creativerealms posted...
OctilIery posted...
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
OctilIery posted...
Materus posted...
Same reason people with other mental illnesses aren't allowed to serve.
Transgenderism isn't a mental illness.
It's a debated subject, actually.
No, it actually isn't. Nobody respected in the field considers it a mental illness.
Isn't Gender Dysphoria a mental illness? That's often a cause for people changing genders.
Gender dysphoria can be considered a mental illness, but not always, and it isn't the same thing as transgenderism, and it goes away after reassignment surgery.
|
Fossil posted...
Do you even serve or are you just pulling s*** out of your ass
You don't need to serve to know statistics, dummy.
|
creativerealms posted...
OctilIery posted...
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
OctilIery posted...
Materus posted...
Same reason people with other mental illnesses aren't allowed to serve.
Transgenderism isn't a mental illness.
It's a debated subject, actually.
No, it actually isn't. Nobody respected in the field considers it a mental illness.
Isn't Gender Dysphoria a mental illness? That's often a cause for people changing genders.
It's a mental disorder, similar to depression or ADHD.
|
(Topic Creator)1 day ago#54
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
Vyrulisse posted...
I find the absolute glee in which people who are Anti-Trump rush to use it as ammo to insult others almost as distasteful as what Trump does.
They're truly a bitter bunch.
Have you seen them post in topics about Obamacare? Many of them wish death on conservatives.
meanwhile conservatives are actively bringing about the death of people by taking away healthcare
Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslash
|
OctilIery posted...
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
OctilIery posted...
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
OctilIery posted...
Materus posted...
Same reason people with other mental illnesses aren't allowed to serve.
Transgenderism isn't a mental illness.
It's a debated subject, actually.
No, it actually isn't. Nobody respected in the field considers it a mental illness.
What is it then?
It's transgenderism. Simple as that.
That's a non-answer.
|
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
_Near_ posted...
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
_Near_ posted...
I love how everyone assumes that military = combat.
Combat is an important aspect of the military, kid.
And most people in the military never see it, child.
A lot of people do.
There are plenty of non-combat roles in the military. More than combat roles. Would you he opposed to Transgender folks serving in these roles?
|
Thanks for the answer.
when you stub your toes it's the SJWs fualt.
|
_Near_ posted...
Do you know WHY trans people have higher rates of depression and suicide? Because you treat them like f***ing second class citizens by doing s*** like banning them from the military.
Do you have proof of that? What would you say about black people having lower suicide rates than white people?
"If the day does not require an AK, it is good." The Great Warrior Poet, Ice Cube
|
DifferentialEquation posted...
_Near_ posted...
Do you know WHY trans people have higher rates of depression and suicide? Because you treat them like f***ing second class citizens by doing s*** like banning them from the military.
Do you have proof of that? What would you say about black people having lower suicide rates than white people?
I'd say we should ban white people from the military?
We are living in a world today where lemonade is made from artificial flavors and furniture polish is made from real lemons.
|
Marvo Rocks posted...
Higher rates of suicide and mental health issues amongst trans people probably wouldn't mix well in combat environments.
Higher rates of suicide and mental health issues are probably linked to all of that discrimination
|
(Topic Creator)1 day ago#61
DifferentialEquation posted...
_Near_ posted...
Do you know WHY trans people have higher rates of depression and suicide? Because you treat them like f***ing second class citizens by doing s*** like banning them from the military.
Do you have proof of that? What would you say about black people having lower suicide rates than white people?
black people are regularly murdered by police instead
Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslash
|
DifferentialEquation posted...
Do you have proof of that?
i don't need to have proof that treating someone like s*** can make them depressed DifferentialEquation posted...
What would you say about black people having lower suicide rates than white people?
doesn't even come close to the higher rates of depression and suicide in trans people, so it isn't comparable. when was the last time a white person got kicked out of their household because they were white? seriously dude
|
mario2000 posted...
DifferentialEquation posted...
_Near_ posted...
Do you know WHY trans people have higher rates of depression and suicide? Because you treat them like f***ing second class citizens by doing s*** like banning them from the military.
Do you have proof of that? What would you say about black people having lower suicide rates than white people?
black people are regularly murdered by police instead
Do you ever stop s***posting?
|
It's also s***ty how the military will continue to be presented as a job for any hardworking American who wants to serve their country.
