Trans Teacher

Oh dear Glorianny you are out of touch, side zipped trousers are widely available! Try googling "side zipped trousers" and you'll see examples from Karen Millen, through Wallis to Whistles and masses between.

Excellent post Doodledog.
Increasingly needful because of the thinly disguised support on here for the inappropriate behaviour of some TW.

Glorianny

Callistemon21

I doubt you'd find a pair of side fastening trousers anywhere

Widely available with an invisible zip, especially in more 'dressy' women's trousers as it gives a smoother line.

I still have a pair (just M&S) but find them rather awkward to do up now as I'm not as agile as I was.

Could you link to the M&S version please. I've "Googled" it and "side fastening" only came up with "comfortable waisted "(elasticated) or "side adjusting" which have buckles either side of the waist but still fasten at the front.
Even very expensive ones were front fastening.
But as they say "It's the exception that proves the rule"

Some of them even have tummy controllers, Glorianny 😁

Unfortunately mine don't.

Doodledog

*Not a mention of cultures with different dress, not a mention of fashion designers or of the 60's. The point is that gender norms are only changed by people who wear something different.*
Eh?
There were when I first brought my first pair of jeans established "women's trousers" which had a zip on the side and "men's trousers" which had a fly front. I can still remember my mum's shock when I wore my first pair of front fastening trousers. "But they are men's!" she insisted. Apparently in the 30's and 40's you could be arrested for wearing clothing which was designated as the other gender's. Women have overcome that. I doubt you'd find a pair of side fastening trousers anywhere, for goodness sake let's make men gender free too.
I have had side-fastening trousers in recent years. They are harder to fasten but much more flattering than centre fastening ones, as there is no bulky zip in the stomach area. I still don't know what the 1930s and 40s have to do with the issue of a man wearing as skirt in 2023 though has to do with anything on this thread though.

You are totally (conveniently) ignoring the modern-day context, of course. I repeat for the umpteenth time - had this happened outwith the atmosphere in which children are taught about 100 'genders', and that they can be in 'the wrong body', where they are read stories by drag queens in full drag I would probably feel differently. In the context of the 21st century this is about more than a skirt, and I think you know that.

I'm not ignoring anything. I simply don't see how the prejudices or ideas proposed by some should influence everything. Or for that matter how we are to abolish gender norms if we don't allow men to wear items of clothing that are completely acceptable in other cultures.
As for the 1930s and 40s if you don't understand that then gender norms were being enforced legally on men and women, that women overcame this, simply by wearing what were designated men's wear, and that now apparently because the concept of men simply wearing whatever they want has become linked in with trans issues men are to be banned from making the same progress. A man in a skirt at school is no more dangerous or threatening to society than I was in trousers. Although sadly some of the prejudices and closed minds, like that of the head teacher who banned me, still exist. They are simply using different excuses to impose their views.

maddyone

So what when he attends school in his swimming shorts?

That would be a different situation.

FarNorth

maddyone

So what when he attends school in his swimming shorts?

That would be a different situation.

Just like if I attended in a bikini (Ugh now that should be an offence! Even I wouldn't want to see it!)

I'm not ignoring anything. I simply don't see how the prejudices or ideas proposed by some should influence everything. Or for that matter how we are to abolish gender norms if we don't allow men to wear items of clothing that are completely acceptable in other cultures.
You are ignoring the context of the milieu in which the trans agenda is influencing children to 'transition' and forcing women to hold single-sex meetings in private, as though we were ruled by an all-male state. Assuming that I am allowed to include myself under the catch-all 'some' without it 'saying something about me' I am not asking to influence everything. I am saying that. . . well I've already said it over and over - you just ignore it and refuse to address it.

As for the 1930s and 40s if you don't understand that then gender norms were being enforced legally on men and women, that women overcame this, simply by wearing what were designated men's wear, and that now apparently because the concept of men simply wearing whatever they want has become linked in with trans issues men are to be banned from making the same progress.
I don't fully follow this sentence, but I think you are saying that women were legally not allowed to wear trousers? Not so. Men could be arrested for suspected homosexuality, which was illegal until 1967. It was never illegal for women. Prohibitions on dress were, and still are, imposed by some employers and organisations, but not by law. You are getting your countries mixed up:

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. ' and while the UK never went as far as making the Biblical edict an illegal act, many other countries did. Archives.blog.parliament.uk

A man in a skirt at school is no more dangerous or threatening to society than I was in trousers. Although sadly some of the prejudices and closed minds, like that of the head teacher who banned me, still exist. They are simply using different excuses to impose their views.
I can't speak for or about the HT in question, but when did this happen? I suspect that you are living in the past again, and equating 'the bad old days' with the modern era?

