Form, function, fashion, trends, and, rights...
Just to add a few things not mentioned so much, so far....
Much of what passes for "men's clothing" is job related - a particular "outfit" for a particular job or occupation. Wearing a welder's bib to weld makes sense for any welder, wearing a three piece Brooks Brothers suit would not. Women, when they were allowed to weld for the war effort, could make it look good - see the posters.
Much of what passes for "men's clothing is life related. To "be a man" is to be ready to compete - be it a footrace (after a purse snatcher), a "wrassling match" (catching a purse snatcher), and to bring the food back to the cave: "Here's your purse. Do you know how we can cook and eat this guy?"
Much of what passes for "menswear" is defensive. A dress doesn't do much to keep the hands off your "junk" and it's too easy for someone to grab the blanket wrapped around your waste to hinder you, throw you off balance, etc. Tight fitting, "slippery" clothes - being less of negative - are a defensive advantage.
Fashion is a presentation of availability for a particular purpose. It could be, "See, I'm a competent banker." It could also be, "Come hither." Fashion, therefore, can be a very tricky thing as non-verbal communication. "No, I'm not a banker; I"m going to a funeral." "No, I'm not looking for a date, I just felt like wearing something fun this evening - go away."
For me, men wearing skirts (only) requires a cost/benefit analysis: "Is it worth the probable hassle that comes with various interpretations people have, or, could have?
Frankly, I think it's easier to crossdress fully as it's generally a more easily understood presentation than a "man-a-taur" wearing a skirt and a suit coat....
There are again, no "fashion police" and no "absolute" rights and wrongs when it comes to clothing. But, there is "being reasonable..."
If you want to wear a skirt, thats up to you, but YOU take what comes with it.
What you do about what comes with it, depends on how much effort you want to put into doing what you're doing.
If you want the "rights," you'll need to gather the votes to have and keep them.
"Unalienable rights" are "just" ideas until put into laws and codes - and the "putting" takes more effort than just talking or writing about it now and then - from your password protected computer, hourly hotel room, or, closet sanctuary.
Clothes don't make the man, or, woman... No wait, they might! No... They don't.
ReineD,
About your pictures...
Note that the first woman is apparently a model for a workers training event in that she's standing next to sign about how to conduct yourself in doing "war work" (security) and a sign about choosing the right tool for the job. The second woman is engaged in actually doing "dirty work" and seems engaged in doing the work "with a will." Neither woman could be easily mistaken for a, "he," man...
The first woman, however, could easily be taken for an effeminate man. She seems self-conscious in her stance, she doesn't "own" the clothes she's wearing, and her posture is of one unprepared to do anything with any "will." The second woman is a "manly" woman, using muscle and action to get a task done. Sure, she could be mixing cookie dough, but it just so happens here she isn't.
The main thing dividing these two woman is, "competence," I think, and, unless you're looking at a competitor, competence is generally sexy, or, sexier than incompetence or uncertainty. Instead of "sexy" you could use "attractive," "useful," or, "valuable." To me, what separates CDs into two groups is "silly" vs. "sensible."
Some CDs "aspire" to be women and wind up being immature girls, not mature women. It's the lack of any real ability to get anything serious done, you see. Some CDs, a minority it seems, aspire (or, set the temporary goal) to be women - but in ways that many woman aspire to go about their day - the right clothes, makeup, shoes, etc. for what they are going to DO with their time as women.
I've seen both kinds of CDers, but I have never been anything but a "working woman's woman," I suppose, because to me it's been about experiencing "the mission" of getting ready, getting to work, and getting things done: whether it's getting the car fixed, arguing with the tax man, doing the grocery shopping, or, going to a party or the post office. I prefer the more pleasant assignments, of course, and not for the least of reasons that's it's easier on the clothes themselves.
The topic of this thread was about men wearing skirts. I've never had anyone say men couldn't wear skirts, only that they probably shouldn't. Skirts impart no advantages to most work-a-day tasks over pants, shorts, or, slacks that I have ever seen. Skirts, as women came to argue over time, limit what can be done, can often be a security problem, and, have to be managed more than pants. They are, too often, the wrong tool for the job and force the wearer into difficult or unsafe situations. Who, for example, wants a skirt trapped in a truck rig door as they step down from the cab? Who? Nobody with any sense of safety or financial profit...
The OP titled this thread, "Kicking (at) a dead horse." Actually, the expression is "Beating a dead horse": the "kicking" expression is "Kicking a dead dog." Either way, the notion is that it's fruitless to beat or kick a dead thing if your intent is to get the dead thing to, in the case of the horse, to run, or, in the case of the dog, to move. If, on the other hand, you want to vent some frustration, then the beating or kicking might be in order, although it just makes what you're doing more fruitless in terms of the commonly desired affect.
Men can wear skirts, and few men will stop them. Some will, most won't. And, why do the majority of men and women not deeply care about men wearing skirts? Because it's too easily seen as a pointless effort at getting very much done and it's easily seen a ultimately self defeating/silly behavior if it's "all" about freedom, etc.
Women wear tailored and/or colorful skirts to get something done, not just to appear stupid at getting on in life. And, when they wear pants, or, "dull" skirts, it's either because it fits their purposes better, they lack something else at the time, or, they guessed wrong about their day.
Men can and do wear skirts, when it makes better sense to do so. Which... is rarely.
But, knock yourself out if that's what you want to do. That's my take on it... And, I have some nice skirts that I wouldn't waste on tilting at windmills.
Let's change this argument a bit here, shall we? See the focus seems to always be that because women were denied the right to wear pants that now that they do so, this is a form of crossdressing or what-have-you. The argument that skirts are not male attire is moot because it USE TO BE. Kilts, togas, etc. From Romans to Africans to Scots to Vikings they wore a type of dress/skirt. Just have a gander and fashion over the centuries.