Jump to content

The woke police going after nurse for believing in biology


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

If you say "I hate trans people" yeah there's a problem.  If you disagree with certain rights then it's fair game.   Jk Rowling hasn't said she hates trans people, she says biological women shouldn't have biological men in their changerooms and bathrooms.

But JK Rowling isn't even part of this discussion.  The person in trouble happened to sponsor a sign without her name on it - clearly not a problem.

I would be sympathetic if she only stated things as you said, if you must know.  But we don't know what exactly was said at this point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

If you say "I hate trans people" yeah there's a problem.  If you disagree with certain rights then it's fair game.   Jk Rowling hasn't said she hates trans people, she says biological women shouldn't have biological men in their changerooms and bathrooms.

So, if she is saying it, who has denied her the right to say it?  
 

Isn’t that a very different issue to a nursing board looking at the professional conduct of its members?

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, I am Groot said:

1. It's hard for me to believe it's realistic to suggest this woman's statements would damage the reputation of nursing, especially when the majority of Canadians almost certainly agree with her.

2. But this is an opinion shared by huge numbers of Canadians.

3. Suppose the nurses association says it damages their reputation if she says she supports conservatives? I

4. Is that acceptable as well? Suppose she says that as a nurse she believes in private healthcare? Is that punishable?

1. That's valid.
2. If you're suggesting that one of the factors that should be considered when framing the policy is the "popularity" of an opinion then I disagree with that.  You seem to be saying that it's a widely held opinion on a change in our moral sphere, and as such it's not an outrageous example of hate propaganda.  I can concur with that.
3. You'd be surprised that some jobs disallow you talking about your political preferences. 
4. If it was explicitly spelled out, or commonly understood that that was unacceptable then yes.  But I don't think that's going to happen, nor am I concerned at all.

What I'm trying to do is get people to talk about what could constitute a set of considerations when setting up a policy on behaviour, online posting, or what have you.  Most people are just telling me whether they agree with the action or not.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. If you're suggesting that one of the factors that should be considered when framing the policy is the "popularity" of an opinion then I disagree with that.

The factor would be how outrageous the opinion is that it might damage the reputation of nursing. If most Canadians hearing the opinion would shrug and say "I agree" then it can't possibly damage the reputation of nursing.

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. You'd be surprised that some jobs disallow you talking about your political preferences. 

On the job. Not in real life.

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. If it was explicitly spelled out, or commonly understood that that was unacceptable then yes.  But I don't think that's going to happen, nor am I concerned at all.

Do you think that when most people became nurses that the nursing association even had this rule regarding statements about transgenders? Because it seems to me the whole 'transgender' controversy is a fad brought into being by American progressives a few short years ago. It's unlikely any but the youngest, newest members ever had any idea this was going to be a thing.

Much like the Law Society of Ontario, which decided that it was going to impose thought control on its members with regard to diversity, equity and inclusiveness too close to an election and found the board turfed by those who disagreed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

1. The factor would be how outrageous the opinion is that it might damage the reputation of nursing. If most Canadians hearing the opinion would shrug and say "I agree" then it can't possibly damage the reputation of nursing.

2. On the job. Not in real life.

3. Do you think that when most people became nurses that the nursing association even had this rule regarding statements about transgenders?
 

4. Because it seems to me the whole 'transgender' controversy is a fad brought into being by American progressives a few short years ago. It's unlikely any but the youngest, newest members ever had any idea this was going to be a thing.

5. Much like the Law Society of Ontario, which decided that it was going to impose thought control on its members with regard to diversity, equity and inclusiveness too close to an election and found the board turfed by those who disagreed.

 

1. Interesting.  Well, I get it but you're now putting the decision in the hands of ... popular polls.  I mean, it's one answer but here's a challenge: try to come up with a scenario where they go with this plan and ANOTHER bad decision comes out of it.  

2. No, real life too.

3. Of course not, but things change and at the moment they change things get a little fuzzy.  That's why I'm asking how you would want to handle it.  Let's say it's 1968 and I'm openly writing letters to the Toronto Telegram telling them why interracial marriage is an abomination.  It's an accepted viewpoint at that time.  
   My point is that these things change. And I don't have a strong opinion, but I'm interested in the trials and rewards of living in interesting times.

