We often follow controversies at universities over free speech, but this week’s addition can be accurately described as nuts. Madera Community College History Professor David Richardson is under investigation as a possible confectionary reactionary . . . or at least that is what the school appears to be investigating. Richardson recently gave out candy on campus from Jeremy’s Chocolates labeled “HeHim” (nuts) and “She/Her” (nutless). For Richardson, the candies have led to his suspension pending official investigation.
Richardson reportedly brought the candy to an open house event for academic programs. The candy is connected to the conservative Daily Wire, which launched the chocolate brand two months ago in protest of Hershey’s naming “a biological male” as its spokesperson for International Women’s Day.
Richardson said that he had some of the candy left over from an earlier purchase and added them to the “goodies” he has always handed out at the history table for the open house event. That led to a confrontation with a staff member.
Richardson is now banned from “non-public” areas and blocked from his email. He says that he was told that he is under investigation for “serious misconduct.”
He insists that it was just all a joke. That may be part of the problem. The age of rage, however, is a dwindling place for humor. Indeed, even professional comedians have complained that cancel campaigns have virtually banned them from campuses.
Richardson told Just in the News that he was informed that the candies reflected a human sexual binary view that was considered a violation of school policies and created a “hostile work environment.” He said that he was also accused of harassing and discriminating against colleagues “based on gender.”
The site reported that Richardson, who describes himself as a gay conservative, is already suing over sanctions for comments made during a mandatory October 2021 “pronoun etiquette” seminar led by transgender chemistry professor Jamie MacArthur.
The incident involved participants being given a “small thumbnail” with fields for their name and gender identity. Richardson jokingly put “Do, Re, Mi” to register his view that the “irrational perception of reality … would frustrate communication for ideological reasons,” according to his complaint.
MacArthur objected later that the “joke” was “extremely offensive” to transgender people. Richardson responded by using “Do, Re, Mi” as his pronouns while addressing MacArthur as “they,” MacArthur’s preferred pronouns.
After a six-month “investigation,” the school found that MacArthur intentionally used “second- and third-person pronouns in a mocking manner” and sought to intimidate MacArthur when Richardson copied others on a response. In addition to a letter of official reprimand, Richardson was ordered to “immediately stop using pronouns in a mocking manner in the workplace” though the school did not define “mocking” conduct.
It is not clear if the school views the candy as a “mocking” incident for a professor effectively on probation from the earlier joke.
Richardson was also ordered to take diversity, equity and inclusion training. Finally, he maintains that he was told to submit a written response on what he learned and how he can “create a more inclusive environment that does not center on homophobia or transphobia” in his home and “religious group.”
Richardson clearly has political and social objections to pronoun policies, a view shared by some academics. There is litigation across the country on the issue involving both students and faculty. Some have been successful or settled in favor of the right to refuse to use such pronouns, including a favorable ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in a case involving a college professor. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently upheld the termination of a high school teacher who refused to comply with such a policy.
Pronouns are fast fading from common discourse under the threat of pronoun penalties. Indeed, many faculty members try to avoid using pronouns altogether in class, rather than look up a student’s designated pronoun. Confirming the right pronouns can be challenging in the middle of a fast-moving class. Students today identify from a growing list of gender identities including, but not limited to, genderfluid, third-gender, amalgagender, demigender, bi-gender, pansgender, and a-gender. Pronouns can include, but are not limited to: He/She, They/Them, Ze/Hir (Ze, hir, hir, hirs, hirself), Ze/Zir (Ze, zir, zir, zirs, ze), Spivak (Ey, em, eir, eirs, ey), Ve (Ve, ver, vis, vis, verself), and Xe (Xe, xem, xyr, xyrs, xe).
This case is interesting because it involves a candy bowl as a vehicle of alleged prohibited speech. Richardson insists that he was just getting rid of excess candy but the bars were also a political statement. There are two immediate questions in the case. First, there is the right of Richardson to refuse to comply with pronoun policies. Second, there is the question of the right to publicly question (and, yes, “mock”) such policies.
The position of the school is unclear. Richardson was acting as a representative of the history department. However, it is not clear whether a candy with an opposing humorous political message would have been the subject of disciplinary action. For example, would a professor be disciplined for joking about those with binary views in class or at an open house? Likewise, could Richardson post an objection to the policy as a matter of academic freedom, as some have done over policies like land acknowledgments?
This is likely to lead to further litigation for both Richardson and Madera Community College. Indeed, Professor Richardson could elect to respond in the same way that Gen. Anthony McAuliffe responded to a demand for surrender in the Battle of the Bulge:
And we thought comedy was dead!!
The pronoun war must mean a lot to the left since they’re willing to jettison the First Amendment, spend millions in litigation, and cancel faculty willy-nilly. Clearly it’s part of a larger agenda to weaken and then destroy the nuclear family, separate kids from parents and turn their loyalty to an identity group protected by one of the most totalitarian parties this country has ever had.
. . . all of which are the goals of Marxism.
Like other victims of academic Maoism (See Oberlin), he needs to initiate litigation against these cretins. Breaking the banks of these leftist thugs is the only way back from this road to serfdom. Lacking any sense of humor along with humanity is a common trait of the leftist mind
Alank,
I would like to agree, but then our Maoism will then declare their very existence is at stake, and resort to real violence against anyone who does not openly proclaim their support for the woke leftist cause.
He’s already suing them for punishing him for listing “do, re, mi” as his pronouns. Maybe he should have used “fa, sol, la.”
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci
5:58 AM · Dec 11, 2022
1.2M Likes
so – a needle pulling thread
“. . . labeled ‘HeHim’ (nuts) and ‘She/Her’ (nutless).”
It’s refreshing to not have to unwrap something to find out what’s on the inside.
“If you were born with a dick, you’re not a chic. “ Dr. Seuss. Enabling the insanity, and our rights to privacy, when in a toilet, or locker room is #NUTS. Women fought many battles to get equality with men, now men are forcing them to knuckle under, or give up their dreams. Libturds sux.
You simply cannot read this article without having a major brain hemorrhage about where the culture is headed. And who exactly is taking us there? The vocal, belligerent minority…along with help from media, academia, and politicians.
There are several questions and answers in this column.
1-ATS is still ATS
2-one unanswered question “what is the view of the candy in this instance, especially since it has been made a villain of the event”. If this was a gun control question then obviously the candy is totally at fault and the erring professor did nothing wrong.
3-There seems to be a growing movement of the gay community away the the trans community, does it not. Increasing numbers of stories of gay personalities seeming to distance themselves from the trans community. I suspect many have been dragged into this debate who otherwise would just like to be left alone.
4-There was a saying, when I was young, that the USA, at one time, had been tilted up on the east coast and all the loose fruits and nuts had fallen all the way down into Southern California.
5-Professor Richardson seems to have a truly unique sense of humor.
6-General Anthony McAullife was truly an outstanding general known for his eloquence. He rose to the rank of General (4 stars) before retiring. Imagine him as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs today, rather than some of the sock puppets in the military now.
The trans movement is today’s fascists. No dissent is allowed. Anything that can be understood, through layers of interpretation, as potentially kinda sorta dissent is swiftly punished.
Interestingly the candy maker itself sought to honor women in a similar way:
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fmma.prnewswire.com%2Fmedia%2F1750112%2FHershey_Celebrate_SHE_Bar.jpg%3Fp%3Dfacebook&tbnid=N3L6Rp5S7ku8LM&vet=12ahUKEwjz6MqSpO3-AhV5ElkFHbANC34QMygCegUIARCaAQ..i&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.prnewswire.com%2Fnews-releases%2Fhersheys-creates-chocolate-bar-to-celebrate-all-women-and-girls-everywhere-301486034.html&docid=Xb2HGT8RSFWs4M&w=2700&h=1413&q=her%20she%20bar&client=safari&ved=2ahUKEwjz6MqSpO3-AhV5ElkFHbANC34QMygCegUIARCaAQ
oldmanfromkansas,
I dont think it even has to be dissent.
It has to be complete and total support or it is violence.
Here is an idea: I dont care. You want to dress as whatever, call yourself Sheera queen of Venus, and use whatever pronoun, have at it.
Dont expect me to indulge in your fantasy. You go live your life, I will go and live mine and we politely ignore each other. Call it a societal and culture divorce. Much better than the alternative.
Upstate – But if God forbid you say something about the other person while not in their presence, and use the wrong pronoun, the world will end.
oldmanfromkansas,
Right?
Or you are not “seeing” them and that is violence against them, even if they are NOT present.
Absurd.
It has to be complete and total support or it is violence.
Bingo
“. . . is under investigation for ‘serious misconduct.’”
To the insane, satirizing insanity is “serious misconduct.”
“Richardson was acting as a representative of the history department. However, it is not clear whether a candy with an opposing humorous political message would have been the subject of disciplinary action. For example, would a professor be disciplined for joking about those with binary views in class or at an open house?”
He was representing the school. Whether his jokes were deemed harmless by him or not it was done as a representative of the school. Look at it this way. Would you be ok with a police officer making racist jokes while on duty or at at traffic stop in the presence of a person who would find those jokes offensive? Should the officer be reprimanded or disciplined for his poor judgment while representing the police department? It makes the whole department look bad, right? The professor who is representing the school in his official capacity is also making the whole school look bad by making these jokes that clearly a lot of people found offensive.
Hey Svelaz, 1) the nutless candy bar is not analogous to racism, 2) a campus gathering is not analogous to a police stop where an officer has dominion over your potential freedom, 3) it was a joke and 4) is there ever one issue that you won’t find a need to be contrarian about?
Seriously Svelaz, get help, you have a problem and my first advice to you would be to “change the channel” and stop reading Turley’s site. Actually that would help the mental well being of the other 95% of us that find you a pathetic joke.
Hullbobby, your inability to make distinctions seems to be a serious problem on your part. The professor was doling this candy out in his professional capacity and as a representative of the school. A police officer handing out racist themed candy to motorists at traffic stops is STILL representing the police department and it reflects badly on the whole police department. Get it? The candy is not the issue. It’s the person exercising poor judgement while representing the organization he/she works for is. The police department has policies in place against making the department look bad. Colleges and Universities also have policies detailing what is harmful conduct that can tarnish the image of the organization.
When you’re representing the school in your official capacity you’re expected to exercise good judgment, right? The same is expected of a Marine, or any member of the armed forces. Jokes or using props, or candy with a racist or any kind of message that makes any organization that you work for is protected speech. That still does not mean they can produce consequences that are detrimental to your job or company as a whole.
You are the one who needs help. You’re clearly obsessed with my posts. What is funny is YOU keep reading them. LOL!! Nobody is forcing you to, but you keep reading them nowadays.
. Colleges and Universities also have policies detailing what is harmful conduct that can tarnish the image of the organization.
You should read Turely’s posts, before commenting on them.
though the school did not define “mocking” conduct.
Iowan2, as usual you miss the point entirely. Mockery was NOT the issue. It was the poor judgment being made while in the office capacity as a school representative. You know, that whole character thing conservatives love to regale as an important value. Right?
He was already on probation for his bad attempts at humor and clearly he is using that as an excuse to be critical about the whole pronoun issue. Companies, schools, and even government have polices on how you are expected to comport yourself in public while representing them. Violating the policy can be punished by reprimand, additional training, and as a last resort because of repeated violations termination. This is not an an outlier. It’s quite common everywhere.
Svelaz;
“Iowan2, as usual you miss the point entirely. Mockery was NOT the issue”.
Turley;
letter of official reprimand, Richardson was ordered to “immediately stop using pronouns in a mocking manner in the workplace. After a six-month “investigation,” the school found that MacArthur intentionally used “second- and third-person pronouns in a mocking manner”
. Second, there is the question of the right to publicly question (and, yes, “mock”) such policies.
Got it. No mockery
Iowan2, AGAIN missed the point entirely.
They are referring to his behavior. The mockery being part of the overall behavior that is unbecoming of a person who is representing his employer, the school, is being reprimanded for his behavior. The mockery itself is not the bigger issue. It’s he continuing bad judgment that is making things worse for himself.
What bad judgement?
Trying to reason with svelaz is a waste of time. I’ve tried, to no avail. He told me Bud Lite’s sharp decrease in sales was a sign the company was doing better. He told me that in the sixties people with long hair were assumed to be homosexual – which is ridiculous since if anything they were assumed to be hippies, which were known for sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll, but not for homosexuality. He just makes it up as he goes, and facts and logic are nowhere to be seen.
Oldmanfromkansas,
“He told me Bud Lite’s sharp decrease in sales was a sign the company was doing better.”
You clearly have comprehension issues. I didn’t say that. Also, the reference to the 60’s conservatives and long hair went completely over your head which, again, is part of the comprehension problem a lot of people on the blog have. Hippies wearing long hair were often criticized their long hair by pointing out that only women wear long hair. There was sexist inference in those criticisms back in the day. Homosexuals were more commonly mocked by referring to sailors because that was/is still the stereotype. No? Or was that just the Coast Guard?
Hippies wearing long hair were often criticized their long hair by pointing out that only women wear long hair.
The hair on hippies was never a gender thing. It was nothing but a uniform those that claimed to be non-conformist, could conform to their tribe.
Failed attempt at re writing history.
“ The hair on hippies was never a gender thing.”
Yes it was. It was always a complaint coming from conservatives about men wearing long hair. Their view was that only women and girls wear long hair. Men were supposed to have a “proper” haircut. It was also frowned upon by them when women or girls cut their hair as short as that of men. It was all about everyone conforming to THEIR view.
Wrong.
It was a put down. Infereing they homosexuals (they used a whole dictionary of other euphemisms.) was derogatory smear.
Leftist use homosexual smears all the time. Like when Colbert called Trump, Putins cock holster. Because leftist like Colbert consider gays, lesser people. When they really want to hurl an insult, calling person gay is their go to smear.
“ Leftist use homosexual smears all the time.”
LOL!! And the only example you provide is not related to homosexuality.
BTW, Colbert was not wrong.
Svelaz, I have no doubt you think homosexuals are ‘less than’. Always using them to demean people you hate. We are all accustomed to the double standard.
Iowan2,
I don’t think homosexuals are “less than”. YOU are. I’m not the one who is constantly mocking them like you and a few others. I’m case you haven’t noticed YOU are whining about my defending them against YOUR criticism. How would that be “making them less than”?
You’re accustomed to projecting YOUR faults onto others when you are being called out. It’s pretty funny. Look up Kruger-Dunning syndrome. It fits you like a glove.
You are as stupid as they come.
https://blog.thelonghairs.us/longhair-presidents-of-the-united-states/
I find it offensive that people are made to go along with ridiculous policy that is based on pseudoscience, but no one seems to care if those in favor of reality are offended — only the Gender Religion believers are protected from offense. The rest of us have to follow their religion “or else,” whether we are believers or not.
“He was representing the school.”
His and her candy bars are necessary to educate college students and future Supreme Court nominees. We have to remember Jackson, a Supreme Court Judge nominee, couldn’t define what a woman is.
“ His and her candy bars are necessary to educate college students and future Supreme Court nominees.”
Huh? That made zero sense.
You lack critical thinking skills, so my comment went over your head. That is not unexpected. We contend with your low IQ that seems to descend every time you post.
Jackson couldn’t define a woman. His and her candy bar analogy can be helpful.
Anonymous, ( S. Meyer), no. You can’t write coherently. Your attempt at using an analogy was nonsensical. It showed your low IQ to be questionable.
.OK, Svelaz, you are incapable of seeing a relationship between nuts and no nuts with man and woman. We already know you are strange and not bright. Tell us more.
Anonymous (S. Meyer). LOL! Your poor attempt trying to explain your nonsensical incoherence doesn’t change the fact that your original attempt is still an incoherent mess.
Along with being obtuse, Incoherence is becoming your brand.
Someone has to inform students as uneducated as you that a woman has no nuts and a man does. Of course, there are random variations, but that doesn’t change reality.
For example, humans can think. That you have a diminished cerebrum doesn’t make you less human.
“Would you be ok with a police officer making racist jokes while on duty”
Would you be OK with a police officer putting a man in a woman’s jail?
“ Would you be ok with a police officer making racist jokes while on duty”
Would you be OK with a police officer putting a man in a woman’s jail?”
S. Meyer, what?! Again, you are not making any sense. Jesus S. Meyer. That was just…..really bad.
The his and her candies weren’t racist. They had to do with gender.
Aren’t we fortunate to have a pinhead on the blog.
S. Meyer, as usual you are drowning in stupid. Good grief man. You really don’t read for comprehension do you?
Svelaz, your problems with the gender issue are legendary. Another person said you were as stupid as they come and that person was right.
Anonymous (S. Meyer), you’re still not making any sense man. You should quit while you’re behind.
There is agreement with the other blogger who said you were “as stupid as they come.”
created a “hostile work environment.”
The trans world has invaded the non-trans world and its the latter that created this environment? The balls on these women are impressive.
Not only does the trans movement defy science, it actively creates an unsafe environment for anyone that will not defy their own conscience.
It seems humor is not Turley’s strong suit. There is a distinction between humor and tasteless humor. The problem with the professor’s attempt at humor is that he crossed over into tasteless or at least exercised with poor judgment. He may not have meant any disrespect, but that may not be true since he was already on probation for previous mockery of gender pronouns.
His mockery is absolutely protected speech. That should not be the issue. HOWEVER… the intent behind the humor matters. You can make racist jokes all you want even a as a professor. It’s still protected speech. BUT, we all know that there is a distinct nuance when making racist jokes, right? Some may be borderline offensive, others may be crude and blatantly racist and those get anyone in trouble. Great comedians can make rude racist jokes when it is expected and known that their intention behind the jokes are not meant to convey hatred towards another race. Oftentimes they preface those jokes with a disclaimer or warning that their intent behind a joke is not a serious dig at those being targeted.
What Turley doesn’t seem to understand is that even mockery and ridicule while certainly protected speech does produce consequences that can be harmful or damaging to those making it. For example Keith Richards of Seinfeld fame. Famously destroyed his attempt at comedy and his image when he made a serious error attempting to make racist jokes. Mocking the trans community is and should not be an issue, but there is a fine line between mockery that is meant to show how taking some issues seriously SHOULD be mocked and that of intentional denigration and malicious disrespect.
Dave Chappell famously got in trouble with the trans community for his mockery of the community. I found his humor on the subject quite funny and at the same time appreciated the fact that he made a serious effort to explain the distinction and importance of how humor and nuance go together and why a skilled comedian can thread that needle with impunity. Not everything that is offensive is intentional, but it can come off as such to those who don’t have a good sense of humor which is often a source of mockery as well. Jokes are protected speech, but they come with consequences if they are expressed in the wrong environment to the wrong people.
Svelaz: Can you do us a favor and just be brief? We don’t need a ten-thousand-word essay about how Turley doesn’t understand this or that every time you tap out your comments. We do get that YOU understand the world appropriately. Uh huh, sure. With all this time on your hands, maybe you should consider being a greeter at WalMart, or maybe a short-order cook at Waffle House.
Randy Perkins, Turley doesn’t need a ten thousand word column bemoaning the consequences of a professor’s bad attempt at humor as a representative of his employer either. But hey, if he can do that, so can I. Crazy eh?
It’s his website. You’re just another interloper, squatter, freeloader or whatever you call yourself. Get your own website, slack-ass.
Theresite, yeah it’s his website. He is also a free speech absolutist which means even annoying speech shouldn’t be censored because it’s annoying. Who says free speech must be orderly and tidy and civil?
I’m not talking about orderly and tidy and civil. I’m talking about short, sharp and to the point.
If brevity is the soul of wit, you’re as soulless as you are nutless.
Svelaz: It’s all protected speech. Racist, sexist, you name it, hate speech is free speech. Do you really think the 1st amendment was intended to protect cute puppy vids? And for you to say humor is not Turley’s strong point is, in itself, humorous. Hello kettle? This is pot.
Deboluccia, it’s all protected speech. BUT, it doesn’t mean it protects you from the consequence of exercising it. Right?
Svelaz wins the chocolate candy labeled nuts.
There is a distinction between humor and tasteless humor.
No, there isn’t.
Iowan2, yes there is. That you don’t see a distinction speaks volumes about you.
Lenny Bruce was not a comedian
” the intent behind the humor matters.”
Still hung up on intent.
NOPE, all that matters regarding humor is whether people deem it funny.
There is no bright lines. There are rules of thumb which you touch, but if people decide something is funny – the rules of thumb do not matter.
BTW – if you have to preface (or explain) a joke – its not funny.
“Dave Chappell famously got in trouble with the trans community”
Sure comedians get in trouble all the time – that is how Comedy works.
Dave Chappell is doing fine. Efforts to “cancel” him failed.
Why ? Because he is funny. Offensive ? Absolutely.
Still funny.
That is the job of comedians.
Most of the time that offends someone.
The FBI just refused the subpeona from the House oversight committee.
When is Garland going to start the trial of Christopher Wray ?
You have told us that Bannon was not allowed to question the J6 committee subpeona – why is Wray different ?
You say Trump not complying with the3 DOJ subpeona to the extent DOJ wished was obstruction.
Why isn’t the FBI engaged in criminal obstruction ?
YOU have already claimed that Subpeona’s are absolute – failing to comply is not a crime.
The house does not need to go to court to get a court order – YOU have repeatedly told us that is not necescary.
The FACT and LAW which you have constantly refused to acknowledge is that the belief of the subpeona issuer that a subpeona was not complied with it not sufficient alone to constitute a crime.
The House – republican or democrat, A=or the DOJ MUST go to court to get an order to compell performance before the subjective conclusion that a subpeona was not honored constitutes a crime.
Wray is not committing a crime. Bannon did not commit a crime, nor did Trump.
It is likely that Wray and the house will negotiate – just as Bannon expected, and as DOJ should have done with Trump.
But if you want to claim that Trump and Bannon committed a crime – than the FBI and Wray are guilty of the same crime.
It’s candy folks. Just candy. Welcome to America’s colleges and universities in 2023. I never thought about it, but maybe when you become godless you become humorless ? Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
That is nuts.
This reads like a really twisted Twilight Zone episode.
This story is also at the Just The News website. I felt like I got stupider after reading it here, and now I feel twice as stupid simply for noticing that it appears elsewhere — but still nowhere near as stupid as I’d feel if I wasted my money or my opportunity for higher education at this “college” that is quite clearly an adult daycare center for misfit “teachers” drowning in their own vapid nonsense involving a public hissy fit between a “gay conservative” and a “transgender chemistry professor.”
I’m obviously some sort of prehistoric caveman, after once upon a LONG time ago suffering through 5 years of engineering school followed by 3 years of architecture school, all the while never once wondering or caring about the sexual preferences or identities of ANY of my professors.
Back then, univerisities apparently respected people’s RIGHT to not know or care about other people’s sex lives while trying to focus on meaningful subject matter and obtain a useful education — keyword “useful.”
Even though I disagree with all the woke b.s., this professor is pretty stupid. Colleges are a lost cause and if you decide to work in that cesspool, then you better understand how much it stinks.
he was informed that the candies reflected a human sexual binary view that was considered a violation of school policies
There are only, XX, and XY. But on a campus with hundreds of PhD’s, not a single person is smart enough to follow the science. Geeesh.
“There are only, XX, and XY”
That’s false. Among sex chromosome variations: 45XO; 47,XXY; 47,XXX; 47,XYY; 48,XXYY; 48,XXXY; 48,XXXX; 49,XXXXY; 49,XXXXX; and then there are mosaics like 45,X/46,XY; 46,XY/47,XXY; and 45,X/47,XXX. And regardless of ones sex chromosomes, there are various intersex conditions.
Are you smart enough to follow the actual science here?
Anonymous: If your silly argument has to rely on genetic disorders and random mutations, you really have no argument at all. There are two dominant sexes, and there always have been. Your junk science doesn’t prove otherwise.
It’s not “junk science.” It’s real science, and instead of accepting it, you try to portray it as “junk” and “silly.”
Genetic variations exist. Intersex conditions exist. Trans people exist.
People think you are a monkey, or you think yourself to be a monkey.
Does that make you a monkey? Does that change your DNA?
They are so few in number as to be irrelevant to the larger conversation.
They are neither few in number (see, e.g., Nielsen, J., & Wohlert, M. (1991). Chromosome abnormalities found among 34910 newborn children: results from a 13-year incidence study in Århus, Denmark. Human genetics, 87, 81-83) nor irrelevant.
You wish to make them irrelevant.
Your pedantry is meaningless. I have been aware, for over 50 years of of gene mutations. Other than recognizing the flaws, their existence only matters to a very few that make it a study. Meaningless to this discussion.
If you were already aware of it, then you were purposefully lying when you said “There are only, XX, and XY.”
Now you lie some more and say “their existence only matters to a very few that make it a study,” when clearly their existence matters to all of the people who are living with these variations and also to anyone who cares about those people.
You cannot have a truthful discussion about it.
ATS, you need to attend Richardson’s classes and choose a candy bar. Then you can act however you wish and spout nonsense. The correct answer is male and female, XY and XX. Other variations must be considered, but except for those that want to cloud reality, we recognize them as random deviations.
If a Chevrolet comes off the line with an extra part or a missing one, it is still called a Chevrolet.
The era of “that’s not funny”
Richardson was ordered to “immediately stop using pronouns in a mocking manner in the workplace” though the school did not define “mocking” conduct.
Par for the course for leftist. Punishment with no definitions of the “crime”. Like ‘hate speech’, or ‘assault weapon’ . words that signal, we just aren’t allowed to know what signal.
time to end all federal aid and loans for colleges.
They are little more than Democrat Indoctrination camps
I really can’t believe how ridiculous this is – suspended over candy wrappers that say he/him and she/her? It’s hard to imagine anything more ridiculous, but I imagine today’s woke police will come up with something to top it in a day or two at our present rate of rushing to inanity.