Transgender

[ShanDog]

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Yes. I think if Dolezal was an African who saw herself as a Desi then no one would care.

The fact that she's white and trying to claim she's from an oppressed minority group leads to accusations of cultural misappropriation.

That's why you're getting bizarrely inconsistent replies because nobody wants to address that her being 'secretly' caucasian is the biggest issue.

The problem with Dolzel's claims is that there isn't any known biological cause for something like "trans-racialism" outside basic sexual reproduction between individuals of different phenotype. On the flip side race being socially constructed in the thickest sense of the word means you can't dismiss her as simply delusional or dishonest.

When it comes to trans people they have the opposite problem, Gender (free of identity) as a social category is ontologically grounded or emerges from sex differences and the experiences of trans-gender individuals need conform to social constructs that exist around sex. It has to hinge off either something like brain sex or social essentialism.

 

[CheapCharlie]

I must admit, I don't get the stance. Why can non autistic people play autistic? Non disabled play disabled etc...

Why should Trans people be able to play male or female born roles?

That's the whacked logic those protesting fail to address

 

[medusala]

Can an Australian actor play an American character?

As long as Eric Stonestreet can keep the part of Cameron in Modern Family I dont care.

 

[The Passenger]

Can an Australian actor play an American character?

Well we know Quentin Tarantino can't play an Australian character.

Spoiler

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So The Rock is playing an amputee in his latest movie? It's an outrage that we marginalise disabled actors by not casting a real amputee.

 

[Contra Mundum]

So The Rock is playing an amputee in his latest movie? It's an outrage that we marginalise disabled actors by not casting a real amputee.

...always West Coast supporters.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Did anyone see Dr Debra Soh on Joe Rogan? It's one of his better ones, although he did talk too much.

 

[its free real estate]

So The Rock is playing an amputee in his latest movie? It's an outrage that we marginalise disabled actors by not casting a real amputee.

I watched Lawrence of Arabia recently, and while it is brilliant and Alec Guinness puts in a sterling performance, there's no way that film could be made today.

 

[its free real estate]

Whose rights should prevail here? The female sexual abuse victim or the woman with male genitals?

https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...s-complaint-transgender-woman-toronto-shelter

 

[quotemokc]

Heard an interesting opinion from a Sex Neuroscientist

Basically said that parents pushing transgenderism on their children are really just homophobic. (not in all cases)

They would rather their feminine little Timmy become a straight female instead of becoming gay male Timmy.

 

[Snake_Baker]

It really should be a crime for anyone to overtly interfere with a child's formative sexual development.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

It really should be a crime for anyone to overtly interfere with a child's formative sexual development.

You want our prisons full of teachers, school principals, 'doctors'?

Then who will dole out all of the 'attention deficit' medication to the overly-energetic children?

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

It really should be a crime for anyone to overtly interfere with a child's formative sexual development.

I completely agree. I think there would also be a lot of homophobic parents who would end up facing the same charges.

 

[Hard Ball Get]

You want our prisons full of teachers, school principals, 'doctors'?

Then who will dole out all of the 'attention deficit' medication to the overly-energetic children?

I think you're a little misguided. Teachers and principals are under direction from department. Very, very few would interfere in such a way.

Parents are who you should direct any angst towards.

 

[its free real estate]

It really should be a crime for anyone to overtly interfere with a child's formative sexual development.

Here's the thing that has me puzzled about the modern soft headed liberalism. If kids can consent to sex changes (through hormone therapy), and they can consent to death (as per Belgium), what else should they be able to consent to?

 

[Damp Squarie]

Why Oh why haven't we in Australia got a pollie with this sort of insight??? - Nah we have Sarah Hanson-Young?

Trey Gowdy , South Carolina Congressman, recently responded to a reporter about the military in response to a question from a CNN reporter about the DoD ban of transgenders from joining the U.S. armed forces. As Trey typically does so very well, he nailed it rather succinctly…...

