Greystones school - gender neutral uniforms to be introduced.

embers_fire

Mitch Connor wrote: »

So the student council, the kids, prompted this - but we shouldn't respect their opinion that kids should be allowed to be who they are, because kids won't tollerate other kids being who they are?

The student council, the kids should be prepared for the implications of a boy wearing a skirt in an environment where they are surrounded by childish people i.e. children, who may ridicule or assault them for their choices.
The choice of a child making a decision to wear what they want should be respected.

ohnonotgmail

embers_fire wrote: »

The student council, the kids should be prepared for the implications of a boy wearing a skirt in an environment where they are surrounded by childish people i.e. children, who may ridicule or assault them for their choices.
The choice of a child making a decision to wear what they want should be respected.

if they get ridiculed or assaulted then the school can deal with the kids who do that.

Sabre0001

So in another thread in this forum we have people crying out for schools and parents to do a better job of raising children and clamping down on bullying. But here, if a boy dares wear a skirt (and I imagine the uptake will mostly be girls wearing trousers anyway) they've put a target on their own back and it's their own fault if they get bullied. If the boy wasn't wearing a skirt, a bully would find another reason to bully them.

This is a non-issue for the most part or it means that girls will be able to wear trousers in the depths of winter or if it's more comfortable. And if it means that boys get to wear skirts because they prefer them, so what.

EmmetSpiceland

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if they get ridiculed or assaulted then the school can deal with the kids who do that.

Then the kid gets sent home to parents who tell them it’s the school who is in the wrong forcing their “agenda” down the bully’s throat.

While I don’t agree with the policy, for reasons stated previously, anyone who an issue with it on “moral” grounds is, what I would consider, a backwards moron.

weldoninhio

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if they get ridiculed or assaulted then the school can deal with the kids who do that.

And outside of school? And what about things that aren't bullying??? What about when the boys just don't want to hang around with a boy who wears a skirt, and the girls just don't want to hang around with a boy??

ohnonotgmail

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Then the kid gets sent home to parents who tell them it’s the school who is in the wrong forcing their “agenda” down the bully’s throat.

While I don’t agree with the policy, for reasons stated previously, anyone who an issue with it on “moral” grounds is, what I would consider, a backwards moron.

there is no forcing of anything down anybodies throats. kids need to be taught that somebody else doing something that does not affect them or anybody else is none of their business. quite a few of the adults here need to be learn the same thing.

B_ecke_r

some attention seeker will wear one to be gasssssssssssssss

wrong idea imo

ohnonotgmail

weldoninhio wrote: »

And outside of school? And what about things that aren't bullying??? What about when the boys just don't want to hang around with a boy who wears a skirt, and the girls just don't want to hang around with a boy??

outside of school while in school uniform the school can still take action. this "lets not do something because the kids doing it might get bullied" attitude is as transparent as the window i'm sitting next to.

EmmetSpiceland

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there is no forcing of anything down anybodies throats. kids need to be taught that somebody else doing something that does not affect them or anybody else is none of their business. quite a few of the adults here need to be learn the same thing.

Yes but that’s not how some parents will see it. They see it as some sort of “snowflake agenda”.

ohnonotgmail

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Yes but that’s not how some parents will see it. They see it as some sort of “snowflake agenda”.

well then those parents are idiots. You dont not do something because some idiots might be offended.

cgcsb

weldoninhio wrote: »

And outside of school? And what about things that aren't bullying??? What about when the boys just don't want to hang around with a boy who wears a skirt, and the girls just don't want to hang around with a boy??

Such is life

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

weldoninhio wrote: »

And outside of school? And what about things that aren't bullying??? What about when the boys just don't want to hang around with a boy who wears a skirt, and the girls just don't want to hang around with a boy??

That makes no sense whatsoever: why would students who push for this idea then suddenly turn around and socially exclude kids who make use of it??

You're trying to create problems in order to justify your own intolerance where said problems are unlikely to occur.

MrFresh

cgcsb wrote: »

Imagine being annoyed at this?

No, no, it's not annoyance it's "concern". They're just "concerned" with all the bullying the students will have to put up with.

weldoninhio

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That makes no sense whatsoever: why would students who push for this idea then suddenly turn around and socially exclude kids who make use of it??

You're trying to create problems in order to justify your own intolerance where said problems are unlikely to occur.

The students are 4-12, not exactly great at the oul critical thinking.

if something you *simply have* to wear draws that much attention to you, you seem to me to want the attention beyond what is reasonable

putting an item of clothing/haircut/whatever so central to your personality or being is more of a sign of a problem to me than "the crül system isnt letting ME be my WONDERFUL SELF"

uniforms are designed to remove this aspect from what is an institution for learning, which does call for an adoption of a group rather than an individualistic mentality

some will claim this is undesirable, youll always have those types. if you're unfortunate enough to work with someone who says they are "arty/creative" youll know the type

gender wars is a subset of this, i think sometimes.

ohnonotgmail

MrFresh wrote: »

No, no, it's not annoyance it's "concern". They're just "concerned" with all the bullying the students will have to put up with.

took me a second to notice the quotes. you had me worried.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

weldoninhio wrote: »

The students are 4-12, not exactly great at the oul critical thinking.

They seem to have done a better job of presenting credible arguments than you have, given that their ideas were accepted; whereas your objections, as as been proven, don't follow logic.

cgcsb

MrFresh wrote: »

No, no, it's not annoyance it's "concern". They're just "concerned" with all the bullying the students will have to put up with.

If you call it a 'genuine concern' you get more sympathy for your bigotry, a rookie mistake. :pac:

weldoninhio

Deleted User wrote: »

if something you *simply have* to wear draws that much attention to you, you seem to me to want the attention beyond what is reasonable

putting an item of clothing/haircut/whatever so central to your personality or being is more of a sign of a problem to me than "the crül system isnt letting ME be my WONDERFUL SELF"

uniforms are designed to remove this aspect from what is an institution for learning, which does call for an adoption of a group rather than an individualistic mentality

some will claim this is undesirable, youll always have those types. if you're unfortunate enough to work with someone who says they are "arty/creative" youll know the type

gender wars is a subset of this, i think sometimes.

100%, it's attention they want. My local football team had a "Tranny Bingo" night, with some senior players dressing in drag and doing bingo to raise money for the juvenile section of the club. Sold out and was great craic, everyone enjoyed the night and the club made a good bit of money for the underage teams.

But a week beforehand, someone decided to contact Dublin Live and a few other newspapers to complain about the term "Tranny Bingo" stating that they no longer felt safe in the village after seeing a sign advertising it.

Thats the mentality you are dealing with. What % of the population are trans etc and why are they getting such excessive airtime??

Mad_maxx

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you mean the people who want children to be allowed to wear what they want? how is that sticking their beak into other peoples affairs? now, people who say that boys must wear this set of clothes and girls must wear a different ARE sticking their beak in other peoples affairs. you seem to have things backwards.

The change is framed in such a way which implies it's about "wearing what you want" but the reality is quite different.

Espousing "gender neutral" clothing is about eroding traditional atire choices

It's a political act

cgcsb

weldoninhio wrote: »

100%, it's attention they want. My local football team had a "Tranny Bingo" night, with some senior players dressing in drag and doing bingo to raise money for the juvenile section of the club. Sold out and was great craic, everyone enjoyed the night and the club made a good bit of money for the underage teams.

But a week beforehand, someone decided to contact Dublin Live and a few other newspapers to complain about the term "Tranny Bingo" stating that they no longer felt safe in the village after seeing a sign advertising it.

Thats the mentality you are dealing with. What % of the population are trans etc and why are they getting such excessive airtime??

People used to mock gay people as well, in fact doing so was main stream comedy 30 years ago, even 10 years ago in braindead hollywood films. It all contributed to a culture of a certain class of person being something to be laughed at and ridiculed, and of course that does precipitate violence as we have seen in the past.

ohnonotgmail

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The change is framed in such a way which implies it's about "wearing what you want" but the reality is quite different.

Espousing "gender neutral" clothing is about eroding traditional atire choices

It's a political act

"eroding traditional atire (sic) choices". what nonsense.

cgcsb

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The change is framed in such a way which implies it's about "wearing what you want" but the reality is quite different.

Espousing "gender neutral" clothing is about eroding traditional atire choices

It's a political act

why ought children or adults adhere to 'traditional atire choices'? why should it be compulsory?

super_furry

This enforced wearing of skirts is a misguided effort to......what? It's not enforced and is entirely optional? Pupils can decide for themselves what they wear?

Well I'm still outraged because of......reasons and something to do with snowflakes.

weldoninhio

cgcsb wrote: »

People used to mock gay people as well, in fact doing so was main stream comedy 30 years ago, even 10 years ago in braindead hollywood films. It all contributed to a culture of a certain class of person being something to be laughed at and ridiculed, and of course that does precipitate violence as we have seen in the past.

Tranny is short for transvestite, a man that dresses as a woman. Part of most, if not all, tranny acts is lewd, bawdy comedy. Shirley Temple Bar does it in The George.

Mad_maxx

cgcsb wrote: »

why ought children or adults adhere to 'traditional atire choices'? why should it be compulsory?

Because traditional customs have mostly served us well

weldoninhio

MrFresh wrote: »

Here's the voice of the oppressed white Christian male to tell us all how actual oppressed minorities should feel.

I'm Irish buddy, you can keep your Americanised nonsensical language for you and your mates. I'm not oppressed and i'm not catholic. Should i feel unsafe because you've labelled me?? Or would that be seen as a ridiculous over-reaction??
:rolleyes:

Leroy42

I don't understand why boys wearing skirts is seen as such an issue. Girls have been forced to wear them for years with little regard, so I fail to see how all of a sudden wearing a skirt is so terrible.

I heard the segment on Newstalk on the school spokeperson was reasonable and considerate but Shane Coleman came across as a complete loon, unable to get his head around any boy ever wearing a skirt.

As the schoolperson said, they will not be making anyone do anything outside the dress code, they can use trousers, shorts, skirt of whatever, It is about equality and choice.

MrFresh

weldoninhio wrote: »

I'm Irish buddy, you can keep your Americanised nonsensical language for you and your mates. I'm not oppressed and i'm not catholic. Should i feel unsafe because you've labelled me?? Or would that be seen as a ridiculous over-reaction??
:rolleyes:

Whatever helps you feel more oppressed.

cgcsb

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Because traditional customs have mostly served us well

Ah would you stop. It's up to current society to decide what serves us well. Previous generations had traditional marital rapes, but we're much more civilised now. If you have any experience of the world of business, science, medicine, engineering or politics, saying things like 'because it's always been', will typically fall on deaf ears for being the thoughtless nonsense it is. We have a brain so that we can continuously review our behavior and change if need be.