Student Suspended for wearing a dress.

[Lythiaren]

Most schools in the U.S. which ban hats don't use cheating as their reasons.

The main reasons are usually:
1.) It's considered rude to wear a hat indoors, it says you know you aren't staying long.
2.) It's disrespectful to wear a hat in front of a U.S. flag, which are usually ubiquitous in American schools.
3.) ZOMG, GANG CULTURE! QUICK BAN IT!
4.) Lice.

Good thing I live and learn in Canada. :V

1. Manners are either dead or twisted in most of this continent anyway. This is a culture in which simple disagreement is sometimes considered equivalent to death threats.
2. This one I see as very strange; in Canadian military establishments you salute the flag if you have your hat on and give eyes if you don't. Nobody gives two shits about civilians giving either. Cultural differences ahoy!
3. If they want to ban everything remotely related to gang culture I suggest they make belt rules...
4. Lice spread even without hats.

 

[Merkavar]

i just dont see anything wrong with what he did. if he wants to wear a dress and high heels does it really affect anyone? i just dont see why they even tried to suspend him.

I think the main issue is that it's distracting.

i cant see how this guy wearing a dress is any more distracting than the 100s of girls wearing skirts and tops that barely covered anything. or was high school different in america and allgirls wear burkas or something similar.

I could pose a similar question. Are Australian highschools strip clubs? Or are you simply so Puritan that the sight of a woman with bare ankles sends you into a blind rage?

ofcourse not. like i said that a guy wearing a dress shouldnt be any more distracting than anyone else wearing a dress. when i was at school some guys wore dresses for some lols. people have abit of a laugh and move on. the only reason i can see that this has become an issue is cause the school came down hard on him. if they had ignored it im sure the students would have too or are american school so intolerant of non conformists?

 

[cobra_ky]

You asked "who are we to stop" the school bullies pushing him down stairs, stealing his lunch money, throwing his homework in the river, beating him to a pulp et cetera.

Well, who we are to stop that is who we are to stop any other behaviour like that.

Actually, no. I didn't say anything about stopping the bullies or not. I said "If he wants to get his ass kicked at school, who are we to stop him?" I don't care if he wants to dress like a girl. I think it should be his choice, but I just hope he realizes he will be fucked with by other people and he can't be protected all the time.

You're treating bullying like it's an inevitable response. you're focusing on his decision to dress the way he wants to, not the hypothetical bullies' decision to harass him. it's the latter decision that we should be concerned about.

I really don't see how you can not see it. you said you would not be disturbed by the song you hate the most, thats really good! take that same attitude and realize in the same way you have no control of what music plays in someone else's car you have no control over what people wear the world does not belong to you. don't be disturbed by people for liking what they they like.

so what if im the creators of the clothes and i make some dresses for men that look very similar to dresses for women (if not the same) but i only sell them to men. would you still have a problem with that?

just really consider if it truly is wrong.

I am done - you clearly don't seem to understand my posts. No point in trying to argue.

You may want to consider whether the point you're making actually makes sense. Think about whether it's really OK to call the way other people dress 'wrong', simply because it bothers you.

good luck in your future defenses of heteronormative gender roles.

Last time before I go:

Heteronormative clothes =/= gender roles! I swear you guys have selective reading, only looking at what you can argue against.

I just checked again and i didn't see you say that anywhere in your earlier posts. If you had, i would have called you out on it. I don't see how you can possibly say "Only women should wear ______" is anything BUT a gender role.

On the contrary: if you live in a place where women are congratulated for being able to put on a pair of pants, you've got lower standards for the intelligence of women than Borat did.

I believe you have misunderstood my argument. It has nothing to do with intelligence, rather with negative social sanctions which are placed upon men who are believed to have 'feminine' habits or characteristics, while women with traditionally masculine traits are encouraged. See this picture [http://fmnst.tumblr.com/photo/1280/4622549244/1/tumblr_ljcaqjifTp1qglzx1] for a better visual representation, in case you missed it the first time.

Oh, brilliant chain of thought. "Women are allowed to dress like men. Men dressing like women is considered 'unmanly' because men think women are inferior to men."

"Black kids are allowed to dress like white people. White kids dressing 'gangsta' is seen as degrading because white people think being black is degrading."

"Police are allowed to wear plainclothes. Civilians dressing as 'police' is frowned upon because most people think being a cop is degrading."

Gangsters commit crimes. Impersonating a police officer is a crime. Being a woman isn't.

Here's the thing: "male" clothes are generally seen as "male" clothes because they were practical. There was a time when women weren't considered fit for the same duties as men, and thus their clothing didn't need to be suitable for anything men would do (read: everything except making babies and looking pretty). Women can dress like "men" because "male" clothes are actually functional. It's never a man whose workboots break a heel, or whose slacks are so restrictive that he can't run.

When was the last time that someone had some sort of activity that required them to wear traditionally "female" clothing?

<img src=http://blogs.jamaicans.com/cumbayah/files/2008/06/saggypants.jpg>

How fast do you think this guy could run? i bet he could run a whole lot faster if he was wearing a dress.

 

[Danny91]

My opinion is that he should have had disciplinary action taken if he was truly doing it, as the report says, on a dare. One of the hardest and most important things to do at a school (at least where I'm from; cant speak for anywhere else) is maintain discipline and an academic environment. And if this child was doing this for this not-very-good reason, then he would have been needlessly disruptive, and therefore should have been punished in some way. The harshness of the punishment I also noted, but then I also read that he had been reprimanded before as well, making it make more sense.

This is bullshit!
If he want's to wear a dress, he should get to wear a dress, the reason does not factor in, unless he himself is discriminating in his action. Unless the school has a dress code, (which for the record, I am against) they shouldn't interfere with a students choice of clothing. You cannot say that some clothes are OK only if the motive is pure, either they are OK, or they are not, no ifs, buts or exceptions. (Except for the already mention of if the act is discriminating)

I respect your opinion, but if we as a group believe that clothing is intrinsically neutral; as it seems the majority of people here believe; then the only consideration left behind any reaction given should be purely based on external factors relating to the clothing, such as motive and whatnot, which is why i believe it is important. For example, if someone is wearing skimpy clothing, they could either be trying to get attention and sex for favours, in which case we call them a slut; or they could be doing it to show how proud they are of their sexuality, in which case we address them differently. Context and motive are very important, I feel.

What I'm trying to do here is avoid adding anything to my response not found in the initial report; or anything which can not be reasonably inferred. As such, the report mentions that he did it on a dare, which I still believe to be a pointless reason, as I believe it can be reasonably assumed that he would have been aware of the disruption he would possibly cause in the school by doing this, and yet he decided to follow through on it.

There are more negative things a person can do through any action other than being discriminatory. Discrimination is not the be-all and end-all of negative actions. As I mentioned before, a school is primarily an academic environment, and should, I believe, have an emphasis on discipline; and someone who is doing a dare of this nature would undermine that, prettily purposefully too, as I see it.

 

[Varya]

I respect your opinion, but if we as a group believe that clothing is intrinsically neutral; as it seems the majority of people here believe; then the only consideration left behind any reaction given should be purely based on external factors relating to the clothing, such as motive and whatnot, which is why i believe it is important. For example, if someone is wearing skimpy clothing, they could either be trying to get attention and sex for favours, in which case we call them a slut; or they could be doing it to show how proud they are of their sexuality, in which case we address them differently. Context and motive are very important, I feel.

What I'm trying to do here is avoid adding anything to my response not found in the initial report; or anything which can not be reasonably inferred. As such, the report mentions that he did it on a dare, which I still believe to be a pointless reason, as I believe it can be reasonably assumed that he would have been aware of the disruption he would possibly cause in the school by doing this, and yet he decided to follow through on it.

There are more negative things a person can do through any action other than being discriminatory. Discrimination is not the be-all and end-all of negative actions. As I mentioned before, a school is primarily an academic environment, and should, I believe, have an emphasis on discipline; and someone who is doing a dare of this nature would undermine that, prettily purposefully too, as I see it.

First I want to make it clear that if a woman wears small skirts because she want's more sex, all the power to her. I wear nice clothes to get laid (or did, when I was single). Still, I don't get that that's the point you're trying to make, so moving on.
Yes, there is more negative things than being discriminatory in regards to clothes, but, as far as I know, no other illegal way. My point is, we cannot question motives for actions that are our own personal choices as long as there is nothing illegal going on. Ok, so wearing a dress draws attention and distracts, and he could have foreseen this, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to. We can all wish he had noble motives, but he did it for the lulz. But since there is nothing wrong with a guy wearing a dress other than societal norms, he shouldn't have to be considerate of other people when choosing what to wear, even if he only did it for fun.
We don't have to ha a "point" to things. He choose to wear a dress, motives are pointless. People that don't want him to wear one have to have a reason for him not to wear it, and "it distracts" doesn't count. If he was a transsexual we'd have to live with the distraction, but since he don't mind wearing regular clothes we shouldn't have to? No not buying it. As long as it's not illegal, don't touch my clothes!

 

[X10J]

What, people are doing wierd things? This is UNACCEPTABLE!!!

 

[Danny91]

I respect your opinion, but if we as a group believe that clothing is intrinsically neutral; as it seems the majority of people here believe; then the only consideration left behind any reaction given should be purely based on external factors relating to the clothing, such as motive and whatnot, which is why i believe it is important. For example, if someone is wearing skimpy clothing, they could either be trying to get attention and sex for favours, in which case we call them a slut; or they could be doing it to show how proud they are of their sexuality, in which case we address them differently. Context and motive are very important, I feel.

What I'm trying to do here is avoid adding anything to my response not found in the initial report; or anything which can not be reasonably inferred. As such, the report mentions that he did it on a dare, which I still believe to be a pointless reason, as I believe it can be reasonably assumed that he would have been aware of the disruption he would possibly cause in the school by doing this, and yet he decided to follow through on it.

There are more negative things a person can do through any action other than being discriminatory. Discrimination is not the be-all and end-all of negative actions. As I mentioned before, a school is primarily an academic environment, and should, I believe, have an emphasis on discipline; and someone who is doing a dare of this nature would undermine that, prettily purposefully too, as I see it.

First I want to make it clear that if a woman wears small skirts because she want's more sex, all the power to her. I wear nice clothes to get laid (or did, when I was single). Still, I don't get that that's the point you're trying to make, so moving on.
Yes, there is more negative things than being discriminatory in regards to clothes, but, as far as I know, no other illegal way. My point is, we cannot question motives for actions that are our own personal choices as long as there is nothing illegal going on. Ok, so wearing a dress draws attention and distracts, and he could have foreseen this, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to. We can all wish he had noble motives, but he did it for the lulz. But since there is nothing wrong with a guy wearing a dress other than societal norms, he shouldn't have to be considerate of other people when choosing what to wear, even if he only did it for fun.
We don't have to ha a "point" to things. He choose to wear a dress, motives are pointless. People that don't want him to wear one have to have a reason for him not to wear it, and "it distracts" doesn't count. If he was a transsexual we'd have to live with the distraction, but since he don't mind wearing regular clothes we shouldn't have to? No not buying it. As long as it's not illegal, don't touch my clothes!

Firstly, the slut example was simply that: an example on the situation; it was just to show the relevancy of context and motive.
I still believe in the value of his motives here in regards to this question; because, as you put it, as he "did it for the lulz." I understand that the context of that term is always debatable, but it in this situation it implies a certain disregard for the effects it would have on those around him. I understand that we diverge extremely on this point, and it is not my intent to do anything other than present my own contrary opinion; but I do believe in being considerate of others, even in terms of what you wear. It is not to say that your identity should be defined by those around you, not at all, uniqueness is important, but as I have stated earlier, to be disruptive to those around you for so childish a reason is simply irresponsible. Another point of divergence between us that I note is that I believe that good behavior for society is not necessarily only linked to what is legal or not; there are many nuances that are not listed by any law, for a number of reasons.

I am unaware of how school punishments work in his country, but I still believe he should have been punished in some way, even if it was suspension for one day, or just a Saturday detention, as an education of the fact that being disruptive on that level in that environment, for reasons that are little more than a whimsy, is unacceptable. As it is, your point about being a transexual is perfectly valid, and I agree with you, but at the end of the day he isn't.

To further that, as an extreme example, if I were to decide with my friends tomorrow that I would dress as a woman so that I could go into a woman's bathroom on a dare and look at all the women in there, I would be doing something wrong. This is an extreme example, but to me it is equitable, in that in both this example and the real case in question involve someone breaking a societal taboo (cross-gendering, which the majority of us agree is taboo in society, but not actually wrong on any moral level) for a foolish, stupid or harmful reason (A dare).

In terms of having a point, if he had done it for no reason other than that he wanted to, that would also change my opinion somewhat; but this is not so. Working from the linked report, I still don't see any evidence that this was done for anything other than a dare; for "the lulz", and if I read a more comprehensive report stating otherwise, I will happily consider that evidence.

 

[Dags90]

In terms of having a point, if he had done it for no reason other than that he wanted to, that would also change my opinion somewhat; but this is not so. Working from the linked report, I still don't see any evidence that this was done for anything other than a dare; for "the lulz", and if I read a more comprehensive report stating otherwise, I will happily consider that evidence.

The dress wasn't part of the dare. He wore the dress 'to take it further', I would infer that he was taking 'what it's like to wear women's clothing' further. If he's been suspended for wearing makeup, I don't think it's a leap to say he finds gender bending as an area of interest.

I wonder if I would get so much heat if I admitted to making this thread to try and get a badge.

 

[Danny91]

In terms of having a point, if he had done it for no reason other than that he wanted to, that would also change my opinion somewhat; but this is not so. Working from the linked report, I still don't see any evidence that this was done for anything other than a dare; for "the lulz", and if I read a more comprehensive report stating otherwise, I will happily consider that evidence.

The dress wasn't part of the dare. He wore the dress 'to take it further', I would infer that he was taking 'what it's like to wear women's clothing' further. If he's been suspended for wearing makeup, I don't think it's a leap to say he finds gender bending as an area of interest.

I wonder if I would get so much heat if I admitted to making this thread to try and get a badge.

ha ha fair enough

Which badge and has it worked yet?

OT: Look, I just think its very important to try and work within a source as much as possible; 90% of pointless replies on forums come from people adding their own subconscious responses, so that the discussion becomes more linked to what their beliefs are about one thing or another than whats actually being discussed; so I try as much as I can to stay within the evidence given to me. You could read it with gender bending as an area of interest, but to me thats still drawing an assumption based on your own opinions, not what can be read in the article, which is just that he took the dare up a notch. Just how I see it, is all

 

[Varya]

Firstly, the slut example was simply that: an example on the situation; it was just to show the relevancy of context and motive.
I still believe in the value of his motives here in regards to this question; because, as you put it, as he "did it for the lulz." I understand that the context of that term is always debatable, but it in this situation it implies a certain disregard for the effects it would have on those around him. I understand that we diverge extremely on this point, and it is not my intent to do anything other than present my own contrary opinion; but I do believe in being considerate of others, even in terms of what you wear. It is not to say that your identity should be defined by those around you, not at all, uniqueness is important, but as I have stated earlier, to be disruptive to those around you for so childish a reason is simply irresponsible. Another point of divergence between us that I note is that I believe that good behavior for society is not necessarily only linked to what is legal or not; there are many nuances that are not listed by any law, for a number of reasons.

I am unaware of how school punishments work in his country, but I still believe he should have been punished in some way, even if it was suspension for one day, or just a Saturday detention, as an education of the fact that being disruptive on that level in that environment, for reasons that are little more than a whimsy, is unacceptable. As it is, your point about being a transexual is perfectly valid, and I agree with you, but at the end of the day he isn't.

To further that, as an extreme example, if I were to decide with my friends tomorrow that I would dress as a woman so that I could go into a woman's bathroom on a dare and look at all the women in there, I would be doing something wrong. This is an extreme example, but to me it is equitable, in that in both this example and the real case in question involve someone breaking a societal taboo (cross-gendering, which the majority of us agree is taboo in society, but not actually wrong on any moral level) for a foolish, stupid or harmful reason (A dare).

In terms of having a point, if he had done it for no reason other than that he wanted to, that would also change my opinion somewhat; but this is not so. Working from the linked report, I still don't see any evidence that this was done for anything other than a dare; for "the lulz", and if I read a more comprehensive report stating otherwise, I will happily consider that evidence.

Ok, slut example out of the way, just wanted to clear it up.

I agree with you that it could be good to show consideration, even in what you wear, but the thing about things that are good that if they are not voluntary, they loose their virtue. In short, rules should keep you from doing "evil", not force you to do good.
The example you give is, in my opinion, not applicable for the subject. See, once you use it for purposes that are clearly immoral, i.e. peeking at girls in toilets, the game changes. The dare is simply not-good. It's based on selfish reasons but not at the cost of anyone else. I don't count "being distracted" as a cost, because if somethings challenges your prejudice, without actually interfering in your life or being offensive, it's a positive thing. (Interfering would be disrupting people, forcing them to acknowledge the fact you are wearing a dress, offensive would be going naked, or wearing a Nazi symbol, for example)
If the only thing he did to "disrupt" was challenge expectations of how a man should dress, he did nothing wrong. He may not have meant to impact people, but he did, and credit to him.

 

[Dags90]

OT: Look, I just think its very important to try and work within a source as much as possible; 90% of pointless replies on forums come from people adding their own subconscious responses, so that the discussion becomes more linked to what their beliefs are about one thing or another than whats actually being discussed; so I try as much as I can to stay within the evidence given to me. You could read it with gender bending as an area of interest, but to me thats still drawing an assumption based on your own opinions, not what can be read in the article, which is just that he took the dare up a notch. Just how I see it, is all

The premise of the dare was that wearing women's clothing is more difficult than he thought it was. So "taking the dare up a notch" means taking "what it's like to wear women's clothing" further.

It got me the 10,000 views badge, and has bee my biggest thread by a large margin.

 

[Danny91]

Firstly, the slut example was simply that: an example on the situation; it was just to show the relevancy of context and motive.
I still believe in the value of his motives here in regards to this question; because, as you put it, as he "did it for the lulz." I understand that the context of that term is always debatable, but it in this situation it implies a certain disregard for the effects it would have on those around him. I understand that we diverge extremely on this point, and it is not my intent to do anything other than present my own contrary opinion; but I do believe in being considerate of others, even in terms of what you wear. It is not to say that your identity should be defined by those around you, not at all, uniqueness is important, but as I have stated earlier, to be disruptive to those around you for so childish a reason is simply irresponsible. Another point of divergence between us that I note is that I believe that good behavior for society is not necessarily only linked to what is legal or not; there are many nuances that are not listed by any law, for a number of reasons.

I am unaware of how school punishments work in his country, but I still believe he should have been punished in some way, even if it was suspension for one day, or just a Saturday detention, as an education of the fact that being disruptive on that level in that environment, for reasons that are little more than a whimsy, is unacceptable. As it is, your point about being a transexual is perfectly valid, and I agree with you, but at the end of the day he isn't.

To further that, as an extreme example, if I were to decide with my friends tomorrow that I would dress as a woman so that I could go into a woman's bathroom on a dare and look at all the women in there, I would be doing something wrong. This is an extreme example, but to me it is equitable, in that in both this example and the real case in question involve someone breaking a societal taboo (cross-gendering, which the majority of us agree is taboo in society, but not actually wrong on any moral level) for a foolish, stupid or harmful reason (A dare).

In terms of having a point, if he had done it for no reason other than that he wanted to, that would also change my opinion somewhat; but this is not so. Working from the linked report, I still don't see any evidence that this was done for anything other than a dare; for "the lulz", and if I read a more comprehensive report stating otherwise, I will happily consider that evidence.

Ok, slut example out of the way, just wanted to clear it up.

I agree with you that it could be good to show consideration, even in what you wear, but the thing about things that are good that if they are not voluntary, they loose their virtue. In short, rules should keep you from doing "evil", not force you to do good.
The example you give is, in my opinion, not applicable for the subject. See, once you use it for purposes that are clearly immoral, i.e. peeking at girls in toilets, the game changes. The dare is simply not-good. It's based on selfish reasons but not at the cost of anyone else. I don't count "being distracted" as a cost, because if somethings challenges your prejudice, without actually interfering in your life or being offensive, it's a positive thing. (Interfering would be disrupting people, forcing them to acknowledge the fact you are wearing a dress, offensive would be going naked, or wearing a Nazi symbol, for example)
If the only thing he did to "disrupt" was challenge expectations of how a man should dress, he did nothing wrong. He may not have meant to impact people, but he did, and credit to him.

Fair enough; all of what you say. The last couple points I want to make are again points of divergence between our opinions. And I think the major one in our entire discussion is the emphasis I place on the effect on the school, and your contrasting opinion that the effects were very minor at the end of the day.

In such an example as this, the tendencies of the people discussing it (myself very much included here) are to elevate it to higher level than it is at the outset. Taking a step back, and picturing how this would unfold if it were to happen at my school, and if I was a student there still, every class we entered would lose extremely valuable education time as and discipline needs to occur over the reactions of the class to this boy. A school is a place of education, whose importance is paramount, and if the time to educate is lost, I see that as a bad thing. Of course though, society has often had activists come from school children, and those are exceptional cases. But if I were to then ask this boy "Hey, why did you do this?" and he replied "My mother dared me to do it," I would feel cheated out of my education time, because of what I see as ultimately selfishness. Even if it was a few minutes every class, he should reprimanded on an appropriate level for the amount of time lost.

This ultimately comes down to how much I treasure education, and how privileged I feel to be able to receive education as I do in the Western World. So at the end of the day, I do see there as being a cost, however small it may be. Once again, I very much understand your point of view and mean no offense to you. What we can do about challenging institutions in society is entirely another discussion, but from I could tell in the article, it was never considered by the boy in any meaningful way.

 

[Danny91]

OT: Look, I just think its very important to try and work within a source as much as possible; 90% of pointless replies on forums come from people adding their own subconscious responses, so that the discussion becomes more linked to what their beliefs are about one thing or another than whats actually being discussed; so I try as much as I can to stay within the evidence given to me. You could read it with gender bending as an area of interest, but to me thats still drawing an assumption based on your own opinions, not what can be read in the article, which is just that he took the dare up a notch. Just how I see it, is all

The premise of the dare was that wearing women's clothing is more difficult than he thought it was. So "taking the dare up a notch" means taking "what it's like to wear women's clothing" further.

And it got me the 10,000 views badge and has bee my biggest thread by a large margin.

Sure, but I'm still just being very careful about the conclusions I draw, as best I can. I've personally worn womens clothing before for various stage shows and costume parties and what have you, and yet I wouldn't consider myself gender-bending or whatever. I have even done it for a dare, however only at a private party of friends. There are a multitude of reasons why he could have dressed like that other than that he was wanting to dress specifically like a women. Heck, his mother could have been talking about how physically uncomfortable it was for women to wear high heels and dresses all the time; we simply don't know anything more about it.

Off topic: oh, well done you

 

[AlwaystheUnlucky]

No man should be ostracized for feeling pretty. I swear by my floral bonnet that this must end.

 

[Madara XIII]

Hah. Local high school here has gender swap day.. It looks kinda freaky, but fun.

My Highschool did that too once. Kinda funny.

Secondly concerning the OP, in the Words of Dio Brando and EgoRaptor, "Idontgiveafuck!"

Sorry, but this became more of an attention seeking situation than it was discrimination, because of the bet he made with his mom.

So without Further Ado, Take it away guys

<youtube=lBZMsIfHQF0>

<youtube=ftkShE6tUiM>

 

[Varya]

Firstly, the slut example was simply that: an example on the situation; it was just to show the relevancy of context and motive.
I still believe in the value of his motives here in regards to this question; because, as you put it, as he "did it for the lulz." I understand that the context of that term is always debatable, but it in this situation it implies a certain disregard for the effects it would have on those around him. I understand that we diverge extremely on this point, and it is not my intent to do anything other than present my own contrary opinion; but I do believe in being considerate of others, even in terms of what you wear. It is not to say that your identity should be defined by those around you, not at all, uniqueness is important, but as I have stated earlier, to be disruptive to those around you for so childish a reason is simply irresponsible. Another point of divergence between us that I note is that I believe that good behavior for society is not necessarily only linked to what is legal or not; there are many nuances that are not listed by any law, for a number of reasons.

I am unaware of how school punishments work in his country, but I still believe he should have been punished in some way, even if it was suspension for one day, or just a Saturday detention, as an education of the fact that being disruptive on that level in that environment, for reasons that are little more than a whimsy, is unacceptable. As it is, your point about being a transexual is perfectly valid, and I agree with you, but at the end of the day he isn't.

To further that, as an extreme example, if I were to decide with my friends tomorrow that I would dress as a woman so that I could go into a woman's bathroom on a dare and look at all the women in there, I would be doing something wrong. This is an extreme example, but to me it is equitable, in that in both this example and the real case in question involve someone breaking a societal taboo (cross-gendering, which the majority of us agree is taboo in society, but not actually wrong on any moral level) for a foolish, stupid or harmful reason (A dare).

In terms of having a point, if he had done it for no reason other than that he wanted to, that would also change my opinion somewhat; but this is not so. Working from the linked report, I still don't see any evidence that this was done for anything other than a dare; for "the lulz", and if I read a more comprehensive report stating otherwise, I will happily consider that evidence.

Ok, slut example out of the way, just wanted to clear it up.

I agree with you that it could be good to show consideration, even in what you wear, but the thing about things that are good that if they are not voluntary, they loose their virtue. In short, rules should keep you from doing "evil", not force you to do good.
The example you give is, in my opinion, not applicable for the subject. See, once you use it for purposes that are clearly immoral, i.e. peeking at girls in toilets, the game changes. The dare is simply not-good. It's based on selfish reasons but not at the cost of anyone else. I don't count "being distracted" as a cost, because if somethings challenges your prejudice, without actually interfering in your life or being offensive, it's a positive thing. (Interfering would be disrupting people, forcing them to acknowledge the fact you are wearing a dress, offensive would be going naked, or wearing a Nazi symbol, for example)
If the only thing he did to "disrupt" was challenge expectations of how a man should dress, he did nothing wrong. He may not have meant to impact people, but he did, and credit to him.

Fair enough; all of what you say. The last couple points I want to make are again points of divergence between our opinions. And I think the major one in our entire discussion is the emphasis I place on the effect on the school, and your contrasting opinion that the effects were very minor at the end of the day.

In such an example as this, the tendencies of the people discussing it (myself very much included here) are to elevate it to higher level than it is at the outset. Taking a step back, and picturing how this would unfold if it were to happen at my school, and if I was a student there still, every class we entered would lose extremely valuable education time as and discipline needs to occur over the reactions of the class to this boy. A school is a place of education, whose importance is paramount, and if the time to educate is lost, I see that as a bad thing. Of course though, society has often had activists come from school children, and those are exceptional cases. But if I were to then ask this boy "Hey, why did you do this?" and he replied "My mother dared me to do it," I would feel cheated out of my education time, because of what I see as ultimately selfishness. Even if it was a few minutes every class, he should reprimanded on an appropriate level for the amount of time lost.

This ultimately comes down to how much I treasure education, and how privileged I feel to be able to receive education as I do in the Western World. So at the end of the day, I do see there as being a cost, however small it may be. Once again, I very much understand your point of view and mean no offense to you. What we can do about challenging institutions in society is entirely another discussion, but from I could tell in the article, it was never considered by the boy in any meaningful way.

I understand you, but I just can't buy that you should be punished not because of what you did, but because others reacted to it. Also, he didn't wear the dress on a dare, the dare only involved the shoes. Some may see that as making it worse, but I think it's important that he didn't wear the dress on a dare, he chose to, without any gain, except perhaps, for fun. And if other people take time of their day, to discuss what you do for fun, it's on them, not on you. If you can punish students for being distracting, should hot girls also be forbidden? Why would it be OK to wear a T-shirt with a joke on for fun and not a dress for fun? If dresses are ok, they are ok for everyone, no exceptions.
I have a punchline here somewhere, but I can't get it out. In the end, my base argument stand.
No one has the right to decide what you wear or why you wear it. As long as you are not offensive (legally offensive, not I don't like it offensive) no one should have the right to question it or your motives.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

When was the last time that someone had some sort of activity that required them to wear traditionally "female" clothing?

So only women are allowed to wear impractical clothing (dresses, girly clothes, ect.) and everybody can wear practical clothing? Certain people aren't allowed to wear clothes because they aren't exactly practical? I mean, unless the clothing really gets in the way of things that need to be done (like a police officer wearing a dress and high heels), then I don't see why people shouldn't be able to wear or look like how they want. If someone has a problem with that, then that's their problem. Why should society cater to their intolerance of other people's appearance?

Any attempts to make crossdressing out to be anything other then harmless is pretty much sexist, you can't get around it. Believing people should behave and look a certain way only because of their gender is the exact definition of sexist.

Yes, there were reasons that certain genders wore certain clothes, because there were gender roles, society expected people to look and act in certain ways. Girls had to look pretty, cook food and find a husband, boys had to do the more physical work, and thus everyone wore clothes accordingly, and the symbolism and gender-associations of those types of clothes emerged.

They were reasons, but they certainly weren't good reasons. Most of those gender norms don't exist anymore, and they shouldn't have existed in the first place.

 

[KiKiweaky]

Well, A. The dress code makes no mention of skirts or high heels. B. If the dress code said you can't wear green, would that be okay? C. If it did say no skirts or high heels, then that might mean it's an all boys school, which is highly unlikely in the public boards.

This is a school dress code dude not an elaborate directive from the government. Do you honestly expect them to go through every item of clothing on the planet and ban/allow them as they see fit? If you can argue its not specified then they are going to have to allow or deny everything.

If the colour is banned then its banned, dont like it? Go to a school with a more relaxed dress code. My old school is after banning anything that doesnt have the school crest on it (they even make jackets aswell). Why? They do it so everyone is dressed the same, its a public school so not every kid going there is loaded, so it stops this whole 'my shoes are shinier than yours' from taking place. Its one of the reasons you have to shave your head when you join the military, conformity.

 

[cobra_ky]

My opinion is that he should have had disciplinary action taken if he was truly doing it, as the report says, on a dare. One of the hardest and most important things to do at a school (at least where I'm from; cant speak for anywhere else) is maintain discipline and an academic environment. And if this child was doing this for this not-very-good reason, then he would have been needlessly disruptive, and therefore should have been punished in some way. The harshness of the punishment I also noted, but then I also read that he had been reprimanded before as well, making it make more sense.

This is bullshit!
If he want's to wear a dress, he should get to wear a dress, the reason does not factor in, unless he himself is discriminating in his action. Unless the school has a dress code, (which for the record, I am against) they shouldn't interfere with a students choice of clothing. You cannot say that some clothes are OK only if the motive is pure, either they are OK, or they are not, no ifs, buts or exceptions. (Except for the already mention of if the act is discriminating)

I respect your opinion, but if we as a group believe that clothing is intrinsically neutral; as it seems the majority of people here believe; then the only consideration left behind any reaction given should be purely based on external factors relating to the clothing, such as motive and whatnot, which is why i believe it is important. For example, if someone is wearing skimpy clothing, they could either be trying to get attention and sex for favours, in which case we call them a slut; or they could be doing it to show how proud they are of their sexuality, in which case we address them differently. Context and motive are very important, I feel.

What I'm trying to do here is avoid adding anything to my response not found in the initial report; or anything which can not be reasonably inferred. As such, the report mentions that he did it on a dare, which I still believe to be a pointless reason, as I believe it can be reasonably assumed that he would have been aware of the disruption he would possibly cause in the school by doing this, and yet he decided to follow through on it.

There are more negative things a person can do through any action other than being discriminatory. Discrimination is not the be-all and end-all of negative actions. As I mentioned before, a school is primarily an academic environment, and should, I believe, have an emphasis on discipline; and someone who is doing a dare of this nature would undermine that, prettily purposefully too, as I see it.

As regards your example: I don't believe that the ability to label "sluts" accurately is a particularly important or worthwhile pursuit. I honestly can't think of a situation where one's motive for dressing would ever matter more than their actions.

Consider all the debate over this single incident. is it really worth all the trouble, all the sturm und drang of trying to determine whether a particular student has a particularly good reason for dressing in a particular way? the disruption has already occurred: it happened the minute he stepped into class. even if you send him home the other students will be gossiping about it all day anyway. i don't think it's necessary or even useful to risk a lawsuit by trying to guess what motives you can legitimately suspend someone over. i think the simplest, cheapest, and fairest solution is to set a simple, single set of guidelines that applies to all students, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, or their motivations.

 

[Dags90]

If the colour is banned then its banned, dont like it? Go to a school with a more relaxed dress code. My old school is after banning anything that doesnt have the school crest on it (they even make jackets aswell). Why? They do it so everyone is dressed the same, its a public school so not every kid going there is loaded, so it stops this whole 'my shoes are shinier than yours' from taking place. Its one of the reasons you have to shave your head when you join the military, conformity.

That's not an option for people who can't afford private tuition or moving. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, unlike many other countries, in the U.S. you're only allowed to freely attend the public school(s) in your tax district. Often there is only one such school. To attend another school, even another public school, would require private tuition.

So a student's (disturbingly limited) right to education comes up every time public school rules come up, because an expulsion can mean the end of your access to free education.