Committed to incloosivity
How to get a free “prom dress”:
Charlie Moore, who identifies as non-binary, was shopping for a prom dress with their friend.
It seems he’s male “non-binary” as opposed to female “non-binary.”
Monsoon has insisted the shop is “committed to inclusivity” and issued an apology after a non-binary teenager was stopped from using the female changing rooms while shopping for a prom dress.
What does Monsoon mean by “inclusivity”? That anyone and everyone should be “included” in their female changing rooms? But that would exclude most women.
Charlie Moore, 18, said they were left “humiliated” after being instructed to leave the retailer’s changing rooms while on a shopping trip in Birmingham with a friend.
I don’t suppose Charlie spent a single minute thinking about how the women in the changing rooms might be feeling. It’s all about Charlie, not at all about anyone else.
They said they were told by managers that “males aren’t allowed to try our clothes on” and that they had received complaints about their presence from women and children.
The store later issued an apology to the student, opened an investigation into the incident and offered to help Charlie find the “perfect prom dress” free of charge in a post on Twitter.
What do women get? Charlies in their changing rooms.
The incident comes after fresh guidance was released from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) that states organisations can legally prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to such a single-sex service, such as changing rooms, gyms and refuges in certain scenarios.
The EHRC said this could be to enable privacy or decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety.
But Charlies will make a stink so never mind all that. Women and girls will just have to put up with the trauma and the absence of safety.
Charlie said to MailOnline that the incident left them feeling “like I wasn’t welcome or wanted”.
Why should Charlie feel welcome or wanted in women’s changing rooms? He doesn’t need to “feel welcome” everywhere on the planet. Nobody gets to feel that. We can’t bounce into people’s living rooms and demand the occupants make us feel welcome and wanted. There are limits.
In a statement, Monsoon said: “Monsoon is committed to diversity and inclusivity and we want as many people as possible to enjoy our clothes and designs.
“At the same time, we also want to ensure that all our customers feel relaxed and comfortable when visiting our stores and trying on our outfits.
“The majority of our stores are small with limited changing facilities and as such we endeavour to work with all our customers; considering each of their individual requirements, with the aim of accommodating their needs and wishes.”
I bet Monsoons all over the country are hunkering down waiting for the torrent of “non-binary” males bouncing in to use the [women’s] changing rooms. (Monsoon sells clothes for women and children, so it has no use for men’s changing rooms.)
This one presents a bit of a conundrum for me. On the one hand, the dressing rooms are female only; they is male and can therefore gtfo. On the other hand, I am of the opinion there need not be any ‘female only’ or ‘male only’ clothing, and that the taboo against men wearing dresses is nothing more than a cultural quirk. If a man wishes to wear a dress, go ahead and wear one; this cultural battle is much like the that was fought and largely won by women wanting to wear pants for their practicality.
How then should these be reconciled? At present, the clientele of a dress shop is guaranteed to be just about 100% female, and so designating the dressing rooms as female only is an easy decision. But if I support the crossing of social clothing rules by the sexes, shouldn’t I support these dressing rooms be redesignated as unisex, or split into a unisex and female wing (with the unisex wing probably consisting of only a single cubicle due to low demand)?
This seems like a lot of expense, and a reduction of ‘female only’ space and the security and feeling of security that comes with that. At this stage I am just musing, still turning it over in my mind, and would welcome other viewpoints on this one.
That’s a fair point. There’s no abstract or general reason men shouldn’t wear dresses, and that does seem to entail trying them on first. But…there’s also the whole thing about men who do that for a sexual thrill, which is only enhanced by being able to make women feel uncomfortable or worse. There’s Muscato in that dressing room. I don’t think there’s anything really comparable about women who wear trousers, and even if there were women aren’t a physical threat the same way. So my gut feeling is kind of “Oh leave us the fuck alone.” Gut feelings can be wrong though.
I have an idea – why not open a branch of Monsoon For They, and sell exclusively to ‘trans’ and ‘non-binary’? Advertise it as being ‘Guaranteed TERF-FREE!!!’ if you like. Women have few enough places exclusively for us, why should we share?
The question we should be asking as publically as possible (to peak more people) is:
Why aren’t these cross-dressers lobbying for menswear shops to carry dresses etc., instead of bullying their way into women’s ones?
They can’t answer that one without it being obvious to previously uninterested members of the public that the bullying is the whole point, not the dresses.
Years ago my mother and sister had a lingerie shop that did a good business with the local cross dressing community. They had after hours shopping and fittings at first by appointment, then on regular designated nights. I guess now that would be “exclusionary”.