Support local music.
But not if it sucks.
|
shockthemonkey posted...
It's also s***ty how the military will continue to be presented as a job for any hardworking American who wants to serve their country.
It still is.
|
_Near_ posted...
Fossil posted...
Do you even serve or are you just pulling s*** out of your ass
You don't need to serve to know statistics, dummy.
So that's a no. Gotcha
|
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
shockthemonkey posted...
It's also s***ty how the military will continue to be presented as a job for any hardworking American who wants to serve their country.
It still is.
It never has been. You guys are all here b****ing about this topic meanwhile people have been denied for being partially blind in one eye. No perephial vision test or field reactions test. Just "oh can't read these tiny letters with one of your eyes, unfit for the military".. Go b**** about those disqualafiers too and then you can b**** about how the military is unfair or moving backwards.
Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X
|
Fossil posted...
_Near_ posted...
Fossil posted...
Do you even serve or are you just pulling s*** out of your ass
You don't need to serve to know statistics, dummy.
So that's a no. Gotcha
He's right. There are more non combat than combat positions, and there are plenty of positions where you never even get deployed.
|
Zeeak4444 posted...
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
shockthemonkey posted...
It's also s***ty how the military will continue to be presented as a job for any hardworking American who wants to serve their country.
It still is.
It never has been.
You guys are all here b****ing about this topic meanwhile people have been denied for being partially blind in one eye.
No perephial vision test or field reactions test. Just "oh can't read these tiny letters with one of your eyes, unfit for the military"..
Go b**** about those disqualafiers too and then you can b**** about how the military is unfair or moving backwards.
What are you even mad about?
|
Fossil posted...
_Near_ posted...
Fossil posted...
Do you even serve or are you just pulling s*** out of your ass
You don't need to serve to know statistics, dummy.
So that's a no. Gotcha
Do you want to correct him or just point out that he doesn't have a source? Everything I've seen has said it's at least 1:3 combat specific and non combat specific but everyone must be trained for combat regardless.
Support local music.
But not if it sucks.
|
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
shockthemonkey posted...
It's also s***ty how the military will continue to be presented as a job for any hardworking American who wants to serve their country.
It still is.
It never has been.
You guys are all here b****ing about this topic meanwhile people have been denied for being partially blind in one eye.
No perephial vision test or field reactions test. Just "oh can't read these tiny letters with one of your eyes, unfit for the military"..
Go b**** about those disqualafiers too and then you can b**** about how the military is unfair or moving backwards.
What are you even mad about?
Disqualafiers. Funny how no one cared about them unless it was for "don't ask don't tell" or for this topic now. Edit: you said it's still a job for any hardworking American. I'm calling your bulls*** because it never was.
Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X
|
Zeeak4444 posted...
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
shockthemonkey posted...
It's also s***ty how the military will continue to be presented as a job for any hardworking American who wants to serve their country.
It still is.
It never has been.
You guys are all here b****ing about this topic meanwhile people have been denied for being partially blind in one eye.
No perephial vision test or field reactions test. Just "oh can't read these tiny letters with one of your eyes, unfit for the military"..
Go b**** about those disqualafiers too and then you can b**** about how the military is unfair or moving backwards.
What are you even mad about?
Disqualafiers. Funny how no one cared about them unless it was for "don't ask don't tell" or for this topic now.
Yeah that's definitely fair. Edit: although I didn't mean to make it sound like it was ever a job for all Americans who want to serve, military has a long history of discrimination
Support local music.
But not if it sucks.
|
_Near_ posted...
doesn't even come close to the higher rates of depression and suicide in trans people, so it isn't comparable. when was the last time a white person got kicked out of their household because they were white?
seriously dude
The point is that there is a substantially lower suicide among black people than white people. If you could simply attribute transgender suicide rate to them being treated badly, then why do black people not have at least a little bit higher of a suicide rate than white people instead of a lower one? What evidence do you have to support their poor treatment as the cause of their ridiculously high suicide rate?
"If the day does not require an AK, it is good." The Great Warrior Poet, Ice Cube
|
Marvo Rocks posted...
Garioshi posted...
armandro posted...
The Deadpool posted...
