Why am I not surprised?

There was/is a problem with stab vests being designed purely to fit the male form and therefore not fitting and not protecting females as they should

Yes they were too short if I remember correctly

I don't assume on threads with two points of view, that an individual post content is what anyone else thinks unless they say something indicating they do

Thats a great attitude to have, many times on here ive seen posters take silence for assent

Back to the topic!

That they got a shitload of complaints on Twitter and direct is interesting. They weren't all from the handful of women on this thread I assume...!

The discussion points in support of the non standard nails etc, to me feel somehow as if posters on this thread are the sole group saying why not adhering to dress code.

Anyone else feel that?

An item of protective clothing one would have hoped they would get right, but hey, ho 'tis only the females at risk.

I don't assume on threads with two points of view, that an individual post content is what anyone else thinks unless they say something indicating they do
Neither do I, I don't think that everyone thinks that way for a minute.
As we're all different.
I was just saying it really isn't just about a concern for dress codes, is it.
Posts like that show there's more to it than that.

Fat and purgatory loads and loads of that sort of thing.

I would not ask you why another poster who shared your views said anything I thought was off topic/dodgy etc.

There's no point discussing what a specific poster said with anyone other than that poster.

I don't assume on threads with two points of view, that an individual post content is what anyone else thinks unless they say something indicating they do.

I think it would be good to get back to the actual reason for the thread.

The article also says

In 2018 it was the first in Britain to introduce 'gender-neutral hats' to support trans officers, meaning they no longer needed to wear female-only bowlers.

I wonder if female officers might have wanted to have unisex hats that didn't mark them out
as female for years. If they did, clearly no-one cared.

It's taken us way of track, away from the point.

I think drop it. At this point I have no interest in seeing the post because I think that tan comment has been covered enough.

Also well scroll back enough years and at some point the poster will judge some poor woman in uniform on their Twitter to have a poor fake tan and then post it for us all to argue over and let's just not go there.

This is about breaching strict dress code.

helle

Thanks for letting me know that the transphobia was deleted.

Really hate to see comments that on here.

There's mention in the article about numerous complaints and given that the policy appears to apply to anyone who wears make-up, I wonder if it would it be considered sexual discrimination due to women being expected to adhere to a policy for which males can receive an exemption or would it be viewed as simply unfair? I've only ever seen make-up being discussed in regards to sexual discrimination in terms of women being required to wear makeup, not women being required to wear minimal make-up while males can receive an exemption from this rule.

It is my personal opinion that if the force has such a dress code for female officers, it is likely for practical reasons, some of which have been outlined on this thread.

I can't see any good reason for making an exception for other officers.

But as OP has asked, on with the thread
That was on with the thread.
Talking about posts on here.

I won't get an answer but why are you keeping at this? I always wonder on any subject when this happens.

Is it one of these?

1. I know that the dress code stuff is a cover for transphobia and I'm not interested in said by transphobes because even if they are being honest they're horrible anyway.

1. I am so biased that I'm not even thinking about anything said, I'm just skimming for anything anyone says that I can jump on and go on about, hopefully to distract, divert the thread. If lucky something that anyone reading with same bias as me will take, as I have, as evidence that MN entire site transphobic shitshow.

1. Unable to think of any decent responses to comments at all.

1. Not fighting for right for everyone (who identifies as a woman) to look how they fancy in any situation including work is SEXIST.

5....?

More distraction from you no siree

But as OP has asked, on with the thread.

Thank you to the pp also who found the pics with scarlet nail polish.

The post is about adhering to dress codes

The '' laydee'' comment and the one about rapists in prisons shows it's not really just about that for some, is it?

If people didn't keep saying I was after I've already said it wasn't, I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself, would I.

I'm not trying to get the thread zapped, and I wasn't referring to that tweet!!
I never would have.
I'm not about to say I was and did when I didn't!

'
No, I'm not.
You can believe what you want which you're going to do anyway, but I was not referring to that tweet.
And I've already said why I'm not linking to tweets to invite people to pull on people's looks.'

You're the one who said I've seen a pic of a police officer woman (how do you know gender ID is it stated?) and described her as having... Can't remember exact wording... Something like too much/obvious fake tan. I think the word orange came into it, apols if not. The posts where you described her skin were not exactly nice were they.

Bit rich to say oooh you meanies will JUDGE her looks and I hate that.

How can anyone know these other officers weren't trans?

Was it.... because they followed the dress code as they were expected to and have been forced to for the decades since they were able to even join the police force?

Or because another poster made assumptions because of their 'looks'?

Just critically examining the different points of view

Sure. As I said, let's go with your suggestion. How does that work then?