Parents Outraged Over Kids Cross-Dressing Fashion Show
Both girls and boys were expected to dress up for Women's History Month
By VINCE LATTANZIO
Updated 8:24 AM EDT, Wed, Apr 14, 2010

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/politics/Elementary-School-Cancels-Fashion-Show-Over-Cross-Dressing-Fears-90806229.html

Fears of cross-dressing students prompted a South Jersey elementary school to cancel a fashion show honoring Women's History Month.

Maude Wilkins Elementary School in Maple Shade, N.J. planned to show how women's fashion had changed through the years with a fashion show this Friday.

All students -- girls and boys -- were told to wear outfits from a particular time period and were expected to clearly explain it's historical significance.

The whole situation would have been solved if the school decided to have students volunteer instead of "told to wear" the outfits as the quoted in the article.

The whole situation wouldn't have been a situation if people (in this case, parents) would just open their minds and get educated.

And if the kids were freaked out by this, their parents taught them to be.

What if a parent has no problem with their kid cross-dressing but simply doesn't want the school to mandate it? See the difference?

They didn't MANDATE cross-dressing.  The cross-dressing thing was just a spin some phobic parents put on an innocent and well meaning attempt to get kids involved with women's history.

Would it be mandating if it was celebrating astronauts?  How about educating the kids about war heroes?  What about trying to understand how the slaves felt? 

It's about getting the kids involved rather than have to listen to a teacher talk or having to read a book.  It's much more effective.  And it's harmless so long as over-reactive parents don't inject their "dirty little thoughts" into the intent of the lesson.

Seems to me that saying kids 'must participate' is mandating.

Quote"If your child is a young man, he does not have to wear a dress or skirt, as there are many time periods where women wore jeans, pants and trousers,

Not mandating a dress but it is women's clothing however androgynous it may seem.

I don't know, dressing like Rosie The Riveter would involve wearing a blue collared shirt, overalls and a red bandanna with white polka dots on one's head. Hardly "cross-dressing." At the most, this was mandating wearing slightly androgynous clothing, and if parents are actually scared of their sons wearing slightly androgynous clothing, they need to get a life.

Quote from: PanoramaIsland on April 19, 2010, 12:56:38 PM
I don't know, dressing like Rosie The Riveter would involve wearing a blue collared shirt, overalls and a red bandanna with white polka dots on one's head. Hardly "cross-dressing." At the most, this was mandating wearing slightly androgynous clothing, and if parents are actually scared of their sons wearing slightly androgynous clothing, they need to get a life.

True that there are very few choices for that is another story and perhaps should have been covered in the classroom as well as the letter. It may have just made more parents angry as promoting crossdressing from the past however.

I don't see kids crossdressing for a school project a big deal but what *I* think isn't the point. If you want to teach acceptance or anything of the kind you have to do so in a way that works. A public school is paid by taxpayers and the parents basically have the say-so in how things are run. Plus, the parents own the kids, not the state. While bringing about transgender issues was not the intent of the school project, asking boys to wear women's-style clothing for any reason is a form of ->-bleeped-<- by definition. Transgender by definition involves individuals who cross traditional gender lines whether or not they personally identify as transgender.

We can't just automatically expect every parent to accept any program that a school pushes onto the pupils. That is why it is wise for schools to focus more on fact-based vs. feeling-based education. It is not necessary for third graders to understand how women of the 19th century "felt." You can't even technically teach emotions and feelings; you can only teach the facts that caused those feelings to come about and let the learner draw up their own conclusions and emotions.

It always annoyed me at the university how classes would always use in their mission statements terms like "appreciate [the content of the class]," or "admire," or "accept." Terms such as these induce feelings-based education which is inherently biased. A class should instead be focused on things such as "understand...," "learn," and "acknowledge."

Schools are using much more video and project based learning these days instead of book and writing learning. That explains why a large number of adults these days cannot write or read at an acceptable level.

