This is a spinoff of the boys in dresses thread.
If I had a son, I'd be fine with him wearing a dress. I figure he should be allowed to experiment if he wishes, so long as he is given the right tools (age appropriate of course) to deal with any criticism he may encounter. I then started thinking about my daughters. They only wear dresses- my reasons are different, though. In the summer, they are flowing and let a good breeze in and keep them cool in 100 degree weather. In the winter, they are long and thick and help keep the cold out. They wear yoga pants under their dresses.
As babies, regardless of gender, my children are outfitted in longies or shorties and a lap or kimono tee. It is easiest for a baby who is crawling around- not tripping on a long skirt, etc. Once my girls reached walking age, I put them in dresses. Not big frilly ones, but land's end type knit cotton dresses., for the reasons above.
Now, after reading that thread, I'm beginning to question my choice. Should I be buying an equal number of pants sets as dresses? (just pondering). My 4yo is pretty vocal in her desire to wear dresses- she likes that they flow when she dances. My 2yo couldn't care less about her attire. Should I be giving her the option of both until she can express desire to wear one or the other?
And then, I think to myself, if I had a boy, I wouldn't buy him an equal number of dresses as pants- I'd just buy him pants and shirts and if he decided he'd like a dress I'd honor that request. I guess I'm going with the "cultural norm" of boys wearing pants and girls wearing dresses. But then again, in our culture, girls also wear pants. But boys "don't" wear dresses (as in it's not the "norm"). I just feel like a huge sexist. I'm really not sure what my take on this is.
Would I be unfair to my boys if I were to buy my girls pants and dresses, and only buy my boy pants? Is it teaching them something wrong by outfitting them in culturally "normal" attire?
What is your take on the whole thing?
FWIW... If I had a boy, I wouldn't cut his hair unless it was interfering with his vision, or unless he told me he'd like it cut. I almost feel like the equivalent would be just raising them nude and letting them choose attire once they express desire too, though I know that is unrealistic and not necessarily appropriate in most climates and in our "omg a naked body!!!" culture.
Anyways, what's your take on it?
ETA: Buying one set of each type of clothes for a young child could be perceived as raising them as asexual, or allowing them to choose their sexual identity. But clothes aren't what makes a sexual identity at all! I'm just so confused by all of this. I'd want my girls to be okay with being whatever sexual orientation they should choose to be, same goes for my hypothetical boys. I just don't know if I'm sending the right message to them by putting them in dresses. It is clear in our society that men just don't wear dresses- so my girls already know from experience that their boy cousins don't wear dresses, etc. AND that it is a "girl" thing to do. Should one of them grow up and identify as male, I don't want them to feel like I was trying to force them into being a "girl". This is hard to explain.. I hope someone *kinda* understands what I'm talking about.