The K M Links Game - May 2024 Week 2
Quizzes & Puzzles40 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?
10:57 Wed 24th May 2023
https:/
Is it any wonder that recruiting Maths teachers is a nightmare!
Is it any wonder that recruiting Maths teachers is a nightmare!
Saying "guys" is hardly a crime, but it's maybe really not what one should be saying.
Saying "well done girls" likewise, although I couldn't see where that actually was the case.
Refusing to use someone's preferred pronoun, odd as that might seem, deliberately on a personal level I would call perverse, although again without knowing all the ins and outs it is hard to judge.
Saying "well done girls" likewise, although I couldn't see where that actually was the case.
Refusing to use someone's preferred pronoun, odd as that might seem, deliberately on a personal level I would call perverse, although again without knowing all the ins and outs it is hard to judge.
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
Bednobs, the Bible says that men shouldn’t dress as women and women shouldn’t dress as men.
I don’t think the teacher’s attitude is restricted to the religious. I’m not religious - I simply object to being obliged to lie to suit current ‘requirements’.
Apart from that, in instances like this I think it appalling that a six year old is encouraged by supposedly intelligent people to change ‘gender’. It is, in my opinion, child abuse.
I don’t think the teacher’s attitude is restricted to the religious. I’m not religious - I simply object to being obliged to lie to suit current ‘requirements’.
Apart from that, in instances like this I think it appalling that a six year old is encouraged by supposedly intelligent people to change ‘gender’. It is, in my opinion, child abuse.
This seems to be the same case linked by OP:
https:/
See also this report: https:/
It's notable that, despite being biased in "Hannah's" favour, the article reveals the chief reason for Hannah being sacked, and it wasn't misgendering:
// For accessing and sharing information about Child X as part of receiving legal advice and raising serious safeguarding concerns, Hannah was investigated and brought before a governors disciplinary panel. // [emphasis added]
See also, earlier, in the letter Hannah was sent by the school:
// When talking to parents, you must not talk about any other pupil and your response should be that it is not appropriate for you to discuss other pupils. //
Both of these should obviously trump everything else in the case. I understand people having concerns about children. It is unconditionally wrong to use those concerns to breach that child's confidentiality repeatedly, to other parents, to those outside the school, to anybody else who'll listen.
See also https:/
// ... the court heard the teacher was sacked after ‘obsessively’ accessing Child X’s personal information ... Multiple accesses were made in the week, at weekends and late at night as she ‘trolled for information to support her case’, it was claimed. //
It should also be noted that there's a heavy, fundamentalist Christian undertone to all of this. As noted in the DM: "Her case was supported by the Christian Legal Centre, the legal branch of the *evangelical* group, Christian Concern," who are certainly no aliens to trying to enforce their ideology on others, while the teacher herself said:
"I could not, based on scientific evidence, my Christian beliefs, and the heart-breaking stories of detransitioners, knowingly participate in harming a child."
Firstly, the "scientific evidence" thing is altogether too vague to mean anything, but there's plenty of scientific evidence that transgender people are real and are benefitted by gender-affirming care, so I already don't know what she's going on about here. Secondly, the "Christian beliefs" part is the real driver here, as seen later (I won't quote but you can read the link above in full). Thirdly, there are indeed transgender people who subsequently detransition, but they are few in number, and to the extent that they *do* exist it's often a detransition that is, in effect, "forced" on them in order to conform to social and family pressures. When faced with the choice of whether to be accepted by one's family or to live as transgender, many choose the former. That is "heartbreaking", but for precisely the opposite reason: imagine refusing to accept your child because they are transgender; imagine thinking it's acceptable to try to cut them out of your life; imagine, in short, thinking it's OK to bully somebody into conforming when being transgender is intrinsically doing no harm to anybody.
To cut a long story short, then: the headline is misleading; the teacher in question is driven by an extremist religious fervour; and, while we doubtless might wish to be cautious about children, that's not really what was going on here: the teacher's ideology extended to all transgender people, whose existence is evidently regarded as a sin, a mistake, and something to be avoided at all costs. How sad.
https:/
See also this report: https:/
It's notable that, despite being biased in "Hannah's" favour, the article reveals the chief reason for Hannah being sacked, and it wasn't misgendering:
// For accessing and sharing information about Child X as part of receiving legal advice and raising serious safeguarding concerns, Hannah was investigated and brought before a governors disciplinary panel. // [emphasis added]
See also, earlier, in the letter Hannah was sent by the school:
// When talking to parents, you must not talk about any other pupil and your response should be that it is not appropriate for you to discuss other pupils. //
Both of these should obviously trump everything else in the case. I understand people having concerns about children. It is unconditionally wrong to use those concerns to breach that child's confidentiality repeatedly, to other parents, to those outside the school, to anybody else who'll listen.
