally Posted by mattj

Again, i can't deny this, but I don't really have a problem with it. I can't see what could be wrong with recognizing that there are numerous distinctions between men and women. That's really the whole point of Deuteronomy 22:5. "Hey. Don't forget. Men have penises and women have vaginas. Your'e not the same." I don't have any problem with the type of discrimination suggested here.

Men have penises and women have vaginas and boobs. Yes. That IS an acknowledgement of the physical differences between men and women.

However, there's a leap of logic to be made between "dudes have penises and chicks have vaginas and boobs" and "there's nothing wrong with requiring men and women to wear distinct clothing". The latter goes beyond merely acknowledging the physical differences between males and females. It's discrimination because you're taking (unjustified) action against people who don't conform to the "requirement" based solely on these differences.

I have no desire to convince you of the reasonableness of God's dictate here.

Not to be abrasive or anything, but if you are not able to convince me of something when I am clearly open to your attempts, then it isn't "reasonable" (based on reason).

Originally Posted by Rainbow Dash

If God is fair, then why can't we choose our sex? If a man chooses to dress like a woman but he's not allowed because of his sex, well, isn't that sexist right there?

Again. No. That does not meet any definition of sexism. You can disagree with that scripture all you want, but it is not sexism by definition.

Originally Posted by Rainbow Dash

It's just like saying someone can't vote because they are black. Did that person get to choose the color of his/her skin? No. Should that deny them of the right? No. Same concept easily carries over.

It is not just like saying someone can't vote because they are black. It would be like saying neither blacks nor whites can vote. It does not favor one group over the other. They are both treated equally.

Originally Posted by Rainbow Dash

I also don't think calling someone sexist is a fair way to win a debate. Besides, Lysis has not said a single sexist thing thus far. My two cents

? Pardon? Who called anyone itt sexist? I kind of got the feeling that Lysis was covertly suggesting that i am sexist, but I don't think anyone has called anyone else sexist so far here.

Originally Posted by Double penetrAtion

Men have penises and women have vaginas and boobs. Yes. That IS an acknowledgement of the physical differences between men and women.

However, there's a leap of logic to be made between "dudes have penises and chicks have vaginas and boobs" and "there's nothing wrong with requiring men and women to wear distinct clothing". The latter goes beyond merely acknowledging the physical differences between males and females. It's discrimination because you're taking (unjustified) action against people who don't conform to the "requirement" based solely on these differences.

?? Could you explain this further? Just going off the general definition of "discrimination" that you provided earlier (making a distinction) I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting there's something amiss about... making a distinction between men and women who follow this rule and men and women who don't? I think I'm misunderstanding you...? What i was trying to get across was that the purpose of Deut. 22:5 is to remind God's people of the numerous distinctions between men and women. To make those obvious differences more obvious. I don't see what effect people who choose not to follow this verse have would have on whether or not this verse is good or bad.

Originally Posted by Double penetrAtion

Not to be abrasive or anything, but if you are not able to convince me of something when I am clearly open to your attempts, then it isn't "reasonable" (based on reason).

No offense taken. But I would have to disagree. My personal ability to convince you or anyone else of anything, and your ability to understand or accept anything, has little bearing on whether or not an idea is reasonable.

Originally Posted by mattj

@Envy:
Thanks. Its nice to meet other people who realize that we can disagree without getting at each other's throats.

who's getting at whose throat?

@Rainbowdash:
Definitely. I didn't deny that. It definitely is stereotyping. I don't have any problem with that. My point was that, though it is stereotyping, it is most definitely not, as Lysis claimed (respectfully) sexism.

stereotypes based on sex is sexism, by definition. You quoted the definition yourself.

Again, that is not by any definition of "sexist", sexist. You may disagree with this scripture all you want, but its not sexist. Our current societal norms, however, are by definition sexist. Sorry. You may disagree with the Bible for all kinds of reasons, or think the Bible is sexist in all kinds of places, but its not sexist right there.

how in the world do you come to such conclusions? The reason our current societal norms are sexist is because they deny one sex the right to do what another sex can. Deuteronomy 22:5 denies both sexes the right to do what the other sex can—this is doubly sexist.

you seem to think that applying sexist rules to both sexes causes the sexism to cancel out or something but that's simply not how it works.

Why would you automatically assume its not what's best for humanity?

you outright stated that the rule given by Deuteronomy 22:5 is based only on God's opinion. That the reason it exists is because that is how God wants it to be. It is not backed up with any logic or reason, so how can it be the best for anyone except God? What makes his opinion more valuable than your own?

