r/facepalm • u/Impressive_Returns • 2d ago
Woman who commits hate crime against drag queens working in a hotel she is staying at in Hawaii turns out to work at UC Davis in department of Trans Studies in university directory. (Really transportation studies). Women is pure evil. Students want her to be removed. 🇵🇷🇴🇹🇪🇸🇹
356
u/Kuroboom 2d ago
Was this that woman in the hotel lobby shrieking about boys getting their dicks chopped off and how she shouldn't have to see drag queens because she "paid $3,000 to be here"?
187
u/Mayor_Salvor_Hardin 🕊️ 2d ago
Yep, that one. There are videos from both POV and in both she comes out as plainly hateful and insane.
137
u/Significant_Ad9793 2d ago
I honestly don't understand the hate. Why can't people just leave others live their lives? I really don't.
My older brother and my younger sister are gay. I grew up in a Mexican Catholic family and although it was a little hard on my dad at first, he accepted it. I'm considered the "straight" middle child lol.
Why can't we just let people be? Why are someone's beliefs bigger than others? I'm so over hate. Life is so fucking hard to begin with, why add hate to the mix??
66
u/CiforDayZServer 2d ago
Economic slavery depends on starving, distracted, people. Divide and conquer.
4
u/BurnerAcount2814 1d ago
Holy shit! People are FINALLY getting it!
1
58
u/firechaos70 Autistic vaccine enjoyer 2d ago
Because it’s not what they want. It’s different. They hate different.
25
u/OkImagination4404 2d ago
That’s my whole problem with religion. If people are so worried about it, then make sure you raise your children to believe what you want them to believe. Leave the rest of us the hell alone!! I believe Jesus says that he will be the judge when the time comes and other people are not supposed to !!
17
u/floridadumpsterfire 2d ago edited 2d ago
i read in one of the articles about the incident, that this lady has a teenager who left home after identifying as non binary and rather than accept her child for who they are she decided to find someone to blame so she is blaming the lgbt community and especially trans people.
essentially chose her religion over her kid.
i'll try to find the article.
*edit* for anyone looking for it. it's at the bottom of this article:
7
u/SuccessValuable6924 2d ago
As the child of religious people, I'd argue they shouldn't even impose their beliefs on their kids.
8
u/OkImagination4404 2d ago
As someone who also grew up with it, shoved down my throat every second of every day, I would so agree with you! It backfired on my parents, none of their five children go to church.
4
u/Significant_Ad9793 1d ago
SAME!!! My siblings and I did 9 years of Catholic school and none of us are religious now lol
10
u/Significant_Ad9793 2d ago
Exactly!!! Religion should be about sharing your beliefs, not judging others for theirs.
18
u/OkImagination4404 2d ago
That’s why these right wing extreme evangelicals should be referred to as terrorists not Christians
7
4
u/Whiskeyperfume 2d ago
All the religious zealots kindly forget several things. Jesus hung out with the gays, and the queens and the sex workers and the thieves and all the other “delinquents”…. They also forget that it has been proven that, and please forgive me because I do not remember the exact date off the top of my head, that in many different languages it’s been proven that translators were paid to change pedophile to homosexual so that the Bible said don’t be gay instead of don’t be a pedo. Example: the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was about don’t be a pedo. That is all. It wasn’t about don’t be gay. Aaaand look how well that one change turned out for a lot of us…yeet!
3
u/clonked 2d ago
Do you have a source on the changing references from pedo to gay part? I’d like to read more about that.
12
u/DandelionOfDeath 2d ago
"My older brother and my younger sister are gay. I grew up in a Mexican Catholic family and although it was a little hard on my dad at first, he accepted it. I'm considered the "straight" middle child lol."
Eeeeeey, he got one of each! Bingo!
39
u/Amelaclya1 2d ago
I saw the video from her POV yesterday, and it starts a lot earlier than the one from the Queen's POV.
I was like, "oh, maybe here we will see what set off her rant". Nothing. The answer is nothing. They were just sitting there minding their own business and being more polite to her than she deserved when she was berating them with hateful nonsense.
I can't believe she actually uploaded that video somewhere thinking it made her look good. How can she not see that she's an unhinged lunatic?
17
10
u/concretepete1 2d ago
She uploaded it because she knows the loudest idiots will flock to her defense, twist it into some kind of victory for transphobes. She’ll probably get fired but fall into the loving embrace of the right wing grift machine, and carry on her life being as nasty and insufferable as she likes because they celebrate that over there.
5
8
2
u/RunInRunOn Knows what it means to be woke 1d ago
If she wants to fight against boys getting their dicks chopped off, she should start protesting against circumcision
262
u/MarsRocks97 2d ago
This woman is just as evil to her own child. A mom of a nonbinary teen became an anti-trans activist, fracturing a California family
100
u/Wolkenbaer 2d ago
A pity. Being scared as a parent, maybe being conservative (in terms of careful) und questioning things you don't know I can understand.
But a long that path at one point she had the choice to just support her kid or and accept the decison.
Instead she becomes an angry sad person, probably clinging only to people in her echoe chamber just keeping her isolated.
Seems her ex-husband made a good decision at one point, glad he and his new wife seem to be very supportive.
49
u/Impressive_Returns 2d ago
Sounds like she’s coming glued between the divorce and her child coming out as trans. She just can’t handle it.
25
10
u/petal713 2d ago
Maybe she has all this rage because she cannot control her child or force them to not be trans. She is definitely a whacko.
21
u/sublliminali 2d ago
Damn. Her kid could not sound more level headed and put together in that article.
108
u/BigBeardedIdiot 2d ago
I will never understand why people hate differing sexualities and genders. We’re all human. And HERE. Stuck on this goddamn ball of misery. Why add to it? Hatred is useless.
30
u/Impressive_Returns 2d ago
It’s her mentality for people who are weak You have to be part of a herd for protection
14
u/Ill_Replacement7791 2d ago
Why do people hate differing religions, races, politics, sports teams, schools? Cause people gonna hate. If someone is/believes something different than someone else, someone is gonna hate them for it. Or at least disagree rather strongly.
9
4
1
u/librariansforMCR 1d ago
Her hatred is earning her friends and admirers -- horrible, hateful, awful friends and admirers, but people who give her attention, just the same. She couldn't control her child anymore, couldn't use her child to prop up her own self-esteem the way she wanted to, so now she must find any kind of attention she can elsewhere. The mom's behavior is so obvious and childish. It's almost laughable, except for the real human suffering she is causing.
People like this woman *can't * let other people live their lives because they have a pathological need to control others. They are miserable and won't rest until everyone else is, too.
39
u/Salahad-Din 2d ago
I wouldn't want her near young impressionable people, grooming them to hate.
16
u/Impressive_Returns 2d ago
Right such as students attempting to learn and make the world a better place.
74
u/MrsDanversbottom 2d ago
She should be fired.
56
u/Impressive_Returns 2d ago
There is a petition to get her fired.
19
u/omghorussaveusall 2d ago
She's a UC employee, it's pretty likely she will be fired.
12
u/karoshikun 2d ago
guess that guarantees her a position in the next administration, the way things seem to be going
8
-48
u/DeadlySight 2d ago
Why should someone that has an opinion you don’t agree with be fired? That’s nonsense.
She didn’t commit a crime or was violent. She spouted rhetoric you don’t like and that means she should lose her job? I don’t agree with her views, but jobs deciding to fire people based on their views outside of the scope of work is definitely a dangerous path to go down.
25
u/jeffersonwashington3 2d ago
Her opinion aside, her actions were hateful and unhinged. If someone with my exact opinion acted like she did in public and they were my employee, I wouldn't want them as an employee and I'd fire their ass. Actions have consequences, act like a complete idiot and inappropriate.... yes, those actions can come back on you. Acting like a moron in public is not some protected class.
