Is this hypocritical?

[Donerail]

Can we at least agree this makes more sense than baptizing babies wearing dresses regardless of gender? Seriously why do people put their baby boys in dresses for baptism?

Because they've always used baptismal gowns; indeed, up until around the 1800s, boys all wore dresses (easier to lengthen due to growth (clothing was much more expensive then), toilet training, and beliefs that, since girls were less valuable, evil spirits were less likely to take them away). It's just a continuation of what was the norm for millenniums.

[Donerail]

That's basically the Appeal to Tradition fallacy. Now it's harmless, but I do see it as pretty silly regardless. Mind you I kind of feel the same way about making babies wear anything besides what's most practical, the babies aren't going to care regardless. I recall the discussion my mom, aunt and grandmother had about how some friend of my mom's was talking about wanting to buy $70 dresses for her baby but couldn't afford them and she'd probably outgrow them in just 3 months anyway...

I should point out that dress in adult baptisms is always done in a purely practical manner, hence me cutting off my jeans below the knee that were already excessively holey the night before, and the girl afterwards being in a tank top and sweatpants. And none of the babies being dedicated, even the females, in ridiculous elaborate dresses.

That's because adults are old enough to fight off the evil spirits. Yeah, it doesn't make much sense, but it's a harmless tradition that people don't mind, so why mess with it? I wouldn't think that your church would have the babies wear the gowns anyways though; yours seems less traditional on that (I think I saw something about people going there in band shirts), so I would assume they wouldn't have such gowns.

[Donerail]

That's basically the Appeal to Tradition fallacy. Now it's harmless, but I do see it as pretty silly regardless. Mind you I kind of feel the same way about making babies wear anything besides what's most practical, the babies aren't going to care regardless. I recall the discussion my mom, aunt and grandmother had about how some friend of my mom's was talking about wanting to buy $70 dresses for her baby but couldn't afford them and she'd probably outgrow them in just 3 months anyway...

I should point out that dress in adult baptisms is always done in a purely practical manner, hence me cutting off my jeans below the knee that were already excessively holey the night before, and the girl afterwards being in a tank top and sweatpants. And none of the babies being dedicated, even the females, in ridiculous elaborate dresses.

That's because adults are old enough to fight off the evil spirits. Yeah, it doesn't make much sense, but it's a harmless tradition that people don't mind, so why mess with it? I wouldn't think that your church would have the babies wear the gowns anyways though; yours seems less traditional on that (I think I saw something about people going there in band shirts), so I would assume they wouldn't have such gowns.

I always assumed it was entirely up to the parents what they wanted their baby to be wearing when baptized (same as basically every situation), and most of those gowns are either specifically bought for the occasion or family hand-me-downs. So if someone at my church wanted to have their baby dedicated in such a gown, there's nothing stopping them.

And yes, I was baptized in a band shirt.

They are typically specially for the occasion, and there really is nothing saying you have to or don't have to, but I'd guess at yours it'd seem kinda out of place and too formal, and at a few others everyone dresses their baby in a gown and it'd seem kinda out of place to not have the baby in the gown. It really just depends on the denomination, or even individual church.