Implicating kilt → skirt
Link to implication

Reason:

A kilt is a type of skirt.

EDIT: The tag implication kilt -> skirt (forum #220411) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

I dunno... they're similar, but I'm pretty sure that the term "skirt" is just as specific as "kilt" and not meant to be an overarching one.

Skirt is a group of garments. Kilts fit within that group.

Well as long as it doesn't get aliased I don't mind.

Related life pro tip: don't tell a Scot that you like his skirt.

-1: a Kilt is a specific Scottish garment worn by men; a skirt is a generic garment worn by women, with specifics given when not in western culture. Implying a male's garment to a (generally) female's garment can damage crossdressing as a result.

This is a joke right? -1

Thar be no dingos in Scotland; 'ee no be knowin' what 'ee be speakin' of!

-1

Siral_Exan said:
-1: a Kilt is a specific Scottish garment worn by men; a skirt is a generic garment worn by women, with specifics given when not in western culture. Implying a male's garment to a (generally) female's garment can damage crossdressing as a result.

If a kilt is a men's only outfit, shouldn't all images of females wearing one be considered crossdressing? Or does "wearing clothing associated with the opposite gender" only count when a male is doing it?

post #124481 post #200955

Searching kilt crossdressing only returns images of males wearing it.

post #714653 post #508870

Also, there's this.

BlueDingo said:
If a kilt is a men's only outfit, shouldn't all images of females wearing one be considered crossdressing? Or does "wearing clothing associated with the opposite gender" only count when a male is doing it?

post #124481 post #200955

Searching kilt crossdressing only returns images of males wearing it.

post #714653 post #508870

Also, there's this.

Well, I say again: a kilt is a male's garnment. It's design is identical, but not indistinguishable, to a dress (not just skirts...), but it is known to be a non-unisex male clothing. A skirt or dress is usually a non-unisex female clothing, and as stated, it is specific when it is for male.

But this also occurs in real life: most clothes are made for both men and women with differences in each; the set and differences of women's clothing is greater than in men's clothing; most people draw without paying attention to those details. i put emphasis on the second, men don't have breasts and slim figures, so people will notice clothing made for breasts and slim figures...

That still doesn't explain why in this case, the females wearing this male's garment are not considered crossdressing while the males wearing this male's garment are.

In fact, female crossdressers in general are almost never acknowledged.

BlueDingo said:
That still doesn't explain why in this case, the females wearing this male's garment are not considered crossdressing while the males wearing this male's garment are.

In fact, female crossdressers in general are almost never acknowledged.

That's easy. The tags are incorrect.

BlueDingo said:
In fact, female crossdressers in general are almost never acknowledged.

That would be because females wearing pants isn't considered crossdressing in this century.

Beanjam said:
That would be because females wearing pants isn't considered crossdressing in this century.

Or females wearing formal menswear.

post #696515

BlueDingo said:
Or females wearing formal menswear.

post #696515

Have you never seen a woman in a suit? Seriously, where are you from?

Most articles of clothing are no longer just male or female, but there are more female clothing then male when including if both can wear it. It is how they are made now, and since men are more nondescript there is fewer male-only clothing, which more goes into tradition.

Siral_Exan said:
Have you never seen a woman in a suit? Seriously, where are you from?

Most articles of clothing are no longer just male or female, but there are more female clothing then male when including if both can wear it. It is how they are made now, and since men are more nondescript there is fewer male-only clothing, which more goes into tradition.

I've seen as many women in business suits as I've seen men in dresses. I have also seen more men being called a crossdresser for wearing skinny jeans than women being called a crossdresser for wearing a business suit, even though skinny jeans are a unisex garment and a business suit is not.

I'm noticing some doublethink. A kilt can't be called a skirt because kilts are menswear and skirts are not even though it and other similar garments fall into the category of "men's skirts", yet a woman wearing a tuxedo is not a crossdresser despite a tuxedo being well known formal menswear.

So scottish men's attire is men's only but english men's attire is not?

BlueDingo said:
I've seen as many women in business suits as I've seen men in dresses. I have also seen more men being called a crossdresser for wearing skinny jeans than women being called a crossdresser for wearing a business suit, even though skinny jeans are a unisex garment and a business suit is not.

I'm noticing some doublethink. A kilt can't be called a skirt because kilts are menswear and skirts are not even though it and other similar garments fall into the category of "men's skirts", yet a woman wearing a tuxedo is not a crossdresser despite a tuxedo being well known formal menswear.

So scottish men's attire is men's only but english men's attire is not?

Your crucial mistake: you can make a female's tuxedo, and it is a common thing to do. But link me an image of a kilt made to be for a female...

