• Trump announces ban on transgender people in U.S. military
    387 replies, posted
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510927]If you're just enlisting or commissioning? No. Do you know how much time and money it would take to perform psychological evaluations on every single person? Unless you're going up for something like a flight physical, you can hide mental issues fairly easily.[/QUOTE] none of this is specific to trans people tho
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510908]Asthma being a risk factor for having a fucking attack, being transsexual is a risk factor for depression and suicide.[/QUOTE] Everyone who has asthma is at risk of suffering an asthma attack. [B]Not everyone who is transsexual is at risk of suicide or depression.[/B]
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510908]How do you prove someone is of sound mind?[/QUOTE] Maybe we put them through intense physical training for an extended period of time to prepare them for deployment and ensure that they're capable of performing under such stress. Almost like a camp, if you would, to see if they can earn their boots. If only we had something exactly like that. [editline]26th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510942]I've said it probably half a dozen times now. Why accept any group with an increased risk compared to the general population in any aspect?[/QUOTE] African Americans are statistically at increased risk of dying from gun violence, and I'm pretty sure soldiers see a lot of those. We should segregate them out of the military.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510942]I'm not going to compare my real world experience to his google search. I've had three friends [/QUOTE] So your anecdote is stronger than his facts. Gotcha.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510942][B]Increased[/B] risk compared to the general population. Read the study I posted. I've said it probably half a dozen times now. Why accept any group with an increased risk compared to the general population in any aspect?[/QUOTE] the irony here is, their increased risk of depression is the justification you're using to perpetuate the very thing that puts trans people at an increased risk of depression
Lol the entire military isn't grunts sitting on the front lines of a non-existent war. Theirs plenty of places people with special needs and consideration could serve perfectly fine. This ban is entirely a cultural issue and nothing more. Its pretty funny so much attention is being given to a specific area of the military because of supposed waste, when its you know...the military
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510908]My entire argument has revolved around the fact that [B]some[/B] individuals with asthma could serve just fine, just as [B]some[/B] transgender individuals could serve just fine. Both are RISK FACTORS. Asthma being a risk factor for having a fucking attack, being transsexual is a risk factor for depression and suicide. Why accept any group with known increased risk in comparison to the general population? I don't know, but you all advocate it. You think it's a false equivalency, that's fine, I don't. I'm going to cease posting because at this point I've established my point of view and we're starting to go in circles. [/QUOTE] [editline]26th July 2017[/editline] - I took the bait -
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510969]You're expecting a training environment to now weed out mental issues. You essentially just told me that nobody with depression, mood disorders, etc. can be high functioning.[/QUOTE] He did not say that. Do not put words in his mouth. [QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510969]First you want to try and establish the narrative that I have a personal bias against transgender individuals, and now you want to make snide jokes. I'm not continuing this discussion with you. [/QUOTE] That is not a joke. He is making an argument based on the exact same logical basis you are. [QUOTE=Gbps;52510982]But, man, you've gotta sit down and think: If two people of the exact same performance level exist, but one is transgender and the other isn't, where's the [B]actual empirical problem[/B] here?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RB33;52509300]Yes, of course. 62,984,825 Americans are all racists. I love how you easily dismiss millions of people just because they voted for a guy despite not knowing them.[/QUOTE] It wouldn't surprise me
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510969]You're expecting a training environment to now weed out mental issues. You essentially just told me that nobody with depression, mood disorders, etc. can be high functioning.[/quote] This would be a devastating blow to my argument if it weren't for the fact that I never argued we should accept people who are mentally unfit for service. [editline]oh hamburgers[/editline] [QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510969]I'm not continuing this discussion with you.[/QUOTE] Okay but you've already said that once before so
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510876]Perception is reality, I suppose.[/QUOTE] You're okay with trans people already serving in the military staying but you're against more trans people joining?
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510942] [B]Increased[/B] risk compared to the general population. Read the study I posted. I've said it probably half a dozen times now. Why accept any group with an increased risk compared to the general population in any aspect?[/QUOTE] Gay men are 14 times more likely to commit suicide than straight men. Should they not be allowed to serve?
