skirtcafe.org

Interesting, the outcome of this could be more news about clothing choices.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstacey ... s-illegal/

More of the same trans-* alphabet-soup noise that isn't going to change the attitude of the straight folks one bit -- if anything, it's going to harden those attitudes due to "compassion fatigue". Trans-*/non-binary/alphabet-soup is not our fight: our fight is to be considered as fellow human beings in our own right in spite of a slightly "off-kilter" sense of style.

Clothes one can remove or change; the rest of it not so much.

crfriend wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 6:54 pm More of the same trans-* alphabet-soup noise that isn't going to change the attitude of the straight folks one bit

I didn't see anything about transgender in that article.

I’m not suggesting that person’s non-binary fight is “our” fight - also not sure if this really is a trans issue per-se. I hope conversations about dress codes and people questioning “why do we have our clothing conventions, and why they no longer make sense” come out of this.

Personally - and this is just me - I think a lot of the issues we have today are because of these strict norms - if people were allowed to be themselves, they might not need to identify as anything - they’d be content being themselves and would pursue careers and interests that interest them.


The flip side of all of this - it brings to question what rights employers have to dictate clothing, obviously uniforms are something they can… it seems, anyways, there should be limits to how they apply those standards.

pelmut wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 7:55 pmI didn't see anything about transgender in that article.

"Non-binary" clinched it for me. That could comfortably fit under the trans-* or alphabet-soup classifications. I don't have a dog in either of those fights, and I'd rather those fights not overlap mine because it'll needlessly confuse the bystander.

My thrust was -- and remains, "What happens if it's a simple style choice with nothing else over (or under) laying it? It would seem that nobody has ever bothered to consider that possibility, and I'm actually quite close to just chucking the whole notion and giving up on it. I'll be the good little drone and wear precisely what's dictated to me by other idiots who don't have a clue in the world. O' what a wonderful world!

Whatever happened to the old idea of treating everyone with dignity and respect?

crfriend wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 10:29 pm

pelmut wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 7:55 pmI didn't see anything about transgender in that article.

"Non-binary" clinched it for me. That could comfortably fit under the trans-* or alphabet-soup classifications. I don't have a dog in either of those fights, and I'd rather those fights not overlap mine because it'll needlessly confuse the bystander.

My thrust was -- and remains, "What happens if it's a simple style choice with nothing else over (or under) laying it? It would seem that nobody has ever bothered to consider that possibility, and I'm actually quite close to just chucking the whole notion and giving up on it. I'll be the good little drone and wear precisely what's dictated to me by other idiots who don't have a clue in the world. O' what a wonderful world!

Whatever happened to the old idea of treating everyone with dignity and respect?

I see your point - and wholeheartedly agree it should come down to a style choice and nothing else. I still think though some of this helps move the needle a bit.

I roll my eyes at a lot of this non-binary stuff. I think a lot of it is a fad - but I hope before it is over it opens people’s minds beyond what they normally accept.

Coder wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 11:15 pmI see your point - and wholeheartedly agree it should come down to a style choice and nothing else. I still think though some of this helps move the needle a bit.

There are right reasons for moving the needle and there are wrong reasons for moving it. Right now, the focus is entirely on the wrong reasons to the absolute exclusion of the right reason which is very simple indeed.

I will once again reiterate, "Why not treat everyone with dignity and respect?" But then need to add to that, "if they make themselves worthy of it." Gaming systems and jamming laws into place is not a sustainable way forward because all that does is foster discontent and resentment.

crfriend wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 10:29 pm My thrust was -- and remains, "What happens if it's a simple style choice with nothing else over (or under) laying it? It would seem that nobody has ever bothered to consider that possibility, and I'm actually quite close to just chucking the whole notion and giving up on it. I'll be the good little drone and wear precisely what's dictated to me by other idiots who don't have a clue in the world. O' what a wonderful world!

Whatever happened to the old idea of treating everyone with dignity and respect?

Hi Carl,
It rather saddens me to quote these words and II hope the apparent despondency is just a temporary glitch.
We all know that the UK in general is reasonably liberal toward men in skirts and I am particularly fortunate in how my employer treats me.
I know that if there was a dispute that my only legal protection would only be applicable if I was transgendered. That is the law as it stands here and now.
However, in all the years that I have worked with a skirt or dress on, the question of my gender identity has never arisen.
Even when I was taken to task over the shortness of a couple of skirts that element never entered the dialogues. The closest we came was when I made the point that some female colleagues appeared to be exempt from such censure.
The point I think is that I have actually proven that it is a bona fide fashion choice and not for any other reason.
The longevity and ironically, conservative styling I have adopted for the office is the best evidence that can actually offer.
Finally, by and large, we are actually treated well enough too but not always appreciated by a lot of colleagues.
Steve.

crfriend wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 10:29 pm

pelmut wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 7:55 pmI didn't see anything about transgender in that article.

"Non-binary" clinched it for me. That could comfortably fit under the trans-* or alphabet-soup classifications.

The real worlds of sex and gender are both non-binary; the problem, and the 'alphabet soup', arises from trying to fit people into artificial categories.  At first these were simplistic binary: male/female, masculine/feminine; then it was realised that extra categories would be needed to cope with the reality that some people don't fall neatly into those groups, so 'intersex' and 'agender' were added. This complicated the binary terminology for sexual preference, 'lesbian' and 'gay', because that was based on binary sex and gender and a significant number of people now felt free to say they didn't fit into the binary classification.

When the proportion of the population who were transgender made their voices heard they were added to the list, not because 'transgender' indicated a sexual preference but because they were a persecuted minority fighting for their rights in the same way that the 'L' & 'G' population had previously done (and so regarded them as allies).  Similarly others were added to the list as they felt able to speak out.

The problem is not caused by people suddenly becoming variant in their sex, gender and sexual orientation; they always were, but were afraid to say so.  Neither is it their fault that by 'coming out' and exposing the reality of the situation they have thrown the previous system of categorisation into confusion.  The fault is with the binary system, which was inappropriate and flawed and unnecessary.

This should have nothing to do with the wearing of clothes, but just like the Ls, Gs, Bs, Ts, Qs and XYZs, we are struggling to throw off the inhibitions imposed by the old flawed system of categorising people into a unified binary system.

STEVIE wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 5:35 amI know that if there was a dispute that my only legal protection would only be applicable if I was transgendered. That is the law as it stands here and now.

In which case, the law is discriminatory and needs to be struck down. We are either a nation of equals or we are not. Full stop.

However, in all the years that I have worked with a skirt or dress on, the question of my gender identity has never arisen.

There's the difference -- you're speaking in the first voice, and the pundits are all speaking in aggregate and in the third person. My fury is directed against the pundits who insist on making things more complex than they need to be in their interest to sell sensational copy. Nobody is going to read about the boring straight bloke -- but add a whiff of sex to it and the story sells. For. The. Wrong. Reasons.

I've never really had a measurable degree of blowback for my style choice, either, but that's because the individuals I'm interacting with either know me personally or know of me by reputation. We -- as individuals -- know that to be the case; however, my remarks are aimed at the abstract, which is what the herds are reading, and which is giving them an inaccurate picture of what the facts on the ground are.

We do our best to prove the pundits wrong, but we are quite thin on the ground. I'd rather not be fighting a rear-guard action; I've fought enough of those in my life.

pelmut wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 9:01 amThis should have nothing to do with the wearing of clothes, but just like the Ls, Gs, Bs, Ts, Qs and XYZs, we are struggling to throw off the inhibitions imposed by the old flawed system of categorising people into a unified binary system.

That's pretty much what I've been saying all along. In fact, I'd like to see all the various "classifications" swept aside in favour of a single one. Let's notionally call it "human being". Would that suit, or is it not divisive enough?

There are essentially two sexes - male and female. They are biologically defined according to their reproductive function. There are a tiny number of people who have an intersex condition which makes sex-determination a bit less straightforward, but most intersex people are definitively either male or female.

Gender, depending on how that term is defined as existing along a rather crude cline with masculine and feminine at each end. It is a much more nebulous concept which partially aligns with biological realities and partially with cultural norms, expectations and taboos.

If a person is trans, they are attempting to switch from one recognisable gender to the other, aided by some level of manipulation of biology by use of hormones, and by surgery.

If a person calls themselves "non-binary or "gender fluid" then they are still either male of female whether they choose to accept that or not. I am not sure why this is an issue.

I am also not sure what this has to do with us. Surely we are concerned with challenging biologically-related clothing taboos, specifically that having male reproductive organs and identifying as a boy or man should not mean our sartorial options are so severely limited while no such social restrictions exist for females. This is, in my view, an important men's rights issue relating to fashion. It is nothing to do with the LGBTQ... etc controversy and if we try to conflate our aim with that, we will be forever admitting that skirt = feminine, and thereby the only context in which a man or boy can wear one is if he is questioning his gender identity. This would be a massive mistake.

