Over on the left side of the pond if one asks for "tights" one gets "footed opaque legwear that goes up to the waist", which is different from the sheer type that is commonly known as (oh the heck with it) "pantyhose". Footless tights are called out as such. The term "leggings" is in use here and describes a garment that's designed to be explicitly worn as outerwear. Also, some of the heavier-weight tights, especially the technical or athletic type, are designed to be worn as outerwear.Stevie D wrote:The other issue here is one of geographical context. In the UK the p-word is not in common use. If you go into a shop and ask for "tights", everyone knows what you mean and you end up with the p-word garment, just as it should be. I'm not certain and will stand to be corrected, but if you ask for "tights" in a US store, do you not end up with something different - a bit like what we call "leggings", or possibly footless pant-y-water-delivery-tube?
Now, back on the language track, we have a term -- and a garment -- that's already accepted by the public as truly unisex -- tights -- and we have one that (here in North America) is indelibly identified with women -- "pantyhose". So, when a guy comments that he's wearing pantyhose he's essentially (in US usage) telling the world he's wearing women's underwear (bearing in mind that unlike leggings, pantyhose are designed to be worn under other garments). Why not use the term "sheer tights" instead?
The word "skirt", for the most part, does not have all the specific baggage that "pantyhose" has; "skirts" can be found in many places, and not just on the human form. It's the specific baggage -- which can be worked around -- that got my dander up.
Point taken, and the substitution-filter will get removed. I don't like the things on general principles, but would hope that we can get away from such word-focus.Enough. I'm sure I have made my point.