Virginia teacher sues school after being fired for not using transgender student's pronouns... (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    crosswatt

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Feb 11, 2019
    Messages
    215
    Reaction score
    423
    Age
    50
    Location
    Virginia
    Offline
    A Virginia high school teacher who was fired for refusing to use a transgender student's preferred pronouns has filed a lawsuit against school officials and the board.
    Peter Vlaming, who was a French teacher at West Point High School, said he was fired because he would not use pronouns such as "him" and "his" to refer to a female student who was transitioning to male.

    According to the suit filed Monday in King William County, using the male pronouns would have "violated" Vlaming's "conscience" and went against his religious beliefs, so he called the student by his preferred name during class and avoided using pronouns altogether.

     
    Hold on a second. Your indignation is affecting your reading comprehension. Like I said, let's talk about the case at hand. What you are describing is different.

    What I am describing are situations of a teacher intentionally refusing to use the appropriately-gendered pronoun or name to address a student - situations which I have personally either directly experienced myself or directly witnessed happen to another student. That is entirely germane to this thread, and your refusal to engage speaks volumes about your need to compartmentalize the transgender situation in order to continue to defend it.
     
    What I am describing are situations of a teacher intentionally refusing to use the appropriately-gendered pronoun or name to address a student - situations which I have personally either directly experienced myself or directly witnessed happen to another student. That is entirely germane to this thread, and your refusal to engage speaks volumes about your need to compartmentalize the transgender situation in order to continue to defend it.

    Side note: you may want to revise that last sentence.

    The only thing that speaks volumes is your indignation and your desire to talk about a different situation than the one we are discussing, i.e., the OP.

    If you can't see the difference between the situation at hand and your scenario, I don't know what to tell you.

    [Mod Edit :nono: this seems unnecessary to say. Let's not make it personal. SH]
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    If you can't see the difference between the situation at hand and your scenario, I don't know what to tell you.

    If you feel that there is a significant difference between the two situations, then explain it to me. This is only the fourth post I've made asking you to do so.
     
    If you feel that there is a significant difference between the two situations, then explain it to me. This is only the fourth post I've made asking you to do so.

    Isn't it obvious?

    In the OP's case, an abnormal event occurred, and this one individual (the teacher) has issues dealing with it. In your scenario, someone simply decides to antagonize someone else for no reason whatsoever.
     
    ... so, let me get this right. This teacher got fired because he wouldn't use 3rd person pronouns while talking about the transgender student to others? I assume the faculty?
    I believe you missed the key word "also". Sounded like a second transgression not the only.
     
    Isn't it obvious?

    In the OP's case, an abnormal event occurred, and this one individual (the teacher) has issues dealing with it. In your scenario, someone simply decides to antagonize someone else for no reason whatsoever.

    Except not. In my example, the teacher decides to antagonize the student due to bias, the same as in the transgender situation. The same reason is at the root, even if the details are different.
     
    Except not. In my example, the teacher decides to antagonize the student due to bias, the same as in the transgender situation. The same reason is at the root, even if the details are different.

    Well, the devil is in the details, isn't it?
    It is not the same thing.

    Not everyone is going to accept you for what you are or for who you are. And you can't force people to accept you either. You don't need to be transgender to have people smile to your face and call you names behind your back, or even the wrong pronoun. You could be like me, Mexican :hihi:
     
    Well, the devil is in the details, isn't it?
    It is not the same thing.

    Not everyone is going to accept you for what you are or for who you are. And you can't force people to accept you either. You don't need to be transgender to have people smile to your face and call you names behind your back, or even the wrong pronoun. You could be like me, Mexican :hihi:

    Whether or not a teacher accepts me for what I am should have no bearing on his behavior towards me. Certain professions are held to a higher standard in that regard. Are you really advocating that a teacher (or a healthcare worker or firefighter or whatever) should be given carte blanche to treat students badly in the classroom for his own outside bias?
     
    A man is being interviewed to determine his chatacter and fitness for a position.

    The interviewer asks: do you always behave in an ethical manner?

    The interviewee responds: what type of person would ask such a question? And what type of person would answer that question?

    Frustrated, the interviewer resspnds: Just say "yes" so we can move along.

    Imagine that, someone in an eithics inquiry is urged to lie so that they can get on with it.

    It's similar with this teacher - just accept the lie so that we can move along.
     
    A man is being interviewed to determine his chatacter and fitness for a position.

    The interviewer asks: do you always behave in an ethical manner?

    The interviewee responds: what type of person would ask such a question? And what type of person would answer that question?

    Frustrated, the interviewer resspnds: Just say "yes" so we can move along.

    Imagine that, someone in an eithics inquiry is urged to lie so that they can get on with it.

    It's similar with this teacher - just accept the lie so that we can move along.
    just doing some quick math i find that this is 11 percent similar
     
    A man is being interviewed to determine his chatacter and fitness for a position.

    The interviewer asks: do you always behave in an ethical manner?

    The interviewee responds: what type of person would ask such a question? And what type of person would answer that question?

    Frustrated, the interviewer resspnds: Just say "yes" so we can move along.

    Imagine that, someone in an eithics inquiry is urged to lie so that they can get on with it.

    It's similar with this teacher - just accept the lie so that we can move along.
    Calling it a "lie" illustrates the inherent judgemental rejection of the child embedded within the refusal to accept the child's preferred descriptor.

    We have a situation in which a child and an adult are interacting.

    We know that the child is more emotionally sensitive and vulnerable, because children aren't fully developed emotionally.

    We assume that adults are less emotionally sensitive and vulnerable, because adults are assumed to be fully developed emotionally.

