It's Now Official

Discussion of fashion elements and looks that are traditionally considered somewhat "femme" but are presented in a masculine context. This is NOT about transvestism or crossdressing.
User avatar
Pdxfashionpioneer
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1650
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:39 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA

It's Now Official

Post by Pdxfashionpioneer »

If there is a recognized authority on what's fashionable and therefore acceptable for a person to wear it's Vogue magazine.

It's April 2022 issue spotlights Beyond Gender: Fashion's New Freedom. The Table of Contents refers to the article as Code Breakers: The days of gendered dressing are over. The article's narrative, what little there is, continues in the same vein and then let's the pictures speak for themselves. Most of the photos show men and women, generally paired up, in skirts, dresses and trousers with adjoining photos of the same subjects except the pairs have swapped outfits.

There you have it. Both men and women are equally free to wear whatever in the world they please. So, could we please dispense with all of the whining, groaning, bitching and moaning about how unfair the (developed) world is that women get to wear what they please and us poor, downtrodden men don't? Because that simply isn't the case anymore.

While we're at it, men wearing skirted garments has not been a men's rights issue because there aren't any laws against it. In fact, even during the pre-Stonewall days when the transgendered were characteristically hassled by the police, the cops weren't enforcing any written laws, just what they considered to be community standards.

This still leaves the questions of how one's employer feels about how one dresses and how one's spouse feels about the subject. But again, those aren't legal matters, unless you're lucky enough, as I am, to live in a jurisdiction that protects gender expression so, what you wear or don't feel you dare wear is NOT a men's rights issue, because rights are a legal matter.

Just to close the loop, especially in the tight labor markets created by the Great Resignation, at this point in time employers are pretty open-minded about employees' presentation. In many cases they're perfectly willing to settle for people just showing up! Bonus points for being neat and clean when you arrive. Even before the pandemic was even dreamed of, employers were entirely comfortable with my coming to work and even interviews in skirts and dresses. When I ran that possibility by one CFO, she said I looked professional in the picture I showed her so she was happy. At the same place a woman in Human Resources told me she was glad I came dressed that way because she felt the place needed to be loosened up along those lines. As best as I could tell, no one had a problem with my change in attire. But by the time I left (it was a temporary job), I was told that "people here love you!" and the President made a point of interrupting a meeting he was in to shake my hand and say good-bye.

Beyond that and much more important, is how your spouse feels about how you present yourself in public. The law and your employer's tolerance are beside that point; it's how your partner feels that is the long and short of things. I wish I could help you with that issue, but if I was an expert at resolving disagreements between intimate partners I wouldn't have gotten divorced 3 times.
David, the PDX Fashion Pioneer

Social norms aren't changed by Congress or Parliament; they're changed by a sufficient number of people ignoring the existing ones and publicly practicing new ones.
User avatar
Sinned
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:28 pm
Location: York, England

Re: It's Now Official

Post by Sinned »

Dave, in terms of your stance on employment and social reaction to skirting I agree with you. Mine is a gender inclusive employer and my reluctance to wear a skirt at work is more to do with my wife's opposition than my employer's. Having read the dress code it just says that below the company supplied top a black knee length skirt or trousers or shorts should be worn with no differentiation over sex.

If you want to see how women can close ranks watch for their reaction on this trans issue of letting men who identify as women take over their domain and facilities while still retaining their penis irrespective of their taking testosterone treatments. The Lia Thomas being a case in point but the American swimmers have not taken their cojones (?) in hand and threatened to boycott their events. In the case of the cyclist Emily Bridges over here they did threaten and (s)he was banned from competing in women's events for the time being. I think the backlash on this has only just started. That our BoJo has taken the side of the women is kudos to him.
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 14431
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: It's Now Official

Post by crfriend »

Sinned wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 3:25 pm[My workplace] is a gender inclusive employer and my reluctance to wear a skirt at work is more to do with my wife's opposition than my employer's. Having read the dress code it just says that below the company supplied top a black knee length skirt or trousers or shorts should be worn with no differentiation over sex.
Re-read that statement carefully and note the underlying thread -- that one is likely trans-* if he has a penis between his legs and wishes to do a skirt. That's what needs fighting -- and it needs fighting sooner rather than later because the longer the notion sticks the more entrenched it will become.

At the moment, it's possible for a guy to wear a skirt and few will question him on the matter. If the trans-* linkage remains in play for another year that will not be possible without people assuming he's trans-* and that's going to "take him off the field" when it comes to looking for a female partner due to the power of "first impressions". It's the gender-normative heterosexual male who is going to be the loser if this game continues on its current path. I'm living proof that it remains possible, and there's still the possibility I may have found someone -- but more and more I find myself getting questioned on the matter, and whilst that does not particularly bother me it will bother others to the point where skirts will be OK on everybody but the gender-normative heterosexual male who will remain confined in jeans, t-shirts, and polos. Is this what anybody wants? Not this old boy.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
pelmut
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1923
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:36 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: It's Now Official

Post by pelmut »

Sinned wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 3:25 pm ... That our BoJo has taken the side of the women is kudos to him.
I don't want to start a party political row and in general I think B.J. has been doing a good job in difficult circumstances, but I cannot let the outrages he has recently committed against transgender people pass without comment.  He has appointed a transphobe as the Minister for Equalities and the latest guidelines published by her contain advice for employers that promotes illegal transphobic practices.  All this is done "in the interests of women", but the Women & Equalities Select Committee spent four years interviewing women and other interested parties about the questions now being raised and found that these proposals were not in the interests of the majority of women.  They came out with a well-balanced report and a set of urgent recommendations, all of which have been ignored in preference to the agenda of a few noisy hate groups.