4. Young people count, mostly because they're not dying soon.  What happened with Gay Marriage ?  Lots of folks used to be against that, but it's hard to say how they feel lately because a lot of them are in the ground.

5.  It could happen again in this situation too.  Like I say, I find it interesting but I don't much care how this turns out.  In the end, trans people will be accepted I'm sure.  And at some point calling a trans woman a man on purpose will be about as accepted as using the n-word.  Enjoy the zeitgeist, I say.
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Interesting.  Well, I get it but you're now putting the decision in the hands of ... popular polls.  I mean, it's one answer but here's a challenge: try to come up with a scenario where they go with this plan and ANOTHER bad decision comes out of it.  

2. No, real life too.

3. Of course not, but things change and at the moment they change things get a little fuzzy.  That's why I'm asking how you would want to handle it.  Let's say it's 1968 and I'm openly writing letters to the Toronto Telegram telling them why interracial marriage is an abomination.  It's an accepted viewpoint at that time.  
   My point is that these things change. And I don't have a strong opinion, but I'm interested in the trials and rewards of living in interesting times.

4. Young people count, mostly because they're not dying soon.  What happened with Gay Marriage ?  Lots of folks used to be against that, but it's hard to say how they feel lately because a lot of them are in the ground.

5.  It could happen again in this situation too.  Like I say, I find it interesting but I don't much care how this turns out.  In the end, trans people will be accepted I'm sure.  And at some point calling a trans woman a man on purpose will be about as accepted as using the n-word.  Enjoy the zeitgeist, I say.
 

1. And your approach places morality into the hands of a select few... most with extreme woke ideas when at least half the country likely doesn't align with nutty left wing politics. 

3. It should be handled by leaving far left "morality" out of it. 

4. Lots of people still don't. They just can't say it without the lefty puritans harassing them. 

5. I would wager most don't really care about the trans person.. when someone misgenders its often because far lefty extremism has created a toxic society.. setting up the victim hiarchy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, West said:

1. And your approach places morality into the hands of a select few...  

2. It should be handled by leaving far left "morality" out of it. 

1. Exactly.  It's not MY approach though.  You got that wrong

2. Well, you would appoint someone with your views to judge then?  I mean, that's kind of what THEY did and you don't seem to think that's fair.

I'm still trying to get someone to articulate a set of factors that we can agree represent the trade offs to consider.

 

 

Instead, people keep telling me whether they agree or disagree.  And they put me in it too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Their right to religion interfered with students’ rights.  I think it is fair to say that you don’t care about gay student’s rights to marry and be intimate with their partner free of interference.  
 

However, the Court has to look at their rights in addition to the rights of TWU, where you do not.  You ONLY care about TWU’s rights. 
 

 The court found that the Law Society balanced the rights in a correct and fair fashion.  
 

All TWU would have to do to have a law school is to mind their own business.  

From the decision:

In the end, it cannot be said that the denial of approval is a serious limitation on the religious rights of members of the TWU community. The LSBC’s decision does not suppress TWU’s religious difference. Except for the limitation we have identified, no evangelical Christian is denied the right to practise his or her religion as and where they choose.

 

The refusal to approve the proposed law school means that members of the TWU religious community are not free to impose those religious beliefs on fellow law students, since they have an inequitable impact and can cause significant harm. The LSBC chose an interpretation of the public interest in the administration of justice which mandates access to law schools based on merit and diversity, not exclusionary religious practices. The refusal to approve TWU’s proposed law school prevents concrete, not abstract, harms to LGBTQ people and to the public in general. The LSBC’s decision ensures that equal access to the legal profession is not undermined and prevents the risk of significant harm to LGBTQ people who feel they have no choice but to attend TWU’s proposed law school. It also maintains public confidence in the legal profession, which could be undermined by the LSBC’s decision to approve a law school that forces LGBTQ people to deny who they are for three years to receive a legal education.