See also https:/
// ... the court heard the teacher was sacked after ‘obsessively’ accessing Child X’s personal information ... Multiple accesses were made in the week, at weekends and late at night as she ‘trolled for information to support her case’, it was claimed. //
It should also be noted that there's a heavy, fundamentalist Christian undertone to all of this. As noted in the DM: "Her case was supported by the Christian Legal Centre, the legal branch of the *evangelical* group, Christian Concern," who are certainly no aliens to trying to enforce their ideology on others, while the teacher herself said:
"I could not, based on scientific evidence, my Christian beliefs, and the heart-breaking stories of detransitioners, knowingly participate in harming a child."
Firstly, the "scientific evidence" thing is altogether too vague to mean anything, but there's plenty of scientific evidence that transgender people are real and are benefitted by gender-affirming care, so I already don't know what she's going on about here. Secondly, the "Christian beliefs" part is the real driver here, as seen later (I won't quote but you can read the link above in full). Thirdly, there are indeed transgender people who subsequently detransition, but they are few in number, and to the extent that they *do* exist it's often a detransition that is, in effect, "forced" on them in order to conform to social and family pressures. When faced with the choice of whether to be accepted by one's family or to live as transgender, many choose the former. That is "heartbreaking", but for precisely the opposite reason: imagine refusing to accept your child because they are transgender; imagine thinking it's acceptable to try to cut them out of your life; imagine, in short, thinking it's OK to bully somebody into conforming when being transgender is intrinsically doing no harm to anybody.
To cut a long story short, then: the headline is misleading; the teacher in question is driven by an extremist religious fervour; and, while we doubtless might wish to be cautious about children, that's not really what was going on here: the teacher's ideology extended to all transgender people, whose existence is evidently regarded as a sin, a mistake, and something to be avoided at all costs. How sad.
// I think it appalling that a six year old is encouraged by supposedly intelligent people to change ‘gender’. It is, in my opinion, child abuse. //
Just to address this point, I think the key question that's being skipped is the ordering of events. Consider the following conversation:
Parent: "It's OK if you want to be a girl."
Boy child: "But I don't want to wear dresses!"
Parent: "I said it's OK to be a girl, now wear the dress and be proud of who you are!"
Boy child: *cries*
This is unambiguously abuse, no question. But now invert the order, and suppose the child brings it up unprompted. Which is the more abusive? To tell the child that they shouldn't be silly, that they can't do any of this, and incidentally that if they persist with this "delusion" that you'll cut them off and never speak to you again? Presumably also yes -- and, before you ask, this has definitely happened, multiple times, if not in so many words, but there are multiple accounts of transgender people being cut off by their families as a result of being trans; the same battleground that happened, and still happens, over young gay and lesbian people.
Both of the approaches above represent extremes. The correct approach is neither to force, nor to suppress, but to support: to love your child, not for who you'd wish them to be, but for who they are; and to support them in exploring that. When it comes to being transgender, that doesn't mean a snap decision of support, encouragement or coercion. It means allowing the child to explore who they are without fear. I simply can't see what the objection to this would be.
Just to address this point, I think the key question that's being skipped is the ordering of events. Consider the following conversation:
Parent: "It's OK if you want to be a girl."
Boy child: "But I don't want to wear dresses!"
Parent: "I said it's OK to be a girl, now wear the dress and be proud of who you are!"
Boy child: *cries*
This is unambiguously abuse, no question. But now invert the order, and suppose the child brings it up unprompted. Which is the more abusive? To tell the child that they shouldn't be silly, that they can't do any of this, and incidentally that if they persist with this "delusion" that you'll cut them off and never speak to you again? Presumably also yes -- and, before you ask, this has definitely happened, multiple times, if not in so many words, but there are multiple accounts of transgender people being cut off by their families as a result of being trans; the same battleground that happened, and still happens, over young gay and lesbian people.
Both of the approaches above represent extremes. The correct approach is neither to force, nor to suppress, but to support: to love your child, not for who you'd wish them to be, but for who they are; and to support them in exploring that. When it comes to being transgender, that doesn't mean a snap decision of support, encouragement or coercion. It means allowing the child to explore who they are without fear. I simply can't see what the objection to this would be.
Also, to the case of Joshua Sutcliffe, here's the TRA report in full:
https:/
A couple of key points:
1. Once again, there's so much more to it than misgendering a pupil. There is this delightful passage, for example:
// ...expressed his views to pupils on the wrongfulness of equal
marriage and/or homosexuality during Maths lessons, by making the following comments, or comments to the effect of: i. He was against gay marriage; ii. Person D through God had stopped being gay as it was wrong. ... Mr Sutcliffe often discussed religious matters
during the course of Maths lessons//
What is a maths teacher doing preaching homophobia in a maths lesson? The TRA "found this allegation proven". Likewise, he was found to have shared a video attacking modern masculinity, including the glorious line that "Woman want real men…I don’t know any woman of any age who is attracted to a passive man who looks to her to be his provider, protector, and leader".
