'Gender-neutral' Fashion Rant
Jul. 13th, 2023 05:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ellerA little rant, inspired by 'gender-neutral' fashion that's a lot less 'neutral' than the designers and their target group seem to think, and the misogyny in that.
As you probably already know by now, I'm very much into fashion. Also, I strongly support everyone's right to wear whatever makes them most comfortable. I'm hardly a fan of forcing people to conform to certain gender roles, which of course includes fashion styles associated with specific genders. And yet - offers like this t-shirt (which randomly showed up in my feed) send me into fits of rage.
What's wrong with that t-shirt? At first glance - nothing. It's maybe a bit pricey but that could be justified by good material and manufacturing... (I have not seen or touched this piece in real life, so I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume good quality.) Otherwise? It's a pretty normal-looking men's t-shirt. OH WAIT. See? There's the problem. It's sold specifically as gender-neutral. It's very obviously not. Maybe the design can be considered 'gender-neutral' in the sense that black t-shirts are generally considered acceptable for any gender, but... It's cut in a way that will fit comfortably only on a physically male body. (I'm talking only about physical body type here, because clearly, the fit of a t-shirt is independent of the wearer's personality and gender identity - and, of course, technically that means all fashion is gender-neutral, but that's clearly not what's meant here.) A potential customer with an average physically female body could buy that t-shirt, but would have to either wear a chest binder (which is not only a drastic physical requirement but also a gender requirement because, let's face it, not many cis women voluntarily wear chest binders unless it's for specific medical reasons) or buy the shirt in a size that means it's inevitably too large around the shoulders and probably also around the waist - which defies the whole point of designer fashion. (You can get badly-fitting baggy black t-shirts in the supermarket for a tenth of the price...)
The main reason this not just makes me not want to buy it (because, hey, I'm not into baggy t-shirts, but other people may like them, and that's fine) but actually infuriates me is... The marketing as 'gender-neutral', with the underlying basic assumption that the male body type (you know, broad shoulders, no boobs) is the norm, and the other type (you know, narrow shoulders, broad hips, the presence of boobs) a deviation from the norm that will either have to modify itself (in decidedly uncomfortable ways) or deal with ill-fitting clothes. Having boobs is a deviation from a baseline-neutral boob-less body shape? That's pure misogyny. (This is, by the way, also reflected in the - extremely toxic - 'woke' social pressure on non-women of a body type involving boobs to get rid of or at least hide said boobs in order to be recognized as 'properly' non-binary or trans. Body policing is not cool, no matter who does it.) And it's not only this particular t-shirt! I have yet to see a shirt marketed as 'gender-neutral' that a male-bodied person can only wear either with a padded bra or with accepting a really bad fit... And the absence of that means, yep, unfortunately I have to consider the whole field of 'gender-neutral fashion' misogynist as fuck.
Obviously, as a fashion nerd, I'm aware that there are clothes that really can be worn by different body types - like anything that is wrapped around the body (kimonos and similar come to mind: there are gender conventions but no technical reason for them), or that are individually adjusted by lacing - although that already comes with limitations. One of the guys I sometimes hang out with is also really into the reproduction of historical dresses (he's not trans, he just really likes pretty dresses), and he usually has to adjust the cut in drastic ways before he can wear anything like that, and not only because he's taller than most ladies. Body type can't simply be ignored. (Since this is going to be controversial, let me be very clear: saying a male-bodied person should not wear dresses is most likely transphobic. Saying a male-bodied person who wears dresses usually needs a different cut than a female-bodied person is merely realistic, because trying to negotiate with physical reality just won't work... Anyone who's ever sewn anything knows.)
The thing is... I don't think it's really possible to produce a truly unisex t-shirt. Human anatomy comes not just in size variations but essentially in two different baseline shapes (plus some very rare cases that are neither), and a t-shirt that fits well on the one shape will not fit well on the other. I think that's just a sad fact of life even 'woke' people will need to accept at some point. If you really want inclusive fashion, and the thing you're producing is not individually adjustable, you have to produce your design in two different baseline shapes, one of which allows the basic fact of boob existence. (Also, I really don't want to wear men's jeans, because even if the design is re-defined as 'neutral', my hips are not shaped like men's hips... The differentiation by sex - not gender! - is there for a reason. Really.) Otherwise, it's not inclusive at all, because hey, you've just excluded roughly 50% of humankind...
