Alan Padgett and Philip Payne: even with equivalence, hair replaces cloth covering

Padgett now argues anti means equivalence but that's irrelevant because if hair IS equivalent to a covering, no cloth covering is needed. His view requires: (1) Paul is not making an analogy, and (2) the refutation view is correct. Payne similarly argues hair done up IS the covering. His view requires: (1) no previous words in vv.2-14 indicate cloth coverings, and (2) it's not an argument from analogy.