Why is cross-dressing a sin?

[PLeeD]

She wasn’t dressing as a man because she wanted to, she did it because she needed to.

Acknowledged. I guess you missed the reference to “necessary” in my post.

The problem for Joan of Arc is, Deut. 22:5 doesn’t leave any wiggle room. It says it is an “abomination”. There are no exceptions listed.

Additionally, in the original language, the word translated as “clothing” that women shouldn’t wear is more properly translated to mean military gear. So Joan of Arc was violating Deut. 22:5 in every sense by taking to the battle field dressed as a male soldier.

The real question with regard to Joan of Arc is, was she as a Christian believer bound by the law of Moses on this issue? Of course not! So the question really does become, what is the intent of the person who is crossdressed? Or in other words, what is in their heart?

It’s suffice to say that if the intent of the crossdresser is lustful activity, then they are already judged. There is no question that sin is involved. But it is not the crossdressing that is the sin, it’s the intent of the crossdresser. Joan of Arc was obviously not engaged in some sort of impious behavior, so we really don’t need to consider her any further to know that she was not sinning.

But what of the heterosexual married man who has an interest in women’s fashion, makeup, hairstyles, and enjoys dressing up as an outlet for this interest? Is he sinning? There are many ways that sin can enter the picture. If he is doing it without his wife’s knowledge, then there is probably lying involved to some degree. If he is doing it to engage in sexual gratification then we already know the answer.

But what if he simply enjoys the artistry and self-expression of the activity? If he is hiding nothing, how is he sinning any more than an actor, or than St. Joan of Arc?

 

[rodarbal]

It implies homosexuality.

It does not imply homosexuality as sexual preference and gender identity are completly different. Since transgenderism is not binary you cannot therefore be homo or hetro, just a preference. The frequency of same physical sexual attraction in this world is about the same as the binary world. For example a genetically born male who is trans has a 98% chance of preference of female, however being feminine in character attracted to females, does that make him a lesbian? Not really. once you are not in societies binary labels its not either or it just is. Hope this helps you understand a complex situation.

 

[PLeeD]

…But, I don’t consider passing as a female to save someone or an actor who is playing a role to be cding.

Wait. Do you mean to say that you don’t find it sinful? Because the act of passing as a woman is objectively CD’ing.

In your previous sentence you said:

So, for as many people who engage in cding, there’s as many reasons why they do it.

Absolutely true. And so where is the line where it becomes sinful?

I know where I believe that line lies, which is whenever some real objective sin is involved (lying, immoral sex, etc). Anything else seems arbitrary once you allow that it was OK for Joan of Arc, is OK for an actor, or OK if the purpose is to save a life.

 

[jmallon764]

It implies homosexuality.

absoulutley positivley does NOT imply homosexuality thats ignorince of the highest degree wich insults a lot of people such ignorance is disgusting mabey you should learn a little by doing resarch then you will have the right too say that but unless you’ve done resarch you are just prejudice and unworthy too speak on the matter

 

[jmallon764]

Deut. 22:5 "This verse commands men and women not to reverse their secual roles. It is not a statement about clothing styles. Today role rejections are common, there are men who went to become women and women whe want to become men. It’s not the clothing style that offends God, but using the style to act out a different sex role. See God had a purpose in making us uniquely male and female.

THEN THIER IS A LOT OF FEMALES SINNING RIGHT NOW lets see pants shirts hats jackets hoodies if what you said was true all women would be wearing is dresses and bonnets i just find it so interesting how BIAST IGNORANT AND ABOVE ALL HATEING YOU PEOPLE ARE

JESUS TOLD YOU TOO LOVE EVERYONE(I HAVE READ THE CATHOLIC BIBLE SO NONE OF YOU CAN SAY ANYTHING AGAINST ME POSTING.).

SO JESUS TOLD YOU TOO LOVE EVERYBODY and when you mistreat lgbt people your going against jesus and he did not stutter when he said that so why don’t you follow your bible too the letter first then mabey critizie others

 

[ringil]

If it is on Halloween I don’t think it would be a sin. Or maybe at a costume party.

 

[rodarbal]

I thought hard core Christians thought celebrating halloween was devil worship?
Crossdressing is neither a sin or a disorder.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Crossdressing is considered a sin for primarily two reasons. First, it is conducive to public scandal. Secondly, there is often sexual dimension to crossdressing and if this is the case, the Catholic Church has been clear on its sexual morality. We are not referring to actors dressing up as women or women wearing pants but individuals to dressing in a manner that is clearly denoted to be adopted by the opposite gender.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ doctrine is as follows:

*“Outward apparel should be consistent with the state of the person according to general custom. Hence it is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man’s clothes, or vice-versa; especially since this may be the cause of sensuous pleasure; and it is expressly forbidden in the Law (Deut 22) *…. Nevertheless this may be done at times on account of some necessity, either in order to hide oneself from enemies, or through lack of other clothes, or for some other such reason”

(Summa Theologiae II, II, question 169, article 2, reply to objection 3).

