Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
All two of them.

About time? Come on this is an infinitesimal portion of the US population. Until recently this was classified as a mental disorder (might still be-don't keep up).

I'm fine with it, but this was no great crime against humanity here as in the real world there statistically aren't many.

Because, as everybody knows, groups become less human when there aren't many of them.

In laugh at your insult and lack of reading comprehension.
No because its less of an actual issue. I'm amazingly less concerned about the rights of one armed blue haired bikers born in Kobe, Japan then I am women.

It was a backwards ban, it got lifted. I don't see why we needed a scoff at hotsauce saying 'about time', even if transgender people don't make up a huge percentage of the American population.

Its still a good thing, and it was still about time.

It would be "about time" if there were a major fight about it. What are we talking here .001% of the population?

It's "about time" because it's another unnecessary discriminatory rule removed. If it effects 1 person or half the population it is a problem, and should have been dealt with before. If the government felt it needed to make the rule in the first place they clearly thought it was a major issue. Just because it does not effect you does not make it a non issue.

 cincydooley wrote:
I mean, if we're really concerned with equality when it comes to military service, we should probably talk about the inequity involved with forced draft registration...

It's a prime example of modern "feminism" wanting to get all the advantages, not realizing that there are downfalls coming with it. Just throwing "divorce law" in here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:


It's "about time" because it's another unnecessary discriminatory rule removed. If it effects 1 person or half the population it is a problem, and should have been dealt with before. If the government felt it needed to make the rule in the first place they clearly thought it was a major issue. Just because it does not effect you does not make it a non issue.

There are legitimate reasons for it. People who identify as "transgender" are mentally unstable and highly at risk for mental affectness. You don't want a red flag risk factor in your staff, especially not in positions where lives are at stake.

 Sigvatr wrote:

There are legitimate reasons for it. People who identify as "transgender" are mentally unstable and highly at risk for mental affectness. You don't want a red flag risk factor in your staff, especially not in positions where lives are at stake.

Are they, or is that your prejudice? Please show evidence that transgender people are mentally unstable (Not that they are at higher risk of mental health problems).

On top of this falsehood, the phrase "mentally unstable" is, in itself, deeply offensive to anyone with a mental health problem, as is the assumption that someone with mental health problems is automatically a risk.

That is not a legitimate reason, just a prejudice, as you have made clear in your previous posts about gender identity.

There are a lot of misconceptions here about military organizations.

Military organizations are not truly "equal opportunity," and candidates are screened for all jobs according to physical standards that would be illegal in the private sector. Militaries do not exist to provide equal opportunity employment, they exist to win wars which often come down to logistics games - who can do job X (which often, but not always, consists of killing people and breaking things) most efficiently. The question we need to ask ourselves is, "Does having permitting someone who fits criterion _____________ help or hurt his or her ability to do job ________________."

I have no idea if a female to male transsexual is as effective (e.g., physically strong, mentally stable, etc.) as his genotypically male counterparts. That's an empirical question, and if you find that the variance is great enough that it requires additional evaluation, then jobs requiring effectiveness in those particular areas should be closed to those individuals.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

There are legitimate reasons for it. People who identify as "transgender" are mentally unstable and highly at risk for mental affectness. You don't want a red flag risk factor in your staff, especially not in positions where lives are at stake.

Are they, or is that your prejudice? Please show evidence that transgender people are mentally unstable (Not that they are at higher risk of mental health problems).

The former Johns Hopkins head of Psychiatry believes it's a mental disorder.

 djones520 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Last I heard there were around 700.000 trans people in the US.

So like Frazz said: An infinitesimal percentage.

The % in the military would be even smaller.

I couldn't care less. But I don't think the military should be paying for their elective surgery.

Every trans person I've met has served in the military.

Mostly women that think they are men I assume?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Last I heard there were around 700.000 trans people in the US.

So like Frazz said: An infinitesimal percentage.

The % in the military would be even smaller.

I couldn't care less. But I don't think the military should be paying for their elective surgery.

Every trans person I've met has served in the military.

Mostly transgender men I assume?

Fixed that for you there.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Last I heard there were around 700.000 trans people in the US.

So like Frazz said: An infinitesimal percentage.

The % in the military would be even smaller.

I couldn't care less. But I don't think the military should be paying for their elective surgery.

Every trans person I've met has served in the military.

Mostly women that think they are men I assume?

Men who are now women.

 djones520 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Last I heard there were around 700.000 trans people in the US.

So like Frazz said: An infinitesimal percentage.

The % in the military would be even smaller.

I couldn't care less. But I don't think the military should be paying for their elective surgery.

Every trans person I've met has served in the military.

I wonder why that is...

If you're trying to draw some parallel of it being because I'm in the military, try again. One of them, I have met simply because I am in the military, the others were all coincidence.

Huh, that's actually a surprise. I sorta assumed you were being slightly facetious. Although, seeing as I have know idea how old you are, you might be an 90yo WWII vet for all I know.