In the year 20**, a very large amount of clothing has been designed to be male or female, and they are tailored for that gender specifically. Only a small amount aren't, and the majority are female only. Elastics like gym shorts or pajama bottoms are unisex, where it doesn't matter who wears it, it will fit to their body type no matter what.

BlueDingo said:
I've seen as many women in business suits as I've seen men in dresses. I have also seen more men being called a crossdresser for wearing skinny jeans than women being called a crossdresser for wearing a business suit, even though skinny jeans are a unisex garment and a business suit is not.

I'm noticing some doublethink.

Ah, that's why you brought it up. Nope, no doublethink here, your lack of experience seeing women in suits is just very atypical, as well as very troubling.

Beanjam said:
Ah, that's why you brought it up. Nope, no doublethink here, your lack of experience seeing women in suits is just very atypical, as well as very troubling.

Well, I did ask "Where are you from?", but now I'm anticipating a long discussion about clothing and crossdressing...

Did you know that male suspenders aren't designed to be worn by women? Their smaller shoulders make it easier to slip, and if worn on the inner chest... well, your breasts are there. They do make an alternate women suspenders, though, that look more open near the chest.

BlueDingo said:
I've seen as many women in business suits as I've seen men in dresses.

Wait, seriously?
I've seen about thousand times as many women in business suits as I've seen men in dresses.

Must be a cultural thing. _{Having worked at the city hall is probably an another reason. That, and the climate is too cold to wear dresses.}

Beanjam said:
your lack of experience seeing women in suits is just very atypical, as well as very troubling.

No, I think it is very typical considering most women wear pantsuits. There are subtle differences between a pantsuit and a suit, but the most obvious one I can spot is that women usually don't wear ties...ties seem to be "for men".

So if a chick is in a full suit and tie...then yeah I'd call that crossdressing for a women. If you saw a woman in a man's suit walking around in public you'd be at least momentarily shocked.

Dyrone said:
No, I think it is very typical considering most women wear pantsuits. There are subtle differences between a pantsuit and a suit, but the most obvious one I can spot is that women usually don't wear ties...ties seem to be "for men".

So if a chick is in a full suit and tie...then yeah I'd call that crossdressing for a women. If you saw a woman in a man's suit walking around in public you'd be at least momentarily shocked.

Can you find and cite the difference? I literally see a suit tailored for a women, and the Wikipedia article says that it is a jacket and matching pants made for a woman, and that is the simple (read: barebones, since you can wear more) definition of a suit.

"Full suit and tie" is off too: the tie is not just worn by men, it is worn in uniform that doesn't care who wears it. My immediate recollection is when you own a restaurant, bar, etc., or if you work in the field of law, you are (for the prior) supposed to wear a suit and tie to denote your status (unless you're there for other than business) for if you wear a dress you may not be distinguishable, or because it is your required uniform for the latter. Like I said, a lot of clothing are made to fit both, and it is socially acceptable to wear the iffys unless out of place (you don't wear a suit and tie just to eat McDonalds...)

A manskirt is a good thing to note: what is the difference, or is there a difference?

Siral_Exan said:
Can you find and cite the difference? I literally see a suit tailored for a women, and the Wikipedia article says that it is a jacket and matching pants made for a woman, and that is the simple (read: barebones, since you can wear more) definition of a suit.

"Full suit and tie" is off too: the tie is not just worn by men, it is worn in uniform that doesn't care who wears it. My immediate recollection is when you own a restaurant, bar, etc., or if you work in the field of law, you are (for the prior) supposed to wear a suit and tie to denote your status (unless you're there for other than business) for if you wear a dress you may not be distinguishable, or because it is your required uniform for the latter. Like I said, a lot of clothing are made to fit both, and it is socially acceptable to wear the iffys unless out of place (you don't wear a suit and tie just to eat McDonalds...)

A manskirt is a good thing to note: what is the difference, or is there a difference?

As far as I know, women seldom wear ties. Most uniforms wherein both sexes wear suits do not have ties in the female variation as far as I know.

This is a topic for another thread, though.

Fenrick said:
As far as I know, women seldom wear ties. Most uniforms wherein both sexes wear suits do not have ties in the female variation as far as I know.

This is a topic for another thread, though.

I did link the tie wiki in that, though, and it has a specific section for women wearing ties... as I suspected: it is required in restaurants, or in the police force (which is where I got law, CSI & SVU both feature female prosecutors).

Could you all please read the very first sentence on this article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilt

I havnt the slightest idea why you all are bringing up gender as an excuse when skirt as a name for a group of types of clothing has nothing at all to do with ether one gender.

