‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration

[Ev1l0rd]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-with-polands-volunteer-militia-idUSKCN1MS1OP

Here you go.

...that article details volunteer militia in Poland to defend against Russia. Which is good. Since Russia is run by an all-but-in-name dictator who has tried to annex (parts of) other East European countries before. (The area that is known in my language as de Krim.)

 

[Xzi]

Psychopathy is pretty much the same thing, only in isolation from empathetic faculties. You intended to discredit the person you were speaking to by calling them a sociopath, which is an ad hominem attack that doesn't address his main points.

I did not call him or anyone else a sociopath directly, your reading comprehension is apparently pretty poor. He and the person he quoted were discussing this in scientific terms, and this isn't about science.

And to your main point, undefining transsexuality does not remove the rights of trans people - rather, they are relegated to the same rights that everyone else has - which includes the right to prance around like a silly fairy man, calling yourself whatever you like.

Obviously it doesn't work that way or gay marriage would've been made legal at the same time as straight marriage. You're being disingenuous and flippant. If you don't want to participate in this discussion then nobody's forcing you to.

 

[bi388]

And to your main point, undefining transsexuality does not remove the rights of trans people - rather, they are relegated to the same rights that everyone else has - which includes the right to prance around like a silly fairy man, calling yourself whatever you like.

Except transgender people already dont have all the same rights. In many places in the US a transgender person and their s.o. couldn't adopt a kid for example.

 

[seren3]

You guys sure like to argue

 

[FAST6191]

I am still somewhat hazy on what is proposed, what problem it is theoretically to address and what the potential fallout is to be. The article linked by the OP spends some time discussing title 9 and how it deals with sexism -- unless we are going to go full moron and go with the "dominant group" definitions of things then you can say (or be demonstrated to be acting such that) you are doing or not doing something on the basis of sex and get pinged either way. If it sought to specifically exclude such things from consideration in such cases (excluding people for arbitrary characteristics is bad, let them compete on merit) then I could see a problem but nothing along those lines. Also as we are dealing with government documents and are nominally a technical site then while I am at it https://web.archive.org/web/20160731010249/https://qntm.org/gay .

I have previously covered my thoughts on the notion of transgenderism but might as well go again. I generally boil it down to if you are not hurting anybody else then I don't give a fuck, I find it utterly bizarre that anybody would give enough of a shit about their gender to want to change it but there are many such things I find bizarre and it does seem to be real with positive outcomes for allowing people to change. If you do want to change on official documents I would expect it to be the sort of thing a medic oversees and signs off on -- pending better medicine (itself a minefield -- what would you do if you could take a pill and then stop giving a fuck about it?) I thoroughly support the hormones, living as* for an extended period, counselling and more (surgery would be optional but certainly enhances a claim) regime. The more genders than atoms in the universe thing I find to be odd -- if you want to define some group of characteristics and give them a proper noun then so be it, the notions of gender seem useful enough without them and not enhanced by them. I should also note at this point the only people I have ever met that I would usefully describe as fluid with respect to time have been people that changed, (occasionally changed back) and then got the types of dementia that see you living in different periods in your life, now this does not preclude it from existing but I am still awaiting evidence of something else. Sadly I have not seen any claimants be tested a la the Russian blue (Russian has two words for blue, or actually two types of blue but if you strain a speaker's mind by getting them to do complex maths it goes back to the one most other languages and physics/biology recognise) or Australian Aboriginal compass (many such individuals, perhaps most, will be able to tell you the compass direction even inside a windowless building after having being taken through a series of turns, again load their minds down with maths and it goes away) and I am not entirely sure how I would construct such a test either. I would also however need to reaffirm that I am categorically opposed to mandating pronouns by law (which would extend to "government funded institutions can not enact such rules") or "hate speech" specifics here -- it might make you a horrible cunt to do such a thing but it is not and should not something you need to be put in bracelets and stuck before the beak for. If you go punch someone because "they is a t****** yo" you have merely punched someone without reason and such a thing should be able to be handled by the regular laws against not punching people, no problem with it being considering at sentencing though.

