Girls wearing skirts not allowed into school - could only be Brighton

[Kit19]

www.theargus.co.uk/news/17886600.lewes-priory-gender-neutral-uniform-protest/

Apparently “gender neutral” means trousers aka the male default. This is utterly insane. I mean I wouldn’t have minded the choice of trousers or skirts for either sex but only trousers?

I mean short skirts so what, they're just legs. Anyone looking at a13yo girl in a short skirt and thinking, whatever they are thinking, needs to consider why they feel that way about a child's legs.

But you are proving my point. So what if girls wear short skirts but boys will need to wear longer length skirts plus appropriate underwear. See, double standards.

The boys trousers cause no objection because boys are not seen primarily as sex objects

This is the main issue as far as I'm concerned. And girls being forced to wear trousers would not change that at all. If skirts were less gendered, as clothing items, this might be less of an issue for skirt wearers.

That's a difficult one - and I guess that each school has to decide how to approach the situation. If a child/parent refuses to abide by the rules, then they can either have choices removed from them altogether - or failing that, exclusion.

Which is precisely what the op is about. Resulting in 150 people protesting and the police being called. So you agree with the school in the op then?

boys will need to wear longer length skirts plus appropriate underwear

Naturally! Skirt designs would take into consideration male and female bodies and shapes.

Which is precisely what the op is about. Resulting in 150 people protesting and the police being called. So you agree with the school in the op then?

My understanding is that trousers were introduced as an appeasement to trans pupils, as a form of gender neutral clothing.

What?

So a kilt is empirically different to a skirt, seriously?

So the sex stereotypes are so firm that when a man does wear a skirt type garment it's completely different to a skirt in some kind of magical butch way that makes it practical and completely fine, meanwhile all womens skirts (even if they are kilts) are impractical awful and it would be best if they died out???

DD goes to a comp in London they can choose trousers or skirts. The skirt is a kilt. This is very very very very normal.

And yet in order to prop up the argument, it's stated that girls don't wear kilts to school. Or is it that as soon as the kilt is on a girl it becomes a skirt and therefore awful...

I guess girls will have to do what boys will have to do - campaign to be allowed to wear shorts

That would be fine by me, and would have helped me greatly as a child. I'm just pointing out that you personally advocated ruling this option out upthread. Because it's unequal and not fair on the boys - who don't wish to wear skirts as a rule because skirts leave them vulnerable to harassment and abuse.

Can you not see the slight hypocrisy there?

Why is it fine to deny me my only short-legged option on the grounds that other people can choose to wear a skirt, just because boys don't feel comfortable wearing skirts? Why is their comfort and sense of safety important, but I have to choose between one or the other?

They don't want to wear skirts. I don't want to wear skirts. Why do they get an alternative option and I don't? How is that fair?

"She also said removing the choice for pupils to wear skirts because some wear them too short was "unfair".

It would seem that all girls were forbidden from wearing skirts, just because a few failed to abide by the rules. That's not fair. It was also seen as a way of dealing with the trans issue.

'I mean short skirts so what, they're just legs. Anyone looking at a13yo girl in a short skirt and thinking, whatever they are thinking, needs to consider why they feel that way about a child's legs.

But you are proving my point. So what if girls wear short skirts but boys will need to wear longer length skirts plus appropriate underwear. See, double standards.'

????

Your argument about boys testicle being visible is just weird. You get that right?

I am sure the boys will be capable of working out how to dress themselves so that people can't see their nuts.

Chrissakes.

Regarding the suggestion of shorts. What length must shorts be? Must they go all the way to the knee? And how would shorts be any different to skirts, in terms of visible leg or flesh?

Well it depends who's wearing them.

The boys ones will be fine irrespective of length /tightness.

The girls ones will be deemed too short / too tight / too revealing, especially on girls with more developed bodies. Because in the end, it is the girls bodies that people have a problem with, and not the clothes at all.

But skirts are the most impractical item of clothing

Ffs - you are just making things up now.

Kilts aren't skirts though are they? They are long, heavy material not the typical short polyester school skirt

Of course kilts are skirts. Many, many ,many Scottish school girls wear kilts, either traditional tartan or plain material as part of their school uniform.

(Wonder what Scotsmen would think about being told they are wearing a skirt?)

Oh please- give me strength- do you seriously think they haven't heard that one before? Or that they care?

Your argument about boys testicle being visible is just weird. You get that right?

Weird and creepy- as is this poster's obsession about children's genitals and underwear.

Kilts aren’t skirts. Yes we care because it’s meant to take the piss. However - generally men do look good in a kilt.

Naturally! Skirt designs would take into consideration male and female bodies and shapes.

So you'd have a rule saying that girls can wear short skirts but boys have to wear long skirts? Can you explain how you justify that then?

So a kilt is empirically different to a skirt, seriously?

Well, yes, because it is. A traditional kilt is a very heavy material isn't it and contains yards of fabric plus is knee length. So, is that what you propose for school uniform then - a traditional kilt?

Local schools here have a kilt style skirt - basically a check patterned pleated skirt. They wear them mud thigh length and they are a cheap polyester material.

Why is it fine to deny me my only short-legged option on the grounds that other people can choose to wear a skirt, just because boys don't feel comfortable wearing skirts? Why is their comfort and sense of safety important, but I have to choose between one or the other?

Why has it been fine for 50 odd years (and continuing) to deny boys and men a more comfortable option during the summer?

Regarding the suggestion of shorts. What length must shorts be? Must they go all the way to the knee? And how would shorts be any different to skirts, in terms of visible leg or flesh?

Yep, knee length. And the difference is you would only see the leg below the knee, not mid or upper thigh and not the underwear when the bend over or sit cross legged on the floor.

Yes we care because it’s meant to take the piss

Do we care? Not been my experience. I also don't agree that a kilt is not a skirt. Call it what you like- it's the same principle.

I care. Depends where you live I guess.

They wear them mud thigh length

You know your constant banging on thighs, legs, short skirts, seeing knickers is sounding more and more creepy.

2BthatUnnoticed

I did the same with regards to pictures on google etc. She’s okay with wearing them but I think the fact she is the only pupil to wear the trousers she would rather not and she said five so I don’t expect her to be brave enough yet to stand out.

'Kilts aren’t skirts. Yes we care because it’s meant to take the piss'

Because the worst thing you can do to a man is say he is or looks feminine.

Which is true but problematic.

Saying that material wrapped around a man's waist in a tube type garment is completely different to when a woman does is is nonsensical. And is being used on this thread to explain that men never wear skirts. When they wear something that looks like a skirt it's not a skirt and so is somehow practical and fine while the same garment on a girl is obscene, revealing, impractical etc.

This whole thread is riddled with sexism tbh.

Just had a look. A kilt is made of wool and has 8 imperial yards of fabric so that's how it ensures good coverage. That's what you're proposing for school uniforms then is it? You know, when you keep saying a kilt is a skirt and is so practical?

That’s a proper dress kilt (£££). The kind school kids wear wouldn’t have that much material. Anyway - it was a joke.

One of the problems with doing away with uniform is that poorer children, or children whose parents won't buy them the latest fashions can feel shamed. And having to spend time every morning thinking about what to wear is a waste of time.

But that’s a myth surely? For a start, the money you don’t spend on a uniform can be used for decent but cheap clothing from places like Asda or Tesco etc. And as far as I can tell these days, the clothes are up with fashion and most kids are fine with primary clothing anyway, even teens and all those clothes are quite cheap. So why would the poorer children have nothing decent to wear? What do they wear on weekends?

'Well, yes, because it is. A traditional kilt is a very heavy material isn't it and contains yards of fabric plus is knee length. So, is that what you propose for school uniform then - a traditional kilt?'

Loads of schools have kilts to knee length as school uniform.

A long piece of fairly heavy fabric that wraps around with a big overlap and buttons and a buckle to hold it together.

Have you actually been outside? This is not uncommon at all.

I mean it's a modern take on the garment but it's a kilt.

Why does the idea of girls wearing kilts to school have you spluttering at how ludicrous it is, when thousands of girls all over the uk wear them to school every day?

Decomposing I'm happy to answer your question but it would be polite if you would return the favour.

I don't believe it's fine that men and boys should have to suffer in long trousers and high temperatures.

I don't believe women should have to either.

I don't believe it's fair or equal to insist that boys be bifurcated year round, but girls may choose whether to enclose their legs in one tube or two.

I don't believe it's fair or equal or remotely progressive or anything but sexist to insist on rules stating: girls must suffer either the physical discomfort of being too hot or the psychological discomfort of being physically vulnerable (whether to assault or upskirting or a random flash of pant while bending over); but boys must have the option of accommodating both physical and psychological comfort.

I repeat my question to you: Why is their comfort and sense of safety important, but I have to choose between one or the other?