Fetishes and Autogynephilia

However, a lot of people seem to think that men who dress in more stereotypically women's clothes are mocking women, that this is insulting, making a parody out of women. Either that, or it is fetishistic.

That's correct. So when Feminists say anyone should be able to wear anything, they want to remove the hierarchical nature of it.

There are men, Jared Smith, Harry Styles, etc, who will wear clothing normally associated with women, but they are not trying to imitate a woman. There's nothing mocking or punching down about it. It's gender busting.

Men who wear women's clothing in order to look like a woman are not doing that.

This really isn't complicated.

And I'm not sure you realise this, but most women can spot a man who is getting off on wearing women's clothing, from one who's just wearing it, at a hundred paces.

This will probably be deleted, but my goodness there is a world of difference between Bowie putting on some lip gloss and a silver jump suit and a man tottering around in 6 inch heels, stilettos and a pencil skirt. And we all know that for heaven’s sake

Drag is different, because it’s based in a whole comedic tradition of parodying and making fun of women dating back to music hall and before then. It’s not just drag queens, it’s the old women in Monty Python and the Two Ronnies taking off older ladies and jokes about fish.

it seems clear that many GC feminists are not happy about men presenting in a more stereotypically feminine way.

GC feminists have no problem with men or women dressing how they like.

We don't have to go back far in time to remember glam rock, Bowie, new romantics etc to find men dressing in what would be considered a feminine style. It ebbs and flows with fashion.

Drag is different because it's often extremely exaggerated to the point of being clownish and absurd.

I keep thinking how surreal life is. We've all had to lock down because of a virus like no other and now we are expected to look at a willy and say it's female if the person attached says it is for potential kinks.
Have I been abducted by aliens to a parallel universe?

Grown men look like men. I just don't see how I am supposed to change my brain to see a woman if a man says he is a she...constantly squint?

How many of those supporting this really believe it's true that gender is fluid and how may instead are scared, feel pity, or want to pretend to be in the 'in' group and don't understand the risk of losing sex-based rights and spaces ?

It strikes me that to get to that distinction you have to be in the mindset that what is male is desirable and aspirational, and have devalued perceptions of femaleness - that nobody would naturally want to imitate this, so of course there must be an element of ridicule in any male that does.

This is literally a definition of patriarchy and sexism. This is what GC feminists are explicitly against. This is the whole point. Women see this and are subjected to this literally from birth. Every woman knows this from her personal experience ! That is what feminism is explicitly designed to fight against!

How can you be confusing feminist analysis of this with the system itself?

Which is, of course, the exact same sentiment that women wear dealing with as they challenged social norms by wearing more masculine clothing.

I honestly don’t understand why you think this, because it’s patently not true. When wearing trousers became the fashion, it was very quickly adopted by young and older women - particularly during the war - but well before then, wearing “slacks” was normalised very quickly and in fact became an aspirational fashion, because wealthy middle class young and older women were often the first to wear them and they were often very approved of by young men as indicating a woman being modern, racy or “fast” - it was considered titillating! Chanel was a great proponent of them. Exactly the same thing happened when women started smoking in large numbers.

There was not much challenging of social norms going on; in fact, as other posters have pointed out, women doing masculine things or wearing men’s clothes has always been approved of as being a bit racy and sexy (you can see bums! Great for the male gaze!) and as a result quite unthreatening. Women were flashing their bloomers and sea suits in the 19th as a titillating display to men. This is all quite obvious and well known and internalised by women, though, so I’m a bit baffled to spell it out.

In other threads you’ve said you’re a middle-aged lesbian woman, suggestionsplease: but I’m really puzzled at these kinds of statements, because it honestly sounds like you’ve recently landed from Mars and have been observing these things called “women” from a distance! The idea that women ever seriously challenged gender norms by wearing trousers is one of them… if they had truly done they wouldn’t have been allowed!

Copying/pasting below from what I posted in another thread as it's what I would be re-writing here in response to this anyway...

If women wear stereotypically male clothes, even ultra-masculine, this is not typically presently considered problematic. I don't think there are general thoughts that women who do this are attempting to ridicule, mock or parody men.

However, a lot of people seem to think that men who dress in more stereotypically women's clothes are mocking women, that this is insulting, making a parody out of women. Either that, or it is fetishistic.

