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

[laughing dog]

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.

She did not first raise the possibility that boys could wear skirts - you did. You threw Toni under that bus.

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.[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Your ability to literally make stuff up is truly amazing. Your claim is observably false. I have not said that your self-serving evasions are personal attacks.

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.....

Because the article mentioned that the reason for because of the way girls were wearing skirts. There was no mention of any boys wearing skirts. So that restriction was aimed at only 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.

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.

Your lack of evidence that boys were wearing skirts indicates that there your criticism of Toni had no basis in reality. It was based on your theoretical possibility about the clothing choice of boys and your false projection about Toni's empathic abilities.

In short, in what as unwarranted attack on Toni. And, as usual, you did resort to hyperbolic exaggeration (Everything i do is a personal attack) to deflect from legitimate criticism.

 

[Metaphor]

She did not first raise the possibility that boys could wear skirts - you did. You threw Toni under that bus.

ronburgundy did not ask who first raised the words "boys wearing skirts". He asked who thought the policy had to do with transgender students.

For somebody who goes to great pains to parse other people's words you sure have a problem when it comes to your own.

Your ability to literally make stuff up is truly amazing. Your claim is observably false. I have not said that your self-serving evasions are personal attacks.

Toni raised the possibility that this policy was related to boys wearing skirts. My claim was not wrong and is not wrong. You are having comprehension problems. ronburgundy did not ask who first mentioned the words 'boys in skirts'.

Because the article mentioned that the reason for because of the way girls were wearing skirts. There was no mention of any boys wearing skirts. So that restriction was aimed at only girls.

Oy gevalt. Please learn to follow arguments and if you cannot learn that, stop participating.

This policy restricts girls from wearing skirts. I pointed out, now more than once, that it does NOT restrict girls in any additional way that boys were already not restricted.

Your lack of evidence that boys were wearing skirts indicates that there your criticism of Toni had no basis in reality. It was based on your theoretical possibility about the clothing choice of boys and your false projection about Toni's empathic abilities.

Are you capable of following any line of argument at all? My criticism of Toni's mindset does not rely on boys actually having worn skirts to school. My criticism was based on the fact that Toni characterised this situation as a stricture that targeted girls, and I said the new dress code stricture either targets boys as well, or it only appears to target what 'girls' can wear because boys were already forbidden from wearing skirts and this stricture equalises something that was previously unequal and in girls' favour.

Because I clearly do not have the same mindset as Toni, I can see how this new dress code does not impose on girls something that was also not imposed on boys.

 

[Toni]

They can harp about their "gender neutral" school policy all they want, but as soon as a Muslim female demands to wear a hiijab, they'll toss gender neutrality overboard in the name of not appearing "islamophobic". Just like that kindergarten in Germoney that banned pork because of two Muslim kids.

Nice to see you weigh in here, Derec. Maybe you could spare a moment to talk about what a right wing fanatic I am. There seems to be some controversy.

 

[Toni]

ronburgundy did not ask who first raised the words "boys wearing skirts". He asked who thought the policy had to do with transgender students.

For somebody who goes to great pains to parse other people's words you sure have a problem when it comes to your own.


Toni raised the possibility that this policy was related to boys wearing skirts. My claim was not wrong and is not wrong. You are having comprehension problems. ronburgundy did not ask who first mentioned the words 'boys in skirts'.

Because the article mentioned that the reason for because of the way girls were wearing skirts. There was no mention of any boys wearing skirts. So that restriction was aimed at only girls.

Oy gevalt. Please learn to follow arguments and if you cannot learn that, stop participating.

This policy restricts girls from wearing skirts. I pointed out, now more than once, that it does NOT restrict girls in any additional way that boys were already not restricted.

Your lack of evidence that boys were wearing skirts indicates that there your criticism of Toni had no basis in reality. It was based on your theoretical possibility about the clothing choice of boys and your false projection about Toni's empathic abilities.