I can't see what could be wrong with recognizing that there are numerous distinctions between men and women. That's really the whole point of Deuteronomy 22:5. "Hey. Don't forget. Men have penises and women have vaginas. Your'e not the same." I don't have any problem with the type of discrimination suggested here.

recognizing distinctions is not sexism—making rules based on those distinctions is. Deuteronomy 22:5 does not recognize a distinction. It does not say "Men and women are different." It says "Men and women should act differently and follow different rules." This is, by definition, sexism. It is not merely recognition, it is prescription.

Originally Posted by mattj

?? Could you explain this further? Just going off the general definition of "discrimination" that you provided earlier (making a distinction) I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting there's something amiss about... making a distinction between men and women who follow this rule and men and women who don't? I think I'm misunderstanding you...? What i was trying to get across was that the purpose of Deut. 22:5 is to remind God's people of the numerous distinctions between men and women. To make those obvious differences more obvious. I don't see what effect people who choose not to follow this verse have would have on whether or not this verse is good or bad.

Lysis said it best when he said

"recognizing distinctions is not sexism—making rules based on those distinctions is. Deuteronomy 22:5 does not recognize a distinction. It does not say "Men and women are different." It says "Men and women should act differently and follow different rules." This is, by definition, sexism. It is not merely recognition, it is prescription."

It is one thing to acknowledge differences. It is another thing entirely to take action based on these differences. There's nothing wrong with the former, but you're not talking about the former. You're talking about the latter.

No offense taken. But I would have to disagree. My personal ability to convince you or anyone else of anything, and your ability to understand or accept anything, has little bearing on whether or not an idea is reasonable.

If you are unable to defend your position, then your position as it currently stands is unreasonable. The concept you're defending may or may not be reasonable, but your position on said concept is NOT, and you have not given me reason to believe that the concept you're defending IS reasonable.

Originally Posted by mattj

sexism is generally defined as

Originally Posted by Lysis

who's getting at whose throat?

No one. That's why I said i was happy to see a friendly poster.

Originally Posted by Lysis

stereotypes based on sex is sexism, by definition. You quoted the definition yourself.

Stereotypes based on sex are not sexism. They are one part of the definition of sexism. As much as I'm sure you'd love to attach a negatively connotated word to the Bible, there is no sexism going on here.

Originally Posted by Lysis

how in the world do you come to such conclusions? The reason our current societal norms are sexist is because they deny one sex the right to do what another sex can. Deuteronomy 22:5 denies both sexes the right to do what the other sex can—this is doubly sexist.

you seem to think that applying sexist rules to both sexes causes the sexism to cancel out or something but that's simply not how it works.

In fact that's exactly what I'm saying. If the Bible would have said, "Women, you can wear whatever you want, but men, you can only wear pants" that would have been sexist. It does not. It is not prejudiced toward one party or the other. That is why it obviously enforces stereotypes based on sex, but is not sexist. If those stereotypes would favor men, or women, then yes, it would be stereotypical and prejudiced. But its not. It is fair and therefore not sexist.

Men can only use men's restrooms. Women can only use women's restrooms. That is not sexist either. It is stereotypical, but it is fair.

Would you rather that the Bible was prejudiced? Is that what you're getting at? I for one am glad the Bible is not prejudiced here. Our society could take a lesson from it.

Originally Posted by Lysis

you outright stated that the rule given by Deuteronomy 22:5 is based only on God's opinion. That the reason it exists is because that is how God wants it to be. It is not backed up with any logic or reason, so how can it be the best for anyone except God? What makes his opinion more valuable than your own?

Again. We're talking about Deuteronomy 22:5 here, in the Bible, you know, the "good book". If you don't personally accept the Bible in general, it doesn't matter what answer I give you. I, as someone who accepts the Bible, believes the other parts that state that God is all knowing, wise, loving, and concerned with our well being. That's why His opinion is more valuable than mine. I am finite. He is infinite. If you reject those parts (or all of it) then yes of course God's opinion wouldn't mean much to you. You've got to understand. This isn't a case of me just blindly reading a sentence in a book and accepting God's word because "Hey God said so." I believe it because i also believe the other parts that say that He knows what's best.

Originally Posted by Lysis

recognizing distinctions is not sexism—making rules based on those distinctions is. Deuteronomy 22:5 does not recognize a distinction. It does not say "Men and women are different." It says "Men and women should act differently and follow different rules." This is, by definition, sexism. It is not merely recognition, it is prescription.

Once again, no, it is not sexism because it is not prejudiced one way or the other. If it was prejudiced, like our current society is, then yes it would be sexist. But it is not prejudiced and is therefore not sexist.