Actually, what you call "feelings-based education" is sometimes quite useful. A student - male especially - may not really grasp women's concerns at various points in history unless he spends a few hours wearing a corset, or trying to walk around in high heels. It's not about forcing people to cross-dress - and I agree that this sort of thing should always be voluntary - but rather about putting someone in another person's shoes, in order that they can understand the motivations behind that person's actions. In the end, it's just a tool in the toolbox anyway. Facts must always maintain their central place, but many events in human history - wars, civil rights movements, revolutions, religious movements, artistic and cultural shifts - were motivated by feelings, and understanding those feelings is important. Both analysis and hands-on emotional engagement can be employed to achieve such an understanding.

^^No one "owns kids."  Their parents do have considerable legal authority over them, but society (at least in industrialized nations) generally finds it wants to intervene on some issues: child labor, education, and so on.  And children cannot be (legally) "sold" like goods.

Putting together projects can entail critical thinking and research (often involving reading and such), so offering a blanket condemnation against them is unfair.  In fact, doing "projects" is an important skill in some fields -- if you can't do research or effectively get your point across, you don't get the grant/contract or get/stay employed.

Videos may seems unimpressive, but they do supplement in ways that a teacher cannot effectively do.  Sometimes teaching an idea works better if you have pictures (or moving pictures) to accompany it.  Some interesting physics demonstrations can be difficult to conduct in a classroom, but a video can show them more effectively (since it can use a setting besides the classroom) and more safely.

Regarding the US in particular (and this is what the original article concerns), US students are actually fairly skilled at writing and reading.  I would make the case that the current generation of students do more reading and writing than the previous generation -- instead of watching TV/movies as their primary form of entertainment, more people are using the Internet, which involves reading and writing messages.  If these students struggle in anything, it is math and science.

Interestingly, in UNICEF's judgment, "Educational well-being" is our relative strong point with children: http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc7_eng.pdf  Our areas of weakness include "Health and Safety," "Family and Peer Relationships," and "Behaviors and Risks."  The quality of academic education is still a concern, but it is perhaps the least (or nearly the least) of our problems concerning children.

^The device of "shifting one's perspective" is useful in a general sense.  Kids need to remain responsible for pushing their own boundaries, but you can put them through non-threatening shifts to get them acclimated to the idea and challenge them to articulate what they see that they had not seen before.  While "feeling someone else's pain" is one visceral means of experiencing the exercise, in general you are getting people to make observations they were not able to do before.

Quote from: Britney_413 on April 20, 2010, 02:38:46 AMI don't see kids crossdressing for a school project a big deal but what *I* think isn't the point. If you want to teach acceptance or anything of the kind you have to do so in a way that works. A public school is paid by taxpayers and the parents basically have the say-so in how things are run.

Well, first of all, it isn't crossdressing.  It's some kids playing dress up for an educational event.  Crossdressing is an expression associated with GID.  The teachers and the kids aren't doing this because they have GID.

As far as the parents having the say-so in a public school, that's news to me.  Private school, yes.  Public school, no.  The government runs the schools.  Parents can complain and sometimes that works but for the most part the government dictates policy to the schools.

At that age, I would have fought hard against dressing up as a girl or woman simply because people would have KNOWN that I was a boy in a costume.  At the time I could not have told you why I felt that way.  I would have chosen the low grade no matter what the "adult" or "peer" force was. Today I know it was BECAUSE I had transsexual feelings back then and would settle for nothing less than my reality. I suspect that ANY boys with transgender feelings at that school would feel the same two generations later, so they would NOT be the ones in costume.

Theater, drama and acting have long been educational tools.  By long, I mean well over twenty centuries!  In the middle ages, it was used to teach religion!!  Since women could not be the characters in them, my personal guess is that actually the women most portrayed by drag actors will have been the Mary's of biblical fame, and even more of the biblical women!  This is a matter of history.  In the eastern cultures, the idea of MEN portraying women in theatrical roles is even more well known, and they are honored for doing it. For them its a job and not a sexual deviation.  Looks like we need some education about those subjects for the parents here.

Quote from: Vicky on April 23, 2010, 08:53:57 AM
Theater, drama and acting have long been educational tools.  By long, I mean well over twenty centuries!  In the middle ages, it was used to teach religion!!  Since women could not be the characters in them, my personal guess is that actually the women most portrayed by drag actors will have been the Mary's of biblical fame, and even more of the biblical women!  This is a matter of history.  In the eastern cultures, the idea of MEN portraying women in theatrical roles is even more well known, and they are honored for doing it. For them its a job and not a sexual deviation.  Looks like we need some education about those subjects for the parents here.

That is very true. Unfortunately, there are many, many people who are ignorant of that fact since they have no knowledge of anything that isn't current pop culture drivel.

I would probably go further and say that people don't even necessarily know pop culture either.  Rather, many people affirm some moral code that suits their own level of comfort.  They will point to some golden age when and where people lived by these rules, even if people didn't really live by these rules, and even if the quality of life wasn't good.

For example, I have an uncle who points to the early days of the United States as the great age of politics in the US.  Even though women couldn't vote, Black people were generally slaves (and could not vote), people who didn't own property couldn't vote, and non-WASPs were generally otherwise discriminated against... and people were uneducated, had a much shorter life expectancy, didn't have child labor laws...

Quote from: Kaelin on April 24, 2010, 02:29:58 PMFor example, I have an uncle who points to the early days of the United States as the great age of politics in the US.  Even though women couldn't vote, Black people were generally slaves (and could not vote), people who didn't own property couldn't vote, and non-WASPs were generally otherwise discriminated against... and people were uneducated, had a much shorter life expectancy, didn't have child labor laws...

Well, first of all, he said great age of POLITICS, not human rights or human decency.  We all know politics is plagued with corruption and self focus.

As for the rest of what you wrote, you'd think those who want to turn the clock back to "the good old days" would remember that.  But then again, if you were part of the privileged party, life was very good.

He is ostensibly of that privileged minority... although he probably would not be a landowner if not for public education.

Quote from: Julie Marie on April 23, 2010, 07:35:44 AM
Well, first of all, it isn't crossdressing.  It's some kids playing dress up for an educational event.  Crossdressing is an expression associated with GID.  The teachers and the kids aren't doing this because they have GID.

Yes and no. Crossdressing is generally not GID but is a form of ->-bleeped-<-. People who identify as crossdressers are generally comfortable with their biological gender but prefer wearing clothes of the opposite sex. Otherwise, they will generally identify as transgender or transsexual.

Dressing as the opposite sex for a play in my opinion would more or less fall under the category of drag. Althought this is a children's play vs. a gay bar lip-sync routine, it generally meets the definition of drag which is to dress up as the opposite sex for the purposes of entertaining the audience. In any case, it is still a form of ->-bleeped-<- because it is gender variance regardless of whether the individual identifies as trans or not.

That being said, much has been commented about parents being bigoted if they don't want their male kids dressing up as women for a school play. What people forgot was what if the kids don't want to do it either? I would not have wanted to dress up as a girl in the third grade even though I now do it just about every day. To tell you the truth, I don't even know if I'd want to do it for a play even as an adult. I don't care if you are five years old or fifty. Personal appearance is just that--personal. If the school is putting a significant amount of children AND parents out of their comfort zones unnecessarily then it should be avoided. That is why such a project should be voluntary and not required. This is not a case of one child being "uncomfortable" with another child. It is a case of making people uncomfortable with themselves. Gender and appearance (at all times) are very personal and private things. Acting is an art and a form of creativity and due to its uniqueness is not something that is for everyone nor for everyone to do it the same way.

Quote
As far as the parents having the say-so in a public school, that's news to me.  Private school, yes.  Public school, no.  The government runs the schools.  Parents can complain and sometimes that works but for the most part the government dictates policy to the schools.[/color][/font]

And who pays the taxes? The parents. Last time I checked the government is supposed to be "of the people, for the people, and by the people." If public schools are not fitting the majority of the taxpayers' needs then either they should be outright abolished or an end placed to compulsory education.

Dressing as the opposite sex for a play in my opinion would more or less fall under the category of drag
In fact, it's likely that theater was the origin of the world 'drag' meaning 'DRessed As Girl' in stage directions for things like Shakespeare plays.  So in 12th Night you would have Viola entering as a boy (Cesario) and as a girl and that would be noted in the margins as stage directions.

What people forgot was what if the kids don't want to do it either?
And if they want out of a math test, or hell, out of the entire math program we ought to do that too?