Now he has agreed to ban 'conversion' torture for L,G & B but continue to allow it for T. He has been unduly influenced by one or two outright bigots in his party and has repeated their 'doublespeak' that he is doing this in the interests of children.  Is it any wonder that the Government has had to cancel their planned showcase international LGBT conference because over 100 organisations have boycotted it.
There is no such thing as a normal person, only someone you don't know very well yet.
STEVIE
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4187
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:01 pm
Location: North East Scotland.

Re: It's Now Official

Post by STEVIE »

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 12:11 pm This still leaves the questions of how one's employer feels about how one dresses and how one's spouse feels about the subject. But again, those aren't legal matters, unless you're lucky enough, as I am, to live in a jurisdiction that protects gender expression so, what you wear or don't feel you dare wear is NOT a men's rights issue, because rights are a legal matter.
Sinned wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 3:25 pm Mine is a gender inclusive employer
David and Dennis
In the good old UK, the "legal" issue is that individual employers can still call the dress code shots. The only absolute protection is on transgender grounds. otherwise the accepted "norm" rules.
Enlightened employers set their own policies but they are only required to be fair and not absolutely equal across the genders
All that means is trousers for men and the whole gamut for women. This isn't a gripe, merely a matter of fact.
Denis, as your employer is national, do you know of any guy who works and presents as a male in a skirt?
n my own case, I am protected to some degree by the tenet of Tacit Acceptance in Scots law. Essentially my employer has never stated an objection to me wearing skirts or dresses so cannot change it's mind now.
As far as I am aware, I am unique in mine at the moment but that is my work in progress at the moment.
crfriend wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 3:59 pm Re-read that statement carefully and note the underlying thread -- that one is likely trans-* if he has a penis between his legs and wishes to do a skirt. That's what needs fighting -- and it needs fighting sooner rather than later because the longer the notion sticks the more entrenched it will become.
I have never been questioned at any level about my orientation or gender and we do have a good representation of all the "minority" groups that you may imagine working with us.
That fight is one on multiple fronts and the workplace may be the easiest. Our wider communities and indeed, family circles will be the biggest challenge.
However, we can take heart, Vogue has spoken so it must be true.
Steve.
Bodycon
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 273
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2021 2:25 pm

Re: It's Now Official

Post by Bodycon »

STEVIE wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 7:09 pm The only absolute protection is on transgender grounds. otherwise the accepted "norm" rules.
Well, not really, if you read the equalities act 2010 it lists Sex as a protected characteristic. My understanding is that if you are a man wearing a skirt, you cannot be discriminated against for doing so just because you are male. In the same way that female flight attendants can now wear trousers.....yes, I wondered about "that" too :lol:

Any dress code must allow for both sexes and all genders (as well as religious.. etc) to be accommodated except where it is a safety issue and that would have to be proven by a risk assessment. It would be difficult to enforce your rights because, as we know, pay rises, promotions etc. will be affected by any kind of falling out.
STEVIE
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4187
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:01 pm
Location: North East Scotland.

Re: It's Now Official

Post by STEVIE »

Bodycon wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 7:58 pm Any dress code must allow for both sexes and all genders (as well as religious.. etc) to be accommodated except where it is a safety issue and that would have to be proven by a risk assessment. It would be difficult to enforce your rights because, as we know, pay rises, promotions etc. will be affected by any kind of falling out
Hi Bodycon
If Vogue is the ultimate authority on things sartorial then this little titbit from our beloved ACAS kind of covers my point.
Unfortunately. ambiguity rules but as far as I know the man in skirt at work issue has been tested in tribunal and it failed.
Dress policies for men and women do not have to be identical, but standards imposed should be equivalent. Dress codes must not be a source of harassment by colleagues or customers, for example women being expected to dress in a provocative manner."
Here is an interesting paradox of my position, the wearing of shorts. Our code forbids them entirely and equally.
However, the women and "me" are not required to wear hosiery and that is a positive boon at times, even in the frozen north.
I interpret that as discriminatory, i.e. man legs bad, girl legs good? Ironically, I don't feel able to promote that argument personally as my "choice" is made and my male colleagues do not appear to have the will to act for their own benefit.
Kind of sums up the whole problem.
Bodycon
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 273
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2021 2:25 pm

Re: It's Now Official

Post by Bodycon »

STEVIE wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 3:46 am Unfortunately. ambiguity rules but as far as I know the man in skirt at work issue has been tested in tribunal and it failed.
Tribunals are not good places to resolve these matters and the outcomes have never been consistent even for identical issues, a bit like local district courts, so I would take any tribunal outcome with a pinch of salt.

