School Uniforms hypothetical.

[Rye]

Ok, so can you present evidence less bullying occurs in schools with uniforms?

[TheKwas]

What do you want me to do? Collect data? Re-read what I've already said:

It will reduce the amount of taunting. Sure they will find other things, but they won't find enough to completely recover what they lost with the clothes issue. The difference will be filled in with more acceptable socializing.

For example, when I was young I had the shittest clothing in my class, and was constantly made fun for it. As I got older, and I complained to my mother more, I got better quality clothes and managed to work my way up the class hiearchy. My clothes essentially became an non-issue and I wasn't harassed by the other kids nearly as much. Does that mean someone else had to take my spot as one of the class jokes? Of course not, Classroom acceptance is not a zero-sum game with an exact amount of teasing going on regardless of all other factors. Some classes are more cohesive, and some are more divided. One person's acceptance into the 'cool club' or the 'normal' club doesn't mean that someone else has to be kicked out.

Uniforms, cēterīs pāribus, will increase classroom cohesion.

Again, social acceptance isn't a zero-sum game. Bullying happens because of class divisions, and uniforms elimate one of those divisions.

Maybe I can explain with some fake math and following your logic to it's conclusion:
Some kid is made fun of because of variable x, and the intensity of that bullying is depended on the weight attached to x. Lets say the weight is 8.
Lets also say that there's another varible y, with a weight of 4.
We can say that the kid is experiancing bullying at an intensity of 12.

If we get rid of Variable x, your hypothesis states that the exact same intensity of bullying (the total of the weights) will occur anyways. In order for this to occur, then variable y weight has to massively increase to 12, replacing x by itself, or another variable will replace y's weight (4) and y's value will move up to 8 (the new variable won't replace x, because if it a good reason, it would have been an original variable). Bully intensity is now again 12.

I can only assume that your hypothesis asserts that this will occur no matter how many times we cross out the variables. If it worked once, it will work again. There should be a downward trend from the very start if there is one at all.

Follow this to it's conclusion, and it's nonsense. If we take a sterotypical victim, and start removing all the aspects that people make fun of him for, your hypothesis states that he will still be bullied with the same intensity. A stinky kid who shat his pants in gymclass will still be made fun of with the same intensity if we magically take away all those variables, and replace them with a pink eraser. He'll be made fun of with the same intensity because his pencil has a pink eraser...



Perhaps Uniforms don't decrease bullying, made they introduce new social variables of their own that counteract variables cut out by introducing uniforms, but the arguments made thus far have made no such suggestion and simply assume that bully is a zero-sum endeavor.

[Molyneux]

Are you honestly saying that a woman can't look professional unless she's wearing a skirt?

Obviously, you're not big on the whole "reading" thing. I'm talking about conformism. Like it or not, that's what you do in the business world. I didn't say a damned thing about skirts.

So how exactly is going off on a tangent about conformism at all relevant to the post to which you responded, or indeed the rest of this thread? The topic was gender-specific clothing, and whether schools in North America have the right to mandate different uniforms for different genders, and whether they should have that right.

The question of whether they should allow uniforms at all is rather beyond this thread.

The point is only that people have to conform to those expectations, and there's no reason not to introduce kids to this fact early on.

I can think of a reason: at least in the United States, discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal - and I would think that applies to public schools as much as any other government agency. Not to mention that one of the most often-stated reasons for implementing school uniforms is to avoid disruptions to the learning environment - and forcing girls to wear skirts as opposed to pants hardly seems conducive to that end.

[fusion]

Apparently in schools (mainly middle and high school) in California they don't mandate uniforms. In fact one of my middle school teacher said the reason was because it was California and people like to have choices on what they wear...

My question is why is California doing this to us?
If anyone has seen a high school in the Sacramento area then they would know what I mean.
Tube tops for ladies, staff don't care...
Slippers and flipflops, half the school is still wearing them
Miniskirts, OK
The loose, stereotypical gang style clothing, see them in all non-AP classes
PJs- for that rainy day
Sagging- even the brightest students do it....

See what I mean...

