Student Suspended for wearing a dress.

[cobra_ky]

Sorry - but am I the only one here that thinks a guy wearing a dress (not a kilt) is just well...

Wrong?

I am sorry but that would just be a distraction and just wierd imo.

When girls wear guys clothes - it's fine since many guys clothes for the most part are mono-gender. Meaning they can really fit either or. Except for some few ones.

you're certainly not the only one to think that. maybe you can be the first one to come with a reasonable explanation why, though? what exactly does "mono-gender" mean? and what makes a skirt so different from a kilt? i tried one on once as a dare, and it seemed to fit me just fine.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

He only wore the pants to be a troll.

If he was actually gender-queer or a cross dresser, I think it would have been different

I'm not agreeing with the school, but I'm not buying his and his mom's bullshit about it being a moral crusade. Fucking attention whores.

This.

What was he doing wearing a dress anyway? Why not a tuxedo? Fnarr fnarr.

Captcha = courteous; ideWaa

 

[Korten12]

Sorry - but am I the only one here that thinks a guy wearing a dress (not a kilt) is just well...

Wrong?

I am sorry but that would just be a distraction and just wierd imo.

When girls wear guys clothes - it's fine since many guys clothes for the most part are mono-gender. Meaning they can really fit either or. Except for some few ones.

you're certainly not the only one to think that. maybe you can be the first one to come with a reasonable explanation why, though? what exactly does "mono-gender" mean? and what makes a skirt so different from a kilt? i tried one on once as a dare, and it seemed to fit me just fine.

Mono-gender - at least how I use it (it's not really an actually word I believe, maybe wrong, I googled it and nothing came up, excpet on something about the Asari), is in this contex, clothes that fit both genders. Like I wear a t-shirt on a daily basis. If a girl worse this, then it would look perfectly normal, or if I wore my poleyester shorts - it would look fine.

But if I was to go around and wear short-shirts and dresses - it just doesn't fit. They aren't made for men, but women. Espicialy if guys began to wear them and say got an erection in public. It would just be WIERD and exposes. This of course isn't a problem for women.

It isn't about sexism like some say: It's just how the clothes are made.

Kilts - after looking at them - really only seem to be fine if the person is at least wearing shorts of something like that. If nothing but underwear - eeeehhh... That would be wierd. Boxers? That's fine. But even again - like I mentioned with skirts above. It's just exposed more on men then women.

 

[AlexNora]

Sorry - but am I the only one here that thinks a guy wearing a dress (not a kilt) is just well...

Wrong?

I am sorry but that would just be a distraction and just wierd imo.

When girls wear guys clothes - it's fine since many guys clothes for the most part are mono-gender. Meaning they can really fit either or. Except for some few ones.

For people who say: But theres no specific rule saying that he can't.

Well my school rules say nothing against bringing a katana to school. But I know I shouldn't.

so anything that's not pleasant for you to look at needs to change?

some people have faces that are disturbing to look at but they don't exist to be pleasing to my viewing plate and if i don't want to look i can just not look.

your viewpoint is very selfish and your katana scenario is so irrelevant that even you know its wrong.

 

[Korten12]

so anything that's not pleasant for you to look at needs to change?

What? No, when did I ever mention that ANYTHING (Being the key word) that isn't pleasent for me needs to be changed.

some people have faces that are disturbing to look at but they don't exist to be pleasing to my viewing plate and if i don't want to look i can just not look.

Last time I checked that isn't a choice. If someone's face is naturally ugly - they can't do anything about that (well they can, but not really advised.)

your viewpoint is very selfish and your katana scenario is so irrelevant that even you know its wrong.

This is irrelevant and what I was implying was that it's an unwritten rule that is obvious that even if it isn't written down that you know you will get in trouble for.

Also you completely - ignored this whole part:

When girls wear guys clothes - it's fine since many guys clothes for the most part are mono-gender. Meaning they can really fit either or. Except for some few ones.

Which then I further explained in my discussion with cobra ky:

Mono-gender - at least how I use it (it's not really an actually word I believe, maybe wrong, I googled it and nothing came up, excpet on something about the Asari), is in this contex, clothes that fit both genders. Like I wear a t-shirt on a daily basis. If a girl worse this, then it would look perfectly normal, or if I wore my poleyester shorts - it would look fine.

But if I was to go around and wear short-shirts and dresses - it just doesn't fit. They aren't made for men, but women. Espicialy if guys began to wear them and say got an erection in public. It would just be WIERD and exposes. This of course isn't a problem for women.

It isn't about sexism like some say: It's just how the clothes are made.

 

[cobra_ky]

Sorry - but am I the only one here that thinks a guy wearing a dress (not a kilt) is just well...

Wrong?

I am sorry but that would just be a distraction and just wierd imo.

When girls wear guys clothes - it's fine since many guys clothes for the most part are mono-gender. Meaning they can really fit either or. Except for some few ones.

you're certainly not the only one to think that. maybe you can be the first one to come with a reasonable explanation why, though? what exactly does "mono-gender" mean? and what makes a skirt so different from a kilt? i tried one on once as a dare, and it seemed to fit me just fine.

Mono-gender - at least how I use it (it's not really an actually word I believe, maybe wrong, I googled it and nothing came up, excpet on something about the Asari), is in this contex, clothes that fit both genders. Like I wear a t-shirt on a daily basis. If a girl worse this, then it would look perfectly normal, or if I wore my poleyester shorts - it would look fine.

But if I was to go around and wear short-shirts and dresses - it just doesn't fit. They aren't made for men, but women. Espicialy if guys began to wear them and say got an erection in public. It would just be WIERD and exposes. This of course isn't a problem for women.

It isn't about sexism like some say: It's just how the clothes are made.

Kilts - after looking at them - really only seem to be fine if the person is at least wearing shorts of something like that. If nothing but underwear - eeeehhh... That would be wierd. Boxers? That's fine. But even again - like I mentioned with skirts above. It's just exposed more on men then women.

i don't know, i mean i wear pants all the time and erections are still pretty awkward regardless. i suppose a guy couldn't go quite as ridiculously short as some women do, but there's nothing too revealing about say, an ankle-length number.

 

['Record Stops.']

Ohhhh yay, masculinity. Women are congratulated for wearing pants while men are vilified for wearing dresses. I think it's screwed up and fundamentally flawed.

Spoiler: Fun picture

Note: the "you" is directed at people who display that attitude.

So what if he did it as a dare, or as a statement, or for attention? One could argue that it's a valid protest if he's doing it aware of the background of transphobia and gender roles. In fact, I think we should be encouraging men to wear clothes gendered female. More skirts for men!

....AND that picture makes my question my sexuality...AGAIN. DAMN YOU BRIDGET! DAMN YOU AND YOUR SEXY TRAP STATUS!

 

[Korten12]

Sorry - but am I the only one here that thinks a guy wearing a dress (not a kilt) is just well...

Wrong?

I am sorry but that would just be a distraction and just wierd imo.

When girls wear guys clothes - it's fine since many guys clothes for the most part are mono-gender. Meaning they can really fit either or. Except for some few ones.

you're certainly not the only one to think that. maybe you can be the first one to come with a reasonable explanation why, though? what exactly does "mono-gender" mean? and what makes a skirt so different from a kilt? i tried one on once as a dare, and it seemed to fit me just fine.

Mono-gender - at least how I use it (it's not really an actually word I believe, maybe wrong, I googled it and nothing came up, excpet on something about the Asari), is in this contex, clothes that fit both genders. Like I wear a t-shirt on a daily basis. If a girl worse this, then it would look perfectly normal, or if I wore my poleyester shorts - it would look fine.

But if I was to go around and wear short-shirts and dresses - it just doesn't fit. They aren't made for men, but women. Espicialy if guys began to wear them and say got an erection in public. It would just be WIERD and exposes. This of course isn't a problem for women.

It isn't about sexism like some say: It's just how the clothes are made.

Kilts - after looking at them - really only seem to be fine if the person is at least wearing shorts of something like that. If nothing but underwear - eeeehhh... That would be wierd. Boxers? That's fine. But even again - like I mentioned with skirts above. It's just exposed more on men then women.

i don't know, i mean i wear pants all the time and erections are still pretty awkward regardless. i suppose a guy couldn't go quite as ridiculously short as some women do, but there's nothing too revealing about say, an ankle-length number.

True - they're still wierd but they are more concield to everyone else - at least most of the time.

But there's also the thing. Women shave their legs (most do at least) while men... Don't which would make things like dresses and skirts look wierd because it would expose all of that extra hair.

