Policing Men's Clothes

[MalagaNights]

There's an interesting debate going on twitter between many of the GC feminists I follow and Sarah Phillimore and Helen Pluckrose.

It seems to hit on some of the themes we've been involved in discussing on here previously. Particularly linked to the man in a dress at Genspect.

https://x.com/SVPhillimore/status/1748983536785190951?s=20

Helen Pluckrose states somewhere that there is a a streak of authoritarianism in GC feminism. With some wanting to control what men can wear.

Sarah and Helen seem to be saying you can't legislate for this which I actually don't think anyone is arguing for. They're arguing with a straw man I think.

But what I think they're missing is the societal shift that has socially accepted men in women's clothes has allowed many men permission to have their fetish publicly celebrated.

We could turn that around with a change in social attitude. E.g many companies have now allowed men to wear the women's uniform at work. They don't have to allow this. We could return to men and women's uniforms including practical options for both.

We could openly discuss and express our discomfort about men who do this is usually sexual, instead of pretending it's just fashion. Everyone used to know this about cross dressing and that's why it was done privately.

Then we hit on the tricky issue how do we discriminate between men who are AGP and men who like exploring fashion?

Helen Pluckrose is arguing it's not usually sexual and if you are uncomfortable deal with your own feelings.

We could ensure that where men still insist on performing feminity we at least don't have to listen to why they're so brave and their 'story' to self discovery, as has been happening in work places.

I actually think the 'it's just clothes' ' let's abolish gender' stance of some feminists has led to this opportunity for men to queer the boundaries and bring their sexual fetish into every day life. I think we're discovering that some of the boundaries we had around the sexes, performed a role which we've thrown away.

I agree with Sarah that we can't legislate for this. But we never had legislation on clothing we just had socially acceptable rules which change over time with common consent.

Anyway, it's very heated over on twitter and I think we've actually reached a point of having to address this issue. How do we deal with men who get a sexual thrill from wearing women's clothes. Once we've all agreed they're men. Then what?

From what I gathered, it was not due to deterioration, but due to having different diet, activity and disease profiles which affect skeletal development.

Sorry, it is a bit of a detour.
There is social advantage to being mistaken for male at a distance in many situations even today.

It isn't ancient skeletons that follow women down the road love.

I agree, but pickledandpuzzled was saying that forensic anthropologists sexing bones indicates to her no such thing as androgynous adults. So we went off on an interesting detour.

Photo technology of faces can identify men and women to around 96% accuracy. And that's without the height information/ muscular development/ fat distribution/ arm length, shoulder to hip width/ gait/ voice/ info.

Just on the nose size, ear size, forehead width, brow definition, jaw line, neck muscle/ hairline etc etc we can tell. Whatever someone is wearing.

There are a thousand micro differences between men and women which add to a whole we can accurately judge in a millisecond.

Yes there is a tiny percentage of androgynous looking people who temporarily throw and disorientate you but even then you can usually work it within seconds. Unless they've had extensive cosmetic surgery.

Dylan Mulvaney is an extremely feminine man who's had facial surgery but there are still just angles you clock on a subconscious level as you watch him which reveal he's male.

Our judgement of male and female categories is very instinctive and subconscious. It's a foundational category in interpreting the world.Very young children and animals can identify sex and it's evidently not from clothes.

The categorisation is instinctive and the development of clothing along the category lines is cultural but would also appear to develop from innate drive to differentiate the sexes, as it happens in all cultures across time. So maybe it has some utility? Or maybe which should stop to think whether it might?

These ideas that we can't differentiate sex and that there's a future when clothing will not be sex coded is just fantasy thinking of how you want the world to be instead of how it actually is.

To be fair Summerfever, I only brought up anthropologists and bones to disagree with your claim that while you can often tell, there is an overlap of androgynous people where you can’t.

I wasn’t suggesting we look at the bones, more that ‘even the bones’ give it away.

The base frame of men and women is different. The musculature and fat layer is different. The skin is different. Once you add in movement it’s really very distinctive.

The only time I have hesitated for more than a moment was an 11yr old with particularly beautiful eyelashes and shoulder length curling hair I’d die for. He was standing still. As son as he shifted his weight it became clear.

This has been very interesting @MalagaNights. I have always believed (and still do really I suppose) that people should wear what they like but that there should be propriety - which is hard to police (in any way). I found it a bit of a shock when you said people like me had been played - but it struck a chord.

I started questioning whether total clothes freedom for everyone was a good idea when I read this article a year ago:

https://original.newsbreak.com/@ceebla-cuud-1600044/2898713079180-a-man-in-his-50s-who-hangs-out-in-front-of-a-school-while-wearing-a-girl-s-uniform-is-not-a-threat-according-to-cops

Now this guy was wearing what he wanted, he didn't actually harm anyone but he made a lot of people - including children - feel uncomfortable. It says in the article that the police said the man posed no threat and no crime had been committed and they asked everyone to stop posting his photo online immediately. Apparently the guy had a few different school uniforms and used to hang about different schools on different days.

Do I think people should be able to wear what they like (as long as it's appropriate)? Yes. Do I think this guy should be able to wear a school uniform (it was a girl's uniform of course - with a wig) and hang about outside schools at times when children are arriving or leaving? Well, no I don't.

So I don't know where I go from here.

Thanks @kittylion2 I also broadly agree that people should wear what they want and I don't think we should have laws around it.

But the examples that are occurring because we've lost the impact of language such as propriety and decency, you are far right if you use such terms, judging others is forbidden, and the social disapproval that kicked in when something feels off means we've put ourselves in the position of having to accept everything.

Maybe wear whatever you like leads to no boundaries and maybe some boundaries even around clothes had some utility we've accidentally thrown away.

My moment of realising this was the Disney bloke in the fairy godmother costume. Women saying 'it's fine it's just clothes.' That was my you've been played moment.

Then the outrage at the bloke at Genspect who we knew was agp because he self declared. But that means you accept all the blokes in schoolgirl uniforms if you don't know they're agp.
It's just clothes.

It's bullshit. We always knew transvestitism was sexual but now we've been convinced to pretend it's not.

I agree with a lot of what you say, Malaga, but can’t get worked up about a young man in a Disney princess outfit at a Disney store- perhaps because a lot of little boys would like to buy a Disney dress.

Man in a Disney princess costume and man in girls school uniform.

Hard to accept one and not the other.

Wear what you like it's just clothes.

Man wearing clothes sold by the shop, in the shop. In costume like others at Disney.

Man outside school for no good reason, wearing uniform for no good reason.

It's just clothes.

If the man wants to wear the Disney princess dress why should we object to a man wearing school uniform?

Lots of boys might like to wear the girls uniform.
He's a positive role model for them.
He just likes the outfit.
There are no boys and girls clothes just clothes.
There are no kids and adults clothes just clothes.

You can make the same claims it's good for the kids for men to wear women's and children's clothes both ways.

In reality I'd bet my house they're both wearing them for the same reason.
But we've been persuaded to pretend they're not.

I e only skimmed the thread so apologies if I'm repeating a question. I want to come back and read probably when I have time as this is an interesting topic.

My question is do women never wear woman's clothes to feel sexy?

A man im a modest knee length skirt would not bother me so long as he's using male facilities. A skin tight mini skirt with high heels and it bothers me. Obviously a woman wearing the skin tight mini skirt and heels isn't mocking the opposite sex but is there no sexual motive in that clothing choice?

Seen a few comments saying appropriate dress for the situation for both sexs is the way to go. I agree with this but then what is appropriate? Personally even in the hight of summer in the local park I don't want to see the bottom part of anyone's arse cheeks be that a man in a skirt or a woman in hot pants. But many people will say im a prude for this

This is largely the approach I take, as per my post above. I could argue I "should" be allowed to wear anything women do but these alternatives would clearly not be for comfort and be harder to justify as a male choice. Same with any kind of skirt not long ago, but still.

The grown man wearing a child's uniform is clearly different territory and not really to do with gender. (on a bus he knows the same kids are on for good measure)

Are we talking younger boys in princess dresses? Kids dressing up is not unusual. A grown man, a bit different.

I suppose using the "appropriate attire" argument, you could say that the guy outside school in a school uniform is not appropriate; having googled a picture of him, he looks creepy as fuck. The man wearing the dress in a Disney store, having googled him, it seems well within the realms of appropriate - he comes across like an eccentric gay man (a bit like Jonathan Van Ness).

Unfortunately someone "being creepy" or us having a hunch that someone is up to no good isn't ever going to stand up in a legal sense, so you couldn't police someone's behaviour or clothing based on that. If you did, then a whole bunch of eccentric and/or vulnerable people would end up imprisoned. The sensible thing to do would be to trust your instincts and uphold your own personal boundaries, but you can't stop them from existing.

Policing based on the "appropriate attire" principle iI'd say is much easier. Well, you'd think... (Gimp at the Globe and the Pups in Ikea don't seem to have been very well "policed" 😳)

We have ‘reasonable’ as a legal word
Appropriate is similar.

Well a man wearing a childs school uniform was legally judged as reasonable.

How would you legally argue it was unreasonable or inapproriate?
But legally argue a man in a princess dress is appropriate? Are you proposing a law that says men can wear childrens clothes at work if they work with children?

I really cannot see how this can be legislated and was never suggesting it should be.

It can't be solved legally. It has to be socially agreed.
And once you've agreed men in women's clothes is socially accpetable, you've opened the door for the man in a childs uniform to use excatly the same just justifiaction: social boundaries are just constructs which are oppessive to my expression.

