The retreat of reason

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

FDR when he was a boy.

Also, regarding pink versus blue:

In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores. In Boston, Filene’s told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle’s in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago.

Today’s color dictate wasn’t established until the 1940s, as a result of Americans’ preferences as interpreted by manufacturers and retailers. “It could have gone the other way,” Paoletti says.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/?c=y&page=1

There is biological sex and also some degree of intersexed and some aspect of that might be more common than we realize. It doesn't really matter though because a discussion about biology is irrelevant to current customs in design of children's clothing. Biology might be a little more relevant to adult clothing, but not children's.

There is a lot of historical ignorance about how customs have changed, too, and so I will make an effort to transcribe some old newspaper articles. The first one I will transcribe will be about pink versus blue.

The Wichita Daily Eagle (Wichita Kansas), 15 Oct 1922.

Transcription follows...

MOTHERS DEFY CUSTOM IN DRESSING THEIR BABIES

Twenty Years Ago Boys Wore Pink and Little Girls Blue, But Now the Order is Switched And Many Wear Pure White


ACCORDING to the old custom, a baby girl should always be dressed in blue and a baby boy in pink, but within the past two or three years people have paid no attention to any such ruling--they put the color on their babies which looks the best, say those who are in charge of baby departments at the stores.

However a few yet cling to the usage of set colors, reports Miss Faith Williams at Rorabaugh's. Especially do those who have had little experience in purchasing clothing for youngsters enter the department and say, "I want a dress for a little girl with blue ribbons on it," or else one for a boy with pink on it.

Blue is used exclusively for tiny babies in many instances now because as a rule it is much more becoming to any new arrival, according to Mrs. Jay Gill. Again people are using just plain white for babies on account of its daintiness.

To have a variety many mothers use both pink and blue combined with white for either a girl or a boy, finds Miss L. Schumaker of Innes'.

"I notice that people seldom pay any attention to that old custom," said Mrs. Elizabeth McPerson of the Boston Store, "but those who do have changed it around now so that blue is used for boys and pink for girls. This is exactly the opposite from what it has been for twenty years."

So the consensus of opinion is that one may use either pink or blue for either a boy or a girl and the baby will be "in style."​

*crickets*

 

[SimpleDon]

The retreat of reason

I read the title of this thread expecting to find an academic discussion of some important issue of the day or a soaring, uplifting tome to the need of humanity to keep growing in knowledge and using that knowledge to overturn the shackles of the past that still constrain us.

Of course, what I found was an all too predictable overreaction to possibly the most trivial metric by which to measure the current state of our society, fashion.

The sole aim of the fashion industry is encourage us to abandon the clothes that they convinced us to buy last year. The technology exists to manufacture clothes that last for years and probably for decades of wear. There is an obvious problem in doing so for the clothing manufacturers. Hence the dominance of fashion in the manufacturers thinking.

And the OP is correct that fashion is one of the very many realities of modern life that defies conservatives, that are in their terms, products by leftists. Fashion is all about change. Conservatism is about resisting change. (My approach to fashion is in all respects conservative.)

But it approaches being unhinged to believe that this is anything but a probing trying to find a niche of sentiment that can be exploited for profit. It is the same as reporting the end of all that we know based on the phrasing on a popular tee shirt.

I am hard on conservatives. This is an example why. No one is claiming that we should ignore biology, that sex is a social construct. But the gender roles in society are to a large degree social constructs though, a recent development measured in the evolutionary short scale of millenniums, as we have developed from hunters to farmers to hard manual laborers in factories to service industries and writing code and machines manufacturing trivial things that we don't need and selling things to each other that we don't need.

It is not because a conspiracy of leftists have forced through ill advised social policies defying the dictates of nature, it is because things have changed to make our current gender roles to be more of just social constructs than they were in the past. Unjust social constructs that are changing because of their weight on our current society.

This is a further small, silly example of why people who live in the past and want to return to it are poorly suited by their natures to be taken seriously and to participate in governing a dynamic society and economy like ours in which change is accelerating. I know that this is harsh and unyielding but is the truth.

 

[laughing dog]

Right. And there are those who are militant about it. It is rather humorous that they do actually believe gender is a choice. However, it stops being funny when they get in my face screaming and threatening that I must also accept their delusion "or else".

I can't say that I have experienced anyone getting in my face and screaming and threatening me. It is quite remarkable that the vociferous few have been so influential that using ordinary terms such as "he and she" or "girls and boys" should be banished and biology be damned. Bonkers.

I am truly curious. Can you provide a link to someone seriously proposing that the terms "he and she" or "girls and boys" should be banished?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is indeed a retreat of reason within the regressive left, but this isn't it. This is just a business filling a niche. Now, if they outlaw dresses or manly man clothes, then you'll have a point. If I want to wear unisex non-gender specific clothes, or for that matter if I want to wear opposite gender typed clothes, that's really my own business, and a business can capitalize on my preference, no?

