4 ms·

> ... and must dress differently Operating based on a sampling of women I know - Im going to perform an experiment - I have some clothes of mine that I (Male w

> ... and must dress differently Operating based on a sampling of women I know - Im going to perform an experiment - I have some clothes of mine that I (Male with a capital M) no longer wear and Im going to give them to some Female friends for their own use. We'll see what happens but I bet Im going to be met with confusing expressions and laughed at - at best. Men and women do not dress differently on the count of societal pressures but rather express themselves differently on the count of different imperatives. You can slice it 6 different ways but outside of a small minority of people with non-standard gender ideals, the vast majority of women want to "be pretty" in whatever way that means to them and the vast majority of men want to "look like a man" for their various reasons and in whatever way that means to them. I realize this is a terribly "incorrect" thing to say these days but at the same time its among the most pervasive ideals I can think of - right up there with the understanding that water is wet. Out side of groups where the word "Patriarchy" is thrown around, men are men and women are women and neither would have it any other way. This isn't due to societal pressure to conform either. This is prevailing behavior of both genders at work. I personally do not understand why a minority of people choosing alternative, non-birth gender roles needs to be cast into some movement where everyones gender is in question. Im not sure I know anyone who has ever so much as questioned the "baggage" their bio-gender is supposedly saddled with. According to modern psychiatry (which for the purposes of this conversation we'll assume is valid since we all agree Sociopathy and Eating Disorders are real things too), the DSM-5 includes Gender Dysphoria. Psychiatry considers that a real thing right next to some other things I think we can all agree are real. > History shows us that almost all expressions of gender are fluid. politely said: CITATION PLEASE

RC_ITR 4y ago
>Operating based on a sampling of women I know How big and diverse is that sample? >You can slice it 6 different ways but outside of a small minority How small is that minority? >the vast majority of women want to "be pretty" Are you implying that there's an objective idea of 'pretty' as it relates to fashion? That a woman in pants can't be 'pretty'? Can I point you to powerful men in high-heeled shoes in the 10th Century? Lots of women were attracted to that back then, because of what it meant from a societal standpoint. Or are you implying that it's fine for men to dress in women's clothes? Because if so then why are we here? >I realize this is a terribly "incorrect" thing to say It's not 'incorrect,' it's intellectually lazy. >I personally do not understand why a minority of people choosing alternative, non-birth gender roles needs to be cast into some movement where everyones gender is in question. Luckily, that's a strawman so you can stop being confused by it. > History shows us that almost all expressions of gender are fluid Again, are high heels for boys or girls? History's opinion will surprise you! Now listen, outside of snark, I understand its hard to see outside of the environment you've lived for your entire life, but this is a forum for hackers so maybe be a little bit more open to people questioning and challenging things you hold dear? EDIT: You know what, here's one of many phenomenon that you seem to be unaware of: Although Europeans were first attracted to heels because the Persian connection gave them a macho air, a craze in women's fashion for adopting elements of men's dress meant their use soon spread to women and children. "In the 1630s you had women cutting their hair, adding epaulettes to their outfits," says Semmelhack. "They would smoke pipes, they would wear hats that were very masculine. And this is why women adopted the heel - it was in an effort to masculinise their outfits." From that time, Europe's upper classes followed a unisex shoe fashion until the end of the 17th Century, when things began to change again. "You start seeing a change in the heel at this point," says Helen Persson, a curator at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. "Men started to have a squarer, more robust, lower, stacky heel, while women's heels became more slender, more curvaceous." [Citation - https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21151350 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21151350]
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  > > History shows us that almost all expressions of gender are fluid > Again, are high heels for boys or girls? History's opinion will surprise you! If transgenderism were only changing fashion trends it wouldn't involve psychiatric or surgical interventions and transition wouldn't be called life-saving, etc. > Or are you implying that it's fine for men to dress in women's clothes? Because if so then why are we here? Are you implying that men in women's clothes are just men in women's clothes? Because then yeah, why are we here?
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    . ^I realized I'm arguing with one account across many branches of the tree (which is against the spirit of this forum) so might as well just move on

RC_ITR 4y ago

>Operating based on a sampling of women I know How big and diverse is that sample? >You can slice it 6 different ways but outside of a small minority How small is that minority? >the vast majority of women want to "be pretty" Are you implying that there's an objective idea of 'pretty' as it relates to fashion? That a woman in pants can't be 'pretty'? Can I point you to powerful men in high-heeled shoes in the 10th Century? Lots of women were attracted to that back then, because of what it meant from a societal standpoint. Or are you implying that it's fine for men to dress in women's clothes? Because if so then why are we here? >I realize this is a terribly "incorrect" thing to say It's not 'incorrect,' it's intellectually lazy. >I personally do not understand why a minority of people choosing alternative, non-birth gender roles needs to be cast into some movement where everyones gender is in question. Luckily, that's a strawman so you can stop being confused by it. > History shows us that almost all expressions of gender are fluid Again, are high heels for boys or girls? History's opinion will surprise you! Now listen, outside of snark, I understand its hard to see outside of the environment you've lived for your entire life, but this is a forum for hackers so maybe be a little bit more open to people questioning and challenging things you hold dear? EDIT: You know what, here's one of many phenomenon that you seem to be unaware of: Although Europeans were first attracted to heels because the Persian connection gave them a macho air, a craze in women's fashion for adopting elements of men's dress meant their use soon spread to women and children. "In the 1630s you had women cutting their hair, adding epaulettes to their outfits," says Semmelhack. "They would smoke pipes, they would wear hats that were very masculine. And this is why women adopted the heel - it was in an effort to masculinise their outfits." From that time, Europe's upper classes followed a unisex shoe fashion until the end of the 17th Century, when things began to change again. "You start seeing a change in the heel at this point," says Helen Persson, a curator at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. "Men started to have a squarer, more robust, lower, stacky heel, while women's heels became more slender, more curvaceous." [Citation - https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21151350 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21151350]

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
> > History shows us that almost all expressions of gender are fluid > Again, are high heels for boys or girls? History's opinion will surprise you! If transgenderism were only changing fashion trends it wouldn't involve psychiatric or surgical interventions and transition wouldn't be called life-saving, etc. > Or are you implying that it's fine for men to dress in women's clothes? Because if so then why are we here? Are you implying that men in women's clothes are just men in women's clothes? Because then yeah, why are we here?
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  . ^I realized I'm arguing with one account across many branches of the tree (which is against the spirit of this forum) so might as well just move on