The Prince Of Darkness To Be U S...
News5 mins ago
This Girl Is Still A ‘Girl’ , Was This Teacher Right Or Wrong Here?
He’s lost his job and has been told he will never work in a school again
https:/
https:/
Answers
"The Department for Education must look closely at this case and take appropriate action to protect teachers, who often hold Christian beliefs on these issues" what ARE 'christian' beliefs on these issues? Is there anything in the bible about transgender?
09:57 Wed 24th May 2023
// I get the impression that you would encourage anyone, whether it’s good for them or not, simply because you’ve made a choice and now want to increase numbers … //
OK, first of all, this is absolute nonsense. I don't try to "encourage" people to be trans. I don't have any intension to "increase numbers", and I'll thank you to withdraw such nonsensical accusations.
As to my own journey, that's for me to know and understand. To the extent that it *is* relevant, there are times I wish I'd done something about this much earlier in life; to the extent that it's relevant to children, all I will add is that I hope they can feel the freedom to explore who they are without fear. That doesn't necessarily mean being trans for the sake of it, or to "increase numbers" arbitrarily. It means being themselves. Nothing more or less.
OK, first of all, this is absolute nonsense. I don't try to "encourage" people to be trans. I don't have any intension to "increase numbers", and I'll thank you to withdraw such nonsensical accusations.
As to my own journey, that's for me to know and understand. To the extent that it *is* relevant, there are times I wish I'd done something about this much earlier in life; to the extent that it's relevant to children, all I will add is that I hope they can feel the freedom to explore who they are without fear. That doesn't necessarily mean being trans for the sake of it, or to "increase numbers" arbitrarily. It means being themselves. Nothing more or less.
O-G - // "we all disagree with aspects of the ways our jobs require us to behave, but if we are contracted to adhere to those aspects, and choose not to adhere to them, then the consequences are followed"
Ok, but we all have moral duties to our fellow beings, and in this case the consequences should have been the school authorities admitting they were in the wrong and stopping this blatant encouragement for the child to deny their obvious reality. //
I would agree - but unfortunately we don't live in a world where what is morally right is always the solution to the problem.
Ok, but we all have moral duties to our fellow beings, and in this case the consequences should have been the school authorities admitting they were in the wrong and stopping this blatant encouragement for the child to deny their obvious reality. //
I would agree - but unfortunately we don't live in a world where what is morally right is always the solution to the problem.
Bobbi - // Ich, this is why I asked in my OP , was the teacher right or wrong, if he/sh deliberating addressed the child as ‘she’ after being told he/ she must not,then maybe the teacher was wrong but I really don’t think a dismissal was called for….unless of course the teacher took a firm stand and refused to comply //
Indeed, and that was the gist of my reply.
The teacher was not dismissed for 'mis-gendering' the pupil, or refusing to use a 'preferred pronoun', she was dismissed for breaching her contract by not obeying the school's policy.
As I said, we all encounter aspects we disagree with, but refusing to comply has consequences, and I repeat, I suspect a tribunal will find in the school's favour.
Indeed, and that was the gist of my reply.
The teacher was not dismissed for 'mis-gendering' the pupil, or refusing to use a 'preferred pronoun', she was dismissed for breaching her contract by not obeying the school's policy.
As I said, we all encounter aspects we disagree with, but refusing to comply has consequences, and I repeat, I suspect a tribunal will find in the school's favour.
YMB - // Ah, the truth outs. You are a pain as you dont subscribe to the latest warped thinking and so should be got rid of. //
It's not a matter of subscribing to 'the latest warped thinking ... ' - it's about adhering to the terms of your contract of employment.
You can disagree with it, and you can act against it, but then you accept the consequences.
It's not a matter of subscribing to 'the latest warped thinking ... ' - it's about adhering to the terms of your contract of employment.
You can disagree with it, and you can act against it, but then you accept the consequences.
//how often do we hear people say “i have no issue if somebody considers themselves to be a different gender” and then as soon as someone actually does it lo and behold it’s an issue//
I have no issue if somebody considers themselves to be a different gender. Gender is largely a matter of opinion, which everybody is entitled to hold on anything. Where I have an issue is when I’m told I must accept fiction as fact. In particular, when a man considers himself to be a woman (and when a government is daft enough to provide an official document confirming his opinion) I must simply accept that it’s true. I respect a man's opinion to call himself whatever he likes. It would be nice if he would respect mine when I say he is wrong if he calls himself a woman,.
I have no issue if somebody considers themselves to be a different gender. Gender is largely a matter of opinion, which everybody is entitled to hold on anything. Where I have an issue is when I’m told I must accept fiction as fact. In particular, when a man considers himself to be a woman (and when a government is daft enough to provide an official document confirming his opinion) I must simply accept that it’s true. I respect a man's opinion to call himself whatever he likes. It would be nice if he would respect mine when I say he is wrong if he calls himself a woman,.
I didn't say it was idiotic.
Gender is entirely a matter of opinion. It is not fact. I respect anybody's honestly-held opinion. It is my opinion (honestly held) that a man calling himself a woman is not a woman. I consider the definition of a woman to be based on biological sex (a fact), not gender (an opinion). There's no charade about this and I don't know how much clearer I can make it.
Gender is entirely a matter of opinion. It is not fact. I respect anybody's honestly-held opinion. It is my opinion (honestly held) that a man calling himself a woman is not a woman. I consider the definition of a woman to be based on biological sex (a fact), not gender (an opinion). There's no charade about this and I don't know how much clearer I can make it.
OG -- it's true that this was part of the breach, but as I pointed out at length in my earlier comments, a more significant part was the constant and repeated refusal to respect the child's right to confidentiality and privacy, by for example looking up, or at least trying to obtain, that child's confidential information on multiple occasions, and then by sharing it with others, leading to repeated warnings not to do this.
This applies in fact to both cases discussed on this page; in the case of Joshua Sutcliffe, there were other, even more serious, aspects of his conduct as a teacher that came into play, such as using time in maths lessons to promote his "religious" (homophobic) views.
This applies in fact to both cases discussed on this page; in the case of Joshua Sutcliffe, there were other, even more serious, aspects of his conduct as a teacher that came into play, such as using time in maths lessons to promote his "religious" (homophobic) views.
Advocating for gay "conversion therapy" -- not in so many words, but certainly in spirit, given that he argued that someone had given up being gay and was happier for it -- very much *is* homophobic. It's obvious too that he sees being gay as a sin -- no doubt he'd hide behind "hate the sin, love the sinner", but since he condemns people who disagree with him as "false prophets", then he also clearly hates the sinner.
I provided a link to that teacher's YouTube channel. Perhaps you should check it out. Luckily, not many people have, it's full of hate and nonsense. It's weird that you're so eager to protect an extremist religious nutjob.
I provided a link to that teacher's YouTube channel. Perhaps you should check it out. Luckily, not many people have, it's full of hate and nonsense. It's weird that you're so eager to protect an extremist religious nutjob.
// I won’t lie to indulge those who choose to identify as something they’re not, but that doesn’t make me homophobic. //
Perhaps you've misread this, which in the context of the thread is understandable, as "transphobic". To be clear, it says "homophobic", and I was commenting on Joshua Sutcliffe's rhetoric against gay people rather than trans people.
The comment about "identify[ing] as something they're not" cannot possibly be meant to apply to gay people? So I think I'm right in suggesting that you've made an honest mistake and misread this.
Perhaps you've misread this, which in the context of the thread is understandable, as "transphobic". To be clear, it says "homophobic", and I was commenting on Joshua Sutcliffe's rhetoric against gay people rather than trans people.
The comment about "identify[ing] as something they're not" cannot possibly be meant to apply to gay people? So I think I'm right in suggesting that you've made an honest mistake and misread this.
//...given that he argued that someone had given up being gay and was happier for it -- very much *is* homophobic.//
Why is it (if that's what he's observed and it was genuine)?
As it happens I believe Mr Sutcliffe is a religious zealot and should not be allowed anywhere near children. I would believe this of a strict adherent to any creed as I believe organised religion has no place in the education system. It should be practised in private in the followers' own homes and if they want to indoctrinate their children into their following that is their affair. But that is by the way.
But taking the above passage by itself, I find it odd (and perhaps disturbing) that to mention an observation on an individual should been seen as some form of hatred. Supposing he had argued that someone had given up being straight and was happier for it. Would that be equally offensive? Or are we back to the philosophy that was demonstrated by the theatre offering a performance to a black-only audience - it's only offensive when it falls outside the "correct thinking" envelope?
Why is it (if that's what he's observed and it was genuine)?
As it happens I believe Mr Sutcliffe is a religious zealot and should not be allowed anywhere near children. I would believe this of a strict adherent to any creed as I believe organised religion has no place in the education system. It should be practised in private in the followers' own homes and if they want to indoctrinate their children into their following that is their affair. But that is by the way.
But taking the above passage by itself, I find it odd (and perhaps disturbing) that to mention an observation on an individual should been seen as some form of hatred. Supposing he had argued that someone had given up being straight and was happier for it. Would that be equally offensive? Or are we back to the philosophy that was demonstrated by the theatre offering a performance to a black-only audience - it's only offensive when it falls outside the "correct thinking" envelope?
// But taking the above passage by itself, I find it odd (and perhaps disturbing) that to mention an observation on an individual should been seen as some form of hatred. //
I think this is a fair comment, and I should have been more precise. More specifically, in the judgement it's made very clear that Sutcliffe held that being gay was wrong (more specifically, the comment in the earlier-linked review is that "Person D through God had stopped being gay as it was wrong", see below), and made at least one comment in class to that effect. This is homophobic in general, but is also in poor taste because at least one child in Sutcliffe's class was gay, and naturally took offence at this.
// The panel heard evidence from Pupil A who recalled Mr Sutcliffe approaching Pupil A and Pupil B who were having a conversation about a music band in a Maths lesson. Pupil A recalled Mr Sutcliffe interjecting and talking about Person D who had stopped being
gay as it was wrong. ... the comment made by Mr Sutcliffe was unprompted ... the statement was an implication that [Pupil A and B, who were on the LGBT spectrum] were wrong and needed to be ‘cured’. //
Coupled with this video, "What does the Bible say about LGBT?" (which I won't link, but watched on your behalf), which was however released only after Sutcliffe had left his position, where Sutcliffe explicitly states that "The Bible is completely against every one of those things: L, the B, the G ... all of it. It's all sinful. It's not a holy way - it's not a right way of living... unnatural sexual relations."
He goes on to say that *any* sex outside marriage is "unnatural", not an uncommon view in the Dark Ages perhaps but something we've long since moved on from.
Finally: "LGBT all goes against God's ways... There's a narrow path to righteouness, the path of Jesus Christ. Do not bow to this agenda, we can cry out to God to heal the land. The best thing for this country is to turn back to God's ways."
He also notes that he is, at the time of the video, "living a celibate life". I wonder why :/
I think this is a fair comment, and I should have been more precise. More specifically, in the judgement it's made very clear that Sutcliffe held that being gay was wrong (more specifically, the comment in the earlier-linked review is that "Person D through God had stopped being gay as it was wrong", see below), and made at least one comment in class to that effect. This is homophobic in general, but is also in poor taste because at least one child in Sutcliffe's class was gay, and naturally took offence at this.
// The panel heard evidence from Pupil A who recalled Mr Sutcliffe approaching Pupil A and Pupil B who were having a conversation about a music band in a Maths lesson. Pupil A recalled Mr Sutcliffe interjecting and talking about Person D who had stopped being
gay as it was wrong. ... the comment made by Mr Sutcliffe was unprompted ... the statement was an implication that [Pupil A and B, who were on the LGBT spectrum] were wrong and needed to be ‘cured’. //
Coupled with this video, "What does the Bible say about LGBT?" (which I won't link, but watched on your behalf), which was however released only after Sutcliffe had left his position, where Sutcliffe explicitly states that "The Bible is completely against every one of those things: L, the B, the G ... all of it. It's all sinful. It's not a holy way - it's not a right way of living... unnatural sexual relations."
He goes on to say that *any* sex outside marriage is "unnatural", not an uncommon view in the Dark Ages perhaps but something we've long since moved on from.
Finally: "LGBT all goes against God's ways... There's a narrow path to righteouness, the path of Jesus Christ. Do not bow to this agenda, we can cry out to God to heal the land. The best thing for this country is to turn back to God's ways."
He also notes that he is, at the time of the video, "living a celibate life". I wonder why :/
Anyway, to answer your point, if it had been a passing observation then maybe there'd have been no harm in it. But it was not. It wasn't even relevant to the discussion the pupils were having, it wasn't relevant to his position as a maths teacher, and as I hope I've shown he's an unashamed evangelical homophobic "it's a sin" so-and-so bigot.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.