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?

The 9 year old child should take it on the chin but the adult male that wishes to control speech is not to take it on his chin.. Good grief. Bonkers.

Except that all your examples are a complete false equivalence. Royal titles or religious leadership are actual entities based on actual roles and responsibilities and not invented by the people that hold them.

Being a married woman is not an ‘identity’, it is the state of being married. Choosing whether or not to use that title is not the same as adopting a non existent status (of not having a sex). Ditto choosing whether or not to use your married name. You are not asking people to pretend you are something you are patently not.

It’s good that you acknowledge that ‘non binary’ is imaginary and fictional though.

And please don’t go down the road of pretending no one can tell at a glance who is male and who is female. It’s not even relevant in this case as we know he is male.

The logic fail isn’t on our side.

No, sadly. It's the default title now. Unfairly, really. Sir has always been ok whereas for women it should be Ma'am which comes across oddly now.
I taught in a school where the girls always called me 'Miss Sharptongue' but then we went co-ed and somehow I has just Miss. Meh.

I've heard sir and ma'am for teachers in American dramas.

(Just thought - the marm pronunciation here would sound to an American like we're saying Mom 😬)

I went to an English grammar school in the 70s and we were never required to say sir or miss. I don't think I've ever addressed anyone like that, including in my old customer facing public service job. I wonder if that's unusual in the UK?

I think it may be generational and maybe the sort of school you go to. I see on my child’s teams notifications that the pupils often say ‘thank you Sir’ if a teacher replies to their query about due dates/homework issues. Suspect it must be drummed into them. The children tend to be very polite there - holding doors open for visiting adults, waving thank you if you stop the car for them to cross etc. I’m not saying there aren’t a few spoilt brats there - there must be. It’s a world away from the school portrayed in Adolescence for various reasons. That’s why I can’t comprehend the 9 year old doing it in a taunting way… I think there is a lack of familiarity with this teacher for the younger pupils as they only get occasional access to them and on the part of this 9 year old probably a total lack of familiarity with non-binary status.

I’m still waiting for some evidence to link being non-binary or a trans woman (the teacher is not the latter) with definitely being a fetishist.

Not trying to be goading - just curious as I’ve heard this thrown about a lot. A google of it has not resulted in anything apart from opinion pieces including an article saying this has been debunked. But if there is anything solid arguing either position please do link it here.

Perfect response.

''Non-binary genders are not recognised in UK law. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) enables a person to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate, either from male to female or vice versa. It makes no provision for the recognition of any other gender.''

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9515/

I certainly don't believe that everyone who is trans or non binary is motivated by fetish, but there's definitely a subset for whom it's playing a role.

Google autogynephilia. There are trans people very open about this online, take Debbie Hayton for example, Grayson Perry.

Also multiple random posters on X/Tiktok, but you probably don't actually want to know

The inability to have your sex legally recorded as non-binary (eg X on a passport rather than F or M) has no impact at all on the fact that equalities legislation protects non-binary and gender fluid identities, for which I have provided you the case law. So not sure what your point is.

Your argument seems to be that non binary teachers have the right to chastise pupils who call them 'sir', otherwise why post about it on this thread?

That case has not been argued in court. It won't be because its not an equality issue.

It doesn't protect them as identities - there's no "identity discrimination". You need to go for either gender reassignment (i.e. transitioning to have features of the opposite sex) or some other PC under the EA2010.

In the case of Taylor v JLR the inability of the general public to understand the nonsense that is nonbinarism meant that the employee's colleagues assumed he was transitioning to be "a woman" and harassed him on that basis. This is the same as someone who is assumed to be Catholic and called (insert Glasgow Catholic slur here) even though they are actually Greek Orthodox.

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

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

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.

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

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]

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.

@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.

What a load of bollocks 🍒

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

Funny that

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.

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.

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