To get “girls” stuff when I search for “boys”

For likely a very small amount of the population. Why would they change layouts to suit a small amount of people who have decided they don't like to shop that way? Is the argument the same for mens and women's sections? How about perfume/aftershave? How about the fact that make up sections are all bright and pink and light, with hearts and flowers? How about lingerie sections, should it be thongs amongst boxer shorts, or are they ok separately?

There's a TOTAL lack of understanding that not everyone thinks the same on this thread.

"I don't want to find pink stuff. I'm looking for boys' stuff".
But why are you special?
Why are YOU allowed to have the shop laid out the way you want (No pink leggings!) but I don't want camo and I ALSO don't want frills - I can't go to the "no camo and no frills" section.

Or just do what the rest of us have been doing for a decade and look everywhere.

The current layouts are a pain in the arse for some of us already. That's the point.

@IpsyUpsyDaisyDoos a shop laid out like that would be a pain in the arse if I was shopping for things for my DD but some of it was for her and some wasn't. I honestly just couldn't get worked up over something like this, but we are all entitled to our own opinions.

How would your life change if it was just a "kids" section" though? You'd filter to the colour rather than the gender and still find what you wanted. One search per child.

Splitting by gender means if you want pink for boys, you go to girls (cos boys aren't allowed pink and all girls love it). But you also want jeans, so you go to boys cos they're sized for boy shapes (and more practical, girls don't need pockets apparently). Or you want khaki for a girl so you have to go through both genders to see what's there. And you need a dress cos she wants one but jeans cos they're practical. So at least two searches per child.

There's also a need to make sure boys know that it's ok to like pink, butterflies, unicorns. And girls know that it's ok to like a football shirt or diggers. Taking the gender label off helps that. Cos more parents would buy them if they were just cute kids clothes, and didn't have a gender assigned.

Often get skirts and dresses shown under Boys.
It’s wasting my time, just add them to Unisex if it’s so important.

But why do I have to look in both sections for my children when other people are complaining loudly that they are (shock horror) being shown clothes their child won't be wearing in case his willy drops off?

Why do I have to see clothes I don't want to buy but other people don't have to see clothes they don't want to buy?

It's a pain looking at all the clothes in both the "boys" and the "girls" sections for clothes but I don't see how you could get a categorisation system that suits everyone - why should it suit you, but not suit me?

I'd prefer a system that grouped by colour, and then had themes like animals, gaming, plain (I would REALLY like a section that had all the plain colours together!), simple patterns (e.g tie dye, stripes), and then divide up into tops, bottoms etc.

If you are so offended by this you would faint at seeing a skirt in the "plain red bottoms" section then I am sorry, but it would make things a lot easier for me.

Or is it only you that gets to have your life made easier?

I do. I look in the boys section for my boy and the girls section for my girl. My girl went through a stage of only liking football kits and dark tracksuits and likewise. I always found those things in the boys section. She then got a bit older and went back to liking lighter brighter things, pinks and purples. I found these in the girls section.

YANBU to get miffed by it. To all the people saying "gatekeeping clothes is sexist", lets be honest most little lads wouldn't want to wear pink leopartard trousers and sparkly sequin tops would they?

To be fair though, my youngest DD only wears boys clothes. She also has very short boy hair so if you look at her you will automatically assume she's a little lad. But thats not something Ive enforced, its how she wants to be. Still a girl though.

So can you though, surely? So this whole argument is a bit moot. Because if someone wants butterflies or pink for their boy, they either click "girls" and search both, OR, they go onto the sites which are showing both and....search both.

Meanwhile, you just continue buying what you want for your child, based on what they like?

Where do shops say that? You can look for whatever you want and in whichever section you want for your child.

Sorry 🤣🤣

Yes, I was agreeing with you 😂

But why do the shops ALSO get to say that I shouldn't be looking for a cat sweatshirt, or blue leggings, or a rainbow with purple, for my DS?

I completely agree that there should be no more boys/girls clothing sections but I also think retailers should be incentivised to make clothes that can be passed down between boys and girls - so much less wasteful if you have e.g. a bright blue sweatshirt with a cartoon cat, not a frilly pink sweatshirt AND a dark brown one with HERE COMES TROUBLE in camo letters.

Where did I say you didn't have eyes? I clearly said in life I don't know anyone who buys that for their boys.

Yes, well we all have eyes don't we? We can see what children are actually wearing.

Judging by the comments on here it seems more like 99% would be looking for that for their boys. However, in real life (mine anyway) I don't know anyone who would be looking to buy that for their boys.

Actually I think it's pretty good that finally large retailers are cottoning on to the fact that their idea of what colours each gender should wear is probably contributing to the issue, and trying to fix it (if that's what they're doing)

Then why bother having a boys and a girls section? Surely it would make more sense to just have it sortable by age?

Exactly. Same issue with cats with my DS. He liked them as a small child (still does), but boys aren't allowed cats on their clothes.
Much easier to have a general children's category (and you can look for "trousers" if you don't want dresses) than one for "cat lovers" one for "camo", one for "diggers", one for "blue but not pale blue past the age of 2", one for "frills", one for "rainbows WITH purple", one for "rainbows WITHOUT purple" etc.

Anyway, how do we get caterpillars if no butterflies are boys?

I'm not saying they should or shouldn't be able to wear anything. I'm just being realistic about what 99% of people will be looking for when shopping for their boys, and it's not pink leggings and butterfly tops.

This whole "pink for girls and blue for boys" thing has got a bit ridiculous, hasn't it? It seems the OP's issue with M&S's website is more operator error than "gender-neutral wokery", but I really wish more companies would just sell "children's clothing" and "toys" instead of "boys' clothing/toys" and "girls' clothing/toys".

When I was little in the 80s, I'm sure plenty of kids just wore clothes, and played with toys. I remember lots of tough, practical designs like Oshkosh dungarees, and chunky homemade knitwear, and designs from Clothkits (plus cheaper versions of the same kind of thing). Of course, clothing was generally more expensive, and so hand-me-downs were a big thing, which probably accounted for parents' preferences for more neutral/reusable designs.

I really love these Lego ads from the late 70s/early 80s, which show just the sorts of designs I remember:

Vintage Lego Ad - Sociological Images (thesocietypages.org)

Another Blast from Lego’s Past: Gender-Neutral Vintage Ads - Sociological Images (thesocietypages.org)

My 19 year olds favourite shorts are a pale lilac colour which he wears usually with a darker purple t-shirt. I haven't seen him naked for many years, but I suspect he'd have told me if his penis had come off!

They don't have to wear butterflies. But why does that mean they should be only available in the "girl" section?

They're an insect. No human idea of gender needs assigning to them. If a boy likes butterflies, fine. If he doesn't, fine. Same for a girl.

Where do you draw the line though?
When my DS, who is now 12, was a baby if you filtered by "boys'" you didn't get any leggings. I liked leggings for him, they are practical and not as hot for a baby as joggers. You also didn't get any spotty clothes and he LOVED spotty clothes. No cats, he loved animals. No unicorns or rainbows, which a lot of toddlers like.

Or is the girls' section ONLY pink leggings and everything else is under "boys"?

Why do YOUR preferences not to put your boy in pink leggings trump MY preference to put pink on both my children, leggings on both my children, dresses on neither, and all animals and shapes on both my children?

So true. And the idea that girls like “pretty things” - like pink, fairies, unicorns and boys like “cool”, dangerous, sporty stuff like dinosaurs, footballs. Then we wonder why women are judged/ valued by their looks, while boys have greater freedom to pursue adventure, enjoy physical activity and generally take risks in life.