1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Gender pronouns and compelled speech in Virginia

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8731
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
09 June 2021 08:24
 

A teacher in Virginia gets suspended for refusing to use students’ preferred pronouns. Then he gets reinstated, but the point is, he got suspended initially for a compelled speech violation.

compelled speech in virginia

compelled speech ?????? !!!!!!!!!

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  1142
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
09 June 2021 09:13
 

What limitations on how a teacher addresses students do you think are reasonable?

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3741
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
09 June 2021 09:46
 
icehorse - 09 June 2021 08:24 AM

A teacher in Virginia gets suspended for refusing to use students’ preferred pronouns. Then he gets reinstated, but the point is, he got suspended initially for a compelled speech violation.

compelled speech in virginia

compelled speech ?????? !!!!!!!!!

You see this as an issue of compelled speech.  However, this is primarily an issue of the effect that religious fundamentalism can have in public schools.

The teacher states that “the policy violates his religious beliefs” and “I am a teacher, but I serve God first ...

The opposition’s position is that it is “Not for those teachers and staff to bring their religious beliefs in as a way to harass and hurt students.

The overturning of the school board’s decision was not a victory for free speech – it was a victory for religion.

(There is also the underlying issue of sexual identity in regards to children and how this should be addressed in the schools etc., but I doubt (m)any of us here at the forum are qualified to understand fully.)

 

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6658
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
09 June 2021 09:49
 

I have two thoughts:

Faith tends to render the who gives a shit argument moot. I’m a who cares advocate as long as the potentiality for irreversible regret gets ruled out. But then again, that sort of makes me sound like the red states trying to deter abortion with pastor porn, no?What’s the argument for affirming what someone looks like? Base of off of looks + intention rather than biology - except for obviously with shit like sports. Because Jesus Christ already.

And secondly: Who here hasn’t accidently had an absolutely delightlful weekend with a trans who only showed you her biology via a high school photo on the airport tarmack?

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8731
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
09 June 2021 10:06
 
mapadofu - 09 June 2021 09:13 AM

What limitations on how a teacher addresses students do you think are reasonable?

Can you see how a “limitation” is very different than being compelled?

E.g., “you cannot say X, Y, or Z” is very different than “you MUST say X”

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8731
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
09 June 2021 10:08
 

jan:

You see this as an issue of compelled speech.  However, this is primarily an issue of the effect that religious fundamentalism can have in public schools.

Yes, the teacher brought religion into the situation, and that confuses things a bit.

But my focus is on the original action of the school board which was to suspend the teacher for refusing to have his speech compelled.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1438
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
09 June 2021 10:37
 

So, your argument is that a teacher’s free speech should be protected, even if it is insulting and derogatory to students.

Here’s a simple adherence to your “not allowed to say X, Y, or Z” rule:

You are not allowed to misgender students intentionally.

See… “not allowed”.  Completely within your predefined set of rules.  I even added “intentionally” so that a teacher can always get out of it by saying it was unintentional.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8731
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
09 June 2021 11:02
 
weird buffalo - 09 June 2021 10:37 AM

So, your argument is that a teacher’s free speech should be protected, even if it is insulting and derogatory to students.

Here’s a simple adherence to your “not allowed to say X, Y, or Z” rule:

You are not allowed to misgender students intentionally.

See… “not allowed”.  Completely within your predefined set of rules.  I even added “intentionally” so that a teacher can always get out of it by saying it was unintentional.

Do you think you’ve honestly paraphrased my arguments here? Because it feels like you’re deliberately strawmanning me.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1438
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
09 June 2021 11:05
 

Intentional misgendering people is insulting and demeaning.

Do you disagree?

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3741
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
09 June 2021 11:07
 
icehorse - 09 June 2021 10:08 AM

jan:

You see this as an issue of compelled speech.  However, this is primarily an issue of the effect that religious fundamentalism can have in public schools.

Yes, the teacher brought religion into the situation, and that confuses things a bit.

But my focus is on the original action of the school board which was to suspend the teacher for refusing to have his speech compelled.

The aspect of religion in this story does not just confuse things a bit - it goes far beyond that.  And is often the case on this topic, your focus is narrow and is not taking into account that this concerns how children are treated, which must be the primary consideration in schools – the code of conduct for teachers must be high in regards to what is said to students. 

And the first amendment argument sure comes in handy for fundamentalists and the alt-right, in a manner I doubt your Founding Fathers had in mind when writing it.

 

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6658
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
09 June 2021 11:47
 

“staff shall allow gender expansive or transgender students to use their chosen name and gender pronouns that reflect their gender identity without any substantiating evidence.”

That was the policy.

I think the better argument than just saying no because of god is how loosely its written. It reads like whoever, however, regardless. But it does place a burden on the family over schools, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but yet not not room for utter abuse and confusion depending on how ass backwards the politics of the local community. Which on this issue specifically seems to be a slew of unexplored and unexplorable slipper slopes. Again re: sports.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8731
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
09 June 2021 12:15
 
weird buffalo - 09 June 2021 11:05 AM

Intentional misgendering people is insulting and demeaning.

Do you disagree?

I agree that that would be insulting and demeaning.

I DO NOT AGREE that it should be illegal.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8731
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
09 June 2021 12:26
 
Jan_CAN - 09 June 2021 11:07 AM
icehorse - 09 June 2021 10:08 AM

jan:

You see this as an issue of compelled speech.  However, this is primarily an issue of the effect that religious fundamentalism can have in public schools.

Yes, the teacher brought religion into the situation, and that confuses things a bit.

But my focus is on the original action of the school board which was to suspend the teacher for refusing to have his speech compelled.

The aspect of religion in this story does not just confuse things a bit - it goes far beyond that.  And is often the case on this topic, your focus is narrow and is not taking into account that this concerns how children are treated, which must be the primary consideration in schools – the code of conduct for teachers must be high in regards to what is said to students. 

And the first amendment argument sure comes in handy for fundamentalists and the alt-right, in a manner I doubt your Founding Fathers had in mind when writing it.

Of course I care about how children are treated, doh!  But free speech doesn’t need to be thrown under the bus for children to be treated well.

As for attaching the first amendment to the alt-right, jan all I can say is you gotta read a little history. Free speech is what’s keeping you free, it’s what’s keeping us ALL free.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3741
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
09 June 2021 13:49
 
icehorse - 09 June 2021 12:26 PM
Jan_CAN - 09 June 2021 11:07 AM

The aspect of religion in this story does not just confuse things a bit - it goes far beyond that.  And is often the case on this topic, your focus is narrow and is not taking into account that this concerns how children are treated, which must be the primary consideration in schools – the code of conduct for teachers must be high in regards to what is said to students. 

And the first amendment argument sure comes in handy for fundamentalists and the alt-right, in a manner I doubt your Founding Fathers had in mind when writing it.

Of course I care about how children are treated, doh!  But free speech doesn’t need to be thrown under the bus for children to be treated well.

As for attaching the first amendment to the alt-right, jan all I can say is you gotta read a little history. Free speech is what’s keeping you free, it’s what’s keeping us ALL free.

I really don’t think you understand what protection of free speech even means though it’s been explained to you numerous times.  It does NOT mean one can’t lose a job for what is said IN THE WORKPLACE.  This teacher was not thrown in jail or prevented from speaking his mind on his own time – he was suspended for not following school policy, a policy he felt went contrary to his religion.

You consistently imply/accuse those who disagree with you of under-valuing free speech.  I’ve read plenty of history, thank you very much, and I value free speech very highly.  I also value separation of church-and-state and equal rights, but you consistently wish to set those aside in favour of your interpretation of what encompasses free speech, without any balance with other principles and rights.

We’re never going to agree, but so many of your posts beg to be rebuked.  I think I’ve said all I need to on this one.

 

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  10638
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
09 June 2021 14:22
 
icehorse - 09 June 2021 12:15 PM
weird buffalo - 09 June 2021 11:05 AM

Intentional misgendering people is insulting and demeaning.

Do you disagree?

I agree that that would be insulting and demeaning.

I DO NOT AGREE that it should be illegal.

It is not illegal to intentionally misgender someone, but the school rules say you can lose your job if you do.  It is not uncommon to lose one’s job for failing to abide the rules.

Also, since the teacher brought religion into it, he needs to cite where his religion has precedence over school rules.  And, if he can, he then needs to cite from his holy book where it allows him to intentionally misgender someone.

I have a feeling he has the support of the Supreme Court if it were to go that far, since it has recently ruled in two cases that “it’s against my religion, and I don’t need to prove or explain it” is a valid legal defense (Hobby Lobby (abortion) and the Colorado baker (gay wedding cake)).

[ Edited: 09 June 2021 14:24 by Skipshot]
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1438
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
09 June 2021 15:12
 
icehorse - 09 June 2021 12:15 PM
weird buffalo - 09 June 2021 11:05 AM

Intentional misgendering people is insulting and demeaning.

Do you disagree?

I agree that that would be insulting and demeaning.

I DO NOT AGREE that it should be illegal.

Who said it should be illegal?  In this thread, or the article you linked.  Be specific.  You’ve accused me of strawmanning, and so I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren’t doing that right now.  So, please be SUPER SPECIFIC in who said it should be against the law to misgender someone.

 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›