NationStates Jolt Archive

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.
For the record, I'm not defending him. I'm defending a right. Whether he is an idiot or not is inconsequential. If it did hang lower than his breasts, that would be a breach of the dress code, but I am not privy to such information as that or his school record. If they could tolerate his clothing habits at school, prom shouldn't be any different.

ok...

its the goddamn fucking prom...

and jesus effing christ its just a goddamn fucking fuschia dress..!!!

it aint the end of the world!

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

Exactly right. Just like how only hot chicks are allowed to be lesbians and no gay men, evar.

they had no problem with what he wore during school because...
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.
It's a bit of a stretch to think he wore jeans EVERY day. That's probably just an example. He may have worn dresses previously. Oh, okay, so it is okay to discriminate if someone else may not approve? So if I don't like it that you disagree with me, you should be forumbanned? This could turn into physical violence, maybe you shouldn't log into NS anymore. *note the sarcasm*
That's part of the problem with the modern United States. We have become so focused on trying to make the masses happy that we've sacrificed the individual to a frightening level. When do we stop oppressing the individual for the favor of the masses? When is one man's life more important than another's? That's really the heart of the matter. It's a matter of avoiding issues that need to be resolved before a massive conflict erupts, of appeasing the selfish whims of tradition. THAT is why I hate the modern United States. Nothing is sacred anymore. Everything is subject to the tyranny of the masses. Ethics have completely been removed from the equation. Would you want me to sacrifice your wife or your child, literally sacrifice, for the faintest possibility that it might benefit humanity? How about yourself? Would you like to sit in a moldy jail cell for something you didn't do because it made the masses feel safer at night? It's a matter of individuals. Who is more important? There we have the fundamental basis of liberty and justice: no one is more important. Everyone has his rights. Period. How much injustice will it take before we return to the fundamental principles of the founding fathers? How many people will be forced to be someone they are not because the "greater good" demands it? And why is it that the majority always determines "the greater good?" What makes them so much more important than the one man who just wants to live happily?

ok...

its the goddamn fucking prom...

and jesus effing christ its just a goddamn fucking fuschia dress..!!!

it aint the end of the world!
That was probably the most neutral statement ever posted in this thread.:D

It's a bit of a stretch to think he wore jeans EVERY day. That's probably just an example. He may have worn dresses previously. Oh, okay, so it is okay to discriminate if someone else may not approve? So if I don't like it that you disagree with me, you should be forumbanned? This could turn into physical violence, maybe you shouldn't log into NS anymore. *note the sarcasm*nope, drawing my clues in the article, why specifically mention girl cut jeans and not women's/Girl's clothing? which would also inferre Dresses.

and again, the Faculty and Staff have to look out for the students as a whole. now, if Kevin did ask for permission and did not receive it, we would've heard this before the Prom. not after. add to the fact that if he indeed did not ask if it was ok, then he was going for the shock value and to me, any complaints about lost memories and experieces is entirely kevin's fault.

That's part of the problem with the modern United States. We have become so focused on trying to make the masses happy that we've sacrificed the individual to a frightening level. When do we stop oppressing the individual for the favor of the masses? when we stop being anything like a Democratic society or when individual lawsuits end.
When is one man's life more important than another's? when the choice is one person being hurt or killed vs one person being sad at missing out of an experience.
That's really the heart of the matter. It's a matter of avoiding issues that need to be resolved before a massive conflict erupts, of appeasing the selfish whims of tradition.the heart of (this) matter is how and when to fight your battles. Kevin tried for a blitzkreige and failed. what he should've done was ask beforehand, and if they said no, then rally support and change that rule BEFORE PROM NIGHT.
THAT is why I hate the modern United States. then go back 20/30 years ago when people like Kevin would've been beaten and killed. Nothing is sacred anymore. Everything is subject to the tyranny of the masses.better tyranny of the masses then Tyranny of the few or the one. Ethics have completely been removed from the equation.I agree. of course, those ethics that were removed would've had Kevin beaten and killed for being gay. but if you're moaning those missing ethics, then go ahead. I'm glad those days are dissapearing. Would you want me to sacrifice your wife or your child, literally sacrifice, for the faintest possibility that it might benefit humanity? who sacrificed Kevin's memories? the Faculty and Staff? no, Kevin. he gambled and lost. How about yourself? Would you like to sit in a moldy jail cell for something you didn't do because it made the masses feel safer at night? not relevant to the argument. was Kevin Jailed? His money was refunded. at a time past any refund would be possible. It's a matter of individuals. Who is more important? the safty and welfare of every individual is more important than the safty and welfare of one individual. There we have the fundamental basis of liberty and justice: no one is more important. Everyone has his rights. Period. How much injustice will it take before we return to the fundamental principles of the founding fathers? How many people will be forced to be someone they are not because the "greater good" demands it? And why is it that the majority always determines "the greater good?" What makes them so much more important than the one man who just wants to live happily?{claps} nice speech. but again, no one is to blame except for Kevin. he had many choices and oppourtinities to make his fight known and turn his Prom night into a victory night. but he gambled on shock value and lost. even his mother warned him that not everyone would execpt him. so instead of taking a path that stood a better chance at victory, he wanted to be nothing more than another "Victim of discrimination." to get his 15 mins of fame.

as you said, the facutly didn't complain about him wearing Women's clothing. so why turn him away from the prom? perhaps because of the dress code. After all, there is no other sign of discrimination going on from the school faculty and staff.

nope, drawing my clues in the article, why specifically mention girl cut jeans and not women's/Girl's clothing? which would also inferre Dresses.

and again, the Faculty and Staff have to look out for the students as a whole. now, if Kevin did ask for permission and did not receive it, we would've heard this before the Prom. not after. add to the fact that if he indeed did not ask if it was ok, then he was going for the shock value and to me, any complaints about lost memories and experieces is entirely kevin's fault.

