Elizabeth sent in a link to a long and judicious New York Times article about biologically-male, gender-variant children, written by Ruth Padawer. It’s well done, laying out the struggles even liberal-minded parents go through, including the mixed messages they get from “experts.” It also briefly addresses the hormonal and genetic research, but acknowledges that the measures of femininity and masculinity used in these studies — and in daily life — are socially constructed. That is, what is considered masculine or feminine is different across cultures and changes over time.
The picture of three boys at a camp for gender-variant children, waiting for their turn in a fashion show, was particularly interesting (photo by Lindsay Morris). I was struck by not just the emphasis on the dress/skirt, but the nail polish, jewelry, and high heels (on at least two of the children). Their poses are also striking, for their portrayal of not just femininity, but sexualized femininity. It’s hard to say, but these boys look pretty young to me, and yet their (or their camp counselors?) idea of what it means to be a girl seems very specific to an adult hyperfemininity. (After all, even most biological girls don’t dress/act this way most of the time and lots of girls explicitly reject femininity; Padawer comments that 77% of women in Generation X say they were tomboys as kids.)
In contrast, girls, when they enact a tomboy role — and now I’m off into speculation-land — don’t seem to go so far into the weeds. We don’t see girls dressing up like lumberjacks or business men in suits and ties. They don’t do tomman, they do tomboy. There’s something more woman about how some of these boys perform femininity.
Some research on tomboys shows that girls who adopt it are sometimes, in part, trying to put off the sexual attention that comes with growing up. So perhaps tomboyism is a way of rejecting one’s maturing body. In contrast, perhaps femininity appeals to some boys because we adultify and sexualize young girls; it’s a form of grown up play as well as gender deviance?
Who knows. The truth is — and the article does a good job of communicating this — we have no idea what’s going on here.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 122
Offended Trans Anon — August 11, 2012
... SocImages, I expected better of you than referring to "gender-variant" people with their birth-assigned sex/pronouns. Would "three children" really have been too difficult, if you don't know the pronoun preferences of the individuals in question?
This whole article makes me incredibly uncomfortable as a trans* person and I would really appreciate an edit to remove gendered language when talking about these issues.
I — August 11, 2012
I was also surprised at the description of those kids as "boys". The gender-neutral "children" would have been more appropriate.
And while Wade makes some good points here about hyperfemininity and performative gender, these kids are (as the caption says) waiting for their turn on stage in a fashion show. Aren't fashion shows typically associated with exaggerated modes of dress?
All in all, this was somewhat disappointing.
N/A — August 11, 2012
Well, for whatever it's worth, they *are* dressed up for a fashion show... maybe they don't "go that far" ordinarily?
IraeNicole — August 11, 2012
Gonna agree the rest of the sentiment that this article is pretty disappointing.
Wanted to add that "biological" really isn't the best term. Cis or gender normative would have been a better term to use. Also, while Socialogical Images regularly examines gender expression and cultural reason enforcing it, the article kind of feels like the usual transphobic idea that trans peoples presentation and identity are less authentic then cis ones.
Raynne76 — August 11, 2012
Their outfits look EXACTLY like what is marketed to cisgendered little girls these days.
Andrew — August 11, 2012
Wow, from Lisa's description, you'd think those kids were dressed up as burlesque strippers! Loose-fitting skirts and blue-painted nails are not hallmarks of adulthood and sexuality, unless perhaps you're Humbert Humbert.
Besides, what do you expect them to wear when playing dress-up for a fashion show, potato sacks? Muumuus? Sure, a so-called tomboy might not appear on the playground in a "business suit," but if we saw biologically female children appearing in a fashion show at a gender-variant summer camp, I would certainly expect to see some suits and other "adult" attire. There may be an adult standard of beauty being demonstrated, but these kids certainly seem old enough to be self-aware about their appearance
No matter how legitimate concerns are about sexualization of children in order areas, it's ludicrous to project that onto the absolutely normal tendency for kids of all gender identities to act out adult roles in play. I mean, what fun would it be for kids to play dress-up with regular kids' clothes?