Also adding that kilts themselves are no longer a male only clothing, kilts are also made for women now and days

PS: Adding that skirt type clothing is also common among traditional mens clothing in many east asain contries.

Ruku said:
Could you all please read the very first sentence on this article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilt

I havnt the slightest idea why you all are bringing up gender as an excuse when skirt as a name for a group of types of clothing has nothing at all to do with ether one gender.

Also adding that kilts themselves are no longer a male only clothing, kilts are also made for women now and days

PS: Adding that skirt type clothing is also common among traditional mens clothing in many east asain contries.

Language wise, Skirt is just the term for something worn around the waist that goes down in a circle to cover up at least the upper legs, but tagging-wise, we use it to tag when there's the female's form of it, and the kilt for the male's form of it.

Furrin_Gok said:
Language wise, Skirt is just the term for something worn around the waist that goes down in a circle to cover up at least the upper legs,

Oh, so I was right this whole time.

Furrin_Gok said:
, but tagging-wise, we use it to tag when there's the female's form of it, and the kilt for the male's form of it.

Read the wiki again. It doesn't mention females at all.

skirt wiki page:
A skirt is a tube- or cone-shaped garment that hangs from the waist and covers all or part of the legs.

BlueDingo said:
Oh, so I was right this whole time.

Read the wiki again. It doesn't mention females at all.

Just because it's written one way doesn't mean it's not used another.

Ruku said:
Could you all please read the very first sentence on this article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilt

I havnt the slightest idea why you all are bringing up gender as an excuse when skirt as a name for a group of types of clothing has nothing at all to do with ether one gender.

Also adding that kilts themselves are no longer a male only clothing, kilts are also made for women now and days

PS: Adding that skirt type clothing is also common among traditional mens clothing in many east asain contries.

Ruku, I refer to you my very first post on this and quickly say that this was never about the word, this was about the usage the words imply. Since it is easy to misconstrue: if it was just the word implicating to skirt, I would neither be for nor against, I'd just make a joke; the tagging, and what it implies, from skirt is more important than making correct word implications.

Siral_Exan said:
Ruku, I refer to you my very first post on this and quickly say that this was never about the word, this was about the usage the words imply. Since it is easy to misconstrue: if it was just the word implicating to skirt, I would neither be for nor against, I'd just make a joke; the tagging, and what it implies, from skirt is more important than making correct word implications.

Considering we also tag non-"western" types of clothing as well we cant just limit to american cultural interpretation of the usage.

Siral_Exan said:
"Full suit and tie" is off too: the tie is not just worn by men, it is worn in uniform that doesn't care who wears it. My immediate recollection is when you own a restaurant, bar, etc., or if you work in the field of law, you are (for the prior) supposed to wear a suit and tie to denote your status (unless you're there for other than business) for if you wear a dress you may not be distinguishable, or because it is your required uniform for the latter.

You are hyper-focusing on the tie here, and letting the suit bit fall away. Policewomen and waitresses don't wear a suit and tie. This is what a waitresses wears: example ... not a suit...and they normally wears skirts as well.

This is a poliewoman in a somewhat typical attire: example. Not a suit.

BONUS POINTS...a policewoman in formalwear: example. Wearing a skirt bottom...not a full suit.

This is Kim from Better Call Saul (the character is a lawyer): exmaple. No tie...obviously lawyers are not REQUIRED to wear ties.

Nowhere in all of this have I seen a woman in a FULL suit and tie. Maybe in the military? Point is it's a niche case, and I'd still argue my previous point that it could be considered crossdressing in most contexts, and at the very least it's out of the ordinary to see a woman in a full suit and tie.

Siral_Exan said:
(you don't wear a suit and tie just to eat McDonalds...)

Except I've seen plenty of men in suit and tie at McDonalds...guys just getting off work or out of church and having a quick bite. Never seen a woman in a full suit and tie doing the same. That would be strange to me.

Woah, wait, is this argument even pointed in the right direction? I think 'skirt' and 'kilt' have very different implications. The skirt is typically seen as a female garment not specific to any particular culture, while a kilt is typically a TOTALLY different garment (its typically wrapped around the waist like a towel after showering isn't it?) due to its cultural implication. To me, at least, the word 'skirt' conjurers a feminine image while the word 'kilt' conjurers a culturally Scottish image. I think the question shouldn't be if a kilt can be classified as a type of skirt, but rather if the typical browser would be confused or not if pictures of characters in kilts are returned when the tag skirt is entered.

The tag implication kilt -> skirt (forum #220411) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.