Disneyland greeter

There is a presumption in the GC view that the distress of the boy who wants to wear the dress comes from not being able to wear the dress and this would be relieved by wearing the dress.

In fact the distress of the boy who wants to wear the dress comes from the fact that he knows that boys and men don't wear dresses and therefore feels this desire is wrong.
This distress would likely therefore be intensified if he wore a dress publically. He'd still know he is a boy wearing something the other boys and daddies don't and everyone now knows his desire. The shame would likely increase.

It's understandable that it's much easier for the boy who wants to wear a dress to wear it and say he's a girl. This feels acceptable.

It feels acceptable because he can see that men don't wear dresses not just because his dad said it.
And a kind mum telling him it's fine wouldn't change his observations of the reality of the social world that it's not.

Once boys can see that lots of daddies wear dresses and are socially accepted then we could tell them with honesty 'it's fine.'

Telling children social norms don't matter isn't true, they can see it's not true, and their distress is exacerbated by not fitting in, that is a human drive particularly in children, and telling them it's fine doesn't make it so.
And they know it.

Dress is culturally regulated.
We shouldn't pretend it's not.

You may think it shouldn't be, or that the regulations are too narrow but that doesn't mean there isn't a current socially enforced regulation around dress.
And that there aren't social consequences to transgressing these.

Most adults generally abide by these regulations. That's why we don't have lots of men wearing dresses.

Yes children experiment with them in play. Yes teen agers experiment with the boundaries. All perfectly normal.

What is not normal and has never been tried is telling kids: you can transgress all the boundaries you can see the adults confirming too and this will make you happier.
We have no idea. It's an experiment.

I think all this asking kids to ruminate on their identity and how they want to present themselves is bad for their mental health. I think it's good for kids to have boundaries in their choices made by adults, releasing them from constant decision making and reflection for which they are not ready.
That's why this experimentation has been until now a stage of adolescence and separation from adult control into self direction.

Telling all 7 year olds they can present however they want whenever they want I don't think will produce the free happy kids you think. I think it will produce confused anxious kids fixated on self rumination on their place in the social world.

It may fix distress for a few but will induce confusion for the many.

Yes cultural norms are restrictive and more difficult for some people than others, but the idea that therefore removing them and encouraging kids to lead the way on changing these will result in greater happiness all round rather than more confusion and anxiety all round is quite a wild one.

It's a utopian idea we're asking kids to create.

I don't think that letting kids make their own fashion choices is asking kids to "lead the way" in terms of the direction of society. The adults should be making the laws and keeping kids safe, but I really don't think fashion is something that should be heavily regulated.

Children have always played and experimented as that's how they learn. They obviously don't do this in a vacuum and parental attitudes and wider societal attitudes obviously inform the results of their little experiments through play and teach them "this is fine to do, but whoah, the reaction to that tells me it's a terrible idea to repeat that behaviour". And obviously it's down to individual parenting views, but I've never been particularly strict on enforcing gendered clothes or toys or activities on my DC (in part as a reaction to my own parents' style) as that wouldn't align with my personal beliefs on sex and gender.

And teens have always experimented with subverting cultural norms through fashion, music, etc and that's a normal part of growing up too. It had never led to these levels of gender distress until gender ideology became a thing, because before that, it was widely accepted that you couldn't change biology but that you could do all sorts of things with fashion, makeup, tattoos, piercings etc to modify your body in a way that better spoke to who you are as a person. Luckily though, most of that stuff is either reversible or, in the case of tattoos, superficial and not allowed for under 18s anyway (although I'm sure I'm not the only one bearing regrettable tattoos from my younger days when I was "100% I sure I want my body to look like this forever and I will never change my mind").

I have serious objections to gender ideology and to drag misogyny, but regulating how people can arrange specific pieces of fabric over their bodies isn't something I can get excited about.

I agree with all that.

But it doesn't explain in any way the idea that we'd have less gender distress if we allowed boys to wear dresses but told them they were still a boy.

