I'm guessing having all babies in dresses had a lot to do with 'potty' training or whatever the equivalent was before indoor plumbing.

Gender rules are social constructs. People conflate gender with sex and sexuality but they're all separate and non binding to one another. None of it actually matters and to take offense exhibits one's personal ignorance or inability to comprehend non binary conditions. It's ok to be uncomfortable when encountering something or someone different than one's scope of experience. That discomfort is just your brain trying to catch up to process new data. One's personal discomfort is not a justification to confront someone or expect them to conform to one's myopic worldview. It's not them. It's you.

As a metal-head I remember lots of metal dudes in the 80's wearing little cut off t-shirts and little spandex tights, and I'm not just talking glam metal, fashion changes fast and constantly.

Well, dresses were not for boys and(or) girls, they were for children, who were considered somewhat genderless. High heels were manly, because they were a part of horseman's footwear (cowboy boots still have them).

Boys wore dresses in the 1900s to aid and make toilet training easier. Clothes children wore back then were much more cumbersome. Dresses not only helped the parents change diapers, but made it easier for the child to go the the bathroom by himself.

Which is why if you're a boy who loves soft, swishy dresses, or a girl who loves her tough muddy boots....it's ok to be a boy who loves soft swishy dresses, and a girl who loves her tough muddy boots....you're not 'demi' or anything (unless that's what you're happiest calling yourself). I say this as an older woman who doesn't do make up, handbags or fancy dresses and shoes.....and it's fine.

It was 50 years ago when David Bowie wore a dress on the cover of the incredible album The Man Who Sold the World. I thought he was being progressive turns out it was old fashioned :)

Very interesting but hard to read due to the guy's face being all over the place. It's hilarious that some people lost their s**t because Harry Styles wore a dress on a mag cover. For centuries, that was the male norm.

"Our culture is made up". Of course it is, that's what culture is. The things we do and see as "normal behaviour".

The problem is that we like to differentiate. It doesn't matter whether what "side" wears what, it's about the fact at any given time there are rules about things like that. Being age, gender, cultural. It's great that question rules, but how about we keep it to the meta rule that's the problem.

I wonder if young children wearing dresses had to do with the practical aspects of diapering and toilet training in the days of outhouses and cloth diapers with no way to keep clothing dry.

I will teach my boys to wear skirts and dresses until a certain age when they learn to wear pants. And God willing that one day this norm and convention fashion will return and spread throughout the country and even be exported back to the West.

Well, in pictures from XV to XIX centuries you see little aristocracy boys dressed as girls and it was not about diapers changing. The reason was to "cheat" the Devil, who was in search of the families first male born.

If I ever have a boy, I'm going to put him in dresses until he's potty trained. Just imagine how easy the diaper changing will be.

I think the main reason for the dresses was because it made it easier to change a diaper in the days before snap fasteners were invented.

THIS!

In the UK it was 5 not 7 when boys were or 'de-frocked' (I think) and had their hair cut, my Gt.Grandma informed me

I have photos of my grandfather and his parents, he has curls and is wearing a white dress too, probably aged about 2. It was definitely a thing!

One little chance that only adds to the sexism of it all: People didn't "just one day wake up and do the opposite". Often feminist women started adopting masculine styles to equate themselves with men and reflect their feminist views. After it became feminist fashion, sexists would start to shy away from these styles, because they wanted to avoid that equation. This is what happened to pink and high heels.

Why did someone even come up with the idea of certain colors, outfits, names, etc are for males n others for females?

This comment has been deleted.

Yes culture is made up, shocking. But the problem is not socialized norms but today you are forced to believe them usually with the heavy hand of government, THAT is the problem and what so many people rebel against. And the little boys in dresses is a class thing. Only the rich could afford photos so the record starts out with the bias thinking all little boys wore white dresses, not so, just those rich enough to afford photos.. As well white anything was a sign of wealth since you needed lots of servants to clean those white dresses.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

It's called a norm because it's what considered normal for the time. Everything changes all the time! Now people are using gender as a political talking point because all of a sudden we have 60 different genders. Its just mind games, word games and political correctness games! If you say there are only 2 genders your demonized and called a bigot. If you're honest with yourself you would be able to say that it is a proven fact that there are only 2 genders. XX and XY chromosomes don't lie, and science doesn't care about your feelings!

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

although its true that pink for girls and blue for boys have become established gender norms now. But there was no evidence of the reversal. I did a term paper on this topic. The author Jo B. Paoletti only found inconsistency, not a reversal. I know this information doesn’t change the original intention of this video, but its important to underline scientific misinformation.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Of course gender norms are made up. Where do you think they came from? That doesn't mean to they're not ok to use of you so choose...

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

To be fair it would have been affluent parents who put their sons into dresses. Working class people wouldn't have had the time or money to put up with that nonsense. Children would have had to be useful at a much earlier age.