VA Supreme Court Backs Teacher Who Wouldn't Use Trans Student's Preff Pronouns

[Carolyn Marie]

https://www.virginiamercury.com/2023/12/14/va-supreme-court-backs-fired-teacher-who-refused-to-use-transgender-students-pronouns/

 

 

Carolyn Marie

[KayC]

"Peter Vlaming, a former high school French teacher, refused to use male pronouns to refer to a student who had recently undergone a gender transition and legal name change. Vlaming said doing so went against his religious beliefs ..."

 

I wonder what religion he belongs to that doesn't teach compassion to other human beings and allowing them to live and breath within they're own unique identity.

I think the ruling should've been ... 'You can't fire the teacher just for being an A$$.' 

[emeraldmountain2]

Yikes.

[Ivy]

4 hours ago, KayC said:

You can't fire the teacher just for being an A$$.' 

This.

 

As much as I dislike it, I think misgendering someone is still free speech.  Of course it's also still mean & cruel, and yeah, being an a$$ - especially from an authority figure.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Carolyn Marie
Violation of Community Rule 11. Went a bit too far.

[emeraldmountain2]

19 minutes ago, Ivy said:

As much as I dislike it, I think misgendering someone is still free speech.

I agree that it intentional misgendering is free speech in general, but I also think that schools have or should have codes of conduct for kids and teachers, and that hate from teachers should not be tolerated, just as it would not be tolerated if a teacher called a student a racial slur, which misgendering is akin to. If a teacher were to call a student a racial slur, they would most likely be disciplined or rightly fired.

[KatieSC]

Emeraldmountain2 said, "it would not be tolerated if a teacher called a student a racial slur, which misgendering is akin to. If a teacher were to call a student a racial slur, they would most likely be disciplined or rightly fired."

 

Very true, but the Republican leadership has made every effort to marginalize and dehumanize us. Dehumanize us, and in their mind, it is okay to disregard any religious principles of decency when it comes to us. They also have their own media wing to say how inferior we are. Every incident involving anybody who is trans is reported as a horrendous event to make us look bad. I would not be surprised if someone in the Republican National Party makes a suggestion that transgender individuals must have a tattoo on their forearm so we can be easily identified.

 

I wonder how proud the teacher must feel that they won against a kid. As for the courts, one has to wonder. The only saving grace is that this student likely has many friends who will be voting age in 2024-2026-2028. 

[Ivy]

49 minutes ago, emeraldmountain2 said:

it would not be tolerated if a teacher called a student a racial slur, which misgendering is akin to.

Good point

 

39 minutes ago, KatieSC said:

a tattoo on their forearm

Or a pink triangle…

[Carolyn Marie]

1 hour ago, Ivy said:

This.

 

As much as I dislike it, I think misgendering someone is still free speech. 

 

I'm no Constitutional scholar, but it's always been my understanding that the 1st Amendment applies to government control of speech, and that private entities can regulate speech as they see fit.  Whether schools are "private entities" I'm not sure, but I agree with @emeraldmountain2 about a school district's ability to set standards of conduct, religious beliefs notwithstanding.  If a teacher doesn't like the rules, they can go teach in a parochial school.

 

Carolyn Marie

[Sally Stone]

Carolyn,

 

Thanks for reminding us all what the 1st Amendment actually says.  It does not expand to businesses or private entities as you so rightly point out.  

 

I remember an incident where an employee of a private company tried to claim his right to wear a t-shirt with an offensive statement on it as free speech after being disciplined.  The company was totally within its right to discipline the employee after the employee refused to follow the published dress code.

 

My hope is that the school in question has established guidelines that would prevent a teacher from saying hurtful things to students despite a free speech claim.

[Charlize]

Here is a question....Does the student have the right to misgender their teacher?

 

Hugs,

 

Charlize

[emeraldmountain2]

1 hour ago, Charlize said:

Here is a question....Does the student have the right to misgender their teacher?

Not sure about the "right," but as a matter of respect, no they should not, but especially if they are younger, then there should be some leniency because their minds are still developing, whereas an adult, especially a teacher, has no moral right to denigrate a person based on their gender identity, especially a child.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

If the school is a public school, it is not a private entity. They have to respect free speech. That includes misgendering, and other unpleasantness. Teachers and students should not be restricted.

