Boys told not to cross-dress because it's not "normal"

Clippings from news sources involving fashion freedom and other gender equality issues.
User avatar
TheRod
Distinguished Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Boys told not to cross-dress because it's not "normal"

Post by TheRod »

Another story about a teacher at a Catholic school fighting a rear guard action:

[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-26/ ... 00030866/u]

I think the teacher was dimly aware of the hypocrisy of using the cross dressing term:

"I am talking about boys wearing women's clothes and vice versa," he wrote.

In a follow-up email, the teacher sought to clarify that female students could wear women's shirts and ties, before again warning male students against wearing female clothing.
Coder
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:40 am

Re: Boys told not to cross-dress because it's not "normal"

Post by Coder »

Here's the text from the email (presumably unmodified):

Image
Coder
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:40 am

Re: Boys told not to cross-dress because it's not "normal"

Post by Coder »

User avatar
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 965
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Boys told not to cross-dress because it's not "normal"

Post by Stu »

I suppose it boils down to what is meant by "cross dressing". In my book, it means comprehensively making one's appearance such that they would be identified as the opposite sex and are adapting their appearance accordingly. By definition, it is not "normal" to want to be identified as the opposite sex - in the case of a child, it is an issue which needs to be addressed. However, a boy who happens to like wearing a skirt for school, or a summer dress with sandals on a warm day etc is not cross dressing; they are just wearing garments they happen to like as would be the case with a girl who wants to wear trousers for whatever reason.
Coder
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:40 am

Re: Boys told not to cross-dress because it's not "normal"

Post by Coder »

Stu wrote:
Fri Mar 26, 2021 4:45 pm
I suppose it boils down to what is meant by "cross dressing". In my book, it means comprehensively making one's appearance such that they would be identified as the opposite sex and are adapting their appearance accordingly. By definition, it is not "normal" to want to be identified as the opposite sex - in the case of a child, it is an issue which needs to be addressed. However, a boy who happens to like wearing a skirt for school, or a summer dress with sandals on a warm day etc is not cross dressing; they are just wearing garments they happen to like as would be the case with a girl who wants to wear trousers for whatever reason.
I was thinking the same thing.

If the kids were going to be making fun of guys who wear skirts or “harassing” them with this behavior that’s one thing, or perhaps dressing inappropriately based on the school’s dress codes (ie, wearing clothes that would break the rules for girls), but the teacher should have said that. There’s also a distraction factor of someone who does not conform... that being said a guy in my catholic high school came to school on halloween in a "witches dress" costume, and no one did anything about it. It was appropriate, however, and had it been a "sexy witch's" costume he probably would have been sent home.

Personally I’m not one to beat people up over these things - it’s what he wrote and it will cause a lot of people to think. Like, what does he mean by cross dressing? It can be defined like Stu puts it... and that's how I define cross dressing... but every time these comments are out there it chips away at the stodgy old rules of fashion. I think his defense with the shirt/tie thing is interesting if only because it highlights the double-standard that is being applied here.

When I started wearing skirts again a year ago, this really bugged me from a religious aspect. But since then I've heard from numerous Catholic priests, all who are pretty conservative, admit that there is nothing inherently wrong with wearing a skirt, for example. It gets a little tricky - and recall this is a Catholic school - when it comes to "cross dressing" and where that Catholic moral line is.
pelmut
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:36 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Boys told not to cross-dress because it's not "normal"

Post by pelmut »

What does the Pope wear?
There is no such thing as a normal person, only someone you don't know very well yet.
Coder
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:40 am

Re: Boys told not to cross-dress because it's not "normal"

Post by Coder »

pelmut wrote:
Fri Mar 26, 2021 5:59 pm
What does the Pope wear?
Unfortunately the "simple" answer would be it is mens garb / religious wear. Forget that by shape and style it is a robe/dress/skirt. Very clearly we recognize a cassock, vestments as mens simply because they have worn them for centuries. The distinction is probably down to cultural norms - missionaries don't go to foreign countries and try to stop males from wearing traditional garb (maybe they did at one point? I doubt they do nowadays).

