CROSS DRESSING AND DEUTERONOMY 22:5: MATTERS ARISING.

BY
CHIKAOGU DIOKPALA OSSAI-UGBAH
Cross-dressing is the act of wearing clothing or piece of fashion generally identified and
associated with another gender within a particular society or cultural context. 1 The term
cross-dressing denotes an action or a behaviour of using materials that are perceived to
belong to the opposite sex from the dresser.2
Almost all cultures throughout history has distinguished between male and
female gender by the style, colour, or type of clothing they wear and has had a set of
norms, views, guidelines, or even laws defining what type of clothing is appropriate for
each gender. Thus Cross-dressing is seen as a behaviour which runs significantly
counter to those norms and therefore can be seen as a type of role reversal and
abominable.
It was once taboo in Western society for women to wear clothes traditionally
associated with men, excepting certain circumstances.3 Cross dressing is specifically
cited as an "abomination" in the Bible in the book of Deuteronomy 22:5 although even in
the Middle Ages, its applicability was occasionally disputed.4
A. Context of Cross Dressing in Deuteronomy 22:5
Our text is located within what at best can be called “sundry” (vss. 1 – 12) and
“morality” (vss. 13 – 30) laws. Sundry refer to miscellaneous issues or asides. There are
several opinions as there are scholars on the exact interpretation of this verse.5
However, suffice it to say that meaning of a verse of scripture can be found in its
context. A context is events before, within and after a text that are interwoven in
thematic structure, syntax and style. Therefore, if Deuteronomy 22:5 must be
considered literally others should also be.
There are three clauses in Deuteronomy 22:5:
(1) A man's item shall not be on a woman;
(2) and a man shall not wear a woman's garment;
(3) Whoever does such a thing is abhorrence unto Adonai.
The words "man's" and "men" come first in both clauses, and in order to allow
that, the first clause is passive while the second is active. Moreover, the first clause

1
talks of kli gever "item" or "appurtenance" while the second clause uses the word simlat
"dress" or "garment."6 It seems that the verse speaks of two differing but related things
viz clothing and dressing items. If literal connation of the text within context is not
applicable what then comes to mind is the intent of the law.
The intent of the law, in this view, is to prevent men and women from associating
with what would normally be a single-sex group of the other gender under false
pretenses for purposes of, or in circumstances that are liable to lead to, heterosexual
adultery according to Rabbi Rashi. Similarly, the Shulhan Arukh,7 in its discussion of the
laws of the festival of Purim (OH 696:8), the Code says men and women may cross
dress on Purim because it is for the purpose of gaiety (simha), not for adultery. In the
Sefer HaHinukh: The root of this mitzva (commandment) is to keep us from sexual
sin...and there is no doubt that if men and women's clothing were the same, they would
mix and the earth would be filled with impropriety.
The mitzva does not prohibit cross dressing for the festival of Purim. It also would
probably not prohibit cross-dressing in a private setting or for theatrical purposes, nor
would it prohibit such dress when it would not mislead others as to the gender of the
person under the clothes. The Torah's concern in this verse, then, is not with creating or
reinforcing gender differences per se, but in preventing gender associations of clothing
or possibly body hair from being used to deceive others for purposes leading to sexual
immorality.
No one knows for sure whether this prohibition was intended as a general
principle or was directed at some specific abuse among the ancient Hebrews. Cross-
dressing was likely considered an affront to the natural distinction between the sexes
(Genesis 1:27). It may also have been related to some deviant sexual practice, or more
likely, to pagan worship. It is known that some pagan rituals of that time involved women
wearing armor and men dressing as women, and the Hebrews were forbidden to do
anything that had even the appearance of pagan worship.
Some people think this verse would prohibit women from wearing pants because
trousers have traditionally been worn by men. But, in light of the similarity of men's and
women's clothing in Biblical times and the fact that trousers were not worn by either sex
at that time, that conclusion would be difficult to justify. The key here seems to be

