Trump bans transgenders from military service

[JohnCA246]

So what is the best way to oppose this? Does contacting representatives do anything? I assume they could pass legislation allowing transgender individuals to serve?

[Greedo punched first]

IIRC, General Mattis was the driving force behind this, no?  

He pushed back against an outright ban but helped to delay a decision on it. I'm assuming Trump in his tweet "with the generals" was the JCS and SecDef. Curious to see how that one was decided, split or unanimous.

Yeah I mean I'm not really behind this decision but I doubt Trump just decided on his own without both the JCS and Mattis supporting it.

A more likely culprit for driving force on this decision: the Vice President.

It was likely Pence.

[Brittain33]

Just out of curiosity, any estimates as to how many transgender actually serve in the armed services?

15000  The largest employer of trans people in the United States.

I think that's a high estimate; I've also seen several thousand. Regardless, more than a few.

CNN just estimated 1600 to 3400, which seemed very low.

I'm intrigued you would say that. I know a lot of transgendered people (I'm gay, spend lots of time on the Internet) and I would still expect the number of out trans people in the military to be a low number. No doubt it will grow over time, but not yet.

[SoLongAtlas]

The total is low. The RAND study I linked a few pages back had the numbers.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The total is low. The RAND study I linked a few pages back had the numbers.

I think the realistic number is around 3,000-4,000, and that may be high-balling.

[Badger]

Either Badger or Reaganfan needs to change their avatar or just quit arguing.  I can't figure out who is who.  

Good to know I am not the only one who has this issue.

It's easy. I'm not a bigoted moron

[Badger]

uhh...it turns out that Trump may have just been lying as usual:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm shocked I tell you. Shocked!

[Badger]

Meh, when I enlisted you couldn't even be openly gay. This isn't that controversial to me or many other people.

Because you have repeatedly demonstrated not just lack of empathy, but outright outright hostility towards anyone different than you.

Pot, meet kettle.

If you mean people of different ideologies or backgrounds, I have very close friends and people whom I respect across the ideological Spectrum, from people who make you look like a Sanders supporter, to my partner who is an avowed Democratic Socialist dash dash I'll be at a gun-toting veteran as well. I deal with people every week if not every day from every racial and cultural background needing help, and have never treated any of them differently, right down to the client whose mother angrily called me a cracker white ass b**** because I didn't make the serious drug charges that the cops caught hit her son on tape red-handed and he confessed to all go away instead he wanted up serving five and a half years instead of the maximum 40 theoretically could have gotten

Now if you mean I don't deal with people different from in that I have an extremely low tolerance for bigots, fools, and morons who rely on catchphrases rather than anything approaching actual intellectual rigor, then yes absolutely.

Which is incidentally why you and I don't talk much.

(Drops mike)

[user12345]

F*** you, Mr. Trump. Can't even argue over an issue like this. There is a right answer and a wrong answer. You choose the wrong one, bigot.

[Badger]

NYT article on it https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/trump-transgender-military.html

They pointed out that this was done on the anniversary of Truman's integration order. Doubtful that that was just a coincidence.

Oh, that would assume Trump or anyone in his administration has a clue about history. It was instead just a happy coincidence reminding people that bigots have always been on the losing end of History

[iratemoderate]

It is amusing to see so many of you take Trump's (or possibly Bannon's?) bait yet once again. It was the focus on these kinds of side issues that cost the Democrats the Midwest.

Much about the whole "transgender" issue is unresolved, and many people—and not just conservatives, but also many feminists and homosexuals—are profoundly and justly skeptical about the logic and aims of the transgender movement. What makes someone a man or a woman? What does it mean to "feel" like a man or a woman?

Despite all the crude references to 1930's Germany being tossed about on Twitter following this policy change, if you look at the laws internationally, so-called transgenders have it much easier than homosexuals, who want nothing more than the freedom to love and settle down with someone of the same sex. No surgery required, no compulsion of others.

This is not the case with transgender movement, which wants to make everyone subordinate objective reality to subjective experience in everything from law to language to intimacy. They also want to have their cake and eat it too, since most transgenders do not have the full surgery (hence the recent rash of "some men have periods!" articles) but still expect (and are able!) to legally change their sex (a biological impossibility). What is more, lesbians are now being shamed for refusing to accept "female" partners who have penises (i.e., men), and heterosexual men are being told that they should "learn to like penises." The whole thing makes a mockery of sexual orientation, which is based on SEX—not this "gender" BS (a postmodern distinction originating in 1970s linguistics). The kind of rhetoric coming from the trans activists is not only profoundly illiberal and regressive, but patently absurd biologically. 

I am not without empathy for these people, but there are limits to my tolerance, especially when I am being coerced into accepting bunk science—be it intelligent design or feelings-based pseudo-biology.

[SNJ1985]

Now if you mean I don't deal with people different from in that I have an extremely low tolerance for bigots, fools, and morons who rely on catchphrases rather than anything approaching actual intellectual rigor, then yes absolutely.

That's how you leftists (I know you're a Republican for some strange reason, but let's call a spade a spade) describe everyone who dares to disagree with you.

Ad hominems are not arguments.

Which is incidentally why you and I don't talk much.

Fine by me.

[Badger]

I can see the court case (if one happens) to base it on discrimination of procedures, singling out one vs. allowance of all care, esp if done via TriCare/VA/base hospitals. Does the DoD have the right to prefer certain care in the overall structure as opposed to all? Would be an interesting SCOTUS case.

This one's not getting fast tracked to SCOTUS.......and it will be interesting to see if they even want to go there.

When Slick Willy created Don't Ask Don't Tell he repeatedly won in the federal courts!

Good thing it's still 1994, right Stormfront?

[Badger]

Now if you mean I don't deal with people different from in that I have an extremely low tolerance for bigots, fools, and morons who rely on catchphrases rather than anything approaching actual intellectual rigor, then yes absolutely.

That's how you leftists (I know you're a Republican for some strange reason, but let's call a spade a spade) describe everyone who dares to disagree with you.

Ad hominems are not arguments.

Which is incidentally why you and I don't talk much.

Fine by me.

Patently wrong. There are intelligent conservatives on this forum whom I have no problem respecting their arguments.

When certain twats can't even put two coherent thoughts together, they are treated as fool's regardless of their ideology

This isn't a liberal conservative divide, trust me I'm not sure which side I'd be on there. Though definitely not the social conservative God is a Republican type you represent assuredly. This is simply the fact I don't suffer fools, and sadly most of them on this forum are in fact conservatives. Even when I disagree with liberals or even moderates, they are generally, though obviously not exclusively, much much much better with explaining their position coherently and persuasively to see at least the kernel of truth behind it than most conservatives here could manage in a thousand years

[SNJ1985]

"Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven. Accept Him as your Savior now."

Sounds "tolerant" to me!

What's ''intolerant'' about that? Anyone can accept that offer, including you.

[SNJ1985]

Edit: Why did you delete your previous comment? Are you scared of discussion or something?

I realized that it might be hypocritical for me to criticize Badger for his grammar right after criticizing him for using ad hominems.

If I were scared of debate, why would I be posting on a forum that is dominated by people who strongly disagree with my views?

[JA]

Edit: Why did you delete your previous comment? Are you scared of discussion or something?

I realized that it might be hypocritical for me to criticize Badger for his grammar right after criticizing him for using ad hominems.

If I were scared of debate, why would I be posting on a forum that is dominated by people who strongly disagree with my views?

You're a closet masochist?

[Badger]

"Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven. Accept Him as your Savior now."

Sounds "tolerant" to me!

What's ''intolerant'' about that? Anyone can accept that offer, including you.

