Do Americans REALLY Believe a Clothing Ad is Fueling “Gender Confusion?”

In the midst of various and sundry crises on the world stage (think radiation leakage from nuclear power plants in Japan, continued fighting and unrest in Libya, and an apparently distraught young mother, Lashaundra Armstrong killing herself and three young children by driving her minivan into the Hudson River), it is hard to imagine that pink toenail polish on a five year old boy could cause such a firestorm of controversy.

This adorable J Crew ad (http://www.jcrew.com/womens_feature/Jennaspicks.jsp) has critics raging over the fact that it features J Crew president and creative director Jenna Lyons laughing with her young son after having painted his toenails with pink neon nail polish.  Phrases used to describe the ad, including “inappropriate”, “disturbing” and “transgender propaganda” seem unbelievable to me on several levels.

First, is homophobia in the United States still so rampant that we cannot even enjoy the sheer fun and silliness of a boy with pink toenails?  As a kid I can recall laughing hysterically when my little sister got into our mother’s makeup and created eye brows and a mustache that looked suspiciously similar to those sported by Groucho Marx.  The idea that this affinity for “pretend facial hair” in any way suggested future gender identity issues never even crossed our minds.  It was silly; it was fun; it made us laugh.  To the critics I would say, “Lighten up!  The kid is five and he’s laughing!  It isn’t as if his mom is forcing to dress like a girl.”

Second, even supposing that there is some sort of credence to the idea that five year old boys who like to have their toenails painted pink will grow up to be gay or transgendered I would say, “So what?”  Our children are who they are and like what they like.  I have a 20 year old son whom I dressed in Dockers and preppy polo shirts and cardigan sweaters when he was young because that was the style of clothing that I liked.  However, once he started dressing himself he showed an intense preference for the “grunge” look.  While I miss the buttoned-down prep school look, his ripped and baggy jeans, crazy T-shirts and funny wool caps don’t make me love or value him any less.  It’s a preference; it doesn’t change who he is on the inside and if, at some point in his life he were to tell me that he prefers romantic relationships with men over those with women that wouldn’t change who he is on the inside either.  I might not agree with his preference and I would definitely be afraid for him in terms of the discrimination he might face from society, but it wouldn’t change the importance or value of my relationship with him.

Additionally, the scientific community is still much divided on what factors determine sexual orientation and gender identity as evidenced by this 2006 CBS 60 Minutes report on 9 year old twin brothers, raised together but possessing very different perspectives on gender identity.  While genetics and environment may play some role in sexual preference and gender identify, the fact that twin brothers raised in the same home by the same parents could identify so differently suggests that there is still some unknown factor that helps in determining this particular aspect of child’s personality and psychological make-up.  However, evidence does seem to suggest that it is highly doubtful that the gender identity and future sexual preference of any child can be significantly altered by outside influences.  Those critics who insist that the toenail painting is “damaging” to this little boy should be reminded that there is currently no evidence that anyone can “turn” a child (or anyone else, for that matter) who is predisposed to heterosexuality into a homosexual or vice versa.

Perhaps what is most disheartening about this story, however is the fact that while a photo of a smiling little boy with pink toenails can generate interest, controversy, concern for his well-being and, in some instances, even outrage against perceived exploitation and abuse the American public somehow cannot seem to generate the same levels of outrage against the real problems in our society like hunger, lack of education, homelessness, and children abandoned by drug addicted parents.  If we, as a society are going to take the trouble to work up a healthy batch of “righteous indignation” let’s at least make sure that it is over something that truly matters.