School bans skirts to make uniform gender neutral for transgender students

Parents have criticised a school which has banned girls from wearing skirts to make the uniform gender neutral for transgender students. Priory School in Lewes says from now on, all new Year 7 pupils must wear trousers.

Headteacher Tony Smith also brought in the measure to deal with complaints from parents about short skirts.

Instead of wearing a grey skirt, girls must now must wear grey trousers. But some parents feel angry trousers have been enforced at the Sussex school, which is rated good by Ofsted.

One mother, who did not want to be named, said: "My daughter and her friends are appalled by this.

"The school is creating a hostile environment for girls by treating their views with contempt: there was no consultation. It was just imposed by the head.

"The hypocrisy is what gets me the most. If girls dressing differently than boys is now to be considered sexist, then it is equally sexist to have female teachers wearing skirts and not wearing ties.

"If they want this, they must live the values they force on others and go fully gender free."

Mother-of-four Lara, who did not want to give her surname, said: "My daughter said she has got a gender and it's female so being gender neutral when she has got a gender is a big deal for her, as she proud to be a girl.

"I'm not saying the skirts being worn last year weren't obscene, but it hasn't stopped the issues as those children are in the school for the next four years and are not being made to wear trousers.

"If the headteacher was going to bring this in, he should have done it across all years. "As a mum I feel girls should be allowed to wear skirts if they want to.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/06/school-bans-skirts-make-uniform-gender-neutral-transgender-students/


Madness reigns supreme in the world of PC.

Why can't they leave things alone

The skirts were obscene? I suppose they rolled them to make them shorter. Trousers are more practical anyway.

magica wrote:Why can't they leave things alone

Because some believe enforcing their warped views onto others, somehow makes others able to fit in.

You cannot deny people wanting to identify by their biological gender.

Such things always start out with the best intentions and just end up creating far more problems than they had to begin with.

perhaps this mum should point out that their 'gender neutral' policy doesn;t make sense

i would insist that my daughter is wearing her damn skirt and if they want the 'gender neutral' fuckwittery maybe the answer is to ban trousers and have the boys wear skirts

how come this 'gender neutral' policy is favouring boys clothes?

misogynistic, patriarchal policy is what i would say

yeah, i could have bean loads of fun with that school

Shouldn't "gender equality" mean that skirts and trousers are optional for either sex?
So boys or girls can wear skirts or trousers.

eddie wrote:Shouldn't "gender equality" mean that skirts and trousers are optional for either sex?
So boys or girls can wear skirts or trousers.  

Which is acceptable and fine. As its options for what any gender wishes to wear.

Its wear something is enforced onto the rest for the benefit of a small minority..

eddie wrote:Shouldn't "gender equality" mean that skirts and trousers are optional for either sex?
So boys or girls can wear skirts or trousers.  

well exactly eddie

banning skirts does not equal gender neutral

that's why i said i would demand it the other way and insist they ban trousers instead and that includes for the male teachers

it's ridiculous

gelico wrote:

eddie wrote:Shouldn't "gender equality" mean that skirts and trousers are optional for either sex?
So boys or girls can wear skirts or trousers.  

well exactly eddie

banning skirts does not equal gender neutral

that's why i said i would demand it the other way and insist they ban trousers instead and that includes for the male teachers

it's ridiculous

I'm in agreement with you. It's dumb.

Thorin wrote:

magica wrote:Why can't they leave things alone

Because some believe enforcing their warped views onto others, somehow makes others able to fit in.

You cannot deny people wanting to identify by their biological gender.

Such things always start out with the best intentions and just end up creating far more problems than they had to begin with.

Yeah, like burkas...people should be able to wear what they want.

I have a skirt, it's called a Kilt !

In the First World War, the Germans called the kilted regiments "Ladies from Hell".

nicko wrote:In the First World War,   the Germans called the kilted regiments  "Ladies from Hell".

Because they were Scots, the most formidable warriors even created.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Because some believe enforcing their warped views onto others, somehow makes others able to fit in.

