A Man in a dress- how would you feel?

[Wooopdiedoo]

I'm fairly new here and have only read through a couple of posts, but I wanted to ask a question.

How would you feel if a man you knew wanted to wear "Female" (heavy on the quotation marks) clothing?

I'm specifically talking about a male whose only intention is to wear the dress because they like the dress, nothing else — no statement, no 'changing' of pronouns or wanting to be treated or referred to in any particular way, no mockery, no discussion or intention of 'becoming' a woman (again, quote unquote, not saying it's possible).

Would you genuinely be okay with this, say if your husband/friend/ colleague wearing a dress out in public? Would you have any thoughts or feelings about it, and would these affect what you say to them or how you would act?

I'm not sure how I would respond, honestly, and I know that's probably (definitely) due to my internalisation of 'gendered' norms (by that I man sex based). I think I my knee jerk reaction might be to feel inclined that its somehow not right or looks silly, before reminding myself that its just a piece of fabric and if someone likes what they like on their body, thats kindof the end of it.

On the other hand, I definitely wouldn't have the same reaction to seeing women in any clothing, and my response would always be neutral to positive.

Self identification is a subjective choice. In other words individuals get to identify with whatever floats their personal boat just like they do with religion.

Like I already said this view hinges on an oversimplification of the complexity of sex & as such isn't an accurate interpretation of AGP.

The point is you are 'reading' an inaccurate interpretation.

Why…I wear men’s clothes. My husband himself just bought me a new men’s hoody that arrived today.

Claim 1: "Man" and "Woman" are social expressions not physical sexes.

Claim 2: The exact form of these expressions is culturally specific. There is no single universal social expression that can be called common to all "women", nor one common to all "men". Between two different cultures, two people called "women" may have no commonalities whatsoever. An expression of "woman" in one culture may be an expression of "man" in another.

So, questions.

Given that different cultures typically have different languages, what basis is there to conclude that a cultural group in one and a cultural group in the other are both "women", given that they have no commonalities and different names?

On what basis is the English word for the female sex the appropriate one to use for one of these socially constructed identies? Does this term imply something in common with the female sex, and if so what?

Claim 1: "Man" and "Woman" are social expressions not physical sexes.

Uh no. No one made that claim. Social associations to woman & man are both socially constructed stereotypes & biological.

Claim 2: The exact form of these expressions is culturally specific. There is no single universal social expression that can be called common to all "women", nor one common to all "men".

Throughout history? Stereotypes? Maybe maybe not. Don't know. Never made that claim.

Between two different cultures, two people called "women" may have no commonalities whatsoever. An expression of "woman" in one culture may be an expression of "man" in another.

Maybe, maybe not never made that claim & don't know.

Given that different cultures typically have different languages, what basis is there to conclude that a cultural group in one and a cultural group in the other are both "women", given that they have no commonalities and different names?

Don't know if there are no commonalities & different words in different languages can have the same meaning like 'woman' in Italian is 'donna'.

On what basis is the English word for the female sex the appropriate one to use for one of these socially constructed identies? Does this term imply something in common with the female sex, and if so what?

Maybe ask the patriarchy, i'm sure they will be able to fill you in on how stereotypes work.

Got it.

No basis on which to claim "men" and "women" are meaningful social constructs.

Words can mean more than one different thing. A commonality of name does not imply a commonality of anything else.

Other than stereotypes, no basis on which to claim any connection between the groups "man" or "woman" based on social constructs and the pre-existing sex classifications.

Conclusion: Transwomen are a different thing to the sex class of woman. No relationship, no specific commonalities, no connection.

Certainly, no basis on which to appropriate the resources, protections, rights and history of the sex class based only on some weird quirk of having a similar, but unrelated name.

Good to know. Thanks for the clarity. Appreciate it.

Oh boy, what next rule out people with religious & political beliefs from anti discrimination protection because you personally don't believe these beliefs are meaningful enough?

