Somewhere along the line, we have been told that the difference between a man and a woman is like the difference between night and day. Yes, there are biological differences, but we often overlook the vast number of similarities. Most people have two arms, legs, eyes and ears. Most have one mouth, one nose, and one heart. Both are a system of nerves, muscles, and joints, and both share the same largest organ, that being the skin, although we find that can vary in color, texture, and level of beauty, as defined by the vain among us. The one thing that most defines what side of the sex we stand on, is how we dress. Here in lies The Irony of TRANSPHOBIA. Now, before you jump to the conclusion that dress alone is the defining quality, let’s just agree for now that the outward appearance usually wins as the initial source for categorization.
If we were to go back a few years into history, we might want to disapprove of how many of our Founding Fathers dressed. In formal settings they often wore powdered white wigs and ruffled shirts, an influence from European customs. If they walked among us in that attire today, what would we say if we saw them? If our ancestors of just 100 years ago were to view women today who, in the vast majority, wear only pants styled after men’s jeans, what would our great-great-great relatives think about their attire today? The Irony is that we are so willing and able to disassociate ourselves from the context of history in favor of the current culture and fad. Let’s even travel to other parts of our world. The Whirling Dervishes might seem a bit out of our sphere of comfort. “Dervish is a Persian word that broadly refers to followers of a Sufi Muslim religious order known as the Mevievi Brotherhood.“ (Scovie Precision Turning, Scott Stacy.) Wearing long flowing skirts, they energetically spin about in a ceremony known as sema, holding their right arm up to receive heavenly blessings. You might be surprised to learn that men wearing something other than pants was pretty common in history. “. . . the notion that pants are masculine – and skirts are feminine – is much newer than most people think.” “. . . the tradition of men in cloth wraps, skirts, tunics, robes and other non-pant items is vast and ancient.” “Skirts were the matter-of-fact wear of many of humanity’s most ancient civilizations, on both sides of the gender binary. Gauzy wraps and loincloths for Egyptians, togas denoting class and status for Greeks and Romans, ornate military costumes for Aztecs: many ancient costumes were based around the idea of the skirt, purely because they were easy to construct and created huge freedom of movement. Whether you were fighting, building, farming or engaging in some kind of religious ritual, skirts were cheap and efficient to use. Short skirts among soldiers from the height of the Roman Empire, noted an exhibition at the Met called ‘Braveheart: Men In Skirts’ were considered proof of virility, and allowed for swiftness while in combat.” “Two factors, theorists note, determined the use of pants by either gender: cold and the necessity for horse-riding.” Riding an animal “. . . just wasn’t practical in skirts . . .” (Bustle, “The History Of Men & Skirts, From Ancient Times To Today”, JR Thorpe, Updated Oct. 11, 2021.) Pants became the practical attire for men going to war on horses, and since the men did the fighting, the pant was the choice of wear for men only. The wearing of pants seemed to hang around even though few these days ride horses. Here is a shocker for those who distain the wear of nylons, “As men’s tunics became shorter and tighter-fitting in the 15th century, fashionable men began to wear hose or stockings as outer leg wear.” It really wasn’t until the 19th century when the custom of pants for men and skirts for women became the dominate theme. “. . . the idea that skirts are entirely feminine is in fact very Western-centered. In several cultures, from India to Japan and Southeast Asia, robes and skirts remain completely acceptable wear for adult men.“ (Bustle article as noted above.) We dare you to tell a Scott to stop wearing his kilt! But, we find it perfectly acceptable to joke about, “Is he or isn’t he?”, wearing anything underneath. The Irony is that for some we make allowance, but for others we do not.
Addressing the outer wear of either a man or woman is not the defining issue of what makes a man or a woman, it is only an indication of what may lie within the individual, both physically and mentally. The Irony is that we totally accept women wearing jeans, while at the same time we are ignorant of the historical context. The Irony of TRANSPHOBIA is exacerbated by the conclusions we draw based upon how one is dressed, while giving little to no thought to an individual’s history, including from conception, through child-rearing age, and up until the age of accountability. That is where one becomes an adult and makes personal informed decisions based not just on their feelings, but also upon personal research leading to an understanding of who they really are and how they choose to fit within society. All of that is usually never considered by an observer, only assumed by personal bias and limited knowledge about the person being observed.
Often, those of religious belief, base their understanding of the TRANSPHOBIA issue upon ancient Biblical texts where the culture of that day lived differently than civilization today. One specific text that is often cited as their proof that men should not wear women’s clothes, comes from the text found in Deuteronomy 22:5. First, note that the command is not simply given to the man, but the reverse command is also given to the woman. The reason for God’s command is unknown, only speculation exists. Perhaps barbaric nations around them participated in sexual immorality in their temples of prostitution where they would exchange clothes, so a distinction needed to be made between the amoral nations and God’s people. One interesting thing needs to be realized within this very chapter. If one is to take this command as a command for all time, danger lies ahead in this understanding. Look to verse number 8. If you live in a house without a papapet (an exterior wall extending above the roof line to prevent someone from falling off the roof), you would be in violation of God’s law in this chapter. Look to verse 9. If you plant more than one kind of seed in your garden, you are taking a risk of defiling your garden. Consider verse 11. If you wear clothes of materials with mixed origin, in this case wool and linen, you would be in violation of God’s law. Have you checked the labels on your clothes lately? Take a look at verse 12. Every garment you cover yourself with should have tassels on each of the four corners. Do you even know what a tassel on a garment looks like? If you abhor the act of stoning, then do not read verses 13 to 25, because we can assure you, there would be hordes of stoning within our Nation each and every day. The point is that one cannot lift from holy scripture a single text to support your personal belief, one that lines up with your feelings of the day. The Old Testament was never intended to be used as a guide for life today. It is a historical document teaching how God intended His people of those days to act, and recorded the many failures along the way, useful information today to know about the nature and character of God and understanding pitfalls along the way and how reconciliation with God is possible. The Irony is that while many claim to profess strict adherence to God’s law, it would seem that many skip over and ignore the parts that may inconveniently applied to them in their lives today.
The Irony of TRANSPHOBIA is often shrouded by us in preconceived perceptions and an unwillingness to explore issues we find uncomfortable, and ones we even have grown up believing to be abhorrent and repulsive. The Irony is that many preach the importance of knowing the truth yet succumb to an incredible lack of desire to seek out and understand their personal bias exemplified in TRANSPHOBIA.
As it is with all of our blogs, we encourage all of us to make decisions that will always lead us to FREEDOM and LIBERTY, and often times that will require each one of us to challenge the foundations we thought were firm, upon which we stood. Believing in those two precepts is not simply a challenge for us personally, but also a challenge for us when relating to others, as their FREEDOM and LIBERTY is as important as is our own within this great Nation in which we live together. The Irony is that while we often preach FREEDOM and LIBERTY, we at the same time will deny the same to those we disagree with, or to those who choose a different path from the one we choose to walk. TRANSPHOBIA is akin to a form of mental disease. This mindset allows some to excuse their personal bias, while at the same time justifies the incrimination and segregation others. In the coming weeks, we will be exploring how many are consumed in what we will call “The Denial” of many facts surrounding TRANSPHOBIA, and we will consider “The Truth” that many choose to ignore, either because of preconceived bias or simple lack of knowledge, shunning a more in-depth search through investigative science.