Wear a dress, get suspended from school

[Jagos]

Link (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.

Yeah, I shouldn't have given up drinking... But I gotta admit, the boy has balls. Getting kicked out for wearing that...

*Thumbs up buddy*

I won't EVER do it but more power to ya...

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43444840)



Yeah, I shouldn't have given up drinking... But I gotta admit, the boy has balls. Getting kicked out for wearing that...

*Thumbs up buddy*

I won't EVER do it but more power to ya...

I could see the school's reasoning behind this if they interpreted him as making a joke (which was the general impression I got from the article) at the expense of others. And what's up with this mother challenging her son to do something that could get him a lot of shit from other people? I get letting your kid be themself but putting them in a position where they'll get harassed makes no sense to me.

[Aerozord]

plus some schools can be rather strict on dress codes. I've heard of ones where even girls cant wear dresses

[Jagos]

plus some schools can be rather strict on dress codes. I've heard of ones where even girls cant wear dresses

That's a lot of irony considering most conceptions on girls is that "pants will bring down society" while dresses are considered more appropriate for young ladies.

(Yes, private schools are weird)

[Kim]

Crossdressing shouldn't be a punishable offense. End of story.

[synkr0nized]

While I wholeheartedly agree with Noncon's post, I feel it's worth noting you didn't quote the part of the article that mentions he's been suspended before for playing with the dress code rules. That doesn't make it right for them to set the precedent that cross-dressing is some kind of super terrible offense, but it could have partially been motivated by having him on a list as a troublemaker.

[Specterbane]

I think in this case it wasn't so much the cross dressing as the standing out again from the perspective of the administration. The article said he'd has suspensions for "hats and make up" before, and high schoolers being high schoolers it seems like this may have been more as a joke to get people surprised and laughing than anything with his identity beyond that. It fall under the "being a distraction to the learning process" umbrella, at least it would've where I went to school.

All that being said it's a stupid sort of umbrella rule that school over react about all the time. If anything, the most disappointing thing about this to me is how not surprised I am about how all this played out from that article.

[Solid Snake]

I think in this case it wasn't so much the cross dressing as the standing out again from the perspective of the administration.

Pssshhhhh

If this school's anything like my High School was, the administration is probably more worried about suppressing students daring to "stand out" than, y'know, actually dealing with its crippling bullying problem, attempting the broad educational reforms necessary to ensure students succeeded, or preventing sexually deviant behavior from teachers or anything.

[rpgdemon]

Crossdressing shouldn't be a punishable offense. End of story.

It might not be the crossdressing that's the punishable offense, but instead a breach in dress code. For example, there might be a rule banning dresses, which he broke.

[Krylo]

It might not be the crossdressing that's the punishable offense, but instead a breach in dress code. For example, there might be a rule banning dresses, which he broke.

There's not.

It says that right in the story.

[pochercoaster]

I doubt that any 15 year old boy would go to school in a dress and high heels without expecting to get a reaction from his classmates. That said, if he wasn't breaking any dress code rules, which usually just amount to "don't expose your genitals" I don't see what the issue is.

Seems like whenever a school is grasping for a reason to ban something it's because it's a "distraction to learning," as if anything slightly out of the ordinary is going to cause an entire student body to fail.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Crossdressing shouldn't be a punishable offense. End of story.

While I agree with this statement, I don't believe that's the sole reason for why he got suspended. It's very easy to see how it could be perceived as a distraction or even a joke when a fifteen year old boy wears a dress to school. If I were the one to make the decision, I'd have suspended the kid too or at the very least I would have sent him home for the day.

There's nothing wrong with expressing yourself but do we have any reason to believe that this kid was doing this for any other reason than his mom put him up to it and he thought it'd be funny? That can easily come off as ridiculing people who have alternative (I can't remember the PC term so forgive me if I get it wrong) gender identities/lifestyles.

If the kid legitimately wants to wear a dress then... I dunno. That's his choice and I'm sure the distraction that it would definitely impose (I know it's the 21st century and everything but a guy wearing a dress is gonna turn heads) would disappear after a couple weeks and a bunch more media attention.

[Aerozord]

This reminds me of a book I read in middle school, A Hero aint Nothing but a Sandwich. In the story a kid was suspended for "singing the national anthem." Then it turned into a huge media event about how he was a champion for rights and patriotism and the school were just oppressing his right to express himself.

But no, he was just humming it in class because he wanted a reaction then decided to play it off the way the media was spinning it so he looks like the injured party and could get out of his punishment.

This kid isn't a crossdresser that was having his rights oppressed, this is a kid that knowingly broke the rules for the sake of breaking them and the school didn't put up with it.

[Kerensky287]

While I agree with this statement, I don't believe that's the sole reason for why he got suspended. It's very easy to see how it could be perceived as a distraction or even a joke when a fifteen year old boy wears a dress to school. If I were the one to make the decision, I'd have suspended the kid too or at the very least I would have sent him home for the day.

There's nothing wrong with expressing yourself but do we have any reason to believe that this kid was doing this for any other reason than his mom put him up to it and he thought it'd be funny? That can easily come off as ridiculing people who have alternative (I can't remember the PC term so forgive me if I get it wrong) gender identities/lifestyles.

If the kid legitimately wants to wear a dress then... I dunno. That's his choice and I'm sure the distraction that it would definitely impose (I know it's the 21st century and everything but a guy wearing a dress is gonna turn heads) would disappear after a couple weeks and a bunch more media attention.

I'm gonna go ahead and agree with Noncon 100% on this. They didn't give any reason for suspending him because he didn't break any rules. It doesn't matter if they think he's trying to incite rebellion, or draw attention, or whatever. That stuff isn't against the rules. Yes, he got suspended before, and yes it was because he knowingly violated the dress code.

But the big thing here is that HE DID NOT VIOLATE THE DRESS CODE THIS TIME. He broke no rule but got punished anyway.

Let me draw a parallel here. Say you've got a drug dealer who's been taken in multiple times for possession with intent to distribute. He's been known to use his own product as well. One day, they find him after he's been released, and he's carrying around 5 kilos of cough medicine.

Can they take him in? Well, it depends. You can get high off certain kinds of cough medicine if you take enough of it. But they don't know that's what he's trying to do. They've just found him carrying around a LOT of a substance that is legal despite the possibility of recreational use.

Is he doing it to spite the police? Maybe. Probably. But you can't arrest somebody for that. Maybe he's giving the cough medicine to poor, sick children who need it but can't afford it? Maybe he's just stocking up? If you take him in on the basis that he's broken similar laws before, then you risk jailing an innocent man. Saying that "he's probably trying to do it for this reason" is not a good enough reason to punish him, especially if he's explicitly not breaking any laws. If you could punish people for their attitudes, the streets would be a LOT more empty.

In this case, the kid wore a dress. They punished him for it. It doesn't matter what they SAID they did it for, it doesn't matter what they said HE was wearing a dress for. The point is, they punished him for doing something that didn't break any rules. He should not have been suspended. End of story.

EDIT FOR NINJA'D:
This reminds me of a book I read in middle school, A Hero aint Nothing but a Sandwich. In the story a kid was suspended for "singing the national anthem." Then it turned into a huge media event about how he was a champion for rights and patriotism and the school were just oppressing his right to express himself.

But no, he was just humming it in class because he wanted a reaction then decided to play it off the way the media was spinning it so he looks like the injured party and could get out of his punishment.

This kid isn't a crossdresser that was having his rights oppressed, this is a kid that knowingly broke the rules for the sake of breaking them and the school didn't put up with it.

But this wasn't breaking the rules. That's the whole point. Sure, he's a shit disturber, and sure, he wore hats BECAUSE he knew that it was against the rules. This time around, regardless of his intentions, he hurt nobody and broke no rules. They would have had exactly as much precedent to take him in on a day where he's wearing jeans and a t-shirt, if all the reason they had was "We're sick of your shit."

[Bells]

Man i never had problem with dress codes... but then again, over here they tend to be really simple... Jeans, Or Lycra Shorts, and a Shirt with the School's logo on it. And there you go... never bothered with it. But i can see more strict ones being stupidly silly...

Now, yeah... the kid got suspended, but from the school's perspective, if the kid shows up in a dress and gets bullied, or harmed by anybody while in the school, the school is criminally liable. My guess is that they prefer to take the flak from Suspending the kid for this, than the flak they would get if the kid was harmed in anyway because they allowed it.

This reminds me of a book I read in middle school, A Hero aint Nothing but a Sandwich. In the story a kid was suspended for "singing the national anthem." Then it turned into a huge media event about how he was a champion for rights and patriotism and the school were just oppressing his right to express himself.

But no, he was just humming it in class because he wanted a reaction then decided to play it off the way the media was spinning it so he looks like the injured party and could get out of his punishment.

This kid isn't a crossdresser that was having his rights oppressed, this is a kid that knowingly broke the rules for the sake of breaking them and the school didn't put up with it.

Also, this.

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

Yeah, not all Attention whores and Young rule breakers are Revolutionary Freedom Fighters... at least from this one Article i gather that his actions didn't even had anything to do with the school's code or policy, he was basically doing'it for the lulz and got a 3 day suspension for it.

edit: also, relevant link

http://news.yahoo.com/video/seattleking5-15751314/port-orchard-boy-wears-dress-heels-to-school-gets-suspended-25650402

The school backed down after reviewing the case

[Osterbaum]

Seems to be everybody is jumping into wild conclusions about this kid when infact the article doesn't actually give all that information.

Why is there a dresscode to begin with, beyond of not showing up naked?

[BloodyMage]

I can't really comment on it extensively. Our school had a school uniform, so it was pretty easy to know what not to wear, and it's pretty hard to bully for the clothes they wear when they're wearing the same as you.

That said, in comparison this kid (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8504552/Boy-wears-skirt-to-school-in-protest-against-discrimination.html) who has a legit case, whereas this guy just seems to be taking the piss at the school's expense.

[Ecks]

I dunno, if the dude wants to wear a dress to school with high heels, more power to him. His reasoning for doing it should be irrelevant. If school administrators cannot maintain order because someone comes to school wearing clothing more appropriate for the opposite sex (and notice! Girls wear jeans and tees to school with sneakers ALL THE FUCKING TIME and nobody gives two shits. Should it not also work the other way around?) then that makes them incompetent school officials, and the kid should be taking minimal heat at best. His mom challenged him to go a whole day wearing high heels. The teachers and staff should have asked him the reasoning for his get-up, and understood that his mom was trying to teach him a lesson (or prove a point) and then let it be.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

In this case, the kid wore a dress. They punished him for it. It doesn't matter what they SAID they did it for, it doesn't matter what they said HE was wearing a dress for. The point is, they punished him for doing something that didn't break any rules. He should not have been suspended. End of story.

Do you know what high schools are like these days? Kids can get suspended or sent home for things like "defiance" if they stand up at the wrong time (I once got kicked out of class for doing just that) or do anything that can be perceived as defiant or causing a stir. School's don't want to deal with the fallout of a problem, they want to take preventative measures against something happening.

A boy comes to school wearing a dress. They took measures to prevent a potential shitstorm. Were they the right ones? No, probably not. But does this reflect poorly on the people who made the decision? No, it doesn't.

[Fifthfiend]

While I agree with this statement, I don't believe that's the sole reason for why he got suspended. It's very easy to see how it could be perceived as a distraction or even a joke when a fifteen year old boy wears a dress to school. If I were the one to make the decision, I'd have suspended the kid too or at the very least I would have sent him home for the day.

So they didn't ban him for crossdressing, they banned him for being a DISTRACTION and a JOKE... by crossdressing

which is to say

They banned him for crossdressing.

A boy comes to school wearing a dress. They took measures to prevent a potential shitstorm. Were they the right ones? No, probably not. But does this reflect poorly on the people who made the decision?

Of course it does.

[Kim]

A boy comes to school wearing a dress. They took measures to prevent a potential shitstorm. Were they the right ones? No, probably not. But does this reflect poorly on the people who made the decision? No, it doesn't.

When "trying to prevent a shitstorm" equals setting a precendent that boys can't wear dresses it does reflect poorly.

[Fifthfiend]

Also: 90% of dress codes are excercises in dumbfuck authoritarianism.

Like, really, he'd been suspended for wearing a hat? Really? That's what you suspend someone over. Gosh.

[Pip Boy]

Usually the mentality behind things like this isn't that the act itself is bad, but the fact that you insist on continuing to do it in blatant defiance to the grown-up people overlord. Because everyone knows that adults are always smarter than children all the time, and even when you're 17-18 years old you're still a child by virtue of being in high school.

[Fenris]

I'm wondering if the kid didn't cause a scene? I very sincerely doubt it was a case of him walking in the door and then immediately getting suspended forevars due to wearing a dress.

I mean stupid stuff happens for stupid reasons, but we don't need to immediately assume that the stupidest possible justification is the one the school ran with.

[Fifthfiend]

Usually the mentality behind things like this isn't that the act itself is bad, but the fact that you insist on continuing to do it in blatant defiance to the grown-up people overlord. Because everyone knows that adults are always smarter than children all the time, and even when you're 17-18 years old you're still a child by virtue of being in high school.

See I don't get this, because it's not defiance unless the act itself is bad.

Like you don't hear a lot about students getting suspended for DEFIANTLY wearing neatly pressed slacks, dress shirts, and neckties, do you? I am pretty sure I would have heard of it if that were a thing that had happened somewhere.

