Trans Teacher

Glorianny

Dickens

Glorianny

The other points on this thread seem to be -men teachers shouldn't wear skirts because schools aren't places for fashion statements or being revolutionary.
Sorry that ship sailed long ago witness David Bowie etc. And just about every other stag party I see in our city.

I have to comment on this part of your post Glorianny.

Do you think teachers should be making fashion statements when pupils are expected to follow a uniform code - some are quite strict too about jewellery or nail varnish, hair styles, etc? And for fairly obvious reasons.

As for being revolutionary - I'd prefer them to take a 'revolutionary' stance about the crumbling state of some of the schools, the lack of equipment - even books. Not to mention the league tables which are not really the best way to measure the achievements of the students.

Making a comparison with the way people dress for stag and hen nights... I'm puzzled about the connection and cannot see how the two environments can be compared?

Skirts are not "revolutionary " for men. Bowie wore them, Beckham's worn them, designers have featured them- that's the revolutionary bit. That's been and gone.
So they are simply something men could wear if they wanted. Not surprisingly they don't. But then a lot of women don't.

Why should a uniform have gendered requirements? Nothing to do with nail varnish, jewellery or anything else. Although I think most women teachers would object if the no varnish and no make up rules were applied to them as well as the pupils.

No reason why a man in a skirt couldn't be just as revolutionary as any other teacher about the things you mention. Although I suspect one reason teachers are less bolshie than they used to be is because they are so buried by the amount of work piled onto them, that they scarcely have time to breathe, never mind demonstrate.

It's been said men could wear skirts socially- just pointing out that they already do, so wearing them to work is the next step.

I think, Glorianny, with respect - you are rather missing the point of what I am saying - or attempting to say... maybe I'm not making a very good case.

For clarity and brevity - I personally believe that men and women should wear what the heck they please (within reasonable boundaries - for example, I don't think an individual driving a van or lorry should wear a tutu in case the layers of material obstruct his / her ability to manoeuvre the vehicle... etc).

The 'world' which Bowie inhabited and Beckham still does is not mainstream, the Arts have always been light years ahead in terms of fashion and culture. So I don't think those comparisons are particularly valid or useful when we are debating the humdrum world of work for the ordinary man or woman. Rocking up to a 'celebrity' event in the rarefied atmosphere of the entertainment / fashion world is not the same as a doctor sitting in his surgery faced with elderly patients with complex medical problems or mothers with febrile toddlers. Societal 'norms' take much longer to break down. And when your job involves interfacing professionally with the general public who've largely been conditioned to these norms, I don't think it's principled to make your job all about you and your needs / wants and beliefs.

Getting back to the OP, and a 'case' about which we know little because there's not much context - if male teachers are going to start wearing skirts, then the Head should have sent out a letter informing the parents that in the interests of equality, that was going to be school policy in the future. There are then no 'shocks' or surprises to disrupt the smooth functioning of the children's education and parents are given the opportunity to explain the situation to their children. Of course, that is purely my opinion, but I do believe that bringing about change in society has to be done rationally and logically if it's to be absorbed and accepted because that, hopefully, prevents the over-reaction which occurs when something like this is just foisted on them (the general public) without any prior information or consultation.

Taking the OP's case at face-value, that is why I think the teacher was in the wrong - not for wanting to wear a skirt, but because he is a professional and behaved unprofessionally - his job is as an educator and his focus should have been entirely on his pupils, not on his own agenda.

As for the gendered requirements of the school uniform - I think it should ultimately be abolished. But at the moment, it isn't and the reason I pointed it out is that the naturally rebellious nature of school children will presumably question why teachers are allowed to 'get away with' breaking rules that are strictly applied to them. And part of those rules is the prohibition of nail varnish and jewellery which is just more rules imposed on pupils. When I was at school back in the early 50s before the 'rebellious' 60s era, we girls questioned even then why our English teacher was allowed to sport dark red nails when we were not even allowed clear nail varnish. Children notice these things. Rules have to make sense and kids will not necessarily respect the demarcation line between them and their teachers. Boys will not automatically want to wear a skirt because their teacher does but they might question why he can when rules set for them are so stringently enforced.

It’s not unhealthy to see things as a whole, though. I have said a million times that the reason I am troubled about the skirt is nothing to do with the garment itself, but because of the ‘trans issues’ in schools. You haven’t addressed that, preferring to divert the discussion.

Why the ‘obsession’ with women in trousers? They are no longer ‘menswear’, but very mainstream fashion for women and have been for decades. Some styles are actively feminine, so they don’t make a statement in the way that a man in a skirt does.

Context is important here. The drag queens in story hour, picture books with men in bondage gear, anal sex on the curriculum, Stonewall training courses for staff, sanctions for ‘misgendering’ children, affirmation of ‘gender change’ (still no explanation of what that actually is though) - it goes on and on.

Why not address that instead of going on and on about women in trousers, which is a false equivalence? The skirt is just a skirt. The act of wearing it in the context described above is not a neutral act, which a woman wearing trousers, wherever the zip is placed, is not.

I'm talking about one man wanting to wear a skirt to school Mollygo stop trying to bring in complete irrelevancies. In this case (and I prefer to judge on a case by case basis rather than subscribe to any philosophy that says "all A is bad and all B is good") a man not being allowed to wear a skirt is just as sexist as telling a woman she can't wear trousers.
Your rant is irrelevant in this case, but does show an unhealthy obsession with Trans issues.

If women want to be treated as equals then they should also treat others as equals.
That’s your best yet Glorianny.
Can you explain exactly what that means in a situation where a TW is in a female safe space?
Or when women (AHF) are being attacked, removed from their jobs because they demand female safe spaces free from males?
Or when makes insist on attending lesbian gatherings to the extent that lesbians have difficulty finding venues?
How does your speech above work in those circumstances?
In those circumstances, who do you see as the underdog?
How do you demonstrate your support?

Mollygo

*It's been said men could wear skirts socially- just pointing out that they already do, so wearing them to work is the next step.*
And of course for those who support men at every turn it’s another chance to wave the male flag.
Although I think most women teachers would object if the no varnish and no make up rules were applied to them as well as the pupils.
That’s because teachers are the adults -they’ve done the wearing uniform or not wearing uniform but already.
Are you actually suggesting that adults and children who are in different positions . . . No you couldn’t possibly be . . .

I didn't Mollygo but Dickens did. Try reading all the posts and not just mine.

If inequality is obvious I will support the underdog, regardless of any other factor. It's called equality. It is exactly what patriarchy doesn't practise. I don't want to swap one form of dominant and divisive society for another, where all that changes is the dominant section. I want a new sort of society where people have equal rights If women want to be treated as equals then they should also treat others as equals.
Nobody's free until everybody's free

It's been said men could wear skirts socially- just pointing out that they already do, so wearing them to work is the next step.
And of course for those who support men at every turn it’s another chance to wave the male flag.
Although I think most women teachers would object if the no varnish and no make up rules were applied to them as well as the pupils.
That’s because teachers are the adults -they’ve done the wearing uniform or not wearing uniform but already.
Are you actually suggesting that adults and children who are in different positions . . . No you couldn’t possibly be . . .

Dickens

Glorianny

The other points on this thread seem to be -men teachers shouldn't wear skirts because schools aren't places for fashion statements or being revolutionary.
Sorry that ship sailed long ago witness David Bowie etc. And just about every other stag party I see in our city.

I have to comment on this part of your post Glorianny.

Do you think teachers should be making fashion statements when pupils are expected to follow a uniform code - some are quite strict too about jewellery or nail varnish, hair styles, etc? And for fairly obvious reasons.

As for being revolutionary - I'd prefer them to take a 'revolutionary' stance about the crumbling state of some of the schools, the lack of equipment - even books. Not to mention the league tables which are not really the best way to measure the achievements of the students.

Making a comparison with the way people dress for stag and hen nights... I'm puzzled about the connection and cannot see how the two environments can be compared?

Skirts are not "revolutionary " for men. Bowie wore them, Beckham's worn them, designers have featured them- that's the revolutionary bit. That's been and gone.
So they are simply something men could wear if they wanted. Not surprisingly they don't. But then a lot of women don't.

Why should a uniform have gendered requirements? Nothing to do with nail varnish, jewellery or anything else. Although I think most women teachers would object if the no varnish and no make up rules were applied to them as well as the pupils.

No reason why a man in a skirt couldn't be just as revolutionary as any other teacher about the things you mention. Although I suspect one reason teachers are less bolshie than they used to be is because they are so buried by the amount of work piled onto them, that they scarcely have time to breathe, never mind demonstrate.

It's been said men could wear skirts socially- just pointing out that they already do, so wearing them to work is the next step.

Glorianny

Callistemon21

I suspect my Mum was older than yours, Glorianny and I never heard her say such things, although she probably didn't wear trousers until the late 1960s.

