I’m Being Investigated by the British Columbia College of Nurses Because I Believe Biological Sex Is Real

If as you say you should not discriminate against people for their beliefs and you accept that logic how do you avoid siding with author?

Threatening to revoke someone’s nursing license is discriminating against them for their beliefs.

Buying a billboard to advertise your disagreement with a particular belief is not discrimination against anyone, it is simply the expression of a different belief.

Preaching a Christian sermon is not antisemitism.


Ok, so a licensing body is responsible for oversight of the actions of its members/licensees. No problem there.

Typically, such licensing bodies effect their duty through a complaints-based process for contraventions of negligence. No problem there either. (they are also responsible for ensuring competence, but that does not appear to be in question here).

So, generally, complaints arise when something perceived to be “bad” happens…and usually complaints would come from the person on whom the bad thing happened…ie the patient. And that’s where things get a little curious with this one.

“might be incapable”? The complaint is based on a hypothetical situation?!? I mean, it would be one thing if a transgender patient accused her of being discriminatory or unprofessional. BUt the complaint is about a possible future event? ANY nurse MIGHT give an overdose of 100X the prescribed dose of a medication…but you don’t start a disciplinary process on that basis against ALL nurses. I’m no lawyer, but from a process and logic standpoint, this is where they make me go hmmmm…

And the hypothetical and suppositions don’t end there. Not only is it regarding a future event that has yet to occur, but they are also assuming that her personal views would preclude her from providing effective care. Would a catholic maternity nurse who is vehemently against pre-marital sex therefore be unable to care for an unwed woman in labor, and be disciplined simply based on her a priori views? This just seems bizarre from a process standpoint, completely separate from the contents of her personal opinion.


This “take” is such a ham-fisted effort at trying to create “nuance” where none exists. You act as if “investigations” like this are commonplace when in fact, they are not and they are often adversarial. Large bureaucracies are not bastions of democracy or its values, they are battering rams for whatever policy agenda is in the ascendant.


“who may”

Reading your responses, you seem like a person who may become a mass murderer.

You should be reported to the police.

If I knew where you worked, I would anonymously report this to your employer. My belief that you may be a mass murderer is very clear to me.


“who may” - this is completely unacceptable.

Certainly, if you make a false police report, you may be accused of this crime of false accusation. In this situation, I am not sure if these idiots who “reported” her can be charged with false reports. It sounds as if they could be charged, in the USA, with libel. Libel is a defanatory statement that is written. A written false complaint should be actionable by this woman against these false accusers.


In this country, and in all countries, we require proof. The trannies have convinced themselves that they are so fragile that this non-threat of potential danger with no evidence can be used to get this woman fired.

Trannieness is a psychotic delusion.



Maya Forstater’s employment was not terminated, her contract was not renewed so that’s not quite the same thing. In any case, isolated instances don’t count as a widespread trends & the context of a termination matters.

As for Ms Hamm, do her views impede on her ability to perform her job as agreed? Ms Hamm’s expressed views implicitly imply trans people are delusionary & a threat to women’s safety so it’s not quite so clear whether this may pose as a risk to patients safety or perceived safety.

It depends whether those beliefs have implications on an individuals ability to perform their work to the agreed employment contract standard.

Are you suggesting that a determination can’t be made whether an employee poses a potential risk? It really depends on the specific views & whether those views can be reasonably determined to come into conflict with the job. Healthcare does require a trusting relationship between medical practitioners & patients. Prejudiced notions held against a particular group’s ability to determine fantasy from reality doesn’t sound too conducive to that.

The short story by Philip K. Dick called “Minority Report” was about this specific notion. The subsequent movie also involved this.

In this movie and story, the Division of PreCrime arrested people who were going to commit a crime in the future. The prediction is used to arrest people. But there is no evidence of the validity of the prediction. It’s just based on the psychotic ravings of “precogs”.

The program is disbanded at the end and the “precogs” are institutionalized. Maybe this will happen in Canada. Maybe these false accusers will be jailed for their false accusations.


Thank you for your reasonable reply. I’ve been very impressed with how well so many here comport themselves!

As to your argument, I can certainly agree with it at least in part. I personally would argue the word “commonly” is inaccurate though. However its vague enough to certainly be true in some respects. Just as I suspect you would agree that some conservatives have certainly somewhere pushed gay and trans people out of jobs as well. You would just disagree with the scope of that problem.

Our bias’s color our perceptions. Which is why we should be judging this situation on its merits.

Is this a bit of the ol “No True Scotsman”? Its undoubtly true that there are churches and reverends who have preached all manner of hatred and intolerance. Why would antisemitism be absent?

The words you are quoting from are the one-sided account of someone who is intentionally trying to sway you to her side on the matter. Additionally ALL complaints should be investigated with the understanding “This may be true, but it also may not be true”. An investigation that does not can only be one of two things. A whitewash or a witch-hunt.

Your hypothetical would have more teeth if the reporting after most mass shootings did not list out all the warning signs that the killer gave which never made it into the hands of the authorities.

Even so, your entire complaint only has validity if you have already decided who is right and who is wrong based on your prejudices. Exactly what an investigation should not do. You are not judging this situation as it IS, you are judging it as you ARE. Biased and unfair.

Yes yes, this again. I have been so impressed by the civility of most of the people I have interacted with here.



Absolutely. But we don’t send people to jail on suspicion that they might commit a crime, do we? Let’s reverse the situation: Five years from now the people rise, but this time they have a respectable leader (contra 2016). The wokies have been routed and now, instead of the wokies running the witch hunts, the wokies are the hunted. People are fired on suspicion that their opinions are progressive. Now, nurses who are caught ‘enabling’ the mental illnesses of their patents instead of helping them come to terms with reality are the criminals. Harm. Discrimination! – we control the meaning of words now and treating anyone as tho they are too soft in the head to face reality is Discrimination.

One is fired on suspicion of course, but there are also people who’s job it is to comb thru the (now eternal) internet records of the suspected for evidence that some nurse, before the revolution, were transmanics or progressives of any sort and if so, off to jail with them. See, if you can do it to us, you set the example for us to follow, should we ever regain control. How do you like it? Both sets of fundamentalists are now implicitly anti-democratic. Those who do not share our doctrines are fired at the very least, probably imprisoned, and – to finally purify the land – killed. But of course we are the Tolerant! We are the humanists! We have Love on our side! We only do what must be done – we can’t tolerate intolerance and the wokies are intolerant so …

Quite right. I can only address this as given. Indeed, the whole truth might very well be a bit more complicated.

Yes. I suppose it is imprudent to argue my view as if the facts of this case have really been established – they haven’t. Thanks for the correction. One might start off using the case as a hypothetical and quickly forget that it is only a hypothetical. In the current overheated state of things, that’s dangerous. Touche.


But we do reject prospective employees on the basis there’s suspicion they won’t be suitable for a job because of their attitude don’t we? There’s a reason for job interviews ya know…

That is the correct rebuttal. Ella is explicit that she thinks people should be fired for un-wokeness even if no one has ever detected a trace of misbehavior – even by the standards of the transmanics! – in actual practice. Suspicion is sufficient. To be employed on must be a True Believer.

Agreed. I’d not fire a Catholic nurse or a Muslim nurse or a Flat-Earther nurse or a trans nurse for their beliefs so long as they are doing their job. And, BTW, their job is not religious indoctrination! It is not their job to spread my view of the world to the patients in my hospital. Nor their view. And all patients will be treated equally irrespective of their religions too.

But should anyone start demanding that other people conform to their religion, no sorry, it’s a secular country. Thus Hindus cannot demand that meat not be eaten in the hospital, Jews cannot demand there be no pork, Seventh Day Adventists are out of luck if they want all work to stop on Saturday, Flat-Earthers cannot demand that all globes be removed, TGP cannot demand that people use their pronouns and Germans cannot demand that we all speak German.

They are. I am Napoleon! I Identify as Napoleon and
that is sufficient. Can I force you to Affirm? Are you Napolophobic if you refuse to refer to me as Mon Empereur? Oh, and I want all conversation in French please.

Yes, and from the beginning of nursing until the dawn of wokeness it never even crossed anyone’s mind that a nurse’s job required her to use made up pronouns. It’s too bad we can’t get the opinions of Florence N. and Clara B. and the monumental Mother Bickerdyke on the subject. I suspect that if some wounded soldier had been admitted to one of her hospitals and ‘she’ had informed Mother that she was a she and please inform the whole staff that her pronouns were xi/xu/xa … I don’t think it would have gone well for the soldier.