I'm wondering if the kid didn't cause a scene? I very sincerely doubt it was a case of him walking in the door and then immediately getting suspended forevars due to wearing a dress.

I mean stupid stuff happens for stupid reasons, but we don't need to immediately assume that the stupidest possible justification is the one the school ran with.

I don't really see a reason to assume bad behavior that isn't indicated anywhere in the story, though.

If the student had caused a scene, presumably they would have suspended him for that, and not just the dress wearing.

At that, if he did cause the scene, and they gave him the suspension for dress wearing, then that's still a poor decision on their part, since they're still punishing people for wearing dresses, and not scene-causing.

[Fenris]

even when you're 17-18 years old you're still a child by virtue of being in high school.

Yep.

18 isn't the magic "off-switch" for growing up but it's a pretty close estimate in my personal experience.

I don't really see a reason to assume bad behavior that isn't indicated anywhere in the story, though.

If the student had caused a scene, presumably they would have suspended him for that, and not just the dress wearing.

At that, if he did cause the scene, and they gave him the suspension for dress wearing, then that's still a poor decision on their part, since they're still punishing people for wearing dresses, and not scene-causing.

The article doesn't link the wearing of the dress to the suspension-it only states that one occurred before the other.

I mean, I put on a pair of dress shoes today, and then I tripped down the stairs. Clearly, if I hadn't been wearing the shoes, I would not have tripped, right???

[Fifthfiend]

Like obviously if this student got up on top of a lunch table and started shouting YEAH THATS RIGHT I AM IN A DRESS, AM I TOO REEEEEEAL FOR YOU, MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN and then like, peeing in people's fruit cups, then you know, he would deserve a suspension, but inasmuch as it's not mentioned anywhere in this story of news we are reading, I don't see a reason to imagine that it happened.

[Kim]

I'm wondering if the kid didn't cause a scene? I very sincerely doubt it was a case of him walking in the door and then immediately getting suspended forevars due to wearing a dress.

I mean stupid stuff happens for stupid reasons, but we don't need to immediately assume that the stupidest possible justification is the one the school ran with.

What Fifth said. You're assuming the kid is at fault and giving the school the benefit of the doubt with no evidence to justify it other than you don't think they'd do something that stupid, which ignores the basic fact that most of America, and as a result the vast majority of schools are transphobic and all that bigoted shit.

The article doesn't link the wearing of the dress to the suspension-it only states that one occurred before the other.

I mean, I put on a pair of dress shoes today, and then I tripped down the stairs. Clearly, if I hadn't been wearing the shoes, I would not have tripped, right??? OH COME ON

[Bells]

Usually the mentality behind things like this isn't that the act itself is bad, but the fact that you insist on continuing to do it in blatant defiance to the grown-up people overlord. Because everyone knows that adults are always smarter than children all the time, and even when you're 17-18 years old you're still a child by virtue of being in high school.

Just to point out, that, saying that the Majority of Adults are smarter and with better judgement and common sense than the majority of 15 year old kids... it's not absurd at all.

In the video i posted his mom gives a perfectly fine example when she says that they could've simply send him home to change his clothes, that they didn't have to suspend him. That seens reasonable to me. But then again, it's not the first time this happens so he could probably see that punishment was in the cards for him.

Still, even though Dress codes can be quite anal and unnecessary, i focus more on the "in school" part than in the "Wearing a dress" part of the "wearing a dress in school" sentence.

Again, schools don't want to be liable. If -anything- bad happened to this kid because of his behavior, the school would be fully responsible. Regardless of previous warnings.

[Fenris]

@Non:

news is mispresented all the goddamn time come on you know this

Seriously you can take any event and make it look like what you want it to by omitting or emphasizing certain details.

I'm not saying that the school didn't suspend him because of the dress. I'm just saying that it's not the only possible conclusion to come to from the article.

THIS JUST IN: Child's mother steers child to cross-dress, society is crumbling

[Kim]

news is mispresented all the goddamn time come on you know this"News is misrepresented, therefore I'm going to assume that despite the fact most people, and especially most institutions, are transphobic that a kid who was suspended after wearing a dress to school couldn't have possibly been suspended for that, even though no evidence is presented whatsoever that it was anything other than wearing a dress that could have caused this." Really?

[Fenris]

Done!

[Fifthfiend]

news is mispresented all the goddamn time come on you know this

That's still no reason to start making things up with no basis.

If it turns out that the facts of this story are being misrepresented and someone corrects the record, then at that time, we can certainly discuss the corrected story. But right now what we have is this story.

I mean we could just as easily say that maybe this student was suspended because the principal was actually turned on by his sexy, sexy dress-wearing, and he was afraid if he invited this student back to his place, the student would uncover the principal's secret kiddie-porn dungeon.

But we don't have any basis for supposing that, so we're better off not.

[Bells]

i think what Fenris is saying is that he won't lock down on any single explanation, because news is mispresented all the time, so he can't really exclude other possibilities. Factor in that this is not the first time this kid went trough this situation... we don't know what is his relation in and with his school and what happened the other times.

[Fenris]

i think what Fenris is saying is that he won't lock down on any single explanation, because news is mispresented all the time, so he can't really exclude other possibilities. Factor in that this is not the first time this kid went trough this situation... we don't know what is his relation in and with his school and what happened the other times.

Christ, thank you.

[Kim]

Done!

You come into the thread and assume guilt on the part of the student with zero basis for that assumption other than misguided assumptions about educations institutions. The only evidence we have heavily implies guilt on the part of the institution, but you're actively looking for ways it's not their fault. Pardon me for not taking your posts in this thread seriously.

[Fenris]

You come into the thread and assume guilt on the part of the student with zero basis for that assumption other than misguided assumptions about educations institutions.
I actually didn't do any of that!

I mean, Bells knew what I was saying here. Are you gonna let yourself be one-upped by Bells?

[The Sevenshot Kid]

You come into the thread and assume guilt on the part of the student with zero basis for that assumption other than misguided assumptions about educations institutions. The only evidence we have heavily implies guilt on the part of the institution, but you're actively looking for ways it's not their fault. Pardon me for not taking your posts in this thread seriously.

Whoa. I don't think he was saying that the kid was necessarily guilty of anything. But he is a kid and kid's tend to thrive on attention. He was just pointing out there's more than one possible explanation.

[Bells]

You come into the thread and assume guilt on the part of the student with zero basis for that assumption other than misguided assumptions about educations institutions. The only evidence we have heavily implies guilt on the part of the institution, but you're actively looking for ways it's not their fault. Pardon me for not taking your posts in this thread seriously.

Dude, you're assuming guilt from the institution while only having access to the kid's side of the story... by your own terms, you are concluding stuff via bias alone!

I mean, Bells knew what I was saying here. Are you gonna let yourself be one-upped by Bells?

So, it's a kiss and a slap then? we are so not spooning tonight...

[Fifthfiend]

i think what Fenris is saying is that he won't lock down on any single explanation, because news is mispresented all the time, so he can't really exclude other possibilities. Factor in that this is not the first time this kid went trough this situation... we don't know what is his relation in and with his school and what happened the other times.

Except that the one additional possibility that he is including is one wherein a victim of bigoted behavior is instead found to have been wholly deserving of his punishment, while strangely omitting from his speculations all of the infinite scope of possibilities that aren't that.

[Kim]

Your posts did, even if that wasn't your intent.

I very sincerely doubt it was a case of him walking in the door and then immediately getting suspended forevars due to wearing a dress.

I mean stupid stuff happens for stupid reasons, but we don't need to immediately assume that the stupidest possible justification is the one the school ran with.

To assume that the "stupidest possible justification" isn't the one the school went with implies an assumption that the vast majority of schools aren't transphobic.

Which they are.

ALSO: I have a hard time buying the "Don't want to lock down on an explanation" defense. You didn't come into this thread arguing, "Well, I'm not sure what happened, since we've really got very little evidence either way." You came into arguing that the kid probably did something else to cause it because you don't think a school would make a stupid transphobic decision.

[Osterbaum]

Also: 90% of dress codes are excercises in dumbfuck authoritarianism.
This is what I was getting at.

Also the article says the original suspension was for the rest of the year. What sort of a scene do you cause to warrant that? The whole business of enforcing dress codes and handing out suspensions for "disruptive" behaviour is pretty fucking questionable to begin with.

[Kim]

Also the article says the original suspension was for the rest of the year. what sort of a scene do you cause to warrant that long?

Pffft, I punched a kid in school and I got suspended for like a week.

[Fifthfiend]

I mean, Bells knew what I was saying here. Are you gonna let yourself be one-upped by Bells?

Are you really so attached to one poor post that you're going to call Bells's defense of it a one-upping?

[Fenris]

So, it's a kiss and a slap then? we are so not spooning tonight...
but bby ilu

its even in the post title

Except that the one additional possibility that he is including is one wherein a victim of bigoted behavior is instead found to have been wholly deserving of his punishment, while strangely omitting from his speculations all of the infinite scope of possibilities that aren't that.That also wasn't what happened.

Are you really so attached to one poor post that you're going to call Bells's defense of it a one-upping?
When it's in terms of reading comprehension? Yes.

Your posts did, even if that wasn't your intent.



To assume that the "stupidest possible justification" isn't the one the school went with implies an assumption that the vast majority of schools aren't transphobic.No, I implied that being transphobic is a stupid fucking thing to be, and that punishing somebody based on transphobic rhetoric or whatevs is a stupid fucking thing to do.

ALSO: I have a hard time buying the "Don't want to lock down on an explanation" defense. You didn't come into this thread arguing, "Well, I'm not sure what happened, since we've really got very little evidence either way." You came into arguing that the kid possibly did something else to cause it.

FTFY.

It had a few extra words, so I took those off too.

@Oster: The school year's probably almost over? Like a week or so?

Holy shit what kind of school in America still has school in the middle of June?

[Bells]

No guys, please, don't hug me so hard, i don't deserve so much lovin

[The Sevenshot Kid]

ALSO: I have a hard time buying the "Don't want to lock down on an explanation" defense. You didn't come into this thread arguing, "Well, I'm not sure what happened, since we've really got very little evidence either way." You came into arguing that the kid probably did something else to cause it because you don't think a school would make a stupid transphobic decision.

I for one, think it's quite possible that this kid was acting like a kid and that also lead to his suspension. Yeah, schools are gonna be pretty transphobic. This is a given because society hasn't quite reached that point yet. It is safe to assume that this contributed to the decision but it's also safe to assume that this kid was acting his age.

[Kim]

Dude, you're assuming guilt from the institution while only having access to the kid's side of the story... by your own terms, you are concluding stuff via bias alone!A. A kid went to school in a dress.

B. The kid was suspended for a year, then his sentence was reduced drastically.

All evidence we have is that the first caused the latter, which falls in line with reasonable assumptions about the nature of public institutions.

Fenris came into the argument not to argue that we don't know, but to argue that the kid probably caused it because we don't have 100% proof that the school did B because of A. Regardless of intent, that was the content of his posts.

I'm basing my belief on the information I have, and what I can reasonably assume.

Fenris is basing his belief on the possibility of information we don't have, and an unbacked assumption about the school that is statistically unlikely.

I don't see what the problem is here.

No, I implied that being transphobic is a stupid fucking thing to be, and that punishing somebody based on transphobic rhetoric or whatevs is a stupid fucking thing to do.You stated that because it was a stupid fucking thing to be, that the school probably wasn't being it, despite the fact that most are.

I for one, think it's quite possible that this kid was acting like a kid and that also lead to his suspension. Yeah, schools are gonna be pretty transphobic. This is a given because society hasn't quite reached that point yet. It is safe to assume that this contributed to the decision but it's also safe to assume that this kid was acting his age.

Yet we have no information that suggests that he was suspended for behavior, and the information we have suggests he was suspended for crossdressing. You are making assumptions based on the possibility of information we don't have, and using it to argue against assumptions made on the information we do have.

[Fenris]

Fenris is basing his belief on the possibility of information we don't have, and an unbacked assumption about the school that is statistically unlikely.

Alright, if you're going to continue to insist that I'm arguing this point, I'd like for you to bring in some statistics about schools and transphobia.

Please cite at least two different sources.

If you are going to continue to preach at me how "most schools are transphobic" I would like to see some evidence. Anecdotes do not count.

[Bells]

A. A kid went to school in a dress.

B. The kid was suspended for a year, then his sentence was reduced drastically.

All evidence we have is that the first caused the latter, which falls in line with reasonable assumptions about the nature of public institutions.

Fenris came into the argument not to argue that we don't know, but to argue that the kid probably caused it because we don't have 100% proof that the school did B because of A. Regardless of intent, that was the content of his posts.

I'm basing my belief on the information I have, and what I can reasonably assume.

Fenris is basing his belief on the possibility of information we don't have, and an unbacked assumption about the school that is statistically unlikely.

I don't see what the problem is here.

You forget that this wasn't the first time. Which we know that wasn't the first time. We just don't know what happened. We also don't know any details of how the kid reacted in neither situation or what is his behavior like at all... all things that factor in, but wasn't mentioned from the kid's side of the story.

[Kim]

Alright, if you're going to continue to insist that I'm arguing this point, I'd like for you to bring in some statistics about schools and transphobia.

Please cite at least two different sources.

If you are going to continue to preach at me how "most schools are transphobic" I would like to see some evidence. Anecdotes do not count.