I'm completely willing to accept that my mother wasn't entirely accurate but I do think it was a perception which she shared with other women. She was very young so perhaps that's one reason she believed it. When I was 15 she was only 38.
I remember going on holiday to a holiday camp when I was about 10 and her insisting on going shopping the first day because she had only brought skirts and the other women were wearing shorts.

I like that story about the shorts! 🙂

My Mum was an older Mum (to me not the others) but did like to be à la mode. Apparently she was one of the first of her group to get her long hair cut off and 'semi-shingled'. I don't think I ever saw her in shorts, though.

Glorianny

The other points on this thread seem to be -men teachers shouldn't wear skirts because schools aren't places for fashion statements or being revolutionary.
Sorry that ship sailed long ago witness David Bowie etc. And just about every other stag party I see in our city.

I have to comment on this part of your post Glorianny.

Do you think teachers should be making fashion statements when pupils are expected to follow a uniform code - some are quite strict too about jewellery or nail varnish, hair styles, etc? And for fairly obvious reasons.

As for being revolutionary - I'd prefer them to take a 'revolutionary' stance about the crumbling state of some of the schools, the lack of equipment - even books. Not to mention the league tables which are not really the best way to measure the achievements of the students.

Making a comparison with the way people dress for stag and hen nights... I'm puzzled about the connection and cannot see how the two environments can be compared?

Callistemon21

I suspect my Mum was older than yours, Glorianny and I never heard her say such things, although she probably didn't wear trousers until the late 1960s.

I'm completely willing to accept that my mother wasn't entirely accurate but I do think it was a perception which she shared with other women. She was very young so perhaps that's one reason she believed it. When I was 15 she was only 38.
I remember going on holiday to a holiday camp when I was about 10 and her insisting on going shopping the first day because she had only brought skirts and the other women were wearing shorts.

Mollygo

I wouldn’t expect you to name the school. The boys could be as few as two or a whole class, who knows. There would have been photos, whatever, to back up hearsay evidence.
But the male teacher wanted to be noticed.
He put his need for attention above the needs of the children . . . Not all men are like that thank goodness.

Whole class I think Mollygo and I was asked to name the school.

I wouldn’t expect you to name the school. The boys could be as few as two or a whole class, who knows. There would have been photos, whatever, to back up hearsay evidence.
But the male teacher wanted to be noticed.
He put his need for attention above the needs of the children . . . Not all men are like that thank goodness.

As one of the 'some', it is because I know that children are adaptable and accepting that I worry about the cumulative effect of their being told that they can 'change gender' (what does that mean?) or that they are 'in the wrong body' (again, an explanation would be useful), books in the library about Grandad which show men in bondage gear, drag queens reading stories, teachers and children disciplined for 'misgendering' or 'deadnaming' and so on.

Primary teachers are often role models for children, who get very attached to them, and I think they should remain neutral when it comes to all of this. I understand that Stonewall has infiltrated a lot, and that teachers have to do what the HT says, which is often to conform to Stonewall's diktats, but there is no need to go any further down that road.

As I have said, the skirt in and of itself is not the issue, and I brought David Bowie into it - I couldn't care less about men wearing skirts. It is the whole landscape that troubles me.

I suspect my Mum was older than yours, Glorianny and I never heard her say such things, although she probably didn't wear trousers until the late 1960s.

Doodledog

Ashcombe

...As for you breaking ground by wearing trousers in the 1970s, maybe it depends on where you lived and the background you are from....

I started teaching in a high school in Luton in 1972 where female staff regularly wore trousers to school. Two years later, I moved to a high school in Staffordshire where the Headteacher tried to prevent women wearing trousers to work! So, in some places it was considered groundbreaking.

I dare say. I really don't want to get sidetracked into anecdotes about trousers, as they are not the point of the thread, but what people wear at work is not the same as what they wear in their own time (including the skirt which is the point of the thread).

Glorianny claimed that it was illegal for women to wear trousers in the past, that her mother was shocked at centre zips in the 70s as they were male dress, and that it was women like her (*G*) who bravely changed the world by striding forth in her jeans.

That is very different from a bossy HT saying that women shouldn't wear them to school. And it doesn't chime with Glorianny saying she had some fashionable women's trousers in 1964 either. It's all a distraction, and avoids engaging with the other points on the thread.

You might try getting your posts right Doodledog if you have to delve into my history
But here's the correct timeline (maybe I'm older than you think!)
First pair of jeans 1960 my mum insisted on side zip
Pair of imitation Courreges trousers 1964. Same year in summer first pair front zip-hipsters.
!972 Banned from wearing trousers in a school (although I had worn them in my previous one where 2 of the staff wore shorts in summer)
I said my mother said it was illegal, perhaps it wasn't, but she definitely thought women should only wear side fastening trousers, because if you wore men's the police would stop you.

