For wearing men's clothing.

Funny how I believe Elizabeth of England escaped that death sentence for doing the same thing in battle?

"Today most people wouldn't bat an eye at a women wearing pants or a bow tie (in the western world), but it wasn't always this way. In fact, prior to the late 19th and early 20th century, social customs were very strict regarding women’s clothing, with women wearing dresses, underskirts and painfully tight corsets."
https://kirrinfinch.com/blogs/news/history-of-women-wearing-mens-clothing

Interesting points, but were "painfully tight corsets" the norm across cultures and centuries? Or the norm for when ladies of position sat for their portraits?

Joan of Arc was a fascinatingly complex character. I think her mounting a battle horse is more significant than her equestrian attire. In other words, her battle armor counts more than the tunic and pants underneath. What did she wear when not on the field of battle?

Agreed.

Was any boy or man killed for wearing women's clothing while trying to save their country?

Not being an art afficiando, I know I've seen numerous portraits of women (peasant, especially) wearing loose-fitting dresses, skirts, and smocks. And probably a few, I suppose, in some form of divided pants-like garment.

Joan of Arc was executed mainly for political reasons - the English "couldn't" leave her alive to act as a rallying point for the French.

Oh, and Elizabeth 1st was never on a battlefield (and is not known for wearing trousers either).

I agree with you on Joan but she did appear on a battlefield at Tilbury before the anticipated attack of the Aramada where she delivered one of the great speeches of English history:

"I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king and a king of England, too and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any other prince of Europe would dare to invade the borders of my realm: to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I shall myself take up arms..."

One of a kind.

She never did actually fight on a battlefield even though suggesting she would. Providence, luck, or just good fortune in the form of a storm pushed the combined enemy fleet up into the North Sea and around Scotland where much of it was lost.

For her Air Jordans?

This is interesting. In putting my scrapbooks together, I had to note by the time I got out of Jr. high in the early 60's that in each and every one of my class pictures, all of the girls had on skirts or dresses. I had never given it a second thought until I saw the pictures year after year. I do not recall anyone EVER questioning that in all the years I was in school.

And, I well remember the tale of the female student who dared wear a pair of slacks to the BYU testing center in the winter due to the cold weather. She was told to go put on a skirt, so she went into the restroom, took off her slacks, put her long coat back on and was admitted into the testing center, in her underwear!

Because she was Noah's wife ?

You are confusing her with Joanne of The Archaic Covenant who is credited with removal of the temple vow of a wife to obey her husband as he obeys "The Lord."

You are going to fail your history exam most egregiously.

I hope you won't send me to a military academy in Alaska.

To keep this on topic we have this quoted from the anointed.

"For a woman to adopt the mode of a man’s dress, it is said, is to encourage the wave of sexual perversion, when men adopt women’s tendencies and women become mannish in their desires."
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1972/02/maintain-your-place-as-a-woman?lang=eng

Oh, the wisdom of Harold B. Lee.

"It was someone with deep understanding of married life who said that the good wife commandeth her husband in any equal matter by constantly obeying him. I will leave it to you sisters to apply that wisely in your marriage partnership. The good wife commandeth her husband in any equal matter by constantly obeying him.
But now there are the “unclaimed jewels” who have not as yet had an acceptable offer of marriage or if married have not been able to have children, and they wonder about the doctrines that I have just now spoken about. To these President Young made a promise for which the plan of salvation provides the fulfillment. He said, “Many of the sisters grieve because they are not blessed with offspring. You will see the time when you will have millions of children around you. If you are faithful to your covenants, you will be mothers of nations.” (Discourses, p. 310.)
I have said many times to young couples at the marriage altar: Never let the tender intimacies of your married life become beastly. Let your thoughts smell of the sunshine. Let your words be wholesome and your association together be inspiring and uplifting, if you would keep alive the spirit of romance throughout your marriage together.
Concerning the blessings of motherhood, I came across a clipping, a quotation from an article written by Dr. Henry Link entitled “Love, Marriage and Children.”
“I am convinced that having a child is the final and strongest pledge of a couple’s love for each other. It is an eloquent testimony that their marriage is a complete one. It lifts their marriage from the level of selfish love and physical pleasure to that of devotion centered around a new life. It makes self-sacrifice rather than self-indulgence their guiding principle. It represents the husband’s faith in his ability to provide the necessary security, and it demonstrates the wife’s confidence in his ability to do so. The net result is a spiritual security which, more than any other power, helps to create material security as well.”"

Joan was thought to be demon possessed. She was a visionary who offered an alternative line to God from the Pope. The church wanted rid of her.

Nope.

Weak sauce.

Many visionary women were supported by the church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_women%27s_mysticism

The church didn't want "rid of her." Men did. English and French men.

"In May 1430, the Burgundians laid siege to Compiegne, and Joan stole into the town under the cover of darkness to aid in its defense. On May 23, while leading a sortie against the Burgundians, she was captured. The Burgundians sold her to the English, and in March 1431 she went on trial before ecclesiastical authorities in Rouen on charges of heresy. Her most serious crime, according to the tribunal, was her rejection of church authority in favor of direct inspiration from God. After refusing to submit to the church, her sentence was read on May 24: She was to be turned over to secular authorities and executed. Reacting with horror to the pronouncement, Joan agreed to recant and was condemned instead to perpetual imprisonment.
Ordered to put on women’s clothes, she obeyed, but a few days later the judges went to her cell and found her dressed again in male attire. Questioned, she told them that St. Catherine and St. Margaret had reproached her for giving in to the church against their will. She was found to be a relapsed heretic and on May 29 ordered handed over to secular officials. On May 30, Joan, 19 years old, was burned at the stake at the Place du Vieux-Marche in Rouen. Before the pyre was lit, she instructed a priest to hold high a crucifix for her to see and to shout out prayers loud enough to be heard above the roar of the flames."
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/joan-of-arc-martyred

The church wouldn't have done this if what you said were true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrial_of_Joan_of_Arc

I think something we have to remember about Joan is that she was a peasant girl, who rose in prestige and rank. She would have earned a certain amount of privilege amongst her own people and was useful in the military, but once she was captured it became an issue of the aristocracy of two countries. High ranking men needed to maintain face. The Dauphin did not think she was worth the trouble of bargaining for ( she wasn't royalty and was just a woman). The English found a lot of reasons to be offended by her. She had the audacity to speak to men as if she had authority. She claimed communication with God, challenging high powered clergy. And she essentially said the English were wrong and God was on France's side.
Pants was just frosting on the cake.

They chose to use the "cross dressing" charge as it was new ground legally and they could use it to justify a death sentence fairly easily. If they had gone for heresy, they'd need this to be at least her second offense to qualify for the death penalty.

So the cross dressing charge is really just legal BS.

Great assessment. Thanks. Pants are worth dying for.