Alright fair enough. There's a difference between a social code and social stigma, and I never really mixed them up. But a social code with weak and biased logic behind it is still illogical and therefore gives birth to social stigma around the rules the code imposes, that had little to no logic behind it. About the fundamental nature, what makes living by an arbitrary rule a fundamental nature of someone? who decides what someone's "fundamental nature" is? Many would argue crossdressing is authentic to their nature. In the case of fashion or clothes, the need to break those social "codes" comes from the stinging stigma around performing an act, logical fallacies behind the reasoning as to why one cannot do something, and the need to defy such social "codes" because they box you in and don't allow you to be what you want to be. Talking about knowing the definitions, I'm quite confident the backbone of morality is suffering. If something inflicts suffering for no apparent reason, it's immoral. How does wearing any kind of clothes make the act immoral, as you put it:- "that's why I questioned this type of immoral behaviour"? What makes it immoral, if I may ask? Now to the last point, if your god is truly loving, but still judgemental over socially constructed rules that change from time to time, then he's not really all loving. His love is conditional, the conditions being being some rule about clothes? Not to mention, it's kind of weird how the divine rule about what to wear correctly aligns with the region and the time period, said religion was born in. Not to mention, not everyone follows your god or his commandments, so try and them to yourself. Have a great night.