Okay, i'm really starting to get sick and tired of this shit.

You see, the thing is that people wouldn't have to come up with excuses like it being "empowering" or "relevant to the character" if the exact people who made this weren't constantly frothing at the mouth over the designs of fictional characters that are, due to the nature of the genre of fiction that they come from, inherently idealized and sexualized most of the time.

Furthermore, all that this type of post ever achieves is showcasing that the things that make men and women attractive are different: of course it looks ridiculous when it's a man wearing it, but it's not because of the clothing itself, it's because it wasn't designed to be worn by men.

Most wedding dresses cover pretty much the person's whole body, and yet it still usually looks ridiculous when a mean wears it because it was designed for women. Hell, women's swimsuits cover more skin than men's, and yet, a man wearing a women's swimsuit still looks dumb. Geez, it's almost as if what made that scenario ridiculous wasn't the amount of skin the clothing covers.

The very core of this argument is simply put, utterly flawed. It basically says:
"Well if you don't like it when it's a man wearing it then you shouldn't like it when it's a woman wearing it. Hah, gotcha you stupid sexist"
Completely ignoring the glaring differences in physical traits between the two and, once again, that the physical charactersitics that make men and women attractive are different. And as such, clothing that looks good on women usually doesn't look good on men. It's like putting ketchup on a slice of cake and then going "well if you don't like it on cake then why do you like it on a hamburger?". Completely ignoring the differences between the two.

It's not even stupid, it's just downright dishonest. And people who make this argument need to go eat shit.
Fuck y'all.