How do you define gender?

[regentrude]

58 minutes ago, maize said:

I also doubt that transitioning to more gender-neutral language would decrease the actual significance we consciously or subconsciously attach to the sex of individuals.

But for one thing, a more gender neutral language will be more inclusive. And that's not only relevant for the trans folx. For example, "guys" as an address for a mixed group may make females not feel fully included. I know that many college profs are making a conscious effort to replace this thoughtless habit by a gender neutral address.
Or using "he" as the default pronoun when referring to a person of unknown gender. In academic writing, singular "they" is now becoming more prevalent for these situations and accepted as correct.
Language is powerful, and making a conscious effort to use inclusive language will contribute to changing attitudes.

Edited June 26, 2021 by regentrude

[LMD]

16 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Thank you! This is the sh%t I have endured. My piano skills were never relevant, being skinny, and delicate, and beautiful, and all this extraneous @#$$%%&-&%$# that boys don't have to be was oppressive and disgusting.

Words are weapons. Focusing on physical traits for females just denigrates them. It is gross and wrong. 

It is like that scene from "The Emperor's New Groove" and the narcissistic prince goes down the line of females presented like cattle at the auction and dismisses them one by one for various physical flaws and stops at the last one and says, "Let me guess, you have a great personality". All done with disgusting disdain.

Which was in actuality every damn day of my life in college fighting for the right to be known for playing a Rachmaninoff and NOT for my looks.

I am still pissed as hell that I was forced to remove my tuxedo and put on the back-up, emergency evening gown for my senior recital. Because apparently according to the chair of the music department, the world was going to hell in a hand basket because I thought my performance should be judged on the dame merits as my friend and colleague, D, instead of how well I did in the evening gown competition.

I hear you, I do! 

Can I ask, was the issue with the dress itself, or the sexist assumptions that the dress represented?

I totally understand wanting to be seen and treated as a capable human instead of a walking uterus who can look pretty and do some tricks.

What I don't understand it the capitulation, it's like saying, yes, fine, female is lesser, I'll get rid of any female markers I can and then I might be seen as 'one of them' by the real humans sometimes? 

I want to be seen as a full human, tits and tears and blood and milk and birth and all. Those things are just as much a part of me, a part of my body, as my brain is.

[regentrude]

7 minutes ago, LMD said:

I want to be seen as a full human, tits and tears and blood and milk and birth and all. Those things are just as much a part of me, a part of my body, as my brain is.

I want to be seen as fully human, too - but my tits and other female attributes have no relevance in a professional situation. I hate that @Faith-manor was forced to wear a garment that accentuates those aspects and detracts from her professional ability. Showing off a female body should be as irrelevant to the quality of her piano performance as it should be to the quality of my physics teaching.

ETA: I can think of situations where I would want to show off my skin and my boobs in an evening gown - but nobody has the right to order a woman to do so if she does not choose. And absolutely not in a professional situation involving a power differential. F that.

Edited June 27, 2021 by regentrude

[SKL]

2 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Well, I'd say it's wrong to treat a female child 'like a girl' if that means you govern their behaviours according to a strict set of sex stereotypes. There are as many ways of being like a girl as there are girls.

I think most parents don't "govern girls' behaviors according to strict sex stereotypes" these days.  What I see is that girls get to choose from the whole range of experiences, toys, clothes, etc., with very few exceptions.  (Not so much for boys, though that is slowly changing also.)

I don't personally think it needs to go to the point of not calling a girl a girl, or acting like a girl isn't extremely likely to grow up and behave like a woman.

Maybe it helps in my household that the women my kids see aren't in traditional "female" careers.  So we don't really do "stereotypes."  But not everything that is "typically girl" is a stereotype.

[SlowRiver]

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

I have trouble not seeing sex as relevant re clothing either, beyond early childhood. 

I have two kids who sometimes dress in clothes opposite their sex. OMG - the $ I've spent on alterations!

Male and female bodies are different. 

