Disneyland greeter

My oldest boy used to put on the third dress on the dressing up box to run around playing with his 2 little girl friends. It was just dressing up play 😀 used to send pictures to his dad to wind him up but he didn't really mind either. He's a happy, well-adjusted teenager now - I don't think there was any serious issue for him!

Having said that, I'm a bit conflicted with this as he's in a work role. Is this telling little girls that even a fantastic job working in the Disney Princess store is not for them, it's for boys?

Someone has just liked this comment I made two years ago.

I've re-read my words and this bit jumped out at me:

Either way, he's still a man in a dress. If it transpires that he is a TW and would prefer me to use she/her to describe him, I have no issue with that and would make that switch.

Looking again at my comment, if it transpired that he was a TW, I now wouldn't switch to using she/her pronouns. Instead, I would stop using pronouns at all. During the time between posting that comment and now, I've realised that I don't believe that everyone has a gender identity (I think I still believed in it myself at that point, or was at least agnostic) and that I don't want to be coerced into using the tenets of a belief that I don't hold.

If Nick was a man in a dress who told us that it was unkind not to use she/her pronouns for TW, I would still look at it from the safeguarding angle I described when it comes to working with children. But from what we can see in the clip, Nick is just a man in a dress who would be subject to the safeguarding rules that apply to all staff working at Disney.

The bigger questions are not about Nick but about the safeguarding policy:

• does Disney's safeguarding policy recognise that autogynophilia exists?
• if not, is the current policy (accidentally/coincidentally) adequate to protect visitors to Disneyland and female staff members?

Edited for typo.

Gay people did try to bring up children in the 70s before gayness was widely accepted. But obvs that's different from random Disney land greetings

It’s a man in a dress, as long as he’s not claiming that makes him a woman I don’t see the issue.

I agree with those saying let’s clothes be clothes. I agree it’s currently outside the social norm to see a man in a dress and few do, but that doesn’t mean it can’t or change in the future. Fashions and social norms change and progress all the time, otherwise women wouldn’t be allowed to wear trousers or show their ankles.

Actually adult guests aren't allowed to dress up as princesses or dogs etc at Disney. In case they're confused as official characters.
Talking about the staff, sorry if not clear.

To the costume designers, not sure they would bother designing a whole new costume for one bloke who then wouldn't be uniform with anyone. I don't know even, maybe they have an army of blokes in knickerbockers too. As Datun says, there could be any of a number of reasons.

And now I'm getting back to back Disney adverts in the side bar... Enough. I'm not a fan.

🤣🤣

Disney are master's of costume design. Even I can imagine a lovely outfit for Nick for his role as the fairy godmother's assistant:

Maybe Knickerbockers, or even a pleated skirt reminiscent of a kilt, with a frilly blouse, lace cuffs, and maybe a swooshy cape, and shoes with buckles and maybe even a bow. And a hat with flowers.

Something that was feminine and interesting but not just a bloke obviously wearing the women's outfit.

I used to be a big fan of Disney before they started to very obviously push an ideology on kids and families who haven't signed up for that, who just want an innocent day of fun.

They've stated they want to get as much queer into their content as possible.
And here is Nick.

Maybe (it is a very sexist environment) they haven't had a male assistant before and didn't have a trouser version of the uniform.
If they can source giant mouse heads, a pair of trousers would hardly present an insurmountable obstacle.

Actually adult guests aren't allowed to dress up as princesses or dogs etc at Disney. In case they're confused as official characters.

I get that GC feminists would like to change the world so that there are no social norms around sex and dress. That's fine. I'd be happy with a culture where there was more leeway for creativity for men in their dress.

What I'm suspicious about is any group that uses kids to try to bring about the change of norms that are currently in place. That tell kids: "be who you want there are no norms", when that's not true.

And trangressing norms for kids has consequences. This seems to get brushed over in the eagerness to create utopia via the kids.

The change should start with adults.

The fact this bloke is performing this to kids, rather than the cultural change starting with a bloke wearing culottes to the office is not accidental.

Kids are being used by the GI and the GC ideologues to try to set the social norms they'd like to see.

Boy in a dress staying he's a girl - you know GI parents

Boy in a dress saying it's fine - you know GC parents

It's the Vegan Cat scenario either way.

If you want to create your personal idea of how society should be, don't do it by telling the kids it'll great, while the adults aren't doing it. It's a lie.