when we stop being anything like a Democratic society or when individual lawsuits end.
when the choice is one person being hurt or killed vs one person being sad at missing out of an experience.
the heart of (this) matter is how and when to fight your battles. Kevin tried for a blitzkreige and failed. what he should've done was ask beforehand, and if they said no, then rally support and change that rule BEFORE PROM NIGHT.
then go back 20/30 years ago when people like Kevin would've been beaten and killed. better tyranny of the masses then Tyranny of the few or the one. I agree. of course, those ethics that were removed would've had Kevin beaten and killed for being gay. but if you're moaning those missing ethics, then go ahead. I'm glad those days are dissapearing. who sacrificed Kevin's memories? the Faculty and Staff? no, Kevin. he gambled and lost. not relevant to the argument. was Kevin Jailed? His money was refunded. at a time past any refund would be possible. the safty and welfare of every individual is more important than the safty and welfare of one individual.{claps} nice speech. but again, no one is to blame except for Kevin. he had many choices and oppourtinities to make his fight known and turn his Prom night into a victory night. but he gambled on shock value and lost. even his mother warned him that not everyone would execpt him. so instead of taking a path that stood a better chance at victory, he wanted to be nothing more than another "Victim of discrimination." to get his 15 mins of fame.

as you said, the facutly didn't complain about him wearing Women's clothing. so why turn him away from the prom? perhaps because of the dress code. After all, there is no other sign of discrimination going on from the school faculty and staff.
I'll start with tryanny. No, tyranny of the masses is worse. Anyone who tries to overthrow those injustices is doomed to failure because the sheer weight of numbers against him. That's the only real difference between tyranny of the masses and tyranny of an individual. And we could be democratic and value the individual. They aren't mutually exclusive. And as for the violence part, well, that's what accountability is for. Whoever is truly responsible for the violence should be caught and punished to the full extent of the law. Domestic terrorism shouldn't force the oppression of the individual. That's what it is, after all. Besides, if anyone had had a quarrel with the crossdressing, they would probably have acted upon it much sooner. At least that sacrifice could finally shed some light on underlying social issues, like prejudices. I never said he was jailed, but it has happened to many. They were convicted because someone needed to be blamed for some terrible crime to make everyone feel safer, but the real culprit couldn't be found. That part was all rhetoric designed to help you think about what happens when we forsake the individual. The refund is immaterial. It's the principle of the thing. He wasn't admitted because the administration didn't want to have to cope with who he was. Which is completely unfair to him, whatever his motivation. If he did try to make a scene out of it, he could always be removed later. Did he lose? Maybe he lost then, but won long term. Maybe people will be more accepting of people who don't fit the norm after this, even if it is a product of media misinformation (after all, the media never tell the whole story). Maybe he could have done more to get approval for his attire, but my point is that he shouldn't have had to. He shouldn't have to ask if can wear something that fits in the legitimate dress code parameters. It's like a forty-year-old man still asking his mother if he can ride the really big roller coaster or see the scary movie that's on at bedtime. No one should be subjected to that kind of dominion. I don't know how much longer I can maintain this. Seriousness never was my strong suit, and people who don't value justice and liberty really tend to try my patience. Anyway, I'm not saying what he did was handled the best way, just that that sort of thing shouldn't have to happen. And if it were a sanctioned occurrence, there would be no shock value after a very short time. Everyone would have already seen it. And don't give me that rhetoric bullshit about the safety of the many. That one individual didn't threaten the many. If you're so worried about the safety of the many, then why am I still alive? I'm fairly unstable and have strong convictions, objection to killing not among them.

[edit: Did you ever think that maybe they mentioned something specific TO PROVIDE DETAIL. That's one of those things about good writing...detail. Make it too generic and you lose the short attention span of the audience. Details aren't necessarily the whole of the picture, you know. Don't limit your perspective so much.