How about just one set of very thorough statistics. (http://www.youthprideri.org/Resources/Statistics/tabid/227/Default.aspx)

[Fifthfiend]

Also, I'm just throwing it out there, but the article does state quite clearly that the school is refusing to comment on the matter, when it seems that they could quite easily correct the record if they were in reality being misrepresented.

[Fenris]

How about just one set of very thorough statistics. (http://www.youthprideri.org/Resources/Statistics/tabid/227/Default.aspx)

The bulk of those have very little to do with the stances of school administration. It's more about the environment that is incredibly heavily influenced by their naive, assholish peers.

In fact, the word "administration" does not appear on the page even once.

[Fifthfiend]

Nobody would ever cancel the school prom just to spite a lesbian student (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-10-noprom_N.htm), I mean, that would be stupid.

fakeedit: She was obviously causing some kind of disruption that made having a prom impossible

[Bells]

Also, I'm just throwing it out there, but the article does state quite clearly that the school is refusing to comment on the matter, when it seems that they could quite easily correct the record if they were in reality being misrepresented.

Thus providing fuel to a flame they probably want to fan out as fast as possible. regardless, let me just post this again because the school did put some words out

http://news.yahoo.com/video/seattleking5-15751314/port-orchard-boy-wears-dress-heels-to-school-gets-suspended-25650402

[Fenris]

Nobody would ever cancel the school prom just to spite a lesbian student (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-10-noprom_N.htm), I mean, that would be stupid.

fakeedit: She was obviously causing some kind of disruption that made having a prom impossible

Anecdotes do not count.

One instance of a horrible administration is not evidence that the majority of administrations are also horrible.

[Fifthfiend]

Oh, Noncon, one thing: He was suspended for the remainder of the school year, not a year. Like, it was recently, so it was probably only a week-ish.

[Bells]

Actually 3 days, and then not at all once the news media caught wind of it.

[Fifthfiend]

Anecdotes do not count.

One instance of a horrible administration is not evidence that the majority of administrations are also horrible.

It's a good thing I wasn't responding to you challenge to noncon, but rather the ridiculousness of your own initial position, which actually is, in fact, utterly refuted by the existence of anecdotes to the contrary.

Quite stupid decisions are, in fact, made by school administrators, as demonstrated by my link, so there's actually no reason to assume, given a situation in which a stupid decision was made by a school administrator, that some entirely different thing must actually have happened.

[Kim]

The bulk of those have very little to do with the stances of school administration. It's more about the environment that is incredibly heavily influenced by their naive, assholish peers.

In fact, the word "administration" does not appear on the page even once.

The fact that these statistics reflect on the environment and the culture these children are growing up in doesn't matter?

You're seriously telling me I have to prove that despite the fact that society is transphobic, and schools are largely transphobic environment, I have to prove that this is representative of school administrators as well?

I'm going to have to assume you're either arguing disingenuously because you're upset or I'm not really sure what to think of you if your honest to God position is that you don't think transphobia is an institutional problem.

[Fenris]

It's a good thing I wasn't responding to you challenge to noncon, but rather the ridiculousness of your own position.

You're complaining that anecdotes aren't data, in defense of your own speculations for which you have literally no evidence at all, this is really getting quite superlative.

My position being that "the majority of school administrations are, in fact, not horrible people, but those that are transphobic are."

yep

sure is ridiculous

[Fifthfiend]

Incidentally Fenris, I'm looking for the part of this thread where you substantiate your view that news gets misrepresented "all the time".

Remember: Data, not anecdotes.

[Fenris]

The fact that these statistics reflect on the environment and the culture these children are growing up in doesn't matter?

You're seriously telling me I have to prove that despite the fact that society is transphobic, and schools are largely transphobic environment, I have to prove that this is representative of school administrators as well?


If you are going to claim that the school administration is transphobic, then yes, I expect you to prove that the school administration is transphobic.

[Fifthfiend]

I expect you to prove that the school administration is transphobic.

Again: no evidence for any of your own claims, anywhere in this thread.

[Fenris]

Incidentally Fenris, I'm looking for the part of this thread where you substantiate your view that news gets misrepresented "all the time".

Remember: Data, not anecdotes.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=yellow+journalism

[Kim]

Well, the vast majority of America is transphobic based on statistics and how America generally votes, and school administration is made up of people in the US. So, unless you have evidence that their views differ wildly from those of most Americans, then that most administrators are transphobic is a safe assumption. Thank you.

[Fenris]

That's not how data works.

[Kim]

Neither is a link to Google.

[Fenris]

Neither is a link to Google.

I know!

But I think the fact that there's a term for a brand of newswriting that is deliberately designed to mislead is pretty compelling evidence.

[Kim]

Bigender is a term.

Therefore most people are bigender.

I had no idea Fenris.

I had no idea.

[Fifthfiend]

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=yellow+journalism

Anecdotes do not count

Try again.

I know!

But I think the fact that there's a term for a brand of newswriting that is deliberately designed to mislead is pretty compelling evidence.

it's certainly a completely different standard of evidence than you're insisting on from anyone else.

EDIT: Things that are also terms: Bigotry, transophobia.

HMMM, how about that.

[Fenris]

Bigender is a term.

Therefore most people are bigender.

I had no idea Fenris.

I had no idea.
I too, can make strawmen arguments!

Yep, google search, totally anecdotal.

lol

[Kim]

NO WAIT WAIT

Transphobia is a term. Therefore most everyone is transphobic. Therefore most administration is transphobic. Thank you for helping me argue this proper Fenris.

[Kim]

I too, can make strawmen arguments!

You are quite literally arguing that because there is a term for bad journalism that we should assume this is bad journalism.

THAT IS A THING YOU ARE DOING

[Bells]

Oh Hai, Fox News (http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-15yearold-male-port-orchard-student-suspended-for-wearing-dress-to-school-20110617,0,4137816.story)

You are quite literally arguing that because there is a term for bad journalism that we should assume this is bad journalism.

he is saying it's common enough to have it's proper label

c'mon!

[Fenris]

Haha, holy shit.

I think it's pretty clear that no matter how I try to appeal to the pair of you, I'm not ever going to get my point across to you.

It's been fun. I have some stuff to do today that matters, so I'm gonna do that for the time being.

Enjoy your thread!

[Kim]

I like how to safely assume that schools are transphobic when making my point that the school was probably in the wrong, I must prove that not only are most students transphobic, not only are most Americans transphobic, but that the people in charge of these transphobic environments and who are a portion of a largely transphobic society are also mostly transphobic.

But! Nobody else needs to prove shit. At all.

umad.pngFenris is truly the most responsible mod of them all.

he is saying it's common enough to have it's proper label

And that therefore his assumption that the news article is misleading is the most likely one. You're missing that part.

[Aerozord]

Why is there a dresscode to begin with, beyond of not showing up naked?

now I am not arguing the right or wrong of it, but I did read up on the reason for originally creating dress codes and am merely sharing (oh and 5 pages suddenly popped up so sorry if this was said already)

Uniform dress codes were made in the hopes of stopping bullying and discrimination. People that cant afford latest fashions often got picked on by those that could. so they had everyone wear the same thing

Simply restrictive dress codes were more an issue of what was appropriate and what wasnt and this allowed for clearly defined rules. If you look at the actual rules for the dress code they are very exacting such as giving an exact length in inches a dress is allowed to be in for example. Also to try and avoid offending others.

Ultimately their original purpose was to keep clothing from negatively affecting learning experience of the student body. How strict a school is on this normally comes from principals personal views on it though. Some let just about anything go, others break out a freakin ruler to check.

[Token]

Bigender is a term.

Therefore most people are bigender.

I had no idea Fenris.

I had no idea.

This is a bullshit argument, and you should feel bad for making it.

The bulk of those have very little to do with the stances of school administration. It's more about the environment that is incredibly heavily influenced by their naive, assholish peers.

In fact, the word "administration" does not appear on the page even once.

So is this.

Just one guy's opinion here, but both of y'all need to step the fuck back for a bit, because this is looking like one of those endless Nonsy vs Fenny clusterfuck arguments that we're all getting tired of.

More on topic: dude got suspended for three days because he pulled shit that was solely to get attention. This kid is not transgender. He is a dumbass who did the same stuff a bunch of high school kids do because they want attention, and he paid the price.

EDIT: Of course the pissing contest got even more blatantly fucktarded while I was making this post. Anything else would have been dumb.

[Bells]

And that therefore his assumption that the news article is misleading is the most likely one. You're missing that part.

Not most likely. That is your wording and you know it. He was just saying that it was possible.

More on topic: dude got suspended for three days because he pulled shit that was solely to get attention. This kid is not transgender. He is a dumbass who did the same stuff a bunch of high school kids do because they want attention, and he paid the price.

http://birdonthemoon.com/you_win_the_prize-thumb.jpeg

[The Sevenshot Kid]

During homeroom, Saurs was called in to dean John Richerson's office. Richerson told him that he was distracting students and that he should go home for the day. Sours response? He told the dean he thought he was being sexist. Richerson then suspended Sours from school for the rest of the year.

Okay, I would have suspended this kid too for calling me a sexist. That's being disrespectful to the principal. If you have a problem with the administration, tell your parents but don't make claims or insult sed member of the administration.

This kid could have just gone home, told his mom, and had her clear it up with the administration but instead, he acted like a kid and said something stupid. This is a kid being a kid. Not news.

[Fifthfiend]

More on topic: dude got suspended for three days because he pulled shit that was solely to get attention. This kid is not transgender. He is a dumbass who did the same stuff a bunch of high school kids do because they want attention, and he paid the price.

He explicitly didn't do it to get attention, but rather because of a joke between himself and his mom. It is right there in the news story.

Also, explain why students are not allowed to get attention, where the means by which they do so are not themselves inappropriate.

[Token]

He explicitly didn't do it to get attention, but rather because of a thing between himself and his mom. It is right there in the news story.

Also, demonstrate where students are not allowed to get attention, where the means by which they do so are not themselves inappropriate.

No. The heels were because of the bet. The dress was because he "decided to take it further."

[Kim]

More on topic: dude got suspended for three days because he pulled shit that was solely to get attention. This kid is not transgender. He is a dumbass who did the same stuff a bunch of high school kids do because they want attention, and he paid the price.

The problem is that the thing he did to get attention shouldn't be wrong in the first place, regardless of why he did it. If he did something wrong beyond that, then he should be in trouble for that. This is like saying if someone went to school in a tux. I'm fairly confident they wouldn't get suspended for it, regardless of why they did it.

[Fifthfiend]

No. The heels were because of the bet. The dress was because he "decided to take it further."

Taking further the joke between himself and his mom. Again, the assumption that this had anything to do with getting attention is your invention, not supported anywhere.

The idea that he was having a good-natured joke with his mom is supported, if imperfectly, and it's telling that you are nonetheless utterly rejecting that, (imperfectly) supported assumption, in favor of an unsupported one.

And again, you're not explaining why it's wrong for this student to wear a dress regardless of why he is wearing it.

[Token]

Telling of what, exactly?

And since we're on the subject of "inventions," I didn't say it was wrong for him to wear the dress.

[Kim]

Honestly, the reason doesn't matter. Wearing a dress should not be something students should get in trouble for.

[Aerozord]

More on topic: dude got suspended for three days because he pulled shit that was solely to get attention. This kid is not transgender. He is a dumbass who did the same stuff a bunch of high school kids do because they want attention, and he paid the price.

to add on this, I figured this would be offensive to transgender people. I mean he turned your life choice into a joke. Be like someone getting suspended for coming to school http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w115/tawiskaro/BlackFaceHarry.jpg then saying he was suspended for being black.

There is a difference between being suspended for being a minority, and being suspended for pretending to be that minority for a cheap laugh

[Fifthfiend]

It seems to me that if students are wearing dresses to school to "get attention", the thing to do is to, you know, ignore their behavior, and treat them no differently from any other student, denying their attention-seeking behavior.

Rather than instead paying a lot of attention to them, in a way that gets that student on the evening news, while making yourself look like a bigot.

This would also have the salutary affect of not needlessly punishing students who are not out to get attention.

I mean I'm not a school administrator, I'm just saying, that's how I personally would handle that, is all.

[Token]

Okay, I would have suspended this kid too for calling me a sexist. That's being disrespectful to the principal. If you have a problem with the administration, tell your parents but don't make claims or insult sed member of the administration.

This kid could have just gone home, told his mom, and had her clear it up with the administration but instead, he acted like a kid and said something stupid. This is a kid being a kid. Not news.

For the record, this was blatantly disrespectful, and as someone who has been in the position of wearing something stupid to school and antagonizing the principal for calling me out on it, he deserved it.

[Kim]

to add on this, I figured this would be offensive to transgender people.

Alternatively, the school's actions give closeted transgender people the impression that any attempts to express themselves would be punished.

[Bells]

It seems to me that if students are wearing dresses to school to "get attention", the thing to do is to, you know, ignore their behavior, and treat them no differently from any other student, denying their attention-seeking behavior.

Rather than instead paying a lot of attention to them, in a way that gets that student on the evening news, while making yourself look like a bigot.

This would also have the salutary affect of not needlessly punishing students who are not out to get attention.

I mean I'm not a school administrator, I'm just saying, that's how I personally would handle that, is all.

Yeah... tell a few hundred 13~16 year old's to just ignore the attention whore and t roublemakers, that seems reasonable....

