Jump to content

The woke police going after nurse for believing in biology


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

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.

One would need a dangler to enter the dangler club, and vice versa...

No i have no issues with lesbians doing most things in the women's facility... it has been going since the dawn of time,  before it has become social norm to come out. Same as gay men using the men's rooms, everyone normally keeps their eyes on their own home work so to speak... if your leering then something will be said...but you can't expect the same response when if the opposite sex walks in...it gets uncomfortable... Here in Canada we don't have the same outlook as other countries do say like Europe where both sex share the same facilities. In Afghanistan we visited the Norwegian camp i think, we went to get a shower, and found all of them to be shared, perfectly normal for them, for us not so much... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Interesting.  Well, I get it but you're now putting the decision in the hands of ... popular polls. 

Well, what is reputation, anyway? Isn't that what the public thinks of your organization? Isn't that also opinion?

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.  

I'm really not up for policing people's free expression of views outside of the workplace aside from the really outrageous. Like the examples I gave in the previous post.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. No, real life too.

What profession bans people from expressing their political views on their own time?

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.  

Then it wouldn't damage the reputation of the organization. 

If the claim is not that the opinion is wrong or immoral but that it will damage the reputation of some profession then you have to state how it's going to do that if the public finds the opinion/view perfectly acceptable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

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. 

Maybe no one wants to admit what would happen?

There are guys who would wait in the bathroom for days if they thought a woman was going to come in there and try to rape them.  Bill Clinton and Donald Trump among them. Are you serious?

Quote

There are predatory females who go after boys and men, just as there are predatory men who go after women and girls. 

Men have way more to fear from other men than from women. Gay men, straight men, transgender men, religious men, atheists, rich men, poor men... 

Never in my life have I gelt like I was in danger of being attacked by a woman, but as a guy, you get measured up by other guys who want to fight all the time when you're young. If you're with a pretty girl, you're even more of a target. 

Quote

And if a girl might be traumatized by seeing male genitalia, why wouldn't boys be traumatized by seeing female genitalia?  

1) Because we're not? 

2) Seeing the genitalia isn't a concern at all. If someone can't get over that, it's their own problem.

Rape is the problem. A woman can't really force a man to get an erection and then rape him, that's not how it works. But the fact that a woman resists is a real plus for some men. They get off on the fear and the violence of it, and even crying and screams don't stop them. It's pretty gross. The thought of a little girl being stuck in a bathroom with a guy like that is appalling. And you and I hate to think about it, but little girls have been victimized by people like that tens of thousands of times in world history. Maybe millions. In any event, it's too many, and we shouldn't enable it in any way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

What profession bans people from expressing their political views on their own time?

At the beginning of the pandemic we thought of people in the medical profession as being altruistic in nature, even heroic.

It's amazing how much damage they did to their own reputation since the spring of 2021. 

They suddenly started forcing employees to put things in their body that they didn't need or want, now they're forbidding them from having mainstream opinions in their free time. 

This meme would have made no sense to anyone at all 3 years ago:

720191619_ScreenShot2022-10-11at2_04_35PM.thumb.png.ff521d4bdbe334fe1b8699149f3d824a.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

One would need a dangler to enter the dangler club, and vice versa...

No i have no issues with lesbians doing most things in the women's facility... 

TBH I don't think that I've ever heard of a woman talk about being raped or sexually assaulted in a bathroom by a lesbian. Never heard of charges on TV or anything.

I imagine it happens to some extent, but nothing at a criminal level. 

We already know of one guy in the states who has raped two different girls after getting the right to enter their bathroom because he considers himself "transgender". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

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.

 

 

 

 

Probably for the same reason you would assume it's male on female assault if you heard about an incident of "domestic violence".  You probably wouldn't consider female on male assault until you heard a lot more about the particulars of the specific incident and had your mind changed.

I've been accused before of using women/girls and their "safety" (and LBGTQ rights as well) as a way of engendering fear and hatred when I have tried to point out uncomfortable truths about Islam.  It was wrong then, and as far as the trans argument here goes, it's wrong now.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Probably for the same reason you would assume it's male on female assault if you heard about an incident of "domestic violence".  You probably wouldn't consider female on male assault until you heard a lot more about the particulars of the specific incident and had your mind changed.

I've been accused before of using women/girls and their "safety" (and LBGTQ rights as well) as a way of engendering fear and hatred when I have tried to point out uncomfortable truths about Islam.  It was wrong then, and as far as the trans argument here goes, it's wrong now.

