So its 0-2 in the male female glamour department, yay?

[Noxifer]

The spring dress, for instance, is a "pretty" look on females, but would be a "humorous" look on males if it was released as-is. So a direct copy in that case wouldn't be the best equivalent (though it would still be better than nothing, which is what we have now). Some minor adjustments to make the male version less frilly, though, might be enough to make it pass as a caster robe.

Like SchalaZeal says, frills aren't really what separates "male" from "female" though... And a caster robe wouldn't really be the equivalent of a period "day dress". A frock coat or similar (with waistcoat visible beneath, of course) would, on the other hand. I'm not sure why they didn't go for that kind of look instead of the sailor outfit.

Picture of outfits of (IMO) the same general period/sense as the Spring Dress:

(American dress of 1790-1800 from McClellan: man in a brown broadcloth “shad-belly” coat worn by a Mr. Johnson of Germantown, PA, c. 1790, mauve crepe gown worn by Mrs. Sartori, dress of fine glazed cambric worn by Mme. Chevalier, c. 1797, man in the style of 1800, Muslin dress worn by Deborah Logan of Philadelphia, 1797.)