I'll start with tryanny. No, tyranny of the masses is worse. Anyone who tries to overthrow those injustices is doomed to failure because the sheer weight of numbers against him.the same for Tryanny of a few. it all depends on HOW you fight them. Kevin chose his battlefield badly.
That's the only real difference between tyranny of the masses and tyranny of an individual. no, there are more differences, but to go into them would detract from the thread.
And we could be democratic and value the individual. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Agreed, but as long as majoriy holds the upper hand, the Individual needs to be smarter. and that is their strength. had kevin sought allies for his fight, and engaged early, he would've found more options and more time to get his right to wear what he's comfortable with respected. but to try an end run without any support is just bad planning on his part. thus he sounds more like he's whining at the end.
And as for the violence part, well, that's what accountability is for. Whoever is truly responsible for the violence should be caught and punished to the full extent of the law. and as long as the school is held accountable for the safety of the students by their parents, then the responsibility as well as their right to excersise their power is theirs.
Domestic terrorism shouldn't force the oppression of the individual. Domestic Terrorism? who said anything about Domestic Terrorism?
That's what it is, after all. Besides, if anyone had had a quarrel with the crossdressing, they would probably have acted upon it much sooner. including the faculty. the fact that they didn't means that the ruling about the dress code is not a discriminatory one. thus Kevin can cry Discrimination, but we know in fact, that it isnt. At least that sacrifice could finally shed some light on underlying social issues, like prejudices. and his actions only showed that he was selfish. I never said he was jailed, but it has happened to many. for springing a violation of dress rules at the last minute? source please. They were convicted because someone needed to be blamed for some terrible crime to make everyone feel safer, but the real culprit couldn't be found.ahh... you're trying to build strawmen arguments. I see. That part was all rhetoric designed to help you think about what happens when we forsake the individual.at least I'm still focusing on Kevin as an individual, you seem to be trying to build him up to be a freedom fighter... a cause. thus you are ignoring his individuality. . The refund is immaterial. It's the principle of the thing. He wasn't admitted because the administration didn't want to have to cope with who he was. dispite the fact that you agreed with, that the administration has been coping with his dress choice for the school year... nice way to ignore that fact. Which is completely unfair to him, whatever his motivation. If he did try to make a scene out of it, he could always be removed later. removed later? on what grounds? once they admitted him in, then they won't remove him since they allowed his breaking of the Prom Dress Code. to Remove him later would have to be for another reason. Did he lose? Maybe he lost then, but won long term.I think he won a battle that only he was fighting. Maybe people will be more accepting of people who don't fit the norm after this,nice thought but unlikely, there were other stories like this and if public opinion didn't change then, it wont change after this. the only thing he succeeded in doing was cast a dark cloud over an event that could've been avoided with some planning and forethought on his part. even if it is a product of media misinformation (after all, the media never tell the whole story). Maybe he could have done more to get approval for his attire, but my point is that he shouldn't have had to. He shouldn't have to ask if can wear something that fits in the legitimate dress code parameters. but it didn't fit the legitimate dress code parameters. that's why he wasn't allowed in. if he wanted to challange a ruling or change a law/rule, doing the shock and awe thing doesn't work. a sensable plea can work wonders and I beilieve that had he gone that route, he would be posting his Prom Pic right now.
It's like a forty-year-old man still asking his mother if he can ride the really big roller coaster or see the scary movie that's on at bedtime.big difference. the 40 year old man would most likely meet the hight requirement for the ride as well as meet the age requrement for any rated movie. thus that 40 year old man is obeying the law and rules set down. now would you allow a newly parolled murderer the right to own a firearm? or allow an 11 year old to watch a XXX rated film without a parent or guardian? heck, even closer to this case. would you allow high school boys into the girls locker room and showers while they're using them? or would you oppress their freedom to travel where they want to go? No one should be subjected to that kind of dominion. to ignore that type of dominion and allow the flagerant disreguard for rules and laws only lead to anarchy. and when that occurs, it will become MIGHT makes RIGHT. and you will be begging for some order... even if it's a majority rules.
I don't know how much longer I can maintain this. Seriousness never was my strong suit, and people who don't value justice and liberty really tend to try my patience.then read your posts carefully, for you are not in favor of Justice nor Liberty, but Anarchy.
Anyway, I'm not saying what he did was handled the best way, just that that sort of thing shouldn't have to happen. there are proper ways to get rules changed, and improper ones. Kevin left himself no room for error. he assumed that his being gay allowed him the right to disreguard anything that seems constricting to his freedom. Reality slapped him down. had he been thinking, he probably would've gotten the rule changed and who knows, maybe there would've been more people expressing their freedoms and choices.
And if it were a sanctioned occurrence, there would be no shock value after a very short time. Everyone would have already seen it. And don't give me that rhetoric bullshit about the safety of the many. That one individual didn't threaten the many. true, this is High School where all students are not prone to violence. like those who went around beating people up for no reason and posting webcasts of it. where hazing doesn't occure (just because none was reported, doesn't mean none happened.) he tried to break a rule that was set and would've been announced to EVERYONE. thus he tried to knowingly break a rule. of course the faculty had no choice but to punnish him. now what if he did get permission earlier to wear a dress? what if he decided to wear a tux? He gambled on a last minute blitz and he lost.
If you're so worried about the safety of the many, then why am I still alive? I'm fairly unstable and have strong convictions, objection to killing not among them.because like it or not (and I'm very sure you will like this.) I have no responsiblity for you or your actions. unlike a school that is responsible for what goes on at their campus and their events. they also have accountability.

[edit: Did you ever think that maybe they mentioned something specific TO PROVIDE DETAIL. That's one of those things about good writing...detail. Make it too generic and you lose the short attention span of the audience. Details aren't necessarily the whole of the picture, you know. Don't limit your perspective so much.and don't broaden it too much. there was nothing in there to indicate discrimination on the school's part. also, it matters as to what kind of detail they provide. while they didn't mentin dresses, they also didn't mention if he had any trouble because of his choices. we don't know if he was being threatened by other students, we don't know if the faculty was allowing his dress code or not. they don't even mention if he was going around and flaunting his choice, you know, forcing others to look at him and accept him.

I would rather choose to believe what was written and reported on. untill proven otherwise. Anything else is speculation on the readers part and not proven in the media.

Nope, that's wrong too. But private industry isn't in question here. Your turn to stay on topic.

I know. I was talking about the fact that there are occasionally compelling reasons to discriminate (and that one was a real case I could think of), but the school doesn't have one. The primary reason is that the school is a government entity that need not concern itself with whether or not its 'customers' disapprove of the dress of another 'customer'. There is no way I could have found an appropriate scenario in the public industry so I had to look elsewhere.

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.

Couple of things.

One, the guy was allowed to wear women's clothing to school the entire year. He had every reason to believe that this policy should continue.

Two, a woman was allowed to come in, in a tux. This suggests this is less about adhering to these dress codes and more about discrimination.

Three, even if they told him ahead of time this is still an issue of discrimination and he should fight it. He was denied entrance to the prom wearing what would have been acceptable were he a girl. That clear and obvious discrimination based on sex. He is very well within his rights to blame the administration for the discrimination. I suppose black had no one to blame for themselves for the discrimination they suffered, yeah? It was the rules and they should have followed. Or they should have challenged them in a firm manner, like, say, refusing to sit in the back of the bus, and force the issue to be reviewed. I say this kid is behaving beyond his years.

Discrimination doesn't have to be focused on him. If their are special male rules and special female rules, then it is discrimination based on sex.

Four, there is every indication that he knew his style of dress was against the rules for men the entire year AND for the prom.

