Anonymous wrote:It should be bigger news that the female principal who allowed the transgender student to wear what she wanted for four years, was not allowed to attend her school’s graduation and is not allowed to speak about any of this. The local newspaper reported that the whole thing was triggered when the Superintendent attended an event for honor graduates at one of the other two county high schools and one of the honor students was a transgender girl wearing a dress. That’s when he called all the principals demanding that that would not be allowed at graduation ceremonies.

Anonymous wrote:Someone please explain to me what is "Christian" about going out of your way to ruin one of the best days of a kid's life over something as trivial as what they're wearing under their graduation gown?

Have these people even read the New Testament?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe how quickly we turned into a society where people support a boy wearing a dress to an event. This country is screwed.

…no one ever tell this dude about Scottish weddings. He’ll be triggered for days.

That's not a dress. Have you ever met a Scotsman?

Married one. In his kilt. Amazing how supportive people were.

Seriously you need to find something else to be outraged about. This is ridiculous because plenty of cultures have men wearing skirts or skirted garments.

I got married in a kilt and have several that I wear regularly. There are many other cultures that have their own variations of "dresses" for men as well. And, if you look at photos from the turn of the century it's not unusual to see young boys in dresses.



That picture is FDR as a boy. It was not unusual for boys to not get their first haircut until 6 or 7 years old, and to wear what would be called a dress. Back then, there was also no such thing as "pink is for girls, blue is for boys."

I think we’re all good with people being gender nonconforming (except Reddit, lol). In fact, many of us ‘transphobes’ think that the emphasis on superficial aspects of being a woman are incredibly reductive and wrong.

You're mistaken. Trans kids and non-binary kids are not only in tune with their gender (and sex) but they are also expanding the definition of men and women, too. These kids know more about men and women than we do. They also know more about pants and dresses and who can wear them and who can't.

I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. They are narrowing the definition of gender. “To be a woman” simply means outwardly conforming to stereotypical female behavior. It’s asinine to believe that people’s bodies are the problem, not society’s gender expectations.

I think you are missing a large chunk of info...society defines men and women by their clothing. When trans people first transition, the only way they can express/be seen as the gender they feel is by clothing. It's a way of "passing."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe how quickly we turned into a society where people support a boy wearing a dress to an event. This country is screwed.

…no one ever tell this dude about Scottish weddings. He’ll be triggered for days.

That's not a dress. Have you ever met a Scotsman?

Married one. In his kilt. Amazing how supportive people were.

Seriously you need to find something else to be outraged about. This is ridiculous because plenty of cultures have men wearing skirts or skirted garments.

I got married in a kilt and have several that I wear regularly. There are many other cultures that have their own variations of "dresses" for men as well. And, if you look at photos from the turn of the century it's not unusual to see young boys in dresses.



That picture is FDR as a boy. It was not unusual for boys to not get their first haircut until 6 or 7 years old, and to wear what would be called a dress. Back then, there was also no such thing as "pink is for girls, blue is for boys."

I think we’re all good with people being gender nonconforming (except Reddit, lol). In fact, many of us ‘transphobes’ think that the emphasis on superficial aspects of being a woman are incredibly reductive and wrong.

You're mistaken. Trans kids and non-binary kids are not only in tune with their gender (and sex) but they are also expanding the definition of men and women, too. These kids know more about men and women than we do. They also know more about pants and dresses and who can wear them and who can't.

I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. They are narrowing the definition of gender. “To be a woman” simply means outwardly conforming to stereotypical female behavior. It’s asinine to believe that people’s bodies are the problem, not society’s gender expectations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe how quickly we turned into a society where people support a boy wearing a dress to an event. This country is screwed.

Right, how dare anyone think that just because she [/b]dressed as a girl [/b]all through high school and to the prom and the principal and staff and students never had a problem with it, she would be allowed to wear a nice dress that no one would see under her graduation gown without the superintendent inventing a new rule.

LOL. So, on the one hand, clothes supposedly have no gender, but when a boy puts on a dress, he’s “dressing as a girl.” Do you even have the capacity for critical thinking? You sound like a clown contradicting yourself all over the place.

Clothes are what you think they are. This particular girl liked dresses. My girl likes pants. Jesus never wore anything but a robe. Vive la difference.

You slipped though. You used the phrase “dressing as a girl” to refer to wearing dresses, which means you equate dresses to female gender. Ooops! Keep your story straight next time.