Again, I'm no longer worried about "living in sin" by wearing skirts or other such things, but it's something that will take a long time for religious groups to accept and understand.
pleated
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 284
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 2:08 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Boys told not to cross-dress because it's not "normal"

Post by pleated »

3575g5 - Copy.jpg
What is he complaining about? These nuns did not seem to have a problem with boys wearing dresses.
(Portugal, possibly 1930's)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
r.m.anderson
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 6:25 pm
Location: Bloomington MN USA

Re: Boys told not to cross-dress because it's not "normal"

Post by r.m.anderson »

pleated wrote:
Fri Mar 26, 2021 11:41 pm
3575g5 - Copy.jpg
What is he complaining about? These nuns did not seem to have a problem with boys wearing dresses.
(Portugal, possibly 1930's)
Was much easier to thrash (instill) discipline on the bottoms with no pants in the way - thin under gear offered futile resistance !
Amazing the attention that can be had with a 12 inch ruler (30 centimeters) when rapped soundly on the knuckles or the behinder !
"Kilt-On" -or- as the case may be "Skirt-On" !
WHY ?
Isn't wearing a kilt enough?
Well a skirt will do in a pinch!
Make mine short and don't you dare think of pinching there !
Dust
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 597
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:03 pm

Re: Boys told not to cross-dress because it's not "normal"

Post by Dust »

Coder wrote:
Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:39 pm
pelmut wrote:
Fri Mar 26, 2021 5:59 pm
What does the Pope wear?
Unfortunately the "simple" answer would be it is mens garb / religious wear. Forget that by shape and style it is a robe/dress/skirt. Very clearly we recognize a cassock, vestments as mens simply because they have worn them for centuries. The distinction is probably down to cultural norms - missionaries don't go to foreign countries and try to stop males from wearing traditional garb (maybe they did at one point? I doubt they do nowadays).

Again, I'm no longer worried about "living in sin" by wearing skirts or other such things, but it's something that will take a long time for religious groups to accept and understand.
I'm not sure if I've posted this before, but I'll post it again here, because it's worth repeating. This is a quote I found attributed to Pope Nicholas addressing a group of newly converted people around 866 AD regarding their women wearing pants:
"We consider what you asked about pants (femoralia) to be irrelevant; for we do not wish the exterior style of your clothing to be changed, but rather the behavior of the inner man within you, nor do we desire to know what you are wearing except Christ — for however many of you have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ [Gal. 3:27] — but rather how you are progressing in faith and good works. But since you ask concerning these matters in your simplicity, namely because you were afraid lest it be held against you as a sin, if you diverge in the slightest way from the custom of other Christians, and lest we seem to take anything away from your desire, we declare that in our books, pants (femoralia) are ordered to be made, not in order that women may use them, but that men may. But act now so that, just as you passed from the old to the new man, [cf. Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9-10] you pass from your prior custom to ours in all things; but really do what you please. For whether you or your women wear or do not wear pants (femoralia) neither impedes your salvation nor leads to any increase of your virtue. 

"Of course, because we have said that pants are ordered to be made, it should be noted that we put on pants spiritually, when we restrain the lust of the flesh through abstinence; for those places are constrained by pants in which the seats of luxury are known to be. This is why the first humans, when they felt illicit motions in their members after sin, ran into the leaves of a fig tree and wove loin cloths for themselves.[cf. Gen. 3:7] But these are spiritual pants, which you still could not bear, and, if I may speak with the Apostle, you are not yet able; for you are still carnal.[I Cor. 3:2] And thus we have said a few things on this matter, although, with God's gift, we could say many more."
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 5951
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Contact:

Re: Boys told not to cross-dress because it's not "normal"

Post by moonshadow »

Organized religion is a pox on the human species, always has been, always will be.

The only solution is, attend a different school. Trying to explain logic to a religious nut job is like trying to teach calculus to a dog.... can't be done. Just walk away, let them burn in their own hell.
"The price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish."

Justice Robert H. Jackson
User avatar
Jim
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1188
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:39 am
Location: Northern Illinois, USA

Re: Boys told not to cross-dress because it's not "normal"

Post by Jim »

moonshadow wrote:
Sat Mar 27, 2021 1:56 am
Organized religion is a pox on the human species, always has been, always will be.
It seems you don't understand what true religion is according to the Bible:
A religion that is pure and stainless according to God the Father is this: to take care of orphans and widows who are suffering, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. -- James 1.27
STEVIE
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2451
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:01 pm
Location: North East Scotland.

