Teacher: Christian faith prohibits treating transgendered students with respect and dignity

[Prestor John]

I did not know what my birth sex was from the moment I was born. In fact, i don't think anyone can know. Generally, if not always, the brain lacks the capacity to understand sex or gender let alone take part in a meta-analysis in order to understand one's own gender.

But no, i was suggesting that the person is identifying with something different than the onlooker assumes. But I supppse it is applicable to the individual as well. Afterall, they are assuming as well. It may be apparent that I was born with a penis, and I identify as male, but did I know prior to DNA testing? Honestly, I was pretty certain, but I cannot say that I knew.

You knew.

When you were born, everyone knew.

When you first developed a sense of "self", you knew.

If instead you grew up being confused, this is a sign of a mental illness.

Except it is not delusion. What is delusional? You dont think transgender people are aware of their apparent birth sex?

What do you mean by "apparent"? You mean "sex", there is no need for any other qualifiers.

Transgendered people claim that they are members of the opposite sex, despite biological fact.

They suffer from delusion.

I am not so sure it is always fairly easy to differentiate.

It is almost always easily discernible by sight.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You never support your claims. You always come up with a reason not to.

Again, I am not going to exert any effort or time for you.

Please don't lie about me. The only times I have not for you is when you made unreasonable demands. For example I pointed out in the past that you tend to run away, a claim that you denied, and get you threatened to run away late yesterday. I can quote that post since it was recent.

Meanwhile your claim about Jehovah's Witnesses being fired appears to be false. I not only did your homework for you, I linked the search. That alone demonstrated that your claim about me was a lie.

 

[Curious George]

You knew.

When you were born, everyone knew.

I am going to have to ask you to support that because it is contrary to current mainstream belief.

When you first developed a sense of "self", you knew.

Even then, this is not so. The idea of sex is more involved than the idea of self. Firstly the idea of sex amd gender build on an idea of self. First one must realize that sex is static. Then one must realize that others possess a static sex. Then one must recognize how to categorize sex. Finally one can place self in a category of sex.

If instead you grew up being confused, this is a sign of a mental illness.

While I am sure some transgender people feel confused. The confusion is not about reality. Rather it is from understanding reality.

What do you mean by "apparent"? You mean "sex", there is no need for any other qualifiers.

Nope, I mean apparent. Appears from one perspective or another.

Transgendered people claim that they are members of the opposite sex, despite biological fact.

And what is that biological fact? Is it genital appearance? Hormone level? Chromosomes? Please tell me how you define sex.

They suffer from delusion.

You keep sayimg that. But you cannot seem to explain what is delusional. Do they think they have a penis or vagina when they do not?

It is almost always easily discernible by sight.

By what? Genitalia? Facial structure? Hair-cut?

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes as it was addressing a different point.

And that point is......?

Only the factor of compelled speech against one's religious view.

Which we've already established happens all the time with government employees.

There is the JW case I already mentioned.

Which is irrelevant to this case, as the JW case was about student speech, not government employee speech.

Other cases of:

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

Nothing to do with government employees.

Wooley vs. Maynard (1977)

Nothing to do with government employees.

Pruneyard Shopping Center vs. Robins (1980)

Nothing to do with government employees.

Janus v American Federation of State, Local, & Municipal Employees (2018)

That was about collection of union dues for public sector unions, so irrelevant to this case.

If those are the best you have to support your assertion that the First Amendment prohibits the government from having a say in how its employees speak to the public, then you have made yet another claim that you cannot support.

One is an endorsement of while the other is the job itself with no endorsement

Why isn't a teacher telling their class that the earth is spherical an endorsement of a spherical earth?

Wrong. First off part of your question was loaded as you manufactured a quote I never made. I have no obligation to meet your demand for a quote I never made. Paraphrasing vs citation. This is grade school stuff here.

So now are you saying an employer can do something about an employee's actions, even if those actions aren't specifically covered in their contract?

The breach of contract has the explanation you wanted if you bothered reading it. You didn't.

I read it. It didn't support your assertions at all.

Wrong. I backed it up. I just can not force you to read something you have no interest in reading. I have no obligation to answer a quote you manufactured. Again read the breach of contract link.

Okay, you need to make up your mind here. One one hand you're saying you backed up your assertion but on the other you're saying you never made the assertion. Which is it?

Yes it is. Her is a female pronoun. The student is not female. Language and religious endorsement is required for this case. Cat is dog, up is down.

Why? Why is a teacher calling a student "her" an endorsement of transgenderism?

Never said that. I said the rejecting use of the new name is groundless. The pronoun use has a basis is the whole "made male and female" God speak. Read it again.

The above makes no sense.

No it is a religious concept.

So is a flat earth, young earth, special creation of humans, no premarital sex, and a host of other things about which teachers are told specifically what to say.

