Must Read Alaska: Alaska Airlines will allow male flight attendants to wear skirts and beards

[moonshadow]

And "crossdresser" is defined as:

"a nontransgender person who dresses in clothing typically worn by members of a different sex".

I seem to recall an old thread of mine where I explored this idea and it was met with mostly resistance by the current membership here.

"We are NOT crossdressers!" And woe unto anyone that suggest otherwise, and yet, the dictionary seems to suggest otherwise.

But the fact remains, if you've ever worn something marketed and sold for women, then..............

The good news is that I don't think we're part of the dreaded acronym everyone complains about.. let me see...

L-G-B-T-Q... Nope... No "C". Whew!

To say nonbinary is "nonsense"?

Sounds more like "rules for thee, not for me!" in my book...

Sounds like everyone supports "soul searching" so long as the ultimate conclusion of said "soul searching" renders the seeker right back at the status quo.

Let me say that again, because that seems to be what's going on here...

everyone supports "soul searching" so long as the ultimate conclusion of said "soul searching" renders the seeker right back at the status quo.

In other words, you're free to be you until you become unique.... then you get slapped back down again.

[moonshadow]

"Nonsense"?

This entire website and everyone in it is "nonsense"! Just ask any "normal person".

Y'all think we have support? We don't. We're tolerated in our society... tolerated and nothing more. The rule of law protects us and that's all, because believe me, if it were up to the masses, we'd all be slapped back down in a hot minute.

We're about as popular as a room temperature Bud Light right now.

So I'd watch what we're calling "nonsense" because people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and the same laws and policies that protect those "stupid and delusional" nonbinary people protect you too.

And if you're reading this wondering if I'm talking about you... then you just answered your own question... I am.

[Grok]

Tolerated, yes, at this early date that is the most I would expect. For the foreseeable future change will be slow, as has been discussed in previous threads.

[Grok]

There are several "engineered" languages designed by linguists in existence, and which have complete grammars and decent vocabularies. Two I can think of off the top of my head are Elvish, designed by HRR Tolkien (who was a linguist) as part of his Lord of the Rings trilogy, and Klingon, designed by another linguist to solve some problems for the Star Trek movie franchise. To be honest, I'm not sure how pronouns (if they even exist in those) work or whether they're gender-specific (which in English, they are).

There have been a number of attempts to promote "engineered" languages as a new lingua franca. So far, only Esperanto has gained any traction. Don't know about pronouns. There is the theme that these languages be simple in grammar, to make them easier to learn.

[Stu]

Tolerated, yes, at this early date that is the most I would expect. For the foreseeable future change will be slow, as has been discussed in previous threads.

This is why we have to be clear about what our aims are and to avoid tying our wagon to trans causes or gender ideology.

My view is we should focus exclusively on extending sartorial options for males by redefining certain garments from being exclusively for females to being for both sexes.

[Myopic Bookworm]

This is why we have to be clear about what our aims are and to avoid tying our wagon to trans causes or gender ideology.

My view is we should focus exclusively on extending sartorial options for males by redefining certain garments from being exclusively for females to being for both sexes.

Hm. So if I go to the Pride march next weekend, should I wear trousers?

[STEVIE]

This is why we have to be clear about what our aims are and to avoid tying our wagon to trans causes or gender ideology.

I don't really see that our fashion ambitions really need much clarification.
The road that I see myself on is one that I share with other humans who also be on the margins of society.
I'm really not caring what cause or ideology has put them there as I will choose my companions at a personal level.

Hm. So if I go to the Pride march next weekend, should I wear trousers?

You know that you have the freedom to wear whatever you choose, wherever you choose MB.
Just do it loudly, proudly and have a blast.
If MIS are ever to get beyond the tolerated stage it is the only way.
Steve.

[Stu]

Hm. So if I go to the Pride march next weekend, should I wear trousers?

What a strange question. No. Just wear what you would wear regardless - but your choice of whether you wear a skirt or trousers should be founded on the same basis as whether you wear black socks or green socks - a simple sartorial choice and nothing to do with sexual orientation or an affinity with people who are trans.

[Barleymower]

Tolerated, yes, at this early date that is the most I would expect. For the foreseeable future change will be slow, as has been discussed in previous threads.

This is why we have to be clear about what our aims are and to avoid tying our wagon to trans causes or gender ideology.

My view is we should focus exclusively on extending sartorial options for males by redefining certain garments from being exclusively for females to being for both sexes.

In an ideal world maybe. However you can't cover you ears and la la la the trans issue away. MIS are linked by society to the trans group, therefore you must have an opinion / voice or you will be pigeonholed.

Personally I'm not into pronouns but i stand stand by the trans community and I support their aims. They are good people.

Here's James - sit by me
https://youtu.be/zPNw_2h0CnU

[Stu]

In an ideal world maybe. However you can't cover you ears and la la la the trans issue away. MIS are linked by society to the trans group, therefore you must have an opinion / voice or you will be pigeonholed.

Personally I'm not into pronouns but i stand stand by the trans community and I support their aims. They are good people.

Here's James - sit by me

If MIS are linked by society to the trans group, as you say, then we must break that link.

I have nothing against trans people, but their messages are, in some ways, in conflict with ours. For example, trans women wear skirts as part of the signification system to show the world that they have embraced womanhood (and rejected masculinity). For them - skirts = femininity.

We, on the other hand, are trying to put out the message that skirts should cease to be considered as female garb, but should be available to both sexes as trousers are - and can even accentuate masculinity.

