Submitted by wdcmsnbcgay t3_y9w45i in Pennsylvania
capitocoto t1_it87edo wrote
I wish someone could explain to me how “please use the correct word to refer to me” violates a religious belief.
I was raised Christian. I was Christian for years. Nowhere in the Bible does it say, “These pronouns are the only ones allowed and they are assigned this way.” (Given that none of the books were originally written in English that’s good. I don’t want to learn Greek or Aramaic.) and as for names, Jesus is the one who names Peter, when they are both adults. The Godspeed support adult name changes.
AeAeR t1_it89env wrote
I do not understand how these people reconcile their actions with Jesus’. Do they think Jesus wouldn’t have made the person feel welcome? The hypocrisy kills me.
akennelley t1_it8hpzu wrote
Don't you know Jesus made sure all the people he fed and healed weren't gay or trans first.
"Lord Jesus, please touch me and heal my infirmity!"
The Lord looked upon his servant and saith "No homo?"
[deleted] t1_ita2cbs wrote
[removed]
SamuelDoctor t1_it9uxo4 wrote
"Jesus taught that we should treat others as we would like to be treated. That doesn't mean I have to treat others as THEY would like to be treated. I would want to be treated as if I was ridiculous if I were acting the way that person is! I'm following the guidance of Christ to the letter! Read the bible!"
Just guessing.
SamuelDoctor t1_it9uqsj wrote
I think you can use your imagination as to how the biblical concept of gender and sex might be applied in this situation.
capitocoto t1_it9y6n8 wrote
Which Biblical concept of gender?
If you are referring to complementarianism, that’s from 1987. It’s younger than me and younger than you, probably. I wouldn’t call that Biblical when it’s only 35 years old.
In the era when the New Testament was written, there was only one gender. Women were an aberration of men. If that’s what you want, I don’t think the current white evangelical American genders are going to work for you.
SamuelDoctor t1_ita6z1n wrote
I'm referring to Abrahamic gender roles.
I'm an agnostic atheist and a secular humanist.
d0s4gw t1_ita2o4y wrote
If you’re actually interested in a discussion, then I’ll play along.
I’m just guessing but guessing the Christian argument could be something along the lines of man and woman are creations of God and to try to change one’s sex is to deny that God’s creation is “good”. I think it has less to do with the pronouns per se and more to do with the concept that sex is mutable.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202%3A4-25&version=ESV
“then the Lord God formed the man of (D)dust from the ground and (E)breathed into his (F)nostrils the breath of life, and (G)the man became a living creature”
“20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam[g] there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a (S)deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man.”
It’s kind of weak, but I could see it being connected to that.
I think the 1st amendment argument is much stronger and more directly related to the pronouns themselves. No one can force someone else to say something. Period. There’s really not even a need to explain why. There’s no compulsory speech. Maybe it’s rude or insensitive but there’s no laws against those. I could see that potentially being against a code of conduct at a private business and could justify firing someone, but public education is government, so again it would be the government compelling speech. Plus it’s not a slur or hate speech exactly so I think it’s probably protected. Unless there’s precedent for hate speech being dependent on context that I’m not aware of.
capitocoto t1_itbfdw7 wrote
Yeah and if I call a client a whore, I am getting fired from Wendy’s.
The first amendment doesn’t protect your right to say anything you want and not get fired from your job.
You have failed third grade civics.
d0s4gw t1_itccny0 wrote
That’s not even remotely what I said. Calling someone he or she is not the same as calling someone a whore.
capitocoto t1_itd090o wrote
And a school having a policy about pronouns has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
It’s an institution that is allowed to have rules and guidelines about speech used by its employees and representatives. In this case, they must respect individual’s pronouns.
Your comment is akin to the people who shout angrily about their constitutional rights when they get put in Facebook jail or banned from Twitter.
d0s4gw t1_itd87s3 wrote
It’s really not and you could probably see that if you weren’t ideologically possessed and were more interested in a real discussion than the typical bad faith redditor snark. Thanks anyway, I regret trying to engage.
capitocoto t1_itd8dyj wrote
Quite literally the First Amendment applies to the government not arresting you for your speech. It does not apply to your employer firing you for behavior that violates the rule book.
d0s4gw t1_itdcwld wrote
The difference in this situation is that the rule isn’t about what you can’t say. It’s about what you must say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compelled_speech
The closest example in my opinion is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette
the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects students from being forced to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school.
the state did not have the power to compel speech
capitocoto t1_itdf1np wrote
And the state isn’t compelling speech.
If a call center operator decides that he is going to call you Mrs Doubtfire for the entire call, he will be fired. Starbucks employees have been fired for the names they put on a cup.
Employees can be and have been fired for being disrespectful to clients. It can be one of the hardest parts of customer service jobs and any client facing jobs.
It is disrespectful and injurious to misgender a person.
The school has made the decision that if an employee (teacher) misgenders a client (student), that is an offense that can lead to firing.
I am part of compliance in a call center as a hat I wear professionally. If I monitored an employee who was consistently misgendering one of our clients, I would report that. It wouldn’t be my business what happens to them afterward, but it could definitely be a factor that leads to them being fired.
This is not a constitutional issue.
d0s4gw t1_itdfqcj wrote
If the threat of being fired isn’t compulsion then what is it?
capitocoto t1_itdfya6 wrote
So you think employees should be able to say whatever they want, whenever they want, on company time and while representing the company, and it should have no effect on their employment status?
d0s4gw t1_itdh7or wrote
No, there are things people can say that can warrant being fired. As an example - https://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/houston-teacher-fired-after-racist-comments-were-recorded-during-class
The discussion we’re having is, can there be things that a person doesn’t say that warrants being fired? The court case I linked based in part on the first amendment suggests the precedent says no. It’s pretty clear that this is a constitutional issue, and the school in question also sees it that way because they withdrew the policy.
capitocoto t1_itdl53f wrote
Per the article, the teacher was actively using the wrong pronouns for the student. That goes beyond being compelled to say something - the teacher was actively misgendering the student.
You clearly have zero understand of speech, employment, or grammar.
d0s4gw t1_itdoklc wrote
Try reading more material on the topic. No student was misgendered. And try to stop being such a judgmental prick
capitocoto t1_itdpua4 wrote
Do you not know what misgender means? If you don’t, the dictionary can help.
This teacher refused to gender his student properly which is the very definition of misgendering the student.
d0s4gw t1_itdtv5n wrote
No student was misgendered. The teacher refused to agree to a policy on preferred pronouns. There were no students involved. https://www.timesonline.com/story/news/local/2022/10/06/south-side-school-district-reinstates-teacher-suspended-refusing-to-use-preferred-pronouns-beaver/69544475007/
capitocoto t1_itdw3rj wrote
Where are you getting that information?
Because there is no where in the article that you linked where it says no student was misgendered. It says the superintendent declined to give comment about the case.
Declining to give comment =/= no student got misgendered.
This article states he was suspended because he refused to comply with his employer’s policy
Btw I am greatly amused that you have changed both tactics and goal posts. Your first argument was that this was a First Amendment issue and no one can compel this man’s speech. Now you have abandoned it and your new argument is that because no student was harmed, it shouldn’t be a problem.
A+
d0s4gw t1_itdxkc5 wrote
It’s still a first amendment issue. The teacher was reinstated. You’re a dick.
victorix58 t1_ita1z0r wrote
It's not the correct word if it violates English.
capitocoto t1_itbfucc wrote
Remarkably, English is a language that likes to be violated so that it can adapt to new situations.
But if you are referring to the singular they, both Chaucer and Shakespeare used the singular they and it is an established part of the language.
curatedaccount t1_it90nzy wrote
> I wish someone could explain to me how “please use the correct word to refer to me” violates a religious belief.