-21
u/DeadlySight 2d ago
Acting like a moron committing zero crimes should not lose you your job. I may not agree with what you say but I’ll defend your right to say it. The view that you should be fired for having a different view is absurd.
Should Christian owners be allowed to fire gay employees because they disagree with how they’re living?
19
u/No_Sherbert711 2d ago
Should Christian owners be allowed to fire gay employees because they disagree with how they’re living?
That would be a swing and a miss with the comparison.
"Should X owners be allowed to discriminate..." is what you are asking. What would be the discrimination aimed at this woman?
-12
u/DeadlySight 2d ago
Should owners be allowed to fire employees that express opinions they don’t agree with in their free time is the comparison.
Should a religious owner be allowed to fire someone marching in a pride parade?
13
u/No_Sherbert711 2d ago
It probably happens all the time considering that most of america is at-will employment.
But again, sexuality is a protected class, that would be discrimination. What would be the discrimination aimed at this woman?
-6
u/DeadlySight 2d ago
Sexuality is a protected class for now
I’d rather we don’t give employers that much power in the first place. Your free time should be yours. You shouldn’t be fired for speaking your mind in your free time. Employer overreach is a problem and shouldn’t be applauded. I understand everyone thinks it’s good because this chick is an idiot and they don’t agree with what she said, but it’s a terrible precedent and needs to be stopped.
9
u/No_Sherbert711 2d ago
I’d rather we don’t give employers that much power in the first place.
Then you're about 140 years too late. At-will employment, endowing employers with divine rights over their employees, started in 1884 with the Tennessee Supreme Court.
-1
u/DeadlySight 2d ago
Does it make it right? Does it mean you should support the overreach and even endorse it?
→ More replies (0)12
u/kit0000033 2d ago
It's not that she had different views... It's that she was screaming like a lunatic in a public space at people who were just minding their own business.
-2
u/DeadlySight 2d ago
And? It’s her free time.
I have a strong aversion to workplaces having such reach that your free time is no longer your free time. If someone is going to make an ass of themselves in public that’s on them, they shouldn’t be fired for it unless there’s a crime associated with it.
12
u/BooBootheFool22222 2d ago
So people minding their own business deserve to be assailed in public just because she can do what she wants in her free time?
-2
u/DeadlySight 2d ago
I didn’t say anyone deserved it. She didn’t break any laws, she should be allowed to be a shitty person and out herself in her social life all she wants. Society is free to shun and shame idiots like her all they want. Employers shouldn’t be allowed to fire an employee that’s not breaking the law and otherwise does their job competently.
Your free time should be yours. Your employer should not be allowed to fire you for legal actions occurring outside of work
9
u/BooBootheFool22222 2d ago
Being a horrible person isn't against the law, but it does sometimes have consequences if you film yourself doing it completely unprovoked. Her decision to be hateful will have consequences. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Not sure why you think it's okay to be shitty to others without consequence. That's very white, hetero, and cis of you, tho.
11
u/MrsDanversbottom 2d ago
What she said went against the rules of her position. She signed a contract. She should be fired.
6
u/DynamiteRobber 2d ago
Jobs have already been doing this for years.
-12
u/DeadlySight 2d ago
For committing crimes, sure. For having a conservative opinion? That’s dangerous and nonsensical. People shouldn’t be fired for having a differing political opinion
16
u/jeffersonwashington3 2d ago
Her opinion aside, her ACTIONS in a PUBLIC setting were unhinged. I would not want to employ her, even if her view was identical to mine.
9
u/wojar 2d ago
But wouldn't her actions be considered harassment? She was following the queen around with her phone, filming and yelling in her face. You can have your opinion in a corner but harassing someone like that is a no-no.
-1
u/DeadlySight 2d ago
Would it be? Is it harassment when progressives are yelling in conservatives faces? Should those progressives be fired?
I’m advocating for a world where employers have less control over employees, especially in their free time.
