Trump - No transgender individuals in the military

Ranb said:
What kind of messed up unit were you in that could not function at its peak because its members were too racist or misogynist?
Click to expand...


It's a pretty safe bet that Skeptic Tank's personal beliefs have severely distorted his perception of the effectiveness of his unit. Someone with his beliefs is naturally going to perceive such a unit as being much better than it actually is.
 
Given the Pentagon's response to Trump's Tweet and all the unrelated kerfuffle in the White House, what do you want to bet Trump just neglects any follow-up on this until it dies?
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
It's a pretty safe bet that Skeptic Tank's personal beliefs have severely distorted his perception of the effectiveness of his unit. Someone with his beliefs is naturally going to perceive such a unit as being much better than it actually is.
Click to expand...
I've met people who truly believe that "mixed" units are less effective; in a way they're correct. It is the bigots (of any color) out there that degrade efficiency, not necessarily the non-white, non-males. The bigots can't see the problem even when it's staring right at them in the mirror. :(
 
Ziggurat said:
I object to the different standards themselves. And again, as I stated previously, that problem isn't peculiar to trans service members.
Click to expand...


The military has always had different levels of fitness standards beyond its most basic ones for different job descriptions.

Why do you find fault with that? It seems like the most effective way to allocate disparate resources.

Even in a force which consisted of nothing but white males between the ages of 18 and 45 there are going to be huge variations in ability. Set the basic level of admission too high and you just cut your own throat by reducing the prospective pool of recruits to a point where you can't get enough of them.

The right way to do it is to set that basic level as high as it needs to be to ensure that there is a more than satisfactory level of capability for even the least demanding of jobs, and increase those requirements separately as each individual job description requires.

Which is exactly why all sailors don't have to qualify as SEALS.

What is wrong with that?

And if someone can satisfy the requirements for a particular job description then why does it matter what their gender or assigned sex at birth is?
 
quadraginta said:
The military has always had different levels of fitness standards beyond its most basic ones for different job descriptions.

Why do you find fault with that?
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about different standards for different jobs. I'm talking about different standards for the same job. I already made that pretty clear.
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm not talking about different standards for different jobs. I'm talking about different standards for the same job. I already made that pretty clear.
Click to expand...


Do you have some reason to believe that TGs are being held to different (lower) standards for the same jobs, or is this more Just Asking Questions?

Because if you don't I'm not sure what point relevant to the thread topic you are trying to make.
 
I believe the whole issue was a Wookie Defence to distract from the focus on both internal ructions in his White House team and the inability to control the Russian influence narrative.

I hope I'm not right, because it means Mr Prez is even more narcissistic, venal and unethical than people may already suspect.
 
I did a bit more googling on the subject. As best I can tell from some superficial research, in the British and American militaries, "transgender" only refers to those people who have started, or completed, a process to surgically alter their anatomy to resemble the opposite sex. A male soldier who shows up and declares that he self identifies as a woman isn't a transgender under the regulations. He's a man, who perhaps ought to seek a doctor's assistance and consider some sort of diagnosis and treatment. As best I can tell, in the American military, the identification of someone as transgender begins when there is a doctor's diagnosis, and a treatment plan that ends in a transition to the opposite sex.

I also learned that, tweet or no tweet, transgenders cannot join the US military. An Obama administration directive ordered that the armed services start admitting transgenders as of July 1, 2017, but Mattis asked for an extension delaying that implementation. Transgenders who "came out" after entry into the military are currently allowed to stay in. If that tweet is translated into a policy, it would seem they will not be in the future.

I can't believe we elected an idiot who would put out a tweet like that.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
Do you have some reason to believe that TGs are being held to different (lower) standards for the same jobs, or is this more Just Asking Questions?

Because if you don't I'm not sure what point relevant to the thread topic you are trying to make.
Click to expand...

For a lot of jobs, anyone held to the women's standard instead of the men's standard is held to a different and lower standard. That includes some transgender service members.

That should have been obvious several posts ago, if you had been paying attention. But it was also obvious several posts ago that you haven't been. The only question is if you will finally start to.
 
Ziggurat said:
For a lot of jobs, anyone held to the women's standard instead of the men's standard is held to a different and lower standard. That includes some transgender service members.
Click to expand...


You make this claim. Please offer some examples of it having happened.

That should have been obvious several posts ago, if you had been paying attention. But it was also obvious several posts ago that you haven't been. The only question is if you will finally start to.
Click to expand...


I see you feel the need to resort to insult.

This says a lot about the quality of your arguments.
 
quadraginta said:
You make this claim. Please offer some examples of it having happened.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

Is it your position that all transgender troops are held to the male standard? That none of them are held to the female standard? Because if not, then there's your answer.

ETA: But just to make this really explicit:
https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/f...icy/Transgender-Implementation-Fact-Sheet.pdf
"the [transgender] Service member is responsible for meeting all applicable military standards in the preferred gender"
So any male-to-female transgender service members will only have to meet the female physical standards, which in many cases are lower than the male physical standards.

Those are facts. They aren't even controversial facts. How can you still be unaware of this?

I see you feel the need to resort to insult.

This says a lot about the quality of your arguments.
Click to expand...

If you feel insulted by me stating the obvious truth, well, that's your problem, not mine.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Seriously?

Is it your position that all transgender troops are held to the male standard? That none of them are held to the female standard? Because if not, then there's your answer.



If you feel insulted by me stating the obvious truth, well, that's your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...

Frankly you made a clear and straightforward claim and it seems perfectly reasonable for you to provide evidence for that claim. And to be clear, the expectation is that trans-males are held to the male standard and trans-females to the female standard. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

You may also wish to consider that there are probably some cis-females who meet the male standards as is, and that trans-males using androgens are likely to gain substantial additional muscle mass that will help them meet the male standards. Conversely I presume that trans-females, retaining some of their prior muscle mass, may easily exceed the female standards (this probably depends on many factors, however).
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
Frankly you made a clear and straightforward claim and it seems perfectly reasonable for you to provide evidence for that claim. And to be clear, the expectation is that trans-males are held to the male standard and trans-females to the female standard. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Click to expand...

Why would I need to provide evidence to the contrary, when I made no claim to the contrary?

Geeze, can nobody here pay attention?
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Teehee!

I always love how those who portray homophobia as this awful thing never hesitate to still make jokes where the premise is that being gay is worthy of mockery.
Click to expand...


Oh, I think the comedy comes more from accusing a homophobe of being a homosexual. It often speaks to the theory that the most homophobic are at least a little gay and are scared of that side of themselves.

Can I just say, I'm shocked at your attitude. I expected such a caring, understanding and accepting individual as yourself to be all over homosexuality - as a concept - and I'm terribly suprised to find you exhibiting such an unaccepting attitude...
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
For a lot of jobs, anyone held to the women's standard instead of the men's standard is held to a different and lower standard. That includes some transgender service members.
That should have been obvious several posts ago, if you had been paying attention. But it was also obvious several posts ago that you haven't been. The only question is if you will finally start to.
Click to expand...

So you were claiming in post 312 only that trans-females are held to the (lower) cis-female standards. If so, isn't that reasonable and fair? Why would that even be worth remarking on?

And to be absolutely clear, you are not claiming that trans-males are held to the lower cis-female standard. Okay. So how was this ever relevant to this thread? And why even write post 312 such that it referred to the transgendered in general terms instead of the trans-females you now insist you intended to refer to?
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
So you were claiming only that trans-females are held to the (lower) cis-female standards? If so, isn't that reasonable and fair? Why would that even be worth remarking on?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it's fair, because I don't think there should even be a lower female standard, cis or otherwise. And I made that quite clear already, including the fact that even if you agree with me on this point, it's not any more of an issue for trans than it is for women.

And to be absolutely clear, you are not claiming that trans-males are held to the lower cis-female standard. Okay. So how was this ever relevant to this thread?
Click to expand...

It was marginally relevant, I said it mostly in passing. But then people (including you) misinterpreted what I said because they weren't paying attention, and it became this big thing when my initial post, correctly interpreted, didn't even need further commentary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom