The retreat of reason

[OLDMAN]

Actually I was hoping we'd all be wearing space suits by now...

 

[Keith&Co.]

Actually I was hoping we'd all be wearing space suits by now...

Now, SPACE suits in boy-girl flavors make sense because of the plumbing concerns...
But then again, one might be better served with a privately owned undersuit you hooked up to, and outersuits could be generic...

 

[RavenSky]

Perhaps if men and women wore bras unless they are banned for expressing gender.

There's a distinction between clothing and undergarments, no? Undergarments broadly are meant to serve practical purposes beyond covering your body, same as outfits used in a specific task (Beekeeper's outfits, Firefighter's outfits, Military Fatigues ect.)

Since I'm pretty sure we're taking about just regular old clothes like shirts and jeans and dresses, and not garments used to serve a very specific function and/or are worn on the inside.

Frankly, if a man wants to wear a bra, where is the law stopping him?

I don't think it has anything to do with whether we are discussing inner clothing or outer clothing - to principle remains the same: people should have the freedom to wear what they want. Clothing does not and should not have a "gender".

The logical flaw in WhichPhilosophy's comment is that no one is insisting that men wear bras or the women can't because men don't. It is about the freedom to wear what you feel most comfortable in.

Everyone here having conditions over "gender-neutral" clothing is basically arguing against freedom.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There was a TV show in the 70's, i forget which one exactly, but probably A-Team, where they were sneaking around on a construction site. They ducked into a shed where they found a bunch of coveralls so they'd look like they fit in.
They certainly fit. As they skulked through the site, we saw that the intrepid female reporter accompanying our heroes had found a set of coveralls that was nicely tailored, showing her ass in the best possible light. I distinctly remember being amazed how, even for Jiggle TV, they thought it was likely to find such well-fitting clothes in a random stack of the things.

Considering how much butt-hurt i hear from conservatives, about how we're sexualizing young kids at earlier and earlier ages, and slutty, or slut-enhanced clothing styles are everywhere, you'd think a move towards one-ass-fits-all children's clothes would be welcomed, not scorned.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The Wichita Daily Eagle (Wichita Kansas), 15 Oct 1922.

Transcription follows...

MOTHERS DEFY CUSTOM IN DRESSING THEIR BABIES

Twenty Years Ago Boys Wore Pink and Little Girls Blue, But Now the Order is Switched And Many Wear Pure White


ACCORDING to the old custom, a baby girl should always be dressed in blue and a baby boy in pink, but within the past two or three years people have paid no attention to any such ruling--they put the color on their babies which looks the best, say those who are in charge of baby departments at the stores.

However a few yet cling to the usage of set colors, reports Miss Faith Williams at Rorabaugh's. Especially do those who have had little experience in purchasing clothing for youngsters enter the department and say, "I want a dress for a little girl with blue ribbons on it," or else one for a boy with pink on it.

Blue is used exclusively for tiny babies in many instances now because as a rule it is much more becoming to any new arrival, according to Mrs. Jay Gill. Again people are using just plain white for babies on account of its daintiness.

To have a variety many mothers use both pink and blue combined with white for either a girl or a boy, finds Miss L. Schumaker of Innes'.

"I notice that people seldom pay any attention to that old custom," said Mrs. Elizabeth McPerson of the Boston Store, "but those who do have changed it around now so that blue is used for boys and pink for girls. This is exactly the opposite from what it has been for twenty years."

So the consensus of opinion is that one may use either pink or blue for either a boy or a girl and the baby will be "in style."​

 

[LordKiran]

There's a distinction between clothing and undergarments, no? Undergarments broadly are meant to serve practical purposes beyond covering your body, same as outfits used in a specific task (Beekeeper's outfits, Firefighter's outfits, Military Fatigues ect.)

Since I'm pretty sure we're taking about just regular old clothes like shirts and jeans and dresses, and not garments used to serve a very specific function and/or are worn on the inside.

Frankly, if a man wants to wear a bra, where is the law stopping him?

I don't think it has anything to do with whether we are discussing inner clothing or outer clothing - to principle remains the same: people should have the freedom to wear what they want. Clothing does not and should not have a "gender".

The logical flaw in WhichPhilosophy's comment is that no one is insisting that men wear bras or the women can't because men don't. It is about the freedom to wear what you feel most comfortable in.

