Imagine someone without a degree who failed their training being allowed into medical spaces to work as a surgeon

submitted by iejrv9oiwvij3wrvo9 from self.GenderCritical

Imagine if it was bigoted to tell someone "You aren't allowed to work in this space because you don't qualify."

Guy goes to college, does a terrible job, fails everything and doesn't get his degree. He still thinks he should be a surgeon because God told him it was his calling.

Same guy walks into a hospital, demands a position as an open heart surgeon because it's "What God told him he should do his entire life" and gets the job. He botches an operation and kills someone.

There's a reason we don't allow this. That's why we have safeguards in place, so this stuff doesn't happen.

In a lot of cases, exclusion isn't hate. It's safety for protected groups and vulnerable people.

all 5 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Sun_bear 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

I despise the word inclusion. Society in general excludes large groups of people - many disabled people have a 'toilet leash' that stops them from going too far from their homes, many streets and facilities could not cope with a wheelchair user. That is being exclusionary. There's no reason a wheelchair user should not be able to visit my local pizza place and yet it has steps but no ramp/lift so they cannot.

When we talk about inclusivity it should mean making society function better for everyone, but it has become corrupted to essentially mean that no one is allowed to say no to the dominant group.

Let's say I want to start a knitting group, to talk about knitting, share knitting patterns, see other people's knitting and share my own knitting. Clearly in my knitting group I don't want to let in a bunch of fisherman who have never knitted in their life, want to talk about fishing and in fact find knitting quite boring. However these fisherman complain that the knitting group is excluding them and the world sides with them. People as us knitters if we can be sure that we wouldn't be in to fishing when we've never tried it and surely we can't like knitting that much anyway? The fisherman argue that it is triggering to them to hear us talk about knitting needles at the knitting group and instead declare their fishing rods are knitting needles now. It becomes exclusionary to suggest that you need two needles to knit as you only need one to do that kind of knitting where you get fish out of the water. The fishing line is now called wool to include the fisherman, who will kill themselves if not fully centred in the knitting group, but wool is now called sheep-leavings as that's really a much more accurate description of what it is. Any knitter who thinks the term sheep-leavings is actually quite unpleasant is a hateful bigot deserving of death. This would be absurd! And yet that's the exact situation we have with trans people and lesbians.

[–]sisterinsomnia 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have noticed that inclusiveness often excludes earlier members, the way your parable describes, or at least alters everything for them, but nobody really addresses that aspect. Only if the new group, usually extremely tiny, feels adequately centered.

It really has caused a mess on women's reproductive sites. Many of them are now people's reproductive sites but don't do anything at all for bepenised people.

[–]sisterinsomnia 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Is this about inclusiveness vs. the importance of having boundaries? If so it's a good topic for discussion.

[–]iejrv9oiwvij3wrvo9[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, and how inclusiveness doesn't always work and isn't always wise or safe. We can't make everything a free for all without any rules or boundaries.

[–]msteacherlady 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My cousin has worked 20 years for an organization that has a division that specifically provides a certain service to the LBGT, and now more recently the rest of the alphabet soup. There was recently a new boss and a restructuring among the divisions. Cousin's division saw a bunch of new young queer folxx. As more restructuring was coming, as well as some retirements, these new people dominated every meeting, whether about hiring or not, about how they needed better representation within the division. They were pushing to remove the qualifications for certain jobs. Some of the jobs require a bachelor's degree or better, as well as certain relevant service experience.

Now, my cousin is a funny guy so I had to make him repeat this and swear he wasn't joking. One of these people demanded that they needed to seek out a dropout trans black disabled homeless woman for a certain position. In all seriousness. For a position that really, truly needed someone with certain qualifications other than "lived experience." Okay look, it was a non-client facing position dealing with sensitive files for fucks sake. It's not like you'd say to a trans person coming in for service, "hey, that form you're filling out will be handled by a transperson with dyslexia, doesn't that make you feel valid?"

I'm so surprised my cousin hasn't peaked. He loathes these people, but every once in awhile it seems like he's buying the TRA narrative.