You seem to be making a passive aggressive dig that suggests that I am prejudiced and closed minded (again, when you speak in vague terms there is always a risk of getting it wrong - that's the trouble with passive-aggression) but if so it is misplaced. I am neither. If Mr Teacher wore his skirt anywhere than in a school, and if he were doing so at a time in history when schools were not being used to promulgate Stonewall-inspired notions of 'gender' and transitioning I wouldn't care if he wore it in school either. But that is not the case.

My objection is to this happening alongside 'Grandad Goes To Pride In His Bondage Gear'*, drag queen storytime, anal sex on the curriculum and affirmation of 'gender change' (which I still don't understand as a concept, incidentally - what does it actually mean?).

*not the actual title, I am aware, in case of an attempted 'Gotcha' diversion

Sometimes the support isn’t even thinly veiled, but it’s never support for females, always support for males.
The femalephobia on GN has ceased to amaze me, and become expected.
Men certainly wear dresses in other cultures-frequently the cultures that oppress females.

Doodledog

👏👏👏👏👏👏

You say it so much better than I could.

Actually Glorianny, you’re incorrect on why women started to wear trousers quite commonly. The Second World War brought this about, because women were called upon to do many of the jobs that men traditionally did, including joining the armed forces. You may recall the photograph of the Queen, then Princess Elizabeth, working on repairing and servicing vehicles for the army. Trousers/overalls were simply much more practical for doing these jobs than skirts, though it should be noted that skirts remained official wear for women in the services, and I think they still are official dress wear.
Other war time occupations taken on by women included ambulance duty, work in factories and armaments, and a whole host of other jobs mainly performed by men previously. There was great social change in WW2 and that change continued after the war (although there was a move back in fashion towards using more fabric in skirts, and clothing became much more feminine again.) However, trouser wearing amongst women did not go away, and gradually became more and more usual and fashionable.
I wore my first trousers as a toddler Glorianny.I wore dungarees and certainly did not wait till I was 15 to wear trousers.
But I always wore a skirt to school as that was the norm then.

Yes maddie a lot is conveniently ignored or misrepresented in these trips down memory lane . Speaking of recollections of things past, I am the proud owner of a vinyl copy of Hunky Dory with David Bowie in a dress on the cover. That was intended to cause a fuss, as he was trying to become famous - these things don’t happen in isolation. He looked good in it though.

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202309/medium-233212-1930s-trouser-fans-1.jpg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202309/medium-711137-a-rather-dashing-womens-cycling-costume.jpg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202309/medium-721059-237501-1600x1220-first-woman-wear-pants.jpg

Women have been wearing a form of trousers for generations.

Chinese women have been wearing trousers for centuries.
As did women in ancient Greece

It's a psychological issue!

maddyone

Actually Glorianny, you’re incorrect on why women started to wear trousers quite commonly. The Second World War brought this about, because women were called upon to do many of the jobs that men traditionally did, including joining the armed forces. You may recall the photograph of the Queen, then Princess Elizabeth, working on repairing and servicing vehicles for the army. Trousers/overalls were simply much more practical for doing these jobs than skirts, though it should be noted that skirts remained official wear for women in the services, and I think they still are official dress wear.
Other war time occupations taken on by women included ambulance duty, work in factories and armaments, and a whole host of other jobs mainly performed by men previously. There was great social change in WW2 and that change continued after the war (although there was a move back in fashion towards using more fabric in skirts, and clothing became much more feminine again.) However, trouser wearing amongst women did not go away, and gradually became more and more usual and fashionable.
I wore my first trousers as a toddler Glorianny.I wore dungarees and certainly did not wait till I was 15 to wear trousers.
But I always wore a skirt to school as that was the norm then.

Of course they wore them in wartime. Just like they worked in the factories in WW1. If you don't realise that in times of war men relax all rules, provide women with all sorts of support and allow freedoms which are immediately reversed once peace is declared you don't know much history.

I said I was 15 when I got my first pair of jeans. Bought in the Army and Navy surplus stores because nowhere else was selling them. They zipped up the side. I tapered the legs and shrunk them in the bath.

There were trousers but few women wore them. Some teenagers were wearing capri pants. But most women's trousers zipped up the side just to prove they were not men's

It's so funny how people are so determined to prove me wrong that they will choose a single idea to pick holes in.
So women's trousers may be still available with side zips but few of us are wearing them, and no one is wearing them because they think trousers with fly fronts are men's clothing, which my mother undoubtedly did.

But to come back to the original post, if men are not to be permitted to wear skirts and dresses how on earth are gender norms to be tackled and abolished?

It's so funny how people are so determined to prove me wrong that they will choose a single idea to pick holes in

It's not that difficult as most of your arguments can be so easily disproved.

