Identifying as a different gender

What's the point of discussion where we can't be hypothetical

I was asked to answer a hypothetical question about my actual real world job

Glorianny

Now I really know why I object to
anyone who disagrees with me.

Unable to take an objective view of anything because of their GC views.

Meaning that they disagree with me, so I’ll call them GC

Unable to separate their GC views from any situation

Meaning that they disagree with me, so I’ll call them GC

So G, you’re Unable therefore to do anything but condemn those who don't agree with what you say.
Your posts, predictable as ever, reflect exactly how you appear to be.

I thought we were basing discussion on what people actually say, not what we decided they mean?

Can we just get on board with not having double standards please

Referring to GC views could only be relevant if this is purely about a or a number of students wishing to be non binary, but it isn't.

As for Unable to separate their GC views from any situation this is just as applicable to you Glorianny. I must say this thread's become rather entertaining as the only way that you seem to be able to discredit what you consider to be GC views is to twist what's been said, fabricate and asDoodledog has pointed out, invent scenarios to suit your point of view.

The question you were asked was hypothetical VS but Glorianny isn't citing hypothetical scenarios, she's putting them across as being fact when no one knows if they're fact or fiction.

I don't think it was put to me as hypothetical at all, I just treated it like it was

VioletSky

What's the point of discussion where we can't be hypothetical

I was asked to answer a hypothetical question about my actual real world job

Of course we can be hypothetical in discussions, but not use a hypothetical situation to 'prove' that something happened in the way that would back up our prejudices.

'What would you do if. . .' is clearly and obviously asking for a hypothetical answer, but posts on the lines of * 'The school is private so can have its own ethos and some parents want their children educated to be able to tell teachers what to do and this is what is behind the incident . . . . '

*I am not trawling back to find exact words, but this is not twisting the meaning of what was said - I know Glorianny's MO on things like this so got in first

VioletSky

Can we just get on board with not having double standards please

I'd rather not, but you crack on.

VioletSky

I don't think it was put to me as hypothetical at all, I just treated it like it was

Are you talking about the guidelines one? I said 'What would you do if the guidelines changed?' That is 100% hypothetical! Check out the 'if', if you remain unconvinced .

Glorianny says the head 'supervising' the apology was for the teacher's protection. If any of the girls lied to their parents about the apology she would be able to confirm that it was made and was sincere. This acknowledges that these girls might lie. Therefore do all the teachers at the school need a chaperone at all times in case a girl misrepresents them to their parents and they need backup as to the truth?
I have no problem with the teacher apologising in an appropriate way. I do have a problem that there would be any need to supervise that apology. I think she's been treated shabbily.

I'm pretty sure the question was put to you hypothetically VS.

I did have the same thought Rosie and if it was in anyway because the head thought the children would be less than honest, that wouldn't reflect very well on them would it, but of course we don't know.

I was thinking about this and if it were me I'd have refused to issue an apology in the presence of the head. If s/he thought it better for my protection, I'd have thanked them but insisted s/he not be there.

VioletSky

Can we just get on board with not having double standards please

🤣🤣🤣
You could start.

I agree, Rosie. As a union rep I saw cases where that sort of undermining of staff was treated as evidence of bullying and taken very seriously.

If we are being hypothetical, what might have worked better could have been for the teacher to be given the chance to explain firstly whether she had even known about the non-binary child, and if she had known, but had chosen not to choose a different word from 'girls' why she did so. The children need to learn that people disagree, and just because they hold a point of view doesn't entitle them to force everyone else to comply. It could have been done politely and reasonably, if each 'side' had been willing to listen to the other.

Also hypothetically, what about a girl in the class who doesn't believe in 'gender'? In Glorianny's fictional world where the school ethos dictates what can be said, would she be allowed to express an opinion? Would she dare to speak out even if it were allowed, given that teachers were forced into humiliating apologies?

I'm sure we could all invent scenarios that will lead nowhere, as they are not real, and therefore cannot be proven or disproved.

Doodledog

VioletSky

Can we just get on board with not having double standards please

I'd rather not, but you crack on.

. I meant that I'd rather not get on board with double standards, in case that's not clear

Cool doodledog keep your double standards

Mollygo wee I'm going to carry on bring polite so...

So "if" is the standard for hypothetical questions... I'm sure there have been plenty of ifs

Discussion or point scoring?

Up to you guys

I'm not keeping count

Cool doodledog keep your double standards

Can you please show me where I have double standards?

My question to you was hypothetical. That was obvious. My last post posed other hypothetical questions, which I think are interesting, but I'm not pretending are what happened, which is what Glorianny was doing. How is that double standards? Serious question.

Had I been the teacher I'd certainly have viewed the presence of the head as undermining my position in the school Doodledog which is why I wouldn't have agreed to it.

doodledog I eas answering your reply to me but you have now amended it so it no longer matters

I'm bored of the mind games for now

But as I always say, this is why the GC won't win

Catch you next thread, maybe things will change

I always hope so

It is so funny that the only way people can justify their views is by telling me how I have misunderstood them or how I create hypothetical cases. The concept of private education which has a differing ethos to state education isn't hypothetical it is fact

Rosie51 and Smileless2012 Nowhere in my posts do I say or indicate that children might lie. I did say that the children might report that they were not satisfied with the apology and didn't think it was genuine. That is not lying.
The fact that you think children would have to lie shows more about your attitude to children than anything. It isn't something which entered my head.
An apology would be appreciated.

All I have gathered from this thread is that people either have little knowledge about alternative education or find it so difficult to understand that they can't even imagine how it works.

There is nothing humiliating about apologising no matter who is present. If you are wrong you should say so. Children appreciate honesty and show more respect to teachers who are honest. I have often apologised to children.

And head teachers are in classrooms assessing teachers and monitoring their work all the time. It's a normal part of school life and not humiliating, unusual or personal.

I haven't said that you did say or indicate the children might lie Glorianny so there's nothing to apologise for. That was a topic of conversation between myself and Rosie. Neither myself or Rosie said we thought the "children would have to lie" and I didn't use the word lie.

Once again you are not responding to what was actually said.

VioletSky

doodledog I eas answering your reply to me but you have now amended it so it no longer matters

I'm bored of the mind games for now

But as I always say, this is why the GC won't win

Catch you next thread, maybe things will change

I always hope so

Until you change, it’s unlikely. This GC argument you constantly use is your fantasy.
Your double standards are exactly that and you don’t acknowledge them, even as you accuse others.
Then your cute little I have a DAY, I’m bored of mind games for now, and your occasional untrue leaving statements all make it difficult to have a sensible discussion.

But I enjoy watching it.

It is so funny that the only way people can justify their views is by telling me how I have misunderstood them or how I create hypothetical cases. The concept of private education which has a differing ethos to state education isn't hypothetical it is fact.

Is it funny? I don't really understand your sense of humour, but each to her own.

I do't think you misunderstand, I think you twist. There is a huge difference. You have created a hypothetical case, unless you have access to more information than the rest of us, that you have failed to share. The fact that private schools can have their own ethos is fact, but irrelevant to this discussion insofar as we don't know what the ethos of the school was.

If it turns out to be a creationist school, do you think the ethos would be one in which teachers would be encouraged to affirm a child's rejection of her girlhood?

Doodledog Please, please don't hold your breath for any meaningful reply I fear you'll be dead long before!