CinC Trump Bans Transgenders In The Military

[Disgustipated]

The names of the posters in this thread, tho.

LADY funk
Botany BOY
Spider MAN
BOY next door
Que

 

[BoyNextDoor]

In a memo to all military service chiefs, commanders and enlisted military leaders, Dunford, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said “there will be no modifications” to current policy for now, amid questions about Trump’s announcement on Twitter that the US government will not “accept or allow” transgender people to serve in any capacity in the military.

“I know there are questions about yesterday’s announcement,” Dunford began, adding that nothing would change until the president’s direction has been received by Mattis and Mattis has issued “implementation guidance”.

“In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect,” Dunford wrote. “As importantly, given the current fight and the challenges we face, we will all remain focused on accomplishing our assigned missions.”

 

[RobDownSouth]

You have no idea about what "offends" me. Why can't you simply disagree with me and explain why if you are so inclined? Making things up like this does nothing for the discussion. There is no value in your post, why bother, why waste everyone's time?

I've read your posts.
Judging from the number of posts you make, the two things that offend you the most are
1) Transgenderism
2) People who disagree with you

You seem to fixate most on gender identity issues, almost exclusively in a negative fashion.

Post value is in the eye of the beholder. You don't speak for the board, for you to claim I am "wasting" everyone's time is specious.

I am going to continue to call out your bigoted and intolerant comments without hesitation. I urge you to put me on ignore if you don't like/approve of my comments. Alternatively, you can complain to management that Rob is being mean to you...see where that gets you.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Good Gawd BND, I pointed that out on page two or three...



And yet y'all keep acting as if some new TRANSgression has occurred.

Abu Ivanka al-Amriki Derangement Syndrome


:nods:

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

I've read your posts.
Judging from the number of posts you make, the two things that offend you the most are
1) Transgenderism
2) People who disagree with you

You seem to fixate most on gender identity issues, almost exclusively in a negative fashion.

Post value is in the eye of the beholder. You don't speak for the board, for you to claim I am "wasting" everyone's time is specious.

I am going to continue to call out your bigoted and intolerant comments without hesitation. I urge you to put me on ignore if you don't like/approve of my comments. Alternatively, you can complain to management that Rob is being mean to you...see where that gets you.

I focus on transgenderism almost exclusively because I can't talk about it IRL without people freaking out. I find Lit to be very boring so I may as well talk about what I want to talk about exclusively. If you don't like it, so be it. You never have anything of value to add on a thread and instead only participate in name calling and assorted trollish behavior. You weren't always this way; I do remember when you were able to carry on a debate like an intelligent adult. You are a prime example of why I find Lit so boring I only post on one or two topics. Your silly mispellings and green fonts belong on teenager's tumblr site, not a site for adults. You don't seem "mean" at all. You seem immature and idiotic.

You can "call me out" all you want, but again you do not do so in a valuable way. If you, for instance, posted evidence to the contrary of my opinion, that would be of value. But you don't and instead sling insults. I don't mind, you keep on doing you. But the truth is clear: you don't post against a contrary opinion in a substantive manner because you are not capable of doing so. Anyone can plainly see that this is the truth. I don't know what happened to you (drug addiction? alcoholism?) but you simply have lost all of your ability to write anything intelligent. Bring back Rob circa 2006.

 

[dan_c00000]

I find Lit to be very boring so I may as well talk about what I want to talk about exclusively.

If this place is so boring why come here at all then?

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

If this place is so boring why come here at all then?

So I can discuss about a topic which I can't discuss IRL. Did you not read the first two sentences of my post together?

 

[MGurkus]

I blame the evil white bitches.

 

[KimGordon67]

This is not evidence, it is a conclusion. Furthermore it says "suggesting" "potential" to "contribute" to reductions in suicide ideation. This is a big maybe. I don't understand how you can be so sure of an outcome when you yourself have not reviewed any actual facts.

I made no assertion that trans people are inherently mentally ill.

Back to your original post:



What are the grounds?

Where is this recent research?

The evidence is in the rest of the articles - the conclusions are based on the evidence which is presented and discussed above the conclusion. (I'm pretty sceptical at this point that you actually read any of the three research papers I linked to.)

Social science very seldom makes 'x causes y' statements. Within social science, the prevalent edict is that correlation does not prove causation. This is because social science is not chemistry and cannot be conducted in labs with strict control over all the variables. (People try that every now and then, but it generally doesn't go well in terms of ethnics - see, for example, the Milgram experiment.) Evidence in the social sciences is based on likelihood - correlation demonstrates that one thing is likely to be linked to another. The higher the degree of likelihood, the better your argument, but it's very difficult to definitively prove things. (Even 'facts' within the hard sciences are disproven later on - people seem to forget that's how all science works. It's all based on best evidence at any given moment.)

I've provided evidence from peer reviewed journals backing up my assertion. Before I go any further down that track, maybe you could clearly state your counter assertion, and provide the rigorous evidence you obviously have to hand to support that? Then at least I'd know (a) what I'm actually responding to (given that I was apparently wrong about the mental illness thing) and (b) what your yardstick for 'evidence' actually is.

 

[KimGordon67]

So in essence this study is saying that the rest of society must change (How? Legal sanctions?) and that society must also bear the financial burdens of the treatments, both medical and psychological, for a group of people for which there is NO known biological reason for their desires/behavior?

And quite frankly, why is a 40% suicide rate for such an infinitesimally small population group considered some sort of tragedy? It's virtually Darwinian in it's aspect.

There is a whole list of 'types' that I choose NOT to associate with and as long as I/you/we have the right of 'free association' that will be so. For all of their altruistic mouthing off even those advocates have their own lists, the mere existence of which renders their arguments but hollow sophism's.

Ishmael

So in one breath we're complaining about the financial 'burdens', and the infinitesimal size of the group concerned? That seems a tiny bit contradictory, but OK.

And yes, I do think the rest of society should change. In fact, in most instances, this would require no change whatsoever. Were trans people no longer marginalised, I can think of NO way in which that would have any effect on my life, other than a small positive effect because it would improve the lives of people I know and care about. I very much doubt it would have any effect on your life at all - not marginalising trans people wouldn't 'force' you to associate with them. In fact, given your attitude, they'd probably be quite glad to not associate with you.
The argument about population size is specious at best - that's not how human rights work. Based on that you could equally argue that black people are a minority, so why should we bother with civil rights? etc.
The jury is still out on the biological cause argument. However, I fail to see why that's even relevant.

 

[KimGordon67]

No my argument is that DanC is full of shit.



Yeaaaaaaaaaaaa.....I was shit talking Dan, not trying to get the best calculations of the medical costs of social experimentation in the military.



That is fundamentally every soldiers bidnizz.

Male soldiers are held to MUCH higher physical standards in the military and that is considered some serious shit, especially in combat arms. Nobody wants a half stepper watching their back.

Easiest way to solve that would be to make it 1 standard by MOS's and quit giving females a damn near 50% handicap. Then none of it would matter, you meet the standards of the job or gtfo.

I'm pretty confident that being trans is not the only thing that affects the ability of various people in the military to do various things that are necessary in the military. I'd imagine the military is fairly large institution with a whole range of things that need doing, for which some people are suited and others aren't.

And really? Don't you have better things to do?

 

[cowslinger64]

Socialism is stomping the last of it out.

Congrats, your team won.


.

Yeah right.. That explains the massive shift of wealth to the top. Both parties are guilty of trashing the idea of the common good, but the Republicans don't even try to hide it anymore. Did you happen to see the latest tax cut proposal? Jesus Keerist.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

The evidence is in the rest of the articles - the conclusions are based on the evidence which is presented and discussed above the conclusion. (I'm pretty sceptical at this point that you actually read any of the three research papers I linked to.)

Social science very seldom makes 'x causes y' statements. Within social science, the prevalent edict is that correlation does not prove causation. This is because social science is not chemistry and cannot be conducted in labs with strict control over all the variables. (People try that every now and then, but it generally doesn't go well in terms of ethnics - see, for example, the Milgram experiment.) Evidence in the social sciences is based on likelihood - correlation demonstrates that one thing is likely to be linked to another. The higher the degree of likelihood, the better your argument, but it's very difficult to definitively prove things. (Even 'facts' within the hard sciences are disproven later on - people seem to forget that's how all science works. It's all based on best evidence at any given moment.)

I've provided evidence from peer reviewed journals backing up my assertion. Before I go any further down that track, maybe you could clearly state your counter assertion, and provide the rigorous evidence you obviously have to hand to support that? Then at least I'd know (a) what I'm actually responding to (given that I was apparently wrong about the mental illness thing) and (b) what your yardstick for 'evidence' actually is.

I saw no links to research articles, only abstracts. (As you know, abstracts do not present evidence.) If you can point out where I missed a research article you posted, I will read it within the hour and will extend you an apology.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

I'm pretty confident that being trans is not the only thing that affects the ability of various people in the military to do various things that are necessary in the military. I'd imagine the military is fairly large institution with a whole range of things that need doing, for which some people are suited and others aren't.

And really? Don't you have better things to do?

The military does not let in fatties nor people with diabetes either. Have you argued or fought to allow those people to serve? Why or why not?

 

[Ishmael]

The military does not let in fatties nor people with diabetes either. Have you argued or fought to allow those people to serve? Why or why not?

The military performs a whole battery of tests prior to administering the oath. Among them is a battery of psychological tests and if you don't pass them, you don't get in. And that is why I question that 15K number. It appears to be an application of the percentage of the civil population to the military and quite frankly I don't think all that apply could make it through the testing process.

Ishmael

 

[KimGordon67]

I saw no links to research articles, only abstracts. (As you know, abstracts do not present evidence.) If you can point out where I missed a research article you posted, I will read it within the hour and will extend you an apology.

They're abstracts for articles - you should be able to follow from the abstract to the actual paper without too much effort But in most cases the abstracts contain enough to make and support the main point - that's what abstracts are for.

 

[KimGordon67]

The military performs a whole battery of tests prior to administering the oath. Among them is a battery of psychological tests and if you don't pass them, you don't get in. And that is why I question that 15K number. It appears to be an application of the percentage of the civil population to the military and quite frankly I don't think all that apply could make it through the testing process.

Ishmael

So the military screens out individuals not fit for service. What's the actual problem then?

 

[Disgustipated]

The military performs a whole battery of tests prior to administering the oath. Among them is a battery of psychological tests and if you don't pass them, you don't get in. And that is why I question that 15K number. It appears to be an application of the percentage of the civil population to the military and quite frankly I don't think all that apply could make it through the testing process.

Ishmael

Watching you destroy your own narrative is hilarious.

They're abstracts for articles - you should be able to follow from the abstract to the actual paper without too much effort But in most cases the abstracts contain enough to make and support the main point - that's what abstracts are for.

She has no idea what abstract means. She's the female LT when it comes to arguing her points.

 

[KimGordon67]

The military does not let in fatties nor people with diabetes either. Have you argued or fought to allow those people to serve? Why or why not?

I assume that's for sound medical reasons, not because people dislike obese or diabetic people . I can't see any good reason for excluding trans people. And you're yet to provide one.

 

[Ishmael]

I assume that's for sound medical reasons, not because people dislike obese or diabetic people . I can't see any good reason for excluding trans people. And you're yet to provide one.

Really?

Do they house the boys with the girls and the girls with the boys or do the sufferers of Gender Dysphoria get their own billeting? And are those that are confused about their sex get to discriminate there as well? That all costs money.

The military has minimum and maximum height/weight requirements based on gender. While a good deal of that is based on health and duty requirements it also effects the uniform procurement process. That also costs money.

It is beginning to appear that you don't give a rats ass how much it costs the taxpayer as long as an insignificant portion of the population with questionable mental stability are allowed to flounce their way through a parade. And all of that is in total disregard to the cost to the taxpayer should they demand a cosmetic change in their physical appearance, and that's all it is...cosmetic....., to go along with their desire to be something they quite clearly aren't.

Ishmael

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'm pretty confident that being trans is not the only thing that affects the ability of various people in the military to do various things that are necessary in the military

I didn't say it was, but considering the handicaps women receive from the military so that they can serve this now causes a major fuckin' issue with trans idiots finding their ways into jobs they simply aren't qualified for.

I'd imagine the military is fairly large institution with a whole range of things that need doing, for which some people are suited and others aren't.

That's why I offered a fair solution that suits everyone .....make standards not by gender but by MOS. That eliminates all the victims and special bull-fucking-shit for everyone, either make the cut of fuck off.

And really? Don't you have better things to do?

Like what?

I PT'ed like a mother fucker, got hella paid, ate some gourmet sushi in the city and I'm now at home sitting on my porch in a magical forest getting drunk on top shelf margaritas while my pork shoulder that I put on last night finishes out........so no, I have nothing better to do.

Except roll a fatty....

 

[Que]

I've read your posts.
Judging from the number of posts you make, the two things that offend you the most are
1) Transgenderism
2) People who disagree with you

You seem to fixate most on gender identity issues, almost exclusively in a negative fashion.

Post value is in the eye of the beholder. You don't speak for the board, for you to claim I am "wasting" everyone's time is specious.

I am going to continue to call out your bigoted and intolerant comments without hesitation. I urge you to put me on ignore if you don't like/approve of my comments. Alternatively, you can complain to management that Rob is being mean to you...see where that gets you.

Serious question: are you schizophrenic?

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

Serious question: are you schizophrenic?

Serious question: are you a pre-op transsexual?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yeah right.. That explains the massive shift of wealth to the top.

A nearly all of which is because the government forces it there.

Most of the 0.1% wouldn't have the wealth they do if they didn't have a senate committee in their back pocket.....Obamas and Trumps covering for them.

Licensing boards protecting their market so they can be the only producers/providers in certain areas.

Government protecting markets so assholes can charge 600 bucks for epi' pens that are mandated equipment at public facilities effectively scamming the taxpayers.

The 0.1% uses the government to market monger and extort the public on a regular basis and the establishment on both sides enables/supports that corporate/government relationship.

Both parties are guilty of trashing the idea of the common good, but the Republicans don't even try to hide it anymore.

The (D)'s don't try to hide it either, they just lie about it and the Kool-Aid chuggers chug away....look at ACA LOL!!! It was the greatest fucking thing to ever happen to the USA until it wasn't and (D)'s and all their lemmings tried to blame (R)'s for it. Shit most still are, can't rid themselves of that turd fast enough.

Did you happen to see the latest tax cut proposal? Jesus Keerist.

No, but I support it because it will help me.

 

[Vetteman]

Serious question: are you a pre-op transsexual?

.....