Tokenism in Fashion
Why the Industry’s Take on Gender Fluidity is Problematic
W omen have worn pants since Marlene Dietrich broke grounds in the 1930s, yet men donning dresses still ruffle feathers today.
To be gender fluid means to be someone whose gender identity is not fixed. As the bulk of merchandise within the fashion and apparel industry is gendered, it’s difficult for those who don’t conform to traditional gender stereotypes to shop, especially individuals that are transgender and gender non-conforming. With conversations about gender and its spectrum rapidly rising, the industry is responding to this. The majority of results, however, have been problematic thus far.
To tokenize is to the make only a minimum effort, without sincerity, to be inclusive to minorities.
The bulk of mainstream labels, like Zara, are tokenizing gender fluidity for their own capitalistic gains by releasing masculine styled collections that are not inclusive to everyone along the spectrum. And while some high fashion brands, like Thom Browne, are embracing the feminine aspects of fluidity, they are using this movement to gain attention and increase their profits without supporting the marginalized communities that inspire their designs. With such tokenism and exploitation surrounding mega-brands, it is going to be a long time before the industry is ready to make fashion gender fluid.
In theory, ungendered clothing should mix both masculine and feminine styles. Brands such as Eckhaus Latta and Charles Jeffery Loverboy market themselves to all segments of the gender spectrum through their radical androgynous designs.
Conversely, many mainstream labels are attempting to hop in on the gender fluid bandwagon by releasing collections dubbed as ‘gender-neutral’ that only highlight traditionally masculine styles of clothing. In doing so, they are tokenizing gender fluidity for their own financial gains.
For example, in 2016 Zara released a controversial collection called Ungendered which consisted of baggy athleisure wear and neutral-palette basics that can already be found in most contemporary menswear sections. As the journalist Noelle Sciacca points out:
The industry seems focused on masculine style for all genders, erasing femme identities and perpetuating a standard that is still…. only acceptable for a limited scope of identities.
It is already ingrained in society that women can wear menswear, whereas it remains controversial when male-presenting individuals wear feminine garments. Zara’s ungendered collection reinforces this damaging concept that feminine styles are only meant for women.
What makes matters worse is that Zara is a massive, mega-retailer with millions of followers, many of whom are young and impressionable. When their clientele, especially those vulnerable about their gender identity, see this collection, it presents them with a false perspective of what genderless clothing represents.
Genderless clothing shouldn’t be just “baggy”- in definition, that’s telling their customers to hide their bodies.
In embodying ungendered clothing to mainstream culture, Zara should have included diverse perspectives within the development process to have ensured their voices and opinions were heard. They could have also made genuinely progressive changes to their stores by creating neutral fitting rooms and a broader range of sizes. Instead, however, Zara has falsely marketed their collection to ride on the coattails of the growing gender movement to appear as “woke”— conscious of important issues and challenging them — to their market and financially benefit from it.
Large companies noticing that gender is a hot topic isn’t specific to Zara. In addition to Zara, Finland’s biggest department store, Stockmann, generated buzz this year for having an alleged entire floor dedicated to gender-neutral clothing. In her Vice publication, writer Nicoline Larsen was disappointed to discover that the store had tokenized this idea by producing a small and boring menswear-looking collection.
Similar to Zara, Stockmann’s genderless collection features pieces that would normally be featured in a menswear section. Larsen describes the collection as having an abundance of loose-fitting styles and dull colour palettes of creams, greys and browns.
Representing gender-neutral clothing like this is fundamentally wrong, as it further perpetuates stereotypes that colourful and tighter fitting items only belong in womenswear sections.
Stockmann chose to use the hot topic of gender to relay to their consumers that basic styles are the only ones that all genders can wear simultaneously. They have trivialized the importance of real issues concerning genderless fashion in order to appear as woke to their market.
Mainstream companies are sending problematic ideas about genderless apparel through their predominately masculine collections. Brands like Zara and Stockmann’s efforts to challenge traditional gender norms are digestible to many but damaging to the gender fluid, non-conforming, and trans communities.
Big labels are beginning to market themselves as progressive when tackling ideas of gender. Their efforts, however, are strongly misguided as they are coercing radical ideas about gender to create buzz and increase profit for themselves without discussing real life issues that matter.
For example, designers like Thom Browne are producing avant-garde runway shows that seem to celebrate gender fluidity. Runway shows like this subvert traditional gender stereotypes to be provocative and exciting but do not speak about the marginalization gender non-conforming people face in reality. As British Vogue journalist Wren Sanders points out, high-fashion designers like Thom Browne are appealing to a broader consumer-base and financially benefiting from seeming progressive.
Even if Thom Browne’s marketing is helping challenge the general population’s ideas about fluid clothing, their expensive brand is inaccessible to those who aren’t wealthy.
It is misleading for Browne to market his brand as gender-bending on the runway as his store’s collections are segregated by gender. In addition, the flashiest, most feminine pieces from the menswear runways are neglected by buyers and hard for consumers to actually purchase.
The runway should be a place for experimentation, however the realities of those who live as gender fluid makes tackling this issue especially risky for exploitation.
Outside of the runways, gender-fluid, gender non-conforming and trans-women continuously receive backlash on the streets for wearing feminine attire.
Designers like Thom Browne should get consultation from this community and speak out about the real-life dangers of self-expression to try and end stigmas. If brands like Thom Browne want to push gender fluid styles for more than just capitalistic benefits, they should be supporting the marginalized communities that influence their designs.
Meanwhile, in the beauty segment of the industry, there is not much of a difference when it comes to this kind of exploitation.
In August 2018, Chanel launched a line of makeup marketed for men, called “Boy de Chanel.” Products included items already available in Chanel’s main women’s line. They separated their lip balms by gender, however, as The Daily Beast reporter Alaina Demopoulos discovered.
Although it is rather ground-breaking for a conservative brand like Chanel to introduce styles of makeup to men, it is a marketing ploy for the company to cash in on society’s changing ideas about gender.
Makeup is already an item that, although not normally marketed as, is unisex.
Unlike apparel, makeup’s main differentiation is based on skin types rather than body types. Many items within this new men’s-targeted collection are already existing products being rearranged to target men through packaging appeal.
If Chanel was truly playing on the gender movement to progressively advance their brand, they could have marketed their existing collections to appeal to everyone along the gender spectrum. By segregating their lip balms by gender, they are showing that scents and packaging cannot be genderless, which contrasts ideas that their brand representatives have mentioned, such as:
“beauty is not a matter of gender, it’s a matter of style”
Chanel should instead be using their dominant platform to engage in discourse regarding the societal effects of masculine presenting people wearing traditionally “feminine” makeup. This would bring a greater understanding of gender deconstruction to a public audience. Similar to Thom Browne, The Boy de Chanel collection further proves that mainstream companies are playing on gender and embracing femininity in male-targeted items to appear as woke to the consumer market and generate profit.
While it’s important for big labels to join in on the growing conversation about gender expression, the majority of them end up corruptly exploiting marginalized groups for their own publicity and financial gain. In order for real change to happen within the industry, brands need to hear the voices of the gender-fluid, non-conforming, and trans communities they are consistently tokenizing. Also, hiring a marketing team made up of these people is a progressive way to reimagine a brand.
Mainstream brands within the fashion industry have proven through their tokenized collections and exploitative marketing efforts that they are not yet ready to subvert traditional gender stereotypes and embrace gender fluidity.
In order for real change to happen, the industry must employ and listen to those marginalized by their gender identities.
Since the majority of companies have only dollar signs in their eyes, it is going to take more progressive and affirmative action for fashion to truly become gender fluid.
