Tech leaders call for Trump to reverse his ban on transgender service members

[captaincranky]

Pretty much all the arguments people have given against trans people serving in the military have just been arguments for a rigorous selection process, which is staying in place. This is about having the *chance* to serve. Having the chance to go through the selection process, to join the military "in any capacity" - not just combat roles.

It's hilarious seeing the hypocrites come out in force. If "the government" were to take away *your* rights, you get really pissed off. Even on threads on Techspot where they're talking about things like consumer protection regulations, people get all "err merr gerd it's mah capitalist rights! Ferk you, gervernment!", but as soon as someone else's rights are taken away, you've got a million and one excuses.

You guys really need to decide whether you actually believe in your "home of the free" stuff or not. No one is saying "sign up all the transpeople!", it's just disgraceful to not even allow them the chance.

"Don't ask, don't tell", actually worked pretty darn well. What was rendered unto the army, fell under the army's rules and regulations, stayed such, and what went on in the bedroom remained private. But nowadays, no one chooses to believe that any individual can stray so far from conformity, that it practically disallows inclusion with the majority...

There has to be some sort of a baseline of what is considered "normal", or a society will lack coherence.

So really, if you want to get your junk cut off, and wear spandex catsuits, there may not be a place for you in the mainstream. The same follows more rigorously in a military setting. To say that transgendered people could serve, but might not be suitable for combat, is the same as granting them excess rights, not taking rights away. All it amounts to is saying, "let's send the straight guys to get their heads blown off, while we go practice our pantomime and hope to get picked up by the USO".

The truth of the matter is, practically every millennial out there, could at least have some traits of a sociopath diagnosed in them. Let's warm up at C4, "me,me,me,me,me,me,me,me,me".

 

[davislane1]

Pretty much all the arguments people have given against trans people serving in the military have just been arguments for a rigorous selection process, which is staying in place. This is about having the *chance* to serve. Having the chance to go through the selection process, to join the military "in any capacity" - not just combat roles.

This is incoherent. First you say it's just an argument for rigorous selection. Then you say the outrage is because transexuals are selected out by that same process.

It's hilarious seeing the hypocrites come out in force. If "the government" were to take away *your* rights, you get really pissed off. Even on threads on Techspot where they're talking about things like consumer protection regulations, people get all "err merr gerd it's mah capitalist rights! Ferk you, gervernment!", but as soon as someone else's rights are taken away, you've got a million and one excuses.

There is no right to join the military. Every person in this country has the exact same right to express their desire to apply to the armed services. Everyone has the same right to express their patriotism. No one has a right to be accepted into their branch of choice.

 

[EClyde]

This was a great move by Trump. It's time someone used some common sense. Transgenders...it's all made up. What next people who eat celery with their ear? You think I am kidding. I am not. If this is what people get their shorts in a bundle about they need a depression, a war, etc to reveal transgender "rights" don't mean squat

 

[Bubbajim]

This is incoherent. First you say it's just an argument for rigorous selection. Then you say the outrage is because transexuals are selected out by that same process.



There is no right to join the military. Every person in this country has the exact same right to express their desire to apply to the armed services. Everyone has the same right to express their patriotism. No one has a right to be accepted into their branch of choice.

I'm not entirely sure how many more times I needed to use the word "chance" to avoid people missing the point, but apparently you needed it more:

The CHANCE to try and join.

Being told you can apply, but you weren't selected, is different to not being able to even try in the first place.

By analogy, if you walk into a bank and say "I'd like a loan please", they could either say "ok Mr Davislane1, fill out this form and we'll run some checks" - *runs checks* - "we're sorry you don't qualify". Or, they could say, "No, you can't even apply because you're Davislane1". Do you see how those are different situations?

 

[Uncle Al]

During my years in the service I came to observe infantry units from around the world. Those that allowed "other than men" into their ranks not only did surprisingly well, but reportedly had fewer problems of inner squad disciplinary issues. As said, regardless of all the "other" things, a good soldier is a good soldier. Washington had several women that passed themselves off as men so they could join in the fight; the same was reported from the first and second world wars. A persons patriotism should not be diluted by anything. All this is truly importnat is their willingness to serve and being up to the tasks at hand.

 

[davislane1]

I'm not entirely sure how many more times I needed to use the word "chance" to avoid people missing the point, but apparently you needed it more:

The CHANCE to try and join.

Being told you can apply, but you weren't selected, is different to not being able to even try in the first place.

By analogy, if you walk into a bank and say "I'd like a loan please", they could either say "ok Mr Davislane1, fill out this form and we'll run some checks" - *runs checks* - "we're sorry you don't qualify". Or, they could say, "No, you can't even apply because you're Davislane1". Do you see how those are different situations?

You fail to understand the ban and related "rights" issues.

Transgenders are being subject to the exact same standard as anyone else. Nobody can serve if they have psychological health problem. They are "denied the chance" on this basis. Gender dysphoria is a prohibited condition. Therefore, they fail the minimum requirements to be considered for evaluation.

Unless you show up to a recruiting center in drag or some other flamboyant dress, being transgender isn't going to come up until you are interviewed (see: evaluated). They aren't doing tranny checks at the front door.

If I were to walk into a bank and ask for a loan, they will run a credit check and have me fill out a form. If that form meets their minimum risk tolerance for a loan applicant, they will begin the negotiation process. If the credit check or form information fails to meet that standard, the application will be denied on that basis.

