Classical Values :: Do you want women dressed as men teaching your kids?

April 20, 2010

Do you want women dressed as men teaching your kids?

I keep reading about the cross-dressing threat to our nation's children, and I find myself wondering about the meaning of the term. I don't think it's inherently sexist language in the purely logical sense, but as applied, "cross dressing" almost exclusively means men dressing as women.

Similarly, the word "transvestite" is almost never applied to women. While there can be female to male transsexuals, women who dress as men simply are not called transvestites. If I saw a woman wearing men's clothing and called her a "transvestite," people would either think I was nuts or else they'd assume I thought she was actually a man trying to pass as a woman.

But regardless of what the term means, how big of a threat to our republic is cross-dressing? Does that depend on how many cross-dressers there are? If women wearing men's clothes is cross-dressing, then I'd say we've already lost to the abject de facto tyranny of female majority rule (which probably explains why women wearing pants does not "count" but men wearing skirts does).

OK, then. Logic be damned. Cross-dressing is a guy thing only.

I looked at the bill people are complaining about and the section which pertains to cross dressing is gender-neutral:

"Nothing in this Act shall prohibit an employer from requiring an employee, during the employee's hours at work, to adhere to reasonable dress or grooming standards not prohibited by other provisions of Federal, State, or local law, provided that the employer permits any employee who has undergone gender transition prior to the time of employment, and any employee who has notified the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition after the time of employment, to adhere to the same dress or grooming standards for the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning."

What that means is that under the bill, an employer could not only prohibit men from wearing dresses, but could also prohibit women from wearing trousers -- only provided that they were not undergoing gender transition.

I think that's a pretty big loophole. Companies could in fact discriminate against transvestites of the straight variety (who do it for the sexual thrill) as well as gay drag queens with no desire to actually become women but who just enjoy aping women and camping it up. And they could even stop women from dressing as men -- again, only so long as none of these people were actually changing their sex. (It might even nip in the bud the idea that it's "discrimination" to make girls dress like girls.)

As to how many people actually change their sex, the numbers are pretty low. Estimates vary widely, but the closest thing to a consensus would seem to be about 1 in 10,000.

Now, I know they're saying that they'll soon be in every classroom teaching your kids, but if there are 6.2 million teachers in the United States, it would stand to reason that there would be approximately 620 transsexual teachers.

I realize that some might think that 620 transgendered teachers is 620 too many, but I don't see how a group of that size could ever hope to come close to achieving the goal the "Traditional Values" people say these freaks of nature have.

Hmmm...

Speaking of traditional values, a good argument can be made that we're lucky not to be rolling back the clock to the days of real traditional values -- when cross-dressing was really inflicted on children, and boys were made to dress like girls.

But never mind that.

"Tradition" didn't actually begin until the 1930s.....

posted by Eric on 04.20.10 at 02:28 PM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/9604

Comments

That law has a bunch of problems but I have to admit, I wouldn't want Divine teaching my kids anything except how to laugh at yourself.

And to court a violent reaction, it seems to me that cross-dressers have problems. Maybe they're not the best teachers for young children.

But, the law is hopeless.

Women can wear men's clothes because there really isn't separate "men's" clothes in the same way there's "women's clothes".

In our culture men don't wear dresses (they wear kilts to go get drunk a few times a year, but that's not the same thing), but women wear pants all the time.

Does some enforcement agency look to see if it's a Hillary-approved pants-suit or from the men's section? And if so, where can I apply?

Can women wear men's boxers as shorts?
Can men wear women's panties and bras under a suit? Who checks? (Note: I don't want that job)

This is the type of thing we used to handle amongst ourselves, too bad we're being infantilized.

Veeshir · April 20, 2010 03:12 PM

Wow if you google "when did women" the first 3 items presented by autocomplete are about voting, then number four is "start wearing pants"

It is apparently on many people's minds.

It seems it started getting widespread in the 30s, popularized by Katherin Hepburn, which was scandalous!

plutosdad · April 20, 2010 04:37 PM

Well, Divine was not transgendered. He was an obese gay man who dressed in drag for his performances. So according to my reading of this bill, an employer would be allowed to require him to wear a coat and tie to work, and he would have no right to wear dresses to work.

Of course, a school district might not want to hire drug-using kleptomaniacs who publicly eat dogshit, and there is nothing in the bill that would force them to do so.

Eric Scheie · April 20, 2010 04:41 PM

drug-using kleptomaniacs who publicly eat dogshit, and there is nothing in the bill that would force them to do so.
Fascist.

I was joking about him obviously.
But the point stands, I wouldn't want a guy dressed as a woman teaching young kids for any number of reasons.

But I also don't think "There oughtta be a law".

It can't be enforced in any reasonable manner.
It should be left up to the districts themselves.

I can think of some places that would want all 262 working in their district and more power to them.

Veeshir · April 20, 2010 07:51 PM

I don't see it as my business to care whether a guy dressed as a woman teaches kids; if he is a good teacher and the parents consent, so what? But I don't think anyone should have to have their kids taught by anyone. Is it the clothes, though? Is a transsexual necessarily a man in a dress? What if he or she wears slacks? I think this is a bit silly, but some people are in a serious panic over it, and the more I look at it, the more I think the panic is overblown.

Eric Scheie · April 20, 2010 11:43 PM

Are you asking if we have a problem with the volleyball coach teaching health class?

Phelps · April 21, 2010 02:01 PM

Those who support the bill are racists, Nazis, and anti - gay! A man dressing as a woman is a HUMAN RIGHT! Luckily, we have Obama in the White House, and maybe he will pass a law that will force employers to ALLOW men (and also women) to dress that way! As for teachers, what matters is not HOW THEY DRESS, but HOW GOOD THEY ARE AT TEACHING!!

David · April 22, 2010 02:13 PM

There was an experiment in Cleveland schools, when they placed an "in-process" transgendered man in a middle school, of all places. Of course, the kids noticed, and complained to their parents. The resultant uproar led to his being transferred until the process was complete.

I think it's totally unfair for the employer to have to live with the consequences of an employee's personal decision. It would affect the business, particularly if the employee were in a front-office or sales position.

Unless, of course, that business were in a "gay-friendly" field like show business.

LindaF · April 23, 2010 06:24 AM

"if he is a good teacher and the parents consent, so what?"

Um, where do you get the idea that parents have any ability to choose their kids teacher in the public schools? That's where a lot of the panic comes from. Since parents have no control over what their children are taught or who teaches it, unless they can afford private school, they try to control things via legislation. You want less panic? Support school choice.

EW · April 27, 2010 01:06 AM