• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump - No transgender individuals in the military

Ziggurat said:
This is opinion, not evidence. It's a statement of the speakers' values, not a claim that actually addresses my question.



"I knew there were homosexual individuals serving with me. No transgendered people that I knew of, but maybe."
More importantly, note that the article makes zero claims that the Israeli military doesn't encounter any issues with transgender members. Maybe it doesn't, but again, that claim is actually absent from the article.



Exactly: they're doing it because they're Canadian.



Of what? You presented no evidence.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Like quadraginta said, you're trying too hard.
 
Cleon said:
I give you two senior British Naval commanders. The IDF, which I know y'all have a soft spot for, is so comfortable with trans soldiers that they were confused by the very question. Canada is stepping up LGBTQ recruitment just because they're Canada.

I eagerly anticipate your hand-waving away of this.
Click to expand...


Obviously they cannot be efficient, combat ready forces.

Everyone knows how notoriously incompetent the Israeli military is.

And we don't even need to talk about the Brits, or the Aussies, or the Canadians ...

... or any of the other eighteen countries who have found no problem including transgender individuals in their military.

Incompetents all.

And of course the fact that they have been serving by thousands in the U.S. military for years, in all of the jobs the military requires, including combat, is just an inconsequential detail.

There's no way to tell if there might be small problems or small negative consequences or problems in combat in far away places.

Just because it hasn't happened with all the years of information we have available.

Something disastrous could come up at any time.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
See, this is more useful information. Do you know of any systematic reviews? If there are, and they support your own experience, that would be quite solid evidence.
Click to expand...

Here

I would like to correct an earlier statement - Canada changed the transgender policy for its troops in 1992 - the 1995/96 incident was a memory of the instance when a male soldier was transitioning to female and the education being provided to troops at that unit.
 
Last edited:
One point I would like to make is that if there are behaviors that would cause a unit to be less effective because there are transgendered personnel in that unit, those behaviors can be modified through training.

The argument that unit effectiveness can be affected by having transgendered personnel, therefore you can rightfully exclude them from service is fallacious.

It's why I mentioned Hacksaw Ridge, if a conscientious objector can win the medal of honor, we ought to let able bodied people serve, regardless of their sex, gender or sexual orientation.
 
"After consultation with my Generals and military experts..."

Or not.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff, including chairman General Joseph Dunford, were not aware President Donald Trump planned to tweet a ban on transgender service members, three US defense officials told CNN -- the latest indication that top military leaders across all four service branches were blindsided by the President's announcement.
Click to expand...


I'm guessing by "military experts", he meant "someone who has played Call of Duty a lot."
 
*shrug* Ziggy doesn't think the opinions of high-ranking military officers are relevant to the question. Ah, well. Have a nice day, Ziggy.
 
Cleon said:
*shrug* Ziggy doesn't think the opinions of high-ranking military officers are relevant to the question. Ah, well. Have a nice day, Ziggy.
Click to expand...


And why should he?

Their opinions are just like everyone else's. It isn't like they have any special expertise in running military organizations.

Why should they be expected to know anything about it that everyone else doesn't know?
 
Trebuchet said:
Or Mike Flynn. In fact, I'd almost bet on that.
Click to expand...

I hadn't considered that. Considering Flynn's political/legal situation in the wake of the Russia investigation, it would be a phenomenally dumb idea for Trump to be talking to him at all, much less taking his advice, but I've learned not to overestimate Trump.
 
Cleon said:
*shrug* Ziggy doesn't think the opinions of high-ranking military officers are relevant to the question. Ah, well. Have a nice day, Ziggy.
Click to expand...

I never said it wasn't relevant. But it isn't evidence of the question I asked. Can you understand the difference?

Border Reiver posted actual evidence.

quadraginta said:
And why should he?

Their opinions are just like everyone else's. It isn't like they have any special expertise in running military organizations.
Click to expand...

First off, this is an appeal to authority. Opinions, no matter whose, are still just opinions. They are not evidence. Second, while expertise is certainly relevant, there's no reason to unquestioningly defer to it. Generals are as human as the rest of us, and their public positions are influenced by political considerations as well as practical ones.

Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, why are you even bothering to try to justify your position on the basis of evidence-free opinion, when Border Reiver provided actual, hard evidence that you could use instead? It really makes no sense. And yet, you want to pretend I'm the one in denial.
 
Ziggurat said:
<snip>

First off, this is an appeal to authority.
Click to expand...


Appeal to authority is completely legitimate when the authority's are of expertise is the pertinent to the topic.

Opinions, no matter whose, are still just opinions.
Click to expand...


No, they aren't just opinions. They are opinions from someone with knowledge and experience specific to the topic, and proven credentials.

They are not evidence.
Click to expand...


Yes, actually, they are. Perhaps not irrefutable, conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean they should not be added to the overall weight of evidence.

Second, while expertise is certainly relevant, there's no reason to unquestioningly defer to it.
Click to expand...


Who said anything about unquestioningly deferring? Aside from you that is.

As you just admitted, it is relevant.

You seem to want to disregard it completely.

Generals are as human as the rest of us, and their public positions are influenced by political considerations as well as practical ones.
Click to expand...


Which does not mean that their statements are always utterly without merit and should be discarded without consideration.

Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, why are you even bothering to try to justify your position on the basis of evidence-free opinion, when Border Reiver provided actual, hard evidence that you could use instead? It really makes no sense. And yet, you want to pretend I'm the one in denial.
Click to expand...


Your denial is made clear in your claims that opinion must be considered "evidence-free".
 
quadraginta said:
Appeal to authority is completely legitimate when the authority's are of expertise is the pertinent to the topic.
Click to expand...

In no circumstance is an appeal to authority a substitute for evidence.

Look, I get that people defer to authority. I do it sometimes myself. We simply don't have time to evaluate everything ourselves, so if we trust some authority, we may simply accept their position and move on, rather than spend time examining the issue ourselves. Had you simply done that in regards to your own opinion, I would have no objection.

But I asked for evidence. Not opinion. And the opinion of experts, no matter how qualified, is not evidence. You provided only opinion in response to a request for evidence. Appealing to the opinion of an authority, no matter how legitimate that authority, cannot transform that opinion into evidence. That really is a fallacy.

Who said anything about unquestioningly deferring? Aside from you that is.
Click to expand...

You didn't say it. You simply DID it, and expected me to do the same.

And again, why are you hung up on trying to push opinions when hard evidence has already been presented? That's irrational.
 
Cleon said:
"My Generals" = "The Generals in my head."
Click to expand...

And this is classic Trump, not only does he make some grand pronouncement that turns out to be hot air but he tries to avoid owning it by pinning responsibility on some fictitious source, i.e. 'I've heard', 'people are saying'.

He seems to genuinely believe that he simply has to speak for something to become real, the mechanics of making policy abandoned in favour of ruling by decree, with someone else lined up to play scapegoat just in case.
 
Ziggurat said:
I never said it wasn't relevant. But it isn't evidence of the question I asked. Can you understand the difference?

Border Reiver posted actual evidence.



First off, this is an appeal to authority. Opinions, no matter whose, are still just opinions. They are not evidence. Second, while expertise is certainly relevant, there's no reason to unquestioningly defer to it. Generals are as human as the rest of us, and their public positions are influenced by political considerations as well as practical ones.

Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, why are you even bothering to try to justify your position on the basis of evidence-free opinion, when Border Reiver provided actual, hard evidence that you could use instead? It really makes no sense. And yet, you want to pretend I'm the one in denial.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how people get this logical fallacy so wrong! It is a fallacy to appeal to an authority in one area for expertise in another. "You think Picasso is a good artist!?! Well Einstein has called Picasso a childish scribbler!" It is not a fallacy to argue that an expert's position in his/her particular field of knowledge supports the validity of that position. It is not a fallacy to appeal to an authority in astronomy in terms of their position on a topic in astronomy. It is not a fallacy to appeal to generals in terms of their views of relevant military issues.

Yes, as you mention, experts are not always right and can be influenced by other issues. But nonetheless they are among the first people one should query, and in the absence of any specific information that challenges their accuracy, the most likely to have important insights. Their opinions are not "just opinions." They are typically informed opinions based on knowledge and experience and much more likely to be correct than the uninformed, politically biased opinion of a former reality show personality. Yes, evidence is important, and most authorities become authorities because they have examined the evidence.

We rely on the expertise of generals in one of the most crucial aspects of running our country- defending it, and protecting the lives of our military personnel. They are authorities whose "opinions" we have decided are very trustworthy.

Bottom line: the views of authorities are important to consider in addition to the available evidence. One cannot simply dismiss their views as "Well, everyone has an opinion.". Some people's opinions are much more valuable than others.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
Their opinions are not "just opinions."
Click to expand...

In this case, they very much are. Note that the opinions being referred to didn't even directly address the question I asked. I wanted evidence regarding whether and to what extent there were any problems created by transgendered service members in service. This was offered up as a rebutal:

VAdmJWoodcock said:
So proud of our Transgender personnel. They bring #Diversity to our @RoyalNavy and I will always support their desire to serve their country
Click to expand...

Does this opinion actually indicate that there are no problems? No, it doesn't. It might be that there are no problems. It might be that he thinks the problems are outweighed by some other unspecified consideration, one which the rest of us might or might not share. But it is not a claim, not even an expert opinion claim, of what I asked about. It truly is just an opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom