John Lewis has got rid of 'girls' and 'boys' labels in children's clothes.

digitalscream

To give you an idea (and to save you making any uncomfortable Google searches), here's the result of generating a boy and a girl with identical height, chest, waist and inside leg measurements using our software (which is accurate to the point of being able to predict two years' growth for 98.5% of children from 4-19yrs old, and is based on the measurements of hundreds of thousands of children):




Sorry, I got the capture height wrong on the first one, so one images is nudged down a bit. Anyway, that's a girl first and a boy second. Remember, they have identical measurements, and both are 9 years old. Both images are to the same scale.

For you folk who think I'm wrong...do you understand the problem a little better now?

EDIT: And yes, I'm aware that the boy has bigger ears. That was a bit of dev code which allowed us to differentiate male/female models while building it, and is actually quite handy from a customer support angle.

digitalscream

Sporky said:

And you surely can't be claiming that all girls have exactly the same body shape, not that all boys do. So the question of fit still applies.

Of course I'm not. However, see the above post - that's a boy and a girl with identical measurements, yet they're obviously different shapes and will require a different cut of clothing.

I don't have all night to come up with examples, so you might need to trust me on this, but those are pretty normal measurements. As those measurements deviate from the normal (but are still identical for boy and girl), the shapes diverge even further until they're not even remotely similar at the extremes.

musteatbrain

digitalscream said:

musteatbrain said:

I can't understand why people don't see this as a really good thing. I'm really strongly in favour of John Lewis doing this and recognising the negative social impact companies have with their products. They need bring more pressure and sort out the toy market next. I've been pretty shocked lately to see how adults stereotyped views, conscious or not, have such a big influence on how kids think and act. So many companies do what is right for revenue and not what is right for society, missing a longer term opportunity to do both. Rant hat off.... Narcos series 3 back on

Do you have kids?

How do you feel about going shopping for their clothes, and having to feel around the crotch of the trousers and pants to check whether it'll fit a boy or a girl in public?

Or, if you're a bit shy, how do you feel about buying some clothes for them online and then having a 50% chance of having to send it back because it's the wrong cut and your kid refuses to wear it because it's uncomfortable?

I can't believe that people are so stupid as to have reached an age where they're competent enough to get to a forum like this and yet still haven't noticed that girls and boys are different shapes, or at least not made the logical leap to "Maybe a different shaped body needs differently-shaped clothes".

Fucking mind-boggling.

Fucking hell, how big do you think my kids genitalia are? They are all under 6.

digitalscream

musteatbrain said:

digitalscream said:

musteatbrain said:

I can't understand why people don't see this as a really good thing. I'm really strongly in favour of John Lewis doing this and recognising the negative social impact companies have with their products. They need bring more pressure and sort out the toy market next. I've been pretty shocked lately to see how adults stereotyped views, conscious or not, have such a big influence on how kids think and act. So many companies do what is right for revenue and not what is right for society, missing a longer term opportunity to do both. Rant hat off.... Narcos series 3 back on

Do you have kids?

How do you feel about going shopping for their clothes, and having to feel around the crotch of the trousers and pants to check whether it'll fit a boy or a girl in public?

Or, if you're a bit shy, how do you feel about buying some clothes for them online and then having a 50% chance of having to send it back because it's the wrong cut and your kid refuses to wear it because it's uncomfortable?

I can't believe that people are so stupid as to have reached an age where they're competent enough to get to a forum like this and yet still haven't noticed that girls and boys are different shapes, or at least not made the logical leap to "Maybe a different shaped body needs differently-shaped clothes".

Fucking mind-boggling.

Fucking hell, how big do you think my kids genitalia are? They are all under 6.

They're still there (assuming your kids are boys), and would be extremely uncomfortable in clothes designed for kids with nothing there

Here are a few fun experiments (not just for you, for everyone who thinks this is a good idea)...

1 - Go to a clothes shop and spend 10 minutes poking around the crotch area of a bunch of kids' clothes, and see how long it takes for you to die of embarrassment or be escorted out by security (or both). That's what's going to have to happen at John Lewis stores.

2 - Drag your kid (or one you've borrowed...) away from their Playstation to a clothes shop, and make them try on everything they'd need for a full new school uniform. See how long it takes for you to want to leave the child in the shop and go to the pub instead.

3 - Wear women's underwear and trousers for a week, and report back on the comfort levels.

musteatbrain

seriously though. Size isn't a big issue. Just have different cuts and go off measurements. I think John Lewis are doing this to stop Bob the Builder and Thomas the Tank Engine etc. being sold as boys clothes. I think that's a bigger issue

musteatbrain

digitalscream said:

musteatbrain said:

digitalscream said:

musteatbrain said:

I can't understand why people don't see this as a really good thing. I'm really strongly in favour of John Lewis doing this and recognising the negative social impact companies have with their products. They need bring more pressure and sort out the toy market next. I've been pretty shocked lately to see how adults stereotyped views, conscious or not, have such a big influence on how kids think and act. So many companies do what is right for revenue and not what is right for society, missing a longer term opportunity to do both. Rant hat off.... Narcos series 3 back on

Do you have kids?

How do you feel about going shopping for their clothes, and having to feel around the crotch of the trousers and pants to check whether it'll fit a boy or a girl in public?

Or, if you're a bit shy, how do you feel about buying some clothes for them online and then having a 50% chance of having to send it back because it's the wrong cut and your kid refuses to wear it because it's uncomfortable?

I can't believe that people are so stupid as to have reached an age where they're competent enough to get to a forum like this and yet still haven't noticed that girls and boys are different shapes, or at least not made the logical leap to "Maybe a different shaped body needs differently-shaped clothes".

Fucking mind-boggling.

Fucking hell, how big do you think my kids genitalia are? They are all under 6.

They're still there (assuming your kids are boys), and would be extremely uncomfortable in clothes designed for kids with nothing there

Here are a few fun experiments (not just for you, for everyone who thinks this is a good idea)...

1 - Go to a clothes shop and spend 10 minutes poking around the crotch area of a bunch of kids' clothes, and see how long it takes for you to die of embarrassment or be escorted out by security (or both). That's what's going to have to happen at John Lewis stores.

2 - Drag your kid (or one you've borrowed...) away from their Playstation to a clothes shop, and make them try on everything they'd need for a full new school uniform. See how long it takes for you to want to leave the child in the shop and go to the pub instead.

3 - Wear women's underwear and trousers for a week, and report back on the comfort levels.

From this I deduce we have different levels of embarrassment. You have a more stressful time doing school uniform shopping than I do and that you assume I don't wear women's underwear!

digitalscream

musteatbrain said:

seriously though. Size isn't a big issue. Just have different cuts and go off measurements. I think John Lewis are doing this to stop Bob the Builder and Thomas the Tank Engine etc. being sold as boys clothes. I think that's a bigger issue

How are they supposed to differentiate the "different cuts" if they can't be labelled as "boy" and "girl", though?

I absolutely don't have a problem with all colours and visual designs being available for both genders (whether they're cars and guns, or rainbows and unicorns...). In fact, I'm in favour of it. Note, however, that this *isn't* what they're doing here. They're not altering their lines to make all designs available for both gendered cuts of the garments - they're simply removing the gender labels from the existing lines.

musteatbrain said:

...and that you assume I don't wear women's underwear!

I'll concede that one

On another note...you might wonder why I'm so pissed off at this. Basically, there are a lot of people pushing for legislation that gender be removed as a constraint from all children's clothes. If that becomes a reality, I'm out of a job - the viability of our entire business is based on the fact that we have the lowest returns rate of any online children's clothing retailer in Europe. The introduction of such a constraint would destroy our business overnight, because it's a 100% certainty that the returns rate would increase by at least an order of magnitude without the possibility of any mitigation other than a similar level of price increase (which is unsustainable).

musteatbrain

Re cuts.
Will be interesting to see how this works in practice. I'll keep an eye on how it pans out at John Lewis as I do end up there a lot.

digitalscream

musteatbrain said:

Re cuts.
Will be interesting to see how this works in practice. I'll keep an eye on how it pans out at John Lewis as I do end up there a lot.

