Common sense wins out on enforced belief

[BonfireLady]

Apologies if there's already a thread on this and I missed it.

Although this is in the US, and has the First Amendment to thank for common sense prevailing, this case stands out as significant:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/10/01/christian-teacher-virginia-first-amendment-trans-pronouns/

There's no paywall on this today.

What caught my eye on was that the teacher hadn't imposed his own religious standards on the student at all. He hadn't insisted on using sex-based pronouns but instead had avoided any third-person pronouns. He had explained his thoughts to the class (so not singling anyone out): that this approach accommodated everyone's needs i.e. the student who preferred to use opposite-sex pronouns didn't need to hear sex-based ones used and the teacher didn't need to say something that he didn't believe in himself. From the article:

Tyson Langhofer, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said: “Peter wasn’t fired for something he said; he was fired for something he couldn’t say.

Archived; https://archive.fo/gUPLG

In its ruling, the court said: “No government can lawfully coerce its citizens into pledging verbal allegiance to ideological views that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

This is it.

Indeed.

As I don't hold any religious beliefs, I would expand this to say (my edit in italics):

In its ruling, the court said: “No government can lawfully coerce its citizens into pledging verbal allegiance to ideological views that violate their sincerely held lack of such a belief.”

That’s what it comes down to isn’t it? Except it doesn’t need to ‘violate their sincerely held religious belief’. I don’t hold any ‘religious’ belief that precludes me from pledging ‘verbal allegiance’ to this ‘ideological belief’. I am an atheist - I view this ideological belief to be on a par with believing that ‘man is the head of woman’ or that ‘sex before marriage’ is wrong. I should be allowed to reject it all.

But it’s definitely an important win. Especially the point about being punished for what you don’t say, rather than for what you have said. Subtle but important difference.

Exactly BonfireLady (and far more succinctly put than my attempt to say the same thing 😂)

Remember this from 2016?
''New York businesses face hefty penalties for ‘misgendering’ customers''
archive.ph/pqnAm

Wow. This is from before I was aware of any of this.... but it's a fantastic one to have remembered.

I wonder if this teacher's case could be pivotal in undoing what's been happening in examples like this too. This being the key bit:

But it’s definitely an important win. Especially the point about being punished for what you don’t say, rather than for what you have said. Subtle but important difference.

@Humbold I didn't see it that way at all. More as a "great minds think alike.... because it's so bloody obvious 😂"

I really do hope this creates a snowball effect, owing to the simplicity of its bloody obviousness 🤞 Both in the US and the UK. Obviously our Freedom of Speech Act got shelved, but as Labour hasn't got fully going yet with its Say Only What We Tell You is True/Right Or You're Nicked Online Safety Act, we've still got a window of opportunity to get common sense in motion at scale.

To add:

If the New York case could be brought to a point where everyone accepted that it was acceptable to use title to greet people whatsoever, that would be great.

Obviously, it would also highlight the ridiculousness of it all too: nobody should ever be forced to say something they don't believe (and society needs to figure out whether it's more important to recognise this in law or to force everyone in to that position).

Every day there is more evidence that the emperor is naked after all.

This reminds me of the guidance from a UK university (Edinburgh maybe?) that told students that avoiding trans people is transphobic. Transphobic for young women to avoid using mixed sex loos, transphobic to avoid a situation where you'll be forced into declaring allegiance (pronoun circles etc). I found it really chilling that even self exclusion is not allowed. Not only must we let the new religion have everything women need, women must provide them with their physical presence too.

Yes. Compelling speech is fully about power. Only 100% capitulation can be tolerated.

This reminds me of the guidance from a UK university (Edinburgh maybe?) that told students that avoiding trans people is transphobic. Transphobic for young women to avoid using mixed sex loos, transphobic to avoid a situation where you'll be forced into declaring allegiance (pronoun circles etc). I found it really chilling that even self exclusion is not allowed. Not only must we let the new religion have everything women need, women must provide them with their physical presence too.

There have been rules and policies at various times and locations that women weren't allowed to leave a toilet when a "trans woman" came in, women weren't allowed to shower with their towel around them if they didn't want to be naked in front of a male.

Yes, in deed. I was very very careful in all correspondence concerning my child not to use sex based language at all when dealing with social services etc. They clearly observed and commented on the fact that I was not affirming her, because I wasn’t using the affirming language, but multiple investigations lead them to conclude there was eff all they could do about my non-use of any pronouns.

My correspondence drafting was legendary (thanks to degrees in both English and Law), but only because I did not trust them not to share my emails with my child or other agencies to prove that I was being abusive. In the end I would show my child the emails before sending. She respected that I did not actively misgender her, whereas CAMHS/school/whoever referred me were obsessed with the fact that I didn’t actively affirmatively trans - gender her.

This ruling is significant because parents like me (but based in the US) are losing custody of their children over refusing to obey language/pronoun diktats.

This.

In October 2018, Mr Vlaming met with the student to explain his practice of not using pronouns in class and thought the meeting went well. However, in a phone call with the child’s parents later that day, he was allegedly told he “should leave his principles and beliefs out of this”.

Unbelievable, isn't it!

I second your (self-IDd 😀) status as legendary here @CautiousLurker ❤️💪 To be fair, you made the comment about your writing, but I'm going to extend it to you.

What an incredible job. That's inspirational, should I ever find myself in a similar position. Now that my daughter is getting older, I do wonder how she'll feel if she chooses to read everything in her EHCP, for example.

Hopefully my daughter will continue on the path she is currently on - and won't be looking to change her pronouns. But unfortunately there are so many influences that could impact how she feels.
The latest one is a boy in her school autism unit who is exploring how he feels about clothes (he thinks he might want to wear a skirt) and hair (he had a ponytail for the first time on Monday and my daughter said she was "proud" of him).

I'm concerned about the boy - as he's had a difficult childhood and is clearly vulnerable - but I'm also concerned about my daughter. She is having a huge wobble about friendship navigation at the moment and she described how the LSAs/TAs were all fussing over him and showing him how he might want to style his hair. If he continues on with this celebrity status, she may well think this is what she needs in her own life.

Yes.

This links to the very astute co-ercion comment that was made on a different thread.

For context, a NB-identified person was on the thread and had responded to me saying that I would avoid pronouns altogether (to avoid hurt but also to avoid saying something I don't believe) by saying that this is what happened with the NB-poster's mum.

Here's a link to my response to the astute comment, to avoid me having to repeat myself...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5174050-advice-needed-dd-now-identifying-as-non-binary?reply=138695048&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

... but it's worth scrolling up a bit to see how it all unfolded re compelling speech and what's considered "rude".

To add, he hasn't declared a trans identity but his exploration of girls' clothing ideas has been going on within the group discussion (amongst the autism unit children) for about 2 or 3 weeks now. Obviously he may just want to wear a skirt but everything looks like it's heading that way.

Concerning about the boy - we seem to have crossed the line from ‘compassionate acceptance’ to ‘enthusiastic [celebratory] acceptance’, which is why I resisted on the affirmation from the start. My response as a member of staff would be ‘you look nice today [name] - shall we all open our books to page x’. Just as, on another post it is being discussed whether colleagues should comment on/criticise/praise another’s clothing/appearance (and the consensus supported by my HR friends is no, we don’t), I feel this is also inappropriate in an educational setting.

It encourages teens who are struggling with puberty/self-esteem/fitting in, whether from a ND basis or not, to ‘act up’ for the same level of attention or to feel worse for not getting it. Then we are modelling in a classroom to participants and onlookers, that self esteem and group approval comes from external/extrinsic validation, rather than by personal achievement and other intrinsic measures. In a world so impacted by constant SM influences, this sets up vulnerable young people from the very outset to be more easily influenced and dependent upon societal/community approval. Which leads us to the current power and impact of the LGBTQIA+ lobby.

I am heartened by the ruling in the opening post because it is a sign that we are pushing back from this, that there is a growing awareness that schools (and maybe workplaces) are not there to inform and, indeed, bolster our sense of self. That we will be able to say, I’m not interested in this conversation because it’s not relevant to what I am studying/teaching or my function within this job/company.

My DH was asked recently to comment/write a blog for the dept/PR for his company on the topic of the importance of MH in the workplace and the need to share... He declined and stated he experiences the first-hand consequences of severe, acute mental health issues on a daily basis for a family member, who we have at times feared may not be with us tomorrow or next week. A family member who may never be able to ‘get over it’ with a tablet and 6 week course of CBT - a person for whom company and institutional understanding and support may be crucial to them joining and staying in the workplace, for whom access to services (CAHMS, SEN etc) has been limited and circumscribed (and simply unavailable) due to the horrendous waiting lists filled with people who have been socially pathologised into (frankly celebrating) their MH status. A person who when she tried to share that she has anxiety etc is drowned out by louder peers who bewail their own claims to various MH labels (self-diagnosed), so hers are belittled, marginalised and deemed nothing special. (Her words) so she stopped sharing and feels shame at being a failure and not coping.

DH said he just cannot engage on a global staff wellbeing campaign that says that if you are feeling a bit down you must talk to your colleagues in the knowledge you will be supported (implied: celebrated for their bravery). He strongly believes that all companies need to have support for those with chronic/acute needs for support, that managers need training in how to communicate with them and who to refer them on to, but he has no desire to join some mass, daily group therapy session when he’s trying to get on with running a business and keeping his staff gainfully employed. He is worried shitless that stating this/declining will reflect badly on him as he simply does not subscribe to the workplace being a second home or a support service - even though he is very much a supportive and compassionate manager on an individual basis.

Sorry, that ended up being a mini TedTalk, but I hope the link to the OP is clear. It is down to family, friends, and specialist services to support people and children and I find the idea of LSA/TAs fussing a confused and vulnerable boy deeply concerning - for him and those like your daughter, @BonfireLady , who are watching and taking note.

Excellent points and very well made.

Reminds me of the women civil servants who were chastised when a woman did a U turn on entering her workplace toilets and finding a man who claimed to be a woman in there.
Yet some see no coercion, bullying or intimidation when they demand women's uncritical compliance with all this. Thread from 2019:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3520371-civil-service-trans-policy-what-can-i-do

I’m as GC as they come. But I do find it interesting that a French teacher of all people struggles with gendered pronouns. I always found it weird that their word for shirt was apparently ‘feminine’ while blouse was ‘masculine’. The his/hers part only differs depending on the article you’re describing not the owner of it.

I don’t agree with compelled speech at all, but for a French teacher to claim he can’t ‘misgender’ a child when he can happily ‘gender’ a washing machine doesn’t make a huge amount of sense! He should still have never been sacked. But just putting that out there.

Reminds me of the women civil servants who were chastised when a woman did a U turn on entering her workplace toilets and finding a man who claimed to be a woman in there.

Yes, exactly.

Wow, that extract from the policy (second post by the OP) is quite something. Too much to comment on... and probably already covered in lots of good discussion in the thread but this....

Difficulties can arise if objections are raised by colleagues, which will need to be dealt with sensitively.

..... irony says it all. The reeducation and co-ercive "reframe your trauma" approach sounds completely insensitive to me.

Yet some see no coercion, bullying or intimidation when they demand women's uncritical compliance with all this.

Sadly I think it's many/most. That's one of the reasons this whole thing is such a mess. We've got Tim Davie talking in parliament about how it's "important to be nice", the IOC telling us that it's perfectly fine for anyone with "female" in their passport to box against women and so on. They are seemingly oblivious to the co-ercion that they're pushing.

If we get near to it, like with Isla Bryson, the many/most suddenly wake up and recognise that something doesn't quite make sense. But we're then left with the weird idea that Isla isn't a woman but we can't actually say that... so instead we get the TRAs disowning Isla as not "true trans" despite their previous insistence that only self-ID is acceptable, and governments inventing the equivalent of rapist-gender. And then when the story becomes yesterday's chip paper, the many/most go back to the co-ercion.