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

[laughing dog]

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 is no evidence that boys were wearing skirts or tried to wear skirts or that there was some rule preventing them from wearing skirts. There is no evidence that boys who attended this school wore skirts outside of school time. I can only imagine why you continue to promote some hypothetical possibility as some real outcome.

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.

Since you have no evidence that there are any boys who want to wear skirts, why do you continue to babble on about them?

 

[Metaphor]

There is no evidence that boys were wearing skirts or tried to wear skirts or that there was some rule preventing them from wearing skirts. There is no evidence that boys who attended this school wore skirts outside of school time. I can only imagine why you continue to promote some hypothetical possibility as some real outcome.

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.

Since you have no evidence that there are any boys who want to wear skirts, why do you continue to babble on about them?

I'm done responding to you about this. Bye.

 

[laughing dog]

There is no evidence that boys were wearing skirts or tried to wear skirts or that there was some rule preventing them from wearing skirts. There is no evidence that boys who attended this school wore skirts outside of school time. I can only imagine why you continue to promote some hypothetical possibility as some real outcome.

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.

Since you have no evidence that there are any boys who want to wear skirts, why do you continue to babble on about them?

I'm done responding to you about this. Bye.

You finally recognized what other readers (including me) knew quite some time ago.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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!


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?

Patriarchy.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There is no evidence that boys were wearing skirts or tried to wear skirts or that there was some rule preventing them from wearing skirts. There is no evidence that boys who attended this school wore skirts outside of school time. I can only imagine why you continue to promote some hypothetical possibility as some real outcome.

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.

Since you have no evidence that there are any boys who want to wear skirts, why do you continue to babble on about them?

I'm done responding to you about this. Bye.

Ideas, like religion, can be empirically tested. Why don't you?

 

[Metaphor]

I'm done responding to you about this. Bye.

Ideas, like religion, can be empirically tested. Why don't you?

Surely you can see this particular exchange between myself and laughing dog is fruitless. What "idea" do you think I can test empirically?

The school certainly forbids boys from wearing skirts now. They almost certainly forbid it before this new explicit policy, for all the reasons I've already discussed.

I don't understand what laughing dog's unwillingness to accept this is about, except that he gets to be rude and call my points 'babbling'.

laughing dog is a cis het man and he has never had the impulse to want to wear a skirt and he evidently does not care if boys are and were denied the opportunity to do so. I'm not going to be able to change his mind about this or even get him to be civil about the disagreement.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm done responding to you about this. Bye.

Ideas, like religion, can be empirically tested. Why don't you?

Surely you can see this particular exchange between myself and laughing dog is fruitless. What "idea" do you think I can test empirically?

The school certainly forbids boys from wearing skirts now. They almost certainly forbid it before this new explicit policy, for all the reasons I've already discussed.

I don't understand what laughing dog's unwillingness to accept this is about, except that he gets to be rude and call my points 'babbling'.

laughing dog is a cis het man and he has never had the impulse to want to wear a skirt and he evidently does not care if boys are and were denied the opportunity to do so. I'm not going to be able to change his mind about this or even get him to be civil about the disagreement.

It also prohibits girls who were once told they were boys from expressing their identities. So we can agree that the policy discriminated against both girls and boys and also girls who were born with a penis. The new policy is discrimination under a fig leaf of "neutrality".

 

[Metaphor]

Surely you can see this particular exchange between myself and laughing dog is fruitless. What "idea" do you think I can test empirically?

The school certainly forbids boys from wearing skirts now. They almost certainly forbid it before this new explicit policy, for all the reasons I've already discussed.

I don't understand what laughing dog's unwillingness to accept this is about, except that he gets to be rude and call my points 'babbling'.

laughing dog is a cis het man and he has never had the impulse to want to wear a skirt and he evidently does not care if boys are and were denied the opportunity to do so. I'm not going to be able to change his mind about this or even get him to be civil about the disagreement.

It also prohibits girls who were once told they were boys from expressing their identities. So we can agree that the policy discriminated against both girls and boys and also girls who were born with a penis. The new policy is discrimination under a fig leaf of "neutrality".

I refer to biological sex in my posts, not gender identity. The dress code, if it referred separately to boys and girls, would also be referring to biological sex.

 

[Jarhyn]

Surely you can see this particular exchange between myself and laughing dog is fruitless. What "idea" do you think I can test empirically?

The school certainly forbids boys from wearing skirts now. They almost certainly forbid it before this new explicit policy, for all the reasons I've already discussed.

I don't understand what laughing dog's unwillingness to accept this is about, except that he gets to be rude and call my points 'babbling'.

laughing dog is a cis het man and he has never had the impulse to want to wear a skirt and he evidently does not care if boys are and were denied the opportunity to do so. I'm not going to be able to change his mind about this or even get him to be civil about the disagreement.

It also prohibits girls who were once told they were boys from expressing their identities. So we can agree that the policy discriminated against both girls and boys and also girls who were born with a penis. The new policy is discrimination under a fig leaf of "neutrality".

I refer to biological sex in my posts, not gender identity. The dress code, if it referred separately to boys and girls, would also be referring to biological sex.

You are entirely missing my point. At this point you are arguing past people, seemingly just to argue... And why, even? So you can bitch about a rule while willfully ignoring the reasons others find grievance with that same rule?

That's just fucking stupid.

You seem to understand that this rule discriminates, clearly, against boys. What is so hard to admit that it discriminates, clearly, against girls? And that it also clearly discriminates against trans-girls?

Unless of course your argument is in bad faith and your intent is really to shit on discussion of why this is a bad rule?

People deserve the right to express their gender and yes, their sexuality and selves, through clothing choices. Do you have any contention with this position?

In fact schools could not, AFAIK, have a gender-explicit dress code. While they could offer skirts and pants, there were valid court challenges concerning sex discrimination pertaining to one or the other and this policy seems an attempt to sidestep that kind of vulnerability.

 

[Metaphor]

You seem to understand that this rule discriminates, clearly, against boys. What is so hard to admit that it discriminates, clearly, against girls?

No. I didn't say it discriminated against boys. I said boys choices were as restricted as girls choices by this rule. laughing dog does not want to acknowledge that, and Toni and others just think it's another example of controlling what girls wear, failing to realise that it restricts what boys wear just as much.

And that it also clearly discriminates against trans-girls?

It restricts trans people as much as it restricts cis people.

Unless of course your argument is in bad faith and your intent is really to shit on discussion of why this is a bad rule?

This rule has good qualities and bad qualities. On balance, I think it would be better to let students choose whether they want to wear skirts or trousers.

People deserve the right to express their gender and yes, their sexuality and selves, through clothing choices. Do you have any contention with this position?

The purpose of a school uniform (hence the word "uniform") is actually to minimise the difference between students and make the appearance of the student body more unified. In that sense, individual expression in a school uniform is less important to me than the equal treatment of sexes.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

... failing to realise that it restricts what boys wear just as much...

Let's empirically test your idea. Please show where are all the boys protesting.

Hint: there aren't any.

Why? Because it is further from how most of the girls prefer to dress than how most of the boys prefer to dress if given a choice. Now, if the policy were instead that everyone had to wear a single uniform that was comprised of a skirt and a shirt, you could be prepared for the Full Power of Male Outrage and Patriarchy to come down on Everyone and Anything associated with that decision. But, no.

 

[Jarhyn]

... failing to realise that it restricts what boys wear just as much...

Let's empirically test your idea. Please show where are all the boys protesting.

Hint: there aren't any.

Why? Because it is further from how most of the girls prefer to dress than how most of the boys prefer to dress if given a choice. Now, if the policy were instead that everyone had to wear a single uniform that was comprised of a skirt and a shirt, you could be prepared for the Full Power of Male Outrage and Patriarchy to come down on Everyone and Anything associated with that decision. But, no.

Ok, so, metaphor has already accepted that it restricts everyone and that a better policy is to let people have their choice of coded clothes, albeit in a backwards and obtuse way.

Why do you have to make it about "patriarchy" or "oppressing girls"? It oppressed everyone, and especially trans students.

Each of us has a group we are trying to protect from a universally detestable policy, and you seem to lack the empathy to accept that it is universally detestable, and that metaphor is right (it oppressed boys) AND you are right (it oppressed girls) AND I am right (it oppresses trans-girls).

Nobody has to be wrong here except the school administration, and to be fair, school administration is generally garbage anyways.

The correct course, for everyone's concern, is to allow to each their own selection of uniform, skirt, or pant; blouse, or jacket - as the code offers.

 

[Metaphor]

... failing to realise that it restricts what boys wear just as much...

Let's empirically test your idea. Please show where are all the boys protesting.

Hint: there aren't any.

Boys were almost certainly already forbidden from wearing skirts long before this new rule. I've discussed this several times. That much fewer boys than girls want to wear skirts is not in contention. That's obviously true.

But that doesn't change my argument. Some places in the world restrict women from being topless in places where men can be topless. The fact that far fewer women would choose to go topless doesn't mean the rule doesn't restrict women. It does and it's unfair.

