Judge: A Shirt that says "there are only two genders" is NOT protected speech

It was a student wearing the shirt, and obviously for the purpose of antagonizing other students. And science generally accepts the difference between sex and gender, even if those two things align most of the time. And even if we were just talking about biological sex, intersex variation goes beyond hermaphrodites and is far, far less rare than you make it out to be. Hell, it is much more common than transgenderism itself.

 

But they both antagonize kids, so as long as they irritate the right set of people you're ok.

 

No. They don't both antagonize kids. It isn't about irritating people. Anything can be irritating. It's about the INTENT to irritate. It isn't antagonism unless the GOAL is to actually bother people. I gave several examples that you can go back and read. Wearing a cross isn't antagonizing, even if it irritates people. Wearing a shirt that says "Non-Christians deserve to burn in Hell" is.

 

I thought the kid was wearing a shirt that said "There are only two genders". I didn't realize that he was wearing apparel with a message advocating violence against a protected class of people. That really does change things.

 

I said nothing about violence. Read the post again. And please explain what purpose you think this shirt was for other than poking at trans people.

 

No, I already explained to you that the word "gender," is not a biological term, but a social construct. Social constructs can change and, FYI, this one, of gender, has been changing. So, to repeat myself for those who had trouble absorbing it, the first time:

DEFinning said: ↑
How does "pride clothing," express hostility towards anyone? The shirt denying the existence of the genders which some claim, strongly implies the wearer's antipathy toward those other students. "Gender," is a human, conceptual construct. Had the student's shirt said there are only two "sexes," it would have been more defendable, as a scientific fact.
<End Snip>


More information, for the confused:

gen·der
/ˈjendər/
noun
1.
the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.
"the singer has opted to keep the names and genders of her twins private"



That means that there are, no longer, only two options, for gender. When one is speaking "biologically," one is actually referring to "sexes," not genders. So you are using the wrong term.

If you have difficulty keeping those straight, I will suggest you consider the word you would use, if you were talking about animals. For example, if a friend told you his dog had a litter of puppies, and you were curious, you would ask what were their sexes, not their genders, wouldn't you? That should remind you that "sex" is the biological term (so, the one that can be defended as "factual").

 

"There are only two options but of course there are other options"

 

Read 2 posts back (#281), my reply to drluggit. "Gender" is not a "biological" term: it is a social construct, which has changed to now include more than just male & female. The biological term is "sex."

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...otected-speech.611323/page-12#post-1074282110

 

So wait, what did the shirt actually say? According to your post it looks like I got all my information wrong.

 

Can you remind me again when anyone ever wore a shirt that said "There are only two genders" before the right started panicking about transgenderism? What purpose does it serve other than making a statement about transgenderism?

 

Though it was only an analogy, so not the thread's topic, I will correct your erroneous statement, here-- how old is the archeological opinion, on which you are relying? Of course I don't know what you mean by "advanced" but archeology generally considered the Mayans to have been an advanced culture, and they were around long before 1500 A.D. Their classic period was from 250 A.D., to around 900 A.D. (and their earlier period, goes back to 1500 B.C.E.) Also, there have been discoveries in recent years in South America, which have pushed back the start of civilizations there, by centuries. Regardless, even when the Spanish first arrived and were brought to the city of the Inca, they'd recorded how dumbfounded they'd been, because the city was so much grander than anything they had ever seen in Europe. On second thought, it seems you must have not been relying on archeological opinion at all, other than considering your own opinion to qualify (which it clearly, does not).

 

Is that what the shirt said? It said "there are only 2 genders"? I really don't see how that can be "antagonistic". It strikes me that it is no more "antagonistic" than a BLM shirt, a gay pride shirt, a "save the whales" shirt or any other attire that advocates for or against any given line of social commentary. By the standard you seem to be advocating, bumper stickers such as "Coexist" or "thin blue line" flags would also be antagonistic. While I recognize that some people WILL be antagonized by such things their feelings are not based on anything reasonable.

 

All scientist do not accept such a distinction. Might as well argue that two plus two equals four except when it is five.

 

Many do (most, probably), so why reject them, especially when those folks are typically willing to talk about their reasons why? My wife has a PhD in biology. Why should I stop listening to her when she's actually willing to talk to me about it and the other side is just stamping their feet and saying NO?

 

It’s not too crazy. A few issues. One is that the school environment is recognized to have more permissible restrictions on speech than the general public. The school legally acts as a parent while students are there, and so in the same way a parent may say you won’t wear that short dress while living under my roof, the school can ban any form of dressing that it can justify interferes with the educational mission. The school policy, signed by the parents and students who probably didn’t actually read it, expressly disallows speech that is likely to make protected classes feel unsafe, which interferes with education. One of those protected classes are trans persons. They would have a similar issue with a shirt that says “Black culture sucks” or “Beaners go home.” And from a legal standpoint that would be okay from a school, but not okay as a general public prohibition by the government due to free speech.

 

The challenge in explaining to you, why people would find this antagonistic, is that you apparently are not familiar with "people." While, hypothetically, an individual could tie up their identity with anything from a video game, to wanting all whales eliminated from existence, these are, at best, rare cases. There are certain other things which are so commonly identified with people's identity, to say that doing so is customary. These include one's race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and, for some, their handicaps. Note that these are all protected classes of people, meaning that it is illegal to, among other things, discriminate against people, on the basis of any one of these. There is no law, conversely, protecting people who hate whales, from having that held against them when, for example, they are being considered for employment.

As unfair as it may seem to you-- if you hold whales, and homosexuals, and black people, in as much contempt as your examples suggest-- because the overwhelmingly vast majority of people would not find it personally offensive, for anyone to support saving whales or valuing black lives as highly as the lives of white people, these statements would not generally be seen as instigating, or antagonistic. Statements like "God Hates Gays," OTOH, are accepted by people, in general, as being attacks against the named or, in the case of the "two genders" shirt, the implied group. So yes, challenging the validity, or equal status, of a protected group, is a display of belligerence, towards that group. This is, of course, allowed in the public sphere, but is not, as a rule, tolerated in schools (certainly not below the college level).

 

So, you continue to demand that we simply accept your narrative. It isn't based in science. And isn't science the gold standard y'all use to whip others with? I suspect you just feelz it's best that we just ignore definitions, and structure on the off chance it gets in the way of your permissive lifestyles...

The reference for the definition of gender is biology. end of conversation.

 

And yet, it is not appropriate if there is no fire, which is why the Supreme Court ruled that is not free speech. And that was the point I was making here. SCOTUS has ruled what is and what is not free speech, and yet conservatives ignore the SCOTUS rulings and go full monte with Free Speech on anything and everything for their own political purposes.

 

Does the phrase "odd man out" mean anything to you.

If you were in a situation where you were the odd person, the others make fun of you, tease you, harrass you, would you feel welcome or not? That's the point.

 

There are only two. Everything else is a mutation. Or did you miss that part?

 

Some people believe that sex and gender are synonymous and it is a straight forward, binary choice depending upon chromosomes. Others believe that gender is a social construct and that there is a spectrum of genders.

The purpose of the shirt in question is to express one side of that debate.

Obviously you support the social construct position, but instead of recognizing that there is a legitimate debate on this matter, you instead opt to believe that any variance from your beliefs is illegitimate and therefore only said to poke at trans people. When you and others like you finally learn to respect that sincere opinions exist that are different from your own, society will be closer to having a productive discussion on the matter.

To me, your position indicates that you are incapable of weighing two sides of an issue. In your mind, there is no opinion other than yours, and if a differing opinion is expressed, it is simply intended to offend you.

 

Except for the fact that its not.

 

No he didn't miss the part where you said more than two.

 

Those were crimes.

The KKK case you're citing wasn't them burning crosses in anyone's yard, it was them holding the sort of march down the street parade/protest that is so common amongst any group.
So there's that.

This is going to end up being a reasonable time/place/manner restriction. Its a school, they can protest on their free time.

 

Yes it is, is Safetyism and it's rights violating insanity. This Judge is a Woke Clown.


https://www.aclu.org › news › juvenile-justice › student-rights-school-six-things-you-need-know
Student Rights at School: Six Things You Need To Know
'The court declared that students and teachers do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The First Amendment ensures that students cannot be punished for exercising free speech rights, even if school administrators don't approve of what they are saying.'

Hey Some Leftists: Stop With the Whining About Being ‘Unsafe’ on Twitter.

'The permanent victimhood that the American Left treats like oxygen is, as we are all too aware, beyond wearisome.'

'It’s also a load of garbage.'

Too many 'Leftists in the United States — especially the LGBTQ+ mob — have been getting almost everything they wanted handed to them via the courts or deep blue state ballot boxes for years now. Last year’s Dobbs decision was the first big loss they’d received from SCOTUS in a long time, and they responded to that with threats of homicide.'

LGB should have never allowed the TQ+ crowd to hitch their madness to their movement.