 

[rodarbal]

Crossdressing is considered a sin for primarily two reasons. First, it is conducive to public scandal. Secondly, there is often sexual dimension to crossdressing and if this is the case, the Catholic Church has been clear on its sexual morality. We are not referring to actors dressing up as women or women wearing pants but individuals to dressing in a manner that is clearly denoted to be adopted by the opposite gender.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ doctrine is as follows:

“Outward apparel should be consistent with the state of the person according to general custom. Hence it is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man’s clothes, or vice-versa; especially since this may be the cause of sensuous pleasure; and it is expressly forbidden in the Law (Deut 22) …. Nevertheless this may be done at times on account of some necessity, either in order to hide oneself from enemies, or through lack of other clothes, or for some other such reason”

(Summa Theologiae II, II, question 169, article 2, reply to objection 3).

I fail to see a scandal. Where does it say that? It is part of the human condition.
“The state of the person” is where the persons inner feeling and percent of femininity. We all have that dimension, some more than others. If you don’t have that degree of femininity (more than half) you cannot understand someone who does. So I don’t fault you for what you do not understand, hopefully I can shed some light because I do.
We do not choose this anymore than blue eyes, color of skin. It happens in the womb. He made us this way. Society says its a sin or evil or whatever. I am a sinner like all but I also believe in our Lord and love Him for giving me the gift of being transgender. I can communicate with females like men cannot. We are the great mediators. If more women were in charge of church matters it would not be in the shape its in, believe me.

How can the catholic church have ANY say on sexual morality when the children that have been molested have been swept under the carpet. Sorry I just don’t buy that for a minute. I am a sinner but not because I wear womens clothes. I embrace my femininity because He wants me to be me and I come before Him as I am.
Be well,

 

[sw85]

I think it is a mortal sin too, but why?

I guess it could have to do with the cross-dresser wanting to change the est. physical order of God but not all cross-dressers want this yet all cross-dressing is a sin. So there must be something more, is there?

The extremely reductive headline versions:

The natural law identifies human goodness as human excellency and perfection, such that to be a good person is to be a characteristically excellent human being, i.e., to excel at exemplifying human nature.

Human nature is sexually dichotomous, i.e., divided into men and women. So it’s good for there to be men and women and good for us to recognize this distinction and act according to it (i.e., manly men, feminine women).

Human nature is also naturally social rather than solitary, meaning that his goodness and flourishing is dependent in part on his cultivation of social connections through family ties, friendships, and other associations, which in turn implies obligations for how one ought to behave toward others. This means we must not act in such a way that impedes others’ ability to act in accordance with the natural law (i.e., toward their own good).

Cross-dressing in the sense that we normally mean it (i.e., a man dressing up like a woman just to be subversive) offends against both of these principles. It denies man’s natural value as a sexual being, and it induces others to confusion regarding the natural good of human sexuality.

So wait, cross dressing cannot always be a sin then? Like in acting or if you needed to infiltrate a brothel to save someone (just an extreme example) by dressing like a girl?

There’s virtually nothing that’s “always” a sin. Object, end, intention: a deficiency in any respect qualifies an act as at least disordered and typically sinful.

I fail to see how wearing clothes can be considered sinful

What about sports jerseys? Go to a hockey game and you’ll see men and women wearing the same jersey.

Don’t those bagpipe players wear kilts?

The issue isn’t just “wearing clothes.” See the above. The issue here is the disordering of the intention and the inducement of others to scandal, which means the exact nature of “cross dressing” is sensitive to cultural context.

 

[PLeeD]

Crossdressing is considered a sin for primarily two reasons. First, it is conducive to public scandal.

What sort of scandal? Do you mean wearing a disguise a crime such as robbing a bank? Or, maybe you mean going out and acting flamboyant like a drag queen? I would agree with you about those things.

But, I have two friends who are a married couple. She supports his crossdressing. They go out shopping together with him dressed as a lady. They go out for dinner. Nobody bothers them. They don’t bother anyone. Is that scandalous?

Secondly, there is often sexual dimension to crossdressing and if this is the case, the Catholic Church has been clear on its sexual morality.

I agree with you that immoral sexual activity is sinful. But, It is sinful whether someone is dressed as a man or a woman. The crossdressing neither increases or decreases the immorality of the act.

We are not referring to actors dressing up as women or women wearing pants but individuals to dressing in a manner that is clearly denoted to be adopted by the opposite gender.

Sorry, that’s just too arbitrary a standard to judge people by. Aquinas isn’t infallible.

