• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Professor awarded damages after being sanctioned for not using the "correct" pronouns. Bravo!!!

This is not in line with any science.

It appears to be a fact that on rare occasions, there can be shortages or excesses of testosterone in the womb during fetal development. According to what I've read, this can lead to changes in the way the brain develops so that it takes on some of the typical characteristics of the brain of someone of the opposite sex. These individuals sometimes develop gender dysphoria later.

That's a hardware issue.

As far as I can tell, the "gender is mind, sex is body" idea is more a product of some modern schools of sociology rather than of biology.
If what you say is true and not metaphysical, then transgenderism is present the moment the transgendered person is born. There would be no threshold age '4th grade/9yo' to introduce gender since it manifested while still in the womb.

If that is the case, unchanging biologics (like XX/XY chromosomes) demand transgenderism is birth to death.
 
If what you say is true and not metaphysical, then transgenderism is present the moment the transgendered person is born. There would be no threshold age '4th grade/9yo' to introduce gender since it manifested while still in the womb.

If that is the case, unchanging biologics (like XX/XY chromosomes) demand transgenderism is birth to death.

No, I don't think that is a reasonable interpretation of what I said.

If you would like to read around it, the Wikipedia article "Sex and gender distinction" is actually a pretty good place to start.

A lot of what people post on here as what "science says" is by no means the clear consensus of science.
 
It appears to be a fact that on rare occasions, there can be shortages or excesses of testosterone in the womb during fetal development. According to what I've read, this can lead to changes in the way the brain develops so that it takes on some of the typical characteristics of the brain of someone of the opposite sex. These individuals sometimes develop gender dysphoria later.

Someone else who doesn't understand the difference between 'gender dysphoria' and transgender. give people a phrase... and they'll parrot it.

As far as I can tell, the "gender is mind, sex is body" idea is more a product of some modern schools of sociology rather than of biology.

You do nothing to make that nonsensical argument supported. You don't know what sociology is, either. Do you think you are your gender? Do you not get that's a brain function? Do you not get the brain is biological?
 
Gender is a mental process, not a biological structure. The brain is the biological hardware, thoughts (like gender et al) are the mental software.

Mental processes ARE biological processes. Thoughts are the product of the brain just as sweat if the product of sweat glands.
 
Forced speech isn't free speech. I won't call you "Lord Bigglesworth" under threat of finiancial harm or loss of freedom. Y'all can go **** yourself, Lord Bigglesworth. How's that?
 
Forced speech isn't free speech. I won't call you "Lord Bigglesworth" under threat of finiancial harm or loss of freedom. Y'all can go **** yourself, Lord Bigglesworth. How's that?
Listen, lady, I don’t want to force you to be a decent person. I want you to just be a decent person.
 
Mental processes ARE biological processes. Thoughts are the product of the brain just as sweat if the product of sweat glands.
Semantics. You missed (or twisted) the point.
Point being - you can't 'change' the Biological Structure of chromosomes or anatomy at large; Biological Processes can be altered. Thought is a Biological Process of the brain, not the Biological structure of the brain.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Can you provide an example?
I'm pretty sure I said that.
You can alter the biological process of sweating by exposing sweat glands to Aluminum Chloralhydrate for instance. Drugs alter biological processes also, as do many external influences.

The initial premise was that if placental hormonal levels affect the developing brain to favor the masculine and feminine, the biological structure of the brain has been affected, which influences the predisposition of gender identification. If this is the case, the transgender (not the gender dysphoric) is transgender at birth, and should not be denied or censored from gender specific information regardless of age; even K~3. Gender is not sex or porn, except to the LGBTphobic and politically motivated.
 
You can alter the biological process of sweating by exposing sweat glands to Aluminum Chloralhydrate for instance. Drugs alter biological processes also, as do many external influences.

That's temporary interference of processes rather than permanent change. Even if the change is permanently affected by daily dosage, the fact that daily interference is necessary proves that the nature of the process has not been changed.

The initial premise was that if placental hormonal levels affect the developing brain to favor the masculine and feminine, the biological structure of the brain has been affected, which influences the predisposition of gender identification.

Okay. I don't think I said anything to dispute that.

If this is the case, the transgender (not the gender dysphoric) is transgender at birth, and should not be denied or censored from gender specific information regardless of age; even K~3. Gender is not sex or porn, except to the LGBTphobic and politically motivated.

This may be an exercise in hair-splitting. Since 100% of what goes on within humans, including their thoughts and feelings, is biological, it still comes down to a disconnect between thoughts/feelings/desires vs. genitalia. I'm not really sure we disagree on that.
 
