Where was @[email protected] supposed to have learned that definition before this thread? Where were the students of this teacher’s class supposed to have learned it?
Given that English adopts definitions based on a critical mass of people using it, why should Mx. be adopted when it is only used by an exceedingly small minority?
Where were the students of this teacher’s class supposed to have learned it?
“Hello class, I’m mix Jones. I’ll be your teacher this year”
That is the real nuance in this case. A teacher is not allowed to “say gay” to their students under Florida state law. However, an employee cannot be discriminated against for their sex under Federal law.
By a plain reading of the law, a gay teacher cannot be fired for being gay. A reasonable extension of that is that they cannot be fired for explaining to students that they are gay. This should hold true for any sexual characteristics that the teacher holds. Federal law overrules state law, thus, even though the state finds it illegal, they should still be protected under Federal law. It might be different if the teacher talked about other people being gay when they are not, but Federal law protects them against discrimination for their sex.
The question is whether “sex” includes being gay, or non-standard gender definitions. I think and hope it does. I worry that the current Supreme Court might rule otherwise.
Or you know, you could just ask… Why should I learn how to say your name?
These two statements kind of contradict each other. Asking implies you need to learn something new. There’s nothing wrong with asking or learning something new, but the person presenting a new idea should be prepared that it is a new idea for people to learn, which people might not immediately accept. That doesn’t excuse discrimination, but neither is acceptance demandable.
Once some critical mass of a population has accepted the new terminology, then and only then should acceptance be expected - and even then, that only applies to that specific population.
Where was @[email protected] supposed to have learned that definition before this thread? Where were the students of this teacher’s class supposed to have learned it?
Given that English adopts definitions based on a critical mass of people using it, why should Mx. be adopted when it is only used by an exceedingly small minority?
“Hello class, I’m mix Jones. I’ll be your teacher this year”
Or you know, you could just ask. Not a burden in the slightest. Why should I learn how to say your name? The answer is it’s a matter of respect.
That is the real nuance in this case. A teacher is not allowed to “say gay” to their students under Florida state law. However, an employee cannot be discriminated against for their sex under Federal law.
By a plain reading of the law, a gay teacher cannot be fired for being gay. A reasonable extension of that is that they cannot be fired for explaining to students that they are gay. This should hold true for any sexual characteristics that the teacher holds. Federal law overrules state law, thus, even though the state finds it illegal, they should still be protected under Federal law. It might be different if the teacher talked about other people being gay when they are not, but Federal law protects them against discrimination for their sex.
The question is whether “sex” includes being gay, or non-standard gender definitions. I think and hope it does. I worry that the current Supreme Court might rule otherwise.
These two statements kind of contradict each other. Asking implies you need to learn something new. There’s nothing wrong with asking or learning something new, but the person presenting a new idea should be prepared that it is a new idea for people to learn, which people might not immediately accept. That doesn’t excuse discrimination, but neither is acceptance demandable.
Once some critical mass of a population has accepted the new terminology, then and only then should acceptance be expected - and even then, that only applies to that specific population.