But are you arguing that you endorse Trump's decision or that the Yanks shouldn't pay for the healthcare of transgenders in the military because it is more expensive than the average ?
Both things not being the same by the way.
But are you arguing that you endorse Trump's decision or that the Yanks shouldn't pay for the healthcare of transgenders in the military because it is more expensive than the average ?
Both things not being the same by the way.
But are you arguing that you endorse Trump's decision or that the Yanks shouldn't pay for the healthcare of transgenders in the military because it is more expensive than the average ?
Both things not being the same by the way.
Started arguing about the expense(not really arguing, just saying "why not"). And went along with the flow of the conversation.
If you have noticed I didn't made any claim here other than when responding to other people.
The expense argument is complete nonsense; for one thing, Trump's little sojourns south and even playing golf in Washington every weekend are going to incur vastly higher costs for the military. For another, this whole thing started because of the rightwing hate group Family Research Council.
Mr. Trump and Republican lawmakers had come under pressure from Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian conservative group, and an ally of Mr. Trump’s. Mr. Perkins opposed the bill over spending on transgender medical costs and lobbied lawmakers to do the same.
“Grant repentance to President Trump and Secretary Mattis for even considering to keep this wicked policy in place,” the Family Research Council said in one of its daily prayers last week. “Grant them understanding, courage and willpower to stand up to the forces of darkness that gave birth to it and wholly to repeal it.”
Playing devil's advocate for a second… lets see if we can find ANY (good) reason to justify the WH's blanket ban. I'm going to take the issues one at a time, tell me if I missed anything.
on gender dysphoria
! It is true that transgender folks all suffer from gender disphoria, or 'the feeling that ones body and ones gender are not aligned'. Given how comprehensively this affects the life of people affected by gender disphoria, and given that it usually causes 'distress, anxiety and depression', the military could potentially see anyone affected by it as being unfit for service due to the larger than usual strain they'd put on the military's mental health services. Truth be told, this is a sketchy argument, as the extent to which gender dysphoria will affect an individual's mental condition (which are somewhat cause-effect, but still seperate things) is entirely dependant on the specific individual we're talking about. A blanket ban for this little would be akin to rejecting anyone who 'grew up with a single mother', it's just not sensible.
The above applies to transgender people seeking to join the military before transition.
On 'transgender people strain military resources'
! After transition, I'm afraid we're a little limited with our information regarding the true strain a single individual has on the medical services' healthcare services. From what I've read, it does appear that the Trump team is vastly overstating the burden that 'being transgender' has on the state. And if the viagra thing is to be believed, in the least one could point at favouritism towards men's issues on the military's part.
! Perhaps the one thing where the Trump team has a point is the using of one's military status to have the military pay for a sex-changes operation and the meds associated with it. My (limited) understanding of joining the military is that they'll pay for your medical bills, and given the price associated with having a sex-change (correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's fairly high/person), this could be a reason for denying service. That is, if the military couldn't just solve this by saying 'transgender people welcome, but we won't cover your sex-change operations'. Also, are there really that many cases of transgender folk joining the military and then offloading the cost of their operation onto them? Seems like a very very limited set of circumstances. As for the meds themselves (and hormone treatments) being exorbitantly expensive, I simply don't have the data to confirm if this is true. Even if it were, it'd have to be ridiculously high to justify a blanket ban like this, in a situation where the US military pays for its soldiers' viagra.
! Given all this, it seems that the 'transgender people put too much of a strain on the military's health services' argument is mostly bullshit, and can be dismissed (unless some nice figures showing MASSIVE expenses incurred far above the norm show up, that is. Frankly, I doubt it).
There's then the argument that being transgender in itself is disruptive due to its effect on the other troops… which I personally don't see as anything other than bigotry within military circles. This is a non-issue. Perhaps a very flagrant, flamboyant expression of one's trangender-ness could justify denying service on an individual basis, but there's just not enough there for a blanket ban to be reasonable.
On problems transgender people might encounter in the front line
! Lastly, I've seen some arguments online claiming that due to transgender people's almost daily need to take hormone meds and the such, this can cause problems when fighting in the front lines, as unexpected situations (many of which could occur in war) may make the meds unavailable to the soldier for long periods of time, causing them to become a burden on the troop. But once again, simple solution. Don't put people who are overly dependent on meds for the maintainance of a normal mental and physical state on the front line! Not all military jobs are front line jobs, and I'm pretty sure many transgender people aren't as overly dependent of meds as this argument implies they are. Once again, it may be a reason to deny a specific kind of service (front line combat) to a specific individual, but it's not enough to justify a blankey ban on all transgender folk.
On other options the WH could have taken if they really saw the above issues as a genuine problem
! My takeaway is that if the Trump Whitehouse should really be looking at creating a special set of military rules for transgender people, which would allow the military larger discretion to deal with transgender individuals' special set of circumstances. Perhaps this means exempting sex-swaps from the list of health services that come parcel with the military, and perhaps it means exempting individuals from the front lines if they rely on medication for their normal functioning in a military setting.
Conclusion? A blanket ban on all jobs in the military for all transgender folk is ridiculous, dumb, and exactly what you'd expect from president Doofus.
Playing devil's advocate for a second… lets see if we can find ANY (good) reason to justify the WH's blanket ban. I'm going to take the issues one at a time, tell me if I missed anything.
on gender dysphoria
! It is true that transgender folks all suffer from gender disphoria, or 'the feeling that ones body and ones gender are not aligned'. Given how comprehensively this affects the life of people affected by gender disphoria, and given that it usually causes 'distress, anxiety and depression', the military could potentially see anyone affected by it as being unfit for service due to the larger than usual strain they'd put on the military's mental health services. Truth be told, this is a sketchy argument, as the extent to which gender dysphoria will affect an individual's mental condition (which are somewhat cause-effect, but still seperate things) is entirely dependant on the specific individual we're talking about. A blanket ban for this little would be akin to rejecting anyone who 'grew up with a single mother', it's just not sensible.
The above applies to transgender people seeking to join the military before transition.
On 'transgender people strain military resources'
! After transition, I'm afraid we're a little limited with our information regarding the true strain a single individual has on the medical services' healthcare services. From what I've read, it does appear that the Trump team is vastly overstating the burden that 'being transgender' has on the state. And if the viagra thing is to be believed, in the least one could point at favouritism towards men's issues on the military's part.
! Perhaps the one thing where the Trump team has a point is the using of one's military status to have the military pay for a sex-changes operation and the meds associated with it. My (limited) understanding of joining the military is that they'll pay for your medical bills, and given the price associated with having a sex-change (correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's fairly high/person), this could be a reason for denying service. That is, if the military couldn't just solve this by saying 'transgender people welcome, but we won't cover your sex-change operations'. Also, are there really that many cases of transgender folk joining the military and then offloading the cost of their operation onto them? Seems like a very very limited set of circumstances. As for the meds themselves (and hormone treatments) being exorbitantly expensive, I simply don't have the data to confirm if this is true. Even if it were, it'd have to be ridiculously high to justify a blanket ban like this, in a situation where the US military pays for its soldiers' viagra.
! Given all this, it seems that the 'transgender people put too much of a strain on the military's health services' argument is mostly bullshit, and can be dismissed (unless some nice figures showing MASSIVE expenses incurred far above the norm show up, that is. Frankly, I doubt it).There's then the argument that being transgender in itself is disruptive due to its effect on the other troops… which I personally don't see as anything other than bigotry within military circles. This is a non-issue. Perhaps a very flagrant, flamboyant expression of one's trangender-ness could justify denying service on an individual basis, but there's just not enough there for a blanket ban to be reasonable.
On problems transgender people might encounter in the front line
! Lastly, I've seen some arguments online claiming that due to transgender people's almost daily need to take hormone meds and the such, this can cause problems when fighting in the front lines, as unexpected situations (many of which could occur in war) may make the meds unavailable to the soldier for long periods of time, causing them to become a burden on the troop. But once again, simple solution. Don't put people who are overly dependent on meds for the maintainance of a normal mental and physical state on the front line! Not all military jobs are front line jobs, and I'm pretty sure many transgender people aren't as overly dependent of meds as this argument implies they are. Once again, it may be a reason to deny a specific kind of service (front line combat) to a specific individual, but it's not enough to justify a blankey ban on all transgender folk.
On other options the WH could have taken if they really saw the above issues as a genuine problem
! My takeaway is that if the Trump Whitehouse should really be looking at creating a special set of military rules for transgender people, which would allow the military larger discretion to deal with transgender individuals' special set of circumstances. Perhaps this means exempting sex-swaps from the list of health services that come parcel with the military, and perhaps it means exempting individuals from the front lines if they rely on medication for their normal functioning in a military setting.
Conclusion? A blanket ban on all jobs in the military for all transgender folk is ridiculous, dumb, and exactly what you'd expect from president Doofus.
One Thing you're forgetting, this isn't a new rule. This is the removal of a rule placed at the last minute by the previous administration, and that was right now in consideration, and that would had to be handled by the new one.
People think Trump is going to do anything new, but in fact he is just not doing anything.
In fact what happening with this last two LGBT laws, that were placed in a hurry by the previous administration and that weren't even being implemented and were in consideration?
Is there more laws like this for the LGBT? If there is, why?
So gender is social constructed, or gender has traditional roles attached to them? They aren't the same thing.
Those…. are the same thing.... I'm getting the idea here that half of this is coming about because English clearly isn't your frist language, so you aren't understanding some of the stuff we are saying.
@Wikipedia Entry on :
Social constructionism or the social construction of reality (also social concept) is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication theory that examines the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for shared assumptions about reality.
In simpler terms, a "Social Construct" is simply that we as a species got together and collectively agreed that a particular thing should be a particular way.
