Joe Hildebrand: Questions About Bonds’ New ‘Genderless’ Clothing Line
The bonds came out with a “genderless” range. Photo / Bonds
In the midst of a massive news week, in which the century’s libel case was sensationalized and the Victorian government resumed jailing its own citizens, Australian brand Bonds decided the time was right. to launch a “genderless” clothing line – the ultimate answer to a question no one has asked.
There is no doubt that the business has been inundated for years with trans and sexually fluid people, puzzled as to which half-price swimsuit they should pick from the supermarket shelves, or maybe it just got out of hand. felt raped by the toxic masculinity of Chesty Bond’s lantern jaw.
Strangely, none of my trans friends have ever told me about it, but to be honest at least two of them are pretty busy analyzing national security and doing cabaret shows – not at the same time should I add.
So what irresistible surge in demand have bonds responded to?
Apparently this: “We have an assortment of genderless clothing options across our range so our customers can wear it their way.
“We recognize that the future is ‘gender’ and want to allow our customers to express their gender and identity in the most comfortable way.”
This statement was accompanied by photos of male and female models seriously sporting the same sweaters, t-shirts, hoodies and sweatpants in the same “neutral” shades of gray, black, teal and dark green. Apparently, gender neutral people are unable to express themselves on the more vibrant edges of the color spectrum.
To the untrained eye, these items look exactly like every other pullover, t-shirt, hoodie, and sweatpant that people put on every day without much fanfare, but their magical property, according to the Ladbible website, is that these clothes “can be worn by anyone”.
This is in stark contrast to what happens when my wife tries to put on one of my t-shirts – it immediately sets itself on fire and a silent alarm alerts the nearest police station.
But of course I am talking jokingly. Indeed, as a strong supporter of free speech and the laws of physics, I have always understood that any garment can be worn by anyone as long as it is smaller than the garment. in which he tries to adapt.
It’s also odd that in other areas, Bonds strives to be remarkably precise when dictating which appendages can go into which pieces of material.
It offers a range of sports socks in which each of the pairs is branded left or right (no doubt to help the novice user) and the new “X-Temp Trunk” with “heat sensitive technology” designed for fight against “sweat balls”.
Disturbingly, this line of underwear is specifically aimed at men so they can “reconnect with the cool, confident guy” – unless that last statement is aimed at women, in which case it would make sense. quite different.
We can only hope that the company’s archaic assumption that only men have sweaty balls will soon be called into question.
It may also be of interest to Bonds to learn that there is already a word for items that can be used or worn by any person of any gender, and that is “unisex”. There are unisex bathrooms, unisex clothes, and unisex bikes – in fact, I already rode 700 km with these in the 1987 Great Victorian Bike Ride.
It wasn’t until later that I found out my mom lied to me and it was actually a girl’s bike, but you get what I mean. If only he had come in gray.
And so Bonds could have just taken out all of these clothes and labeled them “unisex” and casual wear buyers around the world would have been spared the existential angst of having to reconcile a piece of fabric with the gender they identify with.
But of course, then the company wouldn’t have had the chance to prove its aroused credentials, or get acres of free publicity like this column.
So why am I writing about this? Well, here’s the answer to another question that no one asked.
The last time I can remember iconic brand Aussie Bonds making headlines for all the wrong reasons was in 2009, when its parent company Pacific Brands laid off nearly 2,000 workers and sent their jobs to China. I called it back because I wrote it down.
Apparently, a company that is ditching Australian workers for cheap offshore labor can now curry favor with them simply by pulling out a shapeless gray windbreaker and calling it ‘genderless’.
If a company wants to cut jobs while cutting cotton, it is up to it to decide, but at least it should be ashamed enough not to pretend it is a bastion of progressive politics. And if modern, hip left-handers fall in love with such trinkets, they have once again proven their utter contempt for the working class.
And for any business or political party that wants the support of the Australian general public, there is only one simple rule to follow: if it ain’t awake, don’t fix it.