Jump to content

The woke police going after nurse for believing in biology


blackbird

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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

Back to my question: what are the factors to be considered ?

According to your article she helped fund a billboard in support of JK Rowling.. 

Seems petty, even vile, to cancel someone over that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, blackbird said:

It’s why homosexuality—a man lying with a man as with a woman (Lev. 18:22)—is wrong."

 

Leviticus also says my uniform that I wore for 25 years was an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. I worked on the Sabbath, for which, Leviticus said I should be put to death. I enjoy eating bacon. Leviticus says I will go to hell. I have never met an evangelical Christian who supported Leviticus except for his neurotic assessment of homosexuality.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

The BCCNM gets its authority through the B.C. Ministry of Health. No government oversight at all? What about unions? No nurse's unions out there? You might be absolutely right, but I find it amazing that this particular college has the ability to terminate the employment of whoever they want for whatever reason. Am I wrong? The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has this to say.... Furthermore, the Justice Centre submitted, the College is tasked with keeping patients safe and regulating the profession in the public interest, and not with giving social justice activists a tool for ‘cancelling’ people with whom they do not agree.  Comments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, West said:

That's what I see in the article... 

Here is the matter:

"The college says the complaints against Hamm stem from her identifying herself as a registered nurse while making public posts supporting biological females and criticizing transgender women. This, says the college, underpins the forthcoming hearing.

 

“Between approximately July 2018 and March 2021, you made discriminatory and derogatory statements regarding transgender people, while identifying yourself as a nurse or nurse educator. These statements were made across various online platforms, including but not limited to, podcasts, videos, published writings and social media,” states the citation."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Still looking for someone to provide a list of factors to consider in these cases.

I would think if a professional does something that is related to the performance of their job it matters.  If it has nothing to do with their job then it doesn't matter.  "Making the profession look bad" is totally subjective and not at all relevant, and why should anyone have to live their private lives under some draconian standards that have nothing to do with their jobs?

You're either a good nurse that does their job well and ethically and treats clients ethically or you don't.  Everything else is nonsense.  Why should anyone care what a nurse feels about JK Rowling?  What a waste of time.

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. I would think if a professional does something that is related to the performance of their job it matters.  If it has nothing to do with their job then it doesn't matter.  "Making the profession look bad" is totally subjective and not at all relevant, and why should anyone have to live their private lives under some draconian standards that have nothing to do with their jobs?

2. You're either a good nurse that does their job well and ethically and treats clients ethically or you don't.  Everything else is nonsense.  Why should anyone care what a nurse feels about JK Rowling?  What a waste of time.

1. So it sounds like you want to radically remake how professional organizations work. You want no moral code, no restrictions on speech... what about if people face unrelated sanctions like fraud ?  Is that ok ?  

You can answer, and then maybe explain how we are going to collectively experience what comes of this.

2. It didn't have anything to do with JK rowling.  I don't know how many times I have to say that on this thread.  I should count.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a real problem when professional organizations act outside of their mandate and try to dictate morality. I had the same issue with law societies when they refused to accredit TWU's law program because of its stance on LGBT students. The society's job is to evaluate programs on their merit, not enforce its own social position by punishing schools. 

As an agnostic who leans toward atheism I do not support TWU's position at all but the society's actions have nothing to do with the quality of law degrees the school offers. 

It seems very hypocritical to me that the court allows law societies to sanction TWU but still allows the University to discriminate against LGBT students. 

In both these situation we are seeing the cancel culture in action.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BCCNM received 2 anonymous complaints. One alleging that Hamm's transphobia made her 'unsuited to her career'. The other accusing her of promoting hate speech. I can't really comment on either complaint other than it is the duty of the BCCNM to take every complaint seriously. I have to question though why this is taking so long.

Edited by suds
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Leviticus also says my uniform that I wore for 25 years was an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. I worked on the Sabbath, for which, Leviticus said I should be put to death. I enjoy eating bacon. Leviticus says I will go to hell. I have never met an evangelical Christian who supported Leviticus except for his neurotic assessment of homosexuality.

I explained this countless times.  There were certain ceremonial laws in the Old Testament that only applied to Israel at that period of time several thousand years ago and never applied to the church which came into being 2,000 years ago.