The concept that women should look a certain way, shave our legs, wear dresses, wear makeup, be homemakers, pop out babies etc IS a social construct. It is the socially agreed upon "normal" state of things. the way things "Should" be. When people say "Gender is a social construct" that's what they mean. That the traditional definitions of what defines a person's gender beyond body parts is defined by society, and not by physicality. There is no physical reason women need to shave our legs for example, we do it because societal beauty standards evolved to a point that now society looks at women with unshaven legs as weird.
So, if a woman decides to wear a dress to work with unshaven legs, and work tries to write her up or fire her over it, that is discrimination because she did not conform with what society has arbitrarily said is "Acceptable" for her gender.
I get what you're saying, but I don't understand how that has anything to do with Orientation vs Physical debate. You talked of Sexuality problem, who a person likes. Sex problem, what gender belongs. But that isn't, at least not directly, a conversation about gender being a Social construct.
Again, if the above example counts as discrimination, then the exact same logic can be applied to Sexual Orientation.
If a man has a picture of he and his husband hugging on his desk and a manager decides to fire him for it, it's because he did not conform with what society has declared "Acceptable" for his gender, namely that he's attracted to men and not women.
Dos saying Title VII isn't about Social Construct means that there going to be discrimination against Transsexuals?
Trump's statement was not official policy. It was a Tweet. The link I posted was to an official brief filed by the Department of Justice, which IS official. The DoJ statement is a blanket statement applying to ALL LGBT people. They specifically call out Homosexuality and Transgender issues. They are trying to undo years of case law and try to say LGBT people as a whole have absolutely NO protection from discrimination.
That is wrong.
In an attempt to move things back to the actual topic of politics, new from https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2017/07/27/day-189/
1/ The DOJ is arguing that the Civil Rights Act does not protect gay employees from discrimination.
https://t.co/pgfUAEeolq (NY Times)
2/ Joint Chiefs say there will be “no modifications” to the military’s transgender policy.
https://t.co/ZQwHqObVUq (NBC News)
3/ Trump has discussed a recess appointment to replace Jeff Sessions.
https://t.co/W5QukqNxdq (Washington Post)
4/ Lindsey Graham will introduce a bill that curtails Trump's power to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
https://t.co/5dg2RGxeNL (Wall Street Journal)
5/ The Trump administration threatened retribution against Alaska over Lisa Murkowski's no vote on health care.
https://t.co/ECGld5Ah0M (Alaska Dispatch News)
6/ Mitch McConnell is expected to unveil the GOP’s “skinny repeal” bill during today's “vote-a-rama."
https://t.co/TxVX0Yex4N (Politico)
7/ House conservatives say the skinny repeal is untenable.
https://t.co/RZqqhfZzx7 (Washington Post)
8/ Scaramucci blamed Reince Priebus for leaking his publicly available financial disclosure form.
https://t.co/NhCz2C8mH2 (NY Times)
Related:
Scaramucci said his split with Priebus may not be reparable.
I don't know the rules in this Forum, but given the nature of the insult I would guess it could get you Banned. It also shows how low you are when you have to use the nationality of a person to try getting a point.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt being from elsewhere that you are legitimately unaware of the towering incompetence and extreme messiness of the Trump administration, wherein the President frequently makes random non-binding announcements of policy out of the blue that his subordinates and those in administrations "effected" have no clue about, or haven't even discussed with him.
That you thought actually in your actual head, "Hey! If the administration did this it must have been deeply thought through and gone through many meetings and budgetary balancing sessions with lots of serious brow furrowed people in suits!".
Then again plenty of foreign posters here are highly aware of this, including I think a couple other Portuguese, thus not only does Portugal isolate you from this awareness. But being under a rock I guess.
A rock occasionally invaded by statistics.
One Thing you're forgetting, this isn't a new rule. This is the removal of a rule placed at the last minute by the previous administration, and that was right now in consideration, and that would had to be handled by the new one.
People think Trump is going to do anything new, but in fact he is just not doing anything.In fact what happening with this last two LGBT laws, that were placed in a hurry by the previous administration and that weren't even being implemented and were in consideration?
Is there more laws like this for the LGBT? If there is, why?
Thing with law is, the absence of a law is just a valid as the existence of a law. And 'time' doesn't matter. For example, the UK used to have a stupid law for 20+ years that treated children who committed negligent destruction of property as if they were adults. This was removed eventually, thank god, but saying 'the law lasted 20 years' does not justify its existence.
What matters is whether the legal stance of 'banning transgender people from the military' is sensible, regardless of whether this was the default position for a long long time. Often, outdated laws just get entrenched in the system, and as times change (and with the LGBT folk, times certainly HAVE changed), these laws are changed to reflect society. Obama's removal of the law made sense, given today's society and the fairly arbitrary reasons for having the ban in the first place.
