LGBTitp - Part Seven

[Jacklu]

Welcome, one and all.

This is a thread where we Playgrounders, and LGBTitp in particular, gather to discuss, share our experiences, give general advice and support one another in such matters as arise relating to, well, the world beyond heteronormaitivity.

• Everyone is welcome. Let's try to keep from seeming otherwise.
• Keep this topic free of politics and religion. (so, don't violate the board rules, plz)
• It's beyond the scope of this thread to discuss whether LGBT is "Right." (And really, most discussions probably should avoid moralizing too much anyway)
• Please refrain from posting sexually explicit content. (Keep it friendly as well as board safe )

If you would rather be anonymous when asking for advice or sharing your story or views, you can use the address below to send a message to be posted in this thread via proxy.

http://anonmail.smeenet.org/

Keep in mind that content which contain strong language may be filtered (Plus, y'know, the forum-filters), and content that violates the forum rules won't be posted at all.

Here are the links for the last few threads, where much of use or interest may be found:

1. LGBT people in the playground
   
2. LGBT people in the playground - part II
   
3. LGBTitp - part III
   
4. LGBTitp 4: We are a family?
   
5. LGBTitp - Part Five
   
6. LGBTitp - Part Six

*modified from the original.

[Serpentine]

* scratches head* They have shops with those kind of niches in the United Kingdom? Interesting. I'm kinda unsure how you'd open a clothing shop for that, because 'butch' is either too broad or too narrow of a term to categorize a store to, tho' I'm not entirely sure.

I would presume it's "men's" clothes made to fit women a la the SKIRTS FOR MEN! movement, and/or clothes to suit a more specific "butch" style - there's shops for girly girls, guess it makes sense to have one for tomboys.

So. Gay people and the like. Umm... Hrm. I don't know many, nor have any news. A bisexual friend of mine has lost a heap of weight and looks absolutely fabulous.* Does that count?


*I'm sorry. But he does! Also he is just a touch on the "fabulous" side...

[Jokasti]

Kilts? Those aren't for men. They are for manly men. And women.

[Eloi]

I would presume it's "men's" clothes made to fit women a la the SKIRTS FOR MEN! movement, and/or clothes to suit a more specific "butch" style - there's shops for girly girls, guess it makes sense to have one for tomboys.

So. Gay people and the like. Umm... Hrm. I don't know many, nor have any news. A bisexual friend of mine has lost a heap of weight and looks absolutely fabulous.* Does that count?


*I'm sorry. But he does! Also he is just a touch on the "fabulous" side...

See, the subtle differences between 'tomboy' 'transvestite' and 'butch lesbian', make a store specifically aimed at providing men's clothing for women make it either too broad or too narrow under the label 'butch'. Wouldn't 'Men's Clothing For Women Store' make much more sense as a name?

[Serpentine]

Jokasti: This comes up every time No, not kilts, not unless the category "kilt" can be expanded to include a variety of styles and colours, and dresses.

Eloi: But think of it in terms of style, rather than "clothing category". If you can have what my mother calls "skinny girl shops" with a particular girl style, and Ally's and the like with girly-girl styles, and Hot Topic with pop-alternative styles, why not have a "butch" store with "masculine" styles designed for women?
I don't know anything about this shop specifically, but the concept makes reasonable sense to me.

[Jokasti]

Well, if you have a very open minded Scotsman, I think it could work.

[Rappy]

Ooh, a new thread, yay! *Free hugs for all who desire them*

Also, I wish I could contribute more to the current discussion, but I am terribly unsavvy with clothing. I don't like "tomboy things" or "pretty things" or any particular type of thing beyond "comfy things".

[Coidzor]

Well, if you have a very open minded Scotsman, I think it could work.

Nah, kilts are regulated as to what they can be and what can be called a kilt. Like German beers or Bourbon Whiskey.

[Quincunx]

That, and a skilled kilter will whack you in the head with your own quick-n-easy pleater should you try to call an inferior product a 'kilt', let alone apply the label to a skirt with no pleats whatsoever.

