The headline is just completely moronic (it's titled differently in the paywall that I used, but it's just as nonsensical). A man wearing a skirt isn't shoving his "gender preference" in your face, you prick. I wish these reactionary, regressive rejects would just come out and actually express their own thinly-veiled distaste towards fashion freedom for men, rather than writing dross like this whining about transportation services providing employees more uniform options. That's literally what's happening here, and Sitwell spends a large amount of time focusing solely on a man in a skirt to make his case because it infringes on his own insular traditional views when it comes to gender roles.MrSoapsud wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 7:37 am Not surprisingly, William Sitwell in the Torygraph doesn't like the skirt option: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/1 ... e-uniform/[Edited to add quote]
This dumb conservative talking point about gender identity never gets obnoxious. He also concludes his rubbish article by doubling down on his own ignorance with this stupid "self-identification as a different species" analogy that so many other idiots of his ilk do when they don't understand a single thing about transgender people and just screech "WOKE" into the void.'So down the catwalk, or rather, through the carriage, came a man in a skirt. I mean he looked like a man – he had a beard – but he might have been self-identifying as one of those other sexes. Because, as we are learning, many humans now like to take a leaf out of the mushroom fraternity, among whom there are some 36,000 genders.'
He sees a bearded male-looking employee wearing Dr. Martens, angle socks, and a skirt (the horror), and calls the display "vulgar and abrasive". This is why it's reasonable to call these people reactionary. If the employee is still doing their job effectively and efficiently, who the hell cares what they wear, as long as it's not against the dress code? He's making this into something it isn't (an "ego stroke of individuality") just because he's personally bothered by it; he calls the outfit absurd, but him going on about something this trivial is equally ridiculous. Had the employee made provocative or suggestive gestures, the "vulgar and abrasive" bit would actually make sense, but he's getting up and arms over a masculine-looking person wearing a skirt and invoking the "crossdressing" and "transgender" labels when he has no idea what either of those things actually refer to. Where does the Telegraph find these simpletons? Oh, right. It's biased towards the Right, which explains why it's written by buffoons, and subscribed to by buffoons, and why people here keep referring to it as the "Torygraph".
Giving men the option to wear skirts and make uniforms overall gender-neutral doesn't undermine the point of the uniform — that's asinine. It's GIVING more options for employees while also adhering to dress code. Anyone arguing otherwise is a toolbox. The only reason why this is even remotely controversial is because it includes men-in-skirts and transfolk. Can't have that pesky wokeness in the workforce now, can we?
Since Sky News Australia is basically just another version of Faux News, I'm glad it pissed off the conservative base over there. With all that pro-Trump rhetoric, it's backfiring on them in the best possible way. To hell with fascism and anyone who supports it.