Men's shirts big enough to fit female breasts are, on more petite women, too long in the body and the arm. Pants often don't fit female hips. Conversely, women's clothing isn't a great fit for narrow-hipped, flat chested boys. 

 

Yeah, I don't get this business of not categorising clothes by sex but calling them something like "type 1" or "type 2".

All that means is clothes designed to fit men and women but with a euphemistic label.

[regentrude]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

I think most parents don't "govern girls' behaviors according to strict sex stereotypes" these days.  What I see is that girls get to choose from the whole range of experiences, toys, clothes, etc., with very few exceptions.  

Not my experience. It is quite common that girls are expected to do more household chores than boys, that their dress is more scrutinized and restricted, that they have earlier curfews and not the same freedom, that they have tighter restrictions when they want to date....

Edited June 27, 2021 by regentrude

[LMD]

7 minutes ago, regentrude said:

I want to be seen as fully human, too - but my tits and other female attributes have no relevance in a professional situation. I hate that @Faith-manor was forced to wear a garment that accentuates those aspects and detracts from her professional ability. Showing off a female body should be as irrelevant to the quality of her piano performance as it should be to the quality of my physics teaching.

I agree!

But looking female or feminine shouldn't be seen as less professional either. Likewise, forcing femininity (heels + skirt) shouldn't be seen as more professional. You can teach physics in trousers or a skirt - what difference does it make? But you shouldn't have to pretend to not be female, to bind breasts or use neutral name/pronouns or never get pregnant, to be seen as professional either.

I mean, this is feminism 101 isnt it?

Eta - I don't want to have to trick people into respecting me.

Edited June 27, 2021 by LMD

[SKL]

1 hour ago, regentrude said:

why the heck do we focus on "lovely" and "beautiful" for a girl?
Why are those the main qualities we emphasize for females? This is exactly the stuff I am talking about. Language has an impact.

I really don't understand why you care whether Catwoman would choose to call her daughters lovely or beautiful.

I think my daughters are beautiful.  Don't bother trying to convince me it's somehow hurting them if I say so.

[regentrude]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

I really don't understand why you care whether Catwoman would choose to call her daughters lovely or beautiful.

I think my daughters are beautiful.  Don't bother trying to convince me it's somehow hurting them if I say so.

you seem to deliberately not want to understand what I mean. Of course it is not about a mom calling her girls lovely or beautiful; it is about society elevating the qualities "lovely" and "beautiful" to the most important desirable qualities in females (but not males) and the damage that is doing. 

Edited June 27, 2021 by regentrude

[LMD]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

I really don't understand why you care whether Catwoman would choose to call her daughters lovely or beautiful.

I think my daughters are beautiful.  Don't bother trying to convince me it's somehow hurting them if I say so.

It's not just a fair minded mother calling her daughter beautiful - it's the ubiquitous barage from the whole culture that girls' worth is mainly in their looks. There were posts upthread about girls identifying as non binary because being a girl means being a pretty girl. I think it's an uncontroversial statement that women and girls are judged exponentially more on their looks.

[Melissa Louise]

4 minutes ago, SlowRiver said:

Yeah, I don't get this business of not categorising clothes by sex but calling them something like "type 1" or "type 2".

All that means is clothes designed to fit men and women but with a euphemistic label.

Yes. I mean, I understand that clothes for females and males would, ideally, come in a variety of aesthetics...but we still bump up against the reality of the body. 

I might want low-femininity clothes - to be comfortable, they still need to be designed with the female body in mind. 

My son might want high-femininity clothes - he's still better off sewing his own, because women's clothes are not designed to fit the male body. 

[Melissa Louise]

11 minutes ago, SKL said:

I think most parents don't "govern girls' behaviors according to strict sex stereotypes" these days.  What I see is that girls get to choose from the whole range of experiences, toys, clothes, etc., with very few exceptions.  (Not so much for boys, though that is slowly changing also.)

I don't personally think it needs to go to the point of not calling a girl a girl, or acting like a girl isn't extremely likely to grow up and behave like a woman.

