https://winteryknight.com/2025/03/24/christian-nurse-punished-by-nhs-for-misgendering-transgender-pedophile/
The NT speaks repeatedly about how Christians will be persecuted for their faith. I've always been hard pressed to call what happens in the US, Canada, and Western Europe as persecution because it's relatively mild. Yet,as we see in the story above and others, Christians in The West are subject more and more often to persecution. What else can you call being jailed for praying in public (especially when Muslims do it daily), being jailed for giving a rose to someone waiting for an abortion, or for a social media post. It's more and more clear that the "post Christian" society that we've been warned about is more and more a reality in The West. What I find amazing about stories like this is the hypocrisy embedded in the whole interaction.
The official records labeled the patient a man.
He was a freaking convicted sex criminal, how much consideration should he get?
Medically, properly classifying patients with their biological sex is vital for treatment. If they'd gone along with his delusion, and given him the dosage of medication prescribed for a woman it' highly likely that the treatment would not have worked.
Why in the hell doesn't the UK have hospitals in their prisons instead of bringing violent felons into a civilian hospital.
This interaction tells us so much about the hierarchy of oppression. No one bats an eye at his use of racist language directed at her or his threatening actions, and the guards don't sound like they were prompt in protecting the nurse from his threats.
This is indicative of so many things wrong with the UK, and a preview of coming attractions in the US and Canada.
BTW, I saw a video of a young Canadian woman over the weekend who was told that it would a 13 months for diagnostic scans to confirm whether or not her BRAIN TUMOR might be a problem for her or not. For all of the things that are less than desirable about the US healthcare industry, there is no way in hell that someone with a BRAIN TUMOR would have to wait 13 days for diagnostic imaging. I'm shocked they didn't recommend suicide.
111 comments:
From the story...
"Jennifer politely said: ‘I am sorry I cannot refer to you as her or she, as it’s against my faith and Christian values but I can call you by your name.’"
1. There is nothing in the Christian faith that says, "If George wants to be called Jane, God doesn't want me to call them Jane." It's just NOT part of any Christian tradition and certainly not in the Bible.
2. There's no defense for being a jersey, and especially on the job. Paul noted the rational point, "inasmuch as you can, live at peace with everyone..." This commonsense advice applies here.
3. If her employer has instructed their employees that this very basic step is expected of them, then of course they would be fired.
4. It is and remains galling that Christians who have lives of great privilege in free Republics for at least a couple of centuries would dare to histrionically claim to be oppressed, especially when they're talking about lgbtq folks who HAVE, in fact, literally been oppressed for centuries AND oftentimes, oppressed by those self-same Christians.
The gall.
Dan
The UK has become an unsafe place for Christians and sane people. And Muslims are doing much to run the country to boot!
1. That you've decided that you are the arbiter of faith and practice for millions of Christians throughout the world will come as quite the surprise. That the hospital, official medical records have the patient listed as a male, and it appears that she was going from the records, it seems like maybe the NHS is at fault. As I noted, treating a biological male and a woman carries risk. Should the hospital assume that risk for this guy?
2. Strangely enough, she wasn't "a jersey" (unless you're calling her a cow), she was polite, respectful and offered to call him by his name. Yet you don't seem phased by his violent, racist outburst.
3. When you start with "If", your point simply loses any credibility. I don't know how it is in the UK but immediately firing someone who (so far as we know) has been a good employee and competent nurse (being promoted to a senior nurse seems to suggest that she was good at her job) for a minor infraction like this seems excessive. I'm damn glad Dan's not my boss.
4. It's not nearly as galling as the large number of Pakistanis involved in raping children who've gotten off very easy over the years, or the Iranian rapist who they won't deport. (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11877091/Convicted-rapist-fighting-deportation-allowed-stay-Britain-crime-judge-rules.html) It'd be interesting to see what would have happened had the nurse been a Muslim. Finally, it's always interesting to see Dan defend the convicted sex offender who engaged in racist attacks and physical threats to a woman who simply went by the information provided by her employer.
It's now OK to persecute Christians because some Christians, hundreds of years ago, might have acted in accordance with accepted behavior at the time and thus have offended the sensibilities of 21st century liberals.
It's also strange how Dan chooses to ignore the very current "oppression" of LGBTQXYZPDQ folx, by various non Christian religions and ideologies.
It's almost exactly like that. Am I wrong in thinking that the UK should have hospitals in their prisons instead of bringing criminals (especially sex offenders) into NHS hospitals?
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/debunking-mainstream-media-lies-about
As Dan has totally bought into the TQ Narrative, despite the evidence, I'll post this from an Evolutionary Biologist who might know a thing or two that Dan chooses to suppress.
Dan says there is nothing in the Christian faith forbidding her to use a specific name. I would say that we are forbidden to lie and it is a lie to say a male is a female.
Seems to me Scripture's pretty clearly teaches that lying is bad. That would also include enabling the lies of others, which makes one complicit in the lie.
I don't think Paul meant that we should reject truth and morality in order to live in peace with everyone. That would be enabling. That would be tolerating the proliferation of the sin in question. "Oh! I see Dan doesn't bother to correct that dude wallowing in his perversion! Surely that means my perversion will be tolerated by Dan, too!"
I've never had a problem with calling out persecution when I see it. One doesn't have to be crucified in order to rightly regarded as a victim of anti-Christian persecution. And I'd say no one is trying to say low level degrees of it is the same as crucifixion. But persecution is persecution and I would say its akin to the "broken windows" policy. Little crimes make slightly more serious crimes more tolerable until the very serious crimes are ubiquitous. It's the same here. Allow a little persecution and eventually it becomes the norm, and then more serious degrees of it follow. We're seeing that in the UK as well as in response to anyone wishing to peacefully protest in front of abortion clinics.
What's more, those who haven't any problem with a given sin...such as the LGBTQ++++ sins...find it easy enough to persecute those who care enough to point out the sinfulness of their behaviors. Now, the good guys are the bad guys and the perverse are the victims simply for not acquiescing to their demands.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-001018_EN.html
Here's the problem with Dan and his bizarre views on oppression/persecution and the like.
70 Christians (people he'd allegedly call brothers/sisters) were killed by Muslims (unless white, right wing, extremists have affiliated with ISIS) and Dan stays silent. I can imagine he'd argue that since Christians have oppressed the Congo for years, that it makes total sense that they get a taste of their own medicine.
My point exactly. I have no problem with here referring to the guy by the name on his records. The fact that it's only the nurse getting punished here, not the hospital, not the NHS, (they're the one's who maintain patient records) is what's shocking. That and Dan's casual acceptance of a racist rant from a "trans" guy. I guess black folk aren't at the top of the victim list any more.
I don't either. It's more that I don't consider someone like Dan or his butt buddy calling me names and lying about me on random, obscure, blogs as persecution. When people are arrested for praying in public or giving a rose to women at an abortion clinic, sure. When people are sued to harass them for their beliefs, sure. Yet, we're not getting beheaded either. It's an issue of where most of us fall on the continuum of persecution, and I'm personally hesitant to complain about it much.
Graceless people seeking to force god into their little boxes said:
Seems to me Scripture's pretty clearly teaches that lying is bad...
I would say that we are forbidden to lie and it is a lie to say a male is a female.
Etc.
If someone walks up to you and says, I'd like you to call me Jamie, you would have to be a jerk to insist that you will call them something else. There is NOTHING in the Bible, or Reason, or simple basic Goodness and Decency that says you MUST insist on calling Jamie, MR X.
It's NOT a Christian issue to try to be rude. Indeed, quite the opposite.
