Srecko Sostar

This seems to be relevant only to people who are spiritually immature and believe they are above God's laws. I don't think former witnesses have the authority to dictate God's commands for this point to be considered by true witnesses.
If you can demonstrate that the rule suggested by the GB was truly exclusive to them and not a mere attempt to prioritize appearance on a global scale, then your perspective will become coherent.

Yes, but they have to hold it at arm's length straight out, with the other arm bent and hand on hip, and the head covering has to be a large Mexican Sombrero, with tassels.

The Society has been resistant to using digital visual aids and videos as part of their public teaching. When did you first see an audio-visual presentation routinely used as part of conventions, assemblies and weekly meetings? Only in the past few years, right?
Don't you remember that there was a time when speakers could use slides and cine film as part of their public talks (maybe before your time)? They were a highlight, a change from the humdrum. Then the Society discouraged them. 
For so long, while businesses, schools and churches had long been fitted out with IT equipment, using it as an everyday teaching tool, the Society lagged behind, preferring to stick with the old lecture/platform demo format. Several years ago, a tech-savvy JW friend of mine suggested that the convention technicians made use of the big screens at the arena. The technology was all there, why not make the talks more interesting and memorable by adding PowerPoints and other visuals? He was told off for, what was considered, a worldly view.
I wouldn't, as it does actually come from the Society. It's copyrighted to them and has its own literature code - dgb-E Us.
Should the Jews still continue wearing long robes with a blue thread 2nd millennium BC style to avoid being fashioned after the modern system of things? 
Which decade or century of fashion do you think appropriate for today's JW woman? Or which country's present day fashion (that of Islamic countries, perhaps)? 
Really, if there is nothing scripturally wrong with western women wearing pants, and they are acceptable even as conservative business and formal wear, the Org. is 'going beyond the things written.' And it is the Org. that is setting the standard here. The r&f JWs follow the leadership's direction whether it is explicit or implicit (e.g. the Bethel Dress brochure).
That's because it's frowned on! Go out to the workplace office, into the street, and women in pants are commonplace.
By the way, it is also common etiquette to dress appropriately for the setting. You don't see women routinely dressed as Dorothy, a munchkin, or even the Wicked Witch of the West when they are going about their everyday lives, so your example is a straw man (or woman).

Many JW women would disagree. Pants are often more practical and can even be more modest than skirts. They are accepted as appropriate smart-wear for women in the business world. There are no scriptural grounds against them, and I guess it's just another one of those antiquated attitudes where the JW community needs to catch up with late 20th/early 21st century. It may happen - you never know. Look how the Org has embraced digital visual aids and videos as part of their public teaching after resisting them for so many years. 

And yet, in this Western culture, where women routinely wear pants in formal, informal and business settings, KH culture still frowns upon JW women wearing them to meetings and in service. Why?

It is to be assumed that members do not need to question their elders for every dispute or ambiguity, because then the elders go to Bethel and Bethel to HQ for answers.
On the other hand, people in positions of power, and ultimately GB, should stop with the idea that they are "guardians of doctrine" for banal things like beards.
Consequently, everyone in the JW organization bears responsibility for the immaturity that prevails among the believers.
I have nothing against neatness.
This fact shows the senselessness of striving for rules and religious doctrines and instructions presented by GB. 

HahaHAHha!
It looks like the Dilbert cartoon was spot on!
Perhaps George88, you could explain the following photo which has been used in previous publications, where non-person Anthony (tight pants Tony) Morrison is shown at the GB table (really great photo, by the way…. lighting, composition, posing etc. ….) which is in the February 2024 Watchtower but a NEW Governing Body Member has been photoshopped in where the nuanced theme throughout is that the entire Brotherhood has the collective memory of a goldfish.
 

I think everybody here knows that, only God can bestow the Holy Spirit, what we are really analyzing is the silly excuses that for 80+ years were given to discriminate against beards.
It is a well known phenomenon that if you want to exercise control over people, keep them off balance with authoratative false premises, enforced  with arbitrary use of power, and peer pressure.
Hypnosis by grinding them down into numbness with 18 paragraphs when one will do.

Since WTJWorg and GB should operate within the USA Constitution, we come to a point where we have to ask;
1) What does God guarantee to all people?
2) What does GB guarantee to its people?

You seem to me to be forgetting WHO brought forth the Doctrine of that Trivial Thing.
Any attempt, by you or by anyone else, to mitigate the seriousness of the idiocy that has been and continues to be carried out in the name of God YHVH, now after decades of torture on this issue, is shameful.
We see at least two ways of tyrannizing. One dragged on for decades in such a way that it was Forbidden to wear a beard. Now they continue with the tyranny through Permitting the wearing of beards.
Taking away or giving someone Freedom is a kind of tyranny, because they (GB) have taken a place that does not belong to them. They are not placed by God in a position to take away or give someone freedom of choice.

According to WTJWorg teaching, men who are called (appointed) to positions of responsibility and authority in the congregation are called to that position because they have fulfilled spiritual values/conditions, and therefore HS has appointed them through the existing elders.
The practice over the past almost 100 years has not allowed bearded men to be called into such ministry. We can publicly say that they were not appointed by HS and the elders because these individuals had beards. They were not "spiritually mature" because they showed/manifested this with their beards.
S. Lett says, in fact, that beards are not a prerequisite for spirituality and not prevent the HS from appointing such bearded persons. He says this has never been the case because there is no Scriptural obstacle for bearded "brothers" to take "responsibility". This, consequently means, that the HS did not appoint bearded men, not because beards, but because the elders and the GB prevented/stopped the HS from acting freely in the church. They (GB) admitted this publicly in their update a few days ago.
JWs, are you wondering if, whether at all, the power of HS rests over your congregations or is all power and governance in the hands of GB with their earthly subjects aka elders.

According to WTJWorg teaching, men who are called (appointed) to positions of responsibility and authority in the congregation are called to that position because they have fulfilled spiritual values/conditions, and therefore HS has appointed them through the existing elders.
The practice over the past almost 100 years has not allowed bearded men to be called into such ministry. We can publicly say that they were not appointed by HS and the elders because these individuals had beards. They were not "spiritually mature" because they showed/manifested this with their beards.
S. Lett says, in fact, that beards are not a prerequisite for spirituality and not prevent the HS from appointing such bearded persons. He says this has never been the case because there is no Scriptural obstacle for bearded "brothers" to take "responsibility". This, consequently means, that the HS did not appoint bearded men, not because beards, but because the elders and the GB prevented/stopped the HS from acting freely in the church. They (GB) admitted this publicly in their update a few days ago.
JWs, are you wondering if, whether at all, the power of HS rests over your congregations or is all power and governance in the hands of GB with their earthly subjects aka elders.

that is a very important point…… Here in the United States people think that the Constitution gives or takes away freedoms and liberties. It does not. What it does is guarantees by law the freedoms that we as people have naturally because we are humans, and God has allowed us these freedoms and liberties.
The Constitution  identifies natural rights and protections, but it not create them or “give” them to us.

You seem to me to be forgetting WHO brought forth the Doctrine of that Trivial Thing.
Any attempt, by you or by anyone else, to mitigate the seriousness of the idiocy that has been and continues to be carried out in the name of God YHVH, now after decades of torture on this issue, is shameful.
We see at least two ways of tyrannizing. One dragged on for decades in such a way that it was Forbidden to wear a beard. Now they continue with the tyranny through Permitting the wearing of beards.
Taking away or giving someone Freedom is a kind of tyranny, because they (GB) have taken a place that does not belong to them. They are not placed by God in a position to take away or give someone freedom of choice.

Read the U.S. Declaration of Independence, in it’s entirety. 
86% of the Colonies endured British tyranny as “the way things are”.  Only 14% were willing to put their lives on the line to defeat arbitrary tyranny.
For them the issues were not trivial.

Severe persecution of Brothers FOR 80+ Years for unscriptural reasons is NOT a trivial matter.

Overlapping generations, beards, abolition of hours, daily lawsuits and more will cause an impact that few, if any, are prepared for.

The laugh is because of the last sentence in the Warning.

I have never “made fun” of anybody’s disabilities … except of course my own if it makes for a good joke.
I may make fun of a one-legged tap dancer in general, unaware that someone here is one however.
I do consider it open season on arrogant bullies, manipulators, and the deliberately stupid.
I do have a macabre. sense of humor.

“Evvvverybody” wants to go to Heaven … but nobody wants to die.
What’s with THAT?

Joke I heard from Sophia the Robot to morning talk show host:
”How do you call a bear down from a tree?”
… “ Come here bear!”

(Philemon 7, NWT)  For I got much joy and comfort over your love, because the tender affections of the holy ones have been refreshed through you, brother.
*** Rbi8 Philemon 7 ***
“The tender affections.” Lit[erally], “the bowels.”
 
Imagine if they had translated this literally?
(Philemon 7) 7 For I got much joy and comfort over your love, because the bowels of the holy ones have been refreshed through you, brother.