    We know that it's emotionally stressful and hurtful for child to have someone invalidate their identity.

    What exactly is the emotional, or in this case spiritual, harm done to the adult if they refer to the child by the child's preferred descriptor, even if they don't agree with it?

    Why would an emotionally mature adult feel the need to reject the child's preferred descriptor, because of their religious beliefs. I could understand if the child was asking the teacher to call them by their deity's name, but they just asked the teacher to use a different gender reference. Even if the teacher has a right to do it, is that really how emotionally mature adults should treat a child?
     
    Calling it a "lie" illustrates the inherent judgemental rejection of the child embedded within the refusal to accept the child's preferred descriptor.

    We have a situation in which a child and an adult are interacting.

    We know that the child is more emotionally sensitive and vulnerable, because children aren't fully developed emotionally.

    We assume that adults are less emotionally sensitive and vulnerable, because adults are assumed to be fully developed emotionally.

    We know that it's emotionally stressful and hurtful for child to have someone invalidate their identity.

    What exactly is the emotional, or in this case spiritual, harm done to the adult if they refer to the child by the child's preferred descriptor, even if they don't agree with it?

    Why would an emotionally mature adult feel the need to reject the child's preferred descriptor, because of their religious beliefs. I could understand if the child was asking the teacher to call them by their deity's name, but they just asked the teacher to use a different gender reference. Even if the teacher has a right to do it, is that really how emotionally mature adults should treat a child?

    I’m not speaking for beach friends, just my opinion. As an emotionally mature adult, by merely participating in this type of activity, condones the behavior. When people who disagree morally with something and then goes along with it, it perpetuates the public numbing and makes it more acceptable.

    We can disagree whether this behavior should be acceptable. I was explaining why one would take this position.
     
    Calling it a "lie" illustrates the inherent judgemental rejection of the child embedded within the refusal to accept the child's preferred descriptor.

    We have a situation in which a child and an adult are interacting.

    We know that the child is more emotionally sensitive and vulnerable, because children aren't fully developed emotionally.

    We assume that adults are less emotionally sensitive and vulnerable, because adults are assumed to be fully developed emotionally.

    We know that it's emotionally stressful and hurtful for child to have someone invalidate their identity.

    What exactly is the emotional, or in this case spiritual, harm done to the adult if they refer to the child by the child's preferred descriptor, even if they don't agree with it?

    Why would an emotionally mature adult feel the need to reject the child's preferred descriptor, because of their religious beliefs. I could understand if the child was asking the teacher to call them by their deity's name, but they just asked the teacher to use a different gender reference. Even if the teacher has a right to do it, is that really how emotionally mature adults should treat a child?

    So, if a child isn't fully developed emotionally, what does that say about letting a child decide what gender they are?

    Whatever the child is asking (which let's be frank, sounds more like a demand) and whatever the teacher thinks is right, I still maintain that in this particular situation, there can be a compromise: the teacher can simply refer to the student by the student's last name.

    Again, the reality of the world is that not everyone is going to accept you for who or what you are. And as long as you are not being denied employment, housing, a marriage license, or being unfairly graded in your French test, don't try to make everyone accept you and laud you for your decisions.

    I posted about my coworker, and me having issues calling that coworker by the name this coworker wanted to go by. And the reason why I had issues doing so, if you know me, it definitely wasn't a religious issue... again, it was that the former and chosen names were very similar and soft sounding... but also, this coworker looks like a linebacker.

    I remember when I sent the email about some technical issue the group was working on, and I got the reply "my name is now so and so, I am a woman", only that the email had like 6 paragraphs, which I didn't read... my initial reaction was "yeah, whatever.... I got my own problems".

    It ended with me using "Hey" as email openings and face to face conversations. And I had to be very careful around this person, not because i gave a crap about their feelings, but because I didn't want to lose my job because I forgot how this one person wants to be referred as.

    And to this day I think, why in hell is the burden on ME to cater to this one person's feelings, who BTW is rude as shirt and wastes no opportunity to lecture you in being a woman?

    Thankfully, I moved locations and groups, so I now work with this person only indirectly.
     
    I’m not speaking for beach friends, just my opinion. As an emotionally mature adult, by merely participating in this type of activity, condones the behavior. When people who disagree morally with something and then goes along with it, it perpetuates the public numbing and makes it more acceptable.

    We can disagree whether this behavior should be acceptable. I was explaining why one would take this position.
    That's a valid belief system for an individual to have, but it's not the appropriate mindset for a public school teacher to have. It's not appropriate for a public school teacher to morally judge any of their students based on their own religious beliefs regarding morality.
     
    So, if a child isn't fully developed emotionally, what does that say about letting a child decide what gender they are?
    I understand what you're asking. Let me answer with another question.

    If the parents of the child accept and approve of the gender preference of their child, what right does a public school teacher have to ignore and deny the wishes of that child and their parents?
     
    I understand what you're asking. Let me answer with another question.

    If the parents of the child accept and approve of the gender preference of their child, what right does a public school teacher have to ignore and deny the wishes of that child and their parents?

    let’s keep going with the questions. If a child has cancer, do the parents have the rights to refuse treatment?

    I’m not trying to play gotcha, I’m asking where the line is.
     
    let’s keep going with the questions. If a child has cancer, do the parents have the rights to refuse treatment?

    I’m not trying to play gotcha, I’m asking where the line is.
    I think parents are well within their rights to approve of and accept the preferred gender identity of their child. I think public school teachers should respect that right of the parents and the child.

    A person either believes parents are within their rights to approve of and accept the preferred gender identity of their child, or they don't.

    Which one do you believe?
     
    Last edited:

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom