The irony here is that this isn't anything new - it's a rehash of the past. Men traditionally wore heels as a sign of masculinity - originally riding heels for increased Horsemanship, an influence of the Persians. Then increasingly depicted with battle scenes, and the sizes of the heels increased to separate the nobility from the peasants who imitated - as a display of wealth and status. In the 1670s, Louis XIV issued an edict that only members of his court were allowed to wear red heels. Furthermore, men were dressed in coloured hose ( tights ) - and often with one or two robes.
here is a couple pictures for reference: 1 and 2 and 3.
In the 17th century, You start seeing a change in the heel at this point. Men started to have a squarer, more robust, lower, stacky heel, while women's heels became more slender, more curvaceous. The toes of women's shoes were often tapered so that when the tips appeared from her skirts, the wearer's feet appeared to be small and dainty.
It was the beginning of what has been called the Great Male Renunciation, which would see men abandon the wearing of jewellery, bright colours and ostentatious fabrics in favour of a dark, more sober, and homogeneous look. Men's clothing no longer operated so clearly as a signifier of social class, but while these boundaries were being blurred, the differences between the sexes became more pronounced.
Women, in contrast, were seen as emotional, sentimental and uneducatable. Female desirability begins to be constructed in terms of irrational fashion and the high heel - once separated from its original function of horseback riding - becomes a primary example of impractical dress.
High heels were seen as foolish and effeminate. By 1740 men had stopped wearing them altogether. The 1960s saw a return of low heeled cowboy boots for men and some dandies strutted their stuff in platform shoes in the 1970s.
Lastly, Dueteronomy 22:5:
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God
This came to mean that a woman should not wear the clothing of a man, i.e., trousers. Hence, we get a traditional view that trousers are for men, skirts for women, and kilts for the Scots
To this day, the Longyi is worn by the Men of Myanmar ( contemporary example and the Thawb is the garment for men of Arabia ( contemporary example.
From a western (Euro-centric) view, trousers were worn by people the Greeks considered barbarians, like the Bactrians and Armenians. They were also worn by their arch enemies, the Persians. The Romans carried on this tradition. They considered trousers effete and barbarous (Lever, James. Costume and Fashion: A Concise History. Thames and Hudson, 1995, 2010). Eventually, as Rome took over more of the world, trousers were more practical for men when riding horses, working, and for warmth. Byzantine (Eastern Roman Empire) court dress still consisted of robes, but trousers being more often worn by men, since they were more practical. When you look at what men were wearing it was often hose with a short or long robe over it. Sometimes two pairs of hose were worn: a tight under pair and a looser over pair. Eventually, this became "long johns" and trousers.
As for women, in many ways before modern tampons and sanitary napkins, skirts made much more sense. As a modern woman, I can attest to this. If one menstruates for five days a month, it is cleaner and easier to wear a skirt. For woman, urination is also more practical with a skirt. Men can "just whip it out," women have to squat. Also, if a woman is pregnant, a skirt or dress that can be easily adjusted makes more sense. Eventually, what is common becomes traditional.
