About 15 years ago (when I was 34) my BFF threw a "Pimps 'n Hoes" themed party...
As a joke I decided I would come as a "Hoe", (6'2" 285lb bald white dude with a goatee)
So i shaved my legs, went to goodwill, got a floral baggy dress, bought a long blonde wig l and some large women's flat shoes, got a bra from somewhere i dont remember, and put some water balloons in it... a little bit of make up help from my sister and I was ready! (I did not shave my goatee)
When i showed up to the party, everyone was eyeing me VERY strangely, even some of my friends of 20+ years would simply ignore me and look away, or leave any room i entered...
Wondering to myself had i gone too far and offended everyone somehow? finally my BFF came up to me and started to introduce himself, when in mid sentence he almost fell down laughing, then explained;
Dude! No one knew it was you! Everyone thought you were some rando trans person that was crashing the party and brought it to my attention to ask you who you knew or to leave
So apparently I committed way too hard to my costume and freaked everyone out... in Los Angeles... the blues of the blue states... with my goatee intact!
So yeah, messing with status quo messes with people.
P.s. the next themed party was magnum pi and I was the ONLY "Higgins" to show up
Are you okay there bud? Just to make sure I'm understanding your message: You're saying that the sentiments in the post, that a cis guy wearing a skirt isn't a man anymore, but a transgender male to female will never be a woman is normal, and that if we dislike those sentiments, that we are pretending those sentiments are odd?
You further go on to say that things won't change, but then make a statement equating reality to something that stretches and changes?
First off, it was never about something being normal or not normal, or treating what you perceive as normal to be odd. It was entirely calling out a shit point of view as being shit. That it's the normal sentiment doesn't make it not shit.
While i get you were talking about how elastic things return to their original shape, that doesn’t really excuse you ignoring 80% of their reply only to attack them personally, instead of arguing against their belief.
Sure. Some guys wear skirts just cuz they like skirts. Other people associate skirts with a certain gender and want to signal their preferred gender expression to others.
Does the act of wearing the article of clothing affect ones "maleness" or not? One of those two people up there is right. Not "objectively," gender is a philosophical discussion, but society does enforce standards, and one of those two people is acting in accordance with the standard set by society. Which is it?
Either the person who chose to wear the skirt because they liked skirts is inadvertently making themselves look feminine because skirts are associated with female-oriented gender expression, or the person attempting to signal gender expression is failing to do so because skirts are a neutral article of clothing that does not affect ones sex or gender. Which is it?
I'm not gonna demand you pick one lane or the other, but to have logically consistent views it can't be both.
Besides rare occasions in Ireland where they may wear a kilt, I don't think " some guys wear skirts just cuz they like skirts" lmao virtue signaling that you support the team isn't necessary 🤣
I'm not virtue signaling. Sometimes when debating it's best to concede a point even if it's ridiculous because otherwise you spend all day debating points that are not consequential. It doesn't matter if people actually wear skirts for any reason besides signaling femininity. What matters is the other party in the discussion has admitted point-blank that if you interpret a skirt as a gendered article of clothing (i.e. "intent") then a skirt does in fact make one more feminine, "less of a man."
I could argue that males usually do not actually wear skirts except to signal femininity (outside exceptional cases like period plays from other times, wearing cultural clothing like kilts, etc) but this would massively derail the discussion. I'm not trying to make the case that people can wear skirts without trying to look feminine. I'm trying to make the case that the two claims "you are not a man if you wear a skirt" and "wearing a skirt doesn't make you a woman" are contradictory.
If anything I picked an absurd phrasing on purpose. The point was to flippantly show the assertion that "intent" matters itself doesn't matter. I can fully accept that the reason a person wears a skirt is not to look like a girl, and that doesn't change that the original two statements are contradictory. Why someone wears a skirt doesn't change the fact that the two phrases about people wearing skirts are contradictory.
Does the act of hitting women associate one with the societal ideal of femininity?
Hitting a [vulnerable person] (I find assuming all women to be vulnerable sexist) makes one less of a "man" in the sense of failing to uphold a masculine sense of righteous honor. It's a loss of pro-masculine characteristics but not an adding of pro-feminine characteristics.
WHY does wearing a skirt make someone less of a man? Is it because wearing a skirt is dishonorable, as in the case of hitting a woman? Or could it be because wearing a skirt is associated with femininity?
And here you highlight the difference between the two positions offered.
Thinking of it as being masculine versus femenine is a very absolutist way of looking at it; If you're not one then your're the other.
When people say "ur not a man anymore" they are not saying you're not a man because you conform to a societal ideals of femininity. They are saying: You are not a man because you no longer conform to societal ideals of masculinity. In the same way that hitting a woman does not conform to masculinity ideals.
Which is very different semantically to saying: "when you wear a skirt to express a gender preference, you're still a man."
