Enoch Burke turns up to school again despite sacking - read OP before posting

He still lives at home, with his parents, believing what they tell him without question. He doesn't display many of the markers of adulthood.

oh dear. Well you’ve confirmed my first thoughts on the type of person you are.

So. Do you believe in homosexuality?

1984 was when we used to treat people with huge disrespect. We've moved things on a bit from there. What's so difficult about treating people with a little respect in the public context.

I have nothing against State ownership and State running schools (i.e. ETB schools)

What I would be against is a State monopoly, i.e. all schools to be ETB schools.

That is why I ask people who want churches pulled out of providing schools - who should be the replacement patrons?

I susoect any such change might require a referendum?

His dresses are nicer than Eddie's too.

Maybe, perhaps and unlikely.

or else it's detention.

Hopefully we will soon see the permanent exodus of the Burkes from WHS.

I don't think that it's nearly as simplistic as saying that people are simply being asked to use a preferred name and pronouns, nothing more, nothing less. And it's not accurate either.

The pronouns request isn't happening in a bubble. It's all linked with and hard to separate from everything else that is going on. Women being expected to share safe spaces with biological males. Rapists who raped women with their penises getting to call themselves women.

And it's not just pronouns because there's a whole load of other 'gender neutral' language that might make some people happy as Miriam Margolyes said, but to me as a woman it feels degrading, 'chestfeeding', 'pregnant person' 'bonus hole' (wtf). I'm not sure how much or if any of that has made it over here and is used in the HSE (hopefully none) but there's a fear of things escalating to that if people don't push back against it.

If it really were as simple as just using pronouns to make people happy, nothing more and nothing less then there would be far less pushback against it.

truth is only what we perceive to be true.

There are people who believe that the twin towers were brought down by missiles, and the planes we all saw crashing into them are holograms. They will argue all day long that they are right and anyone who believes otherwise is wrong.
If you think that you can ram your truth down the throat of someone else and insist that your truth is the only truth and all other truths are false, that is supremely arrogant, ignorant and disrespectful.

Flat Earthers, 9/11 Truthers, Moan Landing Hoaxers, insert random CT group here-ers

I'm looking forward to how you'll manage to get Leviticus or Deuteronomy into a post...

I'm a woman and I don't feel any of those things when asked to use someone's preferred name or pronouns.

It's not about me.

And quite frankly, I'm sick of listening to other women making someone else's life all about them.

You can "push back" against it all you like, but non-binary and transgender people have always existed and are not going to hide who they are any longer to make "you" feel comfortable.

Nor should they have to.

And that is all I'm going to say on this, as this thread is not to discuss women's feelings on transgender - there are plenty of other threads you can do that on.

Sticks philosophy hat on.

The problem is that the people using these phrases don't understand the words they're using and don't have a background in epistemology so they make statements that they claim are true without establishing a foundation for those statements.

Take for example belief. If you look it up you'll find two definitions which are widely different.

Belief  

• a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
• conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

So a belief in climate change based on the tens of thousands of studies which agree with it is different to a belief in God which is based on a two thousand year old book.

Likewise, people who are anti trans and use different words interchangeable. Sex is not gender. They claim that trans people are mentally ill. Their reason for this is that it's all in the persons head. It's true it is in their head, but that doesn't mean it's not real and it doesn't mean they're mentally ill.

And truth is the same. They always base their "truth" on some a priori knowledge that they assume is true but isn't established. so it's something like Sex is real, gender isn't. Yet they never take the time to define what real is.

An example. Autism exists. People have autism. It only exists in their heads. It doesn't involve a physical change. They don't look different. They don't have different limbs. Yet because it doesn't physically manifest and it's in their heads, an anti trans person would say it's not real. This can be said about loads of things. pretty much every neurodivergent condition. And that same goes for people who are gay or bi or hetrosexual. That's in their heads, yet it's still real. The attraction people feel is real but it's not something that you can point to on a body. Yet trans people, straight people, autistic people etc exist even though there's no physical medical test for them. You can't do a blood test or anything for any of these things.

Except most of them never apply the same criteria to neurodivergent people or peoples sexuality. Because we accept them. There are some that will claim that homosexuality and being trans are both mental illnesses, but most anti trans people try to avoid being identified with them.

And here's the thing. They'll refuse to accommodate trans people. People with a condition that's as verifiable as everything I've mentioned above. Yet, they'll demand that we accommodate their beliefs. So you end up with them demanding that their anti trans beliefs are protected. Trans people don't have the right to transition, but an anti trans person should have the right to refer to them as their dead name and tell them they're mentally ill. And religious people will demand acceptance too. They'll demand the ability to discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs but will be horrified if someone is discriminated against because of their religious belief. They'll claim that pride is over the top, yet be annoyed if a nativity display is removed.

Anyways, that was a bit of a diversion from the whole Enoch thing. The fact is that he's in trouble, not for his beliefs, but for how he manifested them.

We want schools where we can send our children to get a good education without being blackmailed into joining a cult who's priests have had a 40+ year history of assault, abuse and rape in the schools they ran.

We want to send our kids off to get an education without fear that their teacher will attack them for being themselves.

You believe you are on some high horse by being the "Defender of the Religious education system."

All you are is an apologist for the abuse the religious orders have inflicted onto generations of schoolchildren.
And your bullshit replies here show how disingenuous your answers are.

Saying we should require a referendum to remove Religious orders from running schools.

There is nothing in the constitution of the Republic of Ireland or any law on our books that mandates Religious orders running schools. Why the **** would we need a referendum?!

And your feeble "Who will run the schools." cry falls extremely flat when the amount of Schools being run by religious orders has fallen year on year with no marked downturn.

ETB, Gaelscoile's, Community Schools they have all stepped up to replace the rotten core of religious run schools and we are all better for it.

I know my children are safer for it.