Now, if the policy were instead that everyone had to wear a single uniform that was comprised of a skirt and a shirt, you could be prepared for the Full Power of Male Outrage and Patriarchy to come down on Everyone and Anything associated with that decision. But, no.

The patriarchy doesn't exist.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, boys were almost certainly not so forbidden.

See, dress codes, particularly in today's day and age were and still are generally vulnerable to a specific challenge on the grounds that they discriminate on the basis of sex.

You are being obtuse if you say that school administration is blind to that fact. In fact, they are the most poignantly aware of such challenges because kids are clever, rules-defying bastards, and will look for almost any opportunity to subvert the intent of a rule. This is almost certainly why they went with a "gender neutral" dress code: to kick and scream rather than be dragged into the 21st century. They thought they could "avoid a controversy" and put a fig leaf over what we can all agree is a bad policy that is pretty transparently an attempt to prevent discussion or acquiescence on some absolutely fucking pointless thing that for some reason school administrations think is the most important thing in the world; whether that issue is girls wearing short skirts ("Slut! Harlot! LET'S BAN SEXUAL EXPRESSION, because NOT TALKING ABOUT IT will make it all go away, right?"), Or boys wearing skirts ("OH, THE SCANDAL!"), Or trans-girls wearing skirts ("ThEyRe ToO YouNg To thINk aBoUt PuBeRtY" -- even though they're being forced to go through a puberty they would rather not have), or even trans-boys NOT wanting to wear skirts.

All the usual suspects for administration motivations could be in play here, but none of them, except for cis-boys and trans-boys get any sort of "what they want", and even then, it's an insult to their freedom to choose.

Edit: Hell, 2-3 years back, give or take a year, I recall a rash of stories about boys at uniformed schools wearing skirts, of girls wearing pants, as either solidarity to trans schoolmates or in protest of gender discrimination on dress code, and resulting challenges to either the lack of explicitly naming gender restrictions or to exacerbate admins over the failure, and the resulting discussion of whether it was valid in the first place to pin them to gender given non-discrimination laws.

You may have a short memory, or low exposure to the issue. School administration officials and boards, however, would not be. They would have specific visibility and long memory of the incidents, and possibly many more incidents that never saw media coverage.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It seems quite preposterous that Metaphor is battling it out for this molehill (ditch).

Boys couldn't wear skirts... freedom!!!

 

[Metaphor]

It seems quite preposterous that Metaphor is battling it out for this molehill (ditch).

Boys couldn't wear skirts... freedom!!!

Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage Jimmy Higgins! He has nothing of substance to say and no interest in the topic, but he is compelled by his moral duty to come into threads that Metaphor is participating in and spew out a "clever","witty" jibe about him.

Thank you Jimmy for your enduring contribution.

 

[Jarhyn]

It seems quite preposterous that Metaphor is battling it out for this molehill (ditch).

Boys couldn't wear skirts... freedom!!!

Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage Jimmy Higgins! He has nothing of substance to say and no interest in the topic, but he is compelled by his moral duty to come into threads that Metaphor is participating in and spew out a "clever","witty" jibe about him.

Thank you Jimmy for your enduring contribution.

Actually, I found great value in their expert analysis of your arguments.

 

[Deepak]

No, boys were almost certainly not so forbidden.

See, dress codes, particularly in today's day and age were and still are generally vulnerable to a specific challenge on the grounds that they discriminate on the basis of sex.

You are being obtuse if you say that school administration is blind to that fact. In fact, they are the most poignantly aware of such challenges because kids are clever, rules-defying bastards, and will look for almost any opportunity to subvert the intent of a rule. This is almost certainly why they went with a "gender neutral" dress code: to kick and scream rather than be dragged into the 21st century. They thought they could "avoid a controversy" and put a fig leaf over what we can all agree is a bad policy that is pretty transparently an attempt to prevent discussion or acquiescence on some absolutely fucking pointless thing that for some reason school administrations think is the most important thing in the world; whether that issue is girls wearing short skirts ("Slut! Harlot! LET'S BAN SEXUAL EXPRESSION, because NOT TALKING ABOUT IT will make it all go away, right?"), Or boys wearing skirts ("OH, THE SCANDAL!"), Or trans-girls wearing skirts ("ThEyRe ToO YouNg To thINk aBoUt PuBeRtY" -- even though they're being forced to go through a puberty they would rather not have), or even trans-boys NOT wanting to wear skirts.

