At first I thought to break this down as a study of the changes in mens, womens, and childrens fashion starting around 1700. But, though I think the way we dress children plays a huge role in this answer I'm not sure that's the best lens to view it through. Instead, we're going to explore Ornamentation. It seems the easiest way to sum up fluff, frills, trimming, accessories and the time one has to put in to deciding, dressing, and wearing these things. With too much ornamentation men today are seen as effeminate peacocks. When women put no time into such things they are dressing overtly masculine and fall into stereotypes as well. I feel like cleanliness is a whole topic unto itself, so I'll likely skip that for now (I've been studying it a lot lately, but haven't made it into the 20th c. yet).

I'm going to start with the 18th century, because that's as far back as my expertise comfortably goes (it could certainly be extended further back as a topic, but there are more than enough changes between now and then). At this point there is clearly gendered clothing. Ornamentation is also gendered, not by amount but by type. A man's coat in the early part of the century could be covered in dozens of superfluous buttons, gold or silver lace trim, and embroidery. While the buttons numbers do decrease throughout the century, they have a brief stint of massive proportions in the 1780s/90s. Even English sporting clothes, the epitome of a masculine gentleman, were not immune from such touches. The Spruce Sportsman of the 1770s has on a practical pair of leather breeches, boots, and is even still holding his rifle. But, his fine wool broadcloth coat is adorned in gold lace and silver buttons, his hat in gold braid. A set of silver buttons from around this time survive in the Colonial Williamsburg collection with provenance to William Lightfoot. They are large, silver buttons with hunting dogs and their names engraved upon them. The cuff buttons for the coat have tiny foxes. Clearly meant to be placed upon a hunting coat similar to that in the print, ornamentation of this kind was certainly not feminine.

There are plenty of prints during the later 18th century of dandies, fops, macaronis, puppies, etc. What I find terribly interesting is that, despite their clear opinions of this sort of dress being incredibly over-the-top and even sometimes absurd, I don't find images that imply them to be "gay". In Is This my Daughter Ann? you see the macaroni gentleman being affectionate with his equally grand female lover. The Covent Garden Macaroni eyes a lovely young lady out for a walk. That's not say they didn't see them as sexually absent or stunted (perhaps just distracted) as this Henpeck'd Husband shows.

On the opposite end of this spectrum we find the rather butch women. They too are not shown to have sexual differences based on this persona, but rather as tough, uncultured, and low-class. They're a common pair to the macaroni, usually bullying him about. Even well-dressed women could be found in more aggressive and masculine situations. Masculine attire for women in the form of riding habits were around earlier in the century, but really took off in the 1770s. Thoughts on this were made very clear by images of women clomping into the print complete with men's boots and coat. If you look closely you'll even see her foot trodding upon a paper saying "effeminancy". Clearly, the fight over who wears the breeches was something of a topic. But, despite all of this it seems more to do with women asserting dominance, often paired with more masculine clothing, than seeing a plain or unkempt woman as lesbian.

This feminine dominance becomes even more of an issue in the 19th century. Prior to this is was not seen as demasculinizing for the wife to work. Many women in the 18th century did so in their own trade, their husbands, or mainly working out on the farm. While the optimal idea was to have the husband working in a profession (or trade if he must) and the wife at home taking care of the time-consuming household, it seems they had the idea that two incomes are better than one the same way we do today. Women in the workplace was not a threat. But, this changes in the mid-19th century. The middle class develops and from this the idea that the definition includes the woman keeping to her sphere of the home. The woman having to work meant that the husband could not support his family.

A major shift in men's attire begins to take place around the same time. We can look at the 1830s mens fashion and see an extremely feminine silhouette. Though, the colors are more subdued and "masculine" by todays standards and the trimmings are absent. A shift towards this takes place around the turn of the century. The fashion for English sporting attire takes full hold and items like boots become everyday wear rather than just for riding and sporting attire (previously they were not made to be walked in). I do have to note here that this shift was not due to Beau Brummel as history books love to attest. He might have been the epitome of a fashionable English gentleman, but saying he carried the reins on the fashion changes occurring is akin to saying Kim Kardashian made the rear-end popular (I refer you to Sir Mix-a-lot). While not covered in trimmings and gaudy colors, a great deal of time was spent by these gentlemen in dressing neatly and presenting an incredibly detailed and put-together appearance.

Women during the same time go through a very odd few decades. The 1780s fashions call for simpler styles with a great deal more masculine influence. The redingote, or great-coat, is incredibly popular and styled after a mans garment. This trend puts influence on jackets, pelisses, spencers, etc. over the next few decades. Women back away from this style influence in the late 1820s. Around the same time we see our men also trending towards a more feminine appearance.

Obviously, by the late 19th century men's attire has become the standardized business-like appearance we're accustomed to. I personally feel like there is a major tie-in to the gender separation of spheres during this time. Men are meant for the business/working world and should dress the part. Major changes in children attire come around this time as well. Up until the 1910s it was very common to dress children alike. Male vs. female didn't matter much until that little boy was out of diapers and fully potty trained. I even have images of my grandfather in a dress from the 1910s. A dress was just easier and it's not like the child cares. Surely, inventions of things like zippers, snaps, safety pins, and advancement in elastic make easily removable children's pants a possibility. But it still falls at rather a important shift in perception of gender.

By now men dress for work, women dress for fashion. In fashion, we find extremes that are not practical (like the horribly misguided anti-corset campaign from the turn-of-the-century claims, but that's another topic). The 1920s brings us boyish women. The reaction to this from the 1930s-50s is well studied as the pendulum swings to the opposite extreme for women's appearance. Post WWI and WWII there is a threat of women in the workplace, refusing to leave after being needed during the war. Combined with so many other changes, the 1950s becomes one giant Victorian revival to the extreme. It's shortly before this that blue for boys/pink for girls really takes off (thanks to advertisements to sell us more things). There is a nearly fanatical separation of masculine and feminine. I personally can't speak as well to the homosexual culture of this time outside of what we've all seen in media. There are definitely some more underground groups of cross-dressing, homosexuality, etc in the late 19th century. But the very public shaming of anyone even beginning to have comparative tendencies to these "deviants" seems to skyrocket in the 1950s.

But, men are still expected to appear incredibly clean-cut and business like. While this doesn't exactly happen instantly when jumping out of bed in the morning, it's not something to fuss over. At least not for the men. Wives fussing over their husbands appearance was more normal, even if it does bring about the nagging woman trope.

Past this point I feel out of my element. It seems more closely tied to the stereotypes of homosexuals and their appearance than what is considered main stream fashion. While the macaronis of the 18th century didn't have their fashion extreme directly connected with those stereotypes of being gay, the fashionable extreme of the late 20th century certainly did. The same goes for the plainer, even more masculine women. The shift really occurs in the later half of the 19th century, but almost back-pedals with trouser-wearing, bike-riding feminists (or even flappers) and the indulgence of the 1920s that even reached men's attire. The post-WWII cultural reaction puts a quick end to that trend.

There was a phenomenal answer posted a year ago in response to a similar question, and I'm not really sure it can be improved upon. James Laver is an old source for doing fashion history, but he's correct here.