Maybe it helps in my household that the women my kids see aren't in traditional "female" careers.  So we don't really do "stereotypes."  But not everything that is "typically girl" is a stereotype.

It depends on the family/culture. 

My exes family culture is a big fan of stereotypes. 

I agree that boys are also policed re stereotypes in many contexts. 

[SKL]

Aside from it being totally illogical to address a problem "some people will treat [group x] less well than [group y]" by eliminating or hiding x and y (vs. addressing the wrong treatment and the people doing it), ....

Isn't a movement toward hiding or ignoring sex/gender teaching kids that it's bad to be a boy or girl?

Isn't it like "we don't wear [religious clothing/jewelry] in public because somebody might treat us poorly for being [insert religion]"?

IMO there's nothing wrong with being a girl, so I would never make choices around my kids to hide what they are, or what I am.  Kids pick up on everything.  They would become ashamed of their sex/gender in a society like that.  And how is that supposed to reduce or end sex-based differences?

[1234]

I would love it if parents wouldn’t focus so much on girls being beautiful. I heard it often growing up. I also got in trouble every single Sunday morning because I would hide the curling iron so my mom couldn’t curl my hair so I’d be beautiful for church. My sister loved having her hair curled but I loathed it. I finally reached an age where she gave up. I rebelled so much against my mom’s gender ideals in that regard that my high school wardrobe was consistently sweat pants and hair in ponytail. She hated it and I loved that she hated it. 

As far as gender neutral clothing goes, I think it’s nice to have that option. My NB youngest prefers men’s jeans because of the pockets and they fit fine (but they buy women’s shorts - and don’t shave 🤷‍♀️).  I think it’s good to have options for people today. 

[SKL]

17 minutes ago, SlowRiver said:

Yeah, I don't get this business of not categorising clothes by sex but calling them something like "type 1" or "type 2".

All that means is clothes designed to fit men and women but with a euphemistic label.

Not to mention making it harder to find what you are actually looking for.

[SKL]

14 minutes ago, regentrude said:

you seem to deliberately not want to understand what I mean. Of course it is not about a mom calling her girls lovely or beautiful; it is about society elevating the qualities "lovely" and "beautiful" to the most important desirable qualities in females (but not males) and the damage that is doing. 

Well Catwoman did not actually do that.  You read into her post.

She gave that as an example of one of the things people tell their girls at times.  It doesn't mean she wouldn't also say things like you are smart, strong, responsible, etc., to both sexes as relevant.  But for a boy, in addition to smart, strong, responsible, she might say "handsome."  And that isn't going to hurt anyone IMO.

[Dmmetler]

21 minutes ago, SlowRiver said:

Yeah, I don't get this business of not categorising clothes by sex but calling them something like "type 1" or "type 2".

All that means is clothes designed to fit men and women but with a euphemistic label.

What I’ve seen is having, say, one section of jeans and measurements for inseam, waist, hips,  whether fabric has stretch, etc. If anything, it’s easier to find something that fits than when you have 12 designs labeled size 8, but no two fit the same. It’s the way men have been able to shop for years. 

 

[TravelingChris]

37 minutes ago, regentrude said:

But for one thing, a more gender neutral language will be more inclusive. And that's not only relevant for the trans folx. For example, "guys" as an address for a mixed group may make females not feel fully included. I know that many college profs are making a conscious effort to replace this thoughtless habit by a gender neutral address.
Or using "he" as the default pronoun when referring to a person of unknown gender. In academic writing, singular "they" is now becoming more prevalent for these situations and accepted as correct.
Language is powerful, and making a conscious effort to use inclusive language will contribute to changing attitudes.

I always felt fully included when people said Hey guys.

[Drama Llama]

5 minutes ago, SKL said:

Aside from it being totally illogical to address a problem "some people will treat [group x] less well than [group y]" by eliminating or hiding x and y (vs. addressing the wrong treatment and the people doing it), ....

Isn't a movement toward hiding or ignoring sex/gender teaching kids that it's bad to be a boy or girl?