Are you capable of following any line of argument at all? My criticism of Toni's mindset does not rely on boys actually having worn skirts to school. My criticism was based on the fact that Toni characterised this situation as a stricture that targeted girls, and I said the new dress code stricture either targets boys as well, or it only appears to target what 'girls' can wear because boys were already forbidden from wearing skirts and this stricture equalises something that was previously unequal and in girls' favour.

Because I clearly do not have the same mindset as Toni, I can see how this new dress code does not impose on girls something that was also not imposed on boys.

Yeah, I think you need some definitive proof that the policy also applied to boys rather than your assumptions and your determination to find fault with anything I post because of a personal grudge you have against me.

Seriously: Nursing that grudge is like drinking poison and expecting me to die.

 

[Metaphor]

ronburgundy did not ask who first raised the words "boys wearing skirts". He asked who thought the policy had to do with transgender students.

For somebody who goes to great pains to parse other people's words you sure have a problem when it comes to your own.


Toni raised the possibility that this policy was related to boys wearing skirts. My claim was not wrong and is not wrong. You are having comprehension problems. ronburgundy did not ask who first mentioned the words 'boys in skirts'.



Oy gevalt. Please learn to follow arguments and if you cannot learn that, stop participating.

This policy restricts girls from wearing skirts. I pointed out, now more than once, that it does NOT restrict girls in any additional way that boys were already not restricted.



Are you capable of following any line of argument at all? My criticism of Toni's mindset does not rely on boys actually having worn skirts to school. My criticism was based on the fact that Toni characterised this situation as a stricture that targeted girls, and I said the new dress code stricture either targets boys as well, or it only appears to target what 'girls' can wear because boys were already forbidden from wearing skirts and this stricture equalises something that was previously unequal and in girls' favour.

Because I clearly do not have the same mindset as Toni, I can see how this new dress code does not impose on girls something that was also not imposed on boys.

Yeah, I think you need some definitive proof that the policy also applied to boys rather than your assumptions and your determination to find fault with anything I post because of a personal grudge you have against me.

Seriously: Nursing that grudge is like drinking poison and expecting me to die.

We've already discussed this. We don't have the full words of the policy. But we both agreed that if the current policy is silent on boys wearing skirts, it's because the policy writers found it inconceivable that a boy would wear a skirt. This silence does not indicate that boys are not forbidden from wearing skirts but rather indicates that the idea is so out of the question that to explicate it would be absurd. This means boys are forbidden from wearing skirts.

If the current policy is not silent on boys wearing skirts, but instead forbids them from wearing them also, then this means boys are forbidden from wearing skirts.

The current policy imposes no special, additional strictures on girls that it did not additionally or already impose on boys.

 

[Toni]

ronburgundy did not ask who first raised the words "boys wearing skirts". He asked who thought the policy had to do with transgender students.

For somebody who goes to great pains to parse other people's words you sure have a problem when it comes to your own.


Toni raised the possibility that this policy was related to boys wearing skirts. My claim was not wrong and is not wrong. You are having comprehension problems. ronburgundy did not ask who first mentioned the words 'boys in skirts'.



Oy gevalt. Please learn to follow arguments and if you cannot learn that, stop participating.

This policy restricts girls from wearing skirts. I pointed out, now more than once, that it does NOT restrict girls in any additional way that boys were already not restricted.



Are you capable of following any line of argument at all? My criticism of Toni's mindset does not rely on boys actually having worn skirts to school. My criticism was based on the fact that Toni characterised this situation as a stricture that targeted girls, and I said the new dress code stricture either targets boys as well, or it only appears to target what 'girls' can wear because boys were already forbidden from wearing skirts and this stricture equalises something that was previously unequal and in girls' favour.

Because I clearly do not have the same mindset as Toni, I can see how this new dress code does not impose on girls something that was also not imposed on boys.

Yeah, I think you need some definitive proof that the policy also applied to boys rather than your assumptions and your determination to find fault with anything I post because of a personal grudge you have against me.

Seriously: Nursing that grudge is like drinking poison and expecting me to die.

