Women's rights under attack

In the spirit of that Tickle/Giggle article, how does one define "women" in the context of "women's clothes" ?

IMO, Women's clothes are clothes designed for women, sold in shops branded as women's clothes, or in the women's departments of clothes. Men's clothes are the same respectively for men.
Those are very broad generalisations on the items of clothing, not the people who where them. Anyone, of any gender, if free to wear any clothes they want.

The Tickle/Giggle story is about a TERF (her description) intentionally trying to exclude a trans woman from a community. It has nothing to do with cross dressing or clothing. Which was what I was raising above.

And if there's an implication that clothing made for women is kinky, doesn't that imply that any woman wearing women's clothing that's borderline deviant?

Those are you words. But that's a very old fashioned mindset.
Every aspect of sex and sexuality is a kink. Everyone has kinks. Even is that kink is "vanilla sex with the lights off".
Equating a kink with deviant behaviours is bizarre. Again, you words (that I don't think you actually mean).

If somebody has a kink for "X", that mean's X is kinky to that person. It's not an absolute about X for anyone else, or in any situation.

You could almost argue that she was "asking for it" if she gets wolf-whistled, hit on or worse …

I don't think you can argue that at all. That's and incredibly strange view to hold.

And are we still stuck in the 1920s "cross dressing" mentality or not? Because there's a fecking load of women in my family that are cross-dressers in that case, all of them regularly wearing jean when they go out in public - traditional working man's garb.

I'd argue that "Jean's are men's clothes" is the 1920s view. Literally, the 1920s, given than jeans Jeans in a women's design were introduced in 1930s.

Prior to that, they were men's working wear. But now Jeanswear is for both genders for almost a century. The fabrics, cuts, designs are different based on those designs. Claiming that any women's in jeans are wearing men's clothes is silly.

Some women do choose to wear men's jeans (or means suits), as is their right. Those are more niche, though probably far easier to do so in public - as I'm sure you aware of.
Maybe in future there will skirts specifically for men's in mainstream fashion (outside of kilts, sarongs, thawbs, etc) .

Maybe in future there will skirts specifically for men's in mainstream fashion (outside of kilts, sarongs, thawbs, etc) .

I think you missed (all) the sarcasm in my post. You're way behind the times with that "in the future" statement: skirts and dresses designed for men have been around for nearly ten years, and there's been an exponential growth in the industry in the last five. That's why using any variation of the phrase "dudes in dresses" and associating it with kinky or deviant behaviour is an outdated notion. Anyone using that term in that way is showing themselves to be stuck in the past.

I didn't miss it. I was pointing the glaring hole in you logic. Most women wearing jeans are not wearing men's jeans. Refer to those jeans as menswear is disingenuous.

To be clear I've expressed no issue anyone wearing any type of clothing. Is there an issue with the label women's clothes?
You asked how does one define women's clothes, I gave you an objective definition, without implication. Feel free to offer a counter.

You're way behind the times with that "in the future" statement: skirts and dresses designed for men have been around for nearly ten years, and there's been an exponential growth in the industry in the last five.

How was that statement "behind the times". It's an accurate description of the current scenario. You might need to re-read it, you seem to miss a key word.
Men's skirts exist, they are not mainstream, they are still quite niche.

I'm have existed for far more than 10 years btw. Jean Paul Gautier had a men's skirt range in 1985. He, and others, have always such high fashion. But they simply aren't mainstream yet. That's a strange point to try disagree with.

 That's why using any variation of the phrase "dudes in dresses" and associating it with kinky or deviant behaviour is an outdated notion. Anyone using that term in that way is showing themselves to be stuck in the past.

I believe the "dude in a dress" comment was directed at a transwoman, it certainly didn't come from me. Somebody else tried to parallel it with crossdressing. I was pointing out that both are very very different things - I assume you'd agree.

I don't think anyone described it as deviant behaviour. Bizarrely, they inference was in your post (albeit facetiously).
Respectively, I think you are inventing implications that didn't happen, in this thread at least.

The title of the thread is well suited to discuss women’s rights. It’s a pity the “yeah but this is about trans” crowd jumped on to make it about trans, then continue to belly ache about it being about trans and wanting to change the title. Quite funny really.

The female/male clothing point is very interesting in the way it is being misinterpreted. All clothes belong to all people, doesn’t matter who wears them. Such a strange point to get yourself wrapped up in, excuse the pun.

Why are we seeing the disempowerment of women? Why is the female voice ignored, disregarded and their concerns tutted or waved away. To me there doesn’t seem to be any disagreement between the grass-roots women groups at all apart from the women who side with men, wholeheartedly I might add, on most if not all issues when it comes to listening or dealing with concerns. We’ve always had such women and to disguised it as women groups attacking each other is rather disingenuous.

This is where JKRowling hits the nail squarely on the head when she speaks up for working class women being silenced across communities and in employment. All working class women hear the truth in what she says, no disagreement there only lots of silence and fear of job loss and punishment.

JKR is also currently helping to raise the alarm over the plight of women in Afghanistan who continue to be ignored by the international community. Afghanistan is a county drunk on misogyny, unbelievable what they're doing to women and girls.

Found your opening post very interesting / relevant, and was certainly enthusiastic about contributing.

Lost interest then immediately when you decided to go down this route.

Do not pretend you have any interest in any meaningful discussion.

Pity.

I am not going to lay out arguments or opinions when I am conversing with someone who post like a child.

The OP made if blatantly clear with this class of response that there was to genuine interest in genuine discussion

If that were to change, who knows.

Let's come back again in 2029 and take another look.

Do you honestly expect people to engage with you when you post / react like this?