Preferred Pronoun Lawsuit Dismissed
No word yet if it was literally thrown down the memory hole.
Remember kids: this is all just "right-wing alrmism." Nothing to see here. Move along.
Link: https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/483467-judge-dismisses-professors-lawsuit-over
Replies to: Preferred Pronoun Lawsuit Dismissed
The anti-science movement is strong. Very strange.
Not sure how you can legally compel a university not to teach falsehoods, though.
He claimed using a certain pronoun was against his religious beliefs.
How is exactly is science involved here?
This guy thinks pronouns are a hill to die on. MAS sees it as a sign of surrender to PC culture or some crap.
The rest yawn.
University wants to pretend that someone is not the biological sex they are. That is anti-science.
Science tells us the genes which determine sex. Science tells us the physical characteristics that determine sex. That is how science is involved.
They want us to pretend that science is wrong. That is anti-science.
Let me know if you need me to explain anything else.
The prof’s religious beliefs motivate him, not science.
This has fuck-all to do with science.
Re-read my posts. I'm talking about the motivations of the University.
In this case, religion and science align against the Leftist Cult of Nonsense. You keep pointing to the religion; I'll keep pointing to science...and either way, you will be on the wrong side of science if you defend the University.
it’s clear where you come down on religious freedom and conscientious objection(and science because
while you try once again to hide behind a technicality of the teachers defense strategy to avoid the larger issue, the question of the underlying fact that the teacher is scientifically accurate while the college is not goes unanswered)
Pronouns can be “scientifically accurate”? Just stop.
This is less a case about gender identity and more a case of just basic respect.
The pronoun controversies bore me. I stay neutral.
Has to be difficult to remember a bunch of individual preferred pronouns.
(no message)
You're a sophist. As you know and as everyone knows, the pronoun issue is inextricably tied to...
the transgender issue and the belief that people can be "born into the wrong bodies." Your university and many others happily propagate these anti-scientific notions when it comes to gender.
What pronoun should we use for you?
I've been using "he" because I thought you were a biological male, and thus the pronoun was "scientifically accurate."
What about people that refer to their boats with feminine pronouns?
Are they anti-science?
I think you are conflating linguistics and biology...2 different fields.
Interesting point. Is that why we use "gender" for humans now, instead of "sex"
We used to refer to biological sex as exactly that: sex. And gender only referred to linguistics. Nouns in many languages (and boats and hurricanes and the like in English) were a particular gender; but, animals (and humans) were a particular sex.
G. Gordon Liddy (of all people) had a radio show back in the 90's, and I remember him saying we should not bow to the liberals, who were seeking to replace the word "sex" with "gender" with regard to biology. He thought they had some agenda behind that. I thought he was crazy. Little did I know, he was 100% correct. By conflating biology and linguistics, here we are.
Now, back to my point: If you are a biological male, and I can be fired for calling you a pronoun which correctly indicates you are a biological male, then you are anti-science, or anti-truth, or anti-reality...call it what you will.
Depends on the boat's gender identity of course.
We should ask it.
Does,the larger issue of gender pronouns have anything to do with science?
Ned didn't address the First Amendment aspect. He addressed the larger question of why universities are perpetuating anti-scientific, demonstrably false, damaging, balderdash woo-woo. Your university's Office for Gender and Sexual Diversity does just that, enabled by the administrators above them. How could any academic who takes himself or herself seriously and has any integrity allow this nonsense to happen without offering a peep of objection? What other anti-scientific dogma would you abide that is given a blessing by campus administrators, taught in courses, and incorporated into everything from registration and identification, to campus health services?
What, you think Chris hesitates to boldly call out this imbecilic nonsense, just as he would...
lampoon a creationist? Bite your tongue.
Nothing to see here!
White supremacists.
Trump praised them, you know.
Certainly the Green Wave have had no campus-wide initiatives along these lines, right?
Nothing to see here!
Through at least the 1950s, our universities were bastions of conservatism. I certainly think if political orthodoxy on the order of what we might see at Bob Jones or Liberty Universities were foisted upon our universities in the future, after the worm inevtiably turns, you and others within the belly of the beast would be intellectually consistent and label any concerns about it to be overwrought and hyperbolic. Yes, I can definitely see that.
You love to overreact about fringe nonsense. Who am I to rain on your parade.
(no message)
Consciously fringe but unconsciously fundamental
The Dems will lose themselves down this academic rabbit hole.
White supremacists.
Charlottesvile.
Young homosexuals committing suicide due to"hate speech."
Oppressed groups.
Decolonization.
White privilege.
Trump.
State Department gutted.
Danger! Danger! Sky is falling!
The good thing is that the folks seem to have caught on that continued declarations that this is merely "fringe nonsense" that has no effects on insitutions nor public polcy is untrue. You should hear much of Generation Z. It's tough to be the schoolmarm scold and be a hit with the kids. Danger! Danger!
No, but a public institution mandating speech in this regard is patently Orwellian.
If you're above a certain age, the idea of college professors going along with something this (with the exception of this guy), is unthinkable. Correction: was unthinkable. Many believe in this garbage. Most just sheepishly go along with it without a word of protest. Mind you, many of the sheep are tenured, yet still can't muster up the cajones to speak out against it. Ultimately, it's not the dumb kids following some fad and exercising power trips who are responsible, it's the alleged adults.
Agreed.
(no message)
This case highlights the problem of liberal judges and further convinces me to vote conservatively.
(no message)
I usually vote for Democrats. However, for state and local judges, I will not vote for liberals.
This has become a cliche, but is nonetheless valid: it's not their job to legislate. Right-wing judges certainly legislate at times, but not to the degree that liberal judges generally do.
Nevermind the natural inclination of liberal judges to be too lenient in sentencing.
I do have to say, though, that the single-worst bill Trump has signed is deals with criminal justice reform. It was obvious pandering at its worst, and it is placing people in danger. It appeals to naive, dopey people who do not have to live next to the dangerous convicts they are releasing, from spousal abusers to dope dealers, and worse. Shameful, yet predictable.
The higher up a judge who believes Constitution is a “living, breathing document”,the more dangerous
Thus, I do not agree in cutting off the use of common sense in voting beyond the state and local levels.
Regarding Trump’s criminal justice reform, I agree that it is politically motivated. It also appears that it is working.
Working at what???
Yeah, we all know it works at releasing people from prison. You'll have to tell me at what else it is working. Trump had the power to emancipate prisoners who received disproportionally long sentences before all this. You probably recognize a couple of the canards that pushed all this along: "We can't arrest our way out of crime" and "We can't afford to keep locking people up with 'mass incarceration!'"
We actually did arrest and sentence our way out of a great deal of crime, starting in the 1990s, when we consequently saw drops in violent and property crime. And of course we can afford "mass incarceration." Ever notice that many of the same people who say we can afford "Medicare for all" tell us we can't afford all these prisons?
It’s working at improving his % of votes from non-traditional GOP demographics
Which I believe is his goal. Maybe he believes in this since he is not a strict conservative, but I doubt it.