Jump to content

The woke police going after nurse for believing in biology


Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Here's a more objective news (not opinion) article on what happened.

I'm on the fence here.  There are a number of factors.  What do you think that they are?

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/bc-news/bc-terf-nurse-faces-hearing-over-alleged-transgender-discrimination-5848264

Yup you’re fence-sitting.  This is exactly why these regulatory bodies are able to get away with overreach and why our speech is getting more and more restricted.  It basically means you’re not to question practices that you think are unethical.  It’s poor to think that’s okay.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yup you’re fence-sitting.  This is exactly why these regulatory bodies are able to get away with overreach and why our speech is getting more and more restricted.  It basically means you’re not to question practices that you think are unethical.  It’s poor to think that’s okay.  

Well, let's start by answering my question: what are the factors to be weighed here ?  What are the principles ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, herbie said:

And when it comes to employers and professional associations that's not ever going to happen. So stop whining that someone else's problem with one is impinging on your "rights" and implying the gov't has something to do with it.

If you have a problem with 'woke' then go back to sleep.

Small-minded, hypocritical leftists argued that people should be allowed to wear slogans at work and kneel when the anthem is played, but now you guys don't respect this woman's right to have a sensible opinion, regarding her own safety, in her free time.

You're a weird mix of anarchy and fascism.

FYI her employer has absolutely no grounds for even opining on her decision to help pay for that billboard. Even asking her to stop paying for the blllboard would have been beyond the pale. For them to threaten her livelihood is a huge mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, let's start by answering my question: what are the factors to be weighed here ?  What are the principles ?

The article you posted from the Vancouver website doesn't say what the discriminatory and derogatory statements are.  Do we actually know what they are, from any source?

I don't think supporting J.K Rowling should meet the requirements.

My views on Trans ideology would probably be considered discriminatory and derogatory by some:

A man is not a woman just because he says he is.

When rights collide, and a choice is necessary, I support those women who want to keep biological males out of their spaces.

No trans woman who went through puberty as a male should be allowed to participate in women's sports. (with exceptions for where size and strength are not an issue.  I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'm sure there must be some)

Trans people should not suffer discrimination because they are trans, but some things are just part of being what you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

1. The article you posted from the Vancouver website doesn't say what the discriminatory and derogatory statements are.  Do we actually know what they are, from any source?

 

1. They didn't quote the posts, you're right.  It was said that they were 'social media posts'.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are allowed opinions. Professionals are allowed to express their opinions in public. In this world now nobody has a) the full knowledge of ultimate truth and b) the mandate or monopoly for the ultimate truth.

There's no "consensuses of experts", only groups and cliques hiding behind general terms. The only misbehavior that needs to be regulated is:

- a deliberate and conscious act or advice,

- on behalf of a practicing professional in the profession,

that is harmful or incompetent, from the perspective of a common professional,

if it can be determined.

"I'm a doctor and I don't believe everyone should be Covid-vaccinated" is an opinion. People are entitled to opinions.

"I'm a doctor and I don't believe immuno-compromised should be Covid-vaccinated because it's not clear to me..." is still an opinion. People are entitled to opinions. Opinions can be wrong, by some study or some experts. But no study is final and people are entitled to their opinions.

"I'm a doctor and I advise or prescribe anybody to not do or etc" is a potentially harmful incompetent advice that may constitute malpractice. Shades and essence matters.

But our authoritarian bodies imitate and copycat our in essence, authoritarian, for the reasons of absence or real accountability and independent checks, governments. They simply wouldn't know where to stop themselves tell themselves: stop right here; this is none of my business.

Pigs cannot control their trough fairly and objectively, only a proven scientific fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Here's a more objective news (not opinion) article on what happened.

I'm on the fence here.  There are a number of factors.  What do you think that they are?

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/bc-news/bc-terf-nurse-faces-hearing-over-alleged-transgender-discrimination-5848264

We have a shortage of nurses due to covid overwork so at the very least delay all this inquisition stuff by 5 years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No.  She made comments under her name, identifying as a registered professional.

So what?  What do her personal comments on gender/biology have to do with her job?

The news website you yourself gave said:

"Bildy says it is her understanding the citation against Hamm has nothing to do with her workplace or professional activities, but rather a result of apparent complaints from members of the public who disagreed with Hamm’s views."

She is being investigated and dragged before the College of nursing because of complaints from some non-patients who believe she should be silenced and believe she doesn't have freedom to state she believes in biology and only two sexes. 

These are obviously complaints made by woke activists, possibly some trans activists who want to silence everyone in society from being able to express any views contrary to theirs.   

The whole thing was initiated by progressive politics that has taken over many professional institutions and societies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but a guy is not a woman just because he grows his hair longer. You want to be transgender? Cut your dick and balls off. Go through the operation. Looking like an obese lumberjack badly in need of a haircut doesn't make you a woman. Pretending you're a woman as an excuse/explanation for your failed life should not require anyone else to 'respect' your view of yourself. This guy has no business in a change room with young girls.

