Boys at my school weren’t allowed to wear short shorts or tank tops. Fortunately, leggings-as-pants had not yet been invented.
Every once in a while, a school in the US will get their panties all in a bunch over boys wearing kilts. Typically, school dress codes make an ass out of you and me thinking that “boys can’t wear skirts, even if they fit modesty guidelines by being x inches or less above the knee, etc.” is implicit in society and stating it is a waste of paper and ink. Then some boy will wear a kilt and teachers sort of short-circuit.
In the halcyon days of the 90s, one of my high schools local goths decided to start wearing flowing black skirts for a while. There was no rule against it and lots of kids rallied around him, so they left it alone, no biggie.
Both my former ES and MS (both public) now have stuck the kids into uniforms, which seems to be the the currently fashionable panacea for school performance and discipline issues. I’m wondering when this will become standard in high schools, and, hell, why not colleges? With strict dress codes at workplaces and public schools, eight years of being able to wear whatever one wants might be subversive. Seriously, though, as someone who started seventh grade in the very midst of the garishly striped flared trousers era, I stand saddened and bemused that allowing kids to wear whatever they want has become a “problem”. I get that uniforms eliminate sartorial distractions like girls showing too much leg or boys having to actually hold their pants up with one hand as they walk from class to class. They also eliminate fashion envy and problems that revolve around deciding what to wear each morning. But in achieving the least possible amount of distraction, the uniform has to be as dull as possible. Boys wear the same color khaki pants and shirts, and girls wear the same skirts and blouses. The kids, in effect, are required to look like cubicle partitions at the DMV. For me at least, people wearing whatever they wish, at least to some extent, has always been part of life’s great pageant, and by clamping down with sartorial mandates we lose an important aspect of self expression. I’m. not saying what any given person decides to wear is always appropriate or good looking by any means; on the other hand, if I dislike certain songs or genres of music it doesn’t mean I’m going to stop listening to music.
I’ll admit that I’m a man and might not have the best insight into this, but I generally divide “pantyhose” from “leggings” and “tights”. Pantyhose are very thin, are often sheer (but don’t have to be), and don’t “count” as covering anything. E.g. if you wear a knee-length dress and pantyhose, that is equivalent in terms of coverage/modesty as wearing a knee-length dress with bare legs or ankle socks. Leggings are thick, almost always opaque, and do count as covering the legs. They aren’t exactly as modest as a pair of slacks, but they aren’t the same as bare legs. The term “tights” can be vague and contextual, but I would generally consider them either the same as leggings, or perhaps some sort of middle ground of hosiery that wasn’t thin enough to be pantyhose but not thick enough to be worn as leggings.
No, they don’t “choose” their gender any more than you “chose” yours.
There are certain criteria for determining if a student is really transgender or not. The typical criteria used by school counselors and mental health professionals (who I do actually work with and for in a professional capacity) are “insistent, persistent, consistent.” These are not codified in the law, but that actually gives school administrators more latitude for verifying that in their specific district no boy gets to just walk into the girls room and say “huh huh…yeah, I’m a chick…huh huh…can I help you do…giggle…breast exams?”
I’d reckon that 9 years in a district as large as Los Angeles would be a good enough testbed.
I doubt a single conservative who is openly speaking out against California’s law has actually done the legwork to understand how transgender students are actually handled. Whereas it’s one of my jobs to assist transgender students in high schools.
Let me start by saying it doesn’t really matter to me what the dress code is at any particular school.
I just want to add that your arguments don’t really make sense, or you don’t understand what is meant by “distracting.”
If a girl is wearing spandex, or whatever, that’s provocative or sexy, then there might be boys (or girls) who are MORE likely to fantasize or be distracted by it then if they were wearing something more subtle.
I remember specifically day dreaming about this one girl wearing spandex pants, that looked painted on, for an entire class one time. I didn’t here a word the teacher said. She wasn’t particularly attractive ( OIOW= “distracting”) otherwise!
Teenage boys are VERY horny and are prone to being distracted by such thoughts. If restricting certain female garments lessens this distraction, then it makes sense to have those restrictions in place.
Several high schools in my area have switched to uniforms. Actually, I think the only public schools around here with uniforms are high schools. Except they’re not “uniforms” but “campus wear” because you can get all the clothes off the rack. :rolleyes: It’s usually khaki pants and a choice of two or three polo shirts in solid school colors. (When they run out of discipline-related arguments, the ugly-ass colors allow them to fall back on “school spirit.” Because the football team will do better if everyone is dressed in purple or yellow polo shirts or something.)
The high school in my community considered switching to [del]uniforms[/del] campus wear, but quite a few parents actually showed up at the board meeting and asked to see the numbers showing that dress code violations were such a terrible problem keeping teachers from teaching and administrators from administrating. It turned out the numbers were…underwhelming to say the least.
“A strict dress code introduced by a Staten Island public high school principal has led to the detention of 200 kids — and a rebellion among some students and parents.”
90% of the violators were girls.
What a bunch of sluts.
That’s a shame.
That principal is:
- an idiot
- looking at a transfer
- an idiot
Wait, did we stop wearing leggings under **long **tops? Did I miss a fashion memo?
Damn, I missed the edit window!
I know I had this conversation in the late 80s/early 90s…
Definitions of legwear:
**Leggings **= thicker than tights. Opaque. Form-ftting, they are properly worn under a top that covers the bum. They look great with riding boots. You can wear them under skirts as well, if they’re the kind that look like footless tights.
**Tights **= thinner than leggings. Opaque or nearly so. Always worn under another item of clothing worn on the bottom half (shorts, skirts)
**Stockings **= thin and sheer. Nobody under the age of 50 wears them anymore.
This is how leggings should be worn in public (and I find these appropriate for school):
http://www.gorgeautiful.com/how-to-wear-leggings-gorgeous-and-beautiful/how-to-wear-leggings-on-different-occasions-05/
http://www.gorgeautiful.com/how-to-wear-leggings-gorgeous-and-beautiful/how-to-wear-leggings-on-different-occasions-06/
Wearing leggings with short tops basically is just asking for VPL (visible pantyline) or the dreaded cameltoe.
When I was in college, 10 years ago, women routinely wore leggings or tights with short tops that left nothing to the imagination. Leggings with your ass hanging out were far more common but tights were not rare.
I remember one time nearly falling on my face when the woman walking ahead of me and I started going up stairs. Every step momentarily spread the fabric on her tights so thin that you could see everything.
As a heterosexual male, it’s a fantastic trend but still incredibly trashy. It’s entirely possible to be trashy without being the least bit slutty.
And that is the other side of the issue. It’s not always about slut shaming the girls, but thinking poorly of the boys.
As a teenager, I was aroused in class many times. It did not affect my grades in the slightest. It is not a given that being “distracted” in the way you describe has to impede learning.
Especially since what is defined as “distracting” is, more often than not, regular clothing that we see all the time. It honestly seems more distracting to the teachers than to the boys.
BTW, when I was in college, natural slutshaming–by the women–kept most people from wearing anything too trashy. The girl with the shorts that showed her naked buttcheeks? Invariably a freshman. And I would hear complete strangers gossiping about her behind her back–and I pretty much mean that literally, as I’m pretty sure the idea was that she’d hear.
Yet these were the same women who railed against the dress code in high school. At least around here, there is a natural limit to how far people will go, but the artificial limit imposed by the dress codes makes everyone fight against it.
At least teenage girls have backed off wearing the low cut jeans for which to show off their thong-butts.
Just based on what I see on the street, it’s arguable that boys today have less to violate the dress codes about. They still mostly seem to favor a generally baggy or loose-fitting look, but I hardly ever see the sagging look anymore.
That could have been cheaply-made exercise wear; I don’t think leggings have been in fashion as street wear for 10 years.
Anyway, I can see how a heterosexual male would appreciate the trend. 
I recently saw a woman in leggings, high platform heels, a tank top, and a satin baseball jacket. I couldn’t tell if she was going for a Pink Lady in Grease look, or a hooker look. Very odd.
Anyway, back to the school – It would be appropriate for the school to say, if you wear leggings, they must be opaque when you sit or bend, and your top must be fingertip length. Banning them altogether is silly, as they are ubiquitous. Hell, even kids’ moms are wearing them.
Or just go to a uniform or “campus wear”.