Any religion. Your religion. Can women wear slacks and if not, why not?
Lutheran Christian. Yes.
Regards,
Shodan
From what I remember from growing up Roman Catholic, yes, women can where slacks. Many of them didn’t but it wasn’t forbidden IIRC.
Unitarian Universalist here. Slacks are just fine. Heck, our denomination has had clothing-optional services in the past.
My sister-in-law belongs to some small fundamentalist sect that is very much anti-slacks/pants for women. Long heavy skirts, lots of flannel, even in hot summers. Ugh.
From what I’ve seen of Unitarians, slacks would seem almost a requirement. 
The church of the holy sepulchre restricted women in pants back in the early seventies.
That’s probably been relaxed, but I did find these dress guidelines for touring in Israel:
The LDS Church has modesty guidelines, but a requirement for women to wear skirts is not one of them. Some women prefer to wear skirts a lot, but it’s quite unusual.
I’ve never had any personal contact with a church that forbade women from wearing pants/slacks, but I know they’re out there. And I’ve never understood.
Why are skirts/dresses considered more “modest” than pants, when, with the former, there’s nothing between the outside world and the crotch of your undies (assuming you’re wearing any)?
And for those who say women mustn’t wear pants because pants are, by definition, men’s clothing: Where does it say that in the Bible? Did Jesus wear pants? If a pair of slacks is pink, and you bought it in the womenswear department, and it’s of a style or fabric that no man would be caught dead wearing, how can you say it’s men’s clothing?
According to this Catholic site, Catholic Faith, Beliefs, & Prayers | Catholic Answers
the prohibition was against women passing themselves off as men and vice-versa and didn’t condemn items of clothing per se.
In the auto parts plant where I worked, there were two sisters who belonged to a protestant church that insisted on women dressing modestly. That meant long skirts and no low-cut tops. One sister dressed every day as if she had a fancy date after work. High heeled shoes and very nice, long dresses that showed off her lovely figure. The other sister, also very attractive, dressed more plainly. Eventually, she qualified for an apprenticeship as a tool & die maker. She was exempted from service calls out in the plant. She had no objection to getting filthy grubby greasy, she said, but her religion forbad her use of pants, so she couldn’t wear the necessary coveralls.
In the churches I’ve attended with “dress codes” (one affiliated with the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, two were independent Baptist), there was no specific proscription against women wearing pants, but it was an unwritten “rule” enforced through social pressure. Likewise, men who were past high-school age were socially pressured to wear suits. It was generally expected that one would be dressed that way outside of church, as well. (For church-sanctioned youth activities, the girls could wear culottes!)
I’ve heard similar things from members of local Pentecostal churches-- there’s a general rule as vivalostwages mentions to maintain gender distinctions with dress- and hairstyles, and nothing specifically calling for floor-length skirts, business suits, etc. One explained the clothes as a choice done to show respect to the church body.
When I was about ten I met a couple of little girls who insisted that God didn’t want women to wear pants. I asked where in the bible it said that, and they didn’t know, so I’ve always doubted the rule is really bible based. I don’t know what Christian sect they belonged to - I only met them that once and it didn’t come up - but there seem to some that still have that rule even now.
Back in the late 1960s or early 1970s, a friend of mine belonged to a Fundamentalist church. According to him, the church said women could wear pants, but only if they zipped up the side. Nowadays, he’s a Wiccan and a fan of social nudity.
As for me, I’m a member of a notoriously liberal Episcopal congregation. Of course women can wear pants.
United Methodist here- pants on women are totally cool.
I see groups of Mennonites (at least, I think they are) at the Science Center a lot, and the women are all wearing long, prairie style dresses, with those little bun hair nets. Or other conservative Christian groups-not as severe, but the women all wear long skirts (flowery, frumpy things), long braids, and the men just wear jeans and tee-shirts.
And then there are the Orthodox Jewish families-all of the women have on long skirts, tights, long sleeves. Even in the middle of the summer. (I felt sorry for them during the past summer, since the heat was constantly in the high 80s/90s, and humid as all get out).
Assembly of God here. It may have been an issue up through the 1960’s, if even then. I got involved in the late 70’s and I heard nothing about it.
From what I gather, the OT passage against a woman “wearing that which pertaineth to a man” isn’t about clothes at all but, oh- anyone remember 18"IBDHJD (if I got the order right)?
Thudlow Boink–you raised the question of why “traditionally” pants are considered more risque than skirts, when in reality skirts provide better access. My daughter studies clothing styles and told me once that in US Civil War Era the issue was showing where the legs joined. Thus women who were serving as troops would wear trousers but also a short skirt covering the crotch area so that the crotch V could not be seen. Revealing the V was considered sexual, perhaps similar to wardrobe malfunctions of our era. Not sure this really addresses your question, but it does give a little history on why skirts are considered more appropriate for women–it wasn’t about access or lack there of, but rather about revealing the lines of a body part considered sexual.
The Greeks LOVED that spot- I think it’s generally called a runner’s girdle? It’s the spot where the legs join the torso, and they rendered it in loving detail.
It IS kind of hot, at least on a guy.