To be accessible to everyone, fashion shows the everyday paradox of woman, majestic and childlike. Fashion gives precise temporal and spatial guidance or codifies dressing by role, or identity expression. Barthes (1967) finds the socio-professional models assigned to women "unreal" despite their position in fashion identity creation. Fashion discourses are semiotic devices that distribute modalities of being and doing, especially in teaching how to behave and be perceived. By comparing today's character traits to the Fashion System's era, I will compare gender-defining metalanguage and thematic roles. According to Barthes, gender styles differ in their ability to absorb and reject, with women wearing more clothing than males, indicating a more inclusive vision of fashion. Barthes asserts that it is not correct to include fashion in a binary standpoint, as it falls more within a closed vision, delimited by cardinal terms that trace a range of possible variations oriented according to the relations of contrariety, complementarity, and contradiction. Language as a "digital system" has a binary component, but vestimentary language faces serial paradigms that drive it from the distinctive to the combinatorial to express, both in nomenclatures and apparel, Fashion, and mundane situations. Universal inclusion needs an opposite term. The universal as a garment is gender-neutral, inclusive rather than closed, and completes a semantic category as a mid-term or mixed degree of polarization.