Personally, I do not believe a woman can wear pants 'cause there can be a confusion among the sexes. Yes, trousers were worn by women in ancient times, but about the time of "Christianization" in the western world - it was stopped (In the Western World). Very few European Women ever wore pants e.g. Mary Read. Then, in about 1879 a fashion-designer started to make pants for women - by influence of Eastern culture. Now, I'm no longer against the Chinese or Arab women of long time ago wearing trousers as long as it was not crossdressing. If pants are for women, while skirts for men - yes. But, pants for both man and woman in the same culture? - no, I think not. In about 1923, one of the women's rights activists (no, I'm not against women voting at all. I believe that she DEFINITLY CAN vote) challenged men by wearing pants. Also, women doing men's job wore men's clothes (women wearing armor (which was restricted to men in ancient times) was the abomination mentioned in Deuteronomy 22:5). Also, certain actresses wore men's clothes. By about the 1970s it became fashionable for women to wear pants - men's clothes. However still, women were not allowed to wear pants in a certain place (I cannot remember the place's name). However, the first person to stand in that place wearing pants was Hilary Clinton (feminist). Now, you say that pants can be both for men and women, and you will ask me if I wear robes or tassels and that they are skirts. Yes, they are. I believe that men can wear those type of "skirts" in our modern days. However, in our modern days, women wear men's business suits, men's blue jeans, and maybe even men's army suit. In Korea, it was quite uncommon for women to dress in trousers as an outer clothing in long time ago (e.g. Joseon Dynasty). You'll probably say that men wore skirts in ancient times, and that there was hardly any difference. There was difference enough so that there wouldn't be any confounding.
Female dress. The “coat” was common to both sexes (Son_5:3). But peculiar to females were
(1.) the “veil” or “wimple,” a kind of shawl (Rth_3:15; rendered “mantle,” R.V., Isa_3:22);
(2.) the “mantle,” also a species of shawl (Isa_3:22);
(3.) a “veil,” probably a light summer dress (Gen_24:65);
(4.) a “stomacher,” a holiday dress (Isa_3:24). The outer garment terminated in an ample fringe or border, which concealed the feet (Isa_47:2; Jer_13:22).
- Easton's Bible Dictionary.
The dress of the women differed from that of the men in regard to the outer garment, the inner garment being worn equally by both sexes. Son_5:3. Among their distinctive robes we find a kind of shawl, Rth_3:15; Isa_3:22, light summer dresses of handsome appearance and ample dimensions, and gay holiday dresses. Isa_3:24. The garments of females were terminated by an ample border of fringe (skirts, Authorized Version), which concealed the feet. Isa_47:2; Jer_13:22.
- Smith's Bible Dictionary. Then, you'll ask why I rely on ONE verse which is in the OLD TESTAMENT. But, crossdressing is an
Abomination to God. And God does not change. Other things that are abomination to God include homosexuality, all manner of deceit and falsehood and lies, and pride. Also, you'll say I'm soooo legalistic. I'd think it's better to be too strict than to be too careless. Note: I do have a bad habit with rules. I at times, emphasize rules too much. The Bible is no rule-Book. It's not about rules, about our Lord. I do not condemn anybody. I simply believe what I wrote. How can
I a contemptible human - a youngster - decide who's going to heaven, and whose not? It is
GOD who decides. You may object, but I have simply laid out what I believe, not who's going which place - only God can decide. I do not tell you to do anything. It is between you and God. Not me. I'm not God. So don't say I condemn anybody just because I disagree with them. Yes, you'll disagree with me. But, this is just an outline, not a decision or destiny.