Oh FFS another brand captured

Precious is absolutely the right word here. Maybe I'm just spoilt with real problems in life but it's laughable that anyone could take offense to this.

I’m missing something. They look like 1970s polyester underpants.

No worries.

It is a business. People purchasing from a business do so for many reasons. However, when a brand uses emotional appeal such as being female centred and growing support that way, if they change direction they have to expect that they will lose customers because of that change as well as gain customers.

I can only assume that if this business has changed direction, that they have done the sums and feel that the male market is more lucrative than just female purchasers alone. It raises another question as to how big this market is in numbers and in purchase power.

I don't really care that much about the ethics. I was wondering if they would make a gift for someone I know but I can't figure out who these pants are meant for, or who they would suit. They don't even fit the model very well. Saying it's a range for "trans people" is underspecified because "trans people" come in two different sexes and so many different shapes, sizes, and stages of transition (and detransition) If it was "fits men without penises" or "a feminine style for someone with with a penis and a male torso" or "men on oestrogen with penises and a more female distribution of body fat" (or whatever for women in transition the other way) I'd have a better idea. Is their website more helpful?

Sorry xpost. Thank you @Helleofabore

I'm not sure I can put it any more clearly than I did in my 9.37 post.
What exactly is the problem?
Men wearing underwear of a style that is gnc ?
The company diversifying?
What is this "thing" we had that we now don't have?

A business could be argued to unethically be using a customer base, ie women and girls, to attract their new customers, males. Women supporting a business previously portraying themselves as ‘ethical’ or ‘just for women and girls by women’ (ie female centred and owned) would have justification to be upset that the business has used them to attract these male customers.

Those are appeals to emotion and brands do this to build stronger consumer involvement in their brand to maintain loyalty. It is very successful. Consumers then start to believe in the brands messaging and they will recommend them to others using that message. And over time consumers feel they are heavily invested in the brand and its success.

If this business was always clearly targeting male people, then no, women don’t have justification to complain.

If this business has used all that previously built up brand loyalty and personal consumer emotional investment to attract male people, then yes. The women complaining are well justified. While it is not their business, the business grew because of women’s recommendations and loyalty.

Would those male people would be even interested in the brand if the brand had always been marketing underwear designed just for them and never for women and girls.

Or is the attraction to the brand that it became so popular with women and girls, that the desire to be part of that group is the driving motivation for purchase? Hence the business has seen an opportunity to leverage their built up assets to expand.

The assets in this case is the highly involved female purchasers who have justification at being upset to be used as a resource by the business in a way that they did not expect. Had those female customers known from the start that their purchase history would be used in this specific way, would they have made that purchase, made that recommendation? Maybe not if they believed they were supporting a female centred brand. Feminists support female centred brands, this of course means that if feminists supported the brand believing it was female centred, they are justified for being upset at a change in direction if it has occurred.

Hence the question, was this brand marketed as being always female centred or not?

Of course, all businesses have the right to change direction and make money. That is business after all. The question was asked why was this a feminist issue and it revolves around how the brand has utilised the female target market. The easy answer is that those unhappy with the change is that they can stop supporting the business.

Nothing has been taken away from women here. They haven't redesigned their range to fit transwomen and in doing so made it not fit women

They aren't putting transwomen in the women's underwear

Instead they have designed an separate range for trans people. They have extended their products to include more people but in doing so have taken nothing anyway from the offering for women

It always feels like there are two parts to the conversations around trans people. One part, and to be fwir the main part discussed on here, being safeguarding, the need for single sex spaces, women's sports etc. And the other one that occasionally crops up is essentially trans people shouldn't exist. This strays too far into the second one for me

Are we seriously trying to argue that this business was a sort of "safe space" for women who think unmanly men are vile and now these poor bigots are feeling betrayed?

I think I'm okay with that if I'm being really honest 😂😂

These "explanations" and "clarifications" haven't really done anything to explain or clarify why some women are so overly sensitive that they demand a female owned brand never expand their range. From what I've seen this one range hasn't taken away from the large collection of women's stuff so this is a very precious think to be offended by frankly.

The idea that the owner callously and viciously deceived anyone is laughable. People are allowed to reconsider business options throughout their career and, while you may not like it, there's not exactly a ton of money to be made from selling exclusively to 'Women with a very specific desire to buy only from female owned brands who share their view that gender non conformity is wrong'.

I’m not sure what you need clarified?

Yes but I'm not following the explanation so hoping for clarification. As far as I can see the company still does everything it ever did for women.

Way to massively miss the point

@Helleofabore explains it

Sorry but you've lost me. What is the justification for being aggrieved exactly?

“I guess it's the height of feminism to think that women just shouldn't make money and succeed in business?..”

If this was a company who started as a female centred company and built their consumer base using that branding, and then have expanded, there is a reason to discuss this in feminism. Because that brand leveraged women and girls to make money and are now using that reputation and that consumer base as an asset to then sell to male people.

They are in the business of making money. How they choose to do that is their business and people can analyse this however they wish. When it comes to ‘ethics’, a brand who positions themselves as ethical, and that is inferred with the communication of ‘inclusivity’, needs to be able to show that they are indeed ethical as they claim.

There is cause for discussion if a business positioning themselves as ethical uses a female target segment to then attract a male target segment after a change of direction.

And that would fit into a feminist discussion.

Has this company changed direction? Were they originally marketing themselves anything like ‘made for women by women’? If so, women unhappy about this have justification.

Yes, why?

If they're just women's pants with "wider and longer gussets"

Would be good if a women's underwear company could make womens pants to fit women

A lot of women's underwear these days has short, narrow and flimsy gussets which just don't stay where they're meant to 😫

Are you including the bra that the man is wearing in other photographs too?

👏

I wonder why female owned small businesses like this struggle when the minute they try to expand to a broader market they get all sorts acting like it's some kind of betrayal of women, and that they've been 'captured' by the wOkEs. I guess it's the height of feminism to think that women just shouldn't make money and succeed in business?...

it is frustrating that women can’t ever have things exclusivity for them

Don't be daft. There are far more underwear brands catering exclusively for women than there are brands which make lingerie for men. This is ridiculous hyperbole. And besides, the owner of the brand can do what she likes with it. She has no responsibility to provide you with an "exclusive" space.

It’s a bit sad as I see from the owner’s comment below that she claims she started because she wanted to boost women’s confidence - something she notes men don’t generally need. And now she’s marketing for men as well, and it is frustrating that women can’t ever have things exclusivity for them. Seems like a marketing ploy and now she’s conquered the women’s market, she’s employing a new marketing ploy. Not surprised if a few women feel let down.

“All this started because I was unhappy with the lack of confidence a lot of my friends had about themselves. They were incredible and talented and I wanted them to see themselves the way they I saw them and feel how they deserved to feel. My background in the entertainment industry taught me that most men do not have this issue and that, in honestly, annoyed me a lot.”

A male model wearing underwear that is clearly designed to accommodate the shape of a male body. I don't see any problem with this.

OK but that's patently not women's underwear is it? It's clearly designed for, and being marketed to, men.

Probably because it's from a company selling women's underwear talking about female empowerment and then using men to market their underwear.

This is part of their trans collection, but that's not immediately clear on their socials.