[Barleymower]

In an ideal world maybe. However you can't cover you ears and la la la the trans issue away. MIS are linked by society to the trans group, therefore you must have an opinion / voice or you will be pigeonholed.

Personally I'm not into pronouns but i stand stand by the trans community and I support their aims. They are good people.

Here's James - sit by me

If MIS are linked by society to the trans group, as you say, then we must break that link.

I have nothing against trans people, but their messages are, in some ways, in conflict with ours. For example, trans women wear skirts as part of the signification system to show the world that they have embraced womanhood (and rejected masculinity). For them - skirts = femininity.

We, on the other hand, are trying to put out the message that skirts should cease to be considered as female garb, but should be available to both sexes as trousers are - and can even accentuate masculinity.

Break the link? A laudible ambition but how are you going to achieve it? Women were prepared to fight for the right to wear trousers, to go to prison.

Men are asking there wives if it's alright. If the wives say no, mostly they don't wear the skirt. If they go ahead and wear the skirt and the wife has said no they have a big problem. They haven't even made it to the front door.

94% of men might want to wear a skirt but (I'm guessing) 80% can't face being ridiculed. 13% won't make it to the front door. 0.9% are prepared to fight and lose - women are very strong willed. 0.1% make out of the house and are free but end up angry and disillusioned. The rest are happy and free but people think they are trans. The remaining 6% like trousers.

Conclusion: you might be looking to change the wrong end of the problem.

[Stu]

Break the link? A laudible ambition but how are you going to achieve it?

Isn't that the whole point of this site? It says at the top...

"Skirt Cafe is an on-line community dedicated to exploring, promoting and advocating skirts and kilts as a fashion choice for men, formerly known as men in skirts. We do this in the context of men's fashion freedom --- an expansion of choices beyond those commonly available for men to include kilts, skirts and other garments."

My argument is that, while of course we can and should discuss issues related to gender, I don't think we should, in the context of achieving the "men's fashion freedom", tether our cause to the wholly different cause of trans rights.

We can't argue that skirts should be re-categorised as suitable for both sexes - making women look feminine while making men look masculine - while, at the same time, championing the idea that skirt-wearing is inherently feminine. If we do that, then we can abandon any ideas of the mainstream fashion industry producing and marketing lines in affordable skirts for men and boys. The best we would the ever hope to see would be brief, periodic fads in which top end designers put the on catwalks periodically and fashion houses provided an extremely limited range for the odd celebrity (wanting to attract attention from the paparazzi) at prices way beyond our reach. And then we are back to Square 1.

[Barleymower]

Break the link? A laudible ambition but how are you going to achieve it?

Isn't that the whole point of this site? It says at the top...

"Skirt Cafe is an on-line community dedicated to exploring, promoting and advocating skirts and kilts as a fashion choice for men, formerly known as men in skirts. We do this in the context of men's fashion freedom --- an expansion of choices beyond those commonly available for men to include kilts, skirts and other garments."

My argument is that, while of course we can and should discuss issues related to gender, I don't think we should, in the context of achieving the "men's fashion freedom", tether our cause to the wholly different cause of trans rights.

We can't argue that skirts should be re-categorised as suitable for both sexes - making women look feminine while making men look masculine - while, at the same time, championing the idea that skirt-wearing is inherently feminine. If we do that, then we can abandon any ideas of the mainstream fashion industry producing and marketing lines in affordable skirts for men and boys. The best we would the ever hope to see would be brief, periodic fads in which top end designers put the on catwalks periodically and fashion houses provided an extremely limited range for the odd celebrity (wanting to attract attention from the paparazzi) at prices way beyond our reach. And then we are back to Square 1.

Don't get me wrong I see your point. I think however you are seeking to separate issues which are already mixed and can't be separated now.

That is the definition of the cafe but is that what you see here on a daily basis? What is actually achieved? I see mostly men sharing their experiences, supporting each other and quite often falling out. What I don't see is many plans made. I would happily meet all the UK guys in London (or elsewhere) for a walk through town and meal. Imagine that a whole massive group of hetero men in skirts? I can't see it happening though. Fear creeps in.

My own view that changing the perspective that skirts as inherently feminine is too entrenched now. I would rather promote a different view:
OK, skirts are feminine let's celebrate men's feminine side by wearing skirts. The ladies are showing their masculine side, let's show our feminine side. We won't be any less of a man for it. Maybe that is something the industry could market?

[Coder]

I flip between different thoughts all the time - sometimes I want skirts to be degendered, decoupled from femininity/masculinity, sometimes I want them to be part of a masculine aesthetic/expression, and sometimes I don’t mind the idea of them being feminine. Why does it matter? Can wearing a skirt be any one of those modes and it’s just down to the individual who wears the skirt - and perhaps how the skirt is styled?

[Barleymower]

I flip between different thoughts all the time - sometimes I want skirts to be degendered, decoupled from femininity/masculinity, sometimes I want them to be part of a masculine aesthetic/expression, and sometimes I don’t mind the idea of them being feminine. Why does it matter? Can wearing a skirt be any one of those modes and it’s just down to the individual who wears the skirt - and perhaps how the skirt is styled?

I agree it doesn't matter how you interpret the skirt or covering - masculine, feminine or neutral. I'm looking for a way forward that works, something that people can relate too.
The trouble I face, I think many MIS face is that there are millions of skirts out there and they are nearly all pretty; feminine if you like. In order for it ro be regarded as masculine it needs to be plain or kilt like.
I feel like I'm missing out on all the good stuff. So from my perspective they can call it whatever as long as I can wear it.