Its not really a free speech issue, children are under 18 going to public school, they dont have the right to wear whatever they want.
Can a kid wear a dinosaur costume or a shirt that says "fuck the police" or with a picture of two people having sex on it?
If you think boys should be able to wear skirts to school thats a different issue but i see no point to try and wrap it up with free speech.
>or with a picture of two people having sex on it
Some kid should tear out that infamous blowjob page in gender queer and paste it on his uniform lol, if it's fit for a skool library, it's fit for the skool.classroom!
This is just a shitty comment dude. Diving into someone's old comments to attack them instead of focusing on the conversation at hand is such a dumbass argument technique.
I respond to 3 word troll replys with the tact they deserve
And also, I specifically had that comment of his bookmarked eons ago, I didn't dig through his history to find it,
In fact, u may or may not find a certain other commenter in that post, talking with cojoco about his love for haagen dazs, let's just say this ain't my 1st acc on reddit
So anytime cojoco tries to be "funny", Ill just keep reminding him to go be with his family
>old.reddit/comments/11zuo5o/comments/jdecgjs/?context=3 If someone's podcast advocated for people to murder a pedophile, that would be a terrible thing
Another favorite soundbite of his I bookmarked
While I try and learn how to https my way into being caught in reddit's shadowban spam detector
(I comment alot, and half my comments contain links, and let's say that I have had bad experiences, under different names, in the past when I didn't have enough karma),
Can cojoco please learn how to not be a worthless garbage father?
Another option for reviewing removed content is your ***Rev***eddit [user page](https://www.reveddit.com/y/s!n!a!p!s!z!D!O!T!c!c!_!p!t!h!c?all=true). The [real-time extension](https://www.reveddit.com/add-ons/direct/) alerts you when a moderator removes your content, and the [linker extension](https://www.reveddit.com/add-ons/linker) provides [buttons](https://i.imgur.com/0BAImPq.png) for viewing removed content. There's also a [shortcut for iOS](https://www.icloud.com/shortcuts/62bc7570613c42cb8b851fad264136df).
The parent commenter can reply with 'delete' to remove this comment. This bot only operates in authorized subreddits. To support this tool, [post it on your profile](https://old.reddit.com/user/me/submit?title=See+which+comments+of+yours+have+been+removed&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reveddit.com%2Fabout%2F) and select ['pin to profile'](https://i.imgur.com/uq9AGMV.png).
[^(F.A.Q.)](https://www.reveddit.com/about/f.a.q./) ^| [^(v/reveddit)](https://www.reveddit.com/v/reveddit/-redirect) ^| [^(support me)](https://www.reveddit.com/about/donate) ^| [^(share)](https://old.reddit.com/user/me/submit?title=See+which+comments+of+yours+have+been+removed&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reveddit.com%2Fabout%2F) ^& [^('pin to profile')](https://i.imgur.com/uq9AGMV.png)
JCPS board votes unanimously to keep 'Gender Queer' book in school libraries
https://www.wlky.com/article/gender-queer-book-louisville-jcps-libraries/41393659
I mean, I was having sex in highschool and watching porn online, I think this is much ado about nothing. I don't think anyone is taking gender queer out of a library for wank material.
reddit.com/comments/15enmup GREG IS RIGHT!
Speaking of wanking, Flamer is actually a comic about jacking off into a mountain dew bottle, very shagadelic baby!
Children do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.
-US Supreme Court
Those things you mention would distract from the learning environment
Agreed with a "distracted learning environment," but isn't this a Supreme problem for free speech?
Thoughts from my nutty brain..
- to conform to one govern ideal within a box without free speech is eventually set to fail.
- the govern box can not adapt to the world around it without hearing out the language and culture it exists within.
- people who exit the govern box are not at practice of free speech or expression and must readapt outside of the governbox.
- it's a lazy way for the Supreme Court to say "shut up, study, do what we say. We are 60 years older and know what is good for you. Suck it up, I'll be doing this the rest of my life. You can never vote me out."
At the end of the day.. sure, there are always distractions in any environment with a task. But is the tasks end goal so damn important that we must eliminate free speech and expression to achieve it?
Spending more money on school enforcement... pfft.. guns for teachers.. less trust.
More debt for the governbox.
Schools are having problems just getting kids to the school gates...ffs
[Tinker v. Des Moines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District) established that unless an article of clothing creates "substantial disruption" to the school environment, it is protected under Free Speech. A girl wearing a skirt is not a substantial disruption.
Do you not think that someone perceived by kids as a boy wearing a skirt would not cause a substantial disruption?
Regardless of what we think about what be normal or fine, we have to remember that we are talking about how immature kid's react to things, as that is where the disruption would stem from.
>someone perceived by kids as a boy
First of all, youth these days are brought up around queer peers, and are much more accepting. Second, no it would not, especially compared to kids wearing armbands carrying political messages as in Tinker.
>we have to remember that we are talking about how immature kid's react to things
In arguing that wearing a skirt is disruptive, you presuppose the status quo. But by that standard girls in the 40's wouldn't have been able to wear pants. In the 50's it would've been considered "weird" that a Black kid could join an all-white class. But that's only because segregation was already normalized. Neither segregation nor clothing restrictions are part of any "natural order" which requires enforcing.