We've already discussed this. We don't have the full words of the policy. But we both agreed that if the current policy is silent on boys wearing skirts, it's because the policy writers found it inconceivable that a boy would wear a skirt. This silence does not indicate that boys are not forbidden from wearing skirts but rather indicates that the idea is so out of the question that to explicate it would be absurd. This means boys are forbidden from wearing skirts.

If the current policy is not silent on boys wearing skirts, but instead forbids them from wearing them also, then this means boys are forbidden from wearing skirts.

The current policy imposes no special, additional strictures on girls that it did not additionally or already impose on boys.

I have no doubt that the instant that it occurred to someone that a boy or a transgender student might show up to school in a skirt, they changed the policy but as far as we can tell from the article, it only stated that girls could not wear skirts. I’m sure they would have decided retroactively that they could punish a boy for wearing a skirt, but at least in the US, if a policy explicitly applied to one gender only (as this policy did explicitly apply to girls), the policy would have to be amended to also apply to boys. Maybe laws and policies work differently in GB and Australia, but in the US, lawyers would have a field day with attempts to apply the policy to boys.

 

[Metaphor]

it only stated that girls could not wear skirts.

A different article from the BBC makes it clear that no students would be allowed skirts:

In 2017, the school introduced a trouser-only policy for new students. It brought in the blanket ban on skirts for all students on Friday.

I’m sure they would have decided retroactively that they could punish a boy for wearing a skirt, but at least in the US, if a policy explicitly applied to one gender only (as this policy did explicitly apply to girls), the policy would have to be amended to also apply to boys. Maybe laws and policies work differently in GB and Australia, but in the US, lawyers would have a field day with attempts to apply the policy to boys.

It didn't specifically apply only to girls but if it had, I don't think they'd try to punish the boy but they'd fix the unintentional loophole pretty quickly.

 

[laughing dog]

ronburgundy did not ask who first raised the words "boys wearing skirts". He asked who thought the policy had to do with transgender students.

And yet you replied with "Toni was the first in this thread to float the possibility that the policy may have arisen to stop boys wearing skirts". The fact your reply is literally non-responsive to his question is more evidence it was a personal attack.

Toni raised the possibility that this policy was related to boys wearing skirts. My claim was not wrong and is not wrong.

That is disingenous. She replied to your pointless reply to ronburgundy.

Oy gevalt. Please learn to follow arguments and if you cannot learn that, stop participating.

This policy restricts girls from wearing skirts. I pointed out, now more than once, that it does NOT restrict girls in any additional way that boys were already not restricted.

It also does not restrict girls in any additional way that elephants were not already restricted. Since boys were not wearing skirts, there was no real restriction on them.

So, please take your own advice. Because you are embarrassing yourself.

Are you capable of following any line of argument at all? My criticism of Toni's mindset does not rely on boys actually having worn skirts to school. My criticism was based on the fact that Toni characterised this situation as a stricture that targeted girls, and I said the new dress code stricture either targets boys as well, or it only appears to target what 'girls' can wear because boys were already forbidden from wearing skirts and this stricture equalises something that was previously unequal and in girls' favour.

Thank you for admitting that you were engaging in a personal attack (on Toni's mindset). Your criticism is not based on fact - as I have shown. it is a complete artifact of a lack of reason.

Because I clearly do not have the same mindset as Toni, I can see how this new dress code does not impose on girls something that was also not imposed on boys.

You forgot that about the elephants and giraffes.

 

[Metaphor]

And yet you replied with "Toni was the first in this thread to float the possibility that the policy may have arisen to stop boys wearing skirts". The fact your reply is literally non-responsive to his question is more evidence it was a personal attack.

Toni was the first to raise the possibility that the genesis of the policy might be linked to boys wanting to wear skirts. If you don't understand how this is different to mentioning boys in skirts in a different context I don't know what to say to you.

It also does not restrict girls in any additional way that elephants were not already restricted. Since boys were not wearing skirts, there was no real restriction on them.

Are you serious? You want to use the fact that boys were not wearing skirts as evidence that they did not have a restriction on them wearing skirts?