Question: How can President Trump claim to represent all U.S citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, when he banned transgenders from joining the military? Isn't that discrimination?

Trey Gowdy's Response: " Nobody has a right to serve in the Military. Nobody! What makes you people think the Military is an equal opportunity employer? It is very far from it....and for good reasons--let me cite a few."

"The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for being too old or too young, too fat or too skinny, too tall or too short. Citizens are denied for having flat feet, or for missing or additional fingers."

Clearly annoyed by the reporter's attempt to trap him with the question....he went on to explain: "By the way, poor eyesight will disqualify you, as well as bad teeth. Malnourished? Drug addiction? Bad back? Criminal history? Low IQ? Anxiety? Phobias? Hearing damage? Six arms? Hear voices in your head? Self-identification as a Unicorn? Need a special access ramp for your wheelchair?"

"Can't run the required course in the required time? Can't do the required number of push-ups? Not really a morning person? and refuse to get out of bed before noon? All can be legitimate reasons for denial"

"The Military has one job: Winning War. Anything else is a distraction and a liability. Did someone just scream? That isn't Fair?? War is VERY unfair, there are no exceptions made for being special or challenged or socially wonderful."

"YOU must change yourself to meet Military standards.....Not the other way around."

"I say again: You don't change the Military... you must change yourself. The Military doesn't need to accommodate anyone with special issues. The Military needs to Win Wars....and keep our Country safe....PERIOD!"

"If any of your personal issues are a liability that detract from readiness or lethality... Thank you for applying and good luck in future endeavors."
"...any other questions?"

 

[RobbieK]

Why Oh why haven't we in Australia got a pollie with this sort of insight??? - Nah we have Sarah Hanson-Young?

Trey Gowdy , South Carolina Congressman, recently responded to a reporter about the military in response to a question from a CNN reporter about the DoD ban of transgenders from joining the U.S. armed forces. As Trey typically does so very well, he nailed it rather succinctly…...

Question: How can President Trump claim to represent all U.S citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, when he banned transgenders from joining the military? Isn't that discrimination?

Trey Gowdy's Response: " Nobody has a right to serve in the Military. Nobody! What makes you people think the Military is an equal opportunity employer? It is very far from it....and for good reasons--let me cite a few."

"The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for being too old or too young, too fat or too skinny, too tall or too short. Citizens are denied for having flat feet, or for missing or additional fingers."

Clearly annoyed by the reporter's attempt to trap him with the question....he went on to explain: "By the way, poor eyesight will disqualify you, as well as bad teeth. Malnourished? Drug addiction? Bad back? Criminal history? Low IQ? Anxiety? Phobias? Hearing damage? Six arms? Hear voices in your head? Self-identification as a Unicorn? Need a special access ramp for your wheelchair?"

"Can't run the required course in the required time? Can't do the required number of push-ups? Not really a morning person? and refuse to get out of bed before noon? All can be legitimate reasons for denial"

"The Military has one job: Winning War. Anything else is a distraction and a liability. Did someone just scream? That isn't Fair?? War is VERY unfair, there are no exceptions made for being special or challenged or socially wonderful."

"YOU must change yourself to meet Military standards.....Not the other way around."

"I say again: You don't change the Military... you must change yourself. The Military doesn't need to accommodate anyone with special issues. The Military needs to Win Wars....and keep our Country safe....PERIOD!"

"If any of your personal issues are a liability that detract from readiness or lethality... Thank you for applying and good luck in future endeavors."
"...any other questions?"

Yeah, I have a question.

There are 10,000 or more trans people currently serving in the US military. They have managed to get through all of the stringent testing and entry requirements, they have been deemed fit for service. Why did they just become unfit for service? Is the military stronger for losing all of hose servicemen and women?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to deem someone unfit for service. The congressman mentioned a few. People need to meet a certain level of physical and mental apptitude and capacity in order to fullfil the roles expected of them. That's totally reasonable.

It does not follow that because there are some legitimate reasons for deeming aaperson unfit for service that any sort of prejudicial policy is justifiable. It is only justifiable if the characteristic for which a person is being excluded is directly related to their inability to perform their role. The US military doesn't exclude people just because of their race any more, but there was a time when black people were explicitly banned from enlisting for example.

There are many thousands of gay and trans servicemen and women. These are people who have made the grade, passed all the stringent mental and physical tests in order to justify their selection. To tell them they are unfit for service despite that, because of sexual preference or gender identity, is not justified. It is simply prejudice, and a prejudice that weakens the military rather than strengthens it.

 

[demontim27]

Yeah, I have a question.

There are 10,000 or more trans people currently serving in the US military. They have managed to get through all of the stringent testing and entry requirements, they have been deemed fit for service. Why did they just become unfit for service? Is the military stronger for losing all of hose servicemen and women?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to deem someone unfit for service. The congressman mentioned a few. People need to meet a certain level of physical and mental apptitude and capacity in order to fullfil the roles expected of them. That's totally reasonable.

It does not follow that because there are some legitimate reasons for deeming aaperson unfit for service that any sort of prejudicial policy is justifiable. It is only justifiable if the characteristic for which a person is being excluded is directly related to their inability to perform their role. The US military doesn't exclude people just because of their race any more, but there was a time when black people were explicitly banned from enlisting for example.

There are many thousands of gay and trans servicemen and women. These are people who have made the grade, passed all the stringent mental and physical tests in order to justify their selection. To tell them they are unfit for service despite that, because of sexual preference or gender identity, is not justified. It is simply prejudice, and a prejudice that weakens the military rather than strengthens it.

The maximum estimate is about 10,700. It could be anywhere between 2,000 and 10,000

But the military should justify WHY they are being excluded either way.

 

[quotemokc]

Yeah, I have a question.

There are 10,000 or more trans people currently serving in the US military. They have managed to get through all of the stringent testing and entry requirements, they have been deemed fit for service. Why did they just become unfit for service? Is the military stronger for losing all of hose servicemen and women?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to deem someone unfit for service. The congressman mentioned a few. People need to meet a certain level of physical and mental apptitude and capacity in order to fullfil the roles expected of them. That's totally reasonable.

It does not follow that because there are some legitimate reasons for deeming aaperson unfit for service that any sort of prejudicial policy is justifiable. It is only justifiable if the characteristic for which a person is being excluded is directly related to their inability to perform their role. The US military doesn't exclude people just because of their race any more, but there was a time when black people were explicitly banned from enlisting for example.

There are many thousands of gay and trans servicemen and women. These are people who have made the grade, passed all the stringent mental and physical tests in order to justify their selection. To tell them they are unfit for service despite that, because of sexual preference or gender identity, is not justified. It is simply prejudice, and a prejudice that weakens the military rather than strengthens it.

The label 'trans' in the military as far as I know doesn't strictly mean people that are changing gender. 10,000 would be a crazy high number relative to the general population.

I am pretty sure that the label 'trans' in US military circles includes things like men who like to wear dresses.

 

[RobbieK]

The label 'trans' in the military as far as I know doesn't strictly mean people that are changing gender. 10,000 would be a crazy high number relative to the general population.

I am pretty sure that the label 'trans' in US military circles includes things like men who like to wear dresses.

There are more than 2 million people in active or reserve military positions in the US. 10,000 people would represent 0.5% of that population, which is a little lower than the percentage of trans people in the broader community. I don't think the number is "crazy high".

Regardless, the number is of secondary interest. The point is that if even one person is deemed unfit for service despite them meeting all of the existing psychological and physical metrics for.determing fitness because of a characteristic that does not impact on their ability to serve, then the force is weaker for it.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Here's the thing that has me puzzled about the modern soft headed liberalism. If kids can consent to sex changes (through hormone therapy), and they can consent to death (as per Belgium), what else should they be able to consent to?

