Pronoun/Gender Wars Continue Apace

[SeekingUnderstanding]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Legal analysis sometimes requires scrutiny of things that persons new to it find discomfiting.  Nevertheless, what "misgender" means has, I think, some substantial legal import in this context.

I think it's been pretty clear that I do not subscribe to recent trends in trans ideology.  So when I reference my daughter, I think you can safely assume she is a girl, a biological female.

And Patricia is unequivocally female.  She does not have a DSD.  She acknowledges that she is a girl (she does not "identify" as a boy).

Am I on track here?

If that is something that matters to you, assume as you will. 

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Got it.

These hypothetical students are doing this not because there is a plausible basis for viewing Patricia as a boy, and not because Patricia is claiming to be a boy, but rather simply to tease/bully here.  Am I on track here?  

These individuals claim to deeply believe Patricia is a boy. 

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And these students have no legitimate basis for stating that "a male has just exited the women's bathroom" because Patricia is biologically female.

Am I on track here as well?

So we're back to "misgender."

By "misgender your daughter" you mean they are using biologically/linguistically incorrect pronouns (he/him) to reference Patricia, correct?

By "misgender your daughter" you do not mean they are using biologically/linguistically correct pronouns (she/her) to reference Patricia, correct?

That would be very troubling.

The Patricia hypothetical is ugly, and a school should be allowed to stop it.

I think it is not the same case as a student demanding biologically false pronouns.

Patricia is a girl. “Patrick,” plus hallway announcements that “a male just left the women’s bathroom,” is not a disagreement about metaphysics. It is a targeted campaign to humiliate one identified student with a false name and a false sex. That is ordinary sex-based harassment. Grades dropping, cutting class, and self-harm are reasons for the school to act on that conduct toward her: no-contact orders, schedule changes, discipline for repeated disruption and targeting, and getting her real help. None of that requires a campus speech code about “gender identity.”  And it really does not require the school - an extension of the State - to compel students to speak words they do not want to speak.

So curtail the bullies speech, correct? Disrupt the bullies course schedule? Would it be ok to compel them to use the appropriate name and pronouns if they choose to address your daughter?

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

We both know you have a very low opinion of me as a human being:

• "your bigotry is showing"
• "And if you weren’t blinded by bigotry..."
• "your blatant bigotry is on full display"
• "displays your bigotry"
• "that makes you a bigot"
• "you are extremely blinded (bigoted)"
• "I have the right to call you a hateful bigot"
• "Evil, ignorant or bigoted. You choose."

I think this arises because we differ on some important philosophical areas.  Bigotry, though, is inherently irrational.  If though we will no doubt continue to disagree about some things, I hope this thread is showing that my perspective on this issue is borne of reasoned analysis.  Not bigotry or hate or fear.   

Thanks,

-Smac

Nope. So far, we've demonstrated that you think targeted sex based harassment against a student Is ok for a school to act on. Targeted religious harassment against a student is something that its ok for a school to act on. Targeted racial harassment against a student is ok for a school to act on. But targeted trans-gender harassment against a student is not ok for a school to act on because it goes against your strongly held political and religious beliefs. That is textbook bigotry in my book. 
 

edited for clarity

Edited Thursday at 05:12 PM by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

21 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Nope.

Not sure to what "nope" here is referring.

21 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So far, we've demonstrated that you think targeted sex based discrimination is ok for a school to act on.

Under the Tinker test, likely so.

21 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Targeted religious discrimination is something that its ok for a school to act on. Targeted racial discrimination is ok for a school to act on.

Under the Tinker test, likely so.

21 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But targeted trans-gender discrimination is not ok because it goes against your strongly held political and religious beliefs.

I have never said anything like this.  

I have never said that my political and religious beliefs justify mistreatment of anyone.

I dispute that "discrimination" = using biologically/linguistically correct pronouns (generally).

I dispute that "discrimination" = using a person's legal name.

I have regularly spoken against any mistreatment of anyone in the LGBT community.  All of us are entitled to basic and presumptive notions of civility and kindness.

21 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That is textbook bigotry in my book. 

My perspective on this issue is borne of reasoned analysis.  Not bigotry or hate or fear.

I think efforts by some in the trans community to use the power of the State to compel and/or punish speech is one of the faster ways for it to lose legitimacy and respect in society.

I also think that ongoing and pervasive efforts by some in the trans community to use indiscriminate and unreasoned accusations of "bigotry" to silence other viewpoints is likewise a good way for it to lose legitimacy and respect in society.  It comes across as desperate and emotional.  In the absence of reasoning and evidence, go with hyperbolic ad hominem.  And then do it again.  And again.  Until the accusation is so watered down and trivializing that it loses potency.  

Nonetheless, I have appreciated your input here.  Irrational and unjust accusations aside, you have been willing to have some substantive discussion about a very difficult topic.  While we have not changed each other's minds, perhaps we have helped each other further explore our respective positions in ways we would otherwise not have explored.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 16 hours ago by smac97

[smac97]

21 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Legal analysis sometimes requires scrutiny of things that persons new to it find discomfiting.  Nevertheless, what "misgender" means has, I think, some substantial legal import in this context.

I think it's been pretty clear that I do not subscribe to recent trends in trans ideology.  So when I reference my daughter, I think you can safely assume she is a girl, a biological female.

And Patricia is unequivocally female.  She does not have a DSD.  She acknowledges that she is a girl (she does not "identify" as a boy).

Am I on track here?

If that is something that matters to you, assume as you will.

It's your hypothetical, and it's about a legal issue, so I'd rather have clarity than assumptions.

21 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

These hypothetical students are doing this not because there is a plausible basis for viewing Patricia as a boy, and not because Patricia is claiming to be a boy, but rather simply to tease/bully here.  Am I on track here?  

These individuals claim to deeply believe Patricia is a boy. 

Such a claim seems quite implausible.  Unlikely.  Pretextual.  Bad faith, even.

But again, it's your hypothetical.  On what basis do these individuals "claim to deeply believe Patricia is a boy?"

In contrast, I think students have ample grounds - biological, legal, semantic, etc. - to decline to go along with ideological declarations such as "a woman is a anyone who 'identifies' as one," "sex is a spectrum / social construct," and all the other seemingly untenable presuppositions in which trans ideology is rooted.

Moreover, what are your thoughts about your hypothetical's application to a situation where Student A calls Student B a boy not because Student A "deeply believe{s}" Student B is a boy, but rather because Student B actually is a boy?  Student A's position is based on biological fact and reality (quite unlike the position of those individuals in your hypothetical).

If Student A does not subscribe to ideologically-driven equivocations and re-definitions of basic words like "man" and "woman" and "boy" and "girl" (so as to include, for example, men who "identify" as women within the ambit of the definition of "woman"), is it your position that the school - an extension of the State - ought to have the legal authority to compel Student A to adopt semantic presuppositions that they do not want to adopt, and/or that it can punish them for refusing to do so?

21 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So curtail the bullies speech, correct? Disrupt the bullies course schedule?

Again: Grades dropping, cutting class, and self-harm are reasons for the school to act on that conduct toward her: no-contact orders, schedule changes, discipline for repeated disruption and targeting, and getting her real help. None of that requires a campus speech code about “gender identity” which seeks to compel and/or punish students' speech. 

21 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Would it be ok to compel them to use the appropriate name and pronouns if they choose to address your daughter?

I doubt it.  I am not persuaded that the Tinker test allows schools - agents of the State - to compel speech.

I hope we all get nervous when we start hoping that the State does have this power.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 15 hours ago by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again: Grades dropping, cutting class, and self-harm are reasons for the school to act on that conduct toward her: no-contact orders, schedule changes, discipline for repeated disruption and targeting,

And would you support exactly the same remedy for to support a trans-gendered student in the same situation? Disciple for disruption and targeting. No contact orders?

[longview]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But targeted trans-gender harassment against a student is not ok for a school to act on because it goes against your strongly held political and religious beliefs. That is textbook bigotry in my book. 

For most cases, it should be "ok" for a school to act on, even for trans. But it is NOT ok for schools or government to compel students to use transgender terminology. They have an inalienable right to disagree that men can bear children, nor to allow men in women's private spaces, etc. They have the right to observe biological birth sex. For schools or government to compel such is bigotry all its own. For you to demand such compliance is overly harsh.

You really need to watch a lot more of Charlie Kirk's videos. He was very down to earth on so many topics.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Again: Grades dropping, cutting class, and self-harm are reasons for the school to act on that conduct toward her: no-contact orders, schedule changes, discipline for repeated disruption and targeting,

And would you support exactly the same remedy for to support a trans-gendered student in the same situation? Disciple for disruption and targeting. No contact orders?

Certainly.  And for students bullied for any other bullied/harassed for any other reason.

Normative rules about bullying may well be sufficient.  No need to compel or or punish constitutionally protected speech.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Certainly.  And for students bullied for any other bullied/harassed for any other reason.

Normative rules about bullying may well be sufficient.  No need to compel or or punish constitutionally protected speech.

Thanks,

-Smac

Except this is exactly what this solution does. In both cases, the state punishing speech by changing classes, ordering non-contact, and imposing disciple. All based on constitutionally protected(?) speech.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Certainly.  And for students bullied for any other bullied/harassed for any other reason.

Normative rules about bullying may well be sufficient.  No need to compel or or punish constitutionally protected speech.

Except this is exactly what this solution does. In both cases, the state punishing speech by changing classes, ordering non-contact, and imposing disciple. All based on constitutionally protected(?) speech.

You are not addressing the Substantial Disruption jurisprudence which I have cited several times.  If speech passes the Tinker test, then it is not constitutionally protected speech, such that the school - part of the State - has the legal authority to regulate speech that in other circumstances would be protected.

In contrast, the article I posted about the UC lawsuit shows how school policies, mandates, "speech codes" and such can run afoul of the First Amendment and fail the Tinker test.

Thanks,

-Smac