It…depends. Chronic pre-pubescent transvestism is very uncommon; it’s actually more likely for the child to be transgender. There is a sexual fetish basis to some transvestism and those sufferers generally won’t exhibit that until puberty. So possible, but unlikely.
I’m dumb. What’s the difference?
For a seven-year-old, probably teasing and maybe getting the snot kicked out of him is the worst he would face. But for kids who routinely step outside of the gender box, the risk would be more like severe physical and sexual assault. That’s not really bullying the way most people think of it. And that’s why, despite the fact that I am very pro-transgender expression, I couldn’t go for the automatic ‘‘yes.’’ I’m not sure a seven-year-old has the capacity to determine if being true to himself in all public spheres is worth a lifetime of victimization. But I also wouldn’t operate solely on my own instinct, because I’m a female who can neither relate to being a boy, nor relate to being a boy who wants to to wear a dress. I wouldn’t assume the kid is transgender, but I wouldn’t assume he’s not, and either way, I want a professional opinion.
[QUOTE=mikecurtis]
yes, kids get teased for all kinds of things: for being too smart or being the only catholic, just to name two. noone here, i think, would recommend telling a kid to not do their homework our proudly display their crucifix just because they might get teased or even bullied. why, then, would you recommend they not wear a dress for those same reasons?
[/QUOTE]
Because teasing isn’t the real risk here, at least not as the kid gets older. At the most extreme end, the kid faces a substantially elevated risk of physical and sexual assault for his entire teen and adult life. Maybe it is worth it to that kid, or maybe he has a supportive culture, but those are a lot of factors I’m not sure a seven-year-old can evaluate, and they are entirely dependent on the hypothetical circumstances.
No need to spend $50. That’s why there are thrift stores. You can pick up a dress or skirt for just a few bucks, and girls’ clothes tend to be in better shape than boys’ clothes at thrift stores.
Would I let my hypothetical son wear a dress to school? It would depend on the school, and it would also depend on why he wanted to wear a dress. If he wanted a dress to wear around the house, or just to play dress up, or for some kind of crazy-outfit-day at school, we’d go pick out something from a thrift store.
The difference between transvestitism and being transgendered? I should probably let Una tackle this, but I’m going to try, because if I get it wrong, I want to be corrected.
Transvestites want to wear the clothes of the opposite gender. Sometimes they want to present as the opposite gender, sometimes not. With some people, it might be limited to a single garment, like a man who likes to wear panties under his business suits. Sometimes it’s men who want to wear dresses, but don’t wish to present as women at all, and they may just want to wear dresses around the house. Or it might be a woman who on formal occasions really likes to wear a dinner jacket and white tie, but generally wears clothes from the women’s department.
It’s part and parcel of transvestitism that you are wearing the clothes of the opposite gender.
Being transgendered means that the gender you were assigned at birth feels wrong. Usually you are assigned based on the appearance of your external genitalia. There are lots of reasons for a mismatch. Rarely, internal and external genitalia don’t match. Sometimes chromosomal and external genitalia don’t match. Sometimes everything lines up, but the person still feels like they have a “man’s brain in a woman’s body,” or the other way around. Such a person wishes to present as the gender that matches their identity, the gender they feel they are, regardless of what they were assigned at birth. So, if such a person, whatever their genitalia, truly is a woman, and goes out with long hair and a dress, that isn’t transvestitism. That’s just being a typical woman.
I may have phrased some things awkwardly, but I think I have the basics correct.
Here’s a better rule:
-
Don’t be patronizing.
-
Don’t deny the power of parents/society in how a person develop unless you’re willing to go all the way to “it only nature, not nurture”
Some crossdressing is fetishistic and intrinsically tied to sexual desire or even autogynophelia or autoandrophilia. Some is driven by non-sexual reasons (such as drag performance or emotional attachment).
Leaffan has a transgender child, so I suspect he was asking about some of the differentiation that I was making among transvestite persons…I think.
(Sorry for the double post)
You’re not assigned a gender, you’re sex is determined in a way that works well over 99% of the time; it is not an imposition any more than saying, “it’s a human” is.
Fact is not patronizing.
Science and psychology has already gone that way, both for sexual preference and gender identity. Welcome to the 21st century.
That’s funny: The legal hellstorm I would visit upon any school which allowed such things to happen to my child wouldn’t be a “parent-teacher conference” the way most people think of it.
The school enforces rules. Those rules are ostensibly for the protection of the students. That concept cuts both ways. And goddamn if I wouldn’t want to be the pointy end of that blade if it came time for it to start cutting in the opposite direction.
Being untrue to yourself long enough can lead to a life that’s not worth living and, ultimately, a life not lived, whether through suicide or something equivalent. And the only way for someone to figure out who they are is for them to do it in times and places where there are people protecting them, so the consequences cannot become too severe.
That’s a good point, and I would be, as I said, very interested in why he wanted to dress in a dress, and I would take him to therapists if he said he felt like a girl or similar.
Yes, being trans or gender-nonconforming puts a person at a disproportionately increased risk, but those traits aren’t controlled by how someone dresses. Allowing or disallowing a dress won’t change it in the slightest.
In a larger sense, this breaks down into two contexts:
As a child, he’s protected by the school in theory and by me in practice. Him being bullied isn’t allowed any more than you being raped is allowed. If someone raped you, would you say that maybe you shouldn’t have dressed like that? Would you think that would be valid reasoning coming from someone who had imposed rules on you for your protection, and who then failed to stop the rape or punish the rapist?
As an adult, he’d be able to find somewhere to live where he wouldn’t be harassed or assaulted (yes, that’s what bullying is called when you’re old enough to be human) and he’d be able to defend himself without someone needing to step up to defend his right to defend himself. There are already trans-friendly places in the country, and the trends seem to be positive.