I don't think I changed the world. I did think I was a bit of a fashion rebel, but actually it was standard wear for older teens. Tight jeans, big black jumper and black pea jacket
Of course then I got the fashion bug and wanted Courreges

The other points on this thread seem to be -men teachers shouldn't wear skirts because schools aren't places for fashion statements or being revolutionary.
Sorry that ship sailed long ago witness David Bowie etc. And just about every other stag party I see in our city.

The trans lobby and the education they are projecting is influencing children - all the more reason for a man teacher to wear a skirt, and show children who are worried that they feel uncomfortable with the gender dress they are assigned, there are alternatives.

I don't by the way propose to name the school my GC attend. Can't see why it would have made any news. I saw the boys going into school. Some of them had obviously had trouble fitting into the dresses and had had to chop off the sleeves. I asked my GD about them later on as I wasn't sure why they were in dresses.
She said quite dismissively, "It was just the boys who are leaving they decided to wear dresses on their last day." She seemed completely uninterested and unimpressed.
I imagine she would be much the same about a teacher in a skirt. Children are much more adaptable and accepting than some seem to think.

Anyway, it's a a bit 'old hat'.
Yesterday's news, been reported for years.

The OP hasn't been back.

Doodledog

A male teacher wearing a skirt is saying nothing about his sexuality (which would also be irrelevant), but in an environment where messages about gender are often controversial and unnecessary to education it is not a neutral act.

... "it is not a neutral act".

Precisely the point Doodle. It's a statement of something or other, but whatever it is, he should not be making it in a school.

I don't want to speculate on his reason(s), and the OP hasn't been back to contribute anything further to the thread. There may or may not be more to this story, who knows. Along with you and others, I'm arguing about a principle - that of making children's education and welfare the sole focus of a teacher's job, not a vehicle for an agenda, whatever it might be.

The gay teachers who did or still do work at our school are well known in one case for their incredibly smart dress sense and the other, for his wonderful waistcoats.
Neither of them brought their sexuality into school.

Agreed, Callistemon, and I don't care if what a teacher wears 'clearly demonstrates' that they are 'queer' (not my word). Being gay is not relevant to this discussion, and the suggestion that people are somehow hypocritical for not minding that a woman wears a trouser suit and has short hair 'even if' their sexuality is made obvious is offensive on a number of levels.

Quite apart from the attitude to gay teachers, it is a false equivalence. Sexuality and 'gender' are not the same thing. A lesbian is a woman regardless of her sexuality, which is irrelevant in a school. A male teacher wearing a skirt is saying nothing about his sexuality (which would also be irrelevant), but in an environment where messages about gender are often controversial and unnecessary to education it is not a neutral act.

icanhandthemback

Well, Doodledog, I suspect it depends on which side of the fence you are in this particular debate as to whether you see it as a bit of a leap. We obviously have a difference of opinion as to what this skirt signifies and I doubt either of us will change our minds and going round in circles is pointless. I've said how I feel, after due consideration to the opposition, I still feel the same so I will bow out now. 🤝👋

I don't care what he wears in his leisure time. He can wear pink sequins or a tutu for all I care.

However, I firmly believe he should wear more conventional clothing when at work teaching primary school children.

Well, Doodledog, I suspect it depends on which side of the fence you are in this particular debate as to whether you see it as a bit of a leap. We obviously have a difference of opinion as to what this skirt signifies and I doubt either of us will change our minds and going round in circles is pointless. I've said how I feel, after due consideration to the opposition, I still feel the same so I will bow out now. 🤝👋

Callistemon21

Is it just me who is ?

The head is Trans Teacher but TheHappyGardener then says:

her teacher is a man, who identifies as a Mr, but who chooses to wear a skirt to work

Has the OP been back to comment?

No, I doubt you are the only one who's confused. It's been a confusing thread .

That's how it should be maddyone. Of course not all children will have gay relatives but maybe their friends do, and when they are simply loved members of their family, then there's no need to make a song and dance about it is there.

Children will only know if they're doing or liking non stereotypical things if it's pointed out to them. It seems to me that this current obsession with non stereotypical is potentially just as damaging as enforced stereotypical behaviour.

Allow children to be children. To play with whatever they want to play with, and to wear what they want to wear in their free time.

heading

Is it just me who is ?

The head is Trans Teacher but TheHappyGardener then says:

her teacher is a man, who identifies as a Mr, but who chooses to wear a skirt to work

Has the OP been back to comment?