Submitted by wdcmsnbcgay t3_y9w45i in Pennsylvania
d0s4gw t1_ita2o4y wrote
Reply to comment by capitocoto in A Queer Community Speaks Up for Student After Teacher's Transphobia by wdcmsnbcgay
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments