S/O... GIRLS in dresses? - Page 2

[fiddlefern]

I have noticed on this thread that there's some confusion between gender identity and sexual orientation, and I just wanted to clarify that they're different things.  Sexual orientation is about who you are attracted to.  Gender identity is about who you feel you are.

So for example, I have a friend who is transgendered (born with female "plumbing" but identifies as male and takes male hormones and has a beard, etc).  He is attracted to both males and females and is thus a bisexual male.  I have another transgendered friend (also female-to-male) who is attracted to males, and is thus a gay male.

There are a number of straight men (non-transgendered, their plumbing "matches" their gender) who like to dress in "female" clothing.  This has nothing to do with either their sexual orientation OR their gender, but rather with their clothing preference.

So, a person's clothing preference actually might say nothing either about their gender identity OR their sexual identity.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.  :)

As for my own kids, the older one identifies as a boy, the other has made no identification yet.  We're poor-ish and lazy-ish and just dress them in the stuff that the relatives buy them, which is mostly ultra traditional boy-looking stuff.  Neither one objects or has expressed another preference.  If they did, I'd get off my duff and do something about it.  :)  The odd times I do have money and decide to buy something for my kids, they get a say.  That's how my 7-year-old got his pink and purple Barbie bike and his Transformers toys, and how my 5 year old got his Princess birthday pinata and his pop gun.  Clothes haven't really seemed to be a big deal around here, except that ds1 insists on warm pants, and ds2 insists on pants that pull up and have no buttons.

[MrsSlocombe]

My view is that dresses are for dressy or semi-dressy occasions.  (Even just lunch with Grandma can count as semi-dressy.)  Because children are, and should be, actively playing much of the time, pants and shorts are for everyday wear.  I would not want my daughter encumbered by a skirt, focusing on her looks, or showing her underwear, if she were on the playground.  For this reason, I think I would go with a 90/10 pants/dress mix for a little girl.

I don't think it's unfair to a boy that you wouldn't buy him dresses without having him request it.  If nothing else, I would refrain from doing this because we are on a tight budget and it is most likely the case that he wouldn't want the dress, anyway.  In keeping with my "dresses are for dressy occasions" philosophy, it would be even more unlikely that he'd want to wear the dress to a wedding, a family lunch, etc., when he would be more on display than usual.  If he wanted to, great, I'd buy it then.  I understand the idea of purchasing both options preemptively, because it's hard for children to speak up or think of defying stereotypes on their own, but personally, it's just not where I'd put my anti-sexism dollars.  (I'd be more focused on finding a good school, for example.)

I realize that my answer is a bit of a cop-out in the sense that, just because I would buy a girl 90% pants (and tops, of course), that doesn't mean that I would be buying the pants and tops from the boys' department.  I would avoid skimpy cuts (like the ultra-short shorts that are sold for preschool girls, while the boys' are knee-length), and try to choose a variety of colors (perhaps actively avoiding pink because it is so pervasive that it's boring), but they would still be pants and shirts from the girls' department, and it would be pretty easy to tell that this was the case.  My reason for this is that, since few to no stores have a "unisex children's" department, to buy from the boys' would seem to be actively saying, "You should be a boy."  Perhaps I am being overly cautious, but I fear that it would be taken that way.

[NYCVeg]

Originally Posted by MrsSlocombe 

My view is that dresses are for dressy or semi-dressy occasions.  (Even just lunch with Grandma can count as semi-dressy.)  Because children are, and should be, actively playing much of the time, pants and shorts are for everyday wear.  I would not want my daughter encumbered by a skirt, focusing on her looks, or showing her underwear, if she were on the playground.  For this reason, I think I would go with a 90/10 pants/dress mix for a little girl.
 

It's kind of baffling to me that people on this thread keep repeating the claim dresses are so restrictive. My dd wears soft, cotton knit dresses with leggings or bike shorts underneath, because that is how SHE feels more comfortable playing. She is not "encumbered" by her clothing (she finds jeans and corduroys and the like much more restrictive of climbing, biking, tumbling, and the like and refuses to wear them). She is not "focused on her looks" simply because she's wearing a dress, and she doesn't show her underwear (see above re. leggings or bike shorts). The kinds of dresses we buy, from Hanna Andersson and the like, are designed for playing. 

[Adaline'sMama]

DD wears mostly skirts. There are several reasons for this:

1. She WILL NOT keep socks on, so skirts and tights provides both the ability to keep her diaper on AND her feet covered when its cold outside.
2. She is really, really short. She is in the 10th percentile for height, so finding a pair of pants that fits both her waist and her legs is impossible. Im not hemming a 2 year olds clothes when I could just put a skirt on her.
3. In the summer she wears cloth diapers, and as one thread went into extensively, once she is potty trained she will wear bloomers or shorts under skirts. Honestly, most skirts have shorts underneath them. She still wears a lot of onesies that snap under the skirt too.


Personally, I like my kid in dresses and skirts. We have overalls, jeans, and other pants too, but I prefer skirts and tights when its cold.

[OkiMom]

My daughters wear only dresses (sometimes with legging under but the leggings have to be super super soft).. Last time I tried to put them in jeans I had two hysterical children. Like me they have really sensitive skin and like me they don't like anything but really soft fabric anywhere near their skin. So, I could either 1) make them wear pants or 2) let them wear the dresses (and sometimes leggings) they want. Its not important to me for my children to wear pants. They are comfortable just the way they are and that is what is important. Bonus is I can make their clothing so it actually FITS them. Negative my oldest wants to play teeball so I have to convince her the pants aren't going to be uncomfortable.

Now my son doesn't care what he wears.. Hes 12 months old, hed be happy crawling around naked