so this whole boy and girl thing isnt that complicated, right? i mean, regardless of any actual human being there is this ideology that surrounds each of these words in the maternally english speaking cultures which is pretty sumizable. lets look at the words as concepts surrounding descriptions of behaviors, NOT applying them to any person, real or stereotyped. languages are live beings that change and flex, and i am here looking to redirect the use of "girl" and "boy" to describe groups of associated behaviors WITHOUT reference to human beings and the binary sex categories that are in current popularity. thus, with this semi-new usage one could say - you're acting girl; whereas you're acting LIKE A girl is inappropriate.
this pondering will NOT take into account behaviors which are exceptions to the concept of girl. That is, for example, a real person that identifies as girl in the sense of sex category but whom does things that have not been associated with said sex category until recently (i.e. the past 50 years or so). This includes girl as a sex category athletes and phenomena such as athlete worship/ impersonation (for example, wearing running shoes and sports logo-wear).
girl as a behavior (hereafter referred to as simply "girl") is traditionally associated with particular sorts of daily servitude, including ability and enjoyment of: cooking, cleaning, co-ordinating social events, fixing minor physical injuries, raising children, etc. in addition, being easily frightened, nervous, soft love, shockable, vocal (such as saying "oh my!" to things that shock a person), talkative, etc.
Girl is also associated with appearance processes; that is, one should be concerned constantly about how one appears to others and that appearance should fit into particular categories and styles. Lets start bottom-up. Shoes should be in good repair, they should match the rest of the physical attire in color and style, and being attractive to the eye is more important than physical comfort or practicality. Legs should be clean of hair and other debris, creating the appearance of perfectly smooth skin. Tight, skin colored stockings may be worn to increase the effect.
(interesting side-note, as i slip into academia-speak i have started to punctuate and capitalize correctly without noticing til now...)
Clothing in general should be form-fitting and appealing in a sexual manner. Hair may be short (probably not shorter than an inch or two) or long, but should be nicely arranged and clean and perhaps decorated with hair-items (clips, headbands, etc.).
Make-up is an option, especially if ones features do not fit the popular image of what is attractive. Make-up is used to hide, accent, create, and otherwise disfigure the one's features. The goal generally is to be more appealing and attractive than you are in your non-make-upped state.
The body itself is not too muscular, being used mostly for non-intensive labor activities.
+
boy as a behavior (hereafter referred to as "boy"), then, contains many "opposites." boy is associated with knowledge and enjoyment of fixing mechanical and electrical items, business savvy, authority and dominance, fixing major bodily problems (such as surgery), gaining a group's monatary needs, killing animals and insects, non-vocal response (not saying anything when something disturbs one), sternness, calm in frantic situations, etc.
physical appearance may vary. clothing that does not separate the two legs is not worn. hair on any part of the body is a norm.
....
all of these items are independent of one another when applied to real human beings. most maternally english speaking culture people girl and boy constantly.
the more interesting question, because most of what ive said is fucking obvious anyway, is why are girl and boy associated with sex categories at all? historically, where did that come from? did it serve some purpose at some point? is it as simple as power and control? that is what is complicated. if you want to wear something to cover your lower self, due to weather or decoration or whatnot, the most simple thing in the world is a wrap around skirt. one big piece of fabric that you wrap around yourself. it is more complicated to make pants or shorts. so at what point did it become useful to wear pants? and why do men in maternally english speaking cultures today nearly never wear skirts? when and why did that become taboo?
one can maybe speculate. a female sex-category person who is very pregnant or nursing cant very easily hunt (though gathering would be possible)whereas the male sex-category person does not have these limits for months out of their lives... but when did homophobia arise? not all couplings were along heterobinary lines since the beginning of time, surely. so female sex-category people who weren't having procreative sex wouldnt be impeded in this manner, providing they werent raped.
hm..
i want to be a social construction historian. dammit.
