Trans Teacher

Mollygo

I asked a Canadian friend about that teacher. He said from what he knows, it was a publicity stunt to show the ridiculous lengths women will go to alter their figures. Apparently, he wanted women to realise it wasn’t necessary.

If you check the link I sent you can see someone asking him most persistently why he wore the fake boobs and he refused to answer. He had the opportunity to explain his reason and didn't. So it doesn't look like he had a 'cause'. He was just being a weirdo. And no, that is not transphobic because he is not a transwoman.

I don't think he made a very good point about that Mollygo.
He did make a good point about how ludicrous the drive for 'inclusion' has become, especially in Canada, whether he intended to do that or not.

I asked a Canadian friend about that teacher. He said from what he knows, it was a publicity stunt to show the ridiculous lengths women will go to alter their figures. Apparently, he wanted women to realise it wasn’t necessary.

I don't know Far north

Life is sometimes stranger than fiction

VioletSky

I asked a Canadian friend about that teacher...

She says from what she has heard, the tracher is actually anti woke and does not like the gender inclusive rules in school. That teacher was wearing them to make a point against allowing gender expression...

I would guess the truth will come out. There have been similar hoaxes before

I've heard it said.
Why, then, wouldn't he have said, by now, that that's what he was doing?

He seems to be in a new job and presenting in standard male get up now.

VS
I don’t have any opinion of how you look or what you claim to do or say.
Whatever comes up, you appear to have it, or do it, or be it, even if only a little bit. There is nothing to stop you doing that, but I have no knowledge that any of it is actually fact.

So you’re happy for a teacher to have a ring through his nose or a tattoo on his/ her face ?

A good teacher with either, or both, those things sets an example to pupils in not making assumptions.

Ahh that makes it all alright then Glorianna wonderful, yes
he d look lovely by the chalk board and a great advocate for the smart business look

Doodledog

*Noting to do with what he is afraid to reveal, much more to do with the same old prejudices being dished out again just with a different theme.*
You likened his situation to gay men being unable to reveal their sexuality. Are you now agreeing that that analogy doesn't hold?
For gay men aren't safe around children (a common enough statement once) we now have a man in a skirt isn't safe around children
Nobody has said that he is not safe around children. And what was a common statement once has nothing to do with what people think now. The 1970s were 50 years ago! Why do you persist in bringing those days up? Anyway, it was the 1970s when people (including many on this thread) were campaigning for equality for LGB rights, and 'gender bending' was the fashion for teenagers.
For gay men are sexual exhibitionists substitute a man in a dress is attention seeking
Some gay men are sexual exhibitionists, just as some straight ones are. So what? A man wearing a dress to work in a primary school is a fool if he doesn't think it will attract attention, though.
Then there's all the stuff about underwear and opening his legs. It's just prejudice again
Yes, I agree.
Just because you've overcome one form of prejudice doesn't mean you can't have another.
But I didn't 'overcome a prejudice' against gay people. I've never had one. I grew up surrounded by prejudice, but always spoke out and fought against it. You, OTOH, are expressing a definite prejudice against me - you pre-judge pretty much everything I post.

You seem unable ever to judge any comment of mine as just generally applicable to a thread and insist it must be about you. It says something about you.

As a matter of fact the prejudice against gay teachers didn't disappear in the 1970s. or even in the 1980s. There were still people in the 90s who were afraid to speak about their sexuality. Section 28 was introduced in 1988. The WHO only removed homosexuality from its mental illness list in 1992 and the age of consent for homosexuals was not equalised until 1994. So really things were not quite as equal as they should be.

Glorianny

If we are to assign items of clothing to one sex or another who s going to make the final ruling? Will kilts become male and not female wear, and trousers???
Dress codes change. I once worked for a head who didn't allow women staff to wear trousers. Shortly after that I worked in a school which employed a couple of Australian teachers who wore shorts in hot weather, very smart respectable shorts
.
I also don't see how wearing a skirt is anything to do with sexuality. Do we regard all women in trousers as doing this? Leave him alone. The children probably noticed when term first started, but by now they will have accepted him and won't be bothered.

For once, I actually agree with Glorianny.

I've no idea why this thread is titled 'Trans teacher', as he doesn't seem to be trans, or why so many are doing their nuts over this clothing (unless it's unprofessional clothing, I didn't see that said) and making assumptions about the guy's sexuality and motivation in wearing a skirt.

As for "Schools have ridiculous uniform rules for pupils, so should also have them for teachers" (I paraphrase) - that's ridiculous.
It's the ridiculous rules for pupils that should be ditched.

Mollygo

What exactly is it that you disagree with that I have said?

How about we start there, with what I actually say rather than whatever you assign to me

I hate to think what you would have me dressed in if I had to conform to your opinion of me lol

eddiecat78

VioletSky you haven't answered my question. Are parents no longer allowed to complain about something happening at school they believe to be inappropriate?

I don't understand the relevance

This post is misinformation in the first place

People are not stopped from complaining about anything, to anyone... or why would a thread that doesn't even contain the right information be here?

