Friends suggesting transphobia and misogyny both rooted in policing gender roles

I think there are places where those clothes are appropriate and places where they're not. Why someone is wearing them isn't relevant.

We're human and survival depends on being able to discern someone's motive and intent from their behaviour. Two different people dressed alike can be intending to signal very different things (a man in a dress and a woman in the same dress) and we can draw appropriate conclusions from that. We will form our own conclusions about what that means, and that person's intentions, and it's right and proper to do so.

But when it comes to put boundaries around dress, especially where those boundaries have consequences, I don't think someone's inner intent is something that should be taken into account. If a dress is too short to meet an "at work" dress code then it's too short for both men and women.

So when you say there's "a difference between wearing clothes typically associated with the opposite sex as an act of defiance or fashion, and wearing them because you identify as or get a thrill from dressing as the opposite sex" that's true, but I don't think it makes much practical difference.

The sexism of a "make me a sammich" t-shirt isn't excused by the intention of a radical feminist activist wearing it in an ironic sense. In an arena where sexist t-shirts aren't permitted, they aren't permitted. Where they are permitted then anyone can wear one.

Wouldn't "artificial Oxford boobs" be just as poor behaviour if a woman wore them, and wouldn't it be just as sexist?

I think that DeanElderberry's examples of sexualised play clothes, exhibitionist costume, bondage gear etc worn other than in privacy is good, and that objecting to these involves an element of judging motivations.

I'm not saying anyone should have to do anything.

I'm saying there are valid reasons why GC women may not unconditionally agree that clothes are just clothes. They should be, but in the gendered social context they often aren't.

Within reason, yes. As long as people are wearing clothes within the normal bounds of decency and conventions for the situation/occasion then I don’t care what arrangements and colours of fabric you use to clothe your body, how you style your hair or whether you wear make up. If a man wears a nice frock and hat to a wedding or a skirt and blouse that conforms to the business dress code to the office then go ahead, I don’t care.

For me the distinction between fetish wear and gender non-conforming clothes for men is bras. There is absolutely no need for a man to wear a bra. Most of the women I know regard them as a necessary evil and men will never know that relief of walking through your front door and unhooking your bra.

Do we know what a “gender realist” is? Has @LoremIpsumCici got confused and mashed up the terms gender critical and sex realist?

I think we can judge clothing by what it reveals without having to decide what the intention behind it is.

It's not appropriate for a man to flash his penis in public for any reason at all. We don't have to ask why he does it.

yeah but visible 🍆🍆under fluffy skirts of inside pink lycra leggings are an unwelcome revelation

I respectfully disagree. Much as we can't and shouldn't have to judge anyone's inner feelings about what sex they feel they are, we can't and shouldn't have to judge anyone's inner motivations for wearing any specific kind of clothing.

The nuance for me is whether the man is wearing women's clothes to break the gendered connotations or because he wants to enjoy the gendered connotations.

To me the latter is just as sexist as a T shirt saying "make me a sammich" and if women shouldn't have to accept the T shirt from a friend or colleague they shouldn't have to accept the fancy dress.

J K Rowling said 'Dress however you please' - that has been challenged more recently, notably by specifically because of men who insisted on wearing fetish gear in public or who adopted a 'womanface' parody of women (for instance Oxford plastic breasts man, every drag queen).

The price of freedom from male oppression is constant vigilance.

There's a difference between wearing clothes typically associated with the opposite sex as an act of defiance or fashion, and wearing them because you identify as or get a thrill from dressing as the opposite sex.

The first: Clearly they aren't actually women's clothes because I'm a man and I'm wearing them too

The second: They are definitely women's clothes, and wearing them says something about either hiw I see myself or how I see women.

A bow in his hair and a pair of ballet flats?

As long as the clothing is appropriate for the situation, I don't think GC women give much of a toss what anyone's wearing.

There is concern too that single sex spaces which have historically been patriarchal tools of oppression will disappear as they are now weirdly seen as spaces of safety and refuge (although no criminal has ever respected these invisible boundaries nor will they ever)

What is it with TRAs claiming everything is "weird" or "odd", as if no one had every really noticed there are quite significant difference between the physical capabilities and social outcomes until Gender Critical Feminists starting pointing out that trans women are not actually female people and just calling them "women" isn't actually an argument for why we should have to treat them as if they are interchangeable with female people?

It isn't weird.

A single sex space can be a prison or a refuge and place of empowerment.

You need to think about what side of the door the lock is on.

But transwomens rights aren't women's rights, They're mens rights

There is concern too that single sex spaces which have historically been patriarchal tools of oppression will disappear

Can we have some evidence that the rape crisis services and domestic violence shelters that women set up for themselves were tools of patriarchal oppression?

You clearly missed the images from1623 and 1918 I posted yesterday.

Please cite a reputable source for your unique view of the history of the sex-related associations of blue and pink.

No it’s much older than 1950s USA.
But then you do tend to not be aware of any human existence earlier than 1950 in all your posts.

I don't think you're going to "convert" her to the gender critical side. Have you considered if mentioned friends are actual friends? One option to consider is simply unfriending them with a couple of clicks.

I interpreted realists as the cue. Anyone who is realistic about any of this subject is necessarily “gender critical” to use common parlance.

And have males been forced to wear high heels to be employed in more recent times or is is just women?

Actually, I'm confused - I thought gender realists believed in affirmation only care and were pro hormones?

My trousers came from the women's section. My socks, however . . . .

I don't want to alarm any female contributors to this thread, but I fear that it is likely that they are wearing trousers RIGHT NOW.

Women need rights and services that men don't e.g. single sex sport, maternity leave, maternity care. Lack of access to contraception is far more consequential for women than it is for men.

I think it's already been mentioned but 'Invisible Women' is a book that details how women experience discrimination when it is assumed that they are just like men.

Gender realists object to anyone getting hormones, GCS, and dressing very stereotypically for the opposite sex.

Not true.

I don’t care how anyone dresses, and adults can do what they please to their bodies. I don’t think it’s a priority for the public purse to pay for adults to do whatever they want to their bodies but that’s a different question.