I called a trans boy a girl by mistake... and it may cost me my job as a teacher: Maths tutor suspended after praising pupil using the wrong gender

First topic message reminder :

A teacher has been suspended and could face the sack after he ‘accidentally’ called a transgender pupil a ‘girl’ in class when the student identifies as a boy.
Joshua Sutcliffe, 27, who teaches maths at a state secondary school in Oxfordshire, said ‘Well done girls’ to the teenager and a friend when he spotted them working hard. 
He apologised when corrected by the pupil, but six weeks later he was suspended from teaching after the pupil’s mother lodged a complaint.
Following an investigation, he has been summoned to a formal disciplinary hearing this week to face misconduct charges for ‘misgendering’.


According to documents seen by The Mail on Sunday, he also faces claims that he is breaching equality policies by referring to the pupil by name rather than as ‘he’ or ‘him’.
The £30,000-a-year teacher said he was ‘distraught’ and had been reduced to tears as teaching was his life, and he branded the actions of the school as ‘political correctness gone mad’.
Mr Sutcliffe, a maths graduate who gained his teaching qualifications at Exeter University, said he had no official instructions about how to address the student, but along with other staff decided to use the pupil’s chosen first name. 
However, he has admitted that, as a Christian, he avoided using male pronouns such as ‘he’ and ‘him’.
He believed this was consistent with the school’s code of conduct and equality policies to show respect and tolerance, and he said he had encountered no problems with this.

He was told to come to the school and sit in the staff room preparing work, but he was not allowed to discuss the situation with colleagues. He said he thought no more about the incident until the week before last when, after a parents’ evening, he was unexpectedly called to the head’s office to be told there had been a ‘transgender complaint’ against him and that he was suspended from teaching while it was investigated.
He later discovered that the pupil’s family had claimed he had not only ‘misgendered’ the pupil but had unfairly given the pupil a disproportionate number of detentions for poor behaviour, though this later claim was not upheld during the investigation.
It is understood that the family’s main concern was that Mr Sutcliffe was picking on their child and they would not have complained about misgendering on its own as they are supporters of free speech.


Mr Sutcliffe said: ‘I was absolutely shocked to be told by the head that I was under investigation. I didn’t know what was happening. It was surreal, Kafkaesque. 


'I said it was only one incident for which I had apologised, but he insisted the investigation would go ahead.
‘I had always tried to respect the pupil and keep a professional attitude as well as my integrity, but it seemed to me that the school was trying to force me to adhere to its liberal, Leftish agenda.’


Mr Sutcliffe assumed the investigation would be brief and he would soon be back in the classroom, but he was questioned for an hour on the day after the meeting with the head and again last Monday, and was then sent a letter telling him to attend a formal disciplinary hearing this Wednesday, attended by the head and three governors.


He said: ‘I have never been trained to deal with this sort of thing. I felt completely out of my depth and intimidated.’



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5073511/Teacher-suspended-praising-pupil-using-wrong-gender.html

smelly-bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:
misdirection

So I shall ask again

If you meet someone and refer to them based on assumption they are a girl. They then correct you and inform you they are a boy.

Would you continue to call them a girl or a boy?

You can ask as many times as you want, the answer isn't going to change.

If I'm assuming a person is female its because they conform to my understanding of what a female is.

Don't know how to say it more clear than that to be honest

So you cannot answer a simple question.

So what if I was to assumed you are gay, based on your femine voice.

You corrected me and said you were hetrosexual.

Would you be pissed, if I continued to call you gay?

The reality is, its people like you that are the problem.

As is it unreasonable to class a child that may have gender dysphoria the gender they class themselves as?

No

Oh dear you really are flagging here

Whenever people try to conflate homosexuality with transgenderism they have lost the argument.

The two are entirely separate issues and unrelated in anyway shape or form to each other and when you try to use homosexuality to explain or justify your ideas of transgenderism its means your ideas are bad.

Your view that a feminine voice is a characteristic of homosexuality is massively bigoted and offensive to gays everywhere,not to mention ill-informed and very ignorant.

I think what you are asking is if I saw hagrid form Harry Potter would I assume he was male??

Yes I would

Would I address him as susan if he told me his name as susan?

Yes I would

Would I believe he was a woman if he said he was??

No I wouldn't

Does that answer your question

smelly-bandit wrote:Oh dear you really are flagging here

Whenever people try to conflate homosexuality with transgenderism they have lost the argument.

The two are entirely separate issues and unrelated in anyway shape or form to each other and when you try to use homosexuality to explain or justify your ideas of transgenderism its means your ideas are bad.

Your view that a feminine voice is a characteristic of homosexuality is massively bigoted and offensive to gays everywhere,not to mention ill-informed and very ignorant.

I think what you are asking is if I saw hagrid form Harry Potter would I assume he was male??

Yes I would

Would I address him as susan if he told me his name as susan?

Yes I would

Would I believe he was a woman if he said he was??

No I wouldn't

Does that answer your question

So you now decicde an argument based on nothing I actually conflated

There are seperate issues.

My views though as based on how you came across to me.

Or did that point going so far over your head, its hurdled the moon?

You then think I would think that myself, when I used this as an example, to then you claim I am a bigot.

That shows you are running scared smelly, as people do wrongly assume someone is gay based off them being effeminate.

So your last point is very telling

You are saying that gender dysphoria does not exist

Does then not gender ever really exist by your reasoning?

As what does it really mean to be male or female?

Also you never answerd my question on knowing they class themselves as a boy

I asked you based on your error, no matter if you thought as them as female, would you continue to refer to them as female, when they could well have gender dysphoria?

Here is what i said, and which you keep avoding answering

If you meet someone and refer to them based on assumption they are a girl. They then correct you and inform you they are a boy.

Would you continue to call them a girl or a boy?

Didge wrote:Also you never answerd my question on knowing they class themselves as a boy

I asked you based on your error, no matter if you thought as them as female, would you continue to refer to them as female, when they could well have gender dysphoria?

Here is what i said, and which you keep avoding answering

If you meet someone and refer to them based on assumption they are a girl. They then correct you and inform you they are a boy.

Would you continue to call them a girl or a boy?

Fucking hellfire!!!

This is why people avoid you didge.

You ask a question, you get your answers, you don't like the answers so you keep asking the question in the hopes of getting a different answer

smelly-bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:Also you never answerd my question on knowing they class themselves as a boy

I asked you based on your error, no matter if you thought as them as female, would you continue to refer to them as female, when they could well have gender dysphoria?

Here is what i said, and which you keep avoding answering

If you meet someone and refer to them based on assumption they are a girl. They then correct you and inform you they are a boy.

Would you continue to call them a girl or a boy?

Fucking hellfire!!!

This is why people avoid you didge.

You ask a question, you get your answers, you don't like the answers so you keep asking the question in the hopes of getting a  different answer

More misdirection

You never answered the question.

Its very simple

You meet a person which we will call A.

You think that person is B, based on their appearance.

The person A corrects you and states they are not B, but A.

Will you continue to call them B, after they have stated they are A?

Yes or no, for the countless times asking?

Didge wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Fucking hellfire!!!

This is why people avoid you didge.

You ask a question, you get your answers, you don't like the answers so you keep asking the question in the hopes of getting a  different answer

More misdirection

You never answered the question.

Its very simple

You meet a person which we will call A.

You think that person is B, based on their appearance.

The person A corrects you and states they are not B, but A.

Will you continue to call them B, after they have stated they are A?

Yes or no, for the countless times asking?

That doesn't really mean anything

What is A and what is B??

You can't throw a piece of crap like that our there without any other detail.

Is person A John who looks like his twin brother person B Mike and you're asking me if I called him Mike but he told me he was John would I continue to call him Mike??

No of course not

smelly-bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


More misdirection

You never answered the question.

Its very simple

You meet a person which we will call A.

You think that person is B, based on their appearance.

The person A corrects you and states they are not B, but A.

Will you continue to call them B, after they have stated they are A?

Yes or no, for the countless times asking?

That doesn't really mean anything

What is A and what is B??

You can't throw a piece of crap like that our there without any other detail.

Is person A John who looks like his twin brother person B Mike and you're asking me if I called him Mike but he told me he was John would I continue to call him Mike??

No of course not

Ah so more excuses not to answer

Okay lets put it this way

A is South African

B is Dutch

In your own time

Didge wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

That doesn't really mean anything

What is A and what is B??

You can't throw a piece of crap like that our there without any other detail.

Is person A John who looks like his twin brother person B Mike and you're asking me if I called him Mike but he told me he was John would I continue to call him Mike??

No of course not

Ah so more excuses not to answer

Okay lets put it this way

A is South African

B is Dutch

In your own time

Since when is it possible to tell a person's nationality based on appearance alone.


This is getting stupid

smelly-bandit wrote:I identify as an attack helicopter.

People on here refuse to acknowledge my new identity

Transphobes

But we have accepted it. We have you a new title and everything!

smelly-bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


Ah so more excuses not to answer

Okay lets put it this way

A is South African

B is Dutch

In your own time

Since when is it possible to tell a person's nationality based on appearance alone.


This is getting stupid

Based on accents by any chance?

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:I identify as an attack helicopter.

People on here refuse to acknowledge my new identity

Transphobes

But we have accepted it. We have you a new title and everything!

I now identify as a challenger 2 tank

Respect my identity you Transphobe.

Didge wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:



Since when is it possible to tell a person's nationality based on appearance alone.


This is getting stupid

Based on accents by any chance?

You've changed the criteria of your own question

First it's appearance now it accent

Make up your mind, and what does this have to do with transgenderism??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


Based on accents by any chance?

You've changed the criteria of your own question  

First it's appearance now it accent

Make up your mind, and what does this have to do with transgenderism??

I knew you would fall into this trap

Are you claiming an accent, is not a form of appearance?

take your time mate

Didge wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

You've changed the criteria of your own question  

First it's appearance now it accent

Make up your mind, and what does this have to do with transgenderism??

I knew you would fall into this trap

Are you claiming an accent, is not a form of appearance?

take your time mate

Bwhahahahahahhaahahahahahaha

smelly-bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


I knew you would fall into this trap

Are you claiming an accent, is not a form of appearance?

take your time mate

Bwhahahahahahhaahahahahahaha

I knew you would have no answer, ha ha ha

As you know an accent is a form of appearance.

I have missed our bouts mate

More because you always try and for that i commend your effort.

so what if the Dutchman and the south African are mute or don't talk to you??

what if you're deaf or are too far away to hear their accent but can see them?? how then does their accent affect their appearance

how then are you going to determine their nationality

you are thick as fuck

accent = vocal = hearing

appearance = visual = vision

not at all the same thing

this is what quill was on about didge, you divert from the main thread to rant about weird questions and examples

what does a south Africans accent have to do with transgenderism??

your question is stupid and makes no sense.

smelly-bandit wrote:so what if the Dutchman and the south African are mute or don't talk to you??

what if you're deaf or are too far away to hear their accent but can see them?? how then does their accent affect their appearance

how then are you going to determine their nationality

you are thick as fuck

accent = vocal = hearing

appearance = visual = vision

not at all the same thing

this is what quill was on about didge, you divert from the main thread to rant about weird questions and examples

what does a south Africans accent have to do with transgenderism??

your question is stupid and makes no sense.

Oh dear

So you clearly admit then that accent is a form of appearance then smelly?

It clearly must do by your hysterics answer

Ben Reilly wrote:Nobody who makes an innocent mistake should be fired.