...and by the way, I'd really appreciate it if more designs would be available for different body types. (Trying to buy a nice dress that's not 'fetish wear' as a male-bodied person is really difficult, and it shouldn't be!) Except that doesn't seem to happen - because, apparently, it's much easier to convince female-socialized people to compromise by buying stuff that doesn't fit. That's, of course, a general societal issue: someone in a female body, even if their gender isn't female, would have learned early on that their own comfort and self-interest doesn't matter shit, and that, when in doubt, it's always the female-bodied people who have to compromise, but never the male-bodied ones. Seeing this attitude reproduced completely uncritically in an environment that claims to be standing for 'gender justice'... Well. I see the irony.
As you probably already know by now, I'm very much into fashion. Also, I strongly support everyone's right to wear whatever makes them most comfortable. I'm hardly a fan of forcing people to conform to certain gender roles, which of course includes fashion styles associated with specific genders. And yet - offers like this t-shirt (which randomly showed up in my feed) send me into fits of rage.
What's wrong with that t-shirt? At first glance - nothing. It's maybe a bit pricey but that could be justified by good material and manufacturing... (I have not seen or touched this piece in real life, so I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume good quality.) Otherwise? It's a pretty normal-looking men's t-shirt. OH WAIT. See? There's the problem. It's sold specifically as gender-neutral. It's very obviously not. Maybe the design can be considered 'gender-neutral' in the sense that black t-shirts are generally considered acceptable for any gender, but... It's cut in a way that will fit comfortably only on a physically male body. (I'm talking only about physical body type here, because clearly, the fit of a t-shirt is independent of the wearer's personality and gender identity - and, of course, technically that means all fashion is gender-neutral, but that's clearly not what's meant here.) A potential customer with an average physically female body could buy that t-shirt, but would have to either wear a chest binder (which is not only a drastic physical requirement but also a gender requirement because, let's face it, not many cis women voluntarily wear chest binders unless it's for specific medical reasons) or buy the shirt in a size that means it's inevitably too large around the shoulders and probably also around the waist - which defies the whole point of designer fashion. (You can get badly-fitting baggy black t-shirts in the supermarket for a tenth of the price...)
The main reason this not just makes me not want to buy it (because, hey, I'm not into baggy t-shirts, but other people may like them, and that's fine) but actually infuriates me is... The marketing as 'gender-neutral', with the underlying basic assumption that the male body type (you know, broad shoulders, no boobs) is the norm, and the other type (you know, narrow shoulders, broad hips, the presence of boobs) a deviation from the norm that will either have to modify itself (in decidedly uncomfortable ways) or deal with ill-fitting clothes. Having boobs is a deviation from a baseline-neutral boob-less body shape? That's pure misogyny. (This is, by the way, also reflected in the - extremely toxic - 'woke' social pressure on non-women of a body type involving boobs to get rid of or at least hide said boobs in order to be recognized as 'properly' non-binary or trans. Body policing is not cool, no matter who does it.) And it's not only this particular t-shirt! I have yet to see a shirt marketed as 'gender-neutral' that a male-bodied person can only wear either with a padded bra or with accepting a really bad fit... And the absence of that means, yep, unfortunately I have to consider the whole field of 'gender-neutral fashion' misogynist as fuck.
Obviously, as a fashion nerd, I'm aware that there are clothes that really can be worn by different body types - like anything that is wrapped around the body (kimonos and similar come to mind: there are gender conventions but no technical reason for them), or that are individually adjusted by lacing - although that already comes with limitations. One of the guys I sometimes hang out with is also really into the reproduction of historical dresses (he's not trans, he just really likes pretty dresses), and he usually has to adjust the cut in drastic ways before he can wear anything like that, and not only because he's taller than most ladies. Body type can't simply be ignored. (Since this is going to be controversial, let me be very clear: saying a male-bodied person should not wear dresses is most likely transphobic. Saying a male-bodied person who wears dresses usually needs a different cut than a female-bodied person is merely realistic, because trying to negotiate with physical reality just won't work... Anyone who's ever sewn anything knows.)
