The Gender Non-binary debate.

[Jonesy23]

GroundEffect said:

Likewise toys. That's the more important one and it's the key reason we have not enough engineers of the women variety. From Day Dot they're brought up with "nurturing" toys, not constructive ones.

Unless you're looking at the world through the narrow lens of a mechanical engineer you'll realise that there are all sorts of STEM subjects where constructive toys would make zero difference to interest.

And I've worked with female engineers, mathematicians and scientists from all sorts of backgrounds and nationalities and I can't say that gender stereotypes (conformed to or not) ever seemed to be significant as a guide to who would be interested in or talented at something.

Different people of whatever gender have different interests.

And just because a child is given a toy is no guarantee of any sort that they'll be interested in it, play with it or that they'll be shaped by it. If anything that would be swapping cause and effect.

[Jonesy23]

BJG1 said:

because there's no need to split clothes by gender, especially not in under 14s given there's no real size difference between an average male and female of the same age.

Under 14s?! Given the average age for the onset of puberty (which has been known to introduce the occasional trivial size and shape difference between boys and girls), and the different growth rates of boys and girls at different ages I can only reply with the simple fact that you are *very* wrong in this statement.

Or in short words it's utter bks.

[Mothersruin]

Doesn't matter - give it a few years and all the 'girls' will be in binbags anyway.

[The Surveyor]

BJG1 said:

The left or the LGBT community? Which is it? People with kids can be left-wing too, it's not just the gays, mate.

The politically active LGBT community has a left wing leaning, the topic has nothing to do with who has children or who is gay. Mate.

[bitchstewie]

Re the John Lewis piece I think it's a good move personally. Why do boys wear blue and girls wear pink?

The silliness of all of this was highlighted earlier this week when I was buying some aftershave and didn't actually know if what I was stood at the counter with was for men or women - why the fk should it matter if it smells nice?

I've walked around clothes shops before and have seen something I liked and only noticed it was women's when I spotted that the zip was on the "wrong" side.

[JagLover]

BJG1 said:

It's not really the 'LGBT community' pushing this, young people of all persuasions are generally much more liberal in their views on gender and sexuality and plenty of straight couples raise their children with far fewer gendered expectations placed upon them these days.

If we are talking of babies and toddlers fair enough.

But these are clothing ranges up until the age of 14!. I suspect most normal parents will get fed up with wading through twice as much clothing to find clothes for their children and shop elsewhere.

[daddy cool]

bhstewie said:

Re the John Lewis piece I think it's a good move personally. Why do boys wear blue and girls wear pink?

The silliness of all of this was highlighted earlier this week when I was buying some aftershave and didn't actually know if what I was stood at the counter with was for men or women - why the fk should it matter if it smells nice?

I've walked around clothes shops before and have seen something I liked and only noticed it was women's when I spotted that the zip was on the "wrong" side.

So you bought and Wear the women's clothes, right? Because, like the perfume, "why the fk should it matter", right?

[grumbledoak]

bhstewie said:

Re the John Lewis piece I think it's a good move personally. Why do boys wear blue and girls wear pink?

They don't. And we don't have "blue clothes" shops and "pink clothes" shops. Because that wouldn't be a helpful distinction.

We do distinguish between baby clothes, boys, girls, menswear, and women's clothing. Just as we distinguish between clothes and shoes and food. Because it is helpful to sort things into sections, often by intended purpose. So the customer can look at a relevant subset of the goods.

Finding insult where there wasn't any has become a cottage industry. Ditto finding virtue.

[bitchstewie]

daddy cool said:

So you bought and Wear the women's clothes, right? Because, like the perfume, "why the fk should it matter", right?

I bought the aftershave because it's unisex and smells nice.

I didn't buy the women's jacket because I realised I'd veered out of the mens section which is much easier to do in sports and outdoor shops. Stick it 2 feet away on a men's clothes rail and I'd likely have bought it yes.

[bitchstewie]

grumbledoak said:

They don't. And we don't have "blue clothes" shops and "pink clothes" shops. Because that wouldn't be a helpful distinction.

We do distinguish between baby clothes, boys, girls, menswear, and women's clothing. Just as we distinguish between clothes and shoes and food. Because it is helpful to sort things into sections, often by intended purpose. So the customer can look at a relevant subset of the goods.

Finding insult where there wasn't any has become a cottage industry. Ditto finding virtue.

In many cases the "intended purpose" is simply whatever a bunch of marketing people decide it is.

It's not a big deal and John Lewis is a business and will have done their homework on what their customers want.

[BJG1]

Jonesy23 said:

Under 14s?! Given the average age for the onset of puberty (which has been known to introduce the occasional trivial size and shape difference between boys and girls), and the different growth rates of boys and girls at different ages I can only reply with the simple fact that you are *very* wrong in this statement.