You cannot deny people wanting to identify by their biological gender.

Such things always start out with the best intentions and just end up creating far more problems than they had to begin with.

Yeah, like burkas...people should be able  to wear what they want.

Really?

So you are happy for people to walk into a bank wearing a ski-mask or balaclava then?

Again I am not stopping people what they want to wear but rightly being critical of a misogynistic belief. How its not even a choice to wear but a choice on a belief that commands them to cover up, based on fear.
Its odd how you never condemn the belief mind.

So for the slow witted sufferer of Islamophilia.



The choice is not on whether to wear, but on the belief they should wear. Thus they chose to believe that a version of Islam commands then to cover themselves up, otherwise its a sin. Of which those who do, believe if they do not, they will sin. Hence it will be a fear of a hell fire within Islam that is driving them to believe the command they must cover up.

Nobody is saying she should be stripped of wearing the hijab, but to open her eyes and see how wrong it is, that fear is driving her to believe she is commanded to wear. Believing it is a sin not to cover up wearing the hijab. All of this is taught and made to make them believe they should through a fear. In order to believe some command written down 1400 years ago.

That she understands, that if this Allah existed. Where the claims is that she must cover up, to stop the sexual advances of men. Knowing full well, it does not deter men at all. As for example rapists, will rape any woman they choose as a victim, no matter how they are dressed. Which will do nothing to prevent them the sexual advances of men and from being sexually abused or raped.

Should lead her to the following conclusions.

Either the deity she believers in created a flaw in men unknowingly. A flaw that has some men rape and sexually abuse women. Making this god utterly incompetent, in-creating such a flaw unknowingly. Where even worse. Is then blaming the woman for this flaw, for how beautiful this deity created them. By then ordering them to cover up. Claiming this will prevent the sexual advances. Even though this actually does nothing to prevent the sexual advances of men.

Or this deity created men deliberately flawed. Knowing full well, some will rape some of them anyway. (pure evil). To then yet again blame women, for the beauty this deity has created themselves and command them to cover up. Knowing again, that this command will do nothing to deter the sexual advances of men. Thus playing a rather sick game with Muslim women. Fooling them to believe it will stop men, when it never will.

Where to top this off, they are led to believe its a sin if they do no wear and will face punishments for sinning.

Thus showing how the Hijab/buska is nothing more than born from the beliefs of men, in order to control women. Clearly not born from a supposed all loving God.

So you will forgive me if I do not see the Hijab/Burka as a symbol of free expression or the empowerment of women, but the control and oppression of them.

Especially where many of their Muslims sisters are forced to wear

It makes more sense for them to wear trousers though because girls do generally wear trousers, and boys don't generally wear skirts. Besides, it's more difficult to roll trousers up at the waist to show their knickers.

Raggamuffin wrote:It makes more sense for them to wear trousers though because girls do generally wear trousers, and boys don't generally wear skirts. Besides, it's more difficult to roll trousers up at the waist to show their knickers.

Do they?

It seems its what makes more sense to "you" and not girls in general.

Raggamuffin wrote:It makes more sense for them to wear trousers though because girls do generally wear trousers, and boys don't generally wear skirts. Besides, it's more difficult to roll trousers up at the waist to show their knickers.

i get that girls generally are more than happy to wear trousers of any kind or a skirt but to ban skirts entirely is not in any way gender neutral is it.

as eddie said if their policy was to say,,boys can wear skirts if they choose to and girls can wear trousers if they choose to just so long as they adhere to school uniform rules,,,,that would be gender neutral

Girls should have the option of wearing skirt or trousers... and boys should have the option of long shorts or trousers...


It is not right to force girls to wear skirts when it is winter and cold... just as it is not right to force boys to wear trousers in summer when hot...


The excuse given in OP is to pander to 'transgender'... which would be a tiny tiny minority of school kids, if any at all in most schools... and if anything then it is them who need to do more to fit in with the 99.9% majority... not the other way round... the tail does not wag the dog...!


