Cycling UK Forum

Make them all wear kilts...

Good for that school. It's just a piece of clothing. Get over it.

BrianFox wrote:

I suspected an unfair dismissal should a teacher start wearing a dress would fail

No, it would succeed. Because discrimination on the grounds of gender identity is illegal. For instance:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/some-teachers-are-lgbt-get-over-it-9334115.html

there are bound to be students esp young ones who would find such disturbing?

Sets a course for: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychol ... projection

As the article's headline says, "some teachers are lgbt get over it"

as the article points out that was a rare case ( it mentions other teachers not so lucky) and didnt go to court in the end

ChrisOntLancs wrote: tolerating embarrassment and intrigue is as important as tolerating men in unisex socks right through to men who are undergoing procedures to make them women. that's how it was for us gays. .

However, when my son was moving towards, "men who are undergoing procedures to make them women." the majority of the Gay society he had inhabited, worked in and promoted through his night clubs and support for the Pride celebrations he had hosted ...... shunned him ..... shunned him ....shunned him ....... "thats how it was for this gay" .....Total shock for us... his parents .... no surprise for him ..."Knew this would happen dad" ..

I once went into work stark naked. It caused a huge furore as I'd left my laptop at home, absent minded me.

If society was truly liberal would we would allow people to wear up to nothing..... well in warm countries . In many ways if us men can go topless in the street then so could women.... would that cause more cycle accidents. Strange that one of those two situations is an offence but the other isn't.

Honestly, I've always felt that it was unfair that some schools made girls wear one thing and boys another, and other schools offered several options for girls (dress, trousers, skirt) and only trousers, or maybe trousers & shorts for boys.

IMO, they should all just say, 'here are the uniform options, students can select from trousers, skirts, etc.' and let the kids and their parents decide what each child can/should wear.

p.s. it is not, and should not be 'what private education is all about'.

Even for the more liberal and free thinking, the old habits and conditioning runs deep.

I really couldnt go around in the UK wearing a dress because it is too heavily associated with cross dressing and sexual orientation. I could wear a kilt and I spent a long time wearing sarongs when abroad so it isnt the actual practicalities of a skirt (in the right climate) it is the association.
Most people are quite happy with the state of affairs as it is. It seems that the whole problem is caused by this basic falsehood of trying to pretend there is equality when obviously there isnt. The school uniform is there to prevent choice, the law is saying that a few select individuals should be given a choice that is denied to others. The school is making the pragmatic decision to open the choice to all, it will not make much difference to any individuals involved but at least it is one stupid hypocrisy which they dont have to try and sustain.

didnt go to court in the end

Indeed. Settled. To her satisfaction.

landsurfer wrote:However, when my son was moving towards, "men who are undergoing procedures to make them women." the majority of the Gay society he had inhabited, worked in and promoted through his night clubs and support for the Pride celebrations he had hosted ...... shunned him ..... shunned him ....shunned him ....... "thats how it was for this gay" .....Total shock for us... his parents .... no surprise for him ..."Knew this would happen dad" ..

well yeah you'd expect less alienation from people who had been alienated. it's that "join the bully cliche" instead a lot of the time.

or is it just a transphobic ripple of the homophobic "fear of association" :/

i was very vague in my last post and it could look like i'm giving the go ahead on bigotry, i hope everybody who reads it understands it because i'm too tired to edit and hide my obvious hatred

Heltor Chasca wrote:A definition for clarity:

'Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) is the dysphoria (distress) a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth. In these cases, the assigned sex and gender do not match the person's gender identity, and the person is transgender.'

.

If it is disorder surely it is curable? I would suggest a different choice of words.
You are hardly assigned a gender at birth. Your genitaler defines your gender.
A neighbors daughter has "Gender dysphoria" as have most of her school friends. A bit unlikely.

I believe in school uniforms, but I don't see why we need skirts involved at all. Trousers or shorts for all would be best.

I don't think the question ever arose at my (all boys) school, back in the 1960s. I do recall that one of the masters occasionally turned up in his kilt - evoking the odd ribald comment from some of the boys. I guess he didn't enjoy this last, much, so he swallowed his sense of pride and gave up the idea.

We kids were certainly given the option of shorts or trousers. I hated wearing shorts - my parents kept me in shorts for longer than most of my contemporaries, and I suffered in consequence. In fact, I still dislike shorts: I hardly ever wear them, not even when cycling.

Boyd wrote:

Heltor Chasca wrote:A definition for clarity:

'Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) is the dysphoria (distress) a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth. In these cases, the assigned sex and gender do not match the person's gender identity, and the person is transgender.'

.

If it is disorder surely it is curable?

Oh yes it could probably be thrashed out of them

pwa wrote:I believe in school uniforms, but I don't see why we need skirts involved at all. Trousers or shorts for all would be best.

Why wouldn't skirts for all be best?

As the UK appears, to me, to be in a race to head back to the past ( Brexit, human rights, pollution etc) it's not that long ago boys in skirts were common. I believe I was in petticoats until around 3yo.
This is not a picture of me but copied from tinternet Boys Historical Clothing.

661-Pete wrote:I don't think the question ever arose at my (all boys) school, back in the 1960s. I do recall that one of the masters occasionally turned up in his kilt - evoking the odd ribald comment from some of the boys. I guess he didn't enjoy this last, much, so he swallowed his sense of pride and gave up the idea.

We kids were certainly given the option of shorts or trousers. I hated wearing shorts - my parents kept me in shorts for longer than most of my contemporaries, and I suffered in consequence. In fact, I still dislike shorts: I hardly ever wear them, not even when cycling.

happened to me at pimary or junior school but in this case the schools. being tall my parents sent me after a time in trousers and the school didnt like that and sent me home.

I have a vague recollection of one of Hilaire Belloc's Cautionary Verses (dating from around the 1900s). So I did a bit of googling. It begins:

The nicest child I ever knew
Was Charles Augustus Fortescue.
He never lost his cap, or tore
His stockings or his pinafore...

Perhaps someone could define 'pinafore' in this context, and explain whether it was commonly worn by a boy?