The argument AGAINST transcultural head coverings: Paul never argues for the MEANING of head coverings

The key principle: Paul never argues for the meaning/symbolism of head coverings -- he assumes it. He argues for headship, creation order, nature (all transcultural), and APPLIES them to head coverings whose symbolic meaning is already shared by the culture. What Paul argues for is what's transcultural (headship, creation order, hair length propriety); what he assumes but doesn't argue for (the symbolic meaning of cloth coverings) may be culturally bound. In cultures where head coverings carry no gender-role symbolism, the symbol loses its function but the principles remain.