Now then you would say: Well what about shorts?

See then it's... It just looks better when you were shorts then otherwise. It's hard to explain. Really it's because when you see a person in a dress you don't expect to look down when obseving their whole image, to suddenly see a bunch of hairy legs.

Not that legs ever truly get overly hairy.

 

[magnuslion]

eh. I could not care less what people choose to wear, regardless of their gender. I wore a kilt several times in high school, and still do from time to time, and it has nothing to do with genderqueer or anything like that. I'm a scot. I think that if there is no clearly defined rule, the school screwed up. and if there was one, the would have already screwed up.

 

[Ogargd]

What assholes, seriously, the boy wants to express himself so let him. Bloody conservatives just want to suppress everyone into the same boring old drone.

 

[cobra_ky]

....AND that picture makes my question my sexuality...AGAIN. DAMN YOU BRIDGET! DAMN YOU AND YOUR SEXY TRAP STATUS!

see, this is why i always read video game manuals. explains his/her whole backstory and everything!

But there's also the thing. Women shave their legs (most do at least) while men... Don't which would make things like dresses and skirts look wierd because it would expose all of that extra hair.

Now then you would say: Well what about shorts?

See then it's... It just looks better when you were shorts then otherwise. It's hard to explain. Really it's because when you see a person in a dress you don't expect to look down when obseving their whole image, to suddenly see a bunch of hairy legs.

Not that legs ever truly get overly hairy.

there's a fairly simple explanation, and you've already given it: it's weird. it's unusual. it's unexpected. and that's fine; you have a right to feel that way. But people also have a right to dress how they wish to.

 

[Instinct Blues]

He only wore the pants to be a troll.

If he was actually gender-queer or a cross dresser, I think it would have been different

I'm not agreeing with the school, but I'm not buying his and his mom's bullshit about it being a moral crusade. Fucking attention whores.

You said it man.

 

[AlexNora]

so anything that's not pleasant for you to look at needs to change?

What? No, when did I ever mention that ANYTHING (Being the key word) that isn't pleasent for me needs to be changed.

some people have faces that are disturbing to look at but they don't exist to be pleasing to my viewing plate and if i don't want to look i can just not look.

Last time I checked that isn't a choice. If someone's face is naturally ugly - they can't do anything about that (well they can, but not really advised.)

your viewpoint is very selfish and your katana scenario is so irrelevant that even you know its wrong.

This is irrelevant and what I was implying was that it's an unwritten rule that is obvious that even if it isn't written down that you know you will get in trouble for.

Also you completely - ignored this whole part:

When girls wear guys clothes - it's fine since many guys clothes for the most part are mono-gender. Meaning they can really fit either or. Except for some few ones.

Which then I further explained in my discussion with cobra ky:

Mono-gender - at least how I use it (it's not really an actually word I believe, maybe wrong, I googled it and nothing came up, excpet on something about the Asari), is in this contex, clothes that fit both genders. Like I wear a t-shirt on a daily basis. If a girl worse this, then it would look perfectly normal, or if I wore my poleyester shorts - it would look fine.

But if I was to go around and wear short-shirts and dresses - it just doesn't fit. They aren't made for men, but women. Espicialy if guys began to wear them and say got an erection in public. It would just be WIERD and exposes. This of course isn't a problem for women.

It isn't about sexism like some say: It's just how the clothes are made.

having an ugly face inst a choice so its ok?

you dont understand how selfish you sound do you? your saying if someone makes a choice to be visually displeasing to you its wrong. you would essentially assert your standard onto other people simply so you would not be momentary disturbed

image with me a scenario where the song you hate the most is being played while your riding in your friends car. now imagine your friend really likes this song, so you are in a bit of a predicament. your choice is simple you ask your friend to please change this song stating how you really don't like it, but if he says no do you have any right to to be frustrated with him? would you tell him listing to this song is wrong because it bothers you?

just think about that. just think about whether it is really ok to call what other people enjoy wrong because it bothers you.

 

[Instinct Blues]

there's a fairly simple explanation, and you've already given it: it's weird. it's unusual. it's unexpected. and that's fine; you have a right to feel that way. But people also have a right to dress how they wish to.

