This is how quickly Snag Tights are rolling over to males with kinks

[HardRockOwl]

Just had the misfortune to stumble across their social media. I work in the same field and was researching something and came across this little exchange .... I know MN are having paragraph issues so apologies if this is one long block of text!

Instagram user (male) .... could you remove the word 'women's' when referring to your tights? If we are wanting to be more inclusive, we could start there.'

Snag ... yes we absolutely agree! We will get this feedback sent over to the team. Thanks for the amazing feedback, we want everyone to feel included.'

They then go on to reassure another commenter called 'pretty fat boy' that they'll look into change all their packaging asap.

The world has gone quite mad hasn't it? And yes, I know men can wear tights. That's not my issue. My issue is these blokes with obvious kinks and fetishes requesting the word 'women' be erased to keep them happy.

Thoughts?

This

Where are the social media campaigns to stop boxer shorts being marketed at men? Why aren’t we all talking about testicle-havers and beard-growers? Where is the uproar about ‘Gillette…the best a man can fucking well get’?

Well quite.

As a child, my brother used to like wearing tights and dresses (he was in a drama group and they featured in a lot of the historical outfits!). He’d always pick the dresses out of the dressing up box to try on too. My dad wasn’t too happy about it, and told him in a clumsy way. I remember he used to cry to me what was wrong with him wearing them and that maybe he should be a girl as I was allowed to wear them. Thank goodness he found some friends who weren’t judgemental, and didn’t carry on with that way of thinking (as in wanting to become a girl). He still wears kaftans in the summer, but isn’t fussed on the tights anymore. I just think if there wasn’t so much gendering of clothing, then people could be free to wear what they want and not think they were odd or the wrong sex.

Probably because they do a boxer short for women (women wearing boxer shorts is quite a common look and I often wear my husband’s. But nobody thinks that’s weird. Gillette completely changed the meaning of their slogan if you wanted to have a Google.

Completely agree

Ooh! If only. I can barely get into them. too short in the body. But that's why I went looking for something else!

@Qwill absolutely. But is it necessary to remove all references to women in order to achieve that? Especially when no one seems interested or bothered in removing the word "men" from clothing or items usually marketed or mainly bought by men.

Or incontinence pants… Tena (womens version) and Tena Men (for - well men). Funny that.

I haven’t checked but assume the woman’s version is more expensive.

Snag ... yes we absolutely agree! We will get this feedback sent over to the team. Thanks for the amazing feedback, we want everyone to feel included.'

Honestly, this just sounds like the typical, generic, overly flowery, utterly meaningless, boilerplate, canned, corporate BS feedback response meant to make the person they are replying to feel as if what they said was actually important, and that the company actually cares.

gushing and fawning 🤢

I think you have misunderstood the objections that are really being given here.

Not suprising given how many posters seem to pop up just to make free with the misrepresentations.

Most women here, GC women, don't care how people dress. Most GC women would stand up for your DB to be able to wear whatever the hell he wanted to, to present himself to the world exacty how he felt most comfortable. Many of us grew up in the gender bending 80s, some of us even married one of those gender bending males who weren't gay or trans but were just young men, wearing stereotypically female clothing, whilst wearing stereotypically male clothing ourselves. I am one of those.

If that had carried on then fine, things would be far, far dfferent today. But in the 90s it all went ladette and guyliner, girl power and manbags, things fell apart and all those gendered stereotypes were re-concreted.

What I am resisting, OP too I think, is the removal of the words for women in order to include men. Inclusivity is not about removing a cohort of people but including more. But the gender ideology of today doesn't do that. It seeks to remove the words for women (rarely men) from all things female. This is to satisfy the needs and wants of men, transwomen or not, more lately some women, transmen.

As many threads across FWR discuss - that supposedly trivial crap others here are complaining about - that removal of accurately descriptive words, has a long, long reach. It may seem churlish to object to chestfeeding, pregnant people, people with periods, sanitary towels that remve their logos (Always and the Venus symbol), but it leads to otrher things that are more harmful. Like men being housed in womens prisons, babies being born dead because their mother, a transman, didn't say he was pregnant, so he was dealt with as a fat man with stomach issues. All sorts of weird and wonderful isues as awell as some very mundane ones, like being able to access single sex rape crisis support, or at least not being told to leave because you couldn't join in as there was a man in the room. All sorts of things that start wth the removal of the words for women.

Language matters. Toxic masculinity harms everyone.

I spotted a man with a clear fetish requesting that the word 'women' be removed from the packaging etc of the tights as it would be more inclusive if they did.

I have a large brown envelope upstairs, stuffed full of striped paper bags containing various pairs of Snags. There is no mention of "women" on the packaging. They simply send out folded pairs of tights in generic striped paper bags, the sort of thing they used to put lemon sherberts in in sweet shops.