Are you saying that the use of women/children to engender hatred and fear against a particular group is not true?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The covid shots. Don't pretend that you haven't heard.

The covid vaccines are not harmful and help prevent serious illness. You've been consuming too much misinformation.

Edited by Queenmandy85
Sorry, Treebeard, I had to change it to "misinformation
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Are you saying that the use of women/children to engender hatred and fear against a particular group is not true?   

It’s not true most of the time.  The vast majority of rapes are committed by men.  The physical strength of most men over most women enters heavily into the equation. Can this fear feed Islamaphobia?  Yes.  We also know that many Islamic countries sanction violence against women either by permitting it in marriages or meting it out in state punishment such as public stoning.  You’re holding up the rare exceptions of female violence as the counter-example, so it won’t garner much concern.  I do agree that such exceptions exist and aren’t okay.

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

23 hours ago, dialamah said:

Are you saying that the use of women/children to engender hatred and fear against a particular group is not true?   

I'm saying that using that as an excuse to ignore the concerns expressed is disingenuous. 

Your example that you have "never gotten an answer" to was answered.  It didn't have anything to do with the use of women/children to engender hatred and fear against a particular group.  Unless you can claim that every time you hear of an incident of domestic violence you genuinely wonder whether the perpetrator was male or female.

To your question, specifically.  I can't say it never happens.  I can say that to describe an argument as having that motive, without anything to indicate that such is the case, other than your personal bias, is wrong.

Do you really think I don't want to allow a person who has gone through puberty as a male to play rugby against women because I hate and fear trans people, and I want others to do so as well?

Edited by bcsapper
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

 Yes.  We also know that many Islamic countries sanction violence against women either by permitting it in marriages or meting it out in state punishment such as public stoning.   

And they also engender fear/hatred of the West by using "we must protect women/children from the immorality of the Westerner". 

During the second world war, Japanese were portrayed as threatening to women/children.

Hitler's propaganda against Jews included the same theme of 'protecting women/children'.

And we see it again now - "We must protect the women and children from the evil transgender (male)!"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

And they also engender fear/hatred of the West by using "we must protect women/children from the immorality of the Westerner". 

During the second world war, Japanese were portrayed as threatening to women/children.

Hitler's propaganda against Jews included the same theme of 'protecting women/children'.

And we see it again now - "We must protect the women and children from the evil transgender (male)!"

By dictating to them certain rules around bathroom/changing room use and sports participation?  The horror.

Good job Hitler didn't get those ideas or there would have been some Jews had to use separate gas chambers.

What would you do with this guy:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/25/trans-woman-isla-bryson-guilty-raping-two-women-remanded-in-female-prison-scotland

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/01/25/nicola-sturgeon-pressure-remove-transgender-rapist-female-prison/

Does using his example engender fear/hatred of trans people, and as such, should we keep quiet about it? 

I have had that reasoning expressed to me as to why I should not mention Islamic excesses.  On here, in fact. 

Should the same apply in this case?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

1.  I'm saying that using that as an excuse to ignore the concerns expressed is disingenuous. 

2.  Your example that you have "never gotten an answer" to was answered.  It didn't have anything to do with the use of women/children to engender hatred and fear against a particular group.  Unless you can claim that every time you hear of an incident of domestic violence you genuinely wonder whether the perpetrator was male or female.

3.  To your question, specifically.  I can't say it never happens.  I can say that to describe an argument as having that motive, without anything to indicate that such is the case, other than your personal bias, is wrong.

4.  Do you really think I don't want to allow a person who has gone through puberty as a male to pay rugby against women because I hate and fear trans people, and I want others to do so as well?

1.  If the "concern" is about something that almost never happens, it's dishonest to pretend it's a huge problem.  

2.  Nobody has ever explained why they aren't concerned about F to M persons in men's spaces.  The likelihood of a man being victimized by a woman is roughly the same as a woman being victimized by a male. The reason we assume it's a man victimizing a woman is because our society doesn't really give men space to be victims.

3.  You do not seem to understand propaganda.  There's a pretty powerful Christian presence (in the States especially) who are happy to disseminate and support any argument that marginalizes transgender people.  The more people  they can get to repeat those arguments - even non-Christian people, the better.  If they can influence society to marginalize transgender and roll back any rights or privileges they may currently have, they're only too happy to do that.  I don't think they're succeeding.  :)

4.  Whether people who've had the benefit of testosterone for some portion of their life have an unfair advantage over people who haven't had that advantage is (imo) a reasonable question.  Insisting that M to F people can't go into female spaces because 1) they're perverts and might rape somebody and/or 2) the women/children will be traumatized if they catch sight of male genitalia isn't a reasonable argument.   

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

By dictating to them certain rules around bathroom/changing room use and sports participation?  The horror.

Good job Hitler didn't get those ideas or there would have been some Jews had to use separate gas chambers.

What would you do with this guy:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/25/trans-woman-isla-bryson-guilty-raping-two-women-remanded-in-female-prison-scotland

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/01/25/nicola-sturgeon-pressure-remove-transgender-rapist-female-prison/

Does using his example engender fear/hatred of trans people, and as such, should we keep quiet about it? 

I have had that reasoning expressed to me as to why I should not mention Islamic excesses.  On here, in fact. 

Should the same apply in this case?

 

Once again, taking the unusual to describe the general isn't reasonable.  Most Muslims do not engage in terrorism; most men don't rape; most M to F aren't transitioning so they can victimize women.

Btw, women in prison are more likely to be sexually assaulted by other women than men are to be sexually assaulted by other men, according to the link I provided in my previous post.  Prison is a violent place, and using those examples to project what will happen in the "straight" world isn't reasonable either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dialamah said:

1.  If the "concern" is about something that almost never happens, it's dishonest to pretend it's a huge problem.  

The concern is expressed by the women you accuse people of using to engender fear and hatred.  Are those concerns to be ignored?

 

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

2.  Nobody has ever explained why they aren't concerned about F to M persons in men's spaces.  The likelihood of a man being victimized by a woman is roughly the same as a woman being victimized by a male. The reason we assume it's a man victimizing a woman is because our society doesn't really give men space to be victims.

To me this is obvious.  Men do not feel threatened by women, generally speaking.  There are no men only gyms.  There are women only gyms. 

 

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

You do not seem to understand propaganda.  There's a pretty powerful Christian presence (in the States especially) who are happy to disseminate and support any argument that marginalizes transgender people.  The more people  they can get to repeat those arguments - even non-Christian people, the better.  If they can influence society to marginalize transgender and roll back any rights or privileges they may currently have, they're only too happy to do that.  I don't think they're succeeding.

Sure, you'll get no argument from me about the problems with religion.  Obviously, right?

But that doesn't change anything in the argument itself.  It's unfortunate that Christians might use the arguments against trans women using women's washrooms and bathrooms, or participating in women's sports, for their own nefarious ends, but it doesn't negate the argument.  Just as a white supremacist using arguments against Islam to stoke Islamophobia does not negate the argument that having the death penalty as a punishment for blasphemy is barbaric.

 

11 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Whether people who've had the benefit of testosterone for some portion of their life have an unfair advantage over people who haven't had that advantage is (imo) a reasonable question.  Insisting that M to F people can't go into female spaces because 1) they're perverts and might rape somebody and/or 2) the women/children will be traumatized if they catch sight of male genitalia isn't a reasonable argument.   

I don't regard  1) as a reason, except in cases where it ought to be obvious from the start.  (See previous example about a Scottish prison)

As for 2, I'm simply not qualified to say, so I default to the women who say they are uncomfortable (I don't know about traumatized.  Maybe)  with biological males in their private spaces.

As I said earlier, when rights collide, you have to pick a side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

comparing Hitler's propaganda in the 1930's when one had SS members driving with megaphones on the streets to wake up people in Jewish neighbours, you compare that with transgender washroom policy

Only in one aspect, you'll notice.  Or perhaps not.

7 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Man oh man, you can't even have a discussion about this, either you are with the "Nazi"propaganda by having questions about the transgender phenomena, I want to ask questions, I am not as enlightened as you good men, women, people that lived your entire life in comfort and have time to hold debates as to where you go to the restroom. 

 I, personally, also don't care where someone goes to the bathroom, and I don't care if someone who's transitioning or transitioned is in a changeroom with me.  But the people who do care are using arguments that simply don't stand up to scrutiny.  

12 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

I don't give a damn what the anti-LGBTQ far right fanatics say. I say that is insanity to compare what happened in WW2 and Hitler's propaganda to people having questions about transgenderism. 

Again, I repeat, "saving the women and children" was part of the propaganda Hitler used.  And the same theme was used in WWII against Japanese, and used against Blacks in the US.  

17 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

I would just focus on the economics and getting services to help transgender people instead of trying to make society adhear to your exact doctrine when it comes to this topic is my opinion.  

Sure, that works for me as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The covid vaccines are not harmful and help prevent serious illness. You've been consuming too much misinformation.

FYI young healthy people don't die of covid. They don't need the jab. 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/more-than-2-7m-paid-to-50-claimants-of-serious-injury-connected-to-a-vaccine-in-canada-1.6205187

Quote

According to new statistics, Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program has approved or paid out more than $2.7 million to claimants since the program opened in 2021.

So far, 50 claims of a serious and permanent injury connected to a vaccine authorized by Health Canada have been approved.

Between June 2021 and Dec 1, 2022, the program received 1,299 claims, 209 of which were determined to be inadmissible because they either didn’t meet the eligibility criteria or had incomplete information.

Quote

A serious or permanent injury is defined as “a severe, life-threatening or life-altering injury that may require in-person hospitalization, or a prolongation of existing hospitalization, and results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or where the outcome is a congenital malformation or death.”

Why would someone who doesn't need the vax, take it?

In the last reporting period (Aug 21 - Sept 25 2020) before Health Canada stopped reporting the "Covid deaths by vax status" stat, 85.7% of covid deaths here were among the multi-vaxed.

Covid deaths in 2022 were higher than in 2021 and most of 2020. 

The vax DOES NOT WORK. Why take it if you don't even need it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, dialamah said:

And they also engender fear/hatred of the West by using "we must protect women/children from the immorality of the Westerner". 

They're not entirely wrong.

Somewhere between the muslim view of how women should act/be treated and our western view of how women should act/be treated is the way we would want our own daughters to act/be treated.

This is from a video of US Senator twerking upside-down:

761184067_VoteMcCrackin.thumb.png.53b2ba0c8c2a428553325d23e2ca96a7.png

Quote

"saving the women and children" was part of the propaganda Hitler used.

I guess that means that protecting children is evil now? 

Gimme a break. Are you honestly pretending that you don't see risks inherent in allowing grown men to just throw on a dress and waltz into a girl's bathroom?

If I dress up tomorrow, will you be able to tell just by looking if I'm really transgender or if I'm just some pervert who wants to go into a girl's bathroom?

 

I gotta hand it to you, being a leftist must be really hard. First you had to defend protesters harassing politicians in the bathroom, now you have to defend the rights of men to go into the girls' washroom. Funny, I never find myself doing that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Governments that aren't checked and controlled by the citizens (who else?) regularly and effectively will not stop. The will (not) do that not out of spite, not even profit (though it plays into it, sure) but because it wouldn't know where to stop and how. Forgot or never needed to know.

Smart people knew that in 1215 and 1789. We're living it and stumble on it again, and over, and again and just wouldn't learn. Couldn't even suspect that something could be not right here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, I am Groot said:

 What profession bans people from expressing their political views on their own time?

 

I suppose that I have got as much of an answer from the thread as I hoped.  If someone doesn't believe that trans women should be given the exact same accommodations as women, that's not the same as making anti trans statements.  They could try to use language that allows people to express that.

To answer your question, I think government employees are restricted from political participation.   One friend told me that he couldn't put a sign on his lawn.  Not sure how much of this is so, but for sure there are restrictions.  I also can't express myself freely about things online, with regards to financial legislation, due to my job.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

To answer your question, I think government employees are restricted from political participation

important:  ,while on the company's premises or otherwise executing direct employment functions. Who the h@ck are those people who think that they are some sort of our contemporary overlords, owning our time and lives? How did they get there?

That one was easy at least: "because they can".

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

important:  ,while on the company's premises or otherwise executing direct employment functions. Who the h@ck are those people who think that they are some sort of our contemporary overlords, owning our time and lives? How did they get there?

That one was easy at least: "because they can".

Yes, because they can.

But our legal selves trade rights off all the time right?   

I read about a guy who fired any employees with a Biden bumper sticker... because he could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think government employees are restricted from political participation.   One friend told me that he couldn't put a sign on his lawn.

Not true.  
You’re one of the good ones here….  don’t start spreading misinformation just to try and make a point.  

Edited by TreeBeard
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
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • exPS went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • exPS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Proficient
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • Recently Browsing

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