Would You Mind IF Your Child's Male Teacher Wore A Dress? (economy, education system)

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

Oh nonsense, there you go again

Look here bubba blue eyes ... and I mean that in the most sincere manner ... you have to step back and understand that heterosexual men simply cannot comprehend the issue of homosexuality in males. It's as foreign a concept to us as it would be to pass on a BJ from a playboy bunny. We have not the capacity for either.

After this last enlightening conversation I just had, I'm in a different mindset than my normal homophobic, white devil persona ... so take advantage while you can

I cannot speak for anyone else, but from my perspective ... I just have very little if anything at all in common with a gay male. I suspect that your attraction to other males is similar to our attraction to females ... and I know ours is involuntary and can't be helped. So that's probably the case with you too.

But contrary to your claim, there is no bias against femininity ... that's totally absurd ... and quite backwards. We love women ... even lesbians whom we find feminine and attractive. Those that are more masculine in their physical makeup we aren't attracted to for the same reasons we aren't attracted to other males. So it's not an issue of being a bigot .. or a homophobe ... it's just a case of our not being on the same plane.

Straight males love females ... and most even enjoy lesbian activity precisely because it involves naked females ... you dig?

Such verbosity.

And none of what you said has anything to do with the comment I made. I didn't say a word about sexual orientation.

The fact that many of you bring up homosexuality even when it's not the issue being discussed makes it obvious that you not only have a bias against homosexuals, you're a bit obsessed with them.

[ahzzie]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

I've been meaning to remark on some of your posts, but have been busy scratching my head, and addressing ridiculous questions, which I should really just ignore.

You seem to have been recipient of a plateful of life challenges to deal with, and I admire your fortitude and attitude demonstrated in some of your posts. You seem like an enlightened soul ... and that is usually the case with people facing significant hurdles in life ... only the courageous old souls tend to agree to take on such things starting out. (yes I am insinuating that we do make those decisions ahead of time).

And I agree with your premise that one's sexual orientation is a genetic one, and only a dim witted idiot would persecute or punish someone for being born the way they are, or deny them the right to express it .. to have relationships of their choosing, etc.

At the same time, those who have a particular nature or desire to express personal behaviors or traits that are outside the basic framework of societal norms have an equal responsibility to demonstrate the same degree of consideration for society's wishes and comfort and they expect society to offer them. Respect and consideration is a two way street, and will never work in one single direction.

In the case of the male teacher who wishes to wear a dress while teaching class, he expects accommodation that he is unwilling to offer others. He expects society to conform and bend to his desires, while ignoring the desires of society, by offering his political middle finger.

And, persons like you who have faced very real challenges, including the difficulties of dealing with near blindness ought to be as disgusted with this blatant display of selfishness and whining as anyone.

Those who inject such controversy for the sake of making political statements dilute the legitimate claims of others who may suffer real discrimination, and such actions tend to generate a hostile and less receptive environment for public hearing of legitimate grievances. Frankly, people get sick and tired of having agendas jammed down their throats ... and that doesn't serve anyone's best interests.

This man may consider himself some type of pioneer, forging a new day of deliverance for subjugated cross-dressers ... but what he is actually doing is creating a controversy without legitimate merit.

I've heard all kinds of crazy claims ... but to suggest that a requirement for a man to wear pants to work is somehow creating undue emotional stress on him is preposterously absurd ... and those defending his actions are either pushing an agenda or are imbeciles.

Bro, you need to calm down, seriously. Don't you think there are better things to worry about than whether a man wants to wear a dress or not? I mean, in the grand scheme of things what does it really matter? It's just clothes. Just because you are so closed minded as to be appalled at anything other than what is normal and right in your tiny little world doesn't mean that everybody else has to be that way. I can't understand why people like you go ballistic every time someone strays from the "norm" of society. Why can't you just let people live their lives the way they see fit? Why do people like you have to come along and belittle someone for wanting to be different? I thought that you conservatives were for personal freedom. I guess when it comes down to the things you find reprehensible all of that personal freedom sh** just goes right out the window for you doesn't it? Pathetic.

[nimchimpsky]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

Because a diaper alone is exposing too much, whether it's a man or woman wearing it... see how that's an EQUAL "rule," rather than having different rules for men vs women? I've worked in the educational field for years (public librarian & tutor), and we always have an expectation of dressing professionally - even if we're allowed to wear jeans, things like tanks, crop-tops, micro-minis, etc, are not generally allowed within a standard dress code. Thus, I would assume a diaper (with nothing else) falls into that category of unprofessional and overly exposed. A dress in & of itself, however, is not prohibited under any dress codes I've ever seen... as long as the dress is covering the torso & crotch, it simply isn't indecent regardless of who's wearing one. It's only your pre-conceived notions and prejudices that make it indecent, and those are undeniably subjective boundaries. Get it?



He worked for a technology firm downtown, so obviously it's not the same as a teacher or public employee... but that was San Francisco, where even a school wouldn't likely discriminate against men in dresses. Matter of fact, I know there's at least ONE cross-dressing teacher around here, since I remember reading a news story about that.

I went to a fairly liberal school high school on the East Coast where no one would have minded if a male teacher wore a dress. In fact, several of our male teachers wore a dress for a day and no one minded at all. Some students and teachers cross-dressed on a more regular basis, and again, no one minded at all.

Of course, I think the social context needs to be taken into account. A man wearing a dress where gender roles are strictly observed is being much more provocative than a man wearing a dress where gender roles are only loosely observed if at all. In the first case, it is making a political statement regardless of the wearer's intent, whereas in the second case, it's not. It's akin to a woman going without a headscarf in the U.S. vs. going without a headscarf in Morocco. Going bare-headed in the U.S. is no big deal because most women don't wear one anyway. But in Morocco you would be the only woman not wearing one, so it would become a political statement, even if that wasn't the original intent. In Iran, going without a headscarf as a woman is illegal, and is akin to going to work in a diaper anywhere in the U.S., where it would be provocative in any social circle and illegal.

[nimchimpsky]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

We can always tell when we are in the presence of kindred, aware spirits!

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

I'm following your line of thought here ... but I would respectfully suggest that you might be over-thinking the issue just a bit.

I'll readily admit I've thought about this a lot.

In my view, it's really irrelevant whether or not this teacher woke up one morning and said to themselves "I feel like a woman" ... or whether this has always been the situation.

I do think the difference between a man who wears drag for a day and a transgender person is there, though. To make an analogy, it's the difference between someone who is Catholic for a day so they can check the religious-exemption box on their immunization papers for school, and someone who considers themselves a true Christian and has been devoutly studying the Bible and following Jesus in the most sincere way possible. A transgender person identifies as the opposite sex on a much deeper level, and it is a fundamental part of who they are.

Given that it is quite common today ... actually the norm, for women to wear slacks ... it's beside the point as to what moment this biological man came to the revelation that he was a she trapped in a mans body. It's still no psychological hardship for him/her to accommodate social norms by wearing slacks. Such would not impose any level of denial.

I don't think it's a psychological hardship for a male-to-female trans person to wear slacks. For example, I've attended a lecture by a MTF transsexual and she was wearing a pantsuit. It was more feminine than the classic suit men wear, but it was nevertheless a pantsuit.

Based on everything you've said thus far, I'm convinced that you possess the insight and logic to discern the difference between demanding a biological female who feels male, wear dresses to work, which would certainly constitute a required act of fraud/denial of their gender identity, versus a biological male who identifies as female wearing slacks ... just as a majority of females already do on a regular basis?

If someone is just dressing in drag to make a point, or just as a hobby, they should suck it up and do it at home. If it's just about clothing, it's no psychological hardship.

If the person identifies as transsexual or transgender on all levels of being, and not just clothing-wise, it is a psychological hardship to be forced into a biological-sex role on any level. Clothing is included in this, but definitely not the only aspect. A male-to-female transsexual could dress based on her psychological gender in a tasteful way. For example, I'm not talking about something like this:
Moderator cut: image removed
But rather, something like this:

http://www.gscene.com/blog/uploaded_...day-769008.jpg (broken link)

(The second photo is actually of a male-to-female trans teacher.)

Now this is where we hit the impasse. My view is that the role of a teacher in a school has 100% to do with their effectiveness as teacher, and 0% to do with gender ... biological or other.

I agree 100%.

It's an obvious fact that there are both male and female teachers ... and the vast majority are biologically what they appear to be. For those few exceptions, this is not the appropriate venue to draw attention to their "uniqueness". Are you following me? It's irrelevant to the task of teaching ... and because it's quite normal for females to wear slacks ... there is no imposition for the man/woman to wear slacks. So wear slacks for Christ sake, and stop the fussing. It's an unnecessary and avoidable distraction. I know you're feeling me here!!!