VioletSky you haven't answered my question. Are parents no longer allowed to complain about something happening at school they believe to be inappropriate?

eddiecat78

So just to get this straight, have we reached the point where we are now not allowed to object to anything that we consider inappropriate and not normal behaviour because it might upset the person who is behaving in that manner? And because we must encourage children to accept absolutely everything as "normal" even if to the majority of people it isn't

You have it right edduecat78. And it’s supported by some of the people who claim they are protecting children.
VS, you can keep claiming whatever you want -it doesn’t make it a fact.

Glorianny

Many of the comments on this thread have reminded me of the time gay teachers were afraid to reveal their sexuality and be open about it, because it was alleged they were a danger to children. Those days are passed but prejudice remains.

That does seem to be the case.

Read safeguarding for children

It will explain it well

So just to get this straight, have we reached the point where we are now not allowed to object to anything that we consider inappropriate and not normal behaviour because it might upset the person who is behaving in that manner? And because we must encourage children to accept absolutely everything as "normal" even if to the majority of people it isn't

I am not the only one with tattoos and piercings so I think that is doubtful tbh

Plus I work in my local school, they usually call me Violet lol

VioletSky

If people are going to be judgemental and rude because I have tattoos and piercings I wouldn't expect a sensible opinion on this topic from them honestly

Who’s being judgemental and rude, VS. There’s no proof that you have tattoos and piercings. However if you do,
Nanatoone you’re right when you say
Violet Sky will undoubtedly be referred to by parents and children as the one with tattoos and piercings.
Children and parents do notice these things.

Me too

It was a silly idea in the first place and wasted both our time doodledog

Glad you realised though

My opinions are not apparent in my dress, neither is my sexuality

VioletSky

Maybe, he just likes wearing a skirt...

So do I (in dress form) that is literally all I know about this man

Doodledog knows my opinions very well and seems to think how we dress is in some way opinion driven...

I would challenge doodledog then, she has the clue I like wearing flowery dresses so must know:

How I wear my hair

The colour of my hair

Where my piercings are

What colour of flowery dress I prefer

What I wear on my feet

What sort of leg coverings I prefer

What sort of coat

How about hat?

Maybe even if my bra matches my knickers... who knows

This is ridiculous. I said that I would need a lot more info to make a decent stab at a semiotic analysis of your clothing choices, but would have a go based on the information I had at the time.

I wish I hadn't bothered now.

VioletSky

doodledog

I do not owe you anything in discussion. And I have answered in my own time. That is very entitled of you

We clearly have different ideas about 'entitlement'. I suspect that most people would say that communication is a 2 way street, and if someone specifically asks another for a comment about something (particularly when that 'something' is all about them) then it is very entitled of them to then shrug off the answer with 'I just like floral dresses', and no engagement with the reply.

Maybe, he just likes wearing a skirt...

So do I (in dress form) that is literally all I know about this man

Doodledog knows my opinions very well and seems to think how we dress is in some way opinion driven...

I would challenge doodledog then, she has the clue I like wearing flowery dresses so must know:

How I wear my hair

The colour of my hair

Where my piercings are

What colour of flowery dress I prefer

What I wear on my feet

What sort of leg coverings I prefer

What sort of coat

How about hat?

Maybe even if my bra matches my knickers... who knows

Noting to do with what he is afraid to reveal, much more to do with the same old prejudices being dished out again just with a different theme.
You likened his situation to gay men being unable to reveal their sexuality. Are you now agreeing that that analogy doesn't hold?
For gay men aren't safe around children (a common enough statement once) we now have a man in a skirt isn't safe around children
Nobody has said that he is not safe around children. And what was a common statement once has nothing to do with what people think now. The 1970s were 50 years ago! Why do you persist in bringing those days up? Anyway, it was the 1970s when people (including many on this thread) were campaigning for equality for LGB rights, and 'gender bending' was the fashion for teenagers.
For gay men are sexual exhibitionists substitute a man in a dress is attention seeking
Some gay men are sexual exhibitionists, just as some straight ones are. So what? A man wearing a dress to work in a primary school is a fool if he doesn't think it will attract attention, though.
Then there's all the stuff about underwear and opening his legs. It's just prejudice again
Yes, I agree.
Just because you've overcome one form of prejudice doesn't mean you can't have another.
But I didn't 'overcome a prejudice' against gay people. I've never had one. I grew up surrounded by prejudice, but always spoke out and fought against it. You, OTOH, are expressing a definite prejudice against me - you pre-judge pretty much everything I post.

Nicenanny3

15:49VioletSky

Good for you VioletSky you are probably a very good teacher and if you have tattoos and piercings OK that's fine by me but I draw the line at a male teacher wearing a skirt and making out he's a woman in front of my grandchildren who would probably be sniggering behind his back, what's his motive, sexual getting a kick out of it in front of a classroom of innocent children, what?

I don’t think that VioletSky is a teacher, rather a TA.
Other than that, I agree with you.