The thing is... I don't think it's really possible to produce a truly unisex t-shirt. Human anatomy comes not just in size variations but essentially in two different baseline shapes (plus some very rare cases that are neither), and a t-shirt that fits well on the one shape will not fit well on the other. I think that's just a sad fact of life even 'woke' people will need to accept at some point. If you really want inclusive fashion, and the thing you're producing is not individually adjustable, you have to produce your design in two different baseline shapes, one of which allows the basic fact of boob existence. (Also, I really don't want to wear men's jeans, because even if the design is re-defined as 'neutral', my hips are not shaped like men's hips... The differentiation by sex - not gender! - is there for a reason. Really.) Otherwise, it's not inclusive at all, because hey, you've just excluded roughly 50% of humankind...
...and by the way, I'd really appreciate it if more designs would be available for different body types. (Trying to buy a nice dress that's not 'fetish wear' as a male-bodied person is really difficult, and it shouldn't be!) Except that doesn't seem to happen - because, apparently, it's much easier to convince female-socialized people to compromise by buying stuff that doesn't fit. That's, of course, a general societal issue: someone in a female body, even if their gender isn't female, would have learned early on that their own comfort and self-interest doesn't matter shit, and that, when in doubt, it's always the female-bodied people who have to compromise, but never the male-bodied ones. Seeing this attitude reproduced completely uncritically in an environment that claims to be standing for 'gender justice'... Well. I see the irony.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 04:16 pm (UTC)Not fashion, but I ran up against this in fencing when I was still using loaner gear - this is VERY unusual, BTW; most fencing schools straight-up require you to buy your own gear, so even having loaner jackets/plastrons is INCREDIBLY friendly to beginners who aren't even sure they want to continue the sport but are interested in trying it without shelling out $$$. The thing is, 90% of my school's loaner gear was donations from previous students, who were predominantly guys. I had trouble finding stuff to fit me unless it was giant and baggy, I remarked once to Coach that he didn't have to dance around my being fat, and Coach, an expert tailor, said, "No, it's not that you're fat; it's that you have hips and men don't, so you have to 'size up' wearing men's gear even though everything else would fit." WOMEN'S fencing jackets/etc. are designed to allow for hips!
ETA: If one LIKES the personal challenge/aesthetic of wearing clothes cut for a different body type, I have no problem with that! You do you. :) But I agree that there really should be more OPTIONS and not a default assumption that "designed for ~male bodies" = "neutral."
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 04:44 pm (UTC)Of course they don't. The funny thing, here, is that pants in the Western world were supposed to be men's clothing anyway! (I mean, not all that long ago, it would have been illegal to wear them while having a female body...) "Women's pants" were, clearly, never meant to be an independent design for a certain gender - they are simply an adaptation of men's pants, making a male-coded type of clothing wearable for people with wider hips. By now, of course, they're accepted enough that I'm comfortable in pants while wearing modern clothes (and I actually prefer pants to skirts), but still... When wearing Tracht, choosing pants - fitting or not - would definitely feel like crossdressing to me!
"Not fashion, but I ran up against this in fencing"
You know, it's actually worse when it comes to sportswear - I don't know about fencing in particular, but in many sports, clothes that don't fit properly would not just look unfashionable but be a serious safety risk. Anything that's too wide can snag on something!
"If one LIKES the personal challenge/aesthetic of wearing clothes cut for a different body type, I have no problem with that!"
Neither do I. Other people's fashion choices are none of my business, and even when I have strong opinions (which, as a hobby fashion designer hanging out with fashion designers, I inevitably do) I will only comment on them if asked. (Unless it's athletic wear - if I had to supervise a gymnastics event, and I saw someone in baggy clothes, I'd have to stop them.) I don't morally judge the ways other people like to dress, either. I'm merely objecting to a definition of 'neutral' that implies the inherent faultiness of female bodies.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 04:54 pm (UTC)ETA: To clarify, "aiming for a fold so your tip snags and registers a touch" is actual fencing technique that one practices.
Aside: sport fencing has a "card" system for violations (yellow/red/black, where black is the rare pretty much "you are ejected from the tournament and escorted off the premises immediately") and while some of them are rules or courtesy violations (e.g. talking on the piste other than accepted salutation, cussing, etc.), serious safety violations can get you red- or even black-carded.
And you see this in Korean traditional wear - women wore dresses, men wore pants! And the women's dresses - the women's hanbok "jeogori" (jacket) is very short and the "chima" (skirt) component starts very high up (right below the breasts on an adult? I've only worn hanbok as a small child) and the chima/skirt is VERY loose and full to acommodate PREGNANT WOMEN. There's no separate "pregnancy wear." The traditional dress is already designed to be comfortable for a pregnant woman.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 05:02 pm (UTC)I know about the card system... About that - I, along with the rest of the world, laughed a lot when it came to this particular disaster: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahQmXkKxV3I (I assume you've seen it as well.) I mean, I understand why the guy was upset (the referee was clearly biased against him), but still. Temper. XD
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 05:33 pm (UTC)To be clear: you're not supposed to but of course you absolutely can run up a yellow or red card action as a TACTIC to rattle your opponent/opposing team, but...yeah.
~1:00 they run into each other, this is pretty common when fencers collide. Dude still got yellow carded for it, but it's not unreasonable.
~2:00 when he SIGNALED A STOP and then "scored" a TOUCH and got RED CARDED, yikes, that is an asshole move and I'm not surprised that from that moment on, the ref had it in for him.
ETA: Signaling a stop like that (the raised hand) is generally reserved for things like "give me a moment, I need to adjust my weapon it's out of curvature" or for GENUINE SAFETY ISSUES ("my weapon BROKE I have to get my backup"), you do NOT then attack during the stop BEFORE THE REF CALLS ALLEZ zomg.
~3:00 attempting to run his opponent off the piste - this is a valid tactic (it wasn't penalized) as if your opponent runs out of space and steps off the back end, it's your point, but it's honestly kind of rare to score a touch that way and especially rare in épée.
~3:30 when he stepped on the opponent's foot YIKES, could have been accidental, ref didn't bounce him then, but again, from that moment on he should have been EXTRA CAREFUL.
~4:40 that leap attack is called a flèche, completely acceptable technique/tactic although it can be risky in épée. (There's no "right of way" in épée so it's literaly "who scores the touch first" AND there can be a "double touch" where both parties score a touch; both foil & sabre have right of way where only the person with right of way can score a touch. Basically, in épée there's no rules-based protection.)
And then at ~5:50 he gets UP IN THE REF'S FACE (noooooo)
~6:40 he's off the line before the "allez!" (fence!) and yeah. Ref's done with him YIKES.
Wow that was entertained but also, his coach & teammates must have been FURIOUS, because there are strategies handling for bad refs and this is...not it. *facepalm*
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 05:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 05:43 pm (UTC)"you're not supposed to but of course you absolutely can run up a yellow or red card action as a TACTIC to rattle your opponent/opposing team"
Oh, that doesn't surprise me. XD It's just not a tactic anymore if it gets your whole team disqualified.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 05:46 pm (UTC)And yeah, at the point where it's a black card/ENTIRE TEAM DQ you have...failed...didn't look like that guy had PREPLANNED this behavior in coordination with his team/coach as part of a strategy lolnope.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 06:05 pm (UTC)...true, though the preparation I got was mostly focused on "incompetence, how to take advantage of", and not on "how not to lose your temper" (beyond generic anger management).
"didn't look like that guy had PREPLANNED this behavior in coordination with his team/coach as part of a strategy lolnope"
Indeed. Nope. I don't think his team was happy. XD Watching that scene with chess players is extra funny because, hey, it looks like totally normal tournament behavior... This led to some jokes about fencers and etiquette. That poor guy is simply in the wrong sport! ;)
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 06:14 pm (UTC)So, for example, take fencing foil, which has right of way. Let me give a concrete and fairly common example. Sometimes you have a situation when YOU know that you have completed a parry-riposte to an attack, which breaks down as follows -
(a) opponent attacks (their right of way),
(b) you parry (right of way now passes to YOU),
(c) you riposte (your right of way, so your riposte now has priority).