[edit]
@AA:
You'll never convince me that God doesn't exist. Therefore your position that God doesn't exist is unreasonable. That's basically what you're saying.

[edit2]
It was definitely a hypothetical. Ummm...how about:
You'll never be able to convince me that Deuteronomy 22:5 is sexist. Therefore your belief that Deuteronomy 22:5 is sexist is unreasonable.

[edit3]
Concerning a rule in the Bible being prejudiced against people that don't follow it: i think that's kind of the case with any rule written by anyone anywhere.

[edit]
and with that we'll just have to agree to disagree
y'all have a good night

Originally Posted by mattj

You'll never convince me that God doesn't exist. Therefore your position that God doesn't exist is unreasonable. That's basically what you're saying.

Err, that would actually apply if I was arguing such a position, provided you were open to my hypothetical attempts to argue this hypothetical position which I do not currently defend.

EDIT

You'll never be able to convince me that Deuteronomy 22:5 is sexist. Therefore your belief that Deuteronomy 22:5 is sexist is unreasonable.

Originally Posted by Double penetrAtion

Not to be abrasive or anything, but if you are not able to convince me of something when I am clearly open to your attempts, then it isn't "reasonable" (based on reason).

Basically, if I can't convince you of something then one of three things must be true:
-My logic is flawed (which you ought to point out)
-The argument is based solely on opinion (which isn't the case here: either Deuteronomy discriminates or it doesn't)
-You are intentionally closing your mind to my argument. Considering you haven't even tried to refute it, that hints at an an inability to do so and thus a flawed position.

You can chuck "just because you've shut down my arguments doesn't make me wrong" at me all you want, but all I'm saying is that you haven't given me a reason to believe that you're right in this regard.

Once again, no, it is not sexism because it is not prejudiced one way or the other. If it was prejudiced, like our current society is, then yes it would be sexist. But it is not prejudiced and is therefore not sexist.

It's prejudiced against people who don't "conform" to accepted "clothing norms".

Concerning a rule in the Bible being prejudiced against people that don't follow it: i think that's kind of the case with any rule written by anyone anywhere.

What is the justification for this prejudice? Is there some sort of punishment for cross-dressing you're prescribing/acknowledging? Is it good for society to be prejudiced against cross-dressers, or something?

For the record:

"A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this." - Deuteronomy 22:5

Where do you draw the line between "men's clothing" and "women's clothing"? Do we condemn females who wear baggy jeans or males who wear kilts/Pacific Islander skirts?

Originally Posted by mattj

Stereotypes based on sex are not sexism. They are one part of the definition of sexism.

I'm sorry, what? Do you know how to read? Do I really have to spell this out to you? The very definition that you have given says that "stereotyping...on the basis of sex" is sexism.

I'm not sure if English isn't your first language or something but when a list in a definition uses the word "or" it means that any one of the objects in the list, not necessarily all of them, qualifies for that definition. A longer way of writing the definition you gave would be this:

sexism is:

prejudice (typically against women but not always) on the basis of sex or stereotyping (typically against women but not always) on the basis of sex or discrimination (typically against women but not always) on the basis of sex.

As much as I'm sure you'd love to attach a negatively connotated word to the Bible, there is no sexism going on here.

I have no reason to attempt to give the Bible a bad reputation. It would achieve me nothing and the Bible has done a good enough job doing that all on its own.

In fact that's exactly what I'm saying. If the Bible would have said, "Women, you can wear whatever you want, but men, you can only wear pants" that would have been sexist. It does not. It is not prejudiced toward one party or the other. That is why it obviously enforces stereotypes based on sex, but is not sexist. If those stereotypes would favor men, or women, then yes, it would be stereotypical and prejudiced. But its not. It is fair and therefore not sexist.

it is not fair. Fairness is just, fairness is equitable, fairness is impartial. Fairness does not divide, fairness does not treat people differently. Fairness treats all people, whether male or female or otherwise, equally and as one.

Would you rather that the Bible was prejudiced?

what I would rather is irrelevant. The Bible is full of prejudice and there's nothing you or I can do about it, other than choose for ourselves whether or not its ancient values are worth anything.

Once again, no, it is not sexism because it is not prejudiced one way or the other. If it was prejudiced, like our current society is, then yes it would be sexist. But it is not prejudiced and is therefore not sexist.

according to the very definition you gave to define sexism, prejudice is only one of three forms it can take. Stereotyping and discrimination based on sex are also sexist.

I like to think I'm fairly open-minded but crossdressing is the only thing that makes me think 'Really?'. Obviously it's the persons choice blah blah blah, but it just doesn't seem right and it looks like a cry for attention.

