Again, you're arguing a stage later than I'm talking about. I've said that this isn't about just letting all transgender people into the military and finding out who's suitable, just like it's not about letting all short people onto rollercoasters and finding out who falls, this is about the chance to be measured against the selection process.
Say your limit for the rollercoaster is 130cm, and someone really wants to go on it, but they're not certain of their exact height. They're somewhere around the mark, but they haven't been measured in a while. By my argument, they get to walk up to the stick and find out either, "hey I'm tall enough!", or they get to walk up to the stick and find out, "dang, I miss out because of the selection criteria". You've not said this explicitly, but your argument seems more analogous to "You're not even allowed anywhere near the stick."
I think a big bone of contention here is the fundamental nature of the discrimination. Of course discrimination is a good thing within certain contexts, and entirely necessary, but dependent on what's being weeded out and why. You can in your selection process weed out "man who is mentally unstable", because he is mentally unstable, not because he is a man. You can rule out "woman who has lost an arm", because she's lost an arm, not because she's a woman. As I see it, you can rule out "transgender person who is very short" because they're very short, but not because they're transgender.
I'm not arguing against standards per se, I'm arguing against standards based on criteria that aren't relevant. Think of the whole list of characteristics you might apply to your ideal military recruit; everything from size and fitness through to intellectual and social capabilities. Keeping that list exactly the same but substituting "male" or "female" for "transgender" - I don't see that that recruit has now become nonviable. Just like the reverse: think of the worst possible candidate, and their gender has nothing to do with why they're the worst, it's the huge list of secondary factors that informs the decision.
We obviously fundamentally disagree on how large an impact being transgender has on a person, by definition, and their ability to carry out certain roles or functions. And if that's the sticking point, then I highly doubt we're going to cover any fresh ground. Not overly surprising for an internet discussion, but I thank you for the posts anyway, it's been a highly interesting read. I certainly can't fault your logic, we just start from slightly different premises.
Say your limit for the rollercoaster is 130cm, and someone really wants to go on it, but they're not certain of their exact height. They're somewhere around the mark, but they haven't been measured in a while. By my argument, they get to walk up to the stick and find out either, "hey I'm tall enough!", or they get to walk up to the stick and find out, "dang, I miss out because of the selection criteria". You've not said this explicitly, but your argument seems more analogous to "You're not even allowed anywhere near the stick."
I think a big bone of contention here is the fundamental nature of the discrimination. Of course discrimination is a good thing within certain contexts, and entirely necessary, but dependent on what's being weeded out and why. You can in your selection process weed out "man who is mentally unstable", because he is mentally unstable, not because he is a man. You can rule out "woman who has lost an arm", because she's lost an arm, not because she's a woman. As I see it, you can rule out "transgender person who is very short" because they're very short, but not because they're transgender.
I'm not arguing against standards per se, I'm arguing against standards based on criteria that aren't relevant. Think of the whole list of characteristics you might apply to your ideal military recruit; everything from size and fitness through to intellectual and social capabilities. Keeping that list exactly the same but substituting "male" or "female" for "transgender" - I don't see that that recruit has now become nonviable. Just like the reverse: think of the worst possible candidate, and their gender has nothing to do with why they're the worst, it's the huge list of secondary factors that informs the decision.
We obviously fundamentally disagree on how large an impact being transgender has on a person, by definition, and their ability to carry out certain roles or functions. And if that's the sticking point, then I highly doubt we're going to cover any fresh ground. Not overly surprising for an internet discussion, but I thank you for the posts anyway, it's been a highly interesting read. I certainly can't fault your logic, we just start from slightly different premises.