And the only way he’s going to know who he is as an adult is if he’s allowed to find out as a child.
That is not a reality-based statement.
Yes, but what does that have to do with gender?
Parents/society have the power to stifle a person’s understanding and expression of his nature. They can cause the person to repress his true nature for years or decades. They can cause him to be unhappy, unfulfilled and frustrated in the attempt to live a lie. But they can’t change his nature.
It depends on the circumstances and the peculiar facts of the case. You have to let a child express his or herself. You also need to inculcate in the an understanding that the are not so special as so the rules don’t apply to them. And which battles to fight and when. Kids innately understand no 1 not so much no 2 and 3
This is entirely too sensible a line of thinking for many people here, sadly.
Some rules don’t apply to them because they’re rules that don’t apply to anyone, because they’re rules that are unjust and repressive and need to be obliterated via collective scorn and disrespect.
I totally agree. But in this case, I think the OP sets out the most salient peculiar facts.
I have a helluva lot of experience applying rules to 7-year-olds, probably more than anyone else in this thread (and twice as much applying rules to 8-year-olds). My approach is something like this:
-Explain the rule.
-Explain the rationale for the rule.
-If I can’t explain the rationale, question whether I should have the rule in the first place.
When a kid breaks the rule, I need to be able to explain not only what rule they broke, but why that rule matters, going back to fundamental principles (e.g., “It made someone have a worse day when you did that,” “You kept yourself and other people from learning,” “That risked someone’s safety,” etc.)
Returning to the OP, what fundamental principle is violated by having a boy wear a dress if he wants to? It might distract other students from learning–but students are resilient and will learn to deal with it quickly, and learning to accept differences is an important lesson. It might risk the boy’s safety–but the way to handle that isn’t by preventing him from wearing a dress, but by teaching others not to be little violent assholes.
I can’t think of a valid reason to prevent the dress-wearing.
The excuse of “it will distract other students from learning” is a bit of “common sense” which is somewhat silly and ignorant. That excuse has been used in the past (primarily against girls) to stifle any sort of free expression and to try to force students into some sort of cookie-cutter world of brain-dead conformity typified by the ticky-tacky suburban houses and identical SUVs their parents aspire to.
Back in my day it was misogynistic prattle like “boys can wear shorts that practically go to their butt cheeks, but girls have to wear dresses down to the knees or trousers because it might distract the boys from learning.” Girls were told we had to forgo makeup, had to wear a bra, couldn’t wear a top that was too loose OR too tight, couldn’t wear tight blue jeans, had to do this and that and the other thing because God forbid the boys (who are intrinsically more important than us) be “distracted.” One teacher said we couldn’t even brush our hair in class, because it would “distract the boys.” The 16-year-old future leaders of the world are thrown for a loop by a girl brushing her hair?
Not only did I never once hear boys admonished that they might be distracting to the girls, but I also never heard anyone seriously propose banning some of the real distractions, like, oh, school sports? I was there; I witnessed the boys hourly, daily, for the entire school term talking and jabbering about both school and professional sports. I never once saw any teacher get bent out of shape about that distraction. Shoot, sometimes they joined in, and English class would suddenly have 5 minutes of the teacher talking about which boy ran so many yards etc.
But a kid wanting to express themselves by wearing a dress, whoa, suddenly that’s going to drop school-wide test scores by 10%…right.
The whole thing is institutionalized misogyny which is perpetuated by parents. Why do parents let their girls go to school in jeans and boy’s tops? Those have been “male” clothing for decades - a century or more, or at least since the mid-1800’s - before girls started doing it as a regular thing. Even in the 1980’s girls wearing jeans were barely a majority at my school (and in the spring they were a minority). Why aren’t parents also forcing their girls to only wear a dress or skirt to school?
Or consider this core question - if girls can wear any format of clothes we want to - from a skirt or dress to blue jeans - why can’t boys? For ages girls couldn’t wear jeans to school…and then suddenly, we could. Did the Clothing Pope issue a bull or something? Or did parents come to a slow realization that at the heart of the matter it didn’t make any real difference?
Just as wearing jeans didn’t turn your girls into boys or make them lesbians, wearing skirts and dresses will not turn boys into girls or make them gay. It’s not a plot by the transgender Mafia to get recruits.
You make a lot of good points regarding a complex issue.
I guess the way I thought of it is this. Some women choose to drink at parties, even though women who attend parties with alcohol have a disproportionately higher risk of sexual assault. If a woman is sexually assaulted at such a party, it is never her fault, and I would never say to her, ‘‘You shouldn’t have been at that party.’’ But an adult woman is capable of evaluating whether the increased risk is worth the cost to her freedom. I would not allow a thirteen-year-old girl to make that choice.
One of the mundane worries we have as prospective parents is that our kid is going to want to play football. The occasional sprained ankle is one thing, permanent brain damage is quite another. As very brain-friendly people, we are concerned about the sustained impact of micro-concussions. If a seven-year-old asks to get into football, he’s not going to understand the concept of micro-concussions or brain damage. And if he were to sustain brain damage, it wouldn’t be his fault. We’re going to have to make a choice about whether to allow that particular expression of the self or to prevent him from the activity for his own protection.
This is obviously not an equivalency, just an attempt to demonstrate that the desire to protect your kids is instinctive and strong, especially when they lack the ability to fully comprehend the potential consequences of their actions. (Full disclosure: I am not a parent. We are working on it - recently approved adoption home study. Frankly, it sounds very hard.)
IMHO, the only way a 7-year old boy should be allowed to wear a dress to school is if he understands full well the potential bullying (and not just mere teasing, but severe bullying) that he could be in for if he does this. It would be irresponsible to send him into that situation where he could incur severe emotional suffering, without that kind of stern knowledge beforehand.