I agree that it's not inappropriate to draw attention to their uniqueness, which is why I advocate living as one's psychological gender in a way that does not bring attention to oneself. When I am passing as a man, no one knows that I am trans. I am just another man. I believe a transgender teacher could do the same--live as her desired sex without bringing any attention to it. She wouldn't even have to tell anyone that she is trans. She could just be "another woman." That's how I would go about it.

Now this, I have a hard time with ... and would be happy to kick some arse on your behalf. As I said previously ... to demand that you wear a dress is an entirely different scenario than requiring the male to wear slacks. Some of the two dimensional, mouth breathers out there won't get that, but I'm certain you are not part of that group.

Yes, I get what you're saying.

As I have no personal experience with either condition (though at my age I know what a pain it is not to be able to read squat without reading glasses), I cannot say that I know how you feel. I can say that I can imagine how you must feel, and I have already defined how your case is different than the biological transgendered male. And from your comments thus far, I'd say you'd make an excellent teacher and a role model, regardless of personal gender identification. I don't believe you'd place that in the spotlight or allow it to be a distraction as the male subject of this conversation has done.

Thanks for the compliment.

Apart from the biological sex and gender identity being reversed, I don't see how my case is different from a male-to-female transgender teacher. I do see the difference on the clothing level, in that women wear pants all the time, so a male-to-female teacher easily could while still being socially female, but beyond that, I see the two cases as identical.

I whole heartedly agree. And a male transgendered person can successfully navigate through life as a school teacher wearing slacks, just as thousands of other biological females do everyday. The insistence on wearing a dress is either the product of overt or subconscious rebellion, and in neither instance is it appropriate.

I would agree in all cases but one. In the case of a school that requires all women to wear a skirt or dress, it wouldn't be a subconscious rebellion for a male-to-female trans teacher to wear a skirt or dress as well. In this case, she would just be adhering to the dress code as well. Obviously it would need to be done in good taste (longer dress/skirt, not too tight, etc.)

Gosh darn it now, you are going to ruin my image of a white heterosexual male devil in front of everyone here!!! I'm touched by the graciousness you demonstrate in your respect for your grandma. Bless your heart ... I'm not ashamed to say that you're made my eyes misty ... seriously!! And that isn't easy to do. I knew you were an old soul, and a credit to whichever gender you care to represent ... you can be one of the guys in my circle any day ... but some of them might try to convert you

Lol, I wouldn't want ruin your image!

Thanks for the invitation--that's very sweet! I don't know how successful they'll be at converting me……but they can try.

I think we are in substantial agreement, with only nuance and minor detail less clear.

And I'm happy to respectfully disagree on those details. Being able to disagree respectfully on CD is a breath of fresh air.

And the respect is mutual to be sure. You are an admirable person and one of the most refreshing and encouraging conversations I can recall.

Likewise. A refreshing and encouraging conversation on CD--nothing short of a miracle!

[GuyNTexas]

Originally Posted by ahzzie

Bro, you need to calm down, seriously. Don't you think there are better things to worry about than whether a man wants to wear a dress or not? I mean, in the grand scheme of things what does it really matter? It's just clothes. Just because you are so closed minded as to be appalled at anything other than what is normal and right in your tiny little world doesn't mean that everybody else has to be that way. I can't understand why people like you go ballistic every time someone strays from the "norm" of society. Why can't you just let people live their lives the way they see fit? Why do people like you have to come along and belittle someone for wanting to be different? I thought that you conservatives were for personal freedom. I guess when it comes down to the things you find reprehensible all of that personal freedom sh** just goes right out the window for you doesn't it? Pathetic.

I'm not un-calm, so I don't need to calm down, and I certainly don't need advice from the lower 50 percentile.

I don't suppose it would ever occur to you that everyone already understands that there are bigger problems affecting the nation and the world, and no one needs you to point that out?

But there is a less obvious point that you seem to have missed in your overly simplified view. The whining man that wants to wear a dress to school is a SYMPTOM .... not the the problem itself. And I've already gone to great lengths to explain what that problem is ... including presenting evidence to support the claim. Apparently you either missed that, or you suffer from that problem yourself.

That "problem" is the inability of so many to formulate a rational thought, or to analyze issues and come to reasonable conclusions. In other words, we have too many people who's heads only serve one purpose ... a place to wear their baseball caps backwards. And this contributes to a long list of problems, many of which are indeed more important than men wearing dresses.

And a good example of this is your confusion about personal freedoms. You see, your personal freedoms do not include doing anything you please any damn time you want. You're free to drive your car on the highway, but you are not free to drive recklessly while exercising that freedom ... because your freedoms end when the exercise of them encroaches on another's freedom to share that highway with you safely.

The teacher in this case holds a position of trust to teach other people's children. And these kids parents have the right to monitor and decide what their children are exposed to ... that's one of their rights, and you do not have the right to dismiss or invalidate their desires as less important than the man's desire to wear a dress. So, there is an impasse, and absent of some compelling reason why the man's desire is an actual NEED, rather than just a desire ... his individual desires don't automatically trump the desires of the school and the parents.

Now you don't seem to have a problem understanding this concept when it comes to some atheist parent who vehemently objects and demands that "God" be stricken from the pledge of allegiance, even though many people would say "aren't there more important matters to worry about" ? No ... you'll support that type of nonsense because you see how psychologically harmful it is for a kid to hear that dastardly word "God" .... oh the horror of it " ... one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" Totally unacceptable ... and a case worthy for the Supreme Court ... right?

Another thought that never occurs to you is the fact that none of us are the ones making a federal case out of this issue ... it's the man and his selfish demands that are at the root of this "controversy", with a very simple solution ... wear freaking slacks, problem solved. BILLIONS of men do it every day ... it's not an undue hardship for this one to do so either. Maybe he'd be better off focusing his energies on how to be the best teacher he can be, rather than forcing his agenda in an inappropriate manner and the wrong venue?

Many professions and businesses have guidelines for proper work attire. It's VERY COMMON. I wore a suit and tie everyday for 15 years ... even in the dog days of summer .... how ridiculous is it to wear a jacket when it's 98 in the shade? But that is the image the company wanted their executives to project ... professionalism. It's not a dirty word either.

This double standard you support is almost comical in it's shear irony ... while some of you like minded folks offered solutions such as mandating that all teachers wear uniforms as a good solution to problem ... you simultaneously reject the idea that the individual simply comply with a very easily accommodated requirement to simply wear slacks. And that makes sense to your backward wired brains ... which also seems to manifest in men who feel compelled to wear dresses .... and here we've come full circle ...and I'm sure you still don't "get it", do you?

[j_cat]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

and I certainly don't need advice from the lower 50 percentile.

Haha what does that even mean? Lower 50 percentile of what? You keep saying you're not upset, but then comments like these reveal that you are perturbed about something.

[redfish1]

grade school...........I would have a problem with it because kids that age are too young to understand stuff like that.

high school...........I could care less. your kids are going to see it at some point anyways.

[Cunucu Beach]

Originally Posted by redfish1

grade school...........I would have a problem with it because kids that age are too young to understand stuff like that.

high school...........I could care less. your kids are going to see it at some point anyways.

I definitely agree that grade school is not the place for a transgendered teacher and for the reason you cite.

In high school I think a lot would depend on the community and area of the country where that high school was located. Some areas are just much too conservative and a male teacher wearing a dress would be too much of a distraction. In a place like San Francisco it would probably be no big deal.

[nimchimpsky]

Originally Posted by Cunucu Beach

I definitely agree that grade school is not the place for a transgendered teacher and for the reason you cite.

In high school I think a lot would depend on the community and area of the country where that high school was located. Some areas are just much too conservative and a male teacher wearing a dress would be too much of a distraction. In a place like San Francisco it would probably be no big deal.

Social context plays a huge role in defining the implications of any deed.

[j_cat]

Originally Posted by Cunucu Beach

I definitely agree that grade school is not the place for a transgendered teacher and for the reason you cite.

In high school I think a lot would depend on the community and area of the country where that high school was located. Some areas are just much too conservative and a male teacher wearing a dress would be too much of a distraction. In a place like San Francisco it would probably be no big deal.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

Social context plays a huge role in defining the implications of any deed.

Disturbing precedent you'd like to create. Apparently you can discriminate in any old way if the surrounding community is "just not ready" to accept someone different.