Church of England: Boys Should Be Able to Wear Tutus, Tiaras in Christian Schools

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

And?

And it was twice the bigotry for a single post, a bargain

 

[original doom]

England and other Western nations were dressing boys as girls hundreds of years ago. Someone, someway, civilization didn't collapse!

True and you prob get some verrrryyy underage girls down at the docks aswell.

Society didnt collapse.

 

[cabal]

Not many boys will take up that offer me thinks, even if purely because of backlash from other boys.

You can bet your ass that , for pure need of conformist, all of them and their weak conformism parents will soon adapt this way to be. I wonder if the anglican clerics just obey an order by an higher power or they also think to acquire new fidels showing they are gay ( friendly) too..bending ( no pun) in this way, they lost all the credility ( the little that remained ).

 

[WhitebeltXL]

England and other Western nations were dressing boys as girls hundreds of years ago. Someone, someway, civilization didn't collapse!

And women had no rights, girls weren't allowed an education, nobility owned pretty much all the land, teachers were allowed to beat children and yet Civilization DIDN'T COLLAPSE.

 

[Denter]

https://charismanews.com/world/6823...ble-to-wear-tutus-tiaras-in-christian-schools

lol, Church of England going the way of ... San Francisco. How fitting with its society being overrun by Muslims and liberals. England is going to hell in a hurry.

If King Henry could see what he hath wrought....he would have just legitimized one of his bastards and stayed married to poor Katherine.

 

[cabal]

If King Henry could see what he hath wrought....he would have just legitimized one of his bastards and stayed married to poor Katherine.

They have a long tradition of banging ( young) boys, it was always a distinctive feature of the intellectual and nobil class

 

[bobgeese]

Smdh...

 

[Islam Imamate]

The hell? Why is anybody wearing tiaras, tutus, and fireman helmets to school? Not even just boys dressing like girls, now they're dressing like ballerinas and princesses. Do they not have even a general dress code for students? When they're young, the parents are picking out their clothes anyway, so this is basically just identifying which parents you should probably not hang out with.

If they're talking about young kids I can see it, some kids like to play dress up. Once they start to get a bit older I would prefer they be socialized into generally accepted gender norms.

 

[Islam Imamate]

And women had no rights, girls weren't allowed an education, nobility owned pretty much all the land, teachers were allowed to beat children and yet Civilization DIDN'T COLLAPSE.

That kind of cross dressing happened into the 20th century though as evidenced by my FDR example.

 

[nostradumbass]

If they're talking about young kids I can see it, some kids like to play dress up. Once they start to get a bit older I would prefer they be socialized into generally accepted gender norms.

These are presumably private schools if they're religious, and most private schools have uniforms when they're past 1st grade, so it's just weird virtue signaling to specifically make a statement about toddlers crossdressing during playtime. Not sure how that's going to play out when they eventually assign a gender appropriate uniform after encouraging crossdressing a few years earlier. They act it's a 50/50 chance, or any statistically significant chance, for kids to turn out transgendered.

 

[IDL]

That kind of cross dressing happened into the 20th century though as evidenced by my FDR example.

Do you know the story behind that? Was it like a funny thing to dress your kid up in the opposite gender garb for a photo or was it like they'd dress them up that way and take them out in public for some reason?

 

[zebby23]

Letting children wear what they are comfortable in? Yes, all day every day!!

 

[Islam Imamate]

These are presumably private schools if they're religious, and most private schools have uniforms when they're past 1st grade, so it's just weird virtue signaling to specifically make a statement about toddlers crossdressing during playtime. Not sure how that's going to play out when they eventually assign a gender appropriate uniform after encouraging crossdressing a few years earlier. They act it's a 50/50 chance, or any statistically significant chance, for kids to turn out transgendered.

A kid doesn't have to be trans to want to cross dress, especially at a young age. FDR wasn't and he did. I know its one example but from what I know it was a lot more common in that era and he wasn't an anomaly. I suppose the dress up could be appropriate during certain special events like certain holidays(Halloween) where the kids might dress up even if a dress code is in effect most of the year.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Do you know the story behind that? Was it like a funny thing to dress your kid up in the opposite gender garb for a photo or was it like they'd dress them up that way and take them out in public for some reason?

I'm not entirely sure tbh. From what the little I know it wasn't that uncommon though I think it was more so for a photo and not something kids would do in public so to be fair that would distinguish that from what the Church of England is encouraging.

 

[SaiWa]

Do you know the story behind that? Was it like a funny thing to dress your kid up in the opposite gender garb for a photo or was it like they'd dress them up that way and take them out in public for some reason?

neutral gender clothing for little children.

It was out of convenience actually.

Before the 1940s there were no disposable diapers so parents used cotton clothes as diapers (or whatever else they used to use even further back). Obviously they had to be washed and cleaned before re-use and there were issues with leakage so it was much easier to just dress every children in a dress. Less messy and easier if they had to change them.

Goto any museum and check out old oil paintings of little children and you will notice the youngest ones are all in dresses. How painters used to distinguish them between boy and girl would be to put jewelry (like a necklace) on the girls.

Basically parents had to deal with that shit (literally) so it was easier to let them all wear dresses until they were potty trained. There is nothing feminine or weak about it. It was about practicality.

btw - the idea of having boys wear baby blue and girls wear pink is technically a recent phenomenon that occurred in the 40s but wasn't popularized till the 80s. Prior to that those colors were not associated with the sexes and colors were considered gender neutral. As a matter of fact, pink was initially marketed for the boys and baby blue for the girls because pink was associated with red (a stronger color). But people just ended preferring girls with pink and boys with blue. Boomers were supposedly raised wearing both colors cause that's when the switch occurred.

Pulled from an article about pink:
https://jezebel.com/5790638/the-history-of-pink-for-girls-blue-for-boys

Ladies' Home Journal article in June 1918 said, "The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl." Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti.

In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores. In Boston, Filene's told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle's in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago.

---------

Somebody back then decided that it was fashionable to decide what color each sex should be wearing and we lemmings now follow it blindly.

 

[SaiWa]

I'm not entirely sure tbh. From what the little I know it wasn't that uncommon though I think it was more so for a photo and not something kids would do in public so to be fair that would distinguish that from what the Church of England is encouraging.

nope it was the norm.. read my previous post...

 

[peytonlucy]

https://charismanews.com/world/6823...ble-to-wear-tutus-tiaras-in-christian-schools

lol, Church of England going the way of ... San Francisco. How fitting with its society being overrun by Muslims and liberals. England is going to hell in a hurry.

The Church of England was long gone by the end of the 1960's.

 

[IDL]

neutral gender clothing for little children.

It was out of convenience actually.

Before the 1940s there were no disposable diapers so parents used cotton clothes as diapers (or whatever else they used to use even further back). Obviously they had to be washed and cleaned before re-use and there were issues with leakage so it was much easier to just dress every children in a dress. Less messy and easier if they had to change them.

Goto any museum and check out old oil paintings of little children and you will notice the youngest ones are all in dresses. How painters used to distinguish them between boy and girl would be to put jewelry (like a necklace) on the girls.

Basically parents had to deal with that shit (literally) so it was easier to let them all wear dresses until they were potty trained. There is nothing feminine or weak about it. It was about practicality.

btw - the idea of having boys wear baby blue and girls wear pink is technically a recent phenomenon that occurred in the 40s but wasn't popularized till the 80s. Prior to that those colors were not associated with the sexes and colors were considered gender neutral. As a matter of fact, pink was initially marketed for the boys and baby blue for the girls because pink was associated with red (a stronger color). But people just ended preferring girls with pink and boys with blue. Boomers were supposedly raised wearing both colors cause that's when the switch occurred.

Pulled from an article about pink:
https://jezebel.com/5790638/the-history-of-pink-for-girls-blue-for-boys

Ladies' Home Journal article in June 1918 said, "The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl." Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti.

In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores. In Boston, Filene's told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle's in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago.

---------

Somebody back then decided that it was fashionable to decide what color each sex should be wearing and we lemmings now follow it blindly.

What you said here makes sense, but I was referring to the FDR photo where the little boy was deliberately dressed up as a little girl for the photo. That seems different than what you were saying about how children of both sexes would be given dresses for pragmatic reasons.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Those are theories that were formulated many years ago
By this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Mieli among the other "marxist " philosophers. The progressive homosexualization of the children is just an step for the society that they are planned by long time, at least from the half of the past century. It is amazing how they have infiltrated the churches and the passivity of the people that accept even this for avoid troubles.

So, was the Drew Carey show a marxist propaganda tool? Drew's brother Steve loved to wear dresses, was straight as well, and nobody found him to be a problem. MARXISM!

Nah

You're just a bad person

 

[Cirris]

Why just single out christian schools?? The rule should apply to all religions and denominations equally, or lest it's a bigoted law.