Side point, but I'd be careful about assuming historical children's clothing implies more gender-neutrality. It aligned with a different conception of gender an

Side point, but I'd be careful about assuming historical children's clothing implies more gender-neutrality. It aligned with a different conception of gender and childhood, but still a very particular idea of gender roles. To admittedly simplify something that varied by time/place and was fairly complex, here's one take: all children wore "feminine" clothing at a young age, and were primarily cared for by women (mother or, for wealthier families, female nannies). Boys started wearing more "masculine" elements of clothing as they grew older, eventually "graduating" to trousers (sometimes via an intermediate period of shorts), which often coincided with social movement to the company of the male side of the household and the boy being considered a "young man". There are still some pretty strong normative gender roles there, with "feminine" clothing still associated with non-manliness, just organized along a somewhat different pattern and timeline.