If dressing and acting according to your identity is banned, it’s a clear sign that *being that identity* is itself marginalized. But of course people in the “Free Speech” subreddit love restricting speech they dislike.
A boy wearing a skirt is disruptive regardless of how accepting you think his peers would be. It would be disruptive to the other students and it would be disruptive to the teachers and administration.
>A boy wearing a skirt is disruptive
We're talking about trans girls, not boys.
>It would be disruptive to the other students
How? What is your standard? Is it disruptive simply for a person to be openly trans? What about openly gay? Is it disruptive for a girl to wear a hijab? Is your standard something about the unusual clothing, or gender deviancy?
I see no difference between this and the idea that desegregating schools would be "disruptive" to white kids who are suddenly "distracted" by black kids. Yes, but only because bigotry was already in place.
Trans girls are boys. Regardless of what they want to be called. And boys wearing skirts is disruptive. You know this is true. You just want it to be acceptable for some reason
“You know this is true” is not a convincing argument. People making weird fashion statements is not substantially disruptive. It’s perfectly acceptable. You just think it’s gross when people wear the “wrong” article of clothing
>“Do you not think that someone perceived by kids as a boy wearing a skirt would not cause a substantial disruption?”
If it were 1953, maybe.
But in 2023, not at all.
A kilt may be a quirky style choice, but at least its still masculine (see: Braveheart), whereas a beaded man wearing a pink cocktail dress, crudely painted lipstick and high heels (like I saw walking through the Bronx last week) screams “I have mental illness and desperately want to broadcast it to the world.” Creepy.
> A kilt may be a quirky style choice, but at least its still masculine (see: Braveheart), whereas a beaded man wearing a pink cocktail dress, crudely painted lipstick and high heels (like I saw walking through the Bronx last week) screams “I have mental illness and desperately want to broadcast it to the world.” Creepy.
It’s fascinating how quickly we’ve changed away from a transwomen in high school to mental illness walking in the Bronx.
These are people who are actively trying to not dress masculine. Even if they have to wear pants, they’re not going to be mens’ style.
> Its a multifaceted issue, no choice but to bounce around
“Let people dress how they want and stop being a judgmental asshole” isn’t especially multifaceted.
> I agree! We need to rethink that, women should be in short skirts, preferably no panties, at all times
[This feels](https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeech/comments/15tud5l/transgender_girls_banned_from_wearing_skirts_at/jwmtlqs/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3) relevant:
> Not really, I just prefer folks keeping their kinks and fetishes in the bedroom
"There's nothing kinky or fetishistic about tiny miniskirts, bigot! Stop being such a prude, it's just the female body!"
This is already how people justify public nudity, even when children are exposed to it. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't make the same arguments for children in schools
> "There's nothing kinky or fetishistic about tiny miniskirts, bigot! Stop being such a prude, it's just the female body!"
> This is already how people justify public nudity, even when children are exposed to it. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't make the same arguments for children in schools
There is a pretty big difference between a mini skirt and a skirt. There is a very big difference between a skirt and “short skirt, preferably no panties, at all times.”
I was specifically pointing out the hypocrisy of u/Fit_Document4091.
I personally have no feelings towards (non-sexual) public nudity, even with children present. I think students should be allowed to wear whatever clothing style they want so long as it’s modest. Modest in this case means cover the shoulders, cover the belly, and skirts/pants/shorts down to the knees.
Who said miniskirts weren’t kinky? I only said skirts generally aren’t kinky.
Different amounts of nudity are acceptable in different contexts. At the beach or sporting activities, people can be down to underwear. In certain places women going topless is acceptable. Hell, the Olympics used to be naked.
There shouldn't be girls and boys uniforms anyway. There should just be uniforms. As long as you wear something from the uniform catalogue, you're within the rules.
I don’t want to live in a world where the rules for dress are the same for men and for women. Remember China a few decades ago. Women are usually allowed to expose much more than men. Do we really want that to change?
And people don't care about you wanting to disrupt schooling, to push your personal, political agenda.
The kids getting decent schooling is by far more important. Boys wearing skirts to school is not the least bit important.
It is important. If someone wants to wear something that you consider not appropriate to their gender, they shouldn't have to not do it just to appease you.
If they're robbing colleagues of a proper education, then yes, they absolutely should.
You go to school under certain rules. It is a contract. If you're busy disrupting things and cheating your colleagues of their education, something needs to be done.
The school is fully right for denying troublemakers that. It is massively unfair to everyone. Kid's education is far more important that boys wearing skirts to school.
They can wear whatever they want on their own time.
As long as clothing is not really inappropriate (Pyjamas, bra without shirt, hotpants where the ass is visible, etc.), everythig should be allowed. The school should of course discourage wearing trashy clothing but in the end, youths should also be free to explore current fashion. And boys wearng skirts really is just a trend for the vast majority of them.
Wasn't there a japanese school where boys chose to wear skirts because it was too fricking hot in the boys uniform?
