School faces lawsuit for making student remove 'only two genders' shirt: 'Censoring a 7th-grader'

[KCfromNC]

I dunno man, would you feel the same way about a kid wearing a rainbow pride t shirt to school?

How about a Muslim with a "there's only one true religion" T-shirt?
Seems pretty comparable here (ignoring the fact that religion, unlike gender, is choice).

 

[KCfromNC]

He should win because his right to freedom of speech should not be hindered by those with opposing views. Their freedom of speech can’t eliminate his freedom of speech.

Unless one is in a school in Florida, then it is against the law to discuss gender. Or discuss it in ways unacceptable to the GOP cancel culture down there.

Luckily for the student in question they're living somewhere a bit more enlightened.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But there is nothing derogatory about any particular person or group on the shirt, it merely states a personal view.

The rule is "targeted students of a protected class; namely in the area of gender identity"
The shirt is certainly about gender identity and only about gender identity. It targets a protected class. And the message would be unwelcome to members of that class.

Anyway...

We'll see what the courts make of it. It's not clearcut in my mind.

 

[Ordinary Christian]

How about a Muslim with a "there's only one true religion" T-shirt?
Seems pretty comparable here (ignoring the fact that religion, unlike gender, is choice).

Gender by the new definition is choosing what gender you are based on how you feel about yourself. Like "I choose to identify as Caelgender, and these are the personal pronouns I've chosen for myself".

 

[dzheremi]

I've written before here on CF that if your very young child has a 'gender identity', that's on you, because kids don't come out of the womb with the idea that they're anything (I've seen it with my friend's kids circa age two; even "I'm a boy!" or "I'm a girl!" is something they learn, by having their natural observations put into context by the adults in their lives and the surrounding society). I suppose now I should say the same about kids making big, declarative culture war-type statements, like this poor kid. Is it possible that this child wanted to wear the t-shirt to make a proactive statement about a 'culture war' issue? Sure. In fact, I would wager that he probably did; but just like the 7 year old who swears that he's 'trans' or whatever, the question I have is why? I don't think 7th graders are incapable of having political opinions, but we should recognize that the parents are most responsible for shaping that. This kid has probably been hearing his parents and/or their friends and/or the TV presenters on the shows that are always on in the home ranting about "there are only two genders!" since he was born. In that way, he's been set up for this kind of confrontation since before he would've ever had any thought about anything. No matter how many genders you think there are, I hope we can all agree it's pretty lousy to use children as pawns in adult political arguments, no matter how common it may be on all sides of the political spectrum (and it is indeed depressingly common).

 

[Ordinary Christian]

I dunno man, would you feel the same way about a kid wearing a rainbow pride t shirt to school?

Since the school already has rainbow pride imagery displayed, I figure they already do. Now I'd rather there be neither t-shirt or imagery in public schools. However, if a school is going to have one, then by all fairness it should allow the other. But neither would be best.

 

[KCfromNC]

Gender by the new definition is choosing what gender you are based on how you feel about yourself.

I get that's the what the people marketing this far-right culture war stuff is selling to the marks.

Willing to weigh in on how OK you are with schools supporting Muslim students wearing "there's only one real religion" T-shirts? You seemed to sidestep that in this response.

 

[Merrill]

I was listening to a newscast yesterday, and they were talking about how women wearing "I love J.K. Rowling shirts" were arrested in Ireland for "hate speech"

wrap your head around that, because that is what is coming to the US very soon

I have touched on the unconstitutional nature of "hate crimes" and how such laws can be used to punish speech, political expression, etc. The Wisconsin vs. Mitchell SCOTUS ruling decades ago made it permissible for states to pass laws that established protected groups, and to implement enhanced charges and sentences based on intent, belief, and motivation.

and while people cheered this on, thinking it would stop the "white supremacists", laws were implemented in places like Utah which established police-officers as protected minorities. A woman there was charged with a felony hate-crime for stomping on a "Blue Lives Matter" sign (her own sign) in view of a police officer.

In my town, a Palestinian kid was arrested and charged with a hate-crime for writing in chalk on the side-walk "Free Palestine" in front of a Jewish deli. They first charged him with vandalism (as if chalk is vandalism--kids write in chalk on the sidewalks all over my neighborhood) and then did the enhancement to hate-crime.

In New Lennox IL, a guy was charged with a felony hate-crime for giving a Nazi salute from behind the wheel of his own car, and shouting "White power"! --the cops slapped him with a disorderly conduct charge, and then with a felony hate-crime.

There are many more examples of this, and all of them illustrate egregious violations of the First Amendment. The First Amendment has essentially been nullified by the courts.

These laws are also a violation of the 14th Amendment, as one lawyer points out ""The Wisconsin law also violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by treating criminals who are motivated by prejudice differently from criminals not so motivated, even though their crimes are identical"

The First Amendment not only protects our speech, but also our religious liberties--and it is under assault.

 

[Ordinary Christian]

I get that's the what the people marketing this far-right culture war stuff is selling to the marks.

No that's the way it's described by those endorsing the new definition.

Willing to weigh in on how OK you are with schools supporting Muslim students wearing "there's only one real religion" T-shirts? You seemed to sidestep that in this response.

I already did in post #48.

Since the school already has rainbow pride imagery displayed, I figure they already do. Now I'd rather there be neither t-shirt or imagery in public schools. However, if a school is going to have one, then by all fairness it should allow the other*. But neither would be best.

*I'll elaborate on that by saying any other -- That would include Muslim (or Buddhist, or Hindu etc) students wearing "there's only one real religion"

 

[BNR32FAN]

The rule is "targeted students of a protected class; namely in the area of gender identity"
The shirt is certainly about gender identity and only about gender identity. It targets a protected class. And the message would be unwelcome to members of that class.

Anyway...

Ok so is he allowed to wear a shirt that is supportive of gender identity, correct?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ok so is he allowed to wear a shirt that is supportive of gender identity, correct?

Inasmuch as that supports rather than targets a protected class, I would think so.

 

[Ordinary Christian]

Inasmuch as that supports rather than targets a protected class, I would think so.

So is that child an unprotected class?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I was listening to a newscast yesterday, and they were talking about how women wearing "I love J.K. Rowling shirts" were arrested in Ireland for "hate speech"

wrap your head around that, because that is what is coming to the US very soon

I have touched on the unconstitutional nature of "hate crimes" and how such laws can be used to punish speech, political expression, etc. The Wisconsin vs. Mitchell SCOTUS ruling decades ago made it permissible for states to pass laws that established protected groups, and to implement enhanced charges and sentences based on intent, belief, and motivation.

and while people cheered this on, thinking it would stop the "white supremacists", laws were implemented in places like Utah which established police-officers as protected minorities. A woman there was charged with a felony hate-crime for stomping on a "Blue Lives Matter" sign (her own sign) in view of a police officer.

In my town, a Palestinian kid was arrested and charged with a hate-crime for writing in chalk on the side-walk "Free Palestine" in front of a Jewish deli. They first charged him with vandalism (as if chalk is vandalism--kids write in chalk on the sidewalks all over my neighborhood) and then did the enhancement to hate-crime.

In New Lennox IL, a guy was charged with a felony hate-crime for giving a Nazi salute from behind the wheel of his own car, and shouting "White power"! --the cops slapped him with a disorderly conduct charge, and then with a felony hate-crime.

There are many more examples of this, and all of them illustrate egregious violations of the First Amendment. The First Amendment has essentially been nullified by the courts.

These laws are also a violation of the 14th Amendment, as one lawyer points out ""The Wisconsin law also violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by treating criminals who are motivated by prejudice differently from criminals not so motivated, even though their crimes are identical"

The First Amendment not only protects our speech, but also our religious liberties--and it is under assault.

Yeah they want to shut up the opposition by claiming that any opposition is hatred. That’s exactly what is going on here in this thread and that’s exactly why America is going to hell in a hand basket. Morality is being skewed by immoral people and the voices against it are being forced to subside or be falsely accused of hatred. I for one will continue to teach my children right from wrong according to the scriptures and I don’t care if anyone likes it or not. I’m not going to compromise the word of God for the sake of being nice, Sodom & Gomorrah are prime examples of God’s tolerance of sexual immorality.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So is that child an unprotected class?

Everyone is a member of various protected classes.
I'm not sure what child you're talking about. The one in the OP? He is a boy. That is his gender identity. A t-shirt reading "Boys stink" would be targeting a protected class of which he is a member (even if it correctly expresses the opinion of the wearer.).

 

[BNR32FAN]

Inasmuch as that supports rather than targets a protected class, I would think so.

So he’s only allowed to voice his opinion if it is in favor of their agenda, hence his freedom of speech has actually been revoked.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So he’s only allowed to voice his opinion if it is in favor of their agenda

He's only allowed to wear clothes bearing slogans that don't target a protected class. He can't wear a "Christianity is stupid" t-shirt, either. It has nothing to do with any 'they' or some 'agenda'.

hence his freedom of speech has actually been revoked.

Well yes. Students are subject to limitations on their freedom of speech in schools. This is not remarkable. This is not Nam, there are rules.

 

[Larnievc]

You’re basically saying that anyone who voices an opposing opinion is hating on those who have a different opinion.

No. I'm saying that saying there are not more than 2 genders is hate speech. I don't think people who disagree with me is automatically hate speech. I don't say that people who claim God is real is hate speech just because I think that they are wrong.

So please stop saying that about me. I'm specifically saying that wearing THAT t shirt is hate speech.

 

[Larnievc]

So LGBTQQIP2SAA+ should be likened to a religion seeking as many converts and obedience as possible. In essence, I agree with that analogy.

If by converts and obedience you mean being inclusive and obeying the law I fully agree.

 

[Larnievc]

wrap your head around that, because that is what is coming to the US very soon

That's a TERF thing and your Constitution means you'll always have the right to say awful things to people.

So I wouldn't worry.

 

[Ordinary Christian]

If by converts and obedience you mean being inclusive and obeying the law I fully agree.

No I mean it how you meant it when you made the comparison.