to be annoyed that there will be a trousers uniform only at dc's secondary school from next year?

[bigbuttons]

DD ( dc number5) starts secondary in September. All her older sibs have gone/ are at the school. Her 2 older sisters are in years 8 and 10. Up until now the uniform has been, for girls, a blazer, skirt or trousers, white shirt and optional tie.
We got an email this week saying that after extensive consultation( I would like to know with whom because parents were not asked to my knowledge) the uniform for new year 7's would be 'gender neutral'. Both sexes will wear exactly the same uniform i.e new school jumper, no blazer, smart grey or black trousers, no skirts and all to wear a tie. Pupils currently at the school can continue with the current uniform but change of they wish.
There has been 'issue' with girls rolling their skirts up to basically just below their backsides and members of the public/parents have been complaining about this. The new trousers only uniform will help with issues of 'decency' it says.
Year 6 dd is horrified, she has never worn trousers in her life and quite frankly is not a good shape for them anyway, - leggings yes, buttoned trousers, no, although I have never said this to her of course. She is short and stocky, always has been.
I know many women who feel very uncomfortable wearing trousers because they don't like their legs/shape and always wear dresses and skirts.

What this this gender neutral crap?
I support both sexes wearing ties and I liked the blazer so am sad it has gone.

I think the girls should be able to wear skirts and am confused about the whole 'indecent' issue. If a girl wears a short skirt it's surely not her fault if people find it 'indecent'? It feels like very little has progressed for girls since I was at school. So, they now all have to look like boys?

I would be interested to hear people's views on this.

Also, going from previous threads, 'up skirt' photographs appear to be a thing at some schools now (not surprised). I wouldn't allow my daughter to wear skirts at school anyway. I just don't think they belong there , unless they are worn over very thick tights, equivalent to leggings.

I read it

No user, you didn't.

ok so stop with the 'wearing trousers doesn't make you look like a boy'. Of course it doesn't, but that's missing the point. Trousers are what men/boys wear, they are NOT gender neutral. This fucks me right off. It's like people calling their girl children James and Noah, because hey that's super cute. Where are the boy children called Eleanor and Sophie? That's not allowed, because playground bullying and why would you do that to a child. It's socially acceptable for girls to aspire to boy stuff because boys are great, obv, but don't try to get boys to aspire to anything girly. Gets right on my (gender non-neutral) tits.

Anyway, back to the uniform problem. I have come up with a brilliant solution that while not strictly gender neutral is a fuck of a sight more neutral than trousers: culottes. These avoid the problem of girls' not wanting to show their thighs or bottom in trousers, they are fine for running around in, and they can't be rolled up. You're welcome.

I see nothing wrong with the idea of everyone wearing trousers. When I was in high school the girls where allowed to wear trousers and I did mostly in winter because I hate wearing skirts I feel more comfortable and more covered up in trousers.

I would've found this very difficult at school. I look awful in trousers with a top tucked in.

I haven't worn trousers since I was 13 as I haven't found any that suit my shape (very small waist, big hips and chunky thighs). Skirts suit me much better.

I don't understand the appeal in taking away choice. Allow either, and then girls who find trousers more comfortable, practical and/or flattering can wear them, and girls who prefer skirts can wear those. This should be a non-issue.

'Gender-neutral' should mean that the boys have the skirt option too, should any of them prefer that. Not trousers for everyone.

But then I'd do away with school uniform entirely, so I'm slightly biased.

"am just amazed that trousers are still seen as BOYS' clothes."

They aren't. Men and women wear them. But they are the male norm. Making them compulsory takes away a choice from girls, and makes them conform to the male norm. "Unisex" always means the male norm.

Precisely Bertand - trousers, shirt, blazer, tie is an outfit designed for a male body.

I really did, but thanks for your concern. What is it you imagine I missed?

OP, this would annoy me too for all the reasons already cited on the thread. YANBU

DaisyBD rubbish. Trousers are what men, boys, girls and women wear.
Therefore they are gender neutral in our society (allowing for obvious differences in cut).

"Unisex" always means the male norm.
Perfectly put. That's why I am uncomfortable with this whole business. I couldn't put my finger on it earlier. Thank you.

Trousers are not male attire, neither are shirts and jackets. Are you suggesting that skirts and blouses are female attire/the female norm? Because if we are excluded from claiming trousers as womens attire, that is what you are saying.

I'm wearing trousers, a shirt and a blazer right now, I can assure you I am not dressed like a man and they are not designed for a male body, and I don't like the suggestion that I am appropriating mens clothing.

Well, it is high time they stop the sexist and humiliating, dehumanizing practice of forcing girls to wear skirts and show off their legs to all and sundry, and freeze in winter. (School uniform skirts are, usually, much too short, and nowhere near ankle-length.)

Though I don't see why they can't allow skirts as an option for children of both sexes. Especially since by now the girls are used to wearing skirts.

On what planet is short and stocky a good shape for leggings

noeffingidea yes, of course women and girls also wear trousers, but men and boys ONLY wear trousers, they don't wear skirts and dresses. Because trousers are traditionally for men, and skirts traditionally for women. That's kind of my point

Unisex means suitable for both sexes, doesn't it?

That male clothing choices are narrower than female means that it has to be that way round. If women's clothes were the ones with the narrower range, then it would be the other way round.

It's not a problem with unisex as a term, if it's an issue at all, it's with why there is a gendered anything.

"Why is it 'indecent?" Because showing your knickers in public is generally indecent, would you show yours walking down the street?

Trousers are the male norm. They are also the female norm, in many situations and enviroments.

"I don't like the suggestion that I am appropriating mens clothing."

Actually, there is a proud feminist tradition of appropriating men's clothing- Google Amelia Bloomer.

But that's not the point. Trousers are "male norm" skirts are 'female norm" This decision is forcing girls to conform the male norm.

We almost all wear trousers now! I think this is a great idea. Much more levelling, and less peer pressure to appear 'sexy'.

Don't worry, some girls will find a way to make it trendy. As some boys will make it scruffy. And vice versa.

Grr Why is trousers considered gender neutral? And a tie?? Wouldn't ie be more "gender neutral"to let people wear what they feel comfortable in?

Because, generally speaking, it's the girls who are pushing the uniform by rolling up their skirts to knicker level, slathering on shed loads of make up, wearing jewellery etc. Boys don't tend to do whatever the equivalent would be.

They do in my childrens school...not so much the makeup

But the teachers dont seem to pick them up on it as much, except socks for some reason

BTW, trousers haven't always been the norm for men, and other countries don't restrict this today. It's just a western, current day thing, which will change.