This article was first published at Remnantnewspaper.com on Tuesday, November 7, 2023. See here for the original article.

Part two was published Wednesday, November 29, 2023, see here. 

Below is part one and two of this two-part aricle.

Part 1: Dresses & Pants: The “LGBT” Movement and Blurring Gender Lines

When Cardinal Giuseppe Siri wrote on the topic of women wearing men's clothing in 1960, he focused largely on the psychological effects. He believed “Male dress is the visible aid to bringing about a mental attitude of being ‘like a man’ i.e., it changes the psychology of women."[1] He starts his "Notification" however, with this important statement: "The wearing of men's trousers by women cannot be said to constitute as such a grave offense against modesty, because trousers certainly cover more of woman's body than do modern women's skirts."

With all this in mind, Catholic writer and fantasy author Stefanie Nicolas (Lozinski) pointed out that:

In light of the Cardinal’s words, an important question comes to mind: Who was it who began the trend of women wearing pants in Christian societies? It should come as no surprise that it was feminist activists[2], including such big names as Susan B. Anthony and Cady Elizabeth Stanton, who first began to clothe themselves in trousers. These early advocates of trousers for women were unambiguous in their belief that women were not simply wearing pants for simple stylistic interest or even for comfort, but as part of their broader attempts[3] to craft a more “egalitarian” society. In other words, trousers began as a direct attack on natural gender roles.[4]
In the past, the term “wearing the pants” had a deeper meaning of “being the leader of the relationship or of the family,” which some early suffragettes took quite literally and donned a pair of trousers underneath their shortened dresses. Amelia Bloomer, one of the most prominent early feminists even said outright, "wearing traditionally male garments suggested an across-the-board 'usurpation of the rights of man'—notably, the right to vote."[5] However, the Church teaches that the man is the head of the family and that the two sexes are distinct from one another. Blurring the lines between the sexes is not the only tool feminists used (and still use today) to subvert society and the family, but it certainly can be attributed as a weapon in their arsenal.

In our modern society today, corrupted and poisoned by the rejection of God and the toxicity of feminism, this question has often been asked, “if women can dress ‘like men’, why can’t men dress ‘like women’?” It’s a fair question. If we consider the blurring of gender roles that has been occurring ever since the idea that husbands should stop being the heads of their households, we can very clearly see a descent from this to the embrace of homosexual "marriage", and today, to the "transgender" movement. If gender roles can be switched, boiled down and "rewritten", why not allow men to dress like women? (I highly recommend reading Timothy Gordon's book "The Case for Patriarchy" which presents this descent into societal madness as stemming from the ideology of feminism.)

In 1938 an advice column made this assessment:

Isn’t it queer that for a boy to want to be a girl, and look like a girl, and dress like a girl is so unusual that it fills his parents with fear that he is abnormal, whereas virtually every girl in the world wishes she were a boy and the majority of them try to look like boys, and act like boys, and dress like boys? The greatest insult you can offer a man is to call him effeminate, but women esteem it a compliment to be told they have a boyish figure and that they have a masculine intellect.[6]

In an article titled, “Why Most Men Still Don’t Casually Wear Dresses,” Marlen Komar made this comment, quoting from the above advice column, “We would send a man who paraded the streets in a decollete gown and high-heeled pumps to an asylum for mental observation, whereas a girl who gets herself up like an imitation man goes scot free.” adding “Not until men can just as freely put on chiffon dresses as women could put on trousers, can we say that we have figured it out.”[7]

Interestingly, after decades of normalizing women wearing so-called “men’s clothing,” present-day psychologically disturbed men are using this as a prime excuse to wear women’s clothing.

Homosexual Billy Porter made headlines after wearing a “ball gown” style dress to the Oscars in 2019. “Women show up every day in pants, but the minute a man wears a dress, the seas part,” he lisped in an interview[8]. “If I’m over here wearing a dress, why does it matter? Any woman who puts on pants is considered strong because pants are associated with the Patriarchy. It’s like some sort of superiority complex. So a man puts on a dress and it’s disgusting; so what you’re saying is, ‘men are fabulous, women are disgusting’. I’m not doing that anymore.”[9] He then pointed out, “Look at history! Men wore dresses!” adding that “Jesus wore a dress.”