5
u/Silvawuff 1d ago edited 1d ago
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Her behavior went viral and brought incredibly bad optics to her workplace. Keeping her on staff at this point would be really bad for business. This will keep escalating, and she has nobody to blame but herself.
Nobody sane wants to go to a school that keeps hateful bigots on staff. Her job is toast. Maybe next time she will think twice before having a transphobic meltdown toward strangers peacefully minding their own business.
1
u/DeadlySight 1d ago
Her behavior went viral, so she should lose her job?
If I work at a conservative law firm and most of my high end clients are very conservative should I be allowed to fire an employee that went viral during a pride parade?
I know the response, “sexual orientation is a protected class”, for now. In case no one paid attention when Roe was overturned, just because you’re protected now doesn’t mean you will be in the future. We shouldn’t be giving employers so much power over employees actions outside of the workplace.
We should all be fighting against employer overreach.
1
u/Silvawuff 1d ago edited 1d ago
I'm not saying she should lose her job because her behavior went viral. I'm saying she will lose her job because her behavior went viral. She's literally giving UC Davis no choice. Harbor a bigot and get severe public backlash? They're not going to take that risk just to keep her on staff. Like I said, this isn't about individual workplace rights, this is about bad company optics that affect the business. If my child was going to this school, I wouldn't want them anywhere near this woman. It would be the same story if she was outed as a pedo child abuser. Keeping her on staff after fierce public criticism for her shitty behavior is conducive to an endorsement in the public eye.
The lesson here is don't do shitty things, record yourself doing those shitty things, then post them online and expect everything to work out favorably.
1
u/DeadlySight 1d ago
You just made the most absurd comparison. One is a bigot that apparently hasn’t had any issues at work, the other is a criminal that should be locked up.
You wouldn’t want your child near a bigot? You’re aware they’re everywhere, just most of them aren’t filmed, right?
80 million people voted for a conman and will vote for him again. A large percentage of the country is hateful bigots. The only thing that makes her different is she is on video. Being a hateful bigot isn’t illegal and shouldn’t cost you your job. It should make your social life hell and have repercussions in your personal life, but employers need to stay out of employees personal lives. People pushing to get her fired are selling their soul to the devil. Employers should not have power over your personal life. They get enough say over your life as is, they don’t need more.
I’m not defending a bigot, I’m fighting against absurd Employer overreach. If you aren’t breaking the law your employer shouldn’t be able to do shit about your personal actions outside of work.
I know she “will” lose her job, my entire point was should
2
u/BoxProfessional6987 1d ago
Yes she should because she's shown she's unstable and bigoted. Why is this so hard for you to get?
1
u/DeadlySight 1d ago
What did she do in the workplace to get fired Why are you advocating for employers to have say over people’s personal lives? It’s fucking weird
1
u/BoxProfessional6987 1d ago
She's proven she's unstable. That's the issue. What happens if she thinks she has a trans student?
1
1
u/Silvawuff 1d ago
I appreciate your response and understand your point, but I think you're missing my point. I haven't said "should" anything. I also agree that employee rights have been gravely disadvantaged at this point in history with overreach, overreaction, and violating individual privacy by companies...but this situation is not it. Her reputation is absolutely following her to work. It also will follow her to public places, her family (which it already has), her friends, relationships, and at any future job she applies at. She may as well be radioactive.
Elisabeth has fallen sour in the court of public opinion by her own behavior, and unfair or not, she's now an active risk for UC Davis to keep on staff. To avoid protests, lawsuits, threats of violence, and more negative public backlash, it's very likely she will be fired. That's it.
10
u/LovePeaceHope-ish 2d ago
based on their views outside of the scope of work
But it's not 'outside the scope of work'. She literally works at the university in the Trans Studies field. And she just proved herself to be a liability to the school. Anyone that is so unhinged as to rant hate, unprovoked, at people just minding their own damn business is a lawsuit waiting to happen. She's not probably going to be fired for her views. She's probably going to be fired for her actions. Big difference.
-4
u/DeadlySight 2d ago edited 2d ago
Transportation studies is related to this in what way?
You can be sued for talking without making threats or inciting violence? Interesting world you live in. I’ve personally never heard of such a thing
9
u/BooBootheFool22222 2d ago
In what world do you live in? One where people can rage at people for just existing without consequence? Especially when they bothered her in no way other than their mere existence. This faux concern over the aggressors' rights leads to situations like the death of Nex Benedict. There's this thing called "basic human decency." Racists don't get to go haywire and assail people of other races without consequence either.
7
u/LovePeaceHope-ish 2d ago
My mistake, as I did not see that this was Transportation studies. So, you are correct - that is not relevant. Thanks for pointing that out.
However, a company certainly can be sued if their employee discriminates against someone during the scope of their employment. So, no, the law doesn't specifically say that this woman should be fired for what she said on vacation (if she was on her personal time and not during work hours), but, if you re-read my comment, that is not what i said. I said she's a lawsuit waiting to happen. This pubically exploited behavior sets a precedent as to this woman's biases and puts the company on notice. Please educate yourself on vicarious liability, at-will employment, negligent retention, and respondeat superior for a better understanding of this issue. Bottom line is, depending on the state and employer, a person can definitely be released from their employment, and even sued, for their actions/words/behavior. And, if the company is aware of an employees abhorrent behavior and choses to keep them in their employ, then that opens up the company to a lawsuit as well. Peace.
-2
u/DeadlySight 2d ago
lol, nice word salad trying to sound intelligent.
This doesn’t set precedent for anything work related. If she’s worked without incident there’s no reason to believe this outburst will have anything to do with her work at all. Respondent behavior and negligent retention? 😂 Her nonsense display in Hawaii isn’t relevant to her work in California.
The only thing that’s applicable is at-will employment. Yes, the company probably can fire her for basically whatever they want. We shouldn’t support and endorse that kind of employer overreach. Employer oversight should end when you’re on your free time. I’m talking about the way things should be, not the way they are. Employers should not be able to fire employees that are doing their jobs without incident.
5
u/LovePeaceHope-ish 2d ago
Ooohhh, okay. I get who you are now. Silly me thought this was a good faith conversation. But, nope - you're just a jerk. Got it. Bye.
1
u/QuitUsingMyNames 1d ago
An opinion is one thing. Harassment and causing a public disturbance is something else.
1
u/DeadlySight 1d ago
None of which have to do with the workplace and the employer shouldn’t be involved in at all.
The amount of people pushing for so much employer power over employees is insane.
1
u/QuitUsingMyNames 1d ago
Oh I don’t care about her workplace. That’s their decision if they want to keep her nasty ass on the payroll or not.
31
u/EE-420-Lige 2d ago
Can't imagine the level of hate to not be able to love your child 😕 kids hella smart and intelligent and seems like a great person and ur gonna throw it all away over this conservatism is a hell of a drug
9
13
u/-forbiddenkitty- 2d ago
Bourne has previously claimed on X/Twitter that more than 1,800 students at the University of California, Davis – where Bourne works – identify as transgender and are provided with free breast binders, bras and gender-marker changes to their birth certificates, without their parents’ knowledge.
From an article linked in a previous post...
They are college students. They don't need their parents' approval or notification anymore.
24
u/NotAnAIOrAmI 2d ago
But try to see it from her point of view; she spent $3,000 so she and her boys could stay in that hotel.
In case that's not clear, here it is again; $3,000, her boys, that hotel.
Sheesh, these people and their civil rights, infringing on others and their spending of $3,000.
20
u/Impressive_Returns 2d ago
She repeated over and over I want my money back in the hotel kept saying they give it to her. She just refused to leave had to be handcuffed and taken away. She did get the $3000 back and stayed another hotel.
22
5
7
u/onemassive 2d ago
Just FYI Trans Stds here is short for "Transportation Studies." It looks like a primarily research based department at UCD. She is a program coordinator, which interfaces with students in a staff capacity.
9
4
u/Away_Comedian_6828 2d ago
I’ve been looking for a job for 8 months unsuccessfully. Meanwhile, a transphobe got a job in the trans studies department at UC Davis?
3
2
2
u/H1king33k 2d ago
If you click on her profile it lists her pronouns as "dg". I thought this meant "diverse gender" meaning a gender identity outside of the binary convention.
Do I misunderstand this? If not, WTF?
1
u/FarAcanthocephala708 1d ago
‘Didn’t give?’ Just speculating. A lot of transphobic folks won’t give their pronouns bc they said it should be obvious.
3
1
1
3
u/Electrical-Rich1553 2d ago
This is the thing, if she is fired, she can claim her religious rights were violated. I'm not sure what standing these cases have, but I would rather her not make millions or anything. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-06-12/los-angeles-lifeguard-beach-pride-month-flag-lgbtq-robin-abcarian
I think the hatred of trans people has been manipulated to create political gains. This persons words, and views deeply sadden me as a trans person. However watching her speak, she is clearly struggling with mental issues.
2
u/zeprfrew 1d ago
That may be. What disappoints me is that the university did not say that if that was the case. Instead they made a statement distancing themselves from her. Saying that her actions do not reflect their values. And that is a flat out lie. Because if you state a principle then don't act upon it, it isn't a principle. As long as she remains employed by them and undisciplined it is their value.
1
u/Electrical-Rich1553 1d ago
I don’t know that it’s a good idea to police free speech by taking away people’s employment. I really don’t agree with this person, and her inflammatory speech is a part of a growing tide that puts me in direct danger. However, her increasing escalation will no doubt result in her breaking a law or doing something on campus to get her fired. If we allow people to get fired for political beliefs or protesting things they disagree with that creates a dangerous precedent. It may be us one day who gets fired for our political beliefs as a consequence. I really do understand anyone who disagrees. It’s fundamentally upsetting to me everything this person stands for. I also feel like several of the things she has done go past protest and into harassment and should result in prosecution of some kind.
2
u/zeprfrew 1d ago
You're confusing free speech with consequence-free speech. It would be wrong to arrest her, to charge her with a crime, to imprison her. That would be a violation of free speech.
But if people choose to dissociate themselves from her, that's a consequence. If her employer believes that she has brought them into disrepute, then it's fair to fire her. If the customers - in this case the students - call for her to be sacked, then fair enough. They have a responsibility to them. And if her stated views and actions lead them to conclude that she can't or won't treat all of the students and fellow faculty in accordance with their policy then she needs to go. Those are fair consequences.
I would also add that there is a difference between political beliefs and harassment. It wouldn't be right to dismiss someone over a disagreement regarding tax policy or collective bargaining rights, for example. But if someone's actions violate someone else's fundamental human rights, then it's at best disingenuous to suggest that that is simply expressing political views. They can't expect to enjoy all of the benefits of society while pushing innocent people out the door. There's a social contract here.
1
1
0
2d ago
[deleted]
5
u/Impressive_Returns 1d ago
That’s what it says in the original post
2
u/altitude-adjusted 1d ago
OMG I'm an idiot, just saw the first round of outrage responses and hit post w/o reading further. This was on Danesh a couple of days ago and I know Davis well and was appalled by this insane woman. How she is still employed is shocking given her history.
-2
-16
u/Cleverbird 2d ago
So what's the facepalm here? Because to me it sounds like you're just trying to incite a witch hunt by sharing her email.
0
u/Impressive_Returns 2d ago
Dude don’t you get the irony? And as someone else posted, could also be transmission of stds
-5
u/crazymastiff 2d ago
Honestly, the irony here is that I’m face palming you. Trans studies is not what you think it is. It’s transportation studies.
6
-15
u/ohnothem00ps 2d ago
Lol “hate crime”? This woman is clearly unhinged, but what “hate crime” would she be charged for?
1
-3
-12
u/4dxn 2d ago
Can they fire her? its a govt institution. can a govt fire you for personal time speech? because i know trump is trying to do that if he wins.
7
u/Impressive_Returns 2d ago
This is not a case of free speech, it is hate speech which id illegal. UC sent out a letter to all including Beth informing them hate speech is not allowed on campus. Test Beth continues to do so. She has been warned and fails to correct her behavior. Students on campus do not feel safe or want to be associated with the department where she works.
4
u/jjm443 2d ago
It would be good if the US did have hate speech laws, but it doesn't.
-1
u/4dxn 2d ago
its could be a slippery slope but its doable as long as the institution deciding what is hate can be protected from political machinations. many govts have "expanded" what falls under hate.
its a bit sad americans don't know some of the more basic constitutional structures we have. i wish they bring back civics or govt education. though i also wish they taught kids all forms of govt and not just US govt/economics.
-5
u/4dxn 2d ago edited 2d ago
maybe i missed the video of her doing this on the davis campus. can you share that? is there evidence of her doing it on campus?
i've only seen the video in hawaii. and i'm pretty sure davis does not own a hawaii hotel.
if she did this during working hours or on campus, then fire the shit out of her. but if you can be held accountable for speech on your own time off govt property, project 2025 is going to have a field day.
5
u/Impressive_Returns 2d ago
You can see other videos of her committing hate crimes on YouTube. Students have reported being doxed by her and being assaulted students.
-4
u/4dxn 2d ago
where? please share. i know she goes around town and does crazy shit. djusd banned her. i've never seen any video of her doing it on campus.
2
u/Impressive_Returns 2d ago
Do you see UC’s letter they sent to her and everyone else at UC in April? Someone just posted. She is in clear violation of UC’s code of conduct and of UC’s Oath she took when she was hired.
Video are on YouTube and no I cannot point you to a specific video but others can and have
1
u/4dxn 2d ago
yes i saw the letter, it didn't even name her. it even says the speech is protected. its stupid and hurtful but protected. where in the letter does it say you will lose your job if you do it? because they know legally it'll open then up.
so i guess your argument is based off just "trust me". got it......i haven't found any and you refuse to provide any so i wonder what that means.
2
u/Impressive_Returns 2d ago
Dude why are you ignoring UC’s Code of Conduct her Diversity, Equity and Incision training, and the oath she took to be a UC employee.
-1
u/4dxn 2d ago
that is for on campus or on work time or when you are representing the school. it cannot apply to personal time. do you not understand the ramifications if it applies off-hours? just think it through.
davis law is decent. audit a constitutionality course or something. all you need is a prof's approval to sit in.
3
u/Impressive_Returns 2d ago
Dude what you are saying is stupid. The oath is not just for working hours. And do you really think she can dox students just she is at home or off campus? Think about it.
→ More replies (0)
-18
u/Itstartswithyou0404 2d ago
Hate crime? Can we stop with the changing the definition of serious acts, simply to fit our personal agendas? She did not commit a hate crime, full stop. She is a pice of shit yes, but no hate crime occured
10
u/Impressive_Returns 2d ago
Why do you say she has not and is not counting to commit hate crimes? Her actions met the defination
1
u/Itstartswithyou0404 1d ago edited 1d ago
Please read my response, how is what she said not hate speech?
-12
u/jwillsrva 2d ago
Not defending her in the least bit- but what hate crime did she commit?
7
u/Impressive_Returns 2d ago
It was an attack against a protected classes of individuals as defined in the law.
-4
u/AterReddits 2d ago
A crime needs to actually be committed. Such as assault or battery. Then you can add on hate crime. Being a dick to someone isn't a crime. Doesn't make her less of deck or face repercussions from her job, but isn't a crime
7
u/Maleficent_Sense_948 2d ago
“In US law, assault is defined as an intentional act that causes someone to reasonably fear immediate harm or offensive contact. The victim doesn't need to be physically injured, but the actor must have intended to cause harm and the victim must have been aware of that intent. The actor's motive is irrelevant, so it doesn't matter if they were trying to scare the victim or if it was a joke. “
Battery is the actual physical component.
-31
u/ButWhatIfItsNotTrue 2d ago
To be fair, if you want a proper study into something you should have people who agree and disagree with the idea on the team to get a somewhat unbiased opinion.
19
u/Extra-Aardvark-1390 2d ago
I don't think listening to rabid fanatics on both sides cancels each other out to create "unbiased." You get unbiased with a large random sampling of opinions and meticulous data analysis. Not by having one ultraliberal star hippie and one right wing hatemonger balance each other out. This ain't Crossfire.
-20
u/ButWhatIfItsNotTrue 2d ago
Your response shows a complete misunderstanding. You seem to think research is about opinions and analysising opinions. They study things and look for the facts.
You should have extremes and people in the middle. If you just focus on the middle you don't research things that may offend others. If you have a study group that does not have a single person who thinks what you're studying is completely wrong you won't go and research that and prove it one way or another.
Research is not about just proving what you want. It's not about getting lots of opinions and saying "Lots of people think trans people like unicorns, so we've proven trans people like unicorns". When you read that you'll think "Obivously, that's just stupid to even imply that" but that is literally what you did.
8
u/Extra-Aardvark-1390 2d ago
Lol having people involved in working the study who have an agenda is exactly what I'm talking about. And plenty of studies look at opinions.
-14
u/ButWhatIfItsNotTrue 2d ago
lol
4
u/Extra-Aardvark-1390 2d ago
https://www.aapor.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Public-Opin-Q-1956-ALPERT-493-500.pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv346px8
Friend, there are a million studies analyzing opinions of various groups.
-1
u/ButWhatIfItsNotTrue 2d ago
lol. There is no point in conversing, you skipped over the entire point and focused on "But there are studies where they study what the public opinion on a subject is!". Hyperfocusing on a single point ignoring the overall point to try and make yourself feel like a winner.
Ignoring the part about having a wide spectrum of people to study a subject. Acting like people don't have agendas. Acting like people trying to prove others wrong doesn't help further research. You're just a loony toon that wants to take someone's livelihood away because you disagree with what they did.
6
6
u/anarchistCatMom 2d ago
Yes, it's very important to have people who think we are degenerate freaks and pedophiles on the research teams that study us.
-8
u/ButWhatIfItsNotTrue 2d ago
Yes, because when they can't prove it, it means something.
If noone ever tries to prove it then the question "how do we know?" remains valid. It's how research works.
4
u/anarchistCatMom 2d ago
How do you prove or disprove that someone is subhuman? Because that's how bigots see trans people. It's not a scientific debate, we are as human as anyone else and deserve bodily autonomy. Scientists can conduct unbiased research without being bigots.
-4
u/ButWhatIfItsNotTrue 2d ago
How do you prove or disprove that someone is subhuman?
I see you had to change the wording because what you originally said you know that's provable. You can prove if people are peadophiles.
And since "subhuman" isn't a thing since scienists have proven we're all roughly the same I think that matter is solved alot faster than you expected.
It's not a scientific debate, we are as human as anyone else and deserve bodily autonomy.
There are many factors that are of scientific debate. And some of the science actually backs trans people being right, there is a part of their brain that is opposite to the gender they were born. Now, if we didn't study it and there wasn't a scientific debate we wouldn't know that.
Scientists can conduct unbiased research without being bigots.
They can. But they can also conduct research while being bigots. Being a bigot does not rule them out of being able to do research.
Most research is biased. That's why if you look at a lot of studies they'll give opinions when they've failed to prove what they wanted to prove. When they do that, it tells everyone who knows what they're reading they've failed to prove it. Which is telling. For example, there has been hundreds of studies on apsertame, not a single one, as far as I know, has proven cancer or negative side effects. Yet we have hundreds of studies where they say "we think", "it's possible", etc.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the rules.
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail here or Reddit site admins here. All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.