Stepping on transgender territory? Or just defying gender stereotypes?

[femfortheday]

This article on Jayden Smith in the independent just cropped up in my news feed. Is it satire? Because if I think my eyes might fall out from rolling too hard.
Man defies gender stereotypes and is accused of making life harder for transwomen? Because without the props of gender clothing, how will they express their womanhood? It's almost like gender is utter nonsense

Link: www.independent.co.uk/voices/will-smiths-son-as-the-new-face-of-louis-vuitton-womenswear-might-seem-progressive-but-its-a6797461.html

www.independent.co.uk/voices/will-smiths-son-as-the-new-face-of-louis-vuitton-womenswear-might-seem-progressive-but-its-a6797461.html

Well, if I was ever tempted to spend ridiculous amounts of money on shitty clothing, this has put me off.

There's pretty much nothing men won't appropriate.

It's galling on quite a few levels.

umm...it's a joke I think
at least the middle bit seems to be

Bloody hell. And I though the standard of argument in the stuff I've been marking was poor. You could drive a bus through the holes that one.

Hahahahaha

(Is that article actually meant as a satirical pop at transgenderism?)

I'm not sure it is a joke. I agree that the middle bit should be a joke (it is that ridiculous) but given the conclusion the article is building towards , I really don't think it is a joke.

"When you get out of bed in the morning the most important thing you have to do all day is tell the world what your gender is, because from that, everything else flows."
I really CANT believe I am meant to take anything containing this sentence seriously

I didn't know Louis Vuitton made clothes , other than shoes. I won't be rushing to buy them.

I thought most of the posters on here disapproved of women's clothes and men's clothes so , not sure why you are are upset about this. Wouldn't you be in favour of clothes not signifying anything?

As a woman, I wouldn't be attracted by this advertising campaign because it would strongly suggest to me that the clothes are designed for the no-boobs, no-bum, straight-at-the-sides sort of figure (that appears to be much in favour with some design houses) and which usually looks pretty crap on a real female body (including slim ones) with normal curves.

I guess the fashion seller is trying to tap in to the success of The Danish Girl.

This is a yet another bit of (probably) brief ridiculousness with which the selling of over-priced clothes is littered.

Lass, are you disagreeing by reflex or did you not read the article?

I don't own any skirts or dresses. Does that mean I'm failing at cis-womanhood?

Well, yes, Lass, I think that's precisely the point. I think most of us take the view "wear what you want, it doesn't bloody matter, and if it makes you happy, go ahead..." whereas the author of the article appears to believe that the single most important thing you can do in the day is adopt a clearly gendered uniform of clothes so no one is at all confused as to whether you're a man or a woman, and that it is wrong not to label yourself clearly for the benefit of others. The author comes across as a bit hard of thinking, to be honest.

It showed the article to DH (who likes to be on the liberal side and had always assumed that meant he should be sticking up for transactivism) and he said that it made him realise that transgender discourse is actually incredibly regressive and absolutely depends on shoring up patriarchal discourse that is dangerous and damaging to society as a whole. So that's a positive. I'm not sure the author meant it to achieve that.

TheSecond: but do you own feminine trousers? If so, you appear not to be upsetting the apple cart.

I read the article. The bit about it making difficult for trans people is a bit silly - but given the amount of discussion about clothes being gender neutral what is the issue about his modelling women's wear?

Or does gender neutral really just mean no clothes which at the moment are seen as girls' clothes?

I don't care what people wear. This whole piece just shows that trans activists/identity politics is doing nothing to free people from stereotypes. It's built on a binary gender system, and people who deviate from that must transition, because the solution to people not liking their cage, is to put them in another.

I don't think anyone but the fool who wrote that article cares much about who models women's wear really. In fact, most of us here probably think all clothing (however currently gendered) being considered gender neutral would be a good thing so long as the shops make clothes that actually fit us.

Lass, I'm deeply puzzled by your contributions. You genuinely seem to think you're arguing in opposition to the rest of us, whereas in fact you're saying the same thing, to whit: so what if Vuitton wants to use a bloke to advertise his clothes? It's the fashion industry, which is a bit bloody silly anyway. Therefore the article (with its faux outrage on behalf of an imagined slight to the transgender community) is just bloody silly too.

(There is possibly a serious point to be made about the fact that a young, slender man is the ideal model to dress in the output of the fashion industry illustrates the fact that the fashion industry is all about persuading women that the only acceptable body shape is that of a straigh-up-and-down figure that 99.9% of women can't attain - but that certainly isn't the point that bloody stupid article is making).

Have I said it often enough yet? Most of the feminists on this thread also think the article is bloody stupid.

What it shows (yet again) is that these men want to conform to a male idea of womanhood that does none of us any favours (to put it mildly). They love the idea of skirts, simpering and submission.

Agggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

It does read as tongue in cheek but isn't the journalist transgender? Which makes me think it's meant to be genuine as opposed to satirical unless there's another level here that I'm trying to work out.

I don't think it is satirical