NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is the link.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20060524/4473da40_3421_13345200605242101733701

But, since it probably won't be up for much longer, here is the text

Ind. Male, in a Dress, Barred From Prom
From Associated Press
May 24, 2006 2:30 PM EDT
GARY, Ind. - A male student who has worn women's clothes to school all year was turned away from his high school prom because he was wearing a dress.

Kevin Logan, 18, went to the West Side High School prom on Friday in a slinky fuchsia gown and heels. He believes officials discriminated against him by not allowing him inside.

"I have no formal pictures, no memories, nothing. You only have one prom," he said.

Logan, who is gay, received an $85 refund for his prom ticket Tuesday but was not satisfied. He said he is considering filing a complaint with the Indiana Civil Liberties Union.

Sylvester Rowan, assistant to Gary Schools Superintendent Mary Steele, said school policy bans males from wearing dresses. Excluding Logan from prom was based on "the dress code, not the student's homosexuality. That's his personal preference."

Tyrone Hanley, the youth program coordinator for the Gender Public Advocacy Coalition in Washington, D.C., said he often sees cases like this and called it gender-based discrimination.

"Prohibiting really short skirts for everyone is a fair dress code; prohibiting them for males is not," he said.

Logan said he had spent years defining and exploring his sexuality. This year, he took a major step by dressing as a female every day, wearing makeup, a hair weave, nails and girls' fitted jeans to school.

His mother, Donnetta Logan, said she was not surprised by what she called the ignorance of school administrators.

"I tell Kevin that in society there will be those who accept him and those who won't."

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

I think that as long as his attire adheres to dress code for dresses and skirts he should be allowed to wear it. The schools decision is discriminatory.

As long as he shaved his legs.

Hmm, was it a tasteful dress?

It was "slinky" and "fuchsia". I think fuchsia alone rules out tasteful.

You have to admit that it takes balls to do it.

(have fun with that).

Urgh. How sad. Ignorance knows no bounds. Not that this is a particularly spectabulour thing to find ignorance in abundance regarding, however.

"Take away my kilt?"
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Highlander2.gif
"Come and try!"

Of course they should have banned him!





I mean, who wears a fuschia dress? Fuschia is so lasy year, darling...

on the one hand, it's prom, quit whining, in my school (which was a while ago) you didn't buy prom tickets, you bought prom bids, meaning that if you weren't able (for any reason, even a school imposed reason) to go that they would give you your $ back.

on the other hand, if they had been letting him dress like that all year, but singled him out on prom.......that's not cool.

I have to give him props for dressing like a girl all year in a place like Indiana. Hell, I'd give him props for doing that in New York.

That's bullshit. Banning him from prom just because he was wearing a fucking dress.

I don't think it's about the cash somehow, but about the pig-headedness and the lack of the ocassion that.. kinda, sums up your entire school time, eh? It's not fair that someone should be denied that because of idiot prejudice.

That's bullshit. Banning him from prom just because he was wearing a fucking dress.
But it was fuschia! Fuschia!

But it was fuschia! Fuschia!

*pushes you off a cliff* :P

I don't think it's about the cash somehow, but about the pig-headedness and the lack of the ocassion that.. kinda, sums up your entire school time, eh? It's not fair that someone should be denied that because of idiot prejudice.
it's a dance. it's not the be all and end all of highschool, he didn't get to go, big deal.

it's a dance. it's not the be all and end all of highschool, he didn't get to go, big deal.

Whilst I can see your point - I obviously disagree.

Why should that be tolerated - as it seems you espouse? Not to put words in your mouth, but it IS a big deal to that person, and there is no good reason why it should have happened. So surely it should be ensured that that doesn't happen again?

*pushes you off a cliff* :P
If it was a red dress, that would be another story.

it's a dance. it's not the be all and end all of highschool, he didn't get to go, big deal.

I would hardly call prom "just a dance" - at least not for most people. It is a major event - something students look forward to all year - something many start planning for years before they can even go.

It's kind of like calling a wedding reception, "just a party", so someone shouldn't whine if they don't get to go/have one.

I would hardly call prom "just a dance" - at least not for most people. It is a major event - something students look forward to all year - something many start planning for years before they can even go.

It's kind of like calling a wedding reception, "just a party", so someone shouldn't whine if they don't get to go/have one.

I suppose it's different for different folks. I figure it's just a dance, though I do feel for him if he bought that hideous dress for it and didn't even get to blind anyone.

it's a dance. it's not the be all and end all of highschool, he didn't get to go, big deal.

agreed

it's a dance. it's not the be all and end all of highschool, he didn't get to go, big deal.

It is a big deal, he spend a lot of time preparing and looking forward to his prom, and he was turned away at the door because of discrimination.

Using your logic, would it be fair to make black men and women drink from "colored" water fountains...after all, its only a water fountain, something a lot less important in ones life than their prom.

I suppose it's different for different folks. I figure it's just a dance, though I do feel for him if he bought that hideous dress for it and didn't even get to blind anyone.LOL! Hahaha. Fuchshia is an aweful color.

there could be dress codes requiring men to wear a tux or suit or whatever and females to wear a dress or whatever. is he the only homosexual in the school? if not how many other homosexuals did they allow in? if they let other known homosexuals into prom then he doesnt really have much of an arguement. should someone that showed up to prom in ripped jeans and wife beater be allowed in?

LOL! Hahaha. Fuchshia is an aweful color.


For reference:

http://www.w3schools.com/tags/ref_color_tryit.asp?color=Fuchsia

Here is the link.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20060524/4473da40_3421_13345200605242101733701

But, since it probably won't be up for much longer, here is the text



I think that as long as his attire adheres to dress code for dresses and skirts he should be allowed to wear it. The schools decision is discriminatory.
I agree as long as it adheres to the standards for dresses it should be allowed

LOL. This might explain why Valpo kills West Side in every sport.

I would hardly call prom "just a dance" - at least not for most people. It is a major event - something students look forward to all year - something many start planning for years before they can even go.

It's kind of like calling a wedding reception, "just a party", so someone shouldn't whine if they don't get to go/have one.
in the grand scheme of things a wedding reception is "just a party". Seriously, I already said that if they were letting him dress like a girl all year and he shows up to prom only to be turned away, then I think it's a bunch of crap, but if the dress code at the school (whether we agree with it or not) is that boys don't wear dresses, or even if the dress code at prom is guys in tux, and they turned him away, tough luck.

It is a big deal, he spend a lot of time preparing and looking forward to his prom, and he was turned away at the door because of discrimination.
or... he was out of dress code.... we don't know which. I don't buy into the whole "he prepared a lot for it" thing. If I showed up to my driver test drunk, and they didn't let me take it, do I get to whine? "oh, but I really wanted to drive, I was waiting for 16 years!!!"

okay bad example.

Using your logic, would it be fair to make black men and women drink from "colored" water fountains...after all, its only a water fountain, something a lot less important in ones life than their prom.
prom is more important than water?

oh, and I don't have any logic, I am saying it's a piss poor excuse for a hissy fit. If he can prove discrimination, then yeah, please do something, but I figure he can prove that he was against the dress code and threw a big whiney fit.

This thread is worthless without pics, and thus opportunity to police fashion.

It was a conspiracy to prevent him from being voted Prom Queen.

of course he should be banned if he wasnt wearing a formal gown , ubt they shouldnt of banned him only given him a pipe and good quailty shag so the chap can see the errors of his ways and not shown up all of the other chaps by wearing a good quailty tailored Dinner Suit

Sounds to me that he's not gat, he's transgendered, in a way. But that's just how I see it....

Anyhow...it's pretty poor to allow him to wear that sort of thing all year and then to ban him from the prom because he's wearing a dress but isn't a girl.

It is a big deal, he spend a lot of time preparing and looking forward to his prom, and he was turned away at the door because of discrimination.

Using your logic, would it be fair to make black men and women drink from "colored" water fountains...after all, its only a water fountain, something a lot less important in ones life than their prom.
How utterly, utterly specious.

How utterly, utterly specious.

https://www.paganshopping.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/tea-kettle-witches-tea-time.jpg.w180h192.jpg

https://www.paganshopping.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/tea-kettle-witches-tea-time.jpg.w180h192.jpg
LMAO! FASS, you reality-challenged dweeb! How the frak are ya??? :D

Ill bet his date asked 'em to bar the painted hussy from the dance when he saw the fuschia dress. Poor devil was probably mortified.

I made this one just for you Fass, I figure youll get some use out of it ;)
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/4555/potkettle8oe.png (http://imageshack.us)

Has anybody considered that perhaps the school dresscode, like the one at my school, has a line that says something along the lines of 'No Crossdressing'?

Has anybody considered that perhaps the school dresscode, like the one at my school, has a line that says something along the lines of 'No Crossdressing'?
The normal code said it was OK, so the student assumed the prom would be OK too. They ought to warn people if they're going to be inconsistent.

I don't get why they wouldn't have a problem with it untill prom...

nor do I get why they would have a problem with it in the first place.


I think the only thing we can safely assume is that the boy has NO fashion taste. Everyone knows that apricot was this seasons color.

The normal code said it was OK, so the student assumed the prom would be OK too. They ought to warn people if they're going to be inconsistent.
they probably did, before prom they have the big meeting where they tell you not to drive drunk and you know wear formal wear, and how they will send you home if you show up in something slutty or you know jeans or whatever.... on ours they said and I quote "boys in tuxes, girls in dresses" and I think a girl did get sent home for wearing a tux.

My friend wore a skirt to his semi-formal... he won the best dress. ;)

It's not a big deal, it is just a dance.

Which is PRECISELY why he should get to wear a dress if he wants. What's the big fucking deal? People need to get over it, seriously.

It's not a big deal, it is just a dance.

Which is PRECISELY why he should get to wear a dress if he wants. What's the big fucking deal? People need to get over it, seriously.
Exactly. WTF difference does it make if he wants to make a total idiot out of himself? :)

I think the answer is to wear a tux buddy.

I think the answer is to wear a tux buddy.

Why should he wear a tux? He decided to wear a formal dress instead.

The only problem is see with this all, was that the school was inconsistent. They should have banned him from wearing a dress ALL year long, not just to the prom. I mean seriously, they HAVE morality codes.


This is way many schools have dress codes and uniforms. It makes things a hell of alot easier.

Why should he wear a tux? He decided to wear a formal dress instead.

Because girls wear formal dresses. Guys wear a formal tux.

The only problem is see with this all, was that the school was inconsistent. They should have banned him from wearing a dress ALL year long, not just to the prom. I mean seriously, they HAVE morality codes.



Why? And what's morality got to do with this?

Because girls wear formal dresses. Guys wear a formal tux.

Which is heterogenderist nonsense.

This is way many schools have dress codes and uniforms. It makes things a hell of alot easier.
actually, uniforms tend to have less to do with how the student dresses and more to do with why they dress that way. I could go further, but not without hijacking...so I'll stop.

Why? And what's morality got to do with this?

Apparently the clothes we wear have something to do with morals. And men who wear dresses can't be moral.

Apparently the clothes we wear have something to do with morals. And men who wear dresses can't be moral.

oh dear. I'm going to hell, aren't I?

Which is heterogenderist nonsense.

That it is....BUT America is a heterogenderist society.

So ACT LIKE IT!

*looking at you, Indiana*

actually, dress codes tend to have less to do with how the student dresses and more to do with why they dress that way. I could go further, but not without hijacking...so I'll stop.

No it doesnt. Dress codes are things like...how short squirts can be...no neo nazi symybols...no dresses for guys. But, I also said uniforms, though you completly left that part out.

oh dear. I'm going to hell, aren't I?

You sure are, but I hear the handbaskets one uses to get there are genuine Lacroix. The only transport in which to anticipate eternal sweet, sweet sodomy, IMHO.

Why? And what's morality got to do with this?

A guy wearing a dress!? Is that normal?

It was "slinky" and "fuchsia". I think fuchsia alone rules out tasteful.
The prom should've banned fuchsia.

You sure are, but I hear the handbaskets one uses to get there are genuine Lacroix. The only transport in which to anticipate eternal sweet, sweet sodomy, IMHO.

