Report: The Pronoun Wars: Professor Goes to Court After Being Punished for Refusing to Refer to Transgender Student By Preferred Pronoun

[Rau]

I would take the position that it’s not a hill to die on.

There should not be any risk of death at all Fred.

I think the proff is entirely free to consider it nonsensical but he’s being as beligerant as the student in refusing to use female pronouns.

So, the meaning of the pronouns, or the meaning of sex, is to be redefined by compelling pronoun use contrary to established meaning?

If I were him I would let it be known that I had strong beliefs about what it means to be male or female but I would respect other people’s beliefs (sotto vocce: as nonsensical as I think they are) as long as they didn’t infringe on my beliefs.

They infringe on facts and meaning. It’s not about beliefs.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

There is a lot of good to be said for doing one’s best to get along.

The student was the one that was causing problems for the teacher by getting the schoolboard to mob after him after a compromise was offered.

Is your refusal to use the preferred pronoun going to improve their situation?

The better argument is that participation isn’t required by someone who doesn’t agree.

So, if refusing to use the preffered pronoun might increase someone’s depression or even contribute to their suicide,

You are talking about deadnaming and using the wrong pronouns which is different.

 

[Petra202]

In an accompanying article just a little further in the thread from”The Hill” the same person meriweather goes onto more detail. I tried to copy it for you but with this phone I couldn’t do it!
See entry#7 ish…

 

[Freddy]

Petra202:

But the professor was told not to use any gender specific pronouns in class, not mother, father, brother, sister! This affects YEARS of acquired speech! I wondered why not just quit??? Is that what they want??? I was a teacher before I retired so I am coming from a certain mindset…

That seems a bridge too far for me. I’d argue against that. It wasn’t mentioned in the article. Can you tell us where that info comes from?

How he described the situation was ‘It would mean…’. He hadn’t been told he couldn’t use terms like brother or sister. I think it’s stretching tbe consequences of the discussion too far to imply that.

 

[otjm]

But what if the professor believes that a man is a man and a woman is a woman, and referring to a man as a woman is essentially tantamount to lying and giving in to a subjectivist viewpoint, to which is he morally opposed?

Calling someone by a name of the opposite gener, or using a pronoun of the opposite gender is not lying to the individual, as the professor (in this case) is not starting the conversation - the professor is not lying to the individual. A lie is an intentional statement with the intent of convincing the other of the untruth.

This is one of two things: it is either someone with a mental issue (the student being off their rocker) or someone who is baiting the teacher. In either case, the professor is mistaken as to the morality of the matter.

If the student is off their rocker, then there is no moral issue; you are dealing with a mental aberration and fighting the matter with the student will be totally non-productive.

If the student is trolling, then the issue is much the same, as it is a game, not an issue of “reality”. And currently their game is one the professor will not win.

 

[Kei]

Calling someone by a name of the opposite gener, or using a pronoun of the opposite gender is not lying to the individual, as the professor (in this case) is not starting the conversation - the professor is not lying to the individual. A lie is an intentional statement with the intent of convincing the other of the untruth.

Lying is speaking contra mensa, and I fail to see how that doesn’t apply, unless you explicitly say, "I do not believe that you are (insert gender), but to appease you I will refer to you as (insert preferred pronoun) or if it is somehow otherwise implied.

I don’t think it is right to call them “off their rocker”. It is a very sad mental condition for which we (as in society, mental health professionals, etc) should be looking for a better treatment. Starting to affirm that they are (insert gender here) is a small step, but it signifies much more, that I think is more damaging than if affirmation were never had. If they go all the way, they get an irreversible (there are things to kinda try to reverse it, but it doesn’t really) surgery, which still has a high level of depression and suicide attempts regardless (and may even cause cancer, to put a cherry on top of an awful situation).

 

[jeannetherese]

It’s a religious position that doesn’t have any merit as far as I’m concerned (a man is a man etc). There’s simply no secular argument to support it.

Hmmm. I think we could find secular arguments against compelled speech.
What I’m curious about is how freedom from compelled speech might be protected under the Constitution.
I’m not sure what sort of protection you might have in Australia.

 

[otjm]

Lying is speaking contra mensa, and I fail to see how that doesn’t apply, unless you explicitly say, "I do not believe that you are (insert gender), but to appease you I will refer to you as (insert preferred pronoun) or if it is somehow otherwise implied.

Everybody in the classroom was aware of what was going on - no one was lied to - including the individual with “gender dysphoria”.

I don’t think it is right to call them “off their rocker”. It is a very sad mental condition for which we (as in society, mental health professionals, etc) should be looking for a better treatment.

I used the term because there is some serious discussion that gender dysphoria may not be a mental illness. The sudden amount of “cases” of something previously not experienced appears to have sourcing in something other than a mental illness as normally seen.

 

[Kei]

Everybody in the classroom was aware of what was going on - no one was lied to - including the individual with “gender dysphoria”.

I don’t know that I agree with that, are you sure everyone knew what was going on, and that this would not be taken as affirmation of a subjectivist worldview?

I used the term because there is some serious discussion that gender dysphoria may not be a mental illness. The sudden amount of “cases” of something previously not experienced appears to have sourcing in something other than a mental illness as normally seen.

That’s interesting, any links or something? There are those colloquially called “transtrenders” who aren’t actually trans but essentially jump on the fad. As to “real” transgender people who go ahead and get the surgery, etc…I think it’s obvious some sort of mental health issue is at hand.
I think maybe we didn’t have social expression for this particular type of mental issue before.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It’s a religious position that doesn’t have any merit as far as I’m concerned (a man is a man etc). There’s simply no secular argument to support it.

Hmmm. I think we could find secular arguments against compelled speech.
What I’m curious about is how freedom from compelled speech might be protected under the Constitution.
I’m not sure what sort of protection you might have in Australia.

Compelled speech - I’m willing to listen to arguments for and against. A man is a man is a man with no exceptions? Not so much.

 

[JimG]

“A man is a man, a woman is a woman” doesn’t seem all that controversial to me.

"A man is a woman,"or “a woman is a man” is more problematic.

Of course there are relatively rare genetic and anatomic anomalies, but those are not the norm, nor do they constitute the majority of gender dysphoria cases.