Amusing story: a Swedish child is being raised without any disclosure of its gender. (It's not even being furnished with a unisex wardrobe from the Swedish children's unisex clothing retailer, but with clothing on either end of the spectrum. No word about the toys.) Imagine the coming-out party later in life. [EDIT: To forestall the question of grammar, Swedish has two grammatical genders: neuter and non-. No convolutions are required to strip out references to masculine or feminine.]

[Dogmantra]

Amusing story: a Swedish child is being raised without any disclosure of its gender. (It's not even being furnished with a unisex wardrobe from the Swedish children's unisex clothing retailer, but with clothing on either end of the spectrum. No word about the toys.) Imagine the coming-out party later in life.

I find it interesting that the comments on this story all either say "Good for them" or "pretentious *****" in some way or another. Personally, I think it's a neat idea. That's not "neat" in the "quaint" sense, but "neat" in the "fantastic!" sense.

[Phaedra]

Amusing story: a Swedish child is being raised without any disclosure of its gender. (It's not even being furnished with a unisex wardrobe from the Swedish children's unisex clothing retailer, but with clothing on either end of the spectrum. No word about the toys.) Imagine the coming-out party later in life.

I don't really know how I feel about this. On one hand, I think it's good to fight gender stereotypes and I can see the point they're trying to make. On the other hand, it just seems a bit pointless because, unless the baby's actually intersex, this will last until the child gets to school and can tell people itself what gender it is, at which point presumably they'll have to stop all the mystery.

[Dogmantra]

On the other hand, it just seems a bit pointless because, unless the baby's actually intersex, this will last until the child gets to school and can tell people itself what gender it is, at which point presumably they'll have to stop all the mystery.

Though I think partly the thing is that by the time Pop gets to school or wants to "come out", people will know Pop as Pop, and not as a gender stereotype, which is how the story comes across to me.

[Phaedra]

Though I think partly the thing is that by the time Pop gets to school or wants to "come out", people will know Pop as Pop, and not as a gender stereotype, which is how the story comes across to me.

But how many people know babies as gender stereotypes anyway? With all the parents I know, gender essentially just determines what colour clothes they wear (and that's more determined by what the stores sell than the parents' actual desire to dress their child in pink or blue, at least for the parents I know). A baby doesn't know what gender it is anyway. It doesn't impact on its life in any way until it gets to about 3 or 4, which is the age at which it will be interacting with other kids and learning the difference between boys and girls. I just don't see the point of this.

[The Rose Dragon]

Besides, most of the differences between males and females are physiological, not psychological or sociological. No matter what you do, nature will find a way to enforce its own stereotypes, and the rest of them aren't related to someone's sex in any way.

((This message brought to you by Feminine Heterosexual Cis-Males Society - i.e. me.))

[Coidzor]

Hm. At first I thought, OK, this might be of SCIENCE! interest.

Then I realize, no, they're just weird Swedes who named their sprog "Pop" of all things.

Then I was sad.

[Serpentine]

Amusing story: a Swedish child is being raised without any disclosure of its gender. (It's not even being furnished with a unisex wardrobe from the Swedish children's unisex clothing retailer, but with clothing on either end of the spectrum. No word about the toys.) Imagine the coming-out party later in life.

Interesting idea. Although it's pretty much what I intend to do (with a spectrum of toys) with my kids, except for the "no disclosure of gender" bit...

[Quincunx]

It gets worse. From a Swedish name database: "Our daughter was the first in Sweden to be named 'Pop', after an appeal to the naming committee. This was in 2001. At the same time we decided to later have a boy and also name him Pop, to make the name unisex. In 2003 we baptized our son as 'Pop'. Then in 2007 came an even younger Pop. None of them have it as their [everyday] name!"

I suspect that Third Pop is the child in question, and wearing its siblings' hand-me-downs.

[Serpentine]

Yeah, not a fan of the name.

[Phaedra]

It gets worse. From a Swedish name database: "Our daughter was the first in Sweden to be named 'Pop', after an appeal to the naming committee. This was in 2001. At the same time we decided to later have a boy and also name him Pop, to make the name unisex. In 2003 we baptized our son as 'Pop'. Then in 2007 came an even younger Pop. None of them have it as their [everyday] name!"

I suspect that Third Pop is the child in question, and wearing its siblings' hand-me-downs.