...

The initial premise was that if placental hormonal levels affect the developing brain to favor the masculine and feminine, the biological structure of the brain has been affected, which influences the predisposition of gender identification. If this is the case, the transgender (not the gender dysphoric) is transgender at birth, and should not be denied or censored from gender specific information regardless of age; even K~3. Gender is not sex or porn, except to the LGBTphobic and politically motivated.

No, that does not necessarily follow. The science shows a predisposition toward homosexuality or transgender / gender dysphoria. It does not show a deterministic relationship.
 
That's temporary interference of processes rather than permanent change. Even if the change is permanently affected by daily dosage, the fact that daily interference is necessary proves that the nature of the process has not been changed.
As you stated it, I agree.
Okay. I don't think I said anything to dispute that.

This may be an exercise in hair-splitting. Since 100% of what goes on within humans, including their thoughts and feelings, is biological, it still comes down to a disconnect between thoughts/feelings/desires vs. genitalia. I'm not really sure we disagree on that.
It may not be a 'disconnect' if it is normal for the person displaying feminine specific gender traits to have male genitalia or vice versa. The term normal is relative, and requires a benchmark acceptable to the society and science in question.

I think we are on the same page for the most part - in most sex vs. gender, normal vs. sicko debates, I've learned hair-splitting is the SOP.
 
No, that does not necessarily follow. The science shows a predisposition toward homosexuality or transgender / gender dysphoria. It does not show a deterministic relationship.
I base my opinion (overriding the extremely disputable science) on personal experience; living in the 'gender fluid' world has shown me a different world than what science and society had determined for me.

My parents tried to beat it out of me, and even sent me to Catholic school; they knew it, and I knew it - even from a pre-school age. But what I thought, felt, and knew as normal to me, was unrequited on every level; understanding and resolving what I was, was elusive, and cloaked in both lack of information, mis-information, and rejection on every front.

After spending too much of my 60+ years on this planet trying to be something I'm not, I've managed to evolve past the toxic masculinity facade I was forced into, and now embrace both the masculine and feminine. It is so sad that so many people get stuck in the same destructive loop; no wonder so many commit suicide - this planet does not feel like home to us.
 
Please think about this. You are advocating that a person should be compelled to utter words they don't want to. Seriously - think about that. Freedom of speech is destroyed by compelled speech every bit as much as it is by restricted speech.
He is a teacher. His rights to free speech in this context are inferior to the students right to be addressed as they choose imo.
 
He is a teacher. His rights to free speech in this context are inferior to the students right to be addressed as they choose imo.
I see your point but disagree. IMO protecting speech we disagree with as strongly as speech we agree with is the true test of how much we value our free speech right. In this context I don’t think someone’s desire to only hear the speech they want and agree with is as important as someone’s right to say what may be offensive.
That said I also full believe just because it may be your right it doesn’t not mean you should act like a jackass in exercising it. I would like to see the students organize a protest that constantly targets this particular teacher with misgendered pronouns. Throw it back at him until either he breaks or the university steps in to find a legal solution.
 
I see your point but disagree. IMO protecting speech we disagree with as strongly as speech we agree with is the true test of how much we value our free speech right. In this context I don’t think someone’s desire to only hear the speech they want and agree with is as important as someone’s right to say what may be offensive.
That said I also full believe just because it may be your right it doesn’t not mean you should act like a jackass in exercising it. I would like to see the students organize a protest that constantly targets this particular teacher with misgendered pronouns. Throw it back at him until either he breaks or the university steps in to find a legal solution.
This is not speech we disagree with. This is purposeful 'hate' speech, referring to someone as a different gender than they prefer. It would be like me being in a position of authority calling you she/her (assuming gender from your avatar). I liken it to the pharmacist that doesn't want to prescribe morning after pills. It is their right, but they should get new jobs.
 
This is not speech we disagree with. This is purposeful 'hate' speech, referring to someone as a different gender than they prefer. It would be like me being in a position of authority calling you she/her (assuming gender from your avatar).
But it is speech you disagree with. You want the person to use the pronouns you feel are appropriate for the situation. I am Not arguing that it’s the correct choice to make or that the teacher isn’t a prick for his actions. Acting like a prick and saying offensive crap is his right. Free speech isn’t about only protecting the words ypu like.
I liken it to the pharmacist that doesn't want to prescribe morning after pills. It is their right, but they should get new jobs.
If it is like the pharmacist and it is their right however they should get a new job then to be consistent you will would also feel the teacher has the right to call the student by the wrong pronoun, seems a little contradictory to the original claim of students rights were more important, but they should look at a new career. That is something I agree with. We may take different paths but it seems we can agree on this person should look at a different field of employment.
 
But it is speech you disagree with. You want the person to use the pronouns you feel are appropriate for the situation. I am Not arguing that it’s the correct choice to make or that the teacher isn’t a prick for his actions. Acting like a prick and saying offensive crap is his right. Free speech isn’t about only protecting the words ypu like.

If it is like the pharmacist and it is their right however they should get a new job then to be consistent you will would also feel the teacher has the right to call the student by the wrong pronoun, seems a little contradictory to the original claim of students rights were more important, but they should look at a new career. That is something I agree with. We may take different paths but it seems we can agree on this person should look at a different field of employment.
You misinterpret me. I call it hate speech because of his position of authority over the student. If another student chooses to use incorrect pronouns that is free speech. When the speaker has control over the 'hearer' that's hate speech imo. Also, a teacher is a de facto government employee.

(y)
 
You misinterpret me. I call it hate speech because of his position of authority over the student. If another student chooses to use incorrect pronouns that is free speech. When the speaker has control over the 'hearer' that's hate speech imo. Also, a teacher is a de facto government employee.

(y)
Asking for a little clarification. Are you saying that in order for something to be labeled as hate speech the offensive remark must be made by someone with a certain level of control over whomever they are addressing? Or is this case involving a university a little different or special case because of the student teacher dynamic and outside of a university setting the control aspect for making something hate speech is less important.
 
I see your point but disagree. IMO protecting speech we disagree with as strongly as speech we agree with is the true test of how much we value our free speech right. In this context I don’t think someone’s desire to only hear the speech they want and agree with is as important as someone’s right to say what may be offensive.
That said I also full believe just because it may be your right it doesn’t not mean you should act like a jackass in exercising it. I would like to see the students organize a protest that constantly targets this particular teacher with misgendered pronouns. Throw it back at him until either he breaks or the university steps in to find a legal solution.
In general, I agree with all that. Can a white teacher in a public institution refer to all his black male students as "boy" but address white students by their names? That's pretty much the same question we're dealing with here. Perhaps that should be allowed without the college punishing the professor for his speech. But then the students can protest, walk out, give him 0s on his teaching evaluations, boycott future classes, and so at a meaningful level force that decision to have negative consequences for the professor through the students' exercise of their free speech rights, in that public institution. That is certainly a legitimate outcome, IMO.

FWIW, and you might have addressed it, but I really get impatient and a bit tired of these assholes using religion as a shield. In cases like this, I simply don't agree that, "because my religion says so" is a legitimate excuse. If a "Christian" can do it, then everyone should be able to do that same thing in these cases. It shouldn't matter why Bob refuses to respect trans individuals, or refuses to serve a gay couple, etc. and any 'force' used by the institution to demonstrate respect should apply to everyone, since the force isn't being used to target anyone's religious practice.
 
Asking for a little clarification. Are you saying that in order for something to be labeled as hate speech the offensive remark must be made by someone with a certain level of control over whomever they are addressing? Or is this case involving a university a little different or special case because of the student teacher dynamic and outside of a university setting the control aspect for making something hate speech is less important.
No, I meant to say that the hate speech bar is lowered in a place where there is an authority and a person subject to that authority. A student refusing to use pronouns another student wants is thoughtless imo, but is not hate speech.
 
No, I meant to say that the hate speech bar is lowered in a place where there is an authority and a person subject to that authority. A student refusing to use pronouns another student wants is thoughtless imo, but is not hate speech.
I think I understand what you are saying although I’m not sure I agree with there being different bars for different situations when it comes to hate speech.
Either way I would like to see a student lead protest lead, let them pressure the school
 
I think I understand what you are saying although I’m not sure I agree with there being different bars for different situations when it comes to hate speech.
Either way I would like to see a student lead protest lead, let them pressure the school
Wouldn't you agree that something said by the 'overling' to the 'underling' carries different import than a conversation between equals?
 
Wouldn't you agree that something said by the 'overling' to the 'underling' carries different import than a conversation between equals?
I think trying to make the distinction is a mistake. If something is considered hate speech then it is hate speech. I don’t support it’s not hate speech here, but hate speech there, or could be there depending on who said what when and a list of other factors.
 
I think trying to make the distinction is a mistake. If something is considered hate speech then it is hate speech. I don’t support it’s not hate speech here, but hate speech there, or could be there depending on who said what when and a list of other factors.
I see no difference between hate speech and sexual harassment speech in this dynamic.
 
Back
Top Bottom