Its actually not that simple. Was there rules against him wearing a dress to school? nope. Was there rules about anyone wearing heels to school? Not that has been pointed out. I can understand the hat if its a rule not to wear them in school, most schools have this rule. But, if the school isnt forcing uniforms, and there is no rules about boys wearing dress's, I would bring it up to the school board and see how it plays out. I am sure they will look at previous actions over the actual rules and rule for the school over the student.
Somehow, after you called forcible stripping on camera for the eyes of all the world just an old fashioned prank gone too far, I didn't have you pegged as the voice of hyper progressives.
Yes, it is that simple. Yes, I'm 100% positive that somewhere, some place in the rules (if they have them written) there is something about disrupting the learning environment. Why? Because that's a #1 priority of every school in the known universe. No, they do not need to outline every single potential disruption, lest the written rules be ten times larger than a Bible.
Yeah, somehow the traditional clothing of Sri Lanka doesn't seem like a relevant issue when deciding whether something might be disruptive in Florida in the year 2011.
I don't care why he did it. You're telling a member of a group that they have to wear a specific type of clothing when completely reasonable alternatives exist. How is it different from telling a woman she has to wear a dress?
How do you feel about public nudity?
Quote from Teia »
The kid in the OP bears the responsibility for wearing a dress, but I'd argue the disruption he caused isn't his problem (that he acted intentionally for effect is irrelevant—a male-assigned person in a dress should not be cause for alarm) nor would he be responsible for any subsequent policy changes in response to his actions.
Yet it is. You're upset because there are cultural norms. Fine. That's not making cultural norms go away any time soon. So until that time, you know, some teachers would actually like to get something accomplished in the classroom besides hosting a sociological experiment. All for individuality, but let's face facts here.
My personal opinion on this kind of aligns with Teia. To the people claiming it's about disruption of the learning process I'm going to say there are a million other things that are far more disruptive and the school either won't do anything about or just doesn't.
Just confining my argument to clothing we have the issues of the sagging pants, and the really tight tops and short skirts that I've seen schools completely unable or unwilling to do anything about.
Furthermore, expanding to the wider complaints about disruption, with this line of thought you should ban any sort of music in school (every genre is disruptive to someone but rap is the offender in my opinion). Then you've got any number of students who's disruption is far more severe.
The big thing that makes me think that Teia has a point is that the initial, gut, overly emotional reaction was such a long term ban.
Finally, at my college, I see people in drag all the time and nobody bats an eye. Finally, if they went through the rule book, and there was nothing in there about guys in drag, the schools legs to stand on are pretty flimsy.
My personal opinion on this kind of aligns with Teia. To the people claiming it's about disruption of the learning process I'm going to say there are a million other things that are far more disruptive and the school either won't do anything about or just doesn't.
Just confining my argument to clothing we have the issues of the sagging pants, and the really tight tops and short skirts that I've seen schools completely unable or unwilling to do anything about.
Furthermore, expanding to the wider complaints about disruption, with this line of thought you should ban any sort of music in school (every genre is disruptive to someone but rap is the offender in my opinion). Then you've got any number of students who's disruption is far more severe.
The big thing that makes me think that Teia has a point is that the initial, gut, overly emotional reaction was such a long term ban.
Finally, at my college, I see people in drag all the time and nobody bats an eye. Finally, if they went through the rule book, and there was nothing in there about guys in drag, the schools legs to stand on are pretty flimsy.
So, your statement is that because a male dressed in a dress isn't as disruptive as rap music, we should allow the students to get distracted by the guy in a dress? Wouldn't it make more sense to prevent as much distraction as possible?
What I'm saying is that this shouldn't be a distraction period. Especially when there are far worse things to be worried about.
Again, there are more than a few folks in drag at my college. Nobody cares. Is high school a little different? Yes. However, I don't think asking for more maturity from high schoolers is a bad thing. The knee jerk reactions to male cross dressing are, frankly, in my opinion antiquated and in this case, distracting the administrators from real problems they need to be dealing with.
What I'm saying is that this shouldn't be a distraction period. Especially when there are far worse things to be worried about.
Again, there are more than a few folks in drag at my college. Nobody cares. Is high school a little different? Yes. However, I don't think asking for more maturity from high schoolers is a bad thing. The knee jerk reactions to male cross dressing are, frankly, in my opinion antiquated and in this case, distracting the administrators from real problems they need to be dealing with.
Sounds like at the end of the day we're just dealing with a practical vs. ideal type of situation. Uncomfortable for me since I almost always fall on that ideal side of the spectrum. But I guess that's what experience can do to you.
At the same time this kind of rule applies to stuff that probably no one would argue with: let's say a white supremacist shirt, profanity laced apparel, a thong with nothing else on at all, etc.
Suppose the ultimate thing would be to allow nudity in schools, so there are no sacred cows when it comes to dress, but that's not gonna happen this century... lol
Furthermore, expanding to the wider complaints about disruption, with this line of thought you should ban any sort of music in school (every genre is disruptive to someone but rap is the offender in my opinion).
My school actually does this, including a "no music players in class" rule (i.e. it doesn't let you blare music for others to hear or play music only you can hear). Same for cell phones: teacher catches you with your cell phone out, you get kicked out of class. Though this is a university, not a high school, so standards are a bit higher.
MAAB person comes to school in feminine clothing, though? School itself doesn't care, as long as it wouldn't be inappropriate for FAAB people in the same outfit. And you know, maybe it's the fact that it's university instead of high school, but it doesn't disrupt learning at all. At worst you might get a few people staring at you, but to be quite honest, if you're in the position where you're MAAB and wearing feminine clothing, realistically speaking you have to be prepared to be stared at by at least some people (and yeah, when you're not doing it for fun but out of gender identity, that kind of attention stings, but in that case you're still more comfortable regardless).
American high schools focus entirely on the wrong things.
So, your statement is that because a male dressed in a dress isn't as disruptive as rap music, we should allow the students to get distracted by the guy in a dress? Wouldn't it make more sense to prevent as much distraction as possible?
Exactly. The fact that an MAAB person in a dress is "distracting" is a problem that needs addressed. Doing so would both prevent disruption and allow for further gender-variant behaviour.
What I'm saying is that this shouldn't be a distraction period. Especially when there are far worse things to be worried about.
Again, there are more than a few folks in drag at my college. Nobody cares. Is high school a little different? Yes. However, I don't think asking for more maturity from high schoolers is a bad thing. The knee jerk reactions to male cross dressing are, frankly, in my opinion antiquated and in this case, distracting the administrators from real problems they need to be dealing with.
But students in high school aren't mature. At least not legally so. The issue of gender rights is problematic in "the real world" (or college), and I consider it grossly unfair to ask children to deal with it as well. Whether cross dressing is the penultimate distraction or not, it is still a distraction, and on top of that, the period of unrest it would cause to remove the enforced applied gender roles would make teaching, the primary role of a high school, to become impossible.
Yes, there are students in high school that would benefit. There are also students who would deal with the issue in a mature fashion. But how many kids would suffer because they simply don't have mature enough brains to grasp the concept or the social upheaval the issue would set off? Does it seem fair to remove confusion from one person by causing it in another?
The issue of gender rights is problematic in "the real world" (or college), and I consider it grossly unfair to ask children to deal with it as well.
And this is why I think teaching children very early on about the existence of queer people, gender variance, etc is a good thing. Children are very adaptable, and if you teach them that there's nothing wrong with, say, a boy in a dress... the children will accept that there's nothing wrong with a boy in a dress (and, personally, I've seen a cis 12 year old with a better understanding and tolerance of transsexuality than many of the people on this forum). Waiting until people are adults with ingrained prejudices, pretending until then that these issues simply don't exist, is among the worst things you can do.
Sounds like at the end of the day we're just dealing with a practical vs. ideal type of situation. Uncomfortable for me since I almost always fall on that ideal side of the spectrum. But I guess that's what experience can do to you.
I respectfully disagree. This is merely a case of it being ideal AND practical that if we (as a society) are attempting to raise intelligent, enlightened individuals, this should extend to a certain level of tolerance training, and an understanding that gender is, at best a cultural construct.
(Now, admittedly I've based this argument on a premise that is open for debate in and of itself, that society is trying to create intelligent and enlightened individuals but that's a debate for another thread so please humor me and go along with this for the moment).
Suppose the ultimate thing would be to allow nudity in schools, so there are no sacred cows when it comes to dress, but that's not gonna happen this century... lol
I believe there is a term for the logical fallacy of exaggerating a situation well beyond the rational bounds of a situation at hand but for the life of me I can't remember what it is at the moment.
I will contend that the nudity thing is less about the expression and more to do the practical problems of health and comfort and human beings do naturally feel more comfortable in clothing since we don't have much of an external covering to protect us from the elements (yes I saw the lol but I'm attempting to make a point)
And at Teia if you look around I bet that music ban isn't anywhere near as well enforced as it should be (I saw it at my school all the time).
But students in high school aren't mature. At least not legally so. The issue of gender rights is problematic in "the real world" (or college), and I consider it grossly unfair to ask children to deal with it as well. Whether cross dressing is the penultimate distraction or not, it is still a distraction, and on top of that, the period of unrest it would cause to remove the enforced applied gender roles would make teaching, the primary role of a high school, to become impossible.
Yes, there are students in high school that would benefit. There are also students who would deal with the issue in a mature fashion. But how many kids would suffer because they simply don't have mature enough brains to grasp the concept or the social upheaval the issue would set off? Does it seem fair to remove confusion from one person by causing it in another?
Students in high school only aren't mature because people refuse to treat them as such, coddle them and make excuses for their immaturity. Now, I'm well aware that the adolescent's brain is generally not finished developing (pre-frontal cortex and all of that) However, were you aware that in other societies, societies where the child is considered an adult much earlier, the prefrontal cortex reaches maturity much earlier? If you expect and teach children how to deal with these issues earlier they will rise to the occasion as Teia pointed out.