The ruling class are pushing for pedophilia to be declared a sexual orientation.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Yeah, I have a question.

There are 10,000 or more trans people currently serving in the US military. They have managed to get through all of the stringent testing and entry requirements, they have been deemed fit for service. Why did they just become unfit for service? Is the military stronger for losing all of hose servicemen and women?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to deem someone unfit for service. The congressman mentioned a few. People need to meet a certain level of physical and mental apptitude and capacity in order to fullfil the roles expected of them. That's totally reasonable.

It does not follow that because there are some legitimate reasons for deeming aaperson unfit for service that any sort of prejudicial policy is justifiable. It is only justifiable if the characteristic for which a person is being excluded is directly related to their inability to perform their role. The US military doesn't exclude people just because of their race any more, but there was a time when black people were explicitly banned from enlisting for example.

There are many thousands of gay and trans servicemen and women. These are people who have made the grade, passed all the stringent mental and physical tests in order to justify their selection. To tell them they are unfit for service despite that, because of sexual preference or gender identity, is not justified. It is simply prejudice, and a prejudice that weakens the military rather than strengthens it.

The military has been doing its thing for thousands of years.

It knows what it is doing

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The label 'trans' in the military as far as I know doesn't strictly mean people that are changing gender. 10,000 would be a crazy high number relative to the general population.

I am pretty sure that the label 'trans' in US military circles includes things like men who like to wear dresses.

It looks like the U.S military used to break down the term 'trans' into different phases of development. This is how the U.S Department of Defence defined transgender employee phasess in 2016 (before the latest policy transitions, anyway)

esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/130028p.pdf

transgender Service member.

A Service member who has received a medical diagnosisindicating that gender transition is medically necessary, including any Service member who intends to begin transition, is undergoing transition, or has completed transition and is stable in the preferred gender.

stable in the preferred gender.

Medical care identified or approved by a military medical provider in a documented medical treatment plan is complete, no functional limitations or complications persist, and the individual is not experiencing clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. Continuing medical care, including but not limited to cross-sex hormone therapy, may be required to maintain a state of stability.

RLE (Real Life Experience)

The phase in the gender transition process during which the individual commences living socially in the gender role consistent with their preferred gender.

RLE may or may not be preceded by the commencement of cross-sex hormone therapy, depending on the medical treatment associated with the individual Service member’s gender transition. The RLE phase is also a necessary precursor to certain medical procedures, including gender transition surgery.

RLE generally encompasses dressing in the new gender, as well as using preferred gender berthing, bathroom, and shower facilities

Elsewhere it states;

Gender Transition in the Military.

Gender transition begins when a Service member receives a diagnosis from a military medical provider indicating that gender transition is medically necessary, and concludes when the Service member’s gender marker in DEERS (Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System) is changed and the member is recognized in the preferred gender.

At that point, the Service member will be responsible for meeting all applicable military standards in the preferred gender,and as to facilities subject to regulation by the military, will use those berthing, bathroom, and shower facilities associated with the preferred gender.

I gathered from the .PDF that as long as transitioning service members were fit for duty and could perform without problems then within reason it didn't really matter what they identified as within the U.S military though it appears they could only register as their chosen gender within the military AFTER gender reassignment was complete and that they were stable in their chosen gender.

It all seemed fair to me.

I'd imagine Aussie policy would be similar.

 

[RobbieK]

The military has been doing its thing for thousands of years.

It knows what it is doing

It knew what it was doing when it excluded people based on nothing but their race? I don't know.

The military is an organisation that tends to be slow to react to broader societal change. Often times to its detriment. It regularly needs some outside pressure to bring about change.

The thing about this situation in the US, though, is that this is not a case of the military being behind the times. The request for this policy change didn't come from the military. There wasn't a problem. There wasn't a need. The Pentagon didn't request it or support it. Trump made the decision to implement the ban without consultation for political reasons.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The ruling class are pushing for pedophilia to be declared a sexual orientation.

Should anyone bother asking you for evidence?