At the risk of sounding like I'm pandering to Thomas just to prove him wrong in our spat a couple posts up, he's absolutely right about that hardly being representative of intolerance. Even though I am a Christian who believes there are many paths to the top of the mountain, seeking one to accept Jesus Christ it's hardly intolerant.

Now, seeking to impose governmental restrictions on a certain group of people because of a few select passages from the Old Testament to cloak just naked bigotry which many Christian denominations don't accept maybe another matter.

[SNJ1985]

I'm not sure, actually. Perhaps it's the whole "anyone who doesn't subscribe to my worldview deserves to rot in a pit of fire for all eternity" thing?

No, no, I must be wrong here. There's no way that a right-winger could ever be intolerant of others!

All I'm doing is telling you what the Bible says.

Also, we all deserve to rot in a pit of fire for all eternity, myself included. Thankfully, we have the option of avoiding that fate.

[Badger]

Edit: Why did you delete your previous comment? Are you scared of discussion or something?

I realized that it might be hypocritical for me to criticize Badger for his grammar right after criticizing him for using ad hominems.

If I were scared of debate, why would I be posting on a forum that is dominated by people who strongly disagree with my views?

Yeah, and I sort of owe you an apology for that this is why you and I don't talk crack. UC tamas though I disagree with your social conservatism and sometimes find your arguments defending them lacking, you do in fact rise above the moron category (usually ) if nothing else you have usually-- more often than I at least-- been a gentleman in your debates despite as you point out being on the distinct minority.

The fact that no one in the mod cave during my time there ever even whispered a word about banning you demonstrates that being a right-wing social conservative will never get you banned here, and the fact no one has ever brought up the subject of banning naso demonstrates being an a****** won't do it either.

[JA]

I'm not sure, actually. Perhaps it's the whole "anyone who doesn't subscribe to my worldview deserves to rot in a pit of fire for all eternity" thing?

No, no, I must be wrong here. There's no way that a right-winger could ever be intolerant of others!

All I'm doing is telling you what the Bible says.

Except nobody cares...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only place anyone may be rotting after death is in a coffin in the ground. Anyway...

At this point, I'm not really sure what this was all about. So, Trump announced a ban on future admission of transgender persons into the military via Twitter after being threatened by House Republicans who said they'd block certain elements of the budget he supports, yet it's not even clear who's going to implement this executive order that has vocal opposition from numerous Congressional Republicans and General Mattis? What the hell was the point of that?

[7,052,770]

Also, we all deserve to rot in a pit of fire for all eternity, myself included.

No we don't, and no you don't. This may be the single most head-scratching belief in all of conservative evangelical Protestantism. What kind of psychological factors drive someone to believe that "everyone deserves eternal torture" and similar absurdity?

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

It is amusing to see so many of you take Trump's (or possibly Bannon's?) bait yet once again. It was the focus on these kinds of side issues that cost the Democrats the Midwest.

It's not "bait" if your policies affect thousands, if not millions of people.

The Democrats, ever since the Civil Rights Era, are the party of the oppressed. What else should the Democrats have done when the Republicans pressed state amendments banning gay marriage? What else should the Democrats do when the Republicans dictate their lives with inane bathroom bills? If the Democrats ever stopped fighting the Republicans' heterosupremacist identity politics, they may as well disband.

And I dare you: go up to a trans person (helpfully, there are several on this forum) and say that their lives are "side issues."

[Devout Centrist]

The military spends five times as much Viagra than it would on Trans medical care

So it should spend money on neither. Problem solved.

Thanks for the giant  you to soldiers with PTSD and erectile dysfunctions.

[SoLongAtlas]

Joint Chiefs had no idea this was coming, including Gen Dunford. They are asking the WH for guidance on what to do next (admin seps, keep them in, etc.) http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/27/politics/trump-military-transgender-ban-joint-chiefs/index.html

So Trump tweeting this out to only score political points with the religious right members of Congress that wanted the Ash Carter guidance tweaked makes sense.