New glamour dress on a male (art)

[Gramul]

I've said it before but it doesn't matter why it stirs up duress in people, it only matters that it does.
This thread is 40 pages of people arguing why or why not men should be able to wear dresses. Specifically, one of the most feminine dresses (by STANDARD Japanese and STANDARD North American, I can't speak for Europe, societal perceptions of masculinity and femininity) the development team has ever come up with.
It doesn't matter whether WE like it or not. It only matters if doing so would cause more problems than not doing so.
The very fact that there is even a point of contention is likely their reason for avoiding the issue in the first place. Which is a VERY Japanese thing to do.
Again, the "Why" is not important. Only the fact that you have to ask why in the first place is important.
"But why is it ok for women to be wearing the masculine outfits?" you ask.
For the opposite reason: They would catch more heat for keeping the outfits locked to men than they would for making them wearable by both genders.
There's also one simple, irrefutable fact: In Japan and America, if a woman walks into work one day wearing pants and the next a skirt, no one will say a word.
If a man walks in wearing a skirt, he attracts attention. It may be as simple as some co-workers laughing about it around the water cooler, or it could be as bad as getting called into the boss's office. And drawing attention to yourself in Japanese culture in such a way is frowned upon.
You may not like it, and to be honest I'm not happy about it either, but this is simply reality.

That's not enough to satisfy me. "It just upsets people" is too weak of an argument. It ignores the core base on why it happens. And if I don't know why, how can I be expected to accept it?

Standards change. People change. Just saying "It is what it is and we just comply to it" just comes off as flippant and dismissive.

The only reason I keep posting in this thread is because I want to know why. Why does deviating from that standard cause distress? Why is that standard apparently so ironclad? That's what I don't understand and that's why I can't accept the answer you provide.

Earlier I said:

It's just an unwritten social contract on what we expect to be acceptable for our own time and culture. The only strength it has is people's compliance with it as it stands.

And it seems you're just saying we should comply with it... because it's a social standard. Which just makes it stronger as a standard. That's a bit of a slippery slope.