Jump to content

Master Trump Thread


LeChat
Message added by LeChat,

Hi, everyone.

 

I'm just helping chime in, here, doing my Admod duty as the cover Admod for the PPS forum of helping make sure members' discussions remain fair and respectful for everyone.

 

As the TOS and PPS forum rules' threads mention, please, remember that members are allowed to disagree, respectfully, without getting into personal, negative judgments or insults about other members.

 

If it helps, they have some tips and/or advice on how to disagree with other members, respectfully.

 

Thank you!

 

LeChat,

Welcome Lounge, Announcements, and Alternate Language moderator

(covering the PPS forum)

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

You missed that they are lying.  "Progressives" will tell you they are for equality, but they are actually for supremacy.

I can't believe the level of ridiculous this has gotten too

0c81c0f9fd0c242b0e67afed2b77432c--funny-

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ms. Maya the Bee said:

None of these arguements for banning are good, they're just treating trans people with suspicion and assuming that all of us are unstable.

It isn't. If one identify as trans suit yourself. However hormonal treatments, medications, operations etc. is a risk you can't have in the field. That's why people with ADHD etc can't serve either. Not cos they are treated with suspicion, but because of operational reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ThaHoward said:

It isn't. If one identify as trans suit yourself. However hormonal treatments, medications, operations etc. is a risk you can't have in the field. That's why people with ADHD etc can't serve either. Not cos they are treated with suspicion, but because of operational reasons.

But they can serve with ADHD. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ThaHoward said:

It isn't. If one identify as trans suit yourself. However hormonal treatments, medications, operations etc. is a risk you can't have in the field. That's why people with ADHD etc can't serve either. Not cos they are treated with suspicion, but because of operational reasons.

It's completely illogical to assume that someone is unsafe because of hrt or srs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ms. Maya the Bee said:

It's completely illogical to assume that someone is unaafe because of hrt or srs.

According to you? Or according to men and women who actually serve and doctors? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kelpie said:

But they can serve with ADHD. 

Nah

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ThaHoward said:

According to you? Or according to men and women who actually serve and doctors? 

This arguement is circular, do you have any sources for hrt and srs making people dangerous because it seems like complete nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kelpie said:

It basically say "ADHD will disqualify you, but there can be exceptions". Nothing new under the sun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ms. Maya the Bee said:

This arguement is circular, do you have any sources for hrt and srs making people dangerous because it seems like complete nonsense.

I linked to greater chance of cardiovascular issues (NOT desired), depression (also not desired), neurological issues, other effects and a dependancy on medication. 

 

Do you believe that a 18 hour firefight is not causing trauma physically and mentally and you get a break to take meds? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ThaHoward said:

I linked to greater chance of cardiovascular issues (NOT desired), depression (also not desired), neurological issues, other effects and a dependancy on medication. 

 

Do you believe that a 18 hour firefight is not causing trauma physically and mentally and you get a break to take meds? 

That all trans people have those issues is an assumption and stereotyping, cis people can have all of those issues. It isn't a good reason to assume that all trans people are dangerous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are on treatment. Just like why you won't admit a cis person with medical history.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThaHoward said:

According to you? Or according to men and women who actually serve and doctors? 

Let us discuss this with Jesse Ehrenfeld, a Navy Reserve Commander, Afghanistan vet, and a medical doctor who has worked with hundreds of trans patients:

 

Below are a few excerpts:

 

What are some common misconceptions about transgender health care?

 

...There are some poorly done studies involving mental health that have been cited to suggest that trans individuals are at heightened risk of suicide or other mental health challenges solely because they are trans. That’s misinformation. There’s good emerging data demonstrating that when we provide a supportive environment and good high quality care to trans individuals, those issues seem to go away and people do well.

 

Opponents of transgender military service often cite the allegedly exorbitant health care costs of trans troops. Can you speak to that fear?

 

A RAND study commissioned by the Department of Defense found that these costs would actually be quite small. Aaron Belkin also published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine estimating that if the military allowed open service, about 188 individuals across the entire force would be utilize transition-related care in a given year. His cost estimates worked out to 22 cents per month per member of the military. From my perspective, 22 cents is budget dust.

 

There’s also a concern that transgender people may be mentally unstable and thus unsuited for combat.

 

Having worked with transgender soldiers on deployment, I have not seen that at all. At the end of the day, these people are there to do a mission. More than anything else, they want to put on their uniform and do their job. I have not seen any particular burden that’s placed either on an individual or on unit when a trans service member has been a part of the team.

 

Trans troops have now been allowed to serve openly for a year. Have you seen any drawbacks to the new [present trans inclusive] policy?

 

No, but a number of very positive things have happened.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

^^And on that note, can we return to the topic at hand, please. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

Homer was saying "isn't trans people being treated the same as everyone else what people on the Left wanted?"  My response was that, no, that is a lie. Many progressives on the left who say they are for "equality" really want superiority.  They want special privileges. They want revenge against straight white men.

Please read my statement again. I didn't say a word about "left", "right" or what have you. You're smart enough to figure that out on your own.

 

From what I've read so far, Donald's main point against it was the financial aspect, which is pennies when put in perspective.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I watched a couple of videos and read a few articles who support the ban and what I really, really don't understand is why trans folks are often being portrayed as "unsure" or "they want to be a man/woman when it's clear they aren't" and some such. (Won't link these things here; it'll take you 5 secs of search engining or putting a related term into the YT bar)

 

None of the trans people I have ever met were unsure or wanted to be something they weren't. That appears to be the wrong ground to base one's argumentation on. "They're not sure about themselves, so they're not mentally stable enough to 'serve'". From what I have experienced, they are very much sure about themselves. There may be other physical or mental reasons to rule them out as military staff, but banning them just because they are trans is pretty daft imo.

 

Whoops, double post. Feel free to merge.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CaptainYesterday said:

I think it's a pretty clear logical deduction that the ideas you were discussing are left-leaning ideas.  "Trans folks just want to be treated like everyone else" isn't a Right talking point.

I think that "left" or "right" doesn't mean shit in this regard. I'm discussing issues, not directions.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CaptainYesterday said:

I don't think there is much to gain by ignoring the clear pattern of which political identities typically support which issues.

...or by focusing on them. Suggestions aren't inherently good or bad because of the people who propose them. If, say, Bernie came up with the wall, it would have been equally stupid. That's why I like to focus on the actual content.

 

re: actual question

 

What about trans folks who are pre-everything and haven't shown any sign of mental instability?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright then. What's hypocritical about allowing healthy trans folks to join the military?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussion seemed to evolve around trans folks in general, regardless of health or their progress in the process - at least from what I picked up.

 

And the discussion we had actually had two aspects - one left vs right (which I consider to be, er, unhelpful) and one on the actual issue, where we seem to agree. Not being physically and/or mentally qualified should rule people out, regardless of whether they are trans or not.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Homer said:

The discussion seemed to evolve around trans folks in general, regardless of health or their progress in the process - at least from what I picked up.

 

 

 

Depend. I personally only meant people in the middle of  transition or still having the affects of it. Then it was taken as some.. anti trans statement. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ThaHoward said:

If they are on treatment. Just like why you won't admit a cis person with medical history.

How do you know about who the US will admit to its military services and who it won't?   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

I'm not saying they are, but if we ignored these trends then we wouldn't be able to spot things like hypocrisy or corruption.

"Trends" don't enable people to spot hypocrisy or corruption.  Evidence does.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...