Enoch Burke turns up to school again despite sacking - read OP before posting

My response to your post was not uncivil, imo. You just didn't like it.

If I had thought your post was uncivil, I would have reported it, although maybe not as this is such an emotive issue I think we all need a bit of leeway. While I didn't press the like button, I neither liked nor disliked either of the two posts you quoted, but I disagreed with both, for the reasons outlined in my previous responses to you. If we're going to engage on the basis of whether we like or dislike what each other is saying, I don't think that's going to get either of us very far.

Sometimes all is revealed between the lines. Especially transparent in the "I'm just asking questions" type posts.

I'm acutely aware of the limitations of this medium, and how words can appear harsh on a screen, when tone of voice, body language etc could also convey a message. I'm also autistic, extremely literal, and so I'm limited in my ability to either write, or read between lines. I do my best to say what I mean as clearly and respectfully as I can, and I'm very appreciative when others do the same, while respecting their right to do otherwise. There are no questions in my first two posts, either in or between the lines.

I am not interested in engaging in any discussion with anyone who advocates for a legal way to pretend gender diverse people don't exist. And in my experience, when someone makes a statement that they believe they should "have the right" not to use a gender diverse person's preferred name or their preferred pronouns, that is what they really want. A legal way to ignore the fact that gender diversity exists.

I didn't advocate for that and it's not what I believe. I advocate for the right for people to hold whatever beliefs they want, and for other people to hold opposing beliefs, subject to limits which I have admitted to being unable to define. I have said what I think is ok and not okay in my response to Peregrinus, but I don't know how or where to draw the dividing line between them. I think the question of behaviour is more important than beliefs when it comes to regulation, otherwise we're into an Orwellian thought police situation. I am happy to discuss with you or anyone else if it's in good faith. I would not dream of denying your experience as I have no personal knowledge of you - whatever about the people you have encountered, either here or IRL, but please be assured that that is not what I really want. Assuming my desires or intent based on others you have encountered would be akin to expressing a rascist belief in another context. Do you think it's ok for people not to believe in more than two genders?

I have no time for that. Religious or not doesn't even factor into it as far as I'm concerned. I also have no interest in reading any more articles about other bigoted teachers. This person may have won a case in Virginia, USA, (a country which is primed to elect a bigot again) but he is still a bigot.

Well, you seem to have read that one, though on my interpretation you misrepresented the teacher's quoted reaction on winning the case. I got this definition of bigot:

a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

You could be right about the teacher, but IMHO there wasn't anything in that article to indicate that he was prejudiced or antagonistic towards the student, unless you regard the holding of different beliefs, and refusing to use preferred pronouns as in and of themselves meeting those two criteria. As for being obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief - well I'm an atheist so there'd be a conflict of interest if I held him to that😀.

Thanks!

The phenomenon of indoctrination, which can happen for any belief system, is why I have some residual sympathy for Enoch (and his siblings), though it's rapidly dissipating.

The actual beliefs in question are the central point of your argument. No need to try and change the goalposts of your argument.

My original post was about resolving a dispute in a civil fashion, with a nod to another poster who confirmed my recollection of someone suggesting a better course of action for Enoch, even if for both of us it was very much a case of closing the stable door. I didn't need to move any goalposts as there weren't any in sight. The question of beliefs arose in response to other posters' comments. One particular poster took the time to formulate a thoughtful response to my response to another poster, and I was happy to respond even though it's clear they disagree with me, in fact because they disagree with me, as I have more to gain from the discussion and I think it's good for the discussion to hear a variety of views. I did try to argue the general question of resolving clashes of beliefs, or freedoms, as it's much more important than whatever I as an individual happen to believe. Whether or not you, I or anyone else like it or not, in a free society such clashes are inevitable, and we have to find a way to resolve them with the least harm and most positive outcome for all concerned.

Your belief that trans people don't exist/are not real/whatever, isn't in anyway more important, or even relevant to whether they do exist (they do btw, by law)

Did I say anything like that about trans people? The mod warning in the OP warns against it. I think other than identifying as an atheist, I don't think I said much about beliefs at all.

(they do btw, by law)

What exactly does the law say?

Thanks for reading my post carefully. Sadly, as I said previously, I am encountering that kind of behaviour on a more frequent basis on boards. If anyone is bored or can't sleep they can have a look around and they'll find that even for posters that treated me in this fashion, I have interacted with other posts of theirs, taken them at face value, queried where necessary for my understanding, and in most cases thanked them, the exceptions being when they have twisted my words. What more can they possibly want except for me to share their beliefs? Mind you, several of them tend to obfuscate so even if I wanted to share their beliefs I'd be in trouble as I couldn't be sure what I was taking on.

btw, even though I'm more used to being referred to as he, I'm grand with they or anything anyone else wants to call me as long as it's not defamatory.

That's a fair question. The short answer is no. Unfortunately, I feel the need for a long answer. The first time the idea of preferred pronouns entered my awareness, I thought it was a bit strange, and wondered why the need for change, but sure it's good to be kind and polite, and I was on board with using them. I was a bit apprehensive later when it became much more complicated than he/her, she/him, they, lest I inadvertently caused offence by getting it wrong. (It's important to note that a small number of very obnoxious people have made a point of deliberately engineering situations so people innocently fall into that trap). I'm lost with ze/zir etc.

Over time I gradually became very concerned about the idea of being legally compelled to use pronouns, not because of anything to do with gender beliefs, but because if that form of compelled speech is enshrined in law, what's to stop other, harmful forms of speech being compelled? I don't believe use of preferred pronouns is harmful in and of itself, just to be clear.

My current position is that I have adopted the position espoused by Helen Joyce, for the reasons that she states, i.e. I will refuse to use pronouns that do not accord with biological sex, because to do so means adopting a belief system that if all of it's beliefs are adopted, then harmful things like mutilation of children, men in women's private spaces, and women losing out on the right to fair sporting competition could take place. I accept that could/will cause offence (the situation has never arisen) and I'm highly conflicted about that, but I believe that to be a lesser harm in pursuit of a greater good.

As you have outlined your kind approach in your post, I would do exactly as you propose if I could be sure that no bad consequences would flow from it - but I believe they might. I am open to be persuaded otherwise. I don't believe my not using pronouns in that case says anything about the validity of the other person's beliefs, other than that I don't share them, though of course it would come across as being rude, which I really, really don't like.

*edited to add bolded section for clarity, and lest I be accused of not answering a straight question with a straight answer.

The mask always slips.

Just to point out, biology doesn't say that people can't be transgender. Claims of biology or Christianity are the same arguments that have been used to keep any references to LGBT people out of the classroom.

And just to return to the topic, all Irish schools even the Christian ones include being gay or bi etc in sex education. By your own logic this should be excluded from the syllabus. In this case, it's simply acknowledging a person's preferred name or pronoun. If Enoch ever did actually have to interact with the person, he could simply have used their name. He didn't ever have to actually interact with them so instead he engaged in an attention seeking exercise to be disruptive to the school.

And if anything, not treating somebody in their formative years with basic levels of respect has a negative impact on them long term.

Also its not unusual these days to have students turn 18 in transition year (no pun intended) or sixth year. So, legal adults.

And it was a student he was unlikely to ever have dealings with… So his decision to harangue the principal was with the sole intent of causing fallout. There was never an intention of having a genuine discussion and I'd say it says a hell of a lot that he's the only case of such an escalated situation occurring after 9 years of the gender recognition act.

Anyway, I'd prefer for all teachers to have a level of basic respect for students over such a toxic individual dealing with students.

Technically, no he couldn't; because the student apparently wanted to change their name as well as their pronouns. He'd have had to say "the student formerly known as …."

By name, I meant their preferred name. My logic with names is more that there's pretty much no rule on which gender can have a name, there's norms but even they're pretty fluid.

Wonder does he insist Saul is still called Saul?