So rather than just selecting a well-known unisex name for their little social experiment, they decided to create one by naming three children in the same family the same name? Yes, well, that's not weird at all. I'm sure their children will grow up perfectly adjusted.

[Scorpina]

See, the subtle differences between 'tomboy' 'transvestite' and 'butch lesbian', make a store specifically aimed at providing men's clothing for women make it either too broad or too narrow under the label 'butch'. Wouldn't 'Men's Clothing For Women Store' make much more sense as a name?

I don't see why women need a specific store to buy men's clothing in, when men's clothing stores exist. I, for one, buy at least half of my clothes from such outlets (or from the menswear section of more general shops). I don't see the need for a specific shop that my uterus and I can go into to buy the same pants that boys are buying in the shop down the street.

[Serpentine]

I would imagine that the difference is that these clothes are cut and designed for women. I don't know, but it seems plausible.

[Quincunx]

Your uterus is enclosed in an un-manly shape, most likely, and will be uncomfortable in a pair of jeans cut to go around a manly shape, as well as sport a set of sunburst wrinkles right where you'd rather not have attention focused. Minimizers aren't supposed to be the top layer and that has been true ever since underwear began to be fitted.

I had written and deleted a post on the topic, but I guess the premise still needs to be said: this was a shop selling women's clothing specifically designed to mimic men's clothing. Some 'bad practices' could be forgiven for the sake of camouflaging the body underneath. The 'bad practice' which made a straitjacket out of that tuxedo jacket's sleeves was not forgivable.

[Murdim]

Besides, most of the differences between males and females are physiological, not psychological or sociological. No matter what you do, nature will find a way to enforce its own stereotypes, and the rest of them aren't related to someone's sex in any way.

((This message brought to you by Feminine Heterosexual Cis-Males Society - i.e. me.))

If this was the case, why do the societal roles and presentations associated with each gender vary so much throughout time and place ? Some decades ago, little boys tended to be dressed in pink and little girls in blue. Throughout the ages, men wore make-up. And let's not even talk about dresses and pants. What make you think that our your set of conceptions of what is feminine and masculine is somehow the right, "natural" one ?

Some aspects of gender roles can be somewhat linked to objective factors (e.g men being more often than not the dominant sex throughout societies). But very few of them can be explained by it (e.g women warriors being the exception rather than the rule). And virtually none of them can be justified by it (e.g women needing protection when they are pregnant... duh).

Amusing story: a Swedish child is being raised without any disclosure of its gender. (It's not even being furnished with a unisex wardrobe from the Swedish children's unisex clothing retailer, but with clothing on either end of the spectrum. No word about the toys.) Imagine the coming-out party later in life. [EDIT: To forestall the question of grammar, Swedish has two grammatical genders: neuter and non-. No convolutions are required to strip out references to masculine or feminine.]

Let's just say there's a difference between not imposing gender roles upon one's children, and using them as a social experiment.

[Dogmantra]

Some decades ago, little boys tended to be dressed in pink

Which makes sense, what with pink being Red Jr.

[Serpentine]

I would like to point something out about that story: There is nothing there that indicates that they won't tell the kid about its sex or anything like that, only that they won't tell other people. It chooses its own clothes, and has a (crappy) gender-neutral name (except "Pop" isn't gender neutral ). I find those quite reasonable - I intend to do the former more or less with my children, and one of my favourite names is gender netural. They're just actively avoiding anyone finding out what sex it is - the extent to which they're doing so is a bit weird, but not even nearly as scarring as, say, botching a circumcision and trying to force the child into a sex it's obviously not comfortable with.

[Coidzor]

Let's just say there's a difference between not imposing gender roles upon one's children, and using them as a social experiment.

And using them as a social experiment and... this odd fetish of theirs.

[Serpentine]

Like I said, what we know they're doing isn't all that extreme.

[Coidzor]

Like I said, what we know they're doing isn't all that extreme.

Whereas I'd say what they're doing is fairly extreme, as they've managed to come to our attention in the first place for what they're doing, but doesn't appear to be a probable cause of harm to the child.

Well, beyond what the child's peers will do to the poor bastard based upon the name anyway.

[Serpentine]

It's a pretty crappy name.

[Lix Lorn]

Some people are strange. :/
On a brighter note, shiny new thread. ^_^