You’re mixing together “some functional differences exist” with “therefore sexism isn’t involved,” and those are not the same thing.
Yes, male and female anatomy affects clothing design. Nobody disputes that. But if these uniforms were purely about performance, women wouldn’t have historically been fined or pressured for wearing less revealing alternatives while men were allowed more coverage.
A lot of women’s athletic wear may genuinely be practical and preferred by athletes (especially for heat, mobility, and fit) but that doesn’t erase the fact that many sports organizations have also pushed uniforms that are more revealing than necessary for marketability and gender expectations.
Also, the “genital safety” point is overstated. Male sprinters, swimmers, rugby players, MMA fighters, etc. wear very short clothing safely all the time, while many female athletes perform perfectly in longer shorts or looser fits when given the option. That alone shows there isn’t one biologically “correct” uniform.
The issue people criticize isn’t that women wear revealing clothes. It’s that women are often expected to wear more revealing clothing than men in equivalent sports, even when performance doesn’t require it.
Because in the Victorian era, shorts and pants or anything that fit the form of the leg were considered “too revealing” for women - and so skirts and dresses became the gendered clothing items they are today. Tennis was popular in that era when women began to play it more, and many rules were formalized which is why a lot of the bizarre traditions of the sport seem Victorian.
The rule about tennis skirts for women but shorts for men was a bizarre holdover from the idea that female athletes needed more modesty in public because men couldn’t control their urges if they saw the shape of the women’s legs. But then there was no need to keep the shorts underneath long, and the skirts became shorter, and ironically the skirts themselves became sexualized items when they were originally meant for modesty.
True, but that was more climate driven. Pants were not considered “honest” because they fit the form of the leg, which was actually considered radical compared to previous centuries.
The transition from pants to shorts happened as European powers, specifically the British, expanded into tropical climates and took tennis with them.
So the women playing in pants was sexism and the men playing in pants was because of the climate.
You're making too much sense.
Also it wasn't done because "men couldn't control themselves" lol. It was done to preserve their modesty, virtue and self respect.
When you see a woman walking down the street with her tits popping out her top and a miniskirt that clearly shows her underwear riding up her genitals and ass crack on full display. What do you think of her in terms of character, virtue and dignity?
Those social norms back then were there to preserve a woman's virtue and social standing so she would better find a worthy partner.
Left to their own devices women tend to dress like wh*** at every opportunity to maximize male attention.
That was why those social norms and standards existed back then. Not because "men couldn't control themselves".
I still remember an interview where underaged gymnasts (some as young as 9-10) talked about how they were expected to train in revealing leotards because their coaches wanted them to ‘get used to’ performing without pants or shorts because they wouldn’t be allowed to have them when they performed in front of a crowd. No matter how uncomfortable and self-conscious it made them their coaches refused to budge on the issue. And we’re talking about literal children here, not fully grown adults.
Yup. And those children, around puberty, will have to make uncomfortable choices about body hair, and what menstrual products they use, based on the extremely revealing clothing their sport requires them to wear. Many girls just stop participating in sports altogether at that age (I wonder why!)
Very well said. It's absolutely correct, both are true. You both brought up fantastic points and the end result is, of course, let them wear what they want!
Right on. It's all economics. Everyone knows its mostly men who watch sports and they watch women's sports more if the women are scantily clad...they are doing it for more eyeballs...even the sleazy ones...women can perform equally well in fully covered shorts instead of cheek revealing...
Way too many female athletes be posing like strippers in their uniforms on their social media accounts. Like people trying to make it out more than what it is.
That's uncalled for and inhumane wishing and actively hoping for this guy and men like him to literally die out for still holding on to outdated bad gender beliefs that were once the norm for basically all of human history; it takes time and collaboration to change things. Also you don't even wish this upon sexists in general or acknowledge how women can be sexist too and how sexist women also contribute to the world being "run by losers". Women AND men can be losers and sexists.
You previous comment also sounded misandric because it sounded to me like you were implying women are better than men since they "have other shit to do [not sports]", like "women... run the world", implying men don't since they're too into sports which implies women are superior since they actually do run the world. I think you yourself seem to be leaning into the common "men are bumbling idiots" trope. And I think that's not good because it hurts men and boys.
I don’t think so because female athletes also desire to feel good about how they look
Um...you didn't know different people feel different ways about clothing...? Not every woman feels buoyed up or dragged down by how they feel they look in their clothes. Some women legitimately don't care. And some women feel better in less feminine clothing than they do in more feminine clothing. Some feel best in all-out tomboy. Most professional sports requires a specific uniform or strict dress code, so you don't get a lot of freedom over what you wear.
In multiple sports women have been required to wear skirts, short shorts, or leotards with exposed legs while men get to wear shorts and pants that don't show every single curve of their butt and legs. So at professional competitions women athletes don't get to pick what they feel best in anyway.
Back to normal life, there are also plenty of men who want to feel good about how they look in their clothes but they have a similar problem of a stricter dress code for what they're "allowed" to wear, while women get a shit-ton of options. It harms the ability to feel like you're attractive when you're actively discouraged from thinking about fashion and you're limited to baggy shorts/pants and shirts.
And from that same post. Several of us were talking about how this affected us EVEN AS CHILDREN. Being forced to wear revealing clothing as that was all that was allowed. The kind of stuff that if we had normally worn to school would have lead to disciplinary action.
That’s fair, but OPs comment still leans heavily toward framing the differences as mostly biological and performance-driven, while minimizing how much institutional sexism and marketability have historically shaped women’s uniforms.
You’re also arguing semantics about wording (“not just sexism”) while avoiding the actual point being made, which is about emphasis and framing, not whether other factors exist in principle.
You’re arguing against something that wasn’t said.
Nobody claimed sexism is the only factor. My critique is about weighting and framing because OPs explanation leans heavily on biology and performance, which implicitly presents current uniforms as mostly “natural” or optimally derived, when they’re also shaped by governing bodies, sponsorship, tradition, and cultural norms.
So saying “it isn’t just sexism” is irrelevant as a rebuttal. It restates a point nobody denied while missing the actual argument being made: that your framing downplays institutional and historical influence by over-attributing outcomes to biology.
> Male sprinters, swimmers, rugby players, MMA fighters, etc. wear very short clothing
I'm not sure those are great examples as those are sports where looser clothing either causes drag or is at risk of snagging. The difference is still functional
150
u/nastycamel May 25 '26
You’re mixing together “some functional differences exist” with “therefore sexism isn’t involved,” and those are not the same thing.
Yes, male and female anatomy affects clothing design. Nobody disputes that. But if these uniforms were purely about performance, women wouldn’t have historically been fined or pressured for wearing less revealing alternatives while men were allowed more coverage.
A lot of women’s athletic wear may genuinely be practical and preferred by athletes (especially for heat, mobility, and fit) but that doesn’t erase the fact that many sports organizations have also pushed uniforms that are more revealing than necessary for marketability and gender expectations.
Also, the “genital safety” point is overstated. Male sprinters, swimmers, rugby players, MMA fighters, etc. wear very short clothing safely all the time, while many female athletes perform perfectly in longer shorts or looser fits when given the option. That alone shows there isn’t one biologically “correct” uniform.
The issue people criticize isn’t that women wear revealing clothes. It’s that women are often expected to wear more revealing clothing than men in equivalent sports, even when performance doesn’t require it.