To be perfectly honest, I’m extra sensitive in a negative way towards the kink at pride discourse because I’m a trans woman. I would be legit interested in how many “no kink at pride” people are transfems, because I doubt there are that many. Being the centre target of transmisogyny gives one a different perspective on who is seen as fetishistic and sexual or not.
Being transfeminine is seen as a fetish in transphobic discourse. This comes from how ordinary misogyny sexualizes women, being a woman is seen as a sexual thing. In the application of this misogyny to transfeminine people as transmisogyny, the narrative becomes that transfeminine people actively choosing to be a woman or feminine must be a fetish.
I don’t know how it is for others, but in my experience this is a major negative if not outright traumatizing part of transfeminine experience in our society. Any hint of transfeminine sexuality becomes evidence of that the trans person in question is a fetishistic predator, and this is often internalized in the form of brain worms. It’s a specifically transmisogynistic form of slutshaming, except the madonna part of the madonna-whore dichotomy is often denied us, because we are seen as inherently fetishists. (Granted, there is sometimes a transmisogynistic equivalent of the madonna figure, in the form of “The Good Transsexual” who is often cis-passing and straight and demurely doesn’t insist on her rights. She is put in opposition to the usually lesbian/bi/gnc bad fetishistic trans woman, but that’s a whole other essay in itself.)
Transphobes don’t want trans people to exist in public places and this “being transfeminine is actually a fetish” idea is often used to justify that. It’s specifically common in the terf variety of transphobia. Their argument is that “being a trans woman is a fetish, thus trans women being in public spaces wearing feminine clothes is actually a sexual act, one that other people doesn’t consent to”
Now the obvious counter-argument is that being trans is not a fetish. We basically know that the reasons for people being trans are not sexual due to the scientific research. And in general people don’t go on hormones and transition just for some sexual thrill considering it often makes you a pariah due to transphobia. I could go on, but the arguments for considering being transgender a thing we should respect are well-established at this point. Really no need to reiterate them here, and if you want to argue them the fact is that I have vanishingly small desire to argue my right to exist with anyone.
Now all that is attacking the explicitly transmisogynistic part of this argument. There is a second premise, which is not explicitly transphobic but worthy of thinking critically about.
It is that if someone wears clothes in a public place that they find sexy or even clothes that other people might deem to be uncomfortably sexual, you have forced someone to participate in a sexual act without their consent.
And this argument is at the bottom of most “kink at pride” discourse. It’s actually mostly a “kinkwear at pride” discourse. Many of those who are very “no kink at pride” would be aghast at me associating them with terfs, and argue it’s just guilt by association. It would be, except the argument rests on dubious grounds.
I don’t think the borders between what is sexual/a fetish or non-sexual can’t be clearly drawn, because it’s a nuanced question.
Furries for example, a relevant group in a pride at kink discussion since like 80% of them are not straight. There are undeniably sexual elements to being a furry for most of them, but it’s more than that, it’s a hobby, a community and an identity. I’ve seen fursuits in public criticized for being “kink in public” but the vast majority of them aren’t sexual in the least (because fursuits are objectively terrible for sex for various reasons). And even if the wearer has drawn erotic art with his fursona, their fursona is still often a non-sexual form of expression.
So a person can wear catears to simultaneously look cute in the sense of sexy and cute in the sense of adorable and express an affinity with cats, it can be all three at once.
We don’t even have to go to unusual clothes to make that point. Dressing well to look good and dressing up to look sexy is often the same thing.
And when we are talking about fetish wear, the thing is that almost everything is someone’s fetish, including things others see as normal and non-sexual, that’s kind of part of the definition of the fetish. Kink can also be non-sexual, contrary to popular beliefs and people who are ace participate in it.
The flow of clothes goes in the other direction too. Fetish-wear also frequently becomes everyday fashion, collars and chains and leather boots have become common and unremarkable.
So I don’t think a hard line can be drawn between clothes that are worn for pure non-sexual reasons and clothes that are worn for filthy sexual reasons. It can be both, or literally on someone’s reasons for wearing it. It’s almost literally in the eye of the beholder. There is no firm rule that can be set that won’t be so vague as to be open for massive abuse. The eye of the beholder is fundamentally arbitrary.
I fundamentally don’t trust who is probably going to be the beholder. Our patriarchal society favours the cis gaze and the male gaze. That’s why women are so often scrutinized for wearing “sexy” clothes and it’s taken as an invitation for assault. It’s why trans women are seen as depraved fetishists just for existing in a public space. This is no theoretical abstraction for me, because it’s something cis people won’t let me forget; they will remind me who is subject and object in this society by staring with disgust at me in public.
That is why rhetoric about “removing depraved fetishists” from public spaces, especially at Pride of all places frighten me. It’s because I’m so often seen as one by cis society, and I have no guarantees that the mainstreamed corporate prides the “no kink at pride” people desire will not eventually see me as such. There is barely any difference between the “no kink at pride” and the “ban children seeing drag” rhetoric as it is. It’s the same “ban public sexual displays” and “protect the innocent children from depraved queers” arguments being levied by both of them.
