JonnyF

Nope. The 'gay' slur was used, but it was predominantly used on boys who were not perceived to be gay and it wasn't used in a malicious way. It was a throwaway term used among friends, like 'that was a bit gay' if someone did something goofy like missed an open goal during a game of football. For example, as a teenage skateboarder there was a vert trick called the "gay twist" which was a 360 starting backwards where you grabbed the board (it was 'gay' because you couldn't do it without grabbing the board, if you didn't grab the board it was called "The Caballerial" after the inventer of the trick). So the term was used, but not maliciously and not on effeminate boys. I suspect that had there been LGBT flags everywhere and gay pride marches then the issue of the various forms of sexuality would have been at the fore more than it was. After all, we were just kids and fortunately skating, football, music, video games etc were more important to us than whether someone was LGBTQIA+.

How so? You don't think a 20 something, far left, Pansexual teacher would have a different stance on teaching homosexuality to children than a 60 year old, ultra conservative fundamentalist Christian? Of course the teachers own viewpoint is critical to how the subject would be approached. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

Not in my experience. We suspected a few kids at school were gay but the conversation never arose in a public setting and they weren't bullied. Unfortunately, ginger kids were, fat kids were, unattractive kids were, but thankfully I never remember gay kids being bullied. Now, had it been raised in class every 5 minutes, gay pride marches, photos of homsexual couples on the walls, LGBT flags everywhere then maybe it would have been different... Like I said, keep it out of the classroom and teach Maths, English etc. There's no need for compulsory lessons on the myriad of options of sexual orientation for kids. A child doesn't go to school to learn about Pansexuality, non binary, trans sexuality etc.

Sounds like he wants to charge more, without improving the quality of the product. Hanging electricity cables, Mangey Soi dogs, dirty beaches, smog, taxis with crazy drivers and no seatbelts etc. all offered at a premium price. Good luck with that Anutin.

No, I don't. Like in the terrible experience of the poster I was responding to, the bullying started because the issue of homosexuality was raised in the classroom. Had they been teaching Maths, the issue would never have even been raised. If you think the best way to stop bullying of gay kids is to keep raising the subject of homosexuality in the classroom then I would strongly disagree. It's like the proponents of critical race theory who think the best way to tackle racism is to keep reminding people of the fact they are inherently different because they belong to a certain racial group and assuming (often negative) things about them based on that race. It's nonsense, it doesn't belong in the classroom, certainly as a compulsory element. At a push I guess extra curricular, optional modules for this could be offered (subject to parental consent) but even that is not necessary IMO.

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion from my post? Maybe you should read it again ????.

I'm sorry for your experience. This is an excellent example of why schools should stick to teaching Maths and English and not try to 'educate' kids about matters relating to sexuality. It's too open to be influenced by the personal beliefs of the teacher for one thing. Whether it's a left wing loon telling the kids how great/cool it is to be gay and that there's no such thing as a woman, or whether it's some hardcore Christian fundamentalist telling the kids it is evil and they'll go to hell, both are potentially damaging to kids and opens up the environment for bullying and ridiculing of the minority by the majority. Had the class you describe not taken place, you could have avoided the painful experience altogether. I support keeping these discussions out of the classroom.

I was there on Friday night. It was very quiet. Obviously not all arrivals are tourists either. Case in point, I was returning from a business trip to Australia and the couple next to me on the plane were travelling on to London 4 hours later for a wedding. 3 arrivals, but no tourists.

Well seeing as only women (adult human females) have a menopause, it's kind of ridiculous. I find it quite misogynistic actually. There is nothing childish or crass about pointing out the established facts of human biology. Nothing childish or crass about the word Fat either. Just like there is nothing sophisticated/virtuous about avoiding addressing legitimate points by pretending to be offended by everyday language.

Wow, he looks like one of those guys at the Parramatta train station asking for loose change. Hopefully he's OK health wise, he's probably at a much healthier weight now assuming the weight loss is for the right reasons. He looked a bit ridiculous before, like he was trying a bit too hard to look tough (like many weightlifter/bodybuilder types).

Wasn't talking to you.

It seems I've upset you. My deepest, most sincere apologies. Whilst the comment was of course somewhat tongue in cheek, on a more serious note I am sure you are aware that certain NHS departments have dropped the use of the word Woman in certain circumstances, to be replaced with gender neutral language such as 'people with a cervix'. So it is indeed quite possible that the term 'Boy/Girl' would offend someone. They might prefer 'adolescant with a penis/cervix' or something similarly crass. I'd have thought you'd be supportive of such gender neutral language? Me? Call me old fashioned but I prefer the terms Boy/Girl.