Stu wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 12:10 pm They are biologically defined according to their reproductive function.

...and where their reproductive function is irrelevant there is no need to define them.

If a person is trans, they are attempting to switch from one recognisable gender to the other, aided by some level of manipulation of biology by use of hormones, and by surgery.

They may not be.  Many are inhibited by social pressure, practicalities or just fear of the unknown from taking any of these steps.  They know they are trans but can't or won't do anything about it.

If a person calls themselves "non-binary or "gender fluid" then they are still either male of female whether they choose to accept that or not. I am not sure why this is an issue.

Male and female are sex, not gender.  It is an issue for them because they are forced to adopt conventions that do not apply to them, including giving false information on official documents that will not allow them to tell the truth.  Society is insisting they are in categories that suit us but do not apply to them - and they are now starting to tell us so.

I am also not sure what this has to do with us. Surely we are concerned with challenging biologically-related clothing taboos,

Exactly   ...and those taboos have been generated by a binary system which is supported by irrelevant definitions and is enforced by people who cannot see that an over-simplified system like that is not a good basis for interfering in the lives of others.

Carl, I understand the point you're trying to make, but I think you're picking at this to the point where it's starting to bleed.

You're asking for the moon. But the thing is, many skirt wearing men do simply identify as skirt wearing men. Many of them do indeed make the headlines. Most people continue to "sir" me, even in respect. Some ask for my pronouns and I respectfully answer accordingly.

We're a world of all types of people, women in pants, men in skirts, transgender people, nonbinary, gender-fluid, etc, we all share in the same bandwidth, that being the freedom to decide our own destiny and direct our lives accordingly.

It almost sounds as though you're arguing against the very notion of being transgender. That doesn't sound like you as I've always felt you to be generally tolerant. So I'm just assuming your issue is with perhaps trans* articles being posted on a "men in skirts" website?

Yes, I agree, it would be nice if people, including employers would respect men's right to express themselves however they wish, or at least afford us the same liberty that women and females enjoy, but we have to play the cards we're dealt, and unfortunately the former just isn't the world we live in right now, and I don't know if that's going to change any time soon.... OR IS IT? In the last few weeks I've just pushed the envelope a little further with regards to certain family and even my employer. It's been a week now, and nobody is asking me what my "preferred pronouns are". Nobody is walking on egg shells around me, scared to death to offend the "transitioning woman" they now realize they have to work with. Nobody is ma'aming me. I've not had that awkward call from human resources. It's literally like nothing happened at all. I think they just realize and accept that everyone is different, and we don't have to make a big fuss about every little thing that somebody does..

We live in a world that simply didn't exist just a decade ago, I myself have personally worn skirts, and otherwise expressed femininity in situations that I would have never dreamed possible during the first 30 years of my life, and I must give credit where credit is due, and that is the overall tolerance of society in general to a wide variety of concepts, not the least of which, being the transgender issue. But that's not the only piece to this tolerance puzzle, "men in skirts", and general equality of the sexes have also played a part.

It really is a good time to be alive. Not just with gender equality, but literally with everything and everyone, race, sexuality, religion, you name it. Tolerance and acceptance is increasing in countless ways, but we must accept that we have to share space with people who may not view matters in the exact way we do. We all have our place in the discussion.

And you know what, things are getting better every day. [0]

To conclude, I understand we all have things that set us off, my pet-peeve is skirt wearing men who cut their damned heads off or otherwise shield it on photos. In my view it makes skirt wearing men look "pervy" as though this is some fetish that we should be ashamed of. It's a notion that I personally feel sends a far worse signal that anything coming out of the trans-community. And side note: even most trans-women and other non-binary folk don't hide their faces in photographs. But it what it is, and despite my general annoyance at this, I must respect their right to pose for photographs as they wish. I try not to pop off every time I see one, and in fact, I normally just blow right past the photo and make no remark at all.... sometimes.

[0] Just not in Lebanon Virginia... the community here has it in HARD REVERSE with the pedal to the floor!

STEVIE wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 5:35 am I know that if there was a dispute that my only legal protection would only be applicable if I was transgendered. That is the law as it stands here and now.

I don't know if the law in Scotland differs on this point, but the law in England would certainly protect you.  There are very few exceptions to the rule that an employer cannot impose clothing rules which only apply to one sex; in ordinary employment, men and women are equally entited to wear skirts or trousers as long as they comply with the company's dress code and safety rules.  Transgender people don't get any special treatment in this respect.

[Edit:  Corrected 'can impose' to 'cannot impose'.]