Teacher fired for not using preferred pronouns!
Discussion
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: I always find it odd that when faced between simply being decent and polite to someone who's probably not having the easiest of times and who would appreciate a little support or being completely and deliberately obnoxious to them on purpose how many people will try to defend someone taking the being completely and deliberately obnoxious to them on purpose approach.
Yeah, this.I know some get all frothy about pronouns, and sometimes it seems a little too complicated and can be quite militant in its application but this just seems like a young girl who, going forward wants to be known as male.
Its not hard, and its not like he misgendered him by mistake after being used to referring to him as her, he deliberately made a fuss about saying he wouldn't, strange hill to die on.
Then, as straight, white, males in middle age, you then get painted as the enemy and that you dont understand, and hate trans people. Thing is, its not a new thing, its just that trans people now have a voice that they didnt have, but like this guy, sometimes some get it a bit wrong or go a bit over the top and those are the ones you hear about most. Can see why some trans folk get a bit defensive to be fair after all those years of taking s
t and having the piss taken.Leptons said:
chrispmartha said:
You don’t know either if the two people involved to make such judgments
I don’t need to because it’s there in black and white. You can’t tell everyone you’re a man, ask for male pronouns and then enter a women’s competition. 
Good old logic and common sense.
..and you can't change your sex, only your gender. So maybe pronouns follow gender (Do they?) whereas entry to maths events is based on sex.
Mind you, I don't have a gender, only a sex, so if pronouns are based on gender rather than sex what are my pronouns and how did I pass my exams if my pronouns were always based on thing I don't have!
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Thursday 21st March 10:35
otolith said:
It was a national competition. Possibly this.
https://ukmt.org.uk/mathematical-olympiad-for-girl...
It's intended to increase participation by girls in maths competitions. There is a drive to get more girls to study maths generally, and to encourage more girls who study maths A level to go on to STEM degrees.
Ah ok, so it wasn't just a classroom quiz, fair enough UKMT will have done the PSED and have the justification for treating girls and boys differently. It does however put a different slant on the schools position though as UKMT also have some very strict anti bullying policies which he may have been in breach of and placed the whole schools participation in the national program and competition at risk, it would no longer have been an issue within the school.https://ukmt.org.uk/mathematical-olympiad-for-girl...
It's intended to increase participation by girls in maths competitions. There is a drive to get more girls to study maths generally, and to encourage more girls who study maths A level to go on to STEM degrees.
Well, I'm glad I'm not a teacher; this whole area appears to be a minefield.
The teacher isn't sure if he has parental authority to use the child's preferred male pronouns, but if he doesn't do so the child complains.
The teacher perhaps wants to clarify who has entered a mathematics competition for girls, but the child who identifies as male wants to enter said competition.
Phew!
And yet we have comments on this thread saying, in effect' 'good riddance' and that he's an obnoxious person who deserves to be sacked. I think that dismissal of any employee faced with a difficult situation like this is far too extreme. The tribunal's findings should be interesting.
The teacher isn't sure if he has parental authority to use the child's preferred male pronouns, but if he doesn't do so the child complains.
The teacher perhaps wants to clarify who has entered a mathematics competition for girls, but the child who identifies as male wants to enter said competition.
Phew!
And yet we have comments on this thread saying, in effect' 'good riddance' and that he's an obnoxious person who deserves to be sacked. I think that dismissal of any employee faced with a difficult situation like this is far too extreme. The tribunal's findings should be interesting.
otolith said:
I think it's clear that this is about him being bloody minded about his personal beliefs about transgenderism rather than being confused about how he is expected to treat the pupil.
And yet he says he avoided using names, and tried to be helpful and supportive. He also refers to the conflict between a school's gender affirmative policy and a policy that requires parental permission for social transitioning. Hardly the thoughts of a 'bloody minded' person, and hardly 'clear' either, in my opinion.Hants PHer said:
otolith said:
I think it's clear that this is about him being bloody minded about his personal beliefs about transgenderism rather than being confused about how he is expected to treat the pupil.
And yet he says he avoided using names, and tried to be helpful and supportive. He also refers to the conflict between a school's gender affirmative policy and a policy that requires parental permission for social transitioning. Hardly the thoughts of a 'bloody minded' person, and hardly 'clear' either, in my opinion.Mr Lister has previously said the decision of Student A to use male pronouns had the effect of "compelled speech" - meaning he and fellow students had to follow their wish, irrespective of their own beliefs.
"I believe the student was immersed in a cult. I believe transgender ideology is a cult and should not be encouraged and supported in schools."
Mr Lister denied he held "extreme" views after agreeing he believed that if a parent supported their child's wish to transition, they should be "investigated for Munchausen's by proxy".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51m4xvmy81o
ecsrobin said:
sugerbear said:
Maybe they are but the job of a teacher is to teach not to get caught up in the battle. They wanted to be referred by a different name and be referred to as male. Why add fuel to the fire when your job is to teach?
My wife’s school requires parental permission for changes of name. Possibly the same thing here? If he genuinely felt that it was legally wrong why didn't he bring it up with his employer or involve his union That is how you deal with the situation if it makes you uncomfortable or you think it's the wrong decision. I just don't get how calling someone another name from their birth name is an issue unless you have issues with the idea of people transitioning gender.
J4CKO said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I always find it odd that when faced between simply being decent and polite to someone who's probably not having the easiest of times and who would appreciate a little support or being completely and deliberately obnoxious to them on purpose how many people will try to defend someone taking the being completely and deliberately obnoxious to them on purpose approach.
Yeah, this.I know some get all frothy about pronouns, and sometimes it seems a little too complicated and can be quite militant in its application but this just seems like a young girl who, going forward wants to be known as male.
Its not hard, and its not like he misgendered him by mistake after being used to referring to him as her, he deliberately made a fuss about saying he wouldn't, strange hill to die on.
Then, as straight, white, males in middle age, you then get painted as the enemy and that you dont understand, and hate trans people. Thing is, its not a new thing, its just that trans people now have a voice that they didnt have, but like this guy, sometimes some get it a bit wrong or go a bit over the top and those are the ones you hear about most. Can see why some trans folk get a bit defensive to be fair after all those years of taking s
t and having the piss taken.Without wanting to sound too rude if you didn't know any better it was almost a case of someone who looked male and who you called John on Friday walked into the office on Monday morning looking the same but with slightly longer hair and wearing lipstick asking to be called Jane.
From that point onwards John was Jane and he was she.
I wouldn't even have dreamed of calling her John or he past that point because frankly whatever the law or HR might have had to say about it it would have been a dick move to do so having been explicitly asked not to.
You don't need to agree with something or understand it to not be a dick about it.
Hants PHer said:
otolith said:
I think it's clear that this is about him being bloody minded about his personal beliefs about transgenderism rather than being confused about how he is expected to treat the pupil.
And yet he says he avoided using names, and tried to be helpful and supportive. He also refers to the conflict between a school's gender affirmative policy and a policy that requires parental permission for social transitioning. Hardly the thoughts of a 'bloody minded' person, and hardly 'clear' either, in my opinion.ScotHill said:
What a ct that guy comes across as. Better off out of the classroom.
Reading the article it really sounds like they were using any excuse to get rid of a problem employee. t that guy comes across as. Better off out of the classroom.He does sound like a prize throbber and I suspect wouldn't even pass probation in a corporate job.
captain_cynic said:
Reading the article it really sounds like they were using any excuse to get rid of a problem employee.
He does sound like a prize throbber and I suspect wouldn't even pass probation in a corporate job.
And one of the nuances to this is it may end up where he has been unfairly dismissed but you might still form a view on the way he's behaved.He does sound like a prize throbber and I suspect wouldn't even pass probation in a corporate job.
Leptons said:
I don’t need to because it’s there in black and white. You can’t tell everyone you’re a man, ask for male pronouns and then enter a women’s competition.
Good old logic and common sense.
It is possible the student was being antagonistic when they asked if they could attend.Good old logic and common sense.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:captain_cynic said:
Reading the article it really sounds like they were using any excuse to get rid of a problem employee.
He does sound like a prize throbber and I suspect wouldn't even pass probation in a corporate job.
And one of the nuances to this is it may end up where he has been unfairly dismissed but you might still form a view on the way he's behaved.He does sound like a prize throbber and I suspect wouldn't even pass probation in a corporate job.
captain_cynic said:
I suspect he might be looking for a payout rather than re-employment.
You only get compensated for your loss so if he found employment quickly, that payout will be tiny.So maybe he's just looking for 'vindication'.
Feels to me like both sides are dicks and my sympathy is with the school and the tax payer.
Wonder how the school handled PE. Hard to imagine the student being keen on stripping off for a shower with the other boys and 80 minutes of Rugby.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff