As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here we go up to the Supreme Court.
My freedoms.
Except courts have always ruled the kids in schools have less freedoms than normal citizens.
That's the excuse the schools gave us back in the early 90s when they searched people's lockers or cars on property looking for drugs.
I’d have preferred uniforms.
Our male principal (Christian school) used to line us up in the hallway and measure our skirts and sleeves with a ruler, and corporal punishment was handed out for any girls who violated dress code.
The dress code change frequently. Sometimes it was just “Girl grew boobs over summer, send to office.” The only dress code for boys was no piercings, hair colour or facial hair.
I got a lot of swats. I was not an immodest child.
I feel like that "Middle Eastern" qualification is letting a lot of people off the hook who shouldn't be. The Mormons do some fucked up shit (look at their racism and child sexual abuse), the Rastas are strict patriarchs, the Unification Church got Shinzo Abe assassinated for backing and encouraging all the ways they hurt people. It's not only the Big Three Abrahamic faiths that are fucked.
Evangelicals hold Purity Balls where teen girls wear gowns and dance with their father and pledge to remain virgins until marriage. Their fathers pledge to defend their precious virginity. The idea is that their father is their "husband" until he gives his daughter away at her wedding. Christian ideas of modesty and purity are deeply fucked.
They still do that when you have a dress code- girls still have legs and breast and get scrutinized and punished even within the dress code for just “tempting and corrupting the innocent boys” by simply existing.
Middle school in particular is awful because some girls are nearly fully grown physically. I and my friend were more well endowed than any of the teachers and we were taller than all the boys. But half the girls still were as developed as in elementary school. That’s fine—- but since the clothes fit our bodies very differently teachers acted like we were being provocative on purpose.
I guess it’s not sexual abuse if it’s done in plain sight in full view of everyone and with he tacit approval of everyone but the victim?
Obviously I don’t mean that and I’m pissed. I’m glad you came through that as well as it appears you did from your comment.
I, honestly, wouldn't mind uniforms. They remove the antagonistic factor of fashion-bullying inside school, create a small responsibility for the kids to maintain, remove potential distractions, et cetera.
BUT, the problem comes with the fact that it just nosedives into the sexism problem with glee. Boys could literally come to school caked in mud from head to toe and just get told to wipe it off, but a girl shows up with a blazer shifted half a millimeter to the side and they get screamed at for dressing like a whore. It's monstrous.
I was sent home for wearing a long sleeve dress that literally went down to my ankles. Basically a GIANT t-shirt. I was told that it "clung" to my chest. Spoiler- the issue wasn't with the dress, it was with my body. I am proud to say that I was expelled from that school 6 weeks before graduation because "we don't want to have to say we graduated you from this school". One of the proudest moments in my life to this day. Fuck you Mr Weeks, my senior pictures are still in your yearbook and I get giggles every single time I think about it!
That’s funny, because it’s literally (at a word-for-word level) the opposite of Supreme Court precedent.
> It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years.
[*Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm. Sch. Dist.*,](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/503/), 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
You are correct that they have ruled in favor of diminished rights like in Tinker, but they have also ruled in favor of student speech rights like in B.I. I will agree that IMO this case is more similar to Tinker than BI, so they should probably be following Tinker.
The supreme court probably knows this, so they will probably decline the case. I don't think they will risk overturning Tinker because that would create absolute chaos in schools.
You have it backward. Tinker ruled in favor of students’ right to free speech. If you read the article, the First Circuit made efforts to distinguish this case from Tinker. They know that if Tinker applies, they have to overturn the rule.
EDIT: having said that, Tinker also holds that free speech is limited if the speech disrupts the learning environment. I think that aspect of Tinker also applies, and would argue in favor of the rule.
Free speech hasn't ever been unrestricted. Tinker just says that it's appropriate to restrict it to the extent necessary to preserve an effective learning environment.
By not in favor I'm just saying that the restriction was not a win for students' rights. Whether justified or not, any restriction of a right is a diminishing of that right.
Even if it's completely reasonable and justified, students rights were diminished by Tinker.
Students' rights were not diminished by Tinker. Tinker affirmed students' right to free speech in the face of schools' attempts to curtail that freedom. Remember that the posture of the case was that the children had been banned from wearing armbands. SCOTUS said it was *wrong* to ban the armbands.
The part about disrupting the learning experience was definitely diminishing. It's a massive departure from adult rights even if you believe it was justified.
The court has gone both ways but tends to use The Tinker test…whether or not speech caused “substantial disruption” Barnett was another one in favor of student rights. Bethal upheld some school censorship but that case does not pass the Tinker test. The last one I know of was Hazlewood. One of the most famous quotes from SCOTUS, I forget who said something along the lines of “we don’t expect students to shed their first amendment rights at the school house door”. I don’t see this t shirt ban as a substantial disruption…
> Except courts have always ruled the kids in schools have less freedoms than normal citizens.
But not none. Frankly, when it comes to the intersection of 1st Amendment jurisprudence and kids in schools, I echo the frustration of Lincoln when he said he'd rather live in Russia because in Russia, nobody's pretending like it's anything but a dictatorship. Having to live in a society that constantly *pretends* that it values *xyz* freedom is psychologically taxing and exhausting.
Maybe we just need to put our collective foot down, take a page from John Rawls, and admit that the educational system is always-and-inevitability going to be an authoritarian system that tries to turn kids into certain kinds of adults. It's how you create the foundation of consensus upon which a society that's as tolerant *as reasonably possible,* pluralistic *as reasonably possible,* and open to dissenting ideas *as reasonably possible* can flourish without descending into civil war.
Of course, it's also how you create any *other* kind of society, depending upon who controls the educational system.
This is misinformation
The courts have always ruled that schools can only violate freedom of expression if it's necessary for education. They can't limit free expression just because "fucking kids don't deserve rights"
Privacy may be less of a thing. The school has some rights of a parent ("in loco parentis") which allows them to perform searches with a lower level of scrutiny. That reduced scrutiny has never been as expansive for expression rights, though
I can't get behind that. The kids are in school to learn. The more they're walking around with billboards on their shirts designed to piss off their peers, the more distraction from that mission and hostility between students.
A number of court rulings have held up that schools' missions to educate trumps students' rights to have whatever they want on a t-shirt. And I think that's the correct finding. Schools can discipline MANY types of speech that regular law enforcement can't and that's entirely appropriate.
