Parents Upset: Guess Why

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Or maybe simply add the biological obvious, do you have a penis or vagina?

THERE YA GO... DING, DING, DING... WINNER, WINNER, CHICKEN DINNER!!!

Best suggestion I've heard thus far.

[SassyLady]

See attached a photo of an American boy from 1884, in clothing typical of a boy for that period, before more modern conventions of gendered clothing. If a parent were to dress there child the same way today would you scoff?

Attachment 12178

I have to tell you that one photo does not make it the norm. Most Americans from 1884 couldn't afford photos. That was not the norm. It might be the norm for wealthy to dress their children like a fop, but it was not the norm for the masses.

[Kathianne]

I have to tell you that one photo does not make it the norm. Most Americans from 1884 couldn't afford photos. That was not the norm. It might be the norm for wealthy to dress their children like a fop, but it was not the norm for the masses.

Yep, I sort of remember a picture like that of one of the Roosevelts, likely Teddy if Noir is correct on the dates.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Yep, I sort of remember a picture like that of one of the Roosevelts, likely Teddy if Noir is correct on the dates.

Very intuitive, Kath. I did a reverse google search of the image and found this...

https://www.theatlantic.com/national...-girls/237299/

and...

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/...eching-boys-2/

[Elessar]

They have never been the same.
Gender is behavioural and societal. Sex is biological.

Is that just a personal statement, or a proven fact?

Look up the meaning of Gender:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

A lot of twisting in there, but bottom line is Gender means born male or female.

Screw your behavioral and societal opinion.

[Elessar]

Not on those that feel as adults that they need to bring classrooms full of students into the workings of their own issues. That was my point.

Noir, there is a world of difference between expectations of being treated equally and assuming special treatment in the name of tolerance.

I do not give a rat's blank about what adults do with adults in appropriate surroundings. I do care what adults do to children, physically, emotionally. I do not assume someone's personal sexual choices would effect their ability to teach. I do question someone who is supposed to be teaching and instead chooses to indoctrinate. It's abusive and they should be fired, not given publicity.

Excellent, @Kathianne!

[Kathianne]

Very intuitive, Kath. I did a reverse google search of the image and found this...

https://www.theatlantic.com/national...-girls/237299/

and...

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/...eching-boys-2/

All that schooling, had to remember a couple things. LOL! It was FDR though, hard to think the president for WWII was born at the end of the Victorian Era.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

All that schooling, had to remember a couple things. LOL! It was FDR though, hard to think the president for WWII was born at the end of the Victorian Era.

Eisenhower was president when I was born. Course I don't remember that but, shows how OLD I am...

Calvin Coolidge was president when my Ma was born...

[Kathianne]

Eisenhower was president when I was born. Course I don't remember that but, shows how OLD I am...

Calvin Coolidge was president when my Ma was born...

Ike for me too, Wilson for my dad, for a couple months, then Harding for both my folks.

[Drummond]

There is no “since” because they were never the same at any point.

Oh, really ?

I think you invent this stuff to suit yourself, Noir. Either that, or you have a very 'creative' scriptwriter ....

OK ... @Noir ... I'll issue a challenge to you. If these 'differences' of perception you claim exist not only do, but have for a considerable time ... supply a link to some literature, or better yet, a debate, in which the 'sex' of a person and the 'gender' of a person are seen as definitely different concepts.

Something going back decades (to prove it's not a recent invention) ... and, preferably, not something originating from a Leftie / propagandist source, either. A source having scientific background to it, how about that ?

If they were 'never the same at any point', you should find it easy to locate, and offer us, proof going back quite a way ! So let's see you do it.

[If you CAN'T .... then, instead, try admitting that you're foisting some strange brand of perverse Leftie thinking on us ...]

[Drummond]

Ike for me too, Wilson for my dad, for a couple months, then Harding for both my folks.

Wilson for me too !!

[Of course, in my case, I'm referring to Harold Wilson ... Leftie PM of the Sixties and again in the Seventies ...]

[Kathianne]

Wilson for me too !!

[Of course, in my case, I'm referring to Harold Wilson ... Leftie PM of the Sixties and again in the Seventies ...]

[Drummond]

See attached a photo of an American boy from 1884, in clothing typical of a boy for that period, before more modern conventions of gendered clothing. If a parent were to dress there child the same way today would you scoff?

Attachment 12178

'Gender' and clothing fashions of a period .... the one is indicative of the other ?? What rubbish.

Fashions change over the generations, and eras. In the 1970's, it was commonplace fashion to see men have long hair .. shoulder-length and sometimes longer. Are you telling me that men of the Seventies were therefore more, shall we say, 'gender ambiguous' ?

Arab dress in the Middle East ... men not wearing trousers, but v long 'dresses' ... Noir, you're very welcome to walk up to a Saudi citizen in that country and accuse him of gender ambiguity !! Maybe he'll give you a sharp lesson in Sharia 'justice' for your trouble ??

How about Scotsmen wearing kilts, then ? Are they just 'a bunch of Jessies' ... ?

You can't apply present-day concepts of 'dress sense' to people of bygone eras !! That's just ridiculous.

[Noir]

I have to tell you that one photo does not make it the norm. Most Americans from 1884 couldn't afford photos. That was not the norm. It might be the norm for wealthy to dress their children like a fop, but it was not the norm for the masses.

Information of the image and sources multiple sources in the early 20th Century agree with the norm at the time being that boys and girls both wore dresses, and that of the pastal colours boys should wear pink, and girls blue.

“We find the look unsettling today, yet social convention of 1884, when FDR was photographed at age 2 1/2, dictated that boys wore dresses until age 6 or 7, also the time of their first haircut. Franklin’s outfit was considered gender-neutral.

For example, a June 1918 article from the trade publication Earnshaw's Infants' Department said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-...-pink-1370097/

'Gender' and clothing fashions of a period .... the one is indicative of the other ?? What rubbish.

Fashions change over the generations, and eras. In the 1970's, it was commonplace fashion to see men have long hair .. shoulder-length and sometimes longer. Are you telling me that men of the Seventies were therefore more, shall we say, 'gender ambiguous' ?

Arab dress in the Middle East ... men not wearing trousers, but v long 'dresses' ... Noir, you're very welcome to walk up to a Saudi citizen in that country and accuse him of gender ambiguity !! Maybe he'll give you a sharp lesson in Sharia 'justice' for your trouble ??

How about Scotsmen wearing kilts, then ? Are they just 'a bunch of Jessies' ... ?

You can't apply present-day concepts of 'dress sense' to people of bygone eras !! That's just ridiculous.

I am very pleased to see that you also believe that clothes do not have gender implications, and welcome the multiple examples you gave of this.

[Drummond]

I am very pleased to see that you also believe that clothes do not have gender implications, and welcome the multiple examples you gave of this.

Now I'm confused. I'm beginning to wonder if you're realising that your position is nonsense.

In any case, is clothing fashion really the point now at issue, thanks to your posting ? I've asked you to offer evidence from some time ago to support your 'gender v sex' argument. I've yet to see any from you. Could this perhaps be because there is actually NOT any evidence to back your argument, after all ?

If there is, @Noir -- I repeat my challenge. Supply the evidence I've asked for !

If you can't, then I suggest you admit that your argument is your invention, or, just maybe, the invention of some cloud-cuckooland Leftie playing games with social perceptions ... as they like to do, in their dictatorially deranged way ...