And this is why I think teaching children very early on about the existence of queer people, gender variance, etc is a good thing. Children are very adaptable, and if you teach them that there's nothing wrong with, say, a boy in a dress... the children will accept that there's nothing wrong with a boy in a dress (and, personally, I've seen a cis 12 year old with a better understanding and tolerance of transsexuality than many of the people on this forum). Waiting until people are adults with ingrained prejudices, pretending until then that these issues simply don't exist, is among the worst things you can do.
But aren't you making some vast assumptions here? For the one cis 12 year old with a better understanding, there are many who simply cannot comprehend the issue. To put it bluntly, you're trying to make pariahs out of children: "You don't have any prejudices yet so go ahead and face these issues that have plagued mankind of centuries." I truly hope society becomes less intolerant, that everyone finds their place and that everyone is free to accept the whole of their being, but that change should (perhaps must) come from the top down; it should be intelligent adults with a good study of the issue, such as yourself, who break down these prejudices, not forcing it upon kids who aren't even able to VOTE.
And at Teia if you look around I bet that music ban isn't anywhere near as well enforced as it should be (I saw it at my school all the time).
It varies wildly based on the teacher. I've had teachers enforce those rules with a zealotry not seen since the Inquisition, and I've had teachers not care if you're in the front row texting the entire class. The only universally-enforced rule is that if you take out your cell phone during a test, you get 0, no exceptions, and I've seen that happen to people. But the important thing is it's still in the books, especially compared to how there hasn't been, to my knowledge, any official discrimination against gender-variant people (the shower rooms even have "transgender friendly" signs, and don't make passing a requirement, but I've never been in them since I've never had occasion to use them because I just use the shower at home, and thus I've never seen this one put to the test).
Simply having something in the books sends a message, even if the rule isn't actively enforced.
Now, I'm well aware that the adolescent's brain is generally not finished developing (pre-frontal cortex and all of that)
Your brain doesn't fully finish developing until you're in your 20s (which, among other things, is where late-onset transsexuality comes from), so if people want to pull the "high school kids aren't mature because their brains aren't fully developed" argument, they should be applying this to the 18-20something year olds in college too.
Edit:
To put it bluntly, you're trying to make pariahs out of children: "You don't have any prejudices yet so go ahead and face these issues that have plagued mankind of centuries."
Well, you were quoting a queer issue, and to say queer issues have "plagued" mankind is to demonize them unfairly. Sexual orientation and gender identity are completely natural and there's precisely no reason to assume children can't, in general, understand them. "Some people are born with a boy's body and a girl's brain, so they're really girls" is a massive simplification (though to be fair, so are many things we teach small children), but one children can easily understand.
but that change should (perhaps must) come from the top down
Actually, it seems to be going the opposite way. Younger people are, in general, becoming much more tolerant, while it's the older generations that are sticking to their bigoted ways. Obviously, this isn't a universal truth, but it's how the trends are going.
The only reason people can't comprehend an issue is because people won't attempt to teach them. Again, if we took advantage of the fact that children are sponges and quit treating them like idiots when it's convenient and then expecting them to be brilliant at other times we might actually be surprised at the level of understanding they can attain. Again, there is evidence that children will rise to meet the bar if you set the expectations correctly (set the bar low that's as high as they'll go. Set it high and they'll soar).
(edit @Teia) My point was that the prefrontal cortex thing isn't a really strong argument here. I'm agreeing with you remember?
(edit @Teia) My point was that the prefrontal cortex thing isn't a really strong argument here. I'm agreeing with you remember?
Yes, I know. And I was agreeing with you. Reread my post: You were saying the brain development thing is a weak argument, and I was pointing out an inconsistency with how people apply the brain development argument.
Your brain doesn't fully finish developing until you're in your 20s (which, among other things, is where late-onset transsexuality comes from), so if people want to pull the "high school kids aren't mature because their brains aren't fully developed" argument, they should be applying this to the 18-20something year olds in college too.
Okay, I'm willing to accept that. Perhaps we should move the voting age to 21. Regardless, comparing the growth of a 20-year old brain to the growth of a 6, 12, or 16 year old brain is unfair. If you introduce this issue into a high school, you are introducing it to people who might be as young as 13 or 14. Then, since 13 and 14 year olds have prejudices and preconceived notions, you have to move down the grades more and more until, ultimately, kindergartners are being faced with gender issues. No matter where you sit on the age scale, there will be children who will not be able to comprehend the problem. As you yourself state, the brain doesn't finish growing until adulthood; why are you so willing to let pre-adults handle the brunt of this issue? Where is the 'golden time' when someone has enough brain development to make their own choices without encroaching on that very same brain development?