All the usual suspects for administration motivations could be in play here, but none of them, except for cis-boys and trans-boys get any sort of "what they want", and even then, it's an insult to their freedom to choose.

Edit: Hell, 2-3 years back, give or take a year, I recall a rash of stories about boys at uniformed schools wearing skirts, of girls wearing pants, as either solidarity to trans schoolmates or in protest of gender discrimination on dress code, and resulting challenges to either the lack of explicitly naming gender restrictions or to exacerbate admins over the failure, and the resulting discussion of whether it was valid in the first place to pin them to gender given non-discrimination laws.

You may have a short memory, or low exposure to the issue. School administration officials and boards, however, would not be. They would have specific visibility and long memory of the incidents, and possibly many more incidents that never saw media coverage.

I mean, isn't the whole point of a uniform to punt on freedom of choice in regards to what people wear? Suppose the color of the uniform doesn't suit my complexion, shouldn't I be afforded the ability to wear the same pattern and cut but just in a different color?

I'm not opposed to the idea of girls wearing skirts to school (I certainly wasn't when I was 15 either...), nor trans students wearing skirts, but aren't uniforms there to minimize the drama related to clothing choices by arbitrarily choosing what is allowed? That is, the entire point is to restrict freedom of choice.

 

[Toni]

No, boys were almost certainly not so forbidden.

See, dress codes, particularly in today's day and age were and still are generally vulnerable to a specific challenge on the grounds that they discriminate on the basis of sex.

You are being obtuse if you say that school administration is blind to that fact. In fact, they are the most poignantly aware of such challenges because kids are clever, rules-defying bastards, and will look for almost any opportunity to subvert the intent of a rule. This is almost certainly why they went with a "gender neutral" dress code: to kick and scream rather than be dragged into the 21st century. They thought they could "avoid a controversy" and put a fig leaf over what we can all agree is a bad policy that is pretty transparently an attempt to prevent discussion or acquiescence on some absolutely fucking pointless thing that for some reason school administrations think is the most important thing in the world; whether that issue is girls wearing short skirts ("Slut! Harlot! LET'S BAN SEXUAL EXPRESSION, because NOT TALKING ABOUT IT will make it all go away, right?"), Or boys wearing skirts ("OH, THE SCANDAL!"), Or trans-girls wearing skirts ("ThEyRe ToO YouNg To thINk aBoUt PuBeRtY" -- even though they're being forced to go through a puberty they would rather not have), or even trans-boys NOT wanting to wear skirts.

All the usual suspects for administration motivations could be in play here, but none of them, except for cis-boys and trans-boys get any sort of "what they want", and even then, it's an insult to their freedom to choose.

Edit: Hell, 2-3 years back, give or take a year, I recall a rash of stories about boys at uniformed schools wearing skirts, of girls wearing pants, as either solidarity to trans schoolmates or in protest of gender discrimination on dress code, and resulting challenges to either the lack of explicitly naming gender restrictions or to exacerbate admins over the failure, and the resulting discussion of whether it was valid in the first place to pin them to gender given non-discrimination laws.

You may have a short memory, or low exposure to the issue. School administration officials and boards, however, would not be. They would have specific visibility and long memory of the incidents, and possibly many more incidents that never saw media coverage.

I mean, isn't the whole point of a uniform to punt on freedom of choice in regards to what people wear? Suppose the color of the uniform doesn't suit my complexion, shouldn't I be afforded the ability to wear the same pattern and cut but just in a different color?

I'm not opposed to the idea of girls wearing skirts to school (I certainly wasn't when I was 15 either...), nor trans students wearing skirts, but aren't uniforms there to minimize the drama related to clothing choices by arbitrarily choosing what is allowed? That is, the entire point is to restrict freedom of choice.

Yes, sheep are much easier to control than people who believe they have choices in life.

 

[Deepak]

Yes, sheep are much easier to control than people who believe they have choices in life.

So I'm generally opposed to uniforms in schools - but one thing to note is that class-based bullying is also a real thing.

We never had a ton of money growing up, and I'd often have to buy the irregular jeans from the discount rack, but we always had clothes on our back. I also knew most of the jocks, and was invited to all the parties, so I never ended up on the receiving end of things. I do remember one time in high school, sitting on the bleachers after gym class, where one of the guys on the baseball team asked me why I spend time with 'Nancy', because her mom was an alcoholic and she ended up going to school multiple times with makeshift clothing she fashioned from towels when she was in elementary school.

That fucked me up at the time, and it's something that's always sort of stuck with me. I think you're right, but the mentality behind uniforms isn't entirely cynical.