Jesus sees the heart, not the exterior. We are judged by our hearts. If the intent of the crossdresser is immoral sex, then they are already judged. On the other hand, if the intent of the crossdresser is to express themselves in their appearance, and do so while loving God and their neighbor, then where is the sin?

If righteousness is obtained by Duet. 22:5, then Christ died for nothing.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

What sort of scandal? Do you mean wearing a disguise a crime such as robbing a bank? Or, maybe you mean going out and acting flamboyant like a drag queen? I would agree with you about those things.

What is meant by avoiding public scandal is to avoid the appearance of impropriety. A person should avoid looking like they are engaging in sin, even if they are not. As for crossdressing, keep in mind there is a lot of historical context to this prohibition. I won’t address the details but in times past, a person would dress as the opposite sex to facilitate homosexual encounters.

If the intent of the crossdresser is immoral sex, then they are already judged. On the other hand, if the intent of the crossdresser is to express themselves in their appearance, and do so while loving God and their neighbor, then where is the sin?

If righteousness is obtained by Duet. 22:5, then Christ died for nothing.

You are correct. It is what is a persons heart that determines sin and judgment. If a person is crossdressing for the sake of sexual titillation or as part of a deep seated ambivalence toward his own masculinity, this is reason to be concerned.

 

[AdamP88]

I think it is a mortal sin too, but why?

I guess it could have to do with the cross-dresser wanting to change the est. physical order of God but not all cross-dressers want this yet all cross-dressing is a sin. So there must be something more, is there?

It is actually not a sin in and of itself to dress as a woman. What is a sin is homosexual acts.

Cross-dressing can become a sin if it places the person in an occasion of sin. (Gay bar etc…)

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

It is actually not a sin in and of itself to dress as a woman. What is a sin is homosexual acts.

Cross-dressing can become a sin if it places the person in an occasion of sin. (Gay bar etc…)

If something places a person in an occasion of sin it becomes sinful, if something places someone in an occasion of occasion of sin it becomes sinful because an occasion of sin is sinful, using this logic almost anything is sinful.

 

[rodarbal]

You cite natural law, again where does it say this? Some people are bound by laws that are subjective to the (dis)order of life. This human condition is related to gender, not sexuality so any reference to homosexuality or heterosexuality is irrelevant. It is more natural for a feminine leaning androgyne, even though born physically male to wear female clothing as that is the natural presentation. That is the preferred mode of dress. It has nothing to do with sin and since androgyne people are neither male nor female sexuality becomes a preference.
Similar percentages of male born crossdressers prefer females for sexual interlude as the binary male heterosexual population. This is a complicated issue as when you get into the non binary arena there are many paths, i.e. crossdresser, androgyne, transvestite, transexual, all under the transgender umbrella.

 

[sw85]

You cite natural law, again where does it say this? Some people are bound by laws that are subjective to the (dis)order of life. This human condition is related to gender, not sexuality so any reference to homosexuality or heterosexuality is irrelevant. It is more natural for a feminine leaning androgyne, even though born physically male to wear female clothing as that is the natural presentation. That is the preferred mode of dress. It has nothing to do with sin and since androgyne people are neither male nor female sexuality becomes a preference.
Similar percentages of male born crossdressers prefer females for sexual interlude as the binary male heterosexual population. This is a complicated issue as when you get into the non binary arena there are many paths, i.e. crossdresser, androgyne, transvestite, transexual, all under the transgender umbrella.

Your remarks suggest you aren’t familiar with what natural law actually is. You should read up on it before commenting on its supposed insufficiency. I recommend Edward Feser’s Aquinas. Or here’s a useful treatment available online for free: reading.ac.uk/AcaDepts/ld/Philos/dso/papers/The%20Metaphysical%20Foundations%20of%20Natural%20Law.pdf

 

[rodarbal]

Have you read that? Sorry my intellect is not able to comprehend whatever that says. Is there a more modern translation. What I can tell it was written of late. By a catholic person. Sounds hebrew of origin, but seriously its mumbo jumbo to me. Not trying to insult you or the writer, but I guess I just don’t understand HIS version of natural law. I may be a simple person, but I accept my path in life. The more you understand about nature the more you will see there is no natural order. It is of a higher understanding neither you or I will ever comprehend because when you have all the answers they change the questions. Einstein was starting to get a grip before he died, and some great thinkers as well. John Muir had a reverence for natural order worth looking at, Ansel adams captured it in film, there are others for sure. Your reference to natural order, sorry just because he is catholic, just doesn’t do it.