Obviously, I'm not a crossdresser and I don't know the thoughts and reasons behind somebody whom crossdresses but that is my honest opinion.

Of course it's sexism if men and women are required to wear different clothing. If black people were required to wear a different set of clothing to mark them as 'different' from white people, would you not agree that was racist? If so, then why is it so different if you swap colours for gender? You have about as much willpower over the choice of your gender as you do the colour of your skin. Just saying it's 'not sexist' or using a different word instead doesn't change the fact that's actually what it is and is largely seen as.

I'm quite baffled that God would supposedly care what people wear. I would think he was smart enough to be able to tell the difference in genders between his own creations without them having to pigeonhole themselves to such arbitrary desires.

it just doesn't seem right and it looks like a cry for attention.

In what way? And saying that you're open minded doesn't excuse a close-minded opinion right afterwards.

"I love black people, but ♥♥♥♥ 'em all!"

As you say, you don't properly understand it. I've spoken to people who crossdress and their reasons range from superficial fun to breaking down socially constructed concepts. It's increasingly fashionable for males to dress more effeminately and I think that these boundaries won't exist for that much longer with the way that people are now expressing themselves.

Edit: I'd also like to say that the Bible is rife with sexism.

It's also full of incest, polygamy, prostitution, murder, slavery, and far more. All of which it condones.

If you want to look for a source to base all your views upon to justify your points, then do yourself a favour and look to a credible, valid source. To try to qualify such intrinsically close minded and frankly bigoted points with a book that preaches all sorts of atrocities is just self-defeating of any argument you would put forward.

Originally Posted by mattj

Once again, no, it is not sexism because it is not prejudiced one way or the other. If it was prejudiced, like our current society is, then yes it would be sexist. But it is not prejudiced and is therefore not sexist.

Originally Posted by Double penetrAtion

It's prejudiced against people who don't "conform" to accepted "clothing norms".

Which has nothing to do with sexism. All rules everywhere are prejudiced against those who don't follow them. Saying that Deuteronomy 22:5 stereotypes men and women AND is prejudiced against people that don't follow it, doesn't make Deuteronomy 22:5 sexist.

Originally Posted by Double penetrAtion

What is the justification for this prejudice? Is there some sort of punishment for cross-dressing you're prescribing/acknowledging? Is it good for society to be prejudiced against cross-dressers, or something?

You know that I've already discussed the justification. As I already said, you can accept it or reject it. I really don't care. I'm not here to force this scripture on you or anyone else. I accept that the God of the Bible has our best intentions in mind. If you don't, that's fine for you. Short of turning the direction of this thread in a direction it was never intended to go, there is no way for me personally to convince you personally of the justification of this scripture here in this thread on this forum.

The punishment would be hellfire. That's generally the punishment for Biblical sin iirc.

If you approach Deuteronomy 22:5 from a Biblical/Christian perspective then yes, it is good for society to be prejudiced against cross-dressers, or something (as you would put it). The distinct forms of clothing remind people every day that men and women are different. As I'm sure you know, there are a great many dictates in the Bible that rely on this fact. In that sense, yes, it is good for society to be prejudiced against crosss-dressers, or something. It reminds people of the basis for many Biblical dictates. If you reject the whole of the Bible outright, before even reading this verse, then obviously no, I couldn't see any reason to make a rule that excludes those who want to cross-dress. Its not like the God of the Bible was just like "You know... who should I condemn today...jews? Nah that was last week... women? Nah Been done...CROSS DRESSERS YEAH!!" It has a reason. Whether or not you agree with the justification of that reason isn't my concern. I happen to agree with it.

Originally Posted by Double penetrAtion

For the record:

"A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this." - Deuteronomy 22:5

Where do you draw the line between "men's clothing" and "women's clothing"? Do we condemn females who wear baggy jeans or males who wear kilts/Pacific Islander skirts?

Again:

Originally Posted by mattj

We also recognize that the Bible absolutely does not spell out a clear standard word for word for what constitutes "menswear" and what constitutes "womenswear". I doubt that devout Hebrews of that time period wore anything resembling what devout Christians of the Roman period wore. Womenswear and menswear should probably be dictated by culture and time period. As a general rule of thumb for our churches here in the US men wear pants and women wear dresses, but I've talked to missionaries to other countries, (especially Mideastern), who have told me that different customs apply in different parts of the world. At least from my, and my church's perspective, the point of Deuteronomy 22:5 is just to say that the God of the Bible wants there to be at least some kind of easily distinguishable difference between what women wear and what men wear. While we do have a general guideline for menswear and womenswear in the US, I don't at all think that we believe that this is a hard and fast rule that applies everywhere and will apply indefinitely. Cultures change. As long as the gist or principle is being followed that's good enough for me.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Of course it's sexism if men and women are required to wear different clothing. If black people were required to wear a different set of clothing to mark them as 'different' from white people, would you not agree that was racist? If so, then why is it so different if you swap colours for gender? You have about as much willpower over the choice of your gender as you do the colour of your skin. Just saying it's 'not sexist' or using a different word instead doesn't change the fact that's actually what it is and is largely seen as.