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510868]They're a group with an increased risk, just like individuals with asthma could be considered at increased risk. There are people with asthma that could do better on the fitness test than I can, but they aren't allowed to serve. Do you see [B]my[/B] point?[/QUOTE] [I]Everyone[/I] with asthma is at increased risk. It is a disease. Even with treatment, it puts you (and others) at risk in a combat situation. Suicide is not a symptom of being transgender. It may have a higher incidence among transgender people, and those who suffer from suicidal thoughts [I]should[/I] be disqualified, transgender people [I]without[/I] suicidal thoughts should not be.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;52509215]I love how a lot of left-wingers/Democrats are opposed to the draft but then act like being a draft-dodger adds to Trump's negative characteristics. It was Vietnam, an incredibly unjust war that America shouldn't have been fighting. The draft SHOULD have been dodged. The way Trump carries himself and acts like he knows his shit when it comes to the military is a massive problem, but draft dodging is something that tons of people also did as protest against Cold War imperialism.[/QUOTE] As someone who would have no qualms dodging the draft if it were reinstated, there's a difference between people like me and people like Trump. He used daddy's connections and money to dodge the draft and weasel out of the consequences. I would simply outright refuse to enlist, give my reasoning, and then accept the consequences. I also wouldn't turn around and support a war I dodged the draft for nor would I shit all over those who did serve either. [QUOTE=Chonch;52509422]God forbid we ever try to generate more revenue to cover our ridiculous pet projects. Then again, folks have been saying we should cut down our military for quite a while, so maybe there will be some who agree with this mess.[/QUOTE] $8m/year on top of our whopping ~$1t/year or so military budget isn't even a drop in the water. It's such a completely underwhelming amount that this should be one of the last things to consider if you're looking at the military budget and trying to trim off the wasteful parts of the budget. Even if it's 10x more than that $8m/year (which it most certainly isn't) that's still a rather small amount of the total budget so other things should still come first before this is even a consideration. [QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;52509542]I want to point out that it [I]is[/I] a mental disorder, it's gender dysphoria. But disorder != disease and disorder != bad Just in case someone didn't know that.[/QUOTE] At the same time though, its classification as a mental disorder is in order to facilitate treatment of it rather than it legitimately being a mental disorder. And it also doesn't really fall under the classification of mental illnesses and disorders that would affect one's mental state. That would be stuff like the depression and anxiety that most transgender people suffer which would be what would disqualify them from being able to join the military, not their being transgender. And not every transgender person suffers those issues to the same extent and on occasion not at all. [QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510846]I already addressed this and merited that plenty of them could serve without issue. Stop treating my argument as an attack against a group of people. I'm saying it's unnecessary and adds [I]potential[/I] issues.[/QUOTE] Adding potential issues is irrelevant. Legalizing guns potentially increases gun crime, we don't make guns illegal. Why? Because it would be utterly fucking retarded to do so. The people who don't contribute to the problem should not face the consequences of the few who do contribute to the problem. Transgender people being in the military is largely a total nonissue because they still have to pass the same qualifications of everyone else. A MTF transgender person would have to meet male requirements before transitioning or female requirements after transitioning. The opposite would be true for a FTM person. It's not complicated. It's actually exceedingly simple. The increased risk of stuff like suicide with a transgender person is [I]already covered by preexisting mental condition shit in the military[/I]. Those issues stem from the massive depression most transpeople suffer from due to gender dysphoria. But not every transgender person suffers this, let alone to the same degree. So those who don't suffer from it have no valid reason to be exempt from joining the military. Again, to reiterate: The mental issues that come from transgenderism are in regards to things OTHER THAN being transgender. Things already covered by the military's mental qualifications. And thus a total nonissue.
