The Unsettling Reality Submerged in Gender Fluid Trends
Outdated gender stereotypes have got to go, but is the gender fluid trend really helping?
He wants to wear lace ruffles. She has a suit jacket. Why would you wear that? Is that a boy or a girl? Is that boy’ or girls’ clothes? You can’t ask that, it’s not ‘PC’. The men’s section, the woman’s section. Stop! The current cultural conversation surrounding gender and identity is heated and opinions seem to be polarising. Everyone has ideas on what a man or a woman is and how they should present themselves. These ideas are embedded in society across various fields, but one industry where the conversation surrounding gender and identity is particularly relevant is fashion. Fashion items, whether they be accessories, garments or footwear, are often categorized as either masculine or feminine. The fashion industry is often criticized for this categorization of items as it is seen as a way of perpetuating outdated gender stereotypes and creating a divide between genders. In response to this criticism the fashion industry has swung towards a gender fluid trend. Cosmo UK defines the gender fluid trend refers to garments and accessories that are intended to be worn by either men or women even if that garment is culturally considered feminine or masculine; however, the gender fluid trend does not impactfully create a cultural shift in gender expression. This is due to the fact that the trend fails to highlight femininity and major labels exploit the issues behind the trend.
This style, referred to as gender fluid, focuses on masculinity but fails to highlight femininity. Many brands, including Zara, H&M, and ASOS, have begun to support the trend creating their own gender fluid lines. However, a quick look at these collections shows that there is nothing diverse or creatively inspired about them. PinkNews featured an article examining several mainstream clothing lines. They found that Zara’s line features dull, baggy shirts and pants with most of the androgyny coming from the idea that female models are wearing items that are typically considered men’s wear. The options H&M and ASOS have to offer are not much better, again featuring oversized garments in neutral colours such as black, white, and grey. This aesthetic is not so ‘fluid’ but rather leans toward masculinity. Baggy and oversized silhouettes are considered masculine as well as neutral colours. The textiles used for these garments do not feature fabrics typically considered feminine either such as silk or lace. In only presenting male aesthetics it suggests that male representation is better than female representation which trivializes feminine identities. This further eradicates femininity as a form of self expression and in turn does not create equality or freedom as the cultural narrative around this trend suggests. The ‘fluidity’ in these lines also seems to depend on the fact that women are wearing men’s clothes. This is a masculinization of women in a way that is more than just challenging the typical female stereotype, but almost erases femininity completely and invites everyone to identify as masculine. If a line is not inclusive of all aesthetics on the gender spectrum it cannot truly be gender fluid.
The lack of representation of femininity is also apparent for men. Male models are shown in typically male silhouettes and inherent femininity is not incorporated into the look. The New York Times featured a piece in their fashion section examining Calvin Kline’s 2017 collection. They found Calvin Kline featured plaid, double-breasted suit jackets and black leather jackets for men and women but did not blatantly cross gender lines by putting men in dresses. Zara’s, H&M’s, and ASOS’s lines all also show male models in typically male clothing like hoodies and t-shirts. The way gender fluidity is being presented by mainstream brands is unbalanced as men are not being feminized the way women are being masculinized. Consequently, this does not challenge masculine/feminine representation as was the intention behind the trend. These lines embrace masculinity as it is and projects it across the line through silhouette, colour and fabric choices, which further embeds typical male stereotypes within society. If the way men look is not being disrupted, then perceptions on what masculinity is cannot be challenged either. The unfitted silhouettes and neutral colours may be intended to transcend gender presentation, but ultimately men are still wearing classic men’s pieces. The trend should focus on ‘fluidity’, meaning that any person can dress in a masculine or feminine way, but that is not the case. Men are not provided with much choice and are encouraged to continue to present within the current stereotype, suggesting that men should not represent feminine. It is challenging to alter mentalities on gender expression if only stereotypical male aesthetics are being promoted.
In addition to failing to represent femininity, the gender fluid trend also fails to create impactful change because labels exploit people’s gender expression to sell. Gender expression is something that people live in day-to-day life, but brands do not go further than their lines to support these causes and the communities they effect. A Vogue UK piece considered how major labels could be ‘jumping on the bandwagon’ with the trend as a marketing strategy. Civil Rights activist, Lee Airton, explains gender expression in her book as how someone publicly demonstrates their gender. It is often tied to their gender identity, referring to the gender that resonates with an individual. Gender expression is exercised daily and is an extremely personal activity because it is completely up to the individual. Fashion is the most obvious way to express gender as items such as lace, silk, and bows are considered feminine and associated with women’s wear. While items such as suits, loose-fitted garments and ties are considered masculine and associated with men’s wear. People may choose to present in a way that is contrary to this stereotype since a person’s gender identity may not align with the gender they were assigned at birth. People who freely express gender outside the norm risk being marginalized, which is often based in transphobia and homophobia. Major labels present their gender fluid lines as a way to include and celebrate all forms of expression when in reality these brands do not truly support the underlying issues. Major brands do not have an overly active voice in this movement. They release lines they call gender fluid, but do not use the true power of their platform to create deeper conversation surrounding gender. Brands could donate profits from gender fluid lines to organizations that support those who are affected by the trends underlying issues. Rather than provide genuine support brands are looking to make money fast. When a label’s agenda is ultimately money their support of the cause is superficial and does not work towards broadening mentalities on gender. Through the promotion of their lines, brands begin to saturate mainstream media with poor representation of gender fluidity and the discussion does not move in the direction it should to create change.
Rather than use gender fluid lines to push boundaries, labels use them as a marketing strategy. Millennials and Gen Z are the most vocal demographic in the conversation surrounding gender identity and are estimated to make up the largest part of the consumer market by 2020 as suggested by Forbes Magazine in 2017. Labels are looking to target this demographic with marketing that effectively resonates with the lifestyle of this cultural movement. The issue of binding gender roles is important to young adults and they are actively trying to illustrate the need to break away from stereotypical norms, as demonstrated by millennial icons Harry Styles and Billie Eilish. Labels attempt to relate to this point of view to get through to consumers rather than the literal function of the product. Through ad campaigns brands’ target demographic is shown as social justice warriors with an unrelenting desire for change in our current society. This atmosphere is hard to escape and could be seen as somewhat trendy. People buy as a function of personality and are more interested in what products represent rather than their literal function. Young adults who purchase garments belonging to gender fluid lines could feel as though this makes them part of the push for change, although in actuality it may not be the most impactful way to go about it. Mainstream brands do not focus on the core issues behind the gender fluid trend but use it superficially to generate profit.
The need to break male and female stereotypes is a need that extends far beyond the fashion industry. Currently, ideas of what a man or woman should be are outdated and inflexible. They form rigid boundaries within our culture that dictate how people should behave from dress, to names, to relationship roles. Fashion can be used as a tool to create more diversity and start conversations regarding gender stereotypes, but the lines currently seen in the market provide consumers with a lack of choice. People are being swayed to present in a particular way due to limited options available. The trend restricts gender expression as lines push all people looking the same. The conversation should focus on evaluating all genders as equal rather than attempting to irradiate gender and presenting it as the enemy. Though the gender fluid trend is a step in the right direction, much more needs to be done to ensure equal representation and the issues at the core of the trend aren’t exploited.