*itself an interesting conundrum as I would have thought the idea of gender roles would be tricky for such a group.

"The Trump administration has sought to bar transgender people from serving in the military"
Not sure entirely why it is here in this (other than maybe as a type of rabble rousing) but OK. If you can handle the training (which can be role specific* but I see no reason for it to be different for sexes) and the job I have no issue with transgender people playing here, to exclude them would something that needs some other major justification which I can't see happening (I can't see the trait inherently or so probabilistically rendering them unfit or unable). If we are to have such nonsense as gender specific requirements (training itself if it is merited is a different matter) then it could get a bit hazy but that seems handily solved by eliminating such requirements.
*front line combat vs administrative roles sort of thing (you don't need to be able to carry your fellow office worker a given distance). We can discuss resulting efficacy if you like as well, and there is some data there on mixed units.

 

[seren3]

Why don't we just be friends?

 

[bi388]

I actually do have a good justification for why trans people (and women) shouldn't serve in the military - it hurts morale.

Most soldiers have a girlfriend or a wife waiting at home. When a male infantryman serves alongside with a woman, he may be tempted to disobey orders to protect her, jeopardizing the mission. Men have a very deep-rooted instinct to protect women. Seeing women dying right alongside of men also demoralizes men.

That, and I'm sure you've read the statistics about the gap between male and female physical performance, how mtf trans athletes are breaking all the women's records and generally shitting on the accomplishments of women. Women and MtF's in the military would lessen the camaraderie and effectiveness of any squad they are assigned to. MtF's have I don't have as much issue with FtM's serving in the military, but people born female have lower bone density than men, so even they would slow down a squadron of cis men.

Everyone should have to pass the exact same physical test to get into the military. That would eliminate any issues with women being on average weaker. Past that, saying that women shouldnt be allowed to be in the military because it could affect the men is so backwards. Theres no study to show that the military is less affective by virtue of there being a woman there. Men and women should be treated exactly equally except when a biological difference is involved. And this means I also think in cases of a draft, women should have the same criteria to be drafted (although I am against drafts as a whole).

 

[seren3]

Love is love

 

[bi388]

Actually, there is!
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Milit...-Army-and-Navy-are-so-against-women-in-combat



But, you know, you can just keep talking about things you know nothing about.

See you ignored what I said. I said women should pass the SAME TESTS to get in as men. Your link says "women who are weaker than men do less well in the military". No shit.

 

[bi388]

No it doesn't.

Right then, if we're not going to be intellectually honest with each other, then I'm just going to insult you with image macros.

"they are weaker, more prone to injury, less adept at shooting weapons accurately" this is all reasoning why those specific women wouldnt pass the test. Same as men who cant shoot or are weak. Then it gets a bunch of men to say that women are scary without providing any statistics on the matter. Show me where it provides data, not an opinion but data, that having equally qualified women would make the military weaker.

 

[FAST6191]

I actually do have a good justification for why trans people (and women) shouldn't serve in the military - it hurts morale.

Most soldiers have a girlfriend or a wife waiting at home. When a male infantryman serves alongside with a woman, he may be tempted to disobey orders to protect her, jeopardizing the mission. Men have a very deep-rooted instinct to protect women. Seeing women dying right alongside of men also demoralizes men.

That, and I'm sure you've read the statistics about the gap between male and female physical performance, how mtf trans athletes are breaking all the women's records and generally shitting on the accomplishments of women. Women and MtF's in the military would lessen the camaraderie and effectiveness of any squad they are assigned to. MtF's have I don't have as much issue with FtM's serving in the military, but people born female have lower bone density than men, so even they would slow down a squadron of cis men.

That might be a case, or part of one, for front line units, less of one for those not likely to see direct action. Similarly I don't see it necessarily being grounds to preclude people -- so biology means vast swathes of people possessing the otherwise utterly banal characteristic of female biology can't handle it (I would agree entirely on physical size, muscle mass, bone density and we could continue this to all sorts of traits desirable in your cannon fodder) and even among those exceptions they might not tend to go too much more than your average male biology grunt. Morale wise I would want to see the studies on its long term effects if the physical side of thing is taken care of -- "it may" is not justification enough, partially as I heard the same about gay people and that seems to be working out OK.

 

[ItsKipz]

Oh this is gonna be 7 pages of fun isn't it.

Feel free to think whatever you want about transgender people, but saying they don't exist is just stupid.

 

[seren3]

We should all love each other

 

[Nerdtendo]

I know there's a good reason for a politic section but I wish there wasn't a politic section

 

[Sheimi]

I completely agree with your argument. It's trendy bullshit and people seriously need to get a grip.

Please explain how this is "trendy"

 

[osaka35]

"screw research and depth of thought. Someone makes me uncomfortable, so I'm going to make sure the whole lot of them are defined out of reality"
-Current US Administration

I wonder why infantile comfort of familiar bigotry is a speed-way to leadership in the highest of places. The black-hole of compassion or care shown by our "leaders" certainly illustrates their lack of abilities and integrity required of their position. Terrifyingly depressing. Someone needs to tell them, slowly and with small words, there is an objective reality outside of their own heads and wallet.

I actually do have a good justification for why trans people (and women) shouldn't serve in the military - it hurts morale.

Most soldiers have a girlfriend or a wife waiting at home. When a male infantryman serves alongside with a woman, he may be tempted to disobey orders to protect her, jeopardizing the mission. Men have a very deep-rooted instinct to protect women. Seeing women dying right alongside of men also demoralizes men.

That, and I'm sure you've read the statistics about the gap between male and female physical performance, how mtf trans athletes are breaking all the women's records and generally shitting on the accomplishments of women. Women and MtF's in the military would lessen the camaraderie and effectiveness of any squad they are assigned to. MtF's have I don't have as much issue with FtM's serving in the military, but people born female have lower bone density than men, so even they would slow down a squadron of cis men.

Your personal opinions do not reflect reality. folks have a deep-rooted tendency to protect other people. Limiting it to just male to defend women is called cherry-picking.

mtf trans athletes, just like other female athletes by the way, are required to pass testosterone level test, among other things. How do you believe mtf athletes are different than other female athletes?

 

[seren3]

let's all circle up and sing kum-ba-ya

 

[Viri]

Wow, I can't believe I missed this thread! Where is that munching on popcorn gif when I need it?

I actually do have a good justification for why trans people (and women) shouldn't serve in the military - it hurts morale.

If I recall, that's also why people get blind folded when they're about to get executed via a firing squad. The blindfold prevents the soldiers from seeing the victim's eyes as they get shot, and fucking with their moral.

Just a fun off topic fun fact.

 

[osaka35]

My opinion is also the opinion of the United States Marines.

The biggest difference is bone density and structure. Men have naturally more dense bones than women, however, estrogen has a property that preserves bone desnity. What this means is that MtF athletes have an unfair advantage over female ones, even with similar testosterone levels, because they retain stronger bones after they transition.


Source of study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5423263/
Source of MtF MMA fighter breaking the skull of a female: https://www.bjjee.com/articles/tran...getting-too-politically-correct-with-reality/

The United States Marines, along with most of the rest of the military, were also against racial integration. They got over it. They don't like going against the status quo, which isn't the best argument against social necessity. If you're referring to the cherry picking you did, why do you believe they aren't capable of cherry picking? It's a pretty sexist atmosphere there, so it'd be pretty surprising if they gave it much thought at all.

Aye, professional athletes that use their bones have stronger bones, and male athletes tend to have stronger bones. Is it due to the need created by their muscles? Or some other aspect? Really the question is, how much does stronger bones impact ability to perform an athletic task? Are you suggesting the largest factor separating the #1, #2, or #3 spots of female athletes is how strong their bones are? I'm not sure how the loss of bone density later in life relates to not getting first place at the peak of your abilities.

