A boy in a dress
Louise
Epiphanies Host
I feel like I cant speak to this in Purgatory without getting into Epiphanies issues
Risk of person who thinks nobody who isnt a woman should wear a dress getting beat up for that - basically zero. If they bring it up they might get disapproved of or told that's bigoted but nobody will physically beat them up or spit on them for their gendered dressing habits and they can go about their ordinary business wearing their preferred garments without harm.
Risk of man or non binary person or other person not read as a woman getting beaten up or otherwise nastily accosted in public for wearing a dress- a significant risk and I know and am close to people who are closeted because of it - and I am angry when I think of the increased risk of violence to my loved ones caused by those who stoked the anti-transgender moral panic which helps legitimise this kind of violence.
People who disapprove of a boy in a dress are not at anything like the same risk as he is and thanks to the recent wave of anti-trans propaganda, he is at much greater risk.
So while yes people have a right to not dress in a dress or to disapprove of those they read as male wearing a dress, in practice the way many of them have gone about it has endangered people and does real harm - it's very far from harmless
So those who go about trying to make out a boy in a dress is harming people while ignoring the harm these attitudes cause are in my book overlooking the 'power' and bullying side of the question. Anti-trans attitudes are often expressed this way and they have powerful political and media interests behind them. Those making a fuss about a boy in a dress are siding with the bullies and moral panickers against people who yes are in practice harmless and not coming for anyone else's right to dress as they see fit. This isnt a ' both sides' question, it's one of asymmetrical damage - gender nonconforming people are at far greater risk.
Risk of person who thinks nobody who isnt a woman should wear a dress getting beat up for that - basically zero. If they bring it up they might get disapproved of or told that's bigoted but nobody will physically beat them up or spit on them for their gendered dressing habits and they can go about their ordinary business wearing their preferred garments without harm.
Risk of man or non binary person or other person not read as a woman getting beaten up or otherwise nastily accosted in public for wearing a dress- a significant risk and I know and am close to people who are closeted because of it - and I am angry when I think of the increased risk of violence to my loved ones caused by those who stoked the anti-transgender moral panic which helps legitimise this kind of violence.
People who disapprove of a boy in a dress are not at anything like the same risk as he is and thanks to the recent wave of anti-trans propaganda, he is at much greater risk.
So while yes people have a right to not dress in a dress or to disapprove of those they read as male wearing a dress, in practice the way many of them have gone about it has endangered people and does real harm - it's very far from harmless
So those who go about trying to make out a boy in a dress is harming people while ignoring the harm these attitudes cause are in my book overlooking the 'power' and bullying side of the question. Anti-trans attitudes are often expressed this way and they have powerful political and media interests behind them. Those making a fuss about a boy in a dress are siding with the bullies and moral panickers against people who yes are in practice harmless and not coming for anyone else's right to dress as they see fit. This isnt a ' both sides' question, it's one of asymmetrical damage - gender nonconforming people are at far greater risk.
Comments
I've also seen the same. People seem to have a problem with queer folks existing.
I don't get it. I grew up in a moderately homophobic environment. And even when I was a lesser homophobe myself, I could not get my head around why people were so upset by the notion of two men engaging in coitus. If a crime, it's a victimless crime that only harms the perpetrators. And God knows I knew lots of mean straight cis people who'd happily slander a faggot while slaking their own heterosexual lust.
And it has been a long time since you could persuade this straight white boy that gay sex was a crime.
Trans folks are, to me, much the same. Let people conduct their lives in peace. They'll happily return the favor. I got lots of friends who are trans and NB and whatnot, wonderful folks. Never gave me any trouble in spite of my being a Christian straight cis white guy. Don't get what all the fuss is about. Or maybe I do, but...
I could provide some sarcastic attempts to describe the rationalizations I think I hear from conservatives in their "defense," but that would be underhanded.
The University of Idaho Marching Band's Tuba Section also has long used long dresses, regardless of the sex/gender of the player. The story is several years ago band members were cleaning out some old costumes from the early 1900s when they came across these long cheerleading dresses--like down to mid-calf. On a lark, the Tuba players used them at a game, and it took off from there. Something to see husky men with these long dresses.
But we have other people in town who stand out because of their unconventional dress.
When we hosted a Syrian Sunni Moslem family in our guest accommodation for 10 weeks we were concerned how people would react to the women wearing hijabs. We needn't have worried, because people in the street just said "Hi" and maybe asked them how they were going.
It unfortunately is not impossible to imagine someone dressing up in a certain way in order to make fun of them because they are an easy target for ridicule.
It is a very hard life for many transsexual people. A life filled with hurt and rejection and ridicule.
On a personal note, a member of my family lost a close friend recently who was trans. They were loved.
When he was about eight, my son wanted to try out wearing skirts. I suggested he wear a skirt to his piano lessons, as I knew his piano teacher wouldn't care. He concluded fairly quickly that playing piano in a skirt was less comfortable than playing piano in trousers. My daughter has always preferred trousers, I don't think she ever wore a skirt to piano.
ISTM that when my kids were little (they're now 32 and 29) that it wasn't too difficult to find fairly gender-neutral clothes, but that just after that two things happened - 1)supermarkets started selling cheap children's clothes, b) those cheap clothes were heavily gendered. I assumed that it was financial - if clothes are gendered then a family with a son and a daughter have to buy twice as much, and if they're cheap and disposable, the hand-me-down factor is eliminated.
My son often wore plain self-coloured joggers or T-shirts which were hand-me-downs from his older female cousin. My daughter wore her brother's hand-me-downs. ISTM that we hit a sweet spot before the wave of pink, sparkly, unicorn clothes for small girls and trucks and dinosaur clothes for small boys. Things like wellie boots used to be gender-neutral in a cheerful red or yellow, and hand-me-downable and are now often bizarrely gendered.
Sending hugs and prayers and love. 😢🕯❤️
Neuronormativity is a thing Marvin. It's enforcing neuromajority social norms on neurominorities or expecting them from us without consideration for our different neurotypes.
A boy in a dress/ a girl who stims/ a non binary person who can't handle Christmas social expectations without a meltdown/ a man who cant do small talk and mingle at a cheese and wine - should they all be forced to conform to social norms not made for them? Is it harmless to revile them if they don't?
If people want to treat a boy in a dress as ' harmful' then what about the people who want to treat us as harmful for being a neurominority, for being different?
Expecting people to extend grace to neurominorities while 'Wo unto you lad in a dress!' would strike me as classic 'wicked servant' stuff if I did it. I very much see the two as related.
There's a strong crossover between autism and gender non conformity so people who dont conform to gender stereotypes are in my view very much my close brothers, sisters and siblings. I stand with them against the social norm enforcers and hope they stand with me when the social norm enforcers come to bully me for being different
My initial reaction to your challenge is that I think there’s a meaningful distinction between differences that are chosen and differences that are not chosen (ie that the person cannot change even if they want to). I’d include such things as sexuality or neurodivergence (not an exhaustive list) in the latter category, but clothing choices in the former.
It’s worth pointing out that my personal preference is that gender stereotypes shouldn’t exist, and I’m certainly trying to raise my kids with the attitude that boys and girls should be able to do what they like without having to conform to them. I have no personal problem with a boy wearing a dress. But I also understand those who do insist on conformation to social norms, and while I disagree with them (and might personally prefer it if they didn’t exist) I don’t think their views should be censured, banned, or otherwise considered beyond the pale, especially when they concern matters of choice. It’s a mental balancing act between different and sometimes contradictory principles, both of which I nevertheless believe in.
But you already know this about me. I’m someone for whom “I hate what you say, but I’ll always defend your right to say it” is a guiding principle. I want people to agree with me, but I want them to do so because my arguments have persuaded them rather than because they are forced to do so. It’s not always a comfortable position to take, but I believe it’s right.
