"No, this is trying to make an argument that you can't let what other people are wearing be an excuse for how you treat them"

" There's a HUGE difference between thinking something and being seemingly unable to control your reaction to your hormones."

Treating a person differently has little to do with hormones.

Massive amounts of what we do is based around social constructs and making a statement. People will judge and treat you differently no matter what you are wearing. Hormones regardless.

"The problem is that there is a deeply-ingrained culture of acceptance in cis-male and socially conservative groups where, because feminine figures are seen as "inferior" somehow"

I'm sorry, what?

Where is this coming from? Where do we treat the female form as inferior and what does that have to do with wearing decent clothing in public?

" People who are attractive must not be intelligent, and must be relying on their good looks to get ahead in life (the opposite also being true of looking down on "overly intelligent" people). As a result we must be superior than them and look down on them, seeing them as deserving of whatever misfortune they come upon."

What does this have to do with the article?

Judging someone based on the clothes they wear, or saying people should be wearing decent/a certain set of clothing has nothing to do with this.

"Basically we are Crabs in a Bucket, pulling down anyone who attempts to rise above "Normal" in any way."

My entire point. It has nothing to do with sex. (well, with your own gender/preferential treatment). This article makes it seem like the same judgement does not apply to men, and says "What if it did" when, in reality, it does already. You just see it in different forms, and you see fewer men going against what is expected of them.