Virginia high court rules for teacher who won't use transgender students' pronouns

[rahl]

"Does not address what I said" is the debating equivalent of moving your King right off the board, and claiming a draw since I'll never be able to checkmate you.

actually it was simply pointing out that nothing you said had anything to do with what I said.

But frankly I might be giving you too much credit. Are you actually trying to concede the point?

I'm refuting the point. No person can be compelled to use a pronoun. That is a violation of the 1st amendment, and why the teacher won in court.

You absolutely CAN be compelled to call someone by a particular title, when you're working and they're a customer.

no you can't. it's why the teacher didn't lose in court.

Try "welcome to Wendy's, fartface. What kind of sugar poop do you want to eat today?"

zero legal consequences for doing so.

Teachers are providing a service (on behalf of government, or in private schools on behalf of parents/patrons) and "my free speech!" extends only to making complaints through proper channels. You absolutely CANNOT insult or demean any of the students.

of course you can. you may get fired, but there is no legal consequence.

If you do, you should be fired for cause, and perhaps prosecuted as well if the abuse was of a sexual or privileged information nature.

you can not be prosecuted. If you are using sexual harassing language, that is different.

For example, if the kid is on puberty blockers (note this is very unusual) and the teacher knows that from school records, disclosing it might be quite expensive speech for them. It would have to be a civil case though, and the parents probably don't want to put their kid through that.

that would be a hippa violation, and thus able to be prosecuted. the facts remain, nobody has a right to be called what they want. They only have the right to call THEMSELVES what they want.

 

[NotreDame]

Enough to get you fired from your job.

In Congressional hearings, in 2019, Lt Col Vindman was repeatedly addressed as "Mr Vindman" by a certain congressman. Lt Col Vindman had to publicly tell the congressman he was in the wrong and he should be addressed as "Colonel Vindman"

So what? This example begs the question whether the congressman was “in the wrong.” Mr. Vindman asserting the congressman is wrong to do so doesn’t make it so.

 

[highroller]

I agree, but that's not what happened.

Pharmacist denies woman miscarriage medication over religious beliefs

The ACLU sent a letter of complaint asking the Meijer supermarket chain to change its policies.

www.nbcnews.com

If a woman can sue (and win) Abercrombie and Fitch for not hiring her because of her Hijab, this is right in line with that system.

I see a point in the near future where someone creates a racist religion to discriminate against people.

 

[NotreDame]

Derived from respecting one another, which is essential to living in a free society.

No, history has demonstrated a “free society” can co-exist with a considerable amount of a lack of or no “respecting one another,” and there’s no evidence for the implied notion of your argument that a lack of respect for another manifesting itself as a refusal to call someone by their requested title and the free society crumbles. Yes, that is an implied notion of your reasoning as you tie respecting one another in this context to being “essential,” a necessary condition to a free society.

And your argument suffers from an assertion of fact to an implied “should” conclusion with several steps between your premise and conclusion that you notably failed to illuminate and discuss.

P1: Respecting one another is essential to living in a free society.
P2: Unstated premise: people should not engage in conduct that is contrary to respecting one another in a free society
P3: unstated premise: respecting one another is necessary to a free society
P3A: not respecting one another, specifically refusing to address people by a requested title, means a free society cannot exist.
P4: people in a free society should not enage in conduct that is contrary to what is essential to a free society, such as respecting one another.
P4: unstated premise: respecting one another, a necessary in a free society, is to address people consistent with a stated request they be addrsssed in some specific manner.

Subconclusion: not calling people by their requested title is not to respect one another, and doing so means the free society will crumble as that is a necessary condition for a free society.

Conclusion: implied: people in a free society should not refuse to call people by a requested title as that means the free society will crumble as they aren’t respecting one another.

As soon as you provide evidence this specific lack of respecting one another means it is the fatal arrow in the heart of our free society, then your argument has more strength.

Right now, however, the reasoning of your argument and the implied premises/conclusions isn’t tenable. It strains all rational thought of how a refusal to address people by a requested title is going to topple this free society. Especially since the U.S. was birthed in the idea people with their titles can piss off of they demand to be addressed by a title.

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:” Article 1, Section 9.

 

[HonestJoe]

If a student at the school started constantly calling that teacher "Miss Cross", I wonder how long it would take them to be expelled.

