6th Circuit Reaches Conclusion on ‘Preferred Pronouns'

I’ve shown you it’s a mental disorder. Biology remains regardless of your feelings. If you are born a male, you remain a male until you die. Hormone treatments or elective surgery does not change this. That is reality.

 

Whoa Nelly, this is so annoying that I'm in for an epic rant...

***
Looks like someone is going to have well more than their share of their fifteen minutes of fame.

Sadly this court case is non-fiction and exists simply because a tenured college professor refused to say Ms. Doe rather than Mr. Doe. The drama and faux outrage is almost commendable, if it weren't such a complete waste of bandwidth. It's almost like Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld are writing the plot and all that is missing is George Carlin providing commentary as the show moves along.

I tried to dig a little deeper to understand how this case has made it this far into the "justice" system.

These three opinion pieces carry a lot of bogus and overloaded statements and assertions that are in my opinion simply not even closely commensurate with what I can tell of the events that led to the case.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/512306-free-speech-gone-wild-the-meriwether-case
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-r...tand-against-a-universitys-enforced-orthodoxy
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/546444-abuse-as-a-constitutional-right-the-meriwether-case

As but one example using the opening sentence from his first op-ed, Koppelman asserts that this case is so important that,

"The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is being invited to invalidate the entire field of hostile environment harassment law."

Seems a bit much to me. Is he actually asserting that Harvey Weinstein will be vindicated over a case that argues he said when he should have said she said? Hmm, have I worded that right? Will the military now be free of any EO complaints should the courts side in favor of Meriwether? Such is the importance of personal pronouns? Koppelman's hyperbole is shameful and even moreso given his position as a professor of law at the well respected Northwestern University. Shameless may be a better description given the amount of overwrought and distraught hyperbole that litters both of his opinion pieces.

Meriwether's opinion piece is equally full of hyperbole, claiming his suit is representative of an entire class action in support of "conservative Christian" values that are being trampled upon by "woke" liberals at every college campus in the United States. Look here! He writes, the University of Pittsburgh has just implemented a 1 hour pass fail mandatory freshman course requirement on "anti-black racism." How this has anything to do with him refusing to simply say "Ms. Doe" will forever remain his imaginary hill to die upon as far as I'm concerned.

_
How did it get this far? With a little help from the Jesus cake baker people! They're here!
https://adfmedia.org/case/meriwether-v-trustees-shawnee-state-university

_
And here's a link just for fun - see what his student's think of him!
https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=275992

***
From what I can tell reading through these articles, this particular Prof had the rather odd habit of referring to members of his class in the formal manner used by the notable WSJ. Every student was Mr. this and Ms. that. Except just this one that became just Doe. So in the class room there appears to have developed a somewhat awkward situation where interactions between the Prof and the class would go along these lines: Yes Mr. Brown, you have a question? No Ms. White, that is not I think the point I was trying to make. Ah, Doe, what is your question? Doe presumably decided it was in their best interest to not elicit attention since it would result in their being the only one to have their title omitted by the Prof.

Doe then files a complaint that Meriwether will not address him as Ms. Doe. Meriwether digs in and files a lawsuit after receiving a letter in his permanent record from the administration that supposed allows other Profs complete freedom of speech, such as this gem that Meriwether offers in a desperate attempt to prove that his case represents far more than it does:

Some leftist faculty will state openly that the purpose of a university education is to disabuse students of antiquated understandings of faith and accept that the nuclear family and traditional views on human sexuality are “retrograde and oppressive,” as one of them stated without the slightest hesitation to me.

The horror! Meriwether has a colleague who doesn't share his conservative religious views and that colleague actually told him their opinion with hesitating? Ok, sideshow, look over here. Clearly your colleague knew your opinions, but it is different because you always offered yours with hesitancy and discretion? Seems a bit unlikely. And in setting the syllabus for your classes, your leftist colleague has how much input? And in setting the goals and priorities of the school, your leftist colleague is winning and oppressing you in the process because he, she, they are in the majority and our schools are suffering because no one is listening to you? Please....

***
Universities have become accepted as being overvalued among an increasingly larger set of the US population, including many that have graduated from them and benefitted in many ways for having done so. Over the past 25 years tuition costs alone have almost doubled at public Universities - my point being that this decreases the cost benefit ratio and represents costs that are substantially inflated above the average rate of inflation - Kinda like an iPhone, maybe?

The poor beleaguered tenured philosophy prof boldly standing against the onslaught of woke leftist ideology by refusing to say Ms. instead of Mr? No, I think not, but hey - this is a great opportunity to plug one of my previous thread creations!

Tenure!
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/tenure.578611/

***
Trans rights are a complex issue. The sports competition arguments certainly contain factual observations regarding trans women that were not born with trans physical features and hormone levels or who alternatively haven't completed HRT transitions that successfully change their physical strength levels to match female rather than male athletic abilities. Another example of the complexity of the subject is that there aren't hardly any complaints regarding trans men's participation in sports. That's just the sports / athletics angle. There is also a Dune kinda egotism to trans people, or maybe it's Prince, they're not a woman, they're not a man - they are something we will never understand: special, so special, they have to have some of your attention, give it to them! It's totally unclear to me why anyone who is trans would want to cast themselves to be male or female when they can lay claim to being both and neither: the Kwisatz Haderach!

Call me Maud'Dib!

 

What is complicated about this? It looks pretty simple: another lefty attempt at grabbing power has failed.

 

Everyone is a product of their learning and their experiences. I never had a thought towards any of the BoR's while growing up. It wasn't until my early 30's that I even became interested in politics, with all that implies. School may have taught me the very basics of the BoR's (the words and nothing else), but I I taught myself on what everything about the Constitution meant. I did so through my own research and debates on forums like this one and many other types of forums (from science to religious to conspiracy theories even). No one compelled me into it. I chose.

And the Church was no bastion of learning.

Sure, we could teach everyone that there should be no such thing as free speech. Or a different version of "free speech". In either way, there would be no true free speech. There would be those that were prosecuted simply for not falling in line. And I am against that.

 

Then you’ve just made a naturalistic argument. That’s not justification for why things ought to be the way they are. I’m sure you’re self taught and knowledgeable but why not look at how other people do their freedom of speech?

 

I find it far more sad that people are trying to force others. Sure, in an ideal world, everyone would be nice to everyone else. People being what they are, we're clearly not in that ideal world. Some people aren't nice. Trying to use the force of law to compel what you might consider courteous behavior is far more alarming than some rudeness / coarseness in social encounters.

 

Apparently quite a few people give a damn. Some people don't like to lie.

 

What I find complicated is how this appears to contradict Title IX and the things like the locker room and bathroom issues where public schools are being compelled to affirm a transgender or transsexual's belief.

Ultimately, how far will this ruling allow compulsion to extend?

Will it end with individuals and their rights to freedom of thought and speech, or is it the first step in returning things to the status quo ante where one's biological sex, not the gender they identify as, will once again determine what public school sports you can participate in and what accommodations (restrooms, locker rooms, etc.) people will be allowed to enter and use?

 

The hell they are.

 

In this country he have freedom of speech. Don't like it? You're free to leave. I'm sure your sick utopia awaits you, where the government only allows speech that they have ruled acceptable.

 

Well at least you used they as a pronoun. Baby steps I guess.

And if you don't like what someone has to say?!?!?!?!

You calmly engage with them in the marketplace of ideas because we are all rational individuals with our own ideas of how the world should work.

 

Tough sh*t, that's what happens when someone says something I don't like. The wrong answer is to force others to say what I want to hear. That this needs to be explained to another American is sad really.

 

Indubitably

 

Whut?

 

• The government may not compel a speaker to affirm a belief with which the speaker disagrees.

• The free speech clause of the Constitution applies at public universities

• Professors do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the university gate.

Certainly it throws the penalty flag compelling statements of agreement and affirms freedom of speech and expression.

This brings up an interesting point. It was widely claimed that Gorsuch extended the protections against discrimination on the basis of sex to gender, but that isn't actually what he did.
Say a man dates a woman - no problem.
Then a woman dates a woman - fired.

When Gorsuch threw the flag, it wasn't because he was extending the protections against sex bias to gender, rather, he was protecting a woman (sex) against retaliation for engaging in the same practices that a man would be able to freely engage in. That is discrimination based on SEX, and prohibited by law.

There is a book by Gorsuch available on Amazon, I think for less than $10. It's a light fast read, and includes his views on cases he helped decide on his first year on the court as well as prior courts. It's called "A Republic If You Can Keep It." The chapter on Consequentialism, vs Textualism is worth the price of the book. He will not be rewriting laws sloppily drafted by legislatures. If the elected legislatures do not like results of their own language, they are more than free to redo it, and they regularly stand for election so that the voters can voice their approval or disapproval. He will not, as an unelected judge in a lifetime appointment, act as legislator. That is not his role. He warned very clearly during his confirmation that in his mind, sound judgeship will involve coming to decisions that you find personally distasteful, but, that is the job of a judge, to apply the law and constitution as written, not pretend it says what you want it to say, or think it should say, or even what he thinks they intended it to say.

His mother was at the forefront of women on the Bench. Clearly he grew up in a household where these concepts were shared and discussed, he is deeply committed to judicial integrity. His chapter on the importance of Separation of Powers and the malignant growth of the Appointed Administrative State pretending they are the elected Legislative Branch is also very good, as is his chapter on precedent, which supplies the stability of predictability, and so even in restoring the divisions of Separation of Powers that protect and maintain our freedoms, this needs to be incremental, slow, inch at a time and clearly communicated so that folks who want to lawfully order their lives have the NOTICE necessary to do so. He has a chapter on the importance of fair notice. He'll do a good job. Gen X Conservative Jurisprudence differs from the Boomer Conservatism, and he is the thought leader. You might enjoy his book. I would have liked it to be a little meatier, but, I enjoyed it all the same.

From the Federal Level, I believe these were Administrative Guidances, that with the Administrative enforcement power, operate effectively as legislature drafted laws. Keep you ears attentive for the term "Chevron Deference". This is a landmark 1984 case that ruled that the Judicial Branch should defer to the Administrative Agencies on their "interpretation" of Legislative text. That's an opening that they have taken full advantage of, and if ACB is the 5th justice who also feels that while appointed judges should not be driving social changes via law, the ELECTED Legislature should, neither should the appointed Administrative Agencies. Justice Roberts does not share this view, he seems to support the Court deferring to any other government entity that demands it.

So, if future cases do start pick at the foundations of Chevron, expect Roberts to assign the writing of the decision to whoever will write the most modest decision.

Bringing it back to your question on women's sports and gender accommodations, what the State Legislatures do, provided they do not violate anti-discrimination laws is going to carry a lot of weight and some of these Red State Governors are flinching pretty hard here. The Gov of South Dakota just vetoed a bill that protected girls sports, as did Asa Hutchings, the gov of Arkansas, though his veto was overridden.

 

I’m really worried because I bet you had that on speed dial.

If our gender is gentically determined, then different sexes produce different genders. So xy is male, xx is female.
“Male” birds don’t have xy, then have zy. So it has to be a different gender. Makes sense?

 

Not yet but it probably will tonight, after I have my scotch.

 

I know. Logic always makes more sense after a stiff drink.

 

Hahahaha. That’s cute. I like that. Then tough sh*t when the government says give me your tax money? Or when they do something you don’t like? Or any basic response that actually isn’t “it doesn’t bother me so I’m going to keep my bigoted ways”?

 

Logic? Now you're making me snicker

When I was a kid, I had a pair of parakeets, one with a blue cere and one with a pink cere. Every so often, a parakeet with blue cere would ride a parakeet with pink cere, and after a while, a parakeet with pink cere would lay eggs.

From all this, I've deduced, and at an early age, that my parrakeet with blue cere must be male and my parrakeet with pink cere must be a female. But wait, don't take my word for it. Here's what I've found on the internet:

...According to Bird Tricks, a parakeet with a blue or purple cere is a male bird, while a parakeet with a pink or brown cere is a female bird. ... In young males the cere is a bright, purplish pink, while in young females the cere is usually white...

Forgive me for sounding patronizing but in this case, I just could not help myself!

 

Yeah gender expression doesn’t equal gender or sex. Feminism 101.

 

Cool. It's about time the liberal intolerant left are put back in their box. When you suffer others to stifle their speech, at least at the public universities, the courts will step in. A great win for free speech.

 

I must not be current with the latest version of newspeak, because I don't even know what you mean by "gender expression", but anyways, the argument was that there are no male birds, and the post you were replying to above appears to refute that. Did you have something to say relevant to that topic?

 

Oh so basically it's a reductio ad absurdum. We want to use the idea of 'male birds', but the problem is that strictly speaking (according to people who say chromosomes determine gender), there can't be male birds. So we have a case where there are male birds, but no male birds metaphysically possible. We have to therefore reject the idea that chromosomes determine gender. Does that make sense?

 

"Gender Expression" - code for LARPing. Dressing up (inclusive or not of surgery and meds - which are just LARP options) is self-indulgence.

To think we're entitled to full time LARPing, while people elsewhere starve to death in the dirt, is an indicator of just how much the Western First World has fetishised narcissism.

Also, no real feminist is okay with Transgenderism. It's either girls cutting off their hated female characteristics, or men claiming womanhood.