Again read the linked thread. Science is not truth but model which are more probable than not. If you are really in brain in a vat in a simulation (a truth) then science only represent the simulation not a truth.

Oh brother....now you're introducing yet another one of your made up legal concepts, this time "it's okay for the government to compel teachers' speech on science because science is not a 'truth model'".

I'd ask for support for this assertion, but given your track record so far, I won't expect much.

Again the whole "made male and female" fundamentalist Christians spout. They do it for homosexuality as well claiming it is a choice thus not natural

And fundamentalists don't go on and on about the age of the earth, special creation of humans, and a host of other topics about which the government dictates what teachers can and can't tell their students?

By treating a male like a female, addressing them as such, etc, etc

Explain how this teacher referring to the student as "her" causes him to modify his worldview, whereas a teacher telling their students that humans evolved from primates doesn't.

Wrong. Science isn't a truth it is model and representation. If science is a truth it is unfalsifiable. Read Popper.

Your entirely made-up legal concept is noted.

You have changed the story. At no point before did you mention a relation to any work project itself.

You just need to pay better attention.

Post #285: "The emails I send are to our partners and contain work-related items, thus they are not "personal", nor were they written on personal time."

Post #330: "The scenario is....I'm at work, writing work-related emails to my employer's business partners, and in the midst of those emails I start going off about purple monkey dragons on Mars."

Now again, can my employer do anything about the email? If so, on what basis?

Was this actually part of the employer's project itself? If no this is personal time and content made during work time. While a minor infraction you can still be fired for breaching the contract by using work time for personal time. You are not actually working ergo in breach.

Obviously it's work related, since I'm asking Mr. Smith why his project isn't addressing purple monkey dragons on Mars.

 

[Shad]

And that point is......?

Read the post again

Which we've already established happens all the time with government employees.

Nope.

Which is irrelevant to this case, as the JW case was about student speech, not government employee speech.

Wrong. The case was about citizens. You didn't read the ruling. Next!

Nothing to do with government employees.
Nothing to do with government employees.
Nothing to do with government employees.

All cases are about 1A and citizens. Next!

That was about collection of union dues for public sector unions, so irrelevant to this case.

Wrong it was endorsing something against their will which is a 1a violation. Read the ruling. Next!

If those are the best you have to support your assertion that the First Amendment prohibits the government from having a say in how its employees speak to the public, then you have made yet another claim that you cannot support.

Yup as each case compelled speech against a citizen's view by government. Next!

Why isn't a teacher telling their class that the earth is spherical an endorsement of a spherical earth?

Look up what science is. Next!

So now are you saying an employer can do something about an employee's actions, even if those actions aren't specifically covered in their contract?

Wrong. Read my point again. Next!

I read it. It didn't support your assertions at all.

Wrong. Read it again.

Okay, you need to make up your mind here. One one hand you're saying you backed up your assertion but on the other you're saying you never made the assertion. Which is it?

I backed up the contract point.
You made up a quote I never made ergo I do not answer a point I never made. Try again.

Why? Why is a teacher calling a student "her" an endorsement of transgenderism?

Yes as being TG has nothing to do with his job nor does use of a pronoun. Compelled speech.

The above makes no sense.

Wrong. Read it again and check the comment chain

So is a flat earth, young earth, special creation of humans, no premarital sex, and a host of other things about which teachers are told specifically what to say.

Which is about education. Next!

Oh brother....now you're introducing yet another one of your made up legal concepts, this time "it's okay for the government to compel teachers' speech on science because science is not a 'truth model'".

Wrong. It was about context differences and the job.

I'd ask for support for this assertion, but given your track record so far, I won't expect much.

I provided it. Next!

And fundamentalists don't go on and on about the age of the earth, special creation of humans, and a host of other topics about which the government dictates what teachers can and can't tell their students?

Science and part of education vs coddling 1 student over their worldview.

Explain how this teacher referring to the student as "her" causes him to modify his worldview, whereas a teacher telling their students that humans evolved from primates doesn't.

As the student is male. Her is a female pronoun. His religion does not believe in TG.

Your entirely made-up legal concept is noted.

Wrong as I never said it was legal concept. Next!

You just need to pay better attention.

Wrong. You just modified the story which is true. Next!

Post #285: "The emails I send are to our partners and contain work-related items, thus they are not "personal", nor were they written on personal time."

Post #330: "The scenario is....I'm at work, writing work-related emails to my employer's business partners, and in the midst of those emails I start going off about purple monkey dragons on Mars."

Answer my questions. Do note you changed it again.

Now again, can my employer do anything about the email? If so, on what basis?

Answer my questions

Obviously it's work related, since I'm asking Mr. Smith why his project isn't addressing purple monkey dragons on Mars.

Is that part of your boss' project or are you claiming it should be. See the difference?

 

[Shad]

You have entered into the realm of ideological zealotry. A trait you often try to label your religious peers as.