If that fashion show had a pole-dancing contest, though, I might reconsider.
olsonam — August 11, 2012
I think just the idea of a pre-teen girl's fashion show is hyper-feminine. I am a cis woman and my friends and I never did anything like a fashion show for fun. The closest we did was paint nails and "make-overs" with older sisters, and I remember doing that only once or twice. To see if maybe the rest of the world thinks differently, I did several different keyword Google searches about little kid's fashion shows and there really isn't much out there.
And I guess I didn't have as much of a problem with this post. It's probably my privilege speaking. I have read the article the post links to, and having that background information made me read this post more as a summary than a post that was supposed to be whole in itself. Maybe if other people read the article, they could tell me if I'm mistaken in this?
guest — August 11, 2012
It's a pity that both sexes/genders can't bear children. Perhaps in the future the development of artificial wombs will remove the perception of sexual difference.
un-offended trans anon — August 11, 2012
To be fair, if three little girls were going into a camp 'fashion show' I'd expect they would be wearing heels and nail polish too.
The article refers extensively to boys who identify as boys - who like to wear dresses. Calling them boys isn't out of keeping with the article, or with many of the children.
Casey — August 11, 2012
Trans is not an identity until someone makes it an identity. Until then, transmen and transwomen are acting as masculine or feminine, reinforcing an archaic binary. unless trans is a third (and fourth) gender category, which trans activists oppose because of the marginalization of it, then it's an acknowledgement and reinforcement of the series of physical and mental stereotypes that define men and women.
We're not truly done with this conversation until there is no way to be trans, because there are no stereotypes for one person to display to assume the identity of another gender. Boys who wear makeup are just boys who wear makeup, girls who reject makeup are just girls who reject makeup. Trans issues would be reduced to the core of the problem, body dysmorphia, and that can be solved whatever way works, surgery or therapy or whatever.
I don't hate transpeople, and I'm all for people doing whatever they want with their bodies, but as a gender destructionist they are ideologically my enemy and from the language coming out of a lot of trans activists, they're ideologically their enemy too.
Especially the way we conduct trans issues, needing to convince a therapist that you've always felt like the other gender (a made up societal concept) and then clothing yourself in the trappings of that gender in hopes that society at large will approve of one of the two boxes you have to fit in. None of that narrative addresses the actual problem, the stupid fucking idea that men and women are fundamentally and totally different. It only says that there's a corollary in the structure that states that a person can under special circumstances switch from one box to another.
It's not progressive in the least.
Kavla — August 11, 2012
On the tomboy point: How is rejecting sexual attention the same as rejecting your maturing body? Why can't it simply be a rejection of unwanted sexual attention?
Kdolcim — August 11, 2012
I find in interesting but sad commentary on what our society interprets as feminine (coming from a heterosexual feminist woman who admired the look of Annie Lennox as a child)
EschewObfuscation — August 11, 2012
What I loved about the photo is that, without reading the article, I immediately saw three girls in the photo. What a great example of the power of socially constructed definitions of 'girl' and 'boy'. Symbolic interactionism has us interpreting dresses, crossed leg, sandals and nail polish as 'girl' expressions. Once you learn that the three children are born male, you can clearly see that our genders are not biological but completely created by our social norms.
Pretty cool.
Liz Bloodbath — August 11, 2012
I hope that in future we can accept that every individual, regardless of gender, has a rich and diverse personality and preferences for personal appearance or chosen activities should never be gendered as 'masculine' or feminine. I hesitate to call myself a ciswoman because I've struggled so much with fitting into my gender and considering that being a man might 'match' my personality better enough that it seems like a massive oversimplification, but I ultimately settled on being enthusiastically okay with my gender. So I am essentially a ciswoman. And as a ciswoman who has always struggled with gender conformity, I'm very inspired by drag queens. I like makeup and fashion, but the makeup never came easily to me and I struggled, gave up, then saw men doing amazing things with it and decided that I could learn to do it too.
But I don't wear makeup every day. I don't dress like a boy, but I throw on jeans and a tank top and combat boots most days, and then when I want to I put on a dress and high heels and a lot of makeup. I don't think of myself as behaving like a boy when I don't put the effort into the gender performance. I'm just being me. I'm "butch" and I'm "femme", and it isn't a contradiction, I enjoy doing both.
