NY School Board: Students can’t transfer because of transexual teacher
Posted by BrianOnly in America’s government schools will you find such a story.
A New York state science teacher who taught for nine years as a man returned to Batavia High School this year dressed as a woman, and parents have been told their children can’t transfer out of class.
Certainly the man woman might be a fine and capable teacher, but that is not the point. Some parents have their own reasons for not wanting their children in the man’s woman’s class and they are denied their parental rights. Their reasons really aren’t important. The point is that they should have a say in who educates their children.
According to officials, Gender Identity Disorder (GID) is defined as a disability under New York’s Human Rights Law and is protected from discrimination. School rules support the law and forbid harassment based on someone’s disability.
That is almost funny.
Related content:
September 9th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Are they alleging that he is a lousy teacher? Is he hitting the kids?
Or they just don’t want their kids to be taught by a (certified teacher?) because he cross-dresses?
Sounds like the latter, and sounds like the school district is correct not to cave in to bigots.
Jonathan
September 9th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
You’ll notice that I didn’t imply that he-she was unqualified. It’s simply an observation that parents are denied the right to have a say in who educates their children.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
They should have such rights when? Against having their kid with a cross-dressing teacher? A gay? A Jew? A Black? A fat teacher? A sloppy teacher?
I don’t see any parental right here at all. If none exists, how could one be denied?
September 10th, 2006 at 2:55 am
Whatever the reason. The overarching objection isn’t about teacher qualifications, but whether it is appropriate for the government to override the parent’s desires with respect to who educates their children. To an extent I’m playing devil’s advocate because I personally want my children educated by the most qualified teachers - regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or fashion sense. You must understand that there are people, though, who have religious objections to homosexuality, for example. Is it appropriate for the government to tell them that they are not allowed to transfer their children to another school in order to comply with their religious beliefs? You may say yes, and you are more than entitled to your opinion. I think the government should not be able to do so.
To address one of your specific examples I might take umbrage at an obese person teaching a health class, but that is getting way into hypotheticals.
I suppose that technically speaking, parental rights haven’t been abridged because those parents are free to remove their children from the government school and send them to a private school. But considering they are paying for the government schools with their tax dollars they should have some input by virtue of their investment.
September 10th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
“You must understand that there are people, though, who have religious objections to homosexuality, for example.”
And there will be parents who have objections to Black teachers, or foreign teachers. Or old teachers. Bigotry exists, but our schools should not be prisoner to its dictates.
Parents send their kids to school, and the kids are appropriately educated. Something goes wrong with that, the parents have rights. If their kid needs to wear a cross or cover their head or avoid certain foods, fine. But if they use alleged religious beliefs to advance bigotry, well, Batavia already told them what they can do.
September 10th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
I assure you that there are people out there who would take considerable offense to you referring to their religious beliefs as “alleged.” Especially while at the same time you lend credence to other religious beliefs such as head coverings and food preferrences.
I think you are viewing this from a slightly different angle than I am. I am not advocating bigotry. You are aware that it is ok to argue in support of people whose beliefs you disagree with because of over arching concerns. The ACLU is often criticized for doing that very thing. The schools are operated by the government. The school board, acting as agents of the government, is telling people that their objections, which may be grounded in religious beliefs (I don’t know), don’t matter while simultaneously making exceptions for the religious beliefs of others.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
The process of relativism is continuing in our American educational system. “Who is to say if this transsexual in the classroom is right or wrong? There is no right or wrong so, get over your moralizing.” No wonder a thinking student asked me recently “why could not a teacher who engaged in pedophilia have the same rights that this transsexual teacher has?” From a relativistic framework, it will be permissible if the majority of the population expresses favor for the lifestyle of pedophilia.. Will we who hold to a Christian moral right or wrong be then called “bigots” if pedophilia ia allowed? If the relativist agrues against pedaphilia, on what grounds does he/she argue? To be consistent with their philosophy, there is no absolute right or wrong. So, the secularist could consistently reason, “let us invite any form of lifestyle into the secular classroom as long as the person is a “good teacher in their subject matter.”
September 12th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
“No wonder a thinking student asked me recently “why could not a teacher who engaged in pedophilia have the same rights that this transsexual teacher has?” ”
Perhaps you could have told him that pedophilia is illegal. Of course that would spoil the fun of going on an anti-secularist rant, but what’s facts when there’s an argument to be twisted?
September 13th, 2006 at 12:54 am
I think you may be missing Dr. Iamaio’s point, jd2718. When you state that pedophilia is illegal you aren’t looking past that fact at the underlying reason why it is illegal. Laws are merely an imposition of morality by government on the populace. Crimes such as murder, rape, and pedophilia are illegal because they are deemed immoral by the government. You may not have realized, but you were taking a moral stand in what I assume was your implicit agreement that pedophilia should be illegal.
I’ll venture slightly farther a field. What about marriage? Is it OK for two homosexuals who are in love to be married? Is it OK for a man to take on multiple wives? Is it OK for a grown man to marry a thirteen year old girl? I ask these somewhat rhetorical questions because the moral line demarking what is and is not acceptable in our society must be drawn somewhere. No matter how secular you think you are or how much you may despise Judeo-Christian beliefs you should realize that all laws are simply the result of our elected government setting the moral boundaries.
We have the option of living under total anarchy or defining socially acceptable moral rules. It is disingenuous to label someone a bigot based on where they believe the moral boundary should be set because unless you favor pure anarchy you have also set a seemingly arbitrary moral boundary that will exclude others.
September 14th, 2006 at 11:19 am
“It is disingenuous to label someone a bigot based on where they believe the moral boundary should be set…”
Bogotry is not based on ones beliefs? Or its not bigotry if you happen to agree with the bigots? (I know you said you don’t, but I am doubting that)
You wanted the individual parent to be able to draw the boundary, and enforce it on the school district. Talk about total anarchy vs socially accepted rules…. But of course you don’t want this right - remember you claimed they had a right to decide who teaches their kid? - of course you don’t want this right for all parents. Clearly you agree with these bigots.
September 14th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
jd2718,
Here is the definition of your favorite word for you, courtesy of dictionary.com:
big‧ot [big-uht] -noun, person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
You clearly are intolerant of the beliefs of Christians who may find certain “lifestyle choices” unacceptable. Some parents may want to shield their children from unconventional lifestyles, such as a man dressing like a woman, for their own wholly secular reasons; you are intolerant of them as well.
You apparently didn’t understand the point of what you quoted from my comment. It is disingenuous because bigotry is a two lane road. For example, neo-Nazis espouse very hateful words aimed at pretty much any non-Aryan looking people. They are bigots in that they are “utterly intolerant” of those people. Well, I am also a bigot because I am “utterly intolerant” of the hateful beliefs of the neo-Nazis. You would call a Christian who doesn’t want his/her children taught by a cross dresser a bigot, but you miss the irony of the fact that you are “utterly intolerant” of their beliefs - making you a bigot as well!
It should be noted that your style of discourse on this matter betrays an intellectual inferiority. When you say “clearly you agree with these bigots” you are attempting to impugn me and cast aside any rational thoughts I may have by labeling me a bigot. Calling someone a racist or a bigot is the argument of last resort. You know nothing about me. Although it is somewhat silly that I have to defend my personal character to discuss this issue, I’ll throw out one tidbit for you. My high school job, which I held for two years, was working at a movie theater that was owned and operated by an openly gay couple - a relatively rare thing in a small town in southern Alabama. This was over a decade ago - a lifetime in the respects of the social acceptability of homosexuals. Why did I work there? Because I didn’t care that they were gay. If I am such a bigot then why in the world would I voluntarily work with and for homosexuals three or four nights a week for two years when there were numerous other job opportunities for me?
I’m not asking for the school district to fire the man-woman teacher. I am just asking that they not dismiss the objections of parents to transfer their children to another class or school. My overarching concern, which I alluded to in a previous comment, is not to purge the education system of people whom may disagree with me - I’ll leave that to the Iranians. My goal is improving the education system through school choice. My reason is not so people can choose to send their kids to more religiously based schools, although I don’t have a problem with that because parents should ultimately have more say in their children’s education than the government. I truly believe that the best way to improve schools is the same way that all businesses improve - market forces. I singled out this story because it is an example of parents, who are paying for the school with their tax dollars, being told that the have no say in their children’s education. The fact that the argument is over a man-woman is somewhat inconsequential to me.
September 16th, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Hi Brian,
I am a freelance writer from NY, not far from Batavia. I came across your forum while looking up information for the Batavia case. I thought you may be interested in seeing what I wrote on this topic and listening to an interview. Both can be found on my site at: http://www.DebraJMSmith.com
Nice forum you have here.
Debra…