Mississippi bill would protect teachers who don't respect transgender students - Polidicks

https://thinkprogress.org/mississippi-proposes-license-to-harass-for-transphobic-teachers-70fdf6085b2c/ Mississippi lawmakers have proposed new legislation that would ensure teachers cannot be disciplined if they refuse to respect a transgender student’s gender identity. This “license to harass” is the first bill of its kind in the country. HB 1176 would update state law determining how school employees may be disciplined, adding specific language prohibiting their dismissal or suspension “for referring to any individual student’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.” School employees would be barred from being disciplined “despite the student’s preference to identify as the opposite gender after undergoing stages of transition as a pansexual, transsexual or transgender, whether through sex reassignment, gender identity transitioning, hormonal therapy treatment or other philosophical processes.” The proposed measure also clarifies that schools cannot force an employee to comply with a directive to respect a student’s identity if it violates that employee’s “sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction.”

"sincerely held religious belief" shows up 14 times in the text of the bill. If religion dictates how you treat the students that you're responsible for, then maybe you should find a different field of work.

Many of them will likely be abused at home only to then be not only abused by other students but their teachers as well Many of them will be further driven into suicide That's what this law will do

What an awful and biased title and article.

This is how I know you didn't read the actual bill. Protections are added for students in general, including the ability for employees to be removed for "incompetence, neglect of duty, immoral conduct, intemperance, brutal treatment of a pupil or other good cause", but specifically calls out, you guessed it, being a jackass to trans students, as something that does not, under any circumstances, warrant removal. In fact, among the text for this bill, pansexuality is equated with being transgender. These people do not care to understand the issues whatsoever, they just want to increase protections given to a religion that already makes up a supermajority in the state. The same text also gives protections to those who believe in "traditional" marriage, organizations that choose to not hire/to fire/to discipline employees with different religious beliefs, landlords who choose their tenants based on the very same reasons, and so on. There's even text about baking cakes for gay people. If anything, the title and article are lacking because they only focus on the transgender side of things.

https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/1831/825924f8-63b4-4404-8601-fb37db66eb22/17h-58m-04s_chrome.jpg do they think being pan is when youre non-binary

That's exactly what I mean.

You just knee jerk to anything remotely trans related, don't you? Would it have killed you to research a bit before going down the rabbit hole we can all see, you always go down?

Can you elaborate on that claim?

You did a really poor job of explaining that then because it seems to imply you're saying "why are these transgenders whining, this is just to protect teachers, the hell is this 'don't respect' garbage."

The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person wholly or partially on the basis that the person establishes sex-specific standards or policies concerning employee or student dress or grooming, or concerning access to restrooms, spas, baths, showers, dressing rooms, locker rooms, or other intimate facilities or settings, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 11-62-3. It's a fucking bathroom bill too. HB1176 does it all! Forgive me if I find it a little odd that you're only saying that after my post and didn't, say, bring it up in your first post. I did just happen to provide you with a convenient excuse, after all.

Mississippi is working hard to keep its "worst state in the union" award

Well when you have to compete with the rest of the bible belt, its a tight competition.

I disagree with the framing that the bill is just an excuse for sanctioned trans bashing. If this was a license for a teacher to harass a trans student, it would go against what the bill already state: In the event the continued presence of said employee on school premises poses a potential threat or danger to the health, safety or general welfare of the students, or, in the discretion of the superintendent, may interfere with or cause a disruption of normal school operations, the superintendent may immediately release said employee of all duties pending a hearing if one is requested by the employee. The problem as I see it is that, if a student feel harassed by a staff member using the wrong gender, he has no recourse. He would have to convince the superintendent to interfere. It would be better if they could call a hearing to determine if the behavior of the staff member is harassment (because it may not be the intention of the staff member) or if a compromise could be reached.

The bill is also a bathroom bill. Trying to say its not a discriminatory bill is a straight up lie

The proper way would, as I stated before, is the student being able to call a hearing where it would be determined if the behavior of the staff member constitutes harassment or not. Leaving this to the superintendent discretion is a problem.

misgendering a student intentionally is harassment. Can I call a black student a nigger because my religion/moral beliefs consider him to be such?

All I'm saying is that I think people should always be able to settle their grievances with a third party rather than leaving this to the sole discretion of the superintendent. What about this do you disagree?

Theres nothing to disagree with because your dumb "people should settle their differences with a third party" is an idiotic no stance nonsolution.

Right now it seems that it's either: "I feel harassed" *staff get's fired* or "I feel harassed" *nothing happens* Why is settling things with a third party dumb or a non solution?

If you read through the bill, you will find that in no way does the passage you quoted support your argument, because it's immediately followed by this text. No superintendent of schools, his administrative designee or any principal shall dismiss or suspend any licensed employee in any school district for referring to any individual student's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth despite the student's preference to identify as the opposite gender after undergoing stages of transition as a pansexual, transsexual or transgender, whether through sex reassignment, gender identity transitioning, hormonal therapy treatment or other philosophical processes. Additionally, no superintendent of schools, his administrative designee or any principal shall require any licensed employee to comply with any directive to use a student's preferred method of reference against the employee's sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction, as protected under the provisions of the "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act," authorized under Chapter 62, Title 11, Mississippi Code of 1972.

so you didnt read the law. A staff member literally cannot be fired for misgendering a student. Even if the superintendent believes it to be harassment.

Reading the bill would be harder than coming up with a totally hypothetical "false dichotomy"

I understood from the bill that he can't be fired just for misgendering, but if you could prove his misgendering as harassment you could have him fired. An example of misgendering that I do not believe was harassment is from this teacher that we had on a previous thread.

no this bill blanket protects misgendering, even if its harassment. How are you not understanding that

This. Pulling this in the medical field would cost you not only your job but most likely your license

I think we've reached an impasse then.

how is this an impasse? You're objectively wrong about the contents of the bill, and Amber is trying to show you how this bill does not do what you think it does. Rather than discuss this, you just keep repeating that you're right. it's like watching the literal embodiment of Dunning Kruger.

Stop discriminating against him, it's his sincerely held religious belief that that's not what the bill says.

Maybe we can get a lawyer here then. And solve this with a impartial third party.