HOWEVER, both lights go off because a Weird Thing Happens and both blades touch, so you've both "hit" according to the (electric) box. Foil does NOT have double touch, so the person with right of way is the one whose touch counts for a point. The MACHINE cannot tell this (it only records the touches electrically, within certain parameters that vary by weapon and aren't relevant to this example).
This is now the REF'S call as to who has right of way. If the ref blinked or just sucks and MISSED (b) your parry (which gives you right of way), the ref now interprets (c) your riposte as a (c') *counterattack* to the (a) attack. A counterattack definitionally does NOT have right of way (which makes it riskier - basically, it only scores if the attacker who has right of way MISSES). So the ref miscalls your (c) riposte as a (c') counterattack, both lights went off, awards the point to (a) the initial attack.
Sometimes the ref is doing their best - fencing is pretty fast and one doesn't expect the referee to be perfect. But if you notice that the ref is CONSISTENTLY miscalling parry-ripostes, then you're usually going to have to change your fencing either to make your parry visible from OUTER SPACE for the ref, or just change your tactics so you're relying less on parry-ripostes. Or, of course, YOu can start pressuring/manipulating YOUR opponent into parry-ripostes so now some of the miscalls are going in your favor, if they're miscalling parry-ripostes consistently for both parties. :)
ETA: ...I have to say right of way gives me a headache and is one thing I don't miss about foil. Epée is generally considered easier to ref because the box is the box, but of course you still have behavioral/courtesy/other rule issues - didn't come up in that video, but épée is where the non-combativity (literally the "please move and don't stand around for a full minute, that's boring for the audience") rule is most likely to be invoked because épée is defensive and slow. XD
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 06:27 pm (UTC)Considering how chess coaches are usually happy about this type of behavior? Yeah. XD
"But if you notice that the ref is CONSISTENTLY miscalling parry-ripostes, then you're usually going to have to change your fencing either to make your parry visible from OUTER SPACE for the ref, or just change your tactics so you're relying less on parry-ripostes."
...except, unless I'm misunderstanding something, this will only work if the referee miscalls those parry-ripostes accidentally. Which is a huge assumption - and likely not always true. (Especially not if there's racial bias in play. Or money.) Also, I'm wondering if that change isn't going to influence other aspects of your fencing adversely. Basically, I'd be curious about how to deal with intentionally horrible refs...
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 06:36 pm (UTC)And yes, having to change your tactics in this kind of regard can affect you adversely, but you generally have to do that ANYWAY to compensate for opponents' strengths/weaknesses/preferred tactics so this is something a competition fencer would already be training to do. For example, even in that one video we saw everything from "fight defensive" to "fight aggressively" to "flèche" (leap) to "run off the edge of the piste" etc. - probably even more tactical variations if you look at the details of the bladework. Epée especially is full of head games, so weaponizing the referee's tendencies is an expected part of the game.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 06:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 06:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 06:46 pm (UTC)As far as I'm concerned, fencing is very very fast in general - but I see what you mean. ^^
"I kind of wonder if the solution is not some kind of video instant replay like what they have in tennis now for line calls, but there probably isn't enough MONEY in fencing to make this viable!"
Compared to the cost of all those sensitive elctronics, a video camera should be comparatively cheap?!? It may be a good idea, especially if the problem is common.
"Epée especially is full of head games, so weaponizing the referee's tendencies is an expected part of the game."
OHHHH FUN! This is where I regret not understanding enough about fencing to fully appreciate this stuff...
"also, if I haven't bored you yet, remind me to talk about the short and long tactical wheels in fencing, and tactics in foil/épée vs. sabre, which play out differently because of the specific rules/characteristics of the weapons"
I'm interested! :D
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 06:50 pm (UTC)Anyway, I will add discusson of fencing tactics considerations to the to-do list! It'll be a nice reward to write about after getting Lancers #2 work done for the day lolol. :D
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 07:08 pm (UTC)But some of the sorting is fencer psychology. When I was in épée, I CONSTANTLY got in trouble because the nature of the weapons/scoring rules mean that the best way to score is to BE DEFENSIVE and lure the opponent into attacking and then you do a defensive action called a stop-hit (basically you hit them on the way in - you see now why "people standing around hesitating to attack" is a huge issue in épée). I constantly wanted to ATTACK and got slaughtered because this is completely the wrong approach to épée unless you have god reflexes/technique, which I do not lol. I did some AMAZING épée fencing the one time Coach finally told me, "Okay, fence Renee again, but this time YOU ARE FORBIDDEN TO ATTACK." And suddenly I was AMAZING and I fenced the hell out of Renee (who is very experienced and has beautiful technique, but physically a bit fragile in her sixties), because I wasn't allowed to do the stupid thing I kept doing because left to my own devices, I WILL INSTINCTIVELY ATTACK and it has to be trained out of me.
ETA: Anyway, I thought the problem was my technique, and Coach was illustrating that my technique was fine (for a student with my level of experience). The issue was the tactics/psychology/mindset - once he "fixed" my psychology (with the "Yoon is not allowed to attack" ~rule), it showed my TECHNIQUE was sound.
OTOH, there was this one guy (a teen at the time) who had started in sabre (he loved Star Wars :p ) but Coach switched him to foil. He was completely defensive. He would fold up if you attacked him. He had been fencing for a decade, between being a teenager to my middle-aged with wonky hip and only having a couple years' experience, on a TECHNICAL level he was by far a superior foil fencer. And yet I beat him every time I fenced him in foil, because I KNEW that if I attacked him, HE WOULD FOLD, and the ONE thing I can do? Is ATTACK.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 07:26 pm (UTC)...uh, I'm unsurprised, and I suspect I'd run into similar issues.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 07:27 pm (UTC)Even if not for physical issues, the sabreurs at my school were all leggy sugar-high sixteen-year-olds. My bladework is fast, but I cannot outrun a leggy sugar-high sixteen-year-old. ;) Alas!
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 06:44 pm (UTC)This is what I have been bitching about in "gender-neutral" fashion for YEARS. Gender-neutral fashion ALWAYS defaults to the "male" version, which leaves anyone out there unable to conform to a cis-male body type (which tends, due I think to fat distribution and bone structure, to have less form-variety than cis-fem bodies) unable to wear it properly.
I have said it before and I will say it again but TRUE Gender-neutral options would be offering a black shirt in several different patterns that are not gender assigned but have different accommodations to the basic shape (e.g. different bust allotment, darting, finished lengths, sleeve styles). NOT just defaulting to the masculine option and going "but anyone can wear it!!! it's not marked as the MEN'S section!!!"
WHILE WE ARE ON THE SUBJECT, I really hate how women's clothes are always made with worst materials and women are expected so much to do extra work to get their clothing to look right. If I were able to wear men's pants, I would be able to walk into any store selling them and find nice, high quality material (usually cotton, at LEAST a cotton blend) pants that would be in a waist/hip measurement and I would have a pretty good odds of finding that if I was a 28 waist or a 42.
As a woman, I go into a store, and the size will be labeled with an arbitrary number (16, or 52, or 1, or whatever) or size (S / M / L) that has nothing to do with my waist or pant length and either study a size chart or grab a good three sizes to see which might fit. And one store's L is another's XL/XXL and another's M. Even stores that DO have your waist size on jeans often use "vanity sizing" so your "34" is actually a "38".... And its pretty much gonna be 100% poly unless you go out of your way to find non-polyester pants. It's a complete headache, it's a double-standard based in sexism, and I hate how much women's clothes are made to be disposable, and then we yell at women for buying more clothing and hold them to far higher standards wearing it.
It is really, really hard to find good retailers for trans-friendly clothing. The only one I really know of and want to post a rec for is Tomboy Toes, which make mens-wear style shoes in smaller sizes (their primary audience is transmen, but ts also nice for someone like me, who prefers the look of a man's work shoe but also my size in mens shoes is a US 6 narrow, which pretty much doesn't exist in the USA lol).