 

You know what!  There are a number of law schools in B.C. such as the U.B.C. in Vancouver, the University of Victoria Faculty of Law, Thompson Rivers University, People's Law school, and Peter A. Allard School of Law.  So it ridiciulous to say a private Christian University such as the TWU is harming LGBTQ people.  There is no reason in the world why they would want to go to a Christian university or complain about it unless it is politically motivated like you.  Your claims are a plain lie about harming LGBTQ.  Every private religious institution has a perfect right to have their own admission requirements.  This is not China.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, blackbird said:

You know what!  There are a number of law schools in B.C. such as the U.B.C. in Vancouver, the University of Victoria Faculty of Law, Thompson Rivers University, People's Law school, and Peter A. Allard School of Law.  So it ridiciulous to say a private Christian University such as the TWU is harming LGBTQ people.  There is no reason in the world why they would want to go to a Christian university or complain about it unless it is politically motivated like you.  Your claims are a plain lie about harming LGBTQ.  Every private religious institution has a perfect right to have their own admission requirements.  This is not China.  

I never claimed anything.  You’re conflating the opinion of the highest court in Canada with my opinion.  I never claimed anything to do with LGBTQ folks. The court did.  That’s not a lie, it’s just a fact.  
 

The Court weighed the rights of both parties and determined that TWU was being unreasonable and that the Law Society had the authority and acted correctly in not granting TWU a law school.
 

TWU can get a law school tomorrow if they would just uphold the values of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms like a law school must do to be legitimate. 
 

Saying gay folks can just go elsewhere was dismissed by the Supreme Court.   Clearly that makes no sense in terms of equality.  Just like a law school couldn’t tell students that they have to sign a covenant to be atheists, and if the Christians don’t like it they can go to another school that will take them.

There are gay Christians who may want to go to TWU if they offered a law degree.   Why not?

By the way, TWU no longer has such a covenant for its students.  Not surprising, as I’m sure they didn’t check if every student was refraining from premarital sex. They just wanted to make sure their school wasn’t sullied by gay people.  Clearly a bigoted policy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Exactly.  It's not MY approach though.  You got that wrong

2. Well, you would appoint someone with your views to judge then?  I mean, that's kind of what THEY did and you don't seem to think that's fair.

I'm still trying to get someone to articulate a set of factors that we can agree represent the trade offs to consider.

 

 

Instead, people keep telling me whether they agree or disagree.  And they put me in it too.

 

Well according to the loud minority, these morality boards should meet a quota of homos, black people, natives, women, etc etc.. they should all think that these quotas are a good thing.. thats who's making these looney tune decisions. 

They may throw in a Christian but only the woke kind from the United Church just to show that they are inclusive

Edited by West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

So, if she is saying it, who has denied her the right to say it?  
 

Isn’t that a very different issue to a nursing board looking at the professional conduct of its members?

Depends what they define as "professional conduct".  In this case i don't have any idea what she said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Depends what they define as "professional conduct".  In this case i don't have any idea what she said

Me either.  Apparently, the board that sets professional standards for nurses does have issues with their conduct as a nurse.
 

So how is this the same as Rowling being roasted on twitter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The University of Saskatchewan Faculty Association were discussing the expulsion of a student because he was gay. This was in the mid-1970's. The discussion was pretty one-sided. They decided the student had to be expelled. The President of the Faculty association advised the meeting that if the student had to leave, "then I have to go too. I'm gay." 

The student was admitted without further objection. He was Doug Wilson. He passed away in 1992. Every year, the University held the annual Doug Wilson awards as tribute.  

It is amazing how fast things change. I remember people losing their jobs because somebody said they were "communists."  Then the pole reversed and it was the anti-communists who were blacklisted. It goes back and forth ad infinitum. Why can't we just respect people for who they are? Like the courageous  Professor Peter Millard who put himself out there on the precipice for a student.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holding a job in this country now depends on your willingness to regurgitate the proper opinions, take drugs that haven't gone through clinical trials, give your kids drugs that are proven to have harmful side effects which don't confer any benefits on them, you can't show the least bit of support for freedom rallies, and god forbid that you speak out for your own safety and that of little girls.

Our own PM went on TV and called unvaccinated people racists and misogynists, how is that more acceptable than saying "I don't want 230 lb biological men in the bathroom with my daughter, regardless of what they're wearing or their hair style"? 

Our country is a joke. Leftists are a joke. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2023 at 9:48 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe.

Do you think that professional behaviour shouldn't be in the domain of actionable complaints?

 

you mean this behavior...Are we saying now that there is no safe places anywhere, like washrooms , change rooms, or prisons...that for even talking about it it is some how offensive....or now not to be talked about as the subject is off limits...Please educate us on what behavior she has shown that would be unprofessional?  This is happening more and more...Here in Canada and across the US, it is like all the grown ups went home and now the inmates run the world...

