I wonder how this will work out for him
Threadbanned Posters:
Hamsterchops
take everything
road_high
FixdePitchmark
gk5000
I understand your position 100%. You don’t care for women’s sport in the slightest, but you’re first on the barricades to defend women’s sport from a negligible issue, one that women’s sport is well capable of managing without your white knighting, just as it manages all the much more serious challenges for women’s sport every day.
It has nothing to do with women’s sports, and everything to do with you.
So trans people exist, that’s a good start. And when trans people are in school, living their life in their new gender, with a new name and possibly new pronouns, what exactly is the fundamental problem with expecting teachers to show a gram of human respect for the person and use their chosen name and pronouns?
Or in Burke’s case, what’s the problem with the teacher just avoiding the pupil, who’s not in their class in the first place?
Hang on, this pupil wasn't in any of his classes?
What an absolute bullying lowlife.
Yep.
Yep he had no dealings with this child.
I can't believe the state are still paying him. And were also paying to keep him inside.
What a waste of all our money he is.
And there are people on this thread who admire him. You will find them in the usual threads contradicting all their stances.
Lets refresh our memories with a few facts.
This all began in May, when the Principal advised staff that a student wished to be referred to by a new name and gender neutral pronouns.
Note: Gender neurtal pronouns do not identify any gender.
Enoch raised his objection immediately via email, to which the Principal responded that "the ethos of the school was inclusive, and said the right of persons to be called by a name of their choosing and in accordance with their preferred gender was a recognised right set out in the Equal Status Act".
Yet, despite this - you're claiming Burke - the same guy who apparently is not shy about shouting at women and high court judges alike - waited and "spoke up when he could"? That the first opportunity he had to raise his objection just happened to be some weeks later, in June, in the middle of a public event which being attended by students, parents, teachers and past pupils alike?
Pull the other one, honestly.
But the kid being in his class is not the reason for all this.
The way I understand it is that the school told staff that such and such a kid was now to be referred to as "they"
Burke took exception to this and raised the matter in the most inopportune time, i.e the function where he berated the principal.
Your post and that of others imply that Burke had some interaction with the kid, I don't think that is the case.
He has to have no interaction with the kid, so the idea he will be forced to call the pupil anything is nonsense.
I wrongly assumed the pupil was in his class, which makes this absolute low life a lower form of life.
The reason for all this is his own behaviour, he got himself suspended, he got himself thrown in prison and he will get himself made unemployable.
Sounds remarkably like Karma, if you believe in that sort of thing.
But why does it make him a lower form of life?
He is objecting to school policy, whether the kid is on his class makes no difference.
It does make a difference, because if the kid was in his class, he’d have to follow the principal’s instructions.
With the kid not being in his class, he didn’t actually have to do anything.
But he’s chosen to spend months in jail in preference to not doing anything.
Oh I get you yeah. But makes it even more annoying for me that he is wasting tax payers money when the issue he is crying about is not even in his day to day job.
It makes all the difference, his claim is he is being forced to do something, he quite clearly isn't.
So on top of everything he is also just a Liar.
Just because the kid is not in his class does not mean he won’t or can’t ever interact with the kid.
He was objecting to the school policy. Whether or not the kid is in his class is irrelevant.
the school policy did NOT mention anything to do with “only if the kid is in your class.” It was an overall school policy, not a kid/class specific policy. No idea why folks confused here.
There is no confusion. With the kid not being in the class, there’s no action required of Burke.
Except to choose not to abuse his principal loudly at a school function (timing and venue chosen for maximum publicity of course) about a policy that doesn’t impact him.
Why did he object by chasing the Principal around a hall in front of all the parents.
That's why he is in trouble not his objection.
Seems to be a desperate attempt to constantly rewrite this piece of the story.
As I said before on this thread, if Burke was an atheist intellectual using science as his objection to "transgenderism" (if that's a word) rather than an evangelical Christian then I doubt many here would be calling him a low life, or a creep.
I dont care about womens sport. I also don't care about men's sport, but we can't let that get in your way which is why you left that part out on you way to making your invalid point. It gets boring the way you constantly misrepresent opposing comments in the same tiring way.
It's just as wrong when men pretend to be women for academic or financial gain as it is when men are "positively discriminated" against in favour of gender quotas or women only scholarships.
I don't know where the "everything to do with you" line fits in to your narrative. A bit of a throwaway line there AJr.
How many atheists are currently breaking a court order by stalking a school ?
It's his actions are the problem so your whataboutery is just that.
If he’s shouting at his principal at a school event, he’s a low life creep, regardless of his justification.
You wouldnt be the most impartial observer now Father.
You’re missing the point here. I am simply pointing out “his” objection. He was objecting to a school policy. End of. Bringing up whether the kid is or isn’t in his class is irrelevant to the school policy: He was objecting to school policy.
in other words: he was responding to this policy request saying “I will not obey this policy if I ever have to interact in this school with any person wanting to be addressed via pronouns.”
Why does the school policy not impact him, or could not impact him? Are you saying this policy was worded and written to only include any persons that will interact with this one kid? How would that work?
seriously, this is bonkers. So easy to understand, yet people are implying tgat this school policy could never impact or apply to Burke, on the basis that that this kid wasn’t in his class?..
and for the record, I think he deserved to be locked up
Your additional clarifications just keep adding further weight to my analysis. You’ve no interest in sport at all, men or women, but suddenly you jump on the womens sport bandwagon for this niche issue, which is being managed competently by every women’s sport body, as an excuse for Burke to loudly abuse his principal at a school event, despite the fact that the stated policy has zero impact on Burke and the women’s sport issue has no relevance either.
It’s obviously nothing to do with the school policy for trans pupils and everything to do with your own personal ickiness with the topic.
I think he deserved to be locked up. And I am also aware why he was locked up. It wasn’t for his objecting to the school policy.
I've been called a cu*t many times, do I care...........not a bit !!
You could just as well say how many atheist teachers are forced to acknowledge a Christian God and say prayers by their school? Not many id say.
Plenty of whataboutery to go around.
Kind of looks like it proves his point if most of the comment goes unread or is ignored. Cherry picking is what that is.
This thread is about calling a religious person all kinds of crazy. Before common sense went extinct, people thought it crazy if a man hought he was a woman.
What ?
How is that the same as accosting a principal in public.
Ah, but do you wish to be identified as one?🤣
Religion is irrelevant. You might as well say "White Man" and try to make it about race.
Just to be clear, the complaint made by the Principal is that he walked after her questioning her loudly. Has she accused him of accosting/threatening her?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/08231869fd786c2459f2d35b207b4d26.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e68aa2b0e039b12ade8384a2f42841c6.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