2
deception for illicit purposes. Indeed this law appears in Deuteronomy in the context of
laws against deceit.
B. Contextual Application of Deuteronomy 22:5
If the context of Deuteronomy 22:5 is one against deceit then the motive and use of
dressing determines its contextual acceptability and rightness. Motive therefore defines
use and “tactics” for the cross dresser. Uses fix objects in a place and time; tactics are
rapid movements, contingent upon place and time, which sever the consumer and the
object of consumption from their defined positions.8 Thus, fashion can be a tactical
maneuver in the practices of street everyday life. Some of the reasons for cross
dressing which don’t go against Deuteronomy 22:5 are:
1. Climatic: Dressing, clothing or fashion is determined by geographical and climatic
factors or location. 9
In Nigeria for instance, females in the Northern part put on
what could be termed traditional trousers over their long flowing gowns.
2. Socio-cultural factor: The actual determination of cross-dressing is largely
socially constructed. For example, in Western society, trousers have been
adopted for wear by women, and are not regarded as cross-dressing. In Scotland
where men have traditionally worn skirt-like garments such as the kilt or sarong
these are not seen as female clothing and wearing them is not seen as cross-
dressing for men. As societies are becoming more global in nature, both men and
women are adopting styles of dress associated with other cultures. Among the
Ukwuani people of Delta State, traditional dressing of a man is of the same
wrapper like a woman. The distinction however lies in the way the wrapper is tied
around the waist.
3. Functionality and suitability: A basic function of dress is to cover nakedness,
provide protection harsh weather conditions and enable smooth activities in
official environments. Thus certain clothes are more suitable for certain social
contexts, environmental conditions and professions. 10
In the Nigerian Youth
Service Corp for instance both male and female wear trousers.
4. Economic: Some persons who cross dress put financial factors into
consideration. There are certain regions where certain clothing’s are termed
unisex: can be worn by either sexes and are cheaper to buy and maintain. For

3
 instance, a lady in Nigerian higher school can put on a trouser for about two or
three days and only change the blouse, but cannot do so with a skirt.
C. Conclusion of matters Arising from Deuteronomy 22:5
If we insist on a literal interpretation of Verse 5, then aren't we also obligated to
apply the same literal interpretation to other verses as well? Two other verses in the
same chapter are curiously related to clothing. Verse 11, "Don't wear clothing woven
from two kinds of thread: for instance, wool and linen together." Why isn't there a great
disturbance about wearing shirts and blouses made of polyester and cotton? Verse 12
says that, "You must sew tassels on the four corners of your cloaks." Wearing tassels
today is more likely to be associated with a strip show than to be following God's word.
Why doesn't anyone mention these verses?
Verse 22 has interesting ramifications, "If a man be found lying with a woman
married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lie with the
woman and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel." If we brand a cross-
dresser as an abomination aren't we similarly required to put adulterers to death?
Finally, Verses 28 and 29 state, "If a man finds a damsel that is a virgin, which is
not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man
that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver and she shall
be his wife; because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." Are we
to force every man who has seduced a virgin to pay a dowry, marry her and prohibit a
divorce for his lifetime? Based on the preceding argument, I believe that a blanket
condemnation of cross-dressers is unwarranted. I believe that the church must begin to
look at the specifics of each case and respond to the needs of the individual person. I
believe that mainstream Christian ministers need to take positive steps to bring cross-
dressers into the fold of the church. I believe that my ministry is to encourage those
steps to be taken. What do you think? I have come to believe that it is wrong to
automatically brand a cross-dresser as a sinner in need of repentance. Instead we need
to look at the specific circumstances of individual person before making any kind of
judgment. If the church took that approach we would be able to deal with real problems
in a constructive way. Significant dialog must replace the rush to judgment.
There is a deep chasm between life in Biblical times and today's world. The
Israelites were forbidden to draw pictures, carve statues or make graven images. They
4
used parables and allegories to portray and explain spiritual ideas which even simple
folk easily understood but never took literally. The Semitic languages are filled with
idiomatic expressions that are virtually incomprehensible to the untrained mind. Without
an intimate understanding of the customs of those times and their subtle impact on life
and language, it is difficult to obtain an accurate interpretation. Can we safely ignore all
these details and simply say, "That's what the Bible says?" Bible interpreters must be
real to local contexts.

5
ENDNOTES

6
1“Cross-dress," The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. Answers.com 25 Sep. 2007.

2Susan E. Dunn, “Fashion Victims: Mina Loy's Travesties,” Stanford Humanities Review, Vol.
7, 1. (1999).

3See St. Thomas Aquinas's guidelines in Summa Theologiae II.

4Schibanoff, Susan. "Fresh Verdicts on Joan of Arc", Transvestism and Idalotry, p39

5Rabbi Tilsen, “Cross Dressing and Deuteronomy 22:5” http://www.beki.org/index.html

6See Bible Works, CD Rom, 2005.

7The 16th century law code that has become a standard law text for most of the traditionally
observant Jewish people.

8Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven Rendall (1974; Berkeley: U
California P, 1984) 28-42.

9Enclyclopedia Americana, Vol. 9, International Edition, (Danbury: Scholastic Library, 2004),

379.

10Enclyclopedia, Britannica, Vol. 17, (15th edition), 500