There is, of course, another alternative - while stuff won't be labelled as "boy" or "girl", they'll find other ways to imply gender in order to not decimate their business...thus making this a totally empty gesture.

musteatbrain

Then we can all subvert back to the social norms formed in our wider culture informed by our media and retailers. Ah well back to, conform and obey etc. Where's Rowdy Roddy Pipper when we need him?

holnrew

RE: Star Trek uniforms, I'd love to have something like this and not get laughed at. I have massive thighs and a flat bum so jeans don't fit too well

digitalscream

musteatbrain said:

Then we can all subvert back to the social norms formed in our wider culture informed by our media and retailers. Ah well back to, conform and obey etc. Where's Rowdy Roddy Pipper when we need him?

Gotta say, that bugs me too - the apparent modern assumption that our social norms are all somehow the result of patriarchy/media/corporations, and as a result must all be ditched for "something else". An awful lot of society's norms are actually quite sensible and are the result of thousands of years of trial-and-error, and thus represent the best all-round solution for the purpose.

Things like not using two knives to eat with, not walking in the middle of the road just because you can, and not boinking your sister. Common sense, really.

A bit like making room in your pants for your man-parts.

holnrew

I think the argument over the cut of the clothes is a bit of a red herring. No one child is the same as another, so there's always going to be different fits, even within clothes for their gender.  (EDIT: reconsidered my opinion)

If a boy wants to wear a dress where's the harm? It won't make him gay or trans, but where's the harm if that's what he is? Isn't it more beautiful to see a child feel at ease with themselves, even if it's just at home?

I guess I have a bit of a different opinion having had a sexuality/gender crisis in my early 20s after leaving religion and becoming sexually unrepressed (plus a lot of bullshit from my mum about how my dad wasn't a real man, and to make sure I'm a good provider when I get married etc). As I hinted at earlier I've always had feminine traits, pink has always been my favourite colour. But I hid that for a huge part of my life growing up because of teasing etc. I agree we should embrace differences between the sexes, but that shouldn't exclude a bit of a grey area, or prevent people from expressing themselves if it's not within their gender stereotype.

I feel like society is far more at ease with women being masculine than vice versa, and I think feminism can take some of the blame. But where I do agree with feminists is that there is such a thing as toxic masculinity

The concept of toxic masculinity is used in the social sciences to describe traditional norms of behavior among men in contemporary American and European society that are associated with detrimental social and psychological effects. Such "toxic" masculine norms include dominance, devaluation of women, extreme self-reliance, and the suppression of emotions. 

Wiki

I feel like that kind of thing stopped me from accepting myself as masculine, or even male (I accept it doesn't just come from men). I understand if you've never had issues around gender (and mine are minor compared to others in the thread) that this can seem laughable, especially if you're 45+. But it's harmful. I hate SJWs and virtue signalling, not least because it puts people off important messages by making it laughable. It sets back societal acceptance by showing the extremes. Not people like me. 

My older niece is girly as fuck and it's gross honestly. But I buy her the "lego for girls" because she wouldn't play with it otherwise. It's a good way to get those who wouldn't otherwise play with it to get hand eye co-ordination, learn to read diagrams and most of all patience. So I don't think it's worth writing off.

She also sees me in my pink tshirts and tells me "Pink is a girl's colour", so I tell her there's no such thing as girls and boys colours and that I'm a man and I love pink and that doesn't make me a girl.

I'm fairly comfortable with my masculinity now (luckily because I'm a bit of a fat shithouse), because I'm inherently male. Nothing can change that. Just because I like pink, walk very softly and like to do things with delicacy, doesn't change that. They might be traditionally thought of as feminine, but they're just part of me.

Sorry, went off on a bit of a ramble. Just wanted to provide a bit of a counterbalance

starwarsnosebleed

Ram the manparts...or something.

digitalscream

holnrew said:

I think the argument over the cut of the clothes is a bit of a red herring.

That's because you don't make or sell clothes.

You guys all seem to think that clothing is a one-shape-fits-all thing, which it's not. Even for the mas-produced stuff, millions gets spent just on figuring out the best average cut for the majority of each gender. It's got piss-all to do with gender politics, and everything to do with actual body shapes, facts and maths. Those are things which don't change just because a crusader says they should or somebody misses the point and cries about the injustice of a pink t-shirt only being available for girls.

But...never mind all that, eh? I'm sure all the parents who're endlessly frustrated by getting the wrong clothes for their kids and having to force them to try on every last thing will be overjoyed to know that this is a win for the .01% of the population who are clinically gender-neutral (and the 5% of the population who'll blindly go along with it without actually considering the implications).

@holnrew - your post is a perfect case in point, because the problems you're talking about here are not actually solved (or even tangentially addressed) by the move from John Lewis that you're ostensibly supporting; it's your argument which is the red herring. They're not talking about print designs currently only available for one gender being available to both (which I think would be a good idea). They're just removing labels from the clothes they're making now, not expanding the range.

I honestly give up. It seems nobody actually wants to think about this (or even read the article properly), so...yeah, whatever.

holnrew

I was just addressing the wider attitude of the thread after the red herring comment, and did go off on a bit of a ramble. I'll cede to your expertise about the fit, and edit my post.

Flink_Poyd

Pandering nonsense in my opinion. It's bad enough trying to navigate the hell that is kids clothes shopping as it is. I bought some stuff for the kids yesterday. Where did I find the boys boxer shorts? Facing the girls section behind the girls stuff facing the boys section so it looked like there wasn't anything for the boys!

Bidley

I could understand removing the labeling on adult clothes... But why just the kids'? I mean making the designs more neutral is a good idea, but this just seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Drew_TNBD

holnrew said:

I think the argument over the cut of the clothes is a bit of a red herring. No one child is the same as another, so there's always going to be different fits, even within clothes for their gender.  (EDIT: reconsidered my opinion)

If a boy wants to wear a dress where's the harm? It won't make him gay or trans, but where's the harm if that's what he is? Isn't it more beautiful to see a child feel at ease with themselves, even if it's just at home?

I guess I have a bit of a different opinion having had a sexuality/gender crisis in my early 20s after leaving religion and becoming sexually unrepressed (plus a lot of bullshit from my mum about how my dad wasn't a real man, and to make sure I'm a good provider when I get married etc). As I hinted at earlier I've always had feminine traits, pink has always been my favourite colour. But I hid that for a huge part of my life growing up because of teasing etc. I agree we should embrace differences between the sexes, but that shouldn't exclude a bit of a grey area, or prevent people from expressing themselves if it's not within their gender stereotype.

I feel like society is far more at ease with women being masculine than vice versa, and I think feminism can take some of the blame. But where I do agree with feminists is that there is such a thing as toxic masculinity

The concept of toxic masculinity is used in the social sciences to describe traditional norms of behavior among men in contemporary American and European society that are associated with detrimental social and psychological effects. Such "toxic" masculine norms include dominance, devaluation of women, extreme self-reliance, and the suppression of emotions. 

Wiki

I feel like that kind of thing stopped me from accepting myself as masculine, or even male (I accept it doesn't just come from men). I understand if you've never had issues around gender (and mine are minor compared to others in the thread) that this can seem laughable, especially if you're 45+. But it's harmful. I hate SJWs and virtue signalling, not least because it puts people off important messages by making it laughable. It sets back societal acceptance by showing the extremes. Not people like me. 

My older niece is girly as fuck and it's gross honestly. But I buy her the "lego for girls" because she wouldn't play with it otherwise. It's a good way to get those who wouldn't otherwise play with it to get hand eye co-ordination, learn to read diagrams and most of all patience. So I don't think it's worth writing off.

She also sees me in my pink tshirts and tells me "Pink is a girl's colour", so I tell her there's no such thing as girls and boys colours and that I'm a man and I love pink and that doesn't make me a girl.

I'm fairly comfortable with my masculinity now (luckily because I'm a bit of a fat shithouse), because I'm inherently male. Nothing can change that. Just because I like pink, walk very softly and like to do things with delicacy, doesn't change that. They might be traditionally thought of as feminine, but they're just part of me.

Sorry, went off on a bit of a ramble. Just wanted to provide a bit of a counterbalance

Toxic masculinity is merely a semantic invention used to demonise traditional masculine traits. It has nothing to do with embracing femininity an everything to do with otherizing things that feminists don't like.

Masculinity and femininity aren't just one thing, and one isn't bad and the other isn't good. They are the result of complex interactions between biology and environment, and each has pro's and cons.

Here you go... the good side of masculinity:

Drew_TNBD

digitalscream said:

Gotta say, that bugs me too - the apparent modern assumption that our social norms are all somehow the result of patriarchy/media/corporations

Welcome to post-modernism and the ouroboros of the progressive mindset.