Five, if it's for shock value, why would he give them a year to get used to the idea. There is no one that should look at this and think this guy is just trying to shock people. He was dressing how he likes to dress.

I'm curious, would standing up for your civil rights be whining too? Or does that only apply to people you don't agree with?

they had no problem with what he wore during school because...
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.

What a load of shite. People are going to have their memories 'ruined' by a guy 'shocking' them when he's been wearing clearly women's clothing and style for a year. Make-up. A weave. Girl's clothes. What are you missing here.

You don't get it. It's discrimination and you're defending it. Which of your rights can we infringe upon just so I don't have to look at you? Can we make special rules for fat people if everyone votes that they're gross? What if I say black people offend me unless they wear dashikis? Would the school be able to make that a rule? The point is that there is no reason to apply this rule differently by sex and they do it, simply because of tradition, much like every other kind of discrimination we no longer accept. You're not even making an argument that it's not discrimination. You're simply arguing it should acceptable. (well, to be fair, you said it's not, but you haven't showed how it's not.)

when we stop being anything like a Democratic society or when individual lawsuits end.
when the choice is one person being hurt or killed vs one person being sad at missing out of an experience.

Ridiculous. We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. It was created as such because if we infringe on the rights of one to prevent offense we infringe on the rights of all. We don't abridge freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of religion in a discriminatory way in schools for that very reason. It's important that the individual's rights are not infringed unless they present a danger to others in some way. You haven't shown that he did. If all it is whether or not some students wouldn't have like, I'm pretty sure I would have been kept out of all school events. You suggest violence is a danger, but this kid dressed clearly like a woman the whole year. If it was dangerous they'd have addressed it sooner. There is no indication they thought the other students were in danger and you've haven't shown otherwise.

If you're going to just make things up, we're not going to get anywhere.


By the way, research is your friend -

The school uniform dress policy, which quotes the First Amendment right of freedom of expression, prohibits halter tops, miniskirts and attire promoting profanity, among other things.

It does not say boys can’t wear dresses or skirts.
http://www.post-trib.com/cgi-bin/pto-story/news/z1/05-26-06_z1_news_01.html

Also, note how a woman was permitted to wear a tuxedo to the prom, but Kevin was not allowed to go in a dress. Also, note that there is no question that this women looked like a man (she proposed to her girlfriend at the prom). This is a clear case of discrimination. As clear as I've ever seen.

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."

IIRC, one of the articles had a statement that one of the administrators had approached him and told him not to wear a dress to prom.

5) if he did ask, and was told no, then he's got no one to blame but himself for not following rules.

And Rosa Parks had no one to blame but herself when she got arrested? Or did she, just maybe, have the right to blame the idiotic rule that would have made her sit at the back of the bus?

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.

The rule itself is discriminatory on its face. Meanwhile, it is important to note that the same school allowed a girl to attend prom in a tuxedo. Thus, any argument they might make about traditional clothing for males and females is automatically thrown out the window.

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.

This is pretty silly, you know. Someone's prom is not going to be ruined because a guy is there in a dress any more than they would be ruined if the nerd they didn't like showed up, if another girl wore the same dress, or if someone wore an ugly dress. Should we kick every girl wearing the same dress as another out just because it might upset someone? Should we keep out any person who isn't liked by at least 50% of the students, since having someone they don't like there might upset them?

The only way to keep someone from having memories of prom is to have them not get to go at all. What they make of it once they get there is their own problem.

better tyranny of the masses then Tyranny of the few or the one.

I'm sorry. At what point did Kevin try to make other people wear dresses?

there are proper ways to get rules changed, and improper ones. Kevin left himself no room for error. he assumed that his being gay allowed him the right to disreguard anything that seems constricting to his freedom. Reality slapped him down. had he been thinking, he probably would've gotten the rule changed and who knows, maybe there would've been more people expressing their freedoms and choices.

You're making an awful lot of assumptions about someone you don't even know. What makes you think that he thought that being gay allowed him to do anything? Maybe he thought that being a HUMAN BEING afforded him certain rights?

but it didn't fit the legitimate dress code parameters. that's why he wasn't allowed in.

It fit all of the legitimate dress code parameters. It simply didn't fit the discriminatory ones.

including the faculty. the fact that they didn't means that the ruling about the dress code is not a discriminatory one. thus Kevin can cry Discrimination, but we know in fact, that it isnt.

Even though they allowed a girl who did not meet the "girl" dress code, but instead met the "boy" dress code attend?

and his actions only showed that he was selfish.

Yeah, just like that selfish Rosa Parks, sitting in the front of the bus when she should have just taken her rightful place at the back.

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

Those duct tape dresses were pretty cool and creative, some of them looked ugly and slapped together, but other's look like they took a lot of thought and planning.

As for the ghetto prom where do you even find dresses that hideous? Or did they just pick the dresses up at goodwill and hack them to bits themselves? The school probably couldn't send people home for not being tastefully dressed or else a riot would ensue. It's a good argument as to why teachers should be armed!

Couple of things.

One, the guy was allowed to wear women's clothing to school the entire year. He had every reason to believe that this policy should continue. Proms are special events. what is normally worn during school can be "prohibited" at a Prom.

Two, a woman was allowed to come in, in a tux. This suggests this is less about adhering to these dress codes and more about discrimination. that was a loop hole.

Three, even if they told him ahead of time this is still an issue of discrimination and he should fight it.ahh. now, if he did know ahead of time, he could've fought it and probably won. He was denied entrance to the prom wearing what would have been acceptable were he a girl. That clear and obvious discrimination based on sex. He is very well within his rights to blame the administration for the discrimination.with this new information that made it the Administrator's Discretion does change things.
I suppose black had no one to blame for themselves for the discrimination they suffered, yeah? It was the rules and they should have followed. Or they should have challenged them in a firm manner, like, say, refusing to sit in the back of the bus, and force the issue to be reviewed. I say this kid is behaving beyond his years.nice well built strawman. keep on focus please.
Discrimination doesn't have to be focused on him. If their are special male rules and special female rules, then it is discrimination based on sex.like boys and girls locker rooms? Boys and girls only sports?

