Local school not allowing shorts but allowing skirts for boys and girls in gender neutral policy

Clippings from news sources involving fashion freedom and other gender equality issues.
User avatar
Myopic Bookworm
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2022 9:12 pm
Location: SW England (Cotswolds)

Re: Local school not allowing shorts but allowing skirts for boys and girls in gender neutral policy

Post by Myopic Bookworm »

Stu wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:46 pm No. From the Oxford English Dictionary:

VERB

[NO OBJECT]
Wear clothing typical of the opposite sex.



No mention of "attempting to deceive".
It always takes a while for dictionaries to catch up with contemporary nuances of usage.
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1314
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Local school not allowing shorts but allowing skirts for boys and girls in gender neutral policy

Post by Stu »

Myopic Bookworm wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:12 am
It always takes a while for dictionaries to catch up with contemporary nuances of usage.
It can do, but are you suggesting that the denotation of the verb "cross-dress" has changed in popular usage since the OED's entry? I have seen no evidence of that. I could ask my linguistics undergrads to investigate it, but I reckon they would draw a blank.
rivegauche
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 541
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:05 pm

Re: Local school not allowing shorts but allowing skirts for boys and girls in gender neutral policy

Post by rivegauche »

Until skirts are accepted male wear I fear that a western man wearing one is cross-dressing. It is not the dictionary that needs to catch up but society. Kilts are already male garments so do not involve cross-dressing. This site (or people on it) have a track record in changing the dictionary meanings of words - so far we have had binary situations with more than two options, and the word literally can apparently be used metaphorically. Yes, language changes, but not all change is useful or correct. Once words lose their original meaning you then need a new word to replace the one you used to use. How do we describe something that actually happened if we are no longer able to use literally?
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 14431
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Local school not allowing shorts but allowing skirts for boys and girls in gender neutral policy

Post by crfriend »

Stu wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:11 pmIt can do, but are you suggesting that the denotation of the verb "cross-dress" has changed in popular usage since the OED's entry? I have seen no evidence of that. I could ask my linguistics undergrads to investigate it, but I reckon they would draw a blank.
The term itself hasn't changed it's the nuances that are attached to it that have. Sadly, it only applies to men in the modern world; women, almost by definition, cannot cross-dress because the practise is entirely accepted by the mass of society. Unfortunately, the same is not true for men, and the term becomes a cudgel for men to be beaten with.

Effective meanings can be profoundly different than dictionary meanings.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1314
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Local school not allowing shorts but allowing skirts for boys and girls in gender neutral policy

Post by Stu »

crfriend wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:02 pm The term itself hasn't changed it's the nuances that are attached to it that have. Sadly, it only applies to men in the modern world; women, almost by definition, cannot cross-dress because the practise is entirely accepted by the mass of society. Unfortunately, the same is not true for men, and the term becomes a cudgel for men to be beaten with.
The term has, if anything, been extended by being used metaphorically. From yesterday's Daily Telegraph:

Beliefs, actions and solid achievements have been replaced by feelings, vibes, and political cross-dressing

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/0 ... d-britain/

crfriend wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:02 pm
Effective meanings can be profoundly different than dictionary meanings.
It shouldn't be with a modern dictionary. The definition I gave was from lexico.com, which is an abridged online OED and that is compiled the old fashioned way, so I looked at the up-to-date Collins Cobuild (a dynamic corpus dictionary that formulates definitions based on latest examples of usage) and found the following entry:

cross-dress

Word forms: 3rd person singular present tense cross-dresses , present participle cross-dressing , past tense, past participle cross-dressed

VERB

If someone cross-dresses, they wear the clothes usually worn by the opposite sex.
cross-dresser

Word forms: plural cross-dressers


Again, no mention of an intention to deceive. If I were to perform a componential analysis of the verb "cross-dress", I could not include intention to deceive as a crucial semantic feature. Aside from the technical linguistic argument, does a drag artist not cross-dress as part of the act? If an intention to deceive is a crucial feature then the answer is no, the drag artist is not cross-dressing - which is absurd.
User avatar
shadowfax
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 483
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:05 am
Location: UK

Re: Local school not allowing shorts but allowing skirts for boys and girls in gender neutral policy

Post by shadowfax »

Update on the original story.
The school which banned boys from wearing shorts, but allowed them to wear skirts instead, has announced it is now reviewing the policy.
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/education/ ... ll-9111394
User avatar
Uncle Al
Moderator
Posts: 3861
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:07 pm
Location: Duncanville, TX USA

Re: Local school not allowing shorts but allowing skirts for boys and girls in gender neutral policy

Post by Uncle Al »

Hello Everybody :D

I've read the article :!:

I've read the posted comments at Skirt Cafe' :!:
90%(+/-) of the comments are literally nit-picking words
written by other forum members.


