I really don't think they can actually, because these two statements together are completely incoherent. We must ask, if clothes don't have gender, then why do they invoke gender dysphoria and euphoria?
The statement "clothes don't have gender" is ahistorical, completely unmaterialist, and a critical error in understanding gender as a structure.
In order to be accurate, the statement must instead be that clothes shouldn't have gender, as gender is a class system upheld by patriarchal violence and must be, as all class structures, dissolved. I have a feeling this is what OP actually meant, but precise wording is necessary when doing any kind of analysis -- and yes, even a post like this is analysis.
If we do not acknowledge that clothes are and have always been a status symbol of not just economic class, but a gender class, we innevitably inaccurately identify the sources of numerous phenomena, including gender dysphoria, but also significant structural issues like gendered violence.
If clothes don't have gender, why does the narrative that women can "invite" rape by dressing a certain way exist? If clothes don't have gender, what then is the historical context for the transvestite? If clothes don't have gender, how do we understand drag as a legible cultural phenomenon? When we assert the this notion as fact instead of a goal, reality becomes incomprehensible.
I'm really not talking to OP here, because in 80k notes I doubt they'll see it and I don't really care, I'm using this as an example for those who follow me. If we are legitimately interested in liberation from gendered oppression we must be precise in our understanding of how gender operates as a structure. Otherwise we can only thrash in the dark.
discoholicmusic
dailybridgerton
gamechangershow
areudirty