Bingo.

 

[Prestor John]

Please don't lie about me. The only times I have not for you is when you made unreasonable demands. For example I pointed out in the past that you tend to run away, a claim that you denied, and get you threatened to run away late yesterday. I can quote that post since it was recent.

Meanwhile your claim about Jehovah's Witnesses being fired appears to be false. I not only did your homework for you, I linked the search. That alone demonstrated that your claim about me was a lie.

As I said before, since you ignore the evidence I present I have no reason to engage you.

You can chalk it up as a win, if you want, but I benefit more from not having to deal with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said before, since you ignore the evidence I present I have no reason to engage you.

You can chalk it up as a win, if you want, but I benefit more from not having to deal with you.

The problem is that you did not present evidence. Like all other creationists you have no clue as to what is and what is not evidence. You could have tried again and asked why it was not evidence. You might have learned something if you did that, but knowledge is the enemy of your beliefs and you seem to know that..

And yes, if you run away once again it will of course be a win for me. Sadly not much of one since you did not benefit from it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Read the post again



Nope.



Wrong. The case was about citizens. You didn't read the ruling. Next!




All cases are about 1A and citizens. Next!



Wrong it was endorsing something against their will which is a 1a violation. Read the ruling. Next!



Yup as each case compelled speech against a citizen's view by government. Next!



Look up what science is. Next!



Wrong. Read my point again. Next!



Wrong. Read it again.



I backed up the contract point.
You made up a quote I never made ergo I do not answer a point I never made. Try again.



Yes as being TG has nothing to do with his job nor does use of a pronoun. Compelled speech.




Wrong. Read it again and check the comment chain



Which is about education. Next!



Wrong. It was about context differences and the job.



I provided it. Next!



Science and part of education vs coddling 1 student over their worldview.



As the student is male. Her is a female pronoun. His religion does not believe in TG.



Wrong as I never said it was legal concept. Next!




Wrong. You just modified the story which is true. Next!



Answer my questions. Do note you changed it again.



Answer my questions



Is that part of your boss' project or are you claiming it should be. See the difference?

As bizarre as you've been so far, you've managed to take it up yet another notch. To recap, you've argued...

In firing the teacher, the school district is in violation of contract law even though you have absolutely no idea what's in his contract.

If something is not specifically addressed in a contract, the employer cannot take action against an employee for it. You've never made this assertion but have also supported it. (BTW, you did make this claim HERE: "If the contact does not contain nor reference policy which the employer is subject to, any order outside contractual obligations is a breach of contract and illegal")

Schools have no say in how its teachers treat students.

If an employer gives an employee an order and the employee doesn't carry it out, it's "reprisal" for the employer to hold the employee accountable.

If a telemarketer tells its employees what to say it's just "procedure". If a school does it, it's "illegal compelled speech".....unless it's science curricula, then it's okay since science isn't a "truth model".

How a teacher addresses students is not part of how a teacher treats students.

There is no legal distinction between how a school treats students and how it treats its employees.

There is no link between transgenders and the pronouns used to address them.

Something, something...."objective moral truth"....something.

If a flat-earth believing science teacher is forced to teach a spherical earth, that's okay because the teacher isn't endorsing a spherical earth. If an anti-trans teacher is forced to use a pronoun when addressing a transgendered student, that's illegal because that's endorsement of transgenderism, because.....reasons.

By requiring the teacher to refer to the transgender student as "her", the school is forcing the teacher to change his worldview, because........reasons.

This has been most entertaining, but I think the entertainment value of your posts have hit the point of diminishing returns. So thank you for your time.

 

[Shad]

As bizarre as you've been so far, you've managed to take it up yet another notch. To recap, you've argued...

In firing the teacher, the school district is in violation of contract law even though you have absolutely no idea what's in his contract.

Wrong. Admin attempt to force him to violate his 1A rights via his contract. You never presented the contract as a counter. Next

If something is not specifically addressed in a contract, the employer cannot take action against an employee for it. You've never made this assertion but have also supported it. (BTW, you did make this claim HERE: "If the contact does not contain nor reference policy which the employer is subject to, any order outside contractual obligations is a breach of contract and illegal")

Still stands. See above. Next

Schools have no say in how its teachers treat students.

Not if it is forcing the teacher to violate their religion. Next

If an employer gives an employee an order and the employee doesn't carry it out, it's "reprisal" for the employer to hold the employee accountable.

Wrong. If I am a teach and the admin orders me to become a janitor I can tell them no and sue for contract violations. Next.

If a telemarketer tells its employees what to say it's just "procedure". If a school does it, it's "illegal compelled speech".....unless it's science curricula, then it's okay since science isn't a "truth model".

Procedure does not required violating religious beliefs. Next.

How a teacher addresses students is not part of how a teacher treats students.

