My friend Mina lets her four-year-old boys wear fairy dresses.

It probably wouldn't be an issue if they didn't wear them out of the house, but they do. And that's where the trouble with gender begins.

People assume these boys are girls, but those who engage Mina and her boys in conversation realise they have boys' names, and then start to redden and get nervous, mutter things under their breath and walk away.

Mina's grandmother has asked why the boys can't dress up in cowboy outfits instead. Other little boys ask why they like pink. Another parent has suggested that Mina has transsexual children. The boys' paediatrician has asked Mina if the boys like football, because they should start playing now and develop the common language for men.

It's a precious thing, this masculinity.

It seems to be in danger at any moment of disappearing, so concerned adults seem to insist in little boys performing a certain kind of masculinity, restricting them from the ethereal world of the fairy, which, incidentally, was originally an imaginary world where these creatures were gender-neutral. We know deep at the heart of Mina's grandmother's and paediatrician's concerns about the twins is that they may grow up to be, God forbid, gay.

Like gay and lesbian culture, femininity has long been associated with artificiality, with things that aren't "real", like dresses, lipstick, carefully curled hair and high heels. It's something these little boys "put on" when they wear their fairy dresses, and maybe if they keep them on for too long their relationships with other boys and men will go beyond the relationship of the mate and the cobber.

As feminists have pointed out, the American version of "mate" -"buddy" - is lexically related to the word "brother" and is a term of affection, warmth and connection. "Sissy", on the other hand, is a term of derision, and of course comes from the word "sister".

Misogyny, which I believe is at the core of the fear of little boys wearing fairy dresses, lies deep in the heart of our language, as Dale Spender suggested many years ago. Parents feel the need to crush any traces of the feminine that may lurk in the hearts, minds and hands of little boys. It's emotional circumcision.

Although Western society is increasingly less homophobic than it used to be, when it comes to Disney cartoons, you can be sure that the male villain is coded queer. He seems a little too concerned with his appearance, doesn't live with a woman, wears buckles on his shoes and has stockinged calves and speaks like Sir John Gielgud.

Think of Scar in The Lion King, Govenor Ratcliff in Pocahontas, and any of the bad guys in the Barbie movies. And if the villain is female, you can be sure that she's not straight: Ursula in The Little Mermaid is an overbearing, screaming drag queen.

Interestingly, the heroines in these cartoons are usually pretty feisty. They usually have to have physical and emotional courage to survive and subsequently marry their prince (or, in the case of Barbie's Princess and the Pauper, get engaged, then go travelling before settling down - a true third wave feminist film).

And it's also okay for little girls to play cowboys, build a train track and wear cargo pants. They don't seem to be in danger of losing their femininity.

Why is there such a difference here?

Why are little girls encouraged to explore so many aspects of the imaginary and what it is to be human, while boys are sliced up so early on in life?

But although little girls are able to be tomboys, it can't last for too long. There comes a time when girls need to behave in rigidly feminine ways. Ladette to Lady, a reality TV show recently screened on ABC TV illustrates this beautifully.

About ten young, working class English women around the ages of 16 to 18 were selected to go to a finishing school where older, upper class women aimed to transform the girls into nicely spoken, demure ladies that men would be happy to take out to dinner and eventually marry. As one girl put it: "You can't be expected to be taken to nice restaurants when you act like a lad."

So the girls are taught to speak with tic tacs in their mouths (so they articulate their words clearly), they learn to bake soufflés, de-bone quails and arrange flowers. It's all pretty darn boring, and it's no wonder the girls at various points "act up" and voice their opinions, which aren't at all ladylike.

These girls are caught in so many binding agents here (and I don't just mean eggwhites): they are told not to argue, not to be outspoken, not to be so physical - just a few of the human rights feminists have fought for over the past 100 years - and they actually want to learn these "skills" because they don't want to be judged wherever they go, and want to move forward in life without being categorised as failures.

But one girl won't accept it. "If that's what being a lady's all about, I want nuffin' to do with it," she says as she leaves the show.

The upper class teachers watch her walk out of the house, midriff out and proud, with, I think, a little longing. These women are restrained by their strict adherence to extreme gender conformity, but it works for them. It has enabled them to marry well, be financially secure and turn out a beautiful vertical arrangement with roses and hydrangeas on a firm oasis.

Like most reality TV shows such as Extreme Makeover, Ladette to Lady works with joining the system, not beating or questioning it. What's the point in raising human beings that operate outside of the gender norm if they can't get a date?

In no way do I want to trivialise these young working class girls' plight. Indeed, they are judged by their voices, their gestures, their volume, but is cross-class dressing, repressing behaviours that are classified as masculine, really the answer?

Mina's boys have just started kindergarten and are desperate to wear the gingham school dresses rather than their rather drab shorts and t-shirts. But Mina has put her foot down on this one, knowing that parents and other students just wouldn't be able to cope with that, even though the girls are able to wear the same shorts and t-shirts any day of the week.

The interesting thing here with these fairy-dressing boys, queer Disney villains and ladettes is just how narrow our definition of acceptable gendered behaviour is, and that femininity in young boys and men just isn't okay from early childhood onwards, even in the 21st century.

The result is that little boys are stuck in a straight world of the most aggressive parts of reality - guns, pirates and cowboys - and girls are encouraged to explore both this and the more ethereal elements of imagination. Simply put, strict gendered behaviour whittles away so many aspects of what it is to be human.

Like anything, perhaps these confusions are best put by quoting Madonna, who quotes Ian McEwan:

Girls can wear jeans

And cut their hair short

Wear shirts and boots

'Cause it's OK to be a boy

But for a boy to look like

a girl is degrading

'Cause you think that being

a girl is degrading.