Four, there is every indication that he knew his style of dress was against the rules for men the entire year AND for the prom.and he didn't try to fight it before the prom? to get it changed? You make it sound like he WANTED a CONFRONTATION. is that the only way to get things changed? to you, and kevin, I guess so.

Five, if it's for shock value, why would he give them a year to get used to the idea. There is no one that should look at this and think this guy is just trying to shock people. He was dressing how he likes to dress.did he explore other avenues to getting the rules changed? no, he didn't.

I'm curious, would standing up for your civil rights be whining too? Or does that only apply to people you don't agree with?standing up for one's rights is fine and dandy, and had he taken steps that were less confrontational I would have no problems. after all, announcements about dress codes should've been during their prom meetings. and at that time, it could've been addressed. but then everyone loves the confrontational ones. it's the reasonable ones that actually work the system that don't get air time. :rolleyes:

What a load of shite. People are going to have their memories 'ruined' by a guy 'shocking' them when he's been wearing clearly women's clothing and style for a year. Make-up. A weave. Girl's clothes. What are you missing here.dunno... that the fact that perhaps it wasn't discrimination against his choice of lifestyles? after all why no fuss untill Prom Night?

You don't get it. It's discrimination and you're defending it.how is it discrimination? bad judgement on the part of the principal, yes, but discrimination? was he prohibited from wearing girls clothes in Schoon? no. so how can one act of bad judgement be suddenly labeled discrimination?
Which of your rights can we infringe upon just so I don't have to look at you? Can we make special rules for fat people if everyone votes that they're gross? What if I say black people offend me unless they wear dashikis? nice strawman... keep it away from open flames tho. Would the school be able to make that a rule? The point is that there is no reason to apply this rule differently by sex and they do it, simply because of tradition, much like every other kind of discrimination we no longer accept. You're not even making an argument that it's not discrimination. You're simply arguing it should acceptable. (well, to be fair, you said it's not, but you haven't showed how it's not.)All I am saying is that had Kevin thought it out, the outcome would've been different. to turn around and cry discrimination against one (1) act is just as wrong.

Ridiculous. We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. if you are going to NITPICK, get it right. We live in a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.
It was created as such because if we infringe on the rights of one to prevent offense we infringe on the rights of all. We don't abridge freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of religion in a discriminatory way in schools for that very reason.unfortunately the Government cannot be that way, someones rights will always be infringed upon. however, It's also made to insure the Infringment of rights is not for a selfish reason. It's important that the individual's rights are not infringed unless they present a danger to others in some way. You haven't shown that he did. and no one has shown that is was discrimination. Bad judgement yes, but not discrimination.
If all it is whether or not some students wouldn't have like, I'm pretty sure I would have been kept out of all school events. You suggest violence is a danger, but this kid dressed clearly like a woman the whole year. If it was dangerous they'd have addressed it sooner. There is no indication they thought the other students were in danger and you've haven't shown otherwise.which shows that Kevins exclusion from the prom is not DISCRIMINATION. since there has been no action against him for the year.

If you're going to just make things up, we're not going to get anywhere.not making anything up. show me where the principal actions are discriminating against Kevin, and I'll show you that it was more a case of bad judgement.

By the way, research is your friend -

The school uniform dress policy, which quotes the First Amendment right of freedom of expression, prohibits halter tops, miniskirts and attire promoting profanity, among other things.

It does not say boys can’t wear dresses or skirts.
http://www.post-trib.com/cgi-bin/pto...1_news_01.html
complete research is also your friend...

let's look at your quote.

The school uniform dress policy, which quotes the First Amendment right of freedom of expression, prohibits halter tops, miniskirts and attire promoting profanity, among other things.

see it. SCHOOL UNIFORM DRESS POLICY. nothing about Prom or special events where SCHOOL UNIFORMS are not required.

"However, a clause in the code says administrators at their discretion can ban clothing that they think would be disruptive." talking about clothing worn at school.

and further down.

School Board President Jesse Morris isn’t taking sides: “'I’m sorry about what happened. I hope no one is too traumatized because we’ve got more pressing problems. As a board member, I don’t want to stop anyone from expressing themselves, but it was in the principal’s power to make that decision. I’m not saying who’s right or wrong.”

Now, can anyone provide me with the DRESS POLICY FOR THE PROM?

now the definition of Discrimination: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

can you show me a string of events that show discrimination against Kevin?

yes, women wore tuxidoes to the prom which indicates that there was no discrmination against cross dressers.

Yes Kevin wore women's clothing to school. so there is no Discrmination against kevin nor cross dressing in school.

however, Proms are special times. (agreed?) and they do have seperate rules for the Prom.

and women have always been able to get away with wearing things men can't. not saying it's discrimination, but when everything is baised on judgement, they just look better.

Also, note how a woman was permitted to wear a tuxedo to the prom, but Kevin was not allowed to go in a dress. Also, note that there is no question that this women looked like a man (she proposed to her girlfriend at the prom). This is a clear case of discrimination. As clear as I've ever seen.so one action is discrimination. one act makes a person a nazi in your eyes.

so I guess the only good people in your eyes is the Pope and Mother Theresa

I'd just like to say that I saw this kid on TV yesterday, and he looked absolutely stunning. Extremely feminine, and very tasteful. But the dress looked more lavender than fuschia to me ;)

I'd just like to say that I saw this kid on TV yesterday, and he looked absolutely stunning. Extremely feminine, and very tasteful. But the dress looked more lavender than fuschia to me ;)

Well.. "absolutely stunning" is a bit exaggerated in my opinion:

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/4381/0524promdeniedautosized1582zw.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Source: Azcentral (http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/0524prom-denied24-ON.html)
Still, it is not vulgar or anything, so I do not understand the fuss.