What next...?


There's one kid in school in a wheelchair, so all kids have to use wheelchairs too...???


One kid hasn't got any hair, so all kids have to shave off their hair too...???


These leftie PC twats need sacking!!!

gelico wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It makes more sense for them to wear trousers though because girls do generally wear trousers, and boys don't generally wear skirts. Besides, it's more difficult to roll trousers up at the waist to show their knickers.

i get that girls generally are more than happy to wear trousers of any kind or a skirt but to ban skirts entirely is not in any way gender neutral is it.  

as eddie said if their policy was to say,,boys can wear skirts if they choose to and girls can wear trousers if they choose to just so long as they adhere to school uniform rules,,,,that would be gender neutral

Yes, but I'm not really bothered about this gender-neutral nonsense, I'm talking about practicalities and girls not wearing silly skirts which show their knickers.

Raggamuffin wrote:

gelico wrote:

i get that girls generally are more than happy to wear trousers of any kind or a skirt but to ban skirts entirely is not in any way gender neutral is it.  

as eddie said if their policy was to say,,boys can wear skirts if they choose to and girls can wear trousers if they choose to just so long as they adhere to school uniform rules,,,,that would be gender neutral

Yes, but I'm not really bothered about this gender-neutral nonsense, I'm talking about practicalities and girls not wearing silly skirts which show their knickers.

The rules already exist that state skirt length must be to knees...

From the article....."Pupils have been saying why do boys have to where ties and girls don't, and girls have different uniform to boys," he said. "So we decided to have the same uniform for everybody from Year 7."

Seems the pupils were more bothered about the ties than the skirts...
Simple answer, ties should be worn by all, no need to ban the skirts.


From the article...."Another issue was that we have a small but increasing number of transgender students and therefore having the same uniform is important for them."

I'm not surprised more kids are confused now....with adults around pushing "gender neutrality" down everyones throats I'm surprised more kids don't know what the hell they are supposed to be.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, but I'm not really bothered about this gender-neutral nonsense, I'm talking about practicalities and girls not wearing silly skirts which show their knickers.

The rules already exist that state skirt length must be to knees...

Nobody seems to take much notice of that. They might be knee length at school, but they're not after school.

Seems the school is using this gender neutrality rubbish because they cant be bothered checking on the length of the skirts and doing something about it if they are worn too short.
Lazy teaching disguised  as sexual equality.

Of course boys will complain about having to wear ties and long trousers in summer time... and the getting in trouble for not doing so... while girls get away with much cooler clothing...!!!


All wear ties, and choice of skirt/trousers for girls, and shorts/trousers for boys...!!!


Simple!!!

Or simple get rid of uniforms and allow kids to wear clothes they feel comfortable in when studying.

Uniforms are good, it puts shool kids on an even playing field.
But not so even that boys and girls have to wear the exact same clothes.

Where has all the good common sense gone?

Syl wrote:Uniforms are good, it puts shool kids on an even playing field.
But not so even that boys and girls have to wear the exact same clothes.

Where has all the good common sense gone?

Nonsense does it place kids on an even playing field, as everyone looks different already, as it places them in an arena different from there everyday life.

Kids see each other out of school and out of uniform. You cannot mollycoddle children, but help them deal with each other in real life, looking how they are, no matter how they are dressed. A uniform seeks to cloud that.

Its an archaic system born from elitist snobbery and simple is not needed in the 21st century.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:Uniforms are good, it puts shool kids on an even playing field.
But not so even that boys and girls have to wear the exact same clothes.

Where has all the good common sense gone?

Nonsense does it place kids on an even playing field, as everyone looks different already, as it places them in an arena different from there everyday life.

Kids see each other out of school and out of uniform. You cannot mollycoddle children, but help them deal with each other in real life, looking how they are, no matter how they are dressed. A uniform seeks to cloud that.

Its an archaic system born from elitist snobbery and simple is not needed in the 21st century.

