A bindi is a fashion accessory

The argument

While the bindi originated in India as a religious symbol, it has since evolved into a fashion accessory that is often worn for aesthetic reasons within India and surrounding countries like Pakistan. The claim being made concerns what the object currently is rather than what it once was, and the evidence for it comes from the culture of origin itself. Bindis can be seen on famous Bollywood stars in films, and most Indians could not describe what the original spiritual significance was — which means the sacred meaning is not being carried by most of the people wearing them. If the bindi has evolved from a spiritual symbol into a simple fashion accessory, and is popularly worn as such within the culture it originates from, there is no reason that someone outside of that culture who enjoys it for fashion should be deemed offensive. The charge of appropriation depends on a sacred meaning being disregarded by an outsider; where that meaning has already lapsed for insiders, there is nothing left for the outsider to disregard. How bindis actually reach people supports the same reading. Bindis are commonly sold around the world, not from religious institutions, but in affordable, colorful packs of self-adhesive gems — distributed as ornament rather than as devotional object, by sellers with no religious role at all. They are often viewed as just part of an outfit and nothing more, and some have even suggested that this kind of policing of cultural exchange is leading to a lack of integration and acceptance of differing cultures, since treating a shared ornament as off-limits erects a boundary that nobody within the culture was asserting.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Just because the bindi is commonly worn for fashion does not strip it of its religious or spiritual significance. The bindi originated in the Hindu religion, and it continues to be utilized in various ceremonies and rites to signify various spiritual meanings, such as symbols of marriage, good luck, and association with various gods. The traditional red bindi is still highly utilized in Hindu marriage ceremonies, though this is not commonly known outside of Indian culture. This is why those who are not members of Indian society or culture should not be wearing the bindi. If those of Indian heritage decide to consciously wear it differently, that is their choice to make. Those who are not familiar with the cultural nuances and significance that it carries should not wear it so flippantly as an accessory that they do not understand.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Evolution into a fashion item does not displace the original meaning. The counter-argument's point is that the two coexist — the red bindi retains a ceremonial role in Hindu marriage rites — and a symbol acquiring a second use is not evidence that it has lost the first. [Rejecting P2] The Bollywood and self-adhesive-pack observations describe what happens within the culture of origin, which is the case the argument least needs to make; what is disputed is wear by outsiders, and the two are treated as equivalent without argument. The claim that most Indians could not describe the bindi's spiritual significance is also offered with no source. [Rejecting P3] The inference from "worn as fashion by insiders" to "may be worn as fashion by outsiders" is the argument's central step and it is asserted rather than defended. A member of a tradition altering its practice is doing something different from an outsider adopting the result, which is exactly the distinction the sibling position draws.