The same psychotic sex-perverts who claim that we should raise children to be accepting of “all genders” are dressing their own children either as unisex as possible or in clothing of the opposite gender. And by "all genders" they mean, of course, not just male and female, but their scads of made-up “genders." These abusive parents are also taking strange pride in their little boys wanting to play with makeup or wear dresses. They enjoy reading their children perverse Children’s books that teach them confusion and error, treating them like “genderless” or “transgender” children[10], and so on.  No longer can a young girl be allowed to be a tomboy without being treated like she's either a lesbian, or actually a boy on the inside and needs to go have her entire womanhood destroyed forever by doctors. These are just snippets of the whole, abusive, Satanic agenda confusing and corrupting innocent children on the most basic principles and leading them to hell in a hand basket.

 We cannot stress enough the importance of children having strong, Catholic parents (one man and one woman married to each other) who raise them to be good, Catholic, boys and girls, according to their born gender, male or female. A small part of this includes how parents dress their children, but they must also teach them to be devout Catholics and to have proper decorum. Clothing is important, on this we can agree. We can see from the behavior of the perverse mob that not only is it important, but dressing according to our state in life and our born gender is just one part of the whole picture in raising a child to be mentally, physically, and spiritually stable.

Concerning Billy Porters comments on dresses being “historically what men wore,” however, we might be tempted to say to ourselves; perhaps he has a point. After all, didn’t the great Catholic thinker and philosopher, G.K. Chesterton say:

It is quite certain that the skirt means female dignity, not female submission; it can be proved by the simplest of all tests. No ruler would deliberately dress up in the recognized fetters of a slave; no judge would appear covered with broad arrows. But when men wish to be safely impressive, as judges, priests or kings, they do wear skirts, the long, trailing robes of female dignity. The whole world is under petticoat government; for even men wear petticoats when they wish to govern.[11]

This may lead us to wonder if letting little boys dress up in little girl clothing is OK. After all, if girls dress up as boys, what is the difference? And if girls dress in pants, why shouldn’t boys dress in skirts and dresses?

We need to unpack this because of the weight of this statement and what it entails. For it seems that history and even the Church looks to be approving of men wearing “skirts and dresses” of some kind, and yet those who promote “cross-dressing” today are for the most part radical, anti-God, “LGBT” leftists. So the big question is... "is men wearing skirts historical or homosexual??"

 Part 2: Is Men Wearing Skirts Historical or Homosexual: The “LGBT” Movement and Blurring Gender Lines

In 2020, popular singer Harry Styles donned a dress for the cover of Vogue magazine and quickly became a hot topic. Conservative author and commentator Candace Owens rightly called it out as an attack on real men, “There is no society that can survive without strong men.... (T)he steady feminization of our men at the same time that Marxism is being taught to our children is not a coincidence.”1 Unsurprisingly, Owens was promptly targeted and condemned by the mob and the mass media for stating the truth.

The secular media kept repeating, “men wore dresses in the past so this is normal behavior and not emasculation.” Some even dared to call it “masculine” for a man to wear a dress, as Styles did. Confused Marxists straight out of college like to claim that big bad "ye olde Christian Patriarchy" has merely trained everyone to think that there is something seriously wrong with a homo wearing women's clothing. They may smugly assert that it's no different than a Scotsman wearing a kilt, and everything we've ever known to be good or bad in society is simply evidence of "hateful, tyrannical Patriarchy." In their eyes, we have all essentially been brainwashed into thinking one thing is immoral and another is not, when in their mind, everything bad is good and vice versa. All of this, of course, is nonsense. Sane people recognize the colossal difference between kilts and cross-dressing.

But is it not merely historical fashion when these homosexuals are wearing women's clothing?? Well aside from the obvious fact that they are all homosexuals who are engaging in this embarrassing behavior, we can recognize that it's being pushed by secular society as a virtuous thing. And, if we haven't noticed already, secular society is the last place to look for moral guidance, especially on the issue of masculinity.

First, it does not even understand what authentic masculinity is. It promotes godless practices in the name of “freedom” and tries to punish men who dare to live as strong, Christian men, calling them “homophobic, bigots, sexists, rapists, haters” etc.

Secondly, secular society is extraordinarily immoral; pedophiles are now being called just another “sexual preference.”2 Peak “femininity” is a pro-baby-murder, genderqueer, witchy feminist. This society embraces men who believe that they are women, and women who believe they are men. It claims that there are 112+ genders, and children should be raised gender-neutral.  It celebrates convicted pedophiles in dresses and an obscene amount of makeup reading perverse filth to children in libraries.3 And, perhaps the most egregious of all, this society literally worships abortion.

Thirdly, secular society wants men without chests. It wants men without the wits, muscles, spiritual or physical strength to provide and protect their wives and children. Men without guns, without a solid and steady faith life and moral backbone, without leadership and a steady job. A man wearing a dress is considered great because it signifies the freedom of “men” to become more and more emasculated, more in touch with the homosexual spirit, more open to letting the moral fabric of society fall into decay and insanity.  Strong moral men keep society healthy, and a healthy society is less likely to follow whatever debauchery Satan and his elite are pushing.

This whole idea that men in dresses (men cross-dressing rather) is beautiful, masculine and "in tune with history" is coming from a society that is so corrupt and twisted that it holds murdering an innocent human baby as the highest form of currency, power, freedom, and religion. A society where women dressing and acting like “men” is the norm and has been for decades. A society where sexually-perverse men and women (and children!) parade their depravity everywhere they go, with no backlash from the majority of the members of the One Holy Catholic Church! A society where one can do and say anything as long as it is immoral, and blasphemes God and the natural order.

Can we really say, along with these creeps that it's normal for men to dress like women and women to dress like men? Considering how morally bankrupt the promoters of these practices are, I think its safe to assume, along with the One True Catholic Church, that it is not normal for either sexes to dress and act like the other. St. Ambrose writes, "If you consider it truly, there is an incongruity that nature itself abhors. For why, man, do you not want to appear to be what you were born as? Why do you put on a strange guise? Why do you ape a woman? Or why do you, woman, ape a man? Nature arrays each sex with its own garments. Men and women have different customs, different complexions, gestures and gaits, different sorts of strength, different voices."4

What about Chesterton's quote? “But when men wish to be safely impressive, as judges, priests or kings, they do wear skirts, the long, trailing robes of female dignity. The whole world is under petticoat government; for even men wear petticoats when they wish to govern.”5 This is hardly an endorsement of the depraved cross-dressing going on today. The Catholic Church is not against “men in robes.” Cassocks, Judges robes, old royalty, ect. Cultures that include men wearing kilts, Gho, sarongs, are not condemned by the Church either. But these are traditional clothing and were never worn to showcase the freedom to be “out and proud homosexuals." They were never worn to promote severely immoral and broken ideologies and lifestyles that have been made the norm in our society. The perverse secularists have taken the “the long, trailing robes of female dignity” and have done what they always do to everything: made it all about breaking with Christian tradition and promoting disordered sex. As Tolkien wrote, “The Shadow (…) can only mock, it cannot make.”6

To conclude, a “man in a dress” isn’t just about a man wearing a feminine-styled dress; it isn’t a hat tip to men in history wearing robes and tunics, it isn’t a show of masculinity, nor is it even a salute to men of different cultures like the Scots. It is a blatant result of toxic feminism, homosexual, anti-family, anti-life, anti-gender role, anti-God ideology and practice. A grossly homosexual deviant wearing a dress is not masculine. A traditional, spiritually strong man in a cassock giving his life to Christ and serving others is indeed masculine. There is a difference, and I can assure you, the Left knows it.

