Would you let a 4-year-old boy wear a dress to school? In all seriousness.

If it was something that was important to him, yes. I would explain that the other kids might think it was strange, but if he was willing to accept that and felt strongly about doing it, he could.

I don't let my little boy go shirtless and would not let a little girl go shirtless either.

Umm nudity is a different story ... but if we were in Italy she could go topless like all the little girls there ... and if she were trans a living like a boy, her upper body looks no different than that of a 6 year old boy right now so who'd be any wiser?

Do you let your little girls go shirtless like little boys do? If you are at the pool do you expect your little girls to wear a top or just bottoms?

21:08 again ... because if he does, this probably would apply:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/transgender-at-five/2012/05/19/gIQABfFkbU_story.html

... but it doesn't - he's all boy (except that he likes nail polish and sparkles) and smashes things, chases bugs, wants to be a superhero, and flirts with anyone who will pay attention.

If he wants to wear a dress to school everyday for the rest of the life I'll talk to him about the hassling he might get and then I'll research a school that supports kids who don't fit the mold and do my best to have him there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course a 4 year old doesn't know what it may mean, that it's a feminine thing to do, etc

I disagree that a 4 year old would not know it was a feminine thing to do. Kids are smarter than you are giving them credit for. However, the average 4 year old would not necessarily see anything problematic with trying out a traditioinally feminine thing, and in my opinion, that's a good thing.

Would you let a 4-year-old boy wear a dress to school? In all seriousness.

If he wanted to, why not? The boys at DD's school play in the dress-up corner and put on princess dresses. I'm sure I'll get slammed for it, but if my son wanted to wear one of his sister's dresses out of the house I'd let him. Whatever, he's 3.

So when is it not "whatever, he's x?" 6? 10?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course a 4 year old doesn't know what it may mean, that it's a feminine thing to do, etc

I disagree that a 4 year old would not know it was a feminine thing to do. Kids are smarter than you are giving them credit for. However, the average 4 year old would not necessarily see anything problematic with trying out a traditioinally feminine thing, and in my opinion, that's a good thing.

Would you let a 4-year-old boy wear a dress to school? In all seriousness.

If he wanted to, why not? The boys at DD's school play in the dress-up corner and put on princess dresses. I'm sure I'll get slammed for it, but if my son wanted to wear one of his sister's dresses out of the house I'd let him. Whatever, he's 3.

Anonymous wrote:

Of course a 4 year old doesn't know what it may mean, that it's a feminine thing to do, etc

I disagree that a 4 year old would not know it was a feminine thing to do. Kids are smarter than you are giving them credit for. However, the average 4 year old would not necessarily see anything problematic with trying out a traditioinally feminine thing, and in my opinion, that's a good thing.

Would you let a 4-year-old boy wear a dress to school? In all seriousness.

No more than I'd let him wear a swastika etc.

That's a silly example. A swastika was a symbol of a very terrible regime and intended to connote certain the racist and ethnicist ideas of that regime. Colors on nails are intended to connote something that's attractive to look at.

Of course a 4 year old doesn't know what it may mean, that it's a feminine thing to do, etc

I disagree that a 4 year old would not know it was a feminine thing to do. Kids are smarter than you are giving them credit for. However, the average 4 year old would not necessarily see anything problematic with trying out a traditioinally feminine thing, and in my opinion, that's a good thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe that's the difference - I don't see that it has any greater meaning.
Give me a break.

Sorry that it makes you feel annoyed, but I really don't. If a little kid wants to try painting his nails, I don't think it "says" anything at all. It's just playing around and trying out a color. I don't think the average adult or little kid would read more into it than that.

I honestly don't know how to make it clearer. Of course a 4 year old doesn't know what it may mean, that it's a feminine thing to do, etc But like it or not, there are societal norms and you can choose to help your kids fit into them or not - that's your priority and I'm really not judging it - I just wouldn't let my little boy wear makeup or a dress. My teenage son who might do it by choice and understand why he's doing it, sure. But not a little boy. No more than I'd let him wear a swastika etc. He might think it looks cool but it's my job as a parent to teach him the ways of the world.

You're comparing apples to hamburgers--a swastika is a hurtful, subversive image, in no way appropriate for a child who doesn't understand what it means. A boy in a dress/makeup/nail polish is not. Sure, some people clearly do not LIKE it, but that is nowhere close to the same category as hurtful as a swastika.

These "societal norms" you talk about are STEREOTYPES, and I don't understand why you are so determined to enforce them. That's not to say that some stereotypes (like this one) don't have some basis in truth, but what a boring and even oppressive society we'd be if we enforced these "norms" so rigidly that everyone was the same and anyone who tried to be different was ostracized.

And by teaching him those "ways" you are perpetuating inequity and stereotypes that help none of us.

As an aside, I thought of this discussion when 6 y/o DD wanted to get 3y/o DS plue flip flops like her pink ones. She had glitter stars and she put those on her flip flops. She wanted to put some on his, too. I paused and was about to say that he probably doesn't want glitter stars on his and then realized that's not true. So she put them on but we waited for him to get home to super glue them on. I asked him did he want plain or glitter stars and he said glitter stars.

The problem with this is ... ?

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe that's the difference - I don't see that it has any greater meaning.
Give me a break.

Sorry that it makes you feel annoyed, but I really don't. If a little kid wants to try painting his nails, I don't think it "says" anything at all. It's just playing around and trying out a color. I don't think the average adult or little kid would read more into it than that.

I honestly don't know how to make it clearer. Of course a 4 year old doesn't know what it may mean, that it's a feminine thing to do, etc But like it or not, there are societal norms and you can choose to help your kids fit into them or not - that's your priority and I'm really not judging it - I just wouldn't let my little boy wear makeup or a dress. My teenage son who might do it by choice and understand why he's doing it, sure. But not a little boy. No more than I'd let him wear a swastika etc. He might think it looks cool but it's my job as a parent to teach him the ways of the world.

I wasn't implying that the boys are transgender for wanting to have their nails painted, I was hoping that none of the parents who are so worked up about exactly what 18:58 said end up with a trans child because I cant imagine what that poor child would go through based on their reaction to simple nail polish.