I disagree, but we have had the uniform for or against debate before Thor....and we didn't agree then either.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Nonsense does it place kids on an even playing field, as everyone looks different already, as it places them in an arena different from there everyday life.

Kids see each other out of school and out of uniform. You cannot mollycoddle children, but help them deal with each other in real life, looking how they are, no matter how they are dressed. A uniform seeks to cloud that.

Its an archaic system born from elitist snobbery and simple is not needed in the 21st century.

I disagree, but we have had the uniform for or against debate before Thor....and we didn't agree then either.

That is up to you Syl. I just think you don't teach children how to face and learn to overcome difficulties in life. When they are all different, by poorly attempting to make them the same through wearing the same clothes.

Kids have enough difficulties in life without worrying about school clothes.
A standard uniform stops one child feeling poor next to his more affluent classmates. Designer clothes cost a fortune and not every parent can or wants to buy them....but many do, and it imo creates a sort of 'class' system where none need apply.
A school uniform also gives kids a sense of belonging to the same group, working together and also gives them a sense of responsibility because they are representing the school and what it stands for.

There is no reason a uniform should be uncomfy, I think a bit of leeway should always be encouraged.
Forcing kids to wear a blazer in summer for eg is stupid.

eddie wrote:
Shouldn't "gender equality" mean that skirts and trousers are optional for either sex?
So boys or girls can wear skirts or trousers.

 

That's what I was thinking, too...

If some dick'head' teacher wants to dicktate some "neutral"/equality/inclusive agenda then all uniform clothing should be rated "gender free" and made available to all perceived sexes..

That idiotic thinking on that idiotic teachers part, (neither right nor left wing, and actually beyond typical "p/c" tomfoolery..) is quite irrational on his part.

(In most schools down here, uniform gudelines aren't determined by any one person, and are under the guidance of the school 'community' as well as staff, within formal policy guidelines..).

Syl wrote:Kids have enough difficulties in life without worrying about school clothes.
A standard uniform stops one child feeling poor next to his more affluent classmates. Designer clothes cost a fortune and not every parent can or wants to buy them....but many do, and it imo creates a sort of 'class' system where none need apply.
A school uniform also gives kids a sense of belonging to the same group, working together and also gives them a sense of responsibility because they are representing the school and what it stands for.

There is no reason a uniform should be uncomfy, I think a bit of leeway should always be encouraged.
Forcing kids to wear a blazer in summer for eg is stupid.

I totally agree. It's not just affluent versus non-affluent though, it's to do with one girl or boy not wearing something totally "fashionable" and being teased. If they all wear the same thing, that can't happen. They shouldn't be thinking about what to wear every morning - it's not a fashion show.

No uniform = kids turning up in all manner of inappropriate attire, and is not conducive to preparing them for adult/working environment... so not an option...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


The rules already exist that state skirt length must be to knees...

Nobody seems to take much notice of that. They might be knee length at school, but they're not after school.

When I was at school, we rolled them over at the waist band to make them shorter, as mini skirts were in.

I think making girls wear trousers is all wrong. Girls should have the choice. One of my granddaughter's wears skirts her sister prefers trousers, but they have the choice.

Syl wrote:Kids have enough difficulties in life without worrying about school clothes.
A standard uniform stops one child feeling poor next to his more affluent classmates. Designer clothes cost a fortune and not every parent can or wants to buy them....but many do, and it imo creates a sort of 'class' system where none need apply.
A school uniform also gives kids a sense of belonging to the same group, working together and also gives them a sense of responsibility because they are representing the school and what it stands for.

There is no reason a uniform should be uncomfy, I think a bit of leeway should always be encouraged.
Forcing kids to wear a blazer in summer for eg is stupid.

Gibberish again. A rich kid will still have expensive shoes, shirts, socks, to trainers, to watches. You cannot legislate how expensive all the clothes will be and does nothing to tackle. How to deal with how some people will in fact be better off in life than they are. If anything it teaches a will to succeed if you do want better things. So there is already a class system, that exists in the real world and what you do is again try to create a smoke screen to deny that one actually exists. Or help people understand that some people are better off than others, because many work hard to obtain that way of life. To continually make a child think they are a victim and downtrodden does nothing to encourage that child to succeed and get of the poverty they are growing up in.