It's amazing that for every new thing dogging the T team there's a new smokescreen that's just as if not more boneheaded than the last. In all honestly I expected moves like this because of the people Trump surrounded himself with at the behest of his party.
my dad has ashthma and he served in the military just fine so i don't know wtf finalhunter is talking about
I don't understand the costs of these procedures and hormonal therapies etc. or how they work, but why should the U.S. government pay for these people to receive these treatments and medications when they're is perfectly healthy individuals at a cheaper cost? It makes no sense economically. Would a transgender individual whom was undergoing treatments have survived the great war, or World War II? I don't think so. I'm not against transgenders, but if they need these medications and treatments, it seems like an easy way to get them in peace time and an easy way to abuse the system. Full medical benefits, don't forget. If they don't need treatments or medications and it costs nothing for the U.S. taxpayers, then sure why not.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;52511135]my dad has ashthma and he served in the military just fine so i don't know wtf finalhunter is talking about[/QUOTE] See also: Teddy Roosevelt
[QUOTE=Starce;52511180]I don't understand the costs of these procedures and hormonal therapies etc. or how they work, but why should the U.S. government pay for these people to receive these treatments and medications when they're is perfectly healthy individuals at a cheaper cost? It makes no sense economically. Would a transgender individual whom was undergoing treatments have survived the great war, or World War II? I don't think so. I'm not against transgenders, but if they need these medications and treatments, it seems like an easy way to get them in peace time and an easy way to abuse the system. Full medical benefits, don't forget. If they don't need treatments or medications and it costs nothing for the U.S. taxpayers, then sure why not.[/QUOTE] What about transgender people who have fully transitioned and no longer need treatments.
[QUOTE=The Vman;52511195]What about transgender people who have fully transitioned and no longer need treatments.[/QUOTE] Treatment does not necessarily end. Body cannot function properly without sex hormone. Transgender who transition with hormones will face severe problems without consuming sex hormone their body does not produce. As shown before, US spend much less on this than they do on just Viagra medication.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511266]You're referencing what is essentially click bait. An article that cited figures from different fiscal years stating that the military spends 5 times more on viagra than transgender medical costs. Those figures are only meaningful if there were an equal number of individuals taking viagra as there are transgender individuals in the military. Show me some statistics on average cost per person and then maybe you have a statistic worth discussing. Sexual dysfunction is a common result of PTSD, I don't think we need to go into the mental and emotional consequences of either of the two conditions.[/QUOTE] I don't see how boners are more important than the lives of trans people
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511266]You're referencing what is essentially click bait. An article that cited figures from different fiscal years stating that the military spends 5 times more on viagra than transgender medical costs. Those figures are only meaningful if there were an equal number of individuals taking viagra as there are transgender individuals in the military. Show me some statistics on average cost per person and then maybe you have a statistic worth discussing. Sexual dysfunction is a common result of PTSD, I don't think we need to go into the mental and emotional consequences of either of the two conditions.[/QUOTE] About 4mg per day estradiol will top 60USD for 4 week. Over the course of a year, this cost 780USD. This is worst case cost scenario of given hormone level needed of user, I have not seen market value of Estradiol patch (most expensive form) rise above 70$ of this quantity steady. 780USD per soldier affected per year is small. Extremely small per soldier as terms of medical aid, absolutely miniscule in term of overall troop budget, insignificant in term of overall military budget. This is why I note Viagra cost, because it highlight just how small of individual and overall burden financially transgender applicant have to deal with their medicine. The article written is click bait, but the statistic I base my argument, is , well cited statistic, not the article. As you say yourself, that cost is only meaningful in comparison to viagra if there is as much transgender as there are erectile dysfunctional men in service. There is not. There will not be, and it only serve to show how little money is being spent.
A. Trans people are one of the smallest minority groups in the US. B. Inhalers and pill bottles aren't the size of skyscrapers.
Trump's tweet mentions that trans people wont serve "in any capacity" which means no administrative non-combat roles, so the whole 'combat readiness' argument kinda falls apart.
