It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
8 Likes
Unisex ≠ androgynous
Trousers have not been “male” clothing for a long time - since at least the first millennium in many cultures, being formally introduced to the (for want of a better term) modern western world in the mid 19th century, becoming considered a necessity for women during periods of the early-mid 20th century, and becoming increasingly common in women’s general fashion since the 70s. There’s no reason for women in trousers to be “amusing”.
I give you:
We already have a range of clothing options that should suit the majority of needs - and the thread’s original announcement and hints at future releases of AP1358C give us the flexibility to work between the lines where needed.
There’s no need for any drastic, reactionary measures. Removing all choice, freedom, and self-determination is the complete opposite of what we’re about and works against our agenda of building esteem and pride, and personal development.
2 Likes
When it comes to hair, jewellery etc, we should make it so that anyone can adhere to either set of regs, where hair if it’s short, adheres to ‘male’ dress regs, if it’s being grown out or is long, should adhere to what is currently ‘female’ regs, everyone should be allowed to wear a wedding ring, a pair of plain studs and that should be it, in terms of hats, when it comes to cadets, we only wear berets anyways (apart from those allowed to wear No.1s in which case it should again be whatever is comfortable for the person) so in all honesty there is no issue there.
We’re a youth organisation at the end of the day and as much as we are also defined by the military and wearing of uniform etc, we’re here to let teens enjoy themselves and experience things they’d never get the chance to normally, we let in cadets with medical issues who would never be able to get into the actual military and give then so many life experiences and can make great friends, why should a current lack of gender neutral uniform regs stop trans cadets from doing the same? We allow mismatches anyways, and allow relaxing of the rules for some cadets anyways(even though we maybe shouldn’t in some cases) so why do trans cadets and a lack of representation in dress regs pose such an issue? Do whatever makes them feel comfortable and happy and just let them enjoy themselves, and the experiences they can get.
4 Likes
Exactly. Often we don’t have parade shoes in stock - so suggest cadets wear polished school shoes or polish up their black boots - if we’ve been able to issue them a pair…
Not all cadets are able to get their hands on an extra pair of shoes or boots so anything not issued we have to have a degree of discretion.
@Giminion OK where did I say women wearing trousers is amusing?
The amusing thing is that women wear effectively whatever clothes they fancy and have done for donkey’s, whereas men in general conform to the norm of trouser style legwear.
The idea of making it so that the dress regs allow people to wear whatever they like, just opens up a level of complication in terms of addressing the individual without causing upset. But to do anything without a questioning element or requiring permission, would be step too far for those who ponder dress regs, as it would mean losing control and not needing them.
We have to add in the teenager aspect, who can and do go off at the slightest thing at the best of times, leaving you wondering what has happened and this is who we have in spades. Speaking as the dad of 2 daughters and a son, the teens were interesting, especially the girls.
As for androgyny just walking around and watching TV, films etc, there are times you do a double take. One of the boys at our kids primary school had a mum who looked and dressed like a man more than any of the men in the village. Even my wife who took them to and fro each day wasn’t sure for a few weeks, as she had a very male physique.
If unsure of a pronoun. Ask.
2 Likes
The regulations will still exist, they will just say something different.
There will still be limitations to freedom of choice within the choice we offer.
As now, if it’s in the book it’s permissable (vice-versa) and no one would legitimately be able to tell someone otherwise:
If it says “cadets of any gender with long hair must conform to xyz” then no one can tell a male (cis/trans) or other gendered (andro/non-binary/pan…) cadet that they can’t.
Just like it currently says “cadets of any rank are permitted to wear a stable belt of either style” - no one should be limiting it to “NCOs only” or “x style only”.
Us NCOs will still have plenty to do to keep us happy, but thank you for your concern.
2 Likes
In theory perhaps.
Put limitations in place and someone will challenge it and “we’ve always done it like that” won’t cut it.
Hair is an interesting point. I’ve seen a couple of male cadets one of mine and one from a neighbouring sqn who have hair that doesn’t meet the laid down standard. I can only assume that after barbers were shut for so long, they’ve got to like it. Not sure we can tell them to get it cut. I have to admit it was odd getting my haircut with nearly 4 months more growth than normal.
Over the years I can remember boys having mohecans, mullets and hair stuffed into berets which flopped down and staff having pink fits. Being me I was a bit more open and rather than kick up a stink, let it ride as like most fads they come, peak then fade. Like some who had their trousers ‘drainpiped’ in the 70s.
We can.
Our club, our rules.
It’s not a protected characteristic.
They shouldn’t be allowed to wear uniform until they sort it, and this will limit some activities they can do.
2 Likes
If they do as boys have done in the past and keep off their collar etc, so what.
If the rule says males can wear their hair one way, and females another, and the reason you’re telling a male cadet to cut their hair is because their male, then that is a protected characteristic.
Two points.
Uniform code doesn’t just cover clothes.
The regulations envisage the potential for a non-binary cadet or adult volunteer to wish to present alternatively as male or female. This might mean long hair worn in regulation pattern, which would NOT need to be cut when wearing male uniform.
The permissions were deliberately set at regional level to AVOID local obstacles. This is policy set at RAFAC commandant level and regional commandants are all aware and fully onside.
3 Likes
Latest research shows 5% of all individuals are non-binary and 1% binary transgender.
So every squadron, statistically, is likely to come across this issue.
1 Like
What research?
Even this site give 0.4% non-binary:
1 Like
The latest research was done in the Netherlands.
It showed four times as many non binary as binary trans and about 1% binary trans, giving 5% in all.
I was shown it in a confidential briefing by GIRES. Hopefully it’ll be linked from their website soon.
Not, I would suggest, an impartial source.
2 Likes
That .4% is incredibly unreliable, and likely much higher. It’s based on the 2011 census which posed the question of what is your sex? Giving only the options of male and female. The .4% represents those who ticked both boxes, no box, or wrote over the top of the question. Further to that, a large number of people did that census electronically where a non binary option did not exists, as you couldn’t move forward in the questions unless you ticked a box, and you could only tick one box.
That isn’t what that paper says.
According to official statistics, the proportion of the UK population who define as non-binary when given a choice between male, female and another option is 0.4%, which is 1 in 250 people (Titman, 2014).
If your statement is correct, then you are saying a paper published by an organisation devoted to ’ Positively changing how the media understands and portrays transgender people’ is misrepresenting the statistic.
This seems unlikely, so I am interested in the source of your information.
PS found the paper:
Your 0.4% and mine are, coincidentally, the same number from different surveys. Though I see his wording is ‘at least 0.4%’.
This covers it in detail. If you go down to where it talks about the 2011 census that’s where they get the .4% from.