Everyone here having conditions over "gender-neutral" clothing is basically arguing against freedom.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there's a logical reason bras are largely designed with women in mind and that this is distinct from most casual-wearovergarments. Even then you can find fetish/trans undergarments that fit the male form better through specialty resources. If a man is going to wear traditionally female undergarments I don't have a problem with that, though i'd recommend 'female' garments designed for their physiology specifically. Y'know so there isn't too much room in the back and too little up front.

- - - Updated - - -

There was a TV show in the 70's, i forget which one exactly, but probably A-Team, where they were sneaking around on a construction site. They ducked into a shed where they found a bunch of coveralls so they'd look like they fit in.
They certainly fit. As they skulked through the site, we saw that the intrepid female reporter accompanying our heroes had found a set of coveralls that was nicely tailored, showing her ass in the best possible light. I distinctly remember being amazed how, even for Jiggle TV, they thought it was likely to find such well-fitting clothes in a random stack of the things.

Considering how much butt-hurt i hear from conservatives, about how we're sexualizing young kids at earlier and earlier ages, and slutty, or slut-enhanced clothing styles are everywhere, you'd think a move towards one-ass-fits-all children's clothes would be welcomed, not scorned.

No because its not on their terms or in the advancement of their ideals.

 

[TSwizzle]

Unfortunately there are a vociferous few that do. They seem to think gender is a choice.

Right. And there are those who are militant about it. It is rather humorous that they do actually believe gender is a choice. However, it stops being funny when they get in my face screaming and threatening that I must also accept their delusion "or else".

I can't say that I have experienced anyone getting in my face and screaming and threatening me. It is quite remarkable that the vociferous few have been so influential that using ordinary terms such as "he and she" or "girls and boys" should be banished and biology be damned. Bonkers.

 

[whichphilosophy]

There's a distinction between clothing and undergarments, no? Undergarments broadly are meant to serve practical purposes beyond covering your body, same as outfits used in a specific task (Beekeeper's outfits, Firefighter's outfits, Military Fatigues ect.)

Since I'm pretty sure we're taking about just regular old clothes like shirts and jeans and dresses, and not garments used to serve a very specific function and/or are worn on the inside.

Frankly, if a man wants to wear a bra, where is the law stopping him?

I don't think it has anything to do with whether we are discussing inner clothing or outer clothing - to principle remains the same: people should have the freedom to wear what they want. Clothing does not and should not have a "gender".

The logical flaw in WhichPhilosophy's comment is that no one is insisting that men wear bras or the women can't because men don't. It is about the freedom to wear what you feel most comfortable in.

Everyone here having conditions over "gender-neutral" clothing is basically arguing against freedom.

They can if they want. My point was that there are some forms of clothing that are hard to label as gender neutral.

 

[RavenSky]

They can if they want. My point was that there are some forms of clothing that are hard to label as gender neutral.

1. Why label it as to gender at all? Bras do not need to be labeled "gender neutral", nor "male" or "female". It's a bra, and can be worn by anyone who chooses to wear it.

2. Babies and young children don't wear bras. What item of clothing does a child wear that must be gender-specific?

 

[4321lynx]

Not quite accurate in my opinion. They think these things are a choice. Its hilarious.

I'll remember to make you eat these words when full sex changes such that former men can give birth are feasible.

PS: We're closer than you might think.

Just can't wait for that day and its great benefits-to-come for all of humanity!!!

 

[Rhea]

What logic links one set of clothing to one gender again?

Perhaps if men and women wore bras unless they are banned for expressing gender.

Many men wear bras for long distance running so their nipples aren't abraded to the point of bleeding by the motion.

Stupid ideas about gender-specific clothes are stupid.

 

[Rhea]

A niche for customers who determine that their children have no gender?

Redolent of the fundamentalist Christians who deemed they could make their gay child not gay with therapy. Now it's the Left denying biology. Seems denial of biology is a feature of all fundamentalist sects.

What on earth does biology have to do with whether a polo shirt comes with 4 inch sleeves or 6 inch sleeves? With whether pockets are 3 inches deep or 7? With whether the color of the shirt is pink, blue or green?


This thread is hilarious! What ON EARTH does clothing have to do with gender? In what POSSIBLE WAY could the marketing of clothing affect someone's biological gender IN ANY WAY?

 

[LordKiran]

I'll remember to make you eat these words when full sex changes such that former men can give birth are feasible.

PS: We're closer than you might think.

Just can't wait for that day and its great benefits-to-come for all of humanity!!!