Isn't it like "we don't wear [religious clothing/jewelry] in public because somebody might treat us poorly for being [insert religion]"?

IMO there's nothing wrong with being a girl, so I would never make choices around my kids to hide what they are, or what I am.  Kids pick up on everything.  They would become ashamed of their sex/gender in a society like that.  And how is that supposed to reduce or end sex-based differences?

Has anyone here proposed hiding gender?  I missed that.

I treat my religion as personal information.  I don’t hide it.  I wear a cross.  I sometimes wear a sweatshirt that says St. Somebody’s Catholic School.  I hang red and green lights in my house at Christmas.  One of my favorite pictures that used to sit on my desk at work had my kid in his choir robe in front of an altar.  I don’t think most people are confused about my religion.

If someone expected me to check a box for my religion, on circumstances when I am asked to check Mr. or Ms., I would not find that appropriate.  If someone referred to me with a word that implied they had figured out my religion, in the same way that people use “she” to refer to me when I haven’t expressed a preference, I wouldn’t find that appropriate.  That doesn’t mean I hide my religion it means my religion is my information.  

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, TravelingChris said:

I always felt fully included when people said Hey guys.

It's a gender neutral terms here. 

[SKL]

22 minutes ago, LMD said:

It's not just a fair minded mother calling her daughter beautiful - it's the ubiquitous barage from the whole culture that girls' worth is mainly in their looks. There were posts upthread about girls identifying as non binary because being a girl means being a pretty girl. I think it's an uncontroversial statement that women and girls are judged exponentially more on their looks.

Hmm, maybe, but I don't really see this around me.  Might be regional.

[LMD]

34 minutes ago, regentrude said:

But for one thing, a more gender neutral language will be more inclusive. And that's not only relevant for the trans folx. For example, "guys" as an address for a mixed group may make females not feel fully included. I know that many college profs are making a conscious effort to replace this thoughtless habit by a gender neutral address.
Or using "he" as the default pronoun when referring to a person of unknown gender. In academic writing, singular "they" is now becoming more prevalent for these situations and accepted as correct.
Language is powerful, and making a conscious effort to use inclusive language will contribute to changing attitudes.

This is interesting to me. The word inclusive seems to be very full of meaning, I wonder if we could parse out some of that meaning.

I have no objection to the guys/he being replaced by neutral. I'm interested to know if it makes a difference. Like, my male highschool maths teacher who didn't bother helping girls, would forcefully shaping his language shape his brain in a less sexist way? Maybe. I wonder if it's equally as likely to cause resentment. But maybe over time it becomes the new normal and is better for the next generation.

Language is powerful, yes. Not more powerful than objective reality though, language describes. It can't create a uterus, but it can create and foster respect for women.

[SKL]

1 minute ago, TravelingChris said:

I always felt fully included when people said Hey guys.

I know, when I was young I always thought "guys" meant "people."  I used it in groups of males, females, and both.  I think I still do IRL, but I have become aware that some "powers that be" have made this a restricted word in certain contexts.

[1234]

4 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

What I’ve seen is having, say, one section of jeans and measurements for inseam, waist, hips,  whether fabric has stretch, etc. If anything, it’s easier to find something that fits than when you have 12 designs labeled size 8, but no two fit the same. It’s the way men have been able to shop for years. 

 

Yes! My dh can buy pants anywhere and they fit but I have try multiple times if a new store or brand. Youngest likes knowing what size they are universally in men’s pants because it makes it easy to buy anywhere.

[TravelingChris]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

I know, when I was young I always thought "guys" meant "people."  I used it in groups of males, females, and both.  I think I still do IRL, but I have become aware that some "powers that be" have made this a restricted word in certain contexts.

Yes, that is how I grew up too.  And I still use it that way- but that is in my family.

[Drama Llama]

Just now, SKL said:

I know, when I was young I always thought "guys" meant "people."  I used it in groups of males, females, and both.  I think I still do IRL, but I have become aware that some "powers that be" have made this a restricted word in certain contexts.

I wonder if this is geographic, and maybe to some degree related to whether or not Y’all is an option in one’s region. 

Based on a very small sample size of who has objected to being called “guys” by me.

[Melissa Louise]

4 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

What I’ve seen is having, say, one section of jeans and measurements for inseam, waist, hips,  whether fabric has stretch, etc. If anything, it’s easier to find something that fits than when you have 12 designs labeled size 8, but no two fit the same. It’s the way men have been able to shop for years. 

 

If clothing is designed to fit men, it's not gonna fit me. End of. I have a pretty standard female body. I am not an outlier. 

Is it really too much to ask that our sex can be acknowledged, and then choice around aesthetics provided within that? 

 

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Joker2 said:

Yes! My dh can buy pants anywhere and they fit but I have try multiple times if a new store or brand. Youngest likes knowing what size they are universally in men’s pants because it makes it easy to buy anywhere.

I have a heck of a time buying pants because I'm not shaped like the ideal girl.  My measurements are more like a guy's.  But that is not typical.  And I know I have that personal problem and how to address it.  The majority of females would look awkward in jeans designed for men, and vice versa.

[SlowRiver]

5 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

What I’ve seen is having, say, one section of jeans and measurements for inseam, waist, hips,  whether fabric has stretch, etc. If anything, it’s easier to find something that fits than when you have 12 designs labeled size 8, but no two fit the same. It’s the way men have been able to shop for years. 

 

 

 

They type one and two is now a thing as well. But as for jeans, I know lots of women who would like pants labeled that way, but even if you put them together in one big group, you have still in the end pants proportioned for male bodies and pants proportioned for female bodies. The sizes and combinations they manufacture are not just random, they are based on the structures of two separate kinds of bodies.

The result is that people either realise this and so you really are not further ahead, or they don't, and that means that they are out of touch with the physical world. Which isn't really something that helps anyone.

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

If clothing is designed to fit men, it's not gonna fit me. End of. I have a pretty standard female body. I am not an outlier. 

Is it really too much to ask that our sex can be acknowledged, and then choice around aesthetics provided within that? 

 

Well we could go back to the days when only men's clothes were available ready-made, and girls/women had to make their own.  That sounds like progress ....

[maize]

32 minutes ago, regentrude said:

But for one thing, a more gender neutral language will be more inclusive. And that's not only relevant for the trans folx. For example, "guys" as an address for a mixed group may make females not feel fully included. I know that many college profs are making a conscious effort to replace this thoughtless habit by a gender neutral address.
Or using "he" as the default pronoun when referring to a person of unknown gender. In academic writing, singular "they" is now becoming more prevalent for these situations and accepted as correct.
Language is powerful, and making a conscious effort to use inclusive language will contribute to changing attitudes.

I don't at all object to gender-neutral language in most contexts. 

I just don't see, from an anthropological perspective, that the degree to which a language is gendered or un-gendered correlates at all with greater or less socio-cultural emphasis on sex-based expectations and treatment.

We've come to the conclusion that progress in fighting against racism requires us to acknowledge the impact of skin color on people's lives and experience. We can't just use race-neutral language and thus do away with racism.

I don't think we are going to effectively fight sexism by use gender-neutral or non-sex-referential language.

Some such efforts may have small incremental benefits. They as a generic third person singular rather than he when speaking of an unknown or non-specific person seems entirely reasonable to me--it'svwhat many native speakers have used colloquially for centuries. 

Linguistically, guys as a collective term actually IS gender-neutral to many people; trying to stifle that usage doesn't strike me as helpful in any significant way even though I understand perfectly well that in some usages it refers specifically to males. It isn't like the term "he" that in colloquial usage is almost always used specifically in reference to a male.

Mostly I think if sexism is what we are fighting against there are probably more effective efforts than attempted linguistic manipulation. 

And some attempts at gender-neutral language are actively erasing females from the language. I do not see how that is going to help. Avoiding words associated with women such as mother, breast-feeding, etc. in favor of "gender-neutral" does not help us progress towards a less sexist (i.e. less devaluing of women) society.