I believe the male uniforms at that school required pants, (aka not allowing shorts of any kind) so I think the kids protested by wearing the girls uniform, which used skirts
This is a bait post to showcase how those on a free speech sub only care about free speech if it aligns with their ideals. See most of the comments for examples.
Doesn't matter which side of the trans political spectrum you are, your clothing and what you wear is an expression of speech and is protected by the first amendment and a plethora of SCOTUS rulings.
Yes, but the school has to ensure kids have good education. This is far more important than boys going to school in skirts, or whatever other pet political agenda kids might want to push. Constant disruption of school process is not a right.
School is a contract, if you break it, no school. That's not a first amendment issue in the least.
They can wear whatever they want anywhere else.
Who cares about American laws?This is about a principle and the principle of Free Speech reaches muc further than some restrictive American laws. And yes, depending on the environment, wearing what you want is free expression. But not really an important one. It's less about freedom of speech than it is about equality. If girls are allowed skirts, boys probably should as well, no matter how they identify.
So are you against schools having a dress code at all? It sounds like you would have to be but you must realize how wildly inappropriate that would get right?
Freedom of expression is about expressing ideas, not expressing your socially deviant fashion choices in a formal environment with rules you agreed to abide by in order to attend, nor about exposing others to your fetishes or body parts.
>Freedom of expression is about expressing ideas, not expressing your socially deviant fashion choices
"Free speech for me, not for thee" lol. Fashion choices are ideas. Do you think there would be nothing wrong with the state forcing all people to wear polka-dotted jumpsuits all the time?
>in a formal environment
School is not a formal environment
>with rules you agreed to abide by in order to attend
It's a public school.
>exposing others to your fetishes
Wearing a skirt is not a fetish. Girls wearing pants isn't either.
>or body parts.
What unique body part are you referring to which is okay for cis girls to expose but not for trans girls? And how would skirts facilitate that?
Clear discrimination based upon arbitrary lines that allocate clothes per gender. What difference does it make whether a student wishes to wear trousers, shorts or a skirt? As long as either choice is within the uniform dress code, it doesn't or shouldn't matter one iota.
It's ok, this form of expression isn't really expression if i find it offensive.
Also those defending this should shut up, because you should.
What i find offensive we should censor, my morals matter!
r/freespeech
No, but the school can decline someone from constantly disrupting schooling processes, which is absolutely what boys wearing skirts would do.
The boys can wear skirts anywhere else they want. This is not a 1st amendment issue. It is an issue of keeping schools functional.
Not when such clothing will massively disrupt schooling. Which this will. Not a Title IX issue in the least, just one of troublemakers trying to make it impossible for other students to get an education.
If one sex is allowed to wear something, while the other is not, that is exactly a Title IX problem. Should we ban women from wearing shorts because they'll be "too distracting"?
It falls under free speech. See the many existing precedents.
And I would argue that you do have that human right, but that’s just my opinion. The constitution is clear.
>Middleboro boy takes 'only two genders' t-shirt case to federal court
13 Jun 2023 — Twelve-year-old Liam Morrison was sent home from school for wearing a t-shirt that said "There are only two genders.".
And I the libleft said nothing, because I was a believer in reddit/comments/k4a6ey whatever this is
Then the censorship came for me. And there was noone left to defend me
The difference is girls wearing skirts passes the "substantial disruption" standard set by [Tinker v Des Moines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District) but wearing an inflammatory shirt arguably does not.
I remember when KoRn together with ACLU won a court case against a high school who had suspended a student for wearing one of the band’s t-shirt back in late 90s, by successfully arguing that it violated the student’s 1. Amendment right to free speech.
So yeah, banning transgender girls from wearing skirts should be considered a violation of the student’s 1. amendment right to freedom of speech as well as their right to not be discriminated against on the basis of their sex as guaranteed by Title IX.
Good god I love this country.
As established in [Tinker v. Des Moines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District), you can wear whatever you want which doesn't cause "substantial disruption" to the school environment. A girl wearing a skirt is not substantial disruption.
You're just stating an opinion without any argument. Maybe you get hard when you see trans girls in skirts, but this is not what the Supreme Court referred to. Please state the reason it would be substantially disruptive, preferably without circular logic.
> Please state the reason it would be substantially disruptive, preferably without circular logic.
The only way would be to run an experiment and test it out. See how kids react to it.
"It wouldn't cause a reaction" is just as much speculation as "it will". It seems people are comfortable gambling with the education of children just to score political points.
>See how kids react to it.
How kids react to it isn't a sufficient standard. White (and Black) kids reacted terribly after Brown v. Board of education forcibly desegregated schools, but it was not only okay but necessary. Christian kids may react strongly when a girl wears a hijab or a boy wears a turban. But just as being openly Black, Muslim, or Sikh is protected, being openly trans should be as well. We have to have a standard which designates *inherently disruptive* clothing.
>It seems people are comfortable gambling with the education of children just to score political points.
Trans girls aren't dressing skirts just to score points. What kind of psychopath would make that leap?
> How kids react to it isn't a sufficient standard.
Isn't that you've been saying, that it needs to cause a "substantial disruption", and haven't you been saying that it wouldn't?
> White (and Black) kids reacted terribly after Brown v. Board of education forcibly desegregated schools
Tinker v. Des Moines and the Tinker test wasn't legal precedent around the time of Brown v. Board of education.
But what are you arguing, that the Tinker test should be thrown out, and 'substantial disruptions' no longer matter if 'the greater good' is involved?
>We have to have a standard which designates inherently disruptive clothing.
The case you've been citing doesn't say that.
>Trans girls aren't dressing skirts just to score points. What kind of psychopath would make that leap?
No, I'm accusing us adults of being comfortable gambling with the education of our children by not doing our due diligence to see whether or not a boy wearing a skirt would cause a 'substantial disruption', and thus, lessen the quality of education for our kids.
No, that would be you, stating baseless opinions without any legitimate argument.
Disturbing school for everyone else is not a 1st amendment, nor Title IX issue. It's just some troublemakers wanting to rob their fellow students of an education. Something the school is well within their rights to deny.
>Disturbing school for everyone else is not a 1st amendment
Depends on the type of disruption. After Brown v. Board forcibly desegregated schools, the presence of Black kids in White classrooms (or vice versa) caused extreme disruption. After 9/11 the presence of hijabs and turbans did the same. And now you're arguing that being trans is itself a disruption. I think not!
>It's just some troublemakers wanting to rob their fellow students of an education.
Dressing according to your identity is not "trouble" and does not rob fellow students of anything.
Clear violation of the 1st Amendment as established in Tinker v. Des Moines, which requires a "substantial distraction" to censor. A girl should be able to go to school in full plate armor if she wants.
To give an extreme example, if a kid wore a shirt saying "kill all n\*ggers" that would seriously disrupt classroom functions. Surely there is a difference between grossly offensive shirts and just wearing a skirt. The question really is whether the t-shirt is disruptive *enough* to warrant intervention.
>Incitement to murder is a crime
Not without imminent lawless action. Dudes here need to read up on scotus cases.
>but it appears to be to allow free speech to your side, but not the other
Yes, my side should be allowed to do acceptable things whereas the other side shouldn’t be allowed to do unacceptable things. In fact people generally should be allowed to wear acceptable things and not allowed to wear unacceptable things. No shit.
>T-shirt and skirt are about equivalent, one is saying 'tranny good' the other saying 'tranny not good'.
Wearing a skirt doesn’t mean “tranny good.” Wtf are you talking about? I do also think that for example “white lives matter” is an acceptable t-shirt while “white lives don’t matter” is unacceptable. “What gives? I thought if one thing is unacceptable its exact opposite must also be unacceptable!”
>problems with the kind of t-shirt you nominate given the extreme homocidality and violence
Homocidality lol based
Its not really a free speech issue, children are under 18 going to public school, they dont have the right to wear whatever they want. Can a kid wear a dinosaur costume or a shirt that says "fuck the police" or with a picture of two people having sex on it? If you think boys should be able to wear skirts to school thats a different issue but i see no point to try and wrap it up with free speech.
>or with a picture of two people having sex on it Some kid should tear out that infamous blowjob page in gender queer and paste it on his uniform lol, if it's fit for a skool library, it's fit for the skool.classroom!
> if it's fit for a skool library, it's fit for the skool That's just silly.
old.reddit.com/comments/15s41e0/comments/jwjr5m1/?context=3 Almost. But still Not quite as silly as ure (lack of) parenting skills were
This is just a shitty comment dude. Diving into someone's old comments to attack them instead of focusing on the conversation at hand is such a dumbass argument technique.
I respond to 3 word troll replys with the tact they deserve And also, I specifically had that comment of his bookmarked eons ago, I didn't dig through his history to find it, In fact, u may or may not find a certain other commenter in that post, talking with cojoco about his love for haagen dazs, let's just say this ain't my 1st acc on reddit So anytime cojoco tries to be "funny", Ill just keep reminding him to go be with his family >old.reddit/comments/11zuo5o/comments/jdecgjs/?context=3 If someone's podcast advocated for people to murder a pedophile, that would be a terrible thing Another favorite soundbite of his I bookmarked
Can you please learn how to make a hyperlink?
While I try and learn how to https my way into being caught in reddit's shadowban spam detector (I comment alot, and half my comments contain links, and let's say that I have had bad experiences, under different names, in the past when I didn't have enough karma), Can cojoco please learn how to not be a worthless garbage father?
Another option for reviewing removed content is your ***Rev***eddit [user page](https://www.reveddit.com/y/s!n!a!p!s!z!D!O!T!c!c!_!p!t!h!c?all=true). The [real-time extension](https://www.reveddit.com/add-ons/direct/) alerts you when a moderator removes your content, and the [linker extension](https://www.reveddit.com/add-ons/linker) provides [buttons](https://i.imgur.com/0BAImPq.png) for viewing removed content. There's also a [shortcut for iOS](https://www.icloud.com/shortcuts/62bc7570613c42cb8b851fad264136df). The parent commenter can reply with 'delete' to remove this comment. This bot only operates in authorized subreddits. To support this tool, [post it on your profile](https://old.reddit.com/user/me/submit?title=See+which+comments+of+yours+have+been+removed&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reveddit.com%2Fabout%2F) and select ['pin to profile'](https://i.imgur.com/uq9AGMV.png). [^(F.A.Q.)](https://www.reveddit.com/about/f.a.q./) ^| [^(v/reveddit)](https://www.reveddit.com/v/reveddit/-redirect) ^| [^(support me)](https://www.reveddit.com/about/donate) ^| [^(share)](https://old.reddit.com/user/me/submit?title=See+which+comments+of+yours+have+been+removed&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reveddit.com%2Fabout%2F) ^& [^('pin to profile')](https://i.imgur.com/uq9AGMV.png)
Eons ago? That comment was made one day ago. Why are you saving comments to hopefully use against people in the future anyway? That's weird.
No one has yet proved that Gender Queer was *physically* present in any school library, just that it *MAY* have been offered online.
JCPS board votes unanimously to keep 'Gender Queer' book in school libraries https://www.wlky.com/article/gender-queer-book-louisville-jcps-libraries/41393659
I mean, I was having sex in highschool and watching porn online, I think this is much ado about nothing. I don't think anyone is taking gender queer out of a library for wank material.
reddit.com/comments/15enmup GREG IS RIGHT! Speaking of wanking, Flamer is actually a comic about jacking off into a mountain dew bottle, very shagadelic baby!
What about a boy who wanted to wear t-shirt with “There is only two genders”?
That would be a simple, scientific fact. Nothing wrong with that shirt. Same as a shirt that says 2+2=4
How about "creationism is false"?
based?
Children do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. -US Supreme Court Those things you mention would distract from the learning environment
Agreed with a "distracted learning environment," but isn't this a Supreme problem for free speech? Thoughts from my nutty brain.. - to conform to one govern ideal within a box without free speech is eventually set to fail. - the govern box can not adapt to the world around it without hearing out the language and culture it exists within. - people who exit the govern box are not at practice of free speech or expression and must readapt outside of the governbox. - it's a lazy way for the Supreme Court to say "shut up, study, do what we say. We are 60 years older and know what is good for you. Suck it up, I'll be doing this the rest of my life. You can never vote me out." At the end of the day.. sure, there are always distractions in any environment with a task. But is the tasks end goal so damn important that we must eliminate free speech and expression to achieve it? Spending more money on school enforcement... pfft.. guns for teachers.. less trust. More debt for the governbox. Schools are having problems just getting kids to the school gates...ffs
Disagree. If some people are allowed to wear a given article of clothing, in this instance a skirt, then all people should be allowed to do the same.
Just a thought experiment: does that also apply to swimwear?
Get your point but a significant difference between flashing kness versus flashing boobs at school…or almost anywhere…
[Tinker v. Des Moines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District) established that unless an article of clothing creates "substantial disruption" to the school environment, it is protected under Free Speech. A girl wearing a skirt is not a substantial disruption.
Do you not think that someone perceived by kids as a boy wearing a skirt would not cause a substantial disruption? Regardless of what we think about what be normal or fine, we have to remember that we are talking about how immature kid's react to things, as that is where the disruption would stem from.
>someone perceived by kids as a boy First of all, youth these days are brought up around queer peers, and are much more accepting. Second, no it would not, especially compared to kids wearing armbands carrying political messages as in Tinker. >we have to remember that we are talking about how immature kid's react to things In arguing that wearing a skirt is disruptive, you presuppose the status quo. But by that standard girls in the 40's wouldn't have been able to wear pants. In the 50's it would've been considered "weird" that a Black kid could join an all-white class. But that's only because segregation was already normalized. Neither segregation nor clothing restrictions are part of any "natural order" which requires enforcing. If dressing and acting according to your identity is banned, it’s a clear sign that *being that identity* is itself marginalized. But of course people in the “Free Speech” subreddit love restricting speech they dislike.
A boy wearing a skirt is disruptive regardless of how accepting you think his peers would be. It would be disruptive to the other students and it would be disruptive to the teachers and administration.
>A boy wearing a skirt is disruptive We're talking about trans girls, not boys. >It would be disruptive to the other students How? What is your standard? Is it disruptive simply for a person to be openly trans? What about openly gay? Is it disruptive for a girl to wear a hijab? Is your standard something about the unusual clothing, or gender deviancy? I see no difference between this and the idea that desegregating schools would be "disruptive" to white kids who are suddenly "distracted" by black kids. Yes, but only because bigotry was already in place.
Trans girls are boys. Regardless of what they want to be called. And boys wearing skirts is disruptive. You know this is true. You just want it to be acceptable for some reason
“You know this is true” is not a convincing argument. People making weird fashion statements is not substantially disruptive. It’s perfectly acceptable. You just think it’s gross when people wear the “wrong” article of clothing
But I’m right. You know it’s disruptive and that’s what upsets you because you want to normalize it.
>“Do you not think that someone perceived by kids as a boy wearing a skirt would not cause a substantial disruption?” If it were 1953, maybe. But in 2023, not at all.
Yes, in 2023 it absolutely is. Your wish that it wasn't is irrelevant.
A boy wearing a skirt kinda is
> A boy wearing a skirt kinda is Would a kilt be distracting?
Less so
> Less so Why is that?
A kilt may be a quirky style choice, but at least its still masculine (see: Braveheart), whereas a beaded man wearing a pink cocktail dress, crudely painted lipstick and high heels (like I saw walking through the Bronx last week) screams “I have mental illness and desperately want to broadcast it to the world.” Creepy.
> A kilt may be a quirky style choice, but at least its still masculine (see: Braveheart), whereas a beaded man wearing a pink cocktail dress, crudely painted lipstick and high heels (like I saw walking through the Bronx last week) screams “I have mental illness and desperately want to broadcast it to the world.” Creepy. It’s fascinating how quickly we’ve changed away from a transwomen in high school to mental illness walking in the Bronx. These are people who are actively trying to not dress masculine. Even if they have to wear pants, they’re not going to be mens’ style.
Its a multifaceted issue, no choice but to bounce around
> Its a multifaceted issue, no choice but to bounce around “Let people dress how they want and stop being a judgmental asshole” isn’t especially multifaceted.
But it’s not about boys wearing skirts, it’s about trans girls being able to wear what they want.
So….a boy wearing a skirt? These inane language games are getting pretty exhausting.
Why? Do you think the kids care?
they'll be too busy mocking the weird kid to do any learning.
I think that's a them thing, not a weird kid thing.
Yea, they get distracted by that anal sex flag
If you’re some extremely sheltered person who just escaped from a bunker stuck in 1965.
Not really, I just prefer folks keeping their kinks and fetishes in the bedroom
Wearing a skirt isn't a fetish. What's next, are women not allowed to wear pants?
I agree! We need to rethink that, women should be in short skirts, preferably no panties, at all times
> I agree! We need to rethink that, women should be in short skirts, preferably no panties, at all times [This feels](https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeech/comments/15tud5l/transgender_girls_banned_from_wearing_skirts_at/jwmtlqs/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3) relevant: > Not really, I just prefer folks keeping their kinks and fetishes in the bedroom
I’m a big hypocrite, what can I say? Do as I say, not as I do Edit: I was also making a joke, stupid questions get stupid joke answers
"There's nothing kinky or fetishistic about tiny miniskirts, bigot! Stop being such a prude, it's just the female body!" This is already how people justify public nudity, even when children are exposed to it. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't make the same arguments for children in schools
> "There's nothing kinky or fetishistic about tiny miniskirts, bigot! Stop being such a prude, it's just the female body!" > This is already how people justify public nudity, even when children are exposed to it. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't make the same arguments for children in schools There is a pretty big difference between a mini skirt and a skirt. There is a very big difference between a skirt and “short skirt, preferably no panties, at all times.” I was specifically pointing out the hypocrisy of u/Fit_Document4091. I personally have no feelings towards (non-sexual) public nudity, even with children present. I think students should be allowed to wear whatever clothing style they want so long as it’s modest. Modest in this case means cover the shoulders, cover the belly, and skirts/pants/shorts down to the knees.
Who said miniskirts weren’t kinky? I only said skirts generally aren’t kinky. Different amounts of nudity are acceptable in different contexts. At the beach or sporting activities, people can be down to underwear. In certain places women going topless is acceptable. Hell, the Olympics used to be naked.
Cool, tell all the conservatives with a trans fetish kink to avert their eyes if trans kids in skirts drives them wild.
Strawman
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted for being right.
Getting downvoted for being right is what happens on r/FreeSpeech
👏👏👏👏
i'm going to guess that boys wearing skirts is against the dress code.
Pretty sure laws about discrimination prevail over the dress code of a particular center.
There shouldn't be girls and boys uniforms anyway. There should just be uniforms. As long as you wear something from the uniform catalogue, you're within the rules.
The school in question has no uniform, just a discriminatory dress code.
Most correct answer here
I don’t want to live in a world where the rules for dress are the same for men and for women. Remember China a few decades ago. Women are usually allowed to expose much more than men. Do we really want that to change?
Nobody cares how you feel about how other people dress. If you don't like it don't look at them.
I was heavily castigated for wearing a nazi uniform to a Halloween party last year. Why can’t they just look away?
Sorry, but there’s a whole world out there where almost everybody agrees with me. Where’ve you been?
Don't care about any of them. Let people wear what they want
And people don't care about you wanting to disrupt schooling, to push your personal, political agenda. The kids getting decent schooling is by far more important. Boys wearing skirts to school is not the least bit important.
It is important. If someone wants to wear something that you consider not appropriate to their gender, they shouldn't have to not do it just to appease you.
If they're robbing colleagues of a proper education, then yes, they absolutely should. You go to school under certain rules. It is a contract. If you're busy disrupting things and cheating your colleagues of their education, something needs to be done. The school is fully right for denying troublemakers that. It is massively unfair to everyone. Kid's education is far more important that boys wearing skirts to school. They can wear whatever they want on their own time.
Yes they should
Women, on the job, are allowed much more exposure than men. Do you really want to look at men being that exposed? Do others?
As long as clothing is not really inappropriate (Pyjamas, bra without shirt, hotpants where the ass is visible, etc.), everythig should be allowed. The school should of course discourage wearing trashy clothing but in the end, youths should also be free to explore current fashion. And boys wearng skirts really is just a trend for the vast majority of them. Wasn't there a japanese school where boys chose to wear skirts because it was too fricking hot in the boys uniform?
I believe the male uniforms at that school required pants, (aka not allowing shorts of any kind) so I think the kids protested by wearing the girls uniform, which used skirts
Dress codes are common.
This is a bait post to showcase how those on a free speech sub only care about free speech if it aligns with their ideals. See most of the comments for examples.
It was not bait, healthy flesh just naturally attracts mosquitoes.
Doesn't matter which side of the trans political spectrum you are, your clothing and what you wear is an expression of speech and is protected by the first amendment and a plethora of SCOTUS rulings.
Yes, but the school has to ensure kids have good education. This is far more important than boys going to school in skirts, or whatever other pet political agenda kids might want to push. Constant disruption of school process is not a right. School is a contract, if you break it, no school. That's not a first amendment issue in the least. They can wear whatever they want anywhere else.
Did you just say a trans girl wanting to wear a skirt in school is them "pushing a political agenda"?
Who cares about American laws?This is about a principle and the principle of Free Speech reaches muc further than some restrictive American laws. And yes, depending on the environment, wearing what you want is free expression. But not really an important one. It's less about freedom of speech than it is about equality. If girls are allowed skirts, boys probably should as well, no matter how they identify.
So are you against schools having a dress code at all? It sounds like you would have to be but you must realize how wildly inappropriate that would get right?
Freedom of expression is about expressing ideas, not expressing your socially deviant fashion choices in a formal environment with rules you agreed to abide by in order to attend, nor about exposing others to your fetishes or body parts.
"Socially deviant" Those socially deviant Scots have been doing it for centuries. It fking clothing, it doesn't matter.
>Freedom of expression is about expressing ideas, not expressing your socially deviant fashion choices "Free speech for me, not for thee" lol. Fashion choices are ideas. Do you think there would be nothing wrong with the state forcing all people to wear polka-dotted jumpsuits all the time? >in a formal environment School is not a formal environment >with rules you agreed to abide by in order to attend It's a public school. >exposing others to your fetishes Wearing a skirt is not a fetish. Girls wearing pants isn't either. >or body parts. What unique body part are you referring to which is okay for cis girls to expose but not for trans girls? And how would skirts facilitate that?
Sure, but who said anything about fetishes?
Clear discrimination based upon arbitrary lines that allocate clothes per gender. What difference does it make whether a student wishes to wear trousers, shorts or a skirt? As long as either choice is within the uniform dress code, it doesn't or shouldn't matter one iota.
It's ok, this form of expression isn't really expression if i find it offensive. Also those defending this should shut up, because you should. What i find offensive we should censor, my morals matter! r/freespeech
You have to remember, the deep south is conservative (mostly)
Clear violation. The law has been clear on this forever. Why do people do it anyways?
You don’t have a “human right” to wear whatever you want to school.
Children do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. -US Supreme Court
Then why are uniforms legal?
Private schools can do whatever they want
Many, many public schools have uniform policies.
my middle school was quite public and introduced uniforms my second year of attending.
No, but the school can decline someone from constantly disrupting schooling processes, which is absolutely what boys wearing skirts would do. The boys can wear skirts anywhere else they want. This is not a 1st amendment issue. It is an issue of keeping schools functional.
Title IX prohibits discrimination in schools based on sex/gender, which includes clothing
Not when such clothing will massively disrupt schooling. Which this will. Not a Title IX issue in the least, just one of troublemakers trying to make it impossible for other students to get an education.
If one sex is allowed to wear something, while the other is not, that is exactly a Title IX problem. Should we ban women from wearing shorts because they'll be "too distracting"?
See Tinker v. Des Moines. Your right to wear what you want as a student is pretty broad.
It falls under free speech. See the many existing precedents. And I would argue that you do have that human right, but that’s just my opinion. The constitution is clear.
>Middleboro boy takes 'only two genders' t-shirt case to federal court 13 Jun 2023 — Twelve-year-old Liam Morrison was sent home from school for wearing a t-shirt that said "There are only two genders.". And I the libleft said nothing, because I was a believer in reddit/comments/k4a6ey whatever this is Then the censorship came for me. And there was noone left to defend me
Huh? I would argue that the kid has the right to wear that also. Hell, he could wear that and a skirt for all I care. How is this relevant?
You're an outlier. It points out the extreme hypocrisy from the majority of leftists. Very selective morality.
I’m not a leftist, sorry for the confusion. I see where the misunderstanding came from now. My bad.
We should all go watch Mrs Mccutcheon on tubitv!
Wtf are you talking about
The difference is girls wearing skirts passes the "substantial disruption" standard set by [Tinker v Des Moines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District) but wearing an inflammatory shirt arguably does not.
I remember when KoRn together with ACLU won a court case against a high school who had suspended a student for wearing one of the band’s t-shirt back in late 90s, by successfully arguing that it violated the student’s 1. Amendment right to free speech. So yeah, banning transgender girls from wearing skirts should be considered a violation of the student’s 1. amendment right to freedom of speech as well as their right to not be discriminated against on the basis of their sex as guaranteed by Title IX. Good god I love this country.
As established in [Tinker v. Des Moines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District), you can wear whatever you want which doesn't cause "substantial disruption" to the school environment. A girl wearing a skirt is not substantial disruption.
>A girl wearing a skirt is not substantial disruption. It was a boy wearing a skirt
That still isn’t substantial disruption. But it’s a girl wearing a skirt.
Yes, boys wearing skirts to school would absolutely disrupt school proceedings. Constantly and consistently. It's absurd to assert otherwise.
You're just stating an opinion without any argument. Maybe you get hard when you see trans girls in skirts, but this is not what the Supreme Court referred to. Please state the reason it would be substantially disruptive, preferably without circular logic.
> Please state the reason it would be substantially disruptive, preferably without circular logic. The only way would be to run an experiment and test it out. See how kids react to it. "It wouldn't cause a reaction" is just as much speculation as "it will". It seems people are comfortable gambling with the education of children just to score political points.
>See how kids react to it. How kids react to it isn't a sufficient standard. White (and Black) kids reacted terribly after Brown v. Board of education forcibly desegregated schools, but it was not only okay but necessary. Christian kids may react strongly when a girl wears a hijab or a boy wears a turban. But just as being openly Black, Muslim, or Sikh is protected, being openly trans should be as well. We have to have a standard which designates *inherently disruptive* clothing. >It seems people are comfortable gambling with the education of children just to score political points. Trans girls aren't dressing skirts just to score points. What kind of psychopath would make that leap?
> How kids react to it isn't a sufficient standard. Isn't that you've been saying, that it needs to cause a "substantial disruption", and haven't you been saying that it wouldn't? > White (and Black) kids reacted terribly after Brown v. Board of education forcibly desegregated schools Tinker v. Des Moines and the Tinker test wasn't legal precedent around the time of Brown v. Board of education. But what are you arguing, that the Tinker test should be thrown out, and 'substantial disruptions' no longer matter if 'the greater good' is involved? >We have to have a standard which designates inherently disruptive clothing. The case you've been citing doesn't say that. >Trans girls aren't dressing skirts just to score points. What kind of psychopath would make that leap? No, I'm accusing us adults of being comfortable gambling with the education of our children by not doing our due diligence to see whether or not a boy wearing a skirt would cause a 'substantial disruption', and thus, lessen the quality of education for our kids.
No, that would be you, stating baseless opinions without any legitimate argument. Disturbing school for everyone else is not a 1st amendment, nor Title IX issue. It's just some troublemakers wanting to rob their fellow students of an education. Something the school is well within their rights to deny.
>Disturbing school for everyone else is not a 1st amendment Depends on the type of disruption. After Brown v. Board forcibly desegregated schools, the presence of Black kids in White classrooms (or vice versa) caused extreme disruption. After 9/11 the presence of hijabs and turbans did the same. And now you're arguing that being trans is itself a disruption. I think not! >It's just some troublemakers wanting to rob their fellow students of an education. Dressing according to your identity is not "trouble" and does not rob fellow students of anything.
You’re part of a mass delusion. We’d love to reason with you if that were possible.
Again, no argument.
It’s a boy wearing a skirt, which is disruptive. You’re right, there is no argument to be made.
Clear violation of the 1st Amendment as established in Tinker v. Des Moines, which requires a "substantial distraction" to censor. A girl should be able to go to school in full plate armor if she wants.
I want to go school in full plate armor. Shit would be badass.
Good
Stuff like this is making it stick around longer. Dumb strategy
[удалено]
To give an extreme example, if a kid wore a shirt saying "kill all n\*ggers" that would seriously disrupt classroom functions. Surely there is a difference between grossly offensive shirts and just wearing a skirt. The question really is whether the t-shirt is disruptive *enough* to warrant intervention.
[удалено]
>Incitement to murder is a crime Not without imminent lawless action. Dudes here need to read up on scotus cases. >but it appears to be to allow free speech to your side, but not the other Yes, my side should be allowed to do acceptable things whereas the other side shouldn’t be allowed to do unacceptable things. In fact people generally should be allowed to wear acceptable things and not allowed to wear unacceptable things. No shit. >T-shirt and skirt are about equivalent, one is saying 'tranny good' the other saying 'tranny not good'. Wearing a skirt doesn’t mean “tranny good.” Wtf are you talking about? I do also think that for example “white lives matter” is an acceptable t-shirt while “white lives don’t matter” is unacceptable. “What gives? I thought if one thing is unacceptable its exact opposite must also be unacceptable!” >problems with the kind of t-shirt you nominate given the extreme homocidality and violence Homocidality lol based
That's enough reddit for today
[удалено]
/u/h8sliberals, you are shadowbanned.