What a nice dress, fits well too.

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.


I think this bears repeating. The young man was allowed to wear feminine attire at school all year long with no consequences. To my knowledge, there was no posting of a dress code for the prom, nor any attempt to let the young man KNOW of a change in his situation for the prom. Essentially the school reversed itself when he attempted to get into the prom wearing, what for him, was appropriately formal attire (albeit feminine).

It's OK to change the rules, but you SHOULD and in this case, it was crucial that people be informed of the rules governing the event. The school was in the wrong, not once, but twice.

Since it allowed the young man to wear ladies clothing in the course of a normal school day, it established that it was ok for him to wear ladies clothing at school functions, by failing to notify the young man and his parents of the change of rule (if indeed they REALLY changed the rules, and just didn't throw him out because their tender sensibilities were offended) they were clearly in the wrong. Then they did not allow him to enter his prom. Thus compounding their culpability.


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."

How come you ascribe this motive to this kid? How do you know what the poor kid was thinking? The kid is not at fault here, genius. The burden of proof now lies with the school, principal and the district to PROVE it changed the rules and notified the kid and his family in a reasonably timely manner before the event, after all they allowed him to wear ladies clothes all year at school.

Despite the fact it was a dress (and fuschia), it fit the definition of formal attire. The kid should have been allowed in the prom.

Proms are special events. what is normally worn during school can be "prohibited" at a Prom.

And what is normally prohibited can be allowed (and generally is, from most school dress codes I've seen vs. most prom dresses).

that was a loop hole.

Based on the latest article, it would seem that the "loop hole" was the principal not really caring if a girl wore boy's clothes.

dunno... that the fact that perhaps it wasn't discrimination against his choice of lifestyles? after all why no fuss untill Prom Night?

It was quite obviously discrimination at the prom. This is like saying, "Sometimes we let the darkies in our white restaraunts, so obviously it isn't discrimination when we don't."

how is it discrimination?

It is discriminatory treatment based on nothing more than the sex of the person involved. How is it not discriminatory?

so how can one act of bad judgement be suddenly labeled discrimination?

The fact that the action was discriminatory?

see it. SCHOOL UNIFORM DRESS POLICY. nothing about Prom or special events where SCHOOL UNIFORMS are not required.

"However, a clause in the code says administrators at their discretion can ban clothing that they think would be disruptive." talking about clothing worn at school.

And yet they seem to be using it as the reason for this decision...


School Board President Jesse Morris isn’t taking sides: “'I’m sorry about what happened. I hope no one is too traumatized because we’ve got more pressing problems. As a board member, I don’t want to stop anyone from expressing themselves, but it was in the principal’s power to make that decision. I’m not saying who’s right or wrong.”

Now, can anyone provide me with the DRESS POLICY FOR THE PROM?

The School Board President seems pretty clear. The dress policy was whatever the principal wanted it to be.

now the definition of Discrimination: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

can you show me a string of events that show discrimination against Kevin?

Kevin showed up in what the principal considered to be "women's clothing". Because Kevin is not female, and the principal does not approve of a male wearing "women's clothing", he was not allowed into prom.

This is logically no different from turning a black person away for "dressing white."

yes, women wore tuxidoes to the prom which indicates that there was no discrmination against cross dressers.

No, but it indicates that there was quite obviously discrimination against male crossdressers. In fact, the fact that women were allowed to wear men's clothing makes it quite clear that this is sex discrimination.

so one action is discrimination.

If I kick a person out of my store for being black just once, does that mean it wasn't discrimination?

one act makes a person a nazi in your eyes.

I'm sorry, where did Jocabia call anyone a nazi?

Proms are special events. what is normally worn during school can be "prohibited" at a Prom.

Interesting. Not useful though. Doesn't justify prejudice.

that was a loop hole.

It wasn't a loop hole despite what one of the article says. There was a discretionary decision to be made. The principal allowed her in and didn't allow him in.

ahh. now, if he did know ahead of time, he could've fought it and probably won. with this new information that made it the Administrator's Discretion does change things.

The article I read actually said the principle was not willing to discuss it with him or his mother. There is nothing new here. The article said it was the discretion of the administrator and has been referenced in the thread.

nice well built strawman. keep on focus please.

Ha, amusing. I was comparing other acts of prejudice. That is on focus. What is that you would say makes this so much different than discrimination based on race? Or avoid the question again. Dropping arguments is a legitimate debate tactic.

like boys and girls locker rooms? Boys and girls only sports?

Perfect examples. Can you tell me what is different about seperate lockerrooms for boys and girls/seperate sports versus different clothing requirements? Well, let's see if I can think of just a few. Fair competition. There is a physiological difference between men and women that makes their performance in various sports an issue, even to the point of making it a safety issue. However, in places where the safety issue and the competition issue is not compelling, they have permitted competition by people of the opposite sex and it's often been supported by court cases. Next time you might want to use an example that doesn't help me. On the locker room point, you should really the whole thread. Already addressed several times.

Again, discrimination is not illegal if there is a compelling interest served. You can show no interest served by denying a man the right to do the exact same thing as a woman here. You can make up things about offense but with a public entity discriminatory rules can not simply be based on offense. In the US, you couldn't deny me the right to wear a cross because Muslims would be offended for example. A more compelling reason must be present, like safety (in terms of locker rooms and sports).

and he didn't try to fight it before the prom? to get it changed? You make it sound like he WANTED a CONFRONTATION. is that the only way to get things changed? to you, and kevin, I guess so.

