Teacher Imprisoned As Result Of Wrong Pronouns

[cromwell]

There doesn't need to be a law about compelled speech.  To be precise, it's about prohibited speech.  The "interlocutory injunction" was the consequence of using normal English words to refer to biological sex.  Therefore the law has compelled the teacher to stop using normal speech.

The law has only compelled the person to stay away from his place of employment it has made no judgement on his actions for which he was suspended.

You are hard of thinking.

He needs to see it through a disciplinary hearing and if necessary an employment tribunal.

[Scott777]

The law broken was a breach of an interlocutory injunction, not any law about compelled speech.

There doesn't need to be a law about compelled speech.  To be precise, it's about prohibited speech.  The "interlocutory injunction" was the consequence of using normal English words to refer to biological sex.  Therefore the law has compelled the teacher to stop using normal speech.

[Scott777]

As I understand it from her brothers, Mrs P was extremely competitive in sports and outdoor pursuits, or guttejente, as I think they called it.

But I was attracted to her, and — luckily — she me, and (also luckily) it progressed from there.

So, all in all, I'm not sure of your point...

I don't understand your post.  I think I said quite clearly, you have conflated sex with gender.  A boy is a biological male.  We are talking about prohibiting words which refer to biological sex, and therefore to biology.  So if you accept that, as principle, then you must accept the prohibition of any biological word, or indeed any word.

[Nalaar]

If you like.  So you're ok with laws that compel you to say things which are not true?

The law broken was a breach of an interlocutory injunction, not any law about compelled speech. 

[Scott777]

Has nothing to do with the employer, the employee broke the law and was jailed.

If you like.  So you're ok with laws that compel you to say things which are not true?

[patman post]

Gender alone is not the issue.  A tomboy is a girl that has masculine traits.  That's gender.  We don't actually define them as a boy.  In this case, a boy can be a girl and vice versa, which means physical biology becomes a fiction.  That fiction is being compelled.

As I understand it from her brothers, Mrs P was extremely competitive in sports and outdoor pursuits, or guttejente, as I think they called it.

But I was attracted to her, and — luckily — she me, and (also luckily) it progressed from there.

So, all in all, I'm not sure of your point...

[Nick]

Where will you draw the line?  If all employers adopt this policy, which eventually they will, indeed I expect the law to eventually prohibit the wrong pronouns (and it's not a fantasy, we have laws to protect other identities, and people do get arrested for causing offence or anxiety), then you cannot work, then will you go along with it peacefully?  Even if my chosen pronoun is God, or My Lord, or I believe I'm a cat and you must refer to me as a cat?

Has nothing to do with the employer, the employee broke the law and was jailed.
Are the replies not going the way you thought they would?
Did you think we would all see he shouldn't be jailed in the same was Yaxley Lennon was? Unlucky 😂 

[Scott777]

Other languages have genders for almost everything.

Sometimes (eg, le professeur, in French) remains masculine even when referring to a female holder of the position. Other items in French — such as the car, the pen, the table — are feminine or masculine, and their genders need to be learned from the outset.

Not sure if that proves anything other than to maybe suggest that the debate over personal pronouns probably won't matter in a hundred years time, and probably means little at the moment...

Gender alone is not the issue.  A tomboy is a girl that has masculine traits.  That's gender.  We don't actually define them as a boy.  In this case, a boy can be a girl and vice versa, which means physical biology becomes a fiction.  That fiction is being compelled.

[Scott777]

Getting ahead of yourself there with this.I expect a lot of people would have something to say about that.

Have you not heard of the totalitarian tiptoe?  When done in tiny steps, people go along with it, and as long as they do, the state will keep doing it.

[patman post]

Other languages have genders for almost everything.

Sometimes (eg, le professeur, in French) remains masculine even when referring to a female holder of the position. Other items in French — such as the car, the pen, the table — are feminine or masculine, and their genders need to be learned from the outset.

Not sure if that proves anything other than to maybe suggest that the debate over personal pronouns probably won't matter in a hundred years time, and probably means little at the moment...

[Nalaar]

Where will you draw the line?  If all employers adopt this policy, which eventually they will, indeed I expect the law to eventually prohibit the wrong pronouns (and it's not a fantasy, we have laws to protect other identities, and people do get arrested for causing offence or anxiety), then you cannot work, then will you go along with it peacefully?  Even if my chosen pronoun is God, or My Lord, or I believe I'm a cat and you must refer to me as a cat?

I think the adoption of a persons preferred pronouns will become an expected curtsey and not a legal matter, however, if it is the will of society that it should become a legal matter then I have the choice to either leave the society, or remain and abide with it.

You are welcome to call yourself whatever you like.

[cromwell]

Where will you draw the line?  If all employers adopt this policy, which eventually they will, indeed I expect the law to eventually prohibit the wrong pronouns (and it's not a fantasy, we have laws to protect other identities, and people do get arrested for causing offence or anxiety), then you cannot work, then will you go along with it peacefully?  Even if my chosen pronoun is God, or My Lord, or I believe I'm a cat and you must refer to me as a cat?

Getting ahead of yourself there with this.

If all employers adopt this policy, which eventually they will

I expect a lot of people would have something to say about that.

[Scott777]

The teacher was suspended, and asked not to attend the school while suspended. He refused to the extent that a court order was granted to stop him attending the school, which he chose to refuse, and so he is being punished for his refusal.

He can choose to obey the court order, or continue to refuse it.
If he finds the policies of the school unacceptable, and the school refuses to change them, then he should find employment with an employer that does have speech policies he finds acceptable.

Where will you draw the line?  If all employers adopt this policy, which eventually they will, indeed I expect the law to eventually prohibit the wrong pronouns (and it's not a fantasy, we have laws to protect other identities, and people do get arrested for causing offence or anxiety), then you cannot work, then will you go along with it peacefully?  Even if my chosen pronoun is God, or My Lord, or I believe I'm a cat and you must refer to me as a cat?

[Nick]

I assumed as much - a common (and imo odd) justification for a stance is to say 'if good enough for x then y' or 'the dictionary definition of x is y' etc but when pressed over a change in 'x' people do not defend the position.

I think this is more of a casual quirk of language, and a shorthand for 'just give the first reason to come to mind' than an attempt to genuinely justify anything.

Not a reason, just an example of why we shouldn't give these people oxygen. 

[Nalaar]

Probably not 😂

I assumed as much - a common (and imo odd) justification for a stance is to say 'if good enough for x then y' or 'the dictionary definition of x is y' etc but when pressed over a change in 'x' people do not defend the position.

I think this is more of a casual quirk of language, and a shorthand for 'just give the first reason to come to mind' than an attempt to genuinely justify anything.