Whether it was true or not, if he believed it to be so then he’d go through life a very unhappy person. And if it was actually true, because he’d had a medical condition that caused people to think he was male when he was actually female, then even more so.Freddy:
He’d probably be unhappy because it wasn’t the truth.
And still referred to the student as him. Probably not directly - he’d avoid doing that. But to contantly change ‘him’ to ‘that student’ as opposed to complying with the student’s request seems the hight of folly.Freddy:
The student is the one upset about not being specifically called a certain pronoun after the teacher said that the studen’s name would be used as a compromise.
The cause worth fighting for, to me, is the issue of whether one can be compelled to say something by another.
The teacher is doing this due to personal beliefs and the student has no right to impose on those beliefs.
That’s because the identity of the student is protected so in this article that’s the noun used, in the classroom things will be different because then the name can be substituted.
Edith Stein said: “Accept nothing as truth if it does not have love, and accept nothing as love if it does not have truth.”
I see it the other way, Jean. Somebody refusing to accept a relatively simple request by someone because they hold to a moral position that says ‘men are men and women are women’. It appears to me to be making a moral stand when one is not justified.Freddy:
The cause worth fighting for, to me, is the issue of whether one can be compelled to say something by another.
It does seem to be a free speech issue.
Even if the person calling for alternative pronouns is mentally ill, that does not give him or her the right to compel others to speak a certain way.
The reverse is obviously true.Freddy:
The teacher is doing this due to personal beliefs and the student has no right to impose on those beliefs.
Maybe you’re not married…Freddy:
Edith Stein said: “Accept nothing as truth if it does not have love, and accept nothing as love if it does not have truth.”
We’ve gotta be true with people. Affirming them in their unreality usually brings hardship and harm. If you’re anorexically thin but people indulge your (irrational) belief about being “fat”, that becomes dangerous very quick. If people tell you you’re a great singer when you sound like nails on a chalkboard, you might get humiliated on national TV when you take your “beautiful” voice to American Idol. Bottom line, best to be charitable, but always true.
The teacher made a reasonable compromise so that’s not the problem.
I would hope things are not dysfunctional, but usually saying nothing is better than a few obvious lies.
The teacher effectively said that he’d call the student by whatever name the student requested but he wouldn’t accept her as a female. I don’t see that as much of a compromise.Freddy:
The teacher made a reasonable compromise so that’s not the problem.
Likely as a personal belief which the teacher has a right to.
That’s the best you can get, the thought police is not practical and people have the freedom to think like that even when we disagree
Even if the student was called by the preferred pronouns that would still be an issue.
The relatively simple request seems to be, in reality, a veiled demand.
The stand could as easily be made by an agnostic or an atheist. While religion may be contextually pertinent in certain cases the issue of the constitutionality of compelled speech is not limited to those who claim a religious affiliation.
I reject this criticism on the basis that transexualism (a mental disorder) is not intersex or hermaphroditism (a biological disorder). These two things are very different. And if you actually followed the case cited in the article, the professor made every effort to come to a middle ground agreement whereby he would refer to the student by their preferred name, but would not use gendered pronouns that does not reflect the biological reality. The student and admnistration refused to make any commonsense compromise to satisfy both parties. In other words, this is genuinely a case of mental illness, and in this case willful intransigence to accommodate the first amendment rights of the professor.
True. I needn’t have qualified the stand as being religious. But the right of free speech depends on the right you claim to make that free speech. If I have a belief that no women should wear short skirts and that they are sexually permissive by doing so then do I have the right to declare those women as being sexually permissive? If it’s a religious belief then we can call it as such.Freddy:
The stand could as easily be made by an agnostic or an atheist. While religion may be contextually pertinent in certain cases the issue of the constitutionality of compelled speech is not limited to those who claim a religious affiliation.
Again, that is completely out of order. If you don’t know the details of the case and are not qualified to make a psychological determination then that argument is not worth the paper it isn’t written on.
True again. And I would say that you should treat people with the minimum of respect as per their wishes. We haven’t yet had ‘the end of civilisation as we know it’ argument but that’s where these discussions generally end up and it won’t be long coming. And I don’t see that as a logical position.