It also doesn't justify the belief that if boys could just wear dresses then gender distress would be removed.

There is no evidence for this. It's never been done. The adults aren't doing it. It suggests there are lots of men secretly aching to wear dresses?

I think it's actually likely that telling all kids they can transgress social norms and they should work out who they are and how they want to express themselves, would result in worse outcomes for children's mental health than the system of cultural rules all previously generally followed.

Yes cultural norms are restrictive and more difficult for some people than others, but the idea that therefore removing them and encouraging kids to lead the way on changing these will result in greater happiness all round rather than more confusion and anxiety all round is quite a wild one.

It's a utopian idea we're asking kids to create.

Cultural norms do change. But this should be done organically and not based on the enforced ideological beliefs of a small group being sold to children in the hope they can create the utopia, without any evidence of how that's going to play out for them.

As I said if you want to create a genderless utopia, start with getting your husband to wear a dress to work. Don't start the experiment with the kids.

There is no evidence that allowing them to wear dresses publically would relieve this distress.

It may well increase their sense of something being wrong and difficulties with acceptance of this having publically displayed it.

I guess we could ask all the men who grew up in the 80's and 90's wearing makeup and feminine clothes (including skirts) and see if they experienced gender distress and whether it persisted into adulthood? If the distress is caused by social situations and societal judgement, then it makes sense that if a critical mass is doing that thing, it won't feel so unacceptable socially.

When things are normalised, people do feel more accepted in society. I'm not saying society should normalise Nick's look (sorry Nick), but I don't see an issue with letting a kid wear a fairy dress on holiday at Disneyland and I don't think it will do them any harm. It's a fantasy world and I believe it's ok for kids to engage in fantasy play.

That said, I'd be scared to let a boy go to fancy dress party or similar in a fairy dress nowadays, as he'd probably end up being transitioned by the school the following week.

How can gender norms be causing the huge rise in the numbers of kids identifying as Trans? These norms have always been in place and previously the numbers of kids with gender dysphoria were low.

I would like to see studies and evidence, obviously, but in the absence of these, my current personal opinion (which is liable to change as more information (hopefully) comes to light) is that a significant percentage of the increase in trans kids results from the change in the narrative of transactivism from "trans rights now" to "trans women are actual women in every respect", which in my view was the advent gender ideology as a quasi-religious ideology as opposed to before, when it was just about supporting people with gender dysphoria who desperately believed they were trapped in the wrong body.

Before gender ideology and the TWAW narrative (which I believe inadvertently came from the notion that gay people are born gay), lots of people who experienced gender distress would be sad or angry that they were born the sex they were, but would ultimately move on with their lives as it's not like you can turn back time or change one's sex.

Whereas now, those same kids are told that they essentially can reverse the fact they were born a certain sex, in every way that counts, and can essentially have a do-over as the opposite sex, with zero restrictions on how that plays out.

So whereas before there was no realistic option to stop puberty or use the ladies' loos without challenge or play sports on a female team if you were a male, now you can do all of those things exactly as if you were born a girl in the first place. And not only can you have the life you've always wanted, but you'll be celebrated for it and will have heaps of people online boosting your self-esteem day-by-day and telling you how brave and beautiful you are. Plus, you've been told that puberty blockers are completely reversible and just give you time to decide for sure, so there's zero risk to the whole thing. Why wouldn't you try out living as trans when you've been told you can change back whenever you feel like it with no irreversible effects whatsoever?

In short, before the current surge in trans-identifying people, there were huge medical and social costs to transitioning and it offered an ersatz version of being the other sex that would leave you in a biological limbo with no guarantee that you'd even be happier. It was a big gamble and for most people, not work the risks and the social costs. But nowadays, with the advent of gender ideology and the social media explosion, transitioning is sold as a reversible jaunt into the world you've always wanted to live in, with absolutely zero downside and a massive and multi-faceted upside.

I know if I believed the hype around transitioning, I'd be signing up for it too.

There is evidence that boys who have an interest in feminine things feel distress.

There is no evidence that allowing them to wear dresses publically would relieve this distress.
It may well increase their sense of something being wrong and difficulties with acceptance of this having publically displayed it.
Particularly as children will be very aware the daddies don't wear dresses this is not 'normal' however much the nice mummies are telling them it's fine.

The aim of creating a utopia where there are no gender norms is a very distant dream and pretending to children they can happily disregard societal norms without consequence is a lie.

Societal norms are real. Yes they may be socially constructed but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Telling children they don't exist, or they can ignore them without any consequence is a lie.

If you want to create a utopia without gender don't start with the kids. Start persuading your husband to wear a dress. Then you can tell your son it's fine without lying.

Is there any real evidence this is the case? I haven't seen any indication that places with stricter gender norms around clothing produce more gender dysphoria in kids.

Is there any reliable evidence for anything when it comes to gender dysphoria?

It would be great to see the evidence or for academics to be able to study it, as I agree that it's most frustrating that we're in a climate where we all just have to speculate,

My thinking on this is all anecdotal- from my own experience of raising girls and a boy, my own experience as a gay and neurodivergent 'weird' child, my experience of listening to trans people's and detransitioners' experiences of being confined by gender expectations and from the DSM-5 criteria for gender dysphoria, which relies on non-conformity with gender norms for the most part to make a diagnosis.

My sense from the transwomen I know and from hearing countless other parents of trans girls is that they were admonished for being "too girly" as children and usually at least one parent had a massive problem with that (Jazz Jennings' dad, Susie Green's husband, etc). My ex-DH was like that too, but we separated when DS was very young and then he was free to grow his hair (because he wanted to hide behind it, not because he associated it with being a girl) and wear the dressing-up clothes his sisters were wearing. I don't know what would have happened if I had listened to those around me (his dad, my mother, etc) and had told him he can't dress like that or play a game because he's a boy, but I can absolutely see why a little boy who desperately wants to dress a certain way or play with his sisters might become distressed about being a boy when he is constantly told it restricts him in ways that socially exclude him. And DS would have been incredibly distressed about not being able to have long hair as he desperately wanted/wants to hide his face (he has ASD and a minor disfigurement, which obviously isn't minor to him). And then when a little boy who's growing up thinking "if only I were born a girl" gets to school nowadays and is told that you can be born in the wrong body and you might be a girl on the inside, that would make perfect sense to him and be incredibly appealing as a concept. DS knows he's a boy but he is in thrall to the social media narrative that TWAW and if he were younger (he's in college now) I know he would have jumped on the idea that he's in the wrong body as he struggles greatly with his disabled body a lot of the time (and he still might identify as a different gender as he's in that culture and it's a hugely appealing concept).

I also think that there's a positive link between enforcing gender conformity in little boys and gender distress because places that tend to be very homophobic for religious reasons (which is the strict enforcement of a key gender norm, through shame, social exclusion, etc) such as some countries in the Middle East and large parts of the US appear to have a tendency to transition gay people to make them more socially acceptable within the confines of those very strict gender norms around people you can have relationships with (and whether it's ok for a man to act effeminate or not).

When you listen to transwomen who transitioned in middle age, a great many of them say their gender distress started in childhood when they were told they couldn't do x or wear y because they're a boy.

This is also a large part of the DSM-5 diagnosis for gender dysphoria - playing with toys or wearing clothes associated with the opposite gender are taken as indications of gender dysphoria so I don't think it's particularly 'out there' to believe that at least some gender distress in young boys is caused by rigid gender stereotypes being pushed on them, as the very definition of gender dysphoria, rightly or wrongly, relies on the strictness of gender norms and suggests that any deviation from these strict norms is a defect in the patient, and kind of makes the assumption that societal sexism is a good thing.

Exactly.
How can gender norms be causing the huge rise in the numbers of kids identifying as Trans? These norms have always been in place and previously the numbers of kids with gender dysphoria were low.

Instead the huge rise would seem to be linked to telling kids they can freely choose. Causing confusion in kids who previously wouldn't have experienced it.