And those drag queens I look up to, they're just as manly as any cisman. And transmen are also just as manly, even if they also happened to opt to wear makeup or wear dresses sometimes. Everyone has a rich and multidimensional personality to tap into and explore and I think everyone should be able to do it without people trying to enforce arbitrary gendered 'norms' on them.
Liz Bloodbath — August 11, 2012
And look at that, I did it to myself. Even if I was a girl wearing baggy shirts that disguised my body instead of form fitting clothes I STILL wouldn't be dressing like a boy. I would be dressing like a girl, because I'm a girl and that would be how I wanted to dress.
joi — August 11, 2012
Sorry to be chiming in with more 'socioimages, i am disappoint', but here are 2 posts from ReelGirl/Margot Magowan about this article: http://margotmagowan.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/gender-fluid-piece-in-nyt-insulting-to-girls-and-women/, http://margotmagowan.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/reel-girls-letter-to-the-editor/.
Meg — August 11, 2012
Actually, you do see little girls dressing up in daddy's ties or shiny shoes or evening wear, wearing flannel and giant boots, cropping their hair close, their nails square and purposefully strutting around in a hyper-masculine fashion: I certainly did. We just are a tiny portion of the population, just like hyper-feminine boys. Many of us grow up to be butches or other folks on the trans-masculine spectrum. (My grandmother just sent me a picture of myself at age 6. I'm wearing overalls, a flannel shirt, black work boots and a cowboy hat. I was considering a submission to "born this way".)
I think that probably only 30% of people actually have a gender orientation, with about 1-5% (in most studies) having a gender orientation that is opposite-of-assigned and the other 25-29% having a gender orientation in line with their coercively-assigned gender. Everyone else would ignore gender were it an option. It is why so much effort goes in to policing and enforcing gender: 30% of people REALLY care, and it has been built into our society, even though it is irrelevant and oppressive to the majority of folks.
Margot — August 12, 2012
Hi,
I thought the article promoted stereotypes, the worst here, but many under this umbrella. Here is my letter to the editor:
Dear Ms. Titunik,
In the New York Times post “What’s So Bad About A Boy Who Wants To Wear A Dress,” journalist Ruth Padawer writes:
“Of course, had Alex been a girl who sometimes dressed or played in
boyish ways, no e-mail to parents would have been necessary; no one
would raise an eyebrow at a girl who likes throwing a football or
wearing a Spider-Man T-shirt.”
Kids and adults do much more than “raise an eyebrow” when young girls
stray from gender norms. Stories that received a great deal of media
attention about pressuring girls include Katie, the girl who was
bullied for bringing her beloved Star Wars lunch box to school, “a boy
thing;” and more recently, Our Lady of Sorrows baseball team forfeited a
championship rather than play a girl. You can find the links to those stories on my blog Reel Girl which I created, as the mom of three young daughters, in response to that “raised eyebrow.”
As in those two stories above, the pressure for girls to conform
often comes through bullying, but it can also be more subtle as well.
That subtlety makes the sexism more insidious and harder to call out and
change. For the New York Times to print “no one would raise an eyebrow
at a girl who likes throwing a football or wearing a Spider-Man
T-shirt,” in a story about gender no less, is untrue and irresponsible.
Margot Magowan
Reel Girl
Margot — August 12, 2012
Sorry, here's the link to my blog post on the problems with the piece:
http://margotmagowan.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/gender-fluid-piece-in-nyt-insulting-to-girls-and-women/
Dear Ms. Titunik,
In the New York Times post “What’s So Bad About A Boy Who Wants To Wear A Dress,” journalist Ruth Padawer writes:
“Of course, had Alex been a girl who sometimes dressed or played in
boyish ways, no e-mail to parents would have been necessary; no one
would raise an eyebrow at a girl who likes throwing a football or
wearing a Spider-Man T-shirt.”
Kids and adults do much more than “raise an eyebrow” when young girls
stray from gender norms. Stories that received a great deal of media
attention about pressuring girls include Katie, the girl who was
bullied for bringing her beloved Star Wars lunch box to school, “a boy
thing;” and more recently, Our Lady of Sorrows baseball team forfeited a
championship rather than play a girl. You can find the links to those stories on my blog Reel Girl which I created, as the mom of three young daughters, in response to that “raised eyebrow.”