I'm deeply suspicious of anyone using kids in this way.
Disney are promoting an ideology and this bloke is one way it's being sold to the kids.

The thing is, this man's motivation could be any number of things. Just a uniform he doesn't care about, or he's fine with wearing feminine clothes, or he's getting a sexual thrill.

No one knows.

Maybe he or his employer thinks it would be encouraging for any little boys who do want their disney dress. Maybe (it is a very sexist environment) they haven't had a male assistant before and didn't have a trouser version of the uniform. Maybe he just wanted a headline. Maybe he thought it would be a laugh.

He's not interrupting the kids' suspension of disbelief the way he would be if he was playing Elsa, or gaslighting anyone by demanding we pretend he's female.

If a man was dressed up as a dog at disney I wouldn't assume he was a fetishist. If he's dressed up as a dog at a pride march, I would. (Am I allowed to say that? I think they do acknowledge it's a fetish they're celebrating?) Disney is an environment that's about dressing up, Pride is an environment that's about sexuality.

I'm not asserting anything for sure, just thinking it through really.

Sorry, the emojis were inappropriate.
Why does he need to wear a dress to be the fairy godmother’s assistant? I suspect it was very much his choice to prance around in a dress, rather than it being a strict role requirement.

Sorry, don't understand, why is that funny? I mean he's not playing a role titled princess, he's playing a role titled fairy godmother's assistant or some such.

He's not wearing a princess dress, he's wearing an assistant uniform
🤣🤣🤣

He's not wearing a princess dress, he's wearing an assistant uniform. Which is also dressing up. In an attraction full of dressed up people.

So what’s the rationale for a grown man wearing one?

Princess dresses are dressing up. They're not normal wear for anyone. I see no reason a boy can't wear them just as girls can. None of them are actual princesses. Indeed, most of the little boys we've known growing up have had a prance around in a princess dress at some point, as most of the little girls have had a go at being batman or Harry Potter etc. Nobody told them they should limit their imaginations at characters of the same sex (or race, nationality, species, planet...).

it's my understanding that the gender critical viewpoint is people should be able to wear what they like, but not because sartorial choices are so important but because rigid gender stereotyping is detrimental. And clothes can (loosely) become a representation of it.

Pretty much what l think, yes.

But also, I just think men should have the same freedom women have to play with and enjoy clothes. It's not that I think certain little boys, or men, would "naturally" gravitate towards dresses or sparkles and they need to express that (though l'm sure some would just as some little girls and women do), it's more that I think if certain clothes and styles of dress weren't gendered, men would enjoy more clothing options and that would be nice for them.

Right now it's like women have a whole circle to chose from and men only have half.

There's plenty of times dresses are more comfy or convenient than trousers. I wear dresses mostly because it's the fastest easiest thing to put on. I'm sure plenty of blokes would do they same if dresses cut for men were just another thing they might have in their wardrobe.

Or evening/occasion/party wear...just as many women who don't dress especially glamourously day by day enjoy the odd chance to get dressed up, I'm sure there are men who'd like to dress up in something a bit stunning, maybe enhanced with makeup, now and then. Not to be "feminine" or "like a woman", just a bloke looking great in something that suits him and makes him feel a bit special.

Certainly when I was growing up, clothing was fairly ungendered, apart from your pdd party frock. Shorts and T-shirts, or jeans and T-shirts were pretty universal. I wore my brother's hand me down jumpers, and I've got more than one photo of my mum wearing his jeans.

it's my understanding that the gender critical viewpoint is people should be able to wear what they like, but not because sartorial choices are so important but because rigid gender stereotyping is detrimental. And clothes can (loosely) become a representation of it.

And therefore it's only since gendered clothing became so poles apart, that there has been much of an issue . Things like Disney princess dresses, for instance, and the overt femininity of them. Boys being attracted to them being thought of us 'too effeminate', and therefore the dress being an outward expression of that.

The gender critical view point being, as I understand it, that no-one should give a flying fuck if a boy is 'feminine'. That disparaging effeminate boys because they are acting in a 'girly' way is sexist, because acting like a girl is punching down. Or homophobic, of course.

And it doesn't help that there is a whole bunch of men who have fetishised women's subordination, and wearing clearly identifiable 'women's clothes', is part of that.

The clothes indicating the lower status of women and it being arousing to pretend to inhabit that.

The actual clothes, of course, are neither here nor there. They're just material. It's what they represent.

Great post @DemiColon

This idea that it's necessary for boys to wear dresses fits into the idea that there is some inner authentic self which must be expressed through clothing and if it's not it's damaging.

Almost like a gender identity...or at least that personality must be expressed through clothes and this is vitally important for kids at all times. And that 'dress' is intrinsically linked to an inner manifestation of your self.

Why would a boy who likes dresses be damaged by not wearing them? His creativity through clothing expression may be stifled... but all of our choices are pretty limited to within a predictable range, few people are really creative dressers, but beyond this what is the harm that is being done? Why is it so vital?

It's telling children: your clothes are important, they are an outward expression of your inner authentic self, you should have spent time identifying your authentic self and be expressing it.

What a terrible message to give to small kids.

I'd rather be telling kids: most of the time your clothes aren't important. It's certainly not what I want you obsessing about aged 8. That's why you wear you the bog standard same as everyone like you clothing 90% of the time.

When playing, or on certain occasions you can get creative, and more so as you get older and want to make independent decisions.

But right now kid, go and put on your shorts and go and play, with the tractor or the dolls, I don't care, but don't sit here crying because you can't wear this outfit.

I swear we'd have healthier happier kids if we took this approach, instead of the idea shared by the GI & the GC that expression of your unique self through your clothing is essential for children.

To me, the whole issue of dresses is a huge red herring. It comes down to what we really mean by "gender non-conforming" I think and to a large degree that dovetails into some of the trans stuff, which is why so many parents who hate "gendered" clothing on young kids get sucked into gender ideology.

No one, gender non-conforming or not, has some desperate internal need to wear a dress to be authentic. That's just not part of our hardwear. There were neither cave girls nor cave boys who felt incomplete due to lack of dresses or gendered clothing more generally.

There absolutely can be interest, or preference, for a particular type of clothes, but that typically comes from two directions. One is that there is some comfort of practicality element. And I would say that where that is the case, often you see more flexibility in the customs in our society. A child of any sex can wear a jogging suit in public, and even look cool doing it.

The other is more an aesthetic attraction. With younger kids especially that can be imaginative mainly, but even grown ups can appreciate a certain look. But most people, even kids past about age 8 or so, don't generally feel that as some kind of obsessive need to wear a particular item of clothing. Most people also learn over time that clothes cut for the other sex often don't look aesthetically the same on the opposite sex - this is particularly true of dresses. And also that you can enjoy an aesthetic without necessarily having to wear it yourself. And finally, that many people enjoy several different looks, or on the other hand some are just indifferent to fashion all together.

It's normal for children to go through stages of understanding that there are customs around things like clothes, and then how these really fit into life. Often they go through stages of rigidity or over-generalizing, but they grow out of it.

All of which is to say that most people don't get so fixated on something like wearing dresses, and if they do i think it's pretty doubtful that it's about some kind of internal thing called gender non-conformity that inherently makes them only want to wear certain clothes associated with the opposite sex. It's about something else, and that won't be fixed by squashing all customs around clothing.

I think this is why the gender clinic in Toronto, before it shut down, focused on helping children become less fixated. Not because it was trying to make them "conform" but because the fixation was the real issue, not the dolls or dresses or whatever.

It’s a no from me too.
Throwing off gender norms doesn’t using entail dressing up in a little girl’s princess dress that no actual adult woman would wear.
This is something else entirely.

I agree with this. There’s no way of knowing Nicks reasons for dressing like this, but I’m concerned that he may be enjoying breaking boundaries of mine and my child’s.
Also, as the parent, I give my children guidance to get through life, and normalizing this could be very confusing for them.
Sorry Nick, but it’s a no from me.

When boys and girls could just dress how they wished in a complete vacuum let clothes be clothes made a lot of sense.

With how there now seems to be a rapid onset of teens deciding they want to be a different sex, some of them when they look back over their childhood for any patterns that confirm this belief/desire, they latch on to that one time they dressed as a princess, or messed with mum's makeup. I'd still hesitate to discourage it, but they will see those few instances as confirmation that they've always felt how they do and therefore are the opposite sex.

Nick looked happy and welcoming and very child-friendly to me. Pretty much what you want in an employee at the Disney princess shop. Rock on, Nick.