Once again, we find very quickly that Sutcliffe is an evangelical Christian ("... you have been finding it difficult to separate your evangelical Christian faith from your professional responsibilities as a teacher at this school"). Once again, we find that the transgender aspect of the case is merely a small part of a package of a teacher abusing his position to spread religious extremism. And once again, we find that it extends beyond the school. Two examples:
1. Handing out a leaflet "Jesus and the Third Gender" to some of his pupils at a pride event (the pupils were evidently attending this, and the teacher was attending only to picket it);
2. Misgendering a trans pupil on national TV. In this case it was a particular problem: "The panel heard that Pupil A had only been known as male at the school... had [another teacher] not already been aware, she would have been surprised to learn that Pupil A [redacted, although presumably the missing words are to the effect of 'was transgender']". So once again this is a clear breach of privacy and confidentiality, and this time not even just to friends or other teachers, but on national television of all things!
It's the exact same pattern as before. A teacher is banned for failing to recognise that their duties as teacher include respecting the privacy of their students; in this case, further, for actively trying to push their personal, religious beliefs onto those students, in settings where it is obviously not appropriate to do so. But of course all that, the more serious stuff, is lost in the noise of the "trans ideology [sic]" part.
And because that's all you hear, you end up defending religious nutjobs. Here's Joshua Sutcliffe's YouTube channel: https:/
These people are hateful cranks who aren't fit to be teachers.
https:/
A couple of key points:
1. Once again, there's so much more to it than misgendering a pupil. There is this delightful passage, for example:
// ...expressed his views to pupils on the wrongfulness of equal
marriage and/or homosexuality during Maths lessons, by making the following comments, or comments to the effect of: i. He was against gay marriage; ii. Person D through God had stopped being gay as it was wrong. ... Mr Sutcliffe often discussed religious matters
during the course of Maths lessons//
What is a maths teacher doing preaching homophobia in a maths lesson? The TRA "found this allegation proven". Likewise, he was found to have shared a video attacking modern masculinity, including the glorious line that "Woman want real men…I don’t know any woman of any age who is attracted to a passive man who looks to her to be his provider, protector, and leader".
Once again, we find very quickly that Sutcliffe is an evangelical Christian ("... you have been finding it difficult to separate your evangelical Christian faith from your professional responsibilities as a teacher at this school"). Once again, we find that the transgender aspect of the case is merely a small part of a package of a teacher abusing his position to spread religious extremism. And once again, we find that it extends beyond the school. Two examples:
1. Handing out a leaflet "Jesus and the Third Gender" to some of his pupils at a pride event (the pupils were evidently attending this, and the teacher was attending only to picket it);
2. Misgendering a trans pupil on national TV. In this case it was a particular problem: "The panel heard that Pupil A had only been known as male at the school... had [another teacher] not already been aware, she would have been surprised to learn that Pupil A [redacted, although presumably the missing words are to the effect of 'was transgender']". So once again this is a clear breach of privacy and confidentiality, and this time not even just to friends or other teachers, but on national television of all things!
It's the exact same pattern as before. A teacher is banned for failing to recognise that their duties as teacher include respecting the privacy of their students; in this case, further, for actively trying to push their personal, religious beliefs onto those students, in settings where it is obviously not appropriate to do so. But of course all that, the more serious stuff, is lost in the noise of the "trans ideology [sic]" part.
And because that's all you hear, you end up defending religious nutjobs. Here's Joshua Sutcliffe's YouTube channel: https:/
These people are hateful cranks who aren't fit to be teachers.
ClareTG0ld, Don’t be ridiculous! They aren’t capable of ‘exploring’ it. They have no idea what it means. A little boy playing with his mum’s handbag or clonking around in her stilettos doesn’t equate to ‘exploring’ the world of transgender. 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 … and compared to the people you’re now encouraging, you made that choice rather late in life. I wonder why it took you until you were well past childhood to make a decision? As long as you fly the flag you don’t give a hoot about what’s really right or wrong for other people and that attitude has the potential of ruining lives. This makes me angry.
YMB - // /Now 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 - and that appears to be the case here.//
Evil flourishes when good men do nothing.
This is the road to communism, perhaps you are ok with that? //
I have made no suggestion of 'communism', or being 'ok' with it - please do not add statements I have not made.
Evil flourishes when good men do nothing.
This is the road to communism, perhaps you are ok with that? //
I have made no suggestion of 'communism', or being 'ok' with it - please do not add statements I have not made.
Latest Posts
Spectator N0 2653 By Cheesecracker
Crosswords46 mins ago
ChatterBank48 mins ago
ChatterBank71 mins ago
Film, Media & TV75 mins ago
Crosswords97 mins ago
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.