Skirts on men would emasculate them

The argument

Proponents of this view argue that since the mid-twentieth century there has been a concerted effort by the feminist movement to feminize men, and that pressure on men to adopt women's clothing belongs to it. Their starting point is that the existing convention is not a constraint but a settled and workable form of dress. For hundreds of years, men have worn some variation of a suit, and women have even said that they find men more attractive in suits. This style leaves plenty of room for self-expression, they contend, so there is no reason for men to start wearing skirts or dresses or any other feminine accessories — the expressive latitude men are said to lack is, on this account, already there in the cut, the colour and the occasion. The second strand of the argument holds that difference in dress is not itself a harm. There is nothing wrong or limiting about men and women wearing different types of clothing, and gendering clothing has been around since the beginning of human history — which proponents take as evidence that the distinction answers to something durable rather than to a recent prejudice. Men have evolved to display status and physical strength, they argue, and this is evident in their clothing choices, so masculine dress is read as an expression of what men are rather than a cage placed around them. From there the conclusion is largely about who bears the burden of justification. Men should be allowed to be men, and men wear trousers, shirts, shorts, and jackets. Just because a man does not want to wear a skirt or a dress does not make him a misogynist, as many narratives would have you believe. Let men be men.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The entire aim of the feminist movement has been to dismantle patriarchal structures in our society; structures that also negatively affect men and their ability to live as fully emotionally-aware and free human beings. The goal of feminism is not to create a genderless society, but to work towards a world where each individual person is free to express themselves, gender included, however they wish. When men, even just one, feel that they cannot make certain clothing choices for fear of being ridiculed or accosted by others, that is a problem. There is no difference whatsoever between a kilt and a pleated skirt aside from assembly besides the social perception. No one is forcing men to wear skirts. The goal is that men should be able to wear them if they choose to, as women choose to wear what they'd like.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The historical claim runs the other way. Trousers are not a human universal: robes, tunics, togas, kilts, sarongs, cassocks and hakama have all been ordinary masculine dress, and trousers spread through Europe from riding and military use rather than from any settled association with manhood. That dress has been gendered does not establish which garments belong on which side, since the assignments have repeatedly moved — heels, hosiery and the colour pink were all once masculine. [Rejecting P2] "Emasculate" and "feminize" are asserted rather than argued; they presuppose that masculinity is something a garment can remove, which is the very claim at issue. The premise also runs together two different things — a man who simply prefers trousers, and the position that men should not wear skirts. Nobody in this debate objects to the first, and only the second needs defending. [Rejecting C] The conclusion converts a preference into a prohibition. Even if most men found skirts unappealing, that would establish what men are likely to wear rather than what they should be permitted to wear, and the argument never identifies who is harmed when one of them chooses otherwise.