> Its analogous to if you were an American slave in 1800s, got your freedom and sailed to the UK. And on landing saw blacks in the UK wearing chains as a fashion accessory.

https://genius.com/8720933

> Most black men couldn't balance a checkbook / But buy a new car, talkin' 'bout, "How my neck look?" / Well, it all looks great / Four hundred years later, we buyin' our own chains

These leftists (there's nothing progressive in them) are the good old priesthood. They invent dogmas that mock logic to control the crowd, and they do it by fear, but they are keenly aware of the real power - the royalty - so when the roylaty wants something that contradicts the existing dogmas, the priests swiftly invent a new dogma.

In the culture wars, it's all about positioning yourself as being of higher moral standing. If you position yourself as being for the downtrodden, you get higher social status. For historical reasons, this can't be done with poverty any more in the US so the playing field is selected race and gender groups.

> Its analogous to if you were an American slave in 1800s, got your freedom and sailed to the UK. And on landing saw blacks in the UK wearing chains as a fashion accessory. It seems so disrespectful towards your struggle.

I would point out that chains are indeed a popular fashion accessory.

I think that telling people what to wear removes power from them. It isn't contradictory to believe that telling people that they must wear something and telling people that they must not wear that thing can BOTH be dis-empowering.

So while I think you should absolutely share your experiences and the feelings you get when you see others wearing a hijab, I absolutely do not think you should push for laws that make it illegal to wear one.

> I think that telling people what to wear removes power from them.

Indeed, it does remove power from them. It is also something which every country, every culture, and every religion has in common. They all put in rules about what people are allowed and not allowed to wear. The support for those are also quite high when people are forced to think about them, but since they are such an omnipresence, it like talking to fish about water.

It is a rare event that I find a person who honestly believe that people should have an inalienable-right to decide from themselves what to wear with neither government, culture or religion being able to overrule that decision.

The ubiquity and normalization of dress codes doesn't mean that they are fair or just. There is both a long history and plenty of contemporary controversy over very unfair dress codes.

When a more powerful group imposes a dress code on a less powerful group, it absolutely behooves us to second guess ourselves.

> people should have an inalienable-right to decide from themselves what to wear

It seems pretty evident that dress and style is a form of self expression is is thus part of our right to free speech, and sometimes also protected by freedom of religion.

Both of those "inalienable rights" are subject to abrogation in specific contexts and so is the right to dress how you like, but that doesn't mean it isn't a fundamental human right.

What is a fair or unfair dress code is determine by culture, religion and governments, which simply create a circle. The culture, religion and political majority determine what dress code is used, and the same one determine if it is fair. Unless the law, culture or religion is lagging behind political majority it will always be a minority that will view a dress code as being unfair.

Similar is the specific contexts which such rules may be broken. Nudists are generally only permitted in very narrow defined and small nudist zones, like say a specific beach behind a hill and behind a forest on the outskirts of a city. If the same would be applied to Hijab so that it would only be allowed in small and special Hijab zones located out of sight of everyone in the furthest located place, would it feel fair or unfair?

We have situation like, should a male buss driver be allowed to wear shorts, or is it fair that the company dress code say that men should were suits and women skirts regardless of hot it is?

I know a person who had to quite his job because wearing socks hurt his feet so much and the dress code strictly required socks. Fair? Unfair?

Some people has been fired because they refused to remove jewelry where the dress code forbid it. Those jewelry was religious in nature and such the wearer felt they deserved an exception. Fair or unfair?

The list goes on and on. Depending on a person cultural, religious and political views people will think some of those are fair and others not. Very few find all of them unfair and want to give people the right to determine that themselves, which is why finding such person is such a rare event for me. Personally I think people should have the right to wear or not wear what ever they want as long it doesn't cause physical harm to an other person, but that is me.

> What is a fair or unfair dress code is determine by culture, religion and governments, which simply create a circle.

This is BS relativism and you seem to be attempting to dismiss any culpability for cultures that impose unfair dress codes that primarily impact those who aren't making the dress codes and are less power or out groups.

> Nudists are generally only permitted in very narrow defined and small nudist zones, like say a specific beach behind a hill and behind a forest on the outskirts of a city. If the same would be applied to Hijab so that it would only be allowed in small and special Hijab zones located out of sight of everyone in the furthest located place, would it feel fair or unfair?

I think nudist are often treated unfairly, but there are different degrees to that unfairness in different areas. Other there are still default nudist spots in areas where nudism is legal since there are also community aspects.

I think allowing hijabs in some areas only or banning them in some areas only is less unfair than a blanket ban, but is still unfair unless there are legitimate safety concerns and the laws cover the entire class of headwear.

I would say that laws against nudism seem less targeted at a low power out group than laws against hijabs so seem like a greater abuse of power.

> We have situation like, should a male buss driver be allowed to wear shorts, or is it fair that the company dress code say that men should were suits and women skirts regardless of hot it is?

I think the company should be legally required to allow/offer uniforms that work in the environmental conditions their employees face. I don't think gender based clothing restrictions are ever fair.

> I know a person who had to quite his job because wearing socks hurt his feet so much and the dress code strictly required socks.

Unfair, unless there are safety concerns.

> Some people has been fired because they refused to remove jewelry where the dress code forbid it. Those jewelry was religious in nature and such the wearer felt they deserved an exception.

Unfair unless the rule was motivated by safety.

> Personally I think people should have the right to wear or not wear what ever they want as long it doesn't cause physical harm to an other person, but that is me.

I think there are other legitimate reasons to impose dress codes (safety, reputation, etc.) but what those codes are, how they are targeted and how they impact those effected all matter when it comes to justifying those codes.

I disagree strongly with your accusation. I suspect that you simply don't recognize less power or out groups where I see them.

Take nudist. When did you last time hear about a nudist politician that advocated for nudists rights. Would you disagree that being openly nudist would harm a politician chance of getting elected? That to me is a rather clear definition of a less powerful out group being openly discriminated against.

Similar, male buss drivers are a typical lower class worker group. You don't see many of those becoming politicians. Classism is often said as being the biggest cause for discrimination, especially when in combination with racism which itself can be a proxy for class. This is how companies can get away with dress code that actually cause directly bodily harm (overheating).

Some groups receive more sympathy, and which one those are is based one culture. It the same reason why some religions get more respect than others. A common argument I see when people justify this exceptionalism is when the religion is one of the big ones. Majority religions get more sympathy than minority religions, and the smaller a religion is the less their views get respected.

As an example, Muslim cultural behavior get more respected than practitioners of Wicca, Satanism, Missionary Church of Kopimism, and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. How would you rank those in term of power/out group definition?

> I would point out that chains are indeed a popular fashion accessory.

The chains of a chattel slave are popular fashion accessory where now?

You don't understand it because your understanding of it is wrong.

The point isn't that the "hijab empowers women." The point is that a woman should be able to choose for herself whether to wear the hijab or not. Autonomy, and all that.

Telling a Muslim woman she can't wear a hijab is just as oppressive as telling one she must wear it.

Again, you're just arguing at strawmen of your own creation.

A hijab is a religious garment. The confederate flag is a symbol of treason and slavery. Liberals leave it up to the individual to practice their own faith as they wish, so it's not frowned upon any more than a rosary is.

A hijab is not "effective slavery" of women. It is a religious garment that a woman can choose to wear, in America at least.

Unless you're also now telling the Amish and Orthodox Jewish communities how they have to dress? While we're at it, Mormons also have religious dress codes for women. And Hindus.