Cycling UK Forum

Paulatic wrote:

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.
IMG_0208.JPG

Girls wear shorts girls wear trousers boys don't wear skirts. Although I wonder if your view applies to muslims as in "Why wouldn't skirts for all be best?" Would you enforce that at schools?

"UK appears, to me, to be in a race to head back to the past" the wearing of skirts for instance?
"Historical clothing" anything else you think we should wear from the past and how far back do you want to go?

Is there any chance of you supplying evidence "race to head back to the past ( Brexit, human rights, pollution etc)"

pete75 wrote:

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

I never mentioned beating it out of them. No doubt your liberal mates ie the moderators will let that go.

661-Pete wrote: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?

Why?

Paulatic wrote:

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.
IMG_0208.JPG

Trousers / shorts for all puts everyone together, with no discrimination. Skirts are less practical and more to do with statement of gender and looking feminine, or Scottish. And don't tell me kilts are practical. Think of the midges.

Paulatic wrote:This is not a picture of me but copied from tinternet Boys Historical Clothing.

You're in trouble now, google will have recorded that search and the Peelers will be knocking at your door. You'll be put on a victorian offenders register .

661-Pete wrote:could define 'pinafore'

I've always taken a pinafore to be an apron as in what someone wore to say do cookery( or woodwork, manly work ). Which was always shortened to "pinny" in my area. But that may be too obvious and G and S had HMS Pinafore.... perhaps there's a joke in it's name somehow.

pwa wrote:Trousers / shorts for all puts everyone together, with no discrimination. Skirts are less practical and more to do with statement of gender and looking feminine, or Scottish. And don't tell me kilts are practical. Think of the midges.

Although the practicality of skirts is a matter of opinion, I don't feel strongly one way or another whether they should be offered as part of the school uniform. Skirts are only 'feminine' or associated with gender because of cultural association. It is different in other cultures.

I do think that all children, whatever their genders or gender identities should have the same alternatives available to them.

I took boyds comment about disorder to mean that if you accept the wide range of gender identity that's expressed these days then use of the word disorder is incorrect. Disorder implies it's against the order of things, as in wrong. If it's not wrong then it's not a disorder.

If I'm right then Boyd was being more liberal and accepting of gender identity range than the liberal who used the discriminatory term disorder.

Just something to mull over. How accepting of gender identity are you?

How accepting of gender identity are you?

That isnt really the issue, those who are totally laissez-faire about others' gender identities are set upon because they are not fully up to date with the very latest fashion and terminologies and then accidentally say the presently politically wrong thing. Which leads to the perfectly reasonable protective measure of disengaging and avoidance.

Vorpal wrote:

pwa wrote:Trousers / shorts for all puts everyone together, with no discrimination. Skirts are less practical and more to do with statement of gender and looking feminine, or Scottish. And don't tell me kilts are practical. Think of the midges.

Although the practicality of skirts is a matter of opinion, I don't feel strongly one way or another whether they should be offered as part of the school uniform. Skirts are only 'feminine' or associated with gender because of cultural association. It is different in other cultures.

I do think that all children, whatever their genders or gender identities should have the same alternatives available to them.

I agree strongly with the last sentence. But on the whole I think trousers are the way to go. In the real world it removes one possible excuse for bullying. On the other hand, acceptance of differences from the norm has increased in recent years. In the secondary school where my wife teaches a young man with a very feminine disposition, to the point where people were not always sure of his gender, went through his school years with plenty of friends and little bullying.

I keep seeing talk of gender dysphoria. Is it not the case that this is a label for someone who has psychological problems that if not focused on their "gender" would arise in another form.... eating disorders, severe anxiety attacks. Are these conditions we arrive at simply manifestations of deep seated psychological problems brought about by a persons upbringing, social interactions and the modern world we live in. Basically our lifestyles and the subtle things people do that have an effect on our offspring in a psychologically damaging way.

It's a frightening and sad reflection of our modern world that these conditions are allowed to develop and become a label. Might cause more harm than good. We may have two sexes with varying degrees of masculinity or femininity but the rise in "gender identity" issues seems strange.

It may not be a rise in gender issues so much as a new freedom to actually bring them out in to the open.
Unfortunately the pressures are still too high to conform, just with a different norm than before.
It is all still being taken too seriously and with too much expectation, even very young children are being exposed to having to make a choice, instead of just leaving them to play through things naturally.

pwa wrote:And don't tell me kilts are practical. Think of the midges.

Believe me: I've been in the Highlands, during summer/autumn, many times. I've never worn a kilt. And each time, I've been driven nigh to insanity by the midges. Trousers are no defence. Neither is insect-repellent.

Maybe the only defence is something like this. Indeed I've met hikers similarly clad. Perhaps I should do the same, next time...

Boyd wrote:[color=#FF0040]Girls wear shorts girls wear trousers boys don't wear skirts[/color]. Although I wonder if your view applies to muslims

That's a very fixed view of the world.
I don't believe I disclosed my view I thought I'd asked a question.
I also doubt I would even dream of enforcing anything at school apart from attendance maybe.

Boyd wrote:

Is there any chance of you supplying evidence "race to head back to the past ( Brexit, human rights, pollution etc)"

No, I've no intention on this thread of giving evidence on what I CLEARLY stated as My View I've given my twopenneth on the Brexit threads and it will end there.

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? 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.

First, not all disorders are curable. Secondly, the 'cure' may be sex reassignment therapy.

Lastly, the point is that genitalia do not necessarily define gender (also some people have physical aspects or genetic attributes of more than one sex)

The binary definition is harmful to many people, not just those who have gender identity issues, or who have the traits of more than one gender.

The assignment of gender has also banned many athletes from competing internationally or professionally because they naturally make too much of a hormone that is considered inappropriate for their gender, or they have an extra chromosome.

https://newrepublic.com/article/136083/ ... g-athletes

old_windbag wrote:I keep seeing talk of gender dysphoria. Is it not the case that this is a label for someone who has psychological problems that if not focused on their "gender" would arise in another form.... eating disorders, severe anxiety attacks. Are these conditions we arrive at simply manifestations of deep seated psychological problems brought about by a persons upbringing, social interactions and the modern world we live in. Basically our lifestyles and the subtle things people do that have an effect on our offspring in a psychologically damaging way.

It's a frightening and sad reflection of our modern world that these conditions are allowed to develop and become a label. Might cause more harm than good. We may have two sexes with varying degrees of masculinity or femininity but the rise in "gender identity" issues seems strange.

Is it a sad reflection? Or is it a recognition that we aren't all perfect and manly or feminine and destined for a 9-5 job, a semi-detached house, 2,5 children, and a dog?