But appeals for reason and basic decent kindness will always be missed by the lightweight, emotionally fragile people who think they are being oppressed when they're actually just being asked to be rational and decent.
Emotionally fragile people have a hard time seeing past their own egos and circumstances, as you all prove here.
"I’m so tired of waiting,
Aren’t you,
For the world to become good
And beautiful and kind?"
~from "Kind," by Langston Hughes
Let's choose good and beautiful and kind.
"butt buddy..."
Hey, chipster, have a great day at middle school!
Also:
"butt buddy calling me names and lying about me..."
The irony never ends. The completely self-unaware irony.
Craig:
1. That you've decided that you are the arbiter of faith and practice for millions of Christians throughout the world will come as quite the surprise.
As a point of fact, throughout all of church history, there has never (until recently) been a thesis in church doctrines that it is wrong to call George, Jane, if that's what Jane asks.
Indeed, the racists back in the day were told to STOP calling black men, "boy," and condescending to them. Certainly, some of those racists may have felt oppressed and persecuted, but they weren't. And there was never anything in church history that defended the choice to call grown men, "boys," either. EVEN IF some of them felt it was an attack on their "religious liberty," it just wasn't.
Yet it is persecution nonetheless. I wouldn't necessarily go on and on about it, either, but it is what it is. My point was merely that a low degree of severity doesn't mean the word doesn't apply.
It's not just a name change request. When a guy wants you to call him a woman's name it's because he's pretending to be a woman (what the LEFT calls "transgender."). So the lie is calling the person something he isn't.
Well, according to scripture lying is bad. Jesus repeatedly insisted that Truth was important. If you want to endorse lying, then just say it plainly.
The problem with your example is that the nurse in question HAD NO PROBLEM CALLING HIM BY HIS NAME. Unless you are now insisting that one MUST under all circumstances use MR/MRS/MS/Miss/etc in referring to people, your point is invalid because you've ignored the facts.
That you choose to focus ONLY on the nurse, who was using the information in the medical chart, an not the hospital or NHS in your screeching, I seems safe to conclude that you really don't care that much about this. That you're defending this vile scum of the earth convicted pedophile and ignoring his violent racist rant, is also informative.
Accepting her apology, and her calling him by name, would have solved the whole problem. I guess your notion of grace only extends one way.
If anyone in this situation is emotionally fragile, it's the racist pedophile who totally overreacted and chose not to accept her apology and to be called by his name.
I've spent a lot of time in hospitals (mostly for family members) and I don't ever recall anyone (patient, family, or visitors) being referred to as anything but their name. Never Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss/etc.
The double standard here is impressive, even from you.
Given that you so rarely do what you demand of others, even as you platform other humans who don't follow the above creed, I find your hypocrisy to be expected.
I guess telling the Truth is irony to someone who frequently doesn't and who platforms and encourages that sort of behavior.
But, as this thread demonstrates, Truth isn't your priority.
Well done, you've completely moved the goal posts away from lying, to preferences.
The problem remains, that the nurse OFFERED TO DO WHAT YOU'RE WHINING ABOUT. She literally apologized for reading what the chart said and offered to call him by his name. is your head so far up the T Narrative's ass that you can't see what's right in front of you?
As per the article you've ignored by an expert (I'd argue that an evolutionary biologist is an expert on matters of biology), it's impossible for a man to become a woman. As per medical science and practice, it's wrong to treat patients based on their delusions as opposed to their biology. As per you, racists and pedophiles are horrible, evil, people. As per procedure, the hospital records accurately reflect the biology of the pedophile racist, the nurse simply went with the chart.
But hey, if you want to defend the pedophile racist, go right ahead.
Are things like Truth and accuracy important?
Is it important to treat patients in a manner consistent with their biology?
If a woman went into the ER with pain in her groin area, and was diagnosed with testicular cancer, should the Doctors believe the test results and treat her accordingly, or accede to her insistence that she's a woman and can't have testicular cancer?
Glenn, as noted she was willing to call him whatever name he wanted, she wasn't willing to call him a woman. People regularly have names they prefer over their given/legal name and we regularly use those preferences. I think that calling someone their preferred name, doesn't automatically equate to endorsing the lie.
I'm not saying that it doesn't apply. I am saying that when I read about 70 Christians killed for their faith that being bullied online isn't worth getting to worked up about.
It's interesting that Dan is silent on the recent surge in brutal killings of Christians by Muslims, one wonders why.
Craig...
"Are things like Truth and accuracy important?
Is it important to treat patients in a manner consistent with their biology?"
Yes, truth and accuracy ARE important. The truth is, there ARE transgender people in the world.
The truth is that medical and psychological experts acknowledge the reality that gender and orientation are fluid.
The truth is that you surely can't be so ignorant and uninformed to know that experts by and large acknowledge these realities and that you must surely know that offering up one insect biologist is not proof that you're position on gender is correct.
The truth is that neither Jesus nor historical Christianity has had no position against gender fluidity or calling someone by their preferred pronouns and names.
The question is whether y'all can recognize these truths and facts?
Dan
"should the Doctors believe the test results and treat her accordingly, or accede to her insistence that she's a woman and can't have testicular cancer?"
She was not providing treatment, she just refused to call her, she, according to the story.
Dan
I don't wish to belabor the point, but to acknowledge persecution of a low level doesn't suggest getting "worked up" as if it's more than it is. But to dismiss it because it's of a lower degree only allows more to be perpetrated. It must be pointed out for what it is regardless of the severity if one hopes to diminish, if not eliminate, the practice. It really doesn't matter to me to what degree another is persecuted. I'd prefer it not be done at all. Period.
As to Dan's silence, it's beyond understanding without concluding his concern for "innocents" is mere posturing.
"If someone walks up to you and says, I'd like you to call me Jamie, you would have to be a jerk to insist that you will call them something else. There is NOTHING in the Bible, or Reason, or simple basic Goodness and Decency that says you MUST insist on calling Jamie, MR X."
If a dude walks up to me and says, "call me 'Jamie'", that doesn't suggest he's deluded about his sex. He simply could be named "Jamie", such as Jamie Foxx, Jamie Dornan, Jamie Bell, etc. But if you mean a guy born male, named "Chuck" by his parents now wants me to call him "Sheila", I would ask what his last name is and call him "Mr." Whateverhislastnameis.
"It's NOT a Christian issue to try to be rude."
"Rude" would be leaning on another to indulge your delusion as if it's somehow incumbent upon everyone else to lie along with you in order to regarded as gracious. How is it "Christian" to force Christians to lie so that the deluded aren't insulted? Clearly it would be more Christian to help the deluded face and cope with the truth about themselves. That's certainly what they need.
"But appeals for reason and basic decent kindness will always be missed by the lightweight, emotionally fragile people who think they are being oppressed when they're actually just being asked to be rational and decent."
Reason and basic decent kindness is not made manifest in enabling the disordered in their delusions. Actual Christians don't feel "oppressed" by the demands of the disordered and their enablers. They feel sad that the disordered and their enablers have so embraced sinful perversions and attempt to oppress those who won't.
"Emotionally fragile people have a hard time seeing past their own egos and circumstances, as you all prove here."
That's funny.
I'm not suggesting that it does. I am suggesting that I personally don't feel comfortable getting that excited about some minor persecution that I might go through, when I compare it to being beheaded for the Faith. Others might feel differently and that's cool. I can only speak for myself.
Unfortunately, we've been warned that persecution for following Jesus is to be expected.
Dan's concern for innocents comes in two flavors. The vague, general, bland, concern. Or the very specific, immediate concern. The first is like a security blanket that allows him to stay silent when his Christian brothers and sisters are being beheaded for their faith. The second comes out hard and fast when one of Dan's pet groups of the "oppressed" makes the news. It's why he can stay silent when Hamas commits atrocities (until called out for his silence) on innocent Israelis for months, but get agitated when Israel responds to pressure Hamas into releasing the hostages. It's why he can cry fake tears over the children Hamas sacrifices, and say nothing about the hostages Hamas is holding.
I'm tired of waiting for the perverse like Dan and his favored homosexual poet to stop dictating to others that joining in their enabling is a manifestation of "good and beautiful and kind". It isn't. It's just leading others to sin.
""butt buddy...""
Well, you guys do seem close, and you both do at least enable that kind of association.
"As a point of fact, throughout all of church history, there has never (until recently) been a thesis in church doctrines that it is wrong to call George, Jane, if that's what Jane asks."
This is akin to Dan's "some forms of homosexual behavior" lie. To Dan, if this particular form of lying isn't specifically mentioned, then it's quite OK to lie. And to pressure others to abide the lie is to make them liars as well, thus leading others into sin.
But of course what this is really all about is just Dan once again defending and promoting his favored perversions as morally benign, when they are in fact sinful. If the dude thought he was a horse, Dan would have no problem calling the dude by his actually name rather than "Trigger".
As it's tied to the dude's disorder, it actually is endorsing the lie.
But the liars go the distance here and now insist that one doesn't need to be a man to have testicular cancer.
" The truth is, there ARE transgender people in the world."
This is lie, not truth. The best one can say is that there are disordered people who believe they are of the sex opposite their biology. There's no such thing as a "transsexual".
"The truth is that medical and psychological experts acknowledge the reality that gender and orientation are fluid."
Only leftist medical and psychological "experts" pretend gender and orientation are fluid.
"The truth is that you surely can't be so ignorant and uninformed to know that experts by and large acknowledge these realities and that you must surely know that offering up one insect biologist is not proof that you're position on gender is correct."
The truth is it's not a matter of ignorance or a lack of information. It's a lack of honesty on your part and on the part of the leftist LGBTQ++++ activists in the medical and psych fields who do not make up the majority and do not have a consensus on their unproven assertions.
"The truth is that neither Jesus nor historical Christianity has had no position against gender fluidity or calling someone by their preferred pronouns and names."
The truth is that both Jesus and historical Christianity is opposed to cross-dressing, of which trans-surgery is the extreme example, as well as opposed to lying and pressuring others to lie along with you.
"The question is whether y'all can recognize these truths and facts?"
The question is, who would seriously regard you as a Christian after asserting your lies as "truths and facts"?
Nice dodge, Dan. So typical. But we already know your kind pretends that men can get pregnant and women can have testicular cancer. The lies never stop with your kind. You just find new ways to perpetuate them.
Well that's something, you acknowledge that Truth and accuracy are important. Biology, not so much.
Are you saying that the "transgender" are literally, physically, or biologically the sex they identify with?
Well, it's more accurate to say that some "medical and psychological" practitioners think or thought that. But as the evidence grows the tide is shifting away from so much that has been championed a few years ago.
I am aware that the soft sciences have claimed that "gender" is "fluid". I am also aware that the hard science of biology (I literally spoon fed you an article from an evolutionary biologist, although I'm sure he's not educated enough to please you) is pretty unequivocal that sex is based in the physical reality of the human body. I am aware that a recent study pretty much debunked the idea of a "male brain" and a "female brain". I am aware of the studies that show that over 80% of youths that claim to be "transgender" will end up as GLB or straight if given the chance. I am aware the virtually the entire continent of Europe has drastically changed their views on dealing with the "trans". It's possible that I'm actually more aware of the bigger picture than you are.
Yet both the Church and Jesus did have a position on Truth, and affirming something known to be false seems problematic.
In this case, from the perspective of the NHS, the hospital, and biology, this pedophile racist was a biological male. To have treated his physical symptoms based on his delusion that he is actually a female, would be malpractice, wouldn't it?
Just because you spew crap doesn't mean it's True or factual.
This is an interesting dodge.
1. You still choose to stoke your ire by ignoring the fact that the nurse was willing to call him by his name.
2. Your choice to ignore the first part of the question you're dodging is pretty startling.
Apparently you decided to just pretend as if the "If a woman went into the ER with...pain..." and act as if my general question was directly related to the instance regarding this violent pedophile racist and his attack on the nurse.
Coward.
You now don't need to bother answering the actual question asked. That you went to such lengths to dodge it tells me that, at some level, you understand that a woman with testicular cancer should be treated according to her biology, not according to her delusion. It's just inconvenient for you to admit that reality.
To call him a her/she would be a lie and that is why she refused to call him that, but was willing to just use his name, which to me would be a lie if he used a feminine name.
That's the great thing about Christian liberty. I'd argue that in a position as a medical provider, dealing with a patient, that referring to that patient by whatever name you're given is both common courtesy as well as sound practice. If given the choice, in a different setting, I might agree. In this case, it doesn't seem like a hill worth dying on.
Beyond that, of what value is it to be intentionally provocative. If it's a case where there is a long standing relationship, I could maybe see the point. In a case like this, it doesn't seem like it advances the Gospel at all.
Well that has happened. "Trans" women who are so committed to the bit that they simply refuse to admit that they could possibly have something like testicular cancer.
See below. From a purely medical point of view why would you add in unnecessary complications to the treatment.
I don't know if we know what he was in for, and his violent response indicates that it probably wasn't life threatening, but are you really suggesting that there is any benefit (medical or otherwise) to not calling a patient the name they prefer?
I get where you're coming from, but don't see how it helps spread the Gospel or put someone in a position to share the gospel because of a name.
Yeah, Dan's criteria for things like lying are pretty flexible. That he can be so selectively literal is funny as hell. But I agree that his "some forms..." formulation is both weird and nonsensical.
Look, if some dude came up and introduced himself as Trigger, why wouldn't I call him Trigger? Who knows what might happen by showing a bit of respect when we first encounter someone.
Not to support Dan, but I'd argue that (especially at an initial meeting) that it is rude to simply decide not to call someone by the name they give you. If I started calling you "Earl", after being told your name, wouldn't you be offended? Why would I needlessly offend anyone on first meeting them? How do you benefit? How do they benefit? How does The Kingdom of God get advanced because you won't use the name someone gives you.
Hypothetically, you meet some "trans" woman who introduces herself as Danielle. As someone, Danielle, who one could presume is far from YHWH are you more likely to be able to share the Gospel with him if you insist on calling him Dan? Let's say that happens, you decide to die on the "Dan" hill, and that person never hears the Gospel, is that how believers are supposed to behave?
1 Peter: 11 Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul. 12 Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor."
Peter exhorts the believers, in the midst of harsh persecution, to "show proper respect to everyone", "honor the emperor" and "live such good lives" that the pagans will see the glory of YHWH.
It seems like if the believers Peter was writing to were expected to show respect and honor to those who were actively persecuting them, that maybe showing a modicum of respect to someone who's delusional isn't too much to ask.
Again, you do what seems best to you. Personally, I think it's a mistake, but you do you.
Craig:
Are you saying that the "transgender" are literally, physically, or biologically the sex they identify with?
I'm saying that transgender women ARE women. They're transgender women. Period.
I'm asking what sort of jerk do you have to be to care about whether they call themselves a woman or not?
I'm saying that, in THIS story, we don't have all the details. It's a story that appears to be primarily promoted from far right sources, not actual news sources, so I'm not sure of the details of the story. Nor are you.
IF it is as is reported, then this person may or may not be a transgender woman. They may be, indeed, a racist and a pedophile, as reported. I'm not defending the person involved, as we don't have all the data.
But in THIS story, as reported, it appears that the employer has the reasonable expectation of their employees: IF someone says their pronouns are She/Hers, then we expect our employees to honor that request. Because, why not?
It's NOT a lie, in spite of the graceless claims by Glenn. It's a request: Would you call me by she/her. This employee, as reported, deliberately chose to disregard their employer's expectations. When that happens, being fired or demoted is not "oppression because she's a extremist Christian." It's being disciplined for not following professional guidelines as set by the employer.
If an employer has an expectation that their employees wear suits and ties and an employee chooses to wear T-shirt and jeans, then it's not religious oppression that they were fired. It was not doing the job in the manner the employer requested. It doesn't matter if the employee might say, "But jeans and a t-shirt are required by my religion!" they would be fired for not following company guidelines.
Where am I mistaken?
Would you defend the t-shirt/jeans employee who was fired for failing to follow their employer's rules? You almost certainly would not.
This "story" is nothing but an opportunity for those with fragile religious egos and a sense of privilege to feel outraged. There is no religious oppression or persecution here.
IF the nurse wants to work for a company that allows her to ignore gender preferences, she should find an employer without that rule.
Also, for what it's worth, if the story is as reported (a questionable position), I suspect the person in question is not actually a transgender woman. Perhaps someone with some mental difficulties, if I were to guess, given the described behavior.*
IF it was the case that this was actually a man and a pedophile and racist and sexist as reported (given his reported behavior), AND if the employer STILL expects the employees to honor pronoun choices, then this employee should have honored their pronouns because, WHY not? IF this is a person in the middle of a mental health crises, then a professional would not do something intentionally provocative. THAT's why medical/mental health agencies have these sorts of expectations. It's extremely unprofessional and unkind and unhelpful to intentionally provoke more mental anxiety rather than simply saying "Yes, ma'am."
And still, it remains a fact: "Christians believe that we should not call people who identify as she/her as she/her" is NOT a tenet of any Christian religion. It's just not. It's a modern bias and cultural unkindness, not a tenet of any Christian religion.
As to my "moving the goalposts," when I read it initially, I thought the nurse was both saying, "I won't call you she/her and I won't call you by your preferred name... I'll call you by your dead name..." but in re-reading, I'm not sure that's the case. Regardless, both actions - refusing to honor preferred pronouns and insisting on using dead names - are unkind, ungracious and unprofessional.
Craig:
This is an interesting dodge.
It's not a dodge. I was dealing with the story that was the topic of your post. In THAT story, the "poor, emotionally-fragile, 'oppressed/persecuted' Christian was being asked to simply call the patient by she/her and she refused, NOT because of any medical reason but because of her graceless and unprofessional decision to be cruel and unprofessional.
"She was not providing treatment, she just refused to call her, she, according to the story."
You mean, the nurse (who isn't there to provide treatment according to you) refused to call him "she".
Because, of course nurses in hospitals don't provide treatment.
Ok, don't answer the question, or define woman.
I don't care what people call themselves. Of course, I'm not obligated to enable someone's delusion.
Ahhhhhhh, the blame the reporting dodge. Well done.
As you ARE blaming the nurse (without all the details), it only seems reasonable that you would be evenhanded and just in your criticism. Instead you make excuses to blame one party and not the other.
Again, the fucking official medical chart maintained by the hospital/NHS has the sex listed as male but they demand that the nurse ignore the official records. Sounds nuts to me.
Given the biological, physical fact of the matter, this guy is not biologically a woman, and to affirm that is to affirm something that is verifiably/biologically/scientifically false.
You're mistaken when you make assumptions and argue against the assumptions you male.
As I said earlier, firing or severely punishing anyone for the first "offense" is incredibly excessive. Beyond that, your hypothetical has no relevance.
Yes it is outrageous that this woman was persecuted by the British government for her faith. Just like all the other instances of the British government persecuting Christians for things like peaceful protests or social media posts are outrageous. Just like the British government giving Pakistanis who gang rape children light sentences.
If your big argument is going to be based on something you have made up and cannot prove, maybe don't use it. Or maybe direct your wrath towards the hospital or NHS for listing the sex in the records as M.
As long as we're just guessing about shit and responding as if our guesses were reality, why not answer the question you dodged and stick with reality.
It was pretty clear that she was willing to call him by his name. You just jumped into fantasy land are got all worked up over shit you made up.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/23/nhs-nurse-punished-for-calling-transgender-paedophile-mr/
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/south-london-nurse-legal-action-nhs-transgender-row-b1218290.html
https://www.gbnews.com/news/video-nhs-nurse-claims-punished-faith-transgender-paedophile
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/33998101/nurse-disciplined-nhs-trans-paedophile/
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2025/03/nurse-punished-in-uk-for-addressing-convicted-transgender-paedophile-mr/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14526813/nurse-Jennifer-Melle-racism-transgender-paedophile-sex-offender-NHS.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/christian-nurse-takes-legal-action-after-nhs-punished-her-for-calling-transgender-paedophile-mr/ar-AA1BtFuW
It was and still is a dodge. That you intentionally ignored the first part of the question, intentionally only copy/pasted part of the question, and persist in this idiocy it's simply you dodging the question as asked. After having the reality pointed out to you, you could have acknowledged your mistake and answered the question, yet you persist in this bullshit instead of answering.
Threatening her, calling her a vile racist epithet is completely appropriate in your world for this nurse.
It's one simple question, why are you so afraid to answer it?
"If a woman went into the ER with pain in her groin area, and was diagnosed with testicular cancer, should the Doctors believe the test results and treat her accordingly, or accede to her insistence that she's a woman and can't have testicular cancer?"
It's literally a simple yes/no answer.
You'll defend the sensibilities of this convicted pedophile racist, but won't answer a simple question. Or you could define woman.
Im not afraid to answer anything.
I hadn't answered because it's a stupid question with only one correct answer and that answer is obvious: doctors will provide the medical assistance any patient needs based upon the best science. Of course, the doctor would tell the patient about the testicular cancer and of course, the patient would be grateful and they would treat based upon best practices.
Don't be an obtuse ass. Transgender women KNOW they were born with "boy parts."
Don't ask stupid questions.
OR, is it possible that you're SO ignorant and far removed from the concerns of trans folks that you truly didn't know the one right answer to that question?
If so, then by all means say something like, "I'm completely ignorant on topics like these. Help educate me so I'm no longer ignorant. What's the answer to this question..."
If you thought that was some difficult-to-answer or gotcha question, it wasn't.
Just an ignorant one.
Dan
That it took multiple attempts to get you to answer a simple question, seems to contradict your protests.
Thanks for acknowledging the biological reality that "trans women" are biologically men.
Actually, I ask the question because I've literally seen "trans women" emphatically denying their biological reality.
Then it's bizarre that you chose to misrepresent and dodge the question instead of simply answering it an demonstrating your superiority.
That you've ignored so much else about the "trans" Narrative over the last few years is naive, and you probably believe that children aren't being subjected to irreversible medical procedures.
Your commitment to the soft "science" of "gender studies" over the hard science of biology is impressive.
Thanks for proving my point by citing a bunch of right-wing outfits covering the story in a very biased manner with poor journalistic integrity.
As to the last one, the MSN link is broken.
When a "news story" is only covered by partisan or extremist groups, that raises red flags.
You know that, right?
Dan
Craig...
"Thanks for acknowledging the biological reality that "trans women" are biologically men."
Of course, that's not what I said.
Read for understanding, son.
Dan
Your bizarre notion that the Truth or accuracy of reporting is determined by your hunches about the political leanings of the news outlet is an old and tired pile of bullshit.
If you want to prove the stories factually wrong, by all means do so, if you want to dismiss them because the outlets don't pass your purity test, by all means do so, but stop with the bullshit.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nhs-145957193.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAF3YWBBqoI3Zz5FIxI8s731hk-2QeCTc8DT5EFeEJ1BRX85XhZI-axzAk932QySVqGr4mg2Q2gJRoru_rOF6Nl-W0PIC7XdrpimTiFk6ZnKcNmlZyHv9aQpFzCbtFKfuC5n9xXujkCpZkrerGSv1oNfZ0SBrMNKmnvjWDBVY8Iu8
Now Yahoo is probably secretly conservative too.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/christian-nurse-takes-legal-action-after-nhs-punished-her-for-calling-transgender-paedophile-mr/ar-AA1BtFuW
The link worked fine for me. Maybe operator error on your part. But MSN is a right wing source as well, right?
I know, "born with man parts" is your way to dodge reality. You probably believe that they are born with a "woman's brain".
But the condescending attitude is always a great way to show this grace and love you always prate on about.
I know, "born with man parts" is your way to dodge reality. You probably believe that they are born with a "woman's brain".
But the condescending attitude is always a great way to show this grace and love you always prate on about.
I'm saying that transgender women ARE women. They're transgender women. Period.
NO THEY ARE NOT. A man who has himself butchered, has breast implants and takes hormone is still a MAN. You cannot change to the opposite sex no matter what you do to LOOK like the opposite sex. Biology!!!
Craig...
"I know, "born with man parts" is your way to dodge reality."
1. The reality is there are transgender people. Period.
2. The reality is that biology science does not speak with one voice on this question of binary vs spectrum notion of gender.
3. The reality is that AMA, APA and other experts on gender science support the notion of gender being on a spectrum.
4. That an occasional insect biologist forms unproven opinions about human gender expression only means that this the opinion of an insect biologist, not human gender experts.
5. The reality is that historically, trans folks have been abused, beaten, oppressed and killed for the reality of their gender expression. That is actual persecution and oppression, and often at the hands of religious zealots from across multiple religious traditions.
Whether or not you can acknowledge these realities remains to be seen.
Dan
Stop it with the pesky biology and science stuff.
The notion that a man is a woman, when the only to define a woman is "Someone who feels like a woman.", based on appropriating external stereotypes of women just makes no sense at a very basic level.
1. The reality is that over 80% of "transgender people", if left alone to mature, end up as LGB's. But hey, let's push a permanent solution to a temporary situation.
2. If you say so. That you believe that there are serious people why deny the physical reality of the physical, and genetic differences between the two sexes is incredible.
3. The reality is that the virtually every European medical association has stopped encouraging "trans" "treatments", and an increasing number in the US are following along probably escaped your attention.
4. That you place yourself as being more of an expert on sex differences in mammals, than an evolutionary biologist is pretty hilarious given how fixated on credentials and expertise you usually are. I guess the credentials only goes as far as the credentialed agree with you.
5. Blah, blah, blah, blah.
I'll stick with biology, physiology, and genetics, over you.
Look fellas, just because you may not fully (or, at all) understand the science behind anthropogenic climate change, the correlation of smoking and cancer or the biological basis for transgender people... just because you don't fully understand the science does not mean that the scientists are mistaken and you're correct.
But that's the advantage of living in a free Republic... you personally are not obliged to agree with expert consensus, as long as you're not harming others. You can smoke cigarettes if you want, you can choose not to marry a guy or identify as women, you can disbelieve the lunar landing. That's all up to you.
But, you can't try to force your anti-science views on others. You can join the flat earth society, if you want. You just can't expect others to take you seriously.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/
Given your dismissal of the news sources I provided elsewhere based on alleged right wing leanings, for you to offer a piece that SA (a leftist advocacy publication) doesn't even endorse as some big "proof" is hilarious. That it seems to be based on extrapolating a tiny number of "intersex" people, into the "transgender" cornucopia we see today isn't convincing as that argument has been dealt with.
But it's always nice when little Danny decides to school us on how things REALLY are because he's too stupid to comprehend that there is are plenty of scientists who don't buy his carp.
SA shilled for the COVID lies, and endorsed Biden in two elections, hardly a ringing endorsement for pure science.
Oh, they also published an opinion piece, without offering the target a chance to respond, a journalism no-no.
Craig...
"too stupid to comprehend that there is are [sic] plenty of scientists who don't buy his carp [sic]."
Are there a minority of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus? Sure. I've never said otherwise.
For this minority of dissenters, is their field of expertise in human gender studies...? Probably not most of them.
Are they coming at this with an unbiased scientific worldview, or do they come from conservative religious backgrounds that biases their opinions?
Almost certainly for at least some of them.
Should the minority be taken more seriously than the majority? Not without compelling data.
Do they have compelling data? Not sufficient to change the opinions of the majority.
So, once again, while you fail to even acknowledge the reality that the majority of expert opinion in the field and choose to seek and ally yourself with a minority position that happens to tickle your ears, you can't expect people to take your non-expert opinions seriously.
Dan
Are there a minority of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus?
It's a minority of "scientists" who believe in gender crap so as to be loved by the woke. Common sense and real biology PROVE a man cannot become a woman and a woman cannot become a man regardelss of their perverted and sick brains and regardless of how much bodily mutilation to appear to be the opposite sex, they cannot change. Only perverts and mentally ill would think otherwise. Quit denying reality.
That you posit a majority of scientists that agree with you doesn't make it so. That the entire continent of Europe has pretty much abandoned the mass "transing" you advocate doesn't matter. Of course when you invent a field of study with little or no hard science to back it up then simply announce that those with the special credentials are the only possible experts it's a sweet deal. Anything that allows you to feel superior to biologists, and actual hard scientists.
Much like the 97% of scientists regarding global warming or the list of people complaining about 9/11. when we look we find that the qualifications of these "experts" weren't what we'd been told. In this case you're simply returning to one or two of your favorite logical fallacies (appeal to authority and appeal to numbers) when you've established neither.
I acknowledge that every national health service in Europe has virtually gotten out of the "transing" business, we're seeing increasing numbers of suits, and the "trans" medical complex in the US is going to keep raking in huge money until they're sued out of existence. The "We've got to "trans" children now because suicide" turned out to be false, as post surgery suicides keep rising.
Over the last year or so, I've posted plenty of links to research, data, science, and legal proceedings, that would indicate that you're mired in "trans" world of 5-10 years ago and have just chosen to ignore anything new that doesn't support your Narrative.
You're the one advocating a permanent, irreversible "solution" for something that is a temporary condition for 80% of "trans" youth. I'm not sure how mutilating, ruining the ability of people to have functioning sexual relationship, eliminating the ability to have children, and watching people melt down because no one (straight, l,g, b) will have sex with them, gives you some sort of moral high ground on this.
That the scientific establishment has abandoned the scientific method for "consensus" is a dark day for science. If given the choice between a piece of information derived from repeated experimentation with predictable outcomes in a controlled environment and "Well me and the boys came to a consensus that some guys have "women's brains", and that they can magically become a woman (or at least cosplay one) as long as they pay us millions of dollars for irreversible mutilation, and base their "womanhood" on exaggerated stereotypes." I know which I'll choose.
Hell, they can't define a woman (I just heard one idiot claim that wearing makeup is the defining characteristic of a woman), but they're going to pretend to be one anyway.
Here's how to stop almost 100% of people being mean to "trans" people. Tell them to shut up and keep to themselves, don't force others to enable your delusion.
Here's what Trump said this afternoon: "No matter how many surgeries you have or chemicals you inject, if you’re born with male DNA in every cell of your body, you can never become a woman. You're not going to be a woman."
By "being mean to trans people," of course, you're talking about their families and conservative churches kicking them out and telling them they're satanic and bound for hell.. that even a perfectly loving and just godling couldn't love them... you're talking about being mocked, slandered and beaten... you're talking about them being killed and denied basic human rights.... but it's all good, according to the oppressors, because as long as the oppressors (who can't even denounce slaughtering babies!!) say it's what their sick pathetic godling wants, then it's okey dokey...
But rational and moral people will stand opposed to your graceless, deadly oppression. So, to hell with all oppression.
Get on the right side of being a decent human being, boys.
Dan
If the point is to be provocative, I'd agree. But is that the point of speaking truthfully even in a situation such at this (even if the patient wasn't a criminal). I would like to believe that if I were in the nurse's situation, I would calmly assure the patient I neither care about his delusion or that he is offended by my refusal to indulge it and ask if he'd like to be healed....or whatever. I wouldn't likely be engaging with such a person if I couldn't express my discomfort with having to quietly indulge the delusion. "This is the purpose of my presence here. Are you not in need of the skills and expertise I can provide on your behalf, or would you rather drone on about how you need to be respected. I have others who need what I have, so make up your mind." Something to that effect. That's not being provocative. That' simply not putting up with bullshit.
"I'm saying that transgender women ARE women. They're transgender women. Period."
Then you're a liar. Period. But we knew that already.
"I'm asking what sort of jerk do you have to be to care about whether they call themselves a woman or not?"
What sort of jerk do you have to be to insist that everyone should abide a lie and proceed as if it's truth? It's very simple. You want to pretend you're a woman? Go find Dan Trabue. That shit turns him on. I don't have time for bullshit.
"But in THIS story, as reported, it appears that the employer has the reasonable expectation of their employees: IF someone says their pronouns are She/Hers, then we expect our employees to honor that request. Because, why not?"
Because it's a lie and no one is harmed by abiding the truth...even the deluded.
"This employee, as reported, deliberately chose to disregard their employer's expectations. When that happens, being fired or demoted is not "oppression because she's a extremist Christian.""
Well, it is indeed "oppression" because she's a true Christian (not "extremist", you asshat). No well educated professional would be unaware that actual Christians prefer that no one try to force them to lie. As such, there is no "equity" in the how the Christian is treated compared to the deluded person. Now, what a true Christian might agree to do is to appease the delusion of the deluded if the employer was honest enough to acknowledge the lie which compels the deluded to believe himself something other than what he is, and not pretending will lead to violent outbursts which might put people at risk. "I know the guy's screwy, but we'd rather avoid a scene in the short time he's here. Just play along, please, for everyone's sake." Personally, I might not buy in, but I'd consider it on those terms.
"If an employer has an expectation that their employees wear suits and ties and an employee chooses to wear T-shirt and jeans, then it's not religious oppression that they were fired."
Not at all analogous, and thus your Analogy Batting Average remains at .000. Well done.
"Where am I mistaken?"
By defending LGBTQ++++ perversions in all cases without regard to truth and facts and pretending you're a "good Christian" while doing so.
"This "story" is nothing but an opportunity for those with fragile religious egos and a sense of privilege to feel outraged. There is no religious oppression or persecution here."
As I explained above, it most certainly is, and your vile disregard for truth and God's Will and those who strive to adhere to them indicts you without question as a vile fake. You're abiding the unequal treatment of Christians, subordinating them to a status of less concern than that which you demand be given to the perverse and clearly sinful. It's one thing if I choose to subordinate myself in the service of others, even such as this dude. It's an entirely different manner to be forced, pressured or nagged by a vile perversion embracing liar like you into doing so.
"IF the nurse wants to work for a company that allows her to ignore gender preferences, she should find an employer without that rule."
What an absurd thing to expect of any human being, that one must consider that a prospective employer might embrace and enable perverse delusion and perhaps I should inquire about that! Only a pervert who claims to be a Christian would dare suggest such a thing!
"And still, it remains a fact: "Christians believe that we should not call people who identify as she/her as she/her" is NOT a tenet of any Christian religion. It's just not. It's a modern bias and cultural unkindness, not a tenet of any Christian religion."
It's lying, Dan, and despite how lying is so essential to your character, a real Christian would need a compelling reason to lie. None was given in this scenario, despite you desire to impose one. As all of those you refer to as "transgender" are delusional, you would have us all appease their delusion just because you dig the idea of you appeasing your self-identity vicariously by appeasing there's. It is a sin to lie, regardless of how one identifies. You identify as a Christian and I would never lie and tell people you are actually a Christian.
"refusing to honor preferred pronouns and insisting on using dead names - are unkind, ungracious and unprofessional."
Demanding honest people appease falsehoods as truths is being a asshole...never mind simply unkind, ungracious and unprofessional.
"In THAT story, the "poor, emotionally-fragile, 'oppressed/persecuted' Christian was being asked to simply call the patient by she/her and she refused, NOT because of any medical reason but because of her graceless and unprofessional decision to be cruel and unprofessional."
Nothing in the story corroborates this vile attack on this nurse by you. Nothing at all. You're a POS.
There was nothing at all "ignorant" about Craig's question, which as he rightly states could have been easily addressed right off the bat. You chose not to be cause you're intent on furthering the lie that there's such a thing as transgendered people. To speak of such people indicates a person with mental disorder, just as is true of the anorexic, those who think they're Napoleon Bonaparte, those who think they're some kind of animal, those who think they need to have their perfectly functioning legs amputated. These people are not women (or men, as the case may be) simply because they believe themselves to be, and to appease that false belief is lying.
There is NO science which suggests a biological male can actually be a female "inside". None. Nothing even close to supporting the premise. Nothing.
"When a "news story" is only covered by partisan or extremist groups, that raises red flags."
In a case like this, it means lefty sources Dan regards as the gold standard for journalism simply ignored the case due to their own political/ideological biases. The left never reports on anything which puts their false narratives in a bad light.
What a weak attempt of tap-dancing! Dan steps on his own toes!
"1. The reality is there are transgender people. Period."
The reality is there are disordered people who believe they are of the opposite sex. They're referred to as "transgender", but they are not actually of the opposite sex and no science supports the notion. Period.
"2. The reality is that biology science does not speak with one voice on this question of binary vs spectrum notion of gender."
This is true. There are leftists in the profession who lie (there's big money in sex-change surgeries), and there are honest people of honor who don't lie. Dan loves the former because lying is essential to Dan's character.
"3. The reality is that AMA, APA and other experts on gender science support the notion of gender being on a spectrum."
This is these leftist organizations acknowledging they have no evidence that "gender science" is a thing, but want to appease the radical left in hopes of one day finding some way to make the lie seem more real. "Spectrum" in this sense is meaningless and based on nothing more than the testimonies of disordered people.
"4. That an occasional insect biologist forms unproven opinions about human gender expression only means that this the opinion of an insect biologist, not human gender experts."
The "insect biologist" has opinions based on known facts about biology, while the "human gender experts" are frauds with no facts supporting their position.
"5. The reality is that historically, trans folks have been abused, beaten, oppressed and killed for the reality of their gender expression. That is actual persecution and oppression, and often at the hands of religious zealots from across multiple religious traditions."
This is wholly irrelevant to this discussion and what past Dan Trabue fake religious liars did to disordered people in the past has no bearing on it.
"Whether or not you can acknowledge these realities remains to be seen."
The only "reality" indicated in your list is the reality that lefties lie as all you lefties do.
"Look fellas, just because you may not fully (or, at all) understand the science behind anthropogenic climate change, the correlation of smoking and cancer or the biological basis for transgender people... just because you don't fully understand the science does not mean that the scientists are mistaken and you're correct."
Look what Dan does here. It's a favorite tactic of his. There's quite a bit of research establishing a connection between smoking (especially long term smoking) and lung cancer. There's no parallel body of research establishing any truth to the lefty climate change narrative and a "biological basis" for transgender people. Again, if they want to say there are defects, mutations or some other problem in the brains of those who think they are what they clearly are not, that could be given consideration, for that would be an alignment of the research to the reality of human biology. But there's no science which affirms the possibility that one who is biologically male is actually female. None.
Thus, by this admission, we demonstrate an actual understanding of the available science. To insist that "transgendered" people are anything but mentally disordered is not only not "anti-science", it is a rejection of science which nowhere exists, while at the same time acknowledging what scientific study has already well proven.
Craig, in a post about the ridiculously alleged "persecution " of conservative Christians regarding the actual oppression of LGBTQ people, said...
"Here's how to stop almost 100% of people being mean to "trans" people. Tell them to shut up and keep to themselves, don't force others to enable your delusion."
The irony.
Maybe conservative people who want to be jerks and oppress others should just take your advice.
Dan
He's not a scientist, but he's not wrong.
Great point. The link between smoking and cancer is pretty well established through actual controlled, repeatable, scientific testing.
Climate change is does not have anywhere near the scientific backing, between the inconsistent data, the faulty models, the lack of accurate predictions, and the like it's not even close.
Likewise with the "trans" thing. The only way they got any "science" to back up their claims was to create an entirely new field of study and set the criteria in such a way as to tilt the playing field in their favor. I'm aware of nothing equivalent to the documentation for smoking/cancer in the "trans" field. Adding to that is the poor track record of the science in predicting outcomes.
Not at all. I'm talking about using Mr for a biological man or using one name given at birth. You keep making these charges as if there's some massive wave of brutal attacks against "trans" people or something. Much like you excuse the violence of the left, or Islam, by suggesting that it's just "a few: outliers, I suspect that this "trans" violence represents a "few outliers" and probably a decent percentage are Muslim.
As long as you make another pronouncement that your on the right side of things, then you must be because you said so.
Try repenting of your hubris and arrogance and a little humility.
It's strange that the actual beheading of Christians doesn't rise to the level of persecution in Dan's world, nor does excessive punishment for a first time "offense", or jail, but being mean to "trans" people really is oppression.
But yeah, I'm much less likely to respond to anyone who doesn't shove their predilections in my face and demand that I affirm them.
Obviously doing this to be provocative is a problem. As a medical professional, you would certainly have the option of taking that approach.
I'd suggest that perhaps, especially early in the interaction, that a less confrontational approach might bear more fruit. It's obvious that the person needs medical help, and providing that help should be the primary goal. Obviously the biological sex of the patient is vitally important for treatment, but the rest shouldn't be. From a purely clinical perspective, based on lots of experience, calling someone by name seems to be the best approach. Taking a hard line on secondary issues seems counter productive to me, but my experience as as a patient or spouse/parent of a patient.
I've had experiences with surgeons who displayed the attitude your comment suggested. While they were good surgeons, they were also massively arrogant, unpleasant, and if I recommended them it would be with a warning.
Craig...
"You keep making these charges as if there's some massive wave of brutal attacks against "trans" people or something."
There are hundreds of physical assaults and dozens of murders of LGBTQ folks every year.
There are hundreds of bomb threats and protests every year.
There are untold thousands of instances of LGBTQ people being disowned from their families (including some who are teenagers/still children) and denounced and kicked out of their churches.
How many murders and assaults does it take for you to consider it a problem?
https://glaad.org/releases/glaads-alert-desk-releases-new-data-on-rising-anti-lgbtq-hate-and-extremism/
Dan
Craig falsely claimed...
"It's strange that the actual beheading of Christians doesn't rise to the level of persecution in Dan's world,"
I've been talking about this nurse story, and she's not been beheaded. Of course.
And of course, I denounce all hate crimes and oppression, including beheading people.
So, first of all, don't make stupidly false claims. It makes you look bad/irrational.
But Secondly, I invite you to join me in denouncing ALL religious and political extremists who oppress/harm LGBTQ and religious groups.
Will you join me and the rest of the morally rational world??
Dan
"The Human Rights Campaign is both saddened and infuriated by the deaths of at least thirty-two transgender and gender-expansive people whose lives were tragically and inhumanely taken through violent means, including gun and intimate partner violence, in 2024."
https://www.hrc.org/resources/fatal-violence-against-the-transgender-and-gender-expansive-community-in-2024
From what I've seen your numbers don't quite add up. But let's take a look.
1. Just because someone who was LGBT was killed, does not mean that they were killed only because they were LGBT.
2. As noted above some of (I agree that it's interesting that they don't break this out) the LGBT murders were "intimate partner violence". It seems disingenuous to argue that someone killed by their "intimate partner" should be lumped in with other categories of murder.
3. in 2024, the number was 32, and out of those 32, some were killed by their partners.
4. 42% of those tracked were killed by a romantic/sexual partner, friend, or family member. Again, that doesn't fit your narrative.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/944726/murders-transgender-gender-diverse-people-us/
https://dcvlp.org/domestic-violence-peaks-more-than-ever-for-the-lgbtqia-community/
"Black and African American members of the LGBTQIA+ community are more likely to experience physical violence.
Around 44% of lesbian and 61% of bisexual women have experienced forms of rape and physical violence by an intimate partner as compared to 35% of straight women.
26% of gay men and 37% of bisexual men have experienced forms of rape and physical violence by an intimate partner compared to 29% of straight men.
Lifetime intimate partner violence among the transgender community from purposive studies ranges from 31% to 50%"
From a quick look at the stats, it seems like you are conflating domestic violence, violence because they were LGBT, and random violence to pretend that every single LGBT person who was the victim of violence was victimized by a "right wing homophobe". Yet the data doesn't seem to back that up.
If you're going to dismiss any news reported by any source you can write off as "right wing", I see no reason to blindly accept a link to an advocacy group pushing an agenda.
I consider violence and murder a problem no matter who the victim is. I consider judges and prosecutors allowing those who engage in acts of violence and murder to avoid punishment a problem. I don't value one victim over another as a general rule. Like most, I'd value a young woman in nursing school brutally killed by an illegal alien more than a TDA or MS13 gang member, but beyond that they're all of equal value.
Ahhhhhhhhhh, the vague, bland, milquetoast, "I condemn all..." blather that Dan relies on, but bitches when other do this same thins.
I've already done so. The difference is that you pick and choose who you specifically denounce.
I know you don't do well with snark or sarcasm, so I'll try to be more direct.
You frequently and specifically condemn all sorts of things (real or imagined) when the "victims" are in one or your pet victim groups. Yet strangely when Christians are beheaded in the Congo, or savagely killed in East Africa, and the like you rarely condemn those vermin specifically.
My pointing out your inconsistency is the point. Using hyperbole and sarcasm was the vehicle to make that point.
I condemn bad behavior when it's happening where I can impact it. Neither of us comment on all the bad behavior or policies all around the world.
Like Jesus and the prophets and good, decent people throughout history, I express specific, deliberate concern specifically for the poor, marginalized and oppressed because they are the most vulnerable to oppression and harm.
Dan
Interesting, that you condemn "bad behavior when it's happening where I can impact it" yet you continually harp on one side in the Gaza situation. Strange, that.
You're right, I don't comment on every single bad thing across the globe, yet I do realize that bad behavior elsewhere might be a precursor of things to come here. So, I see what's happening in Europe with the vast increase in sax crimes, and other violent crimes, almost all directly linked to one demographic. I see the UK giving those who run rape rings and other criminals a pass because they don't want to offend a certain demographic. I see a rampage across Africa of Christians being brutally killed for their faith. I see the Uighur being persecuted in China, the Alawites and Muslims of the "wrong" sect being killed by the thousands, and I mention it. I get it, you've got plenty of sympathy for the right groups, who get oppressed by the "right" people, in the "right" place and you stay silent about the specific anywhere else (except Gaza, where you nullify your first claim).
I understand that "poor marginalized" Christians in Africa, Alawites and Muslims in the Middle East, and the rape victims across Europe just don't rate a specific expression of sympathy or outrage.
It'll be interesting to see if the US ends up like Europe, and whether of not you'll get your panties in a wad then.
"you continually harp on one side in the Gaza situation. Strange, that."
Strange that I would oppose our/my US dollars and policies lending support to those who, like you, think it's okay to bomb and knowingly kill hundreds of children and innocent people?
Why?
I repeat, I speak out against oppression and harm especially when my voice can make a difference, potentially.
What's strange about that?
As to me, unlike you, I'm always oppo to harming innocent people. And, like you, I don't comment on every instance of harm being done.
Won't you join us in being consistently opposed to causing harm to innocent people?
Dan
I understand that "poor marginalized" Christians in Africa, Alawites and Muslims in the Middle East, and the rape victims across Europe just don't rate a specific expression of sympathy or outrage.
There are COUNTLESS instances of Christians, Muslims, Jewish folk, women, LGBTQ friends, children and others who for YOU, do not "RATE A SPECIFIC EXPRESSION OF SYMPATHY/OUTRAGE." No one comments on every misdeed, oppression or outrage. Sadly, there are too many of them to effectively deal with.
WHICH IS WHY I tend to focus on the ones that are a result of US policy or Western traditions. The ones where I have the most chance of impacting change.
And WHY do you always lead with only the poor and marginalized CHRISTIANS in other places? Why not the children in Gaza? Of course, we know the answer to that. YOU do not consider their deliberate slaughter to be wrong... YOU can't even condemn the killing of innocent children because, TO YOU, it is a brutish, vulgar, "by any means necessary" worldview, not a rational moral worldview.
You're more Old Testament (poorly understood) "eye for an eye, I'll murder your children for your murder of my children" philosopher in that regard.
Am I mistaken?
Dan never provides the polling data to back up the claim or suggestion that the majority of scientists agree with the lie of transgenderism being an actual thing. And note how he asserts than all dissenting scientists must be within the "field of human gender studies". Gosh...what are the odds most of them will assert person born male, with XY chromosomes and male genitalia, can actually be female???! Amazing. "Experts" within a false field of study agreeing their field of study is legit. That's not how it works.
It's the stock narrative of liars like Dan to say that "trans people" are victimized by those evil Christians and hateful parents when he provides no data other than the testimonies of the very disordered and delusional people likely to be less than accurate about the source of their suffering. Aside from muslims, as Craig suspects, disordered trans people themselves are attacking trans people. Normal, honest people are simply disgusted and fed up with their bullshit and wish they'd STFU and stop lying about good people...like their families and churches.
Except conservatives aren't "oppressing" anybody (except maybe convicted criminals...but just punishment can feel oppressive). Conservatives live by the adage, live and let live, but you leftists and the disordered you enable demand what is not deserved...acceptance as normal people. It's the left and those they enable who are the true jerks, and that's very close to 100% of the time.
Strange that you think that you can "impact" that one particular conflict, and no other foreign conflicts.
Again, that you'd pick that singular use of US tax dollars to bitch about over all other uses of US tax dollars. I've never gotten the sense that you actually had much concern about how many tax dollars the US spends.
Well, I guess you've got to revert to the straw men sooner or later.
Because it's not happening "where you can impact it".
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, the addition of the qualifier to the original claim so as to attempt to fix the self contradiction. Oldie but a goodie.
Since I've been opposed to harming innocent people for quite some time now, your question is just one more bit of stupidity.
Excellent point, there are plenty of people being "oppressed" that you'll just silently ignore because they're not in your back yard. You've made that abundantly clear.
I don't. I've lead with Muslims being slaughtered by the thousands because they aren't the right kind of Muslim. I've lead with Uigher, Alawites, Druze, Hindus, Kurds, and all sorts of people groups that are getting "oppressed" on a daily basis. I've lead with the fact that there are significantly more slaves in 2025 than were ever enslaved in the US or ancient Israel (the only two instances where you get worked up about slavery). I post on and comment on plenty of instances of this crap that you ignore. In this case, the 70 beheaded Christians is a recent story, and it seems like a Christian might express at least a modicum of sympathy for 70 of their brothers and sisters who were martyred for their faith. Apparently I was wrong and you can't be bothered to express sympathy for modern day martyrs. I got you loud and clear Mr Subjective Moral Code, who's faux moral superiority is just performative bullshit.
Here's the difference between you and I. You bitch and moan about how you can't "impact behavior" outside of some arbitrary lines on a map, while I and my friends simply choose to "impact behavior" by partnering with others who actually take risks.
Yes, any time you make up bullshit and pretend as if you've guessed something about me you are very likely to be mistaken. Yet you continue to do just that regularly.
That you're too sympathetic to the terrorists to simply acknowledge the simple fact that Hamas is 100% responsible for wherever happens in Gaza and could absolutely stop all of the attacks tomorrow, isn't my problem.
It's interesting that Dan is defending the persecution of this woman, who's a Christian sister, and is also African. This new trend of Dan siding with terrorists, pedophiles, racists, and the like is probably the most honest he's been in years.
It's not that there's no "data", it's more that the "data" doesn't tell exactly the story that Dan wants. It's easy to throw out this sort of vague, broad, blame while ignoring the fact that the "data" tells us that "domestic and intimate partner violence" is a significant percentage of the violence Dan bitches about. Despite that he'll continue to blame his stock bogeymen instead of maybe get involved in dealing with the "domestic and intimate partner violence" that he could possibly do something about. It's always easier to blame the bogeyman, than to actually improve people's situations.
That is True. Even in the case of the "97% global warming hoax" a look at the "data" tells us that the majority of those "scientists" were not really qualified to speak authoritatively on weather or climate. Strangely enough, so often when he does provide "data", it tends to be old and from advocacy groups. It's almost like he's formed his hunches about these things decades ago, and just doesn't bother to look at any more current or contrary "data" because it's simply easier.
What a liar Dan is! He continues to falsely insist Gazan kids are targeted by Israelis. What a scumbag!
Any sympathy I have for LGBTQ miscreants is for those who feel emboldened in their sinfulness because of activists and enablers like Dan, without whose encouragement to wallow in their sin might instead be strengthened to cope with and withstand their immoral impulses. But Dan digs that sort of thing and lives vicariously through them.
To be fair, Hamas targets are targeted by Israel, and Hamas places the places Israel might target in areas where there are children. As we know from Hamas themselves, Hamas targets children and the elderly to be sacrificed as a way to protect Hamas. That idiots like Dan fall for this strategy and continue to essentially support Hamas, is exactly why Hamas uses this strategy. (If idiots like Dan do what Hamas wants, push Israel to stop trying to release the hostages and push for more unjust exchanges of hostages for terrorists, then how could idiots like him not be essentially supporting Hamas in achieving their goals?)
Post a Comment