Male and Gender Critical

[Letmespeak82]

Anyone else find being associated with some of the male Gender Critical activists a bit…well embarrassing? I’m not even going to deal with the dumpster fire that is Glinner (though it seems many on this board love him). But now we have James Esses who is hyper focused on what this woman is wearing. What difference does it make if she wears revealing clothes or not? Typical gross male attitude.

Oh, I am so tired of this guilt by association nonsense! I'm not associated with anyone else if they happen to also think that human can't change sex. I can agree with James Esse on some points and disagree on others, and so what? I'm not his mum and I'm not responsible for him or associated with him or whatever.

Fair enough. I do wish he’d keep his misogyny to himself though.

Isn't his point that bleating on about 'asexual rights" dressed in sexual clothes is a bit, well, fucking weird? What rights do asexual people not have? And why the sexual clothing if you aren't interested in sex?

No I don't find them embarrassing. They do good work getting the word out. We don't have to agree with every word people say, whether they're male or female.

I think James is right. I think these are screengrabs from his comments on a confused and spoilt young woman claiming to be asexual whilst wearing a bondage outfit?

Well that’s my basic point. When we wear revealing clothes we are not asking some man to come along and have sex with us. They’re just clothes. Presumably she thinks she looks good and more power to her.

Maybe this thread should have been about asexuality rather than attacking male gender critical people.

I don’t think so as I have zero interest in asexuality. That seems to be James issue. My issue is that James is focusing on what this woman is wearing and the revealing of skin as a sign of her sexual inclinations. I really thought we had moved past that but evidently not.

James Essex seems like a pretty principled person. I think he's saying why would you wear sexualised clothing if you're asexual. It's ok to ask that question. It's the word scantily that sounds sexist because it's so tabloid. But he'd make the same point if the wearer was male, I think.

Are you sure? The photo I saw earlier from Pride was not just revealing clothes. I should think they would send the wrong signal for someone claiming to be asexual.

Do you think what a woman wears is a sign of her sexual availability? I don’t want to put words in your mouth but it sounds like you do. Forget whether someone is asexual. Could a woman go to an event, wear revealing clothing, and to be completely uninterested in having sex?

They are not "just clothes" though. Clothes convey impressions and meaning, whether we like the idea of that or not.

Wearing very sexualised clothing while claiming asexuality creates an impression of monumental dissonnace and a total absence of awareness.

Why? If you drop the asexual aspect for a moment…could any woman wear revealing clothing and not be up for it over that particular time frame? I wore extremely short miniskirts in the 90s and 00s when sex would be the fort heat thing from my mind. I just felt good in them. What’s the difference?

Clothes make a statement. If someone dresses sexily then it implies they see themselves as a sexual being. That obviously doesn't mean they deserve to be harassed. But it does conflict with the whole 'asexual' thing.

She wears bondage gear almost exclusively. It’s very much mixed messaging from an avowed asexual.
Short skirt to show off legs, just clothes. BDSM everything, not so much.

I don’t disagree. I think we are all aware from rape trials how womens clothing can contribute to impressions about her character. I thought this board would be on the side of fighting those impressions rather than seeing them as inevitable and almost welcome.

Well this just isn’t true. I had a look through her Twitter images and she’s not wearing any bondage gear in the vast majority of pics.

It is difficult for young people.

If she went to PRIDE in a blouse, cardigan, long skirt and ankle socks with brogues and said 'i want asexual rights' then everyone would say 'nobody wants to fuck you love'. So she has to appear fuckable to be able to make the statement that she doesn't want to fuck.

I do feel for her.

I think that one of the central planks of feminism has been that a woman can wear whatever she likes and that it doesn't say anything about her. That's extremely naive in my view. It might well not say anything about her essential character but the way we present ourselves does send signals about how we want others to see or perceive us.

How that has translated is that women have continued to wear high heels and 'sexy' dresses and so on and this is suppoosed to translate as being free and independent and wearing what you like.

Earlier feminists rejected that sort of 'display' as they recognisd that it tended to codify female sexual 'availability' with a focus on secondary sexual characteristics. some time in the 1980's I reckon, lots of women embraced a certain style of dressing -which was all about power suits, shoulder pads, high heels and the corporate world that represented. Then we had ' Sex and the City' and all of that.......which very much presented that sort of image of supposed female empowerment.

That’s not what I asked you though. Is what a woman wears a sign of her sexual availability?

I’ve never seen her with anything else on!

Is what a woman wears a sign of her sexual availability?

If anyone, male or female, goes around in bondage gear, it implies they're into bondage.

Impressions are impressions......what we wear does give out subtle signals and we cannot control the reception of those. You'll be fighting that forever.

just take a look at her Twitter images. It’s just a false statement to say that she exclusively wears bondage stuff.

Not seen the original incident so going of the description here.

I don't think public nudity in clothing designed for sexual acts is remotely consistent with being 'asexual'. Even if it were, it still wouldn't be appropriate for public display. It's forcing others to participate in your sexuality.

I don't think he's being misogynist by criticising that any more than the feminists who criticise bondage gear at pride are homophobic.