Because for me a garment is a means of telling stories, of playing, of experimenting, of asserting oneself, of moving and not a tool to correspond from the cradle to absurd clichés.
I don't understand why pants, sweatshirts or t-shirts need to be labeled "girls" or "boys", why a color/cut should correspond to one gender rather than another.
In “gendered” fashion, everything tenses me up: the colors, the vocabulary, the representations…
I can't count the number of times my daughter has been told “you're cute” just because she was in pants or blue. For me these two locker rooms create an imbalance, especially in terms of ease and motor skills: just trying to move on all fours in a dress is a hassle without name. And all this feeds the stereotypes that "boys are more motor than girls", more comfortable in their bodies... if the freedom of movement is not the same at the start, it's obvious that the relationship will be different .
So when I read Marie-Louise Timcke's conclusion following her study, it comforts me even more in this choice:
"The fact that girls' shorts are more fitted and shorter than boys' shorts is simply the result of fashion and socialization. In the logic of these markets, girls are above all little women; for them, clothing is made to please. And boys are supposed to be anything but girls.”