I dont know who said it... but I completely agree. This is what you'd like to call a media whore/cash-in opportunity. She isnt standing for what she believes in, she's making a scene and the media is eating it up.

 

Thank You

 

because their standard is ridiculous to begin with, nevermind the legal side of the argument which would nothing short of a complete mockery in any court room in this country

 

in the united states of america, you can wear whatever you want, whenever you want...within reason of course

 

but then again...im sensing someone who believes in the liberal media conspiracy, correct?

 

Yeah, and 9/11 was an inside job, right?!

Perhaps if that's what you define to be an intelligent opinion. I'd call that being articulate. It's as if someone posted this article and wrote "just cuz she got some tits and a puss dont mean she needa act and be llke the girls.' I woouldn't go as far as to say that isn't an intelligent opinion just because it's coarse and insensitive - the rationale behind it could still be sensible. With that said, the opinion that the OP is defending could still be intelligent; he just didn't do a very good job of communicating it.

 

 

 

 

First of all, there was absolutely no attempt made at articulateness. And there is a certain decorum required by what I consider "intelligent" discussion. But I suppose that is a semantics issue.

 

I also read his post for content. It's still not intelligent. He gives no reason why she can't where a tux except that "she can't".

 

If she's a Lesbian, she's got no right to pretend she's a man. If she's trans-gender or trans-sexual, then that's a different story.

 

 

This would be an absurd standard. The school has no right to this information, of course.

 

What do you mean? I completely disagree. She wants to wear a tuxedo because she is a tomboy. She likes the style of dressing as a man. Yeah, if you want to be liberal in students decision-making, that's fine. But there is still a dresscode, and that doesnt make exceptions for 'special' people. She is equal to the rest of us. This would be equivalent to a straight person who just so happens to be a crossdresser wanting to wear the opposite sex's clothes.

 

She calls herself a lesbian. Im sure she knows the difference between a transgender (someone who appears as or wishes to be considered the opposite sex). She likes girls, that doesnt make her a boy. She can dress like a boy in public, fine, but this would be the only way I would see it fair for a woman to be wearing man's clothing. Do remember, a transgender has not had an operation, that would be a transexual. She's a lesbian, end of story. What the hell do you think would happen if a straight person tried to do this just out of his or her own interest? Being equal to all sorts of races, ethnicities, religions, and sexual orientations does not mean you need to treat them differently or with any more of a priveledge just because they get less of a priveledge elsewhere. Reverse prejudice is equivalent to prejudice in its own right. We are all equal, the same, no difference, yada yada.

 

I dont know who said it... but I completely agree. This is what you'd like to call a media whore/cash-in opportunity. She isnt standing for what she believes in, she's making a scene and the media is eating it up.

 

As to the last point - according to the article, she filed this suit a while before the other issue with the girl wanting to bring her girlfriend as date.

 

As for the rest - you're mostly off point. Her sexual identity should not be the crux of the issue. It should be irrelevant whether she has declared herself straight, gay, bisexual, or anywhere along the spectrum. [As far as the implications of the transgender/transsexual issue, this appears tougher to say. I suppose the fact that she's legally a female would be the key point in the issue, if gender identity were deemed relevant, but all those gray areas about when a person ceases to be one gender and legitimately is a member of the other gender makes this part quite murky.]

 

The issue here is whether or not a public school should allow/be able to prohibit students wearing non-traditional clothing at [a] school function. Like you said, the dress code [and its proper make-up and enforcement] is the issue.

 

There is nothing inherently "manly" about a tuxedo, by the way. Its association with males is obviously a societal construct. She's merely not conforming to society's standards, but she is certainly not defying any immutable laws of nature by being a female wearing a tuxedo.

 

I 100% agree with you.

http://news.yahoo.co...n_yearbook_flap

 

This makes about as much sense as it would her to claim gender discrimination for having to use the girl locker room. News flash, you have tits and a puss...what you do on your own time is your own business, but you can't wear a tux with the boys....even though you look like one.

