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 really struggle to believe that trousers are hard to wear for girls

Whoever said this- I would struggle to believe anyone could be so stupid, ignorant and self-satisfied, but the evidence is there.

It was, unsurprisingly, Larry who said that.
'I really struggle to believe that trousers are hard to wear for girls, given how many choose to wear them. There is no physical impediment for girls wearing trousers, this is a real straw man argument.'

'I think it would be most boys not wanting to wear a skirt just because they restrict what you can do and aren't comfortable or practical.'

Seriously?

In our culture boys don't wear or use things associated with girls, because girls are lesser.

If a man wants to insult another man, one common way is to imply he is feminine, or likes feminine things (homophobia stems from this).

If you think uk boys don't wear shirts because they're impractical then you are wilfully blind.

There is also the fact of many cultures where men wearing skirt type garments is the norm.

To get around this.

First you said that it was backwards not to wear trousers (casual racism)
Then when that didn't work, you tried some jigger pokery whereby a skirt (like garment) becomes not-a-skirt if a man wears it.

That one was decomposing ...

Throughout history, and in other cultures today, men wear 'skirts' and seem to find them practical and comfortable. The ancient Greeks apparently thought trousers were ridiculous; the Romans considered them the clothes of barbarians - at least , until the empire spread to chillier climes.

Yes mine was to decomposing.

(I learnt years ago not to pay too much heed to larry).

Ah errol if the wearer has a penis though it's not a skirt. Its a practical, butch, possibly heavy garment for mens men, that can be whipped off to strangle an attacking bear, make a tent, or filter water at a moments notice.

Skirts are worn by women, and are always impractical and often obscene, definitely not comfortable, and should probably be banned.

You see the difference?

(Incidentally, wearing a very short skirt gives total freedom of movement, way more than trousers or shorts).

Incidentally, wearing a very short skirt gives total freedom of movement, way more than trousers or shorts).

Oh of course it does - apart from not being able to get out of a car without flashing your underwear, not being able to bend over for the same reason, having to hang onto it in the slightest breeze... Yep total freedom of movement (unless of course you don't mind flashing all and sundry I suppose)

And can you point out where it was that I said that not wearing trousers is backward (particularly as you said I was racist)

It's also odd how when I go to the gym or to my yoga class everyone is wearing either shorts or leggings - very odd that isn't it if shorts skirts actually give more freedom of movement - you know, when doing something that requires total freedom of movement and wear you can choose to wear whatever you want, that everyone chooses to wear trousers?

Decomposing are you going to explain how giving boys a choice between two viable, practical options yet giving girls a choice between two less practical and often non-viable options, is fair? Only I've answered your questions as requested and I'm still waiting for you to return this courtesy.

Are you going to acknowledge the point that accommodating boys' needs while refusing to accept that girls' biology means our needs in this area may differ is discriminatory, unfair, and doing nothing to tackle inequality?

I've answered you so many times, I'm not just going to repeat what I've already said.

You don't like or agree with my answer - that's fine - but it doesn't mean I haven't answered.

I'm never going to give you the answer that you want because I don't agree with you.

If you think it is sexist to limit girls to 2 choices then the current situation of limiting to boys to only 1 must be doubly sexist.

And for what it's worth, most people on this thread, and many other threads on the feminist board want the options for school uniform to be trousers and skirts for everyone. I have never seen people arguing for shorts to be included so no one has thought about the scenario that you present. How come you aren't saying the same to them? If they got their way you still wouldn't be accommodated and these people are ardent radical feminists.

I’m not sure Decomposing that you did answer those particular questions, but I suspect this is a “agree to disagree” situation.

Tyro I’m sorry for what you went through and leaned a lot from your posts

Well, I think shorts as an option is a good idea. Has anyone suggested a choice of trousers, skirts or shorts for everyone?

Are you going to acknowledge the point that accommodating boys' needs while refusing to accept that girls' biology means our needs in this area may differ is discriminatory, unfair, and doing nothing to tackle inequality?

This is the precise point you have NOT addressed. You want the options to be equal, not fair. You’re another person unable to understand that equality is a nonsense that often will mean unfairness. The needs differ based on biology, with clothing and plenty more besides. On this forum, we centre girls and women so this discussion should be focussed on what girls need in this situation, not boys. Go to a suitable forum for that conversation.

Decomposing when someone reveals they survived abuse as a child, which left them so anxious about wearing skirts that they cannot leave the house in one, it wouldn’t hurt to show a bit of empathy.

I’m sure the feminists you mention would support all 3 options being available to both sexes, sometimes discussions evolve

2BthatUnnoticed

I have answered but here we are

Decomposing are you going to explain how giving boys a choice between two viable, practical options yet giving girls a choice between two less practical and often non-viable options, is fair? Only I've answered your questions as requested and I'm still waiting for you to return this courtesy.

Currently girls have the option of skirts or trousers - I have only ever seen, without exception, the comments on here say that boys should have the option of skirts too. So no one has ever said that girls need the option of shorts because, as you've said, skirts and trousers are less practical and often non-viable options. As no one has ever raised this before I don't agree that 2 options for girls are non viable or less practical. Clearly you don't agree, which is your perrogative.

Are you going to acknowledge the point that accommodating boys' needs while refusing to accept that girls' biology means our needs in this area may differ is discriminatory, unfair, and doing nothing to tackle inequality?

As I said above, currently girls have 2 options and boys only 1. Therefore, according to your argument boys needs aren't currently accommodated, and that is discriminatory, unfair and doing nothing to tackle inequality.

There we are. I have answered. No doubt no one will agree with me but I have answered. Again.

2BthatUnnoticed

Of course I sympathise.

How come though, if it is such an issue no one has ever raised it before? I only ever see arguments saying that everyone should be able to wear trousers or skirts. I have never seen anyone say " hang on, both of those options are impractical and non viable for some girls. We need to offer them shorts."

Never. In fact many people on here actively argue against girls wearing shorts under their skirts and dresses often claiming as has been said in this discussion "what's so terrible about knickers being seen" so clearly they too are insensitive to reasons why some girls wear shorts under skirts. Never seen anyone accused of being unsympathetic to them.

And to answer someone else's point yes this is the feminist board but why does that mean it can't be pointed out when the discussion is unfair or promoting inequality?

Well, I think shorts as an option is a good idea. Has anyone suggested a choice of trousers, skirts or shorts for everyone?

Yes, several people.

Because sometimes discussion evolve, DC. I’ve not been party to these numerous previous discussions - I assume they were driven by gender/sex question around have both “male” and “female” garments available to both sexes. Not “what would an ideal range of options be.”

I’m going to agree to disagree on this one. But I promise that boys can and do get on in skirts very well, much cooler on hot days too.

Never. In fact many people on here actively argue against girls wearing shorts under their skirts and dresses often claiming as has been said in this discussion "what's so terrible about knickers being seen" so clearly they too are insensitive to reasons why some girls wear shorts under skirts. Never seen anyone accused of being unsympathetic to them.

Don't be silly. They think it should be optional and they shouldn't be obliged to, not that they shouldn't be allowed to wear them if it makes them more comfortable. Don't put your back out with that reach.

There we are. I have answered. No doubt no one will agree with me but I have answered. Again.

No you haven’t. You have NOT ADDRESSED biological differences which mean different options might be needed. You have not acknowledged it at all. Boys can wear skirts if they want, if they would chose not to, that is not a reason not to give girls another option. How stupid.

Morning decomposing

Here you go :

'00:55DecomposingComposers

The lengths that people go to, to rationalise things that are just social norms, never ceases to amaze, tbh.

Ok. So a skirt is a social norm isn't it? Why not do away with it? Why have skirts at all? Why not only trousers? Presumably skirts happened because cave men wrapped animal skins around themselves but since we now have tailoring and can sew we don't need just a piece of cloth wrapped around us do we. We've moved on. So why are we clinging to skirts?'

' we've moved on ' being the casually racist part. People and societies who haven't' moved on ' are backwards, right? Loads of men around the world wear skirt type garments (although have we now established that you believe a skirt becomes not-a-skirt when paired with a penis) so they are backwards.

As are loads of women in most cultures around the world.

So not just casually racist (another poster pointed that out BTW) but grossly sexist (but we know that don't we from all your other posts!).

Never seen anyone accused of being unsympathetic before

A poster shared a painful memory, in an effort to explain why shorts could benefit some girls, and you were more interested in WATB to acknowledge it.

If girls might miss school on hot (or period-having) days because skirts are not viable for them but trousers are too hot - it seems bizarre to deny them shorts because... why?

Oh yes - because boys in skirts might accidentally flash a testicle now and then, so letting that girl wear shorts is unfair