skirtcafe.org

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but here goes anyway:

https://www.rt.com/uk/423553-school-gen ... -uniforms/

An exclusive English school has decided to allow its boy pupils to wear skirts, after one wore a long skirt for a few days during inclusivity week.

Unfortunately, as usual, the article confuses clothing choices with gender identity, but as the saying goes there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Certainly a step in the right direction but for gender identity rather that just choice of clothing.
A boy could broaden this attitude by wearing a skirt and behaving in a traditionally male way - or one could portray confusion even when they weren't. At least they can wear a skirt.

owen wrote:I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but here goes anyway:

https://www.rt.com/uk/423553-school-gen ... -uniforms/

An exclusive English school has decided to allow its boy pupils to wear skirts, after one wore a long skirt for a few days during inclusivity week.

Unfortunately, as usual, the article confuses clothing choices with gender identity, but as the saying goes there's no such thing as bad publicity.

a russian newssource...

... so what?

skirtyscot wrote:... so what?

Considering the present political tensions (Skripal, Syria, etc.) anything will be done to defame the other.

And wouldn't they have posted it on their own site? http://www.uppingham.co.uk/News. I haven't been able to find it.

That may or may not be true; I have no idea. But either way I don't see any relevance to this story. Are you suggesting it is made up?

skirtyscot wrote:That may or may not be true; I have no idea. But either way I don't see any relevance to this story. Are you suggesting it is made up?

Yes, I do.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... ng-school/

Is the Telegraph objective enough for you?

Just because you hate the messenger, doesn't mean his message is wrong.

skirtyscot wrote:Just because you hate the messenger, doesn't mean his message is wrong.

If nothing else, it's worth remembering that the essence of "information intelligence" is verification of veracity. Unfortunately, if one does not have first-hand access to the assorted participants one is subject to the vagaries of editorial bias in the communications channel.

Thus, the wise observer never takes one source as entirely "truthful" (or even factual) without verification from other sources. In fact, the safe assumption is that everybody is lying to some extent, some more wildly than others. The answer is to find several -- the more the better (including ones you might habitually detest) -- sources, take the rough mean of the lot of them, and then you may actually be close enough to what actually happened to be able to form a proper opinion.

The unfortunate side of the above is that it takes effort -- outright work sometimes -- on the part of the observer, and, most of the time nobody can be bothered. So they accept what Fox "News" or NPR, RT, or Aljazeera, or {insert your favourite here} are feeding them as gospel. And they fail because they are experiencing nothing contrary.

Many, many, years ago when I was still a minor I committed an unwitting crime by picking up and listening to a Radio Free Europe broadcast using a long-wire shortwave setup. This led to a very interesting discussion with my family when I mentioned it and asked, "Why are we broadcasting stuff that I know full well is outright propaganda to the Eastern Bloc and I can read the very same stuff in the Boston Herald (a Hearst rag at the time, but later bought out by Murdoch with no perceptible change in editorial stance)?" There was a bit of a highly local "stink" about the matter, I got the riot act read to me on the matter of what US citizens are allowed to listen to, and there was more of a stink about my perception of the content -- which I stuck to -- and which was subsequently quietly dropped because of ideological differences within the family. I was allowed to keep the shortwave rig.

I believe the statute of limitations has expired, and, in any event, Radio Free Europe no longer exists. If it did, I'd suppose it'd sound like Fox now.

Information is important and powerful stuff. Choose your sources wisely -- and trust none too highly.

owen wrote:Unfortunately, as usual, the article confuses clothing choices with gender identity:

You are correct that gender identity is a separate issue, but paradoxically, it is a linked issue. According to the [US] National Institute of Medicine and American Psychological Association, "Gender Nonconformity" is defined as "the extent to which a person’s gender identity, role, or expression differs from the cultural norms prescribed for people of a particular sex." Gender nonconformity is thus relative to an individual's geographic region and the sociopolitical climate. But in addition to male/female and the many other gender identities, "gender nonconforming" is also a recognized gender identity and can mean that the person does not conform to any gender, that the person rejects gender as a construct, or that the person simply does not "obey" the sociocultural gender norms. In this way, for a man wearing a skirt in a locale where men do not wear skirts, that man is being gender nonconforming. Whether or not he chooses to identify as nonconforming is his personal choice. (I for one consider myself as gender non-conforming for all three reasons). But to the extent that donning a skirt in inconsistent locales is countercultural, gender identity is a valid topic for discussion, but such
analysis shouldn't veer into sexual orientation which is absolutely a different matter altogether.

VoxClamantis wrote:

owen wrote:Unfortunately, as usual, the article confuses clothing choices with gender identity:

You are correct that gender identity is a separate issue, but paradoxically, it is a linked issue. According to the [US] National Institute of Medicine and American Psychological Association, "Gender Nonconformity" is defined as "the extent to which a person’s gender identity, role, or expression differs from the cultural norms prescribed for people of a particular sex." Gender nonconformity is thus relative to an individual's geographic region and the sociopolitical climate. But in addition to male/female and the many other gender identities, "gender nonconforming" is also a recognized gender identity and can mean that the person does not conform to any gender, that the person rejects gender as a construct, or that the person simply does not "obey" the sociocultural gender norms. In this way, for a man wearing a skirt in a locale where men do not wear skirts, that man is being gender nonconforming. Whether or not he chooses to identify as nonconforming is his personal choice. (I for one consider myself as gender non-conforming for all three reasons). But to the extent that donning a skirt in inconsistent locales is countercultural, gender identity is a valid topic for discussion, but such
analysis shouldn't veer into sexual orientation which is absolutely a different matter altogether.

So are women who wear trousers also gender non-conforming? Or does this only apply to men?
I just want to be a bloke who likes wearing skirts, without all the analytical baggage that has to go with it All these analysts can go stuff 'emselves; if they tried on a skirt instead of just pontificating about it, they'd soon see why we like them (skirts) so much.
Charlie

Charlie, it only applies to men. Women are exempt as they can wear anything.

Sinned wrote:Charlie, it only applies to men. Women are exempt as they can wear anything.

Ho hum, so much for what we laughingly call equality ...
Charlie

If you imagine a balance indicating the volume of items of apparel, then the women's side has bottomed and the men's side is so high in the air that you would get a nosebleed from the thinness of the atmosphere. Mind you it really is the men's fault. They are so set in their ways [0] that it just wouldn't occur to them to make any adjustments in their costumes.

[0] Present company excepted, of course.

Charlie wrote:...So are women who wear trousers also gender non-conforming?...

At one time they were, but now the fashion has gone mainstream and they're not.