I don't agree with the ad-hominem comments on Sam Smith, India Willoughby et al.

[TERFCat]

Basically as the title says.

I think gender ideology can be robustly criticized without the need for comments on any individual's appearance or dress sense.

If you go to Twitter, a lot of the GC accounts I follow are currently laughing at Sam Smith for his latest magazine cover. I don't like SS, but I do think that they is free to dress how they want. SS shouldn't be body shamed either as they has a perfectly normal body.

Same goes for India. Don't like them, but I don't think their clothes etc should be mocked.

I don't think we should e.g. mock people on the street because we don't like their dress sense. Celebrities dressing like complete clowns for attention is a different kettle of fish, though.

Same goes for India. Don't like them, but I don't think their clothes etc should be mocked.

That's the self same IW who said women are dirty if they don't shave their legs, the same IW who thinks women should always wear high heeled shoes, the same IW who thinks women should dress like IW does, the same IW putting forward regressive, sexist stereotypes of women, how they should look and behave and criticising them for not complying - that India?

I've never seen anyone on this board mock IW's clothes, their opinions, their actions and their attitude are, quite rightly, criticised. If it is happening on Twitter that might be something to do with IW continually comparing India's self to JKR, wearing similar outfits to JKR and declaring India is more of a woman than JKR - India reaps what India sows, if you can't take it don't give it a lesson India is old enough to have learnt.

I've never seen anyone on this board mock IW's clothes

i don’t remember this either

I've been here several years and there have been casual comments to do with how feminine, or otherwise, various TW look. That's what I'm talking about. That's what "ad hominem" means in this context.

My first post on this thread wasn't specifically about SS who has made all kinds of batshit claims - it's because I've seen the above. Not that much, but enough to remind me that whatever we do, someone always has an opinion on what we look like and if it's something they can be witty about.

Nailed it. Again.

In the interests of educating myself I did a recce on Sam Smith’s fashion history.

Sadly I can’t embed photos on a Mumsnet post so I’ll have to give a brief description to match my caption to the image.

1- Navy jacket & stripey T shirt:
Boring. 6/10

2- Russet velvet jacket:
I likey - red carpet menswear can be dull and samey. This is a good look for SS - the facial hair works for him. 8/10

3- Red turtle neck:
Bit unfair as this is the only studio shot on my selected images but this is my favourite. The SS Sweet Spot. Little bit of guyliner, delicate jewellery, a wide, 40s style trouser with a flattering cut. 9/10

4- white jacket:
From the waist up this is pretty good, although a couple of extra inches on the neckline would’ve been more flattering. The brown slacks are a fucking disaster. 5/10

5- glittery jumpsuit # 1
This works for SS. They seems comfortable and this is just the right side of channeling 1970s jumpsuit Elvis, only more disco.

(to be continued in post 2)

Sam Smith aka Mr BlowUp

Sam dresses up as the devil as well, and not in a jokey, trick or treat kinda of way, but in a proper menacing celebration of the Evil way.

I don’t like it , it makes me uncomfortable, and yes, a bit afraid, because if someone tells you that they worship Evil, you cannot expect them to be other than a malign force.

I expect Satan doesn’t much care for Sam’s impersonation either , though, and he has rather more ability than I to make his displeasure felt.

IW would hate me then! I haven't shaved my legs since 2010 ish!. Bizarrely I can now count the hairs on my legs individually! I don't know where the hell they all went!

6- silver coat:
Could’ve been quite nice but the fit is fucking terrible. Needs to be much smaller across the upper back area or much more exaggerated with an 80s shoulder pad. The little red hands seem really squicky. I dunno why but they give me THE SHIVERS.

7- same as above:
I rather like the platform boot but I am struck by how uncool SS seems next to these chaps. They are all wearing pretty beserk ensembles (the black veil thingy!) but Sam Smith seems small and uncomfy, like the clothes are in charge and Sam is letting the coat make all the decisions. I wonder what beverage the coat chose for Sam Smith to drink that evening? 5/10 and it’s almost all for the boots.

8- Sequin jumpsuit # 2
When I look at this I can hear a fragment of The Shangri Las singing Walking in the Sand - the bit that goes ‘Oh No! Oh No! Oh No-no-no-no-no!’
Everything the other jumpsuit did well, this one does badly. The scoop neck! The unflatteringly high rise from crotch to belt! The seams down the front of the leg, like a trucker’s stay-press utility pants but in silver lamé. 2/10 for the balls to wear that in public.

9- The Red One:
I can’t get past, ‘How did they fit that into the car that drove they to the venue?’ Did someone have to fold it all in on top of they and shut the car door really quickly? Did they travel in that hat? Did it have to poke out of the sun roof? Does the stick fold up small or does it have to go between the front seats, across the back seat and rest against the parcel shelf sat a jaunty angle, the way I bring strip wood home from B&Q? 4/10 because it’s better than the silver jumpsuit and I do appreciate an aesthetic that creates more questions than it answers.

10- The Distorted Innertube:
Does anyone else remember those seaside inflatable rubber rings from the 80s that were bigger than normal rubber rings and black?
That.
Squeak, squeak, squeak, squeak (the sound of Sam Smith walking towards the cloakroom at the Brit Awards afterparty)

(no score available at this time).

Conclusion: It’s unfortunate that Sam Smith has gotten older and plumper at the exact same rate as they’s dress sense has fallen into the toilet… and it’s unfortunate that this observable decline began not long after Sam Smith demanded they/them pronouns because disingenuous people can pretend that criticising Sam Smith’s descent into sartorial lunacy is fatphobia, transphobia and lookism, rather than the simple enjoyment of cackling at a celebrity’s obvious batshittery.

AmuseBish:
I've been here several years and there have been casual comments to do with how feminine, or otherwise, various TW look. That's what I'm talking about. That's what "ad hominem" means in this context.

That's not an ad hominem because how transwomen look (like the men they are) is an integral part of the discussion.

And it's not your place to tell grown women how to behave; p*ss off with that.

That's not an ad hominem because how transwomen look (like the men they are) is an integral part of the discussion.

Let's agree to disagree then. I don't think anyone's appearance changes how we should treat male and female people in law and policy.

I don't think looking feminine has anything to do with being female. You'd have a bloody field day "being witty and nasty" if you saw a picture of me, I'm sure.

But surely "are" is plural. If we're using "they" for singular (and I'd rather not) then surely "they is" must be correct in this new world.

No one is dictating what anyone wears. Just as Smith has the freedom to wear silly clothes, everyone else has the freedom to point out that those clothes are silly. And to be miffed when Smith is occupying half of the table as a result.

That's not an ad hominem because how transwomen look (like the men they are) is an integral part of the discussion.

Agree, and how we are gaslighted over it.

Has Harry Styles dressed up as a bouncy castle yet though? Got to compare like-for-like.

Yep.

People have requested singular they so I’m giving actual singular they.

He is
She is
They is

Him
Her
Them

His
Hers
Thems

The standard, plural ‘they’ we’ve all been using for at least a century can indicate two or more hims or a her and a him or a her, a him and a them or any number or combo of hers, hims and thems so it’s best for communication to reserve ‘they are’ to mean ‘more than one person’ and use a new, singular they, ‘they is’ for a single human who has requested that we all pretend not to know what sex they is.

" @AmuseBish · Yesterday 22:51
I've been here several years and there have been casual comments to do with how feminine, or otherwise, various TW look. That's what I'm talking about. That's what "ad hominem" means in this context. "

To quote Rhett Butler, frankly my dear, i don't give a damn!
I really and truly could not care less if an uppity woman upset a tw on this board with a casual comment.
I'm here about womens rights and protecting kids, the menz are not my concern!

I think Harry Styles mostly looks ridiculous. Nothing ever fits properly.

Btw, anyone know... if someone burned a little hole in smiths costume, or pricked it with a pin, would he fly off, all round the room?

I like to imagine it would make a farty sound, like a whoopee cushion.

@NooNakedJacuzziness ine prefer to think off it in cookie monsters voice, sniff have you fictional mischaracterised me own self?

If a bit starts to deflate do you think you can top it up by blowing into a tube? Like an aeroplane life-jacket in a safety demo. It just needs a toggle and a whistle and he's all good for a emergency landing on water.

I completely agree that appearance is irrelevant and all that matters is biological sex.

But I do think some of the claims by trans women mean that their appearance is a subject that has to be addressed.

For example, some TW claim they've been using female facilities for years and that there is no possible way that they make women feel awkward because no one spots that they are a biological male. And this is seized upon by many more TW now who claim that if only women weren't kicking up a fuss, they'd be quietly be able to use women's facilities and there would be no issue.

And so it becomes necessary to point out that their appearance means we can tell they're men. And that actually, they're nowhere near passing for a woman - as they may have convinced themselves they are. And that in itself is a problem for women because we can SEE our spaces are being encroached on, and that can be very intimidating.

This debate over appearance has become relevant because they're forcing us to address it when actually most of us would very happily stick to the science of biology.

On a completely separate note, I do think that when someone trades off their image, their brand, their clothing and their style to chase fame and fortune, it's entirely reasonable to comment on their appearance. Lady Gaga is a brand and she wears outrageous outfits - I never heard the #BeKind arguments when people were dissecting her clothing and appearance. Sam Smith doesn't get a pass just because Sam is a penis-haver.