Student Suspended for wearing a dress.

[Rottweiler]

"Saurs has been suspended before for wearing makeup and hats to class."

I stopped sympathizing here. The kid had been *suspended for this before*.

This means the School had already made their stance clear on the Dress Code, he'd been punished for it before, and he *deliberately did it again*.

Case closed.

 

[SleepyChan]

Hoo boy. Port Orchard, eh? My hometown. Good to know we've still got class. Always said Sedgwick was where the real action happened. I went to Cedar. :]

 

[HardkorSB]

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43444840

PORT ORCHARD, Wash. ? A 15-year-old boy has been suspended from school after wearing high heels and a dress to school as a part of a challenge laid down by his mother.

Sam Saurs, a ninth grader at Sedgwick Junior High School in Port Orchard, said he told his mother that wearing high heels wouldn't be that hard. Saurs' mother challenged him to try it and he accepted. To take it even further, he decided to wear a dress, too.

"I was pretty," said Saurs.

After Saurs showed up at school Wednesday in the dress and heels, the school suspended him for the remainder of the year. That suspension was later reduced to three days. But, Saurs won't be allowed to go to the ninth grade dance or the class party at Wild Waves.

Saurs said he was disappointed it got him kicked out of school.

"If anything, it makes me want to be more out there and more spontaneous and crazy," he said.

Saurs has been suspended before for wearing makeup and hats to class.

His mother, Ivanna Leible, said she did not complain about the suspension since the school does have a ban on hats, but she said there is no rule against boys wearing dresses in the student handbook.

"I found that very offensive. They told him he couldn't be him," said Leible.

The South Kitsap School District said the issue has been resolved and would not make any further comment about the incident.

To clarify, this is a public school (meaning taxpayer funded). I think it's ridiculous to deny someone education via suspension simply for being nonconforming. The biggest problem is that this wasn't written anywhere. Are they trying to teach students that written rules don't matter?

Shouldn't the law which struck down "dresses only for girls" dress codes also have stricken "pants only for boys"?

Title (a) Prohibition against discrimination; exceptions. No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance

Or do boys just have less of a right to wear dresses than girls do to wear pants?

I honestly think that it's a good thing that he was suspended (good for him, that is).
At least it will give other students time to forget about it and not give him shit because of it.

 

[Rottweiler]

Seriously, this isn't even a sexism or homosexuality (any sexuality) question. This is School Dress Code, which *you can't sue over*. Part of being a student there is that you accept the School rules. Period.

No, I won't accept the usual excuses in this case, because they don't have a leg to stand on. You go to a school which does not allow males to wear female clothing, you have accepted the rules. Your ability to sue is completely negated by your willing acceptance to this and many other rules.

 

[RicoGrey]

We really do have it good, when the worst thing we have to put up with from authority, is that boys can not wear dresses to school.

Now, if he was being abused, harassed(and not for the dress thing), sexually assaulted, or had a substandard education, I might actually support this kid. Getting up in arms over a boy with poor fashion sense? Nah, waste of mine and just about everyone else's time.

 

[Yuno Gasai]

Regardless, if something is causing a severe disruption in the classroom, that thing must be removed so that the education process can continue. This is a basic classroom management principle that all experienced teachers understand.

I can understand this, and why the school reacted in that manner, but on the other hand I feel as though it would be beneficial if schools began to accept variations of dress, such as crossdressing. It can help to break down the barriers of prejudice and discrimination by telling kids it's okay for them to be who they are, without fear of repercussions from people who are scared because they've never seen anything like that before, and don't know how to react.

 

[Labyrinth]

>>Implying dress-wearing is an "opportunity"
>>Implying that social constructions are not great things
>>Implying social constructions don't stem from inherent differences
>>Implying society works without constructions

Is it not? Just because you don't want to wear dresses doesn't mean that applies to everyone. You're comfortable in your gender role, that's fine, but you need to be aware that being cis-gendered leaves you in a position of privilege which you're using to claim that others experiences are invalid. Social constructions have lead to everything from state-funded health care in Australia to Uganda's efforts to have homosexuality punished by death to the existence of massive discrepancies in the life chances of various socio-economic demographics in urban areas. To say that these are 'inherent differences' is to use the kind of essentialist bullshit argument that had women unable to vote and own property for centuries.

You seem unwilling to observe that while there are some beneficial social structures, there are plenty which allow and empower a privileged portion of the population while discriminating against the rest. Can I recommend some sociological study to expand your perspective?

 

[Rottweiler]

"I can understand this, and why the school reacted in that manner, but on the other hand I feel as though it would be beneficial if schools began to accept variations of dress, such as crossdressing. It can help to break down the barriers of prejudice and discrimination by telling kids it's okay for them to be who they are, without fear of repercussions from people who are scared because they've never seen anything like that before, and don't know how to react.[/quote]"

Several schools up here had this issue.

~ A group of youths all wanted to wear 'variations of dress', which all seemed to involve the color purple, bandannas, and low pants.

{Gang Colors}

~ Several youths wished to wear Tibetan Good Luck Symbols prominently on their shirts.

{Swastikas}

Are those 'variations of dress' acceptable? Why are they *legally* unacceptable? Schools have to face a number of decisions on a 'best for all' basis, and there are *always* hundreds who have a story that they think entitles them to wear something offensive, controversial, or otherwise against the rules.

 

[Cheesus333]

"I was pretty," said Saurs.

What. An. Absolute. Boss.

I'm kind of in awe of the balls this kid has. God bless you, you crazy little bastard. God bless you.

Seriously, this isn't even a sexism or homosexuality (any sexuality) question. This is School Dress Code, which *you can't sue over*. Part of being a student there is that you accept the School rules. Period.

I believe the problem here is that there was nothing mentioned about it in the school rules, therefore he wasn't in violation of anything[footnote]Except wearing a hat, which shouldn't reeally be a suspendable offense in any case[/footnote] and was being persecuted because the school didn't like what he was doing.

 

[Noctangelus]

We really do have it good, when the worst thing we have to put up with from authority, is that boys can not wear dresses to school.

Now, if he was being abused, harassed(and not for the dress thing), sexually assaulted, or had a substandard education, I might actually support this kid. Getting up in arms over a boy with poor fashion sense? Nah, waste of mine and just about everyone else's time.

The problem with these arguments "If that's the worst that happens to us then why are we bitching" or "well people have it way worse in other places" is that by that logic, if you live in a country where you have shelter and enough to eat and you aren't routinely beaten or raped by authority figures. you lose the right to complain about anything, because "well, at least you don't live in Sudan"

 

[Rottweiler]

"It wasn't in the rules. There was no rule saying men can't wear dresses. They do have the right to sue. And NO public school should have the right to gender restrict clothing. That just crosses a line."

Do you have the rules, and know this for a fact?

Or does the school have the right to determine offensive or disruptive modes of dress and act appropriately, whether they agree with your definition of 'gender related'?

Also, I would point out that if you've been suspended for this before, and didn't attempt and legal action *then*, exactly what basis do you have *now*?

 

[Natasha_LB]

Sexism is discrimination based on sex and gender.
Men are denied dress-wearing opportunities due to their gender.
Therefore, it's sexism. It's normalised, socially accepted sexism, but sexism none the less. Where do you think your assumption that dresses shouldn't be worn by men comes from save socialised, normalised assumption on what is masculine? There is nothing intrinsic about a dress that would assign it to female wear, it's a social construction.

>>Implying dress-wearing is an "opportunity"
>>Implying that social constructions are not great things
>>Implying social constructions don't stem from inherent differences
>>Implying society works without constructions

You need to chill out man, no-one's trying to force you to dress any differently. If you're not comfortable with them, then don't wear them: just wear what you want/feel good in and to hell with everybody else. All that people are asking is that you accept our viewpoint as valid (As we do with yours - which is really no more correct)

For the record dresses rock, and everyone who feels comfortable with them, should try them at least once and not be held back by gender stereotypes, discrimination, or bigoted idiots.

 

[Hristo Tzonkov]

Why does it look like the USA is fucked up nowadays...It was always about freedoms and enforcing your right and yet suddenly this all looks like communism but replace Stalin with corporations and the secret police are terrorists from another country(world maybe ).

This is a serious breech in his rights.While frowned upon I don't see anything wrong with someone being different.

 

[Rottweiler]

For the record, I've worn dresses (Togas), formal dresses (robes) and skirts (kilts).

However, I am always amazed at how we always assume the person wearing the rule-banned clothing is somehow trying to make a Brave Statement.

 

[RicoGrey]

snip

The problem with these arguments "If that's the worst that happens to us then why are we bitching" or "well people have it way worse in other places" is that by that logic, if you live in a country where you have shelter and enough to eat and you aren't routinely beaten or raped by authority figures. you lose the right to complain about anything, because "well, at least you don't live in Sudan"

Your "logic" fails completely, we are not talking about having shelter and food to eat, or people being beaten and raped. We are talking about a boy wearing a dress to HIGH SCHOOL. He is not homeless, he is not starving, and it doesn't sound like he was beaten or raped. If he was beaten or raped, then I would support him in his fight against being beaten or raped.

My actual point was that this is NOT the worst thing we have to worry about, and in fact we should be more concerned with the "routinely beaten or raped" issues. Of course in America, our equivalent issues would be along the lines of substandard education and child abuse.

I stand by my argument(which I feel I did not convey the point well enough in my first post), and I am not even a little concerned that the 1 boy out of 10,000 does not get to wear dresses to school. Hell, I would even support him if they were intruding on his personal life and telling him he couldn't wear dresses outside of school and school functions.

 

[Seabear]

He only wore the pants to be a troll.

If he was actually gender-queer or a cross dresser, I think it would have been different

I'm not agreeing with the school, but I'm not buying his and his mom's bullshit about it being a moral crusade. Fucking attention whores.

YES The school overreacted, but he's been suspended for makeup etc in the past, why couldn't his mum let him try it on a weekend? Repeat offences just make him a target.

 

[Fiad]

Really depends where you are, my high school literally had a day the week before homecoming where it was encouraged for the entire student body to crossdress. It was all in good fun. Nobody was hurt, some guys would wear dresses/skirts randomly throughout the year just to change things up.

The only person who ever had a problem with it was the Guidance Counselor, she was some like 80 year old lady.

 

[RicoGrey]

To conform is to make the same. Sexism then is an enemy of conformity, thus the school is against conforming.

Gender roles =/= sexism. Blokes shouldn't wear dresses.

I disagree- restricting what one gender can or can't do is sexism. Unless this school suspends girls for not wearing dresses they are being sexist. I hope they sue and win. Whether or not the boy has sexual identity issues isn't relevant tot he core point: he should have the right to wear dresses if he wants.

snip

It wasn't in the rules. *snipped the rest*

There's nothing in the rule book saying a dog can't play basketball!!!!

 

[Fredrikorex]

This is just stupid, what if someone is wearing a kilt? Is that wrong too?