Now, can you justify the re-imposition of the ban? I certainly can't, and saying 'oh it was there before anyway' isn't a valid argument. So yeah, uh… try again?
_@Monkey:
One would pretty much have to be living under a rock in Portugal to still be arguing sober rationalism regarding Trump policy in July 2017._
@Bigivel:
I don't know the rules in this Forum, but given the nature of the insult I would guess it could get you Banned. It also shows how low you are when you have to use the nationality of a person to try getting a point.
Can i just second Bigivel here a second? I know you have some sort of personal vendetta against the meditteranean states, MK, but it's really annoying when you use 'you're wrong because you're italian/portuguese and thus misinformed'. It's just bigoted really. Stahp.
5/ The Trump administration threatened retribution against Alaska over Lisa Murkowski's no vote on health care.
https://t.co/ECGld5Ah0M (Alaska Dispatch News)
ahahaha what the fuck. There are so many amazing angles to this.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Can i just second Bigivel here a second? I know you have some sort of personal vendetta against the meditteranean states, MK, but it's really annoying when you use 'you're wrong because you're italian/portuguese and thus misinformed'. It's just bigoted really. Stahp.
I think its really funny that you still haven't figured out why an American from around New York City frequently pokes fun at Italy.
Or that your attempts at some sort of cross-atlantic rally have done been dead, and it's been really clear other Western Europeans here start twitching involuntarily when you waltz in to these threads with your "AS A YUROP I HAVE SOME VIEWS YOU PEOPLE NEED TO HEAR" schtick.
Those…. are the same thing.... I'm getting the idea here that half of this is coming about because English clearly isn't your frist language, so you aren't understanding some of the stuff we are saying.
In simpler terms, a "Social Construct" is simply that we as a species got together and collectively agreed that a particular thing should be a particular way.
The concept that women should look a certain way, shave our legs, wear dresses, wear makeup, be homemakers, pop out babies etc IS a social construct. It is the socially agreed upon "normal" state of things. the way things "Should" be. When people say "Gender is a social construct" that's what they mean. That the traditional definitions of what defines a person's gender beyond body parts is defined by society, and not by physicality. There is no physical reason women need to shave our legs for example, we do it because societal beauty standards evolved to a point that now society looks at women with unshaven legs as weird.
So, if a woman decides to wear a dress to work with unshaven legs, and work tries to write her up or fire her over it, that is discrimination because she did not conform with what society has arbitrarily said is "Acceptable" for her gender.
Nope it doesn't have to do with not understanding you. You're talking of two different things and conflating them by figure of speech. Saying "Gender is a social construct" as a figure of speech to saying that a women and men in society are seen to act and present in a certain way, doesn't directly correlate with the debate of Orientation and the second meaning you're giving to the sentence, and the most literal meaning, and that helps your defense that in fact different your gender is defined by society.
Society -defines how a-> Gender behaves and presents itself.
Gender -defined by-> Society . Or in other words, if people treat you as given gender you're that gender.
Two different things! And there is debate about the second. The patterns of behave and presentation that a society forces people into is accepted by everybody. I assume, there is always someone that disagrees.
Again, if the above example counts as discrimination, then the exact same logic can be applied to Sexual Orientation.
If a man has a picture of he and his husband hugging on his desk and a manager decides to fire him for it, it's because he did not conform with what society has declared "Acceptable" for his gender, namely that he's attracted to men and not women.
All the examples that you talked until now are cases of discrimination. But they don't correlate with the debate of Orientation. With Orientation is mainly about not wanting to treat a person as the gender they identify.
Trump's statement was not official policy. It was a Tweet. The link I posted was to an official brief filed by the Department of Justice, which IS official. The DoJ statement is a blanket statement applying to ALL LGBT people. They specifically call out Homosexuality and Transgender issues. They are trying to undo years of case law and try to say LGBT people as a whole have absolutely NO protection from discrimination.
That is wrong.
Oh, Didn't know about that of the DoJ, maybe later will take a look at their statement in detail.
@Monkey:
I think its really funny that you still haven't figured out why an American from around New York City frequently pokes fun at Italy.
I don't care if you poke fun of Italy. Or the UK. Or any country. I poke fun of America all the time. I do have a problem with dismissing individuals and their arguments based solely on their nationality. It's the difference between saying 'America is fucked up' and saying 'you're American, so you're fucked up'. See what I mean? Anti-country vs Racism.
Same reasoning why attacking the state of Israel is perfectly okay, but dismissing someone because they're jewish is Antisemitic.
Or that your attempts at some sort of cross-atlantic rally have done been dead, and it's been really clear other Western Europeans here start twitching involuntarily when you waltz in to these threads with your "AS A YUROP I HAVE SOME VIEWS YOU PEOPLE NEED TO HEAR" schtick.
touchè on the latter point, can't argue with that, being judged on my attitude and my failures is fair game.
So you agreeing with me. It would be an incentive, right!
The difference is that Transition is not the same as education.
Yep, I agree with you in that they both can be considered an incentive.
But, unfortunately, you're failing to notice that it's ok.
So something doesn't matter if the size is little?
Depends on the conext. Your reasoning here is too limited. You need to think beyond everything fitting into one neat little box.
So let's allow bad behavior given the fact small in size. Corrupt Politicians and corrupt people in general also come with that argument. They are only a small drop in the pool, so what the problem in stealing some money?
Again, bad logic. If I say chocolate tastes good is your immediate response going to be, "So chocolate tastes good on EVERYTHING!?"
There are many people that are ready to fight and die for their country, but are denied because of "pre-existing" condition! Is not the transsexuals, and in fact they made part of that group until 2016.
But are the people who are denied being denied because those pre-existing conditions make them unable to fight? Big difference in why transexuals are being denied.
Healthcare insurance is different than entering military duty. And in insurances right now, Healthcare is the only with such an exception(pre-existing conditions), and certainly one of the main reasons why Obamacare didn't work that well, because that goes against what insurance is.
But what does this have to do with healthcare being provided by the military. Yes, everyone already knows health insurance is different from military duty but that does not mean the 2 can't go together. In fact, if we want a healthy military they should go together.
You're talking of taking care of the military, but here is being discussed entering in it!
Taking care of the military involves growing it too. Also, what about the transexuals already in it? Huh?
And if you think I'm against Viagra spending, I'm not!
And in fact I don't really care if transsexuals can normally go or not to the military. Mainly because before it was allowed, many of them, if really decided into going they would be able to enter in a way or another. And that is why there are already thousand of Transsexuals in the Military.
Still treating the "excuses" given for the decision like it makes no sense and have no weight is obviously bogus.
I'm not treating the excuses like they make absolutely no sense. I'm treating their excuses like they make about as much sense as when black people and gays were banned from the military.
Actually, yeah, I guess I do think the ban makes no sense. At best you can argue the barely there spending. That's about it. The weight of a feather.
Thing with law is, the absence of a law is just a valid as the existence of a law. And 'time' doesn't matter. For example, the UK used to have a stupid law for 20+ years that treated children who committed negligent destruction of property as if they were adults. This was removed eventually, thank god, but saying 'the law lasted 20 years' does not justify its existence.
What matters is whether the legal stance of 'banning transgender people from the military' is sensible, regardless of whether this was the default position for a long long time. Often, outdated laws just get entrenched in the system, and as times change (and with the LGBT folk, times certainly HAVE changed), these laws are changed to reflect society. Obama's removal of the law made sense, given today's society and the fairly arbitrary reasons for having the ban in the first place.
Now, can you justify the re-imposition of the ban? I certainly can't, and saying 'oh it was there before anyway' isn't a valid argument. So yeah, uh… try again?
It isn't a re-imposition though!
It isn't a re-imposition though!
elaborate? There was a ban, then there wasn't, now it might be re-instated. Saying 'we'll ban transgenders' would be to 're-impose' the previously removed ban on transgenders, no?
Or are you referring to the fact that the Trump team deferred the coming into effect of Obama's policy long enough that it hasn't actually been implemented yet? Because that doesn't make your argument any better, there's still no good reason to have the ban in the first place.
elaborate? There was a ban, then there wasn't, now it might be re-instated. Saying 'we'll ban transgenders' would be to 're-impose' the previously removed ban on transgenders, no?
Nope, they had until the beginning of this month to decide if they would implement the news directives, and they delayed it for 6 months(if I'm correct) to make more analyses and give a verdict.
There was never a ban removal on transgenders. The ones that are there, went not as transgenders, and only 255(I believe) are openly transgenders.
Trump just repeated what was already in position. Now the problem of his Tweets people are getting, is if he meant anything more. Like removing the ones that already are there and there was never a problem(that I know of) with them.
Lol, like demography is a word that only exist in the English language. You're funny, I give you that.
My interest in language and linguistics won't let me ignore this. You do understand that the way in which words are commonly used can vary massively, even when the same word exists in other languages, right?
Let me give you a fun example. The word "egregious." You have that in Italian, "egregio." Based on the Italian word, what do you think "egregious" means?
"Egregious" means "atrocious" or "appalling." The complete opposite of what "egregio" means: "distinguished" or "renowned." You can read up on the history of why that's the case but my point is don't act smug when you're out of your element (not to mention you're misusing "demography" when the word is "demographic" – I can be petty, too!). Just because you have a matching word and it has a similar definition doesn't mean you know the common usage. But feel free to derail my actual points by pointing out the technicality that any slice of population is, formally, a demographic.
My interest in language and linguistics won't let me ignore this. You do understand that the way in which words are commonly used can vary massively, even when the same word exists in other languages, right?
Let me give you a fun example. The word "egregious." You have that in Italian, "egregio." Based on the Italian word, what do you think "egregious" means?
