Feminist AIBU - to object slightly to the term 'genderqueer' to describe me?

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I'm working out my thoughts on this, so bear with me. The article that sparked this off is here:

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jul/29/oxford-university-dress-code-transgender-students

Basically, the university used to insist that men and women wore different formal clothes for formal occasions. I was really fed up when I found out I was expected to wear a skirt, tights, and a ribbon around my neck. I just felt it made a mockery of women (WTF is the ribbon about? Am I a cat?).

Now, I know this isn't serious in the scheme of things, but I did hate seeing all these women feeling uncomfortable, not smart, when the men wore an ordinary black suit and looked both normal, and smart. To me, it really reinforced the fact that women were visibly the exception to the norm.

Anyway: the rules recently changed and now women students can wear ordinary suits too (and men can wear skirts and stockings if they so wish, and so on). Great! But I'm not sure how I feel about the comment that this is for the benefit, not of ordinary women students who, in their normal lives, might wear a trouser suit, but of 'genderqueer' students.

I'm actually a bit fed up, and I can quite articulate why. I just feel I didn't need or want a word like 'genderqueer' to describe me wanting to wear what seem perfectly normal clothes, and to mark me out as equal to a male student.

Small issue, I know, but what do you think?

I think the problem is they haven't introduced a neutral option. Actually it's not genderqueer friendly at all either, and it's still sexist. It's saying skirts are for women, suits for men, but if you want to be abnormal (the implication) you can wear "The opposite gender's clothing". The thing about being genderqueer is not wanting to identify as either gender. I have my genderqueer moments but I mostly dress neutral, jeans and a tee shirt is fine.

I had no idea Oxford made you wear weird clothes for the exam. Surely you want to be comfy, not formal, when taking a test? Bizarre.

Yes, that's exactly it talyra! Thanks for putting that into words.

I just was thinking, in a workplace, surely a woman who wears a trouser suit looks perfectly normal? You wouldn't think to yourself 'hmm, I am being genderqueer now', would you.

(Don't get me started on universities and rules for exams, the whole thing is bollocks. But also maybe important given students then go out into the world and keep thinking the same way about gender.)

It'd be much easier as well if trans or genderqueer to have a neutral dress code for everyone, it's all this outfit prescriptivism that's horrid and you'd not necessarily feel much more comfortable. Especially if you don't pass well, and you'd have people looking at you judging your gender. Ugh. Glad I didn't go to a posh uni.

Oh, that's true too, I'd not thought of that.

I live nearby, and I do notice and feel creeped out sometimes by the thought that the students I'm seeing are maybe going to grow up and be politicians or whatever (and that this is the atmosphere dear Dave and Gideon learned about women in).

YANBU

It seems bizarre to me that there should be rules about what to wear for an exam in the first place. Why can't people wear whatever they like?

People not being able to wear what they like has pretty much always been a way of marking out an underclass, IMO - whether it's women or whatever. I really don't like it.

WTF is "genderqueer"? Did someone just make up that word today?

I would assume that in a situation where there are different requirements for men and women, transgender people would wear the outfit of the gender that they identify themselves as belonging to. No need for a special rule to accommodate them.

The issue of having one set of rules for everyone is a different one, and I agree that it makes sense to say "here are the things you can wear" and let people choose from the full range.

trills, it's a fairly common word in some circles. It means people who don't identify with the gender they were born with, but understood from a perspective in which gender is usually innate (ie., the opposite perspective to radical feminism, in which gender is a construct).

What you say makes sense about not needing a special rule - in fact I guess that is actually quite rude, as it's reinforcing 'oh, you are a different group, we need special rules for you', rather than quietly saying 'if you want to wear it, wear it'.

