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?

The straw men just keep on coming.

Some men DO wear skirts as a fashion choice, and not just celebrities. Men's skirts are nearly all versions of a pleated or A line knee length affair.
We've successfully removed the gender specificity from the skirt. Hurrah.
What we haven't done is make overtly feminine women's clothes a realistic fashion choice for any man except one who wishes to wear women's clothes.

How we discern the difference between a fetishist in women's clothing and a troubled soul in women's clothing, and whether either are acceptable in any particular location seems to me to be the problem.

There has been a man in a gimp suit went to the Globe Theatre and moons thought to call the police in case they insulted his gimpy identity.

There must be some level of common sense that can be applied before being afraid of being a bigot.

Quoted the wrong post but right author!

And meant no-one called the police not moons called the police.

The point I'm making (in eloquently) is that the norms are so skewed now that there are no longer societal expectations to provide guidance. Thus some form of legislation will be the only viable control.

I agree.

Maybe what we should be saying is: sometimes men in some skirts is ok.
(Which has always been true)

But other times we reserve the right to say this is creepy without being called a bigot.

Basically the ability to distinguish between the top row and the bottom row in the tweet linked earlier.

But a general: men in skirts and dresses is fine, its all just clothes, gets you having to accept the bottom row of pics too.

'It's just clothes' ' you don't know its sexual' gets you having to accept gimp suits too.

I got your point it was well made.

But I think restoring societal expectations is the way to go not legislation.

I think it's happening, in the open talk about agp that's emerging. And in these types of discussions.

Most people want it. Most people aren't GC feminists or TRAs.

*Most people want it. Most people aren't GC feminists or TRAs."

Or people who go to The Globe 🤣

He (obviously it was a man) should have tried that in a Wetherspoon's in Stoke.

I think some 'uptightness' about what people wear in some situations is necessary.

then you have misunderstood. I have no issues if a man wears the same clothes to work that a woman does. So in the example upthread it was blouse, pencil skirt, high heels. (Pip Bunce, much as it irks me, looks fine to me)

There is a trans woman Green member of the German parliament who usually wears pretty average clothes, pretty much like the other women in the parliament. But was at a meeting the other day in a sheer lacy bodycon top so you could see their bra (both items black) which looked fine to me - except not at a high-level government meeting. No other woman would get away with that. So no TW or man should either.

Or we could have a shared understanding of boundaries that are informally socially regulated.

well, @MalagaNights we do have this. But people either don't report, don't point and stare. clutch pearls, overreact... pick one. The example of the gimp suit above? The theatre should have asked that person to leave. Heck i go to a pretty bog standard opera house quite often. Men without ties? not allowed in. No fuss, no bother, just "would sir like to borrow one of our ties" (and jacket where applicable) and they either say yes, and put one on, or they have to leave.

In an office where i used to work, i was (as "senior female person") sometimes required to remind the younger (it was always the very much younger women) that our company handbook contained the dress code which was "smart casual" with examples. and explicitly forbad very short skirts (unoficially the fingertip method used by schools - although the book did specify 2 inches above the knee as the shortest) and bare shoulders. One came in in beach shorts, a vest top with no bra and flip flops. Clearly not office attire and on that occasion the first manager, male, who saw her sent her home.

People need to apply common sense.

Thanks for clarifying.

So we agree social boundaries around clothing need to exist.

But you don't think these should be any different for men and women.

Why some rules, but not that one?

Whereas I think (I think, I'm genuinely working it out) whilst in our culture the reality is, & probably always will be, that we have gendered clothing, the boundaries should reflect that. In formal settings at least.

It protects the public space from men who want to queer it.

When the fashion movement for men's skirts shifts the culture the boundaries will shift with that.

But it would still be gendered in some way. It always is.

And there'll always be men who want to dress like women. Whatever that means at the time, for Queer reasons.

I think I've probably made all my points multiple times now so should bow out.

But I think this thread has at least illuminated where GC & queer theory collide.

Heck i go to a pretty bog standard opera house quite often. Men without ties? not allowed in. No fuss, no bother, just "would sir like to borrow one of our ties" (and jacket where applicable) and they either say yes, and put one on, or they have to leave.

This actually really surprised me - where do you live? I think generally society is getting more lax about what people wear and I do think this has some unintended consequences. Absolutely think the gimp suit man should have been asked to leave.

I have found this thread very interesting actually, it's challenged some of my thinking.

I agree dress codes in some situations are fine.

I just think they can also be different for men and women and that this actually protects women from some creepy men.

Hats is the answer I tell you.

If we all started to wear hats again I think the world would be a better place 😁.

Different hats for men and women though obvs 😉

I used to work with someone much older than me (and I am not young!) who said that as a young lawyer had been asked by a partner at the firm whether he required an advance on his salary as he clearly could not afford a hat.

Dunces hats.

Nope. Clothes are clothes.

You keep trying to shoehorn queer theory into my comments. Stop it. I hold no truck with queer theory, but i do not believe that clothes have a gender. Or a sex.

The ONLY "rules" will accept around clothes is that they must preserve social norms of decency. Not social norms of gendered stereotypes.

