Marriage redefinition advocates insist that ‘gender-neutral’ school uniforms keep all children from being offended and/or bullied. They are wrong: enforcing gender-neutral clothing offends the majority of school children.
In an effort to appease transgender pupils, a UK secondary school has banned Year 7 female students from wearing skirts to school. School officials claim that this is a response to complaints about the “decency of short skirts,” but comments from the headmaster reveal a genderless agenda:
Priory School in Lewes, east Sussex has changed its uniform policy so that all new Year 7 students must wear trousers.
Tony Smith, the school's headmaster, said he bought in the change because pupils had been questioning why the uniform ascribed certain garments to boys and others to girls.
"Pupils have been saying why do boys have to where ties and girls don't, and girls have different uniform to boys," he said. "So we decided to have the same uniform for everybody from Year 7.
"Another issue was that we have a small but increasing number of transgender students and therefore having the same uniform is important for them."
While the headmaster may think that banning skirts is the way to appease the community, they forgot one rather important group: their female students. Banning skirts to make uniforms “equal” sent the message to its pupils that “girls shouldn’t be girls”. Quite telling how they didn’t bother to ask the school girls even for their opinion on the matter – or their parents paying to send their kids to Priory:
The new regime has divided opinion among parents and students, with some agreeing with it, while others have voiced their opposition. One mother said: "My daughter and her friends are appalled by this. The school is creating a hostile environment for girls."
Another parent added: "My daughter said she has got a gender and it's female, so being gender neutral when she has got a gender is a big deal for her, as she proud to be a girl. I feel girls should be allowed to wear skirts if they want to."
The gender ideology movement claims that they want children to ‘embrace who they are’ and be whatever gender they choose. Unless of course, a child identifies with their biological gender.
Such occurrences wouldn’t have happened had the UK not redefined marriage. Proponents of the ‘Yes’ campaign claim that it is a stretch to link school policies to redefining marriage. But it is not a stretch at all:
Redefining marriage does not mean solely “legalising” same-sex marriage – it means removing gender, rendering marriage between merely 2 persons. This definition enshrines in law that there is no difference between male and female. To conform with the law, schools would change their programs to reflect this law change rather than teach a definition that is “illegal”.
Turning gender into a meaningless term opens the Pandora’s Box of gender ideology which infiltrates school programs (Safe Schools anyone?), children’s materials (remember The Gender Fairy?), prosaic conversations (since when was ’boys and girls’ offensive?), school property (the whole toilet turmoil), school uniforms (the connection is real), and more.
The majority of school children fully identify with their natural, biological gender: these children want to wear gender-specific uniforms.
Rather than encouraging children to learn about their biology, to understand the differences (and the compatibility) between males and females, gender ideology tells children they cannot be who they are – they have to pretend to be something different from their natural anatomy.
‘Yes’ campaign proponents are wrong: redefining marriage has a direct effect on children. It doesn’t ‘free them’ to have more choices about who they are or who they ‘marry’ – it turns children into ‘genderless’ social experiments.