Not if its against the school dress code and I know that in this situation its not, but there are some rules that are unwritten that everyone just adheres to because they make sense. It like no one tells you its against the rules to flip a desk upside down or start shouting in the class room because they never thought anyone would be that stupid to actually do it. It'd be a completely different situation if this kid was cross-dresser or a homosexual, but hes not he just made a stupid bet with his mom and it bit him in the ass.

 

[MoeTheMonk]

I reckon a 15-yr old boy stumbling around in a full-length dress and high-heels during school would probably be more than a little distracting for most people. The school had every right to do this, for the same reasons they send people home for other "distractions" like tatoos and whatnot.
I don't know why the legions of liberal moralists on the Escapist take every opportunity to blow every issue like this into some vast right-wing conspiracy to keep the transvestite man down.

 

[AlexNora]

I reckon a 15-yr old boy stumbling around in a full-length dress and high-heels during school would probably be more than a little distracting for most people. The school had every right to do this, for the same reasons they send people home for other "distractions" like tatoos and whatnot.
I don't know why the legions of liberal moralists on the Escapist take every opportunity to blow every issue like this into some vast right-wing conspiracy to keep the transvestite man down.

its fun debating about things we find important I don't believe people are ever truly set in there ways so I like trying to get them on my side now so in the future ill have more support
for myself or others when we need it.

 

[Lythiaren]

So I read every source for this story that has been linked in this thread. Then I read the entire thread.

I have to say, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned details that would have been otherwise covered by reading more than just the first post. The King5 and Q13 links to the story fill in a very important detail: the initial intention was not to suspend him. He was called into the dean's office and told to go home because he was a distraction. The suspension only came about after he decided to say that the dean was being sexist.

He was not being suspended for wearing a dress to school. He was suspended for insulting the dean. I suspect the reversal of the suspension came around when the administration realized that the punishment was excessive. I'd say the dean probably pushed for his exclusion from the dance and trip because of the personal insult.

The media of course decided to twist the story a little and focus it on the dress instead. That said, yes, he did look pretty. He and his mom sound awesome, if a little impulsive. Maybe they should move him to a school that doesn't have a reputation (according to comments in the other news links) for being stupid when it comes to individuality.


@Korten12: I believe the word you're looking for is "unisex", not "mono-gender".

 

[AlexNora]

So I read every source for this story that has been linked in this thread. Then I read the entire thread.

I have to say, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned details that would have been otherwise covered by reading more than just the first post. The King5 and Q13 links to the story fill in a very important detail: the initial intention was not to suspend him. He was called into the dean's office and told to go home because he was a distraction. The suspension only came about after he decided to say that the dean was being sexist.

He was not being suspended for wearing a dress to school. He was suspended for insulting the dean. I suspect the reversal of the suspension (as well as exclusion from the dance and trip) came around when the administration realized that the punishment was excessive. I'd say the dean probably pushed for those particular exclusions because of the personal insult.

The media of course decided to twist the story a little and focus it on the dress instead. That said, yes, he did look pretty. He and his mom sound awesome, if a little impulsive. Maybe they should move him to a school that doesn't have a reputation (according to comments in the other news links) for being stupid when it comes to individuality.

he sounds pretty sexist to me. i would be like you distracted me from class so you go home!

ok iv never been so outspoken but sometimes i wish i was XD

yeah doesn't mono mean one?

 

[cobra_ky]

there's a fairly simple explanation, and you've already given it: it's weird. it's unusual. it's unexpected. and that's fine; you have a right to feel that way. But people also have a right to dress how they wish to.

Not if its against the school dress code and I know that in this situation its not, but there are some rules that are unwritten that everyone just adheres to because they make sense. It like no one tells you its against the rules to flip a desk upside down or start shouting in the class room because they never thought anyone would be that stupid to actually do it. It'd be a completely different situation if this kid was cross-dresser or a homosexual, but hes not he just made a stupid bet with his mom and it bit him in the ass.

this rule doesn't make sense though. how would they know the reason he did it? why does it matter if he's homosexual or not? does that make it any less 'disruptive', assuming it's even disruptive at all?

 

[SextusMaximus]

He only wore the pants to be a troll.

If he was actually gender-queer or a cross dresser, I think it would have been different

I'm not agreeing with the school, but I'm not buying his and his mom's bullshit about it being a moral crusade. Fucking attention whores.

Calm down, the kid did it as a dare. You didn't do dares as a child?