It needs to be tested in a higher, more competent court, to set a precedent in law, however I suspect that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

A friend who tried to take NHS GGC to a tribunal for bullying was shocked to be told by Unison to forget it and just get another job rather than pursue it. They said that the tribunals were too hit and miss, even with witnesses.
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: It's Now Official

Post by moonshadow »

I think all a guy really needs is confidence. If you're not confident in what you do, the world is going to steamroll all over you.

That goes for skirt wearing guys or anyone else.
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
STEVIE
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4187
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:01 pm
Location: North East Scotland.

Re: It's Now Official

Post by STEVIE »

Bodycon wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 8:39 am It needs to be tested in a higher, more competent court, to set a precedent in law, however I suspect that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
It certainly won't happen by statute under the current regime that is for sure. In case you weren't aware, my employer is perhaps the most "conservative" in the UK.
moonshadow wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 10:56 am That goes for skirt wearing guys or anyone else.
So true but guys just never seem to behave as if we are all on the same team.
Steve.
User avatar
Pdxfashionpioneer
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1650
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:39 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: It's Now Official

Post by Pdxfashionpioneer »

I started this snowball on its way down the hill so, I guess I need to weigh in again.

In the US, 20-some states have employment laws protecting gender expression, sexual orientation, etc. along with the usual suspects.

In addition, our Supreme Court recently used a textual argument (relying on the words of the statute, a basis commonly used by conservatives) to decide a discrimination case. The author of the decision leaned on the words "but for their sex." So, in our case, if an employer were to put a dress code in place allowing women to wear skirts, but not men; the men would have cause of legal action because the dress code violates that principle.

Similarly, any employer that's stayed up to date on employment law knows better than to trump up an excuse to fire an employee -- say, firing an quirky employee for being a minute tardy -- because that's clearly selective enforcement, which creates a nearly prima facie case of discrimination. And more to the point, in this post-(we hope)Covid world they're happy if you just show up and do your job competently.

Finally, as I have said before, it behooves us to stand up for and with those folks that we get mistaken for (gay men, trans-women, and, in some cases women) because if those folks can be discriminated against or harassed, so can we. There is strength in numbers. And all of those folks have done the heavy lifting in getting us the legal protections that we enjoy.
David, the PDX Fashion Pioneer

Social norms aren't changed by Congress or Parliament; they're changed by a sufficient number of people ignoring the existing ones and publicly practicing new ones.
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: It's Now Official

Post by moonshadow »

I think when it comes to employment, despite whatever laws are on the books, if they want you gone... you're gone.(whether you wear skirts or not)

If they want to keep you around, then they'll keep you around... (whether you wear skirts or not)

I suppose just be the type of employee they don't want to lose.

I kept my job in 2016, back before the Supreme Court weighed in and back before Virginia had any gender expression protections... AND I worked for a very conservative, religious and Republican company (and they actually are... I looked it up, yes they donate thousands to Republican candidates)

Anyway, I can't say it was an overall positive experience, there was drama, and it definitely hindered my overall respect and standing within the company, but at least I didn't get fired.

I have one major thing going for me.... I show up on time and can pass a drug screen.... in Appalachia, that's a big deal.
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 14431
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: It's Now Official

Post by crfriend »

Why is it that have have to continually confuse what should be considered a style choice with gender-confusion? What happened to Occam's Razor? Does no-one apply that any longer?
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
STEVIE
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4187
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:01 pm
Location: North East Scotland.

Re: It's Now Official

Post by STEVIE »

crfriend wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 12:53 pm Why is it that have have to continually confuse what should be considered a style choice with gender-confusion? What happened to Occam's Razor? Does no-one apply that any longer?
Hi Carl.
I don't believe that it is. We live in a time when the whole world and his dog just has to know every last detail about the whole world and the other dog.
A single simple concept like Occams Razor just fails to satisfy the current thirst the most convoluted possibilities and explanations.
I feel that we have become addicted to information as much as tobacco, drugs and alcohol. Straight answers do not satisfy that craving.
Really too easy to suggest that we just live and let live too. Some things just occur, there is no reason, logic or deep deep motivation.
Steve.
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 14431
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: It's Now Official

Post by crfriend »

STEVIE wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 2:37 pmA single simple concept like Occams Razor just fails to satisfy the current thirst the most convoluted possibilities and explanations.
I feel that we have become addicted to information as much as tobacco, drugs and alcohol. Straight answers do not satisfy that craving.
The problem is is that there is a lot of "information" out there that is slanted, misleading, or just plain wrong -- and we seem to have lost the ability to figure out the difference and that may explain the prevalence of conspiracy-theory in the modern world.
Really too easy to suggest that we just live and let live too. Some things just occur, there is no reason, logic or deep deep motivation.
The first is a real pity, and forms the basis for much of modern civilisation (or what passes for these days), and the second is entirely factual and "style choices" fall easily into that category. Do I really need a reason for what I wear other than, "I like it"?
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
Post Reply