Share Britain To Ban Skirts For School Uniforms In Case Transexuals Are Offended?
Mar 1st, 2010 | By Keelan Balderson | Category: Big Brother and Police State, Featured Articles, Politics |
Print
In another case of 1984 Doublethink, where society holds two contradictory beliefs at the same time, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued a document claiming that it may be illegal for schools to have skirts as part of the school uniform because it might offend transgenders and transvestites, which are oh so rampant in our school system – that last line was sarcastic in case you didn’t know.
As reported in the Daily Mail:
The threat to take legal action against schools because some uniforms can be deemed ‘gender specific’ is beyond satire. The number of transsexual adults in Britain is tiny, perhaps as few as 5,000, yet the Commission wants all public services to be altered for the sake of this minuscule group.
And here lies the problem with this hypocritical extreme left politically correct nonsense. In an effort to bring equality and rights to everyone, what we are really seeing is mass discrimination against everyone. Instead of bringing people together we are dividing society because this group might offend that group. I guess we should just make everything illegal so nobody can become offended about anything. But then again I’m offended that people might be offended at girls wearing skirts.
Is it so difficult to just deal with such an issue if and when it crops up? So there might be one girl in England that is having a tough time dealing with these issues. Isn’t that for the school and parents to work through together? Why have a piece of paper declaring such a sweeping proposal as banning skirts?
The article continues: Such action highlights three of the most dangerous traits of the Left-wing doctrinaires. One is their remorseless focus on categorising individuals by race, gender, sexual orientation or class – and then placing them within hierarchies of victimhood according to the perceived disadvantage they have suffered.
Another is the sexualisation of children, in which the innocence of youth is destroyed by the aggressive promotion of the so-called ‘sexual rights’ agenda.
The third is the eagerness to obliterate all traditional morality by presenting support for normal, married family life as outmoded and discriminatory.
One alleged plank of the New World Order social engineering agenda historically was to break down the family unit by funding and promoting the feminist movement, while disenfranchising the traditional male archetype. Another pillar was to make vast amounts of people dependent on the state through the benefits system.
In some scary rhetoric Harriet Harman has said in regard to her equality bill that it will create ‘a new social order’. Every office, factory, club and pub will have to submit to the ideology of the state.
It seems as we become more and more dependent on the state, there will be an increasing push to adopt their ideologies, rather than the state simply representing the collective ideologies of the public.
“Power is tearing human minds apart and putting them back together in new shapes of your own choosing.”
George Orwell’s – 1984
I think trousers should also be banned in case transexuals are offended for school uniforms, uniforms should have kilts for all sexes male, female, transexuals or not sure. Is it not irrelevant as when did they reintroduce uniforms in British school as they were abolished in the 80′s when I was at school. Should books not be banned in school in case they offend the illiterate or stupid who will no doubt go on to become MPs.
Banning skirts for all is ridiculous. The better solution would be to simply allow those girls who genuinely feel as if they should be boys, dress in a boys’ uniform. The same accomodation should be allowed for boys who genuinely feel they were born the wrong gender. That would be an understanding and tolerant form of non-discrimination.
However it seems to me as if understanding and tolerance are no longer the goals of so-called “non-discrimination” agendas. Such movements have obviously been hijacked by the NWO for their own destructive purposes.
True understanding and tolerance come from the heart anyhow, not from the agendas of social engineers. We should seek to understand and to lessen the suffering of gay and transgender students, out of caring and love for our children. We should NOT allow politicians and petty officials to push nonsensical, homogenizing policies on OUR children, and ourselves. We don’t need to be forced to care at metaphorical gunpoint. We can care for and protect our OWN children and communities–as long as they don’t lock us up for it.
I don’t know about in Great Britain but in the United States some peoples religion prohibit girls from wearing pants. It just doesnt seem right to tell girls that their school uniforms can’t be skirts.
Surely all that is required is a list of clothing that is acceptable as uniform, without distinguishing between boys’ uniform and girls’ uniform. My kids’ primary school allows the girls to wear trousers if they want, but doesn’t allow boys to wear skirts. That strikes me as a little unbalanced. Of course, the Daily Mail would eat them for breakfast if they did.
Wren: I was at school in the UK during every year of the 1980′s, and every school in my town insisted on uniform. No word of it being abolished anywhere reached my young ears back then.
I agree with above. A list of acceptable clothing not based on any stereotypes of gender, religion or anything else and should include skirts, trousers and shorts. If its cold weather then trousers or long skirts. If its warm, then shorts or skirts as per preference for both boys and girls. I am 64 male and until age 10 had to wear shorts at school even in a cold winter. Girls has to wear skirts just above the knee. Blue knees were common. At aged 10 boys had to wear long trousers but girls still had to wear skirts. These days there seems to be a very restrictive attitude towards boys/mens wear. Look at the average business meeting. All the men in white shirts, ties and business suits. All the women wearing skirts, dresses, trousers, whatever they want. So what is defined in school during childhood becomes the stereotype attitudes of the future. I once took a job where men had to wear a shirt and tie. I refused to wear a tie if the women were not required to wear them and threatened sex discrimination and as I lived in Scotland I threatened that if I had to wear a tie I would wear a kilt to work. I was allowed to not wear a tie but was asked to wear one if the big boss came up from London. I said maybe but never did and did not lose my job. These days I wear shorts most of the time, trousers when its below zero in winter and a kilt when I feel like and never ever wear a tie.
I can not understand why people can’t be open minded. Are we that easy to be brain-washed? It’s rather obvious that the mess this world is in has been caused primarily by poor parenting, if “everyone” were raised with family love and affection these problems would not be, at all. I have friends who are of all religions and we love each other very much, there’s no reasonable thought for predujice and murder!!.. I am transsexual……..:)
It’s not just about transexuals at all, there is also the issue of skin sensitivity and heat sensitivity. these arise particularly with attention deicit/autism etc. Some folks’s sense of fabric comfort and heat is simply not socially average and hence we are bodily abused by any uniform dress code whatever, our existence proves that all dress codes are genocide.
This menas gender-speciic clothes are a genocidal idea and there is biological oppression going on until the decency boundaires are established as identiical for both genders.
I am a perpetually shorts-wearing straight man, who was bodily abused by longs school uniforms in the 70s-80s. I would have preferred to cross dress than wear the boys’ uniform with the longs, that is to do with by biological wellbeing and I’m not transexual in any way whatever.
I agree that banning skirts is a ridiculous proposal, and that the ideal would be to simply have gender-neutral uniforms across all schools, including single sex schools, including skirt and two types of trousers-’girls” stretchy, tight trousers are as likely to cause distress to transgender or transsexual pupils as skirts are.
However, I feel that the article is being unnecessarily dehumanising towards transgender or transsexual people. It might seem a small thing, but “transgenders and transvestites, which are oh so rampant in our school system” can be rather offensive. Unless I’m mistaken, referring to transgender people (or ‘transvestites’ in this case) as ‘which’ and ‘oh so rampant’ makes them sound like a disease, and as though they should be called ‘it’ rather than he/she/ze/they. ‘Who’ and ‘oh so very common’ would surely make better alternatives.
I take your point, and I apologize if it came across as being brash. I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of an all encompassing RULE, when it’s likely there are only one or two transgender cases in a school. Many will have none at all. In that case why do we need bureaucracy. It should just be a simple agreement between parent/pupil/teacher.
It’s the pc crowd running around making rules for everything, which ultimately discriminates against everyone.
I totally see your point, it’s ridiculous to think that people would be so easily offended. Outlaw skirts completely? It’s a harsh jump to fix a small problem. A much better solution would be to simply allow every child to choose between skirts or trousers.
However, I disagree with you on one point. While there may only be one or two transgendered persons in a school, that doesn’t make the case invalid. Even if they’re a minority, transgendered people deserve their rights just as much as bio-gendered people do. I think that it IS a stretch to say that “well, since one person will be offended, we’ll outlaw it immediately”, it’s not a stretch to say “let’s edit the dress code/uniform so that everyone has an opportunity to dress in what’s most comfortable to THEM.”
The reason that this whole skirt/trouser mess shouldn’t be a simple agreement between the pupil, parent, and teacher/principal is because if there’s not a huge rule stating to EVERYONE that it’s okay, then that particular pupil isn’t protected. Either from their peers, other teachers, etc. And it’s making a huge case out of “I would rather wear a skirt/pair of trousers”. Going straight to the principal to ask to wear a different type of attire? It’s forcing students to step out of their box when honestly, if it’s a rule that should be fair to EVERYONE, then they shouldn’t even have to do that in the first place.
Seems ridiculous, since it’s only one or two students, but it’s the symbolism behind making a rule that’s acceptable to everyone that matters.