Gender Neutral Fashion is failing skirt-wearing boys

[Stevej180]

It's good that this is in the mainstream media, but depressing that so little progress is being made. I would have loved to dress up when I was a little boy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ear-skirts

[Stu]

Thanks for posting the link. To be honest, I am always deeply suspicious when someone says they are a "proud feminist" and they then go on to talk about males. It should be remembered that mainstream feminism is not an equality movement and no longer claims to be: it is concerned exclusively with empowerment of and privileges for middle class women, just as was the case with Suffragettes a century ago, with the modern incarnation coloured with a tint of Marxist theory.

As for her point about "little" boys, I would 100% agree that dress up games and the like are normal for all small children and should not be discouraged by adults. We thought it hilarious when a little girl neighbour loved to dress up as a (male!) lighthouse keeper, with a uniform and cap, fake beard and pretend pipe to smoke many years ago - and we should have been relaxed about her younger brother loving the Alice costume from Alice in Wonderland with a wig and sparkly red shoes (which I think actually belonged to the Dorothy costume from Wizard of Oz). They are kids and that is imaginative play. As for everyday wear for children, I am ambivalent, regardless of age. Do we want to distinguish between boys and girls in dress, shoes, hairstyles etc? Or should all garments and styles have gender association stripped from them? Are going to, for example, ask a little boy whether he wants to wear a suit or a party frock for his friend's birthday party? Are we going to make sure that boys can have the option of being a bridesmaid at their sister's wedding? Or are they examples of taking the idea too far?

My own view is that for very young children, let them experiment and indulge their curiosity when it comes to appearance and toys. For play purposes, anything goes. However, for everyday clothing, maybe it's not a bad idea to maintain certain external appearances that are unequivocally boy or girl, especially when it comes to older children. That doesn't mean a 12-year-old boy wouldn't be able to choose a skirt rather than trousers, or don a summer dress in warm weather, but the styling should be such that he can do so without abandoning his incipient masculinity and aping the opposite sex. So, unless they are dressing up as Aramis in The Three Musketeers, maybe leave the frills and laces for the girls.

[Myopic Bookworm]

However, for everyday clothing, maybe it's not a bad idea to maintain certain external appearances that are unequivocally boy or girl, especially when it comes to older children.

Because...? What about people who want to be unequivocally non-binary?

I don't think I need people to be able to identify my children's sex from their taste in fashion. Adults have no business chatting up my children anyway, whichever sex they are, and other children don't need to be forced into those attitudes. Society in general would say that there is a major element of external appearance that remains unequivocally "girl", and that is the skirt. (Oops!) In any case, most ordinary older kids reveal their sex by their general demeanour and body language, and by the way they relate to others: clothing is secondary.

...aping the opposite sex. So, unless they are dressing up as Aramis in The Three Musketeers, maybe leave the frills and laces for the girls.

Although I have a personal distaste for most frills and twiddles, even in women's clothing, I think (in the spirit of the article) that ungendered clothing has to work both ways: the "unisex" movement from the second half of the 20th century consisted almost entirely of women appropriating male clothing. I see many women in their 50s and 60s who wear essentially male clothing, and do so without being mistaken for men. If, as is the case now, a girl can wear plain unornamented clothing of a type characterized as "masculine", and still be accepted as unequivocally female, then boys have to be able to reclaim the lace (whether inspired by Aramis, King Charles II, Sir Walter Raleigh, Little Lord Fauntleroy, or Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen), and remain accepted as being unequivocally boys.

I feel strongly that children (like adults) need to be free to wear what they like without people questioning their gender identity. I know a girl who always dresses "like a boy", though no one who looked at her for more than a second would actually mistake her for a boy; and I want to be able to tell boys that they can wear what they like without necessarily having to "come out" as being "non-binary" or even "transgender" (and certainly not "gay", unless they actually are). Skirts are for boys too. Lace and frills are for boys too. Pink is for boys too (and until the early 20th century, blue was for girls). If overtly "feminine" clothing in males makes you feel uncomfortable, it is not their clothing choice that is in question, but your perceptions of gender or of sexuality.

I think that objection to feminine elements in male clothing may sometimes represent a form of homophobia. Overt display and ornament in dress is designed to appeal to the male gaze. Females -- culturally presumed or required to be passive and receptive -- are not supposed to have a comparable attitude towards males, so a man in such clothing must be appealing to the homosexual male gaze.

[Stu]

Because...? What about people who want to be unequivocally non-binary?

There is no such thing as non-binary.

I don't think I need people to be able to identify my children's sex from their taste in fashion.

It is a normal human response to want to be able to recognise others as being either male or female by sight, and especially if interacting with them. The way that is achieved is through visual signifiers, including dress and hairstyle. That's not going to change.

In any case, most ordinary older kids reveal their sex by their general demeanour and body language

Yes, they can be factors, but it's more than that. Look at a photograph of a crowd of 50 teenagers and you will likely know instantly which are male and which are female just by virtue of their dress and hair - and your assessment will be reliable.

a girl can wear plain unornamented clothing of a type characterized as "masculine", and still be accepted as unequivocally female, then boys have to be able to reclaim the lace (whether inspired by Aramis, King Charles II, Sir Walter Raleigh, Little Lord Fauntleroy, or Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen)

If a girl crops her hair and wears male clothing, she will be assumed to be making some kind of statement - likely that she is a lesbian. As for lace, you mention historical examples which I mentioned - but that is in the past. As for the odd TV personality who has managed to pull off wearing lace - Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen, Mick Jagger etc, they have made a living attracting attention by flouting norms. They are not your average bloke. As I said, people want signifiers so they can distinguish between the sexes and if frills and lace aren't going to be signifiers, then what should be?

Skirts are for boys too.

Of course they are - because (1) they are such a basic garment that denying 50% of the population the ability to wear them is an absurdity, especially when (2) the other 50% can wear any garment they like, including trousers. In other words, it's a matter of equality.

I think that objection to feminine elements in male clothing may sometimes represent a form of homophobia.

I don't see the link. Maybe there was a perceived (or real) link in earlier eras, but the gay men I have known have dressed just like straight guys. They don't dress to express their homosexuality from what I have seen. Overtly feminine dressing could be associated with the drag scene and we know that many (not all by any means!) of those who like to wear drag are gay, or else it could signify someone is gender confused or unhappy/dysphoric when it comes to their birth sex and might be somewhere on a spectrum towards being trans. I don't think homophobia is a thing in modern western societies these days - certainly not to anything like the extent it was a few decades ago. Most of us tend to take a "live and let like" view.

[Uncle Al]

This section of the article, to me, sums up the situation quite well.

And while these double standards affect how we view and respect girls and women, it also effects boys in significant ways. A viral TikTok video of a dad chastising a childcare worker for allowing his son to wear a princess dress highlights societal attitudes towards boys exploring their natural inclinations. Humiliating little boys for exploring traditionally feminine aesthetics and interests not only sows the seed of misogyny but also cultivates shame in those boys who may want to explore them.

A societal devaluing of femininity starts at a very early age and the attitude parents, and the world at large, have around the use of “girly” things plants itself into these little minds.

While the push for gender neutrality is commendable, I would like to see it extend its embrace to include pink and frills. By integrating elements of “girliness” into the concept of gender neutrality, we can cultivate a generation of children who don’t perceive pink as anti-feminist or inferior. Moreover, this broader acceptance may encourage the wider community to be more open to letting boys explore feminine styles, ensuring that all children have the opportunity to experience the joy of twirling in a sparkly skirt as a fundamental childhood rite of passage.

It boils down to parents/adults, forcing their traditional concepts of male and female on/into their offspring.
Re-read the portion about the Tik-Tok video. This is an example of what parents/adults need to overcome.
When children are quite young, (2 to 8 years of age) parents dress their kids to become the image,
perceived by society, of what the kids should wear. Stop forcing children to grow up to fast.
Let kids be kids, having fun, letting their imaginations fuel their lives, inspiring them to be
chef's, astronauts or anything else.

( I could write more but my eyes are watering and my nose is running around the room,
thanks to pine-pollen allergies. Will take more medication and go back to bed. )

Uncle Al

[TSH]

It is a normal human response to want to be able to recognise others as being either male or female by sight, and especially if interacting with them. The way that is achieved is through visual signifiers, including dress and hairstyle. That's not going to change.

It also doesn't hold any real value, other than reproduction. Children only care about this being able to recognize someone's biological sex is because they're programmed to act accordingly to this distinction, rather than actual equality towards their fellow human beings. It's the adults who want to keep this divide between us just because we're born different — THAT, has to change.

In any case, most ordinary older kids reveal their sex by their general demeanour and body language

Yes, they can be factors, but it's more than that. Look at a photograph of a crowd of 50 teenagers and you will likely know instantly which are male and which are female just by virtue of their dress and hair - and your assessment will be reliable.

It sure is. Since puberty is a developmental process that occurs in children as young as 8, and can last up to age 16, we have plenty of physiological differences to differentiate between the two sexes. Let's give this particular experiment of yours a twist and have all 50 of those teenagers dressed in tuxedos, wearing traditionally male hairstyles. Another alternative would be giving them all wedding gowns and traditionally female hairstyles. Basically, just have them all styled the same. You'll still be able to point out height, gait, facial structure, and so on. Puberty works differently in each person; some may convincingly look like the opposite sex, but the assessment would still be reliable, and it'd based off of anatomical and biological traits, instead of the societal standards of what a teenaged boy or a girl is "supposed" to look like.

If a girl crops her hair and wears male clothing, she will be assumed to be making some kind of statement - likely that she is a lesbian. As for lace, you mention historical examples which I mentioned - but that is in the past. As for the odd TV personality who has managed to pull off wearing lace - Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen, Mick Jagger etc, they have made a living attracting attention by flouting norms. They are not your average bloke. As I said, people want signifiers so they can distinguish between the sexes and if frills and lace aren't going to be signifiers, then what should be?

Skirts are for boys too.

Of course they are - because (1) they are such a basic garment that denying 50% of the population the ability to wear them is an absurdity, especially when (2) the other 50% can wear any garment they like, including trousers. In other words, it's a matter of equality.

In the years and years of making skirts normal wear for men, it still remains as a female-signifier. People don't see it as a basic garment. The average person doesn't process how this double standard greatly affects both sexes in the fashion world. The average person could probably use the crux of your argument against you in this regard because of this blindness to see the contradiction for what it really is. That it's a matter of conformity to them, rather than equality.

I think that objection to feminine elements in male clothing may sometimes represent a form of homophobia.

I don't see the link.

Well, look again; it's there.

Maybe there was a perceived (or real) link in earlier eras, but the gay men I have known have dressed just like straight guys. They don't dress to express their homosexuality from what I have seen.

Of course, the gay men you've known aren't the stereotypical Camp Gay male characters that are so heavily propped up in media. You took the time to get to known them as people, rather simply passing judgement of them on the basis of their sexuality, which many people did in earlier times, and still do today.

Overtly feminine dressing could be associated with the drag scene and we know that many (not all by any means!) of those who like to wear drag are gay, or else it could signify someone is gender confused or unhappy/dysphoric when it comes to their birth sex and might be somewhere on a spectrum towards being trans.

I feel this works against the premise of your position on the necessity of assigning certain styles to gender, if we still have to make baseless assumptions about one's own self-identity just for dressing subversively from what's typical of another, biological part of themselves.

I don't think homophobia is a thing in modern western societies these days - certainly not to anything like the extent it was a few decades ago. Most of us tend to take a "live and let like" view.

Homophobia is still "a thing" (what are people even trying to convey when they say this phrase?) which persist in modern Western societies. It may not be as prevalent as it once was in the past — but that's because we're maturing (very, VERY, VEEERRRYY slowly — so slowly that I sometimes doubt if this is even true, apparently); as in, we're just now recognizing how stupid it is to treat people poorly because of who they wanna slept with and we're still working to change that in certain parts of the Western World. The same way racism is still "a thing" that many people debate and argue about, homophobia is still a hot button issue.