Alternatively, the school's actions give closeted transgender people the impression that any attempts to express themselves would be punished.

And the statement the school gave after this that they respect each student's personal choices and then lifting the suspension does not negate that?

[Kim]

brb just realized how hilarious "I'm not arguing this point, but you still have to prove the point you think I'm arguing wrong" is.

[Fifthfiend]

Telling of what, exactly?

That's a very good question. Please, tell me: Why are you willing to make extremely uncharitable, utterly unsupported assumptions about this student, in the face of other, better explanations?

And since we're on the subject of "inventions," I didn't say it was wrong for him to wear the dress.

I'm not sure how that relates to the subject of inventions, since nobody said that you said that.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Alternatively, the school's actions give closeted transgender people the impression that any attempts to express themselves would be punished.

Or, they see him joking about how funny he thinks it is or getting made fun of by other people and it makes them feel even more secluded.

It's like saying people laughing about a guy in blackface is going to make black people feel accepted.

[Kim]

And the statement the school gave after this that they respect each student's personal choices and then lifting the suspension does not negate that?*school does thing that might make transgender students afraid to express themselves*

*school takes backsies once the media calls attention to it*

Yup, changes everything. Forever.

It's like saying people laughing about a guy in blackface is going to make black people feel accepted.

Where did I ever encourage laughing at him?

[Bells]

So it's impossible to have a change of mind when there are cameras around. Ok. Gotcha.

[Kim]

So it's impossible to have a change of mind when there are cameras around. Ok. Gotcha.

That the change of mind only came with the cameras is not going to make the school's actions seem genuine to those they affect, as most will, reasonably, assume that the actions were only taken to placate said cameras.

[Token]

That's a very good question. Please, tell me: Why are you willing to make extremely uncharitable, utterly unsupported assumptions about this student, in the face of other, better explanations?
Simple. Crossdressing is the only thing worse than faggots and niggers.



I'm not sure how that relates to the subject of inventions, since nobody said that you said that.


And again, you're not explaining why it's wrong for this student to wear a dress regardless of why he is wearing it.

Yeah, kay.

[Aerozord]

I mean I'm not a school administrator, I'm just saying, that's how I personally would handle that, is all.

ultimately I think this is it. I dont go to that school, I dont know these people, I dont know the subtleties of how the kid acted, his record, how others reacted, their over all policies, the community views.

The point of a principal is to use his or her judgement to decide when a line has been crossed. I saw nothing to make me think the principal made his choice out of some hatred of crossdressing.

Not really my place to say whether their judgement was right or wrong

[Osterbaum]

My main problem here is still with the fact that a schools administration even has the right to suspend people for anything they deem "disruptive".

Okay, I would have suspended this kid too for calling me a sexist.
So I guess if you're in a position of power, it's ok for you to use that power to exact punishement because of personal insults directed at you?

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Where did I ever encourage laughing at him?

That's not even what I was saying and you know it. I as just pointing out an obvious flaw in your logic. A boy going around in a dress that is not transgender and did it as a joke is not going to make transgender people feel safer. If anything, it could make them feel like a laughing stock.

I wouldn't feel good if a guy came to my school dressed as a stereotypical Mexican or Irishmen because they think it's funny. I'd probably feel pretty shitty.

[Solid Snake]

My position being that "the majority of school administrations are, in fact, not horrible people, but those that are transphobic are."


Man I'm sorry Fenris I generally agree with much of what you're saying here but if you seriously think most people aren't transphobic, I need to introduce you to a majority of the otherwise decent Americans I know.

...Oh wait that's anecdotal evidence so it's invalid. How about the fact that in San Francisco in 1999, one of the most progressive areas of the country, seventy percent of transsexuals were unemployed, considerably more (one would undoubtedly presume) than the population of the city itself? Hell, what about the fact that, as bizzare as it may sound, even some members of the LGBT community dislike transsexuals enough to protest them? Even a precursory google search turns up such a veritable mountain of information that I do not know where to begin.

...But restricting anecdotal evidence seems somewhat silly when, in fact, the impact of transphobia is felt anecdotally as opposed to, y'know, in a brute force numbers kind of way. Eventually when you compile enough stories of discrimination in education, it becomes comparable to a statistic, right? Unless you believe there's some nefarious force of transsexuals out there making up stories in order to garner publicity.

I think the broader point here is that institutional privilege and its subversive impact basically means that we should give the oppressed minority group the benefit of the doubt and demand explicit evidence from the privileged majority that the minority's assertions are incorrect. This is particularly true when an institution like a school district has considerably more influence, connections, and establishment to propagate its side of the story than a maligned, embarrassed and (perhaps unjustifiably) punished individual from a historically repressed and marginalized group.

Asking to receive multiple sides of the story in order to make a conclusive determination is never a bad thing, but in the absence of information (particularly when the absence of that information is at least partially due to the silence or refusal of clarification from the institution with sizable advantages) we can reasonably make assumptions based on historical precedent. Mind you, I don't think there's an issue with withholding judgment in the wake of a lack of information. But when you word your attempt to withhold judgment as a tacit endorsement of the privileged institution, yeah that's slightly disconcerting.

And anyone here who'd dare argue that transphobia was not a serious issue in our nation and all institutions therein, including and perhaps even moreso educational institutions working with young, impressionable and comparatively powerless children, just...I mean, it's not an argument that should be made. In any context whatsoever.

But really this is just a case where it seems both sides of the argument are pretty equally stubborn, and the refusal to admit a mistake or poor wording or an over-exaggeration of perspective leads to entrenched positions that only further exacerbates the debate. I don't think Fenris' position was as brazenly harmful and discriminatory as NonCon and Fifth made it sound. But at the same time, I don't think NonCon and Fifth's broader points about the societal impact and ramifications of transphobia at an institutional level justify Fenris' perspective and his reaction to NonCon and Fifth's legitimate points.

Unfortunately, the minute it sounds like one side's accusing the other of bigotry, the actual objective merit of the underlacing argument is lost, as the privileged person on the defensive suddenly feels that it's his personal credibility as a non-bigoted person, and not the objective merit of the argument advanced, that's at stake. So then the whole thing is blown out of proportion as it becomes less about "hey let's really analyze the impacts of transphobia and how it impacts decisions made by institutions of learning used to outdated stagnant-gender ideals" and more about "Holy ****, he's calling me transphobic for daring to want more information before criticizing the school, this is a huge insult, it's him saying I'm a terrible person, my honor is at stake!"

...I joined this party way too late, didn't I.

[Kim]

That's not even what I was saying and you know it. I as just pointing out an obvious flaw in your logic. A boy going around in a dress that is not transgender and did it as a joke is not going to make transgender people feel safer. If anything, it could make them feel like a laughing stock.

The school setting a precedent of punishing students for crossdressing will make trans students feel safer how?

[The Sevenshot Kid]

My main problem here is still with the fact that a schools administration even has the right to suspend people for anything they deem "disruptive".


So I guess if you're in a position of power, it's ok for you to use that power to exact punishement because of personal insults directed at you?

No. The kid crossed a line by showing very open disrespect towards his principal. You think he's going to learn not to do that unless you give him a reason? He's a kid and he needs to learn not to be a dick somehow.


The school setting a precedent of punishing students for crossdressing will make trans students feel safer how?

For punishing students that ridicule them? Yeah.

[Bells]

So I guess if you're in a position of power, it's ok for you to use that power to exact punishement because of personal insults directed at you?

Well, if you shout personal insults to your boss you are likely to be suspended or fired even...

You could argue that there is a certain level of respect your should assure to a figure of Authority. So, yeah... personal insult directly pointed at the principal would be a "no-no"...

[Kim]

And anyone here who'd dare argue that transphobia was not a serious issue in our nation and all institutions therein, including and perhaps even moreso educational institutions working with young, impressionable and comparatively powerless children, just...I mean, it's not an argument that should be made. In any context whatsoever.
I never called Fenris transphobic, though he does seem to think arguing against him and telling him he's making bad arguments is the same as calling him the Anti-Christ, but I was really frustrated that he was doing what you said here because it's really just plain awful to do, and that's really where I lost my temper, whereas before the tone of my posts was mainly to point out why I thought Fenris posts were ridiculous.

[Kim]

I mean, just for clarification sake arguing that a serious problem like institutionalized transphobia isn't a serious problem because I'm not able to find extremely specific statistics on zero notice is just an incredibly offensive thing to do, and while I know that Fenris didn't do it with intent to offend that does not negate the offensiveness of it.

And, once again, if Fenris was just arguing that we didn't know, there are far better ways of conveying that than playing devil's advocate based on the possibility of information we didn't have.

[Solid Snake]

I never called Fenris transphobic, though he does seem to think arguing against him and telling him he's making bad arguments is the same as calling him the Anti-Christ, but I was really frustrated that he was doing what you said here because it's really just plain awful to do, and that's really where I lost my temper, whereas before the tone of my posts was mainly to point out why I thought Fenris posts were ridiculous.


Well, yeah, that was more or less my point. Fenris messed up by at least appearing to take a rather flippant stance towards the serious problem of institutional privilege imposing its normative ideals on transsexuals in a brazenly discriminatory way.

...But then you also kind of messed up by basically losing your temper (by your own admission) when you were actually in a much better position to 'win the argument' by remaining level-headed and spelling out where Fenris went wrong objectively and without insinuating in any context that he personally was transphobic. The argument was transphobic, but I do not believe Fenris himself is.

</opinion don't shoot the messenger>

[Krylo]

Wearing a dress to school isn't even close to wearing black face to school. That's a horrible argument. You people need to quit making it.

That said: The kid was probably a shit. There was all kinds of stuff in every link that denotes that the kid was probably a shit. Like the way he reacted to being suspended for this.

However, the fact of the matter is that the given reason for suspending him wasn't 'You're a shit' or 'You called the principal sexist.' It was wearing a dress.

In the original story we had no reason to assume to what degrees he acted like a shit in order to get suspended. We can only go on the official story of 'got suspended for wearing a dress'. As that we also see in the original story that wearing a dress is not against the dress code, there is absolutely no way we should be arguing that the kid should have been suspended for wearing a dress.

Further comments that suggest that the severity of the punishment suggest a greater act of rebellion than simply wearing a dress are missing an important part of the story: The school year was probably only like a week longer. Wearing things the administration doesn't approve of multiple times in the same year can easily lead to a week (or longer) suspension with no other acts of rebellion or rule breaking.

AS SUCH: Until just recently we had to assume his only unruly activity was dressing like a pretty princess and maybe making some dumb jokes about it.

We have since found out that the suspension was after calling his principal sexist and having the principal probably over react to a personal insult.

Was THAT justified then? Maybe. Probably not. I'd have to know the full content of the discussion to figure that out, and would argue that calling an administrator sexist may not have actually been childish in so much as accurate depending on the content of that conversation.

However, regardless of the accuracy SOME punishment was probably due for calling the principal sexist.

We can also discuss whether the principal was in the right for trying to send the kid home as disruptive for wearing a dress, and whether this reflect on transphobia in the administration or the administration attempting to deal with transphobia in the student body (in an admittedly clumsy way).

But I really don't see how there's any justification for suspending a student for wearing something that is not restricted in the dress code.

[Kim]

...But then you also kind of messed up by basically losing your temper (by your own admission) when you were actually in a much better position to 'win the argument' by remaining level-headed and spelling out where Fenris went wrong objectively and without insinuating in any context that he personally was transphobic. The argument was transphobic, but I do not believe Fenris himself is.

I'm honestly not sure where I ever implied Fenris was transphobic or really ever directly insulted him, except to the extent that I got fed up with his arguments and treated them as seriously as I took them, because it was perfectly clear he was being a dismissive, rude ass as well anyhow.

Also: "umad.png" seriously what kind of childish bullshit is that from a mod.

EDIT: Like I'm not even arguing that what I did was okay cuz I totally fucking snapped at Fenris, but Goddamn he was doing his best, intentionally or no, to make that easy.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Wearing a dress to school isn't even close to wearing black face to school. That's a horrible argument. You people need to quit making it.

You're right. The analogy doesn't quite work but it's the closest most of us could find.

As for everything else you said, that was really well said and I think you're right. We should discuss this more rationally and not only from one point of view.

[Osterbaum]

No. The kid crossed a line by showing very open disrespect towards his principal. You think he's going to learn not to do that unless you give him a reason? He's a kid and he needs to learn not to be a dick somehow.
So he learns not to be a dick by having himself suspended? I mean I agree that we should preferably all act civilized towards each other. But people get angry and start throwing personal insults. God forbid you insult someone with the power to suspend/fire your or whatever, cause then it's an entirely different thing.

Well, if you shout personal insults to your boss you are likely to be suspended or fired even...
But should you? I really don't think you should. Workplaces, just like schools, should not be authoritarian entities (or even autocracies in cases where principals and bosses alone have unreasonable ammounts of power).

You could argue that there is a certain level of respect your should assure to a figure of Authority.
Man, fuck all authority that is enforced top-->down.

That said: The kid was probably a shit. There was all kinds of stuff in every link that denotes that the kid was probably a shit. Like the way he reacted to being suspended for this.
Did we read the same article and watch the same news clips? Cause I really don't see this.

[Krylo]

On a lighter note, he was pretty cute in that dress.

If I were a few years younger...

[Token]

My main problem here is still with the fact that a schools administration even has the right to suspend people for anything they deem "disruptive".