I don't know about all of humanity. Mostly just guys who want to be women will be able to be women in every respect.

 

[southernhybrid]

Come on guys! Admit it. I know y'all are dying to wear the manssiere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL4Sl6oVuyk

I've seen a lot of men with jiggly boobs who really should consider one.

 

[thebeave]

FFS, where will this end ? Reality and indeed biology is to be banished;

John Lewis has launched a range of gender-neutral children's clothes, becoming the first retailer in the country to remove "boys" and "girls" labels. The department store said it did not want to "reinforce gender stereotypes" with its childrenswear, which now has unisex labels on all clothing from 0-14 years. School uniforms are still in gender categories but are expected to switch to unisex soon.

Telegraph

"Gender stereotypes", LOL !! Bonkers.

I'm a little fuzzy on the whole "gender stereotypes" thing myself. Can someone explain (with specific examples) about how they are harmful and/or should be avoided. I guess I'm not fully "woke" on this subject.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Perhaps if men and women wore bras unless they are banned for expressing gender.

Many men wear bras for long distance running so their nipples aren't abraded to the point of bleeding by the motion.

Stupid ideas about gender-specific clothes are stupid.

Ideas about gender specific have been around for thousands of years but people can wear whatever they want. One of my wife's male employees has a beard and a bra with something to support it. He isn't transgender but he's gay and does this to suit his partner. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Come on guys! Admit it. I know y'all are dying to wear the manssiere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL4Sl6oVuyk

I've seen a lot of men with jiggly boobs who really should consider one.

If I get any fatter my wife says I'll need one. Meanwhile, I'll stick to women's bras at weekends.

 

[Rhea]

FFS, where will this end ? Reality and indeed biology is to be banished;



Telegraph

"Gender stereotypes", LOL !! Bonkers.

I'm a little fuzzy on the whole "gender stereotypes" thing myself. Can someone explain (with specific examples) about how they are harmful and/or should be avoided. I guess I'm not fully "woke" on this subject.

Certainly, be glad to.

When boys are told they aren't "supposed" to like flowers and bright colors, they learn to suppress perfectly natural emotions of caring and gentleness.

When girls are told they aren't "supposed" to like rugged adventure wear, they learn to suppress perfectly natural desires to explore and experiment.

When boys are told that they are defective if they like things that are pretty, they learn to consider people who like things that are pretty (such as the girls who are told they're defective if they don't like them) as less-than, and they learn to oppress by gender.


Personal story: My son has always liked bright and happy colors. He _also_ liked trucks and mud, FTR. We were shopping for new sneakers and we passed a pair of crayola-branded sneakers with colorful flowers embroidered on the toes. I thought to myself, "what will I do if my son chooses _those_?" and then immediately thought with dread, "holy cow did I really just consider telling my son he isn't supposed to like flowers? What a horrible thing to say to any human!!" Seconds later, young feller sees the sneakers and grabs them with the brightest most happy smile on his face... "Mama! Can I have _these_? They're beautiful!" Of course he can. We buy the flowered sneakers. (And then have to have a talk about how some kids might think it's unusual for boys to pick those because sometimes parents keep them from being able to choose, but that he may talk about how he likes them or decline to talk, whatever he likes. And that they are beautiful and cheerful and the perfect sneaker for my cheerful sunny boy.")

 

[Keith&Co.]

Considering how much butt-hurt i hear from conservatives, about how we're sexualizing young kids at earlier and earlier ages, and slutty, or slut-enhanced clothing styles are everywhere, you'd think a move towards one-ass-fits-all children's clothes would be welcomed, not scorned.

No because its not on their terms or in the advancement of their ideals.

Actually, i think it is.
I mean, according to coworkers, as a Librul, I'm one of the people trying to drive the age of consent down to about 3 years old, trying to make toddlers wear fishnet stockings and push-up bras, trying to teach blowjobs in kindergarten.
Evidently, I'm also trying simultaneously to make sex disappear all together, from the same people I'm trying to sexualize...

I think it's exactly on conservative terms, to start to question some stereotypes as being, maybe, unnecessary, and to be accused of eliminating gender.

 

[TSwizzle]

I'll remember to make you eat these words when full sex changes such that former men can give birth are feasible.

PS: We're closer than you might think.

Just can't wait for that day and its great benefits-to-come for all of humanity!!!

It will be a very long wait. That pesky biology keeps getting in the way.