Unfortunately, the world isn't like that. Clothing a free choice? Any woman can tell you it isn't.
Isn't that the argument used for forcing gay people in hetero marriages?
EDIT: not to mention forcing people (particularly women and girls) of colour to style their hair in ways that simulate white people's "natural" hair.
Nevermind. I do not want to discuss this I realised after I posted.
Yes, but it was the discussion of the possibility of such a normative position here:
https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/comment/776119#Comment_776119
Which you viewed as a personal attack:
https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/comment/776853/#Comment_776853
Right, but again it was in the meta-discussion that you felt personally attacked. To continue your music analogy, it was as if in the general discussion about music someone had extended the view that people who used quantitive terms to rank music couldn't be expected to have a valid opinion on the topic and then you took umbrage because you thought heavy metal was the best.
The analogy is - of course - imperfect, because the real discussion involved matters of personal identity which are fairly fundamental, and the recognition of that is why we are now carrying on the conversation on this board rather than that one.
I don't think so, no. Not in the sense of marriage as a legal union of two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, at any rate. Possibly in the archaic sense of marriage as a means of producing legitimate heirs, or in the various religious definitions, but neither of those should necessarily be normative in a modern secular democracy.
I think having hair that is naturally resistant to styling in "normative" ways would come under the "cannot choose even if they want to" clause of what I said.
But what counts as something a person can do? For instance, person A took a child to an orthodontics appt despite a headache. I think we agree this is something A could do but didn't want to. If A's headache had been caused by a brain bleed, I think we can also agree that taking the kid to the doctor would be idiotic, way past something they could do when they didn't want to. Literally though it would still have been a choice.
How far do these things have to go from discomfort--most people find dress clothes somewhat uncomfortable and yet most people think it okay to expect people to wear dress clothes in at least some circumstances--into agony? Even if the brain bleed were not likely to be fatal when ignored, I would still say the person shouldn't have to take their kid to the orthodontist while suffering that level of agony. But where do you draw the line?
For instance, I am nonbinary. However, I pretended to be a woman for years because I was assigned female at birth. I could still do so. It would just cost me something. So is it a choice that I stopped pretending? But that's a bad example because if you are fully cis (I wouldn't know), you haven't felt that discomfort much, so you can't know how much discomfort it may be. Similarly, you can't really tell to suck it up without being a jerk.
Let me try to find a better example. Person B finds noises very distracting. They are taking a test, competing with other people. Should they be able to ask that the person behind them does not chew gum? Should they be able to ask that the test proctor does not pace back and forth in high heels? Should they be able to object to the loud drills outside the building? Many people would say no to at least one of those. They seem somewhat unreasonable demands.
However, I know a person B and can tell you that if they don't say have all of those they will really perform worse, which is unfair to them if the test is competitive and has real life effects. Now my real life person B was given a test room alone because the testers wanted to know what person B could do against other people when all of the people had conditions that didn't get in their way. Person B was utterly shocked at how well they did in those conditions because person B lives without those accommodations in real life most of the time. They didn't realize how much it was costing them.
So is it a choice if person B says they need noise accommodations? After all they can literally live their life just fine without those accommodations.
Thanks Marvin, this is all really interesting. I was very late diagnosed with autism about 2021 and I feel like I've been digesting it slowly ever since and what that means for me.
Choice is a really interesting thing. A couple of years after I was diagnosed changes in my workplace tipped me over the edge into a really bad autistic burnout - which meant in practice that I lost a lot of ability I previously had to tolerate things like sensory overload and I came away with a different attitude to a lot of things.
I may not be putting this really well because it's difficult to articulate but a lot of what I do looks like 'choice' from the outside but isnt so simple.
I suppose I could say I have 'choice' depending on how many 'spoons' I have on a given day and what the 'spoon' cost is for doing something - but self-awareness led to a lot of choosing.