And the idea anyone saying so would be accused of some kind of bigotry or unprofessionalism is gobsmackingly crazy.

https://www.cheknews.ca/transgender-woman-told-she-is-not-allowed-to-use-women-only-gym-in-parksville-1134924/

 

Edited by I am Groot
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Sorry but a guy is not a woman just because he grows his hair longer. You want to be transgender? Cut your dick and balls off. Go through the operation. Looking like an obese lumberjack badly in need of a haircut doesn't make you a woman. Pretending you're a woman as an excuse/explanation for your failed life should not require anyone else to 'respect' your view of yourself. This guy has no business in a change room with young girls.

And the idea anyone saying so would be accused of some kind of bigotry or unprofessionalism is gobsmackingly crazy.

https://www.cheknews.ca/transgender-woman-told-she-is-not-allowed-to-use-women-only-gym-in-parksville-1134924/

 

Not to mention that it’s damaging women’s sports and making it very hard to provide mentoring to boys and girls who are now to be referred to as “friends” or some other non-binary nomenclature.  Confusing and destabilizing. Impressionable children don’t need this messaging.  If your dysphoria is that strong and lasting, you can go under the knife as an adult and use hormone blockers and supplements as you wish.  Just be wary of lasting side effects.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

And the idea anyone saying so would be accused of some kind of bigotry or unprofessionalism is gobsmackingly crazy.

I mean, I get that you think that way.  But the world , and more specifically Canadian Law, does accept this.

So what factors do you think should be considered in such cases, accepting that we have the law in place ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a complex issue of a very complex relation between self-identification and deeply established social norms that our chainsaw goodness trigger-happy government may have blundered into without a moment's reflection because they have nothing else left to do (or nothing else works anymore). No happy outcomes in such cases I'm afraid. Hundred years back it was new and progressive school system.

"For their own good".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I mean, I get that you think that way.  But the world , and more specifically Canadian Law, does accept this.

So what factors do you think should be considered in such cases, accepting that we have the law in place ?

Citizens have the right to opinions, be they nurses, teachers, psychologists, etc.  There may be very different opinions about a wide range of issues among members of a profession and that’s perfectly fine.  Professional regulatory bodies don’t have the latitude to dictate opinion or prevent a member from commenting on a particular issue unless it is a clear and highly impactful contradiction of the professional standards.  If anything, it’s highly arguable that this nurse is defending the nursing and medical profession from pseudoscience.  She certainly hasn’t said anything that isn’t true where claims of fact are concerned.  Where facts don’t come into play, one is entitled to opinions, including ones that many people don’t like.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see how a woman fared under similar circumstances in the UK.....

from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (excerpts, link provided below)

In December of 2019, Harry Potter author, J.K. Rowling, spoke up on Twitter in defense of a British woman, Maya Forstater, whose employment contract was terminated because she, too, expressed gender critical views. Following her tweet, Ms. Rowling was accused of “transphobia”, denounced by many celebrities—including some of those who were made wealthy by her books—and suffered a deluge of vile social media abuse.

In response to the tempest over Ms. Rowling, nurse Amy Hamm co-sponsored the installation of a Vancouver billboard ad in September 2020, which simply proclaimed “I ♥ JK Rowling”.

Shortly thereafter, a self-proclaimed “social justice activist” complained to the BCCNM that Amy Hamm’s alleged “transphobia” made her unsuited to her career as a nurse and called for Ms. Hamm’s removal from her current and future nursing positions. A second anonymous complaint was also submitted to the College, which accused Ms. Hamm of “promoting and stoking hate speech towards trans and gender‐diverse communities”.

Meanwhile in the UK, Ms. Forstater’s case at the employment tribunal was initially lost on the basis that her gender critical perspective— essentially that biological sex is real, important, immutable, and not to be conflated with gender identity—was not a protected belief. The tribunal had found that gender critical beliefs were “not worthy of respect in a democratic society.” Ms. Forstater appealed the decision, and last month was vindicated by a judge who ruled that Ms. Forstater’s gender critical beliefs, which were widely shared, including by respected academics, and which did not seek to destroy the rights of trans persons but only to protect the rights of biological females, were entitled to protection under the UK Equality Act.

https://www.jccf.ca/court_cases/bc-college-of-nurses-and-midwives-v-amy-hamm/

Edited by suds
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. Citizens have the right to opinions, be they nurses, teachers, psychologists, etc.  There may be very different opinions about a wide range of issues among members of a profession and that’s perfectly fine.  
2. Professional regulatory bodies don’t have the latitude to dictate opinion or prevent a member from commenting on a particular issue unless it is a clear and highly impactful contradiction of the professional standards.  
3. If anything, it’s highly arguable that this nurse is defending the nursing and medical profession from pseudoscience.  She certainly hasn’t said anything that isn’t true where claims of fact are concerned.  
4. Where facts don’t come into play, one is entitled to opinions, including ones that many people don’t like.  

