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

Oh touché! Bravo! I LOVE IT!!!

Yes, in that case you are of course correct. If you include things such as doctors visits or treatments within the definition of “grooming” then by that definition they certainly are. Of course this then necessitates that we be careful in our language so as not to confuse others. We would not want someone to think you are talking about the bad type of grooming if you mean to discuss the good kind. In fact I think it would be simpler if we just stuck with the original definition. But as I have said, “Simplicity is not automatically a moral good”. If you believe that the inclusion of such things within the definition will enhance the richness of the human experience then by all means proclaim your truth! You have my full support.

So allow me to clarify what I said in the light of your truth. I am against intentional efforts to lead children to become the sexual playthings of adults. I am all for wellness checkups and doctors visits.

1 Like

And to me, that you do not know what you are talking about is also quite obvious. Of course if I put that forward as an argument I would be doing nothing to move the conversation forward. In fact I could only derail it.

No. Such determinations CAN be made, and CAN be justifiable. For example, if you’ve been convicted of a crime, or having broken the law in some way, then a risk assessment is warranted. THis lady hasn’t broken any laws as far as I can tell.

Also, how is her situation different from my example of the Catholic maternity nurse? Wouldn’t that nurse pose a “potential risk” to unwed pregnant women?

Now, there are scenarios where prior views might be cause for pre-emptive action. If her view was “I hate Jews”…yeah, I think that would be an issue even before she comes anywhere close to a Jewish patient. More importantly, it should come down to whether her personal views would be an impediment to her fulfilling her duties up to professional standards. In this case, her views amount to that she believes in biologic scientific reality. I actually think you would want that in your nurse.


Fair enough. And it should be understood that my interpretation of the situation is constrained by those same limitations. But this is the usual “two-sides” argument. I would happily render my opinion on the other side, if and when the other side presents their case here.

But it comes down to burden of proof. If the complaint was “something did happen”, then the burden is on the accuser to provide proof positive of same. What is the burden of proof when the complaint is “something MIGHT happen”? You can defend yourself against accusations that “you did something yesterday”; how do you defend against “you might do something tomorrow”?

Not to mention that there should be pre-emptive rulings where frivolous complaints aren’t even allowed to proceed. Similar to frivolous legal claims that get thrown out of court.


We already have it though! Soon my wife will be correct and I really will be a pig.


This certainly is up there in the “most false statements” of this discussion filled with trannie lies. When a person describes what is happening TO THEM, it is not “one-sided”. It is a personal account. That it is one-sided is due to the undeniable fact that she is being railroaded, persecuted, damaged by trannie activists. This is her story.


You see what I did there. :+1: What makes it so great is that it’s actually all true this time. It’s not just a shallow tit for tat reversal. For years progressives projected their own insidious Modus Operandi onto everyday people. The result is I end up sounding like they did, except it’s actually legit.

All grooming.

It’s not good. Maybe some tiny percentage of the time. But not overall. Certainly not worth the greater damage done by all the incessant messaging and celebration and indulgence in the first of the seven deadly sins.

I’m against the unintentional maneuvers too. Being unintentional doesn’t make it “the good kind.”

But, if intent matters I can qualify that and call it unconscious grooming.

Well there are no “gamma247 doesn’t know what he’s talking about” parades (not out in the greater world anyway–you’ll see some here if I stick around long enough) or flags or crosswalks solidifying the constant drumbeat in my case.

This is me moving the conversation forward. They’re being groomed to become trans. The symbolism and the messaging is all around us. You call it merely teaching. But they don’t just teach it clinically and you know it. It’s paired with commentary and the constant background noise about how brave and wonderful and progressive it all is. It pushes them toward it, and there are all kinds of nasty consequences.


George, a personal account is of course “one-sided”. Its the very reason we do not consider autobiographies to be an unbiased look at an individual. That you need this explained is surprising. That you actually disagree with something this banal to the point you call it one of the ““most false statements” of this discussion” is almost a parody.

And if you are going to behave like a parody then I think you have earned a "Calm down. Get a hold of yourself!"


One of the few times I will mention “Californian Law” in anything other than a tone of derision is when discussing their strong anti-SLAPP statute. It really should serve as a model for the rest of the country. And yes, it feels really weird to say that.


George you are an intelligent guy and we are on the same side of this issue but the above is sub-intellectual. If some activist wrote us a sob story of their Oppression and Victimhood at the hands of The Transphobes I don’t think you’d accept it unquestioningly would you? I’m absolutely on the side of the nurse, but to say that she hasn’t perhaps slightly polished up her story to her own benefit is silly and you know that perfectly well. I go further and say that not polishing up one’s story is probably impossible. You are so fundamentalist about all this that you become unreasonable, and that does not make you a more effective warrior, it makes you look stupid.

We might say that before overt grooming comes normalization. Sodomy has been normalized for decades and trans is being normalized now. Grooming is the next step.

I don’t think that can be denied. A person who transitions is considered a hero, a brave pioneer. Wouldn’t you like to be a hero too, Bobby? It was the same with the Satanic Panic. Science? Bullshit. “Johnny remembers the bad things that Mrs. Smith did and he’s a very clever boy. Wouldn’t you like to be a clever boy too, Joey?” That’s just about exactly how they groomed the kids to invent all sorts of stories about the Satanists. Kids are very easily manipulated like that and to say that activists won’t use the same sorts of candy on kids when it comes to trans is naive at best.

I wish the Georges of this world could be made to understand that they do their own cause more harm than good. Ditto Johnny. I remember we were saying how the excesses of the MSM when it came to Trump were so blatant that both of us ended up coming to Trump’s defense, which is something that I myself would rather not do.


Let’s think of it this way: I bring a loaf of bread. I am then criticized for this object with the criticism: “The loaf of bread has too much bread in it. It has no meat.”

I hold up a piece of paper. The criticism is “that paper has too much paper in it.”

A personal account is “one-sided”. But that cannot be a criticism of the thing. That is the VERY ESSENCE of a personal account. So criticizing it for being “one-sided” is idiotic.

1 Like

As others have noted, you are doing yourself no favors here. Indeed, a personal account is by definition “one-sided”. @Silhouette is not criticizing it for merely being a personal account or one-sided; rather, just pointing out the also-undeniable reality that the nurse’s version of the story may not be the whole entire unvarnished story. Honestly, this is not a hill worth bleeding on.


She is required to uphold professional standards of the BCCNM which includes ethical practices one of which is:

Identifies the effect of own values, beliefs and experiences in carrying out clinical activities; recognizes potential conflicts and takes action to prevent or resolve.


It’s quite possible a determination can be made if the BCCNM can identify that she does not meet this criteria.

It’s also important to note that theres a lot of evidence now that cultural competence effects patient outcomes & satisfaction so nurses lacking this skill certainly would be more likely compromised in providing optimal care.

Do you have any evidence of a causal link that teaching about trans issues directly makes a person trans? So far the contagion narrative (rapid onset dysphoria) amongst peers has been disproven.

Back for another right wing propagandism?

Did you not just post this verbatim I another thread, same articles, same comments everything. Copy paste is what propagandists do.

1 Like

That’s good research. Thanks.

OK, so she has a duty to, in essence, self-monitor and reflect, so that her personal opinions don’t affect her ability to discharge her professional duties and responsibilities. That sounds fair.

And like I’ve said, IF SHE HAS FAILED TO DO SO IN THE PAST, for example if a patient brought forth a complaint about such failure, that would make the complaint far more legitimate, IMO.

But I would be really curious how the BCCNM could possibly “identify that she does not meet” this professional standard, when it involves a hypothetical FUTURE act. It would be “possible” only if the BBCNM are fortune tellers.

“cultural”, sure. Not everyone rolls the way a WASP might. But that doesn’t require denial of biologic reality. Gender identity is not in the same ballpark. That said, in her professional role she should accept the patient’s choices. So it will be interesting to see how the BCCNM might contort themselves in trying to demonstrate how her personal opinions would PROVE her to be “lacking this skill”.


It was posted in another thread in error apologies….


The way I interpreted the above was she must possess this ‘competency’ to maintain her licence which implies she doesn’t necessarily have to have committed any breaches. Her understanding of this criteria could be ascertained via interviewing her.

I’m under no obligation to provide any evidence for a claim I didn’t make. In fact I specifically said it isn’t just teaching.

But I understand why you had to go and build that strawman. Asking me for evidence that mass celebration and encouragement of LGBQT through repetitive sloganeering and ubiquitous flag waving symbology which gives so many teens already struggling with identity crises an ‘out’ from their normative pedestrian existence would just make you seem really clueless.


Fair enough. They interview her to ascertain she has this competency, prior to any incident that would make them suspect her of lacking it.

But in that case, as a process, why aren’t they doing this with all nurses? On all issues? Sure, you might say ‘well, her off-duty profile indicates she has strong opinions on this subject’. Do they routinely interview other nurses who hold strong opinions on issues that might relate to health, while off-duty?

Also, acknowledging the account is one-sided, the process sounds a little more involved and adversarial than “an interview”.


Which leaves us wondering why GD cases have risen by 4400% in the last few years. I deeply suspect that the ‘disprovers’ are motivated.

Or if they take it as doctrine that only those who have been baptized into the church of wokeness can ever be ‘safe’. This is quite comparable to the Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany and no I’m not exaggerating, in both cases we have the impure Enemy being slowly squeezed out of society, Jews there, the unwoke here. In both cases it starts small – merely people being fired. Where it stops remains to be seen.

Which would be fine if trans-positivism was a competency. In fact it is a religion and she should not be required to join. Nuts, even Catholic hospitals don’t require doctors and nurses to be Catholic.

Sounds more like a struggle session in which what is at issue has nothing whatsoever to do with nursing competence, and much more to do with purging unbelievers.