9 yr old told off for calling non-binary teacher Sir

Indeed, the teacher is being enabled to abuse children just because he's non binary, whatever that is. Totally wrong. Children see the evidence of the eyes and ears and shouldn't be controlled by this harmful ideology.

That's why it's emotional abuse. Gender ideology is something most adults can't cogently explain. Expecting children who are still developing to somehow understand the ever shifting eggshells beneath their feet is abusive. Of course really what it boils down to is this teacher because he's trans matters and you don't kids, you have to do everything he says whether or not it upsets you, scares you or confuses you or makes communication difficult for you - even if communication is difficult for you already. This is clearly an abuse of power and damaging to the children.

Making them feel that using normal language according to their own perceptions is harmful is so incredibly wrong I cannot believe it's ever accepted in schools. How will these children ever be able to speak up for themselves after this?

Exactly this. We're supposed to show respect to this totally unevidenced, anti-science position, but yet no respect at all going the other way. It's madness.

Yes, respect is one thing, but expecting anyone else, especially young kids to adhere to something you believe is true, man wearing dress = woman, is not ok.
a woman is a person who biologically has 2 x chromosomes. someone who is a man is a he. its a fact.
As this teacher expects to be called whatever pronoun out of respect, should those who don't believe that it is so not also be respected?
The kid probably doesn't understand whats going on....

Look up autogynophilla know as agp

This used to be referred to as ‘navel gazing’.

It constantly boggles my mind that grown adults spout this nonsense in all seriousness and expect to be believed. And in some cases people do!! I don’t know which is worse.

I don't know about that but the "non-binary" teacher was bat shit for pro-nouns.

So it is utter nonsense then.

Hope they don't teach science. Or anything fact based

Apparently a huge teaching union is pushing to back track the recent supreme Court hearing so maybe this teacher is neck deep in those union policies.

Occasionally my dc will call me miss and primary teachers get called mum.

You get programmed into calling people certain things and it's hard to re program.

If most adults can understand children calling them the wrong name why can't this person? I can't imagine a primary school teacher actually complains about being called mum?

And I bet most of the time the pupils call them ‘Miss’ - as all female teachers tend to get called.

Except that it isn't.

I know of two women teachers, one "non-binary" and one lesbian that use Mx.

As a female teacher, I have been called Grandma and also Dad at least once. I laughed. I didn't tell anyone off.

a) neither Hansard, nor recommendations from a Commons committee, are law. The ET was struggling here.
b) it was accepted as fact that Taylor had said, on many occasions, that they were “transitioning” from male to female. The ET tried to address the question of whether it mattered that Taylor did not intend to seek medical transition or where Taylor was on their “journey” and concluded it did not - but that is not at all the same as saying that simply identifying as non binary is a protected characteristic.

I am so glad I am not a child at school having to put up with this nonsense. I got a detention in school for arguing with a geography teacher who said penguins lived in the Arctic, and no doubt I would have crossed swords with this individual who - no matter how talented a teacher - seems to be abusing his position of power in attempting to gain validation for his delusion. To get that wound up about children calling you sir is the sign of someone who is not mentally fit for the job.

Funny that

You’ll notice though that it’s always men in women’s clothes that want to be called Mx.

What a load of bollocks 🍒

@BundleBoogie you beat me to it. Thank you for noting an important point about decisions by first instance courts e.g. the employment tribunal decision in Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover, which are not legal precedents. They don’t even have to be followed by other first instance courts. Supreme Court judgments however are a different beast altogether.

You also need to remember this case has not set any legal precedent as it is a first instance tribunal.

established non-binary and gender fluid identities are protected

It does no such thing even the section you quoted. Nowhere does it mention that self proclaimed ‘identities’ are protected. Now the SC has provided a bit of legal muscle to push back on these nonsense claims that a person is neither male or female, I’m sure the extent of the ‘protections’ they can claim will be diminishing rapidly.

They can claim protection against being sacked for adopting a trans identity but I’m sure if the behaviour sometimes linked to a trans identity (such as described on this thread) breaks company/organisation policies on reasonable behaviour there will be limits to the protections.

Finally, protections they do have will not extend to allowing them to demand access to spaces or provisions for the opposite sex, or to compel the speech if others or to bully schoolchildren (and other people) who don’t comply with their wish list. So there’s that.

I suggest you read the case again.

They did not hold that the fact Taylor had, at times, described herself as “transitioning” (amongst other things) was determinative. Quite the opposite. They held, based on Hansard and the Women and Equality Committee Report recommendations, that what was key was moving away from your birth sex. That could be through transitioning to the opposite gender, being at different points on a spectrum at different times or being at an in between point. You may not like it but the judgment is clear.

”We thought it was very clear that Parliament intended gender reassignment to be a spectrum moving away from birth sex, and that a person could be at any point on that spectrum. That would be so, whether they described themselves as "non-binary" i.e. not at point A or point Z, "gender fluid" i.e. at different places between point A and point Z at different times, or "transitioning" i.e. moving from point A, but not necessarily ending at point Z, where A and Z are biological sex” [Para 168]

Which is entirely reasonable. The only unreasonable person here is the self-centred teacher.

This is not true. The tribunal found Taylor had the protected characteristic of gender reassignment because they had declared to their employer they were transitioning from male to female. Taylor also identified as non-binary and gender fluid but that is not why they won.

To date there have been no cases where a person who simply IDs as non binary has argued successfully that non binary is a protected characteristic. That makes sense, because gender identity is not a protected characteristic.

Yawn.
10+ pages? This obviously didn’t happen.

Would the children be allowed, in the case of a very short teacher, to call him/her Little Mx?