 

That said, in many districts teachers are hired according to annual contracts. Unless they have been there for a long time, in which case they have tenure. If a teacher is being a jerk and they are under contract, the district can always simply not renew it for the next year. Fired, but not really fired. I am not sure if that option is available in this case, but it is a thought.

[Ivy]

5 hours ago, Ivy said:

As much as I dislike it, I think misgendering someone is still free speech.  Of course it's also still mean & cruel, and yeah, being an a$$ - especially from an authority figure.

 

4 hours ago, Carolyn Marie said:

I agree with @emeraldmountain2 about a school district's ability to set standards of conduct, religious beliefs notwithstanding. 

Makes sense.  If one is employed by the school they should be required to abide by the standards of the school.  It is different than being out on the street.

 

It's disappointing that we are even having this conversation.  I mean why?

[awkward-yet-sweet]

9 minutes ago, Ivy said:

It's disappointing that we are even having this conversation.  I mean why?

It's because we live in an age for common courtesy is not common. People seem to think that we ought to have government enforcing common courtesy and Common Sense. And then we wonder why it doesn't work.

[Pip]

I think a suitable response to this is to follow the courts direction that seems to say it's quite fine to misgender someone. All the students need to gang together and start using totally random pronouns whenever referring to or speaking to this teacher. After all, the court has said it is Okay to do so.

 

[emeraldmountain2]

In the far right's minds, they want us to live in early 20th century and prior, where children had no rights at all.

[emeraldmountain2]

These right wing nutjobs seem to only care about parental rights, but have absolutely no regard for children's rights. How about the right for the child to live in peace and dignity without grown adults terrorizing them? Yeah, that's too far out for these screwballs.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

16 minutes ago, Pip said:

I think a suitable response to this is to follow the courts direction that seems to say it's quite fine to misgender someone. All the students need to gang together and start using totally random pronouns whenever referring to or speaking to this teacher. After all, the court has said it is Okay to do so.

 

This method is probably the simplest of all. And it completely conforms to the ideals of Liberty.

[Sally Stone]

1 hour ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

It's because we live in an age for common courtesy is not common. People seem to think that we ought to have government enforcing common courtesy and Common Sense.

There is so much about these two statements that should give us all (every human being - not just this forum) a momentary pause.  Common courtesy  should be a societal standard.  Unfortunately, it has become a thing of the past and I only hope we can cycle our way back to practicing it as a society. 

 

Related to this, is a complete lack of consideration for how our actions and words affect others.  We have stopped thinking about if or how our actions might impact others.  All we seem to care about anymore is ourselves.  Again, it's all about me, f*** everyone else.  We have to be better and if we can be, there would be fewer A-holes like that teacher, to worry about.   

[KathyLauren]

1 hour ago, emeraldmountain2 said:

These right wing nutjobs seem to only care about parental rights, but have absolutely no regard for children's rights.

 

It is worse than that.  They don't even care about parents' rights.  That is just the excuse they use to rationalize this particular attack on trans people. 

 

The next attack will be to deny minors the right to receive any transition medical care, such as puberty blockers or hormones.  That is of course, an attack on children's rights same as this one, but it is also a direct attack on a parent's right to determine their child's medical treatment.  Who do they think signs the kid's consent forms?  They explicitly want to take away the parent's right to do so.

 

When it comes to parental rights, they recognize a parent's right to say no, but not a parent's right to say yes.  In other words, a parent does not have the right to make a decision on behalf of their child.  All a parent is allowed to do is to follow the directives of the party.  Very scary stuff.

[emeraldmountain2]

30 minutes ago, KathyLauren said:

When it comes to parental rights, they recognize a parent's right to say no, but not a parent's right to say yes.  In other words, a parent does not have the right to make a decision on behalf of their child.  All a parent is allowed to do is to follow the directives of the party.  Very scary stuff.

100% true.

