Now Adidas are at it!

[eleanorwish]

Woman's swimsuit modelled by a man.

twitter.com/sophielouisecc/status/1658827159803240452?s=61&t=_FVhOkJfaHrQrqGFLoyivg

What's the point? So we can see there's enough room for our meat and 2 veg?

I don't want it to become the norm to click on 'women's and see a man. You can't understand that, and that's cool. But I'm not into it.

Exactly this. If they want to create a unisex section then fine, but I don’t want the gradual creep of men appearing in women’s clothing to normalise their imposition on our spaces elsewhere.

Hopefully Adidas will go the way of BudLite

“Creep” is a very apt word here.

I couldn’t agree more.

Nowt wrong with males in maillots, but they should be advertised in the men's section where the mens can find them and the women's time isn't wasted.

Quite. I wonder if the people on here who don't mind it because 'everyone can wear what they want' would mind if the whole women's section was modelled by men. Would they mind then?

If they want to create a unisex section then fine, but I don’t want the gradual creep of men appearing in women’s clothing to normalise their imposition on our spaces elsewhere

Something marketed as Pride is clearly distinct from the rest of the range. I would be in absolute agreement that I don't want to see male models in the general women's section (or female models in the men's section). Body shapes and proportions are different - the clothes would look odd and it's difficult for me to imagine myself in something if it's modeled by a man. However, I would happily make an exception where it is branded as Pride.

Clothes are for anyone to wear. I buy clothes for my daughter in the boys' section. She's not remotely bothered by all the photos being of boys and has no problem imagining herself in the clothes. She just likes the clothes. Boys' clothes tend to have a more universal/unisex appeal anyway. I know many girls and women who wear them.

If a transgender woman generally prefers to shop in the women's section, that's her choice. By going "against the norm", she'll need to be a grown up and accept the photos of women in the same way as my daughter does. However, her seeing a male model under a Pride brand sounds like a great thing - by marketing it as Pride within the women's section it is ringfenced and showing support in a clear and boundaried way.

I was very pleased to see I was wrong and that the outfit was also advertised in the men's section. Had that not been the case, I would still find this photo inappropriate. It needs to be in both places to reflect the fact that clothes are not "gendered".

A unisex section seems unnecessary IMO.

Why should it be different from the rest of the range? Do people who support the Pride movement have to then support the imposition of men in women's clothing sections as a default - particularly when that clothing is specifically not cut for the male body?

Adidas rainbow washing women away!

Also swimsuit looks shite. Have you noticed that all this rainbow covered shite gets reduced to peanuts now as people are sick of having it all rammed down their throat 24/7?

Yep - guaranteed there will be a huge amount of landfill that is covered in rainbows.

I noticed fashion pieces in the Guardian often have clothes with no-one in them at all. Just empty. I don't read the Guardian like I used to, and I'm not at all interested in fashion, but I wondered if trying to keep the clothes ungendered might be one reason for this.

I noticed fashion pieces in the Guardian often have clothes with no-one in them at all. Just empty. I don't read the Guardian like I used to, and I'm not at all interested in fashion, but I wondered if trying to keep the clothes ungendered might be one reason for this.

Interesting thought. I'm really in two minds on this whole thing. Clothes don't have a "gender" so in some ways that kind of makes sense. Lots of people have been saying for years that the targeting of clothes is sexist (e.g. adventure clothes for boys, princess clothes for girls) so this removes that problem.

There is quite mix of comments on this Pride costume. It's not as clear cut as the complete inappropriateness of Dylan Mulvaney advertising sports bras, for example.

I totally agree with everyone who has said it's ugly, but then I'm not the target market.

I just read about people burning gazelles in protest.

I though that was a bit weird until I remembered that gazelles are trainers.

😂😂

Of course the real issue us Adidas telling us women that men belong in our changing rooms too.

If you look under 'girls pyjamas' or 'boys pyjamas' on the John Lewis website you'll find photos of boys and girls wearing pyjamas in both sections. They tend to only use one model per design but sign up to 'let clothes be clothes' so you see both. I suspect this is a similar situation, it's a unisex swimsuit, they've used a male and a female model and have tagged for both sections. The male model isn't parodying femininity. I think that's OK.

Inclusion in sport is an issue for gay men. There are more lesbians in the Lionesses squad than there are openly gay men in the entire male football league (Hell, there's apparently more lesbians in my family than gay men in football). In 'Designing the Hebrides' Banjo Beale talks about how he was excluded from sport at school and what it meant to him to get to play rugby on the show. So I do think that sport is a reasonable place for there to be some focus on LBG inclusion. Although I obviously completely agree with the concerns about the participation of trans women in womens sports (even Caitlin Jenner agrees with us about that now).

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/05/16/pride-month-2023-collections/

Boycotting Adidas now as well as Nike, Bud light, Hershey and New Zealand?

Hate to break this to you but a sizeable number of companies support LGBT rights in one way or another, Reebok as well to add to the sports companies. Might make shopping difficult to boycott them all.

I'll manage. Thanks for the concern though

I'll just check btw: that's 'support LGBT' in the 'homophobia is a fetish that should not be allowed and hate/control/exclude females while abandoning vulnerable groups ' sense, isn't it?

Gosh progress is lovely. So kind

If you're suggesting that trans people are "just trans because fetish" then that's transphobic.

And transphobia is the reason why companies need to be standing up in support of LGBT rights.

Perhaps you'd like to re read my post, I don't think you've read it fully or understood it.

Ah and the confusion would be that that should say 'homosexuality is a fetish'. Usually called a genital fetish.

Is calling homosexuality a fetish wrong too?

Why does it need to be in the women’s section? No problem if they put it in the men’s section alone, but they shouldn’t put it in women’s section.

@ZenNudist any swimsuit recommendations please? I'm in need of a new one.