Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump Announces Ban on Transgender People in US Military

You support this?

No. 206 29.68%
 
Yes. 311 44.81%
 
^ What the hell is wrong ... 177 25.50%
 
Total:694
Aeolus451 said:

"A regular person who has their level of mental health issues wouldn't be allowed in. Isn't that how identity politics work?"

I don't see how that changes the meaning of "They were allowed in because they were trans, not because they were qualified per se."?
That you specified what you meant by "not qualified"?

Since I specifically asked you "How it is you know that every transgender person with "that level" of mental issues is not turned away at the door like everyone else who fails the psychological evaluation?" I thought it was pretty clear that your reasoning for why they weren't qualified was understood.

Yes, that's the summarized version of the process. You're not quite choosing your roles but the roles you would like. Availability could change and you might not get the role ya want. It also depends on the branch of the military. It's been awhile since I checked into that stuff so that might have

Sure. But we know for a fact that there are transgender people in roles with life and death responsibility. Former Navy Seal Team 6 member Kristen Beck for example.



Around the Network
Pemalite said:
Aeolus451 said:


1. I've talked to alot of the gay community, read things by gay/trans, watch vids youtubes from some of them on some of this. The family and friends of a gay/trans not accepting and supporting is devasting to that person and it's more damaging than what some people on the net say to that person.

Considering Youtube is a place where people find fabricated evidence that the world is "flat". - Need I say more?

Talking, reading is one thing. Living it is an entirely different kettle of fish.
It's a shame you cannot be placed within the shoes of someone in the LGBTQI community, your eyes might be opened.

Aeolus451 said:

4. This what I was referring to in 2. i don't have need a vagina to understand women's issues. You're dismissing others' opinion because they are in the same club.

So you have an understanding of the stigma LGBTQI suffer on a daily basis?
You understand the fear that LGBTQI go through when they travel overseas and their life could potentially be put at risk for how they were born?

You understand the pain women go through during child birth or when they are having their period?

To think you understand any of these issues on a personal level is... Hilarious to say the least.

Aeolus451 said:

5. I turned your arguement around so you can see the stupidity and hypocrisy of it. You're very much saying that I can't have an opinion or a say. You did it with 4. Again, using an example to show my point is not a strawman.

This pretty much sums up the entire conversation, the twisting of statesments/intention. - You took my argument out of context and THEN turned it around, not the same thing.

I explicitely stated you are entitled to have an opinion. Do I really need to quote myself?

I think I will end the conversation here, clearly your view is very anti-LGBTQI and thus goes against everything I stand for. I'm sorry I am not willing to treat others differently because of false preconceptions or some kind of desire to dictate what someone can or can't do due to the various reproductive organs that they may/may not posses. Hopefully that changes for you some day.

 



Agree to disagree. We're just going in circles. You're contradicting yourself. For the record, I'm not anti-gay/trans and pro any of that. It's more of an issue by issue basis for me on this kind of stuff, some of what I believe falls onto the left side and some of it on the right. I think you're being extremely close minded about outsiders to your little club, though.



Hiku said:
Aeolus451 said:

"A regular person who has their level of mental health issues wouldn't be allowed in. Isn't that how identity politics work?"

I don't see how that changes the meaning of "They were allowed in because they were trans, not because they were qualified per se."?
That you specified what you meant by "not qualified"?

Since I specifically asked you "How it is you know that every transgender person with "that level" of mental issues is not turned away at the door like everyone else who fails the psychological evaluation?" I thought it was pretty clear that your reasoning for why they weren't qualified was understood.

Yes, that's the summarized version of the process. You're not quite choosing your roles but the roles you would like. Availability could change and you might not get the role ya want. It also depends on the branch of the military. It's been awhile since I checked into that stuff so that might have

Sure. But we know for a fact that there are transgender people in roles with life and death responsibility. Former Navy Seal Team 6 member Kristen Beck for example.

It's meant to be read together. You're fixating on that one part.

Was Kristen Beck trasistioning while she was on the seals team or before it or did she after? 



Koupa said:
Perfectly understandable.

The mentally ill should not be in the military and trusted with weapons.

What about the non-transgender mentally ill that will still be allowed to serve? Or former soldiers who are mentally ill that are trusted and allowed to purchase weapons as civilians?



Aeolus451 said:

It's meant to be read together. You're fixating on that one part.

Was Kristen Beck trasistioning while she was on the seals team or before it or did she after? 

Does it matter? She was already in the mindstate of someone that was transgendered as a teenager. 



Around the Network
FIT_Gamer said:
Aeolus451 said:

It's meant to be read together. You're fixating on that one part.

Was Kristen Beck trasistioning while she was on the seals team or before it or did she after? 

Does it matter? She was already in the mindstate of someone that was transgendered as a teenager. 

That's just the dysphoria. It matters because of the way that alot of people are starting to use "there was trans in the military for years, there's no problem with them". If they served in the military as their biological sex and lived as a biological guy then later transistioned after they we're out of the military, they were just still technically guys then. It doesn't work retroactively.

To further show my point, Caitlyn Jenner won the 1976 Olympics decathlon event at the Montreal Olympic Games as a man and not as a trans woman regardless if she is today a trans woman.  This is not same as a gay person winning a golf championship 50 years ago and not being out in the open about his sexuality then later coming out about it. A gay person still won that golf championship 50 years ago. The reason why there's a difference between trans and gay is because one is entirely about identity and the other is about sexual orientation. 



Aeolus451 said:
FIT_Gamer said:

Does it matter? She was already in the mindstate of someone that was transgendered as a teenager. 

That's just the dysphoria. It matters because of the way that alot of people are starting to use "there was trans in the military for years, there's no problem with them". If they served in the military as their biological sex and lived as a biological guy then later transistioned after they we're out of the military, they were just still technically guys then. It doesn't work retroactively.

To further show my point, Caitlyn Jenner won the 1976 Olympics decathlon event at the Montreal Olympic Games as a man and not as a trans woman regardless if she is today a trans woman.  This is not same as a gay person winning a golf championship 50 years ago and not being out in the open about his sexuality then later coming out about it. A gay person still won that golf championship 50 years ago. The reason why there's a difference between trans and gay is because one is entirely about identity and the other is about sexual orientation. 

You seem to have already forgotten the video I posted earlier that interviewed two Transgender military people.  They were both transgender while they were still server, but had to hide it at work.  That doesn't fall into your example of serving and then later in life (years later) becoming trans.  These people literally went home at night and became their real selves, the side they had to hide while at work.



mizzou_guy said:
Aeolus451 said:

That's just the dysphoria. It matters because of the way that alot of people are starting to use "there was trans in the military for years, there's no problem with them". If they served in the military as their biological sex and lived as a biological guy then later transistioned after they we're out of the military, they were just still technically guys then. It doesn't work retroactively.

To further show my point, Caitlyn Jenner won the 1976 Olympics decathlon event at the Montreal Olympic Games as a man and not as a trans woman regardless if she is today a trans woman.  This is not same as a gay person winning a golf championship 50 years ago and not being out in the open about his sexuality then later coming out about it. A gay person still won that golf championship 50 years ago. The reason why there's a difference between trans and gay is because one is entirely about identity and the other is about sexual orientation. 

You seem to have already forgotten the video I posted earlier that interviewed two Transgender military people.  They were both transgender while they were still server, but had to hide it at work.  That doesn't fall into your example of serving and then later in life (years later) becoming trans.  These people literally went home at night and became their real selves, the side they had to hide while at work.

The woman transitioned while on active duty and deployed. The guy didn't physically transition (his reasons, to stay in military/keep benefits) but socially transitioned outside of work, wearing guy clothes, acting like a guy and using a guy's name in public. His co-workers/bosses likely knew he was trans because of that but left it alone. I don't really call any of that hiding. You were wrong about your examples especially with the woman. *shrugs. 

While I do agree that there's plenty who wanted to transition but hide it completely til they were out, there's likely plenty who later figured out they wanted to transition after they were out of the military. My point still stands. 



The backlash has been massive, the cheeto will never live it down.



Aeolus451 said:
mizzou_guy said:

You seem to have already forgotten the video I posted earlier that interviewed two Transgender military people.  They were both transgender while they were still server, but had to hide it at work.  That doesn't fall into your example of serving and then later in life (years later) becoming trans.  These people literally went home at night and became their real selves, the side they had to hide while at work.

The woman transitioned while on active duty and deployed. The guy didn't physically transition (his reasons, to stay in military/keep benefits) but socially transitioned outside of work, wearing guy clothes, acting like a guy and using a guy's name in public. His co-workers/bosses likely knew he was trans because of that but left it alone. I don't really call any of that hiding. You were wrong about your examples especially with the woman. *shrugs. 

While I do agree that there's plenty who wanted to transition but hide it completely til they were out, there's likely plenty who later figured out they wanted to transition after they were out of the military. My point still stands. 

In the video, she says she was deployed in Afghanistan while on hormone therapy in the middle of her transition.  She then says that word got out about her being transgender, command called her up, and Command asked her to retire.  This certainly sounds like she was hiding her transgender identity at work somehow, even though she was going through hormone therapy.  I don't know how, but if "word got out," then it doesn't sound like something she was declaring openly.

The guy says that he "hide in his true self" while at work and was miserable.  It doesn't sound like he was likely out at work, as you think.

These two examples hold that there have been transgender individuals in the military for years.  I'm not sure why you have such a nitpicky stance on only identifying them as so at certain points later and not conceding they were transgender while serving as they are identifying themselves as such.

I don't think I'm going to reply to this anymore, because going back and forth with you is like arguing with a wall.  You're very quick to nitpick small falacies in everyone else's arguments, but you struggle to identify the same falacies in your own.