[Jim]

It is a normal human response to want to be able to recognise others as being either male or female by sight, and especially if interacting with them. The way that is achieved is through visual signifiers, including dress and hairstyle. That's not going to change.

Is this taught or innate? I suspect it is learned behavior. I think I learned it.

I think if we didn't worry about if the one we are interacting with is M or F, except when looking for a partner, it would be better.

[Myopic Bookworm]

There is no such thing as non-binary.

There is no such thing as a straight man who just wants to wear a skirt. You are all just deluded...

The term "non-binary" frequently represents a rejection of socially constructed and heteronormative gender roles, rather than a counter-factual denial of biological sex. If you resent being automatically gendered by your clothing, and treated prejudicially on that basis, then you may wish to aim for a deliberately ambiguous style. But it does seem, at present, that the non-binary label is adopted mainly by female-born people, who may include feminine-presenting bisexuals, androgynous or masculine-presenting lesbians or straight women, and closeted or partially transitioned trans-men of whatever sexual orientiation. I haven't come across many male-born people identifying as non-binary, but they seem often to be androgynous-presenting gays or bisexuals.

[Stu]

There is no such thing as a straight man who just wants to wear a skirt. You are all just deluded..

Not sure why you are saying that, but I guess it is just tongue-in-cheek.

The term "non-binary" frequently represents a rejection of socially constructed and heteronormative gender roles, rather than a counter-factual denial of biological sex....

A rejection? So it's an ideology rather than a concrete reality? That's probably why the UK government doesn't have that legal classification for people:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/0 ... gnised-uk/

Sex is binary (for 99.9% of people who don't have extremely rare intersex conditions). One is either male or female. A masculine woman is still a woman and a feminine man is still a man.

[Dave]

Stu wrote:

[url]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/0 ... gnised-uk/[/url]
>
> Sex is binary (for 99.9% of people who don't have extremely rare intersex
> conditions). One is either male or female. A masculine woman is still a
> woman and a feminine man is still a man.

You are working on the assumption that sex and gender are the same thing, in the current gender wars, gender and sex are not use the same way, your biological sex is seen as independent to how you feel, i.e. Your biological sex male, gender non-binary etc. There are still 2 sexes but gender is viewed on a spectrum.

[pelmut]

There is no such thing as non-binary.

There is in the real World.

[Jim]

The term "non-binary" frequently represents a rejection of socially constructed and heteronormative gender roles, rather than a counter-factual denial of biological sex....

A rejection? So it's an ideology rather than a concrete reality?
...

Yes, it is a social stance. I'm a naturist. I can say I was born that way, but it is just a position I take.

[rode_kater]

If a girl crops her hair and wears male clothing, she will be assumed to be making some kind of statement - likely that she is a lesbian

Have I fallen through a time machine? This reminds of when I went with long hair in the 80s/90s and people calling it "girly". I wasn't making a statement, I was just lazy and really hate going to hairdressers.

And this really feels like the flipped version of "if a guy wears a skirt they must be gay", which is bizarre because most gay man would not be caught dead in a skirt.

If I had to think each morning what "statement" my clothing is making I'd never get anywhere. Maybe it's because I'm introverted and would just not like to interact with people at all if possible.

[MrSoapsud]

Don't feed the troll.

[Myopic Bookworm]

A rejection? So it's an ideology rather than a concrete reality?

FFS: freedom is not a concrete reality, humour is not a concrete reality, morality is not a concrete reality.

The fact that identifying as non-binary is a sociological or psychological not a biological phenomenon does not make it less of a fact.

The only coherent argument I have seen supporting the dedicated perpetuation of gender roles is based on an evangelical reading of Hebrew Scriptures. However, it is only coherent if you share the world-view of evangelicals, which I do not.

(That's enough troll food for today.)