 

[sw85]

Have you read that? Sorry my intellect is not able to comprehend whatever that says. Is there a more modern translation. What I can tell it was written of late. By a catholic person. Sounds hebrew of origin, but seriously its mumbo jumbo to me. Not trying to insult you or the writer, but I guess I just don’t understand HIS version of natural law. I may be a simple person, but I accept my path in life. The more you understand about nature the more you will see there is no natural order. It is of a higher understanding neither you or I will ever comprehend because when you have all the answers they change the questions. Einstein was starting to get a grip before he died, and some great thinkers as well. John Muir had a reverence for natural order worth looking at, Ansel adams captured it in film, there are others for sure. Your reference to natural order, sorry just because he is catholic, just doesn’t do it.

You clearly don’t believe the bolded part. As you wrote this block of text, your teeth didn’t spontaneously turn into liquid and dribble down your chin, nor did your monitor morph into a tiger and attack your face, nor did the gravitational constant change, causing the universe to rip itself apart. Because there is in fact a natural order. God created the world and “saw that it was good,” so that natural order is charged with meaning and value. It includes even basic considerations of how people live their lives and interact with each other, since God designed man in a particular way and thus with a particular set of goods in mind.

I’m impressed that you preface this whole thing by saying that you’re not an intellectual and don’t understand philosophy yet somehow you still know natural law is bogus. It’s alarming how much you sound like an atheist there (though, to your credit, you at least made a passing effort to understanding that which you criticize). If you’re not an intellectual and don’t understand philosophy, the proper attitude is one of epistemic humility, i.e., to bow down before the collective wisdom generations of saints, theologians, doctors of the church and holy men who consecrated their lives to contemplation and prayer, who are smarter and holier than you and who understood this stuff. And, also, to bow down before the teachings of the Church that the sexes are the proper moral expressions of human nature and not something to be inverted and turned on their heads, on the grounds that the Church is protected from error and you aren’t.

Now, to my specific problem with your earlier post, here’s an example:

It is more natural for a feminine leaning androgyne, even though born physically male to wear female clothing as that is the natural presentation.

The issue is that, no, it isn’t. “Natural law” pertains to human nature. It’s not about what feels natural to a given person, but about what is objectively true of human nature. If a person’s feelings don’t line up with the natural law than their feelings are disordered. One who acts on disordered impulses, knowingly and consciously, sins. If you want to deny that there is such a thing as “human nature,” you are a nominalist, which I believe might be a formally condemned position but is, anyway, nonsense. If there is no human nature than you and I have no necessary connection. Which means you have no basis for saying you and I are any more like than a starfish is to a skyscraper. Which clearly isn’t true.

You would understand this if you knew anything about natural law. Since you don’t, you really shouldn’t presume to comment on the validity of its content.

 

[Cherry5]

“You clearly don’t believe the bolded part. As you wrote this block of text, your teeth didn’t spontaneously turn into liquid and dribble down your chin, nor did your monitor morph into a tiger and attack your face, nor did the gravitational constant change, causing the universe to rip itself apart.”

Really sad way to express your point. I cringed when I read this.

I’m impressed that you preface this whole thing by saying that you’re not an intellectual and don’t understand philosophy yet somehow you still know natural law is bogus. It’s alarming how much you sound like an atheist there (though, to your credit, you at least made a passing effort to understanding that which you criticize). If you’re not an intellectual and don’t understand philosophy, the proper attitude is one of epistemic humility, i.e., to bow down before the collective wisdom generations of saints, theologians, doctors of the church and holy men who consecrated their lives to contemplation and prayer, who are smarter and holier than you and who understood this stuff. And, also, to bow down before the teachings of the Church that the sexes are the proper moral expressions of human nature and not something to be inverted and turned on their heads, on the grounds that the Church is protected from error and you aren’t.

The whole point is that perhaps they did not have the knowledge to understand “this stuff” I have no doubt in my mind that over time this will change as the church does its own research based on science. In the mean time this is today’s reality as the world is changing fast and you will have no option but learn to live with it.

 

[sw85]

Really sad way to express your point. I cringed when I read this.

I look forward to hearing why it is “sad” and “cringe”-inducing that the universe obviously behaves in predictable ways.

The whole point is that perhaps they did not have the knowledge to understand “this stuff” I have no doubt in my mind that over time this will change as the church does its own research based on science. In the mean time this is today’s reality as the world is changing fast and you will have no option but learn to live with it.

Science isn’t going to reveal as wrong our understanding of metaphysics because science itself is conditioned by metaphysics. This is getting into philosophy so it isn’t a proper discussion here.

Again, the natural law is based in human nature. Human nature isn’t changing. We still have two sexes for purposes of reproduction. There is still no fact/value distinction (at least not if you believe in God). Human nature is still essentially the vehicle for human goodness. And so on. If natural law theorists are wrong when they say all these things we’re owed an explanation as to why, and one that doesn’t start with either “Well, in some theoretical universe you might be wrong somehow but I don’t know how and can’t say why” or “I don’t know anything about philosophy and can’t really understand it when I try to read it, but I’m pretty sure you’re wrong for some reason.”