Teacher Sues After Being Fired For Refusing To Use Transgender Student’s ‘Preferred Pronoun

[Correll]

“Defendants made up an uncompromising interpretation of their policies to compel Mr. Vlaming to take sides in an ongoing public debate regarding gender dysphoria and use pronouns that express an objectively untrue ideological message,” the lawsuit says. “Mr. Vlaming’s conscience and religious practice prohibits him from intentionally lying, and he sincerely believes that referring to a female student as a male by using an objectively male pronoun is telling a lie.”

What "ongoing debate regarding gender dysphoria" is actually occurring? The student, his parents, and the medical professionals they consult have a right to proceed the way they wish. They are not "debating" anyone and I would hazard a guess that they don't give a rat's ass about someone who has ideological problems with their course of action. This teacher had no right to force his way into this student's life, especially since he was instructed not to do so. We don't even know what religion this teacher belongs to. If we did, it really wouldn't make any difference.

THe teacher was avoiding the use of pronouns.


Firing someone over that, is Tyranny.

 

[rightwinger]

Emily

It is common courtesy
The child wants to be referred to as a male.

We don’t need separate schools. We need conservatives to stop acting like such Dicks

Nothing about any rational concept of “common courtesy” supports compelling sane people to play along with the insane delusions of mentally-defective freaks.

It is those of you who want to force sane people to call a girl a boy, who are “acting like such Dicks”.

Yes it is

You are dealing with a child
A child with a lot of pressure and drama in their life

A teacher siding with those who are mocking and taunting a student does not help

Nurturing and encouraging the child's mental illness is not doing her any favors.

Neither is forcing a child into a sexuality just to please you or the people in the community

It's not about pleasing me, or "the people".

And the teacher was willing to avoid pronouns so as to not "trigger" the mentally ill girl.

Did he avoid using pronouns for other students also?
He was instructed how to refer to the student

 

[there4eyeM]

Under U.S. law, it would not seem legally possible to force any person to use specified words and certainly not when the words are not necessary to communication. If this teacher tactfully avoided gender-specific terms in the cited interchanges, the First Amendment protects him. He will (and should) win.

 

[there4eyeM]

Correct common pronouns are not hate speech.

Who put you in charge of what is correct?

The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language is an authoritative source for proper usage, for one.

...for England.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Nothing about any rational concept of “common courtesy” supports compelling sane people to play along with the insane delusions of mentally-defective freaks.

It is those of you who want to force sane people to call a girl a boy, who are “acting like such Dicks”.

Yes it is

You are dealing with a child
A child with a lot of pressure and drama in their life

A teacher siding with those who are mocking and taunting a student does not help

Nurturing and encouraging the child's mental illness is not doing her any favors.

Neither is forcing a child into a sexuality just to please you or the people in the community

It's not about pleasing me, or "the people".

And the teacher was willing to avoid pronouns so as to not "trigger" the mentally ill girl.

Did he avoid using pronouns for other students also?
He was instructed how to refer to the student

Good little sheeple, just do whatever insane thing your masters order you to do.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Correct common pronouns are not hate speech.

Who put you in charge of what is correct?

The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language is an authoritative source for proper usage, for one.

...for England.

Stupidest thing I've heard all week. But it's early.

 

[Lysistrata]

“Defendants made up an uncompromising interpretation of their policies to compel Mr. Vlaming to take sides in an ongoing public debate regarding gender dysphoria and use pronouns that express an objectively untrue ideological message,” the lawsuit says. “Mr. Vlaming’s conscience and religious practice prohibits him from intentionally lying, and he sincerely believes that referring to a female student as a male by using an objectively male pronoun is telling a lie.”

What "ongoing debate regarding gender dysphoria" is actually occurring? The student, his parents, and the medical professionals they consult have a right to proceed the way they wish. They are not "debating" anyone and I would hazard a guess that they don't give a rat's ass about someone who has ideological problems with their course of action. This teacher had no right to force his way into this student's life, especially since he was instructed not to do so. We don't even know what religion this teacher belongs to. If we did, it really wouldn't make any difference.

THe teacher was avoiding the use of pronouns.


Firing someone over that, is Tyranny.

It's not tyranny. You are really being a drama queen. What would you say if a doctor was told by the state what s/he must say, or can't say, to patients, or taxpayer money is given out only on the condition that certain issues cannot be talked about? These are situations in which no employer/employee relationship, while this one does involve such a relationship.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

“Defendants made up an uncompromising interpretation of their policies to compel Mr. Vlaming to take sides in an ongoing public debate regarding gender dysphoria and use pronouns that express an objectively untrue ideological message,” the lawsuit says. “Mr. Vlaming’s conscience and religious practice prohibits him from intentionally lying, and he sincerely believes that referring to a female student as a male by using an objectively male pronoun is telling a lie.”

What "ongoing debate regarding gender dysphoria" is actually occurring? The student, his parents, and the medical professionals they consult have a right to proceed the way they wish. They are not "debating" anyone and I would hazard a guess that they don't give a rat's ass about someone who has ideological problems with their course of action. This teacher had no right to force his way into this student's life, especially since he was instructed not to do so. We don't even know what religion this teacher belongs to. If we did, it really wouldn't make any difference.

THe teacher was avoiding the use of pronouns.


Firing someone over that, is Tyranny.

It's not tyranny. You are really being a drama queen. What would you say if a doctor was told by the state what s/he must say, or can't say, to patients, or taxpayer money is given out only on the condition that certain issues cannot be talked about? These are situations in which no employer/employee relationship, while this one does involve such a relationship.

It is tyranny. Comply with the order to forward an obvious and educationally-incorrect lie to students or lose your job.

 

[Lysistrata]

Under U.S. law, it would not seem legally possible to force any person to use specified words and certainly not when the words are not necessary to communication. If this teacher tactfully avoided gender-specific terms in the cited interchanges, the First Amendment protects him. He will (and should) win.

The anti-abortion politicians have passed laws in several states requiring doctors to use specified words when speaking to their patients. Some states have also passed laws requiring women who choose abortion to report to "counseling" that actually consists of religious/ideological indoctrination. So forced speech and forced attendance to speech evidently are legally possible. The executive branch departments, under the orange whore, have forbidden the use of certain words and phrases in reports prepared by department employees, in areas involving discussion of climate issues, for instance. Be careful about First Amendment issues.

 

[Weatherman2020]

“Defendants made up an uncompromising interpretation of their policies to compel Mr. Vlaming to take sides in an ongoing public debate regarding gender dysphoria and use pronouns that express an objectively untrue ideological message,” the lawsuit says. “Mr. Vlaming’s conscience and religious practice prohibits him from intentionally lying, and he sincerely believes that referring to a female student as a male by using an objectively male pronoun is telling a lie.”

What "ongoing debate regarding gender dysphoria" is actually occurring? The student, his parents, and the medical professionals they consult have a right to proceed the way they wish. They are not "debating" anyone and I would hazard a guess that they don't give a rat's ass about someone who has ideological problems with their course of action. This teacher had no right to force his way into this student's life, especially since he was instructed not to do so. We don't even know what religion this teacher belongs to. If we did, it really wouldn't make any difference.

THe teacher was avoiding the use of pronouns.


Firing someone over that, is Tyranny.

It's not tyranny. You are really being a drama queen. What would you say if a doctor was told by the state what s/he must say, or can't say, to patients, or taxpayer money is given out only on the condition that certain issues cannot be talked about? These are situations in which no employer/employee relationship, while this one does involve such a relationship.

And the people who think they’re Napoleon? Lassie?

 

[Correll]

Nothing about any rational concept of “common courtesy” supports compelling sane people to play along with the insane delusions of mentally-defective freaks.

It is those of you who want to force sane people to call a girl a boy, who are “acting like such Dicks”.

Yes it is

You are dealing with a child
A child with a lot of pressure and drama in their life

A teacher siding with those who are mocking and taunting a student does not help

Nurturing and encouraging the child's mental illness is not doing her any favors.

Neither is forcing a child into a sexuality just to please you or the people in the community

It's not about pleasing me, or "the people".

And the teacher was willing to avoid pronouns so as to not "trigger" the mentally ill girl.

Did he avoid using pronouns for other students also?
He was instructed how to refer to the student

Which is bat shit crazy on many levels.

 

[Correll]

“Defendants made up an uncompromising interpretation of their policies to compel Mr. Vlaming to take sides in an ongoing public debate regarding gender dysphoria and use pronouns that express an objectively untrue ideological message,” the lawsuit says. “Mr. Vlaming’s conscience and religious practice prohibits him from intentionally lying, and he sincerely believes that referring to a female student as a male by using an objectively male pronoun is telling a lie.”

What "ongoing debate regarding gender dysphoria" is actually occurring? The student, his parents, and the medical professionals they consult have a right to proceed the way they wish. They are not "debating" anyone and I would hazard a guess that they don't give a rat's ass about someone who has ideological problems with their course of action. This teacher had no right to force his way into this student's life, especially since he was instructed not to do so. We don't even know what religion this teacher belongs to. If we did, it really wouldn't make any difference.

THe teacher was avoiding the use of pronouns.


Firing someone over that, is Tyranny.

It's not tyranny. You are really being a drama queen. What would you say if a doctor was told by the state what s/he must say, or can't say, to patients, or taxpayer money is given out only on the condition that certain issues cannot be talked about? These are situations in which no employer/employee relationship, while this one does involve such a relationship.

If he was instructed to NOT refer to the girl as a girl and insisted on doing so, I would support the idea that the school had the right to fire him. He is an employee.


Telling him HOW to refer to a student, and firing him for avoiding the issue by avoiding gender specific pronouns, is not reasonable.


This is tyranny. A man's life is being fucked up, by bullies and thugs who are demanding conformity with politically motivated madness.

 

[Lysistrata]

“Defendants made up an uncompromising interpretation of their policies to compel Mr. Vlaming to take sides in an ongoing public debate regarding gender dysphoria and use pronouns that express an objectively untrue ideological message,” the lawsuit says. “Mr. Vlaming’s conscience and religious practice prohibits him from intentionally lying, and he sincerely believes that referring to a female student as a male by using an objectively male pronoun is telling a lie.”

What "ongoing debate regarding gender dysphoria" is actually occurring? The student, his parents, and the medical professionals they consult have a right to proceed the way they wish. They are not "debating" anyone and I would hazard a guess that they don't give a rat's ass about someone who has ideological problems with their course of action. This teacher had no right to force his way into this student's life, especially since he was instructed not to do so. We don't even know what religion this teacher belongs to. If we did, it really wouldn't make any difference.

THe teacher was avoiding the use of pronouns.


Firing someone over that, is Tyranny.

It's not tyranny. You are really being a drama queen. What would you say if a doctor was told by the state what s/he must say, or can't say, to patients, or taxpayer money is given out only on the condition that certain issues cannot be talked about? These are situations in which no employer/employee relationship, while this one does involve such a relationship.

If he was instructed to NOT refer to the girl as a girl and insisted on doing so, I would support the idea that the school had the right to fire him. He is an employee.


Telling him HOW to refer to a student, and firing him for avoiding the issue by avoiding gender specific pronouns, is not reasonable.


This is tyranny. A man's life is being fucked up, by bullies and thugs who are demanding conformity with politically motivated madness.

He was told what to do. He didn't do it. I don't know what his religion is, apparently one that is concerned with pronouns, but can't this cult give him a job? These attention whores are getting really annoying.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

“Defendants made up an uncompromising interpretation of their policies to compel Mr. Vlaming to take sides in an ongoing public debate regarding gender dysphoria and use pronouns that express an objectively untrue ideological message,” the lawsuit says. “Mr. Vlaming’s conscience and religious practice prohibits him from intentionally lying, and he sincerely believes that referring to a female student as a male by using an objectively male pronoun is telling a lie.”

What "ongoing debate regarding gender dysphoria" is actually occurring? The student, his parents, and the medical professionals they consult have a right to proceed the way they wish. They are not "debating" anyone and I would hazard a guess that they don't give a rat's ass about someone who has ideological problems with their course of action. This teacher had no right to force his way into this student's life, especially since he was instructed not to do so. We don't even know what religion this teacher belongs to. If we did, it really wouldn't make any difference.

THe teacher was avoiding the use of pronouns.


Firing someone over that, is Tyranny.

It's not tyranny. You are really being a drama queen. What would you say if a doctor was told by the state what s/he must say, or can't say, to patients, or taxpayer money is given out only on the condition that certain issues cannot be talked about? These are situations in which no employer/employee relationship, while this one does involve such a relationship.

If he was instructed to NOT refer to the girl as a girl and insisted on doing so, I would support the idea that the school had the right to fire him. He is an employee.


Telling him HOW to refer to a student, and firing him for avoiding the issue by avoiding gender specific pronouns, is not reasonable.


This is tyranny. A man's life is being fucked up, by bullies and thugs who are demanding conformity with politically motivated madness.

He was told what to do.

What he was told to do is insane.

 

[Correll]

“Defendants made up an uncompromising interpretation of their policies to compel Mr. Vlaming to take sides in an ongoing public debate regarding gender dysphoria and use pronouns that express an objectively untrue ideological message,” the lawsuit says. “Mr. Vlaming’s conscience and religious practice prohibits him from intentionally lying, and he sincerely believes that referring to a female student as a male by using an objectively male pronoun is telling a lie.”

What "ongoing debate regarding gender dysphoria" is actually occurring? The student, his parents, and the medical professionals they consult have a right to proceed the way they wish. They are not "debating" anyone and I would hazard a guess that they don't give a rat's ass about someone who has ideological problems with their course of action. This teacher had no right to force his way into this student's life, especially since he was instructed not to do so. We don't even know what religion this teacher belongs to. If we did, it really wouldn't make any difference.

THe teacher was avoiding the use of pronouns.


Firing someone over that, is Tyranny.

It's not tyranny. You are really being a drama queen. What would you say if a doctor was told by the state what s/he must say, or can't say, to patients, or taxpayer money is given out only on the condition that certain issues cannot be talked about? These are situations in which no employer/employee relationship, while this one does involve such a relationship.

If he was instructed to NOT refer to the girl as a girl and insisted on doing so, I would support the idea that the school had the right to fire him. He is an employee.


Telling him HOW to refer to a student, and firing him for avoiding the issue by avoiding gender specific pronouns, is not reasonable.


This is tyranny. A man's life is being fucked up, by bullies and thugs who are demanding conformity with politically motivated madness.

He was told what to do. He didn't do it. I don't know what his religion is, apparently one that is concerned with pronouns, but can't this cult give him a job? These attention whores are getting really annoying.

The man's job was "teacher", not "crazy person coddler".


The instructions were unreasonable, and firing him for avoiding the issue, not disobeying, is also unreasonable.


The people who did this are tyrants.

 

[beautress]

The teacher who was fired was wrongfully dismissed based on her belief that a person whose DNA equation is xx is a "her" where as xy and males and aka "him." There are hundreds of races, clans, countries, and genetic differences in human beings.

The other alternative is to shut down public schools. They're getting too political, which means it's just going to be one fight after another with regard to what's best for the most students. Schools are a shackle to the government, and if people can't pray there for any reason, they're already abusing the First Amendment of the Constitution.

 

[martybegan]

Nurturing and encouraging the child's mental illness is not doing her any favors.

Neither is forcing a child into a sexuality just to please you or the people in the community

This isn't about sexuality, it is about a person thinking the pipes don't match the programming.

How about the best interest of the child? Sorry but accepting your assigned sex is far better than having to mutilate the person to give them the illusion of being their "true" gender.

We said we ge same thing about homosexuality

Just pretend you are straight, it will be easier on you
Nobody will know the difference

The difference is being gay doesn't require you to mutilate yourself to pretend you are something you are not.

Trying to equate gender dysphoria with sexuality is just as dumb as trying to equate sexuality with race.

What difference does it make?

Only progressives can't see the difference between mutilation and non-mutilation.

 

[Zorro!]

Child cruelty sending your kid to public schools.
Fired for not using Orwellian speech, welcome to the 21st Century.

A Virginia high school teacher who was fired for refusing to use a transgender student’s preferred pronouns has filed a lawsuit against the school district.

Officials at West Point High School, about 40 miles east of Richmond, cited nondiscrimination and anti-harassment policies in December when it terminated French teacher Peter Vlaming over his refusal to call a female-to-male transgender student by his preferred pronoun.

But Vlaming fired back in a lawsuit filed on Monday, accusing the West Point School Board of violating his right to free speech. He said he was fired because he avoided using pronouns all together when referring to the student, who was transitioning to male at the time.

Using male pronouns, such as “him” and “he” when addressing the student would have violated his “conscience,” Vlaming said in the suit, citing religious beliefs.

He said school administrators eventually gave him an ultimatum: either use male pronouns or risk losing his job.

“Defendants made up an uncompromising interpretation of their policies to compel Mr. Vlaming to take sides in an ongoing public debate regarding gender dysphoria and use pronouns that express an objectively untrue ideological message,” the lawsuit says. “Mr. Vlaming’s conscience and religious practice prohibits him from intentionally lying, and he sincerely believes that referring to a female student as a male by using an objectively male pronoun is telling a lie.”

Teacher sues after being fired for refusing to use student's preferred pronouns

MORE LIKE THIS, PLEASE: Sanity at Last: Court Refuses to Kowtow to Personal Pronouns Like ‘Xemself, Faerself.’

"Varner cites no legal authority supporting this request. Instead, Varner’s motion simply states that 'I am a woman' and argues that failure to refer to him with female pronouns 'leads me to feel that I am being discriminated against based on my gender identity,'" the ruling explains.​

The panel made three key arguments against such a notion.

"First, no authority supports the proposition that we may require litigants, judges, court personnel, or anyone else to refer to gender-dysphoric litigants with pronouns matching their subjective gender identity." Courts have taken two different approaches to this issue. Some have referred to litigants who identify as transgender by their preferred pronouns, while others have referred to the pronoun matching the person's biological sex. "None has adopted the practice as a matter of binding precedent, and none has purported to obligate litigants or others to follow the practice."
​

As for Varner, he has conceded that he is biologically male but argues that female pronouns are required to prevent "discrimination" based on his "gender identity."

"But Varner identifies no federal statute or rule requiring courts or other parties to judicial proceedings to use pronouns according to a litigant’s gender identity. Congress knows precisely how to legislate with respect to gender identity discrimination, because it has done so in specific statutes. … But Congress has said nothing to prohibit courts from referring to litigants according to their biological sex, rather than according to their subjective gender identity," the ruling explained.​

The panel also argued that "if a court were to compel the use of particular pronouns at the invitation of litigants, it could raise delicate questions about judicial impartiality."

"Increasingly, federal courts today are asked to decide cases that turn on hotly-debated issues of sex and gender identity," they explained, citing cases like Doe v. Boyertown, which involved a transgender policy allowing boys in the girls' restroom. Taking a position on this politically-charged issue could make the court seem biased in favor of transgender litigants. "Even this appearance of bias, whether real or not, should be avoided."​

The case involves Norman Varner, a federal prisoner who pleaded guilty in 2012 to attempted receipt of child pornography and was sentenced to 15 years in prison, partly due to his previous conviction on child pornography and his failure to register as a sex offender. In 2015, he claimed to have transitioned to being female, and asked to be referred to as "Kathrine Nicole Jett."

 

[initforme]

Most of you hate teachers...your posts are total frauds.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Most of you hate teachers...your posts are total frauds.

Virginia teacher sues after being fired for alleged transgender discrimination


Smoke it.