 

I will add that a parent does not always have the right to say no, such as when the safety and well being of the child is at risk, which is when the State steps in. Horrifyingly, in these anti-trans State actions, the State is stepping in for all the wrong reasons.

[MaeBe]

2 hours ago, Sally Stone said:

Common courtesy  should be a societal standard.  Unfortunately, it has become a thing of the past and I only hope we can cycle our way back to practicing it as a society.

I think people were more often given to the concept because they were assured by the black & white standards they saw society run by. It was common because people shoehorned themselves into society to assimilate and survive, those that didn't weren't afforded said courtesy. I guess I don't really believe in the halcyon idea that everyone was so much more civil "back in the day". I don't think anyone wants anything to be like "back in the day" (except for maybe gas prices), so let's all strive and encourage people to have that courtesy today and propel it onwards into the future.

[emeraldmountain2]

1 minute ago, MaeBe said:

let's all strive and encourage people to have that courtesy today and propel it onwards into the future.

So true and I think that despite our different stances on certain topics, the vast majority of us here can find common ground on your statement.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

4 hours ago, KathyLauren said:

When it comes to parental rights, they recognize a parent's right to say no, but not a parent's right to say yes.  In other words, a parent does not have the right to make a decision on behalf of their child.  All a parent is allowed to do is to follow the directives of the party.  Very scary stuff.

 

This is the problem I have with both parties.  Each has a portion of truth and liberty, but nowhere close to what's needed.  The Democrats want to allow transition, but mandate vaccination and educational content.  The Republicans want to ban transition, but also support parents' freedoms in other areas.  The real trouble ensues when we get something "bipartisan" because then we get screwed from both directions.

 

3 hours ago, emeraldmountain2 said:

Horrifyingly, in these anti-trans State actions, the State is stepping in for all the wrong reasons.

 

This illustrates the problem of State involvement.  When you allow the state to step in on something you like, you also allow it to step in on things you don't like.  Who defines "safety?"  I find it interesting that people don't learn the lessons of tyrannies past, and we keep repeating the same mistakes.  Liberty involves risk, and it involves individuals not making the best decisions....and it involves supporting the rights of others to make those bad decisions for themselves, so that you have the right to make decisions (good or bad) for you and yours.  But I think its better than the State making a bad decision for everybody, and backing it up with militarized police.  My parents and grandparents came to America as a direct result of fleeing a fascist military regime...I can say for certain that the last 100 years of world history bear witness to the fact that the more powerful the State, the more people die.

 

2 hours ago, MaeBe said:

I think people were more often given to the concept because they were assured by the black & white standards they saw society run by. It was common because people shoehorned themselves into society to assimilate and survive, those that didn't weren't afforded said courtesy. I guess I don't really believe in the halcyon idea that everyone was so much more civil "back in the day". I don't think anyone wants anything to be like "back in the day" (except for maybe gas prices), so let's all strive and encourage people to have that courtesy today and propel it onwards into the future.

 

Well, my experience started in the 90s...I don't remember "back in the day" the way my elders do.  But I believe that things were more civil in certain periods.  Partly because society focused on unity and affirmed family.  There was a sense of community and nation.  We don't have that as much anymore, and I think that's given people a feeling that we don't need each other.  Loneliness is an epidemic, marriage is at an all-time low, kids are more likely to grow up in single-parent homes than any time since we've been taking statistics.  Relatively speaking, taxes are higher and wages lower than in 50-75 years.  The "good old days" did have some good things, and the last 200 years haven't all been progress. 

 

I favor a balanced approach.  Keep the good from the past, throw out the bad.  Keep the good from the present, throw out the bad.  I think we can do this 🙃

 

[Ivy]

On 12/15/2023 at 11:48 PM, awkward-yet-sweet said:

But I believe that things were more civil in certain periods.

 

This sorta included people in the out-groups knowing, and keeping in "their place" as they say.

 

On 12/15/2023 at 11:48 PM, awkward-yet-sweet said:

Keep the good from the past, throw out the bad.  Keep the good from the present, throw out the bad.

Trouble is, people don't agree on these things.  I have personally talked to (and worked with) people who still think that slavery was a good thing.  Of course they assume they would be in the class of the masters.