[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;52511401]Holy hell I'm not at all educated on how hormones and shit work but even I feel that you're most likely wrong.[/QUOTE] People have already shredded the entire basis of his argument. He's just not actually open to the idea he could be wrong. The argument he used in the post above yours has already even been directly addressed earlier in the thread where someone went over an implantable 8 month supply of hormones that transgender people can get. He's also assuming that all transgender people transition which isn't actually true. While most tend to, at least eventually, there's still plenty which don't and thus don't need to worry about hormones. And chances are that someone in the military who's planning on transitioning is going to wait until after their time is up specifically because of complications such as the ones FinalHunter's trying to tout as his argument against them. In short he's incredibly ignorant, keeps showing he's willfully so, and on top of that he's assuming that people far more informed on the details than he is are totally retarded and aren't going to consider the consequences of anything.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511380]Do you want the military to be about defending the country or do you want the military to be about the individual?[/QUOTE] This is a false dilemma argument; there is [B]absolutely[/B] no reason why providing basic medications to a tiny subset of soldiers threatens the military's goal of defending the country.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;52511429]People have already shredded the entire basis of his argument. He's just not actually open to the idea he could be wrong. The argument he used in the post above yours has already even been directly addressed earlier in the thread where someone went over an implantable 8 month supply of hormones that transgender people can get. He's also assuming that all transgender people transition which isn't actually true. While most tend to, at least eventually, there's still plenty which don't and thus don't need to worry about hormones. And chances are that someone in the military who's planning on transitioning is going to wait until after their time is up specifically because of complications such as the ones FinalHunter's trying to tout as his argument against them. In short he's incredibly ignorant, keeps showing he's willfully so, and on top of that he's assuming that people far more informed on the details than he is are totally retarded and aren't going to consider the consequences of anything.[/QUOTE] Oh trust me, I know he's ignorant. I've seen so many posts of his. He's just a nationalist who legit thinks everything his country does is good and infallible.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511380]Okay. Fine. Let's say we have a transgender individual, they end up in Intel. Desk job right? Okay sure, but they get deployed sometimes. Now we're buying the sex hormones, now we've got a loadmaster with an extra pallet of drugs he's loading onto a C-17, and we have a pilot flying this stuff over to a base because someone [B]needs[/B] these drugs. There are some pretty unpleasant health issues that can arise from not having a proper level of sex hormone so now we have an extra demographic that is dependent on a prescription. So what's the next step? Are we going to load up insulin and inhalers too? Why not? Where do you draw the line? Do you want the military to be about defending the country or do you want the military to be about the individual? It's not about the money. Fine, build one less F-35. Build one less experimental railgun. Drop 20 less bunker busters to pay for transgender service members. Whatever. Cut costs however you like and stop unnecessary spending. That's not the point. The point is you're trying to open the door to individuals who are more vulnerable to issues arising. There is no such thing as "well have them do desk work and don't deploy them then." Everyone is expected to be fit to fight, at any time, at a moments notice. This issue is no different from diabetes, asthma, or individuals who NEED adhd medication to be effective.[/QUOTE] Finalhunter, the cubic area of such medication is small. I have in front of me right now example of alvogen ETS for 5mg/d and DDAP for 13mg. A year worth supply for alvogenETS is the size of a small book or mouse packaging. This is the LEAST size efficient form of HRT, and a year worth supply of it. Other forms, such as rods are even more compact and a year worth can fit inside less than half as much room. Rods for 2 years for 1 person can fit inside a CD case size safely. The hazardous effects of lacking sex hormone are long term and are not immediate or catastrophic. Missing 3 days in a row at most will be an annoyance. This medication, while critical to trans individuals, has flexibility to lack of dosage. Considering how compact, cheap, easy to apply, and hard to interrupt it is howeever (patches are held with strong glue, rods are subdermal, pills are very difficult not to eat.), even this concern is barely warrented except in extreme situation that cutoff all supply and medical support to troops in the first place.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511448]I disagree with your position, therefore I'm apparently objectively wrong and "willfully ignorant." Nice ad hominem, dude.[/QUOTE] If that's ad homniem than I'm the Queen. [QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511448]If I got "shredded" then I'm glad you feel so objectively right, and that I am so objectively wrong. I wish I lived in such a reality where I could be 100% certain all of my opinions, political beliefs, and strategic viewpoints were infallible.[/QUOTE] You're just trying to act all pompous at this point. Do you like acting so hatable? And the fact that you stopped giving what little points you had over and over again and resulted to belittling people then yes, you did get "shredded."
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511448]I disagree with your position, therefore I'm apparently objectively wrong and "willfully ignorant." Nice ad hominem, dude.[/QUOTE] You are making false equivalencies and moving goalposts of why this is such a bad idea, ignoring the points of users telling you why your argument does not make sense. You aren't 'willfully ignorant' because we disagree, you are considered wilfully ignorant because you do not stop using the flawed logic users point out you are using, and why those argument defeat your line of argument.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.