Girls wear skirts to UK school, headmaster calls police, locks them out

[Metaphor]

Then why are you attacking me?

Because you made a song and dance of having read 'lots' of dress codes, and you made a song and dance of how the dress codes explicitly restrict girls more than boys, when in fact a dress code being silent about the type of skirts that boys can wear is not, as we both acknowledge, an indication that boys were free to wear skirts.

It is wrong of you to hold me personally responsible for the fact that other people have not considered whether boys wanted to wear dresses.

I don't. I'm saying your implication that girls were more restricted than boys does not follow, even when dress codes appear to explicitly restrict girls more. What the code is silent about is just as telling of the strictures on boys.

In my school days, girls were explicitly restricted from taking some classes, such as shop or drafting classes. It is possible that there were boys who wanted to take home economics classes but as a school girl, I never considered that possibility because, frankly, I could not understand why anyone would willingly take such classes and found them insulting and quit taking them the moment I wasn't required to do so. There were no explicit restrictions on what classes boys could take, but I imagine that it would have been difficult for boys wanting to take home ec. Girls did not have the same access to sports opportunities and were expected to drop out of school if they became pregnant, while the fathers of their babies were encouraged to stay in school and even to participate in school extracurricular activities and sports. While I am certain that the gay boys I was in school with faced some nasty tormenters, I only heard the nasty comments about girls whose sexuality was suspect--and those comments all came from boys.

Okay?

For my children, both boys and girls took home ec classes and shop classes. And you're welcome. People my age are the reason that this change happened. People my age are the reason that it is easier and more acceptable to talk about sexuality and sexual orientation and queerness rather than hide it as the generation before us (and some of my generation) felt necessary.

Okay?

 

[Toni]

Because you made a song and dance of having read 'lots' of dress codes, and you made a song and dance of how the dress codes explicitly restrict girls more than boys, when in fact a dress code being silent about the type of skirts that boys can wear is not, as we both acknowledge, an indication that boys were free to wear skirts.



I don't. I'm saying your implication that girls were more restricted than boys does not follow, even when dress codes appear to explicitly restrict girls more. What the code is silent about is just as telling of the strictures on boys.

Restrictions applied to ALL girls. Those same restrictions applied to a very small percentage of boys, the fact of which it affecting boys was largely unknown. Very few boys today are likely to want to wear skirts to school. It is likely that even fewer were likely to want to wear skirts to school 20 years ago or 40 years ago.

Again, the article was about GIRLS being turned away from school. Not about BOYS daring to wear dresses either because they also wanted the choice or because they felt some sense of solidarity with the girls.

Dress codes have always explicitly limited what girls could wear. Those restrictions were implicit, perhaps for boys but unconsciously so. It is impossible for me to go back and reverse that.

It is wrong of you to continue to castigate me .

In my school days, girls were explicitly restricted from taking some classes, such as shop or drafting classes. It is possible that there were boys who wanted to take home economics classes but as a school girl, I never considered that possibility because, frankly, I could not understand why anyone would willingly take such classes and found them insulting and quit taking them the moment I wasn't required to do so. There were no explicit restrictions on what classes boys could take, but I imagine that it would have been difficult for boys wanting to take home ec. Girls did not have the same access to sports opportunities and were expected to drop out of school if they became pregnant, while the fathers of their babies were encouraged to stay in school and even to participate in school extracurricular activities and sports. While I am certain that the gay boys I was in school with faced some nasty tormenters, I only heard the nasty comments about girls whose sexuality was suspect--and those comments all came from boys.

Okay?

No. It wasn't OK.

For my children, both boys and girls took home ec classes and shop classes. And you're welcome. People my age are the reason that this change happened. People my age are the reason that it is easier and more acceptable to talk about sexuality and sexual orientation and queerness rather than hide it as the generation before us (and some of my generation) felt necessary.

Okay?

I think you mean: Thank you.

 

[Metaphor]

Restrictions applied to ALL girls. Those same restrictions applied to a very small percentage of boys, the fact of which it affecting boys was largely unknown. Very few boys today are likely to want to wear skirts to school. It is likely that even fewer were likely to want to wear skirts to school 20 years ago or 40 years ago.

A restriction on boys wearing skirts is still a restriction, even if the majority never would have wanted to.

There are two situations: girls had restrictions on the type and style of skirt they could wear. Boys were forbidden from wearing skirts at all. I can't understand how you think this restriction is more restricting for girls than for boys.

Again, the article was about GIRLS being turned away from school. Not about BOYS daring to wear dresses either because they also wanted the choice or because they felt some sense of solidarity with the girls.

Boys never had the choice to wear skirts in the first place, Toni.

Dress codes have always explicitly limited what girls could wear. Those restrictions were implicit, perhaps for boys but unconsciously so. It is impossible for me to go back and reverse that.

Dress codes also explicitly and implicitly limit what boys can wear.

 

[Toni]

A restriction on boys wearing skirts is still a restriction, even if the majority never would have wanted to.

There are two situations: girls had restrictions on the type and style of skirt they could wear. Boys were forbidden from wearing skirts at all. I can't understand how you think this restriction is more restricting for girls than for boys.

Boys were not forbidden explicitly. It simply wasn't conceived of that they would want to wear a skirt at all.

It is the same thing as if I were forbidden to play NBA basketball (which I would be even if I wanted to and was tall enough and skilled/talented enough to play for the NBA:

It was for almost all boys, a restriction without meaning. Like telling me that I cannot fly my airplane to work. I don't have an airplane, or a pilot's license, and there is no place to land near my work.

Sure, there are some people with airplanes, although it is unlikely that any of them or more than one or two of them work for the same employer as mine.

Boys never had the choice to wear skirts in the first place, Toni.

Until recently, girls never had the choice to play sports and were explicitly forbidden to do so, just as they were explicitly forbidden to attend West Point or Annapolis or the Air Force Academy. They were explicitly forbidden to do so.

There is a difference in level of restriction.

Dress codes have always explicitly limited what girls could wear. Those restrictions were implicit, perhaps for boys but unconsciously so. It is impossible for me to go back and reverse that.

Dress codes also explicitly and implicitly limit what boys can wear.

Maybe in years past but to be honest, boys dressed up in dresses and in girls' cheerleader uniforms during my high school days. Not just in skits, either, although it was not an everyday occurrence. They were not sent home. OTOH, girls were sent home and forbidden to attend school if visibly pregnant but boys who acknowledged fatherhood were not restricted from attending school or participating in any school activities.

One restriction is much more serious than the other one.

More than one boy in my kids' high school wore a skirt to school. It wasn't against the rules because no one had thought to make a rule against it. And by the time someone wore the skirt, times had changed and it would have been politically inexpedient to make such restrictions on boys' dress. This was definitely influenced by which boys wore skirts. These boys were from 'good' families and were well liked by students and teachers and community.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

"It's not a dress. It's a kilt."

 

[Toni]

"It's not a dress. It's a kilt."

Nobody is pretending anything is a kilt.

 

[Toni]

Because you made a song and dance of having read 'lots' of dress codes, and you made a song and dance of how the dress codes explicitly restrict girls more than boys, when in fact a dress code being silent about the type of skirts that boys can wear is not, as we both acknowledge, an indication that boys were free to wear skirts.



I don't. I'm saying your implication that girls were more restricted than boys does not follow, even when dress codes appear to explicitly restrict girls more. What the code is silent about is just as telling of the strictures on boys.

In my school days, girls were explicitly restricted from taking some classes, such as shop or drafting classes. It is possible that there were boys who wanted to take home economics classes but as a school girl, I never considered that possibility because, frankly, I could not understand why anyone would willingly take such classes and found them insulting and quit taking them the moment I wasn't required to do so. There were no explicit restrictions on what classes boys could take, but I imagine that it would have been difficult for boys wanting to take home ec. Girls did not have the same access to sports opportunities and were expected to drop out of school if they became pregnant, while the fathers of their babies were encouraged to stay in school and even to participate in school extracurricular activities and sports. While I am certain that the gay boys I was in school with faced some nasty tormenters, I only heard the nasty comments about girls whose sexuality was suspect--and those comments all came from boys.