As in those two stories above, the pressure for girls to conform
often comes through bullying, but it can also be more subtle as well.
That subtlety makes the sexism more insidious and harder to call out and
change. For the New York Times to print “no one would raise an eyebrow
at a girl who likes throwing a football or wearing a Spider-Man
T-shirt,” in a story about gender no less, is untrue and irresponsible.
Margot Magowan
Reel Girl
Guest — August 12, 2012
Good article, Lisa.
Why can't boys wear dresses and still be boys? Why are gender roles still so rigid that people need to change pronouns and pump hormones- literally change genders?
Where does all this leave fey boys and butch girls? We're clearly not as advanced or accepting as we claim to be. Or maybe gender constructs are still so very ingrained, we still can't seem them as cultural constructs.
decius — August 12, 2012
Most weak gender expressions are ambiguous or androgynous. Anyone who has a strong gender identity is going to be more extreme than most people- so it's not surprising that boys who go to a camp for males who identify as girls would express more strongly as girls than a large majority of young females.
ADub — August 12, 2012
I wanted to say a few things about this post, even though most of them have been mentioned so far, so that these sentiments can be identified as shared or common.
The first is that I, too, found it jarring to hear the people in the photo referred to as boys. I tried to look at the article and find the photo, to see if there was more information about them and how they identified. I couldn't locate anything - maybe they do identify as boys, and I want to leave room for that - but I feel like Sociological Images could be a forum proud to set a standard for language usage, sensitivity, and sharing new knowledge, and I didn't see that reflected here.
I didn't find the clothing and styling in the photograph to be representative of "sexualized femininity" and I would like to know more about what the poster perceived in that regard. Potentially the most sexual thing that I can perceive about this picture is the high heels. I'd love it if someone could clue me in. This is no more "sexual" or "hyperfeminine" to me than a tuesday afternoon with the dress-up box, for me, female assigned, female presenting, or for my male assigned, male presenting friends, growing up.
Also, I was a "tomboy" growing up - potentially encouraged because everything masculine was "better" all the time - or at least more highly valued, by most people, most of the time - and this was pretty easy to see. So I dressed and acted as boyishly as I could possibly get away with for as long as possible, until it started to be a punishing experience to do this, instead of a rewarding one. Say, pubertyish. But what I wanted to say was, if my mother had allowed - yes, I would have "lumberjacked" it up more, and in any case I definitely stole my dad's ties every chance I got.
I just had a hard time relating to this post (intellectually or otherwise), and I wanted other people to know that if they felt that way, they weren't alone.
mimimur — August 12, 2012
It is interesting that we learn of gender as so much more extreme than we act it out - for example, it os only if you really look that you realise just how rare shoes with a high heel is on women, and that particular shoe type makes out a majority in the store. Maybe there's an effort to go overboard in order to compensate for a measure of resistance to the actual standard of femininity?
Brodzie — August 13, 2012
If 77% of adult women described themselves as 'tomboys' then it seems that this 'tomboy' was more the norm than not. Therefore, were these girls not just being normal girls, and the the other 23% in fact the outliers who could be described as 'girly girls' (or what have you) ? I have friends who say, yes, 'I was definately a tomboy, I played alot of sport' or 'i didn't like frilly dresses'. Why does this type of behaviour have to be thrown into a tomBOY label, like your not a normal girl if you do this.
When i was a child I was very much a 'tomboy' shaved head, boys clothes, boy friends, sports with boys. I am super proud of the label Tomboy, because everyone else just called me a lesbian, man-girl, or other terms they mean to be deragorty (i do not see them as derogatory but at 13 it can hurt a bit). Tomboy is a term that people understand and praise, because yes, masculinity is celebrated and rewarded. But my point here is, that these 77% are just doing normal girl things, without having to feel like that have to pass if off as 'tomboy' activity just because of celebrated masculinity. We are ascribing masculinity where it is not needed.
It seems these days we see so many high profile sports women appearing on the front cover of magazines all glammed up and in dresses accompanied by statements such as 'i love doing my nails! or i'm actually really girly!' While this is all Ok, its like it is expected that, ok you are awesome for doing a masculine sport but please don't forget your gender role. Where are the sportswomen that aren't actually this idea of girly? Too masculine, apparently. There are so many paradoxical statements in this comment, but when it comes to 'tomboys' it is a paradoxical issue.
Su — August 13, 2012
I don't have time this morning to write in detail about all the ways you've gone off the rails in this post. It seems clear to me that you don't have much experience of gender-variant kids when you write something like, "We don't see girls dressing up as lumberjacks, or businessmen in suits and ties."
I hope I'll have time to write a longer, more thoughtful response to this post later. In the meantime, if you scroll to the bottom of this blog post, you will see a picture of my female-bodied son in the vest and tie he begged me for at age 2.
http://tapeflags.blogspot.com/2012/06/its-like-game-were-playing.html
glaborous_immolate — August 13, 2012
IIRC, one of the 'big bad' researchers on sexuality and transgenderism claimed most boys liked it for the sexual rush.
Jill Davidson — August 16, 2012
I don't see the picture as hyper-sexualized little girls - I see what appear to be three girls dressed up. These are kids who have been denied expressions of femininity in many settings, and they get a chance to relax and have fun in a place where they are safe. A fashion show is supposed to involve dressing up.
Being a feminine boy is not the same social experience as being a masculine girl. Tomboys before puberty are not as likely to be physically assaulted or killed as are feminine boys. Masculine behavior in a young girl is likely to be praised as independence, strength, and health. Feminine behavior in a young boy is likely to be attacked as weak and unhealthy. There are of course, pressures on tomboys to be feminine during and following puberty. US society has a problem with femininity, period.
J Blyth — August 16, 2012
Thinking on the "tomboy" aspect, has anyone seen the trailer/movie Tomboy (2011). It seems to touch on gender roles in a somewhat controversial and endearing way. Check out the trailer here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvfdCI4MArQ
Jeanne — August 17, 2012
OK, it is difficult for you to grasp what it is to be transgender if you are not. Perhaps on this topic more of you should just listen and learn and save theory for thing without feelings. Life is hard enough without us having to explain why we act and dress the way we do when we stop hiding and trying to live out lives as we think you want us to be.
stilladyj — September 23, 2012
I'm confused as to why this is seen as sexuality. I get the high heels, but nail polish is just color, it's pretty, same with jewelry. As for the way they're sitting, well, they're wearing skirts. How else are they supposed to sit without flashing someone? I have screwed up hips, so I have to cross my legs somehow or they cramp, so maybe I'm just different - but maybe they're sitting that way because it's comfortable.
Stefanie Graul — January 8, 2013
I think, what is sensed like hyperfeminization in the adult generation, for teens today is just normal, because the images of feminity they absorb are hypersexualized. Tomboys maybe don`t reject anything at all - they just whant to have more power, freedom and selfdetermination linked with the male image. And if you reject sexual attention it has nothing to do with rejecting ones body - it's only thought to be normal for girl to be attractive and to be looked at. Girls who play boys are at first more accepted because boyishness is the more worshiped system. if they get dragkings and seriously demand male society role, it ' kind of a tabu - but exists. Thank you for your interesting article - but why gender-deviance?
jessi_mae — May 18, 2013
It's sometimes difficult to understand that which you haven't experienced so I want to thank the individuals who have shared their unique experiences with gender here. Several of you have made points and connections that, as a cis-woman, I may not have thought of on my own.
A personal anecdote: I have a friend who's tried very hard to encourage gender neutral options for her daughter. Much to her dismay her daughter adores Disney Princesses, frilly dresses, pink, and all things that in our culture scream "Girl!" with a capital G. How has she dealt with this? She encourages her child to express herself as she sees herself... The same should go for any child IMO.
This picture, to me, represents children who are exploring femininity and gender expression in a safe place where they might not otherwise have any other outlet to do so. I see in their clothing things our culture labels "feminine" but not necessarily, to me, hyperfeminine. The clothes, jewelry, nail polish, etc are not, in my view, more feminine than what I often see other little girls wearing... *Especially* in the context of playing dress up or having a fashion show!
