Disneyland greeter

[Neverplayleapfrogwithmrpipes]

https://twitter.com/jonesville/status/1663381709667303425?s=46&t=mjCevLYB8rsDn2VcwfsB7w

This popped up on my Twitter regarding a Disney greeter called Nick in a dress.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...).

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.