If I'd had to guess I would have thought it was a "bad" word for being transgender.

genderqueerid.com/what-is-gq is a bit more info on genderqueer. It refers to many things, including people who feel outside the gender binary of man/woman. I don't feel it excludes thinking of gender as a construct because it often includes playing with gender to highlight how it is a construct. But different people have different takes on it.

trills - no, it's from that idea of reclaiming 'queer', like in 'queer studies', IIRC.

tal - yes, I over-simplified. I know there is an idea of playing with gender as a construct, but I'm trying to put my finger on how it's different from the rad fem idea of gender being a construct (because IMO it is). I guess it's that I would say people who're genderqueer don't directly want to destroy the idea of gender, they want recognition of all sorts of gender identities?

I'm not saying I don't believe you or understand you - just saying that's what would have immediately come to mind.

Are there any other instances in professional life in which adult women and men are required to wear different clothes (and forbidden to wear the clothes of the other gender)? I can think of the uniformed services, and other uniformed occupations (eg air steward? McDonalds worker?) although not sure if there is a gender neutral version of those uniforms. Which of course would be trousers for both, not skirts for both...

Interesting to note that Cambridge doesn't have dress rules for exams. You can wear anything at all.

Ok.

Oops, sorry, cross posted.

brad - interesting question! I suppose there are also 'implict' rules in some workplaces?

In lots of shops, staff wear as uniform the clothes they sell, and that may be a little different, though women ending up in heels while on their feet for hours isn't great.

FWIW Cambridge has sub fusc rules that say skirts or black trousers for women, but I don't know if men can wear skirts too. I wonder about other universities, as well.

When I sat my finals at Cambridge in 2001 I wore any old thing. Have they introduced clothing rules since?!

Also, just thought that don't some City firms require women to wear skirts? Or is that a myth (or used to be the case but isn't any more)?

Oh, no, I meant, for stuff like graduating and matriculating. I think most universities make people wear at least gowns for that, there's one or two that don't insist on gowns (there was an article in the paper a few weeks ago, I'm not obsessed, honest!).

I didn't know about city firms, but I would think it's possible there that there would be implicit pressure to dress a certain way.

to the OP, no YANBU - do we say that girls who fought to wear trousers as uniform for school in winter in the 90s (like we did) are 'genderqueer'? or did we just want to be warm?

the idea that there's 'something odd' about a woman who doesn't want to wear 'feminine clothes' is quite prevalent in society. IMO it's nothing like men who want to dress as women mostly because most women are happy to be seen to be women in terms of facial features and body shape but just want to wear the ordinary relatively sensible clothes and shoes that men are allowed to wear all the time.

Some private schools still insist on skirts for women. Also for the uniform for pupils it can happen.

Yeah, that's exactly it, maybe.

I think especially because the uniform for women here is so ridiculous compared to what the men wear, it's especially insulting. I see the men who've graduated going for celebratory meals with their parents, and all they have to do is take off a gown, and they look smart in ordinary dark suits, which are a perfectly normal thing to buy and wear from an expense POV. Whereas the women often look either ill-at-ease or downright uncomfortable and are so clearly not wearing what any woman would choose to wear to look smart.

In fact, I think that anything that highlights 'male' and 'female' as 2 separate entities should stop. Why not just have a range of accepted clothing and let people choose.

e.g. for a uniform - black trousers or skirt, must be at least knee length, plain white t-shirt.

Would make life SO much more simple.

All these rules about blazers, ties etc etc are harping back to the days when clothes pretty much identified your status and made sure that people were kept in their place, ie oppressive. Like s wanky schools that have berets and special blazers to make sure that everyone knows darling Alexandriania goes to St Ethelburga's Convent School or whatever.

I can see why you are annoyed, but think it may be one of those rare moments when an amendment to a ridiculous rule actually makes life easier for everyone.
I hope lots of people of both genders take the opportunity to wear the non traditional version. That said, it effectively means women wearing 'normal' clothes. I think it is still a harder thing for a man to wear a skirt and be accepted.

Oh, I agree it's harder for a man to wear a skirt and be accepted. But why not just say 'wear what you like?' Why keep it as 'well, there is a norm for men and a norm for women, but exceptions can transgress?' - that's just stupid IMO.