...Intersting perspective...

That it is....BUT America is a heterogenderist society.

And as such it needs reform.

So ACT LIKE IT!

Or, you know, don't. And fight the oppressive and antiquated, puritan norm. I find that a better choice than complacency.

A guy wearing a dress!? Is that normal?

What's normal?
And why should I give a hoot who conforms and who doesn't? Doesn't affect me.

And why does normal = moral? I didn't ask what was normal, I asked what was wrong with it and why it was anything to do with morals.

A guy wearing a dress!? Is that normal?

What does "normal" have to do with "moral?" And why should anyone want to be "normal?" And why should we punish people for not being it?

A guy wearing a dress!? Is that normal?
Seems perfectly fine and dandy to me. Your normal evidently isn't my normal.

And as such it needs reform.

Well, Fass, get on it. Get a move on, because you have one HUGE society with a whole lot of people to reform.

Or, you know, don't. And fight the oppressive and antiquated, puritan norm. I find that a better choice than complacency.

But, in reality, being the red state that it is, Indiana will comply with American tradition and put a stop to this, strangeness.

No it doesnt. Dress codes are things like...how short squirts can be...no neo nazi symybols...no dresses for guys. But, I also said uniforms, though you completly left that part out.
oops...that was my mistake... I meant to say uniforms, not dress codes... sorry about that.:(

What does "normal" have to do with "moral?" And why should anyone want to be "normal?" And why should we punish people for not being it?

People should be normal because normal is what is accepted in our soceity and what is in line with our traditions. We shouldnt "punish" people...we should just not let them wear dresses and stuff in the first place. If someone wants to wear a dress in their house, I dont give a shit, but if someone wants to wear one to school, or to the prom, then I do give a shit.

What's normal?
And why should I give a hoot who conforms and who doesn't? Doesn't affect me.

See above.

Well, Fass, get on it. Get a move on, because you have one HUGE society with a whole lot of people to reform.

I don't. I live in a better society. Boys like this one will make yours better, too. He just needs better taste in couture, and some time. He is, after all, from the US, and fashion doesn't come easily to those people.

But, in reality, being the red state that it is, Indiana will comply with American tradition and put a stop to this, strangeness.

It will be ineffective. The people who find this "strange" will go away, eventually, and be replaced by people who don't. Ah, the wonderful liberal virtue that is patience.

Seems perfectly fine and dandy to me. Your normal evidently isn't my normal.

How is wearing a guy wearing a dress normal when I'm sure 99% percent of the country would think its abnormal.

Well, Fass, get on it. Get a move on, because you have one HUGE society with a whole lot of people to reform.



But, in reality, being the red state that it is, Indiana will comply with American tradition and put a stop to this, strangeness.
the color of a state hardly accuratly represents the population and their dedication to "tradition" or "change".

How is wearing a guy wearing a dress normal when I'm sure 99% percent of the country would think its abnormal.
Good for "99% of the country" and other such statistics pulled out of the sky.

People should be normal because normal is what is accepted in our soceity and what is in line with our traditions. We shouldnt "punish" people...we should just not let them wear dresses and stuff in the first place. If someone wants to wear a dress in their house, I dont give a shit, but if someone wants to wear one to school, or to the prom, then I do give a shit.



See above.


Then I call your view small and narrow, and am thankful you do not make the laws in my country - and hope you never will.

How dare you drive a car when MOST don't. How DARE you vote when most can't. Lots of what you do as a fat westerner is something the minority can't. Drinking clean water? AGAIN?! How could you. Freak.

People should be normal because normal is what is accepted in our soceity and what is in line with our traditions.

That doesn't say anything. "People should be 'normal' because I say they should."

We shouldnt "punish" people...we should just not let them wear dresses and stuff in the first place.

What business is it of yours what he wears?

If someone wants to wear a dress in their house, I dont give a shit, but if someone wants to wear one to school, or to the prom, then I do give a shit.

Ah, it just bugs you that other people have minds of their own, doesn't it? Gotya. You just can't stand freedom.

oops...that was my mistake... I meant to say uniforms, not dress codes... sorry about that.:(

no prob.

Then I call your view small and narrow, and am thankful you do not make the laws in my country - and hope you never will.

How dare you drive a car when MOST don't. How DARE you vote when most can't. Lots of what you do as a fat westerner is something the minority can't. Drinking clean water? AGAIN?! How could you. Freak.

LOL, I'm a westerner, but by no means am I fat.

People should be normal because normal is what is accepted in our soceity and what is in line with our traditions. We shouldnt "punish" people...we should just not let them wear dresses and stuff in the first place. If someone wants to wear a dress in their house, I dont give a shit, but if someone wants to wear one to school, or to the prom, then I do give a shit.

What do you wear to school? Jeans, I assume?
Wouldn't it be weird if jeans were unacceptable, and you could be expelled for wearing them to school? Oh, wait, that was the 1950's.

Times change. "Traditions" change. What today is seen as "tradition" was, at some point, radical.

LOL, I'm a westerner, but by no means am I fat.

Compared to someone in Ethiopia? Really?

Fat is relative. Everything is relative. Besides, my point was intentionally exagerated for absurd effect.

Ehh...sorry I have to finish my lawn:( If people are still debating this when I get back, Ill join back in. Sorry.

Compared to someone in Ethiopia? Really?

Fat is relative. Everything is relative. Besides, my point was intentionally exagerated for absurd effect.

Yes, I realize that.

Because girls wear formal dresses. Guys wear a formal tux.

You must be mistaken, this guy obviously wears a dress.

Yes, I realize that.
Just in case. :p

LOL, I'm a westerner, but by no means am I fat.

Of course not. You're just big-boned, honey.

Of course not. You're just big-boned, honey.
I prefer "husky" myself.

You must be mistaken, this guy obviously wears a dress.
I want your babies.

I prefer "husky" myself.

Too furry, and I am not talking about pelts...

A guy wearing a dress!? Is that normal?

Not any less normal then pants. Would it be okay if he showed up in a Continental Army uniform, or British, or Napoleonic? That's not normal either, possibly even distracting.

Too furry, and I am not talking about pelts...
I have nothing to say but....


touche, my good man.

although, I am a bit furry. And do tend to drool everywhere, and hump peoples legs. Now if only I could lick my own crotch.


...what?

Not any less normal then pants. Would it be okay if he showed up in a Continental Army uniform, or British, or Napoleonic? That's not normal either, possibly even distracting.

http://www.miteuro.org/miespuku.jpg

What about traditional Sami outfits? I guess we "shouldn't let" them wear those, because who cares about their traditions? Only "our" traditions count...

although, I am a bit furry.

*licks*

Unfortunately, Atlantian both says and embodies why this is unfortunately the inevitable response of the American. With unquestioning devotion to his society, he knows that what is right is to be unquestioningly devoted to his society, which is in turn its own support.

With that, he knows that what society thinks is right is what is right. And what society thinks is right is what people in society think is right. So, what he thinks is right, which is also what society thinks is right, must be what is right. And he doesn't need to question this, because unquestioning devotion is right too.

Anyone who does not conform to the norm is wrong, because the norm is right. See above argument. This statement is right. See above argument.

There is no escape from this loop of distorted logic. When people like Mr Islands here become dominant in a society, as they have done in many aspects of the States, it will only get exponentially worse.

To a society full of people like that, what is right is whatever they say is right, and whatever they do not agree with is unchangably wrong, as per the above. You will not change that because you do not see that they are always right.

It's a lost cause. I reckon just shut them out from the rest of the world and let them wallow in their own happy little self-righteous lives.

I want your babies.

Well, I might donate some swimmers before I get my boys tied off, you're welcome to have some. :D

Normal sucks. There is no ethical basis for conformism.

Normal sucks. There is no ethical basis for conformism.
Except conformism.

What about traditional Sami outfits? I guess we "shouldn't let" them wear those, because who cares about their traditions? Only "our" traditions count...

Not to mention my neon green modrobes pants. :D

Ok.... first of all... Not letting the guy into his own prom just cause he's wearing a dress is dumb.

Secondly, its the freaking prom, the prom is the end-of-the-year party for pretty much everyone. I don't know why the authorities had to be so anal about it, you're gunna be dancing, you're gunna get all sweaty and have a great time, why the hell does it even matter what goddamn clothes you got on??

And sure, most people would find a dude in a dress to be abnormal, but to him it _is_ normal, and no matter what way you look at it, it'll always be normal for him to wear a dress as a man, there aint nothing you can do about that.

Its the end of the academic year, end of high school for everyone, just let the guy go and spend some time having fun with his peers... is that like too much to ask? Would the prom have gone chaotic and ruined if a dude stepped in wearing a fuschia dress? abso-fucking-lutely not, and why the hell would it?

Kudos to this brave fuschia-dress-wearing man!

Good on the school. I don't see why somebody should be able to make a mockery of the occasion by deliberately looking like a freak.

Good on the school. I don't see why somebody should be able to make a mockery of the occasion by deliberately looking like a freak.

Every party needs a pooper.

I guess you're the type who never gets invited anywhere, lighten up, a man in a dress isn't hurting a thing except ignorant people's sense of security.

Good on the school. I don't see why somebody should be able to make a mockery of the occasion by deliberately looking like a freak.
ouch. Even I don't agree with the rule, but I think he was probably justly kicked out.

I think that as long as his attire adheres to dress code for dresses and skirts he should be allowed to wear it. The schools decision is discriminatory.
Yes, it is rather discriminatory. Dress codes should be gender-nonspecific. Why deny someone their Prom experience, after all. Personally, I avoided mine - but...

Ok.... first of all... Not letting the guy into his own prom just cause he's wearing a dress is dumb.

Secondly, its the freaking prom, the prom is the end-of-the-year party for pretty much everyone. I don't know why the authorities had to be so anal about it, you're gunna be dancing, you're gunna get all sweaty and have a great time, why the hell does it even matter what goddamn clothes you got on??

And sure, most people would find a dude in a dress to be abnormal, but to him it _is_ normal, and no matter what way you look at it, it'll always be normal for him to wear a dress as a man, there aint nothing you can do about that.

Its the end of the academic year, end of high school for everyone, just let the guy go and spend some time having fun with his peers... is that like too much to ask? Would the prom have gone chaotic and ruined if a dude stepped in wearing a fuschia dress? abso-fucking-lutely not, and why the hell would it?

Kudos to this brave fuschia-dress-wearing man!

You must not read the news. It is fast-becoming an American pasttime for schools to get anal about proms, even to the point of canceling them altogether.

Ouch. Even I don't agree with the rule, but I think he was probably justly kicked out.

You don't agree with the rule, but you still think he should be kicked out of the prom for breaking it? What set of principles do you have?

He should be alloweed to express his sexuality however he likes as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. If that means dressing up as a woman and absorbing the jeers and taunts of the homophobes, then freedom of speech gives him the right to express himself, and it also gives the students who take offense at it the right to express that offense. It does not deny him the right to attend the prom.

By the way, no school dress code I've read (I attended three different US high schools, two in Ohio and one in Tennessee) makes a reference to cross-dressing.

Why should he wear a tux? He decided to wear a formal dress instead.

Crossdressing is against school policies.

Anyman who wears a formal DRESS...... :headbang:

You don't agree with the rule, but you still think he should be kicked out of the prom for breaking it? What set of principles do you have?
can't speak for them, but for me, it's that thing I have about you know not breaking the rules. If you don't like a law, or a rule for that matter, the way to get it changed is not to go around breaking it. It's irresponsible, it's going to get you in trouble, and it's pretty hit and miss. There are ways to get laws repealed and rules changed without acting like a child and saying "oh, I don't like that rule so now it doesn't apply to me, and if you try to enforce it I'm gonna sue"



He should be alloweed to express his sexuality however he likes as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. If that means dressing up as a woman and absorbing the jeers and taunts of the homophobes, then freedom of speech gives him the right to express himself, and it also gives the students who take offense at it the right to express that offense. It does not deny him the right to attend the prom.
freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to break the rules of an establishment. It only applies to the government and how they treat you. It doesn't even necessarily apply to a public school, for example in my day to day life I might wear a shirt that was against my highschool's dress code. If the government tried to make a law banning anyone from wearing those shirts ever, I might have a case, in fact I bet I would. However, if the highschool said "you can't wear those here", I don't have a case, it's the school rules. School dress codes (afaik) have never been held in general as unconstitutional, if however this one is, then the kids got a case. (and I said that to begin with), but breaking the rule to "prove them wrong" only accomplishes 2 things, 1 he shows his immaturity, and 2 he misses prom.