For transwomen, eshakti at least makes dresses with custom lengths, which is nice...and surprisingly hard to find lol.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 06:55 pm (UTC)The only time I had ANY luck with trans-friendly professional tailored SUITS was a trans-specialty tailor in the Bay Area (owned and run by trans people). Naturally, I lost that suit in a flood. :] And also not...really price-accessible for most people in the USA.
I also remember a friend who has an applied physics degree had worked a stint in college? as a bra outfitter at a mall. She remarked that it was completely stupid that three-dimensional body parts were described by TWO measurements in the USA and this did not work mathematically, but we're stuck.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 07:22 pm (UTC)I'll sign that - though I would like to add that I would expect the same for the pink shirt with rhinestones. Otherwise, it's still not really 'gender-neutral' if you only offer the designs and color options that cis men can stereotypically wear without causing comment...
"NOT just defaulting to the masculine option and going "but anyone can wear it!!! it's not marked as the MEN'S section!!!" "
Yeah. Besides, even if it's labeled for 'men', it's very clear that's just a reference to the body type it's tailored to, not a gender identity requirement for customers. Anyone can walk into the men's section and buy a t-shirt there. It's not as if you get thrown out of fashion stores for that.
"I really hate how women's clothes are always made with worst materials"
At least here in Germany, I have not noticed that problem. I can easily walk into a store and find, say, cotton pants - they'll be more expensive than polyester, but the same would be true for men's pants. I have noticed that most 'fast fashion' (that is: cheap clothes meant to be worn one season and then discarded) is indeed aimed at women, but if anything, that just means men don't have many cheap options while women can either buy or avoid 'fast fashion', as they wish...
"women are expected so much to do extra work to get their clothing to look right"
Oh YES. It's super annoying. And it's not just the clothing, but also other parts of presentation, like hair and make-up... (By now, I refuse to straighten my hair, simply because men with a similar hair structure can get away with not doing it.) And then, we get called 'vain' and put down for that.
"The only one I really know of and want to post a rec for is Tomboy Toes, which make mens-wear style shoes in smaller sizes"
OMG I love those shoes!!! The thing is - I dress feminine, but I hate shoes with high heels (even 'low' ones), so... I'm absolutely the target group for this. I can get those styles in Germany, there are brands that make them (e.g. Tamaris, which isn't specifically aimed at trans people but simply very versatile, so they also have 'masculine' designs adapted for female feet), but it's always a pain. I just want to be able to walk! ;_;
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 08:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 08:45 pm (UTC)YESSSS. Unfortunately, brands that do that are really expensive. I understand why - especially for 'female' body types, taking into account all the possible permutations of different shoulders, waist, and boob sizes means having to produce the same design not just in four or five versions but forty or fifty, many of which will be in low demand because some body proportions are rarer than others, so a company will likely lose money on some versions... But for customers this is extremely frustrating. At some point, having stuff custom-tailored (or learning how to sew) seems to be the only option. :/
"I am not into "fashion" that's uncomfortable and looks bad. Or even that's "only" uncomfortable"
I'll sign that. I'm not willing to wear uncomfortable things for the sake of fashion, either.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 09:22 pm (UTC)Unfitted t-shirts, rebranded as unisex, are cheaper. Like I should be able to get a t-shirt for a political organization or a union that I pay dues to or a band I like and have it actually fit me, whereas "unisex" shirts do not. And on that note why are gender neutral clothes never pink? Not that I like pink, but it's once again a case of gender neutral=male default. That AFAB people would want to wear traditionally male clothes, but who would ever want to look girly? I hate it.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 09:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 10:35 pm (UTC)Yesterday, my husband (who's a high-level manager at the company I also work for) was in some kind of training meeting that was vaguely related to diversity, and apparently, they were instructed to avoid gender language - the example given was to not use the phrase "pregnant woman", and that "pregnant person" is the acceptable choice. There's that "sex" vs "gender" thing again.
My husband also later was reading Reddit, I think, and found a rant from a trans woman who had submitted her DNA for testing and was outraged that it came back reporting that she had one X haploid and one Y haploid. Apparently, she had chosen her gender as female, and the DNA test should *know* that.
Back to your actual topic, though, I'm exactly the opposite as far as pants go - my female body is small-hipped and thick-waisted, and so I can't look good in women's jeans, because if I find a pair that fits my waist, it's totally baggy around the hips. I always buy men's jeans... but have to cut off a foot and hem them because I'm short (150 cm). For t-shirts, I prefer mens only because the wide waist covers up my lack of definition there.
I think there's a historical influence causing men's clothing to be the default for gender neutral, starting at least with women wanting to eschew dresses and wear pants - this tacitly admits that men's clothing is the base standard, and that's continued through to the present day. Thus, when a clothing store wants to slap a "gender-neutral" sticker on clothing without actually thinking about it, they default to men. Not ideal, but totally expected.
Maybe this one will be a bit better: https://www.genderfreeworld.com/collections/shirts If you look at any of the shirts here, you'll see they have different cuts for different body types.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-13 11:22 pm (UTC)I'm actually kind of torn on this one. It's not wrong - clearly, trans men or non-binary female-bodied people can be pregnant as well. My problem with this language is only the selective application. That is - it's only consistently applied to remove the term 'woman' from everyday language, while the same language activists have no problem with the term 'men' when talking about body parts and bodily functions that are usually considered male. I'm extremely sceptical of this selective erasure: after all, if you can't talk about women anymore, you can't talk about the discrimination of women either, because the language for that is missing. (For example, banning abortions is not an attack on the bodily autonomy of 'people' but specifically, and with very few exceptions, on 'women', and should be named as such! Again, removing the language to point this out only helps the oppressors!) I fear this is a well-meant term that has unplanned negative consequences.
"a rant from a trans woman who had submitted her DNA for testing and was outraged that it came back reporting that she had one X haploid and one Y haploid"
BWAHAHAHA! Sorry-not-sorry, but I will laugh at people at that. I wholeheartedly support this lady's right to live her life as a woman. Also: I understand perfectly well that looking at the test results and seeing that unfortunate, unwanted, XY may trigger gender dysphoria, and I feel sorry for that. But if she really expects a different result from a scientific procedure just because of her female gender identity, that's downright delusional. You can't fight reality and win...
"I think there's a historical influence causing men's clothing to be the default for gender neutral, starting at least with women wanting to eschew dresses and wear pants - this tacitly admits that men's clothing is the base standard, and that's continued through to the present day."
That's an interesting hypothesis... Except, of course, there have also always been males who wanted to wear dresses. So, the reasons why it worked in one direction but not in the other would still have to be discussed in more detail. XD I suspect women were more likely to want to wear pants because of practicality: a lot of women's fashion was simply hopelessly uncomfortable. (I've worn a restrictive corset. You know, the kind that has to be put on with help, lying on the floor with someone's foot on your back. It's... an experience.)
"Maybe this one will be a bit better: https://www.genderfreeworld.com/collections/shirts If you look at any of the shirts here, you'll see they have different cuts for different body types."
Better, because they have stuff I could at least theortically wear - and yet... XD I notice they usually have their shirts in three or four versions, but routinely only one of those allows the presence of boobs. Also, almost all the models are either male-presenting or deliberately androgynously-presenting, no feminine-presenting females allowed. This is still very much sexist. It's not 'gender-free', because after all the male gender is represented all over the place. Again, only the female gender is selectively removed. I... have a problem with that.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-14 08:34 pm (UTC)I'm a woman. I'm very femme-looking. I don't always want to wear extremely femme clothing. It shouldn't be this hard, and I have options non-cisgendered folks don't. Like just caving and wearing women's clothing and rolling my eyes a lot.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-14 09:05 pm (UTC)Yeah. I'm in the comfortable position that I grew up with a Dad who can sew, so I usually got exactly the clothes I wanted, but otherwise the options are quite limited. I mean, I'm fine with women's clothing, but I don't always enjoy whatever it is that's 'fashionable' in one particular season... Uh, and I like my sparkly dresses. Clothes with an acceptable level of rhinestones-per-square-cm aren't always available. (Of course, they are even less likely to be available as men's clothing. Even stores for supposedly 'gender-neutral' fashion somehow never offer that...)