Here's the quote in context:

>the dress code for the daytime sessions is business casual. For the Awards Dinner on Tuesday evening, we're trying to step it up a bit and ask that you dress cocktail casual (Men: blazer/sport coat, stacks, suit, Women: short but somewhat formal dress and heels)

(emphasis in original)

Point being, the original quote is asking both men and women to dress up, but the article implies, with its clickbait headline, that it’s only asking women how to dress.

And, yes, I'm still very frustrated at how, in the mid-2010s, the outrage press strongly implied that the scientific consensus states that Alcoholics Anonymous has a 5% success rate. Actually, that was just the opinion of one medical doctor and that 5% figure does not come from a peer reviewed study; the mainstream consensus is that Alcoholics Anonymous works great for the 25% or so of alcoholics who actually go to meetings regularly.

What if a 'women' has a different internal gender (no offense if I don't know the lingo, very supportive of LGTBQ), and would be more comfortable dressed in a pant suit or even a Tuxedo? Or some other stylish more in-between thing that still looks nice and could be considered 'dressed to the 9s'.

I can see where this could be offensive as some women don't like short dresses, not everyone is comfortable showing off their legs either for one reason or another...

It should've just said Dress like you're going to the Oscar's or something -without giving direction as to what that means.

It literally is? They are asking the women to wear short dresses and heels. Because the company is trying to step it up for an awards ceremony.

What part is editorialized?

The part where both sexes are asked to "step it up" to the same level of "dressing up", which is usually considered appropriate and expected in this kind of events anyway. This dress code description is literally what most people would imagine when told "award ceremony attire". But the headline read as if women were singled out and unnecessary sexualized.

They aren't asked to dress "to the same level", this is exactly the concern people have.

One could argue they are clumsily trying to ask for the same level of dress. At least in context, which is the problem with the quote. They describe it in a salacious way which leaves no room for argument.

The source literally tells women to wear short dresses? How is that aggressive editorializing?

Because it implies that only women were given a suggested dress code when in reality both sexes were given a suggestion. Outrage culture is out of control. People are too damn sensitive

>Because it implies that only women were given a suggested dress code when in reality both sexes were given a suggestion.

You know perfectly well that is not what is being implied, nor is it what people take issue with.

I don't see any difference between asking a man to wear a suit and asking a woman to wear a skirt.

What if that woman has a scar on her leg and is self-conscious?

Why isn't a dinner gown acceptable?

Why specifically is showing off legs and sexualizing the woman a requirement?

What if they are trans f->m or non-binary and they would rather where a pant suit, or a tuxedo?

Gowns can be just as business professional, so can pant suits.

It was just a recommendation. Those things would be fine too in any business setting

"short" as in "it can be short of you want, but make it formal" .

Longer if always ok

Username checks out.

The "step it up" is true and low-class even in context, but was directed at both sexes. Of course, being disrespectful to twice as many people would be worse, not better.

The rest is also true, except the author apparently didn't know that the hanging part of a dress and a skirt aren't synonymous (I don't think so anyway). But that has no relevance to what makes it deserving of "rage", as you say, so what are you actually referring to?

Would you mind explaining how "step it up", which I read as "stepping up the dress code" is low-class? For me there is a natural progression from sports wear, to casual, to business casual, to business, to cocktail casual, to cocktail, to black / white tie.

And since we all have that one friend or colleague that's always two levels below the stipulated dress code, I also understand the urge to explain it in male / female terms. It's just more specific. If I extend my sympathy to the non-binaries, I could understand that the dividors "Men:" and "Women:" could have been dropped in the explanation. But why is that such a big thing?

Because the dress code for women is more sexualized than the dress code for men, and also expects women to wear heels, something that's not healthy and bad for your joints.

A common reason for the anti-necktie sentiment among workers is that the tie represent a symbol of submission and slavery (i.e., having a symbolic chain around one's neck), marking which males are lower on the social ladder and thus unsuitable mates.

The disrespect of "step it up" is derived directly from what people are being asked to step up to. The phrase by itself has no context.

I'm not following your second paragraph - it sounds like you're simply saying that the female and male version of the dress code in question have no differences in terms of respect and reasonableness in-context, but surely that's the crux of the disagreement? The point is that I find "wear a short dress and heels" to be more disrespectful than "wear a blazer/slacks/suit". I am making no comment on how those two things are comparable in other contexts, e.g. whether or not they are members of the same dress code by definition. I can't follow how that relates to respect.

First of all, dress code is directed to both sexes, it is obvious this headline is sexualized with bad intent. ever reading gitlab told salesmen to wear black tie and blazer?

Something can be literally true, but in the mean time out of context like this.

The headline is not any more sexualized than the original request, so no, it's not obvious at all.