Okay?

For my children, both boys and girls took home ec classes and shop classes. And you're welcome. People my age are the reason that this change happened. People my age are the reason that it is easier and more acceptable to talk about sexuality and sexual orientation and queerness rather than hide it as the generation before us (and some of my generation) felt necessary.

Okay?

Disagreeing with me is not an adequate reason to attack me. It's quite enough.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

"It's not a dress. It's a kilt."

Nobody is pretending anything is a kilt.

Can boys wear kilts? If not, why not?

 

[Metaphor]

Until recently, girls never had the choice to play sports and were explicitly forbidden to do so, just as they were explicitly forbidden to attend West Point or Annapolis or the Air Force Academy. They were explicitly forbidden to do so.

Toni, what is your threshold for 'recently'? West Point, Annapolis and Air Force Academy all admitted women in 1976. Do you think more than 40 years ago is "recent"? Do you think it's recent to the girls graduating high school this year? That's more than a lifetime ago.

The choice to play sports? Title IX was enacted in 1972. That may be in your living memory, but that is not "recent".

 

[Toni]

Until recently, girls never had the choice to play sports and were explicitly forbidden to do so, just as they were explicitly forbidden to attend West Point or Annapolis or the Air Force Academy. They were explicitly forbidden to do so.

Toni, what is your threshold for 'recently'? West Point, Annapolis and Air Force Academy all admitted women in 1976. Do you think more than 40 years ago is "recent"? Do you think it's recent to the girls graduating high school this year? That's more than a lifetime ago.

The choice to play sports? Title IX was enacted in 1972. That may be in your living memory, but that is not "recent".

Title IX may have been enacted in 1972,but that hardly means that schools began to comply then or that even now, parity has been reached. I have no idea what, if any changes in the laws in your country that allowed girls access to the same educational and recreational opportunities as boys were enacted.

Society and attitudes change slowly. Events that occurred and attitudes that were prevalent before you were born still affect how you live your life every day.

Possibly the quickest societal change that I have observed is the recognition and acceptance of gay people and more recently people across the entire LGBTQ community. 40 years ago, most lived hiding their true selves. Some countries made homosexual acts illegal. Some still do, but the acceptance has been fairly rapid.

 

[ronburgundy]

So, other than claims by triggered right-wingers is there any actual evidence that the new uniforms having anything to do with gender identity concerns?

Girls "rolling up" their skirts to make them shorter (often barely covering their ass) has been an "issue" at schools with uniforms for years, and plenty of schools have switched to "trousers" for all students to avoid the problem of having to police skirt length, including having male teachers measure how much thigh is exposed. The girls have long been allowed to wear trousers if they chose and many do. This rule just got rid of skirts as an option.

In fact, there was a news story 2 years ago, a similar school in England that still had locked a group of girls out of the school for wearing short skirts and also refusing to change into a "proper" length loaner skirt that the school supplied.

And those rules about short skirts have always been most strongly supported by conservatives.

This current school began to phase out skirts back in 2017 in response to the short skirt problem, and all these girls and their parents were warned in advance that students wearing skirts would not be allowed to enter the school. So, it idea that they had to wander the streets all day is a total lie.

And in direct contradiction to the lying bigot, Piers Morgan, who claims this is all about political correctness and transgenders, one of the parents protesting the change said "'This is not about the uniforms being gender neutral. This is about children and parents complaining about having to buy completely new uniforms for only a few terms."

The school memo sent to parents about the uniforms makes zero mention of gender neutrality or concern for transgenders.

 

[Metaphor]

So, other than claims by triggered right-wingers is there any actual evidence that the new uniforms having anything to do with gender identity concerns?

Toni was the first in this thread to float the possibility that the policy may have arisen to stop boys wearing skirts; I don't think "right-winger" would be an accurate description for her.

 

[laughing dog]

So, other than claims by triggered right-wingers is there any actual evidence that the new uniforms having anything to do with gender identity concerns?

Toni was the first in this thread to float the possibility that the policy may have arisen to stop boys wearing skirts; I don't think "right-winger" would be an accurate description for her.

That is untrue. In post 10, you introduced the subject. Toni responded to your pointless but personal attack.

 

[Metaphor]

So, other than claims by triggered right-wingers is there any actual evidence that the new uniforms having anything to do with gender identity concerns?

Toni was the first in this thread to float the possibility that the policy may have arisen to stop boys wearing skirts; I don't think "right-winger" would be an accurate description for her.

That is untrue. In post 10, you introduced the subject. Toni responded to your pointless but personal attack.

No, I did not say or hint that the policy was introduced as an attempt to stop boys wearing skirts. I brought Toni up on a different point--that this skirt ban is not a one-sided targeting and policing of what girls can wear, since the policy does nothing but put the same restriction on girls that already applied to boys.

It was not a 'pointless' attack. The point was to demonstrate how easily Toni perceives restriction and disadvantage--when it applies to girls. To paint the situation as more controlling of how girls dress was to simply ignore boys were at least as restricted already.

 

[ronburgundy]

So, other than claims by triggered right-wingers is there any actual evidence that the new uniforms having anything to do with gender identity concerns?

Toni was the first in this thread to float the possibility that the policy may have arisen to stop boys wearing skirts; I don't think "right-winger" would be an accurate description for her.

More dishonest bullshit from you as always. The entire OP was based upon the right wing propaganda rag, The Daily Mail, whose article began and centered upon the right wing bigot Piers Morgan and his dishonest claims that that policy was about trying to be "gender neutral" out of "political correctness gone mad".

 

[laughing dog]

That is untrue. In post 10, you introduced the subject. Toni responded to your pointless but personal attack.

No, I did not say or hint that the policy was introduced as an attempt to stop boys wearing skirts. I brought Toni up on a different point--that this skirt ban is not a one-sided targeting and policing of what girls can wear, since the policy does nothing but put the same restriction on girls that already applied to boys.

You introduced the topic of boys wearing skirts - which is what I literally wrote. That is a fact. Toni responded to your introduction of the topic. So, your attempt to blame her is either pedantically pointless or disingenuous.

It was not a 'pointless' attack. The point was to demonstrate how easily Toni perceives restriction and disadvantage--when it applies to girls. To paint the situation as more controlling of how girls dress was to simply ignore boys were at least as restricted already.

The article specifically mentioned the problem with girls wearing skirts. There was no mention of boys wearing skirts. There was nothing in Toni's only post up to that point that would induce any disinterested rational person to think Toni had any opinion about boys apparel and dress restrictions, because the article only mentioned the problems with clothing choices of girls. So, it looks to me like you used a theoretical possibility to make a pointless personal attack against Toni.

Now, if you can produce any evidence that there was at least one boy who was wearing a skirt, I will profusely apologize for my incorrect deductions.

 

[Metaphor]

So, other than claims by triggered right-wingers is there any actual evidence that the new uniforms having anything to do with gender identity concerns?

Toni was the first in this thread to float the possibility that the policy may have arisen to stop boys wearing skirts; I don't think "right-winger" would be an accurate description for her.

More dishonest bullshit from you as always. The entire OP was based upon the right wing propaganda rag, The Daily Mail, whose article began and centered upon the right wing bigot Piers Morgan and his dishonest claims that that policy was about trying to be "gender neutral" out of "political correctness gone mad".

The article itself says:

The Priory School in Lewes, East Sussex, forced all pupils to wear trousers in 2017 after 'concerns' were raised over the length of skirts - and to cater for transgender pupils.