I have ¹plenty of side zipped trousers and skirts!

* women's trousers may be still available with side zips but few of us are wearing them, and no one is wearing them because they think trousers with fly fronts are men's clothing, which my mother undoubtedly did.*

It's not a few though. The shops wouldn't supply them

As a teen all my jeans had zip fasteners. My mother didn't have a fit of the vapours about them. In fact she had some herself

My mother didn't often wear trousers until trouser suits became fashionable.
Her sister always wore trousers, in fact the only time I saw my Aunt in a dress and jacket was at my wedding.

Oops, that was anecdotal.

Not allowed 😁

Glorianny

But there are men in every city in the UK now dressed like this. Are we going to tell them to change? It's also becoming incredibly hot, so it's probably cooler for men. Where do you draw the line? At the school gate?
The point is what is cross dressing? Is it wearing a skirt? many fashion designers have featured skirts for men in their collections, so men can wear them. Men wear them in other countries and cultures, men wear them here. It's completely unreasonable and unrue to claim they don't.

Here you are Glorianny, an outfit for all those men who are finding it just too incredibly hot to wear trousers.

Callistemon21

Women have been wearing a form of trousers for generations.

Chinese women have been wearing trousers for centuries.
As did women in ancient Greece

This is very true but as it wasn't in "our culture" this is apparently nothing to do with the arguments about whether a man should wear a skirt in school because the same argument about men wearing skirts/dresses in their cultures falls on stony ground.
If the man in question wore a kilt, he wouldn't be considered anything out of the ordinary but a skirt without a tartan pattern is somehow subversive and buying in to the gender argument. Actually, it doesn't because this man appears to be quite content to be called "Mr."
Women also wear tight tops or enhance their bust size by wearing padded bras. Man are admonished if they notice. A man enhances his bulge, he is being disrespectful to women. There is a hypocrisy here.
I don't believe anybody can change gender nor do I think that the drive for children to believe they can is helpful. I don't think hard fought rights for women should be sacrificed by men but I do think that in a few years time, men wearing skirts will be as acceptable as women wearing trousers and rightly so. This has been coming for years and years if you hark back to the bands like Culture Club, Spandau Ballet, etc. Children see the cross dressing all the time with the likes of Harry Styles but they take it in their stride.

It's so funny how people are so determined to prove me wrong that they will choose a single idea to pick holes in.

Hilarious. Specially given that you ignored all the things about the trans lobby in schools, the way women's groups are having to meet in private and all the other reasons given as to why this is not a question of fashion, and chose to talk about the single idea of side zipped trousers. I didn't wear mine to show they were not men's . I still have one pair somewhere. They are silk velvet evening trousers, and look much nicer with a top because there is no bulky zip down the middle of my tummy area. Others I remember were work trousers (Oska, I think) which I found increasingly difficult to fasten as I'd gained weight and reaching round to pull up a side zip is harder navigate. I've had others, but have given up on them now. They definitely exist, though, and have done for years.

Your bringing up trousers was a single idea, maybe, but not one rooted in fact, whatever your own circumstances with your mother and the HT down the line, and not one that was remotely relevant to the other posts on the topic of the thread. The idea of women being prohibited by law to wear trousers doesn't stand up either. It's not 'picking holes' to say so, as that was the entire crux of your argument, which was couched in a very patronising manner. If you don't understand that you can't just make up 'facts' and think that is the end of a discussion, well, I don't know what to say.

A diversion? It wouldn't be the first time.

Children see the cross dressing all the time with the likes of Harry Styles but they take it in their stride.

They do, and that is, IMO, a good thing. But, like the David Bowie example above, what happens in 'show business' is different. Pop stars etc are meant to push boundaries, to make themselves stand out, to be different. Is a primary school somewhere where children are supposed to go along with that? Parents are expected to comply with uniform rules in some primaries, and in most secondary schools. It is often argued that the point of that is to encourage conformity and to stop individual children standing out. Is a teacher really supposed to show that it is ok to be 'different' in this way in a school setting?

That in itself is one thing, but I think we have reached a tipping point in the 'trans' story. There are numerous examples upthread (and on others) of how far things have gone in schools, and many parents are worried that their views are being overruled, and their children subjected to unwelcome views about 'gender' and transitioning. I'm not saying this teacher is necessarily part of that story, but if he is not aware enough to know that we are living in 'interesting' times where these matters are concerned, he is in the wrong job.

Many countries have no school uniforms. Where I live, in the UK, the local primary & secondary schools also have no uniform day-to-day although they do have sweatshirts, in various colours & with a logo, that can be worn when representing the school.
I don't know if the pupils are less good citizens because of this.

I agree with Doodledog’s posts on this subject.

A primary school is not an appropriate place to push gender issues.