Marvo Rocks posted...
Higher rates of suicide and mental health issues amongst trans people probably wouldn't mix well in combat environments.
Men have higher rates of suicide than women.
Are we having an all woman army now? Sounds like a dumb idea...
Yeah, because like one is totally not waaaay bigger than the other.
So at what point do you draw the line?
Probably at the point where it makes sense. Trans people are a minority and preventing them from joining the military doesn't have a huge impact on it's size or effectiveness. Preventing men from joining would significantly reduce your country's military capability.
*its
Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/
|
shockthemonkey posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
shockthemonkey posted...
It's also s***ty how the military will continue to be presented as a job for any hardworking American who wants to serve their country.
It still is.
It never has been.
You guys are all here b****ing about this topic meanwhile people have been denied for being partially blind in one eye.
No perephial vision test or field reactions test. Just "oh can't read these tiny letters with one of your eyes, unfit for the military"..
Go b**** about those disqualafiers too and then you can b**** about how the military is unfair or moving backwards.
What are you even mad about?
Disqualafiers. Funny how no one cared about them unless it was for "don't ask don't tell" or for this topic now.
Yeah that's definitely fair.
That said I definitely agree this new rule is ridiculous in a lot of ways. A blanket ruling seems to be Americas specialty.
Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X
|
Zeeak4444 posted...
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
shockthemonkey posted...
It's also s***ty how the military will continue to be presented as a job for any hardworking American who wants to serve their country.
It still is.
It never has been.
You guys are all here b****ing about this topic meanwhile people have been denied for being partially blind in one eye.
No perephial vision test or field reactions test. Just "oh can't read these tiny letters with one of your eyes, unfit for the military"..
Go b**** about those disqualafiers too and then you can b**** about how the military is unfair or moving backwards.
What are you even mad about?
Disqualafiers. Funny how no one cared about them unless it was for "don't ask don't tell" or for this topic now.
Edit: you said it's still a job for any hardworking American. I'm calling your bulls*** because it never was.
Poor vision is a legitimate issue on an individual basis to disqualify someone. If you started disqualifying all Asians because their eyesight is worse on average (Random hypothetical), THEN people would complain just like now. When a generalized, non-relevant trait (Transgender) is used to disqualify people because of a subset of traits within the group (Mental illness), then that is simply throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is irrational and discriminatory. If the concern is mental illness, then they can check the same requirements on an individual applicant basis like they already do. But mostly it comes down to protecting their little bureaocracy from outside criticism by limiting atypical members from joining to prevent cases of internal abuse going public. They did the same thing with Blacks and some minoroties several decades ago, and they did the same thing with gays a couple decades ago. It wasn't right then, it isn't right now.
|
Is there an statistic for number of soldiers dead because another soldier committed suicide while on duty? Maybe divided by demographic? So we can point to it and say these are thenloves we could have saved?
We are living in a world today where lemonade is made from artificial flavors and furniture polish is made from real lemons.
|
Pogo_Marimo posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
shockthemonkey posted...
It's also s***ty how the military will continue to be presented as a job for any hardworking American who wants to serve their country.
It still is.
It never has been.
You guys are all here b****ing about this topic meanwhile people have been denied for being partially blind in one eye.
No perephial vision test or field reactions test. Just "oh can't read these tiny letters with one of your eyes, unfit for the military"..
Go b**** about those disqualafiers too and then you can b**** about how the military is unfair or moving backwards.
What are you even mad about?
Disqualafiers. Funny how no one cared about them unless it was for "don't ask don't tell" or for this topic now.
Edit: you said it's still a job for any hardworking American. I'm calling your bulls*** because it never was.
Poor vision is a legitimate issue on an individual basis to disqualify someone. If you started disqualifying all Asians because their eyesight is worse on average (Random hypothetical), THEN people would complain just like now. When a generalized, non-relevant trait (Transgender) is used to disqualify people because of a subset of traits within the group (Mental illness), then that is simply throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is irrational and discriminatory. If the concern is mental illness, then they can check the same requirements on an individual applicant basis like they already do.
But mostly it comes down to protecting their little bureaocracy from outside criticism by limiting atypical members from joining to prevent cases of internal abuse going public. They did the same thing with Blacks and some minoroties several decades ago, and they did the same thing with gays a couple decades ago. It wasn't right then, it isn't right now.
On an individual basis. But they don't judge cases individually. I play amateur pro hockey and have for almost 6 years now including travel to foreign countries. Yet I don't even get tested on my eye sight further than identifying letters on a board. Please tell me how I'm a liability as opposed to anyone wearing glasses where if they lose their glasses they're suddently f***ed. My liability is I have to lose an eye, theirs is having glasses knocked off. I could go on and on with similar examples. So please tell me how blanket disqualafiers are fine in my example but not yours.
Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X
|
Zeeak4444 posted...
Pogo_Marimo posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
shockthemonkey posted...
It's also s***ty how the military will continue to be presented as a job for any hardworking American who wants to serve their country.
It still is.
It never has been.
You guys are all here b****ing about this topic meanwhile people have been denied for being partially blind in one eye.
No perephial vision test or field reactions test. Just "oh can't read these tiny letters with one of your eyes, unfit for the military"..
Go b**** about those disqualafiers too and then you can b**** about how the military is unfair or moving backwards.
What are you even mad about?
Disqualafiers. Funny how no one cared about them unless it was for "don't ask don't tell" or for this topic now.
Edit: you said it's still a job for any hardworking American. I'm calling your bulls*** because it never was.
Poor vision is a legitimate issue on an individual basis to disqualify someone. If you started disqualifying all Asians because their eyesight is worse on average (Random hypothetical), THEN people would complain just like now. When a generalized, non-relevant trait (Transgender) is used to disqualify people because of a subset of traits within the group (Mental illness), then that is simply throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is irrational and discriminatory. If the concern is mental illness, then they can check the same requirements on an individual applicant basis like they already do.
But mostly it comes down to protecting their little bureaocracy from outside criticism by limiting atypical members from joining to prevent cases of internal abuse going public. They did the same thing with Blacks and some minoroties several decades ago, and they did the same thing with gays a couple decades ago. It wasn't right then, it isn't right now.
On an individual basis. But they don't judge cases individually.
I play amateur pro hockey and have for almost 6 years now including travel to foreign countries. Yet I don't even get tested on my eye sight further than identifying letters on a board.
Please tell me how I'm a liability as opposed to anyone wearing glasses where if they lose their glasses they're suddently f***ed. My liability is I have to lose an eye, theirs is having glasses knocked off.
I could go on and on with similar examples.
So please tell me how blanket disqualafiers are fine in my example but not yours.
I did. Specifically: "When a generalized, non-relevant trait (Transgender) is used to disqualify people because of a subset of traits within the group (Mental illness), then that is simply throwing the baby out with the bath water" Using a non-relevant trait (Asian, transgender, gay) to assume a disqualifying trait (Poor vision, mental illness, chronic illness) is present is irrational. And yes, they are always reviewed on an individual basis. As a matter of fact, if a recruiter believes you are qualified to serve despite a disqualifier, they can sumbit a waiver, including for: Medical Mental Health Criminal Education Moral Age
|
It has nothing to do with mental illness. It has been deemed that the appropriate medical response involves reliance on hormones and surgery. The military isn't going to allow people that require consistent access to anything for their health maintenance or may result in long recovery times after procedures.
They won't let you in if you have diabetes.
What would be your response if they they said trans people are allowed, but they can't undergo surgery or receive hormones while they are serving?
|
NeoShadowhen posted...
It has nothing to do with mental illness. It has been deemed that the appropriate medical response involves reliance on hormones and surgery. The military isn't going to allow people that require consistent access to anything for their health maintenance or may result in long recovery times after procedures.
They won't let you in if you have diabetes.
What would be your response if they they said trans people are allowed, but they can't undergo surgery or receive hormones while they are serving?
That's reasonable.
|
OctilIery posted...
and it goes away after reassignment surgery.
Source.
|
Howl posted...
OctilIery posted...
and it goes away after reassignment surgery.
Source.
|
Pogo_Marimo posted...
NeoShadowhen posted...
It has nothing to do with mental illness. It has been deemed that the appropriate medical response involves reliance on hormones and surgery. The military isn't going to allow people that require consistent access to anything for their health maintenance or may result in long recovery times after procedures.
They won't let you in if you have diabetes.
What would be your response if they they said trans people are allowed, but they can't undergo surgery or receive hormones while they are serving?
That's reasonable.
I suppose I'll run with the diabetes thing a bit further. If a person trying to enlist had diabetes, but wouldn't be physically effected by not receiving insulin and their condition wasn't going to result in requiring procedures and they could otherwise pass the physical and mental requirements, surely an exception could be made. If a person who was trans indicated that they didn't require hormones and wouldn't require surgery and could otherwise pass the physical and mental requirements, surely an exception could be made. But that shoots a huge hole in the argument that hormone therapy and surgery are necessary treatments. I don't think a lot of people would stand for that precedent being made, and further, they probably anticipate that soon down the road they will get stuck in a legal challenge about how they need to provide this necessary treatment to people they let in. They're probably trying to avoid that.
|
I'm curious how many trans people actually want to serve in our military.
|
NeoShadowhen posted...
Pogo_Marimo posted...
NeoShadowhen posted...
It has nothing to do with mental illness. It has been deemed that the appropriate medical response involves reliance on hormones and surgery. The military isn't going to allow people that require consistent access to anything for their health maintenance or may result in long recovery times after procedures.
They won't let you in if you have diabetes.
What would be your response if they they said trans people are allowed, but they can't undergo surgery or receive hormones while they are serving?
That's reasonable.
I suppose I'll run with the diabetes thing a bit further. If a person trying to enlist had diabetes, but wouldn't be physically effected by not receiving insulin and their condition wasn't going to result in requiring procedures and they could otherwise pass the physical and mental requirements, surely an exception could be made.
If a person who was trans indicated that they didn't require hormones and wouldn't require surgery and could otherwise pass the physical and mental requirements, surely an exception could be made.
But that shoots a huge hole in the argument that hormone therapy and surgery are necessary treatments. I don't think a lot of people would stand for that precedent being made, and further, they probably anticipate that soon down the road they will get stuck in a legal challenge about how they need to provide this necessary treatment to people they let in. They're probably trying to avoid that.
It does no such thing. Whether to partake in hormone therapy or surgery is the choice of the person in question and may be dependant on whether the person suffers from gender dysphoria that could be treated by those medical options. It's like saying the existence of people with severe anxiety who don't need or benefit from anti-anxiety meds invalidates the need for others to need anti-anxiety meds.
|
Pogo_Marimo posted...
NeoShadowhen posted...
Pogo_Marimo posted...
NeoShadowhen posted...
It has nothing to do with mental illness. It has been deemed that the appropriate medical response involves reliance on hormones and surgery. The military isn't going to allow people that require consistent access to anything for their health maintenance or may result in long recovery times after procedures.
They won't let you in if you have diabetes.
What would be your response if they they said trans people are allowed, but they can't undergo surgery or receive hormones while they are serving?
That's reasonable.
I suppose I'll run with the diabetes thing a bit further. If a person trying to enlist had diabetes, but wouldn't be physically effected by not receiving insulin and their condition wasn't going to result in requiring procedures and they could otherwise pass the physical and mental requirements, surely an exception could be made.
If a person who was trans indicated that they didn't require hormones and wouldn't require surgery and could otherwise pass the physical and mental requirements, surely an exception could be made.
But that shoots a huge hole in the argument that hormone therapy and surgery are necessary treatments. I don't think a lot of people would stand for that precedent being made, and further, they probably anticipate that soon down the road they will get stuck in a legal challenge about how they need to provide this necessary treatment to people they let in. They're probably trying to avoid that.
It does no such thing. Whether to partake in hormone therapy or surgery is the choice of the person in question and may be dependant on whether the person suffers from gender dysphoria that could be treated by those medical options. It's like saying the existence of people with severe anxiety who don't need or benefit from anti-anxiety meds invalidates the need for others to need anti-anxiety meds.
I agree with you, but I'm not sure others would agree with us. I think it would cause an enormous s*** storm if the military just said that people who are serving can't undergo hormone replacement or reassignment surgery.
|
SSJ-JohnLennon posted...
Howl posted...
OctilIery posted...
and it goes away after reassignment surgery.
Source.
@OctilIery
|
No comments:
Post a Comment