Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Donald Trump's Banning Transgender People From Serving - Right or Wrong?

  1. #21

    Tarot's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    31
    Userbars
    2
    Thanks
    74
    Thanked
    74/34
    Mentioned
    45 times
    Time Online
    3d 16h 16m
    Avg. Time Online
    1m
    Quote Originally Posted by Sugar Rush View Post
    So for those of you who feel this is the right decision, how do you feel about homosexuals or women serving in the miltary? I think it's relevant because a lot of the arguments being said regarding transgender people have also been said about them. Homosexuals also have a higher suicide rate. Women were also thought unfit to serve due to regular hormonal changes. I mean, what a mess that would be. Just saying.
    These comparisons you're trying to make don't actually work. From what I understand, this is based on health, not being discriminatory. Unfortunately because it's towards a minority, it's automatically considered discrimination. However, transgender people or those who identify as such and are on hormones are 100% dependant on those hormones to be the gender they identify with, and the risk of being unable to access these medications is high. Without the medications they are, technically, unstable and therefore unsafe. This is not the same situation with homosexuals, nor with women. If anyone from these 2 groups were dependant on medication, they would also be denied.
    On another note, as unfortunate as it is, I believe that gender dysphoria is still considered a mental illness in the eyes of the government (someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong). So alongside the argument of being dependant on the hormone medication, they are considered to be mentally ill, and like someone who is otherwise in perfect health but is clinically depressed, suffers from anxiety, bipolar disorder, an eating disorder, etc, they would be denied.
    Is it completely fair? No. Does it make sense? Yes. Is it discrimination? No, not necessarily, because if they hadn't announced it as they did, and perhaps announced instead that they were tightening up on military entry requirements, this discussion would probably never have happened.


    i aura


  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Tarot For This Useful Post:

    Cybun (07-26-2017),Mophead (07-26-2017),Synth Salazzle (07-26-2017)

  3. #22

    Joined
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,387
    Thanks
    1,217
    Thanked
    3,913/1,165
    DL/UL
    84/1
    Mentioned
    533 times
    Time Online
    134d 9h 16m
    Avg. Time Online
    52m
    Quote Originally Posted by Sugar Rush View Post
    Edit: And I have to disagree--I believe it is in the same ballpark. Look at the facts, history, and reasons given. Aside from the financial burden non-crisis, Sarah Huckabee Sanders says "This was about military readiness, this is about unit cohesion.". Guess what, unit cohesion is also a cited reason in the debate regarding gays and women in the military, and is still debated to this day. And should be. Carefully. With facts, evidence, reality. Not with a drive-by tweet in a knee-jerk attempt to pass legislation loaded with other unrelated concerns.
    I don't know if you're refusing to read specific things revolving around the actual reason or not.

    Gays and women: Do not need medication to stay functioning the same way anyone who is transgender does.

    Transgender people: Need medication to maintain the proper balance in their body to function properly unlike nontransgender people.

    Also, just throwing it out there since you bring up points about Trump himself. He didn't bring this up, Obama did. And under the advisory of top military personal and whoever else, the decision was to not allow them.
    Hate him or love him, Trump didn't make the decision. He just announced it.

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mophead For This Useful Post:

    Bridge (10-26-2017),Cybun (07-26-2017),Synth Salazzle (07-26-2017),Tarot (07-26-2017)

  5. #23

    Tarot's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    31
    Userbars
    2
    Thanks
    74
    Thanked
    74/34
    Mentioned
    45 times
    Time Online
    3d 16h 16m
    Avg. Time Online
    1m
    Quote Originally Posted by Sugar Rush View Post
    Being transgender is not dependent upon medical procedures; some trans people cannot or will not take those steps. Does this ban take this into consideration? Given that Trump has a track record of meaning exactly what he says quite literally, despite denials of people speaking on his behalf, this blanket ban is absolutely discriminatory.

    And it's not even the point. We can debate all day, but I highly doubt that this was a thought out decision based on the merits of right or wrongness. House GOP in-fighting over one issue--banning sex reassignment operations (NOT banning transgenders altogether, by the way)--was threatening to derail a big spending bill... a bill that involved a bunch of Trump's campaign promises like funding border wall construction.

    So basically it was like "help us resolve this splinter" and the response was cutting off the whole hand.