 

 

Boy, the bullpen has been a bastion of close mindedness recently, huh.

 

What they said. I love how he starts the thread as if he thinks he has an intelligent opinion on the matter.

You may sit behind a desk for a living with computer access...I don't. If you review my post history, you'll see that I get on here maybe once or twice a week. I have higher priority things going on in my life than to come see what you think about my opinion. This forum is a spare time thing in my life; it isn't my life.

 

Your priorities are, of course, your business. And you are more than welcome to disregard my, or anyone else's, opinion. I also [fairly] reserve the right to criticize things posted on a public forum.

http://news.yahoo.co...n_yearbook_flap

 

This makes about as much sense as it would her to claim gender discrimination for having to use the girl locker room. News flash, you have tits and a puss...what you do on your own time is your own business, but you can't wear a tux with the boys....even though you look like one.

 

 

Boy, the bullpen has been a bastion of close mindedness recently, huh.

 

What they said. I love how he starts the thread as if he thinks he has an intelligent opinion on the matter.

You may sit behind a desk for a living with computer access...I don't. If you review my post history, you'll see that I get on here maybe once or twice a week. I have higher priority things going on in my life than to come see what you think about my opinion. This forum is a spare time thing in my life; it isn't my life.

 

Your priorities are, of course, your business. And you are more than welcome to disregard my, or anyone else's, opinion. I also [fairly] reserve the right to criticize things posted on a public forum.

 

I support that, as long as you're criticizing the opinion, not my lack of follow-up

Perhaps if that's what you define to be an intelligent opinion. I'd call that being articulate. It's as if someone posted this article and wrote "just cuz she got some tits and a puss dont mean she needa act and be llke the girls.' I woouldn't go as far as to say that isn't an intelligent opinion just because it's coarse and insensitive - the rationale behind it could still be sensible. With that said, the opinion that the OP is defending could still be intelligent; he just didn't do a very good job of communicating it.

 

 

 

 

First of all, there was absolutely no attempt made at articulateness. And there is a certain decorum required by what I consider "intelligent" discussion. But I suppose that is a semantics issue.

 

That's what I mean. It wasn't articulate and I don't think that makes the opinion unintelligent, just poorly communicated with no actual argument. But I agree, we're just arguing semantics here.

My support is that she is a girl, not a guy. Therefore, she should wear girl clothes, just like all the other girls. I though that was clear. I apologize for that. I was in no way, however, trying to spare another person's opinion or feelings. I don't care about sensitivity, nor do I expect any of you to worry about my feelings

 

Should she also be in the kitchen preparing dinner and birthing babies? Knitting sweaters?

Perhaps if that's what you define to be an intelligent opinion. I'd call that being articulate. It's as if someone posted this article and wrote "just cuz she got some tits and a puss dont mean she needa act and be llke the girls.' I woouldn't go as far as to say that isn't an intelligent opinion just because it's coarse and insensitive - the rationale behind it could still be sensible. With that said, the opinion that the OP is defending could still be intelligent; he just didn't do a very good job of communicating it.

 

 

 

 

First of all, there was absolutely no attempt made at articulateness. And there is a certain decorum required by what I consider "intelligent" discussion. But I suppose that is a semantics issue.

 

That's what I mean. It wasn't articulate and I don't think that makes the opinion unintelligent, just poorly communicated with no actual argument. But I agree, we're just arguing semantics here.

My support is that she is a girl, not a guy. Therefore, she should wear girl clothes, just like all the other girls. I though that was clear. I apologize for that. I was in no way, however, trying to spare another person's opinion or feelings. I don't care about sensitivity, nor do I expect any of you to worry about my feelings

 

Should she also be in the kitchen preparing dinner and birthing babies? Knitting sweaters?

 

Yeah....that's exactly what I said. :thumbup

You may sit behind a desk for a living with computer access...I don't. If you review my post history, you'll see that I get on here maybe once or twice a week. I have higher priority things going on in my life than to come see what you think about my opinion. This forum is a spare time thing in my life; it isn't my life.

 

 

Your priorities are, of course, your business. And you are more than welcome to disregard my, or anyone else's, opinion. I also [fairly] reserve the right to criticize things posted on a public forum.

 

I support that, as long as you're criticizing the opinion, not my lack of follow-up

 

I never criticized your lack of follow-up, so that's fine.

because their standard is ridiculous to begin with, nevermind the legal side of the argument which would nothing short of a complete mockery in any court room in this country

 

in the united states of america, you can wear whatever you want, whenever you want...within reason of course

 

but then again...im sensing someone who believes in the liberal media conspiracy, correct?

 

 

Excuse me? What standard are you even talking of?

 

and what "Liberal media conspiracy" are you talking about? I never said any of that, nor do I believe in any conspiracies. I just spoke my mind right there. That is all.

 

And to the bolded point, what? You have freedom of speech. Freedom of expression. Freedom. But freedoms do not apply to everything. With such freedoms come great responsibility.

 

There is still law in this land, which must be followed. Public education might be a right and not a priviledge, but attending Prom is most certainly a priviledge, and if/when rules are created for it, they must be followed.

 

Your freedom goes in line with your rights. Nobody is telling this girl she cant wear a tuxedo at home, or wherever the hell she wants in America in public, or here, or there, or whatever. But a prom is a private event, end of story.

Yeah....that's exactly what I said. :thumbup

 

 

 

Well enlighten me then. What exactly are girl clothes? I forget that all females are supposed to dress exactly alike and allow no room for individuality.

My support is that she is a girl, not a guy. Therefore, she should wear girl clothes, just like all the other girls. I though that was clear. I apologize for that. I was in no way, however, trying to spare another person's opinion or feelings. I don't care about sensitivity, nor do I expect any of you to worry about my feelings

 

 

Should she also be in the kitchen preparing dinner and birthing babies? Knitting sweaters?

 

Yeah....that's exactly what I said. :thumbup

 

It's what the logical extension of your statements appears to be, though.

 

Think of it this way: the only reason that I can think of to validate your claims (and this isn't implying that it's necessarily a poor reason) is that women, and probably people of both genders, should where certain types of clothes because they ought to conform with the rest of society. Society has constructed certain gender roles in the past, and you want to keep with this tradition.

 

One part of those rules concerns dress; for example, at a fancy occasion, woman typically wear dresses while men wear suits or tuxedos. The other parts of the similarly established gender roles, though, do inevitably include women as housewives as opposed to having careers, among other things.

 

Feel free to elucidate some principle which gives a reason for asserting this requirement with regards to clothing options but not with regards to career choices, familial obligations, etc. Until then, I see some things at least along the lines of what gizmo said as inevitable consequences of your [apparent] theory on gender relations and obligations.

because their standard is ridiculous to begin with, nevermind the legal side of the argument which would nothing short of a complete mockery in any court room in this country

 

in the united states of america, you can wear whatever you want, whenever you want...within reason of course

 

but then again...im sensing someone who believes in the liberal media conspiracy, correct?

 

 

Excuse me? What standard are you even talking of?

 

and what "Liberal media conspiracy" are you talking about? I never said any of that, nor do I believe in any conspiracies. I just spoke my mind right there. That is all.

 

And to the bolded point, what? You have freedom of speech. Freedom of expression. Freedom. But freedoms do not apply to everything. With such freedoms come great responsibility.

 

There is still law in this land, which must be followed. Public education might be a right and not a priviledge, but attending Prom is most certainly a priviledge, and if/when rules are created for it, they must be followed.

 

Your freedom goes in line with your rights. Nobody is telling this girl she cant wear a tuxedo at home, or wherever the hell she wants in America in public, or here, or there, or whatever. But a prom is a private event, end of story.

 

It's not, though. Or at least, I'm of the opinion that it can't be, let alone shouldn't be, when its in the context of a public school.

 

And I'm sure this lawsuit isn't about whether or not we should follow rules; it's about whether certain rules are fair, just, etc.

Nobody is telling this girl she cant wear a tuxedo at home, or wherever the hell she wants in America in public, or here, or there, or whatever. But a prom is a private event, end of story.

 

 

The fact these two sentences are right next to each other is staggering.

 

Riddle me this: Would it have been okay for her to wear a tux to class on any given day in your mind? Or, would you have been okay with the public school sending her home for doing so?

 

We are talking about a public school, not a private school. Thus, we are talking about a public school sponsored event, which is promoted by district monies, and has the blessing of the county school board. This is not a private event in the least, and why the girl is suing the county school board.

 

Let me illustrate how you tripped over your own two feet moving from one sentence to the next:

 

 

Also, it's "privilege." There are really great add-ons for browsers nowadays that spell check for you, just a thought.

Yeah....that's exactly what I said. :thumbup

 

 

 

Well enlighten me then. What exactly are girl clothes? I forget that all females are supposed to dress exactly alike and allow no room for individuality.

 

Quit playing stupid, cause that's exactly what you're doing. Formal attire is a dress for women, a tux for men. It's been that way for hundreds of years. I could care less if the girl wants to wear baggy jeans or long shorts, whatever...but for formal occasions, there's expectations to keep formal attire....again, just like everybody else in the school, and, i guess, every other high school student in America, for that matter.

It's been that way for hundreds of years.

 

 

Oh yes, please.... go on.... I would like to hear about many other things that went on for hundreds of years oh so swimmingly.

 

In all honesty, don't ever try to use that line of argumentation in any term paper or anything; any professor would laugh in your face. That line of argumentation is a logical fallacy. In particular, it is an "appeal to tradition."

As to the last point - according to the article, she filed this suit a while before the other issue with the girl wanting to bring her girlfriend as date.

 

As for the rest - you're mostly off point. Her sexual identity should not be the crux of the issue. It should be irrelevant whether she has declared herself straight, gay, bisexual, or anywhere along the spectrum. [As far as the implications of the transgender/transsexual issue, this appears tougher to say. I suppose the fact that she's legally a female would be the key point in the issue, if gender identity were deemed relevant, but all those gray areas about when a person ceases to be one gender and legitimately is a member of the other gender makes this part quite murky.]

 

The issue here is whether or not a public school should allow/be able to prohibit students wearing non-traditional clothing at [a] school function. Like you said, the dress code [and its proper make-up and enforcement] is the issue.

 

There is nothing inherently "manly" about a tuxedo, by the way. Its association with males is obviously a societal construct. She's merely not conforming to society's standards, but she is certainly not defying any immutable laws of nature by being a female wearing a tuxedo.

 

 

Bringing a girlfiend as a date is 100 times more understandable! She's not violating any written code! When they told her no, you cant bring a female as your date, they made up a rule because they believed it was inappropriate!

 

You're saying that it's irrelevant as to what she has declared herself, and I disagree. There is no difference between race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc., but there is a difference between sex. A female is an equal but opposite counterpart to a male. You can write laws, codes, and rules that seperate males from females. It's why we have male bathrooms and female bathrooms. It's why we have the mens section and the womens section. It's why we have mens sizes and womens sizes. Its why we have mens sports and womens sports.

 

Unless this girl can say something that makes her not a girl, i.e. being a transgender or transexual (which thereof must be observed to treat transgenders as equals), she is a girl. Therefore she must obide by the written code that says men wear formal tuxedos while women wear dresses. A tuxedo is a men's attire. A dress is a females attire. That's just the way it is.

 

I said it before and I'll say it again. It's her right to wear that whenever she wants in public or in her own privacy of home or somewhere private where it is accepted, but a school function is a priviledge and not a right, therefore it is a priviledge to attend, and you must abide by the rules. Just like she cant wear whatever she wants, I cant either. I must wear a tuxedo, I cant go ahead and wear flipflops and a t-shirt. I cant wear a dress. I cant wear what I want. If I were to try and wear what I want, you wouldnt see such a scene because Im straight. But because shes a Lesbian the media eats all of this up and portrays her as the "minority". Just like I cant yell fire in a movie theatre, neither can a black man. It's not racist when you arrest him for yelling it, it's life. We're all equal.