Social constructs, just like physical constructs, collapse if you remove the foundation. It is better by far, in my belief, to remove the structure one layer at a time so we don't cause destruction. It is harder, to be sure, and frustrating, but safer. And one of the main reasons for the existence of society is the safety of its citizens.
you have to move down the grades more and more until, ultimately, kindergartners are being faced with gender issues
Not sure what's wrong with that. Kindergarteners understand basic sexual orientation and, by the time they're all getting put into a single room, basic gender roles as well. They're already taught that boys and girls are attracted to each other, even if they don't experience any attraction themselves, solely on the examples of mommy and daddy, or by having older heterosexual relatives. As early as primary school, children are taught that boys and girls are physically different. The answer is simple: Throw in the fact that not everyone is the same. Some boys like boys, and some girls like girls. Some people who look like boys are really girls, and some people who look like girls are really boys. Simple and easy.
As you yourself state, the brain doesn't finish growing until adulthood; why are you so willing to let pre-adults handle the brunt of this issue?
Because issues of gender identity and sexual orientation present themselves long before adulthood. Transsexual feelings can start as early as age 3 or 4. Homosexuality manifests at the same time as any other sexual orientation. What possible advantage is there to be gained by sweeping these issues under the rug until 10-15 years after the age where people start experiencing them?
Exactly. I'm fine with business attire, but I'm not fine with making it a requirement for a woman to slather herself in makeup (usually containing noxious chemicals), wear shoes that are frankly an ergonomic nightmare that can damage your legs, and other kinds of crap while the equivalent for men is... what? Wear a tie? How is that equal?
Its not.
Though I'd add in shaving and, in the white collar and up job fields, how expensive your suit is plays a role too.
Not sure what's wrong with that. Kindergarteners understand basic sexual orientation and, by the time they're all getting put into a single room, basic gender roles as well. They're already taught that boys and girls are attracted to each other, even if they don't experience any attraction themselves, solely on the examples of mommy and daddy, or by having older heterosexual relatives. As early as primary school, children are taught that boys and girls are physically different. The answer is simple: Throw in the fact that not everyone is the same. Some boys like boys, and some girls like girls. Some people who look like boys are really girls, and some people who look like girls are really boys. Simple and easy.
Because issues of gender identity and sexual orientation present themselves long before adulthood. Transsexual feelings can start as early as age 3 or 4. Homosexuality manifests at the same time as any other sexual orientation. What possible advantage is there to be gained by sweeping these issues under the rug until 10-15 years after the age where people start experiencing them?
I once had a record that skipped. It was awesome, the tenor hit this really high note and the skip would happen and you could let that tenor belt out that one, single, solitary note all day if you wanted to.
I can understand that you consider the act of embracing your sexuality to be freeing, even imperative to becoming a whole person. It has obviously been a positive experience in your own life. But you can't jam this information down people's throats so that they can know the same freedom you experience, especially when we're talking about children. If nothing else, to remove the experience of embracing that aspect of a person is robbing them of their own freedom.
On center topic: You have yet to defend the idea that unloading the brunt of society's sexual problems on children is unfair. These children have no say in what they are taught, and can't vote against it, so from what I'm seeing you want to, again, jam this issue down their throats because they're a captive audience. Can you not see how your personal agenda might be seen as morally unpleasant?
Also, you do realize that this could very easily backlash against those who oppose gender roles, right? If you allow one child to wear a dress, you are also opening the door to allow other students to express their sexuality by wearing, oh say, a t-shirt that says "I want to bang my teacher." [Silly argument provided on purpose in order to not let this conversation get out of hand.]
Yes, I know. And I was agreeing with you. Reread my post: You were saying the brain development thing is a weak argument, and I was pointing out an inconsistency with how people apply the brain development argument.
My bad. Sorry about that.
Merged double post.
@Misclick I will pose you a question. Children are taught about things like racism and slavery in early elementary school and sometimes even (in my case) kindergarten; how is that any different? and if it is how much different?
@Misclick I will pose you a question. Children are taught about things like racism and slavery in early elementary school and sometimes even (in my case) kindergarten; how is that any different? and if it is how much different?
...Comparing gender roles to racism and slavery? Bold move.
Because society and racism are considered, by society, to be bad things. This is kind of my point: the United States went through extreme social upheaval to bring about social change. The Civil War was enacted (at least in its most basic form) to bring about the social change of getting rid of slavery, and it took many radical protests to bring about the social changes that helped alleviate racism. Great people brought the very testament of their abilities to bear to remove these injustices. Similar social change can happen with the gender movement (sorry if I'm coining a term :/ ), but it will involve similar social upheaval with similar great people. They did not involve schoolchildren coming to terms with slavery or racism, they involved all-out war. Sorry if I can't get behind holding a battleground in a playground.
To put it another way, would history look on Lincoln or Martin Luther King, Jr. as great men if they gave speeches exclusively to children?
@Misclick. Very good point. It wasn't the best move I could have made but I'm glad I made it because I feel I gained some legitimate insight into your side of this debate. Thank you.
Now, as for my counter argument, I would think that discrimination in general is a bad thing. The civil war wasn't fought to end slavery (trust me, as black man this is a common belief that a lot of people, especially black people cling to which isn't entirely true). The war was fought to keep the union for fracturing. At it's core, the war was economics based with the south being afraid that the north would have an unfair advantage and the North being tired of what they saw as the south's advantage of free labor.
Were there people who were fighting to make sure the slaves were free and equal? Probably, somewhere I am uncertain of that. What I do know, is that while Lincoln has the reputation as the great emancipator he did not, in fact, believe blacks equal to whites and merely issued the emancipation proclamation primarily as a tactic of war against the south. In his time, war, while not desirable in the least, was the only tool he had in his tool chest.
Fast forward to King and we see a very hard struggle but a different sort of struggle. The struggle didn't come with war but with speeches and protests. King saw war as an unacceptable answer and found a different tool in the tool chest. Also, King's following was across numerous demographics and there were many people of varying ages following and listening to his message.
Now we have an even better tool. Education. I do not think speeches and marches are particularly necessary here but I do think that if you simply let people know and give them the information fear of difference (the driving factor behind this sort of thing) starts to go away.
That being said, I think that if parents would give this education to their children in their homes as mine did, this might not be as much of a problem. Still, that's a conversation for a different debate.
There is Zero comparison between slavery and the transgendered. For starters there is literally no difference between a black man and a white man. There is no science that needs to be explained. There is no room for doubt...blacks and whites are equal.
With the transgendered...the only way that they will ever be accepted socially is once you convince people that someone actually thinks that they are a different sex. Personally I don't believe it. They are protected under the same rights as any other red blooded American though. What exactly is their struggle? Isn't it just a notch up from being gay?
I really don't know what the fight for equality is. Transgendered people have the exact same rights as anyone else. Isn't there even a Congressman or Mayor that is transgendered? The only thing that you could be "fighting" for is people thinking that you are normal. Good luck with that.
So to your point about wanting to indoctrinate my child with this in kindergarten....neither myself nor most of America are going to be getting on board. If my kid decides to be gay or transgendered later in life...so be it. That is his choice. He doesn't need a liberal transgendered person coaxing him into it.
I believe there is a term for the logical fallacy of exaggerating a situation well beyond the rational bounds of a situation at hand but for the life of me I can't remember what it is at the moment.
It's a strawman if your argument is misrepresented.
Or it's a slippery slope fallacy if you think it's saying, "If A, therefore B,C,D,E,F,G,H and ultimately Z" without warrant.
I do believe your argument was misrepresented because I have misunderstood it. I believed your argument to be that dress is merely societal convention, but you appear not to have been saying that at all now. Rather, that one form of dress considered culturally acceptable should be culturally acceptable to all.
It's a unique scenario because while I did mistakenly misrepresent your argument, I was tacitly agreeing with that misrepresentation. So by no means was my intention to demonize your argument.
Forgive the departure for the purposes of making a point but I will return to one much more connected to the issue at hand.
We have a young woman at my college who doesn't identify well with her gender. If she wants to come to school in a suit and tie with her hair cut really short or tied in a short ponytail with her chest bound and no make up she can and nobody bats an eye. If she came to high school like that I doubt it would have been much different.
How is it not a double standard to not allow what happened in the article from the guy?
@ljossberir my apologies then because I seem to have misunderstood your intentions as well. Let's start over again at some point then.
I hate to break it to you, but you are wrong. Really, really wrong. There are a wealth of differences, ranging in propensity to get a sun tan to propensity to get diabetes. Are we the same species? Yeah. Are we the same? Clearly, no.
I was very clearly referring to the equality of a black man and a white man. My point was that black, white, brown, green, and red men are all equal. Where as adding a transgender person into the mix really doesn't change anything. They are still one of the above colors. I am going to assume that you are being sarcastic and that you don't truly believe that I am an idiot.
So, you think that telling a child that there are transgendered people is suddenly going to make the the child transgendered? I guess we shouldn't teach them about plants then. Don't want little Tommy to turn into a tree.
Harkius
If you want to be snide and twist my words sure. I want my kid to be taught that all people are equal. Not that Suzy thinks that she is Mark.
Somehow, after you called forcible stripping on camera for the eyes of all the world just an old fashioned prank gone too far, I didn't have you pegged as the voice of hyper progressives.
Yes, it is that simple. Yes, I'm 100% positive that somewhere, some place in the rules (if they have them written) there is something about disrupting the learning environment. Why? Because that's a #1 priority of every school in the known universe. No, they do not need to outline every single potential disruption, lest the written rules be ten times larger than a Bible.
Really?
Yeah, somehow the traditional clothing of Sri Lanka doesn't seem like a relevant issue when deciding whether something might be disruptive in Florida in the year 2011.
How do you feel about public nudity?
Yet it is. You're upset because there are cultural norms. Fine. That's not making cultural norms go away any time soon. So until that time, you know, some teachers would actually like to get something accomplished in the classroom besides hosting a sociological experiment. All for individuality, but let's face facts here.
