Rule Breaking Or Homophobia?

[Recidiva]

can some of us not just agree, that certain things are wrong. And they need to be changed ? Cause perhaps I am just laid back, but I am more like this "so she wants to have a tuxedo on ?, Well let her have it on !". But then again I am just a nobody, so I have no power of that.

I think it doesn't really come down to "gay" or "not gay" here. I'd have an issue with this and I'm straight. Lots of gay people see it as immaterial.

So I think it has to do with a personality and what choice you make regarding how you wish to be perceived or how you perceive yourself.

Someone may think it's vital and necessary to conform where it doesn't mean life and limb. Which is what I think is kbate's point.

But just to be generally human, there are times when fighting is preferable to conforming. And that's determined by an internal standard.

I think the administration in this case is just as much of a nobody, and she's the only one who is going to remember her high school picture.

Now for me, I was deadened to this debate by the time I was a senior. I didn't go to my prom, I didn't get a picture taken, I didn't buy a yearbook. I didn't fight because I didn't think it was worth it and I didn't really want a part of it and that's usually my choice.

I find however, as a parent, if my daughter were that girl, I'd go to the mat. It's that "nobody puts baby in a corner" thing.

 

[Etoile]

I think the administration in this case is just as much of a nobody, and she's the only one who is going to remember her high school picture.

Ah, but for her - right now - the administration is everybody. They have all the power in her life right now, which is based in school, as most HS kids' lives are. To you and me, the principal or whomever is just a little man trying to assert what little power he has. But to her, he's the arbiter of what can and cannot happen.

 

[Recidiva]

Ah, but for her - right now - the administration is everybody. They have all the power in her life right now, which is based in school, as most HS kids' lives are. To you and me, the principal or whomever is just a little man trying to assert what little power he has. But to her, he's the arbiter of what can and cannot happen.

Right. And I got that when I was in high school. My mom was president of the board of education, so my situation got excruciating.

I just wanted to be a kid and my mom's position made teachers hypersensitive to me expecting some sort of special treatment. My mom was so busy teaching me I deserved no special treatment that she just never got involved at all as a parent because of her position of authority.

So I'd really had it between trying to "set an example" and not abuse the system and still try to be myself.

I opted for really checking out of the system entirely. Which is a lot of what people do.

I think this is a reasonable fight for the reasons you state. It's an overstepping of bounds. My mom would have wanted me to be pretty at the prom, though she still didn't understand why I always went with my gay fake boyfriend who wore a tiara. I did finally convince her I could stay out all night with him and it wasn't an issue about my honor. She finally acquiesced when she said to my father "She doesn't sound happy about that." (I wasn't. I had fallen in love with the guy before he came out and he'd asked me out in order to give a try at being straight.)

So my issues weren't her issues. She wanted a normal prom, which I could not provide. And she wanted junk food removed from the school vending machines and for it to be replaced with trail mix and juice. Which I also couldn't provide.

But I really couldn't ask for special treatment and get any sort of backup without expecting to be told I was abusing my position. I knew I had no position. I went to my fake gay boyfriend's prom because he asked me. I didn't go to my own.

 

[sugaredwalls]

I think the bigger issue here is (actually safe_bet pointed this out already) is that anything to do with anything gay at public schools...it always seems the LGBT side has to be disregarded for the comfort of others.

Hasn't anybody had enough of that yet?

Now there is a riff with Scholastic pulling books from their book fairs at elementary schools because it features lesbian parents.

Really, enough is enough already.

When do gay students and students of gay parents get their rights at public school?

 

[Recidiva]

I think the bigger issue here is (actually safe_bet pointed this out already) is that anything to do with anything gay at public schools...it always seems the LGBT side has to be disregarded for the comfort of others.

Hasn't anybody had enough of that yet?

Now there is a riff with Scholastic pulling books from their book fairs at elementary schools because it features lesbian parents.

Really, enough is enough already.

When do gay students and students of gay parents get their rights at public school?

And it is not "straights v gays" It's assholes and cowards v. people who support civil rights.

I dislike seeing the whole thing framed as if straight people were the opposite team to gays. I also dislike seeing that giving the cowards and assholes any power at all is ever a good move.

I don't see a "gay girl" here who needs to sacrifice her individuality for the team. I see a person who needs to be told she's important, she has rights, and if she has to fight for them, that's just part of being a person. There are assholes and cowards all over the place. Do you part to limit their power.