CAN WE TAKE A BREATH FOR A MOMENT:?:

I find that the article is a step in the right direction, meaning

the school freely gave the option for boys to wear skirts.:!:

The boys would not be reprimanded, or sent home, for wearing
a skirt as this, now, does not go against the school dress code.
Granted, it's a small step but, ideas and concepts are MOVING
FORWARD
with this "NEW" school dress code.

:hmmm: That's my $.02 worth and I'm sticking too it :censored:

Uncle Al
:mrgreen: :ugeek: :mrgreen:
Kilted Organist/Musician
Grand Musician of the Grand Lodge, I.O.O.F. of Texas 2008-2009, 2015-2016,
2018-202 ? (and the beat goes on ;) )
When asked 'Why the Kilt?'
I respond-The why is F.T.H.O.I. (For The H--- Of It)
rode_kater
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:46 pm

Re: Local school not allowing shorts but allowing skirts for boys and girls in gender neutral policy

Post by rode_kater »

Myopic Bookworm wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:12 am
Stu wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:46 pm No mention of "attempting to deceive".
It always takes a while for dictionaries to catch up with contemporary nuances of usage.
The problem here is that "deceive" has a negative connotation. It suggests that there is a deception going on for the purposes of personal gain. But people aren't crossdressing for purpose of causing harm to others so the word "deceive" here is (at best) misleading (which I guess is why the dictionary doesn't mention it).

Those boys wearing skirts to school for publicity aren't deceiving anyone, but it is crossdressing. If you exclude that from the definition of crossdressing I feel you limit the meaning so much as to make the word useless.

I've been racking my brains for an alternative word that might fit (perhaps play-acting or role-playing) but they don't really do it either. The crossdressing subreddit defines it in the widest possible form (basically the above dictionary definition) because anything else just is silly.

FWIW, I have never heard someone use the word crossdressing as if it was intended to deceive people for personal gain.
User avatar
Myopic Bookworm
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2022 9:12 pm
Location: SW England (Cotswolds)

Re: Local school not allowing shorts but allowing skirts for boys and girls in gender neutral policy

Post by Myopic Bookworm »

I agree that this has strayed a long way from the OP, but subject drift happens, and I'm interested in the vocabulary issues. Why does this forum specifically head one of its categories with a deliberate distancing from "cross-dressing"? Is it a difference between "dressing in women's clothes" and "dressing up as a woman"? How would a short dictionary definition make that distinction? Why is my wife happy for me to wear a skirt as long as I am not "cross-dressing"? What is "cross-dressing" if it does not include a man wearing a skirt (other than an ethnically marked man's skirt-type garment)?
Stu wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 2:09 pm Sadly, it only applies to men in the modern world; women, almost by definition, cannot cross-dress because the practise is entirely accepted by the mass of society.
I think it is not that women cannot cross-dress, but that cross-dressing is basically acceptable for women (whose socially imposed fashion boundaries are in any case much wider than those for men); it is so unremarkable for a woman to wear male clothing that the word "cross-dress" would only be invoked at the extreme end (a woman dressed entirely as a man, without the clear sexual markers still present, e.g., when Marlene Dietrich wore a tuxedo). I suspect the unacceptability of male cross-dressing is to do with (a) lingering misogyny, in the sense of disparaging the feminine, especially in men, while over-valuing the masculine; (b) embedded homophobia (which may be bound up with misogyny too, as it is mainly male homosexuals who are historically disparaged).
The term has, if anything, been extended by being used metaphorically.
Although not mentioned under "cross-dressing", that sense is already in the OED entry for "transvestism": the first example refers to American feminists in 1916 as advocating "political and industrial transvestism which if generally adopted would lead inevitably to racial and national decay". (Nowadays it is cross-dressing in the other direction which is accused of threatening "racial and national decay"!)
crfriend wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:02 pmEffective meanings can be profoundly different than dictionary meanings.
It shouldn't be with a modern dictionary.
No dictionary can really keep up with rapid shifts in nuance and connotation; certainly not reflect them in a concise definition. But I don't think "intention to deceive" was really the right association in any case. It seems to me that the issue is one of presentation rather than deception. (Setting aside the metaphorical use) to "cross-dress" is primarily to adopt clothing of the opposite gender, especially (though not necessarily) with the intention of presenting oneself as a person of that gender, whether as a form of personal gender expression or as a theatrical technique. "Cross-dressing" is still, so far as I am aware, a term used without disparagement of actors in Shakespeare, or opera-singers, who play cross-gender roles. For deliberate presentation as a woman, I have come across the word "fempersonation", but it is too new and uncommon to have made it into dictionaries, and I am not entirely sure whether it is disparaging or not. (And the use of fake busts etc. is a whole different can of worms.)
If I were to perform a componential analysis of the verb "cross-dress", I could not include intention to deceive as a crucial semantic feature.
If you were to do so, I'd be interested to see it!

From a purely personal point of view, I prefer to dress in such a way that I do not think I look like a woman when I catch sight of myself in a mirror. Were I younger and better-looking (and single) I might be less bothered.
Last edited by Myopic Bookworm on Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 14431
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Local school not allowing shorts but allowing skirts for boys and girls in gender neutral policy

Post by crfriend »

Stu wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 2:09 pm
crfriend wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:02 pmThe term itself hasn't changed it's the nuances that are attached to it that have. Sadly, it only applies to men in the modern world; women, almost by definition, cannot cross-dress because the practise is entirely accepted by the mass of society. Unfortunately, the same is not true for men, and the term becomes a cudgel for men to be beaten with.
The term has, if anything, been extended by being used metaphorically. From yesterday's Daily Telegraph:

Beliefs, actions and solid achievements have been replaced by feelings, vibes, and political cross-dressing
Lovely.

Whilst generic "cross-dressing" may well not involve an intent to deceive, trying to "pass" (which most men do poorly) most certainly does, and there's no other term to use to describe that facet -- and that's what most people conjure up when they hear the term. My main offence with the term is that it's applied solely to men, and usually not in a positive manner. I'd like to see it dropped from the lexicon.

Now, this might be vagaries of local usage, or differences between US and UK English (of which there are plenty). I don't know. As stated, either apply the term equally to men and women, or drop it altogether -- because there is a stigma attached to it. Individuals can overcome it, but it bucks societal norms, and takes a lot of work and interaction with those around the practitioner.
If I were to perform a componential analysis of the verb "cross-dress", I could not include intention to deceive as a crucial semantic feature. Aside from the technical linguistic argument, does a drag artist not cross-dress as part of the act? If an intention to deceive is a crucial feature then the answer is no, the drag artist is not cross-dressing - which is absurd.
I understand your point -- and well made. But does it align with "popular opinion"? Sometimes living with a "fluid" langiage brings curses as well as blessings. Look at what happened, for instance, in the US with the terms "liberal" and "conservative". In effective use today they are not even close to what they meant 50 years ago.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
STEVIE
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4187
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:01 pm
Location: North East Scotland.

Re: Local school not allowing shorts but allowing skirts for boys and girls in gender neutral policy

Post by STEVIE »

Faldaguy wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:40 am Hola Steve,

I am curious as to the circumstances of the conversations you've had with kids in your area that "confirms it". Did you raise the questions, or did they? Were they just curious about your skirt; or was it something that arose from the general milieu of bullying in schools?
Anyway, if you've found avenues to broach the subject of male kids in skirts, I'd love to know more.
Pura vida!
Hi Faldaguy
The kids who talk to me are a five teenage girls, one might even say a gang.
Our first chat was about a hat I was wearing and that was more than a year ago.
The first skirt comment was at the beginning of this year and their sage advice was that I'd have been more comfortably in trousers, cold day.
That led to a general conversation re males in skirts and I asked the question about boys at their school wearing one in class.
Unanimous, "The boy would get a very hard time and mainly from other boys but girls too""!
Now, those girls see me on a regular basis and my skirts or dresses do not elicit much comment.
However, they do gossip, generally to moan about the older generation. I honestly believe that if any of their male peers wore a skirt at school then I would hear all about it quite quickly. Hasn't happened, so far anyway.
I found it very interesting that you said that you are seen in a school in a skirt but that you have not been emulated by a male student.
My turn to be curious, why do you think this is? In terms of simple tolerance, it sounds quite ideal and the Quaker movement is certainly renowned in this respect.