This is a non-problem, they're just humouring someone.

Most women here, GC women, don't care how people dress. Most GC women would stand up for your DB to be able to wear whatever the hell he wanted to, to present himself to the world exacty how he felt most comfortable.

and yet you still want to gatekeep certain garments and the marketing of them exclusive to women. GC people are tying themselves in knots with this kind of crap and this is why there seems to be no room for nuance in discussion with them. If you are so gender critical, why do you need to see WOMEN on marketing for a garment? Surely your end game is that people can just be people and dress and act how they like, without needing to rebrand themselves as members of the opposite sex? Isn’t that what you’re always banging on about? And yet now you can’t be a man and wear a “female” garment without being creepy. What do you actually want!?!

and you can lay off all the crap about “womanly” bodies as well. For tights, the worlds stretchiest garment FFS.

Nope, I have not misunderstood anything, I just happen to have a different opinion to you. I don’t need the word ‘woman’ on tights, dresses, tops, razors, etc. I also don’t need the word ‘man’ on those things either. I want the word women on hospital documents (pregnancy, gynaecology, etc.), and the word men on those equivalent things. I also believe in women’s refuge centres to remain single sex, and single sex rape crisis support.

I believe we need to stand up to make sure women have their name on things that are exclusively for women (sex not gender), and tights are not that.

The more I think about this, the more I wonder if you haven't misunderstood the whole original exchange OP? Personally, I'm perfectly happy for men to wear tights, and I would be particularly happy if those men were specifically asking NOT to be referred to as women!

Was this more of a request from/on behalf of transmen/non binary females? Because logically it makes more sense to me that a female who "identifies as non binary" might want not want to be referred to as a woman even when wearing tights.

OK @Qwill I get that. Just thought I'd try and explain why the bastardisation of the language matters to me.

Not sure how often I can explain why that is a misunderstanding, not what I am saying. Especially after that post! You either read what I read and see what I meant to you don't.

And as for the tights thing - I am the shape I am and so far, Snags are the only ones that fit me. I am not even that big. Stretchy or not, if they aren't long enough in the crotch then they don't fucking fit. And most tights, the worlds stretchiest garment FFS. don't fit me! FFS!

My 'end game' is to have the real differences between men and women acknowledged not hidden away, denied or simply, as with prisons and sports these days, ignored because summink summink - be nice and those that don't matter to be lost to the wind.

Oh, and does it really need to be repeated... all TRAs not all transwomen. Because the two cohorts are very often not the same people.

This kind of absolute bollocks is why I’m not GC any more. The OP clearly put that the person who raised the question was male (but without giving their female username - obviously thought nobody would check).

That person is in fact female. The user called prettyfatboy then asked if the description womens tights can be removed from the packaging - as he seems to be in the US and going by Snag’s response he’s referring to the shipping label where the contents are listed. He may not want the postman to see he’s ordered womens tights. That’s surely up to him if he wants to ask. Snag explained they can’t control that and nothing more was said.

this thread is just typical feminism on MN though. Are clothes
for anyone and everyone or aren’t they? Many of their customers seem to be non binary - seems perfectly reasonable they might want to bring all of their branding in line with their company ethos of inclusivity.

Maybe ask these people! I am sure they would be happy to answer your questions of the freedom of others to live, speak as they choose.

Lol at 'typical feminists'

I'll take that as a compliment.

Their various socials are open for everyone to go and take a look at. Short of me screenshot ring everything I saw in about 5 mins, all I can do is tell you to look for yourself if this is something you feel strongly about

Non binary - what sex though?

Women are on alert for the word ‘woman’ being deleted at one word from a man.

So he’s a man who doesn’t want his postie to know he wears My Little Long tights? He needs to grow up then.

@tinierclanger you say "you still want to gatekeep certain garments and the marketing of them exclusive to women." Yet no one has done this. That's not what anyone posting here wants. The objection is to the removal of women from marketing as if the use of the word women was abhorrent and somehow something to apologise for. No one has a problem with adding men to the marketing of tights. Nor with men wearing tights and them becoming as standard an item of clothing for men as they are for women.

Oh, someone do hurry up and ask me who the fuck they are and what they have to do with the price of fish! Come on....

@FleurDeLizz the OP and others have repeatedly said that whether or not men wear tights is not the issue! It's about the idea that this man felt that he could demand that any references to women be removed from packaging/marketing, and that the social media response was to apologise profusely for mentioning women and promising to only use the word "people" from now on. As if referring to women was an awful thing to do and something to profusely apologise for. For a product that is almost entirely bought by women.

@RoseslnTheHospital oh come on. Just listen to yourself.