Yes, he wanted the confrontation. So he patiently wore women's clothing for the entire year in an effort to make himself miss prom because that sounds like an effective method of doing things. He appears to have been fighting this battle all along and it finally came to a head.

Again, there appears to be an avoidance of the problem on the side of the administration until the Prom. They were the adults in this situation. Meanwhile, the actions are still discriminatry whether or not there was a better way to address it.

did he explore other avenues to getting the rules changed? no, he didn't.

Based on what? Come on. You've got this vast resource of knowledge you haven't shared with us. Please show me how he didn't wear women's clothes for a whole year to school, thus addressing this very policy. Please show me that he never made any attempts to meet with the principal prior to this or never discussed it with anyone. It appears he made his intentions quite available for an entire year. It also appears that had anyone not wanted the school to appear in the news for discriminatory practices or to be subject to a lawsuit, they could have addressed the issue. I love how in an issue of discrimination in your world, the person discriminated against is the only one required to be reasonable.

standing up for one's rights is fine and dandy, and had he taken steps that were less confrontational I would have no problems. after all, announcements about dress codes should've been during their prom meetings. and at that time, it could've been addressed. but then everyone loves the confrontational ones. it's the reasonable ones that actually work the system that don't get air time. :rolleyes:

There is no evidence there was a dress code that he violated. It appears the code was discretionary and the principle chose to enforce it Kevin but not against the female student wearing a tux.

dunno... that the fact that perhaps it wasn't discrimination against his choice of lifestyles? after all why no fuss untill Prom Night?

Really? I didn't know that only that kind of discrimination. It's not about lifestyle. Being gay isn't a "choice of lifestyle", but you're right no discrimination there. We're not talking about him being gay though. We're talking about him being transgender which is also not a "choice of lifestyle" AND what they discriminated against. It's discrimination based on sex and it's right out. They don't have a right to require something different of men than from women or vice versa without a compelling reason, something everyone has failed to show.

how is it discrimination? bad judgement on the part of the principal, yes, but discrimination? was he prohibited from wearing girls clothes in Schoon?

Amusing. You have such a weird definition of discrimination. I wonder where you learned it. If I turn down one applicant for my mailroom job because she was female, it's discrimination. It doesn't matter if I've never done it before, nor ever will again. If it is because she's female, then it's discrimination. A pattern just makes it easier to prove. In this case, a woman in the same dress would have been allowed in so he was kept out because he was male and it's discrimination regardless of your lack of understanding of the word.

no. so how can one act of bad judgement be suddenly labeled discrimination?

Again, seriously... do you not understand what discrimination is?

http://www.tenantslegalcenter.com/html/discrimination.html
Generally, illegal discrimination is when someone is treated differently simply due to their membership in a class based on a protected characteristic. For example, such characteristics includes race, national origin, color, age, gender, religion, family status, disability etc. These are characteristics which are either impossible or at least very difficult to control or change.

This is discrimination based on gender.

nice strawman... keep it away from open flames tho. All I am saying is that had Kevin thought it out, the outcome would've been different. to turn around and cry discrimination against one (1) act is just as wrong.

Ha. Why? How many acts in your mind become discrimination? That's the most bizarre claim I've ever heard. I've never heard of any rule of law that suggested we get one freebee.

By the way, a strawman is suggesting you made an argument you didn't and then arguing against it. I didn't. I compared this issue to other issues. For examples of a strawman look at the last couple of lines of your post. I forgive you though. I can see that I'm going to have to explain other things to you as well.

if you are going to NITPICK, get it right. We live in a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.
unfortunately the Government cannot be that way, someones rights will always be infringed upon. however, It's also made to insure the Infringment of rights is not for a selfish reason.and no one has shown that is was discrimination. Bad judgement yes, but not discrimination. which shows that Kevins exclusion from the prom is not DISCRIMINATION. since there has been no action against him for the year.

Forgive me if I don't trust your assessment since you don't appear to understand what discrimination is. You believe a pattern is necessary. There need be no history. Please show me legally where a history of discrimination is required (particularly since one could never establish a history of discrimination without first accepting the first case of it).

not making anything up. show me where the principal actions are discriminating against Kevin, and I'll show you that it was more a case of bad judgement.

That bad judgement was his choice to discriminate against Kevin. Again, you clearly don't understand what discrimination is. One act can very well be discrimination and you're only argument against it so far is that it didn't happen often enough for you. For me, once is enough and we should not allow it to occur again.

complete research is also your friend...

let's look at your quote.

The school uniform dress policy, which quotes the First Amendment right of freedom of expression, prohibits halter tops, miniskirts and attire promoting profanity, among other things.

see it. SCHOOL UNIFORM DRESS POLICY. nothing about Prom or special events where SCHOOL UNIFORMS are not required.

Yes, the school dress policy was the basis for the actions. There was no evidence that there was any special policy the principal was adhering to. However, please show us what policy he was using that allowed the tux on a woman but disallowed the dress on a man.

"However, a clause in the code says administrators at their discretion can ban clothing that they think would be disruptive." talking about clothing worn at school.

and further down.

School Board President Jesse Morris isn’t taking sides: “'I’m sorry about what happened. I hope no one is too traumatized because we’ve got more pressing problems. As a board member, I don’t want to stop anyone from expressing themselves, but it was in the principal’s power to make that decision. I’m not saying who’s right or wrong.”

Now, can anyone provide me with the DRESS POLICY FOR THE PROM?

It appears that the policy that the principal was acting up was his discretion according to all sources. I don't know the policy will change anything. Everyone involved says that it was up to the principal to decide and he did. Which is exactly what I said and you just evidence. Again, you should really work on supporting your side of the argument. I don't need your assistance.

now the definition of Discrimination: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

can you show me a string of events that show discrimination against Kevin?

