And scholars are a law unto themselves individually, not a law unto themselves collectively with a collective responsibility to police one another's speech. It's called "academic freedom"; the SCOTUS has ruled that the 1st Amendment protects it. Scholars are allowed to teach their own beliefs as facts even when you or the majority of other scholars disagree with them. Some other professor's public sociology class is not your private property; neither is it your ideological team's public property. It's the property of the public, and the public has elected to fund colleges where academic freedom is practiced instead of funding madrassas where a ruling class's orthodoxy is preached without challenge from dissidents.
Who said otherwise? I have always been a firm defender of academic freedom, and I know very few professors who would disagree with anything you write here. I certainly do not. Teaching pseudoscience is morally wrong, but I said nothing about censoring it. Despite what your right wing buddies would have you believe, simply disagreeing with someone is not "censoring" or "canceling" them.
The heck are you on about? I don't have any right wing buddies who'd have me believe simply disagreeing with someone is "censoring" or "canceling" them.
Your blatant hypocrisy aside, the fact that you preached that scholars ought not to be allowed to teach the opinion that H. sapiens lacks "true hermaphrodites" in a public sociology class establishes that you do not, in point of fact, always choose freedom. You're loyal to the ideology that academics should be free to agree with you.
There is a HUGE difference between "ought not" and "ought not be allowed".
You wrote "They are free to do as they like within their congregations or in their kitchens, but not in a public sociology class." and "You cannot teach those beliefs as facts." If you intended to express "nothing about censoring it", but only "ought not", well, the way to do that was to say "They are free to do as they like within a public sociology class, but ought not." and "You ought not teach those beliefs as facts." Are you unfamiliar with what "free to" and "cannot" mean in English? And why do you keep bringing up their congregations and kitchens and "a
private school that teaches your wacky religion", except to contrast a place where you ought be allowed with one where you ought not be allowed? After all, you "ought not" teach your wacky religion even in a private school. Wacky religions are parasites on the human nervous system, so you ought not to infect people with them any more than you ought to give a guy tapeworms to help him lose weight.
If Emily and Seanie understand that distinction, we'd have nothing to discuss in this thread.
I lost you. What did Emily and seanie say that implies they don't understand it?
So what? How the bejesus do you figure "If you hire that transwoman onto your board of directors, we the government will not count that appointment toward your 50%-women hiring quota. You'll have to hire another biological woman too." has the mystical power to stop that person from identifying as female?
No, it has legal power. Do you seriously not understand the difference between mysticism and the law?
Do you seriously not understand sarcasm? Fine. How the bejesus do you figure "If you hire that transwoman onto your board of directors, we the government will not count that appointment toward your 50%-women hiring quota. You'll have to hire another biological woman too." has the
legal power to stop that person from identifying as female? And if you imagine you live in some fantasy world where it has that legal power, how the bejesus do you figure "If you hire that transwoman onto your board of directors, we the government will not count that appointment toward your 50%-women hiring quota. You'll have to hire another biological woman too." has the
physical power to stop that person from identifying as female?
