(Apologies to those expecting a discussion of BDSM - this post is about clothing =p).
It seems to me that the only good thing, fashion-wise, about being a biological male is being allowed to walk around (sometimes) without a shirt on. I like to wear things like bras and bikini tops on occasion, because it gives me a more feminine look, but since I don't actually have breasts, they're really not practical for my anatomy. They don't stay in place, they often don't even fit right, and it's just more clothes that I don't actually need to wear - and if you know anything about me, you should know that I like to wear as little as possible. I think the worst thing would be to be a girl with a flat chest. Not that I don't appreciate women with smaller chests (because I do - double D's are so overrated; I've always been more of an A student ;-p). But to not really have the need for upper support yet still be forced by law (in most cases) to wear a top... Yeah, I totally support topfreedom.
And bottomfreedom, too, but total freedom aside, what about bottom equality? It's true that women are more restricted from the waist up, but what often gets overlooked is the inequality between what men and women are socially permitted to expose below the waist. Not only are women's shorts shorter (and they have the option to wear free-flowing skirts), but if you compare underwear and especially swimwear - since it's expected to be worn in public - there is a huge stigma against the exposure of men's lower buttocks and upper thighs that is not at all present for women. Even though, like nipples, these parts of the human anatomy are not actually classified as sexual organs.
[description: a man in knee-length board shorts and a woman in a bikini are viewed from behind]
Though it may be true that this fashion asymmetry is an organic product of the anatomical differences between men and women (women's more fully developed breasts versus men's external genitalia), the fact remains that a woman may be comfortable going topless, while a man may comfortably wear a pair of briefs. We should strive to hold all human beings regardless of sex, gender, or anatomy to the same rules of public decorum. Though if we are to insist on discriminating based on anatomy, I daresay the argument for covering women's breasts is stronger than that for covering men's buttocks and thighs (which, unlike their chests, are effectively no different than women's). The reason the former is the larger issue is due to the demand informed by gendered stereotypes on men's and women's bodies.
Poignantly, in this era of gender experimentation and increasing tolerance of diversity, strict adherence to such gendered stereotypes disproportionately affects gender and sexual minorities. Women who wish to are welcome to continue wearing supportive tops, just as men who wish it may continue covering their thighs and buttocks. But those who wish to be held to the same standard that the other half of the population is held to ought to be permitted the freedom to do so. Anything less would be unjust. Not to mention transphobic.
In the interest, then, of highlighting this asymmetry, and promoting fashion equality, I propose a visibility protest in which men and women swap their swimwear, with women going topless in knee-length board shorts, and men wearing revealing bikinis. The following recommendations are optional, depending on whether you're willing to risk engaging in civil disobedience, but 1) the protest may be staged in an area where topfreedom has already been achieved to keep female protestors safer, and 2) men are advised to choose their swimwear carefully, as most women's bikini bottoms are not designed to hold cargo, and it would be helpful to demonstrate to the public (as I know from experience can be done) that men can wear bikini briefs without exposing themselves.
So, who's in?
