From: gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com (User - Don Gertler)
Subject: Re: Cross-dressing
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com (User - Don Gertler)>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:37:26 GMT

faigin@aero.org (Daniel P. Faigin) writes:
>Be careful with things that are "clearly" so. We have no explicit statement of
>what is "mens" and "womens" clothing; 

On this, I would agree.

>furthermore, there are clothes that are
>clearly dual purpose (such as blue-jeans).

Well, perhaps when blue-jeans came around they were already stigmatized
as befitting one gender, only then being adopted by the other.  I'm
not making a claim either way on this issue.  But let's just come up
with a "what if."

>There are certain objects, such as
>apropriately designed undergarments, that are gender-specific (men do not
>likely need brassires; women are unlikely to use jockstraps), 

What if jockstraps were clearly gender-specific (male, most likely)
garments.  Now some innovative Italian designer decides he likes
his women wearing jockstraps.  Every women in California insists
on getting her designer jockstraps from Haynes.  Five years down the
road we start looking at them as haute couture women's garments.

What determines maleness or femaleness of a garment?  If Jewish law
would have defined the jockstrap as a male garment from day one, then
the only way it could have become a women's garment would have been by
women not observing the relevant law.  It's hypocritical for those
women to say that Jewish law should now regard the item as suitable
for women.

On the other hand, perhaps what we're saying is that Jewish women must
be slower in adapting the new styles.  But once non-Jewish/non-observant
women accept the new fashion, thereby converting jockstraps to a unisex --
or even exclusively female -- garment, then observant Jewish women should
feel comfortable sporting jockstraps over their jeans skirts.

>but even items
>like skirts are not "women-only" (consider the Scottish kilt), and a blouse is
>just another name for a shirt (except the buttons are on the other side). 

Of course, the reversal of buttons may in itself distinguish male
from female shirts (blouses).  I have never delved into (the issue
of) women's garments.  The question is what makes a garment a man's
or a woman's?  Is it external social mores, or internal halakhic
guidelines?  Which came first, so to speak?

Perhaps the requirements are dependent on local custom.  A kilt may
be okay for a Scottish Jew who plays bagpipe, but a tartan wrap-around
may be suitable only for his sister.  Are the two garments identical?
I don't know.  Perhaps social setting also make a difference.  If not,
then by virtue of my donning a bra, that garment by definition becomes
a "man's" garment.  Heck, for that matter we could all get away with
dressing up for the Democratic Nation Convention. :-)
 
>It may just be that religious attire is dual purpose. I would think the intent
>of the passage would be that one should not attempt to present an image of
>being of the opposite sex; I doubt a kippah would result in my mistaking a
>woman for a man.

You may think that if you will, but it's another straw man argument.

How is this different from the approach that many (probably uneducated)
non observant (of halakha) Jews take regarding kashrut?  That is, that
the laws against eating pork are mere health laws, since the pig was
a dirty animal.  Of course now, since we can eliminate most of the
health-related problems in pork consumption, we are no longer obligated
in the law.

Huh?  What do you mean the reason may not be health-related?

-Don Gertler
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish