There is a major ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on both free speech and student rights. The court, sitting en banc, ruled 10-7 that “the mere use of biological pronouns does not entail ‘aggressive, disruptive action.'” In the lengthy opinion, the court split along political lines with every Republican appointee voting with the student challengers and every Democratic appointee voting with the school district.
The case originated in the Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, located in the northern suburbs of Columbus. A parent objected to the district’s anti-harassment policy that included sanctions for any student who refused to use the preferred pronouns of transgender classmates. Such violations were deemed “contrary to the other student’s identity.”
The Olentangy district argued that the use of unwanted pronouns was analogous to “Hispanic students being told by classmates to ‘go back to Mexico!’”
An earlier panel on the Sixth Circuit upheld the ruling of District Court Judge Algenon Marbley, a Clinton appointee, in denying relief.
In an opinion by Circuit Judge Eric Murphy, a Trump appointee, the court ruled that there was no evidence that the use of traditional pronouns produced the “substantial interference” that the Supreme Court set as the test in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969).
“In this case’s current posture, the school district has fallen far short of meeting this demanding standard. It introduced no evidence that the use of biological pronouns would disrupt school functions or qualify as harassment under Ohio law. Our society continues to debate whether biological pronouns are appropriate or offensive—just as it continues to debate many other issues surrounding transgender rights. The school district may not skew this debate by forcing one side to change the way it conveys its message or by compelling it to express a different view.”
Judge Murphy added: “Unlike, say, a political diatribe about transgender rights in math class, the mere use of biological pronouns does not entail ‘aggressive, disruptive action.’ Nor does the school district suggest that such speech has ever disrupted any school activity in the past.”
In dissent, Circuit Judge Jane Stranch, an Obama appointee, insisted that the policy met the standard in combating bullying and harassment of transgender students. She asked, “What, then, must a school district show to demonstrate that particular speech is sufficiently bullying or harassing to render it regulable under the First Amendment?” She argued that officials are allowed to anticipate such disruptions and need not wait for students to be actually harassed:
“Tinker…does not require school authorities to wait for a disturbance before regulating speech, nor does it “require certainty that disruption will occur.” Lowery, 497 F.3d at 591–92 (quoting Pinard v. Clatskanie Sch. Dist. 6J, 467 F.3d 755, 767 n.17 (9th Cir. 2006)). To do so would place school officials “between the proverbial rock and hard place: either they allow disruption to occur, or they are guilty of a constitutional violation.” Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 565 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Lowery, 497 F.3d at 596). “Such a rule is not required by Tinker, and would be disastrous public policy” because it would strip officials of the ability to carry out the “affirmative duty to not only ameliorate the harmful effects of disruptions, but to prevent them from happening in the first place.” Lowery, 497 F.3d at 596. School officials must merely demonstrate that the school reasonably forecast that disruption would occur based on the speech at issue. Id. Given administrators’ need to affirmatively protect the learning environment, moreover, officials will sometimes be unable “to offer any ‘proof’ [of disruption] beyond common-sense conclusions based on human experience.” Id. at 594. Such “common-sense conclusions,” we noted, “do not require substantial evidentiary support.” Id.”
It is not clear whether the district will appeal. An en banc decision will often get closer scrutiny from clerks in petitions for certiorari. The question is whether the district wants to risk doubling down on a losing hand if the Supreme Court affirms the judgment. Some advocates may be leery of rolling the dice on a further appeal given the implications of an adverse decision on pronouns that applies nationwide.
As long as a child is forced to attend a specific school because of his/her zip code/address; that school cannot compel politically correct behavior as they see fit. When the money follows the student, the school can enforce dumb rules and the child can move to another school.
Another dumb comment.
No it is a restatement of the constitution.
There are manythings that private actors can do that govenrment can not.
Restricting speech is one.
One of the reasons for limits on government that do not exist outside of government is that you can change jobs, change stores, shange private schools if you do not like something about these.
You can not change governments.
Another person holding a grudge because they could not use racist attacks in the classroom.
You might not be aware that “politically correct” is what cruel people call being kind.
The lefties’ dissent raises two disturbing points: i) that a court need only rely on “common sense” and not the law … but of course the unspoken part of this bleat is that it must be the “common sense” of the Dems; ii) that a court need not wait for an actual violation of either “common sense” or the law in order to order or forbid something. Take this in connection with Eric Holder’s brays about when the Dems win the White House and both Houses of Congress in ’28 they have to do whatever it takes in screwing around with the nation’s fundaments in law so as to make sure that they never lose again.
Let me get this straight: America has fallen into a state of abject discombobulation over a delusion hypothesized or claimed by 1% of the population?