From the school website... Essentially ensuring that boys* can wear skirts and girls* can wear trousers. I'd say that's probably qualifies as Woke. Not hardcore 'mad as a box of frogs' Woke, but Woke nonetheless. Shorts being banned in 30 degree plus temperatures definitely qualifies as stupid. * Unreserved apologies if the use of the term 'boys' and 'girls' hurt anyone's feelings. Alternative gender neutral terms are available at all good echo chambers ????.

The parents have objected to it and the policy is being reviewed, and rightly so. It's stupid.

So much negativity. Bangkok is a great city. I absolutely love living here. Just spent a week in Sydney and it was sterile, expensive and boring in comparison.

The location in question had average temperatures in the 20's, with one day over 30. See BKK Brian's link. I shouldn't really have to explain this, but just because it's cooled down now, doesn't mean it wasn't hot before ????.

'PC' was directed at BKK Brian, not the school policy. Are you being disingenuous or is this concept too complicated for you to grasp? As for the school uniform, we all know what it means. Maybe you were left behind while trying to work out the 'PC' comment, but the discussion had advanced somewhat to a debate about the choice (or lack thereof) of uniform. Presumably you'd be OK with whatever the principal decided on, irrespective of the discomfort to the children? Seems a bit of an authoritarian stance for a so called Liberal, no?

Not at all. Read the thread. I said the policy was stupid, irrespective of whether it was Woke or not. 'PC' was a comment directed at another poster who refused to answer a point I was making because I used the word Fat. Nice try though...

Sure, I'll tell you. June was extremely hot. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/17/heatwave-alert-uk-hottest-day-year-met-office-england-london-nhs#:~:text=Heatwave alert as parts of UK experience hottest day of 2022 so far,-Met Office issues&text=A level three heatwave alert,of the year so far.

Please read the survey again. The responses from parents in no way indicated that shorts should be banned. That was a conclusion reached by the school based on nothing whatsoever from the parents, so please stop this claim that this was a result of a survey of the parents, it came from the school and the parents objected to it. It doesn't surprise me one bit that whoever made this policy didn't consider there could be a heat wave in the summer, they've given no indication they have such intelligence or forethought. Whether it's one day over 30 and the rest of the month in the 20's, clearly it's hot enough to warrant a choice of cooler clothing for the children. Why ignore my comment about fat kids? OK, what is the woke term? Obese adolescants? Plus sized people under 16? Is that PC enough for you to respond? It's fairly obvious that overweight/fat kids feel the heat more. Why make them wear trousers in the heat? You seem more concerned about the use of PC language than the comfort/welfare of the kids. I had heatstroke as a kid and I can tell you it's EXTREMELY unpleasant. In bed for 3 days, vomitting and screaming for someone called Rita to come and help me (I didn't know anyone called Rita). Heatstroke is no joke I can assure you. Yes, Rockey has been forced to address this illogical and ill thought out policy. Good to see he's finally seen some sense. It seems you are very gradually coming around to the fact that is a stupid policy as well, which is encouraging.

Did you just say Woke and Tolerance/Acceptance in the same sentence? ???? They have zero tolerance or acceptance for anyone who doesn't share their radical views. Just look at the way they've treated someone like JK Rowling. Shameful stuff from the 'be kind' brigade.

I think they are capable of deciding whether to wear shorts or trousers during a heat wave ????. We're not asking them to decide how to deal with the war in Ukraine or which policies to implement to tackle climate change (although the Greenies were quite happy to make a deity of the clueless Greta when it suited their agenda).

So they did a survey during which there is no mention of parents requesting shorts be disallowed. Then they set the policy of trousers and skirts only. Yet you're claiming the policy is based on the survey of the parents, despite the fact they are now having to review the policy due to objections by parents. Hmmm, ok... If it was 30 degrees on one day, then my statement is correct. Some kids feel the heat more than others. Fat kids for example might get hotter. Or those having hormonal changes, medications etc. Why would you object to shorts being allowed? Maybe some of the girls would prefer shorts as well? Especially if they like to pretend they are/"identify as" boys. If trousers and skirts are deemed 'gender neutral', then surely shorts are as well. Like I said, the policy makes no sense at all, on any level.

I took a peek. There was nothing I could see stating that parents didn't want shorts allowed. The part about skirts and trousers being the uniform was in page 2 regarding the changes that the school had decided to implement.

So why ban them? Doesn't make any sense. Let the children choose based on what is comfortable for them.