Eg. to generally avoid public transport apart from short bus trips.
Now to people who had known me take a lot of public transport for my job - that looks like a choice - what does she mean she can't take a train - she used to take long train journeys all the time! And she took one to X's memorial service!
But what wasn't visible previously was what taking a train and the sensory overload/ unpredictable encounters with people meant for me. I just assumed the meltdowns and exhaustion were like that for everyone and I had to suck it up. Once I realised why I found it so hard I realised it was unusually difficult for me and I started to refuse or avoid train travel unless it was absolutely necessary -in which case I would tilt the odds as much in my favour as possible- shell out for a 1st class individual seat, pack my best noise cancelling headphones and gamble with the 'spoons' and meltdowns. But from the outside that looks like a 'choice' - 'See she can do it when she wants to!' And in a sense it is a choice, but it's not the simple choice an onlooker might think.
What led me to autistic burnout was years of going 'overdrawn' on a mismatch between neurological capacity and environmental demand until I was so far into the red that everything broke down. But from the outside to a lot of people my readjustment to that to 'balance the books' looks like choice - that I could choose to do things the neuromajority way if I wanted to and now was simply choosing not to. If I'd recovered from burnout, then why wasn't I back to normal taking the usual planes and trains and strains?
But I'd discovered something about me - that I was a round peg who'd been absolutely cramming myself into a square hole causing chronic damage.
I think this often isn't visible to outsiders.
Now not my lived experience but my experience plus my observation of someone close to me - they're genderfluid/ nonbinary.
They originally weren't out to me. I then started to encounter some of my older left-wing friends evangelising for persecuting trans people. These were people whose judgement I normally trusted but when I looked into what they were saying I was shocked- none of it stacked up and I quickly started to realise I was seeing the same kinds of arguments I had encountered on the Ship and in real life from anti-gay people and I became vocal about that. I had no idea at the time that I had non binary/ genderfluid loved ones and I quickly had two - because once they heard me speak up they felt safe to be themselves with me. But before that - especially the person closest to me - was living with the stress of fearing rejection and not being able even to come out privately at home.
That person being able to dress to express their gender when in private with me is in one sense a 'choice' but it's a choice between being miserably stuck in the closet and stressed and being able to dress congruently to their gender - which made them so much happier and relieved so much stress for them.
Just as I'm much happier and better adjusted if I'm not forced on trains or into open plan offices, they're much happier if they're not forced to be a round peg in a square hole either.
It's possible to frame this as choice - a nonbinary person stayed completely closeted all these years, an AuDHD person put up with sensory hell all those years - pull your socks up, get back in that square hole and suffer or else! And in one sense it is a choice...
But I dont think it's a simple choice. Ultimately for both of us our mental and emotional health is better for being accommodated and accommodating each other. Choice is good where it relieves misery and leads to better outcomes.
So I dont think it's as simple as saying someone can/ cant choose to do something. I think it's very easy for people looking from the outside at these 'choice' situations to say 'but they choose to do that - they can choose differently' without experiencing the long term cost of those situations.
I'd also say that sometimes it's important to accept free choices for the people who haven't such a free choice. Eg. Someone male wears a dress for a lark - but if the result of that is a public torrent of hate or a physical attack, the effect on those of minority genders for whom dressing congruently in this way would be a vital liberating choice that makes a real difference to their mental health could be dark - it could frighten or threaten them into staying in the closet or worse.
So I do think there's an interest in preventing that harm and I do think people are harmed when the majority polices minorities in this way to force the round pegs into square holes. I'm one of those round pegs who was forced into square holes over decades and I'm still hurting from it. It doesn't feel like I had much choice but I do have some now and that feels like a real improvement- a good thing. I want other people to have those choices too - not to be forced where they dont fit and yes for me that involves the paradox of saying 'no' at times to the forcers with the heavy socially-sanctioned 'round peg into square hole' hammers that do the most damage, so the minority round pegs get a chance at choice.