The previously low numbers of kids with gender identity confusion were 'treated' with watchful waiting, where they were not supported to present as the opposite sex and most of these children adjusted over time to being comfortable with their sex and general norms around this. So low numbers of adults wanting to transition. And few gay men who want to wear dresses.

This idea that it's oppressive to make children conform to dress codes and better to throw out all codes and ask children to express themselves however they want through their clothes. And tell them, encourage them even, to trangress the codes that aren't even norms among adults, and this will result in free happy children is an untested theory.

I think in fact we have more evidence that removing all social boundaries for children and telling them they should spend time focusing on identifying their true self and then express this however they want through clothes without restriction, is a good way to create confused anxious children who obsess about themselves and have poor mental health.

Adults give children boundaries so they don't have to think too early about complex societal issues they are not ready for and they can concentrate on being kids.

This thread is interesting as I think it reveals that many gender critical feminists are find with the indoctrination of kids into an ideology, which is what Disney is doing, as long as it's the ideology they believe in. It's just this 'identify your true self and express it unboundaried' ideology goes one step too far for the GC feminists.

Personally I think this is a no win.

Men have different motivations to wearing women's clothing than women do men's.

It's not like for like. So there is the whole transgression of boundaries thing. You'll never square this fact as a sizeable population of adult cross dressers do so for fetish purposes.

And yet... there will be many parents seeing this as a male throwing off gender norms and a good thing for their kids to see. Boys can be anything right?

I do think it's good to normalise that boys can wear dresses (especially at Disneyland where many will want to) as I think that does help ease some of this gender distress that seems to be causing such misery in increasing numbers of children.

Is there any real evidence this is the case? I haven't seen any indication that places with stricter gender norms around clothing produce more gender dysphoria in kids.

It almost seems like it might be the other way, you see more when the boundaries around cultural norms are very wobbly.

I am pretty sure Disney would not allow a female into a badly fitting costume. Or a man into a too tight male costume.

The only way I think this is legit is maybe if the manger level have had a day "in the shop floor" and this is a manger.

If they wanted a man in the role they would design a male version of the costume. It's very similar to say Canada retail staff outfits. Or German one. Leaderhosen and blouse type affair.

Thank you, I appreciate the insight and your willingness to type it!

But no, most costumes/uniforms aren't custom fit. They have a range of sizing options apparently with some adjustments possible in some cases - they've not said what yet. They do employee people of all sizes though so I assume they must stock a lot of items!

That's something DD has been wondering about. She leaves next week and it will be about a week after that when she visits costuming where these queries will be answered.
Some roles get to take their costumes home but many you collect at your work place each day and Disney do the launders service. Dd isn't overly tall so she is curious as to what the sizing options will be. Most of her questions won't be answered until she starts her training week in a few days time.

Do you happen to have any insight about where Disney draws the line on other aspects of appearance, per my previous post?

In very recent times they have relaxed many of their rules re their Disney look. It's actually a lengthy document you are given of several pages and your allocated role does have a bearing on the look.

Character roles are obviously subject to the most stringent rules as they must resemble the actual on screen version of a character. Visual piercings, tattoos, facial hair, etc would generally not be allowed unless the on screen character had them.

The rules then change for whether the role is 'on' or 'off' stage. On stage is any role where the public sees you. Off stage is behind the scenes, which is where the rules are most lax though still fairly extensive.

You can have some ear piercings (one per ear iirr but not specified where in ear generally) but no facial or other visible piercings,

You can have some tattoos/skin markings for many roles but they must be within a given size. No facial or neck piercings are allowed. Full arm, etc tattoos must be covered with a skin toned cover. Some roles don't allow them depending in costume type/role.

Facial hair is now allowed but must be tidy, clean and regularly trimmed.

Make up has to be in line with Disney look rules, which is generally neutral or a more natural look. Some roles more is allowed/expected.

Hair has to be tidy and a natural hair colour/tone (not necessary the natural colour you were born with but it means no pink, blue, bright red, etc)

There are even rules on strong smelling perfumes and soaps, about being clean and presentable, what footwear you can wear and more. It's several pages long!

Disney do take in employees and programme members from across the US and across the world and are a fairly diverse employee - pretty much all sexes, colour, religion, race, age, disability, etc are part of their staff team (cast members). Disabilities, both visible and non visible, are also employed and part of their programmes, They are inclusive in lots of ways - hence they have run into some issues with the Florida governor.

If there is anything more specific you mean let me know and I can try and find it in DD's handbook.

Added to that, do they regularly produce custom costumes or are employees expected to fit into pre-existing costumes in a limited selection of standard sizes?

Does wear and tear mean the costumes regularly get retired and brand new ones manufactured for each new employee?

Remember he's an employee of Fairy Godmother, he has to wear whatever outfit she issues to him. It's not his choice.

Do you happen to have any insight about where Disney draws the line on other aspects of appearance, per my previous post?

I'm curious why they're making allowances in this context but don't seem prepared to be flexible/inclusive regarding other characters/roles within the parks.

I'm sort of on the fence about this clip. If Disney want men to play traditionally female characters, why aren't they working harder to ensure the correct sizes and alterations are available in advance? They have a reputation for being extremely particular about their image and the way their staff look in the costumes. For example they wouldn't tolerate an overweight woman squeezed into a too-small costume (are any overweight/obese people even employed in costumed roles in the parks?).

I understand their requirement for uniformity in their costumes (possibly across international park locations) but it wouldn't be hard to adapt a fairy godmother greeter dress to have a longer skirt and broader bodice prior to hiring men in this role. Exactly the same colours and embellishments as the female costume. For such a particular company it seems like a gross oversight not to have factored this in, for the person's own comfort and the company's image. It wasn't a spur of the moment thing, they had time to consider whether they wanted to employ men in this role and since no-one is guaranteed a particular role during application they would've been within their rights to decline.

I have watched the clip several times. I see a man in the Disney uniform of a Fairy Godmother's apprentice with cartoon makeup presenting as a man in the Disney uniform of a Fairy Godmother's apprentice with cartoon makeup. I'm fucked if I can see a problem.

Disney is very much a dressing up context, and in a dressing up context I don't think a man in a frock is particularly revolutionary, people have been cross dressing at fancy dress parties forever. Didn't some trans people try to ban it at some uni thing as people dressing in fancy dress as the opposite sex made it very difficult for their gender signalling to be noticed? I think he'll be great for encouraging any little boys who want a dress but are nervous about saying so. He's not playing a specific princess role, I don't see why assistants can't be either sex, the customers will be won't they? So my current thinking is all part of the fun. I will continue reading...

He could do with a bigger size. And maybe they could have worked out a variation on the makeup, bit incongruous with the facial hair.

Maybe find a nail salon that lets you book with a particular person.

Bibbity Bobbity Boo is also not exclusive to girls either. Boys can. and do, go to be made up and get an outfit. Like little girls, they can select from a wide range of costumes, not just princess dresses.

He may very well be on a scheme, as dd will be. There are many schemes available for all ages and for people from all over the US and across the globe,
You don't get to chose your role in those cases, though can put in a preference. However the preference here would likely be 'attractions' - you don't get to specific where it is. When applying for a 'proper' job with them - again you don't get to select your specific role unless you are auditioning for a specific Disney character role.

Meanwhile in the real world we have a man wearing a dress that no actual female over the age of 7 would be seen dead in.

The costume is the uniform (Disney call their uniforms a costume regardless of where you work)attached to that setting/role. Every person in that attraction will have the same costume - though as said before most have a male and a female option to chose from. In the video you can see another cast member (employee) in the same dress.

but telling him he can wear a skirt as part of his school uniform when he goes to reception is not fine, because it is not part of the boys’ uniform.

Lots of schools have got rid of their headings for uniform and just list all options available. We don't have a girl's list and a boy's list of uniform items, just one. So at my school he could wear a skirt is he chose too - it wouldn't be against any school uniform rules.