Thank you for admitting that you were engaging in a personal attack (on Toni's mindset). Your criticism is not based on fact - as I have shown. it is a complete artifact of a lack of reason.

Are you living in a parallel universe? You've shown nothing of the kind. Boys were either already restricted from wearing skirts (likely) and/or this new policy restricts boys as much as it does girls (which it clearly and unambiguously does).

You forgot that about the elephants and giraffes.

Yeah, I'm sure the gender-dysphoric boys who would have chosen skirts as an outward marker of their gender expression, and the boys who simply wanted to wear skirts are so undeserving of empathy that their lack of choice is meaningless to you.

 

[Axulus]

Isn't Toni's point though that the rules, in practice, target girls much more so than boys since a significant number of girls prefer to dress in the manner being prohibited while very few boys have such preferences? I think that is an interesting point.

 

[Jarhyn]

Toni was the first to raise the possibility that the genesis of the policy might be linked to boys wanting to wear skirts. If you don't understand how this is different to mentioning boys in skirts in a different context I don't know what to say to you.



Are you serious? You want to use the fact that boys were not wearing skirts as evidence that they did not have a restriction on them wearing skirts?

Thank you for admitting that you were engaging in a personal attack (on Toni's mindset). Your criticism is not based on fact - as I have shown. it is a complete artifact of a lack of reason.

Are you living in a parallel universe? You've shown nothing of the kind. Boys were either already restricted from wearing skirts (likely) and/or this new policy restricts boys as much as it does girls (which it clearly and unambiguously does).

You forgot that about the elephants and giraffes.

Yeah, I'm sure the gender-dysphoric boys who would have chosen skirts as an outward marker of their gender expression, and the boys who simply wanted to wear skirts are so undeserving of empathy that their lack of choice is meaningless to you.

Twaddle.

In the school, the current policy says that nobody may wear a skirt.

Girls are disproportionately targeted by this policy, because they banned all skirts and skirts are primarily used to express femininity. And who the fuck cares about this "both sides" bullshit?

They have waged a cultural policy to suppress the feminine. Full stop.

 

[Metaphor]

Twaddle.

In the school, the current policy says that nobody may wear a skirt.

Yes, I know. That's why I said it.

Girls are disproportionately targeted by this policy, because they banned all skirts and skirts are primarily used to express femininity. And who the fuck cares about this "both sides" bullshit?

I don't know what you're talking about. Both sides of what?

They have waged a cultural policy to suppress the feminine. Full stop.

Good lord, no. This is not a cultural war against 'the feminine'. What hyperbole. It was an attempt to stop the heightening of girl's skirts and to be transgender friendly (per the article).

 

[laughing dog]

Toni was the first to raise the possibility that the genesis of the policy might be linked to boys wanting to wear skirts. If you don't understand how this is different to mentioning boys in skirts in a different context I don't know what to say to you.

I understand that she responded to your pointless "waah, what about the boys".

Are you serious? You want to use the fact that boys were not wearing skirts as evidence that they did not have a restriction on them wearing skirts?

The school is restricting a choice that they are not making. So, it is only a "restriction" on paper, because it does not actually restrict what they do. For some reason, you seem incapable of understanding that simple concept.

Are you living in a parallel universe?

Apparently, I am living in this universe and you are not.

Yeah, I'm sure the gender-dysphoric boys who would have chosen skirts as an outward marker of their gender expression, and the boys who simply wanted to wear skirts are so undeserving of empathy that their lack of choice is meaningless to you.

There was no evidence in that article that there was any issue with boys wearing skirts, so what on earth are you actually babbling about?

 

[Toni]

Metaphor was the first person to mention boys wearing skirts. (Post 10)

In response, I posted, (post 11)including the speculation that the school possibly enacted the policy in response to the possibility that some boy or boys might wear a skirt to school.

A reading of the article posted in the OP confirms that the school enacted the policy to ‘accommodate transgender students,’ which is silly as allowing anyone in the school who wished to wear skirts that freedoms would accomplish the same thing but obviously, this restriction was enacted to allow the school to avoid having to deal with any issues that boys wearing skirts, whether transgender or not, might raise. My experience dealing with school administrations is that they almost always choose policies in order to allow them to avoid dealing with controversies and drama.

Can this thread please move past which of us said what and when because frankly it’s more about personal grudges and looking for ‘evidence’ that someone else is not as woke as we are or is just plain wrong than it is about the issues raised in the OP. This is just a pointless exercise in fragile egos and bruised feelings and the need to be RIGHT.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Metaphor was the first person to mention boys wearing skirts. (Post 10)

In response, I posted, (post 11)including the speculation that the school possibly enacted the policy in response to the possibility that some boy or boys might wear a skirt to school.

A reading of the article posted in the OP confirms that the school enacted the policy to ‘accommodate transgender students,’ which is silly as allowing anyone in the school who wished to wear skirts that freedoms would accomplish the same thing but obviously, this restriction was enacted to allow the school to avoid having to deal with any issues that boys wearing skirts, whether transgender or not, might raise. My experience dealing with school administrations is that they almost always choose policies in order to allow them to avoid dealing with controversies and drama.

I think it may be more than that...some mixture of authoritarianism, lack of creative problem solving, not caring, conservatism, incompetence, and even group punishment, depending on each individual involved in the decision who was for it....but none of those persons actually would have done it for liberal reasons, no matter how they try to frame it.

When I hear a school official say they did it for "decency and equality," I hear conservatism and trying to use the word equality to scapegoat transgenders.

In related news and this is a true story, another school with a similar policy had a girl get in-school because her pants were too short--the bottom of the pants around her ankle could be seen!

A schoolgirl was left "angry and humiliated" after she was kicked out of class for wearing black trousers that were slightly too short.


On Tuesday the Year 11 pupil went to class at George Spencer Academy in Nottinghamshire wearing a pair of M&S trousers that rested a short distance from the top of her shoes.


She was quickly made to leave the class and spend time in exclusion.

While the girl had worn the trousers with no issues last year, the Stapleford school had updated its uniform policy.

Now all trousers have to touch the top of pupils shoes.

The student's dad told the BBC: "They weren't fashion. They weren't ankle grabbers.

"I think she had just slightly outgrown the trousers and they were just a little bit off the top of the shoe.

"That was enough for her to be singled out and put in isolation for the entirety of Tuesday."

He suggested that the blame for the trouser's length should not fall on the student but on the parents.


When approached for comment by the BBC, the school confirmed that its new uniform policy required trousers to be plain and to cover ankles and socks.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/girl-removed-class-because-trousers-19572060

 

[Toni]

Metaphor was the first person to mention boys wearing skirts. (Post 10)

In response, I posted, (post 11)including the speculation that the school possibly enacted the policy in response to the possibility that some boy or boys might wear a skirt to school.

A reading of the article posted in the OP confirms that the school enacted the policy to ‘accommodate transgender students,’ which is silly as allowing anyone in the school who wished to wear skirts that freedoms would accomplish the same thing but obviously, this restriction was enacted to allow the school to avoid having to deal with any issues that boys wearing skirts, whether transgender or not, might raise. My experience dealing with school administrations is that they almost always choose policies in order to allow them to avoid dealing with controversies and drama.

I think it may be more than that...some mixture of authoritarianism, lack of creative problem solving, not caring, conservatism, incompetence, and even group punishment, depending on each individual involved in the decision who was for it....but none of those persons actually would have done it for liberal reasons, no matter how they try to frame it.

When I hear a school official say they did it for "decency and equality," I hear conservatism and trying to use the word equality to scapegoat transgenders.

In related news and this is a true story, another school with a similar policy had a girl get in-school because her pants were too short--the bottom of the pants around her ankle could be seen!

A schoolgirl was left "angry and humiliated" after she was kicked out of class for wearing black trousers that were slightly too short.


On Tuesday the Year 11 pupil went to class at George Spencer Academy in Nottinghamshire wearing a pair of M&S trousers that rested a short distance from the top of her shoes.


