Let it go, let it go, boys can dress as princesses too!

On the Western shift in understanding of gender.

Some may argue that, ‘Gender is a dead topic. There are boys and girls, and nothing more’. I would like to challenge such opinion to further analysis.


A good counter-example to the statement above is a viral picture of a three-year-old boy, Caiden in his Halloween costume. Caiden, unlike other boys, decided to dress up as his favourite hero, Princess Elsa from Disney’s “Frozen” (2013). How cool is that! From the picture we can understand that this was one of the happiest moments in Caiden’s life. Unfortunately, this contradicts a common assumption that of princesses’ costumes are for girls, and not for boys. Hence, my query is: where does this assumption comes from?

To clarify this ambiguity, I will define two terms, or rather two positions on the matter of gender. The terms are: sex and gender.

Richardson (2008) defines sex as a concept, “referred to the biological differences between females and males defined in terms of the anatomy and physiology of the body”. The formal term used by sociologists is biological determinism. This position holds that we are either born as a boy or a girl, and this has its consequences in the manner we behave. From this position it would seem that we need a boy-girl dichotomy, because it is natural (via biology). Therefore, for instance, for a boy it is natural to dress up as Batman or Superman, because analysing closely the anatomy and physiology of these heroes reflect being biologically a man. Similarly, for a girl it is natural to dress up as Tinker Bell or Princess Elsa, because these heroines reflect being biologically a woman.


Thus, what some biological determinists may conclude that of Caiden’s behaviour (dressing up as a princess) is that it is deviant, or unnatural. This analysis may derive from our biological definition of woman, which are delicate, passive to action, or take great care of their own appearance (this links to Laura Mulvey’s Male Gaze, and objectification of women in mainstream media). For instance, in “Shrek” (2001) this definition of woman was illustrated via Princess Fiona – a princess waiting for her prince to rescue her from troubles. Some biological determinists could argue that Caiden should associated himself with the definition of woman. He is a boy for Christ Sake! Instead, Caiden should strive to be: brave, strong, assertive, a leader of a group – as this is the definition of man. Such definition of man is well summarised by a character of Kristoff in “Frozen” (2013).

On the other hand, gender, unlike sex, “refers to the socially constructed categories of masculine and feminine that are differently defined in various cultures and the socially imposed attributes and behaviours that are assigned to them” (Bilton et al, 2002:131). An interesting understanding of this position, is proposed by Judith Butler, in her book ‘Gender Trouble’ (1980), that gender as performativity. Our performance of actions can be identified as being masculine or feminine and thus the accumulation of our actions leads us to think that we are more masculine i.e. we are men, or more feminine, i.e. we are women. This view can be simplified into that we are doing gender (as summarised in Richardson and Robinson, 2008). This position is formally called social constructivism. In Caiden’s case, we can see that social constructivists could not label this three-year-old as performing deviant behaviour, rather they would call the action (of dressing up as a princess) as being feminine (as identified in the Western world). In this case, social constructivists could suggest that, as Caiden being identified as a boy, he should avoid to perform feminine actions, in this case, dressing up as a princess.


Nevertheless, should we just finish here? There is a constant movement towards gender equality, and this post is very much with this movement. The worry I would like to acknowledge is that of the position of biological determinism. I argue that from this position, we are stopping the movement to advance forward. In other words, I believe that as long as we think that the difference between human beings is our biology, we are stuck with gender inequality. I suggest that social constructivism liberates us from the shackles of the gendered world and we begin to respect one another, not because of gentlemen code or lady code, but simply because we respect each other existence.




5 thoughts on “Let it go, let it go, boys can dress as princesses too!

  1. As a father of a boy who sometimes likes to dance in a princess dress, I say “let’s not over-complicate things”. Equally, when his sister wants to play with toy tools – I say “go for it”. If it makes the children happy, why should I care?

    • I am glad that you hold such positive position, i.e. to let any child be simply happy. However, the gendered world exists, it is socially imposed, and this has to be at least acknowledged. The further step would to go beyond the biological determinism (as I claimed in the article).
      Now the problem really lies and I cite you, “let’s not over-complicate things”. Our identity, I find fluid, changeable, and thus identifying with dominant genders (i.e. either men or women) is enforcing the dominant ideology of the binary opposition between men and women.
      Now the real question is: ‘If you dont care about that inequality (between men and women), why do you enforce the dominant ideology? If you do care to reduce that inequality, why do you not argue against biological determinism?’

  2. Exactly. Lots of big words, and what is your message? Can anyone understand what you mean? Do these big words and long sentences help anyone be happier? Keep it simple:-)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s