Just confining my argument to clothing we have the issues of the sagging pants, and the really tight tops and short skirts that I've seen schools completely unable or unwilling to do anything about.
Furthermore, expanding to the wider complaints about disruption, with this line of thought you should ban any sort of music in school (every genre is disruptive to someone but rap is the offender in my opinion). Then you've got any number of students who's disruption is far more severe.
The big thing that makes me think that Teia has a point is that the initial, gut, overly emotional reaction was such a long term ban.
Finally, at my college, I see people in drag all the time and nobody bats an eye. Finally, if they went through the rule book, and there was nothing in there about guys in drag, the schools legs to stand on are pretty flimsy.
You can check out my artwork here and here
So, your statement is that because a male dressed in a dress isn't as disruptive as rap music, we should allow the students to get distracted by the guy in a dress? Wouldn't it make more sense to prevent as much distraction as possible?
Again, there are more than a few folks in drag at my college. Nobody cares. Is high school a little different? Yes. However, I don't think asking for more maturity from high schoolers is a bad thing. The knee jerk reactions to male cross dressing are, frankly, in my opinion antiquated and in this case, distracting the administrators from real problems they need to be dealing with.
You can check out my artwork here and here
Sounds like at the end of the day we're just dealing with a practical vs. ideal type of situation. Uncomfortable for me since I almost always fall on that ideal side of the spectrum. But I guess that's what experience can do to you.
At the same time this kind of rule applies to stuff that probably no one would argue with: let's say a white supremacist shirt, profanity laced apparel, a thong with nothing else on at all, etc.
Suppose the ultimate thing would be to allow nudity in schools, so there are no sacred cows when it comes to dress, but that's not gonna happen this century... lol
My school actually does this, including a "no music players in class" rule (i.e. it doesn't let you blare music for others to hear or play music only you can hear). Same for cell phones: teacher catches you with your cell phone out, you get kicked out of class. Though this is a university, not a high school, so standards are a bit higher.
MAAB person comes to school in feminine clothing, though? School itself doesn't care, as long as it wouldn't be inappropriate for FAAB people in the same outfit. And you know, maybe it's the fact that it's university instead of high school, but it doesn't disrupt learning at all. At worst you might get a few people staring at you, but to be quite honest, if you're in the position where you're MAAB and wearing feminine clothing, realistically speaking you have to be prepared to be stared at by at least some people (and yeah, when you're not doing it for fun but out of gender identity, that kind of attention stings, but in that case you're still more comfortable regardless).
American high schools focus entirely on the wrong things.
Exactly. The fact that an MAAB person in a dress is "distracting" is a problem that needs addressed. Doing so would both prevent disruption and allow for further gender-variant behaviour.
But students in high school aren't mature. At least not legally so. The issue of gender rights is problematic in "the real world" (or college), and I consider it grossly unfair to ask children to deal with it as well. Whether cross dressing is the penultimate distraction or not, it is still a distraction, and on top of that, the period of unrest it would cause to remove the enforced applied gender roles would make teaching, the primary role of a high school, to become impossible.
Yes, there are students in high school that would benefit. There are also students who would deal with the issue in a mature fashion. But how many kids would suffer because they simply don't have mature enough brains to grasp the concept or the social upheaval the issue would set off? Does it seem fair to remove confusion from one person by causing it in another?
And this is why I think teaching children very early on about the existence of queer people, gender variance, etc is a good thing. Children are very adaptable, and if you teach them that there's nothing wrong with, say, a boy in a dress... the children will accept that there's nothing wrong with a boy in a dress (and, personally, I've seen a cis 12 year old with a better understanding and tolerance of transsexuality than many of the people on this forum). Waiting until people are adults with ingrained prejudices, pretending until then that these issues simply don't exist, is among the worst things you can do.
I respectfully disagree. This is merely a case of it being ideal AND practical that if we (as a society) are attempting to raise intelligent, enlightened individuals, this should extend to a certain level of tolerance training, and an understanding that gender is, at best a cultural construct.
(Now, admittedly I've based this argument on a premise that is open for debate in and of itself, that society is trying to create intelligent and enlightened individuals but that's a debate for another thread so please humor me and go along with this for the moment).
I believe there is a term for the logical fallacy of exaggerating a situation well beyond the rational bounds of a situation at hand but for the life of me I can't remember what it is at the moment.
I will contend that the nudity thing is less about the expression and more to do the practical problems of health and comfort and human beings do naturally feel more comfortable in clothing since we don't have much of an external covering to protect us from the elements (yes I saw the lol but I'm attempting to make a point)
And at Teia if you look around I bet that music ban isn't anywhere near as well enforced as it should be (I saw it at my school all the time).
Students in high school only aren't mature because people refuse to treat them as such, coddle them and make excuses for their immaturity. Now, I'm well aware that the adolescent's brain is generally not finished developing (pre-frontal cortex and all of that) However, were you aware that in other societies, societies where the child is considered an adult much earlier, the prefrontal cortex reaches maturity much earlier? If you expect and teach children how to deal with these issues earlier they will rise to the occasion as Teia pointed out.
You can check out my artwork here and here
But aren't you making some vast assumptions here? For the one cis 12 year old with a better understanding, there are many who simply cannot comprehend the issue. To put it bluntly, you're trying to make pariahs out of children: "You don't have any prejudices yet so go ahead and face these issues that have plagued mankind of centuries." I truly hope society becomes less intolerant, that everyone finds their place and that everyone is free to accept the whole of their being, but that change should (perhaps must) come from the top down; it should be intelligent adults with a good study of the issue, such as yourself, who break down these prejudices, not forcing it upon kids who aren't even able to VOTE.
It varies wildly based on the teacher. I've had teachers enforce those rules with a zealotry not seen since the Inquisition, and I've had teachers not care if you're in the front row texting the entire class. The only universally-enforced rule is that if you take out your cell phone during a test, you get 0, no exceptions, and I've seen that happen to people. But the important thing is it's still in the books, especially compared to how there hasn't been, to my knowledge, any official discrimination against gender-variant people (the shower rooms even have "transgender friendly" signs, and don't make passing a requirement, but I've never been in them since I've never had occasion to use them because I just use the shower at home, and thus I've never seen this one put to the test).
Simply having something in the books sends a message, even if the rule isn't actively enforced.
Your brain doesn't fully finish developing until you're in your 20s (which, among other things, is where late-onset transsexuality comes from), so if people want to pull the "high school kids aren't mature because their brains aren't fully developed" argument, they should be applying this to the 18-20something year olds in college too.
Edit:
Well, you were quoting a queer issue, and to say queer issues have "plagued" mankind is to demonize them unfairly. Sexual orientation and gender identity are completely natural and there's precisely no reason to assume children can't, in general, understand them. "Some people are born with a boy's body and a girl's brain, so they're really girls" is a massive simplification (though to be fair, so are many things we teach small children), but one children can easily understand.
Actually, it seems to be going the opposite way. Younger people are, in general, becoming much more tolerant, while it's the older generations that are sticking to their bigoted ways. Obviously, this isn't a universal truth, but it's how the trends are going.
(edit @Teia) My point was that the prefrontal cortex thing isn't a really strong argument here. I'm agreeing with you remember?
You can check out my artwork here and here
Yes, I know. And I was agreeing with you. Reread my post: You were saying the brain development thing is a weak argument, and I was pointing out an inconsistency with how people apply the brain development argument.
Okay, I'm willing to accept that. Perhaps we should move the voting age to 21. Regardless, comparing the growth of a 20-year old brain to the growth of a 6, 12, or 16 year old brain is unfair. If you introduce this issue into a high school, you are introducing it to people who might be as young as 13 or 14. Then, since 13 and 14 year olds have prejudices and preconceived notions, you have to move down the grades more and more until, ultimately, kindergartners are being faced with gender issues. No matter where you sit on the age scale, there will be children who will not be able to comprehend the problem. As you yourself state, the brain doesn't finish growing until adulthood; why are you so willing to let pre-adults handle the brunt of this issue? Where is the 'golden time' when someone has enough brain development to make their own choices without encroaching on that very same brain development?
Social constructs, just like physical constructs, collapse if you remove the foundation. It is better by far, in my belief, to remove the structure one layer at a time so we don't cause destruction. It is harder, to be sure, and frustrating, but safer. And one of the main reasons for the existence of society is the safety of its citizens.
Not sure what's wrong with that. Kindergarteners understand basic sexual orientation and, by the time they're all getting put into a single room, basic gender roles as well. They're already taught that boys and girls are attracted to each other, even if they don't experience any attraction themselves, solely on the examples of mommy and daddy, or by having older heterosexual relatives. As early as primary school, children are taught that boys and girls are physically different. The answer is simple: Throw in the fact that not everyone is the same. Some boys like boys, and some girls like girls. Some people who look like boys are really girls, and some people who look like girls are really boys. Simple and easy.
Because issues of gender identity and sexual orientation present themselves long before adulthood. Transsexual feelings can start as early as age 3 or 4. Homosexuality manifests at the same time as any other sexual orientation. What possible advantage is there to be gained by sweeping these issues under the rug until 10-15 years after the age where people start experiencing them?
Its not.
Though I'd add in shaving and, in the white collar and up job fields, how expensive your suit is plays a role too.
I once had a record that skipped. It was awesome, the tenor hit this really high note and the skip would happen and you could let that tenor belt out that one, single, solitary note all day if you wanted to.
I can understand that you consider the act of embracing your sexuality to be freeing, even imperative to becoming a whole person. It has obviously been a positive experience in your own life. But you can't jam this information down people's throats so that they can know the same freedom you experience, especially when we're talking about children. If nothing else, to remove the experience of embracing that aspect of a person is robbing them of their own freedom.
On center topic: You have yet to defend the idea that unloading the brunt of society's sexual problems on children is unfair. These children have no say in what they are taught, and can't vote against it, so from what I'm seeing you want to, again, jam this issue down their throats because they're a captive audience. Can you not see how your personal agenda might be seen as morally unpleasant?
Also, you do realize that this could very easily backlash against those who oppose gender roles, right? If you allow one child to wear a dress, you are also opening the door to allow other students to express their sexuality by wearing, oh say, a t-shirt that says "I want to bang my teacher." [Silly argument provided on purpose in order to not let this conversation get out of hand.]
My bad. Sorry about that.
Merged double post.
@Misclick I will pose you a question. Children are taught about things like racism and slavery in early elementary school and sometimes even (in my case) kindergarten; how is that any different? and if it is how much different?
You can check out my artwork here and here
...Comparing gender roles to racism and slavery? Bold move.
Because society and racism are considered, by society, to be bad things. This is kind of my point: the United States went through extreme social upheaval to bring about social change. The Civil War was enacted (at least in its most basic form) to bring about the social change of getting rid of slavery, and it took many radical protests to bring about the social changes that helped alleviate racism. Great people brought the very testament of their abilities to bear to remove these injustices. Similar social change can happen with the gender movement (sorry if I'm coining a term :/ ), but it will involve similar social upheaval with similar great people. They did not involve schoolchildren coming to terms with slavery or racism, they involved all-out war. Sorry if I can't get behind holding a battleground in a playground.
To put it another way, would history look on Lincoln or Martin Luther King, Jr. as great men if they gave speeches exclusively to children?
Now, as for my counter argument, I would think that discrimination in general is a bad thing. The civil war wasn't fought to end slavery (trust me, as black man this is a common belief that a lot of people, especially black people cling to which isn't entirely true). The war was fought to keep the union for fracturing. At it's core, the war was economics based with the south being afraid that the north would have an unfair advantage and the North being tired of what they saw as the south's advantage of free labor.
Were there people who were fighting to make sure the slaves were free and equal? Probably, somewhere I am uncertain of that. What I do know, is that while Lincoln has the reputation as the great emancipator he did not, in fact, believe blacks equal to whites and merely issued the emancipation proclamation primarily as a tactic of war against the south. In his time, war, while not desirable in the least, was the only tool he had in his tool chest.
Fast forward to King and we see a very hard struggle but a different sort of struggle. The struggle didn't come with war but with speeches and protests. King saw war as an unacceptable answer and found a different tool in the tool chest. Also, King's following was across numerous demographics and there were many people of varying ages following and listening to his message.
Now we have an even better tool. Education. I do not think speeches and marches are particularly necessary here but I do think that if you simply let people know and give them the information fear of difference (the driving factor behind this sort of thing) starts to go away.
That being said, I think that if parents would give this education to their children in their homes as mine did, this might not be as much of a problem. Still, that's a conversation for a different debate.
You can check out my artwork here and here
With the transgendered...the only way that they will ever be accepted socially is once you convince people that someone actually thinks that they are a different sex. Personally I don't believe it. They are protected under the same rights as any other red blooded American though. What exactly is their struggle? Isn't it just a notch up from being gay?
I really don't know what the fight for equality is. Transgendered people have the exact same rights as anyone else. Isn't there even a Congressman or Mayor that is transgendered? The only thing that you could be "fighting" for is people thinking that you are normal. Good luck with that.
So to your point about wanting to indoctrinate my child with this in kindergarten....neither myself nor most of America are going to be getting on board. If my kid decides to be gay or transgendered later in life...so be it. That is his choice. He doesn't need a liberal transgendered person coaxing him into it.
[EDH] Ob Nixilis the Fallen
It's a strawman if your argument is misrepresented.
Or it's a slippery slope fallacy if you think it's saying, "If A, therefore B,C,D,E,F,G,H and ultimately Z" without warrant.
I do believe your argument was misrepresented because I have misunderstood it. I believed your argument to be that dress is merely societal convention, but you appear not to have been saying that at all now. Rather, that one form of dress considered culturally acceptable should be culturally acceptable to all.
It's a unique scenario because while I did mistakenly misrepresent your argument, I was tacitly agreeing with that misrepresentation. So by no means was my intention to demonize your argument.
We have a young woman at my college who doesn't identify well with her gender. If she wants to come to school in a suit and tie with her hair cut really short or tied in a short ponytail with her chest bound and no make up she can and nobody bats an eye. If she came to high school like that I doubt it would have been much different.
How is it not a double standard to not allow what happened in the article from the guy?
@ljossberir my apologies then because I seem to have misunderstood your intentions as well. Let's start over again at some point then.
You can check out my artwork here and here
Not a problem, my fault for gravely misunderstanding your argument.
If you want to be snide and twist my words sure. I want my kid to be taught that all people are equal. Not that Suzy thinks that she is Mark.
[EDH] Ob Nixilis the Fallen