 

[Rich2018]

If a student at the school started constantly calling that teacher "Miss Cross", I wonder how long it would take them to be expelled.

Good point, well made.

 

[mrjurrs]

“In everything, therefore, [n]treat people the same way you want [o]them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”


You skip over a lot of steps to reach your conclusion. No exegesis as to the Greek meaning of the words of the passage. After all, the oldest Gospel manuscripts are in Greek, Koine Greek to be precise. No exegesis as to the meaning of the passage to include use of transgender pronouns. You just pluck a passge from a Gospel book that announces a general principle and presume the principle mandates Christians to use transgender pronouns.

That approach is parallel to plucking a specific phrase out of the 1st amendment, such as “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” and on this basis leap to the conclusion expressive speech is protected since it is “speech.” Its right there, in the 1st amendment, “free speech.”

Such a shallow textual interpretation isn’t persuasive, especially for words and phrases appearing in much older texts. The element of the text written in a different language also prudently cautions against your leap frogging textual interpretation.

A suitable beginning for a proper understanding of the phrase is to understand how and why the principle announced by Jesus has its genesis in the Law and Prophets.

Jesus ties his phrase to “this is the Law and the Prophets.” Well, anyone familiar with the Law and the Prophets would realize there’s nothing in the writings of either recognizing transgender, acknowledging rights of transgender or use of the gender identity appropriate pronoun.

Don't really care about the foundational underpinnings. I was referring to the professor treating the student as the 'lesser'. Doesn't seem very 'god fearing' to treat people that way just because he didn't want to call her the way she preferred.

 

[Unbeknownst]

Completely disregarding if transwomen are really women, or if transmen are really men, we know the following things are scientific fact.

1. Gender dysphoria exists
2. The only known treatment is to transition to the opposite gender
3. Dysphoria is exacerbated by misgendering

This being said, this teacher deliberately caused this student dysphoria and interfered with the social aspect of this student's transition by misgendering them, and that isn't okay. He can believe whatever he wants to believe, but he shouldn't be a teacher if is unwilling to accommodate a student on something is simple as a change in pronouns.

 

[Rich2018]

Don't really care about the foundational underpinnings. I was referring to the professor treating the student as the 'lesser'. Doesn't seem very 'god fearing' to treat people that way just because he didn't want to call her the way she preferred.

Another good point.

 

[NotreDame]

Don't really care about the foundational underpinnings. I was referring to the professor treating the student as the 'lesser'. Doesn't seem very 'god fearing' to treat people that way just because he didn't want to call her the way she preferred.

Of course not, which is in part why your POV isn’t the slightest bit persuasive.

And who and why should anyone care for your perception of what is or isn’t “god fearing”? Your perception isn’t any more superior to anyone else’s, so it is mysterious why you think others should march to the best of your drum.

 

[Rich2018]

Completely disregarding if transwomen are really women, or if transmen are really men, we know the following things are scientific fact.

1. Gender dysphoria exists
2. The only known treatment is to transition to the opposite gender
3. Dysphoria is exacerbated by misgendering

This being said, this teacher deliberately caused this student dysphoria and interfered with the social aspect of this student's transition by misgendering them, and that isn't okay. He can believe whatever he wants to believe, but he shouldn't be a teacher if is unwilling to accommodate a student on something is simple as a change in pronouns.

Future generations might look at attitudes today as our descendants as late as the 1960's viewed homosexuality and treated it as a crime.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Let me take you back to high-school biology:

Female = Chairwoman
Male = Chairman

Why wouldn't we call a spade a spade? Gee .. this is so complicated.

Suppose we DON'T KNOW the gender of the chairperson. Suppose they haven't been elected yet. This is just one example of referring to a person whose gender is not known. "Hall monitor, if you see another child running in the hall, get their name and issue them a ticket."

Your insistence that the word chairperson is un-necessary, rests entirely on KNOWING THE GENDER of the chairperson. Basing terms on one's own ignorant assumptions is exactly the problem here. The US Constitution and documents of that era, use man to mean person ... or do they? Being such entrenched and ignorant sexists then, it's likely that sometimes (eg in a Census count) man means person of any age, while other times (eg keeping and bearing arms) they were thinking man means a male adult person. 'Cos for sure they weren't thinking of States calling up a militia with women in combat roles. We didn't need an amendment to change the titles, as a literalist would do. The court just deemed the wider meaning was the correct one. Think on that a while, because extending rights more widely should NEVER require justification. Restricting existing rights, should only be done with justification ... and preferably, an amendment (eg 18th).

