[squabbles]

What an inane comparison. Jobs are voluntary, and you're free to quit over the dress code.

And there's no way to decide what's "permitted" use of a piece of apparel anyways. Cultural significance changes within cultures, and individuals within it are not uniformly sensitive to informal use. What would you do to iconoclasts? They're culturally appropriating too. Are they allowed to introduce lighthearted use?

The "cultural appropriation" idea is the worst form of ultra-conservative hand wringing dressed up in progressive language. No actual harm is done by "misusing" clothes. This is just an excuse made up by moral busy bodies to go on yet another obnoxious crusade.

[markdown]

> And there's no way to decide what's "permitted" use of a piece of apparel anyways.

This is where the problem is. You misunderstand what I'm saying. Nobody is stopping you from wearing whatever you want.

When people call out cultural appropriation, they aren't trying to ban something; merely point out a faux pas.

[squabbles]

Yes that is the motte to this bailey. Of course the actual consequences can range from being fired to being expelled to being publicly defamed as a racist. You still haven't given a way to decide what is or isn't a faux pas. I'll give the answer since you won't: it's whoever complains the loudest. In practice what is and isn't allowed is totally arbitrary. The only people who ever argue for that are power tripping moral crusaders.

As a reminder, all of this is about a pretend problem that produces no damage and has no victims.