 

[seren3]

The United States Marines, along with most of the rest of the military, were also against racial integration. They got over it. They don't like going against the status quo, which isn't the best argument against social necessity. If you're referring to the cherry picking you did, why do you believe they aren't capable of cherry picking? It's a pretty sexist atmosphere there, so it'd be pretty surprising if they gave it much thought at all.

Aye, professional athletes that use their bones have stronger bones, and male athletes tend to have stronger bones. Is it due to the need created by their muscles? Or some other aspect? Really the question is, how much does stronger bones impact ability to perform an athletic task? Are you suggesting the largest factor separating the #1, #2, or #3 spots of female athletes is how strong their bones are? I'm not sure how the loss of bone density later in life relates to not getting first place at the peak of your abilities.

They were against integration. Now a lot of surface-to-air missiles, mortars and the like have to have very obvious instructions on how to operate them printed on placards on the backs of the guns. That was never a necessity before, but they have been forced to lower their standards, because communication between a group of diverse people is more difficult, than communication between people who are mostly similar. It lowers cohesion as a squad. Ever wonder why every military ever has required their people to wear uniforms? It's because diversity weakens people.

It's fine for you to believe whatever you like - you're not in the military. But don't tell them how to do their jobs. They understand warfare far better than you. You're speaking from the social commentary ivory tower of civilian life.

Stronger bones allow you to break weaker ones, and also allow you to lift heavier weights without your arms breaking. You should reread what I said - estrogen preserves bone density over time, that's why it's frequently used to treat osteoperosis. When you give estrogen to a man (who already has stronger bone density) it actually works against the loss of bone density later in life - in effect, not only are they stronger than women, but they will continue to be stronger, throughout their lives. Not exactly a fair deal, and that's why you hear about so many transexual athletes breaking female records right now.

 

[Deleted-401606]

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/transgender-trump-administration-sex-definition.html

Couple of highlights:









--

My take: so yeah, this is uh... Bad. With the capital B. This would pretty much eradicate someone being trans in America on a legal perspective. The act seems driven by little more than pettiness and religious pushing. (America is totally secular guys.)

Fuck Trump and the group of idiots that came with him.

You must be slow.

 

[osaka35]

They were against integration. Now a lot of surface-to-air missiles, mortars and the like have to have very obvious instructions on how to operate them printed on placards on the backs of the guns. That was never a necessity before, but they have been forced to lower their standards, because communication between a group of diverse people is more difficult, than communication between people who are mostly similar. It lowers cohesion as a squad. Ever wonder why every military ever has required their people to wear uniforms? It's because diversity weakens people.

It's fine for you to believe whatever you like - you're not in the military. But don't tell them how to do their jobs. They understand warfare far better than you. You're speaking from the social commentary ivory tower of civilian life.

Stronger bones allow you to break weaker ones, and also allow you to lift heavier weights without your arms breaking. You should reread what I said - estrogen preserves bone density over time, that's why it's frequently used to treat osteoperosis. When you give estrogen to a man (who already has stronger bone density) it actually works against the loss of bone density later in life - in effect, not only are they stronger than women, but they will continue to be stronger, throughout their lives. Not exactly a fair deal, and that's why you hear about so many transexual athletes breaking female records right now.

You have the bad luck of talking with someone who's actually getting a PhD in the field that put the placard on the back of guns.

You know they do this, but the reason why they do this is something you completely made up. You jumped to a conclusion based only on the end result and your bias. This is a you problem, and you should seriously look into this.

The reason the placard is on the back of guns is because it improved the bottom line. Instruction and clear communication is required for clear and quick understanding. It is a continual process of refinement and improvement. we didn't "need" them so much as doing it would help improve the safety and well-being of everyone involved. Your assumption it has something to do with integration is something you should look into.

So you're saying those who would break those records aren't doing so because...their bones are breaking? Or would break if they pushed themselves that hard? You're not really making the connection between your argument and "they have stronger bones".

 

[PrincessLillie]

Among the many reasons I want our president impeached, this is one of the primary ones. We just want to be normal people, jfc.