Vixere
Captain Uni
parelaxis
Passable Writer
rush99999
Nightwing95
@Penny
No, what I am stating is, is that they are not disproportionately affected by this action as some are claiming them to be, such as this needless hysteria over a non-issue. Let me put this on its head for a moment and ask you this, should we allow that other seventy or so percent of disqualified people to claim "discrimination" against them by the military? Let us use another example too, just to hit the point home, and lets make it clear with something extreme. Are schizophrenics being wrongfully discriminated against by being barred from service in the United States military? Where is all the uproar about that? Now let us dial it back more, what about people who can by and large function, such as some of those on the autistic spectrum. Where's the outrage against them being "unfit" for service despite potentially being excellent candidates for those who are high functioning?
I will state why as it is as simple and straightforward as can be; it isn't socially convenient or the "in" thing for progressives to get twisted into knots over. The entire "transgender rights" argument is bunk as it is and is forcing others to play by their rules, not reality's rules. One excellent place that does not belong and only stands to, on average, complicate more things than resolve? The military, even more so when the armed forces has neither the time nor reason to care or invest in the "maybe" worthwhile cases. No less, if someone is trasgender and can function, the military's recommendation is to include them provided they can meet the 36 month criteria and not violate the other clauses of the regulations while doing it.
As for "pulling numbers out of the ether", not very ethereal considering these can be grasped with cursory searching. There isn't an issue at all with half of the population of the United States saying people who identify as X, Y, or Z should not be allowed to use a restroom for their identified gender. Why? Because unless they are transitioned, even yet then, for all intents and purposes they still are effectively their assigned gender, rather sex, by birth. There have already been issues with this where it was allowed that people have been abusing it to their ends, but there is no point in discussing that - the exact thing warned would happen did happen.
The only people "whining" about labels is because that is not a fair street; it does not go both ways. If I started lambasting half of this thread for being "softhearted, naive, know-nothing, hippy feelsgood regressives" I would be just as out of line as I would be by slapping them with the "liberal" label or at minimum squawking about how they are sympathizers or deniers or insert word-of-the-month here, but in reverse it is pretty socially acceptable to beat on conservatives or stereotype them as something equally insane as my Leftist example. Unless you identify as any of those and call yourself that, giving yourself a label, I am not about to make accusations of what you are or are not and that goes for anyone. To further build off of that, I make it a consistent point to simply not label people at all and let their characters speak for themselves as much as I can and where I can. I may or may not believe certain things about various people here or their affiliations - say that some are clearly Left-wing and others Right-wing - but let's stop beating around the bush about who is "easily triggered" and get over ourselves like adults, recognizing where the real issue is, please. Good enough? I thought so, so moving on.
If your standard for transphobia is so low that you think there is a real issue with them taking problem with sharing bathrooms with others who make them uncomfortable, that is your own issue and anyone who wants to live that ideology. For at least half of the nation, it greatly upsets them or is disconcerting, something that should not just be taken into account but even greater so because of the context. To be fair, their rights, these "specialty rights", being assigned to those as transgenders should not trump the rights of the regular people. One would think this is obvious, but no, it really shouldn't be the .6% deciding the rules of bathroom use, rather a larger issue of transgenders in society, for the other 99.4%.
The "Republican base" certainly cares more about the military as a whole than the "Democrat base" and it is no surprise which sides are pushing for what. Again, an absolute non-argument and dismissed. Strangely, you know what isn't dismissed? The fact the Department of Defense itself checked against the Rand study in this memorandum and essentially tore it to metaphorical shreds. I would strongly urge you to read what the military itself has to say on its findings and note, more than anything, it isn't actually barring transgender people who are not potentially problematic.
As for sexism, no I do not believe sexism meaningfully exists in any capacity. People will always have biases, but I have certainly never seen any of the claimed elements of it like those of the infamous "wage gap". I have however, been subject to "reverse sexism" as I testified before, namely because of this sort of social justice nonsense about choosing individuals or candidates based on sex, race, gender, age, et cetera, rather than ability or capability; essentially, I lost my draw on things to a quota despite being a better choice.
No, what I am stating is, is that they are not disproportionately affected by this action as some are claiming them to be, such as this needless hysteria over a non-issue. Let me put this on its head for a moment and ask you this, should we allow that other seventy or so percent of disqualified people to claim "discrimination" against them by the military? Let us use another example too, just to hit the point home, and lets make it clear with something extreme. Are schizophrenics being wrongfully discriminated against by being barred from service in the United States military? Where is all the uproar about that? Now let us dial it back more, what about people who can by and large function, such as some of those on the autistic spectrum. Where's the outrage against them being "unfit" for service despite potentially being excellent candidates for those who are high functioning?
I will state why as it is as simple and straightforward as can be; it isn't socially convenient or the "in" thing for progressives to get twisted into knots over. The entire "transgender rights" argument is bunk as it is and is forcing others to play by their rules, not reality's rules. One excellent place that does not belong and only stands to, on average, complicate more things than resolve? The military, even more so when the armed forces has neither the time nor reason to care or invest in the "maybe" worthwhile cases. No less, if someone is trasgender and can function, the military's recommendation is to include them provided they can meet the 36 month criteria and not violate the other clauses of the regulations while doing it.
As for "pulling numbers out of the ether", not very ethereal considering these can be grasped with cursory searching. There isn't an issue at all with half of the population of the United States saying people who identify as X, Y, or Z should not be allowed to use a restroom for their identified gender. Why? Because unless they are transitioned, even yet then, for all intents and purposes they still are effectively their assigned gender, rather sex, by birth. There have already been issues with this where it was allowed that people have been abusing it to their ends, but there is no point in discussing that - the exact thing warned would happen did happen.
The only people "whining" about labels is because that is not a fair street; it does not go both ways. If I started lambasting half of this thread for being "softhearted, naive, know-nothing, hippy feelsgood regressives" I would be just as out of line as I would be by slapping them with the "liberal" label or at minimum squawking about how they are sympathizers or deniers or insert word-of-the-month here, but in reverse it is pretty socially acceptable to beat on conservatives or stereotype them as something equally insane as my Leftist example. Unless you identify as any of those and call yourself that, giving yourself a label, I am not about to make accusations of what you are or are not and that goes for anyone. To further build off of that, I make it a consistent point to simply not label people at all and let their characters speak for themselves as much as I can and where I can. I may or may not believe certain things about various people here or their affiliations - say that some are clearly Left-wing and others Right-wing - but let's stop beating around the bush about who is "easily triggered" and get over ourselves like adults, recognizing where the real issue is, please. Good enough? I thought so, so moving on.
If your standard for transphobia is so low that you think there is a real issue with them taking problem with sharing bathrooms with others who make them uncomfortable, that is your own issue and anyone who wants to live that ideology. For at least half of the nation, it greatly upsets them or is disconcerting, something that should not just be taken into account but even greater so because of the context. To be fair, their rights, these "specialty rights", being assigned to those as transgenders should not trump the rights of the regular people. One would think this is obvious, but no, it really shouldn't be the .6% deciding the rules of bathroom use, rather a larger issue of transgenders in society, for the other 99.4%.
The "Republican base" certainly cares more about the military as a whole than the "Democrat base" and it is no surprise which sides are pushing for what. Again, an absolute non-argument and dismissed. Strangely, you know what isn't dismissed? The fact the Department of Defense itself checked against the Rand study in this memorandum and essentially tore it to metaphorical shreds. I would strongly urge you to read what the military itself has to say on its findings and note, more than anything, it isn't actually barring transgender people who are not potentially problematic.
As for sexism, no I do not believe sexism meaningfully exists in any capacity. People will always have biases, but I have certainly never seen any of the claimed elements of it like those of the infamous "wage gap". I have however, been subject to "reverse sexism" as I testified before, namely because of this sort of social justice nonsense about choosing individuals or candidates based on sex, race, gender, age, et cetera, rather than ability or capability; essentially, I lost my draw on things to a quota despite being a better choice.