So I guess if you're in a position of power, it's ok for you to use that power to exact punishement because of personal insults directed at you?

Just gonna go right the motherfuck ahead and quote my old high school's student code of conduct here.

Rule 12: Disrespect
Good conduct shows respect for others. No student shall engage in any act which disrespects or degrades another person by written, verbal, or gestured means. Profanity, vulgar language, racial slurs, or sexually suggestive remarks are prohibited. Conduct of this type directed at a staff member will result in an out of school suspension.
1st offense: 1-3 days ISAP.
2nd offense: 1-3 days OSS
3rd offense: 5 days OSSS.

Rule 27: Insubordination/failure to follow reasonable requests
A student shall neither disregard nor refuse to obey reasonable directions, requests, or refuse to identify him/herself.
1st offense: 1-3 days ISAP, possible OSS
2nd offense: Up to 5 days ISAP, possible OSS.
3rd offense: 5-10 days OSS, possible expulsion.

Rule 32: Repeated violations of the student code:
Students who repeatedly and/or flagrantly violate school rules will face increasingly severe consequences leading to expulsion from school.
Consequences: 1-10 days OSS, possible expulsion.


The dumbass got off easy.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

On a lighter note, he was pretty cute in that dress.

If I were a few years younger...

His reckless disregard for authority would make him a difficult flower to tame.

[Osterbaum]

Just because it's written down on a list of (arguably) arbitrary rules the school administration propably thought up themselvs at some point in time does not make it such a serious and punishable offense.

[Krylo]

His reckless disregard for authority would make him a difficult flower to tame.

That's the hottest part.

[Kim]

ALSO: As for why we shouldn't say, "Well, if you're going to wear a dress you have to be trans." is two-fold, from my perspective.

1. I think there are probably cis people who are genuinely interested in crossdressing.

2. Regardless of whether a person is trans or just into crossdressing, being open is incredibly hard, but the desire to do these things can be pretty strong to. It can make things easier if you've got an excuse to hide behind. I was gonna use Bay to Breakers as an excuse to crossdress this year, for example, and before I was out to my friends I'd make jokes implying I was gay, and those jokes were born of my desire to be out but tempered by my fear of rejection.

I do think there are trans or cis-crossdressing people who might see something like what happened with this student and use, "It's a joke with my mom" or something like that as an excuse to crossdress, because it's easier than saying, "Well, I'm actually the other gender." I think the positive effects of allowing people to crossdress for whatever reason outweight the cons.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

His reckless disregard for authority would make him a difficult flower to tame.

I just want you to know how much I appreciate you showing up.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

That's why I'm here.
Like I could add other pointsbut there is not much to say:
Either he is suspendd for wearing a dress which is stupid
Or he is suspended for calling his principal sexist which is also stupid.

So instead it is much more productive to discuss how bangable he is.
And I defineatly wouldn't go there. He looks pretty fragile. And his caving into his principal's suspicion confirms this. He would break under my firm masculine hands within a minute.

[Solid Snake]

Honestly clothes are just clothes. Aside from keeping us warm, their primary function is to establish a sense of personal identity and self-worth though an image perceived by the brands and styles worn. One piece of fabric really isn't all that different from another.

From that perspective I'd personally kind of like to see the notion of crossdressing itself disappear into the netherworld. There should and always will remain cisgendered people and transgendered people, and there will always remain critical distinctions between "male" and "female." But I'm not sure if in the future clothes can or should be a serious dividing line.

As NonCon noted, cisgendered people may crossdress. And people who personally identify with their non-biological gender -- women who were born XY and men who were born XX -- actually shouldn't be considered to be crossdressing at all when they're wearing their associated gender's clothing. To insinuate that they are "crossdressing" when they are really being true to themselves is the ultimate insult. If a 'biological male' sincerely identifies as female, I think it's "crossdressing" for the school to make him dress as a male.

[The SSB Intern]

My male friend went to school in a dress and makeup for Halloween and my male psychology teacher wore hot pink short shorts and a tube top for spirit week.

Why the fuck don't I get to be on the news.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

We used to have cross-dressing days at school where you would be shamed for not cross-dressing. Why were we not on the news.

[Nikose Tyris]

ALSO: As for why we shouldn't say, "Well, if you're going to wear a dress you have to be trans." is two-fold, from my perspective.

1. I think there are probably cis people who are genuinely interested in crossdressing.


Ya know, not to join this thread or anything but I think that kind of goes against the definition of 'cisgender'. But that's semantics.

2. Regardless of whether a person is trans or just into crossdressing, being open is incredibly hard, but the desire to do these things can be pretty strong to. It can make things easier if you've got an excuse to hide behind. I was gonna use Bay to Breakers as an excuse to crossdress this year, for example, and before I was out to my friends I'd make jokes implying I was gay, and those jokes were born of my desire to be out but tempered by my fear of rejection.

That's an understandable position, but it doesn't seem to be what the article implies. Possibly it was? From what's visible, the boy claims to just be out to cause some mischief. Should we take that at its word?

I do think there are trans or cis-crossdressing people who might see something like what happened with this student and use, "It's a joke with my mom" or something like that as an excuse to crossdress, because it's easier than saying, "Well, I'm actually the other gender." I think the positive effects of allowing people to crossdress for whatever reason outweight the cons.

I believe that's possible, but I don't know about 'easier'. Jockular jokes come more easily and can feel more hurtful when you hide your identity. When you're facing what your friends think of as humor can sting more then when you've got other people slingin' real insults.

[Token]

Just because it's written down on a list of (arguably) arbitrary rules the school administration propably thought up themselvs at some point in time does not make it such a serious and punishable offense.

Well in that case, seeing as rules (http://nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?p=1044374#post1044374) don't matter because they're just written down arbitrarily, I'm going to take this opportunity to applaud you for somehow managing to be the single dumbest motherfucker in this entire thread. Because of your logic, the mods shouldn't be able to do jack shit for me saying that.

[Bells]

On a lighter note, he was pretty cute in that dress.


Your sense of Fashion is atrocious. He does not have the ass for that dress.

...his mom is kinda hot though. Loved the blue bangs in the forehead.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

I think this should be mentioned, the kid did talk about having a girlfriend when they interviewed him. Unless he was saying that in order to cover himself up (which I really hope he didn't because he shouldn't have to hide behind a fake girlfriend if he is gay/transgendered), I think it is safe to assume that he is at least heterosexual.

[Krylo]

That's an understandable position, but it doesn't seem to be what the article implies. Possibly it was? From what's visible, the boy claims to just be out to cause some mischief. Should we take that at its word?.

I'd say this is a gray area, honestly. His other offenses have involved wearing make-up. But we don't know in what degree.

But he also suggested he is going to do 'even more wild and crazy things' after this, which implies he just likes causing trouble.

And don't get me wrong when I say he's probably a shit. He's totally the kind of shit that is super fun to hang out with and I totally endorse 100%. Just that I suspect he's probably a constant headache for authority figures.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Well in that case, seeing as rules (http://nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?p=1044374#post1044374) don't matter because they're just written down arbitrarily, I'm going to take this opportunity to applaud you for somehow managing to be the single dumbest motherfucker in this entire thread. Because of your logic, the mods shouldn't be able to do jack shit for me saying that.

I'll miss you.

[Kim]

That's an understandable position, but it doesn't seem to be what the article implies. Possibly it was? From what's visible, the boy claims to just be out to cause some mischief. Should we take that at its word?

I don't think it was the case in this instance, but I'm saying a sort of for example, because if they're closeted we honestly have no idea.

And yeah, jockular jokes can hurt, but I think there are definitely students who will choose to risk having those jokes made at their expense, and they should be allowed to take that risk, I guess?

[POS Industries]

Well in that case, seeing as rules (http://nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?p=1044374#post1044374) don't matter because they're just written down arbitrarily, I'm going to take this opportunity to applaud you for somehow managing to be the single dumbest motherfucker in this entire thread. Because of your logic, the mods shouldn't be able to do jack shit for me saying that.
Far be it from me to let you be proven wrong, I guess.

We'll see you in three days.

[Osterbaum]

Well in that case, seeing as rules don't matter because they're just written down arbitrarily, I'm going to take this opportunity to applaud you for somehow managing to be the single dumbest motherfucker in this entire thread. Because of your logic, the mods shouldn't be able to do jack shit for me saying that.
What I said (or atleast meant to say) was that JUST BECAUSE you write a set of rules down and someone decides these new rules are now an established set of rules does not make it right. Just because they are written on paper does not mean they are set in stone, laws/rules do not equal what is right etc.

I didn't say all rules were automatically bad and to be ignored either. I wouldn't consider myself having the right to exact punishment on you for insulting me, but as I also said I would very much prefer civil concersations.

I don't know, if anyone thinks I've been/am being hypocritical then sorry for that, but I'm not touching on this subject anymore.

e: One more thing; I don't think I worded myself in a way, or atleast did not mean to, that all rules everywhere are arbitrary and should not be enforced. My point was more what I've written above in this post and that it's somewhat questionable when SINGLE authority figures have the right to hand out punishments for personal insults.

[Nikose Tyris]

And yeah, jockular jokes can hurt, but I think there are definitely students who will choose to risk having those jokes made at their expense, and they should be allowed to take that risk, I guess?

See I guess that's just something I don't really get. There wasn't really a closeted period for me. When I realized what was up, I was open about it. The things that got to me was more the jokes at my expense then the actual insults/threats, since I ostensibly think of the people making jokes as friends. There just hits that point where it hurts significantly more for people I give a damn about to be throwing insults then people I tolerate because the law requires I share my air with the mouthbreathers.

So I see where you're point of view is coming from, but it also feels like you're making a lot of assumptions about the boy individually, instead of focusing on the fact the school administration did respond in a transphobic manner with the way they labelled his punishment. "Boy wearing a dress" isn't any easier to write then "Belligerent attitude", and I agree- there's no justification for the way the situation was handled.

I'm glad we could have such a civil discussion on such a hot topic.

[rpgdemon]

Am I the only one who had a high school in which the students weren't all caricatured jocks who bully anyone who's different?

I mean, I can't really think of anyone being mocked and bullied for being different, and in fact anyone who was closed minded was more likely to be harassed about that.

I mean, it was full of the general stupidity that you expect of high schools, and probably -more- stupidity in terms of what people did there (Example: Some kid stole another kid's acid, the kid took a dump in the guys backpack. It escalated from there), it was at least open minded about it.

[Nikose Tyris]

Am I the only one who had a high school in which the students weren't all caricatured jocks who bully anyone who's different?


The jocks in my school were mostly the native american kids who picked on anyone who wasn't native and straight.

Or had a stupid haircut.

[pochercoaster]

Am I the only one who had a high school in which the students weren't all caricatured jocks who bully anyone who's different?


I was going to expand on this in my first post but decided not to since I thought it would get a little rambly, but since you asked:

I attended a very laid back school. Of all the schools in the district, ours was the only one that didn't have security cameras in the hallways (although I'm not necessarily against those- this wasn't an inner city school here, so they were unnecessary) or a rule against hats. Actually, at one point the administration was discussing a hat ban, so the entire student body wore hats one day in protest. While I don't know whether or not it actually did anything to prevent the implementation of the rule (it was senior year, and a long time ago) our teachers didn't freak out over it or anything. For the most part, the teachers treated the students with respect and kindness and the students treated them the same way.

I'm pretty sure some guys DID cross dress on halloween. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure one of the english teachers cross dressed on halloween, which the students received well. And one of our science teachers placed a bet with another science teacher, and when he lost he had to shave his hair into a mohawk, no bullshit. That was pretty awesome.

Oh, and despite our school not receiving as much funding as other schools in the district, we performed pretty well on standardized tests and, as far as I could tell, there wasn't very much bullying going on.

[Osterbaum]

For the most part, the teachers treated the students with respect and kindness and the students treated them the same way.
This is part of the reasoning behind my previous comments. In my opinion giving the other party, teachers in this case, the right to basically suspend students for personal insults is contrary to mutual respect and equality.

[Magus]

This reminds me of a book I read in middle school, A Hero aint Nothing but a Sandwich. In the story a kid was suspended for "singing the national anthem." Then it turned into a huge media event about how he was a champion for rights and patriotism and the school were just oppressing his right to express himself.

But no, he was just humming it in class because he wanted a reaction then decided to play it off the way the media was spinning it so he looks like the injured party and could get out of his punishment.

This kid isn't a crossdresser that was having his rights oppressed, this is a kid that knowingly broke the rules for the sake of breaking them and the school didn't put up with it.

The name of that book was Nothing But the Truth, actually.

It sounds similar. If the boy is actually LGBT or whatever it would be different but it sounded more like he was just nancing it up for laughs. Although the fact that he was originally suspended forever instead of just three days sounds like kind of an overreaction on the part of the school, so maybe they need to take a chill pill.

Basically if a kid is actually LGBT and they wanna wear a dress they're probably gonna have to get an Individual Accommodation Plan done for that, especially if they have a history of just wearing stuff as a distraction (biker dude was always a fun one to try, he should do that one next...but maybe wait until next year when the demerits are reset).

[The Sevenshot Kid]

The name of that book was Nothing But the Truth, actually.

Best part of the book: the kid has ruined a teacher's career by creating a giant controversy and he ends up moving and going to a different school. When the the national anthem starts playing in the morning on his first day of class the teacher asks him if he would like to sing along with it and all he can say is, "I don't know the words."

I think this parable is relevant.

[synkr0nized]

Am I the only one who had a high school in which the students weren't all caricatured jocks who bully anyone who's different

No.

High school was terrific.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Relevant. (http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson986.html)

[Kyanbu The Legend]

My highschool years were great, not perfect but interesting.

[Marc v4.0]

I have to echo, if this were an actual cross/trans individual then the reaction would have been terrible, the administration would have deserved being the target of ire, etc.

As this was a Kid with a history of violating dress code and being a general shit, as Krylo
put it, who escalated a simple dare to draw more attention (you can argue all you want that the kid didn't do it to get more attention, but his record of breaking dress code to get attention wants to have a word with you the office) I find my sympathy lacking.


Administrators likely told him to cut his bullshit out and go get changed, he threw sexist accusations at them, enough was enough you are suspended for the remainder of the school year, hey I'm gonna call the news and make a big fucking stink over this and go around telling them they suspended me for wearing a dress instead of being a shit and repeat violator.


We have all been to high school, we all know that guy or girl who, after they get in trouble, go home and then their parents come back livid as all fuck over some shit the child lied to them it was about.

We also all know that everyone (Everyone) will grab on to the hook that gets them the most possible spread. "Boy suspended for wearing a dress" is going to catch a fuckton more attention then "Kid suspended for a few weeks for doing some stupid kid shit".

re: "If it wasn't that way then why hasn't the school/administrators come out and..."

Because when the School Board tells you to shut the fuck up and let them decide how to handle it, you say "Yes, Boss"


Not everything is a LGBT-hating conspiracy by authority, not everything is a truth hating conspiracy by the media

[Bard The 5th LW]

From what I've read (admittedly less than I should), I have two things to say.

First off, this kind of rule certainly can cause problems and hurt people. However, 15 year-olds are rarely serious about anything, and the particular offender probably did it as a joke.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

Wow have to admit, Sam's got balls.

I respect that boy. It's hard for me to really see any serious harm from all this since the story just screams narm.

At the end of the day he wore a dress for the wrong reason but wow attempting to suspend the boy for a year was way too extreme.


EDIT: apparently I'm misreading something.

[Terex4]

Am I the only one who had a high school in which the students weren't all caricatured jocks who bully anyone who's different?
Truth be told, I probably could have came out in High School with very few problems from other students or the faculty. For me, my attempts at expression at an early age left me terrified to trust anyone with the information. Hell I wouldn't even tell people I only knew online about it.

If my experience is any indication of the "norm" then no, being open-minded is not enough to make someone feel comfortable enough to be open about themselves.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Wow have to admit, Sam's got balls.

I respect that boy. It's hard for me to really see any serious harm from all this since the story just screams narm.

At the end of the day he wore a dress for the wrong reason but wow attempting to suspend the boy for a year was way too extreme.


EDIT: apparently I'm misreading something.

He wasn't suspended for a year. Just the rest of the school year (which was coming to an end pretty soon) but they slashed that to three days. Then that got cut down to nothing because the school didn't want to have to deal with any more bullshit from the media.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

Knew I was misreading something.

Also lol at the school lifting the suspension because of the media.

Love it when that happens! Go media!

[Osterbaum]

Why do people keep assuming this kid was "a little shit"? And even if that were right, it doesn't change the fact that schools seem to be able to excercise a bit too much powers a bit too lightly.

[Marc v4.0]

Basing on the fact that he had a history of rule violations which means he knew they weren't really going to be in the mood for his antics, so then he takes it a step further because he can. Those are generally the actions of a little shit.

Don't really know what you want anyone to say about the rules thing. Places have rules, end of story. Honestly.

[Osterbaum]

I don't know, I guess it's just the fact that I remember people acting up at school all the time, but it never warranted suspension. As I said, you're not allowed to suspend students in this country for anything that isn't illegal. If everyone would've gotten suspended for basically acting like kids do all the time it would've been pretty crazy.

e: Also I never even heard anything about any school rules. And this doesn't mean everyone just acted crazy and disrespectful all the time or anything.

[Nikose Tyris]

Standard fare here is a rulebook that allows the faculty complete control in situations where they feel it'd detract from learning.

[Marc v4.0]

In situations where the behavior of the kids would detract from learning. That is an important distinction, because the Teachers can still be completely piss poor at their job and detract as much as they want.

[Osterbaum]

That's kind of what I'm getting at. Not "RULES ARE ALWAYS BAD" or anything, just that maybe giving teachers, or just the principal, this sort of power lightly isn't so great. Atleast practice needs to change; does anyone really deserve suspension for insults? I mean I'm pretty sure suspension counts as detracting from learning.

Schools over here don't have any huge problems dealing with kids. Sure there are occasional trouble makers, even severe cases. But overall things are going pretty good without a set of strictly enforced rules.

[Amake]

Yeah the school could probably have made an effort to clarify that they don't want to punish the kid because he was crossdressing, if that was the case. Or if they cared at all about teaching tolerance. . .

[BloodyMage]

I got kicked out of the sixth form study once for sitting on the floor because it was distracting people. I was sitting on the floor doing homework, so not sure how it was distracting, but I got removed anyway. I didn't get on the news...

I'm not really seeing the big deal. The kid wore a dress as part of a bet. Him being secretly transgender and using the bet as an excuse assumes as much about his motive as assuming that the school had another reason for suspending him that wasn't mentioned. The kid probably shouldn't have worn a dress. The School probably should have dealt with it better. I don't see it revolutionising the school systems.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Right now I'm watching an episode of "Law & Order: SVU" that involves a transgender kid. They're handling the subject surprisingly well so far even if they're being a little clunky about it. I'm waiting for them to fuck it up completely.

[TDK]

A guy got threatened with expulsion at my high school for wearing eyeliner. The principal accused him of being a satanist. (The principal was an utter moron, as you may have guessed. He was mocked mercilessly by everyone. :I)

Haha, hoo boy there was a shit storm over that.

Here's one of many articles about it. :P (http://www.dailystrength.org/groups/fellowpagans/discussions/messages/4634363)

Someone started a facebook page to stage a protest for it, so ~800 people showed up to school wearing eyeliner just like he had worn it, the next day.

[akaSM]

And then, a huge hole appeared on the ground, and said high school got sucked into the deepest parts of hell, amirite? :P

I'm with the "what good do dress codes do for us?" group. Maybe some years in the future, people will wear whatever they want (except for those occasions where you actually need to differentiate from others, like cops and doctors and such).

Right now this sounds a bit too optimistic but, wasn't pink a female only color until a few years back? Now pretty much everyone who wears it can do so, without getting strange looks (at least here) or, a woman wearing pants, that was a horrible thing to do a couple decades ago (I still know some older women who won't wear pants unless they really have to).

On the topic of this kid, we don't really know a lot beyond "gets suspended for wearing a dress" and "he got in trouble before" so, maybe he deserved the (3 day suspension). Not being able to go to the school dance? That seems like a dick move to me.

[BloodyMage]

Right now this sounds a bit too optimistic but, wasn't pink a female only color until a few years back?

Actually Pink was rather gender neutral, or used predominately for males, until a few decades ago. The idea of pink as a centralised female colour is a relatively new concept.

[akaSM]

Yup, and (baby?) blue was actually the female centralized color. Something about pink being a stronger color.

[Kim]

Him being secretly transgender and using the bet as an excuse assumes as much about his motive as assuming that the school had another reason for suspending him that wasn't mentioned.

*sigh*

Perhaps I should explain (again) that I did not think this was actually the case with this person, but was making a hypothetical argument for why, as a general rule, I do not think someone should be able to get in trouble for wearing a dress to school for whatever reason.

EDIT: There's also the very basic argument that restricting which gender can wear which clothes is just complete bullshit anyways.

The kid probably shouldn't have worn a dress.He shouldn't have gotten in trouble for it in the first place.

[Marc v4.0]

He shouldn't have gotten in trouble for it in the first place.

If that is exactly the only thing that he got in trouble for, which we already know wasn't the case cause he made a stink and flung insults. Really, we know he was a repeat trouble maker so lets stop pretending this was the only contributing factor

[Professor Smarmiarty]

This thread is about in the exact same place it was on page 1

[Kim]

If that is exactly the only thing that he got in trouble for, which we already know wasn't the case cause he made a stink and flung insults. Really, we know he was a repeat trouble maker so lets stop pretending this was the only contributing factor

He flung insults and made a stink after they tried to send him home for wearing a dress.

Edit: Flung insult.

[Bells]

He flung insults and made a stink after they tried to send him home for wearing a dress.

Edit: Flung insult.

Which he wore after he already got in trouble and warned for wearing makeup in school, not because it was any sort of social protest, message or statement, but only for the lulz. If he bitched now for being punished, not absurd to imagine he bitched last time too.

But the week-ish long suspension was too much, so it's true that even the school back down on it. To 3 days. And then none.

No... seriously:

This thread is about in the exact same place it was on page 1

^^ This.

[Kim]

Which he wore after he already got in trouble and warned for wearing makeup in school, not because it was any sort of social protest, message or statement, but only for the lulz. If he bitched now for being punished, not absurd to imagine he bitched last time too.Why did he get in trouble for wearing makeup?

Wearing makeup shouldn't exactly be a punishable offense.

[Osterbaum]

Even if was "for the lulz" that changes nothing. He still basically got in trouble for wearing a dress.

[Marc v4.0]

Maybe it was disrupting everyone else as they fixated on the guy with the makeup. We don't really know. The makeup could have been an escalation from some previous joke he was pulling. People who go to these lengths generally have a long track record of being trouble, and the response builds. There is as much information available that it was due to his record as there is they just freaked out. I don't have his permanent record here.

[BloodyMage]

*sigh*

Perhaps I should explain (again) that I did not think this was actually the case with this person, but was making a hypothetical argument for why, as a general rule, I do not think someone should be able to get in trouble for wearing a dress to school for whatever reason.

EDIT: There's also the very basic argument that restricting which gender can wear which clothes is just complete bullshit anyways.

He shouldn't have gotten in trouble for it in the first place.

Why make hypothetical arguments at all? Because in that case we're discussing a hypothetical situation rather than situation, in which, yes, I agree it would be a big deal. This story, as far as the information provides can tell us, doesn't seem to be that it's a major issue.

Not to mention why wouldn't he get into trouble for wearing it in the first place? Of course, restricting which gender wears what clothes is rather trivial, but the world still does it, and pervading attitudes are still ones which believe certain clothes should be worn by certain genders. The school made no comment on whether this was right or wrong, but suspended him for distracting other pupils, which if he was wearing a dress is completely understandable. I can understand that in the state of society as it is, that a boy wearing a dress would draw attention. If it was the first time he'd pulled something like this, then he probably would have just got a warning, but due to the repeat offences and his remarks to the principal, it probably warranted a greater reaction.

If he is transgender, then sure, that's something that the school needs to address. If he isn't then this is just a kid acting out, and honestly, we shouldn't be allowing people to get away with being disrespectful and intentionally disruptive, all for the sake of progression.

[Osterbaum]

Even if he isn't transgender he can still be a transvestite. That shouldn't be prohibited either.

[BloodyMage]

I didn't mean to be exclusive.

[Osterbaum]

If he is transgender, then sure, that's something that the school needs to address. If he isn't then this is just a kid acting out...
Then I understood you wrong from this part.

[Kim]

Maybe it was disrupting everyone else as they fixated on the guy with the makeup. We don't really know. The makeup could have been an escalation from some previous joke he was pulling. People who go to these lengths generally have a long track record of being trouble, and the response builds. There is as much information available that it was due to his record as there is they just freaked out. I don't have his permanent record here.

Maybe his makeup and his dress was distracting other students. I really don't see how that makes wearing makeup or a dress a thing that should be punished. I really don't see how his previous track record suddenly makes punishing something that shouldn't be punished an okay thing to do.

Why make hypothetical arguments at all? Because in that case we're discussing a hypothetical situation rather than situation, in which, yes, I agree it would be a big deal. This story, as far as the information provides can tell us, doesn't seem to be that it's a major issue.

Because people were arguing intent, and I was making a point that intent doesn't matter because we can't be 100% sure of intent.

I failed to realize that the real argument I should have been making is just that intent doesn't matter.

[Marc v4.0]

Maybe his makeup and his dress was distracting other students. I really don't see how that makes wearing makeup or a dress a thing that should be punished.

That is where the intent comes in to play.

"Wearing makeup and a dress to stand proudly as a trans individual" is a hell of a lot different then "Wearing makeup and a dress to stand out and be disruptive. Again. Cause I can. Fartz."

[Kim]

That is where the intent comes in to play.

"Wearing makeup and a dress to stand proudly as a trans individual" is a hell of a lot different then "Wearing makeup and a dress to stand out and be disruptive. Again. Cause I can. Fartz."

What I'm saying is the behavior he was engaged in wasn't something that should be punished under any circumstances. To punish him for behavior that wasn't wrong because it got a reaction out of other students isn't something schools should use as a basis for punishment.

EDIT: Honestly, reinforcing the idea that wearing a dress or makeup or whatever is okay regardless of gender would probably go much further in getting him to stop then punishing him for it.

[The Kneumatic Pnight]

Because people were arguing intent, and I was making a point that intent doesn't matter because we can't be 100% sure of intent.

I failed to realize that the real argument I should have been making is just that intent doesn't matter.

Intent of action may or may not matter in terms of this conversation, but it certainly matters in the terms of punitive measures, one instance of which being the thing that this conversation is about.

However, that having been said, a not-wrong thing cannot be made wrong by annoying people with it.

Furthermore, the individual students are [hypothetically] responsible for their [hypothetical] behavior, and [hypothetical] bad behavior is no more excused by "that guy looks weird" than by any other version of "but he started it".

[Kim]

Intent of action may or may not matter in terms of this conversation, but it certainly matters in the terms of punitive measures, one instance of which being the thing that this conversation is about.

Intent only matters if the thing you're doing is wrong in the first place, I think. Any extent you could try to argue wherein intent would matter would include other behaviors that would be bad in and of themselves, I think.

[BloodyMage]

Then I understood you wrong from this part.

Again, I didn't intend to be exclusive. Use whatever you wish and put it there, and either way the school needs to address their policy. Sorry for not using the correct terminology, but it's not difficult on your part to substitute the inappropriate word for the proper term after you knew I wasn't intentionally being exclusive.

[Terex4]

If that is exactly the only thing that he got in trouble for, which we already know wasn't the case cause he made a stink and flung insults. Really, we know he was a repeat trouble maker so lets stop pretending this was the only contributing factor
Sedgwick Junior High Dress Code (http://www.skitsap.wednet.edu/1467207317382693/site/default.asp)
The problem I see here (especially when it comes to NonCon's point) is that the only offense he has actually committed was wearing a hat to school (and possibly his reaction to getting in trouble for it. But that's speculation).

Makeup is not forbidden, nor are dresses. Now the point being raised is that he made a stink and hurled insults. This most likely happened after he was called to the office for wearing a dress and is most likely a repetition of the makeup incident. Neither of these items are a violation on their own which means he was probably called on it first before the actual behavioral incidents took place.

In other words, he would probably not have been in trouble for his demeanor had he not gotten in trouble for non-violations in the first place.

[BloodyMage]

Clothing which interferes with or distracts from the educational process or depicts something illegal is not acceptable

Formal reasoning for his suspension was this, that he was distracting people. I can understand that other students might have been distracted by a boy in a dress. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they were. They took him to the office, he was flippant and got a suspension. If he hadn't said anything he probably would have just been sent home to change.

[Kim]

You seem fundamentally unable to grasp that he shouldn't have been sent to the office for it in the first place.

[Terex4]

The inherent problem with the quoted policy is that "an interference or distraction from the educational process" is a judgement call. Now, in this particular case banning a male for wearing a dress is a judgement call that alienates transgender students.

The point of discussing this issue is whether or not that judgement call was a sound one and why or why not. In this case it is being argued that it was, in fact, not a sound decision because of the backlash on transgender students that results from such interpretation of the policy.

[TDK]

Going to the office =/= Getting in trouble. Its when he started being a shit that he got in trouble, it seems. :I

Though it *should* be one of those "school admins can't do shit about his behavior because freedom of expression" scenarios, the truth of it is this kid being a shit and the administrators calling him to the office to be like "hey kid why you gotta be a shit, don't be a shit bro" and the kid being more of a shit and then getting suspended for being a shit. He wasn't wearing a dress to prove a point, he's clearly one of those guys who are charismatic, bored, and don't care about getting in trouble and like to see what they can get away with. We all knew that guy in high school.

[Kim]

Going to the office =/= Getting in trouble.

...Kinda is. He was sent to the office because they viewed him as causing a problem. He wasn't punished yet, but to say he wasn't in trouble is simply incorrect, and from what we know he only did something punishable when they tried to send him home.

And, once again, what does intent matter?

[TDK]

Intent doesn't matter when punitive measures are taken, but he was called to the office because he was being a shit, not because they wanted to punish him. They can't recognize his intent in an official capacity, but they can plenty well recognize it to call him to the office and be like "Dammit kid" to which he starts being a shit.

[Kim]

Intent doesn't matter when punitive measures are taken, but he was called to the office because he was being a shit, not because they wanted to punish him. They can't recognize his intent in an official capacity, but they can plenty well recognize it to call him to the office and be like "Dammit kid" to which he starts being a shit.

"You haven't done anything wrong, but we're sending you to the office, at which point we will take a punitive measure and then suspend you once you respond like a shit to said punitive measure."

EDIT:

but he was called to the office because he was being a shit, not because they wanted to punish him

This seems a bit silly. So, you're saying they sent him to the office with no intent to take any action whatsoever, despite the fact that they took action when he was sent to the office, and that action was he responded to when he got suspended.

[TDK]

"You haven't officially done anything wrong, but we all know you're being a shit, and we're going to call you on it. Then, if you be more of a shit when we call you on being a shit, we will punish you."

Seems fairly reasonable.

[Kim]

But they didn't "call him on being a shit." They were going to send him home. It's not, "Go to the office so we can say, 'You're being a shit.'" It was, "Go to the office so we can send you home." Even if you were right, which you aren't, you think someone's obligated to respond politely when someone pulls them out of class to say, "You're being a shit."

[TDK]

He wasn't obligated to be polite in any way. In that you are not obligated to follow the rules, but can be punished if you fail to. This is based on the assumption that his actual suspension was for being a dick in the office after being called on being a shit.

[Kim]

You keep saying, "Being called on being a shit." That is not what happened. I don't know how I can be any clearer on this fact. They're very different things. He was a dick after they tried to punish him, and so the punishment became a suspension.

[TDK]

I find that to be unlikely, and there is no evidence to support it. The article merely says he was punished.

Also, to back up the "being a shit" theory: "If anything, it makes me want to be more out there and more spontaneous and crazy,"

[Kim]

I find that to be unlikely, and there is no evidence to support it. The article merely says he was punished.

During homeroom, Saurs was called in to dean John Richerson's office. Richerson told him that he was distracting students and that he should go home for the day. Sours response? He told the dean he thought he was being sexist. Richerson then suspended Sours from school for the rest of the year.

Telling the dean, "I think you're being sexist." seems like a pretty weak offense to begin with, but it was after the dean tried to send him home.

[TDK]

Ah. Obviously I was being silly by referring to the article in the opening post.

Also, do you really think he was just sitting quietly in the dress? The kid is clearly a shit. He was probably fake-flirting with other dudes and referring to himself as she or otherwise hamming it up and calling attention to himself.

[Kerensky287]

I agree with Noncon here. He wasn't called to the office for "being a shit at the office."

I mean yeah the kid's obviously a shit disturber but he didn't disturb shit until they made their moves first.

And TDK, "probably fake-flirting"? We can make all the inferences we want, but until we have hard evidence it's kind of irresponsible to make a firm statement either way. All we know for 100% certain is what the article says (well, for 80% certain at least... journalism being what it is) and all we can say from the article is that the kid got in trouble for something that doesn't actually break any rules.

EDIT: I mean yes, I agree that he was PROBABLY doing shit that warranted being sent to the office. But I'm not going to just make that assumption. We have JUST as many facts (ie. none) saying that he was sitting quietly and his teacher started shouting rude words at him before the principal showed up and physically dragged him to the office. It can swing whatever way you want when you start making assumptions.

[Kim]

Also, do you really think he was just sitting quietly in the dress? The kid is clearly a shit. He was probably fake-flirting with other dudes and referring to himself as she or otherwise hamming it up and calling attention to himself.

So, he was called to the office for being noisy and disruptive, is what you're saying? It's weird that we haven't heard anything along those lines then.

It's also weird that these assumptions about behavior leading up to the event are only made about the student.

[TDK]

It's also weird that these assumptions about behavior leading up to the event are only made about the student.

No it isn't. He's like fourteen. Fourteen-year-olds are shitheads. The school administrators, even if they are bigoted, are adults. I don't think its a stretch to assume that the kid who is clearly a troublemaker was making trouble, and that the adults are just trying to do their jobs and not have a kid all being a shit up in their business.

Edit for below: Shitheads in the sense that they make trouble and act disruptive just to cause trouble as friggin' teenagers are wont to do, not Shitheads in the way that adults are.

[Terex4]

That post kinda serves to accentuate the point of the quote. I know plenty of adults who are shitheads, its not limited to 14 year olds.

[Aerozord]

put this another way. There is a school rule that a male student is not allowed to wear a dress. This kid wore a dress. Principal suspended the kid for breaking this rule.

Now you can argue that it was too severe, or that this dress code shouldn't exist, but you cant argue that the principal was wrong for suspending him because it was his job to punish the kid. He doesn't make the rules he just enforces them and even gave the kid away to just change and let the matter drop.

[Krylo]

put this another way. There is a school rule that a male student is not allowed to wear a dress.

No there isn't.

The articles specifically state that this is not mentioned in the dress code.

[Aerozord]

No there isn't.

The articles specifically state that this is not mentioned in the dress code.
dress codes are often inclusive more then exclusive. For example if it lists the restrictions of a dress for a woman (yet to see a dress code that doesnt) and no mention of dress for men at all that means you dont get a dress not that you are free to wear any dress.

[Archbio]

The story would be vastly improved if the title of the thread read: "Wear a dress, get suspenders from school."

That is all.

[Krylo]

dress codes are often inclusive more then exclusive. For example if it lists the restrictions of a dress for a woman (yet to see a dress code that doesnt) and no mention of dress for men at all that means you dont get a dress not that you are free to wear any dress.

No, dress codes are entirely exclusive.

They list restrictions.

Unless there's an actual uniform, in which case they list allowed alterations.

The reason for this is simple: An inclusive list would mean listing every acceptable article of clothing. An exclusive list requires only listing a few unacceptable items and following up with some kind of vague blanket statement.

Edit: Basically what you are arguing is that if a dress code doesn't list restrictions for jeans or khakis, that means students can't wear jeans or khakis. Which is pretty blatantly ridiculous.

[Bells]

i'm pretty sure we can all simply understand that it is quite likely that this dress code was written in a time (or by a person with a mindset) of back when nobody would exclude a man from a wearing a dress because nobody would think one would do that to go to school...

Also... i'm pretty sure that any dress code that lists everything you cannot do will quite likely be thicker than the bible. I mean, does it say i cannot wear a Bunny Suit? Probably not. Can i understand via common sense that, maybe wearing a Bunny Suit to school may disrupt classes, call attention and even attract bullying to myself? Probably yes. If i come to school wearing a panda suit and i get told to "knock it off", can't i understand that showing up with a Brown Bear suit is quite likely to get me into trouble? Probably so.

what i'm trying to say is that this discussion is melting down to pretty much semantics now...

[Krylo]

i'm pretty sure we can all simply understand that it is quite likely that this dress code was written in a time (or by a person with a mindset) of back when nobody would exclude a man from a wearing a dress because nobody would think one would do that to go to school...

Doesn't matter when it was written. If it's not against the rules, it's not against the rules.

Again, I don't really care, but don't say something blatantly false to support your point.

. . .Unless you are gunning for a job on Fox News, I guess.

[Bells]

Doesn't matter when it was written. If it's not against the rules, it's not against the rules.

Again, I don't really care, but don't say something blatantly false to support your point.

. . .Unless you are gunning for a job on Fox News, I guess.

I actually agree with that. If it's not Forbidden, it's allowed. Rules are written, if it's not written is not in the rules. I get that.

But on the same line of thought i try to see the school point of view (check both sides, then make my mind. At least i try.) And i can see how this could also become a Strawman argument in places where an Authorial Hierarchy is in command. "It's not in the rules!", "Then you should've used your common sense. Specially since this is not your first warning".

Again, nothing is so absolute that can't be changed by circumstance. Depending on how you apply it, it sounds like perfectly logical reasoning, or the perfectly common rantings of a 15 year old attention whore.

Regardless, i honestly don't see much substance in this line of reasoning to be discussed.

On that same note... you know the auto-complete feature google has? Go with "Boy suspended for". There is some crazy bullshit you get in schools some time...

[tacticslion]

First, let me say I'm not defending this school in specific in any way.

So. Teachers' jobs are straightforward*. Get the information into kids (making it as interesting as possible is regrettably optional, but highly recommended), and keeping disruptions down to make it possible for getting said information to the kids.

Anything that disrupts attempts at education is within their power to attempt to fix. That's because if they don't, their job is left undone. Principals' jobs are also straightforward**: assign punitive measures (or not) based on problems the teachers send to them (among other things, I'm just ignoring those other potential job elements for the situation at hand).

If you have a kid who is known for being disruptive, who does something that is disruptive, after getting in trouble for being disruptive, said kid is not going to get much grace from weary people who aren't paid enough. If said kid adds an insult, those weary underpaid people are probably going to react strongly.

If you want to argue that society is out of kilter, okay, whatever. But, given what society is, and his history, the kid was probably going to get into trouble no matter where he went, and any presumption on his part that he wouldn't is foolish. He added the dress, even though he didn't need to for his bet... another bizarre and ridiculous element of this whole thing. His choice, based on a bet built on sexist presumptions of women needing to wear high-heeled shoes. It's not even a question of whether or not he knew society looked at high heels in a certain way. Of course they do. He knew this. He knew dresses were and are looked at in a certain way, too. And he added one on.

