Christian parents 'to sue school' coz boy in son's class was allowed to wear dress

B0jangles wrote: »

I am female actually.

To flip the question on its head, while I have quite a lot of dresses and a lot of skirts, I do like to really question the fundamental biological rules that make it necessary for me (as a female) to wear skirts and dresses by sometimes wearing TROUSERS.

Of course, it causes a mini-riot every time I leave the house in clothes which are clearly only acceptable for men to wear, but I like to live dangerously.

So, women wear trousers, the young child could have been put in trousers by his parents and still identified as a girl. It could make the transition easier for her and her friends to get used to. Parents still have a role to play in dressing their children, just as if the Darth Vader fan wanted to go to school as Darth Vader, I'd imagine the parents would say no. He could still channel his inner Vader.



But there is a lot of guesswork about EVERYONE'S motivation in this story based on little evidence, I'm guilty of it too, so I'll stop.

circadian wrote: »

My little girl is a bit of a tomboy. Doesn't like dresses and is quite rough and ready. I guess letting her wear trousers to school is a problem.

Can't really comment on a boy wearing a dress without knowing the actual reason why. If my son wanted to wear a dress, then sure grand if it's what he wants to do. A bit unusual but he's not harming anyone.

I bought my 3 year old niece a batman costume. Because she likes batman. And the batgirl costumes look crap.

Apparently I'm pushing an ideology when I bought it.

Gravelly wrote: »

Poor kid - if and when he figures out either that he was just going through a phase, or he was brainwashed by the parents (hopefully before they've had time to book him in for an operation) he can go back to being a boy again, but in this age of camera phones and social media, the evidence of his humiliation will haunt him forever.

Gender reassingment surgery is not a fcuking haircut. The parents don't simply walk into see a surgeon as say "can you take a bit of the penis please?" There will be years of consulation and counselling all of which is deisnged to make sure the reasons for the change are valid genuine, and the parents wanting a transgender kid as a fashion accessory is neither a valid nor a genuine reason.

MrP

Omackeral wrote: »

Everyone is so progressive. I'd love if people here would just admit to themselves they'd look twice or find it a little bit odd if a kid in their child's all-boys school (for example) came in wearing a pink dress with a tiara on.

I am not sure that is something that requires "admission" really. It is a given, just human nature.

For example I was very active in debates and campaigning for gay marriage at the referendum. Yet I still "look twice" or "find it a bit odd" on the rare occasion I see same gender people kissing. Humans "look twice" or "find odd" anything they have never seen before, or see very rarely. We have a biological brain that is often on "standby" and it comes online the moment anything remotely out of the ordinary happens around it.

I could say the same about Black people (less so since moving to Germany where there is somewhat more of them) and people in wheelchairs. If an albino walked past me I would look twice and find it somewhat "odd". Hell there is a guy in the warehouse here that has such an oddly shaped head that I double take at him when I see him, and I see him on average once a fortnight. The same too of a guy in our finance department who has the most spectacular beard.

We are human. Anything that deviates from our common mundane experience makes us "look twice". So I would urge caution around anyone who suggests to you that you treat THIS one case of it any different to any other.

Omackeral wrote: »

Does it harm any of the other kids? No, not at all. Would the child in the dress be made fun of? I'd say he would, more than likely.

As I said above to another user, I think that likely depends more on WHO is wearing the dress than THAT they are wearing the dress. If it is a confident and popular outgoing kid then I doubt there would be much being made fun of in anything but the most jovial way. If the kid is the class loner, shy boy, or otherwise vulnerable however I expect more of it, and with much more malice.

It really can not be said enough but bullys do not seek reasons to bully someone. They seek the target first (usually the vulnerable loner or someone otherwise weak) and select the material and reasons to bully them as an incidental after thought.

Omackeral wrote: »

However, if you willingly send your kid off to school in a dress, you can't be shocked if comments are made. Let's be real.

As I said above, I reckon the same could have been said about the first parents (before it became a full blown movement) who let their kids go out dressed up in the fashions of the Punk Generation of clothes and hairstyles.

There are always kids who deviate from main stream fashion norms. In every generation. And there are always parents who allow (and others who disallow) them from doing so.

And for most of the parents who did not allow it, many of the kids went out in the "right" clothes and simply went over to their mates house to change. Hell when I was in school the girls all left home in modest long pants while daddy waved them goodbye, before congregating in someones house and switching to tiny skirts to go to "the grove" in.

If a child really wants to wear a certain fashion, then their parents saying no is very often not going to stop them.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Are they though? Parents who "let" their children do it are not "making" their child the focus of anything. The child making the decision is doing so aware they will be making themselves the focus of attention, negative or positive. Is it any different to, say, the parents who "let" their children of the punk era go out with green spiked monstrosities shaved into the middle of their head?

No it is not the same as punk.
Punk was a movement, it was music and fashion trend.
It could be seen as cool.
It was also rebellious and a fook the system kind of thing, much like hippie was a decade before.
It was to become somewhat cool.

It wasn't a young boy in dresses.

Also as Omackeral says, this isn't a teenager.
It is a 6 year or 8 year old.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I find myself doubting that it, as that is rarely how bullying works. Bullies tend to select vulnerable targets first, and decide on the material to use during the bullying second.

Any child self confident enough, and open enough, and outgoing enough to decide for themselves they are going to walk out of the house in clothing that focuses attention strongly on them.......... is not likely to be the kind of child that bullys are going to turn their attention on.

And bullies do not tend to pick targets that are the focus of EVERYONEs attention either. They tend to target the kid no one sees, no one cares that much about, no one notices, and no one is focused on.

It is a case by case thing of course, but in general bullies are cowards that look for weak victims first....... and the material they use to base the bullying on is incidental.

Put the school jock who happens to have pink dress wearing flamboyant gay male parents in the same school as the quiet little loner who has a pimple on his nose......... and I know which one most bullies are going to go for and what they will bully him about. Their insipid animal cowardice and weakness will send them to the vulnerable target, and the pimple will just be an incidental "nice to have" to work with as an opener.

Yes maybe the boy in a dress is ultra confident, but he is very different.
He is in a dress and that makes him stand very apart from his peers.
He is going to be slagged unmercifully.

BTW I think the chance of having a school jock in a pink dress is slim to none.
Perhaps you should check out Gareth Thomas and his life and work since retiring before you make pronouncements like that.

jmayo wrote: »

No it is not the same as punk.

A rock is not the same as a car. But if they are both grey I can comment on that similarity

A boy going to school in a dress is not the exact same as a kid going out in the clothes of a fashion sub-culture either. But there are similarities. And it is those similarities I was commenting on.

Specifically that of a minority of students (in this case one, but not always) who choose to dress in a way that they themselves KNOW will draw attention (negative, positive, or even both) of their peers and superiors.

Also while at different times things like punk was seen by many as a movement, somewhat cool to some, the opposite to others..... the FIRST people to do it would have had no such assurances. They would have been every bit as odd to the eye, as a boy in a dress is to us today. That it THEN progressed to be a cool movement, subculture, and social class changed things sure, but not at first.

jmayo wrote: »

It wasn't guys in dresses.

Well it almost was for some The punks I was in overlapping circles with (I was never in their circles in my social teen time, but overlapped with them a lot in the circles I was in) guys wearing red kilts was part of the look at the time for some of them. I remember one really fetching outfit of a spiked greed hair.... black leather on top.... all over a short red kilt and deliberately ripped black tights. Finished off with boots double laced all the way up to the knees and a key chain going from the belt area up to a nose ring.

jmayo wrote: »

Yes maybe the boy in a dress is ultra confident, but he is very different. He is in a dress and that makes him stand very apart from his peers. He is going to be slagged unmercifully.

Again I think it entirely depends on the person doing it. I reckon both the quantity of slagging, and the tone and intent of it, will vary wildly depending on what kid of kid is going in in the dress. The more popular outgoing kids will get some quantity of jovial ribbing. The school unpopular loner however will get a greater quantity I fear, and of a more malicious and hurtful nature and intention.

jmayo wrote: »

BTW I think the chance of having a school jock in a pink dress is slim to none. Perhaps you should check out Gareth Thomas and his life and work since retiring before you make pronouncements like that.

Did someone mention a jock in a pink dress ? Perhaps before making pronouncements on my pronouncements you might care to read them a little closer first? :P

But the point I think is clear. The quantity, tone, intention and form of slagging any boy is going to get in our modern world for dressing in "girls" clothes is going to vary wildly depending on who is doing it.

B0jangles wrote: »

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Congratulations. You've won the award for most idiotic comment of the day. Have you even read any of the other comments. It's not about the dress. It's about the enormous pressure on children to conform to a mass delusion.

Which delusion is that? That it is a biological requirement that male human beings dress wear two tubes of fabric on their lower limbs. (This is a delusion btw)

Or

The scientifically established fact that transgender people have differences in their brain structures compared to cisgendered people, so dismissing their experiences as delusion tells me that your personal biases are probably stronger than your scientific knowledge.

The kids, who are 6 years old, are being told that on the days this child wears a dress that they are a girl and must be addressed as such. On the days they are not wearing a dress they are a boy and must be addressed as such. They are being told that wearing a dress transforms a male into a female. If they fail the grasp this concept, acknowledge that this is their friend 'John' just wearing different clothing, or address the child incorrectly then they are transphobic according to the school. 6 year olds. Do you think that this is the correct way for the school to handle this issue?

Nothing wrong with a boy wearing a dress. That does not magically change the child's sex and forcing young children to pretend it does rather than having a proper discussion about it is weird.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Explain to who exactly? You??

Children don't get to do anything they want just because they want to ........ it's our job, as a parent, to point them in the right (right as each parent(s) sees it) direction and protect them as we see fit.

THEY need to have their parents explain to them why their parents think there classmate is 'not okay' and 'wrong/weird'. And why they can't wear what they want to wear!

There's nothing wrong with it.: it's a piece of clothing! If a child likes it, then so be it! It's a piece of clothing, that's it!