Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,600,682 times
Reputation: 5697
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
Interesting findings by the Israeli military.
Yep, and if we're to go by the right wing's own stereotypes, Israel's not a cheese-eating surrender nation like France. A bad-assed group like the IDF accepting transgenders? Makes you question the relevancy of gender identity when serving in the armed forces, doesn't it?
Banning those who have had their gender reassignment surgery is wrong in my opinion. However, banning those who have NOT had their surgery is the correct thing.
Again we come down to the rights of those women in a locker room having some guy, who says he is a woman, walking in naked. Or in case of the men's locker room, having some woman come in naked who says she is a man is just ludicrous.
Once they have had their surgery, it is a different matter.
Besides, just wait for the next progressive moron to walk into the White House and say that we, the taxpayer have to pay for their surgeries and also pay them while they are recuperating.
Besides, the number is so small it means nothing so keeping them out...too bad!
I think you need to stop calling people a bigot. name calling does not make your argument more valid
Your bold is exactly why I believe you need to pretend to be compassionate.
Once they are active duty, military is responsible for their treatment, period. Denying one's medical treatment as a compromise is true discrimination.
Let me be clear: I would absolutely prefer the military do the right thing and allow them to serve and pay for their transition like any other soldier's medical care. I have never once said otherwise. Your ridiculous financial argument is the only reason I mentioned a potential compromise because it at least allowed trans people to serve if they wanted to, even if it wasn't ideal. That you are trying to place yourself in the position of concerned citizen just worried about their well-being after fully supporting the ban and comparing their plight to a disease is quite the feat of intellectual dishonesty.
It's not a false equivalency. There are lists provided by military or military affiliated organizations have been posted multiple times in this thread, which lists multiple ailments that cause no physical performance problems, and in fact are 100% void of symptoms with proper medication, that result in a medical discharge because it requires regular medication to be medically stable.
So, for the billionth time... How are thousands of transgender people able to serve right now? How is this possible when I keep getting told that it's physically/emotionally impossible for them to perform their service effectively?
Let me be clear: I would absolutely prefer the military do the right thing and allow them to serve and pay for their transition like any other soldier's medical care. I have never once said otherwise. Your ridiculous financial argument is the only reason I mentioned a potential compromise because it at least allowed trans people to serve if they wanted to, even if it wasn't ideal. That you are trying to place yourself in the position of concerned citizen just worried about their well-being after fully supporting the ban and comparing their plight to a disease is quite the feat of intellectual dishonesty.
I don't think I need to be pretend anything. I've been saying this for years, I don't think they should be serving, period.
Amazing that liberals think tht trying to
Normalize gender dysphoria is a winning strategy
Do you think that being transgender means someone can't be a competent soldier? If yes, you should probably read the OP. The soldier described in the OP disproves that claim.
Did you know that there is no definitive conclusion on what causes heterosexuality? Or homosexuality? Or bisexuality? It's been studied endlessly for decades and the best people can come up with is that it may be a combination of factors. The only thing that's generally agreed on is that people don't choose it. If you're looking for some kind of definitive, earth-shattering revelation that perfectly sums up the causes of transgenderism, you're asking the wrong question. No study is going to provide you with that. What the APA says though, quite plainly there in the link, is that it does not fit the established definition of a mental illness. That's their conclusion and it's the best answer anyone has. If you disagree with it, take it up with them, but I'm going to trust them because I have no reason to not take the experts in their field seriously. My question is why you don't believe them?
I'm looking for you to simply back up the assertion that you've made throughout this thread that the mental health community has made a final determination about the connection between transgender issues and mental illness. I know that they haven't, and that gender studies have a long way to go before they have enough data to do so, but you keep repeating yourself here with such confidence and conviction so I thought that you could provide some peer reviewed data to back up your claims. But you can't. That won't stop you though from speaking out as an "authority" on the subject, including making stupid statements about the side effects of HRT. You should refrain from speaking in depth on topics that are out of your field of knowledge.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.