It strikes me that to get to that distinction you have to be in the mindset that what is male is desirable and aspirational, and have devalued perceptions of femaleness - that nobody would naturally want to imitate this, so of course there must be an element of ridicule in any male that does.

I think that's a big problem and is doubling down on the masculine/feminine value distinction, but it seems clear that many GC feminists are not happy about men presenting in a more stereotypically feminine way.

People really need to stop buying into an artificial value system that elevates 'masculinity' and markers of it.

On this thread it seems to be a commonly held opinion that it is not necessary to ascertain the motivation of the individual wearing gender atypical clothing - speculation of the perceiver about their motivation is enough. Which is, of course, the exact same sentiment that women wear dealing with as they challenged social norms by wearing more masculine clothing.

Well of course, women have been granted a lot more freedom than men in this country at least to dress in gender atypical ways without social rejection and disapproval. I have no doubt that the pathway to this was also paved with speculation about improper motivations and and deviant sexualities, just as we are seeing in this thread now.

Men still have a long way to go to escape the policing and censure of their choices to dress in gender atypical ways it seems.

Oh for heaven's sake. That's because women dressing in men's clothes is seen as punching up, whereas men dressing in women's clothes is as seen as punching down. Hence girlie, sissy, etc.

Some men who crossed dress get involved in things like forced feminisation and sissification. What would the equivalent be for women? Forced leadership? Strengthification?

And it's not really relevant to women spaces. It doesn't matter what you wear, you can't change sex.

Anecdotally rom a personal perspective every TW bar one that I’ve met in person displayed behaviours towards females consistent with them having AGP. The one TW that didn’t that I met in reason is Kristina Harrison, our interaction was very brief so insufficient time to properly assess but there were no immediate indicators and there usually are.

On twitter where more evidence is displayed and I see interactions from huge numbers of TW including from my profession the only TW I’ve seen who doesn’t appear so is Fionne Orlander.

Based on what I see I am of the opinion it is extremely prevalent.

It’s the posts where you point out the obvious logical consequences and that gets a little too near the knuckle, hits a nerve, etc. It’s quite the “tell” when this happens, because it shows what they know might actually be true, and they really don’t want you to think about.

I see that my post pointing out that clothes and make up don’t change a person’s sex has been deleted

Is it because MNHQ believe clothes and makeup do change a person’s sex do we think?

Or because I said only someone very sexist would think that?

It’s strange - if you Google cross dressing on the internet, you get loads of supportive forum posts saying “it’s more common than you think”, “it doesn’t mean your gay“, etc.
But if you say “I’m uncomfortable with men with a cross dressing fetish coming in women’s toilets” all of a sudden, it’s incredibly rare and happens so infrequently as to be insignificant.

By strange, I mean thoroughly predictable.

Well of course, women have been granted a lot more freedom than men in this country at least to dress in gender atypical ways without social rejection and disapproval

Women weren’t granted it, they fought for it. And they didn’t do it by saying they were men

Men still have a long way to go to escape the policing and censure of their choices to dress in gender atypical ways it seems.

The answer I'm going to get from my colleagues if I say this, is that it is only a small proportion of transwomen/cross dressers who have this fetish.

What is the evidence that it is as high as the proportions mentioned in this thread?

Quite, Bernard.

Yes indeed

It’s a lot harder to justify removing women’s dignity, privacy and safety when a proportion of the people you’re doing it for are indulging a fetish by using women’s spaces and provisions

People who know one or two people who have cross dressing fetishes are not saying every transwoman is like this. They are just saying that quite a few penis people have this, that it's a common paraphilia.

Lots of people are saying that people with these kinds of fetishes simply don't exist, or are vanishingly rare. This just isn't true.

When women are asking for the fact that this can be a sexual fetish to be taken into account when considering safeguarding etc, it's very convenient to portray this as bigotry, rather than realism.

*been

Trousers and shirts have not be culturally coded as essentially masculine for around 100 years now, @suggestionsplease1. Maybe your frankly specious post might have made a tiny bit of sense in 1927 in an underground lesbian Berlin cabaret night.

However, take a look at Kim Kardashian when she’s next wearing trousers, and then tell me how many men think she is fetishising their male apparel.