    But have fun getting all worked up over divisive social issues that are used at will primarily for political expediency and have surprisingly little to do with morals or truth. I read plenty of books, and this has been the case since the concept of politics and lawmaking came into existence. I'm out.

    Edit: And I have to disagree--I believe it is in the same ballpark. Look at the facts, history, and reasons given. Aside from the financial burden non-crisis, Sarah Huckabee Sanders says "This was about military readiness, this is about unit cohesion.". Guess what, unit cohesion is also a cited reason in the debate regarding gays and women in the military, and is still debated to this day. And should be. Carefully. With facts, evidence, reality. Not with a drive-by tweet in a knee-jerk attempt to pass legislation loaded with other unrelated concerns.
    I almost didn't read your post and still go on to reply to it like you seem to be doing to us...but I like to read and understand before replying.
    This isn't even completely about Trump. Obama started this. Remember him, the fan favourite? He started this, Trump finished. I'll repeat my point again, but it's the same for people who are medicated, or are considered mentally ill in the eyes of the GOVERNMENT not by SOCIETY. They are denied because it is unsafe for them, and/or for others.
    None of this is a matter of "I don't like this select group because you're different" it's "you wish to serve your country, but you might die. You need to have the ability to cope with this, but if your mind is too preoccupied with how you have different parts than you believe you should have been born with, you are incapable." Similar to how if I went to apply with my anxiety disorder, and instead of "you're a woman and therefore unable" it's "your mind isn't 100% healthy because you can barely function in loud, crowded spaces, so therefore you are not fit for a position in which you will endure loud, fast combat and very likely be injured or killed."
    But it's Trump and the wall for sure


    i aura


  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Tarot For This Useful Post:

    Cybun (07-26-2017),Mophead (07-26-2017),Synth Salazzle (07-26-2017)

  7. #24
    kimmy1989's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    72
    Userbars
    1
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked
    48/27
    DL/UL
    8/0
    Mentioned
    Never
    Time Online
    1d 5h 29m
    Avg. Time Online
    N/A
    I think he got bored and spat his dummy again again and hadn't said anything stupid for a few hours so needed to do this to remind people he's still there and can still do stupid crap if he wants to because he wants to

  8. #25

    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,686
    Thanks
    1,085
    Thanked
    4,321/1,337
    DL/UL
    15/0
    Mentioned
    208 times
    Time Online
    98d 13h 33m
    Avg. Time Online
    39m
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybun View Post
    That depends on a few things then, like how disruptive is it to take hormones? How often do they need to do it? Can they afford not taking them for weeks to months if they're deployed and the military can't/won't provide them? Will the meds be taking up space that could be used for something more useful?
    By fully transitioning I didn't mean they HAVE to have the surgery, but IF they had the surgery to make sure they don't have to do extra tasks that can be a nuisance if they're deployed (like the dilating part for MTF), I think what they have between their legs are of little use if what matters is if they're capable of doing their job. I know very little about the meds trans people have to take so I'm not sure if I'm talking crap and I apologize if I am cause my knowledge about this group of people is teeny-tiny.

    I'm not entirely sure how it works for the military, but gender dysphoria here is considered a mental illness which immediately disqualifies someone from enlisting, I also heard that some medications they take may cause mood swings and other side effects that are a no-no if someone is serving but I don't know if it's true, just thought I'd throw this in here if someone knows more about it.
    And if I think a little deeper it doesn't matter what the person identifies as, if they're FTM and are at a disadvantage physically they won't be given a free pass because that just wouldn't be very fair, as long as they can perform their tasks successfully and the military won't have any extra trouble with them then I believe they're free to serve! There's just a lot to consider beforehand.
    i suppose this goes to you and everyone talking about dysphoria etc.

    hormones arent that much of an issue. you can go months/weeks without them and wont face any adverse affects. i cant speak for oestrogen, but i can speak for testosterone injections and say that, at most, you get a sore ass for a few days after the injection. will that stop a trained soldier from working? not at all. will going off hormones be a bit unpleasant? yes, definitely. will it completely incapacitate that trained soldier so that theyre whining about dysphoria and unable to function due to the oppressive depression? fuck no.

    and thats the thing about all of this: trans people arent miserable all the time. do you really think a trans person would sign up for the military if they knew they werent 100% capable due to their dysphoria? and besides: the dysphoria usually comes with being unable to transition, be it due to lack of funds, dangerous home life, being too young, stuff like that. usually thats what brings about the depression. if a trans person has access to these things, youll find their risk of suicide and depression becomes non existent.

    and for the record, theres barely any trans people that are completely incapacitated by their dysphoria to the point where they cannot work. you see the thing about being unable to work as a trans person, is the discrimination. being unable to transition, feeling dysphoric, being depressed, it usually all comes around due to the current state of trans issues in the world, and the fact that theyre discriminated against. and also this idea that were all so delicate and cry uncle at the slightest sign of oppression: are you serious? why is it, then, that cis people are constantly so quick to tell us how brave we are for transitioning? are we only brave on your terms? is our strength really not that impressive to you at all despite your words then? are we strong and brave or arent we? and if we are, isnt that what being in the military is all about?

    transitioning is a big deal for trans people, but it isnt as big a deal as its being made out to be here. it wont kill you, it wont make you unable to work. even the dilating is simple! you can do that in the bathroom before or after you go pee in the morning! you can give yourself injections-- and theres more than just injections when it comes to hormone intake. you can get a gel that you rub into your skin if youre a trans man, or you can take a pill if youre a trans woman. another thing you can do in the morning that takes maybe 2 minutes.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Mindfang For This Useful Post:

    I_royalty_I (07-27-2017)

  10. #26
    Stocking Anarchy's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,371
    Userbars
    11
    Thanks
    929
    Thanked
    1,627/650
    DL/UL
    182/0
    Mentioned
    145 times
    Time Online
    47d 8h 56m
    Avg. Time Online
    23m
    I understand where @(you need an account to see links) is coming from when they reference gays and women. It wasn't too long ago in human history that being gay was also considered a Mental Illness. In 1987 homosexuality was removed from the DSM as a classified mental disorder. The World Health Organization removed homosexuality as a classified mental health disorder in 1992.

    To this day there is a type of mental health disorder that relates to homosexuality called ego-dystonic sexual orientation.

    lazy so just gonna copy and paste from wikipedia
    When the WHO removed the diagnosis of homosexuality as a mental disorder in ICD-10, it included the diagnosis of ego-dystonic sexual orientation under "Psychological and behavioural disorders associated with sexual development and orientation". The WHO's ICD-10 diagnoses ego-dystonic sexual orientation thus:

    The gender identity or sexual preference (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or prepubertal) is not in doubt, but the individual wishes it were different because of associated psychological and behavioural disorders, and may seek treatment in order to change it. (F66.1)

    The WHO notes that for codes under F66: "Sexual orientation by itself is not to be regarded as a disorder."[1]

    Patients are sometimes still diagnosed as having this problem.[7] This is often a result of unfavorable and intolerant attitudes of the society or a conflict between sexual urges and religious belief systems.

    While the World Health Organization does have Gender dysphoria currently defined as a mental health disorder, a new "International Classification of Diseases" book is slated to be published in 2018 and there is a high chance that "being transgender" will no longer be considered a mental illness. So far the proposal to remove it has passed every committee.

    Studies suggest that mental health issues transgender people have has nothing to do with the fact they are transgender, but by how society treats them. Well if I was rejected by just about everyone around me, including parents, schoolmates, church members, etc, then yea I would probably have anxiety and be suicidal as well.

    (you need an account to see links)


    I think banning all transgender people from the military is bullshit. So does my mom and dad who are both veterans of Vietnam.

    If anyone is willing to give their life in service to their country then they should be able to, I don't care what their orientation is.

    We are going to deny transgender U.S. citizens the right to serve our country yet allow foreigners serve as a pathway to citizenship?

    Argument: Transgender people should be banned because of the increase of health care costs.

    Lets assume we are only talking about the hormones they take after gender reassignment. You want to tell me that its ok to pay for birth control (a hormone therapy) for women, but not hormones for transgenders? And its not like a transgender person misses one pill and they are going to go off the deep end. Does that happen to women?

    Thomas Beatie is a FTM transgender man that stopped taking his hormones in order to give birth to a baby because his wife could not have children. Yes coming off hormones causes some anxiety and depression, but who in life does not cope with anxiety and depression every day? Shit when women are on their period they cope with anxiety and depression. But they can serve.


    People are talking like transgender people are these fragile little glass figurines that will shatter at the first hit. You think the military won't winnow out the frail ones in boot camp? You'd think by surviving to adulthood without committing suicide and still be willing to fight for all freedoms (even the ones that allow others to hate them) would show that they have inner strength.

    As for gender reassignment surgery, its not as if any transgender person can join the military and get free surgery. There are protocols and a doctor has to deem it medically necessary before Tri-care will pay for it. You think Doctors are just going to be writing out those recommendations willy nilly? (pun intended). Taxpayers pay more money for Viagra prescriptions than any kind of transgender related healthcare services.

    (you need an account to see links)


    Oh and sorry folks you've already been working among transgender military members.

    So just because the ban comes up all of a sudden all these problems that didn't exist before are going to happen if the ban doesn't go through? No wait, they are already happening?

    Just like when they tried to keep transgenders from using certain restrooms. Like HELLO!!! they were already using whatever hell restroom they wanted to.


    People should be allowed into the military on a case by case basis, that what recruiting, boot camp, mental and physical assessments do. We should not arbitrarily ban a group of people based on any sort of generalization.

    Race, Women, Sexual Orientation, Transgender. Those are the groups of people that have been discriminated against in the military.

    And like I said, the mental health argument for sexual dymorphism doesn't fly because it is a bullshit diagnosis that is going to be removed in 2018.

    Just like women suffering from "hysteria" was a bullshit diagnosis that got removed.

    Just like homosexuality being a mental health disorder was a bullshit diagnosis that got removed.


    Transgenders in the military isn't something new, it isn't something that is causing a problem in military units, and it isn't costing a shit ton of money on the medical bills.
    Last edited by Stocking Anarchy; 07-27-2017 at 07:21 AM.







  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stocking Anarchy For This Useful Post:

    Foxglove (07-29-2017),Mindfang (07-27-2017)

  12. #27
    I_royalty_I's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    7,020
    Userbars
    78
    Thanks
    6,786
    Thanked
    10,957/3,908
    DL/UL
    30/0
    Mentioned
    1,998 times
    Time Online
    435d 9h 54m
    Avg. Time Online
    2h 29m
    Quote Originally Posted by Osomatsu View Post
    i suppose this goes to you and everyone talking about dysphoria etc.

    hormones arent that much of an issue. you can go months/weeks without them and wont face any adverse affects. i cant speak for oestrogen, but i can speak for testosterone injections and say that, at most, you get a sore ass for a few days after the injection. will that stop a trained soldier from working? not at all. will going off hormones be a bit unpleasant? yes, definitely. will it completely incapacitate that trained soldier so that theyre whining about dysphoria and unable to function due to the oppressive depression? fuck no.

    and thats the thing about all of this: trans people arent miserable all the time. do you really think a trans person would sign up for the military if they knew they werent 100% capable due to their dysphoria? and besides: the dysphoria usually comes with being unable to transition, be it due to lack of funds, dangerous home life, being too young, stuff like that. usually thats what brings about the depression. if a trans person has access to these things, youll find their risk of suicide and depression becomes non existent.

    and for the record, theres barely any trans people that are completely incapacitated by their dysphoria to the point where they cannot work. you see the thing about being unable to work as a trans person, is the discrimination. being unable to transition, feeling dysphoric, being depressed, it usually all comes around due to the current state of trans issues in the world, and the fact that theyre discriminated against. and also this idea that were all so delicate and cry uncle at the slightest sign of oppression: are you serious? why is it, then, that cis people are constantly so quick to tell us how brave we are for transitioning? are we only brave on your terms? is our strength really not that impressive to you at all despite your words then? are we strong and brave or arent we? and if we are, isnt that what being in the military is all about?

    transitioning is a big deal for trans people, but it isnt as big a deal as its being made out to be here. it wont kill you, it wont make you unable to work. even the dilating is simple! you can do that in the bathroom before or after you go pee in the morning! you can give yourself injections-- and theres more than just injections when it comes to hormone intake. you can get a gel that you rub into your skin if youre a trans man, or you can take a pill if youre a trans woman. another thing you can do in the morning that takes maybe 2 minutes.
    You mention those things happen partly due to being unable to properly transition. Under Obama, the pentagon was required to pay for these expenses. I'm sure there are folks who signed up simply to reap this benefit because we all know anything having to do with health care can be very pricey. I'm sure that's not the case for all though.

    There are other issues to worry about too. The harshness of war leads soldiers to see some pretty insane things. Even the strongest, toughest folks can crack. They might seem fine one minute, then break down the next. That's the reality though. If you're already feeling that way, perhaps stepping into a battle zone wouldn't be the best. There were statistics put out that I read, before all this, where if one member of your group commits suicide, the chances of another from the same group go up quite a bit. War is just nasty. Having somebody already prone to those kinds of thoughts can be dangerous. That's why they already reject people who fall into that kind of category.

    The one thing I will say is that not all roles involve being on the battlefield. Some roles put you behind a screen or researching this or that. For those I'm sure exceptions could be made. The only issue is that once one exception is made, somebody will always want another to be made. It's just a lot to consider and I feel like this decision was kind of sprung on everyone. Even the heads of the military branches were said to be surprised. That's coming from CNN so who honestly knows lol.
    What's my definition of success?
    Creating something no one else can
    Being brave enough to dream big
    Grindin' when you're told to just quit
    Giving more when you got nothin' left

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to I_royalty_I For This Useful Post:

    Mophead (07-28-2017)

  14. #28
    Stocking Anarchy's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,371
    Userbars
    11
    Thanks
    929
    Thanked
    1,627/650
    DL/UL
    182/0
    Mentioned
    145 times
    Time Online
    47d 8h 56m
    Avg. Time Online
    23m
    Quote Originally Posted by I_royalty_I View Post
    You mention those things happen partly due to being unable to properly transition. Under Obama, the pentagon was required to pay for these expenses. I'm sure there are folks who signed up simply to reap this benefit because we all know anything having to do with health care can be very pricey. I'm sure that's not the case for all though.
    I wonder since when was it looked down upon to sign up to the military for the benefits? I mean you are signing your body and years of your life away to the U.S. government.


    Pretty sure that is how the recruitment officers get you in.

    Sign up and get free tuition, get your college loans pardoned, get free medical and if you are hurt in combat or killed we will take care of you/your family.

    Next people are going to say they don't want their tax dollars paying for military members to get college degrees, they already have a job in the military right? What do they need to get a different degree for?







  15. #29

    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,686
    Thanks
    1,085
    Thanked
    4,321/1,337
    DL/UL
    15/0
    Mentioned
    208 times
    Time Online
    98d 13h 33m
    Avg. Time Online
    39m
    i just think, since people put a lot of stock into the whole military thing, that they should be happy to be supplying them with healthcare? theyre off fighting for your country after all, why not give them the bare minimum of care?

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Mindfang For This Useful Post:

    Stocking Anarchy (07-28-2017)

  17. #30


    haiqtpi's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    226
    Userbars
    6
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked
    316/158
    DL/UL
    19/0
    Mentioned
    120 times
    Time Online
    21d 35m
    Avg. Time Online
    9m
    If viagra is covered for veterans, whatever transgender service members require should be supplied. We are talking about such a small portion of the population, the cost is irrelevant. The reasoning given by the white house is idiotic--not only have congressional hearings suggested otherwise, but the countries allowing open transgender service members have as well. If the fucking Israeli armed forced allows this, then there is no reason for us not to. These people are in a constant state of warfare, if it hasn't fucked their shit up, I think that we will be JUUUUUSST fine--consider it tested and passed. This is about marginalizing, and the thing is, we as a country need to stick together and have everyone's back. The erosion of rights for even the smallest minority is very dangerous, for the rest of us, because we are all minorities in some sense of the word.

    Also, @(you need an account to see links): "However, transgender people or those who identify as such and are on hormones are 100% dependant on those hormones to be the gender they identify with, and the risk of being unable to access these medications is high."

    This is incorrect on a few levels. They do not require hormones to be the gender that they identify with--they ARE that gender, and are simply looking for physical characteristics, partially in an attempt to seek more acceptance from society because they think that physical qualities define gender--idiotic if you ask me--if Angelina Jolie has her breasts removed, is she still a woman? What about males born without penises, or with deformities?

    With regards to your statement regarding access to medication--if other countries have not seen big issues with this, then I think that we are fine. I once again point to the Israeli armed forces.
    Queen Bee

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •