[Avodah] who determines norms?

[Chana Luntz]

RJR writes:

<I once posted: I've never really resolved myself how I feel about the
concept that the first people who do something are sinners but if enough of
them do it becomes the norm and acceptable. Thoughts?>

I confess I don't really understand your problem.  Particularly in relation
to the subject of the sources you asked us to consider (which relates to men
not wearing women's clothing and the counterpart prohibition).  The
distinction seems clearly to be about the motivation for wearing the
garment.  The first person who wears a woman's garment is clearly doing it
davka.  Indeed the understanding of Rashi (Devarim 22:5  - and the Rif and
the Rosh, see the discussion in the Beis Yosef Yoreh Deah siman 182 letter 5
and see also Nazir 58b-59a) is that the Torah prohibition is for a man to
wear such garments with the intent to go amongst women - as such actions are
borne out of sexual motivations.  With this understanding - the Torah
prohibition is to cross dress so that one can go amongst women and the
rabbinic prohibition is to deliberately wear items that are those of the
other sex, even though it is obvious from the other garments worn that you
are your own sex.  So clearly at the point that the wearing of such a
garment becomes normal and acceptable, the person wearing it is no longer
trying to break boundaries  - either to disguise themselves as the other
sex, or to stand out as wearing a garment of the other sex - but just to
wear an item of clothing that is no longer identified as being of that sex
and hence has no sexual connotations.   And even according to the Rambam (at
least given the Beis Yosef's explanation of the Rambam) where the Torah
prohibition is linked to the view of the observer.  Ie will the observer
identify this as being a woman's garment or not (and if it is somewhere
hidden, like shaving the armpits, there is no Torah prohibition as that is
not generally observed), the first people to do this will be presenting to
view items that are identified by observers as garments of the other sex.
But later, they will not be presenting such items to view, as people will
regard such garments as worn by both.

So, it seems to me, all you need to do is reframe the prohibition (or
rather, state the prohibition correctly).  People are prohibited from
wearing garments that are identified (by themselves or others) as garments
of the other sex. They are permitted to wear garments that are identified,
by themselves and others, as garments which are worn by both sexes.
Garments can change what they signify to others (just as words can) through
usage (it is difficult today to go around using the word gay to mean happy
without any other connotation - even though as a child I learnt a poem for a
speaking exam which included the line "the train went gay" with absolutely
no sexual connotation meant).  And yes, that means that people can wear
exactly the same thing, at different times in history, and have that action
mean something different.  But similarly they can say exactly the same
thing, at different times in history, and have the words mean something
different.  And that doesn't seem odd to me at all.

>KT
>Joel Rich

Regards

Chana