John Lewis removing gendered sections in kids clothing

[moutonfou]

John Lewis has announced they are no longer having 'boys' and 'girls' clothing sections. Just kids clothing. Which to me sounds fair enough. I had to buy several football shirts from the boys section as a kid and always felt like they weren't 'for me' and that someone was going to notice and call me out on it.

On some of the news outlets' Facebook posts about this, there are the most OTT comments from people who seem to have interpreted this as an attempt to make all kids be 100% gender fluid, stop calling them boys and girls at all, make all boys wear dresses, etc etc.

AIBU to be frustrated that people can't see the value of just letting kids like what they like, and that it's not all some sinister agenda??

OK, at 4, what would you decree as a feminine activity

Nothing should be a feminine activity. But I am sure you can think of activities that are much more commonly associated with girls than boys.

Some parents won't let their children - especially boys -do stuff because 'it's for girls'

I don't understand what you are trying to do daddy

Everyone here just wants their kids to wear what they like and do what they like without being told they are gay or trans for doing so.

I think you are arguing the same point it's just that daddy considers mixing the clothes as part of the trans movement whereas the other posters see it more as the 'let kids be kids without the labels' movement

Mixing the clothes isn't trying to tell boys that they can be girls. It's trying to tell kids that your clothes don't define whether you are a girl or a boy

daddy

If you are concerned about certain aspects of the trans movement, then surely non-gendered clothes are ideal? That way, if your DS wants to wear a pink tshirts with cats on the front for example, he doesn't run the risk of being told he must really be a girl trapped in a boy's body, which, when based on clothing choice alone, would be a load of bollocks.

Great idea

Some of the problems people are foreseeing are way over the top.
My DD has a pair of red JL slippers with dinosaurs on. Once she learned to read, she asked me why the sole says "John Lewis Boy". I had to answer, "because the person who made them thought only boys like dinosaurs". She was utterly baffled by this idiotic response. So well done John Lewis for saving us from stupid conversations like that in the future. I have no doubt it will have a positive impact on sales.

I think it's a good idea, however I think for it to be more effective I would have liked to have seen more gender neutral items. All I really noticed was the usual masculine and feminine styles that we're used to seeing in all shops. One of my daughters loves to wear dresses and calls herself a princess when she's wearing one, and I don't think there's anything wrong with this, she is a girl after all and she likes to look like one. But I think the choice should be there for her to wear other styles and not be limited to the usual "girly" stuff. My son however, would not welcome wearing anything femimine and I think that's fine, his choice.

Amusingly, the chap in mid-US who spends the beginning of each December redirecting tweets to John Lewis (Retail) is quite busy today.

"I'll never buy any clothing from John Lewis again."
"Fine. I never offered you any."

Why does the world all of a sudden want to start suggesting to my boy that he may not be a boy?

daddy a move to making all kinds of clothing more easily available to both boys and girls, whatever the cut, colour or design of the clothing, will - with a bit of luck - lead to less bullshit of the "he likes pink, therefore he's really a girl, she likes trucks so must really be a boy" nonsense. A boy wearing a pink shirt with a butterfly on it will still be a boy, and a girl with astronauts on her pyjamas will still be a girl.

I'm amazed at how strong people's feelings are on this tbh.

we just finished shoe shopping and the fitter was confused about us wanting closed shoes for dd.
'would a t bar be ok'
no
'but we don't have any closed girls shoes'
why not look at the boy's section.
'but they are for boys'

Dd's school won't allow trainer like shoes - so the boys section is normally out. She has lace ups for the first time this year as she wanted a warmer shoe for winter. The grip isn't brilliant though.

Not read any of the thread, but I find it so ridiculous.

Let boys be boys, and let girls be girls.

Who defines what a girl is and what a boy is?

And why come on a thread this long and make a comment without reading the whole conversation that included your point way up near the start!

Let boys be boys, and let girls be girls.

If you'd read the thread, user149, you'd find that most other posters agree with you entirely about letting girls be girls and boys be boys, which is why they support John Lewis in putting all the clothes together to be sold to any kid who wants them. Clothes do not affect any child's biological sex, whatever some people might think.

Okay user, which section does this item belong in?

Definitely pc gone mad. Just choose the clothes you want from either section and stop making an issue out of everything. What happens with the older children's sizes because there is a difference in the cut and size of boys and girls clothing as they get older.

I wouldn't dream of wearing gender neutral things.

If I wear jeans they are always pink. And I wouldn't dream of a plain black sweater - I usually go in for lace or shiny satin. I don't want anyone thinking I'm a man.

I'm new to MN, obviously. What does the forum think about male privilege and is it a real thing?

I, obviously, don't.

I suggest you start your own thread SDaddy007. This is a thread talking about John Lewis's labelling changes and associated issues.

And as you are new to MN and I guess , forums in general, here's some information that you might find helpful

blog.shrub.com/check-my-what/

*What does the forum think about male privilege and is it a real thing?

I, obviously, don't.*

what has that got to do with how clothes are labelled in John Lewis?

@Theantiboop

Who defines what a girl is and what a boy is?

And why come on a thread this long and make a comment without reading the whole conversation that included your point way up near the start!

Don't be pedantic. You know EXACTLY what I mean when I say let boys be boys, and let girls be girls.

And no I didn't read the whole thread - as I have better things to than pore through 17 pages of comments. And I don't need to read any of it anyway, to have the opinion that I think we should let girls be girls, and let boys be boys.

I am not explaining the bloody obvious to the ultra PC who demand to know what I mean. Especially when they know!

And so what if my point has been included early in the thread? I am still entitled to bloody voice it. FFS! Most threads would stop halfway down page 1 if we were to adhere to your request that people don't put what someone else put earlier in the thread!

That's not how conversations work sweetie.

You can take your 'I think I am the forum police' hat off now.