Now, if you are obviously transsexual, continuing with the bank analogy, that's like walking up to a sales rep with the bank's own credit evaluation stamped to your chest (and an Equifax to boot) with a big fat 275 stamped on the middle of the page and a DTI more one-sided than a CNN news room.

You'll never advance to the negotiation or application phase because it is abundantly clear that you can't pass what the credit check and paper work are meant to evaluate.

No rights are being alienated. Rather, instead of wasting time and money processing guaranteed rejections, they aren't going to hand out the paperwork to begin with (assuming that's what this ban entails). The idea that the military should place people's feelings ahead of operational efficiency is comical.

Think about it.

Scenario 1: Recruiter interviews applicant, sends applicant off for evaluation and paper work, thus "providing a chance to be rejected." This costs time, money, and resources. Results come back, recruiter informs applicant that the application has been rejected for being psychologically unfit (gender dysphoria).

Scenario 2: Recruiter interviews applicant, asks if applicant has any conditions that would prevent him/her from qualifying for service. No money or resources expended, time spent is the time it takes to ask the question. Applicant responds, "I'm transgender." Applicant is rejected for being psychologically unfit (gender dysphoria).

Your position: Scenario 2's rejection occurs too early in the decision process.

That's so irrational that it borders on parody.

 

[wiyosaya]

During my years in the service I came to observe infantry units from around the world. Those that allowed "other than men" into their ranks not only did surprisingly well, but reportedly had fewer problems of inner squad disciplinary issues. As said, regardless of all the "other" things, a good soldier is a good soldier. Washington had several women that passed themselves off as men so they could join in the fight; the same was reported from the first and second world wars. A persons patriotism should not be diluted by anything. All this is truly importnat is their willingness to serve and being up to the tasks at hand.

Absolutely. In fact, there have been studies that say that homosexual males make better killers because they have a higher level of aggression.

I agree with only part of Trump's twit fit on this in that I do not think that sex change treatments should be paid for by the military as that kind of precedent could attract people who only want to join the military to have sex change treatments. That is an extra commitment that others joining the military do not receive and, as I see it anyway, is essentially unfair.

 

[wiyosaya]

I'm not entirely sure how many more times I needed to use the word "chance" to avoid people missing the point, but apparently you needed it more:

The CHANCE to try and join.

Being told you can apply, but you weren't selected, is different to not being able to even try in the first place.

By analogy, if you walk into a bank and say "I'd like a loan please", they could either say "ok Mr Davislane1, fill out this form and we'll run some checks" - *runs checks* - "we're sorry you don't qualify". Or, they could say, "No, you can't even apply because you're Davislane1". Do you see how those are different situations?

You fail to understand the ban and related "rights" issues.

Transgenders are being subject to the exact same standard as anyone else. Nobody can serve if they have psychological health problem. They are "denied the chance" on this basis. Gender dysphoria is a prohibited condition. Therefore, they fail the minimum requirements to be considered for evaluation.

Unless you show up to a recruiting center in drag or some other flamboyant dress, being transgender isn't going to come up until you are interviewed (see: evaluated). They aren't doing tranny checks at the front door.

If I were to walk into a bank and ask for a loan, they will run a credit check and have me fill out a form. If that form meets their minimum risk tolerance for a loan applicant, they will begin the negotiation process. If the credit check or form information fails to meet that standard, the application will be denied on that basis.

Now, if you are obviously transsexual, continuing with the bank analogy, that's like walking up to a sales rep with the bank's own credit evaluation stamped to your chest (and an Equifax to boot) with a big fat 275 stamped on the middle of the page and a DTI more one-sided than a CNN news room.

You'll never advance to the negotiation or application phase because it is abundantly clear that you can't pass what the credit check and paper work are meant to evaluate.

No rights are being alienated. Rather, instead of wasting time and money processing guaranteed rejections, they aren't going to hand out the paperwork to begin with (assuming that's what this ban entails). The idea that the military should place people's feelings ahead of operational efficiency is comical.

Think about it.

Scenario 1: Recruiter interviews applicant, sends applicant off for evaluation and paper work, thus "providing a chance to be rejected." This costs time, money, and resources. Results come back, recruiter informs applicant that the application has been rejected for being psychologically unfit (gender dysphoria).

Scenario 2: Recruiter interviews applicant, asks if applicant has any conditions that would prevent him/her from qualifying for service. No money or resources expended, time spent is the time it takes to ask the question. Applicant responds, "I'm transgender." Applicant is rejected for being psychologically unfit (gender dysphoria).

Your position: Scenario 2's rejection occurs too early in the decision process.

That's so irrational that it borders on parody.

Personally, I think your argument is idi0tic. Whether you like it or not, people are going to lie.

It is your OPINION that transgenders are ill. You do know what they say about opinions, don't you?

 

[sccrafts]

I have been serving in the US Military for over 15 years. I served 5 years in the United States Marine Corps, and since 2006 I have been serving in the US Navy Reserves. Unless you have served in the US Military, honestly you have no right to weigh in on this discussion.

One question I have yet to see answered anywhere whether online or in a magazine. What happened to the "X" and "Y" chromosome. As far as I was taught in all the genetic classes I took in high school and college it is the "X" and "Y" chromosome that determines your gender. So are we now just ignoring that FACT, are we now rewriting the textbooks so that fit today's Political Views.

Another argument that I haven't really seen brought to light here is that the military if transgenders continue to serve, will be paying the bill for all the treatment and surgeries necessary to complete their transition. Why should the government have to pay for all the medical cost involved? If an individual wants to change genders, OK, but the military shouldn't have to pay for it. Pay for it yourself. The military is not forcing you to change genders, they are not ordering you to go from a man to women, so they should not be responsible for the cost. I feel that if you are a transgender or what to change genders you should have to do so BEFORE you are allowed to enter military service, and if you are already in the service you must leave the service to complete the transition (paying for it yourself) then you can rejoin the military but as the new gender.

Also even though an individual changes gender in the military he or she is not required to have a change of genitalia. Also the surgery involved to change a persons sexual organs from one to another is rarely successful. So you will have men with female parts and females with male parts. Would you really want to be a female going to take a shower or change cloths and see another "female" with man parts right next to you? Furthermore in the reserves each drill weekend there is a random urinalysis. To conduct this each individual must be "observed" by senior enlisted person of the same gender, this meaning that a female must observe a female, and a male must observe a male. So what happens when a female observer must observe a female transgender who still has male genitalia complete the urinalysis.

President Trump is right. The military should be more focused on the mission. This also requires having service members mission ready and deploy-able. Now if there are individual serving in the military who are in the process of going through transgender change (which could take over a year) how deploy-able is that individual. We need our military ready to fight, not spending time being confused about what gender they are and spending more time in the hospital and/or mental health office then training with their units and doing their job.

 

[captaincranky]

Absolutely. In fact, there have been studies that say that homosexual males make better killers because they have a higher level of aggression..

I do so enjoy your "citations" of unknown "studies", on which you base so much of your opinion.

Were I in the advertising, (or recruiting), field, I could start a great campaign conducting a search for gays to populate our Delta Force and Seal teams. Sure it would discriminate against straights looking for the same position. But, as everybody has been taught, there can be no such thing as discrimination against a straight white male.

I met a Delta Force member, and he shared this little tidbit with me. He alleged the MMPI had to be expanded to include a new group of individuals appropriate to join in swift reaction strike forces such as the Navy Seals. The new classification was made up of, "sociopaths who enjoyed functioning in groups". No mention was made of their preferred sexual orientation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Multiphasic_Personality_Inventory

(Incidentally, that classification could also likely attach to members of street gang thugs, but to a much lesser degree).

Now, I worked at a record store for a time. The store manager was a gay male. A decent size sample of his friends were also (apparently) homosexual males. Most of them were around 5 feet in stature. And looking at this from a distance two things were reasonably apparent. Men of such stature were most likely unattractive to modern women, many to most of whom, prefer their male partner to be more on the order of six feet tall. It gives one pause to wonder if these men were gay out of a matter of convenience, not finding suitable partners of the opposite sex.

It also gave one pause to wonder, (now in hindsight), while "great killers" they might be, if the average 5' 6" to 5' 8" female dominant bull, could kick the crap out of all of them. Simply a willingness to kill and be gay at the same time, is not an automatic pass to strike team stardom.

During my years in the service I came to observe infantry units from around the world. Those that allowed "other than men" into their ranks not only did surprisingly well, but reportedly had fewer problems of inner squad disciplinary issues. As said, regardless of all the "other" things, a good soldier is a good soldier. Washington had several women that passed themselves off as men so they could join in the fight; the same was reported from the first and second world wars. A persons patriotism should not be diluted by anything. All this is truly importnat is their willingness to serve and being up to the tasks at hand.

Entertaining and informative but, given the time frame of these recollections, youth's attitude toward God and country were far different than that which exists today. Most of the mouthiest of today's youth, aren't even aware they have any responsibility toward their country. It's all about, "Me,me, me, me, me et al".

And BTW, during those time periods, you either joined, or you were drafted. Now, while it is true the draft would have certainly passed by those illicit female service members, the enlistment personnel of those very troubled times, were doing a pretty fair amount of "looking the other way" regarding physical conformity. If you had 2 legs, 2 arms, and a head, you were in. The war in Viet Nam likely brought similar anecdotes. Besides, for a very aggressive masculine lesbian, you can be certain that being handed a gun and instructed to "go kill us some communists", fulfilled a life long ambition for the actualization of their masculine power fantasies. I'd even be willing to bet, they enjoyed the violence more than many of their male counterparts. "Penile envy" does have a certain set of elevated male behavioral traits which go along with it..

 

[Uncle Al]

I do so enjoy your "citations" of unknown "studies", on which you base so much of your opinion.

Were I in the advertising, (or recruiting), field, I could start a great campaign conducting a search for gays to populate our Delta Force and Seal teams. Sure it would discriminate against straights looking for the same position. But, as everybody has been taught, there can be no such thing as discrimination against a straight white male.

I met a Delta Force member, and he shared this little tidbit with me. He alleged the MMPI had to be expanded to include a new group of individuals appropriate to join in swift reaction strike forces such as the Navy Seals. The new classification was made up of, "sociopaths who enjoyed functioning in groups". No mention was made of their preferred sexual orientation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Multiphasic_Personality_Inventory

(Incidentally, that classification could also likely attach to members of street gang thugs, but to a much lesser degree).

Now, I worked at a record store for a time. The store manager was a gay male. A decent size sample of his friends were also (apparently) homosexual males. Most of them were around 5 feet in stature. And looking at this from a distance two things were reasonably apparent. Men of such stature were most likely unattractive to modern women, many to most of whom, prefer their male partner to be more on the order of six feet tall. It gives one pause to wonder if these men were gay out of a matter of convenience, not finding suitable partners of the opposite sex.

It also gave one pause to wonder, (now in hindsight), while "great killers" they might be, if the average 5' 6" to 5' 8" female dominant bull, could kick the crap out of all of them. Simply a willingness to kill and be gay at the same time, is not an automatic pass to strike team stardom.

Entertaining and informative but, given the time frame of these recollections, youth's attitude toward God and country were far different than that which exists today. Most of the mouthiest of today's youth, aren't even aware they have any responsibility toward their country. It's all about, "Me,me, me, me, me et al".

And BTW, during those time periods, you either joined, or you were drafted. Now, while it is true the draft would have certainly passed by those illicit female service members, the enlistment personnel of those very troubled times, were doing a pretty fair amount of "looking the other way" regarding physical conformity. If you had 2 legs, 2 arms, and a head, you were in. The war in Viet Nam likely brought similar anecdotes. Besides, for a very aggressive masculine lesbian, you can be certain that being handed a gun and instructed to "go kill us some communists", fulfilled a life long ambition for the actualization of their masculine power fantasies. I'd even be willing to bet, they enjoyed the violence more than many of their male counterparts. "Penile envy" does have a certain set of elevated male behavioral traits which go along with it..

The latest report (2012) from the joint services continues to recognize those countries that have services allowing male, female & gay service members in a variety of roles including combat. As recently as 4 years ago I was "recalled" to active duty for several months and have continued to observe the same although I would take issue with one small claim.

The sociopath analogy is also incorrect. Sociopaths do not function well in groups. Sociopaths operate at a much higher level, singularly, and do not/will not work as a team. The SEALs or SPECIAL FORCES are about teamwork, not single members. DELTA FORCE was actually created in support of 1st SF GROUP and their standards were taken directly out of the SF Training Handbook. You can verify this further by watching the somewhat recent National Geographic special on "Hell Week", the critical right of passage for anyone wanting to get into the SF Academy. Those "super stars" wash out quickly because they are recognized as people that have issues with authority and can jeopardize the mission if they act independently. The actual study your friend was referring to had nothing to do with sociopaths, it cited children born of females that were actively using crack cocaine during their early pregnancy. The chemical suppresses development of the frontal lobe, in particular, the part where reasoning, right vs. wrong, and higher functions are developed. There was a period of time when many new enlistee's were found with this "quality". They made superior combat soldiers as long as you kept them in combat, but when there was no war, their "unique talents" got them into trouble and frequently kicked out of the service.

By the way, you might want to reread that study you quoted. I think you overlooked the important passge:

"However, the MMPI had flaws of validity that were soon apparent and could not be overlooked indefinitely. The control group for its original testing consisted of a very small number of individuals, mostly young, white, and married people from rural Midwestern geographic areas. The MMPI also faced problems with its terminology not being relevant to the population it was supposed to measure, and it became necessary for the MMPI to measure a more diverse number of potential mental health problems, such as "suicidal tendencies, drug abuse, and treatment-related behaviors."

In defense of your comments, I have combed the archives and found the are no existing studies that suggests LGBT's are better killers. There are a few studies supported by evidence and information that supports that those that are given a "new" opportunity to serve in some of these combat roles for the first time are far more aggressive. The suggestion is that they are taking every advantage of the opportunity and wish to excel. Regardless of their reasoning the evidence supports that small, but significant fact. As to the "me, me, me" generation, very few ever get past basic training. Even the CAT-4 generation of soldiers could not survive that process and were quickly washed out. Not all, but the majority and those that actually made it onto a combat arms team haven't lasted very long .....

 

[captaincranky]

@Uncle Al This is a good page with solid layperson terms and explanations of the (sometimes blurred boundary)_ differences between a "sociopath" an a "psychopath". https://www.healthyplace.com/personality-disorders/psychopath/psychopath-vs-sociopath-what-s-the-difference/ I always approach personality issues and diagnosis as more fluid than is often assumed.. I guess a sort of cop out is something I joking refer to about myself, claiming "I'm a people sociopath". However, an absolute adherence to either diagnosis, would likely result in many individuals who likely wouldn't live past, or would be incarcerated for life, by the onset of puberty.

What you describe as particular types of individuals being "far more aggressive", also likely has a fairly strong component of "living out their fantasies of being male" (*), a condition not likely being encountered or present in those troops who were born actually male..

(*) Or an absolute pathology of truly believing they are male.

The issue or "rewording the MMPI to be more inclusive" has been a head banging point of contention for years. One camp insists that the other should learn to speak proper English, the other, feels it needs to be written in Jive..

The same is true with IQ tests, although I don't think a person who has taken the time to develop a 10,000++ word vocabulary, should be punished for doing so. Or suffer in the face of "claims predicated on personal background and self serving convenience", that testing should be done largely on "street smarts".

 

[Bubbajim]

You fail to understand the ban and related "rights" issues.

Transgenders are being subject to the exact same standard as anyone else. Nobody can serve if they have psychological health problem. They are "denied the chance" on this basis. Gender dysphoria is a prohibited condition. Therefore, they fail the minimum requirements to be considered for evaluation.
...

That's so irrational that it borders on parody.

Ahh, now I see why you're so steadfast. You're convinced that all transgender people are just mentally ill. I geddit.

