Trump: Transgenders no longer welcome in the military

Agree. I see they are in the 'Stros also. @smitheygerard and @KevinsBacon, maybe you start your tenure with discussion of the Houston Rockets and get some cred before spamming the ancillary forums with pictures? Just some advice.

 

There's no question that lobbyists from LGBT groups are throwing a ton of money around trying to influence psychiatrists to alter the way they classify things....but that's not scientific, that's politics. There's no discussion to be had surrounding the actual facts, there's always room for people to change their work for money.

The difference of course is that you can biologically prove what sex a person is definitively. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of a God or many gods.

 

I really don't care. The funding behind the science doesn't invalidate the science. If that is your only argument against it you'll have to do better.

The fact is, many psychiatrists are having the discussion and you don't have the authority to deem these discussions as invalid. You are no expert here, why can't you at least admit that?

Sex and Gender are two different things.

 

Not really. What you can "prove" regarding a person biological sex is not what is under dispute. A transgender person who identifies as female isn't disputing that they are biologically male according to their chromosomes or their genitalia.

They are making a claim about something intangible that they feel. You can no more disprove that then you can disprove the existence of a personal deity.

In fact, transgender people actually have more evidence on their side -- researchers have shown indication of a biological basis for "gender dysphoria".

 

If the findings were based on science, then that would be one thing, they are not. Instead you see some coming out and making excuses for transsexuals that they would not make for anyone with a similar delusional state.

If someone believed that they were a Klingon or a horse, to the point where they wanted surgery to better resemble what they believed themselves to be, they would be considered mentally ill. If their delusions were about being a woman, those influenced by LGBT lobbyists would argue that they weren't. Persistent provably false delusions are indicative of mental illness.

 

That's BS and you know it. Those people wouldn't be attempting to modify their genitalia or appearance if this were merely about gender roles. They desire for their sex to be different than it is or they believe that they are truly a different sex trapped in the "wrong" body.

The spin about gender not sex is certainly more advanced that it used to be, but the facts are that you cannot change your sex and delusions about being "born in the wrong body" are indicative of mental illness just the same as if a person believed that they were a horse trapped in a human body.

 

Get back to us when (its not a matter of IF) one of your loved ones is discriminated because of their sexual preference.

 

Why aren't they based on science? You realize this finding was based on actual research, right? That it is not a mental illness? It didn't just pop out of thin air. You can actually find the scientific papers dedicated to it if you wanted to.

Again, your fight isn't here. If you disagree with the Psychiatrist that don't agree with you then take your arguments to them. Whether you like it or not they are having these discussions worldwide.

 

None of the stuff you listed will be any big changes.

 

The point is that it would require changes. The military should not be adapting for individuals, those individuals should be adapting to the military.

Like I've said from the start, it's a pain in the ass that the military shouldn't have to deal with, just ban it and move on. Maybe 200 people will be affected by it, probably fewer. There are other situations that prevent people from joining the military that affect a LOT more people, yet no one cries about it.

 

Your sports opinions are terrible, but this is a great take.

 

Aside from the name calling by the lefties, this has been one of the better debates. I don't even know which side of this topic I am on anymore.

 

Trew.

 

They don't want advice, if they're even human. Recommend ignore.

 

But it wasn't an issue. Again our leading military generals including the Pentagon had no say on this decision. It was politicized. It wasn't cost cutting. You and no one in this thread has even provided one example of a disruptive TG member in the military negatively affecting protocol. In fact, you'd need a ton of examples of disruptive TG member's in the military, so there'd be some real statistics to back up the claim that TG are ruining the military. But there's none.

My thoughts are. Do TG's pay taxes? Do they abide by the law? Are they evaluated by medical professionals and deemed fit for service? If so, then what's the ******* problem?

 

The side that makes sense. You treat these situations on an individual basis. If the person has let their transgenderism affect them mentally to where they can't handle the job, then you discharge them. Heck, if they determined a person with some degree of autism could handle a specific military task or initiative, then maybe there's a place for that person. The point is that you look at these things on a case-by-case basis.

Which is what Bobby the Great agreed with. But prior to that, he said he agreed with the total ban. Then he went back to the total ban, because it's "easier." Sorry, but the easy choice is not always the right thing to do. And it's not as big of a pain in the ass as BTG makes it seem- that's more a "you know, I don't get these people, they're weird- probably mentally ill, so screw it, let's just keep them out of the military, who cares, it only affects a few hundred, big deal."

See, that's an extremely lazy way of thinking and it's not right. You set your criteria, like you would for any employer, and you base your "hiring" of that person on the criteria established (been dealing with this for 18 years- in the private sector).

Believe it or not, the federal government actually is much less discriminatory than the private sector when it comes to job search. A resume screener in a private industry company can look at a resume, see the name Abdallah Saeed, and say, "Ah, **** that, don't want no damn foreigners here!" They could do it and get away with it at the resume screening stage.

In the federal government, all resumes are graded by a point system (I think this is actually b/c military members get points based on their level of disability- I think they range from 5 to 30- so, b/c they do this for all military members seeking fed govt positions, they have to grade everyone on a point system). When I work with my colleague from Sacramento on these types of resumes (she has a contract with the VA for returning veterans seeking fed govt jobs), we have to strictly incorporate the KSA requirements (Knowledge, Skills & Abilities) into the resumes so that they can earn the most points possible. It's very fair and eliminates the possibility of discrimination at the resume screening stage.

Now, she has a tougher job than me- she provides career counseling in person- she had a vet with PTSD threaten her once. I've only talked to them over the phone. Most are fine, very nice, lots of achievements. One cried for about 20 minutes on the phone- he had PTSD - I had to sort of be a counselor even though I'm not trained for it. One started the conversation with, "Listen, I'm being forced to do this, so don't ask me anything about my ****ing private life or I'll hang up the ******* phone, you got it??" He turned out to be nice- again, a PTSD thing.

For all I know, I've written for TG people in the military. Everything's by phone, so I wouldn't know. I'd like to think that if I did consult with them in person, I'd treat them just like I do via phone. Again, I don't see Mr. or Ms. I see Lieutenant, Sergeant, NCO, etc.

 

You sound stressed. Maybe you should check out Treasures on Westheimer. There is a lady of the night there named Tricia. She does half off lap dances on Thursday nights. Mention my name and you'll get quarter price... she owes me

Your welcome.

S.G.

 

You know, rookie, you can state your opinion on here without having to be a dick. But I'm sure you know that.

 

Umm, illiterate, it's "You're welcome." Didn't you learn this last year in junior high? Geez.

 

Um, OK.