I live in Germany. This opera house is very clear that they expect a certain level of behaviour and attire. I do sometimes go to their partner theatre which doesn't have those rules. The audience is very different. I prefer the former, maybe the fact they're dolled up makes them behave better?

Some of the pubs i go to won't allow any team colours (where i live it's either ice skating or football). Some will allow one team only.

they must preserve social norms of decency

I agree.

It's just the boundaries of decency have moved. Men wearing women's clothes used to be considered indecent.

You, many GC feminists, and Queer theorists have decided it's not indecent.

We're talking about whether that's a good thing or not. I think it's a licence to fetish men.

You may not like my observation about how this boundary shift is hailed as positive by both GC feminists and the queer theorists and you obviously disagree. But you can't stop me saying it.

We can’t police clothes. That’s insane. We just need to have uniform policies for both women and men. If women can wear it, then do can men. Otherwise it’s not fair and it’s authoritarian. Men with fetishises get off on many weird things like hands, feet, toes, hair ; there isn’t much we can’t do about it except demand appropriate behaviour.

Some disconnected thoughts:

We all have social codes we follow, not because it's illegal not to, but because we have to, and often we recognize that the codes have value. We don't wear certain things to the office we might elsewhere. We wear an ugly uniform like alll the others in our workplace. No one has to wear what they want all the time and there are some settings where we recognize that social conformity is what's appropriate.

Social customs around clothing change and are different in different places. That doesn't mean that it is possible to create a neutral set of customs. Trousers are now just as much conventional female dress, in other cultures men wear robes. These customs can also change over time.

Men and women have different types of bodies, and also tend to want to express their sexual dimorphism, so you really can't get away from coded garments, if you have them at all.

AGP isn't about clothes, and everyone having the same clothes would not make it go away.

The 70s and 80s had a lot of freedom and playfulness, but anyone who thinks that the outfits that David Bowie and Freddy Mercury wore weren't about deliberatly playing with boundaries, and also about a kind of sexual frisson, is fooling themselves. Not the same as a cross-dressing fetish but sexual in another way. If it was all neutral they'd have been looking for another way to make a statement.

While the occasional man may push the envelope with a skirt outfit, it's not at the moment a fashion movement. Fashion designers have been rrying for years to make it happen and it shows no sign of taking off. There just isn't much demand.

It's possible to allow for people to push boundaries at times, in some settings, like at a club, walking around town, and not in other settings, like work.

The issue of legal vs social controls is interesting and a lot wider than just clothing issues.

There are a lot of areas where what you find is that when conventions are gone, and people don't have an internal locus of control, we have to step in with authority and implement legal, external controls.

It's a trade off.

In general I think the legal controls will always be less useful and flexible, and ultimately likely more restrictive in the end.

It's just the boundaries of decency have moved. Men wearing women's clothes used to be considered indecent.

You, many GC feminists, and Queer theorists have decided it's not indecent

will you flippin' well READ WHAT I WRITE before making your pronouncements.
I am not going into it again in good faith with someone posting like you do.

But one more time: What is indecent about a man in a dress? assuming, as is so often the case, nothing that should be covered up isn't on display? You seem to be saying that a man in a dress is "indecent". That is a daft assertion as a blanket statement.

Thinking about it I've come to the conclusion that what this thread really wants us to agree to is that thee are women's clothes and there are men's clothes and never the twain shall meet.

Then the finer point of the discussion should be: what are women's clothes and what are men's clothes? And if trousers are men's clothes does that mean women can't wear them? What about skirts, are they women's clothes? Forever forbidden to the male component?

Who gets to decide? What if i fly from a country that doesn't have restrictions on women in trousers and disembark into one where they are not allowed? must i change in the plane toilet before leaving? must i travel in a skirt, just to be safe?

AGP isn't about clothes, and everyone having the same clothes would not make it go away.

You're right. AGP is about mimicking women. It's a fetish about women's bodies, particularly breasts. That's why most of the men in Aja's top row of creepy men are wearing false breasts along with their woman costume.

It's just the boundaries of decency have moved. Men wearing women's clothes used to be considered indecent.

And women wearing men’s clothes used to be considered indecent too. Thankfully this society has become more liberal on clothing.

There are many people in the UK in 2024 who are not a fan of young women’s clothing choices. They think women should cover up and be modest. They think it is indecent for women to show flesh or hair. They feel as strongly about this as you do about men in dresses. They would be happy to see a reversal in the societal liberalisation of women’s clothing choices.

It’s all in the name if decency. I think we need to be careful what we wish for.

but we have to strike a balance between actually indecent or unacceptable clothing, knowing that different places/times will have different requirements/attitudes, and knowing that a small minority of people may, indeed be getting their thrills just by wearing particular items.

Should we say "no man may wear a dress in case 1 AGP man gets thrills" or do we say "you know what, if we ignore it all - men can wear what they like and that one person will get their thrills however we try to manage it"

If we start policing clothes we may go back to women not riding bicycles in public again - because it is not always possible in a skirt (partly of course because you may flash your knickers)