This is just a non-issue. Kids get in trouble for doing stupid*** things all the time, even if it's not specifically covered in the rules on a word-for-word basis. Being rude or disruptive is just not wise. And that includes making decisions at home before coming to school. You can be totally polite in a false way, dotting all your politeness i's and t's and still be rude and disruptive, especially when engaging in unusual behavior in a class. The fact that it's still going on as a discussion is overblown. I'm adding to it, mostly in the (probably empty) hope that people will go "huh, I didn't think of that" and let it die. Agree with the school's specific reaction, or not, the kid did something stupid*** as fourteen-year-olds are want and got punished for it.

End of story. At least it should be.

*This is not the same thing as easy.
**This is, again, not the same thing as easy. And also relates only to the punishment/results end of their job, not the specifics.
***If you know your school has certain expectations, written or not, and you break those, especially after having been in trouble before, you've got to know you're getting in trouble again. It would be sheer foolishness to presume otherwise.

Completely unrelated question: why do I start out to write a one-sentence response and end up writing a three-to-five (depending on your counting, certainly five breaks) paragraphs instead?

[Bells]

Completely unrelated question: why do I start out to write a one-sentence response and end up writing a three-to-five (depending on your counting, certainly five breaks) paragraphs instead?

I'm gonna go with "it's your inner bard" for that one.

[Kim]

Why is "Well, he should have known he would have gotten in trouble for something he shouldn't be getting in trouble for" even an argument anyone is making? Why? Regardless of whether he should have expected to, he should not have gotten in trouble for it.

Other crappy argument: That being a distraction/disruptive (in other words, other kids who are not you reacting to something you've done) should be a punishable offense.

ALSO: As I said before, actually being accepting and encouraging about stuff like this probably would do more to stop him from doing this then trying to punish him ever would, and would set a good precedent of acceptance for the school.

[McTahr]

Not gonna get too deep into this, but this argument:
(Paraphrasing another): "Well, he should have known he would have gotten in trouble for something he shouldn't be getting in trouble for"
and this argument:
ALSO: As I said before, actually being accepting and encouraging about stuff like this probably would do more to stop him from doing this then trying to punish him ever would, and would set a good precedent of acceptance for the school.
Feel like they're arguing different points.

First one: Arguing that he should have known better and worked within the system.

Second one: Arguing that the system is broken and we need to fix it and he shouldn't have had to work within the system because it was wrong to begin with.

In terms of refuting each other, it just ain't gonna happen because they're comparing apples and birds that just happen to be in the same room.

E: My take is a bit of both. Of course it should never have been an issue. If I want to wear a sundress tomorrow I should damn well have the freedom to do so. But this is the real world and we have us some ignorant people. If you don't work around the system you generally lose. Cases like this, with appropriate response from the public, government, and media, can improve the system to the point where it's not an issue anymore.

[Kim]

Feel like they're arguing different points.


That's because they are, I guess?

I was paraphrasing to show why I disapproved of one point, as I often do. Even if he should have known he would get in trouble, it does not change the fact that he should not have gotten in trouble for it.

I then offered my own thought of how the school should have handled the situation as it would have gotten them better results all around.

[Krylo]

I actually agree with that. If it's not Forbidden, it's allowed. Rules are written, if it's not written is not in the rules. I get that.

But on the same line of thought i try to see the school point of view (check both sides, then make my mind. At least i try.) And i can see how this could also become a Strawman argument in places where an Authorial Hierarchy is in command. "It's not in the rules!", "Then you should've used your common sense. Specially since this is not your first warning".

Again, nothing is so absolute that can't be changed by circumstance. Depending on how you apply it, it sounds like perfectly logical reasoning, or the perfectly common rantings of a 15 year old attention whore.
Foreign grammar aside, I have no problem with this argument (or Tactic's).

I do not necessarily agree with it, but that is because of basic differences in values, not logical issues.

I don't think a boy wearing a dress should be a punishable offense. Neither does Nonsie. Even if it is disruptive. It is the children acting foolishly because of the dress who should be punished, not the child wearing the dress (this would actually probably be a bigger deterrent for the kid as well, as he doesn't seem to care what 'the man' thinks, but he'd probably care if all his friends were pissed at him for getting them in trouble, and would send a sign that the school protects alternative lifestyles from ridicule). But at the end of the day, you lose more by restricting the rights of children to wear what they want--especially non-gender normative clothing--than you gain by doing so. You MAY gain a slightly less disrupted classroom environment, but you do so at the cost of any alternative gender children who may come through your school or even read an article about it later.

You guys, on the other hand, seem to feel that the school's ability to kill disruptions should supercede the right of the student(s) in this situation, and that the effect on alternative gender children would not be so great.

It's an understandable difference of values, and the only reason I got involved again is because a factually incorrect statement was being made.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Why is "Well, he should have known he would have gotten in trouble for something he shouldn't be getting in trouble for" even an argument anyone is making? Why? Regardless of whether he should have expected to, he should not have gotten in trouble for it.

Other crappy argument: That being a distraction/disruptive (in other words, other kids who are not you reacting to something you've done) should be a punishable offense.

ALSO: As I said before, actually being accepting and encouraging about stuff like this probably would do more to stop him from doing this then trying to punish him ever would, and would set a good precedent of acceptance for the school.

About the first thing you said, that's not the argument people are making so stop saying it is. What people tend to be saying here is the kid got in trouble for being a shit after being sent to the office for being a disruption. The kid had a history of acting out so it's not unreasonable that a teacher would send the kid to the office for causing a disruption. And yes, a boy walking into a class wearing a dress can cause a disruption. Let me be clear, I'm not saying that it is a disruption.

The second thing, why the hell should disruption not be an offense? School is a learning environment. If someone interferes with students' learning it's only reasonable to send them to the office. It's stupid to think it's okay to let a disruption continue without any response from a teacher. Teachers are there to teach, not babysit immature little shits.

Why encourage a kid who makes a joke out of wearing a dress? That would only lead to him acting much more foolish. I don't think a school should want to be accepting of someone who enjoys making a mockery of how some people dress.

[Kim]

About the first thing you said, that's not the argument people are making so stop saying it is. What people tend to be saying here is the kid got in trouble for being a shit after being sent to the office for being a disruption. The kid had a history of acting out so it's not unreasonable that a teacher would send the kid to the office for causing a disruption. And yes, a boy walking into a class wearing a dress can cause a disruption. Let me be clear, I'm not saying that it is a disruption.

The kid got in trouble for "being a shit" in response to them trying to send him home for "being a disruption." He didn't break any rules. They were trying to send him home because other students were reacting to his behavior, when based on the information we had there was nothing wrong with his behavior.

ALSO: From what I recall, his history of acting out was wearing makeup, which is much like this in that it shouldn't be a punishable offense, and yet he was punished for it.

The second thing, why the hell should disruption not be an offense? School is a learning environment. If someone interferes with students' learning it's only reasonable to send them to the office. It's stupid to think it's okay to let a disruption continue without any response from a teacher. Teachers are there to teach, not babysit immature little shits.Because you shouldn't punish children for not conforming, especially when the standards society expects people to conform to can be kinda fucked up. If a student is doing something that isn't wrong, like wearing a dress, and other students are reacting and the reacting is causing a problem, then you take action to stop the students reacting.

Why encourage a kid who makes a joke out of wearing a dress? That would only lead to him acting much more foolish. I don't think a school should want to be accepting of someone who enjoys making a mockery of how some people dress.If a student wears a dress for lulz and attention, and you as a school official respond by basically saying, completely serious, that if that's how he wants to present himself it's fine and other students are expected to treat him in a respectful way and then take measures to punish anyone who does anything wrong, it takes the fun out of it for his friends and him, thus stopping them. It also lets students know that they won't be punished for doing things that don't conform, like wearing dresses.

[Krylo]

ALSO: From what I recall, his history of acting out was wearing makeup

And hats! Don't forget the hats!

They were probably silly hats.

[Kim]

If he wears a hat you just make him sit in the back row where it won't be in the way. Problem solved.

[Amake]

By the way why is "disrupting the learning process" even a thing? If there's anything useful you could learn in high school it is that sometimes a dude can wear a dress. Or more generally, that people are different and you need to be able to deal with people who are different without flipping the fuck out. The fact that my existence is affected by a social context is actually the only thing I ever learned in high school that hasn't been made irrelevant or outright disproved by scientific progress, changes in geography and cheaper pocket calculators.

Meanwhile I maintain my earlier point that the school could have made some effort to make it not look like they were punishing the kid for the crime of wearing girl clothes if they cared about not giving the impression that they think a boy wearing a dress should be a crime.

[BloodyMage]

Because you shouldn't punish children for not conforming, especially when the standards society expects people to conform to can be kinda fucked up. If a student is doing something that isn't wrong, like wearing a dress, and other students are reacting and the reacting is causing a problem, then you take action to stop the students reacting.

So you'd rather send everyone else to the office and just teach the guy in the dress? That's not really a practical approach. Not to mention, they're just going to go to the office, and say 'I did nothing wrong, he was wearing a dress.'

Yes that's ignorant on their behalf, and it's not that I'm unable to understand that he shouldn't be punished for wearing a dress, it's that I understand how a boy in a dress might be distracting to some people. I'm not even saying that he's jumping on the tables and drawing attention. All he'd need to do is come in and sit down and he'd draw attention because he's in the dress. It shouldn't but I can understand how in the world we live in, that would happen.

If he'd been sent to the office and upon questioning revealed transgender (or whatever term I'm meant to be using, I don't know) feelings, then it would become the schools responsibility to be supportive and recognise when other students were effectively being conformist and disrupting classes. As it is though, he went to the office, got told to go home for the day, and called the principal 'sexist'. That's why he got suspended.

If a student wears a dress for lulz and attention, and you as a school official respond by basically saying, completely serious, that if that's how he wants to present himself it's fine and other students are expected to treat him in a respectful way and then take measures to punish anyone who does anything wrong, it takes the fun out of it for his friends and him, thus stopping them. It also lets students know that they won't be punished for doing things that don't conform, like wearing dresses.

School's don't really exist to put the fun back into your sideline activities with your mom. They exist to teach students about some subjects that are considered essential to adult knowledge. Whether they do that well or not is another matter, but they don't exist to allow you to have fun. They probably hope you have fun while you're there, but not in the context that it would interfere with learning, either yours or others.

[Kim]

So you'd rather send everyone else to the office and just teach the guy in the dress? That's not really a practical approach. Not to mention, they're just going to go to the office, and say 'I did nothing wrong, he was wearing a dress.'

Yes that's ignorant on their behalf, and it's not that I'm unable to understand that he shouldn't be punished for wearing a dress, it's that I understand how a boy in a dress might be distracting to some people. I'm not even saying that he's jumping on the tables and drawing attention. All he'd need to do is come in and sit down and he'd draw attention because he's in the dress. It shouldn't but I can understand how in the world we live in, that would happen.

If he'd been sent to the office and upon questioning revealed transgender (or whatever term I'm meant to be using, I don't know) feelings, then it would become the schools responsibility to be supportive and recognise when other students were effectively being conformist and disrupting classes. As it is though, he went to the office, got told to go home for the day, and called the principal 'sexist'. That's why he got suspended.

Said it before, but you can never be certain about intent.

Beyond that, punishing someone for doing something that isn't wrong, because other people are reacting poorly to it is not a right thing to do, and sets an awful precedent. If it's not wrong, then it's not wrong, and you don't arbitrarily decide that things that aren't wrong are a punishable offense because other students are acting like idiots about it. You shouldn't punish someone for being distracting, if the thing they are doing that is distracting is not a wrong thing to do.

You're all missing a very basic point, too. The school's actions, which were intended to make him stop doing these things, are not going to stop him doing these things. He said so himself, and the school's actions ended up getting him even more attention in the long run.

So, the strategy for protecting the school's ability to teach that you're all defending is failing. Perhaps that is a sign that a different course of actions should be taken.

School's don't really exist to put the fun back into your sideline activities with your mom. They exist to teach students about some subjects that are considered essential to adult knowledge. Whether they do that well or not is another matter, but they don't exist to allow you to have fun. They probably hope you have fun while you're there, but not in the context that it would interfere with learning, either yours or others.Probably why I said doing things my way would take the fun out of it for him, thus discouraging him from doing it.

[TDK]

That sure sounds like a pretty big assumption.


Also, yes, it is perfectly reasonable to punish him for other people's reactions to his behavior, when he was clearly doing it just to get a reaction out of people. If he came out "I'm transgender, I feel most comfortable this way" or whatever in the office, it would likely be a different story.

[Kim]

That sure sounds like a pretty big assumption.

What is?

That not giving him the negative attention he's trying to get from the administration and punishing his friends for giving him the attention he's trying to get from them would ruin the experience for him and stop him from doing it?

That actually sounds like a really safe assumption. He's doing it for a reason. If you remove the reason, he won't do it.

Also, yes, it is perfectly reasonable to punish him for other people's reactions to his behavior, when he was clearly doing it just to get a reaction out of people. If he came out "I'm transgender, I feel most comfortable this way" or whatever in the office, it would likely be a different story.Only:

1. You still end up ultimately punishing him for something he shouldn't be punished for, wearing a dress. Regardless of your reason for punishing him, what you're punishing always ends up being the act of wearing a dress, an act that should not be punishable under any circumstances.

2. This ultimately got him more attention and is in no way stopping him from doing this more. In fact, by his own words they've encouraged him to do more of it, meaning that the actions you're defending are ultimately going to worsen the situation.

So yeah, that's working out great for ya.

[Fenris]

There are so many circles in this thread.

Closing.