Removing words (like PERSON) from the vocabulary, will not remove the modern understanding that women can do anything a man can do. Gender neutral terms are thoroughly entrenched in our language now, and claiming they're not necessary because three words can fit the meaning of one, is the most extraordinary reactionary bigotry I've yet seen on this site.

 

[Ug make hammer]

actually it was simply pointing out that nothing you said had anything to do with what I said.

I'm refuting the point. No person can be compelled to use a pronoun. That is a violation of the 1st amendment, and why the teacher won in court.

no you can't. it's why the teacher didn't lose in court.

zero legal consequences for doing so.

of course you can. you may get fired, but there is no legal consequence.

you can not be prosecuted. If you are using sexual harassing language, that is different.

that would be a hippa violation, and thus able to be prosecuted. the facts remain, nobody has a right to be called what they want. They only have the right to call THEMSELVES what they want.

So basically "its not illegal, never mind if it can or should get you fired".

There never should have been a court-case. The teacher should not have been fired ... for speaking up at a staff meeting. That IS an appropriate place for teachers to have free speech (they don't have it in the classroom, obviously). I forget the term for this, it's something like "ripeness". The teacher had not actually caused the harm school admins feared (presumably making a kid cry or something). Admins should simply have told him "that's your opinion, but don't do it" and if the teacher had found some way to square his religious beliefs with the proper way to address children, then no further action would be necessary. For instance, only ever address children by their name.

"Charlotte, please get up the climbing wall and help Shayleen down. You don't have to touch Shayleen, just be nearby so Shayleen isn't so afraid of falling." Awkward, but workable.

Imagine if this religious fruitcake had tenets of "never address girls directly, because it is indecent." Or how about "address all children as He". The court would just laugh, but no, this tenets of the Culture Wars is apparently a legitimate religious belief. They don't do it that way in France.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Completely disregarding if transwomen are really women, or if transmen are really men, we know the following things are scientific fact.

1. Gender dysphoria exists
2. The only known treatment is to transition to the opposite gender
3. Dysphoria is exacerbated by misgendering

This being said, this teacher deliberately caused this student dysphoria and interfered with the social aspect of this student's transition by misgendering them, and that isn't okay. He can believe whatever he wants to believe, but he shouldn't be a teacher if is unwilling to accommodate a student on something is simple as a change in pronouns.

2. is a bit of a stretch. Surely there are some people whose dysphoria is less trouble to them that the transitioning process would be. I mean surely since I am one such person. I'm quite sure if I tried transitioning, I would stop and wobble around at neutral gender, and have a lot more difficulty relating to others than I do now. I've heard of others "stranded" halfway through transition, and isn't it also the riskiest time for suicide?

Just a few times, I've met people who despite talking to them for a while, I'm still quite uncertain if they're men or women (boys or girls). I'm not sure if they're teasing me (I'm bi, not that they'd know) but it makes me uncomfortable, like anything I say is investigating something they hold private. And even if they adults, I'm inclined to treat them as children which would NOT go well in a work situation.

 

[jotathought]

Suppose we DON'T KNOW the gender of the chairperson. Suppose they haven't been elected yet. This is just one example of referring to a person whose gender is not known. "Hall monitor, if you see another child running in the hall, get their name and issue them a ticket."

Your insistence that the word chairperson is un-necessary, rests entirely on KNOWING THE GENDER of the chairperson. Basing terms on one's own ignorant assumptions is exactly the problem here. The US Constitution and documents of that era, use man to mean person ... or do they? Being such entrenched and ignorant sexists then, it's likely that sometimes (eg in a Census count) man means person of any age, while other times (eg keeping and bearing arms) they were thinking man means a male adult person. 'Cos for sure they weren't thinking of States calling up a militia with women in combat roles. We didn't need an amendment to change the titles, as a literalist would do. The court just deemed the wider meaning was the correct one. Think on that a while, because extending rights more widely should NEVER require justification. Restricting existing rights, should only be done with justification ... and preferably, an amendment (eg 18th).

Removing words (like PERSON) from the vocabulary, will not remove the modern understanding that women can do anything a man can do. Gender neutral terms are thoroughly entrenched in our language now, and claiming they're not necessary because three words can fit the meaning of one, is the most extraordinary reactionary bigotry I've yet seen on this site.

If you're unable to explain the topic in a few words .. you don't understand the topic ... (modified quote from Albert Einstein) ..

It's pretty easy to determine the sex of someone ... in a majority of scenarios. There are a few "Pats" like we've seen in Saturday Night Live, and that represents such a minute number of the whole. Regardless .. I'm just not going to buy de-genderizing language when it's clear there is male and female.

 

[Ug make hammer]

If you're unable to explain the topic in a few words .. you don't understand the topic ... (modified quote from Albert Einstein) ..

“Never memorize something that you can look up.”
― Albert Einstein

It's pretty easy to determine the sex of someone ... in a majority of scenarios. There are a few "Pats" like we've seen in Saturday Night Live, and that represents such a minute number of the whole. Regardless .. I'm just not going to buy de-genderizing language when it's clear there is male and female.

The language already has terms for indeterminate gender. As it MUST have to describe chairpersons who haven't been elected yet. Or naughty children who haven't been caught yet. Or persons like myself who have not explicitly told you their gender yet. Many, many situations in which we need to refer to a singular person whose gender we do not know.

You prefer "chairman or chairwoman" for an unknown chairperson. You're fighting a position that was lost decades ago. Let's just leave it at that.

 

[mrjurrs]

Of course not, which is in part why your POV isn’t the slightest bit persuasive.

And who and why should anyone care for your perception of what is or isn’t “god fearing”? Your perception isn’t any more superior to anyone else’s, so it is mysterious why you think others should march to the best of your drum.

So you've got nothing. How do you defend Christians not treating people equally?

 

[Rich2018]

So what? This example begs the question whether the congressman was “in the wrong.” Mr. Vindman asserting the congressman is wrong to do so doesn’t make it so.

Yes it does, and the congressman was wrong, and retracted.

Another example might be certain Republicans refusal to call President Biden's wife "Doctor", because her doctorship is not in a medical field.
They too are in the wrong.

 

[NotreDame]

So you've got nothing. How do you defend Christians not treating people equally?

No, “you’ve got nothing.” I’m not the one making moral mandates for others to follow. You are! Hence, it’s your burden to argue/provide evidence for others to live by your own sense of moral edicts.

And your loaded question is another problem, or what we call in law a “leading question.”

But to reply to your question, perhaps the same way you defend non-Christians “not treating people equally.” To which you may reply non-Christians are not required to treat people equally at all times for all circumstances and the same is true of Christians.

Or maybe you’ll take a more cautious approach and say whether the unequal treatment is justified or permissible is contingent upon the specific facts of each instance, to which I will say is true of Christians as well.

So, perhaps you can ask a better question than your loaded question above.

 

[NotreDame]

Yes it does, and the congressman was wrong, and retracted.

Another example might be certain Republicans refusal to call President Biden's wife "Doctor", because her doctorship is not in a medical field.
They too are in the wrong.

Was the Congressman wrong? You presume the Congressman was wrong. But have said nothing and provided no evidence establishing the Congressman was wrong.

Your claiming of “wrong” is meaningless. It is no different than someone else claiming they were “right.”

And indeed, some smart people have said Biden’s wife isn’t a “doctor,” that she doesn’t merit the title “doctor” and they aren’t going to call her “doctor” and they argued why they are right.

 

[rahl]

So basically "its not illegal, never mind if it can or should get you fired".

My posts are in crystal clear english. There is no need to try and interpret them.

There never should have been a court-case. The teacher should not have been fired ... for speaking up at a staff meeting. That IS an appropriate place for teachers to have free speech (they don't have it in the classroom, obviously). I forget the term for this, it's something like "ripeness". The teacher had not actually caused the harm school admins feared (presumably making a kid cry or something). Admins should simply have told him "that's your opinion, but don't do it" and if the teacher had found some way to square his religious beliefs with the proper way to address children, then no further action would be necessary. For instance, only ever address children by their name.

"Charlotte, please get up the climbing wall and help Shayleen down. You don't have to touch Shayleen, just be nearby so Shayleen isn't so afraid of falling." Awkward, but workable.

Imagine if this religious fruitcake had tenets of "never address girls directly, because it is indecent." Or how about "address all children as He". The court would just laugh, but no, this tenets of the Culture Wars is apparently a legitimate religious belief. They don't do it that way in France.

nobody has a right to work. a private company, or in this case a public school, can fire a teacher for whatever they wish, as long as it does not violate the civil rights act or other federal/state law.

The point is, no person can be compelled by govn't to use a particular type of pronoun.

 

[Rich2018]

Was the Congressman wrong?

I just said so didn't I, please read back.

You presume the Congressman was wrong

Because he was.

But have said nothing and provided no evidence establishing the Congressman was wrong.

Yes I did, please read back.

Your claiming of “wrong” is meaningless, It is no different than someone else claiming they were “right.”

"Wrong" and "right" are opposites are far from "meaningless
Did you not learn that at school ?

And indeed, some smart people have said Biden’s wife isn’t a “doctor,” that she doesn’t merit the title “doctor” and they aren’t going to call her “doctor” and they argued why they are right.

Really ?
Which "smart" people ?
And who are you to be able to characterize them as "smart" ?
What is your criteria ?

 

[Court Jester]

Completely disregarding if transwomen are really women, or if transmen are really men, we know the following things are scientific fact.

1. Gender dysphoria exists

From the innerwebz:

Dysphoria (from Greek: δύσφορος (dysphoros), δυσ-, difficult and φέρειν, to bear) is a profound state of unease or dissatisfaction. It is the opposite of euphoria. In a psychiatric context, dysphoria may accompany depression, anxiety or agitation.

Dysphoria is a state of generalized unhappiness, restlessness, dissatisfaction, or frustration, and it can be a symptom of several mental health conditions.

my take:
So basically mental illness. One may have dysphoria because their favorte TV show is cancelled. So tell me how it that a problem for the rest of us to worry about?

2. The only known treatment is to transition to the opposite gender

OR get mental heatlthcare and come to grips that you are naturally male or naturally female. Learn how to regulate your feelings.
Since nobody seems to suggest that transsexualism is a form of schizophrenia ---- which generally cannot be helped. Then transsexuals
will benefit by therapy and medications to ease their unrealistic and overwhelming feelings of depression.

3. Dysphoria is exacerbated by misgendering

Sex changed transsexuals still have a high degree of suicide. Why is that?

This being said, this teacher deliberately caused this student dysphoria and interfered with the social aspect of this student's transition by misgendering them, and that isn't okay.

No, the teacher just refuses to play a silly game of LYING to the student and to everyone else about what is clearly a claimed gender. Why force society to
play along with this charade? If a student wanted to be called a unicorn, should we play along?

He can believe whatever he wants to believe, but he shouldn't be a teacher if is unwilling to accommodate a student on something is simple as a change in pronouns.

He is teaching REALITY. One aberrant confused student does not get to reinvent natural reality for everyone else.

 

[mrjurrs]

No, “you’ve got nothing.” I’m not the one making moral mandates for others to follow. You are! Hence, it’s your burden to argue/provide evidence for others to live by your own sense of moral edicts.

And your loaded question is another problem, or what we call in law a “leading question.”

But to reply to your question, perhaps the same way you defend non-Christians “not treating people equally.” To which you may reply non-Christians are not required to treat people equally at all times for all circumstances and the same is true of Christians.

Or maybe you’ll take a more cautious approach and say whether the unequal treatment is justified or permissible is contingent upon the specific facts of each instance, to which I will say is true of Christians as well.

So, perhaps you can ask a better question than your loaded question above.

It's a moral mandate to call people as they wish to be called? I thought that was just being polite. What are you so afraid of?

 

[NotreDame]

It's a moral mandate to call people as they wish to be called? I thought that was just being polite. What are you so afraid of?

Ah, and the beauty of freedom is to refuse to call someone by a specific, requested title. You know, freedom, the very word you have expressed antipathy towards time and again at forum.

What are you so afraid of if people have this freedom?