"Egregious" means "atrocious" or "appalling." The complete opposite of what "egregio" means: "distinguished" or "renowned." You can read up on the history of why that's the case but my point is don't act smug when you're out of your element (not to mention you're misusing "demography" when the word is "demographic" – I can be petty, too!). Just because you have a matching word and it has a similar definition doesn't mean you know the common usage. But feel free to derail my actual points by pointing out the technicality that any slice of population is, formally, a demographic.
So what is the common usage, know it all?
Source for increasing? I didn't suggested it would increase. I said that unless the recruits increased it would easily surpass the 10%.
Ok, tell me what in the world you're talking about. What is "it" to you? Because you definitely said the percentage of transgender people receiving surgery would surpass 10% because I can quote you on that…
_'…the number easily will surpass 10% in 3 to 12 years."
-Bigivel_
But can you at least understand the others line of reasoning?
Yeah, I can also understamd the line of reasoning when a child doesn't want to eat their brocolli because they heard it's nasty.
And the fact that each transsexual will in the end certainly be more expensive than a regular soldier.
To start a real debate you first have to understand what is the line of reasoning of the other say(or supposedly the one it is using to further their agenda).
Once again, if you're mistakenly making this a budget issue the military can easily pay for their healtchare. Healtchare that as I already pointed out will vary greatly between each individual becuase not every is even going to want to do surgery or make that decision in the military.
Making this a monetary issue is probably the only and worse excuse that Trump could come up with and flies about as far you'd expect it.
Nope, they had until the beginning of this month to decide if they would implement the news directives, and they delayed it for 6 months(if I'm correct) to make more analyses and give a verdict.
There was never a ban removal on transgenders. The ones that are there, went not as transgenders, and only 255(I believe) are openly transgenders.
Trump just repeated what was already in position. Now the problem of his Tweets people are getting, is if he meant anything more. Like removing the ones that already are there and there was never a problem(that I know of) with them.
Key word here. Delayed. Not stopped, not averted, delayed. The new directives have already been passed, it's just about implementation, which can take time and can be delayed up to a certain amount of time. To change the directives that remove the ban would be to reinstate the ban. Maybe it's a language barrier thing, I'm pretty sure we both understand the situation and you're just (unreasonably, I'd say) nitpicking the specific word I used.
Fact of the matter is, none of what was said in the last 5 posts we've made is an argument in favour of the ban. If you want to talk logistics and implementation, that's a different issue. I'm only interested in the merits and de-merits of Trump's claim of 'not allowing transgender people in the military', which as I've already argued, is not substantiated by any good enough reason.
Key word here. Delayed. Not stopped, not averted, delayed. The new directives have already been passed, it's just about implementation, which can take time and can be delayed up to a certain amount of time. To change the directives that remove the ban would be to reinstate the ban. Maybe it's a language barrier thing, I'm pretty sure we both understand the situation and you're just (unreasonably, I'd say) nitpicking the specific word I used.
Fact of the matter is, none of what was said in the last 5 posts we've made is an argument in favour of the ban. If you want to talk logistics and implementation, that's a different issue. I'm only interested in the merits and de-merits of Trump's claim of 'not allowing transgender people in the military', which as I've already argued, is not substantiated by any good enough reason.
Have they been implemented? I heard the military stated they wouldn't make any changes into given formal direction to do so, which Twitter ain't.
Ok, tell me what in the world you're talking about. What is "it" to you? Because you definitely said the percentage of transgender people receiving surgery would surpass 10% because I can quote you on that…
_'…the number easily will surpass 10% in 3 to 12 years."
-Bigivel_
Yeah, I can also understamd the line of reasoning when a child doesn't want to eat their brocolli because they heard it's nasty.
Once again, if you're mistakenly making this a budget issue the military can easily pay for their healtchare. Healtchare that as I already pointed out will vary greatly between each individual becuase not every is even going to want to do surgery or make that decision in the military.
Making this a monetary issue is probably the only and worse excuse that Trump could come up with and flies about as far you'd expect it.
7000 -> people
100 people asked surgery -> 1.4% of the 7000
year passes
+100 people asked surgery -> 2.8%
year passes
+100 people asked surgery -> 4.2%
…
Like I said, unless the number increased, the 7000. The yearly request easily will make that more than 10% of the people in that group requested surgery!
Why not just stop this boring "Should taxpayers pay for the transgender soldiers to change sex?" debate ?
And of course it's not to save money that Trump doesn't want of them in the army anymore. If so then he would have said "okey they can stay/join, the military will take in charge their healthcare but not the operation".
Like removing the ones that already are there and there was never a problem(that I know of) with them.
How can they remain if they're banned from serving in any capacity?
Have they been implemented? I heard the military stated they wouldn't make any changes into given formal direction to do so, which Twitter ain't.