String of events? Where does it say "string of events" in your definition? Kevin was unfairly treated due the principal's prejudice about what men should wear. Had Kevin been Karen he would have been permitted to wear the dress. That's unfair treatment and it's based on prejudice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice
When applied to social groups, prejudice generally refers to existing biases toward the members of such groups, often based on social stereotypes; and at its most extreme, results in groups being denied benefits and rights unjustly or, conversely, unfairly showing unwarranted favor towards others.

Both my definition and yours does not require a pattern, yet you keep crying out that one is required. Both my definition and yours make this an act of discrimination, but you keep claiming it's not. Silliness.

yes, women wore tuxidoes to the prom which indicates that there was no discrmination against cross dressers.

Yep. Just descrimination against males wearing dresses. How is that better? Are you suggesting that it was just a decision to keep out Kevin that any other males wearing dresses would have been allowed entrance?

Yes Kevin wore women's clothing to school. so there is no Discrmination against kevin nor cross dressing in school.

Agreed. Just against him crossdressing at the prom. Apparently, the principal doesn't have a general beef with crossdressers as you've shown. Instead, he has a discriminatory policy that says that women are allowed to wear dresses to the prom and men are not. Exactly what I've said all along. It doesn't matter how specific the descrimination is if it is still discrimination.

however, Proms are special times. (agreed?) and they do have seperate rules for the Prom.

Yes, and those rules must also be non-discriminatory.

and women have always been able to get away with wearing things men can't. not saying it's discrimination, but when everything is baised on judgement, they just look better.

That is precisely what discrimination is. If they are permitted but don't. No problem. To deny one group the right to wear something while allowing another is discrimination.

so one action is discrimination. one act makes a person a nazi in your eyes.

so I guess the only good people in your eyes is the Pope and Mother Theresa

Ha. Are we talking about what I've said or implied or are you actually talking about the things I didn't say because what I DID say is too compelling? Becuase if you're just making things up we can stop here. Where did I mention nazis or anything remotely similar? Quotes, please.

You have a funny view on discrimination. It doesn't have to be long-term or systematic. A young man was denied the right to do something he would have been permitted to do where he a woman. That's discrimination. Your confusion is amusing but it's not helping your argument.

Yes, one action makes it discrimination. Discrimination occurs a lot. It doesn't make one a nazin or a bad person as you imply. Just someone guilty of discrimination.

Well.. "absolutely stunning" is a bit exaggerated in my opinion:

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/4381/0524promdeniedautosized1582zw.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Source: Azcentral (http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/0524prom-denied24-ON.html)
Still, it is not vulgar or anything, so I do not understand the fuss.

It appears to be quite tasteful and appropriate. Interesting choice for someone everyone keeps claiming was just trying to start a problem. Isn't it interesting how everyone blames the victim? "Sure, the kid was kept out of the prom because he was wearing a dress while female crossdressers were allowed in, but it's his fault for not fighting this battle sooner. Who cares if the kid was discriminated against?"

Someone should have checked the dress code for the prom beforehand and complained then. Then he might have won and got to go to the prom.

Someone should have checked the dress code for the prom beforehand and complained then. Then he might have won and got to go to the prom.

Once again, the dress code did not change. The situation did.

When I was in school, parochial school no less, we had rules. When the rules changed we were told they had changed and so were our parents. The school and the district have that responsibility.

By allowing Kevin to wear ladies clothing to school and other school events, the school and principal presented a set of expectations. Then the principal changed it AT HIS DISCRETION in mid stream. It so happened that Kevin did nothing different than what he had done everyday for the whole school year EXCEPT the mode of dress was nicer.

Ideally both parties bear responsibility in the communication process. The school district is trying to avoid their culpability in this whole idiotic situation. Kevin did not deliberately flout the rules. If he and his family had been NOTIFIED that men and women would not be allowed to cross-dress at the prom, then the school would have a leg to stand on. Since they did not, then the school and principal bear responsibility for this case of invidious discrimination.

If it was against school policy, than I applaud the school.

Now, If it was *not* against the school policy...then I do not.

Alas, we'll never know. This is going to be blended, tossed, and turned, until the only thing we will know is that....something happened.

G'ah! That's why I hate BS like this...

after much research, I will conclude that it does seem that the Principal did indeed single out kevin.

Why tho, I will not speculate, tho I don't believe it was because he was Gay. maybe she felt that Kevin was flagerently disreguarding her authority as principal of the school. who knows. Perhaps she did twist the dress code rule to suit her personal manhunt but that is speculation.

However, without hearing her side of the story, I will not call discrimination.

The articles that I encountered that gave more information were here.
http://www.nbc5.com/news/9270406/detail.html

Kevin Logan said he has worn women's clothing since before the beginning of the school year, adding that he has been pulled out of class for bringing a purse.

"You have a problem with me wearing my purse, you kicked me out because I've got on an outfit, then you turn me away from prom," Logan said. "Of course I feel like you're singling me out."

and here
http://www.wbbm780.com/pages/39199.php

I will withdraw from this thread but will watch for new developments.

Rowan said it is school policy that males can’t wear dresses. “The administration would have erred in judgment if it had allowed the male student the privilege of dressing as a female,” he said in a statement

Privilage of dressing as a female. Females have clothing choices the male students dont' because female students are privilaged.

Wasn't this an aspect of the Women's Movement, that there be no gender based special privilages? Time to take the concept to it's logical completion.

This sounds like special treatment to me. If not always in practice, definitely in the attitude of the Principal and school admin.

Someone's probably said it, but DRESSES WERE INVENTED BY MEN, FOR MEN. Look it up.

Someone's probably said it, but DRESSES WERE INVENTED BY MEN, FOR MEN. Look it up.
Is there any particular reason why you're digging up all these old threads?

Gravedig much?

Beating dead dogs?