How is this not sexual?

[BMMNonsense]

I was at the British Motor Museum today with family. In among the car and miniature railway enthusiasts (mainly families with kids and older men) was a couple in their forties. Two men. Except one of them was dressed as a "woman". 4 inch stiletto heels, sheer tights, a skirt and matching jacket. He was clearly wearing a fake cleavage, complete with fake collar bones and balloon like fake boobs, which visibly shone in the light. The cleavage reached down past where a bra would sit. It was grotesque, completely and overtly sexualised, in a setting where almost everyone was wearing long-sleeved tops and long trousers. How is this anything other than a man living out his own sexual fantasies? I don't need this kind of thing forced on me and even less so on my kids! Before people start: there was another man there who was wearing female clothes/ accessories too. I have no issue with that. Just keep it out of my face and limit your sexual fantasies to the privacy of your own home.

I agree. I too have seen a man in sexualised female clothes and makeup, in this case a shop assistant in a well known department store in the make-up and luxury creams department. The women working there, by contrast, were dressed entirely differently, and modestly.

He is evidently quite openly a transvestite: a sexual fetishist getting his satisfaction from being in a typically female space ( in the form of clothes, and places).

It is a big mistake that sexual fetishists are covered as ‘Gender Reassigned’ for the Equality Act. A man like the one I saw should be discriminated against - just like a non-trans man or woman would be if they dressed inappropriately for the place where they work with the public.

"Dress how you like" - no?

It's odd but it's not being "forced on you" simply by dint of being at the same event.

It is obviously sexual

I am firmly of the opinion that men forcing their fetishes on unconsenting members of the public is non contact sexual abuse

they are disgusting. Our lack of consent is part of the thrill for these disgusting men

Yes. Not all trans women are covered by the same motives. Transvestites are sexual fetishists getting a thrill from cross dressing and invading.

Dress as you want in the privacy of your own home or when surrounded by consenting adults. This was clearly done for attention and was very obviously sexualised, in a setting that was not even remotely about sex and very clearly at least partly aimed at children. FWIW, I wasn't mad keen on my kids seeing a bunch of scantily clad female students on their way to a Halloween party on the train either. That was not done for their own sexual gratification though and it was their own bodies they were showing off, not a fantasy about the opposite sex.

Dress as you like, yes of course. But appropriately for the situation.

Thank you.

Dress as you like within the limitations that are generally applied to overly sexual or inappropriate dress - no?

Consent doesn't apply when it comes to how other people dress in public.

Unless your clothing is designed to cause offence (see: slogans about Hillsborough which people were prosecuted for) or obscenely pornographic, no laws are being broken.

He knew what he was doing - and yes, it was intended to be sexual. Grim. They do walk among us - but the difference now is that these men are getting away with doing it in public.

It’s really not ok. Like wearing fetish wear to a museum isn’t ok.

So you think it's appropriate and would be happy for your primary aged kids (assuming you're a parent) to be around someone like this? Where do you draw the line? Happy with Drag Queen Story Time too?

Thinking something is appropriate isn't the same as acknowledging that we have the freedom to dress how we like in this country and that consent doesn't apply when it comes to how other people dress.

Honestly, it's fucking weird in my personal opinion.

And yes I'd be happy for my children to be in the same museum because I wouldn't be leaving them unsupervised in any event would I. What's the worst that can happen because they've seen a strange man dressed like a prat in public?

It's intended to gain the reaction of others - who are thereby made non consenting props and sources of thrill in the experience. It's low level flashing basically. Remember the lovely journalist in the Guardian explaining, 'I know you're not enjoying it (woman coopted into today's sexual experience) but I am'?

Cracking. I’m a supply teacher, where do your kids go to school?

No laws are being broken because unfortunately such a man would be seen as having Gender Reassignment under the Equality Act. It is a mistake imo and that was never the intention of the EA.

A social law is being broken though.

It is definitely sexual. I have hiking trails near my home and a few times I have met a lone man dressed very similarly - obviously doing it to shock / scare others as he was very definitely not dressed for hiking! It really put me (and probably other women) off hiking alone.

No laws are being broken because we don't have laws about how people dress in public in the UK (with exceptions as I already stated).

The gender wang thing is irrelevant.

Whether or something is legal or illegal is not the line as to whether something is acceptable or not.

What about offensive clothing that isn't designed to cause offence but does anyway?

I don't differentiate between a man wearing a T Shirt with the slogan "I believe women are first and foremost sex objects" and a man wearing a female cosplay outfit that says exactly the same thing.

I get that a lot of people don't care about sexism when it's wrapped up in a trans presentation.

I do.

I knew several erotic cross-dressers in the 70s: they were utterly harmless, and none has 'transitioned' since to my knowledge.

The difference from today is that, whilst they might dress like Frank-N-Furter for a party, they wouldn't do it for a museum trip, because the whole point was that it was secret, forbidden, and naughty. The present tendency to permissiveness has probably taken the shine right off and driven them to further extremes of thrill-seeking.

You might not but the law does, because the first example is overt and the second is your own interpretation which is highly subjective and therefore cannot form the basis of good law.

No laws are being broken because there are no laws that stop people dressing how they like as long as they are appropriately covered. If a woman wore the same outfit it wouldn't suddenly become illegal. There are of course places where certain clothing is mandated by law - not usually great for women though.

Yes, we as a society don't dictate to others what they can and cannot wear (unless we're required to wear a uniform for our work or because we are incarcerated or something). But we do have formal and informal dress codes for different social circumstances which, as adults, we accept as part of the social contract. I was a teacher in a Sixth Form College and was expected to dress in what's usually called "smart casual" dress. A new member of staff, a woman, often dressed in very short skirts and tops that showed cleavage. It was "smart casual", but inappropriate for the setting. And HR told her that. There are certain expectations of how people will be dressed in different places. We expect bikinis at beach resorts, but perhaps not nudity (depending on the resort). In public places like the event the OP was attending, where families and children will be in attendance, the clothing we expect people to wear would be comfortable and casual, not provocatively sexualised. If someone decides to wear clothing that is going to be like that, they should be prepared to either be challenged (by say a venue owner or someone else in authority) or to criticised by those who are exposed to it. Which is probably part of the reason such a man would wear those kinds of clothing to such an event: he wants to shock and get a reaction to feed his fetish.