By name which is the most common. Next

There is no legal distinction between how a school treats students and how it treats its employees.

No I said the cases I was using have no distinction.

There is no link between transgenders and the pronouns used to address them.

For the religious argument you made. Next.

Something, something...."objective moral truth"....something.

For someone on a religious forum to not know this is hilarious.

If a flat-earth believing science teacher is forced to teach a spherical earth, that's okay because the teacher isn't endorsing a spherical earth. If an anti-trans teacher is forced to use a pronoun when addressing a transgendered student, that's illegal because that's endorsement of transgenderism, because.....reasons.

Wrong. The later violates their religious belief. Next.

By requiring the teacher to refer to the transgender student as "her", the school is forcing the teacher to change his worldview, because........reasons.

Yup. Next.

This has been most entertaining, but I think the entertainment value of your posts have hit the point of diminishing returns. So thank you for your time.

Only because you can not think for yourself. Try again son. Next.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not if it is forcing the teacher to violate their religion. Next

So much wrong in the above post, but a school can force a teacher to teach a lesson that "violates their religion". Creationists would still have to teach the theory of evolution in science classes. Flat Earthers would still have to teach that the world is roughly spherical in shape. When a teacher takes on a job he has to teach what the school board authorizes, not what he personally believes.

 

[Jose Fly]

So much wrong in the above post, but a school can force a teacher to teach a lesson that "violates their religion". Creationists would still have to teach the theory of evolution in science classes. Flat Earthers would still have to teach that the world is roughly spherical in shape. When a teacher takes on a job he has to teach what the school board authorizes, not what he personally believes.

But, but, but....science isn't a "truth model", so.....yeah.

 

[wellwisher]

The left teaches revisionists history and now they are forcing teachers to teach revisionist biology. Transgender is not a natural metamorphosis but rather is artificial product of science and medicine similar to cosmetic surgery.

Consider athletes who do performing enhancing drugs to achieve a larger and stronger body image. This is the same basic thing as the transgender metamorphoses. If this body image cannot be achieved naturally, many turn to medicine to trick the body.

The body builder will use artificial additives to achieve a vision of themselves that does not exist naturally. There are plenty of people willing to sell them the drugs. Athletes are punished for this. Why aren't performance enhancing drugs embraced by culture, seeing transgender requires even more performance enhancing drugs plus surgery? It has to do with side affects. Sex reassignment is new and the side affect data is now coming in.

The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over 30 years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers.

McHugh points to the reality that because sex change is physically impossible, it frequently does not provide the long-term wholeness and happiness that people seek.

Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden

Their recommendation is more psychology help and psychological followup since there appears to remain a split between brain and body that is not healed by the artificial changes. Transgender may satisfy the needs of the audience; better applause, but it does not lead to long term wholeness that the person seeks.

Say a person had a big nose and this makes then self conscious. They may blame this for all their problems from dating to getting a good job. They go the plastic surgeon and get a new nose that they like. This makes them feel good for a while. Eventually this change will not matter. People stop noticing. This only removed the top layer of the psychological onion. After the novelty wears off they have to deal with other problems that now will surface. The transgender buzz is good for about 10-15 years then complications arise since this did not heal their soul. The brain wiring was never address.

 

[Prestor John]

Sorry. I noticed that I missed your response to my post.

Your concept of 'submit' is rather strange.

How so?

In any case, the school appears unwilling to submit to the teachers ideology, so you...support their position?

I don't believe that any ideology should be enforced by the school or any teacher.

Ergo, my argument against forcing the teacher to refer to the biologically female student by a masculine pronoun.

The claim that a person can change their sex is an ideology and should not be enforced.

Just like how any other religious ideologies should not be enforced.

You could, of course.

Obviously I could make the demand, but should it be enforced by the powers that be?

Rubbish.
I still would refer to Imans or Priests by their honorifics.

Of course, that would be your personal choice.

You would support a legal measure that forced everyone to refer to these people by these titles?

You have no choice in the matter?

This is purely a show of respect, and in no way effects my lack of belief in their God's.

Yet, there is no physical evidence that proves the validity of their ideologies.

We know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that there are only the two biological sexes, the determination of which has nothing to do with our personal beliefs or feelings.

Forcing a person to throw away biological fact in order to appease someone's subjective perception of themselves is lunacy.

The student can believe she is a male all she wants...just like a Priest believes that he has authority from God...but neither should be able to force other people to validate their beliefs.

Force people to use a title when they talk about you in a secular school?
No.

Then what is the difference?

If I can't have my beliefs enforced at a public school, why do you believe this transgender student can?

I would suppose you might be able to in a religious school operating beneath the auspices of your religion though.

I don't believe so.

I don't believe that any ideology should be enforced anywhere.

Even though we do refer to each other as "Brother" and "Sister" at my Church, this is not enforced.

If you came as a visitor to our Church meetings, no one would force you to refer to us in that manner, because that would be wrong to force our ideology upon you if you don't believe it.

Of course you could claim it. People would think you're an arse, I would suspect.

Of course I could do anything, but we are not discussing what people are capable of doing, but rather what they should or should not do.

Judging by your statement about me being an "arse" for demanding that people refer to me as "Brother John", I assume that you do not believe I should make such a demand?

It would be wrong of me?

No one is asking you to agree with sex change or anything else.
Indeed, I don't even know where I stand on every aspect of this.

Yes, they are. They are forcing people to act a certain way or lose their livelihood.

If teachers and students can opt out of saying the National Anthem in our public schools, why should they be forced to violate biological fact?

A biological female is not a "he".

But that doesn't matter. If the kid wants to be called a certain name, the parents are agreeable, and it's not causing harm to anyone, then so be it.

This was never about what name the child preferred to be called, but the pronoun.

Teaching our children that a biological female can be a biological male "if they want to" is harmful.

Assessing the kids rationale is beyond the teachers expertise or role.

I don't believe the teacher ever attempted to do this.

They are letting their religious beliefs impact on how they treat the child, and that is not appropriate in a secular school. That's it. The rest is window dressing.

No, it's more like letting biological fact dictate which pronoun to use.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sorry. I noticed that I missed your response to my post.

No problem. The same happens to me at times, due to either life kicking in, or just having several posts to get to, and one slipping through the cracks. Have to admit, it might take me a sec to refresh my memory on this thread though!

How so?

'Submission' to me is indicative of more than the teacher has done here. No-one is asking him to agree with the child or parent's life decisions. I don't see how he is being asked to 'submit' to anything, really.

I don't believe that any ideology should be enforced by the school or any teacher.

How is that possible? How do I teach without consideration of epistemology? Simple example, should there be standardized testing or not? That is an ideological position.

Ergo, my argument against forcing the teacher to refer to the biologically female student by a masculine pronoun.

You need a level of consistency within the school, though. Each teacher cannot be a rule unto themselves. Teachers are 'forced' to administer standardized testing. What's your position on that? Or does this get special recognition due to it being a religious position?

The claim that a person can change their sex is an ideology and should not be enforced.

Again...he's a teacher. That is a position of responsibility. No-one is asking him to teach about gender fluidity, or about his position on whether gender is binary. He's making a stand on this issue due to his religious beliefs, rather than calling the student in the manner preferred by the student, and the students parents, and the school. That being the case, there may be consequences to his decision. For me, if I believed in my position, it would become clear the school wasn't an appropriate place to work and I'd move on.

He's at least as 'guilty' as anyone of pushing ideology here. He's a teacher of children, and there are specific and unique consequences and constraints due to that.

Just like how any other religious ideologies should not be enforced.

Are there other religious ideologies being enforced here? Sorry, might have forgotten/missed the point of this one, feel free to let me know what you mean and I'll re-address.

Obviously I could make the demand, but should it be enforced by the powers that be?

Of course, that would be your personal choice.

You would support a legal measure that forced everyone to refer to these people by these titles?

You have no choice in the matter?

I kept these as a block, since they seem to relate to the same basic concept.
No, I wouldn't put legal measures in place. People are welcome to be rude (I'm simplifying a little) if they choose. If I'm rude to my clients, I'll find myself out of work (and not just because my clients will leave). My place of employment would take action. This isn't especially different.

Yet, there is no physical evidence that proves the validity of their ideologies.

Does it matter? If I used that as the mark of how I taught and interacted with children, there would have been some serious problems, particularly with the children of religious parents.

We know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that there are only the two biological sexes, the determination of which has nothing to do with our personal beliefs or feelings.

Forcing a person to throw away biological fact in order to appease someone's subjective perception of themselves is lunacy.

No one is forcing him to throw away anything. What is it he's being forced to throw away?

The student can believe she is a male all she wants...just like a Priest believes that he has authority from God...but neither should be able to force other people to validate their beliefs.

'Validate their beliefs'...I'm not sure what that means. If I call a priest Father, am I validating their beliefs? Certainly not.

If I can't have my beliefs enforced at a public school, why do you believe this transgender student can?

If you said your name was Mark, but it was actually John, you'd be called Mark at any public school I've ever worked at. If you said I was to be called Mark, different story. The student has some rights around their own naming and descriptions.

Even though we do refer to each other as "Brother" and "Sister" at my Church, this is not enforced.

If you came as a visitor to our Church meetings, no one would force you to refer to us in that manner, because that would be wrong to force our ideology upon you if you don't believe it.

Fair enough.


Of course I could do anything, but we are not discussing what people are capable of doing, but rather what they should or should not do.

Judging by your statement about me being an "arse" for demanding that people refer to me as "Brother John", I assume that you do not believe I should make such a demand?

