skirtcafe.org

I have no doubt that this Romeo Clarke from Rugby likes to wear dresses.

But for any 5-year-old to have 100 outfits -- be they skirts, dresses, pants, shorts, or anything else --does seem a bit compulsive on the part of the mother.

Caultron wrote:But for any 5-year-old to have 100 outfits -- be they skirts, dresses, pants, shorts, or anything else --does seem a bit compulsive on the part of the mother.

That really depends on how you count it. 100 distinct complete outfits without repetition of individual articles (except perhaps jewelry or similar)? Yeah, I'll agree. A total of 100 combined dresses, skirts, tops, trousers, jackets, etc.? Probably a little high at his age, I'll grant, but not outlandish. I'm probably close to achieving the latter myself, though to be fair that's quite a few years in the collecting since I stopped changing sizes. I'll grant that the wording of the article does tend to suggest the former, though.

Dottie wrote:Well this from today's British Daily Telegraph
Meet Romeo, the five-year-old boy banned from play group for wearing princess dresses

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... esses.html


Good for Mum , I say . The same attitude that my Mother had

Also being discussed at the link below, and the comments are very supportive-
http://www.mommyish.com/2014/05/08/five ... g-dresses/

His father is also supportive-
"His father, who is in construction, has no problem with him wearing the dress: “I don’t care if he wears the dress. He can be whatever he wants to be.”

pleated wrote: Also being discussed at the link below, and the comments are very supportive-

Very much so, I like the little aside about how the priests are the only males allowed dresses. Sorry, robes.

Oh good grief.

Annoyingly, the Equality Act 2010 should protect him, but it doesn't. It will protect someone who has stated a desire to undergo gender transition (there in no age limit, and there is no stipulation that the person concerned needs to have or plan any medical interventions), but it simply does not cover a boy who is happy being a boy who wants to wear a dress.

And this nursery setting really needs to look at GIRES.

Yahoo news has another article on the same story. The last sentence is the kicker:

Buzz Children's Club seeks to follow our usual safeguarding guidelines and we did so in this case in order to avoid any confusion or possible conflict or teasing from other children.

Because we all know that blaming the victim for making other people tease him is the best way to deal with any situation like that.

*headdesk*