Gender Pronouns v God, lawsuit on religious freedom - Admin Warning in the OP

grassylawn

Well he's doing what he believes to be right. I've taught college students and I wouldn't care about what gender I should refer to them as in the slightest. He is an elementary school teacher though and could be talking about children as young as five. I would have an issue with it myself if you were talking about young children.

WrenBoy

I see that the religious aspect is the centre piece of the argument here but I would be more concerned at this compelled speech.
Making rules about what can't be said in a certain venues or the work place are common and have its utilities but compelling speech against the wishes of the speaker is a step too far for me.
I personally wouldn't mind using whatever pronouns a person wanted me to but I'm not for forcing others with the threat of unemployment.

randd1

Whatever about the issues around gender, surely if the teacher is planning to teach according to fact, would that not also render their religious views moot seeing as faith is belief in the absence of fact?

randd1

randd1 wrote: »

Whatever about the issues around gender, surely if the teacher is planning to teach according to fact, would that not also render their religious views moot seeing as faith is belief in the absence of fact?

Except that in the US, with the protections given to Religions, the belief/faith is considered as fact in many of the States.

cafflingwunts

How is this a current affair to Ireland? It might be to you, Overheal, being from America, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with Ireland nor should it be seen as a current affair "IMHO".


I don't hear of my mates kids having these issues in their schools.

WrenBoy

WrenBoy wrote: »

I see that the religious aspect is the centre piece of the argument here but I would be more concerned at this compelled speech.
Making rules about what can't be said in a certain venues or the work place are common and have its utilities but compelling speech against the wishes of the speaker is a step too far for me.
I personally wouldn't mind using whatever pronouns a person wanted me to but I'm not for forcing others with the threat of unemployment.

Except this sort of stuff falls under an educator's role. By your logic, a teacher should be able to refuse to teach parts of sex education. Should they also get to refuse to teach about evolution or climate change?

WrenBoy

Deleted User wrote: »

Except this sort of stuff falls under an educator's role. By your logic, a teacher should be able to refuse to teach parts of sex education. Should they also get to refuse to teach about evolution or climate change?

A religious school mightn't be teaching evolution and a school that does teach it would be vetting out teachers with that viewpoint in the hiring process Im sure.
The recent gender and trans issue in young children is a fairly new phenomenon so I wouldn't be equating it to evolution as if its a settled issue to the same degree.
To a similar degree, should a teacher have to teach kids that criticism of Israel is anti-semitic and therefore wrong if thats the schools view even if the teacher disagrees with that viewpoint?

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

But what happens when you don't agree with someone's else's believefs should you be sacked and labelled as a homophobic bigot for not promoting something you know isn't true or real

Define irony: "a religious fruitcake refusing to respect the views of someone because they 'know' it isn't real".

Where is the self realisation with these idiots? What would this teacher say if an atheist teacher refused to teach his kids, say prayers or observe all of the insane symbology surrounding organised religion?

Methinks there'd be more than one court case.

seamus

I would generally be of the opinion that where someone's religious beliefs conflict with their job and there is no way to make a reasonable accommodation, then they leave.

So a Sikh who wants to be a Garda; gets an official turban. Easy-peasy, reasonable accommodation.

A muslim who wants to work in an abbatoir but doesn't want to touch, see or smell pork; sling your hook.

Likewise, a teacher who refuses to adhere to school policy or refuses to teach something because it's against their religion; go find somewhere else to work.

The whole thing comes under the basic banner of respect, which the US religious generally don't understand. If someone gives you a name or title with which they would like to be addressed, then you respect that. It's very easy. If Thomas asks you to call him Tom, if Dick asks you to call him Richard, if Bob asks you to call him Sue, if your friend asks to be called "they", then you do that. Wilful refusal to do so, and to continue using the other word, makes you a disrespectful cvnt.

And in a school setting, a teacher failing to show basic respect for their students, should not be teaching.

WrenBoy

WrenBoy wrote: »

A religious school mightn't be teaching evolution and a school that does teach it would be vetting out teachers with that viewpoint in the hiring process Im sure.
The recent gender and trans issue in young children is a fairly new phenomenon so I wouldn't be equating it to evolution as if its a settled issue to the same degree.
To a similar degree, should a teacher have to teach kids that criticism of Israel is anti-semitic and therefore wrong if thats the schools view even if the teacher disagrees with that viewpoint?

The fact that any school in the US has the right to refuse to teach about evolution if anything is a negative reflection on their education system.

The world of psychology etc is pretty settled on it. How about a teacher that refuses to discuss homosexuality in a positive context in sex ed? The reality is, these teachers taking these stands are only negatively impacting the affected students. Also using a public school's classroom to take a religious stance isn't even constitutional in the US.... It's like that time the woman refused to register same sex marriages year back, her role changed slightly and she refused to do it..

WrenBoy

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact that any school in the US has the right to refuse to teach about evolution if anything is a negative reflection on their education system.

The world of psychology etc is pretty settled on it. How about a teacher that refuses to discuss homosexuality in a positive context in sex ed? The reality is, these teachers taking these stands are only negatively impacting the affected students. Also using a public school's classroom to take a religious stance isn't even constitutional in the US.... It's like that time the woman refused to register same sex marriages year back, her role changed slightly and she refused to do it..

Ya its a tough enough circle to square alright. Be interesting to see where it goes.

conorhal

magicbastarder wrote: »

yeah, for me if that's his stance i won't even bother concerning myself with what else he has to say.
his job is to serve the kids, not god. if he doesn't understand that, he's in the wrong job and his opinions should be discarded as trash.

Instead he must serve the new religion of 'woke' and it's irrational God of feels?
These people are no less fervent in their zeal, which itself boarders on religious fervour, they're true believers in an ideology that has no more basis in fact then that of the teacher in question.

Perhaps they can all stick to the three R's and leave gender politics out of school classrooms.

One eyed Jack

WrenBoy wrote: »

A religious school mightn't be teaching evolution and a school that does teach it would be vetting out teachers with that viewpoint in the hiring process Im sure.
The recent gender and trans issue in young children is a fairly new phenomenon so I wouldn't be equating it to evolution as if its a settled issue to the same degree.

”Teaching the controversy” is still very prominent in the US education system. It’s one of the reasons for what’s commonly referred to as the Establishment Clause, but that applies to schools, and not to individuals.

There’s a famous case in the US which is well worth looking up called the Scopes trial which dealt with the teaching of evolution in a similar fashion to the way that civil rights are being taught in public schools in the US in modern society, except in reverse - the teacher in that case martyred himself for the cause, similar to the way this teacher is doing. The only thing that’s likely common to both cases is that the children know as much as their parents of evolution or biology

WrenBoy wrote: »

To a similar degree, should a teacher have to teach kids that criticism of Israel is anti-semitic and therefore wrong if thats the schools view even if the teacher disagrees with that viewpoint?

Yes. Why do you imagine it should be any different? The teacher is being employed to educate the children according to the school’s ethos, not their own personal philosophy or religious beliefs or none, or whatever they may be. They’re obligated essentially to keep their opinions to themselves. In that regard it’s no different than any employer/employee relationship. They’re not being compelled to do or say anything whatsoever that they don’t agree with. Their employer is also not compelled to maintain their employment when an employee makes themselves a liability for their employer. There are no freedom of speech or religious freedom rights being violated in this case. The teacher in this case is just a patsy for a greater conflict that’s been going on in the US public education system for decades is all, and this is just the latest round of it, and the teacher is the latest idiot who’s convinced themselves they’re a martyr for the cause.

Donald Trump

What are 8040 that he refers to? 8035 is in the OP

What is the issue on here about? His speech referred to physical changes and posters are talking about calling Bob Sue. Calling someone by a different name is one thing and seems fairly trivial.

When your man says physical changes, what does he mean - are there some kind of operations being done or hormones being given to children to enable them to develop characteristics of another gender? Or does he just mean a boy deciding to wear a dress to school?

grassylawn

Donald Trump wrote: »

What are 8040 that he refers to? 8035 is in the OP

What is the issue on here about? His speech referred to physical changes and posters are talking about calling Bob Sue. Calling someone by a different name is one thing and seems fairly trivial.