It would be wrong of me?

I think if you come to a secular school and demand to be called Brother John, and threaten sacking on those who don't call you that, then yes, it would be wrong. However, (since you'd be a child), the decision on what you're called would ultimately reside in some sort of agreement between school, parents and teacher. And once that agreement was reached, I'd abide by it.

Yes, they are. They are forcing people to act a certain way or lose their livelihood.

This is the case with every single job in the history of history.

If teachers and students can opt out of saying the National Anthem in our public schools, why should they be forced to violate biological fact?

Biological fact? Or just outright fact? Why do you add 'biological' to it, like that then trumps all else?

A biological female is not a "he".

This was never about what name the child preferred to be called, but the pronoun.

I'm not limiting how the student wants to be referred to only their name.

Teaching our children that a biological female can be a biological male "if they want to" is harmful.

And this is what it comes down to. Both you, and the teacher in this case, hold a certain ideology. However, the school (which also has to make ideological decisions, no matter how much they'd rather avoid them) hold a different one. The teacher doesn't get to make their own call on this stuff. Just like if I was teaching I would need to administer standardized tests. Or, more concretely, when I was teaching, I had to stay in the room and assist with religious education classes. Sure, outside of the classroom I argued against this (albeit very politely...I was young) but I did my job, and the kids wouldn't have known the difference.

No, it's more like letting biological fact dictate which pronoun to use.

Sounds like an ideological position to me.

 

[Prestor John]

'Submission' to me is indicative of more than the teacher has done here. No-one is asking him to agree with the child or parent's life decisions. I don't see how he is being asked to 'submit' to anything, really.

It is true that no one can force another person to believe something, but if they were attempting to do that, enforcing specific language would be the first step.

Give it one generation of all people being forced to pretend that a boy can become a girl and vice versa and no one will remember a time when biology dictated one's sex.

You need a level of consistency within the school, though. Each teacher cannot be a rule unto themselves. Teachers are 'forced' to administer standardized testing. What's your position on that? Or does this get special recognition due to it being a religious position?

I honestly don't consider this to be a religious discussion.

Sure, the teacher said that he refused to lie because of his religious conviction, but I feel that the focus should be on why he considers calling a girl "he" to be a lie in the first place.

He feels that it is a lie because of biology.

Every female student should be referred to as "she" and every male student "he", thus achieving consistency.

Appeasing each individual child's perception of themselves is what leads to inconsistency.

Again...he's a teacher. That is a position of responsibility. No-one is asking him to teach about gender fluidity, or about his position on whether gender is binary. He's making a stand on this issue due to his religious beliefs, rather than calling the student in the manner preferred by the student, and the students parents, and the school. That being the case, there may be consequences to his decision. For me, if I believed in my position, it would become clear the school wasn't an appropriate place to work and I'd move on.

Exactly, he is a teacher. Not an activist.

Therefore, he should not support the political ideology that someone can be anything other than their biological sex.

Teachers should not do anything in front of their students that encourages or enforces any ideology.

Sure, that one students' parents may want the teacher to address their child by a different pronoun, but the parents of all the other students may not, so what can we do?

We should fall back to simple biology, which is impartial.

Are there other religious ideologies being enforced here? Sorry, might have forgotten/missed the point of this one, feel free to let me know what you mean and I'll re-address.

I am claiming that the idea that someone is different than their biological sex is the same as any religious conviction.

No, I wouldn't put legal measures in place. People are welcome to be rude (I'm simplifying a little) if they choose. If I'm rude to my clients, I'll find myself out of work (and not just because my clients will leave). My place of employment would take action. This isn't especially different.

Would you still be considered rude if there was incontrovertible evidence that this man who demanded you refer to him as "Father" was in actuality not an ordained Catholic Priest?

Don't you risk offending actual Catholic Priests and Catholics in general if you decide to continue referring to him as "Father"?

Does it matter? If I used that as the mark of how I taught and interacted with children, there would have been some serious problems, particularly with the children of religious parents.

How so?

No one is forcing him to throw away anything. What is it he's being forced to throw away?

Have you ever read the book 1984 by George Orwell?

There is a scene where while a man (Winston) is being tortured he is asked how many fingers his torturer is holding up (four).

When he claims that there are four fingers, the torturer asked him,

"And if the party says that it is not four but five—then how many?"

When he claims that there will still be four fingers, he is tortured.

Eventually Winston starts claiming that there are five, his torturer says,

"No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please?"

The torture continues and Winston screams that he will admit that there are as many fingers as his torturer wants, just stop the pain. The torturer says,

"You are a slow learner, Winston," to which Winston replies,

"How can I help it? How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."

The torturer then says, "Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."

After more torture the torturer asked, "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?"

Winston said, "I don't know. I don't know. You will kill me if you do that again. Four, five, six—in all honesty I don't know."

To this the torturer replied, "Better,"

By enforcing what this child (and only this child) is seeing, we are claiming that other people are not allowed the freedom to see what they see.

The first step for totalitarians is to control language. Thoughts and beliefs will follow.

'Validate their beliefs'...I'm not sure what that means. If I call a priest Father, am I validating their beliefs? Certainly not.

You most certainly are.

By referring to these men as "Father", you are claiming that they have "spiritually begotten" you in Christ through their preaching of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 4:14-17)

If you said your name was Mark, but it was actually John, you'd be called Mark at any public school I've ever worked at. If you said I was to be called Mark, different story. The student has some rights around their own naming and descriptions.

I understand the concept of names, since someone has to make a choice about that, but most of our physical descriptions are beyond our control.

I am 6'5", do I have a choice if I'm considered tall?

By using the pronouns that describe our biological sex, we are all equal.

I think if you come to a secular school and demand to be called Brother John, and threaten sacking on those who don't call you that, then yes, it would be wrong. However, (since you'd be a child), the decision on what you're called would ultimately reside in some sort of agreement between school, parents and teacher. And once that agreement was reached, I'd abide by it.

So, if a public school decided that their teachers should prayer in front to their class every day, no one could object?

This is the case with every single job in the history of history.

Hah. I suppose you are right.

But, let's try to stay focused and keep our interpretation of the comments within the context of this discussion.

Biological fact? Or just outright fact? Why do you add 'biological' to it, like that then trumps all else?

No, I don't use it as some sort of "trump". I use it in order to be clear.

When I say "biologic or biological fact" I am trying to be clear that I am referring only to biology, not societal expectations, cultural norms or religious convictions.

Yes, I believe that God made men and women in His image, but the issue I take with this issue is that biology contradicts with what this child and her parents believe, and in a secular school we should always be teaching what we know are facts, not beliefs.

I'm not limiting how the student wants to be referred to only their name.

Why?

And this is what it comes down to. Both you, and the teacher in this case, hold a certain ideology.

I'm not going to speak for this teacher, but my view on this issue has nothing to do with any ideology, but biologic fact.

However, the school (which also has to make ideological decisions, no matter how much they'd rather avoid them) hold a different one.

That doesn't mean their decision is the right one and should not be contested.

The teacher doesn't get to make their own call on this stuff.

The teacher admitted that it was a slip of his tongue. He apologized.

Or, more concretely, when I was teaching, I had to stay in the room and assist with religious education classes. Sure, outside of the classroom I argued against this (albeit very politely...I was young) but I did my job, and the kids wouldn't have known the difference.

Teaching about religion is not the same as encouraging or enforcing religion.

Our children should be taught about transgender people and the issues about them, yet they should not be forced to participate in the child's delusions.

Sounds like an ideological position to me.

Then get your hearing checked bro!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is a bit of an object lesson for anyone hell bent on standing up for their principles. Those days are over, unless of course, your principles are in alignment with political correct doctrine, then you can do whatever you like.

I didn't know the practice of medicine and administering medically accepted practices qualifies as "politically correct."

 

[Prestor John]

I didn't know the practice of medicine and administering medically accepted practices qualifies as "politically correct."

Practitioners of medicine are just as prone to intimidation and manipulation as anyone else.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

@Prestor John

I'm happy to talk further on this, but I'll stop the quoting thing for a sec, as it can get out of hand/unhelpful with these longer exchanges in my experience. So if there are any points I miss, or clarifications you want, let me know and I'll address them.

Language is important, I agree. Indeed, both parties in this case seem to agree too, and hence the conflict. Where we are never going to agree is around who gets to determine the language that is appropriate in this case. For me, the student, parents, and school are more central to the decision than the teacher. You seem to think the teacher should decide. Fair enough. We'll have to agree to disagree on that, I think, since I can't see a consensus we could reach on that.

I'm also not concerned about this being the 'thin edge of the wedge' so to speak.

Neither am I concerned about the teacher's 'feelings' in this case. I'd be much more concerned about the child. And I say that in a holistic sense, not simply that we should cave to any demands any kid makes.

One thing you skipped over was around my references to standardized testing. I get that it feels tangential to the issue here, but if (as you say) this isn't about religion, but more ideology, I think it's actually very relevant. Still, I geek out on it because of my teaching background. Dunno how much sense it made to you.

Basically, whether standardized testing should or should not be performed, and what the point of it is when it is performed is an ideological issue. Individual teachers can have whatever opinion they want (I'm strongly anti, in case it matters) but the relevant government department (maybe school board in the US, not sure) determine how and when these things are to be administered and used.

That's it. The teachers as a group can take union action, like they could with anything. But there is no other choice to be made. An individual teacher, like I was, can't say 'No, that is detrimental to a child', and refuse to administer it.

My role as a teacher was to administer the test. Not make a call on how I felt about that as an individual. There appears some strong correlation to this case.

You said the following...

Teachers should not do anything in front of their students that encourages or enforces any ideology.

That's simply not possible. Ideology is inherent in SO MANY things we teach children. I would expect my kids to say thank-you and please. Ideology. I would sing the national anthem at morning assembly. Ideology. I would teach them about the Australian political system. We would come up with class rules as a group we wanted to enforce, and determine the appropriate consequences for breaching them.

It's all ideology.

As for situations where one students parents want the teacher to address their child by a different pronoun but other's don't, I would say that any individual teacher would then seek guidance from the principal, and that's it. This would then be the same route of escalation for any parents unhappy with the decision.

This isn't a situation where an individual teacher should make a call based on what they feel is right.

You also commented that by using a title like 'Father' for a priest, I am claiming that they have spiritually begotten me in Christ through their preaching of the Gospel. But clearly I am not. I'm an atheist. What I am doing is allowing for how THEY see the world. I'm being polite, since it costs me nothing and has no impact on my world view. That's it.

I understand the concept of names, since someone has to make a choice about that, but most of our physical descriptions are beyond our control.

I am 6'5", do I have a choice if I'm considered tall?

Nope. No choice. If the teacher called you 'big boy' and you didn't like it, you have a choice.

So, if a public school decided that their teachers should prayer in front to their class every day, no one could object?

It depends what you mean by 'object'. I would object strenuously in staff meetings. I would probably investigate my options with the union if it happened now. But back when I was a teacher, the religious class I mentioned I was present for involved prayer with the children. It was weekly, not daily, but it would absolutely not have been appropriate for me to object in the room in front of the kids.

There is some level of difference here in that such decisions are made at a state level, not so much at a school level. Practically, schools go outside government curriculum, but it does provide a clear path of escalation and ruling when that happens.

Yes, I believe that God made men and women in His image, but the issue I take with this issue is that biology contradicts with what this child and her parents believe, and in a secular school we should always be teaching what we know are facts, not beliefs.

Again, this simply isn't possible. The realm of 'facts' is far more limited than most suppose. Much of what we think is around beliefs. Taking away such things would also cost children in ways you don't mean. Think of it in more simple terms. Should I give the children in my class equal opportunity? Why? Should I promote social Darwinism? Why not?

The teacher admitted that it was a slip of his tongue. He apologized.

Perhaps I am naive, but I'm generally not. He wasn't removed from class for a simple slip of the tongue. Do you actually believe he was?

Teaching about religion is not the same as encouraging or enforcing religion.

I agree. To be clear, I would have zero problem with that. What I am talking about was religious classes in a secular school, run by the local church. They included prayers, and tests that were administered with winning questions like 'What ate Jonah?'. It drove me nuts on about 8 different levels, but briefly;

1) The people running these classes, in school time, were volunteers with no teaching qualifications or background. Hence why a teacher (in this case me) had to be in the room at all times.
2)The methods used were very much traditional rote learning messages, and didn't allow for discussion. In other words, it ran contrary to everything I believe about how to educate.
3) The real kicker...the people teaching weren't especially knowledgeable about their own content. They appeared to have learned it via rote in much the way they were now transmitting it. For example, the 'correct' answer for what ate Jonah was a whale. They didn't like it when I questioned that, even allowing for the fact that I was only questioning it from a Biblical standpoint, despite being an atheist.

Our children should be taught about transgender people and the issues about them, yet they should not be forced to participate in the child's delusions.

I'm really not sure how anyone is being forced to participate in a child's delusions.

Then get your hearing checked bro!

My hearing is pretty good. It sounds like an ideological position to me.

 

[Curious George]

Have you ever read the book 1984 by George Orwell?

There is a scene where while a man (Winston) is being tortured he is asked how many fingers his torturer is holding up (four).

When he claims that there are four fingers, the torturer asked him,

"And if the party says that it is not four but five—then how many?"

When he claims that there will still be four fingers, he is tortured.

Eventually Winston starts claiming that there are five, his torturer says,

"No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please?"

The torture continues and Winston screams that he will admit that there are as many fingers as his torturer wants, just stop the pain. The torturer says,

"You are a slow learner, Winston," to which Winston replies,

"How can I help it? How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."

The torturer then says, "Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."

After more torture the torturer asked, "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?"

Winston said, "I don't know. I don't know. You will kill me if you do that again. Four, five, six—in all honesty I don't know."

To this the torturer replied, "Better,"

By enforcing what this child (and only this child) is seeing, we are claiming that other people are not allowed the freedom to see what they see.

The first step for totalitarians is to control language. Thoughts and beliefs will follow.

Except there is no torture. If the teacher does not want to comply with the students wishes, the parents wishes, the admins wishes they needn't. But, it is silly to expect to keep one's job in face of such posturing.