Quote

 

Hamm believes that you should respect transgendered people but that women should be allowed safe spaces in areas like washrooms, changing rooms, and prisons. And for that she is being persecuted.

Hamm believes that she should be able to speak about these things because she is under the impression we live in a free, tolerant society where differing views are respected. And for that she is being persecuted.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But JK Rowling isn't even part of this discussion.  The person in trouble happened to sponsor a sign without her name on it - clearly not a problem.

I would be sympathetic if she only stated things as you said, if you must know.  But we don't know what exactly was said at this point.

How many people in nursing have to lose their jobs for not taking harmful & useless drugs, and for voicing reasonable opinions?

Leftists supported people's right to wear political slogans in their workplace and to kneel during the anthem, how is it that they are suddenly in favour of taking a woman's job away just for voicing her own opinions?

The hypocrisy is visible from space. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

how is that more acceptable than saying "I don't want 230 lb biological men in the bathroom with my daughter, regardless of what they're wearing or their hair style"? 

But you are okay with lesbians in the bathroom with her? What about biological women (transgender f 2 m) using the men's bathroom. Are you okay with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

But you are okay with lesbians in the bathroom with her? What about biological women (transgender f 2 m) using the men's bathroom. Are you okay with that?

.If a transgender m to F has the process completed ( penis ) removed then by all means jump in the shower scrub away.... But if you still have a dangler, then you should be showering in the dangler shower...or wait until your at home...Saying your a women does not make you a women, and it is not like we can tell some A$$Hat thats just saying he is a women just to get access to naked women...so all it take is for one bad apple and it is another game right...  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

But you are okay with lesbians in the bathroom with her? What about biological women (transgender f 2 m) using the men's bathroom. Are you okay with that?

I've never gotten an answer when I've asked why it's always about "perverted men" in women's area and never "perverted women" in men's areas.  There are predatory females who go after boys and men, just as there are predatory men who go after women and girls.  And if a girl might be traumatized by seeing male genitalia, why wouldn't boys be traumatized by seeing female genitalia?  

The answer, of course, is that women/girls and their "safety" is used to engender fear and hatred - whether against Black people in the States, or Japanese during the war, or against transgender now.

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The University of Saskatchewan Faculty Association were discussing the expulsion of a student because he was gay. This was in the mid-1970's. The discussion was pretty one-sided. They decided the student had to be expelled. The President of the Faculty association advised the meeting that if the student had to leave, "then I have to go too. I'm gay." 

The student was admitted without further objection. He was Doug Wilson. He passed away in 1992. Every year, the University held the annual Doug Wilson awards as tribute.  

It is amazing how fast things change. I remember people losing their jobs because somebody said they were "communists."  Then the pole reversed and it was the anti-communists who were blacklisted. It goes back and forth ad infinitum. Why can't we just respect people for who they are? Like the courageous  Professor Peter Millard who put himself out there on the precipice for a student.

So now we should overcompensate and go on a cleanse of all wrongthink? 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

.If a transgender m to F has the process completed ( penis ) removed then by all means jump in the shower scrub away.... But if you still have a dangler, then you should be showering in the dangler shower...or wait until your at home...Saying your a women does not make you a women, and it is not like we can tell some A$$Hat thats just saying he is a women just to get access to naked women...so all it take is for one bad apple and it is another game right...  

No. My question was are you concerned with pre-op F to M transgenders using the mens? And you never answered the  question of lesbians using the women's in the presence of young girls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

But you are okay with lesbians in the bathroom with her? What about biological women (transgender f 2 m) using the men's bathroom. Are you okay with that?

Biological women, yeah, for sure. 

Lesbians have always gone to the same bathroom as other women. Who's to say that they couldn't?

Besides, you can count he number of women who get raped by lesbians in a year on one hand. 

I'm a man, so it's not like I'm sticking up for my own kind by saying that "some of us destroy women's lives with our sexual violence. It happens hundreds of times every year." Why increase the chances? Why make it easier?

If a guy wants to dress up like a woman, that's fine, but to say "I wanna use the same bathroom as the little girls do" is not fine. I don't value anyone's feelings over the life of a child. 

  • Thanks 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
      10,695
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Linda Teskey
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Jeary earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

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