Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

Did I actually bring up rights?

If you aren't talking about rights, then why should we care? You speak of moral reasoning, but I see no moral reasoning for why we must accept transgender service members. You have not presented any such argument.

This will come as a surprise to the IG office.

I doubt it. The OIG is a civilian branch of the DoD. The fact that civilian jobs in the DoD are subject to EEO rules says nothing about military jobs.

 

[smartcooky]

If you aren't talking about rights, then why should we care? You speak of moral reasoning, but I see no moral reasoning for why we must accept transgender service members. You have not presented any such argument.

I doubt it. The OIG is a civilian branch of the DoD. The fact that civilian jobs in the DoD are subject to EEO rules says nothing about military jobs.

Correct.
US military personnel are coverered by the UCMJ, USERRA and the Constitution. They are basically the right to counsel under questioning, the right to refuse warrantless searches, and the right not to be discriminated against based on military service.

 

[Pixel42]

Does anyone know what the rules are on transpeople in the services in the UK?

Gender identity is a protected characteristic, so discrimination by employers (or anyone else) on that grounds is illegal. I'm not aware of any exceptions for military service or police.

There is often some suggestion that anyone claiming to be trans probably has some kind of very serious disorder that makes them even more dangerous than the general population etc...

That sort of comment makes me uneasy too. Every demographic contains unpleasant people. Even if one particular demographic contains more unpleasant people than average, that still tells you nothing about any individual member of it. Prejudice against an entire demographic because of the behaviour of a subset of it is always wrong.

 

[zooterkin]

After the supreme court ruling stating that people can only have the gender assigned to them at birth (which despite the judges' weasel words to the contrary is exactly what they said and meant) this is demonstrantly not true.

Sex (not gender) is recorded at birth, not assigned. Occasionally, it is incorrectly recorded.

 

[lionking]

Sex (not gender) is recorded at birth, not assigned. Occasionally, it is incorrectly recorded.

Exactly. The word “assigned” should never be used when referring to births.

 

[Pixel42]

Keep in mind that the posters who make provocative assertions on other threads on this topic and then report the responses so they get moved here never actually look at this thread. So there's no point replying here to any posts of theirs that get moved here along with those responses.

 

[Rolfe]

Just one thing here. Wasn't this "high suicide rate" disputed earlier, and now it is seen as evidence for not allowing transpeople in either the military and even in the police:

What is disputed is the frequent, false claim that children who are denied puberty blockers are highly likely to kill themselves, hence puberty blockers, which are extremely harmful, being presented as "lifesaving treatment". Child suicide is, thankfully, extremely rare.

It's a known fact, however, that adults who have actually transitioned have a remarkably high suicide rate. Transitioning is not a healthy option.

 

[Rolfe]

Gender identity is a protected characteristic, so discrimination by employers (or anyone else) on that grounds is illegal. I'm not aware of any exceptions for military service or police.

There are certainly trans-identifying police officers. One of them, while still in the force, caused a huge amount of trouble by harassing Harry the Owl online, and was told by his superiors to create sock accounts to do it rather than using his trans name (Lindsay something). Eventually, however, his behaviour escalated to the point where he was dismissed. He is currently a full-time online troll impersonating a gender-critical police organisation.

Others who are still employed are noteworthy for their insistence that they must be permitted to carry out intimate searches on female suspects (and I believe even on women visiting relatives in prison) , and that to bar them from doing this is a breach of their human rights.

There are "gender-fluid" police officers who have two sets of identity cards and even, I believe, two email addresses, to allow them to inhabit either their male or their female alter on whichever day they fancy.

That sort of comment makes me uneasy too. Every demographic contains unpleasant people. Even if one particular demographic contains more unpleasant people than average, that still tells you nothing about any individual member of it. Prejudice against an entire demographic because of the behaviour of a subset of it is always wrong.

I see this differently. We are constantly being told that to prevent the supposed "pleasant" trans individuals (assuming they exist) from being granted access to women's single-sex spaces is discriminatory and hateful. That it is "prejudice against an entire demographic" because of the behaviour of a highly unpleasant subset, and that this is wrong. I am happy to let the "not unpleasant" ones get on with their lives. But the moment one of these people insists on being given the right to breach women's single-sex boundaries, he is no longer "not unpleasant" in my eyes.

I am interested in highlighting the unpleasant ones in particular, because as soon as we give in to the pressure not to "discriminate against" trans people on the basis that some of them are OK individuals, we inevitably open the doors to the unpleasant ones.

There is of course the argument that any male person who wants to invade women's single-sex spaces is quite clearly not an OK individual, that his very presence is a violation of privacy and dignity, and that this in itself robs women of their right to single-sex intimate spaces. Nevertheless I think it's important to highlight the extraordinarily large number of outrageous exhibitionists, perverts and sex criminals among the trans-identifying male demographic, as their existence brings home the worst consequences of pandering to the demands of the trans lobby, even the aspects of it that seem more reasonable.

 

[smartcooky]

What is disputed is the frequent, false claim that children who are denied puberty blockers are highly likely to kill themselves, hence puberty blockers, which are extremely harmful, being presented as "lifesaving treatment". Child suicide is, thankfully, extremely rare.

Yup, the "oh my god we have to transition these children, stuff them full of drugs and butcher them before they have a chance to commit suicide" narrative is totally and utterly false - the Cass Review made that absolutely clear.

"The Cass Review looked at the medical evidence on suicide risk and concludes:​

​

“It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population but the evidence found did not support this conclusion​

​

It came up with a number of key facts that were summarized by Sex Matters.​

​

- Having suicidal thoughts is common in people referred to mental-health services. This does not necessarily mean an intention to complete suicide.​

​

- Children and young people with gender-related distress have suicidal thoughts in similar numbers to those who share mental-health conditions * but evidence shows that deaths by suicide are rare.​

​

- Evidence does not show that social transition, puberty blockers or hormone treatments reduce suicide risk in young people with gender-related distress.​

​

- For more than a decade, lobby groups have promoted the false claim that gender-distressed young people have a high risk of dying by suicide, and that this risk is reduced by giving them puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.​

​

- Exaggerated claims about suicide increase the risk of suicide contagion for young people, and divert medical approaches for them away from evidence-based treatment.​

* Well gosh!! I wonder why that might be!!?

SOURCES:

Dispelling the suicide myth

For almost ten years, lobby groups have been promoting the idea that for gender-confused children there are only two options: transition or die. The claim

sex-matters.org

Suicide facts and myths

The threat that children may commit suicide if parents do not support their social and medical transition is not born out by the facts.

www.transgendertrend.com

ACLU Attorney Confesses: Transgender-Suicide Claim is a Myth

Arguing before the Supreme Court, Chase Strangio concedes that suicide is “thankfully and admittedly rare” among transgender-identifying people.

www.city-journal.org

https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Suicide-factsheet.pdf (Note: Link downloads an 847K pdf)

https://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf (Warning: Link downloads a 35MB pdf)

 

[angrysoba]

Not sure, but here's an NIH article that says transgender military veterans are 20 times more likely to have "suicide-related events" than cisgender veterans.

For what it is worth, that is not actually an NIH article. It may be hosted on the NIH servers, but it appears to come from a not-that-well-regarded journal called Cureus, which does not have a stellar reputation.

In fact, in your own quote it says:

The literature to date reveals concerning trends regarding suicidality in transgender individuals.
A high prevalence of suicide attempts and thoughts of suicide occur in transgender youth compared to their cisgender peers [11,12,14]. Transgender US military veterans have more than 20 times higher rates of suicide-related events than cisgender veterans [7].

...which is highly contentious and likely consisting of low-quality papers.

As a result, I don't know how much stock I can put in the military veterans piece either.

 

[angrysoba]

What is disputed is the frequent, false claim that children who are denied puberty blockers are highly likely to kill themselves, hence puberty blockers, which are extremely harmful, being presented as "lifesaving treatment". Child suicide is, thankfully, extremely rare.

It's a known fact, however, that adults who have actually transitioned have a remarkably high suicide rate. Transitioning is not a healthy option.

Thanks for the clarification on the distinction between the suicidality of youth and adults. However, is there any very good evidence for the highlighted claim? It seems to me the whole field is beset with garbage studies.

 

[varwoche]

You do know that there's more than two sexes right? ...
But hey, keep telling yourself you're not running with the transphobes, you've decided you aren't.

You're not the first poster to foist this flat-out delusional notion. This is counter-scientific, ideological zeal on steroids.

Never mind subtly conflating sex and gender. You've jettisoned sex entirely.

 

[d4m10n]

The fact that civilian jobs in the DoD are subject to EEO rules says nothing about military jobs.

To quote from AFMC's EEO page:

It is the policy of the government of the United States that all federal agencies provide equal employment opportunity regardless of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, physical or mental disability, genetic information and reprisal and to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency.​

​

This policy applies to, and must be an integral part of every aspect of personnel policy and practice in the employment, development, advancement, and treatment of all AFMC Airmen and Guardians, both military and civilian.​

(Emphasis mine, of course.)

It is true that MEO differs from EEO on a few points (e.g. physical fitness standards and disability accommodations) but even when I was at Ramstein AB, we bluesuiters were fully integrated in with our civilian counterparts and had to follow similar workplace directives regarding anti-discrimination and equal opportunity, with only a few notable (mostly political) exceptions such as DADT.

You speak of moral reasoning, but I see no moral reasoning for why we must accept transgender service members.

I would think you'd need a moral argument to justify singling out a group to be summarily fired without any individualized determination of fitness.

My baseline assumption is that people who have served with distinction for years ought to be allowed to continue unless and until it becomes clear that they have difficult performing up to the usual standards. So far the only arguments against trans servicemembers have been related to field deployment; Space Force members don't actually deploy to space, so those arguments don't work for an entire sub-branch of servicemembers who are busy calculating orbital transfers while directing satellites from their desks.

Anti-trans folks here should come to terms with the fact that Trump's policy banning gender dysphoric individuals from military service wasn't based on any actual studies about whether they perform their duties adequately, just as Trump's policy on tariffs were not based on any actual studies about whether tariffs will lead to economically desirable outcomes. Political processes can include an empirical approach rooted in evidence (e.g. Cass Report) but this one did not.

 

[d4m10n]

ETA if you're interested in hearing from actual transgender servicemembers:

 

[Ziggurat]

It is true that MEO differs from EEO on a few points (e.g. physical fitness standards and disability accommodations) but even when I was at Ramstein AB, we bluesuiters were fully integrated in with our civilian counterparts and had to follow similar workplace directives regarding anti-discrimination and equal opportunity, with only a few notable (mostly political) exceptions such as DADT.

That is a policy, not constitutional legal requirement. Again, the courts have been very clear on this for a long time.

I would think you'd need a moral argument to justify singling out a group to be summarily fired without any individualized determination of fitness.

There's no individualized determination that goes on when preventing celiacs from serving.

My baseline assumption is that people who have served with distinction for years ought to be allowed to continue unless and until it becomes clear that they have difficult performing up to the usual standards.

That's a reasonable policy preference, but that's still just a policy preference.

Anti-trans folks here should come to terms with the fact that Trump's policy banning gender dysphoric individuals from military service wasn't based on any actual studies about whether they perform their duties adequately

True. And the pro-trans side should come to terms with the fact that the scientific process has been so corrupted by advocacy that voters are quite frankly right to not trust it to handle these issues objectively.

, just as Trump's policy on tariffs were not based on any actual studies about whether tariffs will lead to economically desirable outcomes.

This is mostly off topic, but I'll just note that Trump isn't using tariffs as his preferred state, he's using them as bargaining leverage, and that makes a huge difference which most studies on tariffs don't even touch on.

Political processes can include an empirical approach rooted in evidence (e.g. Cass Report) but this one did not.

Here's the thing, though: if voters had been allowed to address this question directly, they would have come to basically the same outcome as the Cass Report, but years earlier.

 

[Ziggurat]

ETA if you're interested in hearing from actual transgender servicemembers:

To be honest, I'm not.

 

[theprestige]

To be honest, I'm not.

It's a propaganda piece from The Daily Show.

 

[Rolfe]

I have to wonder why it took so long for a human rights professor to cotton on to what the trans cult really is, but hey, man...

I changed my mind on trans rights – and lost multiple friends

As a human rights lawyer, I never questioned the trans movement. But, after a lightbulb moment, I publicly changed my position

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Myriad]

You do know that there's more than two sexes right? And that your sex doesn't always comport to your genitalia, kr even your dominant genitalia? But hey, keep telling yourself you're not running with the transphobes, you've decided you aren't.

"You do know that there's more than one human species, right? Don't obstruct the critical progressive work of figuring out who gets to call themselves which variant species and what special rights each should have. There's no way that could go wrong. Don't be one of the variphobes who disagrees."

 

[Rolfe]

You do know that there's more than two sexes right? And that your sex doesn't always comport to your genitalia, kr even your dominant genitalia? But hey, keep telling yourself you're not running with the transphobes, you've decided you aren't.

There aren't. There's only two in humans, with an occasional anomaly that doesn't equate to a unique sex. Even the varieties of intersex people are one sex with a "mistake" baked in.

Humans have 5 didgits on each hand. That doesn't mean that people born with six or three digits are a unique type of human.

You do know that reality cannot be changed by the thoughts in somebody's head, right?

[For those not following the Leopards/faces thread, several posts have been moved from that to this thread. My post #8505 was a response to post #8499].

There are only, exactly, two (2) sexes.

Strangely, nobody can ever seem to say what these additional sexes are called and what type of gametes they produce.

No, there are not more than two sexes, there are only two sexes, they are male and female. Sex is binary - this is an observable, objective scientific reality.
Males produce small, motile gametes
Females produce large, immotile gametes
There is NO third sex.

This is what we mean when we say the trans rights movement has become toxic and anti-science.

You're not the first poster to foist this flat-out delusional notion. This is counter-scientific, ideological zeal on steroids.

Never mind subtly conflating sex and gender. You've jettisoned sex entirely.

"You do know that there's more than one human species, right? Don't obstruct the critical progressive work of figuring out who gets to call themselves which variant species and what special rights each should have. There's no way that could go wrong. Don't be one of the variphobes who disagrees."

And the winner is....

Keep in mind that the posters who make provocative assertions on other threads on this topic and then report the responses so they get moved here never actually look at this thread. So there's no point replying here to any posts of theirs that get moved here along with those responses.

He hasn't come back to address any of these replies, and I don't think he's going to. Absolute nonsense continues to be promoted in other threads, methinks.