I don't think cultural appropriation is a useful idea. Not when used informally, anyway, in places like this. It's a pejorative label for cultural exchange, which is inevitable and not in itself a bad thing. I think this because I'm the product of cultural assimilation.
When I say that "cultural appropriation is not a thing", what I don't mean is that some of the problems that get stuffed under the umbrella tag of "cultural appropriation" aren't problems. I mean that "cultural appropriation" as a tag is inherently not useful, inherently poorly communicates about those problems, inherently creates misconceptions, unfortunately lumps together things which would be better with their own tags, and has fundamental philosophical roots in some really dark places. It's not by accident that I choose to attack the notion of "authenticity", and I think people that traced back where that came from would be really surprised. I say it's not a thing, not to dismiss anyone's real problems and experiences, but to dismiss it as a useful description and mental framework for what those problems actually are. In other words, I dislike it in large part because I think it is sloppy thinking, and I link to the video that I link to because its someone who isn't white (and therefore, for better or worse has the privilege of speaking with moral authority on this topic) that eloquently attacks the sloppy thinking involved in "cultural appropriation", and the racist ideology at the heart of it, while not dismissing the often real problems that get labeled as "cultural appropriation".
One of the things I always look for in an ideology, is if that condemns something as wrong, it gives a functional description of how a person in the wrong can amend their behavior. And I really think one of the big problems with "cultural appropriation" as a description, is it isn't coherently proscriptive. Any attempt to describe what someone guilty of the crime should do, or how one should avoid the crime, invariably runs into wishy-washy thinking, self-contradiction, and most of all appointment of a preferred priesthood who can speak "authentically" on the particular subject. As I've just tried to show, defining "authenticity" in these matters is probably impossible, and is usually a tautology. But even worse "authenticity" in a racial context proves to be racist, as it turns out that whether you are authentic or not ends up being determined mostly by whether you agree and submit, and if you have some opinion about race or whatever that doesn't conform with the program, then you - as you've just experienced - get dismissed. I've seen too many cases of things like people who supposedly have good intentions, promoting "cultural appropriation" as "social justice", claim that the only "authentic" black experience is being a criminal, and dismissing as inauthentic (in far more racist language than that) someone whose skin is dark who has any other experience. When you do that to people who I count as friends, or count as people I admire and respect, I get a bit defensive about it, which may unfortunately spill out into aggressive rhetorical counter-punching.
Anyway, I think there seems to be consensus that men can play women (and women can play men). It might be interesting if there was any particular insight beyond the obvious on how to do that well, especially if you feel it isn't usually done well.