Greystones school - gender neutral uniforms to be introduced.

MrFresh

beejee wrote: »

While a fair point on the surface (which will suffice for most people because they don't really care about anything), there is no such thing as population changes having only selected effects in isolation. (doubly so when standards are changed to suit minute minorities from standards that were created by the vast majority for, usually, great periods of time)

It affects everything and everyone around it. How those effects take shape, we'll see eventually.

So what exactly is your "concern"? What potential negatives do you see coming from the uniform policy being gender neutral?

ohnonotgmail

MrFresh wrote: »

So what exactly is your "concern"? What potential negatives do you see coming from the uniform policy being gender neutral?

i made the mistake of asking that. I got a load of waffle in return.

beejee

MrFresh wrote: »

So what exactly is your "concern"? What potential negatives do you see coming from the uniform policy being gender neutral?

You know yourself

Cant be argued on the internet. And that's what my "waffle" amply explained.

You don't see any harm in it. Good for you. The internet is chock-a-block with people who don't see anything wrong with anything. Very useful to some.

seasidedub

I really don"t care what they wear. But it's a uniform so why not just have trousers for everyone- they are almost universally accepted as unisex clothing (for at least 4 decades now). Why does it all have to be so right-on and terribly pc???

And as for the "concerned" girls who went to the principal - they sound like a right bunch of little pc, social-justice warrior busybodies....I bet their mothers are like the "liberal ladies" from Callan's Kicks". All green, right-on and "integrative" - but i find these types generally know nothing about nature, they couldn't name a tree or a bird, are afraid of bees and I wonder how right on they'd be if Esme or Saffron came home with a traveller or a migrant....

It's all clap trap. Why don't they all wear black kilts, that's Irish culture..

MrFresh

beejee wrote: »

You know yourself

Cant be argued on the internet. And that's what my "waffle" amply explained.

You don't see any harm in it. Good for you. The internet is chock-a-block with people who don't see anything wrong with anything. Very useful to some.

So you are just afraid of change in general and nothing specific.

beejee

MrFresh wrote: »

So you are just afraid of change in general and nothing specific.

Its not about fear. That's a tactic to portray rational thought as a negative.

If someone set my car alight, I wouldn't be "afraid" of whats happening.

As I already said, there is a world of difference between "a new idea" and a "good idea".

And you'll find it quite commonly phrased just the way you have done, "a fear of change". It doubles up on the fear thing of course, but also presents ANY change as a good thing. It would be ridiculous to believe that any idea is a good idea. Same for the word "progress", the intimation is that its all good, no matter what.

Its all dirty, man. That's the culture created by the internet, everything is correct if you get it viral enough.

So believe what you like, and you wont get a straight answer out of me because its pointless to argue such well-ingrained "ideas" at this point. Every dog has its day in the sun, after all.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Vincent van Gogh wrote: »

If you go back far enough it was generally accepted that pink was for boys and blue for girls. That's why this whole thing is stupid. It's all predicated on preconceived notions that aren't objective but subjective. The only reason why you might feel like this is the time you were born.

Live and let live.

I’ve just googled as an image search Victorian children’s fashions and I’m here to tell you that that appears to be a myth. It’s true of course that fashions do change with regard to clothing nevertheless this Ive never believed.

https://www.pinterest.ie/pin/168392473541038340/?amp_client_id=amp-WYC2xuzlnxPLKE4xC2UjNw&mweb_unauth_id=8192ffbc695848cdb4e35536d035360c

https://images.app.goo.gl/gAKUvt6pv6DWJzY97

Victorian children wore a lot of colours is what I see. Mostly white for girls with coloured ribbons but plenty of pinks. When a girl is in blue and a boy is in pink, it’s really red and light blue.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

beejee wrote: »

Its not about fear. That's a tactic to portray rational thought as a negative.

If someone set my car alight, I wouldn't be "afraid" of whats happening.

As I already said, there is a world of difference between "a new idea" and a "good idea".

And you'll find it quite commonly phrased just the way you have done, "a fear of change". It doubles up on the fear thing of course, but also presents ANY change as a good thing. It would be ridiculous to believe that any idea is a good idea. Same for the word "progress", the intimation is that its all good, no matter what.

Its all dirty, man. That's the culture created by the internet, everything is correct if you get it viral enough.

So believe what you like, and you wont get a straight answer out of me because its pointless to argue such well-ingrained "ideas" at this point. Every dog has its day in the sun, after all.

But you appear to be saying it's a bad idea BECAUSE It's a new idea.

I'm of the opinion your objections are based on the fact that the students asked for it, whereas if they simply introduced a rule saying girls can wear uniform pants, you'd be fine with it.

Will this mean a boy shows up wearing a skirt? Maybe - for the lols. Maybe - because he feels more comfortable. Who cares? As long as it's his own choice and he does his homework.

Mad_maxx

MrFresh wrote: »

What's the issue? Helps the 1-2% and doesn't effect the other 98%? Who's losing out?

When you manufacture a phoney crisis, the cure will also be fawlty.

Heard one of those gender studies weirdos on with Ivan Yates yesterday and of course she was delighted about this, she then went on a big speech about the number of children who have " gender identity conflict"

Yates asked her what percentage of school children have gender identity confusion, she couldn't answer

Back before these kind of nutty courses were funded in university, a tiny fraction of the population were in a crisis about what genitalia they were born with, the number was so small as to be inconsequential in terms of warranting some kind of national awareness campaign

There is and never was any kind of gender identity epidemic amongst the young, it's a contrived national concern, invented by kook academics who are selling half baked, pseudo intellectual snake oil

Unfortunately the media can't get enough of this mind poison and the young have either convinced themselves or had others convinced them that they are in need of radical changes in their lives

It won't end well

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mad_maxx wrote: »

MrFresh wrote: »

What's the issue? Helps the 1-2% and doesn't effect the other 98%? Who's losing out?

When you manufacture a phoney crisis, the cure will also be fawlty.

Heard one of those gender studies weirdos on with Ivan Yates yesterday and of course she was delighted about this, she then went on a big speech about the number of children who have " gender identity conflict"

Yates asked her what percentage of school children have gender identity confusion, she couldn't answer

Back before these kind of nutty courses were funded in university, a tiny fraction of the population were in a crisis about what genitalia they were born with, the number was so small as to be inconsequential in terms of warranting some kind of national awareness campaign

There is and never was any kind of gender identity epidemic amongst the young, it's a contrived national concern, invented by kook academics who are selling half baked, pseudo intellectual snake oil

Unfortunately the media can't get enough of this mind poison and the young have either convinced themselves or had others convinced them that they are in need of radical changes in their lives

It won't end well

Because girls will start wearing pants to school?

MrFresh

beejee wrote: »

Its not about fear. That's a tactic to portray rational thought as a negative.

If someone set my car alight, I wouldn't be "afraid" of whats happening.

As I already said, there is a world of difference between "a new idea" and a "good idea".

And you'll find it quite commonly phrased just the way you have done, "a fear of change". It doubles up on the fear thing of course, but also presents ANY change as a good thing. It would be ridiculous to believe that any idea is a good idea. Same for the word "progress", the intimation is that its all good, no matter what.

Its all dirty, man. That's the culture created by the internet, everything is correct if you get it viral enough.

So believe what you like, and you wont get a straight answer out of me because its pointless to argue such well-ingrained "ideas" at this point. Every dog has its day in the sun, after all.

But you haven't said why it's not a good idea.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

When you manufacture a phoney crisis, the cure will also be fawlty.

Heard one of those gender studies weirdos on with Ivan Yates yesterday and of course she was delighted about this, she then went on a big speech about the number of children who have " gender identity conflict"

Yates asked her what percentage of school children have gender identity confusion, she couldn't answer

Back before these kind of nutty courses were funded in university, a tiny fraction of the population were in a crisis about what genitalia they were born with, the number was so small as to be inconsequential in terms of warranting some kind of national awareness campaign

There is and never was any kind of gender identity epidemic amongst the young, it's a contrived national concern, invented by kook academics who are selling half baked, pseudo intellectual snake oil

Unfortunately the media can't get enough of this mind poison and the young have either convinced themselves or had others convinced them that they are in need of radical changes in their lives

It won't end well

Doesn't answer my question.

ILoveYourVibes

Get rid of the uniform lets kids wear what they want.

mazcon

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Because girls will start wearing pants to school?

The only reason this is seen as newsworthy isn't because of girls wearing trousers, it's because of changing the policy to allow boys wear skirts.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

mazcon wrote: »

The only reason this is seen as newsworthy isn't because of girls wearing trousers, it's because of changing the policy to allow boys wear skirts.

Maybe so, but that doesn't explain why the poster I was responding to believes that it won't end well.

Mad_maxx

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Maybe so, but that doesn't explain why the poster I was responding to believes that it won't end well.

Manufactured crises don't end well

Del.Monte

Fortunately my two sons are in secondary school but they wouldn't be staying there long if this sort of virtue signalling, pc nonsense was introduced there. The lunatics - am I allowed to say that - have truly taken over the asylum.

briangriffin

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Maybe so, but that doesn't explain why the poster I was responding to believes that it won't end well.

It wont end well because it doesn't end there.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

briangriffin wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Maybe so, but that doesn't explain why the poster I was responding to believes that it won't end well.

It wont end well because it doesn't end there.

Slippery slope fallacy.

briangriffin

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Slippery slope fallacy.

I'm glad you are so certain this is a good thing. How can you be so certain?

beejee

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Slippery slope fallacy.

Slippery slope is not a fallacy. You've been instructed to interpret most likely logical sequence as a bad thing.

It's one of the better wins for Internet troglodytes to escape everything.

Does gun ownership lead to higher murder rates? Nah, slippery slope fallacy.

Does eating hamburgers everyday mean your children are more likely to eat shoite? Nah, slippery slope fallacy.

1+1=2, 2+2=4, 4+4=8, can you guess what comes next? Nah, impossible, slippery slope fallacy of predictive logic.

Give me a break

SEPT 23 1989

Honk

Calhoun

Mad_maxx wrote: »

When you manufacture a phoney crisis, the cure will also be fawlty.

Heard one of those gender studies weirdos on with Ivan Yates yesterday and of course she was delighted about this, she then went on a big speech about the number of children who have " gender identity conflict"

Yates asked her what percentage of school children have gender identity confusion, she couldn't answer

Back before these kind of nutty courses were funded in university, a tiny fraction of the population were in a crisis about what genitalia they were born with, the number was so small as to be inconsequential in terms of warranting some kind of national awareness campaign

There is and never was any kind of gender identity epidemic amongst the young, it's a contrived national concern, invented by kook academics who are selling half baked, pseudo intellectual snake oil

Unfortunately the media can't get enough of this mind poison and the young have either convinced themselves or had others convinced them that they are in need of radical changes in their lives

It won't end well

Its why its so dangerous and why you get so much opposition every time we talk about the subject of transgender-ism. I get it though a minority group will always want to grow and be bigger as it comes with a degree of protection.

Its also a very lucrative area and lots of money to be made.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

briangriffin wrote: »

I'm glad you are so certain this is a good thing. How can you be so certain?

Slight difference - I was questioning how one poster said it would be a bad thing, and the response I got was that, rather than it being a bad thing in itself, is that it will lead to bad things.

I never commented on it being good or bad: I just said that I didn't see he harm in letting girls wear pants.

beejee wrote: »

Slippery slope is not a fallacy. You've been instructed to interpret most likely logical sequence as a bad thing.

It's one of the better wins for Internet troglodytes to escape everything.

Does gun ownership lead to higher murder rates? Nah, slippery slope fallacy.

Does eating hamburgers everyday mean your children are more likely to eat shoite? Nah, slippery slope fallacy.

1+1=2, 2+2=4, 4+4=8, can you guess what comes next? Nah, impossible, slippery slope fallacy of predictive logic.

Give me a break

That's not how a slippery slope fallacy works.

A slippery slope fallacy is the act of being against an idea not because the idea is bad, but because of fears of the unforeseen precedents it will set.

Eg - if you allow people to own guns, next thing you know they'll allow dogs to own guns.
If you allow kids to eat hamburgers, next thing you know they'll allow babies to eat them too.
And recently
If you allow same sex people to marry, you'll be allowing dogs and trees to marry next (actually used in marriage equality debate)

What you demonstrate is mere cause and effect; whereas the slippery slope is usually fantasy.

Case in point: no one has mentioned a specific example of an unforeseen consequence of the idea (assuming we can dismiss the ideas of SS uniforms and birthday suits as being jokes) so we can't discuss the possibility of it being realistic.

Every idea can have negative outcomes - sure - but the problem then is, that you can use it block any change whatsoever; and you can't keep everythign the same simply because anything new "might" go bad.

ittakestwo

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Get rid of the uniform lets kids wear what they want.

This can can put pressure on low income familys. kids can single out others if their parents cant afford designer gear like some of the other kids in their class.

The most obvious solution is just to have one uniform for both boys and girls...why in 2019 do they need to be different anyway? Segregating sexs for no reason is probably not a good idea. Surely a transgender kid would feel most comfortable if all their piers were in the same uniform rather than being the only boy wearing a skirt. As mentioned before some schools have had one uniform for a long time.

If the school is trying to be progressive its getting it arseways. Just have one uniform for both boys and girls.

dubdaymo

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Back before these kind of nutty courses were funded in university, a tiny fraction of the population were in a crisis about what genitalia they were born with, the number was so small as to be inconsequential in terms of warranting some kind of national awareness campaign

There is and never was any kind of gender identity epidemic amongst the young, it's a contrived national concern, invented by kook academics who are selling half baked, pseudo intellectual snake oil

I couldn't have put it better myself other than to replace "kook academics" with "lunatics".

If someone asked you to explain the expression "lunatics taking over the asylum" this nonsense in Greystones would be the perfect example.

briangriffin

Is it a good idea for children to see boys and girls wearing skirts? Is it ok for boys to be boys and girls to be girls or what does that even mean? What dangers could possibly arise? Kids of the ages from 5 to 12 who are vulnerable who haven’t the same level of rational thought that adults have. Vulnerable to social media to suggestions from peers to anxiety about small things which can become big things. Kids who believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. Why would they want to wear a dress? Could it be because they want to be a little girl instead of a boy? Or trousers because they want to be little boys instead of girls? Or is it just for the craic? Are you affirming the child by saying yes you can wear a dress even though you are a boy. Or are you telling that boy that there is something wrong with them because they want to wear a skirt. Are you telling them that maybe they are not boys that they are girls. Or boys trapped in girls bodies. Are you confusing a child of 5 about who they are at an age where an idea introduced can be affirmed and take root and become an obsession a perceived reality with only one solution. When children should be playing games with their friends and enjoying the innocence of childhood instead you introduce “gender” language which leads to further questions and confusion. Or shir what harm their only kids it’s not really a problem I’m clearly scaremongering what harm could possibly come of it..

Faugheen

Are people still crying about this?

If only one child is struggling with their gender identity, then there should be the supports in place to make that child feel like there’s nothing to worry about.

As I’ve said, worry about your own house first before sharing faux-concern for children you have no relation to.

Bobblehats

I stepped out in a skirt and high heels once to get a bottle of thunderbird from the 24hr garage

It was well after school hours. I was totalled; I trashed my ankle. Don’t do anything you might regret

MrFresh

Still waiting on someone to give a negative consequence of a boy wearing a skirt.

Sunny Disposition

MrFresh wrote: »

Still waiting on someone to give a negative consequence of a boy wearing a skirt.

I can’t see it either, can only be good to have the choice, might help someone and can’t hurt anyone.