had this very same argument on the last page but alright- we can do it again.
First of all I'll point out that the duties of a Starfleet Officer aboard a ship exploring unknown regions of outer space
is considerably different and poses greater risk thanks to the unknown than the United States Navy could possibly be facing atop the ocean, on Earth, in the 21st century (Find me a woman dressed like that on a submarine and I'll eat my words.)
Secondly, look how low that skirt goes- it isn't anywhere near as high as Tasha's or 'the dudes' Skant uniform is and while I find the odds of her wearing that uniform when there's even any potential for a dangerous situation to arise (which on board Enterprise would be practically 24/7) extraordinarily low, it's at least something.
Thirdly, ask yourself if she's wearing that same thing to work
in. Is she climbing up things, on her knees, bending, flexing and contorting wearing the skirt or is there a more practical uniform for the job? Since Tasha, Troi, and 'the dude' weren't in dress
uniform one has to wonder what the reason for wearing such a uniform might be if there were a more practical version available that covered the potential for more eventualities.
Finally, if the idea of certain clothing items being less practical than others is still some how eluding your grasp, make it simple on yourself; no one would mountain climb wearing a ball gown and conversely no one would go dancing with two casts on their feet.
So, just as the experiment with children on-board didn't pan out, so too did the great skant experiment. So what's the problem?
There isn't one. I pointed out why it was stupid and you threw your hat in the ring to say maybe it wasn't... though I guess you capitulated so what the problem is is a question I should be asking you.
(And should I apologize in advance if that response doesn't meet your arbitrary word count quota? )
No, because I don't have a word count, but to counter- I don't think you actually have a point.