He missed prom because of his choice to break the rules. I don't want to hear him whining about it now.

By the way, no school dress code I've read (I attended three different US high schools, two in Ohio and one in Tennessee) makes a reference to cross-dressing.
it doesn't matter what ones you have read, if his did then he broke the rule. If it didn't and he got turned away, then by all means call a lawyer. If his did and he finds that the rule is unfair, then he needs to go through the proper channels to try to remedy that. Protesting should never be a first route to changing the world, it should be a last resort.

Here is the link.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20060524/4473da40_3421_13345200605242101733701

But, since it probably won't be up for much longer, here is the text



I think that as long as his attire adheres to dress code for dresses and skirts he should be allowed to wear it. The schools decision is discriminatory.
*GASP* But we must teach our children to adhere to the arbitrary gender roles that have been imposed on us!! If we don't force them to follow the black-and-white dichotomy of male versus female, then the next thing you know there will be men who know how to change diapers and women who know how to earn money! Men will have intelligent, non-beer-related conversations! Women will wear comfortable shoes! Dogs and cats, living together!!!! Society will crumble!!!

Crossdressing is against school policies.

Anyman who wears a formal DRESS...... :headbang:

How do you know it's against that school's policies. My school's dress code never once mentioned crossdressing in it, and rightly so.

Besides, the only thing he's hurting is ignorant people's sense of security.

Here is the link.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20060524/4473da40_3421_13345200605242101733701

But, since it probably won't be up for much longer, here is the text



I think that as long as his attire adheres to dress code for dresses and skirts he should be allowed to wear it. The schools decision is discriminatory.


Want to be non-Conformist?
Please feel free to do so - somewhere else,
and have a nice day - somewhere else.

can't speak for them, but for me, it's that thing I have about you know not breaking the rules. If you don't like a law, or a rule for that matter, the way to get it changed is not to go around breaking it.

I think some people would tend to disagree with you. Like, say, Thomas Jefferson. Or Rosa Parks. Or the United States of America circa 1968.


It's irresponsible, it's going to get you in trouble, and it's pretty hit and miss. There are ways to get laws repealed and rules changed without acting like a child and saying "oh, I don't like that rule so now it doesn't apply to me, and if you try to enforce it I'm gonna sue"

Actually, in American law, the filing of civil suits is one of the mechanisms specifically designed to allow individuals to "get rules changed."


freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to break the rules of an establishment.

It does, however, allow you to express disent with the establishment.


It only applies to the government and how they treat you.

Freedom of speech applies to other individuals and organizations, as well. For instance, the KKK is not the government, but they also are prohibited from blocking my freedom of speech.


It doesn't even necessarily apply to a public school, for example in my day to day life I might wear a shirt that was against my highschool's dress code. If the government tried to make a law banning anyone from wearing those shirts ever, I might have a case, in fact I bet I would. However, if the highschool said "you can't wear those here", I don't have a case, it's the school rules.

The ACLU would tend to disagree with you, as would a great many American citizens. Many of us believe that school dress codes are a unreasonable violation of civil rights.


School dress codes (afaik) have never been held in general as unconstitutional, if however this one is, then the kids got a case. (and I said that to begin with), but breaking the rule to "prove them wrong" only accomplishes 2 things, 1 he shows his immaturity, and 2 he misses prom.

So wait, you're saying that if this rule is unConsistutional then the kid has a case, but he really shouldn't have actually tried to exercise his Constitutional rights?


He missed prom because of his choice to break the rules. I don't want to hear him whining about it now.

He missed the prom because a bunch of ninnies are terrified of human sexuality. They're the whiners, and they ruined a kid's prom with their selfish tantrum. These "adults" should be ashamed of themselves.

Protesting should never be a first route to changing the world, it should be a last resort.
That is quite possibly the most unAmerican thing I have ever read on these forums.

Want to be non-Conformist?
Please feel free to do so - somewhere else,
and have a nice day - somewhere else.
Yeah, people who don't conform should be forced to go away where we don't have to see them. Like Jews who won't worship Jesus, and black people who don't act white enough, and women who won't get in the kitchen and bake me a pie.

Yeah, people who don't conform should be forced to go away where we don't have to see them. Like Jews who won't worship Jesus, and black people who don't act white enough, and women who won't get in the kitchen and bake me a pie.
But people who don't conform to your 'in your face' idea of individualism should just screw themselves and put up with it, hey?

Yeah, people who don't conform should be forced to go away where we don't have to see them. Like Jews who won't worship Jesus, and black people who don't act white enough, and women who won't get in the kitchen and bake me a pie.

You know the difference.
If you can't figure it out,
then your philosophy obviously taught you nothing.

Meanwhile: conform, or take a hike.
The lad can fit in or begone.

You know the difference.
If you can't figure it out,
then your philosophy obviously taught you nothing.

Um, my "philosophy" doesn't teach me things. My personal philosophy is based on what I have learned, not the other way around. If you start with your own assumptions and then try to force the world to conform to them, then there's a word for your thought process: delusional.


Meanwhile: conform, or take a hike.
Make me. :)

Um, my "philosophy" doesn't teach me things. My personal philosophy is based on what I have learned, not the other way around. If you start with your own assumptions and then try to force the world to conform to them, then there's a word for your thought process: delusional.


Make me. :)

There is a Code - and it exists to be obeyed.
If you don't - you forfeit the right to bitch when the Code is forced upon you.

There is a Code - and it exists to be obeyed.
If you don't - you forfeit the right to bitch when the Code is forced upon you.
Ahhhhh, forgive me, I did not understand that you were trolling.

My bad. Carry on. :)

Thongs?

Ahhhhh, forgive me, I did not understand that you were trolling.

My bad. Carry on. :)

*Fills in an application for Bottle to be pressed into the 54th of Foot.*

You seem to think that one may behave based on personal opinion.
And I think that all behaviour is governed by the imperative to obey Authority.

If your viewpoint is right, mine must be correct by necessity.

I think some people would tend to disagree with you. Like, say, Thomas Jefferson. Or Rosa Parks. Or the United States of America circa 1968.
when all other ways have not worked, I have no problem with protest. I won't go into the whole Rosa Parks thing, because it's beyond the scope of this thred, but I do wonder why it keeps coming up...interesting really.


Actually, in American law, the filing of civil suits is one of the mechanisms specifically designed to allow individuals to "get rules changed."
sure. I retract that.


It does, however, allow you to express disent with the establishment.
disent is fine. Breaking the rules, then whining about the consequences, it annoys me.


Freedom of speech applies to other individuals and organizations, as well. For instance, the KKK is not the government, but they also are prohibited from blocking my freedom of speech.
how so? how would the KKK block your freedom of speech?


The ACLU would tend to disagree with you, as would a great many American citizens. Many of us believe that school dress codes are a unreasonable violation of civil rights.
The ACLU often has opinions that disagree with mine. I can see how some dress code rules can violate civil rights, and those should be challenged, however dress codes in general I believe do not.


So wait, you're saying that if this rule is unConsistutional then the kid has a case, but he really shouldn't have actually tried to exercise his Constitutional rights?
because you have a constitutional right to break the rules without fear of consequences?????
He has a constitutional right to protest, however he has to deal with the consequences of his actions.

He missed the prom because a bunch of ninnies are terrified of human sexuality. They're the whiners, and they ruined a kid's prom with their selfish tantrum. These "adults" should be ashamed of themselves.
based on the assumption that it was against dress code, he missed his prom because he chose to wear something that was against dress code. If he had showed up gay in a tux I doubt they would have turned him away.




That is quite possibly the most unAmerican thing I have ever read on these forums.
hmm... so operating within the system, and taking responsibility for your own actions, is unAmerican?

wow.

when all other ways have not worked, I have no problem with protest. I won't go into the whole Rosa Parks thing, because it's beyond the scope of this thred, but I do wonder why it keeps coming up...interesting really.

It comes up because individual protest has been a critical vehicle for some of the most important historical changes in our society. That fact cannot be emphasized enough.


disent is fine. Breaking the rules, then whining about the consequences, it annoys me.

It is not "whining" to say, "This rule is unjust, and it is wrong for me to be punished in this situation." It is dishonest to try to brush aside disent by painting all those who argue as "whining."


how so? how would the KKK block your freedom of speech?

Um, they've kind of got this rep for terroristic activities. Maybe you've heard of them? Many of their activities are specifically targetted to silence those who disagree with them, and to suppress the freedom of speech of minorities and non-Aryans. These actions are illegal. It is not legal to attempt to silence somebody through intimidation or violence. The KKK is permitted freedom of speech, but they do not have the authority to deprive anybody else of it.

Or let's try a less emotionally-charged example. The government is not allowed to discriminate based on race, right? We have laws about that. Well, guess what? Individual businesses (like, say, a restaurant) are also not allowed to discriminate based on race. The restaurant isn't the government, but it's also not allowed to discriminate based on race.


The ACLU often has opinions that disagree with mine. I can see how some dress code rules can violate civil rights, and those should be challenged, however dress codes in general I believe do not.

Then that's a matter of opinion, and that's just fine.


because you have a constitutional right to break the rules without fear of consequences?????

Nobody is arguing that. What is being argued is that if a rule is unjust, the person who is punished for breaking it is being punished unjustly.

People who challenge rules of this sort are usually quite aware there will be consequences. They simply feel the consequences are unjust, and are going to challenge those consequences.


He has a constitutional right to protest, however he has to deal with the consequences of his actions.

And he is. He is dealing with them by objecting to the inappropriate reaction to his dress. Objecting and continuing to stand up for your rights is a totally responsible way to deal with the consequences of your actions.


based on the assumption that it was against dress code, he missed his prom because he chose to wear something that was against dress code. If he had showed up gay in a tux I doubt they would have turned him away.

If the school had a dress code requiring Nazi uniforms for all male students, and he had tried to show up in a regular tux, I think there would be some different responses on this thread.


hmm... so operating within the system, and taking responsibility for your own actions, is unAmerican?

wow.
What a pitiful attempt at a straw man. You said, "Protesting should never be a first route to changing the world, it should be a last resort." The idea that protest should be used only as a "last resort" flies in the face of the principles on which this country was founded. Protest is not just the right of an American citizen, it is a responsibility.

Nobody is arguing that. What is being argued is that if a rule is unjust, the person who is punished for breaking it is being punished unjustly.



until the rule is changed they are justly punished for breaking the rule, as it is a valid rule and they broke it.

that's all I am saying.

1. So wait, you're saying that if this rule is unConsistutional then the kid has a case, but he really shouldn't have actually tried to exercise his Constitutional rights?

2. He missed the prom because a bunch of ninnies are terrified of human sexuality. They're the whiners, and they ruined a kid's prom with their selfish tantrum. These "adults" should be ashamed of themselves.

3. That is quite possibly the most unAmerican thing I have ever read on these forums.
1. Um ... I've read the Constitution several times, and nowhere does it say anything whatsoever about your "right" to break an apparently well-publicized rule in a public school just to make a point.

2. Actually, I rather suspect that he was all but overjoyed that he was turned away. Now he gets all this attention and also gets to sic the ACLU on his school. I don't see anything in what the school did that would indicate they are "terrified of human sexuality."

3. On come ON, Bottle! You and I have disagreed at times, but I've always respected your ability to reason logically. Calling someone "unAmerican" simply because they agree with a school's policy of not allowing people who choose to dress in strange ways to attend the prom is HARDLY fair.

This is just another example of the fat cat fashion industry and textilecrats needlessly dividing society with their artificially manufactured morality.

