Is this a double standard?


there is more leniency on women wearing pants and sweaters for example than guys with skirts and dresses, why is one ok and not the other?


[quote="angell1, post:1, topic:345057"]
there is more leniency on women wearing pants and sweaters for example than guys with skirts and dresses, why is one ok and not the other?



Dresses are particularly female attire, and a man wanting to wear one is disordered.

The same cannot be said for kilts for Scots, a thawb or keffiyeh for Arab men, and other non-pants garb that are also not dresses.

Pants on women in most cultures where women wear them is female attire, not male attire. Women are wearing women’s pants, not men’s pants. They are not the same thing. Legged attire for women is not a 20th or 21st century invention.

It is not whether the attire in question is in the form of a flowing robe (long or short) or leggings. It is a question of whether a person is wanting to wear clothing particular to the opposite sex.

You have many postings in which you express confusion over dress and whether it is sinful, hairstyles, pants, headcoverings, etc. You also have a posted about women in the Middle Ages, mistreatment, etc, and I have several times suggested you do some research and you have a lot of misconceptions-- again Regine Pernoud is an excellent author on the matter.

I suggest you stop searching out the internet on these topics such as pants, hair styles, etc, and instead talk to your pastor. You will find all kinds of screwball sites on the internet, and if you are not at a place where you can discern what is actual Church teaching and what it not, then stay away from these sites and seek guidance from your pastor and the Catechism.


If I may ask that with exceptions for the cultures mentioned above, why would a western man want to wear a dress? Just curious. No judgment.


I don’t think it is a double standard. I think it is just a normal standard of our culture. Dresses are classified as female attire. A man who wears a dress is wearing a woman’s clothes. I don’t know why it is that way. I have not done the research. Maybe if it had gone differently in the past then dresses might have been considered male attire.

Sweaters and pants are classified as male or female. Underwear is classified as male or female but they are often made differently. The look different. A man wearing a woman’s underwear is cross dressing.

There are also certain fashion designs which are more or less female or male. Shirts are universal but some shirts are designed in a female way. A man wearing a female shirt would gain attention. Why are some fashions female but not male. I think it is just one of those things that society comes to a consensus on over time. A mostly non verbal consensus I think. There seems to be a certain inclination in our species to differentiate male from female. The color for female babies is pink while blue is for boys. Nobody decided that in government from what I know but that is the general consensus.


couldn’t wee argue that we could turn those in to men’s dresses as well? yes, historically femals wore leg attire, but it wasn’t pants, i think pants were a pretty male thing until the 20th century.

do you know if there are audio or braille versions of the book you mentioned? not so simple for me to just go out and buy a book…


Seems like you’re saying that the morality of certain clothing is relative to your culture!


It is. How many Christian men do you see going round dressed like this:



Almost, but not quite.

The purpose of certain clothing is relative to culture. What is considered strictly male clothing in one culture could be considered female clothing in another culture.

What is invariable is the intention of the people who wear the clothes. Regardless of culture, if a person wants to cross-dress and wear clothing that is normally reserved for the opposite sex, that is on them, not the clothes.

That same person, regardless of culture, can commit the same sin with different clothing.


But would you think that it’s immoral for a man to dress like that? Of course what men and women tend to wear is cultural, but I wasn’t aware that catholic morality mandated that people conform to cultural norms.


You are twisting it with words.

Catholic Morality does not mandate that people conform to cultural norms; that’s what you said, not the Church.

Catholic Morality requires that all people have a pure intention in their dress. It is the act of trying to act like or dress like the opposite gender that is sinful; the intention has nothing to do with the clothes themselves.


So if I happened to find certain clothing comfortable or aesthetically appealing, I shouldn’t have a problem with the church, even if my culture says I’m dressing “wrong”?


If the reason you are crossdressing is to “make a statement,” scandalize the people around you, or it is an attempt to be like the opposite sex for the purpose of transgenderism, it is sinful.

In most circumstances, it could be wrong to do so even if you don’t have intentionally bad intentions simply because of scandal.


So I suppose it could potentially be okay in some circumstances, but hard to defend with a straight face from a Catholic POV (as I suspect most crossdressing individuals aren’t doing so for comfort).

An odd question, but I wonder if this would apply if one was travelling to a country with stricter dress standards? That is, would a woman travelling to Riyadh be morally obliged to dress as women are expected to? Would it be considered scandal to fail to wear a Niqab?


I don’t see how natives in Riyadh would expect people travelling through to adhere to their customs of dress, seeing as they know that the visitor would not really know their customs, so I don’t think that could be considered a scandal.


which brings me to this, when women first started wearing pants, was it considered a great scandal? woulnd’t they have been considered wearing men’s clothes at the time? and what about like unisex t-shirts for example. both genders can wear that. is it wrong to have gender neutral clothes?


What I get out of it all is that the underlying sin had to do with crossing gender lines. Men are supposed to behave like men and females like females. Am I wrong? Is there more to it?


but what constitutes this behaviour really? where is the line, what about other things like sports, toys etC? cars are traditionally a man’s thing and so is sports. dolls are usually a girl thing. if a girl plays sport though, there isn’t much of a problem, is a guy likes shopping and dolls then he has perverse tendencies apparently.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit