CW: incest, sexuality, misogyny
I was recently asked to explain Jewish modesty. What is modesty? But before we even start to look at what modesty looks like in practice, I want to think about why modesty is a value people care about. What is the virtue of modesty? How can modesty make you a better person or improve your quality of life?
I think modesty (in the sense of humility) can be a really meaningful ritual for reminding yourself that you are not the main character. It can be so easy to be self-centered; you can only ever see your own life in 3D, and no one else's. Keeping yourself humble is really a virtue. And, as far as dress or behavior around others, being modest is really about setting boundaries with others. What are you okay with showing or doing with strangers? Especially in an age where we are encouraged or even expected to put all of our life online for all to see, modesty can provide so many great ways of saying "no, I don't owe you my body or my private life."
Modesty in Judaism can be split into two major themes:
- separation of private vs public (immediate family+spouse vs outsiders)
- personal humility before G-d
Most of the time, when we hear the word "modesty," we think of clothing. But I think this is a very shallow understanding of the value of modesty. Modesty is not skin-deep. Humility and remembering that there is a higher power above us is helpful to prevent ourselves from over-inflating our own egos or becoming power-hungry. Nobody likes a self-absorbed or overly-controlling person.
As for the separation of private and public spheres, I think this reflects a major quality of Judaism. We like to distinguish between things: holidays and regular days, day and night, the sacred and the mundane, and so forth. Therefore, it makes sense that we would also want to distinguish between the private and public. There are some things that are appropriate for the public sphere and not for inside your house. There are also things that are totally fine inside your house, but maybe not for the general public.
הִגִּ֥יד לְךָ֛ אָדָ֖ם מַה־טּ֑וֹב וּמָֽה־יי דּוֹרֵ֣שׁ מִמְּךָ֗ כִּ֣י אִם־עֲשׂ֤וֹת מִשְׁפָּט֙ וְאַ֣הֲבַת חֶ֔סֶד וְהַצְנֵ֥עַ לֶ֖כֶת עִם־אֱלֹקֶֽיךָ׃
You have been told, O mortal, what is good, And what יי requires of you: Only to do justice and to love goodness, And to walk modestly with your G-d.
וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״הִגִּיד לְךָ אָדָם מַה טּוֹב וּמָה ה׳ דּוֹרֵשׁ מִמְּךָ כִּי אִם עֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט וְאַהֲבַת חֶסֶד וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת עִם אֱלֹהֶיךָ״. ״עֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט״ — זֶה הַדִּין, ״וְאַהֲבַת חֶסֶד״ — זוֹ גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, ״וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת עִם אֱלֹהֶיךָ״ — זוֹ הוֹצָאַת הַמֵּת וְהַכְנָסַת כַּלָּה לַחוּפָּה. וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה דְּבָרִים שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לַעֲשׂוֹתָן בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה ״הַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת״, דְּבָרִים שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לַעֲשׂוֹתָן בְּצִנְעָא — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.
And this is what Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “It has been told you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord does require of you; only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your G-d” (Micah 6:8)? “To do justly”; this is justice. “To love mercy”; this is acts of kindness. “To walk humbly with your G-d”; this is referring to taking the indigent dead out for burial and accompanying a poor bride to her wedding canopy, both of which must be performed without fanfare. The Gemara summarizes: And are these matters not inferred a fortiori? If, with regard to matters that tend to be conducted in public, as the multitudes participate in funerals and weddings, the Torah says: Walk humbly, then in matters that tend to be conducted in private, e.g., giving charity and studying Torah, all the more so should they be conducted privately.
So this excerpt from Gemara builds off the last part of the line from Micah. Rabbi Elazar interprets this to mean that we should do communal services, particularly services done without repayment, without fanfare. This is an interesting interpretation of modesty. I connect it to the Japanese concept of "face," in which avoiding embarrassing another person is an important of respect and politeness culture. Judaism also has some pretty strong prohibitions against embarrassing others- _____- but that's a topic for another day.
Anyway, the Gemara kind of rejects that and says "a fortiori," meaning "here's a better argument": funerals and weddings are very public, so it's difficult to do services there without any fanfare. However, for the mitzvot that are more private, like giving charity and studying Torah, one shouldn't brag or make fanfare when they do these things. The private things should stay private. This seems like it's really leaning on the concept of separating the private from the public. I'm curious, though, how the Amoraim who wrote that argument were envisioning Torah study to work, since actually we generally prefer Torah study done in pairs or groups, not alone in one's house.
So, now we've established some concept of modesty as humility. But what about clothing and gender-based modesty? Why do some Jews not touch members of the other gender, or segregate along gender lines?
(ח) וַֽיִּשְׁמְע֞וּ אֶת־ק֨וֹל יי אֱלֹקִ֛ים מִתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ בַּגָּ֖ן לְר֣וּחַ הַיּ֑וֹם וַיִּתְחַבֵּ֨א הָֽאָדָ֜ם וְאִשְׁתּ֗וֹ מִפְּנֵי֙ יי אֱלֹקִ֔ים בְּת֖וֹךְ עֵ֥ץ הַגָּֽן׃ (ט) וַיִּקְרָ֛א יי אֱלֹקִ֖ים אֶל־הָֽאָדָ֑ם וַיֹּ֥אמֶר ל֖וֹ אַיֶּֽכָּה׃ (י) וַיֹּ֕אמֶר אֶת־קֹלְךָ֥ שָׁמַ֖עְתִּי בַּגָּ֑ן וָאִירָ֛א כִּֽי־עֵירֹ֥ם אָנֹ֖כִי וָאֵחָבֵֽא׃ (יא) וַיֹּ֕אמֶר מִ֚י הִגִּ֣יד לְךָ֔ כִּ֥י עֵירֹ֖ם אָ֑תָּה הֲמִן־הָעֵ֗ץ אֲשֶׁ֧ר צִוִּיתִ֛יךָ לְבִלְתִּ֥י אֲכׇל־מִמֶּ֖נּוּ אָכָֽלְתָּ׃
(8) They heard the sound of G-d יי moving about in the garden at the breezy time of day; and the Human and his wife hid from G-d יי among the trees of the garden. (9) G-d יי called out to the Human and said to him, “Where are you?” (10) He replied, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” (11) “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat of the tree from which I had forbidden you to eat?”
This is the first instance in the Bible, and theoretically ever in the human world, where it is established that humans should not go around naked, where they could be seen by anyone. Even though G-d is essentially Adam and Eve's direct parent, who has definitely seen them naked before, they are embarrassed to be seen naked. That part about embarrassment to be naked in front of a parent will, weirdly enough, be relevant later, so keep that fresh.
So we've established some level of modesty practice regarding covering nakedness. However, modesty, in the sense of private/public, isn't just about how you present. It's also about abstaining from paying attention to things around you that you consider to be inappropriate. Let's look at an example.
צריך אדם להתרחק מהנשים מאד מאד ואסור לקרוץ בידיו או ברגליו ולרמוז בעיניו לאחד מהעריות ואסור לשחוק עמה להקל ראשו כנגדה או להביט ביופיה ואפילו להריח בבשמים שעליה אסור ואסור להסתכל בנשים שעומדות על הכביסה ואסור להסתכל בבגדי צבעונים של אשה שהוא מכירה אפי' אינם עליה שמא יבא להרהר בה. פגע אשה בשוק אסור להלך אחריה אלא רץ ומסלקה לצדדין או לאחריו ולא יעבור בפתח אשה זונה אפילו ברחוק ד' אמות והמסתכל אפילו באצבע קטנה של אשה ונתכוין ליהנות ממנה כאלו נסתכל בבית התורף (פי' ערוה) שלה ואסור לשמוע קול ערוה או לראות שערה והמתכוין לאחד מאלו הדברים מכין אותו מכת מרדות ואלו הדברים אסורים גם בחייבי לאוין:
A man must stay very far from women. He is forbidden to signal with his hands or his feet, or to hint with his eyes, to one of the arayos. He is forbidden to be playful with her, to be frivolous in front of her, or to look upon her beauty. Even to smell the perfume upon her is forbidden. He is forbidden to gaze at women doing laundry. He is forbidden to gaze at the colorful garments of a woman whom he recognizes, even if she is not wearing them, lest he come to have [forbidden] thoughts about her. If one encounters a woman in the marketplace, he is forbidden to walk behind her, but rather [must] run so that she is beside or behind him. One may not pass by the door of a promiscuous woman [or: a prostitute], even four cubits [around 6–8 ft or 2–2.5 m] distant. If one gazes even at the little finger of a woman with the intent to have pleasure from it, it is as though he gazed at her shameful place. It is forbidden to listen to the voice of an erva or to look at her hair. If one intentionally does one of these things, we give him lashes of rebellion. These things are also forbidden in the case of ordinary Biblical prohibitions.
Notice how the responsibility here is on the man. If looking at the undergarments of a woman who isn't his wife will cause him to think lewd thoughts, he should take care not to look at strangers' undergarments. If hearing another man's wife sing will cause him to desire her, he should not listen to her singing, and if she starts suddenly singing, he better scram. He shouldn't look at her hair; in fact, he shouldn't even look at her pinky finger if that will cause him to think about her in a way that one thinks about their own wife. If you keep shomer negiah, meaning you don't touch people of the other gender, that's your problem. If you're a man and the only available seat on the bus is next to a woman you aren't close with, then you can either stand or sit on the floor, but it is not her responsibility to move just so that you can be comfortable.
This is not meant to deny the fact that misogyny exists or that a lot of the discussion around modesty tends to restrict women more than men. And just to make sure we do address that, let's dig into two examples that I think are emblematic of the issue of sexism in the practice of modesty.
עֶרְוַ֥ת אֵֽשֶׁת־אָחִ֖יךָ לֹ֣א תְגַלֵּ֑ה עֶרְוַ֥ת אָחִ֖יךָ הִֽוא׃
Do not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is the nakedness of your brother.
Clearly, a lot of these sources treat women as men's property, and that's not great. But it is a virtue to be able to hold two truths at the same time, and here we should be able to hold the truth of historical misogyny in Jewish society and also that we can derive really powerful spiritual and ethical lessons from these sources.
A lot of these rules about modesty involve what men and women who are not close relatives or a married couple are able to do together. These rules presume a strict gender binary and heterosexuality. So, how does gender-based modesty work if you're queer? Who do you need to be modest around, if you're gay/trans/bisexual? I can see three potential options here. Is it 1) people you could reasonably date or marry 2) people of the gender(s) you prefer or 3) people you could reproduce with? Let's explore each argument using sources. I'm going to do a very Talmudic method here and offer reasons for and against each of these three arguments.
1) People you could feasibly date/marry
(ה) כִּֽי־יֵשְׁב֨וּ אַחִ֜ים יַחְדָּ֗ו וּמֵ֨ת אַחַ֤ד מֵהֶם֙ וּבֵ֣ן אֵֽין־ל֔וֹ לֹֽא־תִהְיֶ֧ה אֵֽשֶׁת־הַמֵּ֛ת הַח֖וּצָה לְאִ֣ישׁ זָ֑ר יְבָמָהּ֙ יָבֹ֣א עָלֶ֔יהָ וּלְקָחָ֥הּ ל֛וֹ לְאִשָּׁ֖ה וְיִבְּמָֽהּ׃ (ו) וְהָיָ֗ה הַבְּכוֹר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תֵּלֵ֔ד יָק֕וּם עַל־שֵׁ֥ם אָחִ֖יו הַמֵּ֑ת וְלֹֽא־יִמָּחֶ֥ה שְׁמ֖וֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ (ז) וְאִם־לֹ֤א יַחְפֹּץ֙ הָאִ֔ישׁ לָקַ֖חַת אֶת־יְבִמְתּ֑וֹ וְעָלְתָה֩ יְבִמְתּ֨וֹ הַשַּׁ֜עְרָה אֶל־הַזְּקֵנִ֗ים וְאָֽמְרָה֙ מֵאֵ֨ן יְבָמִ֜י לְהָקִ֨ים לְאָחִ֥יו שֵׁם֙ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א אָבָ֖ה יַבְּמִֽי׃ (ח) וְקָֽרְאוּ־ל֥וֹ זִקְנֵי־עִיר֖וֹ וְדִבְּר֣וּ אֵלָ֑יו וְעָמַ֣ד וְאָמַ֔ר לֹ֥א חָפַ֖צְתִּי לְקַחְתָּֽהּ׃ (ט) וְנִגְּשָׁ֨ה יְבִמְתּ֣וֹ אֵלָיו֮ לְעֵינֵ֣י הַזְּקֵנִים֒ וְחָלְצָ֤ה נַעֲלוֹ֙ מֵעַ֣ל רַגְל֔וֹ וְיָרְקָ֖ה בְּפָנָ֑יו וְעָֽנְתָה֙ וְאָ֣מְרָ֔ה כָּ֚כָה יֵעָשֶׂ֣ה לָאִ֔ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹא־יִבְנֶ֖ה אֶת־בֵּ֥ית אָחִֽיו׃ (י) וְנִקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל בֵּ֖ית חֲל֥וּץ הַנָּֽעַל׃ {ס}
(5) When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and leaves no offspring, the wife of the deceased (apparently a type of widow whose late husband had a share in his lineage’s patrimony, and whose access to support from that patrimony is now stymied by her lack of offspring) shall not become that of another party, outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall unite with her: he shall take her as his wife and perform the levir’s duty. (6) The first child that she bears shall be accounted to the dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out in Israel. (7) But if that party does not want to take his brother’s widow [to wife], his brother’s widow shall appear before the elders in the gate and declare, “My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name in Israel for his brother; he will not perform the duty of a levir.” (8) The elders of his town shall then summon him and talk to him. If he insists, saying, “I do not want to take her,” (9) his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull the sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and make this declaration: Thus shall be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house! (10) And he shall go in Israel by the name of “the family of the unsandaled one.”
Levirate marriage seems to give a point towards the "who you could feasibly date/marry" argument. How so? Well, Leviticus and Deuteronomy are littered with prohibitions against having relations with your relatives, half-siblings, and in-laws. Yet, in this specific case, where a man's sister/mother/daughter-in-law is in the position of a yevama, not only do these prohibitions lift, but he is actually required to marry and have relations with her so she can have a child to inherit the deceased's belongings and family name. A woman and man who are normally required to be completely modest around each other are suddenly expected to stop being modest with each other. Their individual identities and relationship to each other have not really changed, yet the feasibility of them having a relationship means that there are new rules.
Here's another piece of evidence for this theory:
אסור להתייחד עם ערוה מהעריות בין זקנה בין ילדה שדבר זה גורם לגלות ערוה חוץ מהאם עם בנה והאב עם בתו והבעל עם אשתו נדה...
It is forbidden to be secluded with a person with whom sexual relations are forbidden, whether elderly or young. This action leads to uncovering of nakedness. This law does not apply to a mother with her son, a father with his daughter, and a husband with his menstruant wife...
This piece of halacha makes an interesting distinction. Again, maybe obviously, incest is strictly forbidden. But the halachic authorities understood that modesty between parent and child does not entirely make sense. Dads see their infant daughters naked, and moms their infant sons. This halacha seems to agree that gender-based modesty is not only about gender, but also whether this is someone you might potentially desire romantically or sexually.
However, this halacha is actually hotly debated, and the Sages did not agree on the concept that fathers were permitted to be immodest around their daughters. The Rambam summarized one potential compromise for this disagreement:
כֵּיצַד. מֻתָּר הָאָב לְחַבֵּק בִּתּוֹ וּלְנַשְּׁקָהּ וְתִישַׁן עִמּוֹ בְּקֵרוּב בָּשָׂר. וְכֵן הָאֵם עִם בְּנָהּ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהֵם קְטַנִּים. הִגְדִּילוּ וְנַעֲשָׂה הַבֵּן גָּדוֹל וְהַבַּת גְּדוֹלָה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שָׁדַיִם נָכֹנוּ וּשְׂעָרֵךְ צָמַח זֶה יָשֵׁן בִּכְסוּתוֹ וְהִיא יְשֵׁנָה בִּכְסוּתָהּ. וְאִם הָיְתָה הַבַּת בּוֹשָׁה לַעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי אָבִיהָ עֲרֻמָּה אוֹ שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת. וְכֵן אִם הָאֵם בּוֹשָׁה לַעֲמֹד בִּפְנֵי בְּנָהּ עֲרֻמָּה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן קְטַנִּים מִשֶּׁהִגִּיעוּ לְהִכָּלֵם מֵהֶן אֵין יְשֵׁנִים עִמָּהֶם אֶלָּא בִּכְסוּתָן:
What is implied? A father is permitted to embrace his daughter, kiss her, and sleep with her with their bodies touching (even unclothed) and a mother may do the same with her son as long as they are young. When they grow and become mature with the girl's body becoming developed, they should each sleep in clothing.If the daughter is embarrassed to stand before her father naked or she married, and similarly, if the mother was embarrassed to stand before her son naked, even if [the children] are minors, when one reaches the point when one is ashamed [of being naked] in their presence, they should sleep together only when clothed. [Even when children reach the stage when they and their parents are required to sleep together while clothed, their parents are still allowed to embrace them and kiss them (Beit Shmuel 7:15).]
I told you the "being embarrassed to be naked" thing was going to come back! This halacha seems to refute the concept that modesty is merely about who you could be married to. Though in-laws could potentially become permitted through levirate marriage, your actual relative is never permitted to you. Yet despite that, modesty is required at the age of maturity, when a child is aware of their own sexuality enough to feel embarrassed to be seen naked or see their parent naked. I don't think this halacha is really about preventing a forbidden relationship- I don't think the rabbis really thought most people would be sexually interested in their child or parent- rather, this halacha serves to minimize embarrassment and encourage appropriate levels of intimacy with one's parents.
2) Members of the preferred gender
This next theory is that it's not actually about your potential to be with someone, but rather about their gender and the gender you prefer. Anyone of the gender(s) you prefer is someone you must be modest with. The previous source seems to support this approach, as parents and children must even be modest with each other to some extent. Though these sources of course assume heterosexuality, we can actually. understand that as proof that modesty is not a requirement between all parents and children, but rather between parents and children of the gender that each theoretically prefers in a romantic or sexual context.
The "preferred gender" seems to be a major indicator of whether one could be driven to inappropriate relationships, even in cases that normally there should be no attraction at all. As I said before, the rabbis disagreed about whether parents could be immodest with their children, though they were in agreement that you have to be modest with in-laws, even though most people have no interest in their in-laws in that way. Let's look at a case in Kiddushin that seems to support their concern:
תְּנַן: מִתְיַיחֵד אָדָם עִם אִמּוֹ וְעִם בִּתּוֹ וְיָשֵׁן עִמָּהֶם בְּקֵירוּב בָּשָׂר, וּתְיוּבְתָּא דִשְׁמוּאֵל! אָמַר לָךְ שְׁמוּאֵל: ...אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: הִזָּהֲרוּ בִּי מִפְּנֵי כַּלָּתִי. לִיגְלֵג עָלָיו אוֹתוֹ תַּלְמִיד. אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: לֹא הָיוּ יָמִים מוּעָטִים עַד שֶׁנִּכְשַׁל אוֹתוֹ תַּלְמִיד בַּחֲמוֹתוֹ.
We learned in the mishna: A man may be secluded with his mother, and with his daughter, and sleep alongside them with bodily contact, and this appears to be a conclusive refutation of the statement of Shmuel. ... Rabbi Tarfon said: Be careful with me because of my daughter-in-law (i.e., do not leave the room and cause me to be secluded with my daughter-in-law). A certain student mocked him for being wary of the possibility of sinning with his daughter-in-law. Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: Not many days passed until that student stumbled into sin with his mother-in-law.
So this case seems to hold that, regardless of how unlikely you are to have a relationship with someone, unless they are your immediate family, you must maintain certain modesty boundaries with them because of their gender. Yet this approach seems easy to refute as well. Consider the Shulchan Aruch source we saw earlier, where even a little finger or an undergarment of a woman might be considered immodest to look at if the man derives sexual pleasure from it. There is nothing inherently sexual about a pinky finger or a piece of clothing, so can it really be that the gender of the person who owns the garment or pinky is enticing enough to attract someone, even to their relative or a stranger on the street? Is the gender of a woman so powerfully enticing that men cannot even walk in the street without risking being overcome by a desire to act inappropriately?
I can say with confidence that, as a gay man, I'm actually quite capable of controlling my thoughts and deeds even when in the company of men I am attracted to. If there are men who cannot do the same around women, that seems like a skill issue.
Back to the refutation of the "preferred gender" approach, consider the following source from Sefer Hasidim by R' Mordechai Jaffe:
R' Mordechai Jaffe:
Possibly because now women are very commonly among men, sinful thoughts are not so [likely to be aroused], for they seem to one as white geese, for they are so customarily among us, and since they [men] are used [to this], they pay no heed.
This source brings in the question of norms and context. A little finger or a garment hanging up to dry, or even a woman walking by or interacting with a man, is not so unusual as to attract these inappropriate impulses. If someone went outside completely nude and started flirting with passerby, maybe it's a different story. So rather than the gender of the person, the context and sensuality of an interaction matters more.
3) People you could reproduce with
(ב) כֵּיצַד שָׁוֶה לַאֲנָשִׁים: ...וְזוֹקֵק לְיִבּוּם כַּאֲנָשִׁים, וּמִתְעַטֵּף וּמִסְתַּפֵּר כַּאֲנָשִׁים, וְנוֹשֵׂא אֲבָל לֹא נִשָּׂא כַּאֲנָשִׁים, וְחַיָּב בְּכָל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה כַּאֲנָשִׁים:
(ג) כֵּיצַד שָׁוֶה לַנָּשִׁים: ...וְאֵינוֹ מִתְיַחֵד עִם הָאֲנָשִׁים כַּנָּשִׁים...
(2) In what ways is he like men? ...He is liable for yibbum; He dresses like men; He can take a wife but not be taken as a wife, like men ... He may not be secluded with women, like men...
(3) And in what ways is he like women?... And he must not be secluded with men, like women; And he doesn’t make his brother’s wife liable for yibbum (levirate marriage)...
Now, this source is a little controversial- this chapter of the Mishnah is actually not from the original version from Yehuda haNasi in the BCEs, but a medieval addition that is slightly different in different versions of the Mishnah. Sefaria actually has mismatched Hebrew and English versions for this chapter, so I'm looking at the Kehati version which matches the English translation by Dr. Joshua Kulp, who was very helpful when I emailed him the other day about the mismatched Hebrew.
This source is interesting because it concerns an androgynos, who could theoretically reproduce "like a man" or "like a woman." Based on this Mishnah, the halacha is that an androgynos should not be secluded with a man or a woman, even though they look like a man (and you might think that therefore they are not a risk to a heterosexual man). The androgynos is also able to do levirate marriage as a woman but not as a man, even though, per other discussions of androgynos halacha, they're only supposed to marry and reproduce as a man, so that's kind of awkward.
Based on this piece of Mishnah, it would seem that seclusion as a modesty practice is based on a concern of potentially having a child out of wedlock. Even if a man is not remotely attracted to this masculine-looking androgynos, there is still a risk that they could have a child together, so they must not be secluded together. Wouldn't it logically follow that gender-based modesty practices are about reducing risk of illegitimate children, rather than some nebulous boundary of gender identity or romantic relationships?
R' Yitzchak Breitowitz (video timestamp 1:21:12-1:25:33) references halachot from a responsa called Dor Tahapuchot, which establishes that trans men, for example, are halachically female (do not count for a minyan, do not wrap tefillin) but sit on the men's side of the mechitza and are not a concern for yichud with other men because they look like men.
This seems to directly conflict with the Mishnah we just looked at, but it also assumes that gender-based modesty is more about appearance than just anatomy. We don't actually know what other people have going on in their pants, most of the time, so really modesty ends up being more about your social gender. Actually, I believe this responsa (written by R' Edan Ben-Ephraim) makes a distinction between the gendered mitzvot that are between you and other people, like the mechitza and shomer negiah and yichud, and the mitzvot between you and G-d. What does G-d care where you sit in shul? That's just a practice humans have invented for ourselves.
So, now that we've gone through the three theories and their refutations, we have ended up back where we started, in a state of.uncertainty. If that's frustrating to you, you will HATE the Talmud, since that's basically how all of Gemara is structured. But this ambiguity is actually very healthy, because gender and sexuality are equally ambiguous and don't respond well to strict delineation.
I think, at the end of the day, that modesty can look different for different people. There is not one path that works for all people. I personally know a Jewish woman who stars in adult content, but when she's not actively making content, she dresses modestly, covers her hair, respects consent and boundaries, and is generally a very humble and upstanding member of society. I also know people who keep tzniut and are shomer negiah, are are not only selfish, egotistical, and controlling, but also spend way too much time thinking about complete strangers' genitalia and sex lives.
Ultimately, everyone should be reflecting on their own behavior and considering what constitutes inappropriate or immodest behavior for them. And that might be really dependant on who you are and your inclinations towards different things. If you're someone who always ends up dating your friends, and can't ever seem to be strictly platonic with people around you, maybe you should reflect on that and figure out how to be 'just friends' with people. If you're someone who loves physical touch and who likes to show a lot of skin, maybe your modesty could be more about when and how you share intimacy with others. Maybe it's about holding off on sex with new partners, or withholding details about your personal life from your work colleagues. Who knows (apart from G-d, of course)? If you find Elijah the Prophet, please ask him for me. And also ask him about the different versions Mishnah Bikkurim 4, because I am still annoyed about that.
And, regardless of your sexuality, clothing, or relationships, you should always remember to be humble. Whether you believe in G-d, a vague and all-encompassing entity of the universe, or just science, remember that you and all other living things will never be above the most powerful force in the world. All of us are just a tiny blip in the infinite of time and space.
And yet, despite that, Judaism teaches us that we matter- that G-d cares what we eat, wear, say, and do every minute of every day, and that the day we were created was the day that G-d decided the world could not possibly go on without us. As Martin Buber wrote in "Tales of the Hasidim":
It was said of Reb Simcha Bunem, a 18th century Hasidic rebbe, that he carried two slips of paper, one in each pocket. One was inscribed with the saying from the Talmud: Bishvili nivra ha-olam, “for my sake the world was created.” On the other he wrote a phrase from our father Avraham in the Torah: V’anokhi afar v’efer,” “I am but dust and ashes.” He would take out and read each slip of paper as necessary for the moment.
This is the essence of modesty. Somehow, we must learn to hold both of these truths at the same time, to remember our place in the universe and act accordingly. I am but dust and ashes. The whole world was created for me.