Bedford Hope — August 21, 2013
as the father of one of the children in this photo, I'd like to say that the hyper-femininity associated with these children is fascinating, because it didn't come from us; that is to say, my wife doesn't wear make-up or wear heels, we don't adhere to traditional gender roles in terms of division of work, etc. My child is a teenager now, and identifies as a boy more or less, though he also likes to refer to himself as a girl on occasion, and doesn't care which pronoun is used. He's not out as anything sexually. But we suspect the obvious. He wasn't interested in drugs or hormones are therapy. Where we live, he has had a happy and great childhood. When people aren't assholes, these kids can thrive. One theory that one expert in our community promotes is the notion that these kids are mostly gay (they most often end up identifying gay, traditionally) and this play is a kind of sexual rehearsal play, which many primate species engage in; to attract a prince be a princess, at puberty, many of these kids realize for a gay man, it's best not to be femme, and they norm their behaviors, reeling in the femme. Of course, femme phobia pervades the culture; traditional lesbians deride it, progressives and feminists deride it; gay men deride femme, too, the pecking order is there, as everywhere, butch on top, man on top, woman on the bottom. What we think of as 'gender expression' is in fact, a whole other axis from gender identity and sexual preference, for some at any rate. The stuff we think of as gendered is really important, and some people use it reinforce a binary and some use the exact same stuff to break it down. Culture informs some deeply hardwired stuff, but we bring meaning to the interaction of the two; the culture is changing far faster than science can measure it; absolute understanding is impossible. As a close observer, I'd say that our traditional notions of gender identity and sexual preference have always been a gross simplification; even the two axis space of preference and identity is a gross simplification. Oh, and i'd avoid the word 'deviance,' when talking about this; variance is less derogatory, and in general, we now speak of gender non-conforming kids, instead of gender variant kids, because it's less clinical, less pathological sounding. And more accurate.
Dixon Keys — December 11, 2013
It's interesting historically what was acceptable as fashion. A few hundred years ago the European aristocracy wore heels because they were impractical... just to show people who were born into the privileged class didn't have to do manual labour. The trend first got started because shoes with heels were better on horsebacks in battle.
Into the 1970s & 1980s some Chinese men wore sandals with heels. Back in those days China were ruled by a hardline communist dictator. There was no concept of fashion. Practically everybody wore white shirts with gray pants. There was nothing against men wearing sandals with heels except they tend to be black or brown (the color wore by the masses).
In modern times when men first started wearing earrings those who wore them on the left tend to be classified as straight and those who wore them on the right or both sides as gay. Since earrings are meant to be worn on both ears, this kind of artificial classification is gone... although some people still feel certain types of clothing as being specifically designed for women and certain ones for men. If you cross the line then you are labelled as gay. On the other hand, there are some who like cross-dressing but still consider themselves to be straight.
Renee — February 10, 2014
“When a boy wants to act like a girl, it subconsciously
shakes our foundation, because why would someone want to be the lesser gender?”
“The shift, however, almost never goes the other way. That’s because girls gain status by moving
into “boy” space, while boys are tainted by the slightest whiff of
femininity. ‘There’s a lot more
privilege to being a man in our society,’ says Diane Ehrensaft”
I don’t have the insight into this. Maybe you can explain more? The female has a lower status,
right? Well, black people have a
lower status too. And when a white
person wants to “act black” or “act ghetto” it’s kind of lovable in most white
people’s eyes. They don’t hate or
feel their anger rising for this white person.
I’m a light skinned Latino. And when I tell white people that black people in Harlem
mistook me for white, they get extremely uncomfortable. They fidget when I say that (to them, I
look really dark).
Why don’t those two quotes apply to race/skin color/whatever
you want to call it?
Maybe it’s because white people and/or white men know
they’re obviously not black. They
just can’t be black. They’re
white. It’s internally in their genes
and externally in their skin. But
no one can tell outright if you’re gay or not so maybe they’re scared of being
gay or being seen as gay.
OR! A white, gay man has all privileges in common with the white,
straight man except for sexual orientation. “Almost-but-not-quite” scares this straight, white guy in a “We
have a little too much in common for you to be gay” kind of way.
I don’t know.