Cross Dressing in High School

[Walsingham]

I mentioned this to a friend of mine and he told me that there is a trans-sexual lecturer at RMA Sandhurst. If the Army officer training academy can handle it then kids ought to.

 

As for inciting tension I don't see the issue. What about a sikh wearing his topknot or turban? If he gets into fights because he's a sikh whose fault is that? Whereas I do see the issue if he wore waffen SS dress uniform.

[Gorgon]

Dispensations for wearing SS uniforms are :

 

1. While shooting a ww2 movie.

2. Strippers.

 

Not other acceptable exceptions.

[Walsingham]

What if I made my domestic staff wear them while hoovering?

[~Di]

I know I'll probably regret posting this, but I'm just kind of confused as to how I feel about this story. On one hand, I think the school has a point in that it's probably disruptive. On the other hand, my sense of personal freedom inclines me to think that the boy should be allowed to dress as he desires as long as he conforms to basic and common sense guidelines, such as not running around the school nude etc.

 

http://news.aol.com/article/georgia-school...scobar%2F707800

 

I'm all for his personal freedoms and right to dress the way he wishes... except when he's in school. Many if not most schools have dress codes (which have been upheld in court). Can't have gang members sporting their colors on the quad. Can't have obscene teeshirts wandering the halls. Can't have girls wearing skirts so short their crotch shows. So yes, schools have a right to dictate what apparel is off-limits on their campuses.

 

Personally, if I was in charge of that school, I'd allow it so long as it otherwise conformed with the dress codes... for both sexes.

Edited October 9, 2009 by ~Di

[213374U]

Um, why do I get the impression that everything is turned into a debate about "FREEDOM" these days? He's just a teen fooling around. He's testing the limits of the discipline that's supposed to apply to him. Hardly news.

 

Let's put things back in perspective, shall we?

 

 

Nope. It's the job of the school. And, it's been proven in courts hence why schools are now required to not segregate students.

You are mixing things up. Not segregating students is about some Constitutional principle or other that talks about discrimination. That's not the same as actively educating children. If schools had to do the parenting as well, what happens with the kids that are educated by their parents (an alien concept to be sure) and go to school to learn about silly things like math and history?

 

 

I mentioned this to a friend of mine and he told me that there is a trans-sexual lecturer at RMA Sandhurst. If the Army officer training academy can handle it then kids ought to.

 

As for inciting tension I don't see the issue. What about a sikh wearing his topknot or turban? If he gets into fights because he's a sikh whose fault is that? Whereas I do see the issue if he wore waffen SS dress uniform.

Did this lecturer undergo his (her?) surgery to make a statement? It would be worth knowing if lecturers are under the same discipline and regulations as students, too.

 

And yeah, Waffen-SS posers suck. Gestapo is where it's at, I say!

[Amentep]

Um, why do I get the impression that everything is turned into a debate about "FREEDOM™" these days? He's just a teen fooling around. He's testing the limits of the discipline that's supposed to apply to him. Hardly news.

 

Let's put things back in perspective, shall we?

 

I don't really think its about FREEDOM

[213374U]

Good thing you mentioned the wig, I had forgotten about that. If not FREEDOM, what's this about, then?

[Walsingham]

The lecturer is generally flamboyant. Always has been. If you watch the history channel you'll probably have seen him before he became a she.

 

You can hardly discipline a student for being flamboyant tho.

 

In my opinion this just underscores the need for school uniform. Uniforms are cheaper for most parents and take away two sources of trouble (competitiveness, sticking out) while neatly giving students something to rebel against that doesn't actually hurt anyone.

[Amentep]

Good thing you mentioned the wig, I had forgotten about that. If not FREEDOM™, what's this about, then?

 

I guess about whether he should or shouldn't be able to dress in women's clothes and whether what he did wear was against a "reasonble" (in lieu of looking up the school system's) dress code.

 

The lecturer is generally flamboyant. Always has been. If you watch the history channel you'll probably have seen him before he became a she.

 

You can hardly discipline a student for being flamboyant tho.

 

In my opinion this just underscores the need for school uniform. Uniforms are cheaper for most parents and take away two sources of trouble (competitiveness, sticking out) while neatly giving students something to rebel against that doesn't actually hurt anyone.

 

There's a lot of fight against school uniforms - not just because the teens object to not being able to dress to impress.

 

There's a lot of discontent from parents over perceived price gouging from the vendors (since all uniforms have to have the school logo on it) because there's nowhere else to go.

[213374U]

Good thing you mentioned the wig, I had forgotten about that. If not FREEDOM, what's this about, then?

 

I guess about whether he should or shouldn't be able to dress in women's clothes and whether what he did wear was against a "reasonble" (in lieu of looking up the school system's) dress code.

And since there is no mathematical proof for "reasonable" and it's hardly self-evident, there will always be some people that will stand against what is "reasonable", with whatever excuses. In this case, the excuse is personal expression (a subset of FREEDOM).

[Guard Dog]

It's not about freedom, it's about decorum. A school is an institution designed to achieve a purpose. If a boy dressed as a girl is a distraction to people that is a flaw in ourselves as human beings. But for a school to function it must mitigate distractions and if they deem that to do that they must inconvience this one kid, then that is how it is. He does have other options and he can dress how he pleases after school of during after school functions like dances, football games, whatever. The same could be said of any business enviorment. It's their sandbox. You want to play in it you live by their rules. If thats unacceptable. go to school/work elsewhere.

 

I have made the same argument against gays in the military. It is not as if gays made inferior soldiers, there is no evidence they do. There are certainly gays serving right now. It's that open homosexuality is damaging to morale. The fact that it is true again shows that we are flawed creatures because it should not be something anyone thinks about. But because it is a problem it must be avoided because the whole of the military must not be damaged to accomedate a few individuals.

 

Not to change the subject, I was just trying to make a point.

[Aristes]

Your point is the strongest for the school, GD.

 

...And you're right, numbered one, a lot of Americans think first and foremost "does this take away someone's (and therefor my) freedom?" We really do make it all about personal freedom, even when it might not be appropriate. Still, that's pretty much our character, at least for many of us.

 

I do believe the child is merely acting out, which is to say that he really does not have any sort of driving need to dress like a 'girl.' That being the case, I suppose that the school is well within its rights to force compliance. The only confusing question I have is, what constitutes reasonable. I don't think it's as hopeless to define as numbers, but I do agree that it's quite hard to pin down and that what is reasonable does change. For example, what was reasonable in terms of personal attire was quite different when I was going to high school than right now.

 

Nevertheless, the bottom line is that folks like Moose and Guard Dog make a strong case for the school stepping in, not because they want to punish personal expression, but because there is always some tension when our individual freedom comes into conflict with the confines of society.

[213374U]

For example, what was reasonable in terms of personal attire was quite different when I was going to high school than right now.

 

 

Some things should never go out of fashion.

[Aristes]

I'm not that damned old!

[Gfted1]

Too over-the-top, 4/10.

[213374U]

Yup.

[Walsingham]

... and our illustrious professor turns out to be a military theorist too. Or does the dialectic cover that in a sort of two-for-one package?

 

Simply because ancient militaries used and excused homosexuality doesn't make it right. They also permitted freebooting, torture, rape and so on and so forth. I'm not for a moment suggesting being gay is teh same as those things, but you follow my point.

 

As it happens I think there could be more open-ness about homsexuality in the military. I think that at the end of the day it simply reflects the background of the guys in service. GD's right that having a gay guy 'surface' in a platoon is as disruptive as a u-boat surfacing among a pack of liberty ships, but does it have to be? I don't know, frankly. I can see it would complicate things in the field because it creates cross-currents of emotion and pressure which are simply not in the 'design specifications' of the system. *shrugs*

 

However, I think you could be a bit more ****ing respectful given that GD has actually served and you're just some bloke at a desk. He's earned the right to an opinion.

[lord of flies]

They also permitted freebooting, torture, rape and so on and so forth.

What a coincidence. Modern militaries also often engage in this sort of behavior. For example, Guantanamo Bay, or the Israeli "Defense" Force's treatment of Palestinian civilians in the Occupied Territories.

As it happens I think there could be more open-ness about homsexuality in the military. I think that at the end of the day it simply reflects the background of the guys in service. GD's right that having a gay guy 'surface' in a platoon is as disruptive as a u-boat surfacing among a pack of liberty ships, but does it have to be? I don't know, frankly. I can see it would complicate things in the field because it creates cross-currents of emotion and pressure which are simply not in the 'design specifications' of the system. *shrugs*

Replace "open gays in heterosexual units" with "black people in integrated units," blah-de-blah-de-da.

However, I think you could be a bit more ****ing respectful given that GD has actually served and you're just some bloke at a desk. He's earned the right to an opinion.

Oh, I see, so I have to go kill some brown folks to "earn" the "right" to an opinion? Might I remind you that by definition, if something has to be earned, it is not a right?

[Amentep]

Good thing you mentioned the wig, I had forgotten about that. If not FREEDOM™, what's this about, then?

 

I guess about whether he should or shouldn't be able to dress in women's clothes and whether what he did wear was against a "reasonble" (in lieu of looking up the school system's) dress code.

And since there is no mathematical proof for "reasonable" and it's hardly self-evident, there will always be some people that will stand against what is "reasonable", with whatever excuses. In this case, the excuse is personal expression (a subset of FREEDOM™).

 

Well if reasonable was able to be well defined then there'd be little to talk about or discuss; this thread would be an initial post and a lot of affirmation replies after it.

 

It's not about freedom, it's about decorum. A school is an institution designed to achieve a purpose. If a boy dressed as a girl is a distraction to people that is a flaw in ourselves as human beings. But for a school to function it must mitigate distractions and if they deem that to do that they must inconvience this one kid, then that is how it is. He does have other options and he can dress how he pleases after school of during after school functions like dances, football games, whatever. The same could be said of any business enviorment. It's their sandbox. You want to play in it you live by their rules. If thats unacceptable. go to school/work elsewhere.

 

True, and I don't think the school was outside of their bounds within their actions. There is a mindset though that education in general should have a free and open sharing of ideas[*] within the confines of the education process, and part of that arguably could be allowing contact with people who hold to other standards.

 

While there is a certain degree of disruptive element when someone "different" from the microcosmical sociatal norms come into a school, generally speaking I'd think that the disruptiveness of the students presence would lessen as time progresses.

 

I have made the same argument against gays in the military. It is not as if gays made inferior soldiers, there is no evidence they do. There are certainly gays serving right now. It's that open homosexuality is damaging to morale. The fact that it is true again shows that we are flawed creatures because it should not be something anyone thinks about. But because it is a problem it must be avoided because the whole of the military must not be damaged to accomedate a few individuals.

 

Not to change the subject, I was just trying to make a point.

 

I'd be interested to know - how does open homosexuality[**] damage morale in the military? Having never been in the military, I've heard this argument used before but confess to not understanding it.

 

[*]although, to be fair, this never actually happens

[**]possibly this needs a definition too before coment

[Matthew Rorie]

Some interesting links on what I'm sure will be a fascinating discussion:

 

List of countries that allow gays to serve in the military

 

A study of the effects of Australia's lifting of their ban on gays in the military

 

"Based on the results of prior studies, eighteen in-depth interviews with informed military and non-military observers, and other data, this study finds that the full lifting of the ban on gay service has not led to any identifiable negative effects on troop morale, combat effectiveness, recruitment and retention, or other measures of military performance. Furthermore, available evidence suggests that policy changes associated with the lifting of the ban may have contributed to improvements in productivity and working environments for service members."

[Aristes]

I personally have a remarkable lack of concern about gays in the military one way or the other. There are homosexuals in the US military, and they serve bravely and well. The question is, what effect would the full integration have on combat readiness? I don't think a lot, but that's a touchy subject.

 

So, sure, it's perfectly legit to cite the Australian study as long as we don't assume it answers every question about the effect on the US military which, whether you like the US or not, is the most potent in the world. However, I think that the nature of military service varies greatly from country to country. Yes, there are remarkable similarities, but there are also differences. I suspect that homosexuals could be fully integrated into the US military without a problem, but I don't think that the integration in the UK or Australia has a huge bearing on that. On the other hand, I guess it does provide supporting evidence.

 

There is a distinction between race, sex, or other innate qualities and homosexuality, manner of dress, or other chosen activities. Even assuming that homosexuality is a genetic trait, the act of sex is still a decision. As such, I count it as a chosen quality. With that said, there is no equivalency between forcing dress compliance and condoning racial bigotry. You are able to choose how you dress. You can't change your skin color. There is no such thing as "don't ask, don't tell" in regards to hispanic heritage.

 

For all of my internal back and forth on the issue, however, I have two observations about the issues in this thread.

 

1) I'm not sold either way in terms of how the school should treat cross dressing.

 

2) I'm very much for fully integrating homosexuals into the military.

[Pidesco]

However, I think you could be a bit more ****ing respectful given that GD has actually served and you're just some bloke at a desk. He's earned the right to an opinion.

 

 

I'm pretty sure numbersman was once in the military.

[213374U]

I'm pretty sure numbersman was once in the military.

Got banned there, too. I don't think Wals' comment was directed at me, though.

Also, I'm probably a total n00b when compared to vets from countries such as the UK or the US. But hey, it's the feeling that counts, right?

 

Thoughts:

 

i. I never saw any gays while serving. Your guess is as good as mine as to why

ii. The only people whose morale would have been damaged if that were the case would be the gays themselves, what with NCOs and corporals being for the most part a bunch of ****ing cavemen -- people with brains were unfortunately in the minority

iii. I fully agree with lof on his ideas about anti-gay policies, in the army and elsewhere -- yet another example of the nefarious influence of the Pope

iv. I also agree with GD on the (in)convenience of things, but depending on who you ask, the purpose of a school is debatable...

 

Also, "reasonable" is closer in meaning to "consensual" than it is to "rational". In reality it has very little to do with actual rational reason.

 

edit: just realized that lof's original post (the one Wals was most likely replying to) has gone *poof*. Coming close to becoming a non-user, I see!

Edited October 10, 2009 by 213374U

[lord of flies]

edit: just realized that lof's original post (the one Wals was most likely replying to) has gone *poof*. Coming close to becoming a non-user, I see!

Still no warnings in my PM inbox or my email, don't get your hopes up. Even if there is a warning waiting in the wings, at this rate it'd take me nearly a year to get banned.

[Purkake]

You could try trolling harder if that is actually possible. Then maybe you could go out with a bang instead of ending up a worn out meme like Volourn.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Purkake