I don't agree with the ad-hominem comments on Sam Smith, India Willoughby et al.

I agree OP. Sam Smith is a performer and joining the pantheon of pop performers who have shocked over the years. Many examples of this from Madonna to Miley Cyrus.

IW, yeah I don't like all the comments re I's clothing. I actually like a lot of what I've seen.

But it's difficult as pointing out someone's obvious ridiculousness is part of the argument in many cases. Trying to use judgement on those kinds of comments.

Sam Smith is the walking definition of "play stupid games; win stupid prizes".

£28 from a well known online retailer!

🤣🤣

I loved the Swan dress!

Does anyone remember Bjork going to an award show dressed in a sort of swan dress in the 90s? Obviously everyone took the piss. But because she was Bjork, and completely comfortable in her own self, she carried on being fabulous and bonkers. She genuinely didn't give a fuck that other people thought she looked ridiculous.

That's the issue with Smith I think; he clearly does care what people think and is highly sensitive about his appearance. You need to get over that before you go out wearing deliberately ridiculous outfits.

It's relevant to comment on Willouby's apperance, because Willoughby sets so much store by the male idea of what a woman should look like.

But I do think some of the claims by trans women mean that their appearance is a subject that has to be addressed.

For example, some TW claim they've been using female facilities for years and that there is no possible way that they make women feel awkward because no one spots that they are a biological male. And this is seized upon by many more TW now who claim that if only women weren't kicking up a fuss, they'd be quietly be able to use women's facilities and there would be no issue.

And so it becomes necessary to point out that their appearance means we can tell they're men. And that actually, they're nowhere near passing for a woman - as they may have convinced themselves they are. And that in itself is a problem for women because we can SEE our spaces are being encroached on, and that can be very intimidating.

This debate over appearance has become relevant because they're forcing us to address it when actually most of us would very happily stick to the science of biology.

YY, this, exactly.

I would feel sorry for Sam Smith if SS weren’t so determined to kick away the supports helping women achieve recognition in the music industry.

SS never appears truly confident in any of these avant-garde costumes. The clothes are always wearing the person. I think much of this may stem from SS’s unhappiness in their own body, their documented comments about their weight, which is at least a part of what has led to this NB nonsense.

Harry Styles has been mentioned a lot on this thread and I think he is a good example of non-conforming style (mostly) working well. I don’t like everything HS wears but there’s very little doubt that whatever it is, he is wearing it, not the other way round. He gives the impression of being quite happy in his own skin, something SS unfortunately doesn’t. HS also doesn’t claim that his body style or weight distribution or the clothes he wears make him a woman or some kind of not-man, so he is a refreshingly GNC man.

Precisely. Great post.

We would both be laughing together (rather then me laughing at her), first about friends crazy outfit and then about how boring my outfit is.

I’m sure calling them ad hominem attacks is a form of misgendering and I’m surprised this thread hasn’t been deleted.

@CryptoFascistMadameCholet " I like to imagine it would make a farty sound, like a whoopee cushion. "

@CriticalCondition " If a bit starts to deflate do you think you can top it up by blowing into a tube? Like an aeroplane life-jacket in a safety demo. It just needs a toggle and a whistle and he's all good for a emergency landing on water. "

loooooolzzz!

I completely agree that appearance is irrelevant and all that matters is biological sex.

But I do think some of the claims by trans women mean that their appearance is a subject that has to be addressed.

For example, some TW claim they've been using female facilities for years and that there is no possible way that they make women feel awkward because no one spots that they are a biological male. And this is seized upon by many more TW now who claim that if only women weren't kicking up a fuss, they'd be quietly be able to use women's facilities and there would be no issue.

And so it becomes necessary to point out that their appearance means we can tell they're men. And that actually, they're nowhere near passing for a woman - as they may have convinced themselves they are. And that in itself is a problem for women because we can SEE our spaces are being encroached on, and that can be very intimidating.

This debate over appearance has become relevant because they're forcing us to address it when actually most of us would very happily stick to the science of biology.

On a completely separate note, I do think that when someone trades off their image, their brand, their clothing and their style to chase fame and fortune, it's entirely reasonable to comment on their appearance. Lady Gaga is a brand and she wears outrageous outfits - I never heard the #BeKind arguments when people were dissecting her clothing and appearance. Sam Smith doesn't get a pass just because Sam is a penis-haver.

If a bit starts to deflate do you think you can top it up by blowing into a tube? Like an aeroplane life-jacket in a safety demo. It just needs a toggle and a whistle and he's all good for a emergency landing on water.

@NooNakedJacuzziness ine prefer to think off it in cookie monsters voice, sniff have you fictional mischaracterised me own self?

I like to imagine it would make a farty sound, like a whoopee cushion.

Btw, anyone know... if someone burned a little hole in smiths costume, or pricked it with a pin, would he fly off, all round the room?

I think Harry Styles mostly looks ridiculous. Nothing ever fits properly.

" @AmuseBish · Yesterday 22:51
I've been here several years and there have been casual comments to do with how feminine, or otherwise, various TW look. That's what I'm talking about. That's what "ad hominem" means in this context. "

To quote Rhett Butler, frankly my dear, i don't give a damn!
I really and truly could not care less if an uppity woman upset a tw on this board with a casual comment.
I'm here about womens rights and protecting kids, the menz are not my concern!

Yep.

People have requested singular they so I’m giving actual singular they.

He is
She is
They is

Him
Her
Them

His
Hers
Thems

The standard, plural ‘they’ we’ve all been using for at least a century can indicate two or more hims or a her and a him or a her, a him and a them or any number or combo of hers, hims and thems so it’s best for communication to reserve ‘they are’ to mean ‘more than one person’ and use a new, singular they, ‘they is’ for a single human who has requested that we all pretend not to know what sex they is.

Has Harry Styles dressed up as a bouncy castle yet though? Got to compare like-for-like.

That's not an ad hominem because how transwomen look (like the men they are) is an integral part of the discussion.

Agree, and how we are gaslighted over it.

No one is dictating what anyone wears. Just as Smith has the freedom to wear silly clothes, everyone else has the freedom to point out that those clothes are silly. And to be miffed when Smith is occupying half of the table as a result.

But surely "are" is plural. If we're using "they" for singular (and I'd rather not) then surely "they is" must be correct in this new world.

That's not an ad hominem because how transwomen look (like the men they are) is an integral part of the discussion.

Let's agree to disagree then. I don't think anyone's appearance changes how we should treat male and female people in law and policy.

I don't think looking feminine has anything to do with being female. You'd have a bloody field day "being witty and nasty" if you saw a picture of me, I'm sure.