I'm not familiar with law enough to know how someone being "reasonable" is judged, but I wouldn't say that the man outside a school in school clothing was being reasonable, given he was causing distress (and I thought there was a law about lewd behaviour being an outrage to public decency?)

Sorry I misunderstood the "policing" part of the thread title to literally mean policing rather than social policing.

For me, "opening the door to men in women's clothes" as a slippery slope argument is akin to saying "opening the door to people wearing leather" (in the case of bikers, generic fashion statements) is a slippery slope to people parading round in bondage gear.

I mean we do have people parading round in bondage gear (back to Gimp at the Globe) unfortunately, but I don't think this is due to people wearing leather as a fashion statement, I think it's more about porn culture and the merging of queer culture into the concept of "pride". Since the pride movement has been hijacked by the queer community, openly wearing sexual fetish gear is seen as empowering and stunning/brave or whatever, and kinks are described as part of people's "identity" and to be celebrated publicly. For me, that's what we need to police, not men in dresses.

" but I wouldn't say that the man outside a school in school clothing was being reasonable, given he was causing distress (and I thought there was a law about lewd behaviour being an outrage to public decency?)"

Well the law disagreed with you. Read the article above.

He wasn't doign anthing lewd. He was just wearing clothes that defy previous socila bounadries. How would you argue otherwise?

For all those advocating for laws whihc prevent men wearing school uniforms but allow them to wear childs' costumes at work, and which prevent men wearing skimpy mini skirts and high heels to a conference but allows them to wear modest ladies skirts, could you outline how such laws could be drafted?

I think we have indecency laws, but even being naked in public isn't against the law it has to create alarm and distress. I think?

Man in a childs uniform, you could claim you are distressed but why does it distress you if he's behaving normally?

I think the gimp man was behaving in ways whihc created distress it was argued.

I think laws around clothes people can wear are not workable or desirable. I wouldn't want them anyway.

It has to be socialy enforecd and the 'wearwahetever you like it's only clothes' has removed the ability to do this.

It's on this thread I go from the rigt wing to prude to the libertarian within a few posts.

It can't be solved legally. It has to be socially agreed.

I’m still intrigued how you propose to achieve social agreement. Or what you mean by “women’s clothes”. Also do you think there should be any societally enforced restrictions on what women wear? I’m struggling to get my head around the practicalities of it all.

Thing is, we’d still be in skirts if we didn’t push the boundaries of decency.

I think the legal decision about the man in children’s uniform was wrong, and if I were local I’d be looking at how to challenge it.

I think the issue is men, not women’s clothes. The issue is men, not what’s socially acceptable.

Social change happens.

It;s normally organic and by consent.

Social rules can beceonme too rigid and need a movemnt to push them. But it has to be by estabslhing a new norm that's socially agreed.

The new norm is anything goes. and it hasn't been organic.

I don't think there shuold be any legal restrictions on what anyone wears.

I think instaed we develop a culture where ideas such as decency and propriety are valued and where if you flout boundaries that chgallenges these values you risk loosing respect and you feel negatively judgded because you understand what the value system is.
We give status/respect/attention to those who meet the values we hold highest.

What we've done is allowed people who want to flout buonadries that make people uncomftable to feel respect, more than that they now demand it. We've given them the power to force you to pretend you feel OK with it, we've removed any languge for you express why it feels uncomftable, we judge you for judging them or being a prude.

It's intersting that people now dosn't even seem to understand that culture shapes behaviour, and instaed beleive that laws are the only way to change anything.

Yes the issue is men.
But apeing or ridiculing the feminine is one way they'ev always crossed boundaries for their plaesaure.

So we previously made it socially unaccpetable to do so.

The solution of: well lets get rid of feminine clothes or anything feminine then they can't do this, is never going to happen.

You either accept men enjoying apeing the feminine for plaesure in public or you have a culture which rejects it.
We seem to have very suddenly opted for the former.

I don't think there shuold be any legal restrictions on what anyone wears.

I understand this. That’s why I specifically asked about “social agreement” which I think is the language you used.

I think instaed we develop a culture where ideas such as decency and propriety are valued and where if you flout boundaries that chgallenges these values you risk loosing respect and you feel negatively judgded because you understand what the value system is.

Yes my question is HOW you achieve this? It certainly wouldn’t be an organic cultural shift would it because the organic cultural shift appears to be moving in the other direction.

And are you not at all concerned that a culture where ideas such as decency and propriety (in relation to clothing presumably) are valued, to the point that a person loses respect for flouting those boundaries, would not also risk restricting women’s choices and behaviour as well as men’s?

It's intersting that people now dosn't even seem to understand that culture shapes behaviour, and instaed beleive that laws are the only way to change anything.

I don’t know if this is aimed at me but I don’t think the law has any place in cultural issues such as this one even if I thought it was desirable to control what men wear (which I don’t).