I disagree, Invert. I mean, it's not like he's trying to walk around in fishnets and stilettos, or pasties and an elephant-sock g-string. And maybe you just haven't worn too many dresses in your day--in fact, neither have I, but I will presume for the sake of argument that I've worn more than you; correct me if I'm wrong--but it's fairly easy for the boy to dress himself in some of it; that his parents are willing to work the buttons when necessary is an issue if you really need to make one. However, I'm not willing to saddle a child that young with the burden of gender responsibilities according to sexual expectation.
These children are human beings. I beg all to never forget that simple fact. They are human beings and largely free of the arbitrary restrictions that bind and mold the rest of us despite what we might want or need for ourselves. I protect my daughter's humanity, and will advocate the same for my cousin's son, or any other child. The full spectrum of choice is an argument, as I see it, that pertains to health and vital security issues: the boy's parents are much less comfortable with him exercising his choice to peek under the heavy cover of the hot-tub than his exercise of will to wear the colors and fabrics that make him happiest. When he wants a rubber skirt with a butt-plug inside it, yes, I would hope they put their foot down. But what does this influence, this insistence on heterosexuality (or homosexuality, for that matter) look like, and where does it come from?
I won't insist on the following point, but instead wish to test the wind: If we wish our children to be heterosexual because it would cause them great pain to suffer the bigotries against homosexuals, at what point does that recommend that black people should not have children because it will cause those children great pain to suffer the bigotries against dark skin; or should anyone in the United States terminate a pregnancy determined to develop as a female, since gender discrimination and sexual harassment will cause those people great pain in their lives?
Part of what puzzles me about both these influencing-sexuality discussions is that I don't know what, short of what I consider impropriety, such influence looks like. Should we, as an extended family, intentionally and with methodical calculation alienate the young boy who envies his cousins' wardrobes? What reason should we give him when refusing his chosen attire? The nearest I can think to a good reason is still insufficient: "Don't wear girly clothes, little man, because there are lots of stupid people out there who will try to make you feel like shit because of what you wear. Conformity is the only true road to bliss. Feel different, left out, locked out--in other words, feel miserably alone--and you'll be happy."
Perhaps I'm pushing it with that last about conformity, bliss, and the happiness of being miserably alone, but what does this sexual-orientation influence look like that isn't a horrible betrayal of a child's unspoiled humanity?