All school dances should be held in the nude.

For all you dresscode folks, I dont think wearing a dress is against the code. If it was females wouldnt be able to.

In addition, a female wore a tux, and was allowed in.

Guys dressing up in women's clothing is just seedy.

For all you dresscode folks, I dont think wearing a dress is against the code. If it was females wouldnt be able to.

In addition, a female wore a tux, and was allowed in.

if that's true, then he really does have a case.

For all you dresscode folks, I dont think wearing a dress is against the code. If it was females wouldnt be able to.

In addition, a female wore a tux, and was allowed in.


Got a link to that information? It makes all the difference.

if that's true, then he really does have a case.

Logan said he had spent years defining and exploring his sexuality. This year, he took a major step toward self-identity by dressing as a female every day this school year.

“Last year I could not be myself. Now, I wear makeup, weave, nails, girls’ fitted jeans — what the (heck)!” Kevin proclaimed laughing, relishing his liberty from gender codes.

“I had a problem with her (Principal Rouse) the first day of school because I had a purse. A week before prom she told me female clothing would not be allowed,” Logan said.

Rouse directed questions to central administration. She refused to sit down for a talk with Donnetta and Kevin Logan, but told a counselor to make sure a receipt was given for the refund.

“I’m not surprised by this ignorance,” Donnetta Logan said. “I tell Kevin that in society there will be those who accept him and those who won’t.”

She and Kevin both believe Rouse might have been discriminating against his sexual orientation and cross-dressing.

“I’m gay. I’m a drag queen,” Kevin said matter-of-factly.

…West Side students reported that a girl was allowed to attend the prom in a tuxedo. … West Side student Deonte Cotton, 18, was one of several peers angry over the principal banning Logan.

“His wearing a dress wasn’t hurting anybody, so nothing should have been said,” Cotton said. “I feel it was discrimination.”

Kevin said he feels schools should be more respectful of student rights: “People are coming out more. They are not staying in the closet like they used to. They want to be themselves.”


EDIT: The link to the story in which I read this: http://www.post-trib.com/cgi-bin/pto-story/news/z1/05-24-06_z1_news_01.html,
however, it was taken down.

1. Um ... I've read the Constitution several times, and nowhere does it say anything whatsoever about your "right" to break an apparently well-publicized rule in a public school just to make a point.

The Constitution also doesn't say I've got the right to wear a funny hat in the bathtub. What's your point?


2. Actually, I rather suspect that he was all but overjoyed that he was turned away. Now he gets all this attention and also gets to sic the ACLU on his school. I don't see anything in what the school did that would indicate they are "terrified of human sexuality."

Sure, he probably wanted to get attention. Does that change the fact that the rule was bunk? Nope. The only reason they flipped out was "CROSS-dressing." The idea that there is "male clothing" and "female clothing" is a personal hangup, and these people were prepared to toss a fit over their hangup instead of just letting the kid go to the Prom.

I mean, come ON. A teenage male wants to do some benign yet slightly outrageous thing in order to get a little attention. Who the hell is stupid enough to think that the appropriate response is to have a tantrum about his clothing? These people should obviously not be in any way in charge of teenagers, because they clearly haven't got the slightest idea what they are doing.


3. On come ON, Bottle! You and I have disagreed at times, but I've always respected your ability to reason logically. Calling someone "unAmerican" simply because they agree with a school's policy of not allowing people who choose to dress in strange ways to attend the prom is HARDLY fair.
I did not say he was unAmerican. I said that the sentiment he expressed was unAmerican. Even the most patriotic individuals will sometimes say or do things that are profoundly unAmerican. The notion the protest should be a last resort does not in any way agree with the letter or the spirit of American law, nor does it recognize the proudest moments in American history.

EDIT: The link to the story in which I read this: http://www.post-trib.com/cgi-bin/pto-story/news/z1/05-24-06_z1_news_01.html,
however, it was taken down.


Hmmm, again if true the school was wrong.

Logan said he had spent years defining and exploring his sexuality. This year, he took a major step toward self-identity by dressing as a female every day this school year.

“Last year I could not be myself. Now, I wear makeup, weave, nails, girls’ fitted jeans — what the (heck)!” Kevin proclaimed laughing, relishing his liberty from gender codes.

“I had a problem with her (Principal Rouse) the first day of school because I had a purse. A week before prom she told me female clothing would not be allowed,” Logan said.

Rouse directed questions to central administration. She refused to sit down for a talk with Donnetta and Kevin Logan, but told a counselor to make sure a receipt was given for the refund.

“I’m not surprised by this ignorance,” Donnetta Logan said. “I tell Kevin that in society there will be those who accept him and those who won’t.”

She and Kevin both believe Rouse might have been discriminating against his sexual orientation and cross-dressing.

“I’m gay. I’m a drag queen,” Kevin said matter-of-factly.

…West Side students reported that a girl was allowed to attend the prom in a tuxedo. … West Side student Deonte Cotton, 18, was one of several peers angry over the principal banning Logan.

“His wearing a dress wasn’t hurting anybody, so nothing should have been said,” Cotton said. “I feel it was discrimination.”

Kevin said he feels schools should be more respectful of student rights: “People are coming out more. They are not staying in the closet like they used to. They want to be themselves.”


EDIT: The link to the story in which I read this: http://www.post-trib.com/cgi-bin/pto-story/news/z1/05-24-06_z1_news_01.html,
however, it was taken down.


okay, now armed with more information

a) he knew it was against the rules
b) of course he should sue

oh, wait, that's what I have been saying.

The Constitution also doesn't say I've got the right to wear a funny hat in the bathtub. What's your point?


Sure, he probably wanted to get attention. Does that change the fact that the rule was bunk? Nope. The only reason they flipped out was "CROSS-dressing." The idea that there is "male clothing" and "female clothing" is a personal hangup, and these people were prepared to toss a fit over their hangup instead of just letting the kid go to the Prom.

I mean, come ON. A teenage male wants to do some benign yet slightly outrageous thing in order to get a little attention. Who the hell is stupid enough to think that the appropriate response is to have a tantrum about his clothing? These people should obviously not be in any way in charge of teenagers, because they clearly haven't got the slightest idea what they are doing.


I did not say he was unAmerican. I said that the sentiment he expressed was unAmerican. Even the most patriotic individuals will sometimes say or do things that are profoundly unAmerican. The notion the protest should be a last resort does not in any way agree with the letter or the spirit of American law, nor does it recognize the proudest moments in American history.
SIGH! Ok, whatever. I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue this with you just now. Gotta go look at Subaru Outbacks for my ex. Groan. Wish me luck. Adios, amiga. Hasta luego.

They should had let him enter the prom party, so his mates could beat the crap out of him for being dressed like that.

They should had let him enter the prom party, so his mates could beat the crap out of him for being dressed like that.


:D :D :D

Here is the link.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20060524/4473da40_3421_13345200605242101733701

But, since it probably won't be up for much longer, here is the text

Ind. Male, in a Dress, Barred From Prom
From Associated Press
May 24, 2006 2:30 PM EDT
GARY, Ind. - A male student who has worn women's clothes to school all year was turned away from his high school prom because he was wearing a dress.

Kevin Logan, 18, went to the West Side High School prom on Friday in a slinky fuchsia gown and heels. He believes officials discriminated against him by not allowing him inside.

"I have no formal pictures, no memories, nothing. You only have one prom," he said.

Logan, who is gay, received an $85 refund for his prom ticket Tuesday but was not satisfied. He said he is considering filing a complaint with the Indiana Civil Liberties Union.

Sylvester Rowan, assistant to Gary Schools Superintendent Mary Steele, said school policy bans males from wearing dresses. Excluding Logan from prom was based on "the dress code, not the student's homosexuality. That's his personal preference."

Tyrone Hanley, the youth program coordinator for the Gender Public Advocacy Coalition in Washington, D.C., said he often sees cases like this and called it gender-based discrimination.

"Prohibiting really short skirts for everyone is a fair dress code; prohibiting them for males is not," he said.

Logan said he had spent years defining and exploring his sexuality. This year, he took a major step by dressing as a female every day, wearing makeup, a hair weave, nails and girls' fitted jeans to school.

His mother, Donnetta Logan, said she was not surprised by what she called the ignorance of school administrators.

"I tell Kevin that in society there will be those who accept him and those who won't."

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

I think that as long as his attire adheres to dress code for dresses and skirts he should be allowed to wear it. The schools decision is discriminatory.

Oh look the original poster broke a rule too.

SIGH! Ok, whatever. I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue this with you just now. Gotta go look at Subaru Outbacks for my ex. Groan. Wish me luck. Adios, amiga. Hasta luego.


Good luck. Next exes you should split up with more thoroughly so you neednt go look at outbacks with them. Just my opinion.

it's a dance. it's not the be all and end all of highschool, he didn't get to go, big deal.

A prom is a big deal.

As a girl who didn't egt to go to hers, i'll always regret it... but then, I quit highschool and got my GED that evening, so i might have a few things to regret.

it's a dance. it's not the be all and end all of highschool, he didn't get to go, big deal.
That isn't the point. He wanted to go, and they forbade it for no legitimate reason, assuming the dress adhered to the dress code policies pertaining to dresses. If they ban things like that that you may not care about, the ubiquitous they may be inclined to impose further restrictions, next time on things you do care about.

Oh look the original poster broke a rule too.
Ostracize the OP! LOL:p

That isn't the point. He wanted to go, and they forbade it for no legitimate reason, assuming the dress adhered to the dress code policies pertaining to dresses. If they ban things like that that you may not care about, the ubiquitous they may be inclined to impose further restrictions, next time on things you do care about.

What can that high school possibly ban that I care about?

What does the ubiquitous they have to do with that high school?

A prom is a big deal.

As a girl who didn't egt to go to hers, i'll always regret it... but then, I quit highschool and got my GED that evening, so i might have a few things to regret.
I'm not a girl, but I didn't go to mine either. I didn't want to at the time, but now that I won't see a lot of those people anymore, I am regretting it a bit.

http://www.miteuro.org/miespuku.jpg

What about traditional Sami outfits? I guess we "shouldn't let" them wear those, because who cares about their traditions? Only "our" traditions count...

That's so cool...

and a little sexy...

:p

That's so cool...

and a little sexy...

:p
Seconded.

What can that high school possibly ban that I care about?

What does the ubiquitous they have to do with that high school?
If anyone can transgress liberties, however small, others will do the same. It starts small, but eventually very powerful people will test just how much they can get away with. That is what is becoming of the United States. Has been for decades, over a century, really.

I'm not a girl, but I didn't go to mine either. I didn't want to at the time, but now that I won't see a lot of those people anymore, I am regretting it a bit.

I didnt go to mine either. Dont regret it a bit. Those people were bushpigs then and they are likely bushpigs now.
Going to a prom at all is a sure sign that you are a tool of the man, man.

If anyone can transgress liberties, however small, others will do the same. It starts small, but eventually very powerful people will test just how much they can get away with. That is what is becoming of the United States. Has been for decades, over a century, really.


So not letting a boy in a dress enter a dance is a small part of a conspiracy to strip me of my rights? I am sore afraid!

I didnt go to mine either. Dont regret it a bit. Those people were bushpigs then and they are likely bushpigs now.
Going to a prom at all is a sure sign that you are a tool of the man, man.
Most of them, yeah. But there were a few special people I'd have liked to spend more time with. My apprentice in particular. She looked absolutely gorgeous that night. A sexy five-foot Swede. I already miss her.

Most of them, yeah. But there were a few special people I'd have liked to spend more time with. My apprentice in particular. She looked absolutely gorgeous that night. A sexy five-foot Swede. I already miss her.

Contact her, she probably misses you too!:)

So not letting a boy in a dress enter a dance is a small part of a conspiracy to strip me of my rights? I am sore afraid!
I'll pass this time on the flaming. You say that now, but it's a slippery slope situation. "One transgression encourages the commission of many." Cicero(?)

Contact her, she probably misses you too!:)
I am. But it isn't the same as physical presence. I'll prolly see her again one last time for a very long while on Sunday. That should provide an opportunity for a little speech of unsurpassed eloquence, some lasting impression; unsurpassed by me, at any rate. After that, well, there's always email. If she responds to it.

I'll pass this time on the flaming. You say that now, but it's a slippery slope situation. "One transgression encourages the commission of many." Cicero(?)

One bad apple dont spoil the whole bunch ~ Michael Jackson

I saw a picture of him, he looks very much like a chic.. in the face anyway.

I reckon he still cut a ridiculous figure in a fuschia dress and high heels

One bad apple dont spoil the whole bunch ~ Michael Jackson
First of all, do I need to teach you about bacteria and molds? Second, he's not a qualified source of anything but pedophilia. The only celebrity figure I can think I respect intellectually is Jon Stewart.

okay, now armed with more information

a) he knew it was against the rules
b) of course he should sue

oh, wait, that's what I have been saying.

You also said that he was immature for doing it - something I have to disagree with. Some of the biggest changes to unfair rules have been made when someone broke them and was unjustly punished.

You also said that he was immature for doing it - something I have to disagree with. Some of the biggest changes to unfair rules have been made when someone broke them and was unjustly punished.
I think showing up to prom in the dress when you know what's going to happen is immature. If I were his parent I would have taken action with the school board when he first found out that the rule was going to be in place.

So not letting a boy in a dress enter a dance is a small part of a conspiracy to strip me of my rights? I am sore afraid!

It's not a conspiracy. There is a line in almost all things. When someone crosses the line a little bit and we act like it's no big deal the line moves. That's the way things work. This person's civil rights were violated and we should cry foul. Otherwise, we encourage a movement of the line.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

We're not speaking about something that might one day be a problem. We're talking about something that has been a long-time and repeated problem. When we don't speak out for all human rights, we respect none.

I think showing up to prom in the dress when you know what's going to happen is immature. If I were his parent I would have taken action with the school board when he first found out that the rule was going to be in place.

How do we know that he knew what was going to happen? I didn't see that in the article. Did I miss it?

How do we know that he knew what was going to happen? I didn't see that in the article. Did I miss it?
In the second article posted a page or two back, it says the schools headmistress told him he wouldn't be allowed to cross dress, but on the night they let in a girl who was in a tuxedo.

I think showing up to prom in the dress when you know what's going to happen is immature.

Rosa Parks knew what was going to happen when she sat at the front of the bus. She immature?

In the second article posted a page or two back, it says the schools headmistress told him he wouldn't be allowed to cross dress, but on the night they let in a girl who was in a tuxedo.

Ah. I missed that. Either way, they let him dress that way all year. Either way it's a ridiculous violation. There should not be seperate dresscodes for men and women. There is simply no defense for creating one.

Rosa Parks knew what was going to happen when she sat at the front of the bus. She immature?

Excellent example. I hope this kid stands up for himself and everyone else THEY would deny basic rights to.

It's not a conspiracy. There is a line in almost all things. When someone crosses the line a little bit and we act like it's no big deal the line moves. That's the way things work. This person's civil rights were violated and we should cry foul. Otherwise, we encourage a movement of the line.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

We're not speaking about something that might one day be a problem. We're talking about something that has been a long-time and repeated problem. When we don't speak out for all human rights, we respect none.
That's exactly what I was talking about. Who wrote that, btw? I can't remember.

I think showing up to prom in the dress when you know what's going to happen is immature. If I were his parent I would have taken action with the school board when he first found out that the rule was going to be in place.

Were black people who had sit-ins in "white" restaurants when they knew they would be asked to leave and possibly arrested immature?

That's exactly what I was talking about. Who wrote that, btw? I can't remember.

Obviously, it's from WWII, but I don't remember who it's from. You can search for it. I know, it sucks that I didn't credit it, but I indented so people would know it's not mine.

Excellent example. I hope this kid stands up for himself and everyone else THEY would deny basic rights to.
I assume by "THEY" you mean the ubiquitous they.

Obviously, it's from WWII, but I don't remember who it's from. You can search for it. I know, it sucks that I didn't credit it, but I indented so people would know it's not mine.
I know, and it does. I'll look for it later: keeping up with three or four threads at once is really hard work!

I assume by "THEY" you mean the ubiquitous they.

Yeah. That's why it's all caps. The not-so-funny part is that it's probably all of us at one time or another, unfortunately.

People should be normal because normal is what is accepted in our soceity and what is in line with our traditions. We shouldnt "punish" people...we should just not let them wear dresses and stuff in the first place. If someone wants to wear a dress in their house, I dont give a shit, but if someone wants to wear one to school, or to the prom, then I do give a shit.

Men shouldn't wear earrings then, I presume? And a man shouldn't grow his hair long? And he shouldn't wear tights? Oh, wait, men did used to wear tights. So I guess all men should be wearing tights and wigs?

Women shouldn't cut their hair short. They also shouldn't wear pants. And they have to wear makeup. Or maybe they can't wear makeup. But they definitely can't show any ankles.

Yeah. That's why it's all caps. The not-so-funny part is that it's probably all of us at one time or another, unfortunately.
I thought so. I just like using the word "ubiquitous." But if we realize we do it, we can at least make efforts against it, which is better than complacent acceptance.

I think it will teach him a valuble lesson that you can't get everything you want in life. You may not agree with the rules, but they're still the rules and have to be followed. I don't see why one whiner should be able to snap his fingers and get everyone else to bend over backwards for him. If you don't like the rules then tough, deal with it. We can't have everyone changing the rules simply because they don't feel like following them.

Men shouldn't wear earrings then, I presume? And a man shouldn't grow his hair long? And he shouldn't wear tights? Oh, wait, men did used to wear tights. So I guess all men should be wearing tights and wigs?

Women shouldn't cut their hair short. They also shouldn't wear pants. And they have to wear makeup. Or maybe they can't wear makeup. But they definitely can't show any ankles.
In that case, maybe we should kill TAI's family, except for the males, whom we should shackle and transfer to our personal estates to keep them nice and pretty. And while we're at it, let's not forget to rape his women before they die. Any other traditions I've forgotten? Oh, right, burning his "village" too. Can't forget that.

If you look at some of the dresses (or lack thereof) on girls who have no business not covering themselves and some of the outfits the guys are wearing, a tasteful dress worn by a guy doesn't seem all that bad in comparison.

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/42804
http://www.rexojunkies.com/ghetto_prom_pictures.htm

I think it will teach him a valuble lesson that you can't get everything you want in life. You may not agree with the rules, but they're still the rules and have to be followed. I don't see why one whiner should be able to snap his fingers and get everyone else to bend over backwards for him. If you don't like the rules then tough, deal with it. We can't have everyone changing the rules simply because they don't feel like following them.
That's not the matter in question. When are the rules too much? If we don't question the rules, we will be overrun by power-hungry madmen who will rush us to certain destruction. Ben Franklin once said, "He who is willing to trade a few liberties for temporary security deserves, and gets, neither."

That's not the matter in question. When are the rules too much? If we don't question the rules, we will be overrun by power-hungry madmen who will rush us to certain destruction. Ben Franklin once said, "He who is willing to trade a few liberties for temporary security deserves, and gets, neither."
But if you allow people to be exempt from the rules because they don't feel like following them, the rules will become completely meaningless. And I don't care about what Ben Franklin said, it means nothing to me.

I think it will teach him a valuble lesson that you can't get everything you want in life. You may not agree with the rules, but they're still the rules and have to be followed.

Really? So you would follow any rule - even a blatantly unfair one - simply because it was the rule?

All those black people should have just followed the rules and sat at the back of the bus, drank from the "colored" fountain, and ate at only "colored" restaurants? The Founding Fathers should have just shut up and followed the rules - saying nothing bad about the monarchy and paying their taxes? Women should have realized that their place was in the home and that they simply weren't allowed to vote?

I don't see why one whiner should be able to snap his fingers and get everyone else to bend over backwards for him.

Who would have had to "bend over backwards"? It isn't like he was asking someone to do anything for him that they don't do for other students - ie. let him go to his own prom.

If you don't like the rules then tough, deal with it. We can't have everyone changing the rules simply because they don't feel like following them.

No, you change the rules when the rules are unnecessary, unjust, or harmful.

But if you allow people to be exempt from the rules because they don't feel like following them, the rules will become completely meaningless. And I don't care about what Ben Franklin said, it means nothing to me.

Lets talk about some people who didn't feel like following the rules:

All those black people should have just followed the rules and sat at the back of the bus, drank from the "colored" fountain, and ate at only "colored" restaurants? The Founding Fathers should have just shut up and followed the rules - saying nothing bad about the monarchy and paying their taxes? Women should have realized that their place was in the home and that they simply weren't allowed to vote?

I think it will teach him a valuble lesson that you can't get everything you want in life. You may not agree with the rules, but they're still the rules and have to be followed. I don't see why one whiner should be able to snap his fingers and get everyone else to bend over backwards for him. If you don't like the rules then tough, deal with it. We can't have everyone changing the rules simply because they don't feel like following them.

Yes, wouldn't want to have people changing the rules. Rules should stay the same forever and ever. Nope. Change is bad. I thought about changing the first sentence of this post but that would be very, very bad. Never change anything, no matter how stupid or outdated it is. Sit quietly like lemmings and accept the rules. Rosa Parks was evil. (If anyone quotes me saying that and doesn't note that I'm being sarcastic, they suck).

But if you allow people to be exempt from the rules because they don't feel like following them, the rules will become completely meaningless. And I don't care about what Ben Franklin said, it means nothing to me.

This isn't about allowing people to be exempt from the rules. This is about recognizing the problems with this rule and correcting it. This rule is a sex-based rule that has different requirements for different sex and is thus discriminatory. He deserves applause for standing up against it. I'm sure your exact words match those of the white supremecists when Rosa Parks sat at the front of the bus.

But if you allow people to be exempt from the rules because they don't feel like following them, the rules will become completely meaningless. And I don't care about what Ben Franklin said, it means nothing to me.

So you mean to tell me there is not a single rule youve broken?

That's not the matter in question. When are the rules too much? If we don't question the rules, we will be overrun by power-hungry madmen who will rush us to certain destruction. Ben Franklin once said, "He who is willing to trade a few liberties for temporary security deserves, and gets, neither."

He wasnt at liberty to wear a dress to the prom and knew it ahead of time. He didnt break the rule. He tried to and failed. He wasnt punished for breaking a rule he was prevented from breaking a rule. If he had felt like going to the prom after being rejected he couldve hired a tux and entered.

He wasnt at liberty to wear a dress to the prom and knew it ahead of time. He didnt break the rule. He tried to and failed. He wasnt punished for breaking a rule he was prevented from breaking a rule. If he had felt like going to the prom after being rejected he couldve hired a tux and entered.
Or he could sue them for discriminating against him for being male which he seems likely to do. There is no compelling interest of the school in preventing him from wearing a dress. They violated his rights and he has every right to do something about it and should. What if they had different clothing requirements for people of different races? Would that be a rule he isn't at liberty to break?

So you mean to tell me there is not a single rule youve broken?
The boy in the slinky fuschia dress didnt break any rules. He tried to break a rule and was prevented from doing so.

Crazy, always fOllow the rules. Never stand up FOR yourself. Make no changes.

Or he could sue them for discriminating against him for being male which he seems likely to do. There is no compelling interest of the school in preventing him from wearing a dress. They violated his rights and he has every right to do something about it and should. What if they had different clothing requirements for people of different races? Would that be a rule he isn't at liberty to break?

What if they had rules insisting only martians could attend? they didnt. They didnt have clothing requirements for different races either.

What if I want to go into a restaurant that requires jacket and tie but I feel like wearing a tee shirt? What if I want to go shirtless and shoeless into a restaurant that has a sign saying No Shirt No Shoes No service? If I am not allowed to dine in these establishments should I sue them because my civil rights have been violated? Of course not. That would be ridiculous.
He can sue. He can win. That wont ever get him into his beloved prom and a tuxedo would have. Simple really.

What if they had rules insisting only martians could attend? they didnt. They didnt have clothing requirements for different races either.

You're right. They didn't racially discriminate. They discriminated based on sex. It's called a comparison. I'm quite certain you're aware of them. I COMPARED this discrimination with another type of discrimination. Interestingly enough, my comparison wasn't apt in your eyes, but your comparison of a discriminatory practice to a non-discriminatory practice is amusing.

What if I want to go into a restaurant that requires jacket and tie but I feel like wearing a tee shirt? What if I want to go shirtless and shoeless into a restaurant that has a sign saying No Shirt No Shoes No service? If I am not allowed to dine in these establishments should I sue them because my civil rights have been violated? Of course not. That would be ridiculous.
He can sue. He can win. That wont ever get him into his beloved prom and a tuxedo would have. Simple really.
A restaurant is a private business, not a government entity. They actually can discriminate and get away with it. Meanwhile, if you are talking about requiring shoes, is it just a certain group of people who have to wear shoes? Nope. Then we're not talking about discrimination. How about you stay on topic, hmmm?

Meanwhile, you can have dress requirements at the prom so long as those dress requirements are not discriminatory. These were. Is everyone subject to the same requirements? Nope. That's discimination. What is the delineator? Sex. Sexual discimination for all the kiddies. See how that works?

A restaurant is a private business, not a government entity. They actually can discriminate and get away with it. Meanwhile, if you are talking about requiring shoes, is it just a certain group of people who have to wear shoes? Nope. Then we're not talking about discrimination. How about you stay on topic, hmmm?

Indeed. If the rule was that no one could wear a dress to prom, you'd have a lot of girls wondering exactly how they were going to dress formally, but you wouldn't have discrimination.

Crazy, always fOllow the rules. Never stand up FOR yourself. Make no changes.

SeldOm Comply IgnOre Policy And THrow away rules

You're right. They didn't racially discriminate. They discriminated based on sex. It's called a comparison. I'm quite certain you're aware of them. I COMPARED this discrimination with another type of discrimination. Interestingly enough, my comparison wasn't apt in your eyes, but your comparison of a discriminatory practice to a non-discriminatory practice is amusing.


A restaurant is a private business, not a government entity. They actually can discriminate and get away with it. Meanwhile, if you are talking about requiring shoes, is it just a certain group of people who have to wear shoes? Nope. Then we're not talking about discrimination. How about you stay on topic, hmmm?

Meanwhile, you can have dress requirements at the prom so long as those dress requirements are not discriminatory. These were. Is everyone subject to the same requirements? Nope. That's discimination. What is the delineator? Sex. Sexual discimination for all the kiddies. See how that works?

A prom is not a government entity either. Jackets and ties are NOT required for restaurants for women. See how that works? Im sure you can suss it out.

A prom is not a government entity either.

Actually, as part of the whole "school" thing, it is.

Actually, since it's clear they can't discriminate based on race and say all black people must where dashikis or something, why is it that people are defending sexual discrimination? Is it just because it's so common? What reason is there to require people of one sex to dress differently than another while not allowing us to do the same thing with other groupings?

A prom is not a government entity either. Jackets and ties are NOT required for restaurants for women. See how that works? Im sure you can suss it out.

And you can bet, if they tried to keep a man dressed in drag appropriate to the restaurant out, they would be facing a lawsuit.

A prom is not a government entity either. Jackets and ties are NOT required for restaurants for women. See how that works? Im sure you can suss it out.

The school is a government entity and it is the school setting the dresscode not the location. I do recognize that one of your examples was poignant and I said that it is does not count because it is a private organization. A prom is not held by a private organization. It is held by and endorsed by a government entity that made rules that are discriminatory. Again, why is it acceptable to discriminate based on sex but not based on race? Would you support discrimination based on other superficial classifications that are a result of birth? Could they require short people to dress differently? How about the handicapped? Can we require them to wear blue and white clothes? Why is other discrimination so ridiculous but sexual discrimination just too sacred for anyone to challenge?

Actually, as part of the whole "school" thing, it is.

It depends upon where it is held and who puts it on. They are certainly endorsed by schools but are sometimes private functions. Im not sure how the one in question works but due in large part to frivolous civil lawsuits many schools try to divorce themselves legally as much as possible from extracurricular activities while maintaining traditions (like having proms) where practicable.

The school is a government entity and it is the school setting the dresscode not the location. I do recognize that one of your examples was poignant and I said that it is does not count because it is a private organization. A prom is not held by a private organization. It is held by and endorsed by a government entity that made rules that are discriminatory. Again, why is it acceptable to discriminate based on sex but not based on race? Would you support discrimination based on other superficial classifications that are a result of birth? Could they require short people to dress differently? How about the handicapped? Can we require them to wear blue and white clothes? Why is other discrimination so ridiculous but sexual discrimination just too sacred for anyone to challenge?

See post 187

The rule is stupid, plain and simple. Who the hell is it hurting if a guy wears a dress?

SeldOm Comply IgnOre Policy And THrow away rules

Yes, that's what we're advocating. What I said is exactly what you're advocating. You want people not to protest rules they deem to be unfair. We want people to respect one another and follow rules provided they don't stomp on your rights. But, hey, keep making things up, it's really helping your argument.

It depends upon where it is held and who puts it on. They are certainly endorsed by schools but are sometimes private functions. Im not sure how the one in question works but due in large part to frivolous civil lawsuits many schools try to divorce themselves legally as much as possible from extracurricular activities while maintaining traditions (like having proms) where practicable.

The school made the policy. It's not a private function that kept him out. And if the school allowed the Prom to be held at a discriminatory venue then they should be held responsible. If this was a country club that didn't allow black people in, would you be saying it's not the school's problem that they allowed the Prom to be held there?

See post 187

Read the article -
Sylvester Rowan, assistant to Gary Schools Superintendent Mary Steele, said school policy bans males from wearing dresses. Excluding Logan from prom was based on "the dress code, not the student's homosexuality. That's his personal preference."

The same dress code should apply to the prom as to school. They let him wear women's clothing all year, so he should get to wear it to the prom.

Because girls wear formal dresses. Guys wear a formal tux.


I've seen woman wearing a tux more and more often to social gatherings. (both straight and lesbian). If it was a woman that showed up to prom in a tux and she was turned away would you still support them?

Or is a woman in a tux okay yet a man in a dress is wrong?

Yes, that's what we're advocating. What I said is exactly what you're advocating. You want people not to protest rules they deem to be unfair. We want people to respect one another and follow rules provided they don't stomp on your rights. But, hey, keep making things up, it's really helping your argument.

I enjoy arguing in the same mode my foils use. If my post is invalid because it is a vacuous incomplete cutesy way of articulating an idea then yours is too. If mine is a valid insightful argument addressing the actual issue at hand then yours is as well. You make the call.

Read the article -
Sylvester Rowan, assistant to Gary Schools Superintendent Mary Steele, said school policy bans males from wearing dresses. Excluding Logan from prom was based on "the dress code, not the student's homosexuality. That's his personal preference."

You are right. They shouldnt have let him get away with wearing dresses all year then suddenly enforced the rule on him.

Do you reckon that he is really so shallow or in such an identity flux that his clothing makes him what he is? Comfort aside would he be the same person in a tux as he would have been in a dress at the prom?

There is a Code - and it exists to be obeyed.
If you don't - you forfeit the right to bitch when the Code is forced upon you.

Really? I wasn't aware that was a part of American Law. Can you point me to the exact law, please? I thought in America and in most western countries you are absolutely permitted not only to bitch, but to seek justice when a code is forced upon you that is discriminatory. Feel free to correct me, but do so with evidence, not trolling.

I've seen woman wearing a tux more and more often to social gatherings. (both straight and lesbian). If it was a woman that showed up to prom in a tux and she was turned away would you still support them?

Or is a woman in a tux okay yet a man in a dress is wrong?

Neither one is wrong. Just within or outside the rules. If they have a rule against boys in dresses they should also have one against girls in tuxedoes. (tuxedos?)

You are right. They shouldnt have let him get away with wearing dresses all year then suddenly enforced the rule on him.

Do you reckon that he is really so shallow or in such an identity flux that his clothing makes him what he is? Comfort aside would he be the same person in a tux as he would have been in a dress at the prom?

And vice versa. You could say that about many freedoms but it doesn't mean we should forfit them. Again, if they made black people wear dashikis, they would still be the same people they were before the dashikis, no? If we make them use seperate fountains, no problem there, no? Drinking from a fountain isn't an important right, is it? Discrimination without compelling interest for doing so is wrong. The fact they allowed him to wear dresses all year evidences that such discrimination was NOT necessary even in the school's eyes. Your statements evidence that not even you can create a compelling reason for forcing this young man to adhere to different standards than his female friends.

Neither one is wrong. Just within or outside the rules. If they have a rule against boys in dresses they should also have one against girls in tuxedoes. (tuxedos?)
It becomes right, if they make it discriminatory enough? What?!?

I'm still waiting to hear - what is it about the delineation between men and women that marks a compelling reason for a clearly discriminatory policy? I'd love to know. I doubt you'd be defending any other form of discrimination, so what is so wonderful about this time that it warrants your defense?

I enjoy arguing in the same mode my foils use. If my post is invalid because it is a vacuous incomplete cutesy way of articulating an idea then yours is too. If mine is a valid insightful argument addressing the actual issue at hand then yours is as well. You make the call.

It's not invalid because of style. It's invalid because of substance. If you wish to emulate my style make the same effort I did. I actually posted on the statements that people were making. No one has made the actual statements you claimed they did. Shall I quote people literally telling people to conform or can you find them yourself?

You do know the difference between addressing an actual statement of my opponent with an amusing and cutesy style and you making up the position of your opponents to emulate me, no? If not, I can explain it to you further. You make the call.

And vice versa. You could say that about many freedoms but it doesn't mean we should forfit them. Again, if they made black people wear dashikis, they would still be the same people they were before the dashikis, no? If we make them use seperate fountains, no problem there, no? Drinking from a fountain isn't an important right, is it? Discrimination without compelling interest for doing so is wrong. The fact they allowed him to wear dresses all year evidences that such discrimination was NOT necessary even in the school's eyes. Your statements evidence that not even you can create a compelling reason for forcing this young man to adhere to different standards than his female friends.

Where do his rights end? Is he allowed to use the girls lavatories if he is more comfortable there than he is in gentlemens lavatories? Should there be ladies and gents lavatories? Or is that also sexual discrimination and akin to racism because lavatories are seperate but equal?

It becomes right, if they make it discriminatory enough? What?!?

For some reason I most often see people from the US argue that sort of line. "If someone isn't allowed something, but someone else is, it's wrong, but if no one is allowed, then it's OK!" As if the "fairness" in the oppression makes the oppression OK. :rolleyes:

Where do his rights end? Is he allowed to use the girls lavatories if he is more comfortable there than he is in gentlemens lavatories? Should there be ladies and gents lavatories? Or is that also sexual discrimination and akin to racism because lavatories are seperate but equal?

Again, there are compelling reasons for lavatories that address different sexes. Those are being questioned, but at least they exist.

We use different organs in the lavatories, among other things. We use lavatories differently. However, there has be a lot of that called into question because of the fact that we've learned that sex is not a toggle switch.

I said discrimination can occur when the reasons are compelling. It's not discriminatory for doctors to specialize in treating a given sex because of the differences in anatomy.

Meanwhile, you've offered no compelling reason why a man in a dress is somehow necessary to keep out of a prom when a woman in a dress is not? Again, address this or admit that you cannot. You've given no compelling reason for the discrimination. In fact, your only defense of the discrimination is that it's common so it shouldn't be questioned. If you can't do better, I'm sure you can see why people who already don't agree aren't convinced.

Hell, there are even compelling reasons for businesses to discriminate based on sex. For example, if I run a restaurant and I had a waitress with a mustache AND her mustache was costing me business, then I would say that business has a compelling reason for discriminating (not that it necessarily justifies it, but it MIGHT). Again, is there any compelling reason for this dress code that makes it ANY different than a dress code that discriminates based on skin color?

High school administrators have such double standards! They turn a boy away for wearing a dress but let a girl who is wearing a tuxedo in? (I understand this is heresay but I can see how it would happen)

Someone on the first page jokingly mentioned something about 'they can't take away my kilt' well lets think about this for a minute, what if he had turned up at the prom in a traditional scottish formal uniform? How about any other culture where the traditional clothing for men resembles what we in the western world refer to as a skirt or dress?

As a society we really need to get away from these gender stereotypes of all forms, clothes are clothes (not men's clothes and women's clothes), toys are toys (there are no boys toys and girls toys) a job is a job (there are no mens jobs and women's jobs)

As far as the school dress code goes I do believe schools need dress codes to keep children dressed sensibly no skirts or shorts that show private parts, no mid-drift shirts, no pants hanging so far down your behind that everyone can see your boxers, no shirts with swear words, or that promote drug and alcohol use. However if school dress codes do say "No cross dressing" then maybe that needs to change because people who are transgendered can't help how they feel, maybe if the transgendered person gets a diagnosis from a psychologist then they should be exempt from the "No cross dressing rule" since i'm sure it's in place to stop jokers from becoming a distraction in class.

For some reason I most often see people from the US argue that sort of line. "If someone isn't allowed something, but someone else is, it's wrong, but if no one is allowed, then it's OK!" As if the "fairness" in the oppression makes the oppression OK. :rolleyes:

Yes. This is the reason they get upset that sometimes rich people are able to afford lawyers that actually can get justice.

Unfortunately, and far more common, the argument that if it's common it's good is used.

It's not invalid because of style. It's invalid because of substance. If you wish to emulate my style make the same effort I did. I actually posted on the statements that people were making. No one has made the actual statements you claimed they did. Shall I quote people literally telling people to conform or can you find them yourself?

You do know the difference between addressing an actual statement of my opponent with an amusing and cutesy style and you making up the position of your opponents to emulate me, no? If not, I can explain it to you further. You make the call.


You are right of course the post
"Crazy, always fOllow the rules. Never stand up FOR yourself. Make no changes."

cuts straight to the core of whether or not a boy in Indiana should have been allowed to wear a dress to his prom and is the last and best word in this debate.

You are right of course the post
"Crazy, always fOllow the rules. Never stand up FOR yourself. Make no changes."

cuts straight to the core of whether or not a boy in Indiana should have been allowed to wear a dress to his prom and is the last and best word in this debate.

It addresses an actual argument made. Arguments that actually say that we should conform. Can you show me the argument that said we should NEVER follow any rules or that ALL rules are up for grabs? How about the one that said we should behave like sociopaths?

Again, there are compelling reasons for lavatories that address different sexes. Those are being questioned, but at least they exist.

We use different organs in the lavatories, among other things. We use lavatories differently. However, there has be a lot of that called into question because of the fact that we've learned that sex is not a toggle switch.

I said discrimination can occur when the reasons are compelling. It's not discriminatory for doctors to specialize in treating a given sex because of the differences in anatomy.

Meanwhile, you've offered no compelling reason why a man in a dress is somehow necessary to keep out of a prom when a woman in a dress is not? Again, address this or admit that you cannot. You've given no compelling reason for the discrimination. In fact, your only defense of the discrimination is that it's common so it shouldn't be questioned. If you can't do better, I'm sure you can see why people who already don't agree aren't convinced.

How many on the opposite side of the issue do you estimate your compelling arguments have swayed to your side? What was your most compelling argument which brought them over to you?

Here you go.

Want to be non-Conformist?
Please feel free to do so - somewhere else,
and have a nice day - somewhere else.

Boy, that was hard to find. What was my hidden message that I was being sarcatic about? Oh, yeah, CONFORM.

Now, I'll await you're quoting of some arguing for being a sociopath. *waits*

It addresses an actual argument made. Arguments that actually say that we should conform. Can you show me the argument that said we should NEVER follow any rules or that ALL rules are up for grabs? How about the one that said we should behave like sociopaths?

Can you show me where I said all rules need to be followed? There may be shades of grey which actually make sense between that humourous highlighting of the word COMPLY and mine of SOCIOPATH. Surely you can see that these are very nearly polar opposites and if bringing up blind compliance as a devil is proper then bringing up total disregard of all rules as a devil is logical for balance?

How many on the opposite side of the issue do you estimate your compelling arguments have swayed to your side? What was your most compelling argument which brought them over to you?

No idea. I can say I've made more compelling arguments than "it's that way no and you're not allowed to argue against it." Let's see what a couple of those arguments were -

Non-conformist examples - Rosa Parks
Comparison to other discriminatory practices
Showing how the practice is IN FACT discriminatory
Suggesting that no compelling or even reasonable reason for the policy has been shown other than "it's common", while showing that discrimination can is defensible in some cases.
Showing these policies were enacted by public agency
Showing that they weren't consistent

(granted some of these arguments were also presented by others, but we're all arguing the same thing so that's expected).

I await your list.

Can you show me where I said all rules need to be followed? There may be shades of grey which actually make sense between that humourous highlighting of the word COMPLY and mine of SOCIOPATH. Surely you can see that these are very nearly polar opposites and if bringing up blind compliance as a devil is proper then bringing up total disregard of all rules as a devil is logical for balance?

You defended the action while making little or no argument at all. In the midst of it all, I picked out a juicy post and I replied to your side of the argument. I'm sure you'll notice this is a common tactic in a debate that generally has two sides (those that defend the actions of the school and those that condemn it). Are there shades of grey? Yes. But at the time I replied to you, you'd not said anything of substance to warrant a better reply. In fact, I'm not sure you have yet.

I said I but I meant our side of the equation. You act like it's a logical balance, but one side is ACTUALLY arguing for blind compliance and the other is simply arguing for not blindly complying. Yours was hyperbole and mine wasn't. It's amazing that you cannot see the difference.

No idea. I can say I've made more compelling arguments than "it's that way no and you're not allowed to argue against it." Let's see what a couple of those arguments were -


Where did I say ""it's that way no and you're not allowed to argue against it." ?



All of my arguments are not compelling because you say so. That's fair. Sounds like what the kid in a dress said to his principal after arguing his side of matters to her.

I said I but I meant our side of the equation. You act like it's a logical balance, but one side is ACTUALLY arguing for blind compliance and the other is simply arguing for not blindly complying. Yours was hyperbole and mine wasn't. It's amazing that you cannot see the difference.

Why is this amazing to you? You have either misread or misrepresented my position every step of the way.

Why is this amazing to you? You have either misread or misrepresented my position every step of the way.

I have. Where? Please show me where I misinterpreted your position. I stated that 'conform' was the position that has been presented in this thread, I didn't say it was specifically you that stated it.

Where did I say ""it's that way no and you're not allowed to argue against it." ?



All of my arguments are not compelling because you say so. That's fair. Sounds like what the kid in a dress said to his principal after arguing his side of matters to her.

I asked for a list of them. I gave you mine. Come on, summarize these compelling arguments.

In fact, even the CONFORM statement wasn't directed at you. Your SOCIOPATH statement was directed at me. Now, again, if you'd like to stop being vague, feel free.

I've directly shown people arguing for conformity. You've shown not one argument for sociopaths. Jocabia 1 Not Bad 0

I've directly shown this was the action of the a public agency. You claimed it MIGHT not be using a vague proposition. Jocabia 2 Not Bad 0

I've directly shown people telling us not to question the policy. You've vaguely argued that it is not your position but haven't stated an alternate position. Jocabia 3 Not Bad 0

Shall I continue? Please anytime you like state your position clearly and how I am misrepresenting it. As long as you continue to be vague I will continue to argue against the expressed position of the side you're defending.

I've seen woman wearing a tux more and more often to social gatherings. (both straight and lesbian). If it was a woman that showed up to prom in a tux and she was turned away would you still support them?

Or is a woman in a tux okay yet a man in a dress is wrong?

According to this school, it apparently is, since they let a female student attend prom in a tux.

Meanwhile, you've offered no compelling reason why a man in a dress is somehow necessary to keep out of a prom when a woman in a dress is not? Again, address this or admit that you cannot. You've given no compelling reason for the discrimination. In fact, your only defense of the discrimination is that it's common so it shouldn't be questioned. If you can't do better, I'm sure you can see why people who already don't agree aren't convinced.

Unfortunately, from what I understand, the courts have generally held that this type of discrimination would only require "rational basis", and would not take it to higher forms of scrutiny. And, again unfortunately, "rational basis" in the law doesn't actually have to involve something most of us would call rational.

They have been moving gender issues into stricter scrutiny though, so it is hard to say where this case would fall. One way or another, the inclusion of a girl in a tux would greatly help his case, as the school can't really argue that they are simply enforcing traditional clothing rules.


Can you show me where I said all rules need to be followed? There may be shades of grey which actually make sense between that humourous highlighting of the word COMPLY and mine of SOCIOPATH. Surely you can see that these are very nearly polar opposites and if bringing up blind compliance as a devil is proper then bringing up total disregard of all rules as a devil is logical for balance?

The difference, of course, is that there were people in the thread arguing for absolute blind compliance. There was no one arguing for total disregard of rules. Thus, there was no reason to bring it up.

But if you allow people to be exempt from the rules because they don't feel like following them, the rules will become completely meaningless. And I don't care about what Ben Franklin said, it means nothing to me.
It's not about exemption. It's about how reasonable the rules are. If they infringe on rights, they shouldn't be the rules; we should revise or make new rules. Like it or not, things change. Despite what you may think, you can't cling to your own narrow-minded perspective forever. The rules are meaningless anyway if we claim they maintain our liberties but the rules really just confine the liberties to one particular paradigm.

He wasnt at liberty to wear a dress to the prom and knew it ahead of time. He didnt break the rule. He tried to and failed. He wasnt punished for breaking a rule he was prevented from breaking a rule. If he had felt like going to the prom after being rejected he couldve hired a tux and entered.
Still you miss the point. It really isn't that important if he wore a dress so long as he wasn't infringing others rights. That's part of who he is. There is no reason he should not have been allowed to enter prom. The rule was absurd. He shouldn't have to go get a tux if his preference is a dress adhering to the dress code regarding dresses.

What if they had rules insisting only martians could attend? they didnt. They didnt have clothing requirements for different races either.

What if I want to go into a restaurant that requires jacket and tie but I feel like wearing a tee shirt? What if I want to go shirtless and shoeless into a restaurant that has a sign saying No Shirt No Shoes No service? If I am not allowed to dine in these establishments should I sue them because my civil rights have been violated? Of course not. That would be ridiculous.
He can sue. He can win. That wont ever get him into his beloved prom and a tuxedo would have. Simple really.
Maybe you're on to something. Maybe we should look at revising all the old, silly rules that aren't really that important.

Maybe you're on to something. Maybe we should look at revising all the old, silly rules that aren't really that important.
careful... the results may not be to your liking.

A prom is not a government entity either. Jackets and ties are NOT required for restaurants for women. See how that works? Im sure you can suss it out.
Not an entity, no, but it was an event sponsored, hosted, chaperoned, what have you, by a government educational institution, which has far less capacity for any discrimination than private industrial complexes such as restaurants. This is just an example of a lingering discrimination issue in the government, one of a third gender grouping.

careful... the results may not be to your liking.
The results of changing other old rules or suggesting to him that they should be changed?

Still you miss the point. It really isn't that important if he wore a dress so long as he wasn't infringing others rights. That's part of who he is. There is no reason he should not have been allowed to enter prom. The rule was absurd. He shouldn't have to go get a tux if his preference is a dress adhering to the dress code regarding dresses.
was it known what the dress code would be?
did he ask if it was alright for him to wear a dress?
simple questions and a little pre planning could've told him what would happen if he wore a dress. then again, by asking in advance, he may have gotten permission to wear a dress.

in this case, he found out that it's not always better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

The results of changing other old rules or suggesting to him that they should be changed?
looking at old rules to have them changed.

do them correctly, and patiently. and you'll get your desired wish.

one wrong move however... might close the door and make for a long, lengthy and co$tly fight.

OMG! I go away for one day only to come back to 222 posts!
I really didn't think this thread would sustain that kind of traffic.

OMG! I go away for one day only to come back to 222 posts!
I really didn't think this thread would sustain that kind of traffic.
isn't it amazing how quickly they grow. :D

your little thread, all grown up before you know it. :p

The rule is stupid, plain and simple. Who the hell is it hurting if a guy wears a dress?
They don't seem to get this point. That's why we have to keep beating them over the head with it in hopes they might one day understand. Reminds me of a funny quote: "I am prepared to argue this point until nothing makes sense anymore, and if that doesn't work, the hours upon hours of whining will."

You are right. They shouldnt have let him get away with wearing dresses all year then suddenly enforced the rule on him.

Do you reckon that he is really so shallow or in such an identity flux that his clothing makes him what he is? Comfort aside would he be the same person in a tux as he would have been in a dress at the prom?
Comfort aside, wouldn't we all be the same people when we are nude? Does that mean we should all run around naked? NO. Point invalidated. What he wears isn't important, so long as it adheres to the policies concerning such items of clothing. Which is why the rule is absurd; it comes down to a matter of "gender discrimination."

Where do his rights end? Is he allowed to use the girls lavatories if he is more comfortable there than he is in gentlemens lavatories? Should there be ladies and gents lavatories? Or is that also sexual discrimination and akin to racism because lavatories are seperate but equal?
Let's keep in mind the rampant rape incidents that occur anyway in lavatoriesm, let alone how much they'd increase if there was no lavatory discrimination. Besides, that's more a matter of biological and psychological necessity. A young man wearing a dress is another matter. And the thing about rascist discrimination is that things were never really "equal." Their schools, probably the most significant thing, were vastly substandard. They were generally simple, one-room schoolhouses with an average of one teacher who probably wasn't qualified to teach anything at all. Separate, yes; equal, no.

Hell, there are even compelling reasons for businesses to discriminate based on sex. For example, if I run a restaurant and I had a waitress with a mustache AND her mustache was costing me business, then I would say that business has a compelling reason for discriminating (not that it necessarily justifies it, but it MIGHT). Again, is there any compelling reason for this dress code that makes it ANY different than a dress code that discriminates based on skin color?
Nope, that's wrong too. But private industry isn't in question here. Your turn to stay on topic.

As a society we really need to get away from these gender stereotypes of all forms, clothes are clothes (not men's clothes and women's clothes), toys are toys (there are no boys toys and girls toys) a job is a job (there are no mens jobs and women's jobs)
Well, complete removal of gender differentiation isn't really necessary. Some things really are gender specific because of differing anatomy. Tampons, for example, are designed for feminine biological components. When I think of gender, I do indeed think rather strictly of biological components, but I do understand some people have components of both genders, which is essentially a third gender category. But you are right about the clothing; that really isn't important. As for jobs, generally no, but there are some exceptions based on the differing characteristics of anatomy.

... EIGHTY-FIVE DOLLARS FOR PROM?!

Phbt, what, kiss my ass. $85, Christ.

... EIGHTY-FIVE DOLLARS FOR PROM?!

Phbt, what, kiss my ass. $85, Christ.
yeah, I know... that's so cheap!

yeah, I know... that's so cheap!
My prom was like $15, and my date paid for it :X.

My prom was like $15, and my date paid for it :X.mine was over a 100. then again, where we went was an expensive area

was it known what the dress code would be?
did he ask if it was alright for him to wear a dress?
simple questions and a little pre planning could've told him what would happen if he wore a dress. then again, by asking in advance, he may have gotten permission to wear a dress.

in this case, he found out that it's not always better to ask for forgiveness than permission.
That isn't the point. He shouldn't have had to wear a tux if the dress adhered to the dress code as pertains to dresses. I don't know if he tried to ask in advance or not, but if he had, they probably said/would have said that he could not, more or less asking the aforementioned "blind compliance."

looking at old rules to have them changed.

do them correctly, and patiently. and you'll get your desired wish.

one wrong move however... might close the door and make for a long, lengthy and co$tly fight.
I think it's too late for anything but a long, costly battle. Unfortunately, I'm better suited to discussing things with intelligent, open-minded people who prefer a more open society to narrow-minded sots with no real rationale for their hokey traditions and ideals. Not that I don't appreciate tradition, but things change, and it's silly for people to mindlessly hold on to old things simply because that's the way it has always been.

mine was over a 100. then again, where we went was an expensive area
I don't remember what mine was; I didn't go.

That isn't the point. He shouldn't have had to wear a tux if the dress adhered to the dress code as pertains to dresses. I don't know if he tried to ask in advance or not, but if he had, they probably said/would have said that he could not, more or less asking the aforementioned "blind compliance."
nope that is the point.
by asking before hand, it shows...
1) he was planning to wear a dress at the prom before the time/date.
2) He is showing forthought and possibly can challenge the ruling to allow him to wear whatever he wants.
3) He knows full well the rules beforehand, and thus challanging them in a mature and adult fashion.
4) He's not just doing it for the shock value. which can be argued if he knew the dress code but did it anyway.... after all, the dress code is a school policy and would have been announced when the prom committee started planning it.
5) if he did ask, and was told no, then he's got no one to blame but himself for not following rules.

the school made up the dress code and it was probably standing long before he went to school there, thus he will have a hard time showing discrimination. he gambled his future prom memories on the chance that his being gay would allow him the right to bend or break rules that everyone else complied with (I don't for a minute believe that he was the only homosexual student at that school) and he lost. so now he's whining.

mine was over a 100. then again, where we went was an expensive area

Well, I mean, I live in a county that's in the top ten in the nation for wealth and I went to a kinda elite private prep school. The tickets to the prom were super cheap, but if you added in things like dinner and my dress, it was probably way over $700 or so dollars. Paying that much for a ticket is completely ludicrous though. I'd never pay that--I can definitely think of way better ways to spend my money than that :/.

The real problem here is not discrimination against transvestites or gays or anything, though that is, admittedly, a very serious problem in our society.

The problem is dress codes. The idea that a person is somehow acceptable while wearing a tux and unacceptable while not wearing it is one of the most deeply rooted and farcical ideas that civilization has ever come up with. Anyone who advocates dress codes and who thinks that things such as "presentability" and outward appearances are the factors on which we should judge others is, in my opinion, deranged.

(I should probably add that I am a militant clothing partisan: I wear shorts and a t-shirt nearly every day of the year, except when there is snow on the ground. If it is raining heavily, I may put on a jacket. I have friends who have never seen me in long pants. And I live in a fairly rainy climate)

I think that general acceptance of nudism would be, in the long term, the healthiest option. Unfortunately, I have been quite thoroughly conditioned by society to be unable to adjust to such a system. It's a vicious cycle. Clothes developed for functionality: to ward off the elements. That should be its primary purpose, and if people want to make it decorative, that's fine as well. But it is idiotic to try to judge a person's character by their clothes.

nope that is the point.
by asking before hand, it shows...
1) he was planning to wear a dress at the prom before the time/date.
2) He is showing forthought and possibly can challenge the ruling to allow him to wear whatever he wants.
3) He knows full well the rules beforehand, and thus challanging them in a mature and adult fashion.
4) He's not just doing it for the shock value. which can be argued if he knew the dress code but did it anyway.... after all, the dress code is a school policy and would have been announced when the prom committee started planning it.
5) if he did ask, and was told no, then he's got no one to blame but himself for not following rules.

the school made up the dress code and it was probably standing long before he went to school there, thus he will have a hard time showing discrimination. he gambled his future prom memories on the chance that his being gay would allow him the right to bend or break rules that everyone else complied with (I don't for a minute believe that he was the only homosexual student at that school) and he lost. so now he's whining.
That last one really highlights my point. The rule isn't really that important. These days, I doubt there would be much shock value, especially if people didn't pretend to be so damned socially squeamish. Life's really too short to confine our fellow man with silly things.
I think other people like to whine a lot about other people whining. And if the dress code for prom was a school policy, then why did they have no trouble with him wearing "women's clothing" to school?

If you look at some of the dresses (or lack thereof) on girls who have no business not covering themselves and some of the outfits the guys are wearing, a tasteful dress worn by a guy doesn't seem all that bad in comparison.

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/42804
http://www.rexojunkies.com/ghetto_prom_pictures.htm

Thanks for digging these up.
I suppose it depends on one's mindset, but since I am an artist I think the Duct Tape fashions are way cool. And they have got to be way more fun to put together than some average formal outfit shopped for from a magazine. Some of those are really good!

Now, as to the "Getto" Prom, ooh, bad taste reigneth. Those are some kids that should have been sent home!

The real problem here is not discrimination against transvestites or gays or anything, though that is, admittedly, a very serious problem in our society.

The problem is dress codes. The idea that a person is somehow acceptable while wearing a tux and unacceptable while not wearing it is one of the most deeply rooted and farcical ideas that civilization has ever come up with. Anyone who advocates dress codes and who thinks that things such as "presentability" and outward appearances are the factors on which we should judge others is, in my opinion, deranged.

(I should probably add that I am a militant clothing partisan: I wear shorts and a t-shirt nearly every day of the year, except when there is snow on the ground. If it is raining heavily, I may put on a jacket. I have friends who have never seen me in long pants. And I live in a fairly rainy climate)

I think that general acceptance of nudism would be, in the long term, the healthiest option. Unfortunately, I have been quite thoroughly conditioned by society to be unable to adjust to such a system. It's a vicious cycle. Clothes developed for functionality: to ward off the elements. That should be its primary purpose, and if people want to make it decorative, that's fine as well. But it is idiotic to try to judge a person's character by their clothes.
Quite so. Funny you have friends who have never seen you in long pants because none of my friends have ever seen me in short pants, even when it's a windless 100+ degrees out.

Thanks for digging these up.
I suppose it depends on one's mindset, but since I am an artist I think the Duct Tape fashions are way cool. And they have got to be way more fun to put together than some average formal outfit shopped for from a magazine. Some of those are really good!

Now, as to the "Getto" Prom, ooh, bad taste reigneth. Those are some kids that should have been sent home!
We never will discover all the uses for duct tape.:D

The reason why the story has gotten this big, which it isn't that big yet, is because people are going to say this is a discrimination to homosexuality, in males, and a discrimination against Males who wish to dress freely etc.

It isn't. This kid probably has some past bullshit records with his school, and they school didn't want to risk this kid being a fucking idiot at the Prom while wearing a fucking Fuchsia dress...FUCHSIA...I mean, it probably hung lower than his breasts.

So I don't see why anyone should be defending him, he is just a fucking idiot.

That last one really highlights my point. The rule isn't really that important. These days, I doubt there would be much shock value, especially if people didn't pretend to be so damned socially squeamish. Life's really too short to confine our fellow man with silly things.
I think other people like to whine a lot about other people whining. And if the dress code for prom was a school policy, then why did they have no trouble with him wearing "women's clothing" to school?
they had no problem with what he wore during school because...
Logan said he had spent years defining and exploring his sexuality. This year, he took a major step by dressing as a female every day, wearing makeup, a hair weave, nails and girls' fitted jeans to school.doubt school rules define what fit/cut of jeans can be worn by whom.

as for that last point. that proves that all he was doing was trying for shock value and not excersising his rights.

Now let's look at it from another point. he complains that his memories are ruined because he couldn't go to the prom.

let's look at the rest of the student body. let's assume 50% would not care. that leaves 50% who would have their memories ruined with the memory of a guy in a dress, after all, we don't know what he'd look like in that dress. good or bad, alot more than one person would probably have their evening ruined.

Then let's go to the potential violence that may or may not occure. the school's concern is not having that violence at all. so it would be easier on the school (especially if he didn't warn them by asking if he could wear a dress) to prevent one student from attending than to keep an eye out on everyone else to prevent any violence (physical or otherwise) from occuring and ruining Prom for everyone else. Remember, faculty and staff's concern is for the welfare of the students in general and not for the students individually. so the choice was simple. one student over an unknown amount.

Had Kevin fought for his right to wear a dress before Prom night, I think things would be different. He probably would've been allowed his choice of clothing, and perhaps many students would've joined him in his choice.