What’s wrong with this picture?
Nothing! It’s great, say Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Bolivia, Columbia, Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan et al.
“What fools,” they say.
Those countries don’t listen, and give no credence, to a scintilla of this codswallop.
Who cares.
Appears you do
In their nihilism, that is, in their rejection of any facts which clash with their ideology and all human values, competence, honesty, integrity, excellence, beauty, etc., all that remains for the left is hatred of the good for being good and the desperate desire to extinguish any dissenting voices by force, in this case, by controlling the educational hierarchy and attempting to use it to force students to obey the left wing command to blindly unthinkingly accept mental illness as normal. The left deserves our complete contempt.
mayfwriter, The words of someone with a mental dysfunction that disables them from understanding the complex breadth of the human mind.
Illness is something that independently interferes with the ability of a person to have a happy life. What you describe is that what is doing the interfering is you – you want some people to suffer because you don’t understand what they want. Did you realize what gender you think you are by putting in significant thought and trying a range of options or are you an automaton that is just programmed? And if you are just programmed, why can’t someone else be programmed differently? So far there is no firm understanding of how these thoughts originate or what adjusts the feelings. There’s no injection that can switch the self-image from one state to another.
You seem unhappy that the Left exists. That sounds to me like this thought is interfering with your ability to have a happy life. You may want to discuss this with a mental health professional.
“The words of someone with a mental dysfunction . . .”
By focusing on ideas and arguments, mayfwriter occupies the intellectual high road.
You, with your armchair psychological smears, wallow in the gutter.
My money’s on mayfwriter.
Let me go ” Once more unto the breach” . I am not required by man’s law (the US Constitution) or by God’s law to participate in someone else’s delusion.
As Arnold hinted below, the pronoun anyone would use when talking to the person is “you.” The third-person pronoun would almost always be used when the person is not present. So the person isn’t even there to hear it. It’s a power play by that person, an attempt to control speech he never even hears.
It’s more complicated in classroom settings. I was at the head of one for nearly 30 years. I was frequently in a position of comparing/contrasting statements from students–student makes a claim, and another counters it, say, and I come in with something like: “She has a point.” I had a few trans students my last years, and it could sometimes be a struggle. I had a female student who wanted to present as male. EVERY molecule of my brain, on seeing her face, said FEMALE, but I didn’t want to offend her though I sometimes accidentally dropped a feminine pronoun. So I worked on just using the male name that she preferred: Ian. If I recall, she wanted they/them pronouns, which I refused to use on grammatical grounds, so I just defaulted to “Ian”. Kind of crazy making, actually.
True. In that case, it was the student forcing you to go along with and affirm her psychological impairment or delusion. A different kind of power play, I suppose.
There was no “forcing.” It was not a delusion. I recall that, until historical recency, writing with the left hand was viciously punished, simply because most are right handed. Students were physically punished and berated for writing with their dominant hand if that was the left hand. They were not psychologically impaired or delusional, just left handed.
I suppose hurting people for being different is a habit that is tough to give up.
“It was not a delusion” – we do not know that and all available evidence says that it is a delusion or a fetish.
“writing with the left hand …”
Poor analogy. The hand you write with imposes NO duties or burden’s on others.
Demanding specific and biologicically and as even you noted often gramatically incorrect pronouns does impose a duty on others.
BTW handedness is a complex inherited trait i.e. it is GENETIC.
Establish that Trans is a genetic trait and you might have and argument. But the LGBTQ+ community refuses to allow any scientific examination of gender.
Everyone could use “it”. Delete he she, him her.
It for inanimate objects can remain.
Except that “it” is insulting, and a school can definitely ban insults.
You keep applying subjective standards – you do not seem to grasp that Government is barred from subjective judgement.
It is only insulting if you choose to be insulted.
For 99.7% of people being called she when you have XY chromosomes is insulting.
A school can only restrict insults when it is absolutely clear the speech in question is an insult.
It has to be objectively insulting to nearly ALL. Not subjectively insulting to a few.
You can not explain how the pronoun “He” would be insulting to any random person with XY chromosomes without knowledge of the mental state of that person.
“It” is insulting to anyone.
“He” is not insulting to most male persons. However when you know very well that a specific male person objects to being referred to as such, and you persist in doing so for the purpose of taunting and bullying him, a school has the right and duty to stop you.
And no, government entities are not barred from subjective judgment. On the contrary, governments are entitled to have opinions and to express them, and to bar their employees, when speaking for those governments, from expressing contrary opinions. That’s the government speech doctrine.
Pretty much the only topic on which governments may not have opinions is religion. They are entitled to opinions on just about every other topic. That’s why a city can decide to paint a BLM slogan or a Pride flag on its property, but to arrest as vandals anyone who paints a pro-life message on its property. Or a city that has a flagpole on which it flies flags of its choice may choose to fly an Israeli flag and refuse to fly a “Palestinian” one. A state that produces special license plates may refuse to make one with a confederate flag, or some other message that it doesn’t agree with. It’s all because it’s government speech. It can’t regulate private speech, except when it’s acting in its capacity as schoolmaster or employer.
I have no problem with anything you are saying.
The IMPORTANT part of what you wrote is that YOU CHOSE what you would say.
This case is about denying that choice.
Clearly you are from a location that is so devoid of people that you never have more than two in a single place at a time. Otherwise it would occur to you that “Can you help her/him/them to get the potluck contribution from my car?” could be a conversation with one person about a second person standing right next to them.
“In the lengthy opinion, the court split along political lines with every Republican appointee voting with the student challengers and every Democratic appointee voting with the school district.”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
In the extant juristocracy, judicial partiality assumes dominion, as impartiality is extirpated alongside the expansion of global collectivist political influence.
Who’da thunk it?
Certainly not the American Founders.
How many iterations of language have occurred to the English Language? This latest attempt to redefine meaning is a total abandonment of basic understanding and word usage. Accordingly, there is a push to accept modified gender pronoun meanings, including they/them/theirs and add new non-sense identifiers: fae, xe, per,ze, zie, ae, e and ey as examples. Now those (they/them/their) wish to punish non-users of modified gender meanings (silence “I” demand), hollered with their acrid voices into the echo canyon of the democratic left.
Pious affirmation:
Asking an audience, a diplomat asked everyone who believes in truth to please stand, then continued by saying ‘the liars will be the first on their feet’.
GW, no one wants to punish – it’s as easy to remember as a name, which many have managed already.
What a nonsense straw man argument about a fictitious diplomat.
Many people have difficulty with names which is why they use pronouns.
Often we do not know the names of others – again a reason to use pronouns.
Do you left wing nuts not know the difference between an analogy and a straw man ?
A straw man is a deliberate misrepresentation of the argument of another
An analogy is an open comparison.
An analogy can be bad, it can never be a straw man.
What is most puzzling to me regarding any pronoun policy is that it has been my experience (and I have had at work a long, cordial, and professional relationship with a transgender person) that rarely, if ever, I used a pronoun with the referenced person present. Where the vast majority of pronoun usage occurs, in my experience, is when the that person is not present or perhaps in memorandum concerning that person. In any professional meetings that I have had, where they ask for one’s pronouns, the meeting participants rarely, if ever, has have the occasion to use pronouns. And for the above individual, I did use the preferred pronoun at all times – it is a matter of respect similar to the salute that I as an NCO gave any officer.
But I think the pronoun business is also getting at something entirely different – that of announcing to the world one’s mindset. Throughout biological evolution, humans (and other animals) have refined their ability to distinguish between the sexes. Then in the last 100,000 years of human cultural evolution, this ability to distinguish between the sexes has been enhanced by clothing, behaviors, and other markers. So, to me, announcing my pronouns is the equivalent of me saying “by ignoring the obvious markers given by biological and cultural evolution you, the viewer, are so stupid to need me to give you my pronouns.” I think that the transgenders intuitively recognize that they are going against our built-in evolutionary tools to distinguish between boys and girls/men and women. As compatible wants to associate with compatible, the transgender person uses the pronoun protocol to announce to the world and see if there is anyone else of similar mind.
This is long way of saying that ignoring a transgender person’s preferred pronoun is not harassment so much as it limits their reach.
The purpose of binary sexes in Nature is to normalize functional unions. The purpose of cultural affectations is to normalize a favorable juxtaposition of the sexes in social identification.
“I did use the preferred pronoun at all times – it is a matter of respect similar to the salute that I as an NCO gave any officer.”
I strongly disagree. In the first case, you’re affirming that person’s delusion, which should be unacceptable to anybody with a working brain, and if there were others at that gathering with the same delusions but different pronouns, you would have to keep track of this, which is completely unacceptable.
In the second case you’re acknowledging a person’s rightful position in a hierarchy, so not the same thing!
Bouncedancer, I bet you tell women that they are delusional for getting their hair dyed and rail against men who shave off their facial hair – both activities by people who don’t like the way they should look.
Dissenting “Circuit Judge Jane Stranch, an Obama appointee,” is the one who wrote the underlying panel opinion that was just overturned by the en banc Sixth Circuit. In that underlying panel decision, Stranch stated that a line existed between voicing controversial opinions on gender, and directly misgendering someone.
She wrote:
“Sharing controversial religious beliefs is different from describing a Mormon student as not a real Christian. By the same token, discussing sex and gender identity is different from using non-preferred pronouns to state that one’s transgender classmate is not really a girl.” http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/sixth-circuit-oh-school-district-pronoun-policy-opinion.pdf
Perhaps everyone can just meet in the middle. Schools could ban the use of direct “non-preferred” PRONOUNS, but allow simply referring to trans classmates, -using their preferred-names,-e.g., Sue and Dave, in a more subtle, ‘controversial opinion,” way, such as, “not-really-a-girl-Sue” or “probably-not-a-real-boy-Dave.” (I’m JOking).
*. Everything is really generic isn’t it? Girls put on Levi’s and a t-shirt. Should I then say he? Maybe I’ll get it wrong and not know she?
Glam girls are drag queens. I guess they’re all she in that case. I’ll go by what or how you look and might get it wrong.
I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings. If you’re a female be sure to wear red lipstick, earrings and skirts. That way it’ll avoid some confusion. Generic names are confusing- Hadley being one.
Not doing they them. Thanks.
This isn’t about guessing. This is about knowing the preference and ignoring that preference. It’s a 5 day a week class for most of a year, so the first day or two is all it should take to find out, no different than finding out names.
“Sharing controversial religious beliefs is different from describing a Mormon student as not a real Christian.
No, it isn’t. A controversial religious belief is exactly what it is. And it’s no more controversial to say that the student is not a real Christian than to say that he is.
That we are expending valuable litigation time on such nonsense shows us how far we have strayed from common sense.
The left never relents in their quest for the power of government domination. They salivate over the thought of themselves being “Kings.”
In Other Future News: “Having Lost the Battle to Force Pronouns on the Population, Politicans Switch to Enforce Honorifics”
~+~
(Jan 3rd, 2096) Having finally recognized the fact that the general population will not accept being compelled to use an increasingly large array of personal pronouns to fit every whim, yet still wanting another means to exert control over everyone, politicians now mandate that everyone use a new set of honorifics or be punished.
Spokesperson Elisa Ehrich stated, “Honorifics are now mandatory. Once more, old patriarchial examples such as Mr., Mrs., and Doctor are sexist and racist and are now replaced by a new list of approved forms of address.”
The list is over twenty pages long, a few of which include:
Adult White Male: “Plantationer”
Liberal Linguistics Professor: “His Most Righteous”
Social Justice Warrior: “Hix Most Obedient”
Successful Small Business Owner: “The Dishonorable”
Undocumented Immigrant with Lengthy Criminal Record: “The Most Noble”
Fertility Clinic Doctor who Impregnated Patients with Own Sperm: “Sire”
One of your good ones, “One of the Clever” Darren.
A tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing.
Anon 1:06pm – Needlessly displaying intolerance, along with a humorless outlook are known side-effects of mRNA-injections. Mask-up little fella’.
“You are hereby suspended for breaking the address code, Mr. Troublemaker.”
Another example of why even lower court nominations are of strategic importance! You won’t recognize your Western Christian Colonial-Roots county if the Wacky-Job Dems keep filing all the lower court seats with Loonies!
It’s amazing how far we have allowed ourselves to fall into this liberal psychosis. Think of the good that could’ve been done with all the time and money these sociopaths have wasted on this STUPID BULLSH…IT!
Delusion is the order of the day.
And yet, despite the obvious willingness of the Democrat judges to line up behind the ridiculous pro-tranny stuff, Democrats won the governorship in Virginia, the mayorship in New York City, and several other races.
What you have is The Walking Dead, in real life. Brain-dead zombies destroying civilization. It has become some sort of nihilistic death cult, and simply pointing out how destructive it is to chase people down and eat their brains, isn’t working as a strategy.
Sick commenter.
I was recently diagnosed with a split personality. From now on you can refer to me as these, those and them.
“Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
I’m a schizophrenic,
And so am I”
~ What About Bob
*breaking. Democrat & Republicans (aka congress) have a plan to re-open the government.
And the libs are pissed….
The Libs refuse to take yes for an answer.
*The Dems PATHETIC surrender on shutdown .. .
Funny. Really:)
You can be “it”, split.
The absurdity of being forced to use any pronouns other than the settled-science, biologically-correct and established-for-centuries pronouns should be obvious to every reasonable person, which is usually the standard upon which the law is based… or so we thought?
The fact that we have to waste time and tax dollars to keep fighting this, although also absurd, is just criminal.
