In response to the article “Society should relax rules about men’s clothing,” I really don’t know how to put my feelings nicely. There is a blatant lack of understanding of how gender is constructed, and a blatant lack of respect towards the societal pressure of women. I myself, as a cisgender male (meaning I identify as a man and have a penis), share similar privilege as the author, but where he fails to acknowledge his privilege I hope to not only acknowledge my own privilege but to use it in solidarity with those that are harmed by this societal way of thinking.

Now, the truth of the matter is that issues of what clothing is appropriate versus inappropriate has always come out as a gendered issue, but the author wrongly uses the idea of genderqueer and our need to genderqueer issues of clothing specifically by saying that Guilford is a genderqueer safe house. The idea of genderqueer is all about breaking the boundaries between sex and gender and allowing people to express themselves beyond the cisgender binary. This includes the fact that a person’s gender has nothing to do with what “good ol’ genitalia” they are packing. The fact that the author asserts that men — all men, by his assumptions — have penises, puts into view that he does not understand what genderqueer even means. So how can Guilford be a genderqueer safe house when people, like the author, not only do not understand the idea of genderqueer but also push cisgender ideas of men and women?

We aren’t a genderqueer safe house, and the author cannot use that fact to try and validate his odd need for “men’s” penises to be out in the open on campus. The societal reason that we do not let people have their penises out (or show the outline of their penises) is the same reason that we do not let people with vaginas have their vaginas out in the open. He simply brings out the fact that cisgender women (meaning people who identifiy as a women and have vaginas) can wear spandex and cisgender men cannot to push out inequalities. He does not bring out the fact that cisgender men have far more freedom over what parts don’t need to be covered in clothing (like their entire chest). He simply dismisses the entire struggle of cisgender women in society, and in turn by not acknowledging the spectrum of gender, he is also dismissing the struggle of people who do not fall into the binary.

I’m not denying that there are some interesting issues brought up by pushing the boundaries of fashion. However, there are so many issues with the way the author brings up the argument that we cannot start to talk about these issues until there is an actual understanding of the underlying issues. So please, next time you want to talk about something that stems from complex issues, be informed enough to, one, not insult people and, two, to actually back up your opinions.