Steve.
Bodycon
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 273
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2021 2:25 pm

Re: Local school not allowing shorts but allowing skirts for boys and girls in gender neutral policy

Post by Bodycon »

Thinking about Stevie's post reminds me a bit of Monty Python's Four Yorkshiremen.

Now then, when I were a lad.....

The primary school I went to (1970's) was pretty rough (a grimy industrial town) and while there was little individual bullying there was some picking on kids who were different. My sister and I would sometimes get called posh and parodied because our mother was English and taught us to "speak properly", we didn't use the vernacular / local slang (if we did we would get belted at home) it was a rock and a hard place.... Other kids would be picked on for being better off and others for being really poor. Basically if you stood out in any way, you were fair game. Nothing really nasty, but a few fights here and there. Secondary school (1980's) was a little better, but the undercurrent of being in "the pack" was always present.

I can guarantee if any individual boy had worn a skirt, he would be teased and harassed, either to tears, or till he would fight.
STEVIE
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4187
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:01 pm
Location: North East Scotland.

Re: Local school not allowing shorts but allowing skirts for boys and girls in gender neutral policy

Post by STEVIE »

STEVIE wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:31 pm The primary school I went to (1970's) was pretty rough (a grimy industrial town) and while there was little individual bullying there was some picking on kids who were different. My sister and I would sometimes get called posh and parodied because our mother was English and taught us to "speak properly", we didn't use the vernacular / local slang (if we did we would get belted at home) it was a rock and a hard place.... Other kids would be picked on for being better off and others for being really poor. Basically if you stood out in any way, you were fair game. Nothing really nasty, but a few fights here and there. Secondary school (1980's) was a little better, but the undercurrent of being in "the pack" was always present.
I can guarantee if any individual boy had worn a skirt, he would be teased and harassed, either to tears, or till he would fight.
Man, I caught it for being a four eyed geeky swot!
The language element was threefold, classroom, playground and home.
Only time in my "Wonder Years" that I saw a boy in a skirt was at a Boy's Brigade fancy dress party.
Being Scotland, even a kilt would not have been "cool", except maybe at the kirk or a wedding.
My secondary schooling was 1970s and a boy, openly wearing a skirt would have been unthinkable.
Except by me that is!
The sad part is that those teenage girls taught me that, for a lot of boys, things are no better today.
For what it is worth, any arguments about changing the label or whatever else will make no damn difference to that either.
Steve.
rode_kater
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:46 pm

Re: Local school not allowing shorts but allowing skirts for boys and girls in gender neutral policy

Post by rode_kater »

My experience with school taught me that children can be downright cruel. Manners are taught, not innate. If you are in any way different from the crowd, it will be used against you. In my case I happened to be good at maths. Annoyingly so, because without even trying I got the highest scores. So helpfully they give you "Class Awards" and sometimes even call you to the front of the assembly to receive them. I had a drawer full of the things. I can assure you this does not make you popular.

So it's not really bullying, but you can be ostracised which at that age can be pretty brutal.

Note: you can be different in groups. So if you had long hair you'd be considered part of the "long hair" crowd. You could still get flak for that but since you weren't alone it wasn't so bad.

Eventually I went to a different school where I was no longer the best at maths. Best decision I ever made.

The best thing about school: once you've done it you never have to go back! :D

Edit: come to think of it, if you were part of the goth group at school you could probably get away with wearing a skirt. After all, you're already weird, a skirt wouldn't really add to that.
Grok
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2804
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:21 am

Re: Local school not allowing shorts but allowing skirts for boys and girls in gender neutral policy

Post by Grok »

I was bullied in school-though not because I stood out. I think I was a target because I wasn't part of the in group. I wasn't popular.

(I knew better than to mention my interest in skirts-actually, I think I came across as a bland conformist).

It takes very little for other teen agers to make you a target. Graduation from high school was one of the best days of my life; I felt relief because I would never have to deal with those people again.
Post Reply