Teacher: Christian faith prohibits treating transgendered students with respect and dignity

[Prestor John]

I have. I found your posts wanting. Perhaps you can link to a specific post where you believe that you adequately defined men and women.

That sounds like a "you" problem then.

How are my posts "wanting" and why is the definition of men and women in question?

 

[Prestor John]

If that were true evolution would never happen. Nor would cancer.

Could you please explain how this is so?

 

[Curious George]

That sounds like a "you" problem then.

How are my posts "wanting" and why is the definition of men and women in question?

Yes it is a problem for me that you cannot point to any post where you have done what you claim to have done.

The definition of men and women are in question because you made the statement that men cannot become women and vice versa. I wouldn't want us to misunderstand your sentiment.

 

[Curious George]

That is what I am discussing.

Are you though? How so?

Obviously, which is why I said so.

How are these attempts by you to add anything to this discussion?

They convey depth by subtly challenging your points with simple rhetoric. Your claims are chalked full of equivocation and generalization. One only need to think a little to see the issues.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

All religions that meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code are tax exempt.

If you don't like it, change the law, but the LDS Church bears no fault for following the law.

The LDS Church is not hateful and is not harmful to anyone..

Lie. Do you want news stories, on the vast number of families the LDS has ripped apart, because of their attitude towards anyone not in their club?

Or worse-- towards anyone attempting to leave the cult? As for hateful? Well-- your hate-filled posts against LGBT in this very thread is a fine, fine example of the hate I was speaking of, previously.

Wah. T.T.

Another fine, fine example of hate.

How do you consider it "help" when the suicide rate int he transgender community remains unchanged after surgery?.

Hmmm... could it be due to hate-filled bigotry (like what comes from the LDS cult, or other christian branches) that causes deep depression, and eventual suicide?

Oh! wait... you made a claim that suicide rates do not change... but you did not offer a single FACT to support said claim.... hmmmmm.... making stuff up to fit your bigotry? Again?

How is that helpful?

How is it helpful to set these people toward a goal they can never achieve?

How about "ignorant" or "bigoted"?

More fine-fine examples of bigotry and hate from LDS. Good Job!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yet, that doesn't make them right.

And here we are back to when I said this is no different than the anti-vaccer position of being anti-science and anti-medicine when it suits your need because you don't like something and not because of what facts, science, and research tell us.

Could you please point out these studies on that link you shared with me.

It has been provided. It's not my fault you missed it.

Mind sharing any of these numbers?

It's not my fault you ignored this as well.

Yet the suicide rate remainns unchanged.

This too you were provided.

You mean to say, "Certain members in the field of medicine and their research do not agree with you."

No, it's a very widespread position. It's kind of like how pretty much every last biologist agrees evolution best describes how life came to be as it is and how pretty much every last climatologist accepts global warming as a real and a significant danger.

You must not be reading my posts if you believe that I have been saying that I have the right to stand between a patient and their doctor.

You have been saying that because you insist the treatment they recommend is "poison." You keep insisting it isn't working and it shouldn't be the course of treatment.

Tell that to this teacher that got fired or to Canada for fining or imprisoning people if they "misgender" someone.

She would have had to have done so knowingly, deliberately, and repeatedly to be in violation of their law. In other words, she would have been being an *** hole.

The same could be said to you about my disagreement about this.

Does my disagreement with your religion cause you any issues in your personal life? Am I so caught up in it and concerned about it I go out of my way to tell you your beliefs are "poison?" Do I support legalized discrimination against Mormons based on my disagreement?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Could you please explain how this is so?

Evolution requires adjustments in DNA from one generation to the next, just as cancer requires an error in DNA replication that causes the cell to loose its "auto shut off" for replication. If biology were consistent these things (along with mutations of all sorts, birth marks, and dormant/carrier genes) these things could not happen as we'd all be perfect 50/50 blends of our parents and our cells would reproduce the same all the time. But it's inconsistent enough that the first blob of cells that will become us have the potential to become any cell in the body.
It's kind of like if we were to compare a Mac to a PC, with biology being more like a PC. Macs are very uniform and consistent, whereas PCs are similar to one another but have a lot of variation on a technical level.

 

[Prestor John]

You seem to think the teacher should decide.

No, I am saying that biology should decide. It is impartial. Consistent. Fair.

I'm also not concerned about this being the 'thin edge of the wedge' so to speak.

You should be concerned. It is reminiscent of the speech controls instituted within Soviet and Maoist Communist regimes that slaughtered hundreds of millions of people.

Neither am I concerned about the teacher's 'feelings' in this case. I'd be much more concerned about the child. And I say that in a holistic sense, not simply that we should cave to any demands any kid makes.

I personally do not care about the "feelings" of either party.

I am arguing from solely a biological standpoint and since biology does not care about our feelings I don't see any reason why I should care either.

One thing you skipped over was around my references to standardized testing. I get that it feels tangential to the issue here, but if (as you say) this isn't about religion, but more ideology, I think it's actually very relevant.

That's simply not possible. Ideology is inherent in SO MANY things we teach children. I would expect my kids to say thank-you and please. Ideology. I would sing the national anthem at morning assembly. Ideology. I would teach them about the Australian political system. We would come up with class rules as a group we wanted to enforce, and determine the appropriate consequences for breaching them.

It's all ideology.

I suppose I need to find another word or phrase than "ideology" because I am more trying to refer to "system of belief", "lifestyle" or even "religion".

I understood the teacher's position to be purely biological. The biological female is not a biological male.

I believe that the student's/parent's/school's position are more religious in nature and I have argued that the idea that we can change our biological sex is one of "belief" or "religion".

Basically, whether standardized testing should or should not be performed, and what the point of it is when it is performed is an ideological issue. Individual teachers can have whatever opinion they want (I'm strongly anti, in case it matters) but the relevant government department (maybe school board in the US, not sure) determine how and when these things are to be administered and used.

Yeah, that's what happens when you receive government funding. They take their pound of flesh.

That's it. The teachers as a group can take union action, like they could with anything. But there is no other choice to be made. An individual teacher, like I was, can't say 'No, that is detrimental to a child', and refuse to administer it.

This teacher did not "refuse" to follow the policy. He was no advocate nor was he anti-transgender.

He admitted that his "misgendering" of the student was an accident. A slip of the tongue and he apologized.

This slip, however, proclaimed to the parents that this teacher (although he was not violating the policy) did not himself believe that their child was a member of the opposite sex.

They also noticed that this teacher did not use any pronouns, masculine or feminine, to refer to their child (save that one slip up).

This is what led them to demand that he refer to their child by masculine pronouns.

This isn't a situation where an individual teacher should make a call based on what they feel is right.

I never claimed that it was.

This teacher's refusal to use any pronouns when referring to this student was not a violation of the policy.

It was not until they demanded he use masculine pronouns that this issue arose.

Telling a teacher not to misgender a student is completely different than compelling a teacher to use a particular pronoun.

You also commented that by using a title like 'Father' for a priest, I am claiming that they have spiritually begotten me in Christ through their preaching of the Gospel. But clearly I am not. I'm an atheist. What I am doing is allowing for how THEY see the world. I'm being polite, since it costs me nothing and has no impact on my world view. That's it.

But, you don't understand why a non-Catholic Christian, who also believes in what the Bible teaches, might not want to refer to a Catholic Priest as "Father"?

I understand that it is no skin off your teeth since to refer to a Catholic Priest so, since, as an atheist, you have no horse in this race, but I, as a non-Catholic Christian, would be offended if a Catholic Priest demanded that I refer to him as "Father".

You can claim all you want that it would be "rude" to not refer to a Catholic Priest as "Father", but that is only due to your position as an atheist.

What is convenient for you may not be convenient for others and that should not determine what is or is not rude.

Nope. No choice. If the teacher called you 'big boy' and you didn't like it, you have a choice.

I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that I am advocating that teachers can call their students whatever they want. I never made this claim.

I am talking about compelled speech.

For example, what if I wanted the teacher to call me "big boy" and the teacher was not comfortable calling me that?

I could demand that the school force him to refer to me as "big boy", even though he is not comfortable doing so?

What if I want him to refer to me as "son" or "love" or "pretty princess". He could be forced?

Even if I didn't like being called "big boy", the teacher would not be in the wrong for referring to me as his "tall" student or by placing me in the back of the classroom photo so I wouldn't be blocking my shorter classmates.

It depends what you mean by 'object'. I would object strenuously in staff meetings. I would probably investigate my options with the union if it happened now. But back when I was a teacher, the religious class I mentioned I was present for involved prayer with the children. It was weekly, not daily, but it would absolutely not have been appropriate for me to object in the room in front of the kids.

I disagree. As long as you are not being disruptive or wasting time, you can refuse to participate in any prayer.

It's like in Russo v. Central School District No. 1 (1972), when a teacher refused to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The court ruled that a high school teacher's silence during the pledge is protected by the First Amendment since "to compel a person to speak what is not in his mind offends the very principles of tolerance and understanding which for so long have been the foundation of our great land."

Mrs. Susan Russo, Appellant, v. Central School District No. 1, Towns of Rush, et al., Countyof Monroe, State of New York, et al., Appellees, 469 F.2d 623 (2d Cir. 1972)

If a teacher sees a female, and not a male, when he looks at his student, he should not be forced to refer to her by a masculine pronoun.

Perhaps I am naive, but I'm generally not. He wasn't removed from class for a simple slip of the tongue. Do you actually believe he was?

No, he was not removed for the slip, but for refusing to use a masculine pronoun to refer to the female student.

He was not an advocate. He did not demand to refer to her by feminine pronouns.

He simply didn't want to get caught up in the "pronoun" conflict.

I'm really not sure how anyone is being forced to participate in a child's delusions.

"Refer to this female student with masculine pronouns or you are fired."

My hearing is pretty good. It sounds like an ideological position to me.

Biology dictates our sex and which pronouns to use.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, I am saying that biology should decide. It is impartial. Consistent. Fair.

Here's the thing. There are transpeople who pass so well as the gender the identify and present as that even I find no tells they are trans. With my Asperger's-heightened hearing and artist honed facial analyzing people, there is nothing immediately or apparent that gives them away as trans. Now, if they are passing so well no one can really tell, then what? You'll think them as a woman/man as any other man/woman.
As we've also demonstrated, biology is not consistent or clear cut. In anything. We still debate if viruses are living or dead, and we don't even have a clear concrete definition for the moment of death and what is death. We still sometimes even accidentally declare someone dead even though they are actually still alive.
Nature at large doesn't care what you think. It operates on it's own rules, and even where we have math to cut through the darkness of our ignorance we are still left left with a system that is difficult for us to describe and comprehend, and indeed we haven't done it yet. There are Newtonian physics and Relativity, they work, we have astounding predictions-came-true with them, but at the atomic level it doesn't work and we have a different system of physics and math. Do you think Nature cares that it's left us scratching our heads because it's not such a simple, clear cuth, either-or type of thing? It's the same with biology. Abnormalities are normal. Things that are outside the norm frequently happen. Nature doesn't care about our chromosome testing or gene charts. We evolved to be social animals, but that doesn't mean there aren't many of us who aren't very social, up to having no empathy at all. Nature is so busy and has so much to do that things aren't going to be perfect, and there is no time for Nature to concern itself with how you think things should be.

 

[Prestor John]

The definition of men and women are in question because you made the statement that men cannot become women and vice versa.

Really? That's the reason?

Can you explain how my assertion that "a man cannot become a woman and vice versa" places the definitions of man and woman into question?

I'll also claim that a rock cannot become a bird. Do you now not understand what a rock or a bird are? Have I caused the definitions of these two things to come into question?

Yes it is a problem for me that you cannot point to any post where you have done what you claim to have done.

I wouldn't want us to misunderstand your sentiment.

They convey depth by subtly challenging your points with simple rhetoric. Your claims are chalked full of equivocation and generalization. One only need to think a little to see the issues.

You are just looking for opportunities to quote me out of context.

I won't help you with your quote mining.

Are you though? How so?

Biology is consistent. Impartial. It does not change based on our feelings or delusions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Biology is consistent. Impartial. It does not change based on our feelings or delusions.

No one has said biology does change (asides from genetic reproduction). What we have been saying is there are so many examples where XX does not equal female and XY does not equal male that happen without any sort of medical intervention at all. That is a fact. We have mentioned brains. Again, these are facts.
On a rainbow, where exactly does red become orange? Where does green turn into blue? We can't exactly point it down because Nature didn't make it clear cut, and it sheds no tears and has no concerns that we silly humans want to pretend everything is.

 

[Curious George]

Really? That's the reason?

Can you explain how my assertion that "a man cannot become a woman and vice versa" places the definitions of man and woman into question?

I'll also claim that a rock cannot become a bird. Do you now not understand what a rock or a bird are? Have I caused the definitions of these two things to come into question?

Maybe. I guess it depends on what you are trying to say.

You are just looking for opportunities to quote me out of context.

I won't help you with your quote mining.

Biology is consistent. Impartial. It does not change based on our feelings or delusions.

I agree that biology is impartial and regardless of what you feel a man or a woman is, nature does not care.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The LDS Church is not hateful and is not harmful to anyone.

The LDS Church's tradition of harm goes all the way back to Mountain Meadows and continues to today.

 

[Katzpur]

The LDS Church's tradition of harm goes all the way back to Mountain Meadows and continues to today.

In other words, not quite as far back as Protestantism's or Catholicism's or Islam's or Judaism's.

I'm sure you know how I personally feel about how the LGBT community is marginalized by my Church. It truly breaks my heart and I'm doing everything I can personally to change it. But when you refer to the Mountain Meadows Massacre (for which there was absolutely no excuse) as the beginning of our "tradition of harm," that's simply nonsense. That was one isolated incident and nothing else that has ever happened in the Church can even be compared to it.

Human beings can be really, really cruel to one another, and there's absolutely no way cruelty can be justified -- whether it be physical cruelty or emotional cruelty. But let's not play games here and try to paint Mormonism as something akin to the Westboro Baptist Church. No, I know you didn't actually make that comparison, but your comments certainly did lean in that direction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In other words, not quite as far back as Protestantism's or Catholicism's or Islam's or Judaism's.

I don't claim that your church was perpetrating harm before it existed.

I'm sure you know how I personally feel about how the LGBT community is marginalized by my Church. It truly breaks my heart and I'm doing everything I can personally to change it.

... while also giving material support to the Church's actions with your tithes, right?

But when you refer to the Mountain Meadows Massacre (for which there was absolutely no excuse) as the beginning of our "tradition of harm," that's simply nonsense. That was one isolated incident and nothing else that has ever happened in the Church can even be compared to it.

I used a bit of license with "Mountain Meadows," because the Nauvoo Legion was involved in several violent incidents before and after. Mountain Meadows is the most famous and largest, but it certainly wasn't an isolated incident.

... but the violence of the Nauvoo Legion is only one small part of the harm perpetrated by the LDS Church. More often, it's been in the form of trying to shape public policy in harmful ways... and not just about LGBTQ issues.

Human beings can be really, really cruel to one another, and there's absolutely no way cruelty can be justified -- whether it be physical cruelty or emotional cruelty. But let's not play games here and try to paint Mormonism as something akin to the Westboro Baptist Church. No, I know you didn't actually make that comparison, but your comments certainly did lean in that direction.

Actually, I'd say that WBC is one of the more benign Christian groups; certainly not as harmful - even per capita - as the LDS Church. They're definitely loud, but they leave any wreaking of actual vengeance to their God. They don't commit physical violence themselves and they don't lobby to influence government policy.

 

[Prestor John]

Lie. Do you want news stories, on the vast number of families the LDS has ripped apart, because of their attitude towards anyone not in their club?

I would welcome any criticism of the LDS Church as long as it is legitimate and reasonable.

Or worse-- towards anyone attempting to leave the cult?

Anyone can leave whenever they want.

I have an older brother and a few lifelong friends who have left the Church.

It happens all the time.

As for hateful? Well-- your hate-filled posts against LGBT in this very thread is a fine, fine example of the hate I was speaking of, previously.

My disagreeing with people over the controversial issue of transgenderism and appropriate treatment for such is not hateful in the least.

I demand that you provide an example of this "hate" you claim that I am exhibiting.

Also, even if I was being hateful, how would that prove any supposed hatefulness of the LDS Church?

You believe you can judge the entirety of the LDS Church based on one member's behavior?

If that were a true concept then I should believe that all transgender people are angry and irrational because I have come across some transgender "bad eggs"?

Another fine, fine example of hate.

Wow.

Your standard of "hate" is awfully low if you consider my pointing out when you are acting like a whining baby is an example of hatred.

I understand your game though.

You are just trying to justify your own hatred of the LDS Church (and other organized religions from the looks of it) by claiming, "They hate first!"

Your labeling of the LDS Church as a "cult" is proof enough of your hate.

Hmmm... could it be due to hate-filled bigotry (like what comes from the LDS cult, or other christian branches) that causes deep depression, and eventual suicide?

I love this argument because everyone makes it and showcase how ignorant they are.

Claiming that discrimination against transgender people in the U.S. today leads them to commit suicide (40-50x more likely than the general population) is ridiculous.

Such a rate is comparable, or even worse than, what Jews in Nazi-occupied Germany or African slaves on the southern plantations had.

Are you really claiming that transgender people in the U.S. today are worse off than these two persecuted groups?

Obviously no reasonable and well-informed person would, so there is some other factor, possibly an underlying mental illness, that is leading to this rate of suidicality.

Oh! wait... you made a claim that suicide rates do not change... but you did not offer a single FACT to support said claim.... hmmmmm.... making stuff up to fit your bigotry? Again?

You mean how you offered nothing to "prove" that the LDS Church tears apart families?

I do think it is interesting that until right now no one has yet to challenge my claim about the suicide rates remaining unchanged after surgery for transgender people.

Even transgender people!

That's because it is a fact.

More fine-fine examples of bigotry and hate from LDS. Good Job!

Asking honest questions about the treatment received by transgender people is not hateful at all.

But I know that you "need" it to look like I hated first so you can justify your hatred of me.

Also, even if what I said was hateful and bigoted, the only claim you could make is, "More fine-fine examples of bigotry and hate from Prestor John."

It is very irresponsible of you to try to judge an entire group of people based on only one member's actions.

Even if those member's actions are completely legitimate and hate-free. Like mine.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I would welcome any criticism of the LDS Church as long as it is legitimate and reasonable.

Anyone can leave whenever they want.

I have an older brother and a few lifelong friends who have left the Church.

It happens all the time.

My disagreeing with people over the controversial issue of transgenderism and appropriate treatment for such is not hateful in the least.

I demand that you provide an example of this "hate" you claim that I am exhibiting.

Also, even if I was being hateful, how would that prove any supposed hatefulness of the LDS Church?

You believe you can judge the entirety of the LDS Church based on one member's behavior?

If that were a true concept then I should believe that all transgender people are angry and irrational because I have come across some transgender "bad eggs"?

Wow.

Your standard of "hate" is awfully low if you consider my pointing out when you are acting like a whining baby is an example of hatred.

I understand your game though.

You are just trying to justify your own hatred of the LDS Church (and other organized religions from the looks of it) by claiming, "They hate first!"

Your labeling of the LDS Church as a "cult" is proof enough of your hate.

I love this argument because everyone makes it and showcase how ignorant they are.

Claiming that discrimination against transgender people in the U.S. today leads them to commit suicide (40-50x more likely than the general population) is ridiculous.

Such a rate is comparable, or even worse than, what Jews in Nazi-occupied Germany or African slaves on the southern plantations had.

Are you really claiming that transgender people in the U.S. today are worse off than these two persecuted groups?

Obviously no reasonable and well-informed person would, so there is some other factor, possibly an underlying mental illness, that is leading to this rate of suidicality.

You mean how you offered nothing to "prove" that the LDS Church tears apart families?

I do think it is interesting that until right now no one has yet to challenge my claim about the suicide rates remaining unchanged after surgery for transgender people.

Even transgender people!

That's because it is a fact.

Asking honest questions about the treatment received by transgender people is not hateful at all.

But I know that you "need" it to look like I hated first so you can justify your hatred of me.

Also, even if what I said was hateful and bigoted, the only claim you could make is, "More fine-fine examples of bigotry and hate from Prestor John."

It is very irresponsible of you to try to judge an entire group of people based on only one member's actions.

Even if those member's actions are completely legitimate and hate-free. Like mine.

The hate you keep ignoring? That came from you and judgmental people like you?

An example is you claiming that Trans people are insane, and that taking needed hormone therapy is "poison".

 

[Prestor John]

The hate you keep ignoring? That came from you and judgmental people like you?

Making more claims without providing supporting evidence?

An example is you claiming that Trans people are insane, and that taking needed hormone therapy is "poison".

I never said that they were insane. I have claimed that they have a mental illness.

Depression is also a mental illness. Are you now going to falsely claim that those suffering from depression are insane?

I never said that transgender people are insane. They suffer from an underlying mental illness that is not being considered or treated.

Also, too much of any hormone is bad for anyone. Believing that you are the member of the opposite sex does not make you immune to this fact.

Hormonal imbalances lead to all kinds of health risks. Too much of any hormone is literally poisonous to the human body.

All of these hormones need to be in balance and the balance is slightly different for everyone. However, men and women have very different hormone balances.

 

[Shad]

No one has said biology does change (asides from genetic reproduction). What we have been saying is there are so many examples where XX does not equal female and XY does not equal male that happen without any sort of medical intervention at all.

Nonsense while ignoring chromosomal sex and phenotype sex in humans.

That is a fact. We have mentioned brains. Again, these are facts.

Which is a development issue.

 

[Prestor John]

The LDS Church's tradition of harm goes all the way back to Mountain Meadows and continues to today.

You are talking about the massacre of immigrants perpetuated by members of the LDS Church and Paiute natives despite the President of the Church and Governor of Utah, Brigham Young, ordering that the immigrants be left alone?

That is the origin of this "tradition of harm" you claim continues to exist to this day?

The LDS Church as a whole is blamed for what a few members do, even if what they do directly contradicts the teachings of the Church and its leaders?