That said, why the fuck should anybody give a shit whether a boy feels like a girl or a girl feels like a boy? Is it your business? Is it your life. Fucking no. It's fucking not.

You call it perverted. You know what I think is perverted? This level of control you seem to desire to have over how other people live their lives and feel about who they are. You're NOT THEM. You DON'T GET A SAY. So just fucking shut up about it!

The teacher shouldn't be fired, in fact he shouldn't be under any 'investigation' at all...!


And he didn't make any mistake... he referred to two girls as 'girls'... nothing wrong with that at all...!


Like you say...

'...why the fuck should anybody give a shit whether a boy feels like a girl or a girl feels like a boy? Is it your business? Is it your life. Fucking no. It's fucking not...'


...and I agree!


Why should this teacher (or anyone else) 'give a shit whether a boy feels like a girl or a girl feels like a boy'...!?


And why should anyone be made to feel like they have to give a shit and pussy foot around people and things we don't give a shit about...!?


So what that this girl child said she thought she felt like a boy sometimes...!?


Why should anyone have to give a shit about that...!?


Why should this teacher have to even know about it, let alone 'give a shit' about it, while giving a maths class...!?


'...why the fuck should anybody give a shit whether a boy feels like a girl or a girl feels like a boy?...'


That is what the school should be saying to the girl & her parent/s...!!!

That's a great point, Englebert. I didn't think of it that way

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Nobody who makes an innocent mistake should be fired.

That said, why the fuck should anybody give a shit whether a boy feels like a girl or a girl feels like a boy? Is it your business? Is it your life. Fucking no. It's fucking not.

You call it perverted. You know what I think is perverted? This level of control you seem to desire to have over how other people live their lives and feel about who they are. You're NOT THEM. You DON'T GET A SAY. So just fucking shut up about it!

The teacher shouldn't be fired, in fact he shouldn't be under any 'investigation' at all...!


And he didn't make any mistake... he referred to two girls as 'girls'... nothing wrong with that at all...!


Like you say...

'...why the fuck should anybody give a shit whether a boy feels like a girl or a girl feels like a boy? Is it your business? Is it your life. Fucking no. It's fucking not...'


...and I agree!


Why should this teacher (or anyone else) 'give a shit whether a boy feels like a girl or a girl feels like a boy'...!?


And why should anyone be made to feel like they have to give a shit and pussy foot around people and things we don't give a shit about...!?


So what that this girl child said she thought she felt like a boy sometimes...!?


Why should anyone have to give a shit about that...!?


Why should this teacher have to even know about it, let alone 'give a shit' about it, while giving a maths class...!?


'...why the fuck should anybody give a shit whether a boy feels like a girl or a girl feels like a boy?...'


That is what the school should be saying to the girl & her parent/s...!!!

So what you are saying is that teachers should never respoect the students they teach


That they should not be impartial, but discriminate?


Correct?


If he made a mistake and no matter what he believed, answer me this


Would he tell a sikh student, his faith is bullshit, as teacher? Being as he is Christian?


Take your time?

Didge wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:so what if the Dutchman and the south African are mute or don't talk to you??

what if you're deaf or are too far away to hear their accent but can see them?? how then does their accent affect their appearance

how then are you going to determine their nationality

you are thick as fuck

accent = vocal = hearing

appearance = visual = vision

not at all the same thing

this is what quill was on about didge, you divert from the main thread to rant about weird questions and examples

what does a south Africans accent have to do with transgenderism??

your question is stupid and makes no sense.

Oh dear

So you clearly admit then that accent is a form of appearance then smelly?

It clearly must do by your hysterics answer

has neegan just hit you on the head with his bat or something??

or is this just a desperate attempt to backtrack?

you're boring now and just diverting away from the original thread issue, im not interested in your ramblings didge

smelly-bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


Oh dear

So you clearly admit then that accent is a form of appearance then smelly?

It clearly must do by your hysterics answer

has neegan just hit you on the head with his bat or something??

or is this just a desperate attempt to backtrack?  

you're boring now and just diverting away from the original thread issue, im not interested in your ramblings didge

Lots of deflection smelly

Are you claiming accents is not a form of appearance?>

Yes or no?

Didge wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

has neegan just hit you on the head with his bat or something??

or is this just a desperate attempt to backtrack?  

you're boring now and just diverting away from the original thread issue, im not interested in your ramblings didge

Lots of deflection smelly

Are you claiming accents is not a form of appearance?>

Yes or no?

no didge

a persons accent is not a form of appearance

what is going on??

is this a massive piss take or something??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


Lots of deflection smelly

Are you claiming accents is not a form of appearance?>

Yes or no?

no didge

a persons accent is not a form of appearance

what is going on??  

is this a massive piss take or something??

So you are saying that its not based on how people then know what part of the UK they come from.

So how do people know a white Irishman, from a Scotsman to a Londoner?

Is it based off thier accent?

A form of appearance by any chance smelly

Yes mate the piss take is on you, because if people heard you, its your accent, thus appearance with an accent, that would give away your ethnicity

Dont you look a twat

Ben Reilly wrote:That's a great point, Englebert. I didn't think of it that way

You really think so...!?





Who is 'Englebert'...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:That's a great point, Englebert. I didn't think of it that way

You really think so...!?





Who is 'Englebert'...?

Your step mum?

Appearance is visual.
Accent is aural.

eddie wrote:Appearance is visual.
Accent is aural.

So how do you perceive someone you have not met on accents eddie?

Oh no no no didge

You stated APPEARANCE as in visual.

Visually it is impossible to tell white Irishman, from a Scotsman to a Londoner.

It is possible to tell men and women apart on appearance alone though.

Sorry didge but screwed this one up royally

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:Appearance is visual.
Accent is aural.

So how do you perceive someone you have not met on accents eddie?

I'm not sure I understand your question, didge, but even the word "appearance" relates to the visual senses.
If you were to be asked about someone's appearance your answer would be totally based on what you saw not what you heard. I don't know why you're arguing the point.

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:
So how do you perceive someone you have not met on accents eddie?

I'm not sure I understand your question, didge, but even the word "appearance" relates to the visual senses.
If you were to be asked about someone's appearance your answer would be totally based on what you saw not what you heard. I don't know why you're arguing the point.

How do you perceive someone Eddie

Can you picture someone on accents?

Yes or no?

No? Because I could hear a Scottish accent and the owner of the voice could well be a Pakistani, born and bred in Scotland.
No idea where you're going with this.

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:

I'm not sure I understand your question, didge, but even the word "appearance" relates to the visual senses.
If you were to be asked about someone's appearance your answer would be totally based on what you saw not what you heard. I don't know why you're arguing the point.

How do you perceive someone Eddie

Can you picture someone on accents?

Yes or no?

Only If you have stereotypical images in your head

smelly-bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:

I'm not sure I understand your question, didge, but even the word "appearance" relates to the visual senses.
If you were to be asked about someone's appearance your answer would be totally based on what you saw not what you heard. I don't know why you're arguing the point.

How do you perceive someone Eddie

Can you picture someone on accents?

Yes or no?

Only If you have stereotypical images in your head

Well to be fair, that's what I was going to say but I have an actual example of someone I spoke to for a sky box recently. She was broad Scottish but she was ancestrally, a Pakistani.

eddie wrote:No? Because I could hear a Scottish accent and the owner of the voice could well be a Pakistani, born and bred in Scotland.
No idea where you're going with this.

Eh?

So what if that person wants to be defined as Scottish and yet you have defined him by his ethnicity?

Are you not denying him being scottish based off looks?

Does he have to be white to be Scotish Eddie?

Do you not see how racists use the same arguments?

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:
So how do you perceive someone you have not met on accents eddie?

I'm not sure I understand your question, didge, but even the word "appearance" relates to the visual senses.
If you were to be asked about someone's appearance your answer would be totally based on what you saw not what you heard. I don't know why you're arguing the point.

Unless it was an appearance on a radio show...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

eddie wrote:

I'm not sure I understand your question, didge, but even the word "appearance" relates to the visual senses.
If you were to be asked about someone's appearance your answer would be totally based on what you saw not what you heard. I don't know why you're arguing the point.

Unless it was an appearance on a radio show...?

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Only If you have stereotypical images in your head

Well to be fair, that's what I was going to say but I have an actual example of someone I spoke to for a sky box recently. She was broad Scottish but she was ancestrally, a Pakistani.  

Weird

But didge as usual screwed the pooch on this one.

He starts off with assuming a person is man or woman based on appearance then went wildly off course and started banging on about accents for some reason.

Not sure where he is going with this to be honest

Tommy Monk wrote:

eddie wrote:

I'm not sure I understand your question, didge, but even the word "appearance" relates to the visual senses.
If you were to be asked about someone's appearance your answer would be totally based on what you saw not what you heard. I don't know why you're arguing the point.

Unless it was an appearance on a radio show...?

So you are saying that a person needs to been seen to be scottish?

yes

That they then have to be classed as white?

I guess Eddie must be racist too, as what does appearance have on being scottish, when its a social contruct?

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


You really think so...!?





Who is 'Englebert'...?

Your step mum?

Is there really any need for that...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:


Your step mum?

Is there really any need for that...?

It was only a question?

What is wrong with that?

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:


Your step mum?

Is there really any need for that...?

It was only a question?

What is wrong with that?

Stop it didge. It wasnt a joke and it wasn't needed.

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:


It was only a question?

What is wrong with that?

Stop it didge. It wasnt a joke and it wasn't needed.

It was to me but fair enough and I apologise

Now how about you answer why you are being so unsubconciously racist

Why do you need to see someone to know they are Scottish?

I would have thought an accent was stronger than any claim to skin colouration

"unsubconciously racist"

There you go again. Every single week you call someone a racist.

You're like a verbal Groundhog Day. Bored now.

eddie wrote:"unsubconciously racist"

There you go again. Every single week you call someone a racist.

You're like a verbal Groundhog Day. Bored now.

You may disagree, but you have no comprehension that you are

Look back at my points

I will ask again

What does it take to be Scottish Eddie?

There is only one right answer

Unsubconciously

Is that even a word??

Where is Jules? See loves to pick people up for bad English

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:"unsubconciously racist"

There you go again. Every single week you call someone a racist.

You're like a verbal Groundhog Day. Bored now.

You may disagree, but you have no comprehension that you are

Look back at my points

I will ask again

What does it take to be Scottish Eddie?

There is only one right answer

To drink irn bru by the gallon??

Is there one right answer? Is there? Really? Says who? You? Are you the oracle on all things Scottish? Or just all things generally?

Didge. It's a really boring discussion if I'm honest.
You're arguing over the use of the word "appearance" and quite frankly, I kinda don't care enough to be sitting here discussing it and then be called a racist.

Get where I'm coming from? No?
Oh well.

eddie wrote:Is there one right answer? Is there? Really? Says who? You? Are you the oracle on all things Scottish? Or just all things generally?

Didge. It's a really boring discussion if I'm honest.
You're arguing over the use of the word "appearance" and quite frankly, I kinda don't care enough to be sitting here discussing it and then be called a racist.

Get where I'm coming from? No?
Oh well.

It maybe boring to you, but half my ancestry comes from Scotland, as my Irish Surname is Anderson

I asked you a simple question and you answered like a typical racist, sadly

You even admit you do not care

Teel that to those who do suffer racism

The fact is this, you placed a belief on what ethnic group people look like

Answer, that makes you racist

As there is no look eddie or accent

Oh well indeed