Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

John Lewis removing gendered sections in kids clothing

572 replies

moutonfou · 02/09/2017 12:46

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??

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
nokidshere · 02/09/2017 19:52

Gender neutral just means, in this case, that all clothes on sale are presented as available to anyone that fancies them, not that entire classes of clothes will disappear.

Clothes have always been available to anyone. I have always bought what I wanted to wear, or bought my children what I wanted them to wear.

Spaceblock · 02/09/2017 19:54

Will knickers and boxer shorts disappear. What will we all wear.
What clothes are disappearing under JL policy? Wear whatever you want boxers/knickers whatever you please.

nokidshere · 02/09/2017 19:54

If pink boots and trucks were available to all children, regardless of their biological sex

Pink boots and trucks have always been available to all children regardless of their biological sex!

watchingitallagain · 02/09/2017 19:55

Surely most of what they sell isn't own label stuff anyway?

Rufustherenegadereindeer1 · 02/09/2017 19:55

My daughter does not usually wear pink

She knows she is a girl because of the whole vagina breasts thing

reallyorange · 02/09/2017 19:57

DNGS
You still haven't managed to point to how you came to your conclusion and the facts you are basing it on. This is surely second-nature if you've studied at Degree-level.
Same for anyone else concluding anything other than 'this will change things because the same clothes will be placed in one physical location rather than two'.

ArcheryAnnie · 02/09/2017 19:59

nokidshere well, good for you. That isn't the case for many children, who are pressured by their peers - and often by their parents - not to like the things they do really like, because they are "for girls", or "for boys".

I've seen a friend's boy who ADORED pink not wear his pink boots any more when he started nursery, because the other boys teased him about it. I've seen a man drag his son away from purple sunglasses (purple, not even pink!) because "they are for girls".

There's so much pressure on kids to conform. If you and your kids are immune to this, well done. Other kids are not so lucky. John Lewis' decision will make it a little easier for some of them to just be able to like what they like without being told it's not for them.

Gileswithachainsaw · 02/09/2017 20:03

It could also be good for another reason

I have 2 dds so never really any need to visit "boys section"

Not that that stopped me. When i had a kid at pre school you grab whatever is going cheap in the right size Grin

Maybe when all the clothes are together people will see the difference more.

How the material is thinner or how they are more expensive or how certain things are better for one and not the other.

How perhaps boys pants don't have itchy frilly bits for example.

Maybe this could make people complain more?

One could hope anyway

Original poster
moutonfou · 02/09/2017 20:05

It's not denying the existence of different sexes to not label them on clothes. It's allowing children to like different clothes without judgement.

As a child sometimes I dressed up and pretended to be a princess and wanted dolls and a crib for Christmas. That was seen as Default Girl and nobody batted an eyelid.

Later when I decided I didn't want to wear dresses anymore and hated my full name (shortened version was unisex) and wanted to wear football shirts and have adventures 'like boys', i was told I was a tomboy, it was a 'phase'. The implication was that those things weren't things that girls do.

Getting to a point where girls can hate dresses and like football and aren't seen as 'laddish' or a 'tomboy' but just as a girl, isn't forcing some sinister 'gender agenda' on kids or denying that they are male or female. It's just letting kids like what they like and stopping labelling it.

OP posts:
Original poster
moutonfou · 02/09/2017 20:06

Gileswithachainsaw don't even get me started on decorative/fake pockets!

OP posts:
VestalVirgin · 02/09/2017 20:09

What's the point of segregated toilets anyway?

Men use phones to film under and over cubicle walls.

Why those walls tend to be open at the top and the bottom, I don't know, but they often are, and I feel safer with segregated toilets.

I also don't want to go into a toilet cubicle if I just want to adjust my clothes, respectively remove some of the layers I'm wearing.

Yeah, some places can afford to build large cubicles with sinks and hand dryers inside, but let me tell you, if there's NOT enough space for that, but they do it ANYWAY, it is SHIT. They cannot even fit a bin in there in many places, adding a sink? A nightmare.
I have seen (and was force to use) unisex cubicles where as soon as you entered them, you pretty much sat on the toilet seat. You had to hike up your skirts outside, in plain view of everyone, or drag them over the toilet seat.

It is true that men get an advantage by needing fewer loos and getting just the same amount as women, but that's easier changed by, you know, just changing it.

GlacindaTheTroll · 02/09/2017 20:20

"Will knickers and boxer shorts disappear"

Only if you have a really, really large arse

Plainlycrackers · 02/09/2017 20:27

Fact is you do feel awkward buying clothes from the "boys" section if you are a pre-teen girl but hate pink and frilly - I felt it when I was 10 and my DD did too only a few years ago... we still wore boys clothes sometimes but why should it be like that? Why do you have to conform to the trends in fashion? I loved the early white company pjs... red and white stripes, pale blue and white stripes etc... all the same style and great for girly girls, Tom boys, boysy boys... everyone!! Jeans and bright tee shirts for everyone!

FreshCrabsandPenne · 02/09/2017 20:28

I like the idea. Who knows, clothes design might change in the process. I am quite tired of the pastel colours, butterflies and cutesy things. It's quite liberating. And boys clothes, especially at H&M are incredibly stereotypical in terms of colours, shapes and motifs. Disappointing from a scandi company.

However, I wonder how they will differentiate girl/boy underwear.

Plainlycrackers · 02/09/2017 20:29

PS Thank you JL for a sensible decision!!

NeonFlower · 02/09/2017 20:37

Our school has changed to 'uniform A' and 'uniform B' and has set codes for John Lewis/Marks and Spencer trousers. I kept putting the code in for the boys trousers, by mistake, which are a) are not cut to fit a girls shape in the same way, and which b) my dds would in no way want to wear. Now it won't even come up on the website as girls or boys. More online shopping mistakes ahead I guess.

ragged · 02/09/2017 20:39

You guys keep saying it's fine before puberty, no need for different shape clothes before puberty.

The news reports are saying the change applies to items for age 0-14 yrs: plenty of kids have hit puberty before 14 yrs. I dunno what the reality will be, but looks to me like they just lost most of the pre-teen market.

RoseAndRose · 02/09/2017 20:41

JL will have done this based on customer feedback (both solicited by survey, and any trends in unsolicited shop floor comments). They'll be doing it because they think it will be profitable.

What actually sells will in turn inform future decisions by JL buyers. So it might lead to change - we'll see in a couple of seasons, perhaps.

Surely undies will continue as they are no, because they are in a joint underwear section (well, they are in my local one), not separate in the (current) girls clothes section and in the boys clothes section. Even though I can't remember a time when there wasn't an underwear section, it hasn't made any noticeable difference to what is sold, even though it's nearly all own brand and it wouid have been straightforward eg to use the same thickness fabric.

Gileswithachainsaw · 02/09/2017 20:48

I don't see how they can loose a market when presumably all they have done is remove a word from a label 're whether something is for boys or girls and stuck all clothing together . Is there really going to be done mass panic someone makes a mistake on buying a t shirt Hmm

No ones said they have gone all unisex default male on cut and design which would absolutely be a problem

Queenofthedrivensnow · 02/09/2017 21:01

Can't see this affecting me personally as the nearest jl is 40 miles away. Also I bought the dds tights from jl last year thinkin they would last longer. They didn't.

However my elderly auntie usually buys my dds beautiful clothes from jl at xmas - needlecord pinafores really class things like that. I will be gutted if the weird trendy ungendering racket puts her off this year!

Gileswithachainsaw · 02/09/2017 21:05

Why would clothes being in one section put someone off Confused

I mean multiple foods are sold in one aisle of a supermarket. Cat food and dog food and rabbit food are all in the same place for example

reallyorange · 02/09/2017 21:06

queen why, would she not be able to find dresses under a 'dresses' section instead of a 'girls' section?

I just bought a blue hoody for my son and even on the card tag attached to it it says BOYS. Why on earth?

Queenofthedrivensnow · 02/09/2017 21:06

My auntie might find it confusing.

Meanwhile the independent article is banging on about a gender neutral range. I'm waiting for the ad featuring a boy wearing a dress....

reallyorange · 02/09/2017 21:07

giles ah but nuts are in 'snacks' 'whole foods' AND 'home baking'.
Pointless categorising is fun! Grin

Rufustherenegadereindeer1 · 02/09/2017 21:08

That must be confusing for you giles

I bet you use the pictures Grin