Teacher fired for not using preferred pronouns!
Discussion
ChocolateFrog said:
Will be interesting to see which way it goes.
My gut feeling says unfair dismissal.
Wouldn’t be surprised: the preceding cases are beginning to build up legal heft. And as this gets going there will be a lot more of this kind of thing.My gut feeling says unfair dismissal.
Hopefully to the point where institutions start paying attention.
At which point maybe sanity will be restored.
I do think that many posters on this thread have little knowledge about what is currently happening in the education sector where teachers/lecturers are concerned. This man maybe a 
, he may not be a and maybe the Tribunal will rule in his favour or maybe it will not. Let justice and Logic prevail.
For those who don’t work in the sector, it is worth pointing out that the pressure on us that do is intense and increasingly overwhelming WRT these ‘issues’; official guidance changes regularly, which doesn’t help either. In my experience as a Uni Prof, the pressure put on us by senior management, as one simple example, to declare our preferred pronouns on our email signature is excessive but it’s also mandated. But I, like many of my colleagues, have pushed back on this. My birth name is John, and that is what my wife calls me, and I answer to that name, especially when she calls me. (SWIMBO and all that.) For the record she also is a uni lecturer in a neighbouring Uni and her name is Caroline, and she, along with lots of her colleagues, refuses to comply with this game either.
For my own part, after 30 years of teaching undergrads and postgrads, I still do not give a fking monkey’s what a student wants to call themselves, how they want to identify, what colour they are, what their sexual orientation is, where they come from, what socio-economic background they are from, what their religion is or whether they have none. I always treat everybody as I would want to be treated myself: with respect, dignity, fairness and equality. I don’t need to be subjected to annual ‘diversity’ and ‘unconscious bias’ training to tell me that (or if I fail to comply, face dismissal). It’s insulting and disrespectful; it is a guilt trip which undermines my dignity, and insults me and tacitly suggests that I am inherently biased unconsciously. Yet this annual humiliation is imposed on us by post holders who are taking (generally large) salaries away from teaching staff where they are crucially needed when massive cuts in the sector are being made. Where ‘Unconscious Bias’ training is concerned, even MPs pushed back on it; I read recently that the armed forces are doing the same. But Unis and Colleges are still obsessed by this stuff, and I hear from friends who teach in state schools that it’s just as oppressive there. Kemi Badenoch addresses the issue succinctly: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/20/ke...
As for this particular teacher in the article, if he is found to be a bully by the tribunal then so be it and he deserves everything he gets. If this student is found to be less than honest, then they deserve everything they get. Let the tribunal decide with due process.
, he may not be a and maybe the Tribunal will rule in his favour or maybe it will not. Let justice and Logic prevail. For those who don’t work in the sector, it is worth pointing out that the pressure on us that do is intense and increasingly overwhelming WRT these ‘issues’; official guidance changes regularly, which doesn’t help either. In my experience as a Uni Prof, the pressure put on us by senior management, as one simple example, to declare our preferred pronouns on our email signature is excessive but it’s also mandated. But I, like many of my colleagues, have pushed back on this. My birth name is John, and that is what my wife calls me, and I answer to that name, especially when she calls me. (SWIMBO and all that.) For the record she also is a uni lecturer in a neighbouring Uni and her name is Caroline, and she, along with lots of her colleagues, refuses to comply with this game either.
For my own part, after 30 years of teaching undergrads and postgrads, I still do not give a f
king monkey’s what a student wants to call themselves, how they want to identify, what colour they are, what their sexual orientation is, where they come from, what socio-economic background they are from, what their religion is or whether they have none. I always treat everybody as I would want to be treated myself: with respect, dignity, fairness and equality. I don’t need to be subjected to annual ‘diversity’ and ‘unconscious bias’ training to tell me that (or if I fail to comply, face dismissal). It’s insulting and disrespectful; it is a guilt trip which undermines my dignity, and insults me and tacitly suggests that I am inherently biased unconsciously. Yet this annual humiliation is imposed on us by post holders who are taking (generally large) salaries away from teaching staff where they are crucially needed when massive cuts in the sector are being made. Where ‘Unconscious Bias’ training is concerned, even MPs pushed back on it; I read recently that the armed forces are doing the same. But Unis and Colleges are still obsessed by this stuff, and I hear from friends who teach in state schools that it’s just as oppressive there. Kemi Badenoch addresses the issue succinctly: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/20/ke...As for this particular teacher in the article, if he is found to be a bully by the tribunal then so be it and he deserves everything he gets. If this student is found to be less than honest, then they deserve everything they get. Let the tribunal decide with due process.