Or in short words it's utter bks.

Sorry but it's not bks: https://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/heig...

There is little difference in the average height of males and females until after 14 years old. The average age for the onset of puberty is lower in girls than boys.

[BJG1]

The Surveyor said:

The politically active LGBT community has a left wing leaning, the topic has nothing to do with who has children or who is gay. Mate.

So all of this has been driven by the left leaning wing of the politically active LGBT community? That's despite gender neutral clothing and toys being a pretty hot topic and many straight parents speaking in support of it too?

You're talking nonsense. This move hasn't been made because of sexuality or transgenderism, it has nothing to do with either. It's been made because there's no need to categorise kids clothes by gender

[Randy Winkman]

bhstewie said:

Re the John Lewis piece I think it's a good move personally. Why do boys wear blue and girls wear pink?

The silliness of all of this was highlighted earlier this week when I was buying some aftershave and didn't actually know if what I was stood at the counter with was for men or women - why the fk should it matter if it smells nice?

I've walked around clothes shops before and have seen something I liked and only noticed it was women's when I spotted that the zip was on the "wrong" side.

I also think the John Lewis thing is great. It always surprises me to see me to see cycle clothing/footwear labelled as "men's" and "women's". When I'm in a cycle shop and see something in good colours it's nearly always "women's". The "men's" stuff is always really garish colours whereas the "women's" stuff is usually classy colours like raspberry and really good greens. I must ask if there's actually any difference in the clothing/shoes themselves. I wonder if the assistants know?

[Mothersruin]

Randy Winkman said:

bhstewie said:

Re the John Lewis piece I think it's a good move personally. Why do boys wear blue and girls wear pink?

The silliness of all of this was highlighted earlier this week when I was buying some aftershave and didn't actually know if what I was stood at the counter with was for men or women - why the fk should it matter if it smells nice?

I've walked around clothes shops before and have seen something I liked and only noticed it was women's when I spotted that the zip was on the "wrong" side.

I also think the John Lewis thing is great. It always surprises me to see me to see cycle clothing/footwear labelled as "men's" and "women's". When I'm in a cycle shop and see something in good colours it's nearly always "women's". The "men's" stuff is always really garish colours whereas the "women's" stuff is usually classy colours like raspberry and really good greens. I must ask if there's actually any difference in the clothing/shoes themselves. I wonder if the assistants know?

Really?

[Jonesy23]

Apparently he/she/xe doesn't realise that the shoes use a different sizing system, and the shorts and tops are cut differently due to those minor physical gender differences. And the size ranges don't line up.

[4159265]

Randy Winkman said:

I also think the John Lewis thing is great. It always surprises me to see me to see cycle clothing/footwear labelled as "men's" and "women's". When I'm in a cycle shop and see something in good colours it's nearly always "women's". The "men's" stuff is always really garish colours whereas the "women's" stuff is usually classy colours like raspberry and really good greens. I must ask if there's actually any difference in the clothing/shoes themselves. I wonder if the assistants know?

There will be a difference in cut... Could you not fathom that?

[4159265]

Jonesy23 said:

and the shorts and tops are cut differently due to those minor physical gender differences.

We're all adults, you can just say tits, dicks and fu-fu.

[grumbledoak]

Randy Winkman said:

I also think the John Lewis thing is great. It always surprises me to see me to see cycle clothing/footwear labelled as "men's" and "women's". When I'm in a cycle shop and see something in good colours it's nearly always "women's". The "men's" stuff is always really garish colours whereas the "women's" stuff is usually classy colours like raspberry and really good greens. I must ask if there's actually any difference in the clothing/shoes themselves. I wonder if the assistants know?

Just buy the women's gear. It won't matter.

[Jonesy23]

Well despite a whole load of recent effort to push the idea of 'reinforcing gender stereotypes' through clothes and toys the vast majority of customers are only interested in finding what they want to buy easily.

After customer feedback comes in and sales figures drop because people can't find what they want this will be quietly dropped. I'd guess about 6 weeks will do it if they stick to normal cycles.

A few stupid shouty people don't define the market and the numbers will show this.

[768]

Randy Winkman said:

I also think the John Lewis thing is great. It always surprises me to see me to see cycle clothing/footwear labelled as "men's" and "women's". When I'm in a cycle shop and see something in good colours it's nearly always "women's". The "men's" stuff is always really garish colours whereas the "women's" stuff is usually classy colours like raspberry and really good greens. I must ask if there's actually any difference in the clothing/shoes themselves. I wonder if the assistants know?

Indeed. Women get far more choice, you only have to look at the plethora of heel choice in women's shoes. We're stuck with colour variations that look like the free paint options on a C class whereas women can peruse for hours through every pastel shade under the sun to find just the right colour to complement a new pencil skirt. As for the choice of pencil skirts in the men's section... it's about time something was done.