The way you phrased the question makes it clear you're not ready to hear an answer. So nobody with any awareness is going to attempt it.
capitocoto t1_it939qi wrote
Because there is NOTHING in the Bible or traditional Christian theology that says addressing someone by a name, nickname, or pronoun is a religious violation or sin.
curatedaccount t1_it94r4l wrote
No it's definitely because you're close-mindedness is clearly visible in every sentence you write. Nobody is gonna engage you on this with any kind of conviction.
capitocoto t1_it9acz6 wrote
I mean, you have no conviction nor an understanding of the English language so certainly you would be functionally incapable of providing an explanation even if you were so inclined.
curatedaccount t1_it9e91m wrote
You suck at reverse psychology FYI.
Your_Local_Rabbi t1_it9l91h wrote
"i don't have a good answer, so i'm going to pretend the answer is obvious and you're ridiculous for asking. i am very smart"
Juan_Inch_Mon t1_it8oi02 wrote
Right. My coworkers refuse to refer to me as "Your Majesty". If they contimnue to not refer to me in the way I ask because of how I see myself, then I am going to have to elevate the issue to HR.
capitocoto t1_it8vjti wrote
Even if we wanted to pretend that referring to someone by the right pronouns was remotely similar to demanding to be treated as royalty, where in the Bible or Christian theology does it say that is a violation of the faith?
It is my understanding that the crown heads of Europe are almost all, if not all, entirely Christian. King Charles of the United Kingdom, His Majesty, is even the head of the Anglican Church.
curatedaccount t1_it90w0w wrote
> demanding to be treated as royalty,
He didn't say that. You're straw-manning.
He only asked to be referred to as 'Your Majesty' not for anyone to have to serve him peeled grapes on a platter or whatever.
It's a simple change of the way you refer to him, nothing more.
But you TOOK it as a request for something more. Maybe you should be wondering if the people who have a knee-jerk reaction to neopronouns are taking it as a request for something more than just a change in how they're addressed.
capitocoto t1_it934h5 wrote
Your Majesty is a form of address generally reserved for royalty when not being used sarcastically. It is not a pronoun.
Pronouns are nouns we substitute for other nouns: usually one like he, she, it, they, and their declensions. The student in question uses they pronouns. Both Chaucer and Shakespeare used a singular they so if you try the “that’s always plural” you will only further demonstrate the failure of English education in this state.
Your Majesty is a form of formal address, usually reserved for a monarch above the rank of prince.
Congrats! You are transphobic and don’t understand English grammar!
curatedaccount t1_it944rs wrote
> Your Majesty is a form of address generally reserved for royalty when not being used sarcastically.
"Ma'am" is a form of address generally reserved for females.
I thought we were ignoring how words are generally used when asked too if it doesn't hurt anyone? Are we not doing that?
>when not being used sarcastically
Ah, so you are applying a 'genuineness' filter to the requests. And if you decide, based on whatever, that they're not genuine, you can just ignore them?
Can I do that? Can a teacher do that? Or only you can do that?
Who is hurt if you call someone who isn't royalty 'your majesty'?
capitocoto t1_it9d1pp wrote
Wow. Literally all of your comments are racist or anti-queer. Like. All of them.
You don’t have a normal thought in your head. It’s just hatred of non-whites and queers. That’s it.
I have been aware that people like you exist for a long time. My mother is one of you. But damn, it’s always a little terrifying when you encounter a human who has chosen to become the personification of hatred.
curatedaccount t1_it9ee1r wrote
Lol. You could have just said "uncle" it'd have been quicker.
How about engaging in the conversation you're in rather than digging through my profile for old ones?
>My mother is one of you
You will be too... When you're older.
capitocoto t1_it9xp9g wrote
I am a middle aged man.
The “you’ll be conservative and bat shit when you’re older” wasn’t convincing when I was 15.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments