TERFs crash London Pride

I worked for a while at a law firm, and this sort of thing was the average expected attire. https://azatty.wordpress.com/2012/0...ig-honored-by-women-in-law-empowerment-forum/

It's possible to "get away" with bucking the trend and violating the norm, but it makes things tricky. You have to outperform people who obey the norm in order to remain employed, and even then, there will be minor consequences, like having your boss request that you "dress nicely" and sensing that that's code for "wear at least 3 inch heels".


I suspect that, over here, a dress code that required heels would be on really, really shaky legal ground.

I don't know though. Maybe I've just not worked at places that do that. It might happen up in the city, to be fair.
 
I suspect that, over here, a dress code that required heels would be on really, really shaky legal ground.

I don't know though. Maybe I've just not worked at places that do that. It might happen up in the city, to be fair.

It's not officially required. It's an unspoken thing.
 
I worked for a while at a law firm, and this sort of thing was the average expected attire. https://azatty.wordpress.com/2012/0...ig-honored-by-women-in-law-empowerment-forum/

It's possible to "get away" with bucking the trend and violating the norm, but it makes things tricky. You have to outperform people who obey the norm in order to remain employed, and even then, there will be minor consequences, like having your boss request that you "dress nicely" and sensing that that's code for "wear at least 3 inch heels".

That would be direct discrimination in the UK, and perhaps indirect discrimination as well.
 
Do you have any examples of such definitions?



Who's appealing to the sacred?

Male and female are biological, physical categories.

Married women, with or without rights, are still women. Their sex remains unchanged.

I gave an example in the paragraph you quoted.
 
I suspect that, over here, a dress code that required heels would be on really, really shaky legal ground.
I don't know though. Maybe I've just not worked at places that do that. It might happen up in the city, to be fair.

Yep. From the government guidelines:

An employer requires female staff to wear high heels as part of a dress code but places no footwear requirements on men or merely requires them to look smart. This is likely to constitute direct discrimination on grounds of sex because there is not an equivalent standard imposed on male staff. It may also amount to indirect discrimination against employees with a disability, where heels could exacerbate any difficulties with their mobility, or for those who are visually impaired, where walking in heels can pose an extra risk of falling.
 
Why do you think it is that men tend not to wear high heels when they could feel so good for themselves if they did?

Because it went out of fashion. Originally heels were FOR men. Persian heeled riding shoes inspired western riding shoes and drifted into men’s high fashion. Did you guys never see Louis XIV‘s “look at my gams!” portrait? Men were wearing heels and tights and stuff into the mid 1700’s. Women’s high heels were originally seen as butch, borrowing a masculine trend. Because women were super not showing off their legs yet. That was a man thing. Then heels went out of fashion for men and women for quite a while, around the same time dressing fancy as hell in general went out of fashion for men.
 
Because it went out of fashion. Originally heels were FOR men. Persian heeled riding shoes inspired western riding shoes and drifted into men’s high fashion. .

So, automobiles probably factored into them going out of style for men?
 

It's funny how the sumamries of examples of "women-only services" do not all match the actual source.

•Cervical screening services (as only women need the service)
"• cervical cancer screening service to be provided to women only, as only women need the service;"
Check.

•Women-only domestic violence support units (where women may not feel safe in the prescence of males)
"•a domestic violence support unit to be set up by a local authority for women only but there is no men-only unit because of insufficient demand;"
Not quite the same thing.

•Separate male and female hospital wards
"•separate male and female wards to be provided in a hospital;"
Check.

•Separate male and female changing rooms in department stores
"•separate male and female changing rooms to be provided in a department store;"
Check

•A women-only massage service provided by a woman in the clients’ own homes
"•a massage service to be provided to women only by a female massage therapist with her own business operating in her clients’ homes because she would feel uncomfortable massaging men in that environment."
I guess there is an assumption that male massage therapists aren't fussed.

•Group counselling sessions for female victims of sexual assault (who may not attend if a male transsexual was present)
"•A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful."
So not "male transsexual," but "male-to-female transsexual person..."

•Women-only Associations (where the purpose is to gather together people sharing a particular protected characteristic)
"Background: An exception for associations which bring together people who share a particular protected characteristic was provided in previous legislation in relation to race and sexual orientation. This exception has been extended to cover all of the protected characteristics in line with the prohibition on discrimination.
Example: • A club for deaf people can restrict membership to people who are deaf and would not need to admit people with other disabilities, such as a blind person."
Not the same example at all, then.
 
Last edited:

"Welcome to Transgender Trend

This site is for everyone who is concerned about the social and medical ‘transition’ of children, the introduction of ‘gender identity’ teaching into schools and new policies and legislation based on subjective ideas of ‘gender’ rather than the biological reality of sex.

It is for parents or carers who are concerned about their teenager’s sudden identification as ‘transgender’ or worried about the new teaching of ideology as fact and the introduction of mixed-sex toilets and changing-rooms in their child’s school.

It is for feminists and allies who are concerned about the erosion of sex-based rights and protections for women and girls.

It is for lesbian and gay adults who fear for this generation of gay and lesbian children and adolescents encouraged to see themselves as ‘trans’ and straight.

It is for adult trans people who are concerned about the ‘identity politics’ movement and its promotion to children and adolescents.

It is for teachers and professionals who are increasingly concerned about policies which they cannot challenge for fear of being labeled ‘transphobic.’

It is for everyone who questions the medicalisation of childhood feelings, the invasive and life-changing treatment of minors and the aggressive tactics of transgender and LGBT organisations to promote and normalise this medical experiment."

Nice unbiased source, then.
 
Because it went out of fashion. Originally heels were FOR men. Persian heeled riding shoes inspired western riding shoes and drifted into men’s high fashion. Did you guys never see Louis XIV‘s “look at my gams!” portrait? Men were wearing heels and tights and stuff into the mid 1700’s. Women’s high heels were originally seen as butch, borrowing a masculine trend. Because women were super not showing off their legs yet. That was a man thing. Then heels went out of fashion for men and women for quite a while, around the same time dressing fancy as hell in general went out of fashion for men.

And, of course, Cuban heels and platform shoes were very much in for the boys in teh 1970s.
 
Last edited:
It's funny how the sumamries of examples of "women-only services" do not all match the actual source.

.

The examples seem to be taken from Appx 4 to the government's GRA consultation, eg from page 73:

“A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful”


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721725/GRA-Consultation-document.pdf
 
So, automobiles probably factored into them going out of style for men?

No, they were out of fashion by 1750 as far as I've read. The Enlightenment era had everybody deciding it was Cool to be Rational and so the men started dressing all Sensible and Boring and No High Heels or Jewelry or Fancy Ruffles All Over.

They started as horse riding tools (work nicely with stirrups), then horse people fashion, but became mainstream and exaggerated when everyone noticed they made your calves look great.
 
Last edited:
Why do you think it is that men tend not to wear high heels when they could feel so good for themselves if they did?

Why do you think men would feel so good about themselves if they did?

Or is that not what you're saying... because I never suggested such a thing so I don't know where you got that idea from. I was specifically talking about what makes WOMEN feel good.

I'm certain it would have the opposite effect on men.

My understanding is heels highlight leg shape/stance or gait in some way that is attractive to men. I am by no means an expert or have even read much on the topic, but oppression isn't the first thing that comes to mind when it comes to how people accessorize themselves to look more attractive.
Oppression is the opposite of what I would think of.

Some quick googling brings up a psychology today article on the topic,
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/...508/why-high-heels-make-women-more-attractive

The study, published in the academic journal ‘Evolution and Human Behavior’, found that for all walkers, attractiveness was rated much higher in heels compared with the flat shoes condition. Both males and females judged high heels to be more attractive than flat shoes. Males and females also agreed which were the attractive and unattractive walkers.
 
And, of course, Cuban heels and platform shoes were very much in for the boys in the 1970s.

Oh yeah. Cuban heels are great! And platform shoes are certainly on par with stiletto heels as far as being uncomfortable and risky for your ankles.

I'd really have to dig into the shoe-study-data to tease out the full health situation. Are the health risk studies talking about five inch stilettos or two inch kitten heels?

I was having fun Googling around and found the southern states tend toward higher heels, according to some sales database from 2014. https://jezebel.com/here-is-a-map-of-the-united-states-by-average-heel-heig-1652955042

I don't really know much about it, I only wear heels for weddings and parties. I prefer boots cause stomping around in woods. Sexist-office-pressure to wear high heels or get sneered at certainly exists and sucks but I do feel like that's a generational thing that's not as pervasive (or as uncontestable) as it once was.
 
Last edited:
No, they were out of fashion by 1750 as far as I've read. The Enlightenment era had everybody deciding it was Cool to be Rational and so the men started dressing all Sensible and Boring and No High Heels or Jewelry or Fancy Ruffles All Over.

They started as horse riding tools (work nicely with stirrups), then horse people fashion, but became mainstream and exaggerated when everyone noticed they made your calves look great.

This says:

Men's boots had high heels until the middle of the nineteenth century when the design of coaches was improved and the development of railways meant less need for horses.
 

Back
Top Bottom