School brings in trousers only rule for all pupils - schoolgirls said to be in tears ...

Not all girls roll up their skirts and those that do not all of them roll it up that short. Most don’t bother. It is certain girls who took it too far which then meant every girl was then affected.

But even if not a uniform then they could still say no skirts. Would that be ok to ban if it was their own clothes?

It's partly about fitting in, partly about girls being persuaded to think their value lies in being objects of sexual attraction. A girl who wears trousers or refuses to roll-up her skirt is seen by her peers, not entirely incorrectly, as quietly criticising the rest of them. Girls from religious backgrounds may get a pass; their understanding has at least advanced that much.

I would love to know if girls at single sex schools keep their skirts rolled once they get to school.

You're really making a mountain out of a molehill there.

If women hate trousers so much, why is it so difficult to find skirts? I go into M&S or FatFace or any other store and what I see is trousers, trousers, trousers, a few dresses, and maybe the odd skirt. All my female colleagues come to work in trousers. My love of skirts - I even have hiking skirts - is often commented on.

Frankly it's beyond me why school uniform isn't tracksuit bottoms and t-shirts. That would be the most sensible thing for them to wear.

Yes. It was a covert way of keeping “undesirables” out of grammar schools!

OMG I cannot understand the ‘trousers in the summer are a health risk’ or ‘why do girls have to look like boys’ comments. They are trousers. I have worn jeans/trousers 95% of the time for 21 years and never been mistaken for a man nor had issues with cystitis/UTIs because of it. I do like a skirt/dress and recently bought half a dozen pf them, but trousers are so easy and more practical.

They are just an item of clothing that: ensures girls cannot be ‘up-skirted’ on staircases/under desks; that girls can’t roll them so high that a) they look bizarrely pot bellied from the excess fabric at their waists and b) they cannot flash their underwear off to all and sundry; the modesty of girls from faiths requiring they cover more of themselves is automatically preserved so school doesn’t have to engage in complaints from religious parents; and, yes, it removes the whole circus over which uniform a trans identifying child of either sex should wear, because it is now the same.

Long overdue in my opinion.

Oh wow! That's extremely expensive! I suppose it must vary by school as to the cost

Uniforms are still relatively expensive where I am (NZ), but my children's school is fairly average, and all you really need are two shirts (£20 each, converted pricing), one pair of trousers (£30), a pair of shorts (£25), a tie for the girls (£8!), and a jacket (£40) to get by. Jumpers and blazers are optional. It’s expensive as an initial outlay, but the uniform lasts most kids at least two years if bought slightly too big, and can be handed down/sold on – and is still cheaper than buying mufti to be worn every day, which kids want to be stylish/branded/new.

I'm glad things have changed, @OtterlyAstounding , cos I still remember when i passed the 11-plus to go to grammar school, the blazers were massively more expensive than those at the local sec mod, and were nowhere near as warm and practical, being barathea (a word I’ve never typed in my life!). I STR they were over 40 quid. This would have been in 1964. I think that was a lot of money back then.

As someone without much spare budget for frivolous things, I appreciate a uniform because it means they wear the same thing day in and out, and mostly just need very cheap clothes for slobbing about in at home after school, plus only a few 'going out' outfits. It does save money for many people, as there's no constant pressure to keep up with what the other kids wear (not that mine would care, tbh).

Well, quite. The French manage without them.

I went through three skirts and two jumpers and two sets of shirts (three for a week, not five). The third skirt was only because my idiot dad repaired a split seam with linen button thread "so it wouldn't split again" so next time it went, the fabric tore instead of the stitches breaking. He had the decency to spring for the replacement, at least.

We didn't have blazers but I would have needed two for the growing I did.

When your mum can't afford to put the hot water on every day but she's the one the divorce settlement says buys the uniforms, you don't get new shirts until the old ones are threadbare or you are bursting out of them.

The news article explicitly mentioned year elevens. They are the exact set of kids whose parents will be thinking "new uniform for one year? Nah".

A phased transition is exactly how my school handled a uniform change for all uniform items, including socks and tights. It's perfectly reasonable.

All these girls happily wear trousers out of school sorry. It’s not hard

Why wear a uniform at all?

That's a pretty weak argument though.
Blazers/ties that get worn for years need a transition. But shirts/trousers are often (not always) bought every year.

Tangentially, my daughter and I (both different heights/body shapes) tend to find men's low and mid rise trousers very comfortable (sometimes taking up hems) to wear - often more so than women's trousers/jeans. They have a very roomy crotch depth, and as long as they're not higher rise and sit at or just above the pelvic bones, then the waist/hip ratio doesn't matter.

It's not the change in uniform that's sexist, it's the failure to allow existing female pupils to wear the uniform from last year their parents have already paid for on the same terms as the existing male pupils.

A phased transition to trousers wouldn't have been a problem.

The example you gave, a school would reject as inappropriate. That's the problem.

You've heard of camel toe, yes? That's what women with deep pelvises get when wearing "smart" polyester school or office trousers.

Now put a pad under those trousers. It's going to show, and it's going to be uncomfortable.

You could however, argue that the school is stopping sex discrimination by moving to trousers only. My dd's tartan skirts are £22 a pop where as the boys can buy supermarket black school trousers.

Its just depends how you spin it!

I havent pretended they were easy to find, I was giving an example of what they could use instead. Which Ive told you already. Are you having trouble today?

How long are you going to pretend that school-approved pinafores suitable for post-pubescent girls are just as easy to find as back-to-school skirts?

I never understand why this question gets asked about these subjects. You're telling me you cant see someones arse cheeks and knickers when they're walking in front of you with their skirt rolled up high? Of course you can

And funny enough one of the several objections to trousers on this thread has been that apparentlly you cant hide sanitary towels that effectively wearing trousers because they show the bulge. Quite how, in black polyester trousers I do not know, but lets say they do, I will ask the same question, how tall are you to see that in your line of sight?

Fair enough.

Probably still not an option yet, but if demand increased and more styles/bigger sizes were available it could be a future option.

Not enough supply to have a whole cohort of girls in skorts though. Trousers are still the most feasible option at present.

Why would "transition" be verboten? This thread is about school uniform rules.

If the school wasn't applying its own rules consistently before, that's a separate matter.

I am talking about the sex discrimination by association that the parents face because of having girl children instead of boy children. I am talking about the sex discrimination that the girls themselves face.

The parents of existing male pupils whose uniforms from last year still fitted didn't have to shell out for a new uniform item to satisfy a rules change. The parents of existing female pupils did, solely because of the rules change.

The existing male pupils turned up in the uniform they wore last year and went to class unimpeded. The existing female pupils who did the same were sent home.

Honestly, if I was one of the parents affected, I'd be submitting a FOI to ask for the Equality Impact Assessment about the rules change and all emails and meeting minutes concerning the rules change. I'd be writing a formal complaint to the chair of govenors and I'd be seeing if my home insurance covered legal advice.

The families of dozens of girls, and only girls, have been financially disadvantaged explicitly because they have daughters. The girls whose parents couldn't afford to, or refused to, replace a perfectly good skirt were punished in a way that no boy could be under this rule change. This is a feminist issue.