Pick your gender Identity now!

Doomsday Prepper Forums

Help Support Doomsday Prepper Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I guess I see things differently because of job issues that I've encountered.

I'm a straight man, and--while I was a paramedic field training officer--I was assigned to work with a Canadian exchange student who was a paramedic and an RN, and studying to be a nurse practitioner.

I was considered to be an excellent paramedic by the standards of my time, but this guy that was assigned to me was better. A whole lot better. I actually learned more from him than he learned from me.

My point is that we ran on a sick kid, and I instructed my student to manage the call for several reasons. The biggest reason was that my intuition was telling me that I was missing something, and another reason is that sick kids have a tendency to "crash" (ie: deteriorate) very quickly.

The problem is that the kid's parents were very devout Southern Baptists, and had problems with the perceived effeminate mannerisms of my student. There was a real power struggle that erupted between myself and the parents, as I wanted the kid to have every edge for the purpose of keeping him alive, and the parents were worried that the brief exposure to a homosexual man would "turn their kid gay" since God doesn't make mistakes.

So, they would sue the ambulance company for me "endangering" their kid by exposing their sick child to a "homosexual child molester" and "homosexualist influences", and that I had no sense of ethics.

And so on.

I promise that I wasn't assigning my student to manage the call just to make the parents uncomfortable. My student had much more experience in pediatrics than I did, had worked in a pediatric intensive care unit for 6 years, and--as I indicated earlier--I had a strong sense that I was missing something important (which turned out to be true later).

I was actually excoriated because I was told that if the kid died, it wouldn't be any different than a Jehova's Witness's kid who may die from the parents refusing a blood transfusion . . . but at the same time, a paramedic is taught to be practical, and not overly concerned with theory in a crisis. We are expected to use any and all resources available to us to keep someone alive until they reach the hospital.

I saved the kid by assigning my student to manage the situation, but in their minds, I should have let the kid die because because my student is gay.

I have problems dealing with these kinds of conflicts, but perhaps this is because of my autism.

I will be very happy if this recent court ruling may keep stupid conflicts like this from occurring, if only for the sake of giving some leverage to healthcare workers who are trying to save peoples' lives in an emergency.

From what you’ve said, and that is all i can go from. It sounds like the parents were AFRAID, based upon their learning, experiences and beliefs. Did they really understand it was this kid who saved their son? Chances are they did see it that way. They probably saw this individual as a danger to their son.

Think of me what you will, but I personally don’t want a tranny or lesbian taking care of me. It would make me extremely uncomfortable!
 
From what you’ve said, and that is all i can go from. It sounds like the parents were AFRAID, based upon their learning, experiences and beliefs. Did they really understand it was this kid who saved their son? Chances are they did see it that way. They probably saw this individual as a danger to their son.

Think of me what you will, but I personally don’t want a tranny or lesbian taking care of me. It would make me extremely uncomfortable!
I don't judge you. I try (sometimes unsuccessfully) not to judge anyone.

If I had a kid with an exotic cancer, or a gunshot wound to head, etc., I wouldn't care if the surgeon was a tranny gay hermaphrodite . . . provided that this surgeon was the best chance for my kid's survival.

I've actually been in very similar situations to what I just described.

I had extensive damage to my back from my years in EMS, and I required surgery.

I did my research, and everything and everyone pointed toward a particular surgeon at the University of Miami Spinal Institute. This surgeon had done over 2,000 surgeries like mine with excellent patient outcomes, he was a consultant on spinal injuries with the VA hospital, and treated soldiers returning from the sandbox, he had written over a dozen papers in peer-reviewed medical journals that were well-received, and he had invented several surgical tools that were less invasive, and allowed for a more rapid recovery. On top of all this, he accepts my insurance.

Yet this guy (and I use the term "guy" very loosely) was gayer than Liberace and RuPaul combined.

I didn't care. Not in the slightest.

I wanted to walk again, and it's because of his surgery that I graduated from a walker to being fully mobile again, and getting into nursing school.

Does anyone here think that I should have accepted a lesser standard of care, a longer recovery, and residual paralysis simply because I should disqualify this excellent doctor based on religious principles because he's gay? If I did this, then how am I different from a Jehova's Witness who dies because he refuses a blood transfusion?
 
I don't know why any "man" would want to have his parts cut off and have to sit down and pee like a woman. To a man, the whole world is our urnial. Excuse me while I go outside and stand up and pee.

Sigh. After rereading my post I see I used “did” instead of “did not”. What I was striving to convey is they most likely DID NOT see the kid as being able to help their child. How would they know his knowledge or skills? Perhaps they saw him as more of a danger than anything else? Most people would not allow their child to die on purpose.

As for me, I am fine with gay men to talk to. Have enjoyed conversations with several through the years. It’s the lesbians that I will not ever allow to touch me. Had a bad experience at work with one years ago. Her being lesbian was allowed to do things others would never have gotten away with. And trannies? They are NUTS so why in the world would anyone let them touch them? Serious psychological problems should ban them from the health field entirely.

There are more than a few great surgeons and physicians who are not messed up in the head. I would search until I found one of them. I’m very picky when it comes to my physicians and their staff.

My oldest had an emergency when he was young. Took him to the emergency room and a doctor spotted him and yelled for orderlies to come grab him for surgery. For which I was extremely grateful. He was Russian and his bedside manner was not good. That didn’t bother me. But the nurse they sent to draw blood kept poking him without success. She didn’t speak English well at all. I did demand she leave and get another in who knew what they were doing. So parents do sometimes throw people out if they see a danger to their child.
 
I think I will declare my gender as ALL. That way I can use any bathroom or shower room that is available. I can take advantage of any social program or "hand out" that are designed for any gender. I can have it all because I am a ALL.

LOL. Really good one! Maybe I will to so I won’t have to wait for a toilet in the womens!
 
I think I will declare my gender as ALL. That way I can use any bathroom or shower room that is available. I can take advantage of any social program or "hand out" that are designed for any gender. I can have it all because I am a ALL.
That's it! Only I will call it "pan-gender."
 
The Supreme Court was correct based on legality. You do not get to fire somebody based on their preferred sexuality. The case and judgment was based on people being fired simply because they announced they were gay, or transsexuals AND the people /company firing them admitted that was why they were fired. Discrimination is against the law. The ruling does not provide gays or trans people with any extra protections. They can still be fired if they fail to fulfill the requirements of the job. Just as I sided with the baker that refused to bake a gay wedding cake --- freedom of religious beliefs, I also don't accept discrimination for sexual choices. Please do not start the discussion about it being or not being a choice, I really don't care. I neither support, defend or condemn these people. Discrimination is morally and legally wrong. JM2C
 
The Supreme Court was correct based on legality. You do not get to fire somebody based on their preferred sexuality. The case and judgment was based on people being fired simply because they announced they were gay, or transsexuals AND the people /company firing them admitted that was why they were fired. Discrimination is against the law. The ruling does not provide gays or trans people with any extra protections. They can still be fired if they fail to fulfill the requirements of the job. Just as I sided with the baker that refused to bake a gay wedding cake --- freedom of religious beliefs, I also don't accept discrimination for sexual choices. Please do not start the discussion about it being or not being a choice, I really don't care. I neither support, defend or condemn these people. Discrimination is morally and legally wrong. JM2C
Agree 100%.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top