You can take it up with the Daily Mail if you think that's a misreporting of facts. But don't accuse me, baselessly, of 'dishonest bullshit', 'as usual'. It's a violation of the Terms of Use to call a poster a liar.

 

[ronburgundy]

More dishonest bullshit from you as always. The entire OP was based upon the right wing propaganda rag, The Daily Mail, whose article began and centered upon the right wing bigot Piers Morgan and his dishonest claims that that policy was about trying to be "gender neutral" out of "political correctness gone mad".

The article itself says:

The Priory School in Lewes, East Sussex, forced all pupils to wear trousers in 2017 after 'concerns' were raised over the length of skirts - and to cater for transgender pupils.

You can take it up with the Daily Mail if you think that's a misreporting of facts. But don't accuse me, baselessly, of 'dishonest bullshit', 'as usual'. It's a violation of the Terms of Use to call a poster a liar.

I didn't call you a liar, I said you posted dishonest bullshit, which is an objective fact. You claimed that no one had introduced the idea of this policy being about gender identity issues until Toni mentioned it, when as you now just admitted after being called out, the OP itself explicitly made this about gender identity by quoting and linking an editorial piece from a right wing rag that made it entirely about that.

And now you are trying to pretend that your very quote from the OP article doesn't directly prove your comment wrong.

 

[Metaphor]

I didn't call you a liar, I said you posted dishonest bullshit, which is an objective fact.

The terms of use do not have an "objective fact" defence. Now you might think that "dishonest bullshit" posted "as usual" is meaningfully different from calling someone a "liar", but it isn't. I don't doubt, though, the moderators will overlook this particular case.

You claimed that no one had introduced the idea of this policy being about gender identity issues until Toni mentioned it, when as you now just admitted after being called out,

I assumed you meant in the thread. And in the thread, Toni raised the possibility, not me.

the OP itself explicitly made this about gender identity by quoting and linking an editorial piece from a right wing rag that made it entirely about that.

Either the facts reported are true or they are not. If the school didn't introduce the policy partly as a reaction to cater to transgender students, the school can correct the record.

 

[Metaphor]

You introduced the topic of boys wearing skirts - which is what I literally wrote. That is a fact. Toni responded to your introduction of the topic. So, your attempt to blame her is either pedantically pointless or disingenuous.

​

I didn't "blame" her for anything. ronburgundy asked if there was "objective evidence" outside of a right-winger's opinion that the policy was about transgender students. I looked back through the thread to see who he was talking about and saw that Toni had first raised the possibility. I thought it was amusing for someone to call Toni a right-winger and pointed that out.

What I did not realise was that ronburgundy didn't mean in the thread, he meant either the person who wrote the article or someone else quoted in the article. So, I went back through the article and found what I assume ronburgundy was objecting to, which is not presented as a quote or opinion.

So ronburgundy is questioning the statement in the article. If the statement is wrong, then the school can correct it.
​

The article specifically mentioned the problem with girls wearing skirts. There was no mention of boys wearing skirts. There was nothing in Toni's only post up to that point that would induce any disinterested rational person to think Toni had any opinion about boys apparel and dress restrictions,
because the article only mentioned the problems with clothing choices of girls. So, it looks to me like you used a theoretical possibility to make a pointless personal attack against Toni.

​

I'm starting to see your thinking here. Everything I do is a pointless personal attack, but anything you do is never a personal attack.​

I can also see the point I made explicitly has been ignored. I pointed out a flaw in Toni's thinking. She painted the skirt policy specifically as a restriction only on girls. This is consistent with Toni being very easily able to see and empathise with strictures against girls, but I pointed out she was wrong. It was not a stricture only against girls, because either the policy applies to boys equally or boys were already forbidden from wearing skirts.

​

Now, if you can produce any evidence that there was at least one boy who was wearing a skirt, I will profusely apologize for my incorrect deductions.

That would not be evidence for my claim that boys were already implicitly forbidden from wearing skirts. It would be evidence against it, unless it also was contemporaneous, suspiciously timed, with the policy introduction.