112
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
112 points (92.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43898 readers
1071 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Three links to the same story: letter recommends referring to all students as “they” and “them” to avoid “gendered pronouns” like “he” and “she.”
'Unrelated' Aftermath:
I've seen that story before, and it doesn't answer my question. I don't think this is an issue teachers can solve by malicious compliance doing the right thing. This is an issue that parents need to solve. Because the bill allows parents to sue (and therefore establish legal precedent), not teachers. If a teacher uses genderless language, as you say, they'll get fired. But if a parent sues a school for having the words he and she, and wins, it is now an incontrovertible part of the law that he and she are forbidden in Florida schools. This means teachers can no longer be punished for following the law, it means they have to follow the law, and this will have a much bigger impact on headlines due to its wider and firmer scope.
Why hasn't a parent done this?
Note that teachers have an open lawsuit. Specifically:
Because judges are people, not robots mindlessly applying legislation. To succeed in such case you need the judges on the trial and all appeals to all decide to maliciously comply with the law.
Or you need a lawyer to make the very easy case, and the judge to have a shred of integrity.
Why haven't they tried?
Because it's not a very easy case. In fact, there is no real case.