She was quickly made to leave the class and spend time in exclusion.

While the girl had worn the trousers with no issues last year, the Stapleford school had updated its uniform policy.

Now all trousers have to touch the top of pupils shoes.

The student's dad told the BBC: "They weren't fashion. They weren't ankle grabbers.

"I think she had just slightly outgrown the trousers and they were just a little bit off the top of the shoe.

"That was enough for her to be singled out and put in isolation for the entirety of Tuesday."

He suggested that the blame for the trouser's length should not fall on the student but on the parents.


When approached for comment by the BBC, the school confirmed that its new uniform policy required trousers to be plain and to cover ankles and socks.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/girl-removed-class-because-trousers-19572060

I remember the years when my kids rapidly outgrew their clothing!

I wonder why it is that all of these stories are about girls?

 

[Metaphor]

The school is restricting a choice that they are not making.

They can't make a choice to wear a skirt when they are forbidden from doing so. I can't understand why you can't understand this. I can only imagine you think this rule has forbidden boys only from this year, when I've argued multiple times they've almost certainly been forbidden since the school began operating.

There was no evidence in that article that there was any issue with boys wearing skirts, so what on earth are you actually babbling about?

I'm talking about the fact that boys who want to wear skirts are just as restricted as girls who want to wear skirts. And, boys have almost certainly been either explicitly or implicitly forbidden from doing so not just this year, but since the school began to operate.

 

[Metaphor]

A reading of the article posted in the OP confirms that the school enacted the policy to ‘accommodate transgender students,’ which is silly as allowing anyone in the school who wished to wear skirts that freedoms would accomplish the same thing

Not quite the same. Boys who want to wear skirts because they represent an outward signifier of gender and would like to express a feminine gender may nonetheless not wear one because there are severe social strictures on boys dressing as girls. If the environment removes the gender signifiers of uniforms (by making them as similar as possible between males and females), then this might reduce some of the dysphoria that these boys might feel without them having to face the gauntlet of cross-dressing.

I don't think it's a good idea overall, however, and boys simply should have been given the option of wearing skirts.

 

[Toni]

A reading of the article posted in the OP confirms that the school enacted the policy to ‘accommodate transgender students,’ which is silly as allowing anyone in the school who wished to wear skirts that freedoms would accomplish the same thing

Not quite the same. Boys who want to wear skirts because they represent an outward signifier of gender and would like to express a feminine gender may nonetheless not wear one because there are severe social strictures on boys dressing as girls. If the environment removes the gender signifiers of uniforms (by making them as similar as possible between males and females), then this might reduce some of the dysphoria that these boys might feel without them having to face the gauntlet of cross-dressing.

I don't think it's a good idea overall, however, and boys simply should have been given the option of wearing skirts.

Unfortunately, there are always consequences to the things we choose. Those consequences may be more serious or at least seem so, or they may be more negative or at least seem so, the more the things we choose deviate from a path that is pre-determined by authority not our own.

Yep, it's hard. I won't even pretend that I can imagine what it would be like to be a boy who wanted to wear a skirt. It's our job, though, to make that choice not come with negative consequences for those individuals.

 

[Toni]

The school is restricting a choice that they are not making.

They can't make a choice to wear a skirt when they are forbidden from doing so. I can't understand why you can't understand this. I can only imagine you think this rule has forbidden boys only from this year, when I've argued multiple times they've almost certainly been forbidden since the school began operating.

This isn't true: people make choices to do things they are explicitly and implicitly forbidden to do. As I've noted, boys in my high school wore skirts once or twice; boys in my kids' high school sometimes wore skirts.

People make choices to do things that they are implicitly forbidden to do. Yes, people do feel more freedom to do that which they are neither implicitly or explicitly forbidden. Yes, doing what you are forbidden to do takes more courage and carries greater costs. Yes, those costs are not always fair and certainly not fair in this case.

Social change is hard, takes time and is not without costs. We are fortunate that some are brave enough to push through barriers that are sometimes invisible to those of us who don't face these barriers. They deserve our respect and our support.