Re: Boys told not to cross-dress because it's not "normal"

Post by STEVIE »

pleated wrote:
Fri Mar 26, 2021 11:41 pm
What is he complaining about? These nuns did not seem to have a problem with boys wearing dresses.
(Portugal, possibly 1930's)
Interesting shot but I doubt these boys are wearing "dresses" in any positive sense as we would view it.
Punishment is one certain possibility but it was also commonplace for infant children to be "dressed" identically regardless of gender.
Some of these kids appear well past that stage so who knows?
One certainty, no boy in the shot is wearing a dress because he expressed an interest in an alternative fashion choice.
Religion aside, the time and setting places that scenario beyond any reasonable balance of probability.
Returning to the original question and taking religion out of this discussion, the key word is really "normal"
The fact is that males wearing skirts is not regarded as NORMAL by a huge proportion of the population and religion has little or nothing to do with that.
Stu wrote:
Fri Mar 26, 2021 4:45 pm
By definition, it is not "normal" to want to be identified as the opposite sex - in the case of a child, it is an issue which needs to be addressed. However, a boy who happens to like wearing a skirt for school, or a summer dress with sandals on a warm day etc is not cross dressing; they are just wearing garments they happen to like as would be the case with a girl who wants to wear trousers for whatever reason.
I broadly agree with this statement but the boy choosing the comfortable option may be sensible but he will be a lucky dude if he is regarded as normal.
His choice may be tolerated even encouraged but that is just not quite normal either.
Let's not start a flame war on this please.
Steve.
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 5951
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Contact:

Re: Boys told not to cross-dress because it's not "normal"

Post by moonshadow »

Jim wrote:
Sat Mar 27, 2021 2:58 am
moonshadow wrote:
Sat Mar 27, 2021 1:56 am
Organized religion is a pox on the human species, always has been, always will be.
It seems you don't understand what true religion is according to the Bible:
A religion that is pure and stainless according to God the Father is this: to take care of orphans and widows who are suffering, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. -- James 1.27
I'm glad you brought that up Jim, when I read articles like the one posted here, I get pissed off when I hear people using their religion to control others, it's a common characteristic of organized religion. They key word here is organized.

The verse you described is virtuous and noble, I wouldn't argue that. Whether it matters to whatever created the universe is a matter we may never know and is left to faith.

I don't mean to offend adherents of various religions, especially like yourself Jim, whom after reading your various post, I have no doubt that you're one of the "good ones". However, over my lifetime I have seen Christianity become highly corrupted.

The most recent assault on our basic liberties have come as a result of project blitz, people who have a warped sense of what "God" wants, and who seek to legislate their constraining beliefs (such as men being required to behave like "men", and wear proper trousers).

In my view, religion is like a tool, it can be used for good or bad. Sadly in the U.S. the ratio seems to be half and half, with the "bad" gaining ground, especially in Appalachia, where local area churches are eagerly awaiting for the Johnson Ammendment to be abolished so they can formally become a wing of the GOP.

I'm sorry Jim, "the church", in my observation, could not be further removed from "God".

Mom and I had a discussion about this the other day. Many people hear me and assume I'm angry with God. No. I don't even know that there is a God, how can I be angry with an entity I don't even know exist? No, I'm angry with what humans have done in the name of God. I'm angry with "the church" for not putting a stop to it, and instead [in many cases] actually encouraging the hate and bigotry. And I'm furious when Christians seek to rule over my life and the lives of others, just so that they can sit peaceful in their own world view.

If there is a Christian man that believes men shouldn't wear feminine garments, that man is free to not wear feminine garments, he has no right to dictate his view onto other men, that's not it works in a free society, and frankly I personally don't believe that whatever created the universe, ["God"], really cares either way.
"The price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish."

Justice Robert H. Jackson
User avatar
Jim
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1188
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:39 am
Location: Northern Illinois, USA

Re: Boys told not to cross-dress because it's not "normal"

Post by Jim »

moonshadow wrote:
Sat Mar 27, 2021 10:32 am
I'm glad you brought that up Jim, when I read articles like the one posted here, I get pissed off when I hear people using their religion to control others, it's a common characteristic of organized religion. They key word here is organized.
Organized religion was a main force in the abolitionist movement and later the civil rights movement. Religious groups can organize for good or evil. Today we have Habitat for Humanity as a good example.
moonshadow wrote:
Sat Mar 27, 2021 10:32 am
I'm angry with what humans have done in the name of God. I'm angry with "the church" for not putting a stop to it, and instead [in many cases] actually encouraging the hate and bigotry.
I am in complete agreement with you on this statement.
Post Reply