So, there being thousands of transgender people either currently or formerly in the US military doesn't matter a jot to your argument? Either your hallowed selection process was wrong thousands of times, in which case your argument falls down because you're saying the requirements for psychological wellness aren't changing - everyone is "subject to the exact same standards as everyone else" - or, the selection process is fine, and allowing those transgender individuals who pass the selection process to serve has caused no issue, in which case again, your argument falls down.

You're arguing as though this is a test case - I.e. should the first transgender person who's ever applied be allowed to be vetted for selection? But this isn't. This is taking a whole group of people, some of whom currently serve, and saying "none of you are allowed, in any capacity, to carry on this function, and none of the rest of you will even be able to apply."

We differ in that I don't think all transgender people are mentally unwell. Yes, there's a higher prevalence of conditions such as bipolar disorder, but there's been no evidence to show a causal link. Writing off whole categories of people based on stereotyped characteristics is not only discriminatory, it's stupid.

Young men kill themselves at the highest rate of any social group - therefore young men can no longer serve in the US military. They're a risk to themselves and others. Does that sound right to you? Obviously not, because the selection process is there to weed out the young men who genuinely would be a risk. But those young men who might be a risk still have the right to apply. Same rules should apply with transgender people.

 

[captaincranky]

Ahh, now I see why you're so steadfast. You're convinced that all transgender people are just mentally ill. I geddit..... [ ]..... But those young men who might be a risk still have the right to apply. Same rules should apply with transgender people.

You know, the only thing which could have possibly made your post more annoying, would have been for you to lead it off with, "some of my best friends are transgender".

I'm sure that a lot of what you're describing took place in the, "don't ask, don't tell", era of our military.

But "civil rights" aren't really what the issue is today. It's about demanding to use the rest rooms of the opposite sex. It's about getting the US government to pay to have your junk cut off, because you think you're entitled to that too.

So, since you're such an "equal opportunity SJW", I'm sure you'll give this old red neck a like on this post.

Why, you ask? First, because it should "straighten you out", on a couple of key points of the discussion. Additionally, it would prove you are truly a liberal, not some hypocrite who tolerates all points of view, as long as they're the same as your own.. (y)

 

[Bubbajim]

You know, the only thing which could have possibly made your post more annoying, would have been for you to lead it off with, "some of my best friends are transgender".

I'm sure that a lot of what you're describing took place in the, "don't ask, don't tell", era of our military.

But "civil rights" aren't really what the issue is today. It's about demanding to use the rest rooms of the opposite sex. It's about getting the US government to pay to have your junk cut off, because you think you're entitled to that too.

So, since you're such an "equal opportunity SJW", I'm sure you'll give this old red neck a like on this post.

Why, you ask? First, because it should "straighten you out", on a couple of key points of the discussion. Additionally, it would prove you are truly a liberal, not some hypocrite who tolerates all points of view, as long as they're the same as your own.. (y)

Throwing in tangentially related topics does nothing to further this particular conversation. It also does nothing to "straighten out" the discussion, if anything it throws a curve-ball into the mix. And I'm not entirely sure what you saw as intolerance of others' opinions - there's disagreement, sure, but through discussion. I've not thrown around any insults or derogatory labels, I've tried to argue the point at hand. I certainly don't consider myself an SJW, and more often than not I'm arguing against the SJW types. I'm more a classical liberal/libertarian. But this, to me, is quite a clear principle at hand, not a fluffy, self-congratulatory love-in.

Try and obfuscate the point all you like, but saying "X group of people does not have the right to do Y, based purely on the fact that they are X", is clearly an issue of civil rights. Again, would you be quite so willing to go along with something that banned a group such as men from doing a particular job, not based on actual characteristics other than the blanket statement that "they're men"? Perhaps you might, seeing as you seem to think that equal opportunities are a bad thing. Personally I think greater freedom of opportunity is a good thing - as long as there's not the expectation of equality of *outcome*. That's the difference between my own views and SJW positions. I think people should get the same chances, they think people should get the same outcomes.

You find my posts annoying because you disagree with them, and that's fine, but it doesn't detract from the actual points made.

 

[davislane1]

Ahh, now I see why you're so steadfast. You're convinced that all transgender people are just mentally ill. I geddit.

You literally don't. Your entire counter argument, if we are going to be generous enough to call it that, is that some transgenders are psychologically healthy, in spite of them being intrinsically precluded from this group.

Why intrinsically? Because they identify as possessing traits that they biologically do not.

"I'm a woman" while possessing no XX chromosome pairing. "I'm a man" while possessing no XY chromosome pairing. This is to say nothing of all the hormone blockers and test/estrogen boosters they have to inject to suppress their actual biology and "transition."*

Deciding that you are the wrong gender and proceeding to cut of your breasts, balls, and/or penis in an effort to thwart biology is no more well-adjusted and psychologically normal than having a rotor surgically attached to your skull and walking around with a couple of roman candles in hand because you identify as an attack helicopter.

Once again, the absurdity of your position:

Recruiter: Are you biologically female?

Applicant: I had my testicles cut off last December.

Recruiter: We appreciate your patriotism...

You: That's not fair! This person is perfectly normal!

*The one exception to this is the infinitesimally small number of folks who are born with abnormal chromosome pairings.

 

[Bubbajim]

You literally don't. Your entire counter argument, if we are going to be generous enough to call it that, is that some transgenders are psychologically healthy, in spite of them being intrinsically precluded from this group.

Why intrinsically? Because they identify as possessing traits that they biologically do not.

"I'm a woman" while possessing no XX chromosome pairing. "I'm a man" while possessing no XY chromosome pairing. This is to say nothing of all the hormone blockers and test/estrogen boosters they have to inject to suppress their actual biology and "transition."*

Deciding that you are the wrong gender and proceeding to cut of your breasts, balls, and/or penis in an effort to thwart biology is no more well-adjusted and psychologically normal than having a rotor surgically attached to your skull and walking around with a couple of roman candles in hand because you identify as an attack helicopter.

Once again, the absurdity of your position:

Recruiter: Are you biologically female?

Applicant: I had my testicles cut off last December.

Recruiter: We appreciate your patriotism...

You: That's not fair! This person is perfectly normal!

*The one exception to this is the infinitesimally small number of folks who are born with abnormal chromosome pairings.

I literally do. It's just that your understanding of what transgender means is limited to thinking about chromosomes and dangly bits. Your chromosomes determine your sex. Yes, XX is what females have, XY is for males. But gender sits atop that, factoring in your gonads, hormone levels (pre- and post-natal), parietal make up, neurological volume and density, concentration and length of androgen receptors - a whole bunch of things. Obviously the various markers for determining "man-ness" are paired with male biology in the vast majority of cases, and vice versa for womanly traits pairing with female genetics. But not 100% of the time. And reducing it to "they're mentally ill" doesn't cut it.

You're right that chopping off a penis doesn't make a man a woman, nor does adding a prosthetic make a woman into a man - this is why the trans category exists. And of course it's not "perfectly normal", otherwise there wouldn't be an issue to debate. But just because it's not the norm, doesn't mean it's right to dismiss it wholesale. Do you meet epileptics and tell them they're just being crazy because most people aren't epileptic? Or do you accept that in a small minority (yet, statistically significant) number of people have a different neurological make-up that means something about their reality expresses differently to yours?

There's, somewhat unsurprisingly, tons to read on this topic. Personally I've found V.S Ramachandran gave what I considered the most satisfactory overview of all the factors in his book The Tell-tale Brain. I, like you, thought that this was just a chromosomal issue and that these people were just a bit weird. I was wrong. So are you.

 

[davislane1]

I literally do. It's just that your understanding of what transgender means is limited to thinking about chromosomes and dangly bits. Your chromosomes determine your sex. Yes, XX is what females have, XY is for males. But gender sits atop that, factoring in your gonads, hormone levels (pre- and post-natal), parietal make up, neurological volume and density, concentration and length of androgen receptors - a whole bunch of things. Obviously the various markers for determining "man-ness" are paired with male biology in the vast majority of cases, and vice versa for womanly traits pairing with female genetics. But not 100% of the time. And reducing it to "they're mentally ill" doesn't cut it.

Mental illnesses result of structural and chemical imbalances in the human body. 100% of the time such a defect exists in someone who has gender dysphoria, otherwise they could not have the condition. Chromosomes determine the baseline for what you would expect form a healthy organism. Deviations higher up on the developmental tree are indications of poor health, whether it be a predisposition to cancer or the development of gender dysphoria.

But just because it's not the norm, doesn't mean it's right to dismiss it wholesale. Do you meet epileptics and tell them they're just being crazy because most people aren't epileptic? Or do you accept that in a small minority (yet, statistically significant) number of people have a different neurological make-up that means something about their reality expresses differently to yours?

There's, somewhat unsurprisingly, tons to read on this topic. Personally I've found V.S Ramachandran gave what I considered the most satisfactory overview of all the factors in his book The Tell-tale Brain. I, like you, thought that this was just a chromosomal issue and that these people were just a bit weird. I was wrong. So are you.

This is sophistry of the finest order.

First, I have not dismissed it. I have identified the problem as a mental health issue. At no point have I suggested that transgenderism is "not important." It very much is important, medically, socially, and to those affected by it.

Second, if I happen to run a laser tag arena, I'm not going to let an epileptic customer play laser tag. I'm going to deny them the opportunity that non-epileptics have on account of the liability. I'm going to deny them because their brain in structurally unhealthy. Same thing for a midget or dwarf who wants to ride on my roller coaster. If you don't measure up, you don't ride.

Third, I've read plenty on the issue, including both college biology and psychology (aced both classes, BTW). Unlike you (per your post), I have not based my position on a sample size of one that I found persuasive. I don't think transgenders are weird. I think they have the great misfortune of being impacted by chemical imbalances (either genetically caused or environmental) that results in sky-high depression and suicide rates and basement-level mating options, with the added negative of having advocates who perpetuate their problems rather than solve them, because feels.

Now, are you actually going to demonstrate where I am wrong, or must we continue to chase fish and kick balls through uprights affixed to conveyor belts?

 

[captaincranky]

...[- ]...You find my posts annoying because you disagree with them, and that's fine, but it doesn't detract from the actual points made.

Well, quite bluntly, it doesn't reinforce them either.

I don't know how old you are, but if you're anywhere near "a millennial", you've soaked up so much pro LGBT propaganda from broadcast TV, as to make your opinion not only worthless, but not even arrived at on your own. Some gay screenwriter, or a lecherous TV executive has spoon fed you what they need you to believe, and you've drunk it in like milk from your mother's teat. That assumes of course, you don't have, "two dads", or, "two moms", which of course I'm sure you'll tell me, "is perfectly normal", in your next post. Guess what, it's only perfectly normal in some piece of sh!t TV show like "Modern Family". The sole reason it's "perfectly normal" there up on the little screen, is so the LGBT community will flock to the sponsor's product, and buy it, en masse.

Now, I'm so confused as to when it suddenly happened, that the homosexual community no longer has any seamy sides and dark corners to it to it. Nobody gets AIDS any more, lesbians have given up their knives, and "male" ice skaters no longer play "leapfrog" with their "male" coach. Why it seems like just yesterday that ice skater Rudy Galindo announced he was HIV positive, and two months later his coached declared "positive" as well.. To we "uninformed" it sounds like there was some hanky-panky going on. But heck-skers, I guess they both could have gotten infected sitting on the same dirty toilet seat.

Way back when I was a boy, (in both gender and spirit), Smilodon fatalis still roamed the earth. or maybe just went extinct the day before I was born. Back then, homosexuals roamed the earth as well.. One extremely flamboyant example of that species was pianist "Liberace". complete with an Italian provincial candelabra atop his piano. Liberace would have been excluded from military service because of his sexual orientation. Liberace was smart enough to use this to his advantage. He knew the army wouldn't provide him with an entourage, nor have all their pup tents redone in the style of Louis the 14th. I don'y know about you, but I don't think a soldiers survival habitat, really needs naked cherubs to be painted on its interior. Witness Mr. Liberace's "splendor", and tell me with a straight face that our infantry would have been the proper temporary employment opportunity for, "him".

Yet oddly, this generation seems to feel this type of display is perfectly "normal", and people of this persuasion should be welcomed into the service, wasting their time, and taxpayer's money, sitting around reflecting on just how "fabulous" they believe they are, for some 20 or 30 odd years until their lucrative retirement.

The equally, if not more famous, (and presumably straight), Elvis Presley, allowed himself to be drafted into the service, and even surrendered his famous pompadour to to army induction "barbers" sheep shears..

 

[captaincranky]

You're right that chopping off a penis doesn't make a man a woman, nor does adding a prosthetic make a woman into a man - this is why the trans category exists. And of course it's not "perfectly normal", otherwise there wouldn't be an issue to debate. But just because it's not the norm, doesn't mean it's right to dismiss it wholesale. Do you meet epileptics and tell them they're just being crazy because most people aren't epileptic?...[ ]...

The further you inflict yourself onto this discussion, the more bizarre and inane your comparisons become.

So, in answer to your observation about epileptics, the correct answer is, "no nobody does, but the Air Force doesn't hand an epileptic the keys to an F-16 and let them fly combat missions either".

And even if they did, it's highly unlikely that a sensible combat pilot would want one as his or her "wingman".

The only difference between an epileptic and a transvestite is, the epileptic would likely have the good sense, the common sense, and good taste, to not file a civil rights lawsuit over the matter. Whereas, the tranny supported by the ACLU, would certainly not hesitate to do so..

 

[Bubbajim]

Jesus, Cranky, you outdo yourself once again for bizarre, angry drivel. Feel free to construct all the strawmen you like, they're certainly easier to huff down with all the hot air you're letting off.

@davislane1 what exactly haven't I given my position on to set out where we disagree? I'm not being sanctimonious or snarky in asking, I'm genuinely curious.

I view this as an issue of right to opportunity, you seem to think the opportunity is already forfeit. That's what it comes down to as far as I see it.

Nothing you'd said up until your last post suggested any meaningful grasp of transgenderism, so apologies for the assumption. I also had qualms about using the epileptic analogy because I had a hunch that my purpose with it would be misconstrued, a poor analogy, clearly.

It still seems to me to be a case of denying a whole group of individuals a chance at something, even if most wouldn't qualify.

I think the salience of the "in any capacity" part of the Tweet-policy has been lost in all this. Personally I'd be surprised if many trans people were fit for active front line duty. But to rule them out of the hundreds of other roles available in the military "because they're trans" smacks of discrimination.

 

[captaincranky]

Jesus, Cranky, you outdo yourself once again for bizarre, angry drivel. Feel free to construct all the strawmen you like, they're certainly easier to huff down with all the hot air you're letting off.

Ah yes. "the strawman". Feel free to construct your imaginary, "boogey man", every other "beleaguered" SJW and internet troll takes refuge in creating one, why shouldn't you? Besides, Liberace was a real person, who died of AIDS. You really start to stumble when someone puts up a real life example, and start "grasping at straws".

And BTW Liberace was the archetype from which, "Elton John", stole most of his identity.

Nothing you'd said up until your last post suggested any meaningful grasp of transgenderism, so apologies for the assumption. I also had qualms about using the epileptic analogy because I had a hunch that my purpose with it would be misconstrued, a poor analogy, clearly.

Yeah well, you know what they say, "hindsight is always 20/20". It though, like the epileptic, won't get airborne in this discussion.

Yeah, @davislane1 Yeah Mr. Lane, you don't know squat about transgendered people, only Bubba here does..

It still seems to me to be a case of denying a whole group of individuals a chance at something, even if most wouldn't qualify.

And this is the Emily Post portion of the program, where the army lets them apply, they get turned down,and promptly file a civil rights lawsuit. In fact, why waste any time, just grab an ACLU lawyer, and take him, her, or it, with you on your first trip to the recruiting office.

I think the salience of the "in any capacity" part of the Tweet-policy has been lost in all this. Personally I'd be surprised if many trans people were fit for active front line duty. But to rule them out of the hundreds of other roles available in the military "because they're trans" smacks of discrimination.

Try and get this through your head, ALL roles in the military are ostensibly combat roles. When an enemy is coming over the hill into your camp, even the cook has to put his spatula down, and pick up an M-16.

All this bullsh!t about giving trannies "special roles which shelter them from the harsh realities of military combat", is discrimination, plain and simple.

So, with your logic, we should not discriminate against them when letting them into the military, and start discriminating in their favor after they get there.

Say hello to Mr. Straw:

His perspective seems to be a little distorted...

 

[Bubbajim]

Aw shnookums, does it feel better to get that all off your chest? Has the bile settled a bit?

I'm not entirely sure why you're trying to pitch in with your garbled attempts at humour, but good on you, well done for practising putting one word after another. Give it enough time and perhaps a coherent thought might pop out by chance.

I love the fact that you're acting smug about the Liberace point as though that added anything or bore any relevance to the argument at hand. "This is a matter of government taking citizens' rights away", "HURR DURR SOME GAY MEN ARE FLAMBOYANT". Yep, well done, we're all suitably impressed.

I had rather wanted to hear more actual discussion, but ho hum. The interesting interlocutor has gone and the keyboard mashing, red neck troll is all that is left. A wry smile as I watch you totally miss the point is not enough to keep my interest.

 

[captaincranky]

Aw shnookums, does it feel better to get that all off your chest? Has the bile settled a bit?
.

Iz we startin wit da nam,e callin' iz we BJ?

 

[davislane1]

It still seems to me to be a case of denying a whole group of individuals a chance at something, even if most wouldn't qualify.

Should roller coaster operators allow people too short for their rides to strap in because it's not fair to the small number of riders who won't fall off?

Again, you are advocating for inefficiency on the basis of feelings.

Let's ignore the intrinsic health concerns for a moment. Any prohibited group can meet the processing standard you're suggesting. That is, not barring all members of X group because a slim number of them may qualify. A brief list:

• Criminals (felony record) are banned from service. While most may be criminal by nature, there are some who will never break the law again and have already "paid their debt" to society.
• Mentally disabled are banned from service. While most may not ever make it through a basic psych eval, there are some who may possess higher functioning abilities and thus pass minimum standards suitable for menial work.
• Very tall or short people are banned from service. While most may not meet height requirements, they are perfectly capable of fulfilling most roles, all else being equal.

This list can be expanded for pages by simply adding a bullet point for any one disqualifier listed on the armed services disqualifications sheet. These restrictions explicitly prohibit entire groups of people for possessing a single trait, even though they may be stellar applicants in every other way.

Transgender applicants are being treated no differently than the rest of the population. They have a disqualifying condition (gender dysphoria) and are thus being denied entry.

The root of your argument, which I do not agree with, is that some are psychologically healthy and therefore there should not be a ban. This position is an argument against the existence of standards, because the formula, some X may be Y, applies to every single prohibited group. The purpose of standards (I.e. discriminating against a targeted group) is to increase the effectiveness of an organization without wasting the time and resources required to find every unicorn inside group X.

Taking the example completely away from transgenderism, suppose we are dealing with a job application screening. Company XYZ says that you must have a bachelors degree in a specific field to interview for an open position. This is, by definition, an act of discrimination against non-degree holders. It is also legal because it is justified, as I will demonstrate.

Now, two statements are true and relevant here. The first: some X may be Y. The second: Not all Y are Z. That is to say, lacking a degree does not preclude one from possessing the required knowledge and experience, nor does the possession of such demonstrate mastery over the domain (ergo the importance of GPAs, accolades, awards, etc.). Yet, employers across the country (indeed, the world) discriminate on this basis all the time.

Why?

Because of the cost associated with discovering which X's are really Y's far exceeds the cost of discovering which Y's aren't in fact Z's, Z being an applicant who can perform satisfactorily and Y being an applicant who may.

Ergo, legal discrimination against non-degree holders.

Transgenderism is no different in form or function. This ban denies them entry beyond the application process on the basis of being part of group X, because group X is intrinsically disqualified (gender dysphoria). The cost of discovering which X's are Y's isn't justified for the same reason interviewing non-degreed applicants isn't justified: you waste time and resources that could be spent on Y's trying to hunt down unicorns from X. Thus, my earlier comment:

Think about it.

Scenario 1: Recruiter interviews applicant, sends applicant off for evaluation and paper work, thus "providing a chance to be rejected." This costs time, money, and resources. Results come back, recruiter informs applicant that the application has been rejected for being psychologically unfit (gender dysphoria).

Scenario 2: Recruiter interviews applicant, asks if applicant has any conditions that would prevent him/her from qualifying for service. No money or resources expended, time spent is the time it takes to ask the question. Applicant responds, "I'm transgender." Applicant is rejected for being psychologically unfit (gender dysphoria).

Your position: Scenario 2's rejection occurs too early in the decision process.

Furthermore, because the discovery process for Z always occurs in the field (recall that recruiting & training are all about evaluating Y) and members of group X are far more unstable than most members of not-X, the actual risk of discovering which Y's from X are actually Z's is far higher.

Going back to the roller coaster analogy, it's like playing a game of who will survive the loop. Five people who are too short for the ride embark on their wildest theme park excursion. How many will remain after the first loop? Will the remainder make it through the corkscrew?

If that sounds insane, that's because it is.

Yet, it's precisely what is being advocated for by those against the ban. "Some short people won't fall off."