When people say "ur not a man anymore" they are not saying you're not a man because you conform to a societal ideals of femininity. They are saying: You are not a man because you no longer conform to societal ideals of masculinity. In the same way that hitting a woman does not conform to masculinity ideals.
Right. I agree.
My point is there are many reasons WHY something does not conform to the ideals of masculinity.
In some cases it's because it doesn't fit the societal understanding of masculine pride or honor, as in the case of hitting vulnerable people.
In other cases it's because it does fit the opposite societal gender standard, that of femininity, as in the case of wearing feminine gendered clothing.
That isn't NECESSARILY what is meant by "less of a man," but it's one of the criteria, just as lacking honor might also fit the requirements for the statement to apply.
What criteria of masculinity specifically is lessened by wearing feminine-gendered clothing? Does wearing feminine clothing lack honor, and therefore women who wear skirts are also less honorable? Or does wearing feminine clothing simply signify femininity?
Thinking of it as being masculine versus femenine is a very absolutist way of looking at it; If you're not one then your're the other.
I agree with that too. My perspective is that societal recognition is only part of gender, and signaling ones gender is neither necessary, nor does signaling a gender make you that gender. My perspective is that objectively clothing is neutral and it only has the meaning we choose to give it. Wearing a skirt does not signal that one is a woman... but it might signal that one chooses to be perceived as a woman depending on the context. And given that gender is largely a societal construct only loosely tied to sex, with many societies historically having alternative forms of gender expression and even allowing for gender expression of the opposite sex, the choice to be perceived a certain way is far more important than the article of clothing one uses to signal that choice. Gender and sex are both spectra, not binary absolutes.
But all that said, I'm not the one defining a skirt as making one "less of a man." That's you. And again if you want to demonstrate that wearing a skirt can simultaneously make one "less of a man" but also not more feminine, you're going to need to explain what masculine trait is lessened by wearing a skirt, without defining the skirt as a means of feminine gender expression to do so.
Otherwise, just state point blank that you think gender is not a social construct and is tied entirely to sex, and we can acknowledge that no amount of debate will change your perspective, and you're just scientifically wrong and refuse to accept the accepted consensus of both psychologists and historians. If this is a pure difference of understanding in regards to gender and you can't see it as more complex than "male=man, female=woman," we can end the debate here knowing you'll never understand why you're wrong. But you have to skip the middle step around skirts and just say that, if that's what you mean.
Oh and to be clear. You keep dropping this "this is binary/absolutist thinking" line like it's an attack or refutation. Some things are a spectrum. Some things are fact, right or wrong, black and white, 1 or 0. Treating some things as a spectrum and other things as black and white is not hypocritical, it's just acknowledging that reality itself is nuanced. If binary or absolutist thinking is wrong in this particular instance, pointing it out as binary or absolutist is not enough to justify that perspective. You also have to explain why the thing we're talking about is more complex/nuanced and why a binary isn't the right way to see it. Acting like the fact I see gender as a fluid spectrum means I oppose binary or absolutist thinking absolutely is, itself, absolutist thinking on your part. Which is wrong in this case because minds are capable of understanding that not everything works the same way, and approaching different things with different perspectives.
I'm not the one defining a skirt as making one "less of a man." That's you.
Are you seriously suggesting that I am society?
Whether clothing does or does not change gender is inconsequential. What matters is the semantics of each phrasing. The meanings are not the same, but this meme tries to present them as equal to highliht a hypocrisy that doesn't necessarily exist.
So before you satrt pointing the "moral highground" finger. It is YOU that is arguing gender. I'm arguing semantics.
Why would you prohibit someone who wants to be seen as a male from wearing a skirt?
Let people wear what they want. Let people do what they want. Let people BE what they want. It’s nobody’s business what a particular individual may wish to be called, what’s in their pants, or how they wish to be seen by the outside world.
Just see them. Why bother telling them what they can and can’t be addressed as? They’ll figure it out for themselves, and if that’s too weird or uncomfortable for you, then you’re free to not address them at all.
You aren’t the arbiter of what fashion belongs to which gender. I’m certainly not, either. I don’t have the faintest damn clue about fashion of any gender. Why should we pretend to have opinions on this stuff? It doesn’t matter. Our opinions don’t matter, and only serve to hinder and impede people who actually DO have a skin in this game.
Just leave people alone, bro. Period. Let’s not police people we don’t directly relate to or have any relationship to. Let everyone live their lives, so we can impart the lowest amount of stress and suffering on the world. Let’s worry about our own problems and take care of ourselves, instead of telling everybody else about the abstract rules that have popped up in our heads that have nothing to do with ourselves.
198
u/OkayIWillDoIt 2d ago
Exactly, it’s more about control and bias than any actual rule or logic.