I wouldn't see that as racist at all as long as it didn't exalt one race over the other. The same goes with Deuteronomy 22:5. It does not give men more rights than women, or women more rights than men. That is sexism.

Originally Posted by SuperDecimal

It's also full of incest, polygamy, prostitution, murder, slavery, and far more. All of which it condones.

Your broad, uninformed generalizations of the Bible are based largely on complete ignorance. And I don't mean ignorance as an insult. I mean, you don't know what you're talking about. The Bible does contain records of incest, polygamy, prostitution, murder, slavery, and many more taboos. It does not condone any of them, and I suspect you know that. For future reference, when trying to pipe in on any serious discussion, I would suggest that you try to keep your blatant prejudices a little more under wraps. Otherwise, people who actually do know what they're talking about won't take a word you've said seriously.

Originally Posted by SuperDecimal

If you want to look for a source to base all your views upon to justify your points, then do yourself a favour and look to a credible, valid source. To try to qualify such intrinsically close minded and frankly bigoted points with a book that preaches all sorts of atrocities is just self-defeating of any argument you would put forward.

And to you, if you want anyone to take a word that comes out of your mouth seriously, I would suggest not making such broad, baseless, obviously prejudiced generalizations about a book you know nothing at all about.

Have a nice day.

Finally, take it or leave it, its my final offer, Deuteronomy 22:5 is about as sexist as men's and women's public restrooms.

They make the obvious distinction that women are different than men and they prohibit men from using one facility, and women from using the other. Separating men and women in this fashion is practiced almost everywhere. This is generally accepted, and complained about as being "sexist" by only the fringiest of the fringe. If you happen to be one of those people who are dead set on the idea that men and women's bathrooms are sexist, there's probably little to no chance that I'm going to convince you that Deuteronomy 22:5 isn't sexist either. But, just know, if one is to claim that Deuteronomy 22:5 is sexist, they must also by necessity claim that separate bathrooms, or separate showers are sexist, which again is widely disregarded as fringe nonsense. They do nearly the exact same thing.

To each his own I suppose.

Originally Posted by Interestingdrug

In what way? And saying that you're open minded doesn't excuse a close-minded opinion right afterwards.

"I love black people, but ♥♥♥♥ 'em all!"

As you say, you don't properly understand it. I've spoken to people who crossdress and their reasons range from superficial fun to breaking down socially constructed concepts. It's increasingly fashionable for males to dress more effeminately and I think that these boundaries won't exist for that much longer with the way that people are now expressing themselves.

Edit: I'd also like to say that the Bible is rife with sexism.

'fairly open-minded'

Boys wearing skinny jeans or whatever I don't have a problem with, it's when boys wear dresses, skirts and high-heels. It just seems wrong.

Obviously, everyone is entitled to do what they wish with there body and their life just like everyone is entitled to have views and opinions and various subjects.

Just to clear up I don't mean any offence to anyone who does crossdress, but it's just my 5 pennies on it.

Originally Posted by mattj

Your broad, uninformed generalizations of the Bible are based largely on complete ignorance. And I don't mean ignorance as an insult. I mean, you don't know what you're talking about. The Bible does contain records of incest, polygamy, prostitution, murder, slavery, and many more taboos. It does not condone any of them, and I suspect you know that. For future reference, when trying to pipe in on any serious discussion, I would suggest that you try to keep your blatant prejudices a little more under wraps. Otherwise, people who actually do know what they're talking about won't take a word you've said seriously.

And to you, if you want anyone to take a word that comes out of your mouth seriously, I would suggest not making such broad, baseless, obviously prejudiced generalizations about a book you know nothing at all about.

Now they may or may not know what the Bible contains.
I however do.

Originally Posted by 1 Peter 3:7

You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

Women are weak.

Originally Posted by Ephesians 6:5

Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;

Slavery is obviously ok.

I've got more where that came from.
Any argument you have about the Bible being non-sexist is invalid. So I do not see why you continue using it as your only source.