Do Tom Boys have female socialisation?

As for the genderedness of things - I liked 'boys' toys' because I didn't enjoy the typical social, nurturing, chatting play of girls. I liked the action and imagination and girls' play seemed much less interesting to me. I'm a bit socially awkward and I think I lean towards friendship with people on the grounds of 'they're fun to hang out with', which I think is more of a bloke thing, rather than 'they're the best, most loyal, caring friends' (I have to admit, some of the friends I've made aren't actually great people).

My DH probably has more confiding, close friendships than I do!

I was a tomboy. I had cropped short hair from age 7 most of the time until I was 35. I was pretty consistently thought to be a boy until I was at least 15 (I had small boobs and not much of a waist or hips) if wearing something that wasn't obviously 'girly'. I did actually wear dresses and 'girls clothes', but all my friends were boys until secondary school (when it was still half and half) and most of my toys were 'boy' ones. I was very sensitive, didn't like sports and was very non-competitive, so I wouldn't say I had an archetypally 'boy' personality. My parents were fine with how I was and never tried to change me.

Interestingly, DD is fairly similar to me, although always had female friends (thought acquiring male friends at secondary now). The big change from when I was a kid is that, when she gets misgendered and tells people she is a girl people often don't believe her. She doesn't even look like a boy, she just has short hair! (I genuinely looked like a boy) It's like people have completely lost the idea that a young girl could have short hair - she says people often look at her puzzled when she's out in a dress/skirt because they just can't figure her out (and she's getting boobs now as well, also very unlike me at her age!). No one has tried to suggest to me she is trans, so I'm unconvinced by all those who say 'Oh, everyone would be getting me to transition these days'

She is nearly 12 and thinks she might be bi or lesbian (I think I was pretty asexual until my 20s and then hetero) and she has alluded to maybe being non-binary. DH and I have agreed our messaging to her would be that a lot of people are claiming to be non-binary when really what they mean is 'I don't like gender norms' and it's better for her and the wider world to own being a woman and say that being a woman doesn't have to mean being this way or that. She can and should be a woman how she likes.

Yes, thats what pp have been saying. You didn't get labelled a tomboy, but we did. The label stuck because we had to be a bit defiant to carry on doing the stuff we liked and not get pulled into line.

I understood what people were saying, thanks. The entire point is that ideas around behaviour being "girlish" or "boyish" are a social construct and are policed accordingly according to the time, era and social world in which you live

It was considered 'normal kid behaviour' for me and my female friends back in 70s (childhood only though) to be riding bikes, tree climbing etc but I think in that era, it was generally expected that it would change at adolescence. But for boys at the time, playing with dolls etc would def have been considered completely no-go and "demeaning" in a way that I don't think us riding bikes, tree climbing etc was. Anything designated as being for girls is supposedly lesser.

I agree with others that have said you're socialised 'as a girl' (or a boy) regardless of whether you fit the stereotype. Socialised on the 'axis' of being a boy or a girl, if you like. A "girlish" boy is not literally being socialised as female, but on whether or not he's adequately fitting into what society deems boyhood. A so-called boyish girl likewise, and, depending on how rigid the 'rules' are at the time, both are treated accordingly.

Doesn't it depend on what the nature of being gender non-conforming refers to? Its not just about clothes, hair & play preferences but how children are socialised to interact with other people.

I don't want to completely erase the shit show that is socialisation within the patriarchy, but you have described your tom boy time as rejecting gender norms and your teenage time as succumbing to them. Do you feel you ever just...did what you liked? And maybe that changed over time?

I think that's a really good question and it gets to the bottom of something I've been thinking about a lot but didn't really know how to say. Something about people sort of performing themselves rather than just being themselves. I hope that one day more people feel able to "just be".

Does being gender non-conforming alter the form of socialisation you recieved?
I think you get either side of the same coin, but it's all really the same. I don't think it gives you any protection from things like sexual abuse and the really pernicious expectations that were described really well in a previous post.

I'd like to know the age at which we consider girls as 'tomboys'. I don't think we'd describe a 1 year old crawling around in the dirt as such, but it seems to come in maybe what, six onwards? Can it be a coincidence that that's around school starting time when uniforms, names, new expectations are put on kids? We also don't apply the term to say, non-conforming uni students.
However I looked/what I did I could never not be a girl throughout my schooling because it was always known.
Maybe they are particular ages for pushback - when you're put in a school uniform and dressed differently to your male peers and when you're about to head down the threatening tunnel that is puberty.

Yes,
Even tomboys had female socialisation.

Yes,
Even if you looked and dressed like a boy to strangers, socialisation comes from social groups who would know your sex. Eg, your male friends, your family, your family friends, your teachers, your church, your clubs, etc all knew you were a really a girl.

Yes,
Even before you hit puberty, you had female socialisation.

I guess I mean succumbing to the gender messages that had been drummed into me from birth
Well there's your answer.
You had female socialisation.
You got labelled a "tom boy" when you acted differently.
The female socialisation worked well.

I don't want to completely erase the shit show that is socialisation within the patriarchy, but you have described your tom boy time as rejecting gender norms and your teenage time as succumbing to them. Do you feel you ever just...did what you liked? And maybe that changed over time?

Today’s parents are offered fashion choices for their girls (heeled, scrappy shoes) for instance that can limit the girls ability to actual use their bodies.

But they've also got the choice of Converse, trainers, doc martens, kickers - all fashionable, all possible to be active in.

Sorry again Dido at my daughter’s mixed sex comp school the popular girls most definitely don’t do well in tests.

But girls out perform boys in secondary school. My daughter and her friends were in top sets all the way through school and achieved very high grade GCSEs and A levels - maybe the clue is in you saying the "popular girls" - when I was at school the popular boys didn't do well because they were more concerned with mucking about than doing work.

I wonder if being punished has a more profound effect than being rewarded. I imagine if I displayed, er, 'correct girly girl gender norms' the praise and validation from that would be more subtle, and it might be harder to unpick that as you got older.
However being punished/shamed if you don't feel it's justified sticks in the mind. A non-conforming child might grow up with more awareness of stereotypes than a confirming child as shame runs deeper than validation? Just a thought.

I still find it hard to read things like 'I succumbed' though to describe your behaviour changing. Nothing wrong with growing your hair out etc, nothing to be ashamed about.

It's not just how you are treated but also how you see other girls and women treated, and boys and men. So there's no opting out.

I was seen as a Tom boy as a child, I hated it as to me I was just a child.

I was often described a being a 'bit of a Tom boy' & got very indignant about this as I feIt strongly that I was me & whatever I was doing or wearing (or rather not doing or wearing) didnt make me anything else.

Does this alter our socialisation?

No? Why would it?

I don't think 'tomboys' are necessarily rejecting gender norms and not identifying with girls.

Some are. And for some this is a very intense experience that we should recognise and respect.

Nonetheless, I agree that If we stopped separating them from the rest of their sex, especially by calling them 'tomboys', then I think we would be doing them and all girls a favour. Then they would just be girls with some interests like...all girls and boys.

It's just another patriarchal label put on girls.

Do tom boys have the same socialisation as "normal" girls? Does rejecting gender norms and not identifying with girls alter how you receive all these gendered messages?

But, I don't think 'tomboys' are necessarily rejecting gender norms and not identifying with girls. That's a huge leap. I think a lot of them are just...being girls.

If we stopped separating them from the rest of their sex, especially by calling them 'tomboys', then I think we would be doing them and all girls a favour. Then they would just be girls with some interests like...all girls and boys.

I wouldn’t worry about succumbing as such. Does it matter if you have your hair long or short, wear heels or flats? Many people will want to attract a partner and will alter their behaviour accordingly.

Wanting a partner less may get rid of some ‘socialisation’. Also maybe being more accepting of a wider range of people as partners may also widen a pool of choice so that is conforming to society’s stereotypes matters less.

I suppose the same can be said about money and influence. If we want these - often we have to give up part of our ‘freedom’ to attain them - eg conform.