That was me, a different poster than the one you responded to. I said the student “dressed as a girl” because the student identifies as a girl and your hero superintendent commanded that she must dress as a boy. In other words, maybe over your head, I’m talking about a specific case in which a trans girl wants to wear a dress and should be allowed to. The other poster is referencing that other girls may want to wear pants and they also should be allowed to do so. There is no contradiction. I’m not the one forcing every girl to dress the same and every boy to dress the same. That’s your guy, the bully superintendent. I think we are both saying that students should be able to wear what they want to wear under their graduation gowns.

Wearing pants is dressing like a boy? It’s 2023! Stop that!

Anonymous wrote:Pp again. Also, you think that children should not only make life-altering (even blockers) decisions based on what they think a man and a woman are, but that they somehow have a more advanced understanding than anyone lose? Surely that sounds ridiculous, even to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe how quickly we turned into a society where people support a boy wearing a dress to an event. This country is screwed.

…no one ever tell this dude about Scottish weddings. He’ll be triggered for days.

That's not a dress. Have you ever met a Scotsman?

Married one. In his kilt. Amazing how supportive people were.

Seriously you need to find something else to be outraged about. This is ridiculous because plenty of cultures have men wearing skirts or skirted garments.

I got married in a kilt and have several that I wear regularly. There are many other cultures that have their own variations of "dresses" for men as well. And, if you look at photos from the turn of the century it's not unusual to see young boys in dresses.



That picture is FDR as a boy. It was not unusual for boys to not get their first haircut until 6 or 7 years old, and to wear what would be called a dress. Back then, there was also no such thing as "pink is for girls, blue is for boys."

I think we’re all good with people being gender nonconforming (except Reddit, lol). In fact, many of us ‘transphobes’ think that the emphasis on superficial aspects of being a woman are incredibly reductive and wrong.

You're mistaken. Trans kids and non-binary kids are not only in tune with their gender (and sex) but they are also expanding the definition of men and women, too. These kids know more about men and women than we do. They also know more about pants and dresses and who can wear them and who can't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe how quickly we turned into a society where people support a boy wearing a dress to an event. This country is screwed.

…no one ever tell this dude about Scottish weddings. He’ll be triggered for days.

That's not a dress. Have you ever met a Scotsman?

Married one. In his kilt. Amazing how supportive people were.

Seriously you need to find something else to be outraged about. This is ridiculous because plenty of cultures have men wearing skirts or skirted garments.

I got married in a kilt and have several that I wear regularly. There are many other cultures that have their own variations of "dresses" for men as well. And, if you look at photos from the turn of the century it's not unusual to see young boys in dresses.



That picture is FDR as a boy. It was not unusual for boys to not get their first haircut until 6 or 7 years old, and to wear what would be called a dress. Back then, there was also no such thing as "pink is for girls, blue is for boys."

I think we’re all good with people being gender nonconforming (except Reddit, lol). In fact, many of us ‘transphobes’ think that the emphasis on superficial aspects of being a woman are incredibly reductive and wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe how quickly we turned into a society where people support a boy wearing a dress to an event. This country is screwed.

Right, how dare anyone think that just because she [/b]dressed as a girl [/b]all through high school and to the prom and the principal and staff and students never had a problem with it, she would be allowed to wear a nice dress that no one would see under her graduation gown without the superintendent inventing a new rule.

LOL. So, on the one hand, clothes supposedly have no gender, but when a boy puts on a dress, he’s “dressing as a girl.” Do you even have the capacity for critical thinking? You sound like a clown contradicting yourself all over the place.

Clothes are what you think they are. This particular girl liked dresses. My girl likes pants. Jesus never wore anything but a robe. Vive la difference.

You slipped though. You used the phrase “dressing as a girl” to refer to wearing dresses, which means you equate dresses to female gender. Ooops! Keep your story straight next time.

That was me, a different poster than the one you responded to. I said the student “dressed as a girl” because the student identifies as a girl and your hero superintendent commanded that she must dress as a boy. In other words, maybe over your head, I’m talking about a specific case in which a trans girl wants to wear a dress and should be allowed to. The other poster is referencing that other girls may want to wear pants and they also should be allowed to do so. There is no contradiction. I’m not the one forcing every girl to dress the same and every boy to dress the same. That’s your guy, the bully superintendent. I think we are both saying that students should be able to wear what they want to wear under their graduation gowns.