One could make the same argument against the validity of gender critical beliefs.

That principles only work if they are held consistently is certainly a challenge to understand in these parts.

No idea why a PP appears to think my previous post is personal.

A request for logic and clarity is hardly personal.

If there is in fact a meaningful commonality between the sex class of women and the use of the word "woman" by some male people to label their identity, then a case can easily be made to back up the claims by presenting specifics.

If the claims cannot be backed up, the assertion something is meaningful has no authority.

It's not hard if one actually has anything behind the assertions.

A simple test. Should be easy to pass. Given the confidence with which assertions have been made.

Oh lord. There's billions of people out there worshipping a sky fairy & still entitled to legal protections for crying out loud so your 'logic & clarity' angle is IRRELEVANT.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Goodness, PP really is finding it hard to back up their assertions.

If there is a meaningful commonality between the sex class of women and the use of the word "woman" by some male people to label their identity, then a case would easily be made to back up the claims by presenting specifics.

If the claim cannot be backed up, then there is no reason to treat the assertion of some sort of socially constructions commonality with any authority.

One can only conclude the increasing level of emotional response and non sequiturs indicate there is indeed no substance to the assertion that male people who claim a gender identity as women have anything whatsoever in common with the verifiable and unrelated existence of female people.

This has been a most helpful and illuminating series of posts. I shall bookmark for future reference as to the paucity, indeed entire absence, of arguments in favour of the assertions.

So if both males and females wear dresses, who would be smashing the stereotypes and who would be conforming to them if sex is in a spectrum as you claim? At what point would society have to reverse the stereotype? If sex is on a spectrum, how can society set stereotypes for male and female? Surely then the only people who could claim to be male or female would be those who conformwdvto every stereotype. What would you call the people who only conformed to some stereotypes?

So if both males and females wear dresses, who would be smashing the stereotypes and who would be conforming to them if sex is in a spectrum as you claim?

False dichotomy. You're assuming people are only wearing dresses to either 'smash' a stereotype or conform to it when they are simply wearing it because they like it just like they like vanilla ice cream more than chocolate. Its just another version of a denial of personal agency.

Why gender critical feminists feel the need to demean of feminine expression is internalised misogyny AKA femmephobia that has a long history rooted in the systemic devaluation of traits, behaviours and aesthetics associated with women and femininity.

Historically, patriarchal structures have positioned masculinity as the universal human standard leaving femininity to be viewed as inferior, superficial, or manipulative.

Describing feminine traits, behaviours and aesthetics as purely a 'stereotype'/socially constructed is simply another form of femmephobia. Just because patriarchal & social expectations exist regarding feminine expression doesn't mean that's the only cause of them. In fact gendered traits are considered as both a nature/nurture phenomenon with genes, hormones & evolutionary survival & mating pressures influencing their expression.

At what point would society have to reverse the stereotype? If sex is on a spectrum,

I have already answered this upthread. When it becomes normalised behaviour. Stereotypes rely on pattern recognition.

If sex is on a spectrum, how can society set stereotypes for male and female?

Society like gender critical feminists use the binary sex framework to distinguish males from females & sets stereotypes based on pattern recognition of common behaviours.

Surely then the only people who could claim to be male or female would be those who conformwdvto every stereotype. What would you call the people who only conformed to some stereotypes?

I suspect people categorise themselves based on the balance of comformity or how their own values shape their defining features.

No, I don’t think you understand. If society has a stereotype that one group wears dresses, but then two groups decide to wear dresses to the point both groups equally wear dresses, does wearing dresses still remain a stereotype for one group? If so, which group?

you are arguing that sex is on a spectrum, not binary, so how many stereotypes of a gender would a person have to perform to fit into each point on the spectrum?
What if everyone has different ideas on what constitutes male and female? If one male person claims to be female, but a female person also claims to be female, how are we defining male and female to have any significant meaning?

this is your theory so I assume you have thought of all this and not just plucked it out of thin air because it sounded better in your head.

I’m just testing your theory.

No, I don’t think you understand. If society has a stereotype that one group wears dresses, but then two groups decide to wear dresses to the point both groups equally wear dresses, does wearing dresses still remain a stereotype for one group? If so, which group?

None. Large patterns demolish stereotypes. See: Mothers working & stay at home mothers.

you are arguing that sex is on a spectrum, not binary, so how many stereotypes of a gender would a person have to perform to fit into each point on the spectrum?

Already answered. I'm arguing the reproductive system creates ambiguous outcomes not that sex is a spectrum so Its up to an individuals beliefs & values of what sex the most identify with.

What if everyone has different ideas on what constitutes male and female? If one male person claims to be female, but a female person also claims to be female, how are we defining male and female to have any significant meaning?

We have. That sex can in a minority of cases be ambiguous doesn't invalidate that it isn't in most cases. Two things can be true at once & not implicate meaning & why would it we are talking about two completely different concepts that exist. Acknowledging variations from the norm exist as in trans & DSD people doesn't mean the norm doesn't. The idea that some sort of erasure of meaning happens because of sub categories is bonkers.

You said sex was a bimodal spectrum, are you retracting that now and confirming sex is actually binary and not a spectrum? I can find the post where you state sex was bimodal/ multimodal if you like?

are you reverting to your argument that gender roles are based on sex? I think that has been refuted by PP if so.

I said no such thing. I never used the words 'spectrum' to describe sex. You may have got this bizarre interpretation from this:

‘Sex’ comprises multiple traits, with variable distributions. Individuals may possess different combinations of chromosome type, gamete size, hormone level, morphology, and social roles, which do not always align in female- and male-specific. Reliance on strict binary categories of sex fails to accurately capture the diverse and nuanced nature of sex.

Some sex traits having variable distributions like chromosomes isn't saying sex is on a spectrum. Its merely pointing to outcomes that cause AMBIGUITY in sex.

They possess female sex traits as in bi/multi modal sex & are technically female in that sense. There are two biological sex frameworks: reproductive sex & bi modal sex. So getting back to the accusation that they are males fantasising they are 'women' they aren't.

so this wasn’t you? Bimodal means a spectrum….

Describing biological sex as bimodal does not mean it is a smooth spectrum. Instead, it means human biology centres around two primary clusters or peaks (male and female), rather than a strict, airtight binary with zero overlap or variation.

Bimodal Distribution: This means there are two distinct, most-frequent populations (clustered around typical male and female traits like hormones, height, or anatomy), with a small number of intermediate or overlapping cases in between (such as intersex variations or atypical chromosomal/hormonal combinations). However, the vast majority of people cluster tightly around the two main peaks.

A Spectrum: This implies a continuous, evenly spread gradient from one end to the other without distinct groupings.

So you are now saying sex is binary? Good. Now we’ve sorted that out. So we’ve agreed gender is not related to sex roles, a woman is an adult human female, a man is an adult human male, and sex is binary and immutable. Was there anything else you were confused about? Always ready to help here 🤗🤗🤗🤗

Its both binary & bi/multi modal.

But good luck understanding that by the looks of things.

You can only read appearances based on your life and your experiences. How you communicate through clothing has to understand how other people will read it. You might not have the intention of looking like a fetish dresser, but if the vast majority of the population reads you as that, you should factor that in. Communication is a two way street.
Like I said, no one stops a man wearing a dress out and about, but you can’t control what goes on in other people’s heads when they see it.

If you wore a Protect The Dolls T-shirt with the intention of keeping old children’s dolls out of the bin, you would probably understand that most other people will read it as something more else.

Are we back on bimodal again? That old chestnut!

but those things are mutually exclusive. Something cannot be binary and bimodal. Are you not understanding those words?

🤔

I’m pondering here, what if society eliminates sex classification terms altogether?