Urban has gone gender inclusive

[crfriend]

Cynical, you bet I am!

Birds of a feather, Stevie!

[mr seamstress]

Anyone thinks the post where AI was quoted meant a trend will happen is over reading my post. AI acknowledges there long way to go when it comes to influencers in creating a trend. AI says the numbers isn't there. Anyone dare proclaim AI is wrong on this info? Does AI give correct info all the time? NO.
I don't expect a trend will happen either, because Urban went inclusive. I agree with STEVIE it's all about money why they choose to go inclusive. They must have seen there is enough sales to make it profitable from this niche market of MIS. To me it says the numbers of men who is MIS increasing each year and Urban wants a share of that market.
There is still large number of shops that is not labeling their gender neutral or unisex and are not inclusive. I believe they are waiting for this niche market get bigger before they make changes how they sell.

[STEVIE]

I agree with STEVIE it's all about money why they choose to go inclusive. They must have seen there is enough sales to make it profitable from this niche market of MIS.

Not quite Mr S.
Urban Outfitters have just tagged a category onto their existing offer.
Any investment is minimal and on the back of that they also know that their skirts and dresses will sell to men like us regardless.
I had a look over their main women's skirts, that included the "everyone" items plus others.
"Inclusive" has to mean every garment for any body, if not that's "exclusive".
Simply cannot be both and the niche market you refer to is so small anyway, a share of it would not be worth the effort.
Cross aisle sales really render this pointless I'm afraid.
Steve.

[steamman]

Once a mid-market chain does something, it changes perception:

Before: niche / subculture
After: retail category

That’s a threshold moment. Urban has effectively said: Gender-inclusive fashion belongs in mainstream retail space

Even if the garments lag behind in sizing. They haven’t gone far enough in product reality — but they have:
• lowered stigma
• legitimised demand
• demonstrated profitability
• invited competition

That combination is what accelerates change. Urban Outfitters hasn’t fully delivered inclusive sizing, but by introducing “Everyone” they’ve publicly revealed a commercial opportunity in gender-inclusive fashion. That signal is likely to push other retailers further than Urban itself has gone.

And historically, that’s exactly how fashion inclusion tends to advance — one imperfect pioneer, then better followers. So I remain optimistic.

[Barleymower]

Once a mid-market chain does something, it changes perception:

Before: niche / subculture
After: retail category

That’s a threshold moment. Urban has effectively said: Gender-inclusive fashion belongs in mainstream retail space

Even if the garments lag behind in sizing. They haven’t gone far enough in product reality — but they have:
• lowered stigma
• legitimised demand
• demonstrated profitability
• invited competition

That combination is what accelerates change. Urban Outfitters hasn’t fully delivered inclusive sizing, but by introducing “Everyone” they’ve publicly revealed a commercial opportunity in gender-inclusive fashion. That signal is likely to push other retailers further than Urban itself has gone.

And historically, that’s exactly how fashion inclusion tends to advance — one imperfect pioneer, then better followers. So I remain optimistic.

SM I hear where you are coming from and I hope you are right. There have been many attempts to push this out into the open and gain traction in the last 20 years.
Back in the sixties and seventies where Carl has been very vocal there was a big push to move men into more expressive clothing.
As positively as I can make it: I am free as an MIS to wear what I want and have lots of fun doing just that. I have a rack full of skirts and I wear them all out and about. Looking back that just was not npossible in the 80s, 90s and 00s. More and more men are taking a chance and heading out in a skirt. And like you say retailers and pushing as well.
So where if any is the problem? I see two problems:
1. Both men and women, everyone hangs onto their own idea of the world and prising that out of their fingers takes a monumental effort. Ask any man here who's wife has said "no way" if he has made any progress on that front and the answer in most if not all is none.
2. Feminism. Take a journey over to some of the feminist forums and see the vitriol around men. They cannot and will not change their view that what is normal for them is disgusting when when a man does it. We are all human after all.
3. Masculinism. There are lots of men out there who totally reject the feminine. Anything feminine attached to them is immediately rejected like one touch of the pink shirt and they think they will be dragged in a gay bar.

Back to the positive: retailers are responding, the youth are much more inclusive then ours was, we can wear what we want.

We can go across the aisle, nobody is stopping us.

[STEVIE]

That combination is what accelerates change. Urban Outfitters hasn’t fully delivered inclusive sizing, but by introducing “Everyone” they’ve publicly revealed a commercial opportunity in gender-inclusive fashion. That signal is likely to push other retailers further than Urban itself has gone.

Only one bit of advice SM. please don't hold your breath.
Would you have any thoughts on just which "other retailers" are likely to respond to the signal?
My problem in all of this is the "commercial opportunity", I just don't believe that it is really attractive enough because the demand is already being adequately met by cross-aisle shopping.
Personally. if skirts for men went mainstream tomorrow, it really wouldn't make much difference to me or, I suspect to many of the guys who are already out there exercising their rights to fashion freedom.
Steve.

[crfriend]

Back in the sixties and seventies where Carl has been very vocal there was a big push to move men into more expressive clothing.

It wasn't a "push", but rather an environment that was (1) hopeful for the future and (2) was willing to accept experimentation. Both of those points have been utterly obliterated (at least in the United States) in the past 45 years. First and foremost, the hope is gone -- stolen from us as our societies crashed due to the rise of the reactionary. And with hope gone, there can be no acceptance for anything other than complete and absolute conformity. Thus we wind up in the world we're in now, staring into an abyss that will eventually swallow each of us whole.

As positively as I can make it: I am free as an MIS to wear what I want and have lots of fun doing just that. I have a rack full of skirts and I wear them all out and about. Looking back that just was not npossible in the 80s, 90s and 00s.

In developed countries we are free to "cross the aisle" and transgress the norms a bit, but that's not the case where I live where it can set you up for a world of hurt. I'm more fortunate than most as I hold a spot in my community where I am very well tolerated, even liked, in spite of being a bit "off the centreline" -- and I know that my friends have my back, but if it comes down to masked thugs with guns I'll be on the losing side every single time. That thought experiment, trust me, has already been run.

So where if any is the problem? I see two problems [...]

First and foremost here is the lemming-like mentality of the population now (both male and female) and the absolute rejection of anything that conflicts with what the Leader says. BOTH sides participate in this blame: The women facilitate it by rejecting their partners who dare to reject the Leader's dicta, and the men facilitate it by not "growing a pair" and exerting their rights (again, in violation of the Leader's dicta). Those who do not exert their rights soon find them gone. Machismo (NOT "masculinism") is a problem, but I suspect it's a low-level one undergirding the inability of the modern male to "grow a pair" as it's fundamentally a rejection of what it means to actually be a high-functioning man.

Back to the positive: retailers are responding, the youth are much more inclusive then ours was, we can wear what we want.

This cannot happen as a "push" operation driven by retailers, the "fashion press", celebrity, or other such distractions. It needs to be addressed by attacking the lemming-like mentality and freeing us to be the creative lively types we can be. And, for that creativity to be released we need some hope that there is a future. It doesn't even need to be a bright future, it just needs something to be hopeful for -- and that hope, now, is abjectly missing for many of us.

We can go across the aisle, nobody is stopping us.

Unless one runs into masked thugs with guns.

[Barleymower]

Lucky for me and my fellow countrymen, we live in a society that accepts and treasures oddball eccentric people. It's not just the English, the French and Germans etc have their own flavour of eccentricity. Germany especially so.

Life in the US is geting worse daily. They wanted change and they got it. What's even worse is he is standing between the people and something worse still. The corporations and their "policies'.

[crfriend]

Life in the US is geting worse daily. They wanted change and they got it. What's even worse is he is standing between the people and something worse still. The corporations and their "policies'.

I am compelled to leave this one alone, but I will simply say that you've only scratched the surface, and the actual truth is vastly worse than the propaganda that gets put out indicates.

[mr seamstress]

This niche market must be growing for in order Urban to get its piece of steak. By adding men can buy dresses and skirts this should drive sales higher just because some men needs permission and this gives them that permission. If one company is grossing 2 millions dollars in sells in selling dresses and skirts toward men, this could be worth 1 billion dollars or more in sales of dresses and skirts. This would be a small fraction in total sales in men's clothing. These estimates are out there.
Different companies are watching these figures before they change how they sales their products. It maybe cheap to recategorize its products, just not all companies on board paying out extra money in order to keep their profitability high. They don't see this extra cost worth it. Paying for extra memory for memory isn't for them. I have notice in searching for garments using different key words same garment description would change from all woman into woman and man can wear. Instead of having one description for a singe garment they have multi description with multi categories for same product.
For some companies the annual sales for dresses and skirts has to be higher before they worth it they claim their share of the market and willing to pay for re categorizing their products. as more companies enter into recategorizing their products toward to men, anyone of these companies can trigger a trade war even though is still a niche market, but it's growing. I don't mean you going to see companies putting boxing gloves on immediately and start boxing it out for this niche market, just sometime in the future this probable will happen.
It has been noted this stigma we face has drop since 2020 and this doesn't mean it has gone all the way. We shouldn't get discourage because of some small group of people getting louder in order to discourage us seeking fashion freedom, regardless who support this group. Yea they are getting loud, but they can shovel it up where sun don't shine and it isn't going to change my habit and be total scare of them. Being outnumber isn't going to stop me. This is what they want. This include going topless while wearing a skirt regardless of drag queen laws.

It is Utilikilts out of Seattle that has 2 millions of dollars of sells annually. That brand is well mention here on skirtcafe. As much I can gather from internet New York City where they have a very large customer base they ship to. Utilikilts has proven in being a very well successive. As company being successive and others companies wants their share of the market.

[steamman]

That combination is what accelerates change. Urban Outfitters hasn’t fully delivered inclusive sizing, but by introducing “Everyone” they’ve publicly revealed a commercial opportunity in gender-inclusive fashion. That signal is likely to push other retailers further than Urban itself has gone.

