A recent J.Crew catalog featured creative director Jenna Lyons and her young son, whose
toenails were painted neon pink. Naturally, this was the cue for all hell to break loose.
A boy, wearing nail polish? This is a *big deal*! Dr. Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist writing
for Fox News, suggests that her son may need therapy at some point because of this, and
that it somehow signifies the collapse of various gender markers that distinguish men
from women. But the only reason this kid, or anyone, might need therapy for this, is
because of people like Keith Ablow who think they should be treated as abnormal for such
trivial and irrelevant reasons. Would he have preferred a more manly color, like blood red?
Keith Ablow claims that "almost nothing is now honored as real and true", and says it's
"unwise to encourage little boys to playact like little girls." But what does it mean
to act "like" a boy or a girl? There's nothing about nail polish, for example, that makes
it any more "real and true" for girls rather than boys. It's just as artificial for either
gender. Yet somehow, people have decided that it's appropriate for girls, but inappropriate
for boys. Why is that? Nothing defines it as inherently "feminine" beyond the collective
agreement to regard it as such. He goes on to say, "how about one in which a little boy
models a sundress? What could possibly be the problem with that?" But what makes him
think a dress is, by definition, something for girls only? If boys did wear dresses,
they wouldn't just be for girls anymore! So what is the problem? You should see what Winston
Churchill looked like when he was 4 years old, and then tell me gendered clothing is
some kind of absolute. Keith Ablow believes that "encouraging the choosing of gender identity,
rather than suggesting our children become comfortable with the ones that they got at
birth, can throw our species into real psychological turmoil - not to mention crowding operating
rooms with procedures to grotesquely amputate body parts? Why not make race the next frontier?"
For a psychiatrist, he apparently knows nothing about what gender identity is. This isn't
something that people choose for themselves. For all practical purposes, it does appear
to be present from birth. But it doesn't always match up with physical sex. And what he's
suggesting is anything but being comfortable with one's gender identity. Those "grotesque"
procedures are considered the standard of care by major medical associations, and for
good reason: in most cases, they're effectively curative and allow people to live a more normal,
healthy and comfortable life. And as a doctor, he should at least be aware that there's a
process of sexual differentiation in the body and brain during fetal development, with no
such analogue for race or ethnicity. Variations in this process are the reason why transgender
people do genuinely exist. Keith Ablow goes on to ask, "Why should we hold dear anything
with which we were born? What's the benefit of non-fiction over fiction?" Well, for one
thing, that's exactly what trans people are doing: being true to themselves and how they
were born. But more than that, nail polish and dresses aren't something that *anyone*
is born with, male or female. It's not any less of a fiction when it's on women - just
a socially agreed-upon fiction that's completely arbitrary. He later suggests that girls having
earlier sexual relationships with boys is due to some kind of blurring of genders, as
if to say that this is a masculine behavior. Yet earlier, he expresses concern over girls
being prematurely dressed like adults, with halter tops and booty shorts. Is that something
boys are known for now? Then he worries about young men with their perfect hair and their
washboard abs. Was working out and getting buff supposed to be a feminine thing? What's
he complaining about? Perhaps most absurdly, he goes on to claim that this could lead to
boys and girls losing interest in starting a family instead of "having great sex forever",
and "marching into combat against other men and risking their lives." If nail polish can
make people stop wanting to kill each other and start having awesome sex, maybe we should
give it a chance! Keith Ablow speaks of mothers "parading their sons through the streets in
costumes", as if it's not a "costume" when girls are the ones wearing it. He accuses
them of being "hostile to the gender distinctions that actually are part of the magnificent
synergy that creates and sustains the human race. They respect their own creative notions
a whole lot more than any creative Force in the universe." It's like he thinks nail polish
must be a crucial and essential component of womanhood. What he doesn't realize is that
he's mistaken his own limited notions for those of some "creative force", one which
apparently cares about how you paint your toes. It's not as though people are going
to *become* any more feminine because of various accessories that are currently treated as
such. People who feel more feminine might just be inclined to choose the things that
are identified with it. And there's nothing wrong with that. So stop reifying the artifice
of gender performance, and start recognizing how obviously manufactured it all is - no
matter who's painting their nails. The only ones who are going to lose their heads over
this are people like Keith Ablow.