We need to quit coddling these toddlers and ignore the narcissism that demands others comply with delusions.
Since gender identity is fluid, what does one do when a boy identifies as a girl one day, then the next reverts back to identifying as a boy. Of course you would be guilty of pronoun misrepresentation if you failed to keep up with the fluidity.
These are simply actors playing a part based not upon reality but rather a playwright’s fiction.
How could that ever even considered Constitutional? Forcing people to use made up words for a select group of sexual deviants.
No sane person would rule on the side of the school district. It’s not possible to be sane AND rule in their favor. THIS is why Trump is in office. Because democrats in power are actually DANGEROUS to America. Not hyperbole. For a judge, never mind SEVEN of them, to have the mindset that government can compel speech, that is to say; force American citizens to keep how they feel to themselves and instead only utter government approved words and ideals is mindbogglingly.
Apparently there are at least 7 insane judges on th court!
A portion of Kids are just mean. Doesn’t matter the setting, on school campus, after school, at the hang-out …
Why? Its the atmosphere of the Society, the current political rhetorical swirling around, the subliminal indoctrination effecting their emotions, that capitulate a mean* narrative. For some it a deeper physiological satisfaction and social reinforcement. For the Subjective Individual (target), it’s not just momentary Bullying but a Totality that injures them.
The Media Complex (Social Media, News Media, Entertainment Media,…) makes an issue out of everything. To much of which is not conducive to healthy Societal conditions.
It’s a tall order to pass Rulings to tackle that. It is also a tall order for Parenting to tackle the issue. The resolution of this matter in the Court(s) will not settle the day-to-day reality of how Kids behave. Discipline has its limits, and in cases, for every action (of Discipline) there is a reaction, not always favorable, that’s the dangerous risk in the long term.
* AI Overview
Synonyms for the adjective “mean” can vary widely depending on the specific sense (ungenerous, hostile, or poor in quality).
Ungenerous
Stingy
Miserly
Parsimonious
Petty
Selfish
Close/close-fisted
Tight
Ungenerous
Cheap
Hostile
Malicious
Spiteful
Unkind
Nasty
Malevolent
Vicious
Antagonistic
Unfriendly
Cruel
Hateful
Poor (in quality)
Inferior
Shoddy
Wretched
Miserable
Lousy
Substandard
Mediocre
Shabby
Base
Worthless
One group never cited or mentioned by Democrats / Legacy Media, is Gays Against Grooomers. I believe it was the intellectual author, Andrew Sullivan, who started the pushback against the LGBTQIA+eieio army. He and others like Bari Weiss, Dave Rubin, Glenn Greenwald, Andy Ngo, et al. have made it known they share nothing in common with the trans / pronouns cult movement. Thus, the Democrats are doing what they always do, and have lost millions of members in the process, for pushing divisive identity politics. It is their way of once again making all black / hispanic / other minority groups their slaves on the DNC plantation, or face being lynched by them much as they have done to Clarence Thomas, Bari Weiss, Dave Rubin, Andrew Sullivan, et al. United States Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, is a married gay man with 2 children, and he denounces the LGBTQ+ movement as well. They naturally hate him as well.
Identity politics (e.g. “Trans/pronouns”) is a lie. Otherwise, female black immigrant Jamaican-American, Virginia Lt Governor Winsome Earle Sears would have clobbered pasty white gringo Abigail Spanberger as Governor for VA. Thus Democrats showed their true colors once again with the VA election results which now mimics triumphalism: they stand for nothing but power.
Gays Against Groomers is a 501(c)4 nonprofit of gays, lesbians, and others in the community who oppose the sexualization, indoctrination, and mutilation of children under the guise of radical “LGBTQIA+” activism. We are moms and dads, couples, siblings, husbands and wives, families and friends, typical gay American men and women who live our lives just like everyone else. Our mission is twofold: to end the war on children being carried out in our name, and to reclaim the community we once called our own, which at this point has become unrecognizable.
https://www.gaysagainstgroomers.com/about
Not to be outdone in their lies, the Southern Poverty Law Center has the “Gays Against Groomers” group listed as an anti-gay hate group. They are beyond parody at this point just like Left wing US Judges – partisan black robed grim reapers
🤡
Estovir,
Thank you for pointing out there are sane and normal people within the gay community who object to the radical “LGBTQIA+” activism.
These are the kind of people who Gays Against Groomers are calling out, Transgender Ex-Lawmaker Pleads Guilty To Child Sex Abuse Charges
https://www.foxnews.com/us/transgender-ex-lawmaker-first-states-history-pleads-guilty-federal-child-sex-abuse-charges