You're still begging the question. No one here (and no one I've ever met) has been able to provide proof that it is a sin for a woman to wear pants.
No one here has said it is a sin. More than a few have suggested that either pants are immodest or that it is harmful to a woman, but no one has suggested that it is a sin for a woman to wear pants.
Ancilla Indigna said exactly that. Maybe you should read the posts you missed instead of stating your same arguments over and over without reading other peoples'.
I read the posts, thanks, and I have continually interacted with a few decent comments and the great amount of pointless rhetoric tossed about. I keep reiterating my points because I remain unchallenged on most.
Ancillae implied it might be a sin, but did not say that wearing any pants was a sin:
Well, if the person doesn't know it's a sin, then usually it is not a sin (hey, but if the person doesn't know it's a sin to dress for the purpose to provoke lust, but they know it's a sin to have lust in one's heart, by their intent they are sinning --- even with their hardened conscience, yes it's true). But for something like wearing pants because it's what the boss wants, then it's an issue of one's spiritual, interior disposition. If one is less zealous, then the sin could very well be that of spiritual sloth. Now, that's not condoning disobedience to one's superior, but there are other jobs out there.
Once again, there were no pants at the time of Dueteronomy[sic], and any assumption that the quotation refers them is nothing more than begging the question.
Well, we did not have pornographic photos at the time of the Ten Commandments, so any assumption that that "neighbor's wife" bit means pornographic photos are immoral is, according to your logic, begging the question.
Pornographic images are inherently wrong. A woman wearing pants is not. If you insist it is without backing up your claim, you are begging the question. I would have thought the difference between these two things was obvious.
I'm using your own logic. The bible could not be envisioning the future, just talking about what was existing at the time. That's what you essentially affirmed. Paraphrasing: Pants did not exist as men's clothing, so Deuteronomy could not be referring to pants.
You're begging the question, not I, when you say pornographic images are inherently wrong. I agree that they are inherently wrong, but the Ten Commandments do not specifically prohibit Pornographic photos, so if we're going to do the "letter of the law" opposed to the "spirit of the law" approach that you forwarded, then my syllogism holds quite well.
If "Pornographic Photos do not violate the Ten Commandments, because they did not exist when the Commandment were written" is absurd (and I think it is), then so too, is your argument that pants could not be included in what was said in Deuteronomy about men and women's attire. It is the same logic.