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, SKL said:

Well we could go back to the days when only men's clothes were available ready-made, and girls/women had to make their own.  That sounds like progress ....

None of this makes sense to me as progress. It's like a form of mass disassociation from the reality of the body. 

 

 

[SlowRiver]

10 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

Has anyone here proposed hiding gender?  I missed that.

I treat my religion as personal information.  I don’t hide it.  I wear a cross.  I sometimes wear a sweatshirt that says St. Somebody’s Catholic School.  I hang red and green lights in my house at Christmas.  One of my favorite pictures that used to sit on my desk at work had my kid in his choir robe in front of an altar.  I don’t think most people are confused about my religion.

If someone expected me to check a box for my religion, on circumstances when I am asked to check Mr. or Ms., I would not find that appropriate.  If someone referred to me with a word that implied they had figured out my religion, in the same way that people use “she” to refer to me when I haven’t expressed a preference, I wouldn’t find that appropriate.  That doesn’t mean I hide my religion it means my religion is my information.  

I don't really understand what the point of gender would be in your scenario. If it's some inner feelings of being masculine or feminine, with no outward manifestation, surely that's basically completely irrelevant to everyone but the person with the feeling?

If there is supposed to be some outer manifestation, like you are going to ask for  other people to use different than the usual pronouns, or want to go into the feminine change rooms, than it's no longer a personal thing, it's social and public.

[Matryoshka]

14 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

I always felt fully included when people said Hey guys.

Yes.  Might be different in the parts of the country that say y'all, but 'you guys' and just 'guys' is gender neutral here.  It's even used for all-female groups.

[1234]

5 minutes ago, SKL said:

I have a heck of a time buying pants because I'm not shaped like the ideal girl.  My measurements are more like a guy's.  But that is not typical.  And I know I have that personal problem and how to address it.  The majority of females would look awkward in jeans designed for men, and vice versa.

That’s what people say but I, my trans son, and my NB dc have no issue. When I was in high school, I was cheerleader and we did skits a few times that required wearing men’s clothing (including jeans) and no one had an issue. I often would find myself with no clean jeans and grab a pair from one of my brothers. I don’t think it’s as big of a problem as people think/say.

I just don’t see how an option of gender neutral clothing for those who want it should be a big deal. 

[SlowRiver]

Young women and to some extent young men are often much more likely to be able to wear opposite sex clothing easily. Especially if they are thin.

 

[SKL]

4 minutes ago, Joker2 said:

That’s what people say but I, my trans son, and my NB dc have no issue. When I was in high school, I was cheerleader and we did skits a few times that required wearing men’s clothing (including jeans) and no one had an issue. I often would find myself with no clean jeans and grab a pair from one of my brothers. I don’t think it’s as big of a problem as people think/say.

I just don’t see how an option of gender neutral clothing for those who want it should be a big deal. 

An additional option?  Fine, if the stores want to invest in that.

But taking away the girls/women and boys/men sections?  IMO that's ridiculous.  Besides being inconvenient, it implies that there is something wrong with identifying as male or female.

[Drama Llama]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

An additional option?  Fine, if the stores want to invest in that.

But taking away the girls/women and boys/men sections?  IMO that's ridiculous.  Besides being inconvenient, it implies that there is something wrong with identifying as male or female.

Why would it imply that.  Does the fact that there’s no white section or Christian section make you feel that there is something wrong with being white or Christian?  

[Dmmetler]

3 minutes ago, Joker2 said:

That’s what people say but I, my trans son, and my NB dc have no issue. When I was in high school, I was cheerleader and we did skits a few times that required wearing men’s clothing (including jeans) and no one had an issue. I often would find myself with no clean jeans and grab a pair from one of my brothers. I don’t think it’s as big of a problem as people think/say.

I just don’t see how an option of gender neutral clothing for those who want it should be a big deal. 

 

2 minutes ago, SlowRiver said:

Young women and to some extent young men are often much more likely to be able to wear opposite sex clothing easily. Especially if they are thin.

