This Girl Is Still A ‘Girl’ , Was This Teacher Right Or Wrong Here?

[Bobbisox1]

He’s lost his job and has been told he will never work in a school again

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12074909/Sacked-Christian-school-teacher-taking-legal-action-refusing-use-pupils-trans-pronouns.html

[webbo3]

I won't use anyone's pronouns for the same reason I won't talk to a schizophrenics imaginary friends.

[naomi24]

ClareTG0ld, 17.15. I responded to what you’d written.

[New Judge]

//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.//

I appreciate your explanation, ClaireT, and agree with it. The man obviously has some deep seated and wide ranging aversion to gay people and that is homophobic. It was just the stand alone comment which concerned me. But as I say, I believe that the right decision was made and the headline does not give the full picture.

[ClareTG0ld]

In that case, given that I wrote "homophobic", what does it mean to link this to someone "identifying as something they're not"? This is surely conflating what Sutcliffe has said about gay people with what he has said about trans people. And I was clear in that comment that I was talking about "other" aspects of Sutcliffe's conduct.

I also don't understand why you felt a need to state that it "doesn’t make [you] homophobic." I wasn't talking about, or to, you, at any point in that comment; and, particularly given that I was clearly referencing *religious* homophobia, this should have been obvious.

[naomi24]

It wasn’t… hence my response.

[ClareTG0ld]

Well, apologies if a comment that never mentioned you, explicitly addressed Old_Geezer, was talking about homophobia in the context of religion, and specifically mentioned other aspects of Sutcliffe's conduct unrelated to his views on trans people, that I had already explained at length, might have appeared directed at you despite literally all evidence to the contrary.

[naomi24]

Okay.

[ClareTG0ld]

Always nice to end on a note of agreement :)

[naomi24]

Indeed.

[Untitled]

newjudge
no. you don't "respect" trans people if you oppose them getting married or buried as trans people... nor is it respectful to refer to such measures as "daft".

that is not respect, however politely you might strive to put it... we all know it, so just say what you actually think

[New Judge]

//...so just say what you actually think//

I've told you what I think (and I've lost count of how many times). I don't care what people do, what they call themselves, what certificates they are given to support their opinion (though I stand by my description of "daft" that the government should see fit to issue an official document to support their opinion). None of that matters to me. If they want to marry or be buried as the gender of their choice that's fine. Gender is meaningless.

I do respect their opinion of themselves - as I do almost all opinions of others. My opinion differs and I'd like that respected too. Where I am adamant is when I am told to accept fiction as fact. A man who calls himself a woman is not a woman, never can be, never will be. I do not like to be told that I must accept as a fact that he is, as my definition of a woman is based on biological sex, not gender.

You can place whatever interpretation on that attitude that you wish, disbelieve me at your pleasure. But I cannot explain it any clearer.

[Atheist]

NJ. It's quite clear where you are coming from.