Trump announces ban on transgender people in U.S. military
387 replies, posted
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510775]
Exactly.[/QUOTE]
I was trying to argue against you.
Guess that backfired.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510742]I don't think transgender individuals should be allowed to serve, and not because I have some inherent issue with them but because of the impracticality of it.
Let's say an individual was born a man, identifies as a woman. Does she meet my 1.5 mile time? Or does she get special privileges and run the female 1.5 mile time? Same issue can be applied across the board. Do we allow an MTF to room and shower with other females during training or deployment? Do we allow females who identify as men to serve on the frontlines?
Why do we need to complicate things and create all new regulations and expectations for a very very small group? Serving in the military isn't a right. It's a volunteer force. We aren't drafting people, this isn't some situation where we don't have enough people volunteering to join that we need to change the rules to allow previously disqualified groups to be drafted.
If we're going to allow transgender individuals in the military, do you mind issuing some waivers for all my friends who were disqualified for asthma and eyesight issues? It's not a feel good organization, it's not about inclusion or being nice or conforming to societal changes, it's about war fighting.[/QUOTE]
With unified basic requirements, the first issue you mention is no longer an issue. Double set basic requirements needlessly complicate training and lower verifiable level of performance for troops. As far as I know, there are already pushes for this in the US Military for years, and its benefits outweigh whatever concession selectively lowering physical requirements for a gender have. This is not a sound argument against transgender in military. Whatever semblence of argument you have go down the tubes with implication that women require lower requirements that mtf transgender unfairly trample, and implication that women should not serve on front lines. What??
The new regulation needed for transgender support is already existing in medical care provided for soldiers. Because transgender are treated logistically equal to normal soldiers, there is no over complication unless exclusion or sidelining of said individuals, which is what Trump's order decree for.
Just because there is no draft does not mean denying service because a group make you feel uncomfortable correct. As a US citizen, US citizen can join military unless medically unfit. Transgender individual are not physically or mentally unfit by nature, and discriminating against like so violate civil rights with this double standard.
And as I previously mention, physical disabilities are not ignored when transgender individual apply. They are treated, as they should be, normal individuals because transgender does not have inherent mental or physical issue that disqualify user.
[editline]oops[/editline]
I write too slowly...
[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;52510771]This. So much this.
It's really silly how often people generalise opinions and place people into neat little categories because it makes their world view simpler. It's especially annoying when the people doing it are also arguing that 'this generation of young people are more accepting/progressive/smarter/better' while also being hugely fucking ageist lol.
Can't you see you're the exact same as the middle aged people who complain and say this generation is lazy/work shy and they just don't understand things like they do?
The problem is not old fashioned bigots who are just 'set in their ways', because you're capable of adapting your opinions at any age, and there are countless old people who came from similar backgrounds yet aren't bigots themselves. Young people can be shitty too. All humans have the potential to be decent and well-informed, but that doesn't mean that they will be.[/QUOTE]
The idea young people are incapable of being bigots seems to be a common one that I don't have a fucking clue how people got to.
One, people are likely to adopt a number of views from their parents, whether they want to or not. Bigots raised a lot of this generation, and we really expect school to have just taken that out of them? No, it didn't obviously.
There's tons of young bigots who voted for Trump. There's tons of young bigots that think all sorts of things that we would call "Outdated" now.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510775]Because depression and suicide is already an issue in the military, why would you accept a group of individuals proven to be at higher risk for those two things when you don't need to?
[editline]26th July 2017[/editline]
Exactly.[/QUOTE]
Wow, people who are treated as freaks and second class citizens for the stupidest of reasons tend to get sad. Who'd a thunk?
[QUOTE=MasterKade;52510767]Okay, but what does higher rates of depression and suicide have to do with military capability? What about the ones who aren't suicidal[/QUOTE]
I don't agree with FinalHunter's point, but you really don't see the issue with giving a severely depressed/suicidal person access to military equipment?
Here is the protocol:
"If the soldier shows signs of major depression while in a warzone, such as insomnia, feeling helpless and depressed, inability to focus on work and thoughts of suicide, the military may offer medication and therapy. However, if the soldier refuses psychiatric medication, then they may be administratively separated or discharged without medical retirement or benefits. The military may also discharge a soldier within the first few months of service if he displays symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorders."
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510757][URL="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/"]Source[/URL]
Sounds like it should be disqualifying to me.[/QUOTE]
Young men have a higher rate of motor vehicle fatalities than the general population; they should all be disqualified from owning a license.
Black people have a higher rate of gun-violence-related homicides than the general population; they should all be disqualified from purchasing guns.
Gay people have a higher incidence of HIV and AIDS than the general population; they should all be disqualified from donating blood (this one's real!).
Or, you know, independent screening for each [I]person[/I] instead of banning a specific demographic wholesale. Trans, with no suicidalism? Join up, buddy. Gay, with no AIDS? Give us your blood. Institutionalized discrimination doesn't help.
[QUOTE=Redcoat893;52510789]I don't agree with FinalHunter's point, but you really don't see the issue with giving a severely depressed/suicidal person access to military equipment?
Here is the protocol:
"If the soldier shows signs of major depression while in a warzone, such as insomnia, feeling helpless and depressed, inability to focus on work and thoughts of suicide, the military may offer medication and therapy. However, if the soldier refuses psychiatric medication, then they may be administratively separated or discharged without medical retirement or benefits. The military may also discharge a soldier within the first few months of service if he displays symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorders."[/QUOTE]
Transgender is not inherent of mental illness or depression. Mental health examination already sort out such case from entering military.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52510753]Here's how you fix the training thing: everyone trains at the same standard
Here's how you fix the combat thing: everyone viable for combat is applicable for combat
Woah damn I should be in the chiefs of staff[/QUOTE]
It doesn't work that way. There are different physical fitness standards for females for a reason. Further, women in combat come with some associated issues, it's not a simple question of 'liberalize this, it's the progressive thing to do'. They can't ruck as far or carry as much as infantry, there's a question of their ability to handle combat related stress, and it introduces a level of competition you can easily witness if you ever join the military. It also complicates an already nepotistic leadership environment.
Further, the issue of trans people in the military is overtly political when it shouldn't be. It really has nothing to do with them and they should be supported, but what their issues have been appropriated to represent is a side in a political-cultural conflict that the military should be isolated from. There's much fueling resentment and a sense of generation gap in NCOs and the like who frequently quip about the 'old [insert branch]'. By polticizing trans people in this way, we are just associating them with what's seen as a descent into mediocrity and softness in the military. That will serve as a massive barrier to them.
I mean just the simple fact this is up for cutting for cost saving reasons before cutting all the viagra they buy is absurd and is exactly why it's politicized.
because it's a politically motivated decision.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510742]Let's say an individual was born a man, identifies as a woman. Does she meet my 1.5 mile time? Or does she get special privileges and run the female 1.5 mile time? [/QUOTE]
Do people in the military that are basically doing a desk job have to do all this as well? Because the military isn't running around a desert shooting people all the time, last I checked.
[editline]26th July 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510775]
Exactly.[/QUOTE]
Alright lets ban everyone from serving in the military
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510775]Because depression and suicide is already an issue in the military, why would you accept a group of individuals proven to be at higher risk for those two things when you don't need to?
[editline]26th July 2017[/editline]
Exactly.[/QUOTE]
You're concerned for the transgender person's mental safety but you were saying they might not physically qualify a few posts ago.
Also, if a military member was showing signs of severe mental disorders wouldn't they simply receive medication or be discharged?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52510806]Do people in the military that are basically doing a desk job have to do all this as well? Because the military isn't running around a desert shooting people all the time, last I checked.
[editline]26th July 2017[/editline]
Alright lets ban everyone from serving in the military[/QUOTE]
Fitness standards, weapons qualification, and knowledge of certain tasks and drills are universal whether you're infantry or support guy. Like in the army or marines, every soldier or marine is supposed to be a rifleman first
[QUOTE=Conscript;52510799]It doesn't work that way. There are different physical fitness standards for females for a reason. Further, women in combat come with some associated issues, it's not a simple question of 'liberalize this, it's the progressive thing to do'. They can't ruck as far or carry as much as infantry, there's a question of their ability to handle combat related stress, and it introduces a level of competition you can easily witness if you ever join the military. It also complicates an already nepotistic leadership environment.
[/QUOTE]
Here's how you solve the problem of people not meeting the standards: they don't get to move on
Oh man it's like that's been something in the US military since 1917
[QUOTE=Conscript;52510819]Fitness standards, weapons qualification, and knowledge of certain tasks and drills are universal whether you're infantry or support guy. Like in the army or marines, every soldier or marine is supposed to be a rifleman first[/QUOTE]
Alright I legit had no idea.
I don't know about the American military, but the Canadian military even the desk jobs require annual physicals and range time.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510815]There are plenty of people with asthma who could serve without issue, just like transgender individuals. Do you want to accept them all and just [I]hope[/I] there isn't an issue? You're asking to introduce a group with higher risk for depression and suicide into an organization with already elevated instances of depression and suicide.
Sounds like a bad idea to me.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, blanket accepting people into the military is a bad idea which is why [b]nobody[/b] has been arguing for that you windmill tilting goof.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("We can do without the name calling" - Blazyd))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52510820]Here's how you solve the problem of people not meeting the standards: they don't get to move on
Oh man it's like that's been something in the US military since 1917[/QUOTE]
If you hold everyone to the same fitness standard, you'll either get a lot of mediocre males or a small female demographic which will become politicized like every other identity group representation issue. It looks bad, also families don't like the idea of their daughters getting fucked up by physical standards or drill sergeants/instructors used to dealing with young men at their physical and sexual peak. A lot of injuries happen to females, especially hip issues.
I don't actually see trans people as an issue in the military, but there is some wider political and cultural battles that really do affect it negatively and it's apparent if you join. Like, during training there was a lot of resentment for how easy females were perceived to have gotten things. They could always play the 'female emergency card' to get out of something, during mass smoking they were allowed to go to their knees, for foot and ruck marches their loads were comparatively a lot less, and they could get friendly with and talk to (some) drill sergeants in ways the males never could. It's also easier to get a high score on the female physical fitness tests, which is important because it helps get you promoted and into cool schools like airborne. It's all about demographic % representation, it looks good in the new political climate.
Just stuff I've noticed personally.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510815]This is about war fighting, not rights issues that aren't even relevant.
There's no reason to needlessly introduce a group of people that could potentially compromise the strength of our forces when we don't need to.[/QUOTE]
So do you think that [I]every single[/I] trans person in America suffers from potentially compromising mental health issues?
That not a [I]single[/I] one could possibly operate as effectively as a cis soldier?
And do you think that every one of the several thousand trans people we already have in our military are a liability?
[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]
[quote]There's no reason to needlessly introduce a [b]group of people[/b] that could potentially compromise the strength of our forces[/quote]
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510857]I just cited asthma as a comparable group.
Are you telling me I'm bigoted against people with asthma too?[/QUOTE]
The reason people who have asthma can't serve is because they [B]have[/B] asthma.
You're saying the reason trans people shouldn't be able to serve is because they [B]may[/B] have mental problems. Not because they actually [B]have[/B] mental problems.
Do you really not see the difference?
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510857]I just cited asthma as a comparable group.
Are you telling me I'm bigoted against people with asthma too?[/QUOTE]
No, users are saying you are making a false equivalency and being willfully ignorant of it each time it is pointed out.
[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]
Your point does not exist because transgender's statistically higher suicide and mental illness risk is not caused by them being transgender, and those risk are being evaluated by user who apply.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510846]Stop treating my argument as an attack against a group of people.[/QUOTE]
It kind of is.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510815]There's no reason to needlessly introduce a group of people that could potentially compromise the strength of our forces when we don't need to.[/quote]
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510815]Do you want to accept them all and just [I]hope[/I] there isn't an issue?[/quote]
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510815]Sounds like a bad idea to me.[/quote]
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510757]Sounds like it should be disqualifying to me.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510742]it's not about inclusion or being nice[/QUOTE]
Actually, [URL="http://www.usmedicine.com/agencies/department-of-defense-dod/recruits-military-breathe-easier-with-relaxed-asthma-accession-standards/"]a quick google later[/URL] shows a 2014 article that states people diagnosed with asthma are still eligible to enlist if they haven't had a case after 13 years of age, or in certain cases with a waiver.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510876]A whole group of people are disqualified for having asthma, a blanket ban, while above people are advocating for a case-by-case basis evaluation for transgender individuals.[/QUOTE]
The reason why your argument is terrible is because being suicidal or unstable is not a requisite of being transgender, whereas having asthma is a requisite of [b]having fucking asthma[/b].
[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]
No, because again, people with asthma are at risk [B]because of their asthma.[/B] It is an [I]actual, observable, problem with their biological function.[/I] All people with asthma [I]have asthma.[/I]
However, [I]not[/I] all people who are transsexual have mental health problems. If a transsexual person started having mental health issues in a combat situation, it wouldn't be because they're transsexual, it would be because [I]they have mental health issues.[/I]
We [I]shouldn't[/I] allow people with mental health problems to enlist.
However, if a transperson has a clean bill of health and is of sound mind, [I]what reason is there to reject them?[/I]
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510876]That's fine if you don't agree. I'm not here to change your mind I'm here to establish my point of view and learn about the point of view from the side that doesn't agree with Trump's decision.
I'm not being "willfully ignorant," I just disagree. I consider them both risk factors and cited a study supporting why I believe that.[/QUOTE]
Saying that you do not agree does not make the fact transgender does not imply mental or physical illness. Barring transgender for this reason has no valid medical basis. These concern are already addressed by your sorting system. Each say you make of asthma, is false equivalency for reasons I and other user already mention. Please understand this.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510908]How do you prove someone is of sound mind?[/QUOTE]
uh
don't they have like, psychiatric evalutations and shit
haven't we had that stuff for fucking decades
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52510923]uh
don't they have like, psychiatric evalutations and shit
haven't we had that stuff for fucking decades[/QUOTE]
The military is pretty bad at screening for mental illness and recruiters often advise you to not admit to x or tell you when you're going to be intimidated into admitting something under threat of fraudulent enlistment. One of my friends here now enlisted despite having gone to the mental hospital. They just don't really look at your medical record as far as I can tell
Not that that is an issue with trans people, but you're never fixing military bureaucracy
[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]
You asthma comparison doesn't work anymore, someone posted above that they do let people with asthma in depending on certain factors.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.