Only one bit of advice SM. please don't hold your breath.
Would you have any thoughts on just which "other retailers" are likely to respond to the signal?
My problem in all of this is the "commercial opportunity", I just don't believe that it is really attractive enough because the demand is already being adequately met by cross-aisle shopping.
Personally. if skirts for men went mainstream tomorrow, it really wouldn't make much difference to me or, I suspect to many of the guys who are already out there exercising their rights to fashion freedom.
Steve.

Retailers base commercial decisions on behavioral data, not just surveys. Likely indicators that led Urban:
• significant cross-shopping between men’s & women’s sections
• high male purchases of “women’s” larger sizes
• Gen Z engagement with gender-neutral styling
• lower return rates on cross-gender fits

If those metrics trend up, merging categories can increase conversion.

An “Everyone” tab can improve:

1) Product discoverability
Items visible to all shoppers instead of half.

2) Inventory efficiency
Same garment serves larger audience.

3) Basket size
Cross-gender styling encourages add-ons.

4) Trend capture
Faster monetization of androgynous fashion cycles.

5) Brand positioning
Inclusivity perception → loyalty in youth segments.

So it’s not just ideological — it’s merchandising optimization.
And importantly: this gives men visible permission. That should not be underestimated.

Who is likely to be next? ASOS would be my top choice. I’d also watch Zara and H&M.

[STEVIE]

Who is likely to be next? ASOS would be my top choice. I’d also watch Zara and H&M.

So would I, Zara and H&M have already tried it and withdrew.
Not so sure about ASOS.

We'll see, but like I said, don't hold your breath.

Steve.
PS did you create that post by yourself or did you have AI assist you?
I have to ask because I'm a cynical old dude with a history in retail too.
If there is to be change it will be by the bottom line profit, nothing else!

[crfriend]

PS did you create that post by yourself or did you have AI assist you?

Likely, yes, because it's everywhere around us, and we're mostly on bent knees before it.

If there is to be change it will be by the bottom line profit, nothing else!

That's my read on the matter as well. And it's not going to be a question of thousands of Euros/Pounds/Dollars/whatever, it's going to have to be a matter of millions. And the likelihood of that approaches nil because of the social problems associated with it.

Until we can get over the hump that is "skirt == woman" we've never going to get close. All we can do is to get out there is what we want to wear and let the chips fall where they may,

[mr seamstress]

That combination is what accelerates change. Urban Outfitters hasn’t fully delivered inclusive sizing, but by introducing “Everyone” they’ve publicly revealed a commercial opportunity in gender-inclusive fashion. That signal is likely to push other retailers further than Urban itself has gone.

Only one bit of advice SM. please don't hold your breath.
Would you have any thoughts on just which "other retailers" are likely to respond to the signal?
My problem in all of this is the "commercial opportunity", I just don't believe that it is really attractive enough because the demand is already being adequately met by cross-aisle shopping.
Personally. if skirts for men went mainstream tomorrow, it really wouldn't make much difference to me or, I suspect to many of the guys who are already out there exercising their rights to fashion freedom.
Steve.

Retailers base commercial decisions on behavioral data, not just surveys. Likely indicators that led Urban:
• significant cross-shopping between men’s & women’s sections
• high male purchases of “women’s” larger sizes
• Gen Z engagement with gender-neutral styling
• lower return rates on cross-gender fits

If those metrics trend up, merging categories can increase conversion.

It is a matter of economics when retailer ever goes to using just one category. This will give them flexibility in saving on some expenses, like using less memory in categorizing same product into multi category. Why used a trillion bites when on category only use have that amount with one description indicating not reserve for one gender use. This process would be better for each share holder getting a better return in their investment.
This listing just using one category of gender neutral clothing for everyone ending up creating additional sales may cause the retailer need more bandwidth to meet the demand. The saving the retailer save on usage of memory would help in paying for extra bandwidth that might be needed for higher sales. This alone should be the reason to make all clothes genderless if a retailer wants to reduce expenses and they would be making higher profits.
Had to add one more reason why every retailer needs to use one category. Unfortunately not all shareholders is on board that it is better for the company using one category in helping in reducing expenses. They are afraid all men's penis would fall off if they fully support genderless fashion.

The use of one trillion bites just for example, since a lot of retailers probability more memory for their listing.

It would be nice having a retailer listing clothes without any reference to a singular gender and the garment would be model by male and female in its presentation.

[STEVIE]

It is Utilikilts out of Seattle that has 2 millions of dollars of sells annually. That brand is well mention here on skirtcafe. As much I can gather from internet New York City where they have a very large customer base they ship to.

Utilikilts are completely gender exclusive, a macho product aimed at the macho minded.
Their annual sales are not in the skirts for men market, that's in the "KILT" sector and for these purposes it is not a skirt!
Sorry Mr S, you chose the wrong example, this is no indicator of fashion freedom around the corner.
Steve.