When your man says physical changes, what does he mean - are there some kind of operations being done or hormones being given to children to enable them to develop characteristics of another gender? Or does he just mean a boy deciding to wear a dress to school?

He is probably talking about puberty blockers. The idea is that they can delay the development of sexual characteristics until they're old enough to make a decision. Which sounds reasonable in theory but iirc there were undesirable effects. Don't remember the details too clearly but I remember my view was that they were a bad idea.

Gatling

Donald Trump wrote: »

What are 8040 that he refers to? 8035 is in the OP

What is the issue on here about? His speech referred to physical changes and posters are talking about calling Bob Sue. Calling someone by a different name is one thing and seems fairly trivial.

When your man says physical changes, what does he mean - are there some kind of operations being done or hormones being given to children to enable them to develop characteristics of another gender? Or does he just mean a boy deciding to wear a dress to school?

Could be this

https://policy.hcpss.org/8000/8040/

Gatling

Donald Trump wrote: »

When your man says physical changes, what does he mean - are there some kind of operations being done or hormones being given to children to enable them to develop characteristics of another gender? Or does he just mean a boy deciding to wear a dress to school?

Positive affirmations through social transition and starting puberty blockers from 10 years old up almost straight away .

Regardless of the physical and mental damage that will be done to young bodies

Gentlemanne

Puberty blockers are safe, and reversible. They're not just used for children with gender dysphoria, sometimes children enter puberty too early and the same mediciations are used to manage their hormones.

https://pharma.nridigital.com/pharma_sept20/puberty_blockers_transgender_children

For me, I would always trust medical and psychological professionals who have the expertise to determine whether puberty blockers for the treatment of a patient may be necessary.

Overheal

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Puberty blockers are safe, and reversible. They're not just used for children with gender dysphoria, sometimes children enter puberty too early and the same mediciations are used to manage their hormones.

https://pharma.nridigital.com/pharma_sept20/puberty_blockers_transgender_children

For me, I would always trust medical and psychological professionals who have the expertise to determine whether puberty blockers for the treatment of a patient may be necessary.

Suppose that was an answer to the shift in younger puberty that science seems to think is being caused by commercial food processing eg. Chicken as well as contamination of the water supply with women on the pill excreting more hormones etc etc.

AbusesToilets

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Puberty blockers are safe, and reversible. They're not just used for children with gender dysphoria, sometimes children enter puberty too early and the same mediciations are used to manage their hormones.

https://pharma.nridigital.com/pharma_sept20/puberty_blockers_transgender_children

For me, I would always trust medical and psychological professionals who have the expertise to determine whether puberty blockers for the treatment of a patient may be necessary.

That is wildly inaccurate. Disrupting puberty can have life long negative consequences, leading to issues like stunted growth and bone density. It's not just a casual thing you can delay for awhile.

Gatling

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Puberty blockers are safe, and reversible. They're not just used for children with gender dysphoria, sometimes children enter puberty too early and the same mediciations are used to manage their hormones.

https://pharma.nridigital.com/pharma_sept20/puberty_blockers_transgender_children

For me, I would always trust medical and psychological professionals who have the expertise to determine whether puberty blockers for the treatment of a patient may be necessary.

Infertility , increased Risk from cancers and using drugs not suitable for use on children ,added psychological damage .

Debunked lol

seamus

Puberty blockers are generally known to be safe when prescribed appropriately. The known side effects are known to be relatively minor and are outweighed by the more immediate issues they are prescribed for.

Listing off a pile of statistically small side effects can be done for any medication to "prove" that they're unsafe.

I'll put more stock in the the medical professionals who work in this area and the people who carry out the studies, rather than the randomers online who think that reading a few transphobic websites constitutes proof.

suicide_circus

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Puberty blockers are safe, and reversible.

Why would you want them to be reversible?

Overheal

suicide_circus wrote: »

Why would you want them to be reversible?

Well you wouldn’t want to be prepubescent your entire life would you

AbusesToilets

seamus wrote: »

Puberty blockers are generally known to be safe when prescribed appropriately. The known side effects are known to be relatively minor and are outweighed by the more immediate issues they are prescribed for.

Listing off a pile of statistically small side effects can be done for any medication to "prove" that they're unsafe.

I'll put more stock in the the medical professionals who work in this area and the people who carry out the studies, rather than the randomers online who think that reading a few transphobic websites constitutes proof.

Puberty blockers being used on girls with precocious puberty have been shown not effect their fertility later on in life.

That's a different story than children using blockers off label to disrupt normal puberty onset. There's no scientific evidence to support those claims, they are effectively experimenting on children. It's wildly unethical.

Gentlemanne

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Puberty blockers are safe, and reversible.

The article you linked was written during the ongoing court case in the UK, which eventually ruled that puberty blockers should not be given to children under 16. The NHS in the UK also changed their advice from "The effects of treatment with GnRH analogues are considered to be fully reversible" to the following:

Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.
Although the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.
It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.

Why would they do that, do you think?

And does that count as "medical and psychological professionals" that should be trusted?

Or maybe Carl Heneghan, director of the Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford and Editor in Chief of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine makes the cut? His lit review on this said that "Neuroimaging studies suggest CSHs [puberty blockers] affect brain structure and circuitries, ventricular volume and thickness, hypothalamic neuroplasticity, and functional connectivity."

"Klink 2015 found that lumbar spine bone mineral density scores fell during puberty suppression with GnRHa for transgender adolescent females but did not increase following oestrogen treatment."

"Olson-Kennedy 2018 report elevations in systolic and diastolic blood pressure with testosterone treatment after two years."

He concludes: "There are a large number of unanswered questions that include the age at start, reversibility; adverse events, long term effects on mental health, quality of life, bone mineral density, osteoporosis in later life and cognition. We wonder whether off label use is appropriate and justified for drugs such as spironolactone which can cause substantial harms and even death. We are also ignorant of the long-term safety profiles of the different GAH regimens. The current evidence base does not support informed decision making and safe practice in children."

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmjebmspotlight/2019/02/25/gender-affirming-hormone-in-children-and-adolescents-evidence-review/

Paediatrician Christopher Richards examined the evidence, too. His letter set out three main concerns: 1) young people are left in a state of ‘developmental limbo’ without secondary sexual characteristics that might consolidate gender identity; 2) use is likely to threaten the maturation of the adolescent mind, and 3) puberty blockers are being used in the context of profound scientific ignorance.

https://adc.bmj.com/content/104/6/611#ref-1

Plenty more.

The matter is far from settled. Whatever your view on gender identity, you are playing a profoundly dangerous game by making grand pronouncements about the safety of experimental medical interventions on a public forum where desperate and suffering young people or parents might take you as true.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Puberty blockers being used on girls with precocious puberty have been shown not effect their fertility later on in life.

That's a different story than children using blockers off label to disrupt normal puberty onset. There's no scientific evidence to support those claims, they are effectively experimenting on children. It's wildly unethical.

Who is the they. And where are the off label blockers?

Not that the cases involved really dives into puberty blockers this is mostly about a religious aversion to calling someone they, etc.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

Who is the they. And where are the off label blockers?

Not that the cases involved really dives into puberty blockers this is mostly about a religious aversion to calling someone they, etc.

The medications used for puberty blocking are being used off label from what they were approved for. Lupron is a common one, a medication approved for treating prostate cancer.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The medications used for puberty blocking are being used off label from what they were approved for. Lupron is a common one, a medication approved for treating prostate cancer.

Maybe in different cases. That doesn't seem to be a locus in this case though, the teachers objections are mainly about the policy condoning a students preferred pronouns. I think we could get off on a whole other tangent about blockers and their misuse, and it would be a good talk, but we don't even know of a single kid at that school who is using blockers - heck, strictly speaking we don't know how many kids if any are gender fluid/transitioning.

Pherekydes

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The medications used for puberty blocking are being used off label from what they were approved for. Lupron is a common one, a medication approved for treating prostate cancer.

It's also used for treating breast cancer and precocious puberty and other hormone dependent conditions.