Exactly. Nobody's trying to make you wear non-gendered clothing, therefore there's no wrongdoing here.

 

[skepticalbip]

I can't say that I have experienced anyone getting in my face and screaming and threatening me. It is quite remarkable that the vociferous few have been so influential that using ordinary terms such as "he and she" or "girls and boys" should be banished and biology be damned. Bonkers.

I am truly curious. Can you provide a link to someone seriously proposing that the terms "he and she" or "girls and boys" should be banished?

Here you go...

http://nypost.com/2016/05/19/city-issues-new-guidelines-on-transgender-pronouns/

Not using transgender pronouns could get you fined

Employers and landlords who intentionally and consistently ignore using pronouns such as “ze/hir” to refer to transgender workers and tenants who request them — may be subject to fines as high as $250,000.

The Commission on Human Rights’ legal guidelines mandate that anyone who providing jobs or housing must use individuals’ preferred gender pronouns.

As the regulations, updated late last year, point out, some transgender individuals prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers.

Examples of less prominent pronouns that some transgender people may choose, according to the city, are: “ze,” which is the third person singular, such as he and she; and “hir,” which is the third person plural, similar to they.

..........

Canada goes a bit further. There, "misuse" of pronouns can get you both a fine and jail time.

 

[Harry Bosch]

There is indeed a retreat of reason within the regressive left, but this isn't it. This is just a business filling a niche. Now, if they outlaw dresses or manly man clothes, then you'll have a point. If I want to wear unisex non-gender specific clothes, or for that matter if I want to wear opposite gender typed clothes, that's really my own business, and a business can capitalize on my preference, no?

Exactly. Nobody's trying to make you wear non-gendered clothing, therefore there's no wrongdoing here.

I agree with you. However, this entire thread highlights the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe that all behavior is a result of your environment. If you're gay, it's because your mom dressed you in pink when you were a baby. Liberals, not burdened by religion, are more nuanced. Most liberals that I know believe that sexuality is determined by genetics. Science, while not yet conclusive yet, is trending on our side.

 

[laughing dog]

I am truly curious. Can you provide a link to someone seriously proposing that the terms "he and she" or "girls and boys" should be banished?

http://nypost.com/2016/05/19/city-issues-new-guidelines-on-transgender-pronouns/

Not using transgender pronouns could get you fined

Employers and landlords who intentionally and consistently ignore using pronouns such as “ze/hir” to refer to transgender workers and tenants who request them — may be subject to fines as high as $250,000.

The Commission on Human Rights’ legal guidelines mandate that anyone who providing jobs or housing must use individuals’ preferred gender pronouns.

As the regulations, updated late last year, point out, some transgender individuals prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers.

Examples of less prominent pronouns that some transgender people may choose, according to the city, are: “ze,” which is the third person singular, such as he and she; and “hir,” which is the third person plural, similar to they.

..........

Canada goes a bit further. There, "misuse" of pronouns can get you both a fine and jail time.

Which is not banishing (i.e. not using them under any circumstance) the use of those pronouns.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I am truly curious. Can you provide a link to someone seriously proposing that the terms "he and she" or "girls and boys" should be banished?

Here you go...

http://nypost.com/2016/05/19/city-issues-new-guidelines-on-transgender-pronouns/

Not using transgender pronouns could get you fined

Employers and landlords who intentionally and consistently ignore using pronouns such as “ze/hir” to refer to transgender workers and tenants who request them — may be subject to fines as high as $250,000.

The Commission on Human Rights’ legal guidelines mandate that anyone who providing jobs or housing must use individuals’ preferred gender pronouns.

As the regulations, updated late last year, point out, some transgender individuals prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers.

Examples of less prominent pronouns that some transgender people may choose, according to the city, are: “ze,” which is the third person singular, such as he and she; and “hir,” which is the third person plural, similar to they.

..........

Canada goes a bit further. There, "misuse" of pronouns can get you both a fine and jail time.

No. No, it cannot. Please keep your freaky right wing nonsense below the 49th parallel.

We don't want your crazy here.

 

[beero1000]

Reading comprehension, ffs.

It's like people shut their brains off trying to get a 'gotcha' post, but you just look silly when your gotcha isn't actually relevant. Can't everyone see that wild swings and fake memes just hurt the point they're trying to make?

 

[Rhea]

I am truly curious. Can you provide a link to someone seriously proposing that the terms "he and she" or "girls and boys" should be banished?

Here you go...

http://nypost.com/2016/05/19/city-issues-new-guidelines-on-transgender-pronouns/

Not using transgender pronouns could get you fined

Employers and landlords who intentionally and consistently ignore using pronouns such as “ze/hir” to refer to transgender workers and tenants who request them — may be subject to fines as high as $250,000.

The Commission on Human Rights’ legal guidelines mandate that anyone who providing jobs or housing must use individuals’ preferred gender pronouns.

As the regulations, updated late last year, point out, some transgender individuals prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers.

Examples of less prominent pronouns that some transgender people may choose, according to the city, are: “ze,” which is the third person singular, such as he and she; and “hir,” which is the third person plural, similar to they.

..........

Canada goes a bit further. There, "misuse" of pronouns can get you both a fine and jail time.

This is stupid. Can you REALLY not tell the difference beteen "wants the words banned" and if you repeatedly and maliciously refuse to call someone by the gender they've asked to be called you're an asshole and will be fined?

And not realize that the main reason people care so much about being called the right gender is BECAUSE society is so freakishly enslaved by he norm of "needing" to assign expressed gender to everyone they see despite not needing to know for any reason?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually I was hoping we'd all be wearing space suits by now...

Now, SPACE suits in boy-girl flavors make sense because of the plumbing concerns...
But then again, one might be better served with a privately owned undersuit you hooked up to, and outersuits could be generic...

Plumbing concerns are relevant to lower garments regardless of where you are. Men desire an easily-openable front. Women have no use for that.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Now, SPACE suits in boy-girl flavors make sense because of the plumbing concerns...
But then again, one might be better served with a privately owned undersuit you hooked up to, and outersuits could be generic...

Plumbing concerns are relevant to lower garments regardless of where you are. Men desire an easily-openable front. Women have no use for that.

What about slutty women?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There was a TV show in the 70's, i forget which one exactly, but probably A-Team, where they were sneaking around on a construction site. They ducked into a shed where they found a bunch of coveralls so they'd look like they fit in.
They certainly fit. As they skulked through the site, we saw that the intrepid female reporter accompanying our heroes had found a set of coveralls that was nicely tailored, showing her ass in the best possible light. I distinctly remember being amazed how, even for Jiggle TV, they thought it was likely to find such well-fitting clothes in a random stack of the things.

Women on jiggle TV have magical abilities to make any outfit sexy.

 

[abaddon]

Reading comprehension, ffs.

It's like people shut their brains off trying to get a 'gotcha' post, but you just look silly when your gotcha isn't actually relevant. Can't everyone see that wild swings and fake memes just hurt the point they're trying to make?

But would conservatives have any points to make if they turned their brains on, got less religious about their politics, and expanded outside their insular bubbles? If changes which are intended to more adequately deal with reality look like "the world is going to hell in a handbasket" to them, then it's not just failed "gotchas" but no valid point there at all.

 

[ronburgundy]

It's about the fact that liberals are pushing the psuedoscientific idea that sex and gender aren't real.

Not quite accurate in my opinion. They think these things are a choice. Its hilarious.

What is hilarious is the anti-science denial that there is a massive degree of choice and social coercion behind "traditional" gender roles and the degree to which people conform to them. This store isn't denying the existence of any actual biological differences. They are merely deciding not to contribute to the social coercion of gender roles by telling boys and girls what they should be interested in and what colors and styles they are allowed to wear.

Why would any sane person be at all upset by that?
They are the one's actually allowing a greater influence of "natural" biological tendencies by removing artificial coercive constraints on choice.
If gender conformity is 100% biological as your irrational faith apparently compels you to believe, then this will have zero impact. All girls will still choose the pink stuff and the boys will all choose the manly colors.

You'd only be upset if you secretly knew that you were full of shit and that removing this coercion would reduce gender conformity, which for some perverse reason bothers you.

 

[untermensche]

Those damn liberals!!

Very soon nobody will know who to have sex with.

We're all doomed.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The technology exists to manufacture clothes that last for years and probably for decades of wear.

They DO!
God, what IS it you and my wife have against my underwear!?!?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Cool. Meanwhile, we still have several different wars going on that appear to be endless, yet this is "the retreat of reason". Okay then. Get your priorities right.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

We have a president who 1. Pushed the Obama birther conspiracy, 2. Claimed, without evidence, that millions of people voted illegally, 3. Claimed, without evidence, that Obama wiretapped him, 4. Claimed that global warming is a "Chinese hoax", among many other things, yet this, this is the "retreat of reason".

 

[RavenSky]

We have a president who 1. Pushed the Obama birther conspiracy, 2. Claimed, without evidence, that millions of people voted illegally, 3. Claimed, without evidence, that Obama wiretapped him, 4. Claimed that global warming is a "Chinese hoax", among many other things, yet this, this is the "retreat of reason".

^^^ Needs repeating