If a guy showed in khaki's and a polo, would you have been OK with sending him home? Isn't he adhering as much to your rigidly defined standard as her?

 

Your issue with this isn't that she didn't adhere to standards of formality. It's that she tried to adhere to those standard outside of her predetermined role.

This is turning into a mess.

 

The freedom of speech clause contained in the 1st amendment only goes so far. Just as you can't scream out "fire" and attempt to be protected by the 1st amendment, the rights of clothing are also restricted in certain situations. In this case, the rules of the school board trump this person's desire to get media attention (and not to actually prove a point, just as Dr. Beinfest said earlier.)

 

Also, you have to consider the other possible consequences it would have if she were to be allowed to do this. Next thing you know you would have random heterosexual guys saying they want to be in a dress just for fun, and vice versa with the girls. What would the argument be then? That only homosexuals are allowed to wear "opposite" clothing?

 

I also hate to bring this up, but if these instances keep on popping up, nothing is going to change in this country. Minorities (whether it be a minority race/religion/etc.) will never prevent discrimination (at least not in the near future) if they do not assimilate to American societal standards.

My support is that she is a girl, not a guy. Therefore, she should wear girl clothes, just like all the other girls. I though that was clear. I apologize for that. I was in no way, however, trying to spare another person's opinion or feelings. I don't care about sensitivity, nor do I expect any of you to worry about my feelings

 

 

Should she also be in the kitchen preparing dinner and birthing babies? Knitting sweaters?

 

Yeah....that's exactly what I said. :thumbup

 

It's what the logical extension of your statements appears to be, though.

 

Think of it this way: the only reason that I can think of to validate your claims (and this isn't implying that it's necessarily a poor reason) is that women, and probably people of both genders, should where certain types of clothes because they ought to conform with the rest of society. Society has constructed certain gender roles in the past, and you want to keep with this tradition.

 

One part of those rules concerns dress; for example, at a fancy occasion, woman typically wear dresses while men wear suits or tuxedos. The other parts of the similarly established gender roles, though, do inevitably include women as housewives as opposed to having careers, among other things.

 

Feel free to elucidate some principle which gives a reason for asserting this requirement with regards to clothing options but not with regards to career choices, familial obligations, etc. Until then, I see some things at least along the lines of what gizmo said as inevitable consequences of your [apparent] theory on gender relations and obligations.

 

That's ridiculous. If you dissect something ans analyze it enough, it can mean whatever you want it to.

I also disagree with the housewives, dresses, statement. I, in no way, relate the two. I relate dresses as women's clothes, cause frankly, a guy would look like a dumb ass in one. I do agree with the rest of your post, for the most part, here's why:

 

for·mal

 /ˈfɔrməl/ Show Spe[fawr-muhl] –adjective 1. being in accordance with the usual requirements, customs, etc.; conventional

It's been that way for hundreds of years.

 

 

Oh yes, please.... go on.... I would like to hear about many other things that went on for hundreds of years oh so swimmingly.

 

In all honesty, don't ever try to use that line of argumentation in any term paper or anything; any professor would laugh in your face. That line of argumentation is a logical fallacy. In particular, it is an "appeal to tradition."

 

1. I finished high school and college, therefore, no longer have term papers.

2. see the definition of "formal." This whole argument is about a formal picture.

There is no difference between race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc., but there is a difference between sex.

Okay, so this is the place where I start to get lost. Are you saying people aren't treated differently based on racial, etnnic, religious, and sexual orientation lines? Because if so, I could just easily point you to DADT.

 

A female is an equal but opposite counterpart to a male.

Well ummm... really? They are opposites? So, please, humor me. Which is the smart gender, and which is the stupid one? Which is the republican gender, and which is the democratic one? I mean, you are telling me they are opposite, so let's hear it.

 

You can write laws, codes, and rules that seperate males from females.

Wait, we are still doing this? This is sooo 1800s. I think the movement is, towards, you know, closing the divide between the genders.

 

It's why we have male bathrooms and female bathrooms.

Why? Because people don't want their daughters to walk in on men at the urinals? I think you are over thinking this....

 

It's why we have the mens section and the womens section. It's why we have mens sizes and womens sizes.

... or just don't understand basic concepts, like different body shapes, or the difference between men and women clothing....Or... you're just trollin'.

Unless this girl can say something that makes her not a girl, i.e. being a transgender or transexual (which thereof must be observed to treat transgenders as equals), she is a girl. Therefore she must obide by the written code that says men wear formal tuxedos while women wear dresses. A tuxedo is a men's attire. A dress is a females attire. That's just the way it is.

Okay, so aside from the fact you don't understand grammar (abide), nor how to use apostrophes all the time, ... ugh, why even bother, it's clear you are already trollin'.

 

I said it before and I'll say it again. It's her right to wear that whenever she wants in public or in her own privacy of home or somewhere private where it is accepted, but a school function is a priviledge and not a right, therefore it is a priviledge to attend, and you must abide by the rules.

 

 

Again, we are talking about a public school, and thus an event that has the blessing of the public school district. And let me play devil's advocate: if the rule's said "and all attendees must murder at least one guest while at school" would it be cool since, you know.... it was in the rules? See, when you talk in platitudes, and have no real way of backing yourself up, you open yourself to these ridiculous arguments.

If a guy showed in khaki's and a polo, would you have been OK with sending him home? Isn't he adhering as much to your rigidly defined standard as her?

 

Your issue with this isn't that she didn't adhere to standards of formality. It's that she tried to adhere to those standard outside of her predetermined role.

 

First, don't tell me what I'm thinking.

Second, I could really care less about the lesbian, or the school involved. What I care about is that she is being allowed to sue, and will probably win this ridiculous case, because nobody has enough of a backbone anymore to make this right.

Third, yes, he would get sent home as well, because again, it was a formal occasion. Formal occasions require men to wear a tux.

It's not, though. Or at least, I'm of the opinion that it can't be, let alone shouldn't be, when its in the context of a public school.

 

And I'm sure this lawsuit isn't about whether or not we should follow rules; it's about whether certain rules are fair, just, etc.

 

 

It is. Public education is a right. Partying with your classmates is not. It's not a public event. If it were public, you wouldnt have to pay for it. The building is rented out, it is coordinated by private volunteers from the school, students, and parents. A prom does not need to happen, however the public education system does.

 

Of course the rules are fair.... if you can accept that a woman is not a man, then they are fair. If you think men and women should be able to intermingle and not go by the same rules, then no, it's not fair. But that would mean... unisexual bathrooms... co-ed professional sports... no segregation of mens clothing from womens clothing from stores.

 

This was already voted on a long time ago. I think you know the results.

 

 

Nobody is telling this girl she cant wear a tuxedo at home, or wherever the hell she wants in America in public, or here, or there, or whatever. But a prom is a private event, end of story.

 

 

The fact these two sentences are right next to each other is staggering.

 

Riddle me this: Would it have been okay for her to wear a tux to class on any given day in your mind? Or, would you have been okay with the public school sending her home for doing so?

 

We are talking about a public school, not a private school. Thus, we are talking about a public school sponsored event, which is promoted by district monies, and has the blessing of the county school board. This is not a private event in the least, and why the girl is suing the county school board.

 

Let me illustrate how you tripped over your own two feet moving from one sentence to the next:

 

 

Also, it's "privilege." There are really great add-ons for browsers nowadays that spell check for you, just a thought.

 

So staggering. I'll riddle it to you, clown. Yeah, it would be okay. You cannot tell her what she can and cannot do in a public facility. Dresscodes in schools are ridiculous. So long as public indecency is not breached, you should have a freedom of expression following what is written in the costitution.

 

Yeah, it's a public school, I'm glad to see you were able to put that together. Clearly you couldnt get much further than that of course... because prom is not a public event. Anywhere. It is paid for in full by fund raising and the students tickets. Student governments coordinate the funding and setup of a prom. If it were a public event, I'd like to see you walk in there and see what happens. You'll get kicked out, smart ass. A high school prom is tradition, but it is in no way aligned with public education, and is not a public event.

 

Yup, I definitely tripped over my own two feet there. Or maybe your head is so far up your ass you're seeing half digested food. But lets not go for a picture there, eh? And I like your point about the spelling. I'd rather incorrectly spell one word than have my two buttcheeks making my arguments for me.

It's been that way for hundreds of years.

 

 

Oh yes, please.... go on.... I would like to hear about many other things that went on for hundreds of years oh so swimmingly.

 

In all honesty, don't ever try to use that line of argumentation in any term paper or anything; any professor would laugh in your face. That line of argumentation is a logical fallacy. In particular, it is an "appeal to tradition."

 

1. I finished high school and college, therefore, no longer have term papers.

2. see the definition of "formal." This whole argument is about a formal picture.

 

1. I would feel somewhat ripped off if I was you in that case. Because you know, for hundreds of years, if you didn't understand basic argumentative fallacies you would be looked at as a dunce.

2. Actually it is about a senior picture. But, if we are going to add adjectives of our own, I nominate "kick-ass," as in "kick-ass formal senior picture."

It's not, though. Or at least, I'm of the opinion that it can't be, let alone shouldn't be, when its in the context of a public school.

 

And I'm sure this lawsuit isn't about whether or not we should follow rules; it's about whether certain rules are fair, just, etc.

 

 

It is. Public education is a right. Partying with your classmates is not. It's not a public event. If it were public, you wouldnt have to pay for it. The building is rented out, it is coordinated by private volunteers from the school, students, and parents. A prom does not need to happen, however the public education system does.

 

Of course the rules are fair.... if you can accept that a woman is not a man, then they are fair. If you think men and women should be able to intermingle and not go by the same rules, then no, it's not fair. But that would mean... unisexual bathrooms... co-ed professional sports... no segregation of mens clothing from womens clothing from stores.

 

This was already voted on a long time ago. I think you know the results.

 

 

Nobody is telling this girl she cant wear a tuxedo at home, or wherever the hell she wants in America in public, or here, or there, or whatever. But a prom is a private event, end of story.

 

 

The fact these two sentences are right next to each other is staggering.

 

Riddle me this: Would it have been okay for her to wear a tux to class on any given day in your mind? Or, would you have been okay with the public school sending her home for doing so?

 

We are talking about a public school, not a private school. Thus, we are talking about a public school sponsored event, which is promoted by district monies, and has the blessing of the county school board. This is not a private event in the least, and why the girl is suing the county school board.

 

Let me illustrate how you tripped over your own two feet moving from one sentence to the next:

 

 

Also, it's "privilege." There are really great add-ons for browsers nowadays that spell check for you, just a thought.

 

So staggering. I'll riddle it to you, clown. Yeah, it would be okay. You cannot tell her what she can and cannot do in a public facility. Dresscodes in schools are ridiculous. So long as public indecency is not breached, you should have a freedom of expression following what is written in the costitution.

 

Yeah, it's a public school, I'm glad to see you were able to put that together. Clearly you couldnt get much further than that of course... because prom is not a public event. Anywhere. It is paid for in full by fund raising and the students tickets. Student governments coordinate the funding and setup of a prom. If it were a public event, I'd like to see you walk in there and see what happens. You'll get kicked out, smart ass. A high school prom is tradition, but it is in no way aligned with public education, and is not a public event.

 

Yup, I definitely tripped over my own two feet there. Or maybe your head is so far up your ass you're seeing half digested food. But lets not go for a picture there, eh? And I like your point about the spelling. I'd rather incorrectly spell one word than have my two buttcheeks making my arguments for me.

 

:lol