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

An additional option?  Fine, if the stores want to invest in that.

But taking away the girls/women and boys/men sections?  IMO that's ridiculous.  Besides being inconvenient, it implies that there is something wrong with identifying as male or female.

At in my conservative, Southern neck of the woods, you're not going to see this replacing the Women's section at Macy's or Dillards, or even at Target or Old Navy.  And for every shop in the galleria that is trying to be more gender inclusive, you'll have three that are clearly designed for women and teen girls, and one designed for men or teen boys.  You're going to see it at stores that cater to young bodies  where the sales staff look at you strangely if you go in and look above about college age unless you're accompanied by a teenager. 

[Melissa Louise]

 

Wanting to erase sex-stereotypes where they restrict people from full expression of their potential, but acknowledging the impact of sex on the lives of women is NOT akin to white Christianity. 

Why bring 'white' or 'Christian' into it ?

 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Melissa Louise

[SlowRiver]

5 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

Why would it imply that.  Does the fact that there’s no white section or Christian section make you feel that there is something wrong with being white or Christian?  

What? Christians and white people don't have different sorts of bodies than other people.

Though I have seen places which specialise in small size shoes mainly for Asian ladies.

[Melissa Louise]

'Young bodies' = sex denial.  Bodies are immutably sexed. 

We already live in a world where the male body is the default. Read Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez for a multitude of examples, from medication, to car safety, to number of public toilets provided. 

Pretending half the population falls into some generic, sexless body doesn't help fix that. It hinders it. 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Melissa Louise

[SlowRiver]

If stores that cater to young people think it will appeal to them to organise their stores that way, whatever. 

But it doesn't change the reality that the designers that design the clothes are basing their sizing on male and female bodies, not gender neutral bodies. And it does bugger all to fight sexism. It's just a marketing ploy.

[Matryoshka]

19 minutes ago, Joker2 said:

That’s what people say but I, my trans son, and my NB dc have no issue. When I was in high school, I was cheerleader and we did skits a few times that required wearing men’s clothing (including jeans) and no one had an issue. I often would find myself with no clean jeans and grab a pair from one of my brothers. I don’t think it’s as big of a problem as people think/say.

I just don’t see how an option of gender neutral clothing for those who want it should be a big deal. 

Well, many of us are not shaped like that.  I could never fit in women's Levi's because they were cut (imho) too much like men's - way too straight.  To get men's pants that would fit my hips would mean they'd be ginormous in the waist. 

[Catwoman]

1 minute ago, Matryoshka said:

Well, many of us are not shaped like that.  I could never fit in women's Levi's because they were cut (imho) too much like men's - way too straight.  To get men's pants that would fit my hips would mean they'd be ginormous in the waist. 

Yes! I was just going to post the exact same thing!

[Melissa Louise]

22 minutes ago, SlowRiver said:

Young women and to some extent young men are often much more likely to be able to wear opposite sex clothing easily. Especially if they are thin.

 

Esp pre childbirth. 

However, I can guarantee that I'm one of the few people in this thread who has spent a significant amount of time doing cross-dress shopping with their male teen, and the clothes. don't. fit. well. Because his body is different to the bodies of females. Heck, the male and female skeleton is different! 

[Melissa Louise]

5 minutes ago, SlowRiver said:

And it does bugger all to fight sexism. It's just a marketing ploy.

This. It's fashion, not justice. 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Melissa Louise

[1234]

Ugh, the clothing thing is getting off track. I believe most, me for sure, said there should be no problem with a gender neutral option. Option being the key word. You don’t want it, don’t buy it. It’s a valid option for those of us who have no issues with it though. 

[1234]

This thread is actually making me want to push back against every single female and gender stereotype there is. I can’t imagine what my dc, who have actual issues, feel when hearing/reading this stuff. 

[Melissa Louise]

Yeah, this is the same attitude I hear about sexism.

You don't like being treated like a woman? Don't be a woman. Some people like being treated like this ( as subject to sexism).