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

[Nowherecitizen]

My friend’s son was told off by a teacher at his school for referring to them as ‘Sir’. The teacher is male but identifies as non-binary.

Their title is Mx which the children are aware of. But the little boy simply looked at an adult who is visibly male and used the term Sir.

I have seen this teacher and they are 'masculine' looking but will sometimes wear a skirt and heels.

Friend’s DS felt bad and can’t recall exactly what was said to them but said the teacher was ‘very cross’.

AIBU to think this was mishandled? Surely the child should be reminded gently of the preferred identity of this adult but should not face a telling off?

What is the non-binary version of Sir anyway?

I stand corrected! Live and learn.

I have given you an answer you chose to not accept it. I can’t make you change your mind and you can’t change mine. I’m ok with that.

Correctly sexing someone and applying the correct sex title is deeply intuitive, system 1 brain activity and hard to override.

Recognition of sex is hard-wired in humans (there are evolutionary/safety reasons for this).
Knowledge of people's names isn't.

But you haven't given any kind of coherent reasoning why they're different. Fine, I doubt you're going to, but just to be clear.

I'm trying my best too

It is VERY different. Ever seen a female teacher punish a child for calling her ‘Miss’ instead of ‘Mrs’? There’s a reason for it. This teacher is using children to validate his belief in gender ideology. This teacher is claiming to be neither a man or a woman. There’s no such thing as ‘non-binary’: sex is a binary. If he just means he’s not stereotypically masculine then whoopeedoo- he’s got the same human condition as every other person on the planet. It’s called a ‘personality.’ I’m a woman, typing this wearing a pair of trousers and no makeup. I have not changed sex.

What “purposes” do you believe those are?

It’s already not “all purposes” because the GRA carved out an exception for primogeniture/inheritance (to benefit men that identify as women obviously to the detriment of women that identify as men) and originally participation in sport, although that might have been quietly removed but has been reinstated by the SC judgement.

It’s definitely not for purposes where biological sex is relevant such as determining who accesses services or spaces where sex is important as per the SC judgement.

I guess it could be for the purposes of obtaining official id such as birth certificate (can be rewritten with new name and sex if a GRC is obtained - ripe for abuse by id fraudsters/sex offenders) or a passport (can be falsified updated at will with an easily obtained doctors letter or driving licence (just film in an online form). This has fundamentally undermined the integrity of official identification documents and therefore DBS/security checks.

I can’t see any other “purposes” though?

I have you chose not to accept here it is plain and simple:

gender is something individual to you it’s our perception of ourselves , it can be inherited.

race is something that is inherited, it presents as categorised (often physical) traits that are socially constructed and understood. It’s about community, culture, connection and sometimes even trauma.

hope that’s coherent enough for you

have a nice day

So as a human you are unable to learn new behaviours? It’s being called Mx instead of sir - don’t make it more complicated than it is. They are 9 not 2 able to reason and comprehend.

Btw - you disappointed me with the last sentence there 🤣

Seeing one sex and being required to use a word applicable to the other (or none) is difficult for adults, never mind 9-year-olds, for the same reason; it is psychologically bamboozling. Human rights organisations typically take a dim view of this sort of compelled speech for this reason.
Our old friend George Orwell has been quoted threadbare on this issue, but the 1984 line about the 'evidence of your eyes and ears' continues to be relevant and resonant.

Sure - I disagree.

I'm not certain that this definition works. Rachel Dolezal insisted that she was 'culturally black'. Plainly, she was not black.

exaclty - it proves my point. She didn’t inherit her “blackness” she didn’t inherit the trauma that it is to be African American. Hence her not being able to identify as black.

Disagree with what? That scientific evidence that seeing one sex and being required to use a word applicable to the other (or none) is difficult/psychologically bamboozling?

That human rights organisations typically take a dim view of compelled speech?

So you agree that you cannot merely adopt a racial identity?

I wouldn’t worry. It’s all made up nonsense used for performative reasons.

Shame on the school and teacher for dragging kids into their nonsense.

This isn’t natural evolution though - this is the deliberate shoehorning of gender ideology into schools by activist teachers deliberately targeting kids young enough to believe in the Tooth fairy and Father Christmas.

It may seem nice and vague ‘being kind’ and supporting the poor ‘marginalised’ people that makes the uninformed feel warm and fuzzy but this is insidious and ends in very bad places where vulnerable young people are permanently harmed.

I am no longer talking about opinions - we can exchange opinions all day but it is not just my opinion that this ideology is harming people. The evidence is there.

how do you pronounce mx? poor children but be so confused by the non binary man wearing heels and skirts

Some police forces issue 2 id cards for officers who wish to identify as male one day but female on another.

Thankfully the SC judgement has now made it clear that male officers (even with a female id) can’t strip search women.

Disagree that asking a 9 year old to call someone mx instead of sir is compelled speech. An explanation should be given of course but I wouldn’t classify it as compelled speech - therefore I reject your assertions regarding it being psychologically bamboozling

Yes

And sex?

Women don’t wear trousers for sexual purposes.

Men sometimes wear skirts and heels for sexual purposes.

We can’t tell what any particular man’s motivation for wearing a skirts and heels is but we can’t safely assume it is not for sexual purposes.

Wearing anything for sexual purposes is not appropriate in a school.

We used to know this.