1. Yes, I agree that's one point.
2. Well, this regulatory body think that that happened, obviously but ok...
3. Without her Tweets in hand, we'll have to see.  But even if it's only opinions they can say it reflects on the profession.
4. Kind of point 1 again - but ok we have one:

"People have the right to opinions"

Can you think of some opinions that people would make that make the profession look bad ?  Maybe some moral misstep ?  I'll bet if somebody Tweeted that "White people are the devil" or somesuch people would get upset... 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, suds said:

  Ms. Forstater appealed the decision, and last month was vindicated by a judge who ruled that Ms. Forstater’s gender critical beliefs, which were widely shared, including by respected academics, and which did not seek to destroy the rights of trans persons but only to protect the rights of biological females, were entitled to protection under the UK Equality Act.

All true - except this happened in July 2022.  Not sure how long these beliefs will be protected for though.  At some point, the moral sphere squashes individual rights.  Any idea that the courts are sacrosanct is a little rosy IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes, I agree that's one point.
2. Well, this regulatory body think that that happened, obviously but ok...
3. Without her Tweets in hand, we'll have to see.  But even if it's only opinions they can say it reflects on the profession.
4. Kind of point 1 again - but ok we have one:

"People have the right to opinions"

Can you think of some opinions that people would make that make the profession look bad ?  Maybe some moral misstep ?  I'll bet if somebody Tweeted that "White people are the devil" or somesuch people would get upset... 
 

I actually don’t care if people tweet or write “hate speech”. I mean I don’t like it, but sticks and stones. Banning language brings bigger problems. Generally people should be able to say just about whatever they want unless it incites violence or crime. I’m against racism, but I certainly don’t think that banning insults, including racist ones, is the way to end racism. The forbidden fruit (banned speech) is always fetishized. I do agree that certain speech and opinions that don’t directly relate to the professional knowledge and skills may reflect negatively on the practice or profession as a whole, but the burden should be high to demonstrate such damage.  In most cases such remarks may upset people or make someone unpopular within a profession among colleagues and/or outside it among the public, which is fine.  We don’t all have to agree on everything.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

All true - except this happened in July 2022.  Not sure how long these beliefs will be protected for though.  At some point, the moral sphere squashes individual rights.  Any idea that the courts are sacrosanct is a little rosy IMO.

Who gets to decide what a 'protected belief' is, and what is not? Who gets to decide what is 'worthy of respect in a democratic society' and what is not? In my opinion, truth is above all else.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you a member of a professional association? If not the YOU don't get to decide the rules of membership. And YOU don't have to agree with them, and THEY don't care.

Members of many are not allowed to speak out publicly and identify as members of that specific organization. Or publicly criticize that organization. Or deviate even slightly from their rules of conduct.

You're all whining about things that don't affect you and acting as if they do. To the point of griping about traditions as 'wokeness', something that seems to be an obsession with some of you.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, herbie said:

1. Who gets to decide what a 'protected belief' is, and what is not? Who gets to decide what is 'worthy of respect in a democratic society' and what is not? In my opinion, truth is above all else.

2. 
Are you a member of a professional association?

3. If not the YOU don't get to decide the rules of membership. And YOU don't have to agree with them, and THEY don't care.

4. Members of many are not allowed to speak out publicly and identify as members of that specific organization. Or publicly criticize that organization. Or deviate even slightly from their rules of conduct.

5. You're all whining about things that don't affect you and acting as if they do.

6. To the point of griping about traditions as 'wokeness', something that seems to be an obsession with some of you.

1. As I intimated, I believe it's done in the moral sphere ultimately.
2. Yes.
3. Of course.
4. Of course
5. I am not.
6. I'm trying to articulate the lines upon which we could agree a fair decision could be considered.  We won't agree on the decisions but we might be able to agree on the points that go into a decision.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, herbie said:

Are you a member of a professional association? If not the YOU don't get to decide the rules of membership. And YOU don't have to agree with them, and THEY don't care.

Members of many are not allowed to speak out publicly and identify as members of that specific organization. Or publicly criticize that organization. Or deviate even slightly from their rules of conduct.

You're all whining about things that don't affect you and acting as if they do. To the point of griping about traditions as 'wokeness', something that seems to be an obsession with some of you.

I’m a member of one, yes.  It’s very dangerous to give wide latitude to small committees to dictate policies and procedures with major impacts in the organization and society at large.  Such P and P must be circumscribed or limited.  You don’t want the Vanguard Politburo running your life.  Well maybe you do.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...