[Mobiboros]

I can think of a reason: at least in the United States, discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal -

Having uniforms be gender dependent is not illegal. You'd have to show that the uniform was somehow uneven between the 2 genders and that one gender was specifically being targeted for unequal and unfair treatment.

In the case of school uniforms since both genders have a specific uniform they must wear there is no discrimination because they are being treated equally. Women can't wear pants, men can't wear skirts.

Whether or not this is good practice is another matter but they are perfectly able to do this.

[Dark Flame]

I can think of a reason: at least in the United States, discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal -

Having uniforms be gender dependent is not illegal. You'd have to show that the uniform was somehow uneven between the 2 genders and that one gender was specifically being targeted for unequal and unfair treatment.

In the case of school uniforms since both genders have a specific uniform they must wear there is no discrimination because they are being treated equally. Women can't wear pants, men can't wear skirts.

Whether or not this is good practice is another matter but they are perfectly able to do this.

I've been checking up on this topic, but haven't replied yet, so here goes.

Isn't that just like the "seperate but equal" bullshit they used to spout in the 60's? "Oh yeah, blacks have their own water fountains, and restrooms, and bus seats, so it's fair because they're both equal."

[Mobiboros]

Isn't that just like the "seperate but equal" bullshit they used to spout in the 60's? "Oh yeah, blacks have their own water fountains, and restrooms, and bus seats, so it's fair because they're both equal."

Fairness doesn't enter into this. Fair doesn't always mean equal. Nor does equal mean fair.

That said, please do show how each gender being assigned a specific uniform is, at all, like being told you cannot use the same facilities as other nationalities. There's no seperate but equa here, there's just equal. They are both being treated with the same criteria.

[bilateralrope]

Ok, so can you present evidence less bullying occurs in schools with uniforms?

Here is a link that was posted into the EGS thread. Of the studies they looked at, none showed any link between student behaviour and uniforms.

[Darth Wong]

Are you honestly saying that a woman can't look professional unless she's wearing a skirt?

Obviously, you're not big on the whole "reading" thing. I'm talking about conformism. Like it or not, that's what you do in the business world. I didn't say a damned thing about skirts.

So how exactly is going off on a tangent about conformism at all relevant to the post to which you responded, or indeed the rest of this thread? The topic was gender-specific clothing, and whether schools in North America have the right to mandate different uniforms for different genders, and whether they should have that right.

If you're too fucking stupid to see how it's relevant, that's not my problem. Nevertheless, I shall spell it out for you: if everyone else is dressing a certain way (including different clothing for the two genders), then you're best advised to do it too. What part of this are you too fucking stupid to understand?

I can think of a reason: at least in the United States, discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal - and I would think that applies to public schools as much as any other government agency.

And yet we have gender-specific bathrooms, don't we? What a fucking mystery.

[Rye]

What do you want me to do? Collect data?

Yeah.

It will reduce the amount of taunting.

You see, I need proof for this and related statements.

For example, when I was young I had the shittest clothing in my class, and was constantly made fun for it. As I got older, and I complained to my mother more, I got better quality clothes and managed to work my way up the class hiearchy. My clothes essentially became an non-issue and I wasn't harassed by the other kids nearly as much.

So, you changed your clothes to that of the main clique and you didn't get harassed. Big whoop. If you become racist, you'll probably get on well with the racists.

Does that mean someone else had to take my spot as one of the class jokes? Of course not, Classroom acceptance is not a zero-sum game with an exact amount of teasing going on regardless of all other factors.

So it should be easy to show then, with all things being equal, there should be less bullying in uniformed schools in comparison to nonuniformed schools.

Again, social acceptance isn't a zero-sum game. Bullying happens because of class divisions, and uniforms elimate one of those divisions.

So show me some evidence then, that bullying is substantially lower in UK schools to say, Canadian schools or something, and this trend doesn't extend to nonuniformed schools.

Maybe I can explain with some fake math and following your logic to it's conclusion:
Some kid is made fun of because of variable x, and the intensity of that bullying is depended on the weight attached to x. Lets say the weight is 8.
Lets also say that there's another varible y, with a weight of 4.
We can say that the kid is experiancing bullying at an intensity of 12.

If we get rid of Variable x, blah blah blah

I know this argument well since I use it in regards to religion and homophobia, for instance. However, your argument relies on some rather generous assumptions, 1) that all uniforms will be the same and poor kids won't end up with shitter gear 2) even when wearing the same clothes, they won't self-organise into cliques that wear stuff slightly differently (for instance, in my school, the ruling girl class wore their ties short and picked on those that wore it at normal length, and everyone wore their bags over one shoulder, using both straps was a sign to all that you were a nerd) and 3) the social hierarchy "pecking/bullying order" in young humans is more based on a reaction to outside stimuli (different clothes) rather than a more innate dominance issue as with all other social animals.

Perhaps Uniforms don't decrease bullying, made they introduce new social variables of their own that counteract variables cut out by introducing uniforms, but the arguments made thus far have made no such suggestion and simply assume that bully is a zero-sum endeavor.

Your reply was about 500 words too long.

My question: "Ok, so can you present evidence that less bullying occurs in schools with uniforms?"

Your response: "No."

[Molyneux]

Obviously, you're not big on the whole "reading" thing. I'm talking about conformism. Like it or not, that's what you do in the business world. I didn't say a damned thing about skirts.

So how exactly is going off on a tangent about conformism at all relevant to the post to which you responded, or indeed the rest of this thread? The topic was gender-specific clothing, and whether schools in North America have the right to mandate different uniforms for different genders, and whether they should have that right.

If you're too fucking stupid to see how it's relevant, that's not my problem. Nevertheless, I shall spell it out for you: if everyone else is dressing a certain way (including different clothing for the two genders), then you're best advised to do it too. What part of this are you too fucking stupid to understand?

Your point was that a dress code is standard in the workaday world, so schools should get students ready for that. I've never read of a school using that as justification for implementing uniforms, but whatever.

Does "professional" appearance hinge on gender-specific articles of clothing, or not? If it doesn't, then spouting off about conformism is pointless. This thread is about whether gender-specific school uniforms are legal or not, and whether they should be.

The specific example given in the OP is of a female student who chooses to wear the male uniform rather than the female one, for reasons of aesthetics and utility. She's still wearing a school-issued uniform.

If professional appearance DOES hinge on gender-specific articles of clothing - if a woman can't look professional in pants - then you have a point. If not, then you seem to have gone on a fairly pointless digression.

I can think of a reason: at least in the United States, discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal - and I would think that applies to public schools as much as any other government agency.

And yet we have gender-specific bathrooms, don't we? What a fucking mystery.

Point.

That said, please do show how each gender being assigned a specific uniform is, at all, like being told you cannot use the same facilities as other nationalities. There's no separate but equal here, there's just equal. They are both being treated with the same criteria.

Here's a parallel: Black men and women have the right to marry anyone they want, as long as they are black. White men and woman have the right to marry anyone they want, as long as they are black. There, that's equal, isn't it?

[Mobiboros]

Here's a parallel: Black men and women have the right to marry anyone they want, as long as they are black. White men and woman have the right to marry anyone they want, as long as they are black. There, that's equal, isn't it?

No, actually it's not equal. Nor is it a parallel. The bathroom point is vastly more apt. In your example people are still "Seperate but equal". With regards to uniforms there's no "Seperate". You're trying to equate the instututions desire for specifically tailored clothes to people being segregated from one another. WHich doesn't work.

There's no seperation here. Boys and girls, who specifically attend the same institution, must wear a uniform. One uniform is tailored to fit boys, the other girls. To strip this down you're saying it would be discrimination if boys and girls had to wear M's and F's on them to denote gender.

[Lagmonster]

"Professional" is whatever senior business professionals say it is, the same way the 'school dress code' is whatever the school officials say it is. The best you are offered from both is a chance to not be horribly uncomfortable. The business world does in fact maintain different standards of dress for men and women; try being a guy showing up in even the most expensive business skirt and blouse you can find, or being a woman and showing up in a man's wide-shouldered suit and power tie.