 

[kbate]

.....

 

[Recidiva]

Which is sort of my point... taking things to court to force people to do as we would prefer they do automatically, rarely gains the desired result. Oh, sure she gets to publish her prom pic in her tux, but the manner of the "win" - gains 4 enemies - who otherwise would not give a damn.

We pushed for "full marriage rights" in every state - and in the backlash got constitutional amendments banning us from ever marrying in several states.

When the "civil" war ended, northerners put freedmen in charge of southern states/towns/precincts - and in exchange received a century of racial hatred, that otherwise might have been avoided.

After World War II - the world gave the Jews a nice bit of fertile land to be their homeland, and bought eternal war with Islam and Palestine in the bargain.

Avoid history's mistakes and perhaps we can gain the equality that is our right. Gain our goals by force and we gain enmity that otherwise did not exist.
Most people do not give a damn one way or another whether queers marry, or wear dresses, or even exist - but when we become a public force appearing to threaten them, then even previously undecided persons, tend to go with their parent's or their religion's or their political background's belief.

I think this is a misrepresentation of history to an appalling degree.

Behave as if you are equal and you expect to be equal.

There is no "buckling down" and riding out oppression until everyone gets nice all of the sudden.

Backlash is better than slavery. Backlash is better than no right to vote. Backlash is better than lack of legal equality.

Slaves were freed. Women got the right to vote. Minorities gained civil rights.

If none of the things you listed happened, what's your solution? Just waiting it out? Until when? Which individuals pay the price for freedom?

Or is your thrust here just that you don't want any of the negatives affecting you personally?

Follow your lead and we're all slaves to the majority thought, right or wrong. No thanks.

Law is based on precedent. If nobody takes anything to court ever, there's no precedent.

 

[Wolfman1982]

kbate:
the stuff you said about history made me think this sentence.

"history teach us, that nobody learns from history" G.W.F. Hegel

Since if we do not learn from history, then we are doomed to repeat it.
And if we do learn from history, then we screw up in other ways. I know this is not world news, but a Polish "soccer" football keeper who was on a Danish team. He has just been fired for his homophobic rantings in his biography named "Fucking Polak" . And well you see, (a small joke coming) Denmark is a little land, and the people they do not understand but actually, we do understand. And we only need to edit our constitution a tiny bit, then gays and lesbians can marry in our churches. And I really hope they get it done , hopefully sooner, than later. Gay people in Denmark have all the rights as straight people, they can marry (registered partnership) in city halls. with the same rights, as the other married couples. they can adopt, thanks to the politicians voted for it this year. There are laws , that protects against homophobia, the only problem is the police are a bunch of homophobic arseholes. But thanks to my upbringing, then I am the laid back guy I am. and the GLBT/human rights defender too. But I am not saying my country is a wonderland, cause it is not. But it is better than other places when it comes to the GLBT rights.

kbate: stay cool

 

[Safe_Bet]

Yup... "It will come in time", "be patient, change takes time", "We need time to win people's hearts and minds", etc., etc. etc. I've heard that chant forever. I actually agreed with it...

Now lets look at time:

• It took 51 years for women to receive the right to vote.

• It took Gandhi 32 years to gain freedom for the people of India.

• It took 14 years for Blacks to receive their civil rights.

ITS BEEN 40 YEARS SINCE STONEWALL!


It has been long enough. The way our "elders" are going about it isn't working (unless your goal is cocktails with Obama and Solomese). It is going to take the court, it's going to take the legal system and it's going to take marches, protests and boycotts to get change.

"A right delayed is a right denied."
Martin Luther King

 

[Recidiva]

Yup... "It will come in time", "be patient, change takes time", "We need time to win people's hearts and minds", etc., etc. etc. I've heard that chant forever. I actually agreed with it...

This adage is easily disproven by taking a look around the world. China has one of the longest continuous cultures in history. How are civil and gender and religious rights doing there? Has time made everything right?

Cultural positive change is not a function of time, it is a function of human will and work. It doesn't have to be war or illegal or bloody. Due to modern precedent, its place is in the courts. Not going there because it might irritate people is preposterous.

 

[John Doe]

And it is not "straights v gays" It's assholes and cowards v. people who support civil rights.

I dislike seeing the whole thing framed as if straight people were the opposite team to gays. I also dislike seeing that giving the cowards and assholes any power at all is ever a good move.

I don't see a "gay girl" here who needs to sacrifice her individuality for the team. I see a person who needs to be told she's important, she has rights, and if she has to fight for them, that's just part of being a person. There are assholes and cowards all over the place. Do you part to limit their power.

Up until now I've been content to sit back and watch this exchange because both you and kbate have made good points, but I object to this characterization. On the one hand I believe you are correct in the conclusion that it is futile to reason with bigots and prejudiced people as they are by definition unreasonable, however I think you are also being unreasonable if you are assuming that whoever doesn't agree with you on this issue must be an asshole or a coward.

And you still haven't explained why this is a civil rights issue. I'm as independent as the next person, but one of the main purposes of high school is to prepare children to live in society and on that basis I have no objection to dress codes.

As far as her rights are concerned, as a minor she doesn't have the same rights an adult has and even an adult doesn't have the right to wear whatever they wish whether restricted by law or social pressure.

I think this is a misrepresentation of history to an appalling degree.

Behave as if you are equal and you expect to be equal.

There is no "buckling down" and riding out oppression until everyone gets nice all of the sudden.

Backlash is better than slavery. Backlash is better than no right to vote. Backlash is better than lack of legal equality.

Slaves were freed. Women got the right to vote. Minorities gained civil rights.

If none of the things you listed happened, what's your solution? Just waiting it out? Until when? Which individuals pay the price for freedom?

Or is your thrust here just that you don't want any of the negatives affecting you personally?

Follow your lead and we're all slaves to the majority thought, right or wrong. No thanks.

Law is based on precedent. If nobody takes anything to court ever, there's no precedent.

Yes and no. Common law systems use precedent and while they rely on statutes passed by a legislature, they may not codify their laws as much as civil law systems.

But I digress...

To borrow your turn of phrase, I think this is a misrepresentation of kbate's opinion. I do not presume to speak for her but I have interpreted her stance as not one of complacency or apathy but rather that it would be wise to choose one's battles (she used that phrase or words to the same effect very early in the thread) and until someone can make a satisfactory argument that the girl's rights are being violated I agree with kbate.

 

[Recidiva]

Up until now I've been content to sit back and watch this exchange because both you and kbate have made good points, but I object to this characterization. On the one hand I believe you are correct in the conclusion that it is futile to reason with bigots and prejudiced people as they are by definition unreasonable, however I think you are also being unreasonable if you are assuming that whoever doesn't agree with you on this issue must be an asshole or a coward.

And you still haven't explained why this is a civil rights issue. I'm as independent as the next person, but one of the main purposes of high school is to prepare children to live in society and on that basis I have no objection to dress codes.

As far as her rights are concerned, as a minor she doesn't have the same rights an adult has and even an adult doesn't have the right to wear whatever they wish whether restricted by law or social pressure.

Yes and no. Common law systems use precedent and while they rely on statutes passed by a legislature, they may not codify their laws as much as civil law systems.

But I digress...

To borrow your turn of phrase, I think this is a misrepresentation of kbate's opinion. I do not presume to speak for her but I have interpreted her stance as not one of complacency or apathy but rather that it would be wise to choose one's battles (she used that phrase or words to the same effect very early in the thread) and until someone can make a satisfactory argument that the girl's rights are being violated I agree with kbate.

I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is an asshole or a coward.

I DO think that people who are opposed to gays (or any group of people) having the same rights as others generally fit into that category. I have yet to hear a reasonable argument about why certain human beings who are otherwise law abiding and contributing to society somehow don't get the rights everyone else has.

I think I've addressed most of what you've said here, and you are welcome to your opinion, as is kbate. I think her historical assessment and treating the thing like a battle in which she is General is overblown and mischaracterized. I've given my reasons why and I can clarify that I don't consider my opinions to be the gold standard. I do however reserve the right to evaluate each opinion on a case by case basis and present why I might think something is illogical, insensitive, self-serving or a straw man factory. I also reserve the right to be personally aghast or offended.

Adults can wear what they wish within the law. "Social Pressure" is irrelevant. If an adult is getting a paycheck, they can be told what to wear. On the street, they can't.

Kids have no choice about being in school, and they don't get a paycheck. There is no reason to conform to social pressure or stick to any standard other than the law. If the law or its application is unfair, change one or the other.

 

[John Doe]

I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is an asshole or a coward.

I DO think that people who are opposed to gays (or any group of people) having the same rights as others generally fit into that category. I have yet to hear a reasonable argument about why certain human beings who are otherwise law abiding and contributing to society somehow don't get the rights everyone else has.

How is that relevant?

Is there any indication that other students in this school are not subject to the same rules and scrutiny? How is this an equal rights issue?

I think I've addressed most of what you've said here, and you are welcome to your opinion, as is kbate. I think her historical assessment and treating the thing like a battle in which she is General is overblown and mischaracterized. I've given my reasons why and I can clarify that I don't consider my opinions to be the gold standard. I do however reserve the right to evaluate each opinion on a case by case basis and present why I might think something is illogical, insensitive, self-serving or a straw man factory. I also reserve the right to be personally aghast or offended.

No one is saying you don't have the right to your opinion, but everyone else has the same right to criticize an opinion or the way it's expressed as you do.

Adults can wear what they wish within the law. "Social Pressure" is irrelevant. If an adult is getting a paycheck, they can be told what to wear. On the street, they can't.

Kids have no choice about being in school, and they don't get a paycheck. There is no reason to conform to social pressure or stick to any standard other than the law. If the law or its application is unfair, change one or the other.

Social pressure is irrelevant to getting along in society? Why?

Being independent is great but not everyone can ignore the opinions of their peers and doing so can have repercussions.

Again, how is this girl being treated unfairly? I'm more concerned with Principal Greer seeming to act unilaterally and independent of state policy and school regulations (and this case would be an indication of that) than I am with issues of sexual identity or possible homophobia. The rules should be clear and enforced fairly regardless of the officials' personal opinions and beliefs.

 

[Recidiva]

How is that relevant?

Is there any indication that other students in this school are not subject to the same rules and scrutiny? How is this an equal rights issue?

No one is saying you don't have the right to your opinion, but everyone else has the same right to criticize an opinion or the way it's expressed as you do.

Social pressure is irrelevant to getting along in society? Why?

Being independent is great but not everyone can ignore the opinions of their peers and doing so can have repercussions.

Again, how is this girl being treated unfairly? I'm more concerned with Principal Greer seeming to act unilaterally and independent of state policy and school regulations (and this case would be an indication of that) than I am with issues of sexual identity or possible homophobia. The rules should be clear and enforced fairly regardless of the officials' personal opinions and beliefs.

It's relevant because kbate's argument has to do with flawed conclusions about history, and developing a strategy based on that flawed conclusion. It's fine with me if kbate doesn't think it's worth fighting for. It's not fine by me if she thinks it's a detriment to 'the cause'. However, when she starts to blame this kid for the failure of civilization, that's too far gone. I think her slippery slope and historical comparisons are deserving of criticism.

I'm not telling kbate that she or you have no right to criticize me. You're welcome to do so, but back it up with a reasonable argument.

Social pressure is not a legal precedent. "Social pressure" often is on the wrong side of the fence. That's why it's not law. Learning to not bend with its every whim is a good thing.

Yes, being independent is great. I've fought for mine, I've taught my kids to fight for theirs. I'm a happy social outcast and I like it that way. You don't want to pay the price, fine. But don't tell other people that they shouldn't choose to do so. I'm not denying there are repercussions. I'm saying that for some people, me included, the repercussions are part of the price and the price is not too high for what is gained.

And I'm not making anybody else pay a price for what I fight for, despite any protestations that fighting is somehow harming a cause. This girl, if she fought, if she chose to fight, would get some support and some condemnation, but in the end what matters is she makes a choice as to what's acceptable or unacceptable and she stuck with it until or unless she changed her mind for whatever reasons.

I'm not saying everyone must rally in the streets. I'm saying that if there's rallying in the streets and it's keeping you up at night and you're losing your beauty sleep...tough. Get some ear plugs.

I think she's being treated unfairly because it's not illegal to wear a tux. It's formal wear. I've covered most of this and I'm keeping it brief. (hah. I'm funny.) Briefer than it could be.

 

[kbate]

.....

 

[Etoile]

I still say it's sexism and not homophobia.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Well, it seems the the ACLU is calling it both sexism AND homophobia...

Jackson, MS - The ACLU of Mississippi has sent a letter to Copiah County School District demanding school officials immediately cease violating a student's rights. The school has barred the student from wearing a tuxedo in her senior prom picture, despite the fact that boys are allowed to wear them. Such a requirement for gender-specific clothing is a violation of students' rights to gender equality and self expression.

School officials told Ceara Sturgis, an openly gay senior at Wesson Attendance Center in Wesson, MS, that her photo would not appear in the yearbook because in it she is wearing a tuxedo, not the traditional drape worn by other female students. Assistant Superintendent Robert Holloway informed Ceara's mother that there was no policy in the student handbook requiring females to wear drapes. The decision by school officials to require Ceara to wear a drape is arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional.

In its letter to the Copiah County School District, the ACLU-MS reminds district officials that students' right to self expression is protected under the First Amendment of the constitution. Clothing, such as a tuxedo, worn as a statement of lesbian and gay rights, has been upheld by courts to be symbolic speech that is protected by the First Amendment. Schools have an obligation to protect, not extinguish, such speech.

The letter further reminds district officials that the 14th Amendment prohibits public schools from engaging in gender discrimination. Courts have also consistently upheld the First Amendment right of female students to wear tuxedos to senior proms. While school officials may impose a requirement of proper, even formal attire for senior photographs, officials cannot lawfully mandate requirements based on notions that only boys may wear tuxedos and only girls may wear dresses or drapes.

Dfferent treatment based on sex is constitutional only if supported by a significant governmental interest. The ACLU-MS certainly sees no significant governmental interest in barring girls from wearing tuxedos or forcing them to wear dresses/drapes.

http://www.aclu-ms.org/news/acludemandswessonschooloff.htm

http://www.aclu-ms.org/downloads/wesson.pdf

 

[Recidiva]

I won't argue with someone who has declared that I am "blaming this kid for the failure of civilisation". Talk about mischaracterisations and taking simple examples of "forced equality" and running wild with inexcusable accusations.

So... never mind....

Reci is right as ever.

She should go to court... force the world to change... there won't be any hard feelings or backlash.

As an individual that is --- Don't make ONE girl's problem over a dress - the national call for LBGT equal rights - it belittles many of us who work. There is absolutely no proof offered that this entire thread is an lbgt isue, or that the principal in the thread has a problem with queers (he did not say she could not attend the prom with a same-sex partner, only that she must appear as a standard female in her pictures). That this needs become an lbgt issue is the supposition of two persons posting here, who would wish to make more of this matter than it being a simple prom picture. Activist much? Why?

Okay, then as an individual opinion that is clearly and personally expressed, I respect this.

You are correct that outrage over this incident, particularly if it eclipses other issues that are more important by being blown out of proportion, can be counterproductive. This is certainly not criminal. It is civil.

I'm not convinced it's necessarily sexism OR homphobia. I just think it's an expression of overstepping of power in an individual. It might come down to "that's not pretty, someone at a prom should look their best." They might also deny a male the right to wear a kilt. Maybe they feel their lofty authority is being questioned and the world will fall to pieces if they don't put a girl in a dress. I don't really know. But I think it's a valid question to put before a judge if they can't resolve it. "Why is this legal?" We're having trouble even in this thread enough seeing what people think is a reasonable social contract and to which point is an individual obliged to carry out unspoken expectations.

I think a social contract with unspoken expectations needs some give and take. You keep up the contract, you get some social benefit. However, I draw the line where if you break the unspoken contract, you get punished. You just don't get the social benefit. Fine. Dislike this girl, shake your head and wonder why, that's fine. Tell her she can't be her? No, that's overstepping.

Again, I may or may not agree with the girl's point of view, but I'm all for having the law crystal clear and the application standard.

From my point of view, it's the administrator who made the call of "no tux" who is doing the activism, and I'd support either a wise choice to ignore it as essentially trivial, or a "wait a minute here, where is that written?" questioning of a point of law.

The majority of my argument is to support her right to pursue legal avenues responsibly, in context, for the right reasons.

 

[Safe_Bet]

As an individual that is --- Don't make ONE girl's problem over a dress - the national call for LBGT equal rights - it belittles many of us who work. There is absolutely no proof offered that this entire thread is an lbgt isue, or that the principal in the thread has a problem with queers (he did not say she could not attend the prom with a same-sex partner, only that she must appear as a standard female in her pictures). That this needs become an lbgt issue is the supposition of two persons posting here, who would wish to make more of this matter than it being a simple prom picture. Activist much? Why?

I agree with you. This transcends being a LGBTQ issue and , is in fact, an abuse of power issue.

Let's look at the facts:

• The girl has been consistent. For an extended period of years has been openly gay and has worn what is, erroneously described, as "boys clothes".
• There ARE no rules against what she wants to do (i.e. have her picture taken in a tux).
• The girl is exercising her rights to free speech by wearing clothing of her choice (again, in NO violation of any written school policy or rules).
• Principal Greer is being WAY inconsistent, based upon his "convictions".

If Principal Asshat wants to change the rules he can follow proper procedures and put them down in writing, JUST LIKE ALL OF THE OTHER ONES ARE IN WRITING.

He's not some omnipotent deity, he is a freak'in principal who has to follow written rules just like everyone else does.

 

[John Doe]

Well, it seems the the ACLU is calling it both sexism AND homophobia...

They're also calling it a violation of constitutional rights but they have yet to make their case for that as well.

 

[Etoile]

They're also calling it a violation of constitutional rights but they have yet to make their case for that as well.

What about that bit about the 14th Amendment and the 1st Amendment and stuff?

 

[John Doe]

What about that bit about the 14th Amendment and the 1st Amendment and stuff?

What about it?

 

[Recidiva]

What about it?

From my point of view, it's editorial about someone's choices. She's not free to identify herself with male symbols.

If this were stated and applied to everyone, okay. If they're all issued prom clothes from the school and all must wear the same thing, fine. Some schools do uniforms.

However, this is an attempt to control behavior and "standards" according to an individual's preferences, and the individual isn't the person wearing the clothes.

What about socioeconomic? If someone can't afford their clothes, and they aren't "up to standard" are they denied entry? That's a fun historical trick. What about religious? Would they be not allowed to wear a head scarf if they were Muslim? WHY would someone have to look like someone else's idea of what they should look like?

There are so many ways that clothing can be used to regulate identity that it certainly raises the question enough to ask it. If people couldn't be humiliated socially according to their clothing choices, fashion would be out of business. It's personal expression. If someone else doesn't like it, they can just...not like it. If you think clothing is irrelevant and being forced to wear it against your will doesn't have any humiliation factor, just check out the prison where people are forced to wear pink and dance to Thriller. Or try on a burqa.

 

[John Doe]

From my point of view, it's editorial about someone's choices. She's not free to identify herself with male symbols.

If this were stated and applied to everyone, okay. If they're all issued prom clothes from the school and all must wear the same thing, fine. Some schools do uniforms.

However, this is an attempt to control behavior and "standards" according to an individual's preferences, and the individual isn't the person wearing the clothes.

What about socioeconomic? If someone can't afford their clothes, and they aren't "up to standard" are they denied entry? That's a fun historical trick. What about religious? Would they be not allowed to wear a head scarf if they were Muslim? WHY would someone have to look like someone else's idea of what they should look like?

To control people, but you already knew that.

There are so many ways that clothing can be used to regulate identity that it certainly raises the question enough to ask it. If people couldn't be humiliated socially according to their clothing choices, fashion would be out of business. It's personal expression. If someone else doesn't like it, they can just...not like it.

Social pressure has no legal precedent and is not relevant but social humiliation is?

If you think clothing is irrelevant and being forced to wear it against your will doesn't have any humiliation factor, just check out the prison where people are forced to wear pink and dance to Thriller. Or try on a burqa.

On the contrary, I've been arguing that it is relevant.

 

[Recidiva]

To control people, but you already knew that.

Social pressure has no legal precedent and is not relevant but social humiliation is?

On the contrary, I've been arguing that it is relevant.

Social pressure doesn't have the best interests of the individual in mind. It has the "most easily recognizable patterns of a group" in mind, to make it easier to interact when you want to signal social intent. She is clearly signaling her own social intent. Using those symbols to suit her purpose is a choice. She's telegraphing to other people socially and sexually that she is this person. Putting her in a dress might result in straight men hitting on her, or worse, not attracting the people she wants to attract. She probably would not welcome that and dresses this way to avoid it.

It's an entirely valid concept. I'm really missing why this is not being grasped. She is not a straight girl. She does not wish to look like one. Looking like one is not suiting her purpose or her needs.

If an individual in society has not realized that there are more than two valid genders or ways to present oneself, I have no sympathy with their being confused at this point in history.

I'd like to see more guys in dresses, too.