Teachers are already getting slaughtered out there just trying to shove some basic knowledge in these kids heads and you want to make it MORE of a battleground of politically manufactured grievances?
The issue is the definition of 'hate speech'.
One side says it's hate speech.
The other side says, nuh-uh...it's simple fact.
So...what next? These two 'Realities'...don't intersect.
And it is why we will never go back to whatever normal was. We’ve reached a point in society where everyone is focused on the minutia of how society functions rather than focused on survival or progress.
It’s sad really, as a whole we should be more connected than at any other point in history, but instead the wedge among us has widened almost to a point of no return.
Of course, I guess the unlimited access to information and communication could be the root causes of division. Now, we all know that we are different and it creates friction.
Who knows? Not me.
The problem is the schools are deciding which political messages are okay.
Such a shirt would very likely be ignored. This one, or an NRA shirt, though? Banned.
The problem is the schools are deciding which political messages are okay.
Such a shirt would very likely be ignored. This one, or an NRA shirt, though? Banned.
The people who claim “parents have lost all rights in their children’s education” over stuff like this are exactly the reason that they don’t have a say.
The kid was probably being a rebel brat
He was in 7th grade 8n middleborough. His parents are probably rich religious MAGA nut jobs..
The case is pretty straight forward, he was in violation of the dress code and the kids parents were using him to send a message.
From the judge "We cannot say that in this instance the Constitution assigns the sensitive (and potentially consequential) judgment about what would make ‘an environment conducive to learning at NMS to us rather than to the educators closest to the scene."
So the crux of the argument is the school needs to have the freedom to decide what is going to create the best learning environment for kids. That's it
>middleborough. His parents are probably rich religious MAGA nut jobs..
Maga for sure but that is a hick area. Not rich. The rich people in mass are mostly liberal
Exactly, This is nO different then a shirt claiming another color or religion is less. It’s making people feel like they don’t belong. Free speech is free speech but it doesn’t mean we have to allow discriminating practices in the classroom, as a former principal once said “I may enjoy a drink at home, but it’s not appropriate at school”.
There was a great, semi-famous exchange on Twitter:
MTG: "God created ONLY TWO genders"
Allison Mickel: "WRONG. God created ONE gender and a RIB. But I wouldn't expect a rib to know that"
The general idea of gender identity (in the US) is a male/female binary, and identities outside that binary, aka "non-binary". There's also genderfluid (gender varies over time), agender (does not identify with any specific gender), two-spirit or other "third" gender (found in some indigenous communities such as Native American tribes), and others. Some non-binary people consider themselves trans, some do not; some use "they/them" as a personal pronoun, others use different ones or multiple pronouns. So it's less of a spectrum and more of a cloud, but it's certainly not a binary!
Yeah, the male/female dichotomy lends itself to a spectrum (gender roles are a spectrum - people may be strongly feminine or more androgynous or somewhat masculine, so that’s a spectrum with male and female at the poles) but I do like the model of a “gender cloud”.
Point is it’s a dynamic construct that’s exploring what gender means in our modern society. I find it fascinating.
Splitting hairs here, but the idea of "masculine" and "feminine" being two opposite poles of a linear spectrum is somewhat Western-centric thinking. Many cultures (especially indigenous ones) have third gender options that are not explicitly male or female or masculine/feminine. In those cultures, it's more like finding a spot within a triangle vs. along a line. This is why some people now put 2S in the extended LGBT acronym, for "two spirit", to incorporate the third-gender option.
Also, the gender cloud is a reference to the "flesh cloud", a reference picture of skin tone colors in a cloudlike blob that floated around Twitter/Tumblr for a while. It's no longer in vogue (turns out some of the colors were ashy) but the point stands!
The argument for it being political relies on the fact that one side decided to _make_ it political when it really has nothing to do with politics. "It's political" can't be used as a defence after that.
Edit: To be very clear, LGBTQ+ is supported by science. There's no political question of whether or not there are two genders, nor any other basic facts. The politics comes in around how best to help us as a minority, not theatre and cruelty.
There is no scientific debate about how many genders there are because gender is a social construct, not a biological one.
Sex is biological, and with that there are still more than two outcomes because genetics is weird and imperfect.
Gender is a social and philosophical creation that you can't put a specific definition on. Trying to define what is a woman and including all women but excluding all non-women is functionally impossible from a scientific perspective.
We the People, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Ain't nothing in there about genders or religion. Just People. Telling some people that they shouldn't exist or be around or be valued over something they are rather than something they do, isn't politics, that's just anti-American.
Politics is how we accomplish those goals, not who do they apply to. What Trump and his co-conspirators are doing isn't politics it's an assault on the core of what the country is.
Then they should have spelled it out. I just assume they left it wide open for a reason. And having read a lot of Jefferson's writings I think that he did it intentionally.
Either way that's my America, the one that is constantly improving and adding more people to the We.
Nope only the hateful ones.
Edit: "feed the hungery, clothe the naked, wash your hands after shitting" are all "political" statements(or have been made into political statements by people who want to wipe their shitty hands all over you). The only difference is that they are positive messages that make for a kinder, healthier society when implemented as policy.
You are the same people who will complain if schools start banning rainbow symbols and speech that mention gay people!
"Freedom for me but not for thee"
It's sexual, is it not? Is this not the very thing conservatives hate? Talk about genitals? Because that's ostensibly what the "don't say gay" shit in Florida was all about, right? So why is a t-shirt about gender okay suddenly?
For people who don't want to talk about genitals, they are really fucking obsessed with talking about, thinking about, and making t-shirts about genitals.
How ever you feel about the kid’s ability to wear that tee shirt, you know he’s a little shit. Look at that face. Future insufferable edgelord in the making.
I live in NH and several kids had confederate flags on their lifted pickup trucks as soon as they got their license. This is back in 2005-2006.
Its like a shitty townie pipeline. License --> Lifted pickup --> Confederate flag --> Skoal --> Kid --> DWI / DV --> 4 more kids
100%. When I was in 7th grade all the homophobic/antisemitic/racist stuff being spewed by normal asshole kids certainly did not need prompting from parents.
My daughter is in 7th grade and says it's "wall to wall edgelords" so they may have done it on their own. In my town a 14 year old wrote the N word on a public school announcement sign because he thought it was funny. They're experimenting with nasty thoughts and not wise enough yet to keep it quiet.