There are some things that God opposes for all time, both in the Old Testament period and in the church age today.  Those are stated in the New Testament which was written after the church was started 2,000 years ago.  Romans ch.1 condemns homosexuality and that is addressed to the church.  I thought I quoted that to you recently.  So why do you ignore it and try make some convoluted argument that makes no sense biblically.  Michael doesn't care.  He will agree with you simply because he and you are both liberals and opposed to truth.   You have permission to wear whatever uniform you wish, eat bacon, and work on the Sabbath because those commands do not apply today in the church age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You want no moral code, no restrictions on speech...

Do you know how ludicrous that sounds to many people?   Whose morality are you talking about?  Progressives, LGBTQ+, liberal left Socialists, abortionists, supporters of assisted suicide or whose?   There is no morality apart from our historic Judeo-Christian culture and beliefs.  Many politicians and activists do not hold to historic Biblical morality.  Society is on a downward spiral as far as morality is concerned.   But you are OK with that?

It is also odd that you are in favour of restricting speech that disagrees with your concept of "morality".  Perhaps you would like Soviet or China's style of speech control.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. So it sounds like you want to radically remake how professional organizations work. You want no moral code, no restrictions on speech... what about if people face unrelated sanctions like fraud ?  Is that ok ?  

You can answer, and then maybe explain how we are going to collectively experience what comes of this.

2. It didn't have anything to do with JK rowling.  I don't know how many times I have to say that on this thread.  I should count.

1.  I didn't say no moral code or speech restrictions.  I said it has to relate someway to their ability to do their job well and do it ethically, treat clients ethically etc.  Being a fraudster might have something to do with their ability to do their job ethically, and treating clients ethically and whatnot and being put in a position of trust with clients, especially if you're an accountant or some other money professional.  Private opinions about trans rights doesn't fall under this from what I can see, unless there's something specific where it does apply.

2.  The person said trans stuff on twitter and whatnot, over a number of years?  This is my impression of what has happened.  How did what they do or say have any impact and the nurse's ability to do their job?  If this person said "I hate black people" and they have to go treat black people then yeah I can see an issue.  If they say "trans women shouldn't be using the same changerooms as women" I don't see the issue. If kimmy were a nurse should she be hauled in front of the inquisition for her "TERF opinions" if she were an otherwise good/ethical nurse?

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1.  I didn't say no moral code or speech restrictions.  I said it has to relate someway to their ability to do their job well and do it ethically, treat clients ethically etc. 

2. Being a fraudster might have something to do with their ability to do their job ethically, and treating clients ethically and whatnot and being put in a position of trust with clients, especially if you're an accountant or some other money professional. 

3. Private opinions about trans rights doesn't fall under this from what I can see, unless there's something specific where it does apply.

4.  The person said trans stuff on twitter and whatnot, over a number of years?  This is my impression of what has happened.  How did what they do or say have any impact and the nurse's ability to do their job?  If this person said "I hate black people" and they have to go treat black people then yeah I can see an issue. 

5. If they say "trans women shouldn't be using the same changerooms as women" I don't see the issue. If kimmy were a nurse should she be hauled in front of the inquisition for her "TERF opinions" if she were an otherwise good/ethical nurse?

1. Ok.  Well the challenge before you us to do a better job of framing "professional standards for behaviour" than the policy makers of the associations do.  Part of the profession involves trust, so that overlaps with saying things that are offensive or discreditable.

2. Ok.

3. I'm going to guess that there are areas or assignments where a nurse's take on trans people does impact their job.

4. Wait, what?  Your example seems to not support your case.  If you think that the Association should act to protect the feelings of black people but not trans people... then...why?

5. I'm not saying that these are easy questions.  Splitting the atom on supporting SOME trans rights but not others seems to be necessary.  But nobody is willing to break with the moral code that these are things that can't be said.  Well, not nobody.. but not many institutions are willing to try this.

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

6 hours 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 ?

The law was written to appeal to far left activists who do not represent what Canadians want or think. I don't accept the law is in place. It should be changed.

People like this think they're a woman? Fine. They need to see a psychiatrist. They need to transition. They need hormones and surgery.

Afterward, they can go use the women's change room. 

If you're attached to your penis, either emotionally or physically, you're a man. Don't give me any garbage about a 'woman penis'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. So it sounds like you want to radically remake how professional organizations work. You want no moral code, no restrictions on speech..

Why does a professional organization need a 'moral code' for what the professionals do outside of the workplace? Especially when the moral code in question is not shared by the majority of Canadians?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

1. The law was written to appeal to far left activists who do not represent what Canadians want or think. I don't accept the law is in place. It should be changed.

2. People like this think they're a woman? Fine. They need to see a psychiatrist. They need to transition. They need hormones and surgery. Afterward, they can go use the women's change room.  If you're attached to your penis, either emotionally or physically, you're a man. Don't give me any garbage about a 'woman penis'. 

 

18 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

3. Why does a professional organization need a 'moral code' for what the professionals do outside of the workplace? Especially when the moral code in question is not shared by the majority of Canadians?

 

1. C16 ?  Well it IS law.  You can not accept it in your heart, but it is law.  That's neither here nor there though.  Pretty much all of us have to live under laws we don't agree with.
2. Ok, noted.  I respect that you have an opinion but it's not actually interesting to me in terms of the discussion on this thread.  I know lots of people don't care for the law.  How do we as a country deal with a change like this is a better question to me.  If your answer is 'resist' then ok to that too, but it's not applicable to this question at hand here.
3. Another good question.  There's this traditional idea of 'reputation' that professional societies adhere to.  Basically if somebody in the profession acts outside certain bounds then the association is concerned that it makes the entire group seem disreputable and ununified.   If you want to erase the 'behaviour' clause exactly, or change it then maybe it has to be done. But it has to be legal and it has to fit the goals of having a professional association in the first place.

So you WON'T be able to say "unprofessional comments do not include criticism of trans rights or their new status as women" because that won't stand up in court.  And - yes - you can complain about that but in the context of this thread that's like admitting there's no way to change things IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, suds said:

I find it amazing that this particular college has the ability to terminat

Well you'd be amazed at how an ex-GF who was a CGA forgot an entry on a title page and they not just suspended her for 3 months, they published her name in the local paper with a suspension notice and the explanation Violation of Chapter XYZ23.

She got to walk around getting sneered at and the be the subject of rumours as if she'd committed fraud or something. Who's going to hunt down what Chapter XYZ23 is, they'll just "assume".

Not fair, but the world ain't fair, is it?

That's the way it is and why I'm not getting my panties in a knot and shrieking BS about 'woke police'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok.  Well the challenge before you us to do a better job of framing "professional standards for behaviour" than the policy makers of the associations do.  Part of the profession involves trust, so that overlaps with saying things that are offensive or discreditable.

2. Ok.

3. I'm going to guess that there are areas or assignments where a nurse's take on trans people does impact their job.

4. Wait, what?  Your example seems to not support your case.  If you think that the Association should act to protect the feelings of black people but not trans people... then...why?

5. I'm not saying that these are easy questions.  Splitting the atom on supporting SOME trans rights but not others seems to be necessary.  But nobody is willing to break with the moral code that these are things that can't be said.  Well, not nobody.. but not many institutions are willing to try this.

1. I don't see how saying something offensive affects trust.  The guys who write South Park might be very trustworthy people.

3. Depends on the take.

4.  If you hate all black people its hard to treat black people fairly.  If you don't agree with trans women in female bathrooms this is just a political take. But  I don't know EXACTLY what this nurse said, other than a billboard.

5.  They're cowards.  They'd rather fall in line so the PC police don't get after them.  If we as a society can't ever say anything that might offend or reflect poorly on POC, LGBT, women etc or even might go against their interests in some way then we aren't allowed to say the truth if the truth does that.  That means society is dysfunctional.  The truth is more important than feelings, and sometimes we need to risk offending in order to figure out what the truth is and listen to different takes on issues.

Instead of banning and canceling and censoring everyone how about we just speak their mind as long as it isn't illegal (harassment, threats etc).  Twitter means everyone has a voice and some people just can't take it.  Who literally gives a rat what JK Rowling thinks of trans rights???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Here is the matter:

"The college says the complaints against Hamm stem from her identifying herself as a registered nurse while making public posts supporting biological females and criticizing transgender women. This, says the college, underpins the forthcoming hearing.

 

“Between approximately July 2018 and March 2021, you made discriminatory and derogatory statements regarding transgender people, while identifying yourself as a nurse or nurse educator. These statements were made across various online platforms, including but not limited to, podcasts, videos, published writings and social media,” states the citation."

Nothing in that articles says anything about Hamm "criticizing transgender women". The only actuals comments ascribed to her were anything but discriminatory and derogatory.

She cited reasonable public safety concerns - she's a woman who doesn't want to share public restrooms with genetic males and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Just because someone identifies "as a female" doesn't mean they don't also identify as a lesbian. Or even a violent lesbian.

Do you want a 230 lb genetic male who identifies as transgender lesbian sharing a bathroom with your daughter? 

That might sound like the answer to a trivia question to you, but a lot of women who have been traumatized by actual violent rapes live a lesser life, they don't get out much, and this is a very real issue for them. 

If we're being honest, there are probably more women who have been raped than there are actual transvestites. Why don't those women matter? Why can someone be hauled into court for sticking up for them?

There are a lot of predators released from jail who'd love to dress like a woman and freely wander into bathrooms behind women they are attracted to. And if they're trannies while they're out, what jail do they go to if they get sent back to prison?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. I don't see how saying something offensive affects trust.  The guys who write South Park might be very trustworthy people.

2.  If you hate all black people its hard to treat black people fairly.  If you don't agree with trans women in female bathrooms this is just a political take.  

3.  They're cowards.  They'd rather fall in line so the PC police don't get after them. 

4. If we as a society can't ever say anything that might offend or reflect poorly on POC, LGBT, women etc or even might go against their interests in some way then we aren't allowed to say the truth if the truth does that. 

5. That means society is dysfunctional.  The truth is more important than feelings, and sometimes we need to risk offending in order to figure out what the truth is and listen to different takes on issues.

6. Instead of banning and canceling and censoring everyone how about we just speak their mind as long as it isn't illegal (harassment, threats etc).  Twitter means everyone has a voice and some people just can't take it.  Who literally gives a rat what JK Rowling thinks of trans rights???

1. Yeah but it's their job to be outrageous.

2. If you deny the existence of trans women, though...

3. How can you be so sure?  Maybe they're trying to be accommodating?  Maybe they actually polled their members?  It would be like someone calling you a bigot without knowing your reasons.  I'm trying to lay out some parameters for this problem without jumping ahead to character assessments.

4. I don't think that making negative generalizations that condemn a group of people has been ok, acceptable or logical for a long time.  Even talking about racism in a white society is something that we have to tiptoe over, lest people get offended.  Even if it's a fact it's not the "fault" of people living today.  It's nobody's business to editorialize in their perceived issues with other groups.  

5. How do you know that somebody's comments on black people are truth versus feelings?  There may be some truth in what they say, but to put any group on a lower level than you is very much an exercise in feelings.

6. Well JK is wealthy, and able to speak her opinions without regard to her reputation I guess. Personally, I understand why people get prickly when somebody from another group puts them on a lower level. You just have to look at the immense white backlash against critical race theory on here to see a living example. What about your example above about black people? Doesn't that apply to trans people too?  I do think there could be a time when, like the past, there was more comfort and talking about our differences. But there's not enough energy to do that today, just look around and see.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Why does a professional organization need a 'moral code' for what the professionals do outside of the workplace?

And one more time, here in Canada here the answer has three words: because-we-can. Because there's no checks, controls or limits to what they can do.

First, federal government started doing that for a couple of decades. Now "professional associations". Then what? What will happen if some years from now you will post something "controversial" to someone, and they would read it and complain to your bank or doctor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, myata said:

1. here in Canada here the answer has three words: because-we-can. 

2. First, federal government started doing that for a couple of decades. Now "professional associations". Then what?

3.  What will happen if some years from now you will post something "controversial" to someone, and they would read it and complain to your bank or doctor?

1. They do it plenty of other places and it gets lots of coverage.
2. No - PEOPLE started doing this first.  The government FOLLOWS the people.  When gay marriage was passed pretty much 1/2 the country was already ok with it, and numbers were on the rise.  Why do you think the Liberals frame themselves as the ones leading the charge ?  And why do you buy in to Liberal public promotion?
3. My doctor ?  What ?

  • 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
      10,692
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Gator
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Caswell Thomas went up a rank
      Experienced
    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Gator went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Gator earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Recently Browsing

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