In other words all a uniform does is poorly attempt to not help children deal with real life issues they will face outside school and after they leave school.

To the view of a sense of belonging. Again gibberish, as again its the school name that does not need a uniform to be proud of your achievements you make. It will be down to you yourself and the work you put into succeeding with the help of teachers.

Tommy Monk wrote:No uniform = kids turning up in all manner of inappropriate attire, and is not conducive to preparing them for adult/working environment... so not an option...

I think also many parents can't afford up-to-date clothes or designer clothes, so all wearing the same takes the pressure off parents and pupils.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:Kids have enough difficulties in life without worrying about school clothes.
A standard uniform stops one child feeling poor next to his more affluent classmates. Designer clothes cost a fortune and not every parent can or wants to buy them....but many do, and it imo creates a sort of 'class' system where none need apply.
A school uniform also gives kids a sense of belonging to the same group, working together and also gives them a sense of responsibility because they are representing the school and what it stands for.

There is no reason a uniform should be uncomfy, I think a bit of leeway should always be encouraged.
Forcing kids to wear a blazer in summer for eg is stupid.

Gibberish again. A rich kid will still have expensive shoes, shirts, socks, to trainers, to watches. You cannot legislate how expensive all the clothes will be and does nothing to tackle. How to deal with how some people will in fact be better off in life than they are. If anything it teaches a will to succeed if you do want better things. So there is already a class system, that exists in the real world and what you do is again try to create a smoke screen to deny that one actually exists. Or help people understand that some people are better off than others, because many work hard to obtain that way of life. To continually make a child think they are a victim and downtrodden does nothing to encourage that child to succeed and get of the poverty they are growing up in.

In other words all a uniform does is poorly attempt to not help children deal with real life issues they will face outside school and after they leave school.

To the view of a sense of belonging. Again gibberish, as again its the school name that does not need a uniform to be proud of your achievements you make. It will be down to you yourself and the work you put into succeeding with the help of teachers.

Its not gibberish its common sense.
However you are entitled to your opinion even though its wrong. 

Tommy Monk wrote:No uniform = kids turning up in all manner of inappropriate attire, and is not conducive to preparing them for adult/working environment... so not an option...

Sounding like a true Islamist.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Gibberish again. A rich kid will still have expensive shoes, shirts, socks, to trainers, to watches. You cannot legislate how expensive all the clothes will be and does nothing to tackle. How to deal with how some people will in fact be better off in life than they are. If anything it teaches a will to succeed if you do want better things. So there is already a class system, that exists in the real world and what you do is again try to create a smoke screen to deny that one actually exists. Or help people understand that some people are better off than others, because many work hard to obtain that way of life. To continually make a child think they are a victim and downtrodden does nothing to encourage that child to succeed and get of the poverty they are growing up in.

In other words all a uniform does is poorly attempt to not help children deal with real life issues they will face outside school and after they leave school.

To the view of a sense of belonging. Again gibberish, as again its the school name that does not need a uniform to be proud of your achievements you make. It will be down to you yourself and the work you put into succeeding with the help of teachers.

Its not gibberish its common sense.
However you are entitled to your opinion even though its wrong. 

I did not read a single bit of common sense in your post but to seek to mollycoddle children whilst at school, failing to help them tackle issues they will face in daily life.

Tommy Monk wrote:No uniform = kids turning up in all manner of inappropriate attire, and is not conducive to preparing them for adult/working environment... so not an option...

Yes, we don't want girls wearing tights and forgetting to put their skirt on, or jeans with a thong showing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:No uniform = kids turning up in all manner of inappropriate attire, and is not conducive to preparing them for adult/working environment... so not an option...

Yes, we don't want girls wearing tights and forgetting to put their skirt on, or jeans with a thong showing.