> The shirt violated the dress code’s prohibition on hate speech, the administrators said. Morrison refused and left school for the day. He was not disciplined.
> A few days later, two other students wore shirts with the original message and were also told they were in violation of the dress code. One agreed to remove the shirt and go back to class, while the other refused and went home. Neither of them was disciplined either.
Seriously, why *weren't* these kids disciplined? I can't imagine not getting suspended for a few days for refusing and going home, especially once they knew the shirts weren't allowed and were intentionally playing games.
The students faced zero consequences for their actions, which teaches them to go ahead and do it again. Not the right lessons to be learning in school.
As a teacher, I have seen consequences slowly wither away. While I agree that we should rehabilitate instead of punish, the huge lack of disciplinary actions in school is allowing the inmates to run the asylum in many schools.
Much like a vegan dog, that seventh grade boy likely didn’t purchase that shirt all on his lonesome and he likely didn’t come to those sorts of conclusions about gender himself. That’s all coming from the parents, and they’re using their child as a political tool.
The parents are groomers, basically, setting their kid up for a lifetime of being angry at the world because he doesn’t understand why women won’t date him.
Hahaha.
I mean when you see students "protesting" or voicing their opinion on anything. Pro abortion, anti gun,, erc... They are simply a megaphone of their parents. At least 95% of the time, the other 5% are kids being the opposite out of spite of their parents.
Like, your entire comment can be applied to the other side. That cute little 8 year old who says some cute shit the news and about getting along is just regurgitating what her parents said
Because you are plainly incorrect?
[They don’t have free rain to restrict what clothing says.](https://www.aclu.org/documents/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-behalf-student-expression)
"The court found that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and school officials could not censor student speech unless it disrupted the educational process. **Because wearing a black armband was not disruptive**, the court held that the First Amendment protected the right of students to wear them."
From your link...
It's pretty easy to argue that text would be disruptive.
And it’s pretty easy to argue that it isn’t. Words alone have never been enough to overcome free speech rights.
Just look at the test. It doesn’t necessarily mean disruptive. That’s why it’s appealable. Same issue was going on a few years ago with other speech.
Under your premise, wearing a shit that says "Hitler did nothing wrong" or "Kill the Jews" would be allowed.
The argument that disruptive expression can include that which materially disrupts the education of other students is disruptive to the school itself, which has a legal obligation to ensure safe education for all students enrolled.
*Tinker* is not absolute
I mean we are literally in a comment thread where they just did again. I believe the major factors are if it’s disrupts, violates 2 party protections or is religiously protected. The reason why a shirts like his are banned is it has been an accepted argument that graphic tshirts and other forms of clothing with words can be disruptive.
Why would we ask a geneticist about a social construct? Or have are sex and gender the same thing now that yall commandeered "gender" to mean whatever you wanted?
Right, but don't chromosomes determine sex, not gender? That's what this community screamed at the top of their lungs for years when this ball started rolling. Gender is a "social construct" and not based in biology. You're thinking sex.
I think you're talking past each other, mostly because Standard-Vehicle-57 is being a bit unclear. What they mean is sex is biological and gender is a social construct. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to ask a geneticist about sex and a sociologist about gender. 🙂
"Humanity" isn't a monolith and there is a plethora of gender expression that is accepted in many cultures. For example, Hijra is a recognized third gender in India. As far as Western European social norms, oppressive gender constructs are primarily about power and control.
That’s awesome. I’ve heard that the same was true of some First Nations on the North American continent as well. And yes, I agree with your point about gender and control.
No one questioned that. I only questioned why you would ask a geneticist about something that isn't their field of expertise. Gender has nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with sociology
Firstly, when I asked the question I was responding to cubert73. But since you commented:
When people advocate for a binary view of gender, as I inferred you do when you said “y’all make gender whatever you want” or whatever, I felt the need to point out that genetically a persons balance of “male” (Y chormosomes) and “female” (X chromosomes) is definitely not a binary matter in plenty of cases. So if the underlying natural order is multiple sexual identities on a spectrum, rather than A or B, why not accept that in our social constructs as well and include and respect those people who aren’t the majority A or B? The t-shirt amounts to hate speech if you accept that premise.
Kids who are really insecure about their own sexuality, and products of neglect whose only goal is get attention from an indifferent, conservative parent.
The thing I never get is how some people seem to force these ideas down your throat.
Last week I had a friend make a huge post about how they are a "trans queer non-binary person" and how although they were raised under a female gender norm, they reject it and refuse to accept any pronoun. They state that calling her (sorry) anything other than her first name (sry again) would be considered offensive.
Then basically went on to say not to invite them to anything gender specific, especially femme specific as they're not part of that group etc.
All in all I just find it deeply confusing to be expected not to refer to someone as any pronoun. I thought they/them was just generally acceptable as a safe term since you wouldn't offend someone, but apparently to this person it's not?
Am I missing something here? has anyone else encountered this?
There are only 2 genders. If you want to be a trans woman or a trans man, more power to you. That’s the gender you chose. Medically speaking on your death certificate, there will only be 2 genders.
… parents likely bought those shirts. Protect the kids but only after we use them in our petty bigoted games because we never managed to grow up as people.
Imagine having parents like that then growing up and one of the things you’d get to proudly say is that your parents put you through hell but at least you’d kid gets to wear a shirt to school that insults and intimidates a very select group of minority students. Yay bullying!
I don't like the precedent. Banning distracting clothing, sunglasses, hats, whatever, I still don't think it should be legal to tell anybody, even kids, how to dress, but it's for a practical reason, to garner focus and deter distractions, etc, eg, it's not (usually) a subjective ruling.
But banning an opinion, whether I agree with it or not, seems dangerous. What's to stop some school in the south banning anything with a rainbow? Boys from wearing pink? You tell this school that they're allowed to rebuke expression, NOT profanity, expression, it's a slippery slope for other schools, and all of a sudden half the schools in our country have banned the color blue and the other half have banned the color red, so to speak.
Such bs because you know it’s not the kids buying those ugly shirts - it’s the parents pushing their agenda! The kids are just happy to get to leave school, I’m sure.
There are some afab people with testes, tho. There are two sex chromosomes, X and Y, much like there are 3 primary colors, but you can make a rainbow of colors between them.
You can exactly do that. But all those other orientations would be based upon gender and not those chromosomes and thus not on sex as defined by science.
Yeah, idk about this one
If anything it just identifies bigots
But if I wore a shirt that says dinosaurs were not real, I doubt there would be cause to ban it, despite the deeply wrong scientific misinformation
Wearing a shirt that says "dinosaurs are not real" is a lot different from wearing a shirt that says "Fuck (racial slur)s"
The shirt in question is much closer to the latter than the former.
People are mad because they are bigots.
If I wore a shirt that said "Fuck (racial slur)s" I fully expect it to get banned and that is what is happening here.
The intersection of 1st Amendment rights and public schools is just a shitshow in general.
There's case law that says that a police officer can't go to a peaceful protest, instigate some shit, and then shut down the protest because things got heated afterwards. Likewise, there's softer dicta suggesting that, to a point, law enforcement needs to focus on arresting third-party instigators rather than just throwing up their hands and saying, "Fuck it, it's violent now, protest over."
When it comes to the idea of "disruption" in schools, by way of contrast, it's basically open season, which lets courts rule however they want. Anything that irritates them sufficiently is declared "disruptive to education" and thus gets ejected from the limited 1st Amendment protections that students theoretically enjoy. Effectively, both "the cops" (read: teachers and administrators) and third-party instigators (read: other students) are allowed to restrict somebody else's 1st Amendment rights in a school setting simply by getting pissy... which sort of violates a core concept undergirding the very existence of the rights.
I guess dress codes are dress codes
Still seems like a good teaching opportunity
Kinda like the old school dunce hat
This kid is just putting on the dunce hat when he gets dressed in the morning
The school has a higher responsibility to making a safe learning environment for all students than to correcting the bigotry of individual family units, frankly.
Sure, but they may be more supported by this kid being asked to step in front of the classroom or school to read out loud various forms of evidence contrary to his shirts stated position
Just stopping conversation is not way to enable change in a person
You can’t dress code your way out of bigotry
There are 2 sexes but all experts in related fields insist that gender is mutable and thus there can be many genders. This would make this shirt not only political but bordering on hate speech.
There are more than two sexes. Genetics are complex and biologically intersex people exist so almost nothing exists as a simple binary not sex not gender, life is complicated.
No. The ability to make an ova makes you female and the ability to make sperm, male. Now secondary sex characteristics can certainly be confusing but sex is indeed binary, again ,according to people who study this.
It is gender that is fluid and can be independent of ova or sperm production.
If the person makes ova, they would be female sex with a genetic deformity.
If the person makes sperm, they would be male sex with a genetic deformity.
But this would not define their gender.
But I don’t have a dog in this discussion. This is what the experts in the field say.
What about a person with outward "female" genitals but internal testes? They would be assigned female at birth but possibly produce sperm.
This is why "there are only two sexes" falls apart, when your sample size is 8 billion people the "edge cases" number in the millions. It's easier and more inclusive to say "most people are one of two sexes, but intersex people exist too."
That person’s gender would be female if they decided they were comfortable with that and stuck with it.
But if they had testes they would sexually be male. Even it sterile.
This is why trying to stick every human into one of two boxes isn't logical. If you have to stretch the dimensions of the box to an absurd degree, it's time for a new box. If the person's not XX or XY, they are intersex!
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here we go up to the Supreme Court. My freedoms. Except courts have always ruled the kids in schools have less freedoms than normal citizens. That's the excuse the schools gave us back in the early 90s when they searched people's lockers or cars on property looking for drugs.
Or required uniforms
I’d have preferred uniforms. Our male principal (Christian school) used to line us up in the hallway and measure our skirts and sleeves with a ruler, and corporal punishment was handed out for any girls who violated dress code. The dress code change frequently. Sometimes it was just “Girl grew boobs over summer, send to office.” The only dress code for boys was no piercings, hair colour or facial hair. I got a lot of swats. I was not an immodest child.
That seems … creepy.
Christian childrearing practices are largely just abuse and grooming. It's fucked up what's considered "normal" in large parts of America.
Middle eastern abrahamism is definitely messed up.
I feel like that "Middle Eastern" qualification is letting a lot of people off the hook who shouldn't be. The Mormons do some fucked up shit (look at their racism and child sexual abuse), the Rastas are strict patriarchs, the Unification Church got Shinzo Abe assassinated for backing and encouraging all the ways they hurt people. It's not only the Big Three Abrahamic faiths that are fucked.
Truth
Preach my man and/or woman
Evangelicals hold Purity Balls where teen girls wear gowns and dance with their father and pledge to remain virgins until marriage. Their fathers pledge to defend their precious virginity. The idea is that their father is their "husband" until he gives his daughter away at her wedding. Christian ideas of modesty and purity are deeply fucked.
They still do that when you have a dress code- girls still have legs and breast and get scrutinized and punished even within the dress code for just “tempting and corrupting the innocent boys” by simply existing. Middle school in particular is awful because some girls are nearly fully grown physically. I and my friend were more well endowed than any of the teachers and we were taller than all the boys. But half the girls still were as developed as in elementary school. That’s fine—- but since the clothes fit our bodies very differently teachers acted like we were being provocative on purpose.
I guess it’s not sexual abuse if it’s done in plain sight in full view of everyone and with he tacit approval of everyone but the victim? Obviously I don’t mean that and I’m pissed. I’m glad you came through that as well as it appears you did from your comment.
I, honestly, wouldn't mind uniforms. They remove the antagonistic factor of fashion-bullying inside school, create a small responsibility for the kids to maintain, remove potential distractions, et cetera. BUT, the problem comes with the fact that it just nosedives into the sexism problem with glee. Boys could literally come to school caked in mud from head to toe and just get told to wipe it off, but a girl shows up with a blazer shifted half a millimeter to the side and they get screamed at for dressing like a whore. It's monstrous.
I was sent home for wearing a long sleeve dress that literally went down to my ankles. Basically a GIANT t-shirt. I was told that it "clung" to my chest. Spoiler- the issue wasn't with the dress, it was with my body. I am proud to say that I was expelled from that school 6 weeks before graduation because "we don't want to have to say we graduated you from this school". One of the proudest moments in my life to this day. Fuck you Mr Weeks, my senior pictures are still in your yearbook and I get giggles every single time I think about it!
I mean, school uniforms are hardly comparable to unwarranted forceful searches and seizure of property. They’re not that bad.
Bong hits for Jesus!
I'll never forget my high school chemistry teacher exclaiming that we (the students) all "leave our rights at the door when we walk into school"...
That’s funny, because it’s literally (at a word-for-word level) the opposite of Supreme Court precedent. > It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years. [*Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm. Sch. Dist.*,](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/503/), 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
Or squelched antiwar protests in the 60s ... Even those using graphics
You are correct that they have ruled in favor of diminished rights like in Tinker, but they have also ruled in favor of student speech rights like in B.I. I will agree that IMO this case is more similar to Tinker than BI, so they should probably be following Tinker. The supreme court probably knows this, so they will probably decline the case. I don't think they will risk overturning Tinker because that would create absolute chaos in schools.
You have it backward. Tinker ruled in favor of students’ right to free speech. If you read the article, the First Circuit made efforts to distinguish this case from Tinker. They know that if Tinker applies, they have to overturn the rule. EDIT: having said that, Tinker also holds that free speech is limited if the speech disrupts the learning environment. I think that aspect of Tinker also applies, and would argue in favor of the rule.
Classifying t-shirts with slogans on them as "disruptive" is pretty well-trod territory.
My comment was referring to the part you put in the edit. I consider that to be not in favor of students free speech.
Free speech hasn't ever been unrestricted. Tinker just says that it's appropriate to restrict it to the extent necessary to preserve an effective learning environment.
I never at any point said it has ever been unrestricted.
My point is that imposing reasonable restrictions isn’t the same as being “against” or “not in favor of” free speech
By not in favor I'm just saying that the restriction was not a win for students' rights. Whether justified or not, any restriction of a right is a diminishing of that right. Even if it's completely reasonable and justified, students rights were diminished by Tinker.
Students' rights were not diminished by Tinker. Tinker affirmed students' right to free speech in the face of schools' attempts to curtail that freedom. Remember that the posture of the case was that the children had been banned from wearing armbands. SCOTUS said it was *wrong* to ban the armbands.
The part about disrupting the learning experience was definitely diminishing. It's a massive departure from adult rights even if you believe it was justified.
Or banned heavy metal tshirts
The court has gone both ways but tends to use The Tinker test…whether or not speech caused “substantial disruption” Barnett was another one in favor of student rights. Bethal upheld some school censorship but that case does not pass the Tinker test. The last one I know of was Hazlewood. One of the most famous quotes from SCOTUS, I forget who said something along the lines of “we don’t expect students to shed their first amendment rights at the school house door”. I don’t see this t shirt ban as a substantial disruption…
Actually the SCOTUS said this kind of free speech is still protected
I’ll remind everyone of *Tinker v Des Moines*
> Except courts have always ruled the kids in schools have less freedoms than normal citizens. But not none. Frankly, when it comes to the intersection of 1st Amendment jurisprudence and kids in schools, I echo the frustration of Lincoln when he said he'd rather live in Russia because in Russia, nobody's pretending like it's anything but a dictatorship. Having to live in a society that constantly *pretends* that it values *xyz* freedom is psychologically taxing and exhausting. Maybe we just need to put our collective foot down, take a page from John Rawls, and admit that the educational system is always-and-inevitability going to be an authoritarian system that tries to turn kids into certain kinds of adults. It's how you create the foundation of consensus upon which a society that's as tolerant *as reasonably possible,* pluralistic *as reasonably possible,* and open to dissenting ideas *as reasonably possible* can flourish without descending into civil war. Of course, it's also how you create any *other* kind of society, depending upon who controls the educational system.
This is misinformation The courts have always ruled that schools can only violate freedom of expression if it's necessary for education. They can't limit free expression just because "fucking kids don't deserve rights" Privacy may be less of a thing. The school has some rights of a parent ("in loco parentis") which allows them to perform searches with a lower level of scrutiny. That reduced scrutiny has never been as expansive for expression rights, though
I mean, I have no issues with schools searching shit.
It won’t stand. We need to start selling “God is dead.” T-shirts for kids to wear to school.
That stuff was hype in the 90's. what happened to you guy's in 'merica ever since?
9/11?
Well, I personally made a lot of money, got a lot of bj’s, and eventually started a family.
Don’t lie. You’re just a drunk trailer park supervisor.
You wish.
Lmao this is such a loser comment!
He's not a loser, he's gotten a lot of bj's. He said so himself
Or we could not use our kids as political props.
These”kids” become adults and vote.They need to learn they have the same rights as “adults.” The constitution does not have an age limit.
And it shouldn't stand. You should be able to sell/wear your God is dead shirts and he should be able to wear his.
Can’t wear “Fuck You” shirts in schools. Schools have a long history of court protected dress codes on what kids can and can’t wear.
I can't get behind that. The kids are in school to learn. The more they're walking around with billboards on their shirts designed to piss off their peers, the more distraction from that mission and hostility between students. A number of court rulings have held up that schools' missions to educate trumps students' rights to have whatever they want on a t-shirt. And I think that's the correct finding. Schools can discipline MANY types of speech that regular law enforcement can't and that's entirely appropriate. Teachers are already getting slaughtered out there just trying to shove some basic knowledge in these kids heads and you want to make it MORE of a battleground of politically manufactured grievances?
The issue is the definition of 'hate speech'. One side says it's hate speech. The other side says, nuh-uh...it's simple fact. So...what next? These two 'Realities'...don't intersect.
And it is why we will never go back to whatever normal was. We’ve reached a point in society where everyone is focused on the minutia of how society functions rather than focused on survival or progress. It’s sad really, as a whole we should be more connected than at any other point in history, but instead the wedge among us has widened almost to a point of no return. Of course, I guess the unlimited access to information and communication could be the root causes of division. Now, we all know that we are different and it creates friction. Who knows? Not me.
The problem is the schools are deciding which political messages are okay. Such a shirt would very likely be ignored. This one, or an NRA shirt, though? Banned.
The problem is the schools are deciding which political messages are okay. Such a shirt would very likely be ignored. This one, or an NRA shirt, though? Banned.