Catholics must try to survive this evil by living out the teachings of the One True Church. Men, live and dress like men, and women live and dress like women. As Pope St. Pius X said, “Let the storm rage and the sky darken - not for that shall we be dismayed. If we trust as we should in Mary, we shall recognize in her, the Virgin Most Powerful 'who with virginal foot did crush the head of the serpent'”7

I leave you with these stirring words of Pope Pius XII,

“The condition of things today is what it is; you are not able to change it; however regrettable it may be, one is uselessly lost in mere lamentations. As it has its dangers, one must take thought for defenses against them and for victory over them. You have to make your way along the streets of the city; you have to make your own defense of the bulwark and the arms of your own virtue; and you will be able to serve this purpose even by your consistent determination, your sincere speech, your deportment. On the street, in public places of gathering, in stores, factories, offices, universities or libraries, one word, and if you find it necessary, a sharp word, will silence any impertinence. Oh yes! Your eyes will see moral ugliness unwillingly, or will see it; they will not be dazzled or injured; yet they must be taught to repress and mortify curiosity, which is the subtle accomplice of the seductions of the world. Temptation that entices or mocks will seem like a storm wind whistling in your ears; your need then is to pass by without listening or attending, without a word or a look. But though you are surrounded by wind and dust and mud, do not become sad or discouraged.”8

Footnotes for part one:

[1] Giuseppe Cardinal Siri, "Notification Concerning Men's Dress Worn By Women" June 12, 1960. Published on http://olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml

[2]  Lorraine Boissoneault, “Amelia Bloomer Didn’t Mean to Start a Fashion Revolution, But Her Name Became Synonymous With Trousers” Smithsonian Magazine, published May 24 2018

[3] Katy Steinmetz, “From Horse People to Hillary Clinton: A History of Women Wearing Pants” Time Magazine, June 14 2016

[4] Stefanie Nicolas, “Understanding Modesty: Objective Standards and Practical Insights”,  Catholic Family News, published August 14, 2019.

[5] Kimberly Chrisman-Campbell, "When American Suffragists Tried to ‘Wear the Pants'", The Atlantic,  June 12 2019

[6] The Richmond Item, Page 8, Friday, December 23, 1938

[7] Marlen Komar, “Why Most Men Still Don’t Casually Wear Dresses” Racked, published April 23 2018

[8] Cady Lang, “Here’s Why Billy Porter Wore That Remarkable Gown to the 2019 Oscars” TIME Magazine, published Feb 25 2019

[9] Harrion Walker, “Why Billy Porter Will Wear a Gown Whenever He Damn Well Pleases” Out, published July 12 2019

[10] Michael Tortorello, “How to Raise a Child Without Imposing Gender” New York Times, published March 7 2019. Nicole Darrah, “Child being raised genderless to protect from ‘unconscious bias,’ parents say” Fox News, published September 17, 2019 Annie Holmquist, “Why Do We Encourage Gender Specific Clothes for Transgender Kids, but Gender Neutral Clothes for Straight Kids?” Intellectual Takeout, published Sept 13 2017

[11] G.K. Chesterton, “What’s Wrong with the World”, 1910

Footnotes for part two:

[1] Candance Owens, Twitter, Nov 14 2020

[2] Mirjam Heine, TedX talk, May 5 https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/tedx-talk-pedophilia/ see also so-called "minor-attracted-persons"

[3] “Drag Queen Storytime: Convicted pedophile, dressed as a woman, reads to kids at public library” LifeSiteNews, published March 19 2019

[4] St. Ambrose Commentary on Deuteronomy 22:5, https://catenabible.com/com/5838dae5205c248f42e52a6c

[5] G.K. Chesterton, “What’s Wrong with the World”, 1910

[6] The Return of the King, VI,1

[7] Pope St. Pius X, “Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, On the Immaculate Conception” Encyclical, February 2 1904. http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_02021904_ad-diem-illum-laetissimum.html

[8] To 4,000 Children of Mary for the 75th anniversary of their pious association, October 25 1942. Cited in “The Problem of Teen-Age Purity: The Teachings of Pope Pius XII” Nazareno Camilleri, Ph. D., D. D., S. D. B., Translated by Marian Barrows, printed by the Ave Maria Institute, April 11, 1961.