And God forbid muffin tops....sadly so many schoolkids are overweight nowadays muffin tops would surely be on show.

I know which outfit I would prefer to see schoolgirls in, 

Syl wrote:

I know which outfit I would prefer to see schoolgirls in, 

There lies the problem.

Why is it about how you want to see them dressed?

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I know which outfit I would prefer to see schoolgirls in, 

There lies the problem.

Why is it about how you want to see them dressed?

I would put money on 99% of the population who gave a damn would opt for the first image. 

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


There lies the problem.

Why is it about how you want to see them dressed?

I would put money on 99% of the population who gave a damn would opt for the first image. 

How about we change the images and have say a Islamist view what you wear to say how a Muslim in a Hijab wears.

His view would be that he prefers to see you in the hijab and thinks what you are wearing is thus slutty.

Do you see how such varying views are formed from such bullshit?

Its up to people what they wear, but you are now guilty of shaming a child, simple for how they dress, making a mockery of your previous points on this.

Of course I doubt you would mock a child for how they dressed to their face.

Granted that is from a make belief character, but the principle is the same here.

Didge is diverting and waffling again...

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge is diverting and waffling again...

Not diverting at all, as the same principle applies, here on what some people think others should wear.

I am critical of beliefs that enforce people to wear things through a fear.

This happens with religious dress, through religious beliefs.

It happens with schools enforcing them to wear a uniform, with repercussions if they do not conform to the uniform. Thus fear is used again, in order to make people do as commanded.

Its the same absurd reasoning

A uniform isn't designed to dominate women, its a leveller for both boys and girls whilst they are in school.
Also the school uniform has the opposite effect of the  hijab, its not there to cover up, its a proud statement of what the uniform represents.

Finally, my whole point is that kids should never be shamed by what they wear, and a uniform stops all that nonsense and one upmanship.

Syl wrote:A uniform isn't designed to dominate women, its a leveller for both boys and girls whilst they are in school.
Also the school uniform has the opposite effect of the  hijab, its not there to cover up, its a proud statement of what the uniform represents.

Finally, my whole point is that kids should never be shamed by what they wear, and a uniform stops all that nonsense and one upmanship.

Sorry but yet again invoking what I can only describe is a load of crap.
You can have the same pride of a school without a uniform.

Well kids are not going to learn how to deal with problems of shaming and bullying. By trying to for some days of the week, poorly attempt to dress them up as the same.

I mean how many here have felt silly when they have turned up out and someone is wearing the exact same top as you?

Do you know why, we all want to be individuals and uniforms deny that.

Schools are compulsory, and thus not like the army, or the Police ect, of which the later are active choices people make as a career.

Syl wrote:A uniform isn't designed to dominate women, its a leveller for both boys and girls whilst they are in school.
Also the school uniform has the opposite effect of the  hijab, its not there to cover up, its a proud statement of what the uniform represents.

Finally, my whole point is that kids should never be shamed by what they wear, and a uniform stops all that nonsense and one upmanship.

The uniform originated in Charity institutions.

"Uniforms give schools a sense of identity and cohesion," said author and historian Alexander Davidson.
"When some aspects of society have become much less certain, uniforms suggest schools are there to provide certainty and order."

"There is an economic aspect to many schools' decision to adopt a uniform," said Andy Gibbs, curator and manager of the British Schools Museum. "It brings equality to the clothes children wear in school, regardless of how wealthy their parents are. The widespread use of polo shirts as part of uniforms, for example, is a way of making them more affordable."

And whether the school attire is a fashion statement or a more relaxed affair, wearing a uniform seems surprisingly important to many pupils.

In 2011, Christ's Hospital surveyed its pupils to find out if it should keep its distinctive 16th Century style blue coats and yellow stockings.

About 95% said they should.

"It is important to stick to our historic traditions, not only to be unique and special, but it makes a sort of unity between us," said one. "I personally feel proud walking around in my uniform, despite what people might say."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29047752