I wonder how this will work out for him
Threadbanned Posters:
Hamsterchops
take everything
road_high
FixdePitchmark
gk5000
Having lived in the US for a while, it might surprise you the number of Americans who say “Klu” when referring to the KKK, I even heard a CNN contributor say it recently when discussing some of the groups in the Jan 6 . Doesn’t make it right of course, but a simple mistake to make.
Why would anyone go to the trouble of posting a screenshot of an old print dictionary, when they’re on a device that has instant access to every contemporary dictionary? Because every contemporary dictionary refutes their point, that’s why.
What point is refuted? Is what was posted grammatically incorrect?
Ah, read the thread.
They claimed that the use of the word “they” as a singular pronoun was non-standard, and posted a photo of an old printed dictionary to “prove” it.
every major contemporary dictionary shows that it’s a perfect standard use of the word.
we can clearly put this to bed now. “They” is linguistically correct as a singular personal pronoun for both individuals of unknown gender AND those that identify as non-binary
I have, and though it has gone off on a bit of a tangent in relation to the use of the word “they “(mostly because there is going to be a lull in activity unless Bourke shows up in the school tomorrow morning), nothing that was posted by the poster in relation to the grammatical use of the word “they” is incorrect. We all know it’s now recognised use to describe non binary gender identification, we are just saying that as there is only one person, maybe the singular “it” is more apt than “they”. That’s all.
Ah you have me there, more haste and less speed..
I know not the Burkes nor do I agree with their strict fundamentalist views - I'd be more of a live & let live mind.
But I would defend their right to be different, which is separate. Looked at in the round, I admire people of principle (even if I don't agree with them) who are prepared to stick to their beliefs and take the consequences. I'd bet there's very few here who would go to prison on the basis of their beliefs. Or lose a job on the basis of beliefs. That's a good test of character.
Numerous posters here have opined that they're unemployable. I'd differ - give me someone any day who has principles, is honest and hard working. The Burkes with these characteristics are/ will be excellent employees and possibly employers. The sort of people who give their word in business and hold to it. Thos are my kind of people I like to trade with.
That is not to defend Burke's position on the school policy. But to see it in the context of someone who is true to themselves and give them credit for that. Be a Burke in life......
Defending someone's right is fine, but only if they don't use it to hurt people or interfer with other people's lives.
And he didn't go to prison for his beliefs - can't believe this STILL needs to be said - he went to prison for breaching a court order he really didn't need to breach in order to preserve his beliefs. Getting fired because of your beliefs is not nessecarily a good thing - resiging because of them would have had garnere much more respect in that matter. Dragging the school through the media and getting the courts invovled are most certainly NOT going to get admiration from ANYONE.
Beliefs are not cart blacnhe to do whatever you want.
Furthermore, you can be hard-working and honest and still be unemployable. Being principled is a red flag when you have a history of bringing them into the workplace.
I'd argue he'd still find a job though at the right school - whether that school is in Ireland is a different matter though.
TL-DR - he could have done this properly and respectfully and in accorodance with his beliefs and gotten respect, but he chose not to and got ridicule. Consequences.
Which words would you use in your head if you were thinking about someone who said something you didn't immediately understand:
"I've no idea what they're on about."
"I've no idea what it's on about."
Again, the first one is an example of a third person singular pronoun where the gender is irrelevant as no reference is made to who said something.
If you changed the “someone” in your post to “a man” or “a women”, then it would be “I have no idea what he (or she) is on about”.
Going one step further, if we knew the someone was indeed non-binary and then I see no reason why “I’ve no idea what it’s on about” is less accurate grammatically than “what they’re” on about”. It is now accepted that “they” is the preferred word, but again, the plurality involved in referring to a single known person seems grammatically incorrect.
I know this is off topic and I feel most readers are bored/indifferent to the choice of word so I’ll leave it at that and wait to see if Enoch provides some new twist to the story in the morning.
It seems you have not read the full story of how things went in Arthur Cox.....
The only appropriate pronouns in this case are the ones the student requested: “they/them”. They’re respectful, linguistically correct and do not infringe on anyone’s religious beliefs.
No-one refers to a person as an it.
Anyway, never mind.
Surely you understand that the pronouns are not the issue? Enoch Bourke felt that transgenderism and the schools requirement that he recognise it and adhere to its policy on it infringed on his religious beliefs. We may not understand why it affected him so much because most of us are probably not ECs, but it is factually incorrect to say no one’s religious beliefs were infringed, his were.
You’ve never heard “it’s me” or “it’s you” before?
No they were not. The student was not in his class and their paths didn't cross. He could have ignored it and gone on his way and still have a job.
There is nothing inherent to Christianity that prevents an adherent from uttering the word “they” or “them” as a singular personal pronoun. Nothing.
Burke, or anyone else, can’t just decide to make up random rules for their religion and expect everyone else to pander to them. The world and the law doesn’t work that way.
I don’t want to be seen to defend Bourkes behaviour, but that is the crux of his objection, that transgenderism and the schools policy on it infringed his religious beliefs. The fact that he would not come in contact with the child doesn’t change the fact that his evangelical beliefs would not allow him to accept the schools instruction. Maybe the school’s policy did not apply to him because he didn’t have classes with the child, but I’m fairly sure the policy was applied irrespective of whether there was contact.
Just to be clear, are you under the assumption that Bourke objected on grammatical grounds?
Interestingly enough he also has a YouTube channel.
https://youtu.be/mrgtemMUuFw
This issue is not about pronouns. Why is it still being discussed?
I am not. I’m well aware of Burkes stated reason for his objection. That doesn’t mean it has any merit.
Who said that?
It was it.
Nah, doesn't happen.
Presumably because he has been sacked, unless he turns up at school tomorrow, everything else has been discussed repeatedly, in great detail.
Wonder has Enoch, and his ma, got his alarm set for tomorrow morning for school?
I see it as something like pork appearing in a school canteen. It's taboo and prohibited to Muslim and Jewish people, but I can't imagine anyone (in Ireland) taking as grave offence to it as he did this child.
No one was forcing him to recognise a child as transgender as they were in separate classes. If the child was in his class, there might be a different argument.
It does mean you were wrong when you said no one’s religious beliefs were infringed though, obviously the central character in this particular story feels his were. We may not understand why that is, but we are not Enoch Bourke nor perhaps ECs.
I’m intrigued oddly to know where he lives- does he live at home with mammy in mayo- that’s a two hour commute each way to Multy! Imagine sharing digs/house with him 😳
I think some Muslims/Jewish people would be offended if school policy was that you were required to eat pork though, wouldn’t you think so?
I can't think of any other school/teacher dispute where students attempted to insert themselves into it. Nor can I remember any other time a students letter on same was publicised in national media.
It all got out of hand a long time ago, so I suppose that makes the above no surprise.
I wondered when the school applied to sequester his assets whether he had a house, I couldn’t imagine anyone else making the commute daily from Castlebar, but then I thought that if anyone would, it would be him.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0e28477cb8381b089d86bb2f8d128369.svg)
