From: norm@helix.nih.gov
Subject: Re: Cross-dressing
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <norm@helix.nih.gov>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:05:56 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
We do not eat pig because the Torah tells us not to eat pig.  The so called
"Mosaic dietary laws" really do not concern clean as we know it, they are
called "unclean" animals since they are forbidden to us.  The reasons are
just as true today.  Though knowledge of how to cook pig is known, the
incidence of pork tapeworm is probably greater today than at the time of
Moses (or the giving of the Law), so if hygene were the answer then, so
much more it should be today.  What it comes down to; it is the LAW.
+--------------------------------------------------------+
   

   *    ***    ***   *   **
   *   *   *     *   **  *
   *   *   *     *   * * *   nison reuven b'R Shami
   *   *   *         *  **
   *    ***         **   *
   *  
   *   *  *   ***   ***   **  **
   *   ** *  *   *  * **  * ** *
   *   * **  *   *  ***   *    *
   *   *  *   ***   *  *  *    *

+---------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.polish