Virginia school district considers ban on cross-dressing- Page 2

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 2/11/12 at 5:23pm

Wait, now cross-dressing is akin to wearing a Nazi uniform? In a synagogue?

[JbaraFan1]

Posted: 2/11/12 at 8:32pm

Seems if safety is truly the primary concern, then what should be banned is bullying. Any dress code should be fair for all, not just this group can't wear this, but everyone else can. If boys are told they cannot wear dresses, then how do they make that rule fair for all students? -- Girls can't wear dresses either? Or girls don't get to wear pants? It all gets a bit confusing. So let them all wear either, and any rules about dress should apply to ALL equally. The damn bullies are the problem, not some kids cross-dressing.

There are times I have thought zero tolerance policies went too far, but bullying should not be tolerated, period. Zero tolerance for certain there. Protect the victims. Punish the bullies. That would be the right and fair thing to do.

I'm not against public schools having students wear uniforms of some sort but would rather students have some say in what type, etc. There are both pros and cons to uniforms for sure. But even with uniforms, if a boy wants to wear a skirt to school, and girls are allowed to wear skirts, then he should be able to do so. I think there should be a "no-going-commando" rule for everybody though.

[Kad]

Posted: 2/11/12 at 10:46pm

I think Winston should be nominated for "Most Ludicrous Analogy of the Year". Is that an award? It should be.

Until a drag queen slaughters 6 million heteronormative kids systematically out of bigotry, your comparison is frankly offensive to everyone and makes you look like an idiot.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 2/11/12 at 11:18pm

"Children in today's world are taught at a very young age the difference between what little boys/babies do verses what big kids do, what is meant for girls and what is meant for boys. I work with pre schoolers and the amount of times I hear things like that on the course of a daily basis makes me cringe."


Of the many, many, many ignorant and plain dumb things you have said in this thread, let me just say what you have written is not new. Gender is a binary construct that has for many generations pushed kids into what they are constructed to do by society. Notice this is heavily boy-based over the horror that a boy identifies with feminine things. Nobody cared that for most of my adolescence I wore boys clothes but heaven forbid if little Bobby wanted to wear makeup.

To say 'he', because honestly this person might not even identify as a he, is asking for it and should expect backlash for a certain attire is ludicrous. If we are setting the bar at, 'well, the kids we'll make torment them so they cannot wear it', then that will cause about 90% of the student body having to pause at their fashion choices for that school day because tormenting somebody on their clothing cuts across many a wide spectrum of class, race, gender, status, sexuality, etc.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 2/11/12 at 11:45pm

I'm all for uniforms in schools. That removes any subjectivity from the idea of a dress code.

However, I do feel, as others have already stated, that this appears to be the school blaming the victim(s).

[winston89]

Posted: 2/12/12 at 2:00am

The reason why school's don't put a ban on bullying is because they can't. It's not that they don't wish to. The simple fact is that unless a dean or a principal or teacher or some other authority figure at the school witnesses the case of bullying first hand, it simply becomes a game of he said/she said. As a principal you can't dole out a punishment to a student without having proof. Only because if you are in that position, and you wrongfully dish out a punishment based on nothing more than a hunch, it can easily backfire and shoot you in the foot.

And, no kad, if you wanted to read a very ludicrous comparison, go back earlier in the thread where a poster compared not being able to express one's self as akin to rape.

You guys just don't get it. If someone is wearing an offensive outfit or dressing in a way that isn't socially acceptable ( dressing in drag, as much as you think it should be okay, is something that will turn heads and get people to talk. And, it's frankly not socially acceptable at this point in time) then of course people are going to say and do things. There is a difference between holding someone accountable for their actions and "blaming the victim" as you put it.

Is it wrong for one high school student to beat up another just because the classmate chose to come to school that day in a dress? Yes, it is. But is that same high school student wearing a proverbial "kick me" sign just for wearing a dress? Yes, he is. I am not saying that it is right though. If i were working in a high school, and one of my students came to me and said that they wanted to dress in drag. I would say fine. I would then remind them that others might act negatively towards them doing that. And, so long as they told me that they understood, but didn't care anyway, then I would be fine with it.

You all feel that bullying should not be allowed and it's as simple as just punishing the bullies. Frankly, that is laughable due to it being far easier said than done. Furthermore, it's great that your'e all in favor of equal rights. But, to say that someone I am ignorant due to me being realistic and not drinking your utopian Kool Aide is quite funny.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 2/12/12 at 11:03am

"And, no kad, if you wanted to read a very ludicrous comparison, go back earlier in the thread where a poster compared not being able to express one's self as akin to rape."

NO ONE--not a single person--has made this comparison but you.

I honestly don't know if you think you're scoring a debating point by deliberately misrepresenting the point that was made or if you're genuinely incapable of understanding.

Either way, you should stop saying it, because it makes you look very, very, stupid.

[Taryn]

Posted: 2/12/12 at 11:17am

And, no kad, if you wanted to read a very ludicrous comparison, go back earlier in the thread where a poster compared not being able to express one's self as akin to rape.

No one made that comparison. The comparison was this: rape victims have historically had attention placed on the clothes they were wearing at the time of their assault. People have told rape victims that if they did not dress provocatively, then they would not be the victim of violence. Placing responsibility on the clothing a student is wearing when they are the victims of bullying and assault is a similar case. It is blaming the victim for the clothing they wore to "instigate" violence against them.

Nobody compared rape to stifled personal expression. The comparison is that both cases are seeing blame put on the victims of violence for their clothing choices.

You guys just don't get it. If someone is wearing an offensive outfit or dressing in a way that isn't socially acceptable ( dressing in drag, as much as you think it should be okay, is something that will turn heads and get people to talk. And, it's frankly not socially acceptable at this point in time) then of course people are going to say and do things. There is a difference between holding someone accountable for their actions and "blaming the victim" as you put it.

If a boy is being HELD ACCOUNTABLE for wearing a dress at a time when he was assaulted, then yes, he is receiving blamed for his own assault, and yes, that is blaming the victim.

Is it wrong for one high school student to beat up another just because the classmate chose to come to school that day in a dress? Yes, it is. But is that same high school student wearing a proverbial "kick me" sign just for wearing a dress?

I fail to see any world in which this rhetoric is not blaming the victim. If you are separating blame between the criminal and the victim, then you are BY DEFINITION blaming the victim.

Updated On: 2/12/12 at 11:17 AM

[MTVMANN]

Posted: 2/12/12 at 11:23am

I think what Winston might be saying is that once some crime is done...especially a physical crime (beating...or worse) it can't be undone.

You CAN punish the kids who did it...providing you can PROVE that they did it.
But the victim still went through what he went through.

But would the cross-dressing ban PREVENT this from happen? Perhaps...

In my experience, I've only seen girls "cross dress". Much of what they wear could be considered unisex...but they wore boxers and their pants and you could always see them.

It's a touchy subject because I DO think that it might prevent verbal and physical abuse.
BUT I am for equality and if girls can easily get away with dressing in a way associated with boys...then boys SHOULD get the same chance.
That said...it should be within the dress code as far as length and stuff goes.

On the flip side...can't an Independent School District make whatever rules they want?

[Kad]

Posted: 2/12/12 at 11:52am

I can't recall any instance of male cross-dressing in my high school, either- though I do recall instances of female cross-dressing.

No one here sincerely thinks that a school board saying "BULLYING IS BANNED!" will solve anything (and, besides which, I'm pretty such bullying IS banned in every school district, at least on paper). But so many of these tragic bullying stories implicate teachers and administration who either turn a blind eye and don't investigate or become caught up in red tape while trying to help. The solution seems to be telling kids "it gets better"... but things don't really seem to be aiming toward "let's MAKE THINGS better".

Even if the thinking behind this rule is in the best of intentions, which I'm sure it is, it's still just treating a symptom and an easy fix. It's protecting them, but at what overall cost? Many LGBT youth already feel like they are repressed and ignored by institutions. And this logic can be applied to other instances; one could argue that it shouldn't be allowed to for two gay students to hold hands or kiss because it could provoke bullying.

Winston, I at least see the logic behind the thetinymagic's comment, even if I personally wouldn't have made it myself. And I think it certainly does fit into this argument nicely, since women are notoriously blamed for any violence toward them and are often demeaned if they should express their sexuality (slut-shaming).
Your "Nazi walks into a synagogue" analogy takes the logic driving the arguments against this rule and skews it to the point of absurdity. A woman dressing sexually and a teenage boy in a dress are not the same as openly expressing antisemitism, mocking genocide, and any other implication that emerges from someone dressing as HITLER and walking into a SYNAGOGUE.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 2/13/12 at 5:57am

We had a cross dresser in my HS about 10 years ago. At first, things were very difficult for the student, which did include physical abuse (the school punished each and every time, and it became a legal issue as well) In time, things got 'easier' for the student, but never great.

Banning the dress isn't the answer. The student has every right to dress how he (or she chooses). The school has the responsibility to protect the best they can -- but many of the attacks will (and did) happen off school grounds. And while the school cannot protect you from what happens off campus, they can now become involved with the consequences when it does. (which includes FB taunting and other electronic harrassment.)