[TheKwas]

Ok, so can you present evidence less bullying occurs in schools with uniforms?

Here is a link that was posted into the EGS thread. Of the studies they looked at, none showed any link between student behaviour and uniforms.

You seriously think that an organization called "Asserting Parental Rights" is going to give you objective results? There's little conclusive research on the issue, and anyone who tells you otherwise is full of shit.

Here are some other studies: link

To determine effects of uniforms on school climate, students in two Charleston (South Carolina) County middle schools were surveyed in Spring 1966, using NASSP's Comprehensive Assessment of School Environments (CASE) School Climate Survey. Students in the uniform school rated climate as more positive in 9 out of 10 subscales. School uniforms are no panacea, but can significantly affect student perceptions of school climate.

http://www.aasa.org/publications/conten ... umber=3870

A 1996 paper, "School Uniforms and Safety," by M. Sue Stanley, a professor of education at California State University at Long Beach, says school uniforms can "reduce the emphasis on fashion wars and reinforce the acceptability of more practical, less costly school clothing."

The study also concludes that uniforms can reinforce the connection between school, work and success and thus help to promote better overall student achievement. "Uniforms may have a positive impact on school safety," the study say. "Because they are a low-cost intervention that is unlikely to do harm, it appears that they are well worth considering."

The study was published in the August 1996 issue of the journal Education and Urban Society.

http://www.crf-usa.org/violence/school.html

A recent study by the U.S. Department of Education suggests that school uniforms can help reduce theft, violence, and the negative effects of peer pressure caused when some students come to school wearing designer clothing and expensive sneakers. A uniform code also prevents gang members from wearing colors and insignia that could cause trouble and helps school officials recognize intruders who do not belong on campus.

In Long Beach, California, students, teachers, parents, and school officials worked together to establish a uniform code for all elementary and middle schools. Each school chooses what its uniform will look like. In addition, students can “opt out” of wearing a uniform if they have their parents’ approval. The Long Beach program involves 58,000 students and includes assistance for families that cannot afford to buy uniforms. In many Long Beach schools, graduating students donate or sell their used uniforms to needy families.

In the year following the establishment of the uniform policy, Long Beach school officials found that overall school crime decreased 36 percent. Fights decreased 51 percent, sex offenses decreased 74 percent, weapons offenses decreased 50 percent, assault and battery offenses decreased 34 percent, and vandalism decreased 18 percent. Less than 1 percent of the students chose not to wear uniforms.

Across the country, the adoption of school uniforms is so new that it’s impossible to tell whether it will have a long-term impact on school violence. Critics have doubts. And some parents, students, and educators find uniforms coercive and demeaning. Some students complain that uniforms turn schools into prisons.

http://tepserver.ucsd.edu/~mbair/inquiryproject.html

Numerous studies have shown that clothing is a critical part of not only how people perceive themselves, but also how they perceive others (Behling, 1994; Hannover & Kuhnen, 2002). In one study where clothing was examined, high school teachers and students studied photographs of models dressed in two different styles of school uniforms and casual attire (Behling, 1994). The participants then rated how they perceived the models’ academic ability, classroom behavior, and academic potential. The uniform styles of clothing were found to positively influence the perception of academic abilities and behavior by both students and teachers. A student in a uniform was seen as better behaved, a high academic achiever, and someone with academic potential (Behling, 1994). In another study on the influence of clothing, Hannover and Kuhnen (2002) found that when individuals wore a formal type of clothing, they were more likely to choose reserved traits such as “neat”, “cultivated”, “accurate”, “restrained”, and “strategic” to describe themselves. Those individuals assigned to wear casual clothing, on the other hand, chose more relaxed terms such as “easygoing”, “clumsy”, “tolerant”, “emotional”, and “nonchalant” to describe themselves (Hannover & Kuhnen, 2002). Both of these studies show that people perceive and define themselves and others differently, depending on the type of clothing that they are wearing.

With the impact of clothing, the implementation of school uniforms continues to be a topic of much discussion in the literature. Advocates of uniform policies contend that uniforms can improve student safety, increase student learning, decrease behavior problems, and increase self esteem, but opponents question the effectiveness of these policies (Brunsma & Rockeqmore, 1998). Shamburger (1999) wanted to examine the influence of uniforms on academic achievement and discipline problems. After examining students from rural and urban schools, the researcher concluded that students from both rural and urban school districts raised their academic achievement the first year after the implementation of school uniforms (Shamburger, 1999). Brunsma and Rockquemore (1998), on the other hand, in testing the statements of uniform proponents, found that school uniform policies did not decrease students’ absenteeism, substance abuse, and behavioral problems or improve their academic achievement. They failed to find a direct connection between school uniform policies and an improvement in behavioral outcomes or the academic achievement of students. However, conflicting results are presented in the literature. After reviewing the previous study, Bodine (2003) found Brunsma and Rockquemore’s (1998) claim that uniforms were correlated with lower test scores to be false due to the researchers misleading use of sector analysis. After performing additional statistical analysis, Bodine (2003) concluded that the data presented in the article actually shows a positive correlation between test scores and uniform use. The conflicting results from these studies make it difficult to conclude what the effect of school uniforms is on academic achievement.

In addition, Wade and Stafford (2003) wanted to examine the impact of school uniforms on students’ self perceptions and students and teachers’ perceptions of school climate and gang presence in schools. After surveying 6th-8th grade students, the researchers found that students perceptions of gang presence did not vary in uniformed versus non-uniformed schools, but teachers in uniformed schools did perceive lower levels of gang presence than those in the non-uniformed ones (Wade & Stafford, 2003). Also, students from non-uniformed schools had higher self perception scores, but student and teacher perceptions of their school climate did not differ in uniformed versus non-uniformed schools. Wade and Stafford (2003) found uniforms to provide negative effects or no effect on some of their intended results.

Behling, D. (1994). School uniforms and person perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 723-729.

Bodine, A. (2003). School uniforms, academic achievement, and uses of research. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(2), 67-71.

Brunsma, D. L. & Rockquemore, K. A. (1998). Effects of student uniforms on attendance, behavior problems, substance abuse, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 92(1), 53-62.

Hannover, B., & Kuhnen, U. (2002). The clothing makes the self: Via knowledge activation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(12), 2513-2525.

Shamburger, P.S. (1999). The influence of a mandatory school uniform policy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Career and Technical Education. Orlando, FL.

Wade, K. K. & Stafford, M. E. (2003). Public school uniforms: Effect on perceptions of gang presence, school climate, and student self-perceptions. Education and Urban Society, 35(4), 399-420.

I'm having trouble with my University database search option, but if you want the full text of any of the mentioned studies, I can likely find it.

So, you changed your clothes to that of the main clique and you didn't get harassed. Big whoop. If you become racist, you'll probably get on well with the racists.

Yeah, when you conform to the norm, you have a more cohesive social setting. The difference is that I'm not talking about conforming to racism, I'm talking about conforming to the same quality of clothing you dimwit.

The vast majority of bully victims aren't some sort of rebels that 'don't want to conform to the cool kids' fashion style', they really do want to dress like the cool kids. They really do want cool Nike shoes and FUBU sweaters, but they can't afford it. They are not outcasts by choice.

How this is at all comparable to racists is beyond me.

So it should be easy to show then, with all things being equal, there should be less bullying in uniformed schools in comparison to nonuniformed schools.

Of course there's always the debate of whether everything was equal to begin with. Read above.

I know this argument well since I use it in regards to religion and homophobia, for instance. However, your argument relies on some rather generous assumptions, 1) that all uniforms will be the same and poor kids won't end up with shitter gear 2) even when wearing the same clothes, they won't self-organise into cliques that wear stuff slightly differently (for instance, in my school, the ruling girl class wore their ties short and picked on those that wore it at normal length, and everyone wore their bags over one shoulder, using both straps was a sign to all that you were a nerd) and 3) the social hierarchy "pecking/bullying order" in young humans is more based on a reaction to outside stimuli (different clothes) rather than a more innate dominance issue as with all other social animals.

1) That can be controlled. I find the practice of students buying their uniform outrageously stupid.
2)I'm not saying that cliques won't ever exist, I'm saying the general intensity of hostility between cliques will be reduced due to more similarities between them.
3) Basically the reply is the same as 2. There are different levels of cohesion in different classrooms (and I'm sure we have all experianced different levels of class cohesion), that's just undeniable proof that social acceptance isn't zero-sum. There will still be a pecking order, but the 'pecks' won't hurt as much. Just because social hiearchy is innate to a certain degree doesn't mean that all societies are equally hierarchical. A simple comparison between the English language and the Korean language can demostrate that.

[Prometheus Unbound]

I don't object to school uniforms per se, but rather to the often asinine designs that they choose. To use your EGS example: the vests make no sense and don't go with any weather for which short skirts would be appropriate, the skirts are impractical for the reasons that Cairber mentioned, and what the hell is up with the sphere-plus-cone look of the sleeves on the ladies' uniforms?

I want some school to start requiring uniforms that are actually cool: snazzy and practical. Or even do something weird and unexpected, like requiring that all students wear kilts. That would be too cool.

I went to school in Australia for a bit (am from the UK originally, and now). Their uniform was kinda cool compaired the shirt/trousers/tie I was forced to wear in the UK.

Tracksuit bottoms, polo shirt and a sweatshirt in the summer. Comfortable and actually, it wasn't bad looking, as far as school uniforms go.

[Dark Flame]

Fairness doesn't enter into this. Fair doesn't always mean equal. Nor does equal mean fair.

That said, please do show how each gender being assigned a specific uniform is, at all, like being told you cannot use the same facilities as other nationalities. There's no seperate but equa here, there's just equal. They are both being treated with the same criteria.

WTF? They're equal, okay. But they are seperate because neither of them can wear the other gender's uniform. That's having seperate uniforms. How can you not see that?

[bilateralrope]

Ok, so can you present evidence less bullying occurs in schools with uniforms?

Here is a link that was posted into the EGS thread. Of the studies they looked at, none showed any link between student behaviour and uniforms.

You seriously think that an organization called "Asserting Parental Rights" is going to give you objective results? There's little conclusive research on the issue, and anyone who tells you otherwise is full of shit.

So your dismissing them, and they studies they quote, based on their name alone ?

And can you dress your links ?

I'll step out of this discussion now, as I don't really care much either way.

[Darth Wong]

Your point was that a dress code is standard in the workaday world, so schools should get students ready for that. I've never read of a school using that as justification for implementing uniforms, but whatever.

I don't give a shit what they use as a justification. We're arguing about whether it's a good idea.

Does "professional" appearance hinge on gender-specific articles of clothing, or not? If it doesn't, then spouting off about conformism is pointless. This thread is about whether gender-specific school uniforms are legal or not, and whether they should be.

Why do you keep insisting that unwritten expectations in the workplace should be treated as if they are written codes? What part of "it's whatever people say it is" do you not understand, moron?

As for the legality, it might very well be illegal to have government-sponsored gender-specific dress codes here in Ontario, because we have a court ruling that women can go topless in public because men can. However, in most jurisdictions, the laws do differentiate between acceptable clothing for men and women, which means that gender discrimination in clothing is not only allowed by the law, it is actually practiced by the law. Therefore, gender-specific dress codes should be legal in those places. The fact that you are apparently ignorant of this commonly known fact is not my problem.

The specific example given in the OP is of a female student who chooses to wear the male uniform rather than the female one, for reasons of aesthetics and utility. She's still wearing a school-issued uniform.

If professional appearance DOES hinge on gender-specific articles of clothing - if a woman can't look professional in pants - then you have a point. If not, then you seem to have gone on a fairly pointless digression.

What part of "conformism" do you not understand, exactly? Do you understand that there is not one objective standard for "professionalism" written down anywhere? How many times do you need this explained for you? Have you ever had a real fucking job?

[Surlethe]

It occurs to me that Molyneux has previously polluted a thread about dress codes: advocating student unions to resist enforcement en masse.

[Zixinus]

All right, then: in the real world, does an employer have the legal right to mandate distinct gender-specific clothing?

Have you met a layer without a suit? Have you met a naval officer on duty without his or her uniform? Do you see a policeman in service without his badge and uniform?

In many workplaces, even in low-pay ones, you are EXPECTED to wear uniforms, especially if your job includes working with people. Uniforms tell you who you are for clients and collogues, as well as the fact that uniforms do serve some practical purpose: naval officer decorations tell rank, policemen have badges and I recall that in some areas bulletproof vests are part of the uniform.

What is practical about a school uniform in schools? Aside the fact that it identifies you as a student of xy school? Also, aside the idea that it gives the children and adult-to-be the idea that they cannot always dress the way you want? AND the idea that it gives the suggestion that all students are students, not different worlds?

Personally, I don't have uniforms in my school. I've never seen anyone really judged by their clothes, but then again, I keep to myself. Most kids dress practically or as practical you can get with teenagers, although there are some kids that do seem to have a problem.

[lance]

All right, then: in the real world, does an employer have the legal right to mandate distinct gender-specific clothing?

Have you met a layer without a suit? Have you met a naval officer on duty without his or her uniform? Do you see a policeman in service without his badge and uniform?

That has anything to do with the issue. The issue is mandated distinct gender-specific clothing, not whether lawyers and cops can show up in mustard stained wifebeaters and jeans. If google images count for anything it seems that the more outdoorsy your job is the less gender specific it gets.

[Mobiboros]

WTF? They're equal, okay. But they are seperate because neither of them can wear the other gender's uniform. That's having seperate uniforms. How can you not see that?

I'll grant you they have different uniforms. But what you're saying is male and female bathrooms should be the same whether or not there are any differences in biology.

[Molyneux]

It occurs to me that Molyneux has previously polluted a thread about dress codes: advocating student unions to resist enforcement en masse.

I can't believe I was that foolish only a year ago...likely I will feel the same about today, a year in the future.

But..."polluting"?

[Oni Koneko Damien]

WTF? They're equal, okay. But they are seperate because neither of them can wear the other gender's uniform. That's having seperate uniforms. How can you not see that?

I'll grant you they have different uniforms. But what you're saying is male and female bathrooms should be the same whether or not there are any differences in biology.

Oh bullshit. There are objectively verifiable differences in male and female biology that cause them to urinate in different fashions. Granted, it's still a bullshit argument because these differences alone aren't enough to justify seperate bathroom facilities, it's the cultural aspect, far more than the biological aspect, that spurs male/female bathroom differences. Ideally, males and females should be able to share a bathroom with no issue because their biological-waste-disposal systems differ minimally at best.

Now present evidence that the difference in male and female biology is such that forcing them to wear separate types of uniforms (skirts vs. slacks, for instance) is in any way necessary.

I'm not trying to address the legality argument with this, just the ludicrous assertion that somehow the female body makes different, gender-specific uniforms (and more often than not, uniforms that *enhance* the difference between male and female bodies, as opposed to minimizing it, which would lead to better conformity) a necessity in the workplace.

[4Tran]

Legally speaking, the school in the OP has every bit as much legal right to mandate that male and female students wear different uniforms as an all-girls school has to mandate that a skirt is part of their uniforms. Schools (and workplaces for that matter) have the authority to dictate what is or isn't appropriate behavior or appearance. What the school should do to accomodate its students is a very different matter; one that is independent of what it can do.

By the way, this issue isn't one of gender equality at all. Gender equality just means that people should be given the same degree of rights and opportunities, regardless ofgender. It doesn't really mean that we necessarily should treat them as if they're exactly the same in all respects.

I'm not trying to address the legality argument with this, just the ludicrous assertion that somehow the female body makes different, gender-specific uniforms (and more often than not, uniforms that *enhance* the difference between male and female bodies, as opposed to minimizing it, which would lead to better conformity) a necessity in the workplace.

There's no necessity involved; it comes down to an arbitrary choice by the school/workplace. But, by a similar token, lots of other decisions are fairly arbitrary as well: take the bathroom example - you're supposed to do your business in privacy, so it shouldn't make any difference what other gender is sharing the same facilities.