popeyewhite said:
otolith said:
Someone needs some kind of personality disorder to choose that hill to die on, in my opinion. To actually care enough to risk their career? Bizarre.
Very hot topic in teaching at the moment, losing control of the classroom etc. Whether you agree or not easy enough just to call Him Brian etc.
However an issue could arise where a person has neo pronouns or is gender flexible or part of a DID system. The teacher might not be able to know etc. So having a hard rule about how you make a call on addressing a student could be difficult.
Gecko1978 said:
popeyewhite said:
otolith said:
Someone needs some kind of personality disorder to choose that hill to die on, in my opinion. To actually care enough to risk their career? Bizarre.
Very hot topic in teaching at the moment, losing control of the classroom etc. Whether you agree or not easy enough just to call Him Brian etc.
However an issue could arise where a person has neo pronouns or is gender flexible or part of a DID system. The teacher might not be able to know etc. So having a hard rule about how you make a call on addressing a student could be difficult.
Many students are equally confused too BTW.
8.4L 154 said:
Suggest you actually read the Forstater EAT Judgement
I’ve read Forstater and as your natty little quote makes clear prohibitions on discrimination apply. ‘Deadnaming’ and ‘misgendering’ have *not* been identified as harassment per se: that is down to the assessment of the situation via tribunal no matter what the trans lobby may wish. The tribunals will take guidance from law and therefore this nonsense will start to be put to bed. I do love how the proponents of this crap keep on twisting legal interpretations.JUSTICE CHOUDHURY said:
This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’
trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be
subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment that apply to everyone
else. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or
discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given
case.
trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be
subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment that apply to everyone
else. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or
discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given
case.
Ridgemont said:
8.4L 154 said:
Suggest you actually read the Forstater EAT Judgement
I’ve read Forstater and as your natty little quote makes clear prohibitions on discrimination apply. ‘Deadnaming’ and ‘misgendering’ have *not* been identified as harassment per se: that is down to the assessment of the situation via tribunal no matter what the trans lobby may wish. The tribunals will take guidance from law and therefore this nonsense will start to be put to bed. I do love how the proponents of this crap keep on twisting legal interpretations.JUSTICE CHOUDHURY said:
This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’
trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be
subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment that apply to everyone
else. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or
discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given
case.
trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be
subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment that apply to everyone
else. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or
discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given
case.
So far gender critical cases of note have involved no trans people in direct contact, those that have, lost significantly. The case of Forstater stood significantly on the shooting from the hip approach of CDG. Yes she got a sanitised version of her belief protected, and that has now been stretched uncritically by subsequent courts, but as someone who watched much of the Forstater case live at the time even I knew there was a significant chance of her winning as CDG f
ked it up to put it mildly. They had no policy, no real procedures or process with an office environment described in court as the wild west, and they tried to write policy around trying to deal with Forstater all the while sending eachother emails documenting the mess they were in with her. Quite honestly they deserved to loose, trans people and society doesn't though deserve the fallout culture war and Forstaters anything goes free speech chaos as it spreads into other prejudices in the work place with employers too scared to act to protect their minority staff.Edited by 8.4L 154 on Thursday 21st March 01:31
8.4L 154 said:
Forstaters anything goes free speech spreads into other prejudices in the work place with employers too scared to act to protect their minority staff.
I’ll try and address the rest of your stuff tomorrow (some may use a phrase like ‘word salad’) but this point stands out.Ever considered the reverse position as stated by you might be valid?
And as far as other ‘minority’ staff: well most of them are very explicitly covered legally.
It’s late. I will try and reply tomorrow.
Ridgemont said:
I’ll try and address the rest of your stuff tomorrow (some may use a phrase like ‘word salad’) but this point stands out.
Ever considered the reverse position as stated by you might be valid?
And as far as other ‘minority’ staff: well most of them are very explicitly covered legally.
It’s late. I will try and reply tomorrow.
Look up gender reassignment in the EA, trans people have the same protections as those protected from racism and homophobia etc in the workplace. Where the difference lies is the presence of trans people in the workplace, all the prominent successful employment cases from religion and gender critical beliefs that have gone before have not come up against actual trans people in the workplace. They have been social media/ outside life entering the workplace problems about hypothetical politics or public figures.Ever considered the reverse position as stated by you might be valid?
And as far as other ‘minority’ staff: well most of them are very explicitly covered legally.
It’s late. I will try and reply tomorrow.
Mackereth is the closest comparison to this case and even he only came up against DWP policy and how he claimed he would treat a trans person he might encounter in his role. He lost spectacularly. A case with an actual trans person as a victim of harassment by the dismissed stands no chance unless the harassment didn't happen, goes unrecognised or the employer didn't have a policy or follow procedures, in which case they would also be wide open to a claim from the trans person instead.
T6 vanman said:
"I knew that with the trans-affirmative policy in the college, for me to use what they call the deadname - her birth name - I would be accused of transphobia, but to then use her new name I would be encouraging the social transition without parental consent.
"So I avoided names altogether... and tried to be as gentle and supportive as I could in the nearly impossible circumstances I found myself in."
A disciplinary hearing found that he subjected a gender-transitioning student to transphobic discrimination and harassment, and refused to use the student's preferred name and pronouns.
Despite these findings, Mr Lister insists he has done nothing wrong and is claiming wrongful dismissal and discrimination.
He added: "A week after the safeguarding referral, there's a female maths competition.
"The student puts a hand up and says 'can I still enter the competition?' and I said 'of course you can because you're a girl', and I put her birth name up on the board, then got accused of deadnaming.
Put's a different spin on things ??
I had read that elsewhere as well. If that forms the crux of him "dead naming" then I don't see how someone is supposed to enter a girl's maths competition with a boys name in the first place. "So I avoided names altogether... and tried to be as gentle and supportive as I could in the nearly impossible circumstances I found myself in."
A disciplinary hearing found that he subjected a gender-transitioning student to transphobic discrimination and harassment, and refused to use the student's preferred name and pronouns.
Despite these findings, Mr Lister insists he has done nothing wrong and is claiming wrongful dismissal and discrimination.
He added: "A week after the safeguarding referral, there's a female maths competition.
"The student puts a hand up and says 'can I still enter the competition?' and I said 'of course you can because you're a girl', and I put her birth name up on the board, then got accused of deadnaming.
Put's a different spin on things ??
Still at least we know that the supposed shortage of maths teachers cannot actually be a thing, because they wouldn't be firing them over nonsense like this if that were the case........
Again lots of posts on people’s views on gender and on what legislation says and how people are interpreting it.
Why do people need legislation to tell them how they should behave?
Do people really think the way this teacher is reported as treating this student was decent or polite?
Is it how you’d like to be treated?
Why do people need legislation to tell them how they should behave?
Do people really think the way this teacher is reported as treating this student was decent or polite?
Is it how you’d like to be treated?
Diderot said:
I do think that many posters on this thread have little knowledge about what is currently happening in the education sector where teachers/lecturers are concerned. This man maybe a , he may not be a and maybe the Tribunal will rule in his favour or maybe it will not. Let justice and Logic prevail.
For those who don’t work in the sector, it is worth pointing out that the pressure on us that do is intense and increasingly overwhelming WRT these ‘issues’; official guidance changes regularly, which doesn’t help either. In my experience as a Uni Prof, the pressure put on us by senior management, as one simple example, to declare our preferred pronouns on our email signature is excessive but it’s also mandated. But I, like many of my colleagues, have pushed back on this. My birth name is John, and that is what my wife calls me, and I answer to that name, especially when she calls me. (SWIMBO and all that.) For the record she also is a uni lecturer in a neighbouring Uni and her name is Caroline, and she, along with lots of her colleagues, refuses to comply with this game either.
For my own part, after 30 years of teaching undergrads and postgrads, I still do not give a fking monkey’s what a student wants to call themselves, how they want to identify, what colour they are, what their sexual orientation is, where they come from, what socio-economic background they are from, what their religion is or whether they have none. I always treat everybody as I would want to be treated myself: with respect, dignity, fairness and equality. I don’t need to be subjected to annual ‘diversity’ and ‘unconscious bias’ training to tell me that (or if I fail to comply, face dismissal). It’s insulting and disrespectful; it is a guilt trip which undermines my dignity, and insults me and tacitly suggests that I am inherently biased unconsciously. Yet this annual humiliation is imposed on us by post holders who are taking (generally large) salaries away from teaching staff where they are crucially needed when massive cuts in the sector are being made. Where ‘Unconscious Bias’ training is concerned, even MPs pushed back on it; I read recently that the armed forces are doing the same. But Unis and Colleges are still obsessed by this stuff, and I hear from friends who teach in state schools that it’s just as oppressive there. Kemi Badenoch addresses the issue succinctly: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/20/ke...
As for this particular teacher in the article, if he is found to be a bully by the tribunal then so be it and he deserves everything he gets. If this student is found to be less than honest, then they deserve everything they get. Let the tribunal decide with due process.
Interesting insight,thanks for posting., he may not be a and maybe the Tribunal will rule in his favour or maybe it will not. Let justice and Logic prevail. For those who don’t work in the sector, it is worth pointing out that the pressure on us that do is intense and increasingly overwhelming WRT these ‘issues’; official guidance changes regularly, which doesn’t help either. In my experience as a Uni Prof, the pressure put on us by senior management, as one simple example, to declare our preferred pronouns on our email signature is excessive but it’s also mandated. But I, like many of my colleagues, have pushed back on this. My birth name is John, and that is what my wife calls me, and I answer to that name, especially when she calls me. (SWIMBO and all that.) For the record she also is a uni lecturer in a neighbouring Uni and her name is Caroline, and she, along with lots of her colleagues, refuses to comply with this game either.
For my own part, after 30 years of teaching undergrads and postgrads, I still do not give a f
king monkey’s what a student wants to call themselves, how they want to identify, what colour they are, what their sexual orientation is, where they come from, what socio-economic background they are from, what their religion is or whether they have none. I always treat everybody as I would want to be treated myself: with respect, dignity, fairness and equality. I don’t need to be subjected to annual ‘diversity’ and ‘unconscious bias’ training to tell me that (or if I fail to comply, face dismissal). It’s insulting and disrespectful; it is a guilt trip which undermines my dignity, and insults me and tacitly suggests that I am inherently biased unconsciously. Yet this annual humiliation is imposed on us by post holders who are taking (generally large) salaries away from teaching staff where they are crucially needed when massive cuts in the sector are being made. Where ‘Unconscious Bias’ training is concerned, even MPs pushed back on it; I read recently that the armed forces are doing the same. But Unis and Colleges are still obsessed by this stuff, and I hear from friends who teach in state schools that it’s just as oppressive there. Kemi Badenoch addresses the issue succinctly: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/20/ke...As for this particular teacher in the article, if he is found to be a bully by the tribunal then so be it and he deserves everything he gets. If this student is found to be less than honest, then they deserve everything they get. Let the tribunal decide with due process.
There's a whole industry built around this. Lot of money to be made from that grift.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Again lots of posts on people’s views on gender and on what legislation says and how people are interpreting it.
Why do people need legislation to tell them how they should behave?
Do people really think the way this teacher is reported as treating this student was decent or polite?
Is it how you’d like to be treated?