See, I'm pretty much as clueless as you on this one, hence my wish to only debate the merits and demerits of the ban…
Key word here. Delayed. Not stopped, not averted, delayed. The new directives have already been passed, it's just about implementation, which can take time and can be delayed up to a certain amount of time. To change the directives that remove the ban would be to reinstate the ban. Maybe it's a language barrier thing, I'm pretty sure we both understand the situation and you're just (unreasonably, I'd say) nitpicking the specific word I used.
Fact of the matter is, none of what was said in the last 5 posts we've made is an argument in favour of the ban. If you want to talk logistics and implementation, that's a different issue. I'm only interested in the merits and de-merits of Trump's claim of 'not allowing transgender people in the military', which as I've already argued, is not substantiated by any good enough reason.
Nope, The delay was the decision to pass them. They were still deciding in which way to go. There was nothing definitive about it.
Again What I'm saying is that he did nothing. In fact the only thing he did, was saying he wasn't in favor of the past proposal. He doesn't need to do anything, not even wait for the 6 months of delay to pass.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
How can they remain if they're banned from serving in any capacity?
They already were.
And that is why the heads of the military are saying things will stay the same until he clarifies this. Because people are taking it as meaning he will remove the ones that were able to be on duty when is not allowed by law.
So what is the common usage, know it all?
Largely contextual, but referring to say, sufferers of a particular medical problem as a "demographic" feels very unnatural (maybe even cruel). It tends to be in a social sense. But it wouldn't surprise me if you tried to claim that being trans is, in fact, a disease.
Largely contextual, but referring to say, sufferers of a particular medical problem as a "demographic" feels very unnatural (maybe even cruel). It tends to be in a social sense. But it wouldn't surprise me if you tried to claim that being trans is, in fact, a disease.
I don't agree that referring to sufferers of a particular medical problem as a demographic is unnatural, and certainly not cruel. Just depends on the context. If we're talking patients at a hospital, saying 'the cancer patient demographic has an average age of 60, while patients receiving treatment for chickenpox have an average age of 10' is perfectly acceptable.
My two cents would be that demographic is rarely used in the singular, and is more commonly used in the plural 'demographics', referring to an accumulation of statistical data about people/society.
7000 -> people
100 people asked surgery -> 1.4% of the 7000
year passes
+100 people asked surgery -> 2.8%
year passes
+100 people asked surgery -> 4.2%
…Like I said, unless the number increased, the 7000. The yearly request easily will make that more than 10% of the people in that group requested surgery!
Which brings me back to my first point that these increases you're citing are based on what data?
But maybe this is just an example because you don't have the data, which is fine. In fact, let's assume 1.4% a year request in surgeries is accurate, that is such a small number it only proves the point even further that them being burdensome to the military is rubbish.
My two cents is that this is a moot conversation. The condescending responses, contradictions between posts and cheap argument tactics like useless rhetorical questions should tell you all there's no point in arguing this one out.
Giving what we all know is a distraction the time of day like it's worth discussing it is a waste of everyone's time.
Not to mention it's thoroughly derailed the thread from the discussion of actual politics.
To help with that, here's a link to my list to today's Wtf Just Happened Today
Giving what we all know is a distraction the time of day like it's worth discussing it is a waste of everyone's time.
If it were just by itself, it might conceivably be a distraction but in concert with the DOJ's position on Title VIi, it's pretty clearly the opening salvo of a barrage of anti-LBGT material.
If it were just by itself, it might conceivably be a distraction but in concert with the DOJ's position on Title VIi, it's pretty clearly the opening salvo of a barrage of anti-LBGT material.
Um I think you mean "thrifty budgetary concerns".
If it were just by itself, it might conceivably be a distraction but in concert with the DOJ's position on Title VIi, it's pretty clearly the opening salvo of a barrage of anti-LBGT material.
I'm referring to the fact that the whole notion of "how much does it cost the military?" is a bullshit reason given we know the tweet was just the result of Dumbass in Chief wanting to get his agenda approved by the evil league of evil.
Not to mention it's thoroughly derailed the thread from the discussion of actual politics.
To help with that, here's a link to my list to today's Wtf Just Happened Today
I've seen distractions from a thread's purpose and this by far is not one of them.
Seeing as how the topic is on a the president of the United State's thoughts on banning transexuals from the military this is a highly appropriate thread to discuss the merits and reasoning around it.
The conversation itself going nowehere and a being a dumb argument is….another matter.
I don't agree that referring to sufferers of a particular medical problem as a demographic is unnatural, and certainly not cruel. Just depends on the context. If we're talking patients at a hospital, saying 'the cancer patient demographic has an average age of 60, while patients receiving treatment for chickenpox have an average age of 10' is perfectly acceptable.
My two cents would be that demographic is rarely used in the singular, and is more commonly used in the plural 'demographics', referring to an accumulation of statistical data about people/society.
I don't entirely agree with you, although obviously when the scope of the remark is literally a study of people suffering from various diseases at a hospital, that significantly changes things. The word "demographic" still feels forced to me in your sentence though. But I'm now going to take the advice to stop perpetuating a rather pointless discussion.
I've seen distractions from a thread's purpose and this by far is not one of them.
Seeing as how the topic is on a the president of the United State's thoughts on banning transexuals from the military there is no better place to discuss the merits of that than this thread.
And even that's been sidetracked multiple times because of people nitpicking one detail or another when the whole thing boils down to our President being an idiot, shooting his mouth off on Twitter, and making declarations that the people who would implement those declarations are actively against and contradicting. That last part strikes me as the story to discuss, if any of it.
I've seen distractions from a thread's purpose and this by far is not one of them.
Seeing as how the topic is on a the president of the United State's thoughts on banning transexuals from the military this is a highly appropriate thread to discuss the merits and reasoning around it.
Except we already know the reasoning, and it's not what you guys are discussing, so you're ultimately discussing the merits of a boogeyman.
Everyone knows that this is a stupid, needlessly harmful distraction from the Senate Healthcare faceplant cycle. It doesn't even have any actual effects since the Joint Chiefs nixed it.
And yet we still spend several pages arguing over it. I think the media's ADD is rubbing off on us.
Everyone knows that this is a stupid, needlessly harmful distraction from the Senate Healthcare faceplant cycle. It doesn't even have any actual effects since the Joint Chiefs nixed it.
And yet we still spend several pages arguing over it. I think the media's ADD is rubbing off on us.
If it had we'd have been able to abandon this topic long ago
And even that's been sidetracked multiple times because of people nitpicking one detail or another when the whole thing boils down to our President being an idiot, shooting his mouth off on Twitter, and making declarations that the people who would implement those declarations are actively against and contradicting. That last part strikes me as the story to discuss, if any of it.
The whole thing always boils down to that and that has never stopped people from railing against his bullshit anyway. That's the thread.
Trump does or says something stupid.
People get angry and discuss why it was stupid.
Rinse and repeat.
Except we already know the reasoning, and it's not what you guys are discussing, so you're ultimately discussing the merits of a boogeyman.
I see no problem in combating misinformation and going over exactly why Trump's reasoning was bullshit.
–---------
Not to be obstinate or anything on the conversation being too long. I just think labeling it as a distraction from the politics thread, as if it didn't come from the president, is inaccurate.
I see no problem in combating misinformation and going over exactly why Trump's reasoning was bullshit.
That was already done in several posts during that whole diatribe. It should be over now.
It was at a point where it wasn't about combating misinformation but about multiple people beating the same dead horse. If you want to combat misinformation, multiple pages of multiple people discussing with the same person is not how you do it, that just makes navigating this more of a mess and a nuisance and ultimately just kills actual conversation.
Well, it's over now.
What would actually be a distraction is starting an argument over whether another argument was a distraction.
I'm just amazed we saw something dumb enough to draw the ire of MK, Foo, and Afro all at once
once-in-a-lifetime dumbassery, brought to you by AP Forums.
Ok instead of the suave sleazy but competent guy Scaramucci was threatening to be in my mind… he uh...
Choice quote
“I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock,”
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
So he's a crazy person drama grenade blowing shit up within the ranks of the White House.
And the funniest funniest thing of all here is ten bucks Trump is super happy with this and thinks it's good.
Trump is about to get a bill to sign into law.
"Senate backs Russia sanctions, sends bill to Trump" - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-sanctions-idUSKBN1AC1U8
Is this going to be the first legislature he's gotten? If so I find it very amusing.
–-------
GOP senators hold press conference to demand assurances that GOP health plan does not become law
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-senators-hold-press-conference-214228639.html
The best part is the near-unanimous support for the bill in both houses, meaning that Trump either signs something limiting his own power despite his posturing or loses even more face when the legislature overrules him.
The EU is actually furious over that Russia sanctions bill and is willing to do countermeasures.
The EU is actually furious over that Russia sanctions bill and is willing to do countermeasures.
What? Why? Wouldn't they also want-
Looks into it
Oh ffs it's about oil pipelines
The EU is actually furious over that Russia sanctions bill and is willing to do countermeasures.
To give this a little more context, it's because the EU is afraid the sanctions will negatively affect them as well.
@Article:
Juncker said the bill could have "unintended unilateral effects" on the EU's energy security. "This is why the Commission concluded today that if our concerns are not taken into account sufficiently, we stand ready to act appropriately within a matter of days," Juncker said. "America first cannot mean that Europe's interests come last."
Germany, which strongly backs the new pipeline, said it was concerned over the sanctions. It would be "unacceptable for the United States to use possible sanctions as an instrument to serve the interests of US industry policies," Foreign Ministry spokesman Martin Schäfer said Wednesday.
France called the US bill "unlawful" due to its "extraterritorial reach," saying it could impact Europeans if enacted. "We have challenged similar texts in the past," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. "To protect ourselves against the extraterritorial effects of US legislation, we will have to work on adjusting our French and European laws."
Gotta make that money.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/07/26/europe/russia-us-sanctions/index.html