I’d expect that nurses in psychiatric wards have special training. In normal situations, I’d expect that should a nurse encounter a TGP, he’d mostly just smile and nod, not get into a theological dispute on the subject of what reality is. Should the patient demand it, I suppose the chaplain might be called.


You shoulda seen the Old Days when QC was dominated by hard right fundamentalists.

True. I remember discussing this kind of thing with my dad, asking him what ‘tolerance’ looked like back in his day. He said that the idea of asking someone what their religion was, or even their politics, was considered repugnant. Laws aside one simply did not ask such questions. We lived in a democracy after all, and people of all religions and beliefs, by virtue of their citizenship, were expected and trusted to understand that we were all held to the same standard of behavior, beliefs notwithstanding. This is before mulicult, of course. We all used the same set of pronouns, those of the English language.


There is a quite recent case where a 4th year med student talked about how a patient made fun of her pronouns, and she noted that it took 2 sticks to get a blood-draw. Her med school has put her on time-out to allow her to rethink her situation.

Patients should not be punished for non-Woke statements.

The med student claims that the pronoun issue did not lead to the 2-stick consequence. But they were issued in a single tweet. So, the contiguity is suspicious.

She’s on time-out. I hope that the student is not removed from med school. But this should be a situation in which the student has some kind of consequence - at least she should have to consider the ethical issues. The student is of an Asian background. What would she do if someone made fun of her background? I don’t approve of that, but the student needs to be ready.


Exactly. Respect for someone’s beliefs should not entail participation in them.

You enjoy identifying as a dolphin. I disagree that you are actually a dolphin, but that does not matter. We are somehow able to interact without rancor because the converse is also true. You respect my sincerely held belief that you are not what you claim to be.

Tolerance is a two-way street.


Those were the days, alright.


Back then someone would have thought to ask @Silhouette her stance on puberty blockers upon her claim that she’s against grooming and would denounce it in all its forms.


Agreed. Our tribe does not cancel folks for that kind of misbehavior, she should be reprimanded and kept an eye on. She needs to understand that her personal views must not interfere with her job performance.

Ah! That depends on whether we are using ‘Identity = actuality’ – as Ella and Sil do, or using ‘physical fact = actuality’ as whitey does – to Oppress and Discriminate. If Identity rules then I am a dolphin. If physical facts rule, then I’m afraid I was Born In The Wrong Body and am still a monkey :frowning:


But help is on the way, eventually we’ll have trans-species surgery and I can be a Real 100% genuine dolphin.


Again with the grooming. What does a valid treatment option dispensed on a doctors orders have to do with grooming?

You may note that even organizations which exist to combat sexual assault don’t mention anything of the sort. I’m just not getting the connection that so many here see.


That’s because youre stuck on the old definition where grooming must necessarily mean preparing a child for direct abuse by the groomer. But one not need be a pervert or an abuser to be a groomer of children. To say one is a groomer is not to say they are overtly grooming for their own gratification but rather they perpetuate systems of grooming. Systemic grooming is pervasive in our society.

Encouraging children, before they can give informed consent, to start down a path with higher likelihood of existential/identity confusion, depression and self harm is to groom them for strife and hardship and make them a more vulnerable target to those who do consciously mean them harm.


Very well put. It’s increasingly clear that the ROGD phenomena is due to trannies grooming children. Those who groom should be on the sex offender list. The groomers can include physicians who given out wrong-sex hormones, therapists who encourage the tranninsanity, and other kids who are already in the trannie-cult. The only way to validate the delusion based on falsehood is getting others to join the cult.

The grooming includes the notion that changing sex can relieve the mythical and delusional state of dysphoria. Dysphoria is simply a confusion of a normal hormonal change of puberty.


Now, lets be fair. A lot of allies do that too.

1 Like

Actually I should have said stuck on one specific definition. There’s no new definition needed. From the dictionary dotcom entry for “groom”:

Children are being groomed to become transgender its quite obvious. Why these groomers always get reflexively defensive about sexual abuse is anyone’s guess.