this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
322 points (97.4% liked)

News

23287 readers
4563 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
dezmd@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
Blackbeard@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
322
Florida can’t ban teacher from asking students to use her preferred pronouns, judge rules (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Katie Wood, a transgender algebra teacher, has long gone by ‘Ms Wood’ but the law required students to say ‘Teacher Wood’

Florida cannot prohibit a 10th-grade math teacher from asking her students to call her by her preferred pronouns, a federal judge has ruled.

The decision from Mark Walker, the US district judge, is a blow to an anti-LGBTQ law championed by Ron DeSantis, the state’s governor, which prohibits discussion of sexuality in public schools. A 2023 expansion of the measure, widely known as the “Don’t Say Gay” law, prohibits teachers and students from using pronouns that align with their gender identity.

The Tuesday decision, a preliminary injunction, blocks Florida from enforcing the law against Katie Wood, a transgender 10th-grade algebra teacher in Hillsborough county. Wood has long gone by “Ms Wood” in school, but the law has made her require her students to call her “Teacher Wood” – a title no one else at the school uses.

top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone 41 points 7 months ago (3 children)

It's insane that the self-proclaimed guardians of free speech expect the law to intervene in the words one uses to refer to themself.

Of course, that always seems to be the way with conservatives. They would like to believe, and would like others to believe, that they love individual freedom even as they demand conformity.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

[–] Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 7 months ago

It's sad, because they honestly believe that no one would ever want to gender a trans person correctly, therefore requiring that they not be is "protecting" the rights of all to speak the way they must really want to, right?

The world would be better if fewer people were sure everyone else agreed with them and investigated that claim instead.

[–] acetanilide@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

Also the whole small government thing...really cracks me up. No politician actually wants a small government. It's all garbage.

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 30 points 7 months ago

is a blow to an anti-LGBTQ law

Not really, the point of the law is to stir up the voter base, they wont ever hear about this ruling, and they have already forgotten/moved on to the next outrage.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Why not just get rid of gender altogether? No Mr or Ms/Mrs. What is the point of gendered pronouns. We don’t have pronouns or prefixes for other parts of our identity like race or age. Just call people the same thing and if you must have formalities like Sir or Mrs, just make them non-gendered.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

In the long run, getting rid of gender in our society would be a good thing. However, that has to be a real change, not "we call everyone 'they' now and pretend gender doesn't exist".

Same with racism. Pretending it doesn't exist by refusing to talk about it doesn't solve anything.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Totally. Existing generations would have to die off and new gens would have to be raised without gender.

[–] ExfilBravo@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The only thing conservatives hate more than women are men that think and look like women.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Yeah. Anything that makes them question their sexuality even the slightest. Lots of straight gay dudes who are so afraid to be gay.

[–] alilbee@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is like commenting on a story about an innocent man being released from jail and saying "why can't we just abolish all prisons?". Like, everyone here likely agrees but you're also commenting on a story about why we can't. This woman barely, barely got the right to have others be able to use her basic pronouns. Why do you think they would be willing to jump right to eliminating gender altogether for her sake or those like her? People in power love gender and they love the rules it lets them impose, that's why.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Didn’t think we had to tip-toe on Lemmy. Let’s talk about the real problems and solutions.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What's the solution then?

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

We can’t start to erase gender until we solve sexism, but it might be a chicken or egg thing. Can’t protect women against men if we erase gender, but a lot of toxicity comes from the gendering of men and grooming of men in our society. Idk the answer, but it’s not to be afraid to talk about it.

[–] alilbee@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's not an objective thing to decide. I'm sure this particular teacher would love for us to consider her day to day life a real problem. Work on abolishing gender, sure, but I don't expect it within my lifetime and we all have stuff to do to make life better in the interim.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Fair enough. Just feels like the deeper we go towards ensuring everybody gets the gender they want, the further we are from fixing the actual problem.

[–] alilbee@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I would argue the opposite is true. The entire idea of "abolishing gender" is to remove the forced expectations and norms, not to force everyone to be androgynous or uniform. Freeing this woman to have her gender expression respected by the state is a small, concrete step towards that end.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

But what does it mean to be a woman or a man? To wear dresses? To be tough and never cry? Aside from our biological differences, gender is just defined by societal norms. Without gender distinction, there would be no need to fight for people to recognize you as one or the other.

I agree that it would be best to just expand what it means to be a man or a woman, but in order for it to be really effective you’d have to go so far that really only the biological differences matter.

[–] refurbishedrefurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

"Professor"

Although I think there are a certain set of requirements to be called that legally.

[–] blackluster117@possumpat.io 5 points 7 months ago

"Instructor"

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

We can go cool 90’s kid and call teachers “teach”.

[–] MrVilliam@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Agreed. I don't really understand the point of them. Similarly, I've never understood the point of gendered professions (actor/actress, waiter/waitress, etc). It seems like it only exists to divide.

[–] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Using gendered professions mostly fell out of style years ago. Waiter/waitress became server. Steward/stewardess became flight attendant. Actor/actress is still used but I hear "actor" used for all genders more frequently these days.

[–] Gork@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

My favorite is the replacement of Chairman/chairwoman with either Chairperson or just "Chair" , like the sit-table object 🪑.

[–] Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 7 months ago

I prefer network administratrix, actually.

/s

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Totally. I can understand preferring a specific gender for a doctor, but we don’t have gendered terms for that for some reason.

[–] MrVilliam@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why would that matter?

[–] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Some people feel more comfortable talking to or being touched by a person of a specific gender. Sometimes that's for a bigoted reason but sometimes it's not. For example, I've always had an easier time opening up about emotional stuff with women so I would prefer speaking to a female counselor or therapist. This isn't because I dislike or distrust men, I just had more conversations like that with my female friends growing up so it feels more natural.

[–] Cuberoot@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There's doctrix and doctress, but wiktionary lists one as archaic and the other as obsolete.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Woah never heard of that haha. Sounds kinky.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 0 points 7 months ago

I've always been partial to the royal "we".