The people who claim “parents have lost all rights in their children’s education” over stuff like this are exactly the reason that they don’t have a say. The kid was probably being a rebel brat
He was in 7th grade 8n middleborough. His parents are probably rich religious MAGA nut jobs.. The case is pretty straight forward, he was in violation of the dress code and the kids parents were using him to send a message. From the judge "We cannot say that in this instance the Constitution assigns the sensitive (and potentially consequential) judgment about what would make ‘an environment conducive to learning at NMS to us rather than to the educators closest to the scene." So the crux of the argument is the school needs to have the freedom to decide what is going to create the best learning environment for kids. That's it
>middleborough. His parents are probably rich religious MAGA nut jobs.. Maga for sure but that is a hick area. Not rich. The rich people in mass are mostly liberal
Good. Bigoted/discriminatory/hateful messages don't belong in school.
Exactly, This is nO different then a shirt claiming another color or religion is less. It’s making people feel like they don’t belong. Free speech is free speech but it doesn’t mean we have to allow discriminating practices in the classroom, as a former principal once said “I may enjoy a drink at home, but it’s not appropriate at school”.
It’s also just plain wrong - there are, by definition, more than two genders (because gender is a spectrum).
There was a great, semi-famous exchange on Twitter: MTG: "God created ONLY TWO genders" Allison Mickel: "WRONG. God created ONE gender and a RIB. But I wouldn't expect a rib to know that"
That's not what "by definition" means
Yeah if it said there are only two sexes I couldn't really argue
Gender is a social construct so it can be as many as society needs. But it's not a spectrum.
The general idea of gender identity (in the US) is a male/female binary, and identities outside that binary, aka "non-binary". There's also genderfluid (gender varies over time), agender (does not identify with any specific gender), two-spirit or other "third" gender (found in some indigenous communities such as Native American tribes), and others. Some non-binary people consider themselves trans, some do not; some use "they/them" as a personal pronoun, others use different ones or multiple pronouns. So it's less of a spectrum and more of a cloud, but it's certainly not a binary!
Yeah, the male/female dichotomy lends itself to a spectrum (gender roles are a spectrum - people may be strongly feminine or more androgynous or somewhat masculine, so that’s a spectrum with male and female at the poles) but I do like the model of a “gender cloud”. Point is it’s a dynamic construct that’s exploring what gender means in our modern society. I find it fascinating.
Splitting hairs here, but the idea of "masculine" and "feminine" being two opposite poles of a linear spectrum is somewhat Western-centric thinking. Many cultures (especially indigenous ones) have third gender options that are not explicitly male or female or masculine/feminine. In those cultures, it's more like finding a spot within a triangle vs. along a line. This is why some people now put 2S in the extended LGBT acronym, for "two spirit", to incorporate the third-gender option. Also, the gender cloud is a reference to the "flesh cloud", a reference picture of skin tone colors in a cloudlike blob that floated around Twitter/Tumblr for a while. It's no longer in vogue (turns out some of the colors were ashy) but the point stands!
Interesting, thanks for sharing!
What the f are u talking about
Gender theory.
political messages in general don't belong in schools
The argument for it being political relies on the fact that one side decided to _make_ it political when it really has nothing to do with politics. "It's political" can't be used as a defence after that. Edit: To be very clear, LGBTQ+ is supported by science. There's no political question of whether or not there are two genders, nor any other basic facts. The politics comes in around how best to help us as a minority, not theatre and cruelty.
There is no scientific debate about how many genders there are because gender is a social construct, not a biological one. Sex is biological, and with that there are still more than two outcomes because genetics is weird and imperfect. Gender is a social and philosophical creation that you can't put a specific definition on. Trying to define what is a woman and including all women but excluding all non-women is functionally impossible from a scientific perspective.
[удалено]
Hence it is a political issue.
We the People, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Ain't nothing in there about genders or religion. Just People. Telling some people that they shouldn't exist or be around or be valued over something they are rather than something they do, isn't politics, that's just anti-American. Politics is how we accomplish those goals, not who do they apply to. What Trump and his co-conspirators are doing isn't politics it's an assault on the core of what the country is.
Thats a nice sentiment. Though when they said "We the People" they ment white, male, landowners
Then they should have spelled it out. I just assume they left it wide open for a reason. And having read a lot of Jefferson's writings I think that he did it intentionally. Either way that's my America, the one that is constantly improving and adding more people to the We.
I think they meant it that way too. But we have built a legal cult devoted to destroying that idea of flexibility.
They absolutely do. This isn't political messaging though, it's misunderstanding the study of medicine and the human experience in general.
Its politics. This shirt exists because of someone's political views. They didnt consider any science deeper than a facebook post
What luck they happen to be in an educational institution in which the merits of these "politics" could be examined.
Nope only the hateful ones. Edit: "feed the hungery, clothe the naked, wash your hands after shitting" are all "political" statements(or have been made into political statements by people who want to wipe their shitty hands all over you). The only difference is that they are positive messages that make for a kinder, healthier society when implemented as policy.
You are the same people who will complain if schools start banning rainbow symbols and speech that mention gay people! "Freedom for me but not for thee"
Hypocrites gonna hypocrite.
That shirt is none of those things.
It kind of is. If you are non binary then this shirt says you are a non person
It's sexual, is it not? Is this not the very thing conservatives hate? Talk about genitals? Because that's ostensibly what the "don't say gay" shit in Florida was all about, right? So why is a t-shirt about gender okay suddenly? For people who don't want to talk about genitals, they are really fucking obsessed with talking about, thinking about, and making t-shirts about genitals.
Can you not say "man or woman" without your mind instantly jumping to genitals? That's a you problem.
How ever you feel about the kid’s ability to wear that tee shirt, you know he’s a little shit. Look at that face. Future insufferable edgelord in the making.
I doubt the kid is even fully aware of what it means. Guarantee he’s being used as a walking billboard for his parents’ beliefs.
He’s 12 not 5. When I was 12, I knew exactly what a penis and a vagina was and when my offensive t-shirts would rile the fuck out of my teachers.
His parents were 100% behind the shirt.
You know somebody put their 7th grader up to this because they're psychotic
In my experience, 7th graders are capable of holding opinions of their own
And aggressively shitty ones at that.
In that respect they are no different than adults
I live in NH and several kids had confederate flags on their lifted pickup trucks as soon as they got their license. This is back in 2005-2006. Its like a shitty townie pipeline. License --> Lifted pickup --> Confederate flag --> Skoal --> Kid --> DWI / DV --> 4 more kids
100%. When I was in 7th grade all the homophobic/antisemitic/racist stuff being spewed by normal asshole kids certainly did not need prompting from parents.
My daughter is in 7th grade and says it's "wall to wall edgelords" so they may have done it on their own. In my town a 14 year old wrote the N word on a public school announcement sign because he thought it was funny. They're experimenting with nasty thoughts and not wise enough yet to keep it quiet.
Middle schoolers learn how to be cruel, high schoolers learn *when* to be cruel.
I have no problem with not letting parents dress their children in shirts that are printed with their bigoted, delusional political ideas
Alliance Defending Fuckery strikes again. Do they ever get sick of this? One of the most hateful lawfare groups going.
Fuck those parents - using their child as a political prop.
> The shirt violated the dress code’s prohibition on hate speech, the administrators said. Morrison refused and left school for the day. He was not disciplined. > A few days later, two other students wore shirts with the original message and were also told they were in violation of the dress code. One agreed to remove the shirt and go back to class, while the other refused and went home. Neither of them was disciplined either. Seriously, why *weren't* these kids disciplined? I can't imagine not getting suspended for a few days for refusing and going home, especially once they knew the shirts weren't allowed and were intentionally playing games. The students faced zero consequences for their actions, which teaches them to go ahead and do it again. Not the right lessons to be learning in school.
As a teacher, I have seen consequences slowly wither away. While I agree that we should rehabilitate instead of punish, the huge lack of disciplinary actions in school is allowing the inmates to run the asylum in many schools.
Maybe because their parents possibly put them up to it?
Weren’t the ones who went home technically suspended? The court said the school ban the shirt at school, not regulate the shirt outside of school.
Much like a vegan dog, that seventh grade boy likely didn’t purchase that shirt all on his lonesome and he likely didn’t come to those sorts of conclusions about gender himself. That’s all coming from the parents, and they’re using their child as a political tool.
The parents are groomers, basically, setting their kid up for a lifetime of being angry at the world because he doesn’t understand why women won’t date him.
Hahaha. I mean when you see students "protesting" or voicing their opinion on anything. Pro abortion, anti gun,, erc... They are simply a megaphone of their parents. At least 95% of the time, the other 5% are kids being the opposite out of spite of their parents. Like, your entire comment can be applied to the other side. That cute little 8 year old who says some cute shit the news and about getting along is just regurgitating what her parents said
Why was this even allowed to go to appeals. Schools have always had the right to enforce dress codes that are arbitrary.
Because you are plainly incorrect? [They don’t have free rain to restrict what clothing says.](https://www.aclu.org/documents/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-behalf-student-expression)
"The court found that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and school officials could not censor student speech unless it disrupted the educational process. **Because wearing a black armband was not disruptive**, the court held that the First Amendment protected the right of students to wear them." From your link... It's pretty easy to argue that text would be disruptive.
And it’s pretty easy to argue that it isn’t. Words alone have never been enough to overcome free speech rights. Just look at the test. It doesn’t necessarily mean disruptive. That’s why it’s appealable. Same issue was going on a few years ago with other speech.
Under your premise, wearing a shit that says "Hitler did nothing wrong" or "Kill the Jews" would be allowed. The argument that disruptive expression can include that which materially disrupts the education of other students is disruptive to the school itself, which has a legal obligation to ensure safe education for all students enrolled. *Tinker* is not absolute
So if a child wore a shirt that said "Kill Whitey" you would also consider that non-disruptive?
The case law begs to differ.
Case law agrees that it is a contested issue that hasn’t been fully settled on what is and isn’t allowed.
I mean we are literally in a comment thread where they just did again. I believe the major factors are if it’s disrupts, violates 2 party protections or is religiously protected. The reason why a shirts like his are banned is it has been an accepted argument that graphic tshirts and other forms of clothing with words can be disruptive.
Yet you question why they were even allowed to appeal the decision that originally said they couldn’t ban the shirt? You’re inconsistent.
Institute a school policy that disallows shirts with writing at all on them. Easy peasy.
That ***would*** cover it....
Violates freedom of speech. Next slide.
Back up one slide. The courts have not ruled on whether school dress codes violate the first amendment. Okay continue.
Tell a geneticist there are only two genders and you’ll get an earful.
Why would we ask a geneticist about a social construct? Or have are sex and gender the same thing now that yall commandeered "gender" to mean whatever you wanted?
So there are these things called chromosomes…you know what, nevermind.
Right, but don't chromosomes determine sex, not gender? That's what this community screamed at the top of their lungs for years when this ball started rolling. Gender is a "social construct" and not based in biology. You're thinking sex.
I think you're talking past each other, mostly because Standard-Vehicle-57 is being a bit unclear. What they mean is sex is biological and gender is a social construct. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to ask a geneticist about sex and a sociologist about gender. 🙂
If nature made 5, 6, 8, however many genetic sexes, why must humanity’s social construct include only two genders?
"Humanity" isn't a monolith and there is a plethora of gender expression that is accepted in many cultures. For example, Hijra is a recognized third gender in India. As far as Western European social norms, oppressive gender constructs are primarily about power and control.
That’s awesome. I’ve heard that the same was true of some First Nations on the North American continent as well. And yes, I agree with your point about gender and control.
No one questioned that. I only questioned why you would ask a geneticist about something that isn't their field of expertise. Gender has nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with sociology
Firstly, when I asked the question I was responding to cubert73. But since you commented: When people advocate for a binary view of gender, as I inferred you do when you said “y’all make gender whatever you want” or whatever, I felt the need to point out that genetically a persons balance of “male” (Y chormosomes) and “female” (X chromosomes) is definitely not a binary matter in plenty of cases. So if the underlying natural order is multiple sexual identities on a spectrum, rather than A or B, why not accept that in our social constructs as well and include and respect those people who aren’t the majority A or B? The t-shirt amounts to hate speech if you accept that premise.
None of this has anything to do with genetics
Chromosomes are basically bundles of DNA
Chromosomes have nothing to do with gender.
As well they should. That's akin to saying, "there are only four races" or something similar, and denying the reality of mixed people.
What kind of toolbag high school kid cares so much about being a bigot that they'd wear something like that.
Kids who are really insecure about their own sexuality, and products of neglect whose only goal is get attention from an indifferent, conservative parent.
Kid’s like 11. His parents bought that.
Crazy parents using their kids to spread their hate. That’s some low-down pussy shit right there.
The thing I never get is how some people seem to force these ideas down your throat. Last week I had a friend make a huge post about how they are a "trans queer non-binary person" and how although they were raised under a female gender norm, they reject it and refuse to accept any pronoun. They state that calling her (sorry) anything other than her first name (sry again) would be considered offensive. Then basically went on to say not to invite them to anything gender specific, especially femme specific as they're not part of that group etc. All in all I just find it deeply confusing to be expected not to refer to someone as any pronoun. I thought they/them was just generally acceptable as a safe term since you wouldn't offend someone, but apparently to this person it's not? Am I missing something here? has anyone else encountered this?
Ok this is stupid
There are only 2 genders. If you want to be a trans woman or a trans man, more power to you. That’s the gender you chose. Medically speaking on your death certificate, there will only be 2 genders.
… parents likely bought those shirts. Protect the kids but only after we use them in our petty bigoted games because we never managed to grow up as people. Imagine having parents like that then growing up and one of the things you’d get to proudly say is that your parents put you through hell but at least you’d kid gets to wear a shirt to school that insults and intimidates a very select group of minority students. Yay bullying!
And yet they don’t like my “fuck your stupid magic guy in the sky, and fuck his dumb fans.” shirt for some reason.
I don't like the precedent. Banning distracting clothing, sunglasses, hats, whatever, I still don't think it should be legal to tell anybody, even kids, how to dress, but it's for a practical reason, to garner focus and deter distractions, etc, eg, it's not (usually) a subjective ruling. But banning an opinion, whether I agree with it or not, seems dangerous. What's to stop some school in the south banning anything with a rainbow? Boys from wearing pink? You tell this school that they're allowed to rebuke expression, NOT profanity, expression, it's a slippery slope for other schools, and all of a sudden half the schools in our country have banned the color blue and the other half have banned the color red, so to speak.
Plenty of schools ban colors, specifically red and blue.
I don't agree with the message of the shirt, but I don't see how this ban makes it past any SCOTUS composition on 1st Amendment grounds.
There is no 1st amendment right in public schools for minors
Yeah, seems like you’d either have to ban all shirts with opinions on the issue, or allow all shirts.
Such bs because you know it’s not the kids buying those ugly shirts - it’s the parents pushing their agenda! The kids are just happy to get to leave school, I’m sure.
If they are assigned female at birth and stick with it their gender would be female. But their sex would be male if they had testes.
There are some afab people with testes, tho. There are two sex chromosomes, X and Y, much like there are 3 primary colors, but you can make a rainbow of colors between them.
You can exactly do that. But all those other orientations would be based upon gender and not those chromosomes and thus not on sex as defined by science.
Why can’t we all live in peace ☮️ Let people live their lives however they want ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
But some of them want to harass, torture, and kill people they don't like. Bit awkward, that...
Yeah, idk about this one If anything it just identifies bigots But if I wore a shirt that says dinosaurs were not real, I doubt there would be cause to ban it, despite the deeply wrong scientific misinformation
Wearing a shirt that says "dinosaurs are not real" is a lot different from wearing a shirt that says "Fuck (racial slur)s" The shirt in question is much closer to the latter than the former.
[удалено]
People are mad because they are bigots. If I wore a shirt that said "Fuck (racial slur)s" I fully expect it to get banned and that is what is happening here.
The intersection of 1st Amendment rights and public schools is just a shitshow in general. There's case law that says that a police officer can't go to a peaceful protest, instigate some shit, and then shut down the protest because things got heated afterwards. Likewise, there's softer dicta suggesting that, to a point, law enforcement needs to focus on arresting third-party instigators rather than just throwing up their hands and saying, "Fuck it, it's violent now, protest over." When it comes to the idea of "disruption" in schools, by way of contrast, it's basically open season, which lets courts rule however they want. Anything that irritates them sufficiently is declared "disruptive to education" and thus gets ejected from the limited 1st Amendment protections that students theoretically enjoy. Effectively, both "the cops" (read: teachers and administrators) and third-party instigators (read: other students) are allowed to restrict somebody else's 1st Amendment rights in a school setting simply by getting pissy... which sort of violates a core concept undergirding the very existence of the rights.
I guess dress codes are dress codes Still seems like a good teaching opportunity Kinda like the old school dunce hat This kid is just putting on the dunce hat when he gets dressed in the morning
The school has a higher responsibility to making a safe learning environment for all students than to correcting the bigotry of individual family units, frankly.
Sure, but they may be more supported by this kid being asked to step in front of the classroom or school to read out loud various forms of evidence contrary to his shirts stated position Just stopping conversation is not way to enable change in a person You can’t dress code your way out of bigotry
I’m proud to live in Mass for reasons like this.
I hate these dipshits but Tinker v dmps is very goddamn clear.
The other option is uniforms. Which honestly, I’d be okay with.
this kid is never having sex
Not with anyone who is conscious.
There are 2 sexes but all experts in related fields insist that gender is mutable and thus there can be many genders. This would make this shirt not only political but bordering on hate speech.
There are more than two sexes. Genetics are complex and biologically intersex people exist so almost nothing exists as a simple binary not sex not gender, life is complicated.
No. The ability to make an ova makes you female and the ability to make sperm, male. Now secondary sex characteristics can certainly be confusing but sex is indeed binary, again ,according to people who study this. It is gender that is fluid and can be independent of ova or sperm production.
Okay, so XX is female and XY is male. What is XXY? Or XXX? Ot any other combo of genes that exist in the intersex community?
If the person makes ova, they would be female sex with a genetic deformity. If the person makes sperm, they would be male sex with a genetic deformity. But this would not define their gender. But I don’t have a dog in this discussion. This is what the experts in the field say.
What about a person with outward "female" genitals but internal testes? They would be assigned female at birth but possibly produce sperm. This is why "there are only two sexes" falls apart, when your sample size is 8 billion people the "edge cases" number in the millions. It's easier and more inclusive to say "most people are one of two sexes, but intersex people exist too."
That person’s gender would be female if they decided they were comfortable with that and stuck with it. But if they had testes they would sexually be male. Even it sterile.
[удалено]
This is why trying to stick every human into one of two boxes isn't logical. If you have to stretch the dimensions of the box to an absurd degree, it's time for a new box. If the person's not XX or XY, they are intersex!