His account, if you actually read it, is that he was decent and polite. He avoided using the male name (or any name when referring to her for that matter) because that would be tacit approval of the transition without her parents consent. The bullying claim comes because he wrote her female name when listing the team for a female competition on the board. It'd be a bit fWhy do people need legislation to tell them how they should behave?
Do people really think the way this teacher is reported as treating this student was decent or polite?
Is it how you’d like to be treated?
king weird if he wrote a male name to compete in a female competition would it not?This 'decent and polite' thing you keep going on about, as if your views give you some sort of moral high ground, is completely wrong. Supporting such delusion until irreversible damage is done to young people's bodies, is definitely not 'decent and polite', it's horrific.
Diderot said:
For those who don’t work in the sector, it is worth pointing out that the pressure on us that do is intense and increasingly overwhelming WRT these ‘issues’;
Universities are not public sector. Diderot said:
official guidance changes regularly, which doesn’t help either. In my experience as a Uni Prof, the pressure put on us by senior management, as one simple example, to declare our preferred pronouns on our email signature is excessive but it’s also mandated.
That’s not sector wide, and is also against both guidance and good practice. It’s not something I have ever come across in HE. Lots of people do it, but mandated? Never. I’d be surprised if it was actually policy. It absolutely isn’t at any of the institutions I have worked at, and I have never put pronouns in my signature. I’d like to know what guidance this is that you are claiming changes regularly, as it is not something I have come across happening.Diderot said:
I am inherently biased unconsciously.
You are. Everyone is. It’s a fact of being human. I’m sure every person I have been publicly humiliated by, due to my disability, thought they were not biased. People who think they are not biased are often the nosed biased. Non so blind as those who will not see.Diderot said:
Yet this annual humiliation is imposed on us by post holders who are taking (generally large) salaries
Head of EDI at University of Oxford is a standard administrative graded post, and is mostly responsible for staff and student disability and Athena Swan. I don’t know other institutions I have worked at, but I doubt they are much different. Hardly a large salary, and the number of people dealing with gender policy will be in the fractions of an FTE in any HE organisation. Doing a 30 min online course is hardly “humiliation”. Get a grip.
Edited by Electro1980 on Thursday 21st March 07:26
GMT13 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Again lots of posts on people’s views on gender and on what legislation says and how people are interpreting it.
Why do people need legislation to tell them how they should behave?
Do people really think the way this teacher is reported as treating this student was decent or polite?
Is it how you’d like to be treated?
His account, if you actually read it, is that he was decent and polite. He avoided using the male name (or any name when referring to her for that matter) because that would be tacit approval of the transition without her parents consent. The bullying claim comes because he wrote her female name when listing the team for a female competition on the board. It'd be a bit fWhy do people need legislation to tell them how they should behave?
Do people really think the way this teacher is reported as treating this student was decent or polite?
Is it how you’d like to be treated?
king weird if he wrote a male name to compete in a female competition would it not?This 'decent and polite' thing you keep going on about, as if your views give you some sort of moral high ground, is completely wrong. Supporting such delusion until irreversible damage is done to young people's bodies, is definitely not 'decent and polite', it's horrific.
It’s letters on a board, I thought Gender Criticals only cared about Biology?
Edited by chrispmartha on Thursday 21st March 07:35
Crippo said:
Sometimes I’m not sure I really belong in society because I just don’t understand it. It must be me, I must be mad. But I have no idea what gender is. You’re either male or female aren’t you. You can’t choose to be something that you’re not. I can identify as a woman but I’m still a man and as such I’m a he because that what we call males. To call me she is to go along with the fraud. I dont understand how someone can be sacked for stating a truth and refusing to support a lie. It’s a total distortion of language…it’s utterly mad. I’m sure it’s a form of gaslighting of society. We all have to be unthinking and just accept this crap.
I totally agree with you and it becomes even more ridiculous, when the majority of people are compelled to play along with this sort of charade.https://www.whatisawoman.uk/PippaBunce/
sugerbear said:
irc said:
So the student wanted to be male but still be a girl for the purposes of entering competition. Logical.
They were eligible for the competition. That’s all you need to worry about. You can't have it all ways.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff