Recommended Posts

What if the guys aren't wearing the skirts to be like a woman? We're digressing to some degree, but it makes sense in connection with the article.

If a male student decides to wear a skirt to school, what is wrong with it? Does he need to say why he is wearing the skirt? If he does need to say, do you find there to be a difference between the answer of "I'm wearing it for the airflow" and "I'm wearing it because it makes me feel good about myself"?

Why would you wear clothing designed for women if not for 1) attention 2) they want to be a woman?

I notice that you're still sticking with the idea that skirts are for girls, trousers are for boys. In fairness a similar mindset was popular in the Victorian times, but then one woman went against it and started wearing trousers. Now look where we are, trousers are worn by both genders!

Actually. Pants (trousers) were historically worn by both genders. It's only the west where it wasn't the norm for the longest time. It's not so much sticking to the idea that skirts are for girls and pants are for boys. It's more along the lines of skirts are designed for women and not for men.

Finally, how do you define "part of their culture"? I mean, do you imagine the first Scot to wear a kilt was mocked by his village? How long does something need to continue for before it becomes "part of the culture"? If I started wearing a skirt tomorrow, I may be mocked. But if the trend kicks off and 100 years from now all guys in Switzerland are wearing skirts, does that make it part of the culture, or does that just make us a bunch of weirdos?

Well read up on the history of the kilt. It actually served a purpose and was modified for another purpose. You will be a bunch of weirdos because you are wearing clothes designed for women.

Humans simply haven't evolved to the point that we find a persons gender irrelevant. In other species, appearance plays a large role in choosing a mate, something which evolved as it proved beneficial to finding the mate with the best genetics. Men evolved to be more muscular and athletic because men were responsible for hunting and defending, while women would care for the children.

But things have changed significantly. Today, we live in a society where the differences in gender are mostly no longer needed. It's okay for a woman to have a career or for men to care for the children. But the biology we inherited from our ancestors sticks with us to this day, and it continues to be a barrier to progress and equality.

As for the original article, are people really so cynical? Students at Oxford are no longer required to dress a certain way based on their gender. Who cares if this move was politically motivated, it's a positive change regardless. Be happy about it!

Sorry but some things just aren't appropriate for certain environments.

Ahh, you mean it's more appropriate to oppress people than to tell ignorant people to take their ignorance and shove it?

Ahh, you mean it's more appropriate to oppress people than to tell ignorant people to take their ignorance and shove it?

<snipped> Take this example. It's not appropriate for a girl going to school to be dressing like she's from a titty bar. Likewise, it's not appropriate for a salesman in a tech corporation to be meeting customers in drag.

Edited by Calum
Personal attacks are against our rules.

Like I said. It's YOUR opinion. IF you get offended by it, that's YOUR problem.

Like I said. You're wrong. You are the extreme minority. Just because you think you're a special butterfly that needs to express themselves wherever they want to, it's not appropriate.

Like I said. You're wrong. You are the extreme minority. Just because you think you're a special butterfly that needs to express themselves wherever they want to, it's not appropriate.

I don't need to express myself. I just don't give a **** if someone else wants to. It's none of my business. and it's also none of yours.

Xilo, I think the main problem with your opposition to this is that no one is being harmed by a man wearing a skirt, are they? A man wearing what is deemed by many to be "women's clothes" harms no one, yet stopping him from wearing those clothes negatively effects his life because he is banned from expressing himself (even though him expressing himself causes no harm to anyone). So why be against it? :)

  • Like 2

Xilo, I think the main problem with your opposition to this is that no one is being harmed by a man wearing a skirt, are they? A man wearing what is deemed by many to be "women's clothes" harms no one, yet stopping him from wearing those clothes negatively effects his life because he is banned from expressing himself (even though him expressing himself causes no harm to anyone). So why be against it? :)

The only people that ever get offended by it are narrow minded hypocrites. People seem to have some problem realising that society is there for everyone, not just them. Transgender people and cross dressers are largely accepted and ignored in the UK, sadly in a lot of other parts of the world (particularly those still dominated by religion) those people are still belittled and treated like crap. It's about time people grew up and joined the 21st century, being a bigot is no longer cool or cute.

  • Like 2

I love when people like Xilo says the Majority agrees with him..

The Majority doesn't care. Whenever you see a poll about what people think, the majority of people don't take it.. The simple fact is the majority of people don't care about a lot of things, one way or the other.. It doesn't affect their lives in any meaningful way, so why should they.. A guy wearing a skirt, or a women in a Tie has no effect on me.. It doesn't keep me from going on about my life just the same as I did before they were.

Anyone saying that their lives will be affected by this is just speaking bull****. It's the same BS that was said about Gays being open, Women voting, Minorities having rights, etc.. Small views by small minded individuals who have such a narrow mind they can't cope with anything that is beyond their small viewpoints.. But thankfully after a generation, they turn into a dying breed that people generally only reference for comedy value..

  • Like 2

The Majority doesn't care. Whenever you see a poll about what people think, the majority of people don't take it.. The simple fact is the majority of people don't care about a lot of things, one way or the other.. It doesn't affect their lives in any meaningful way, so why should they.. A guy wearing a skirt, or a women in a Tie has no effect on me.. It doesn't keep me from going on about my life just the same as I did before they were.

Nobody really cares what you do outside of whatever you do. I never said all environments. If you want to look like a retard outside of whatever, than by all means look like a retard.

I specifically said certain environments which is what the majority will agree with.

Likewise, it's not appropriate for a salesman in a tech corporation to be meeting customers in drag.

There is a huge difference between a man dressing as a woman, and a man dressing in drag.

  • Like 2
Why would you wear clothing designed for women if not for 1) attention 2) they want to be a woman?

You say that it's clothing designed for women. I say it's clothing. That's the main point you seem to be missing. You keep trying to orient an inanimate object towards a gender.

Actually. Pants (trousers) were historically worn by both genders. It's only the west where it wasn't the norm for the longest time. It's not so much sticking to the idea that skirts are for girls and pants are for boys. It's more along the lines of skirts are designed for women and not for men.

You're right, trousers (pants are the things I wear under my trousers) were worn by both genders. Trousers are not gender specific. Why do skirts need to be?

Well read up on the history of the kilt. It actually served a purpose and was modified for another purpose.

Since I don't want to get a PhD in kilts I went to wikipedia. Apparently the great kilt served the purpose of being a cloak as well as a kilt. All other kilts were just forms of clothing.

You will be a bunch of weirdos because you are wearing clothes designed for women.

Technically we'll be a bunch of weirdos because we're wearing clothing that you would normally see on a woman. If I went to a tailor, I wouldn't say, "make me a man's skirt." I would say, "make me a skirt." I'm pretty sure that the finished product would look very similar to a woman's skirt (perhaps slimmer around the waist, mind).

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!