How would you know? You don't have time to read actual science.
The transgender experiment is over in the military
- Thread starter AC_Exotic
- Start date
When a scientific discipline becomes politicized, it's no longer science. It's propaganda.
You sure are passionate about the homosexuality issue. While most of us disagree with you, I just want you to know that we love you for whoever you are and just want you to be happy.
I'm still waiting for you to link those studies that prove that homosexuality is a mental illness.
Do some reading before the 1974 politicalization of the APA. It's not hard to find. Google can be your friend.
Says who? An ancient book of fables that also claims some guy came back from the dead after a week, a woman got pregnant without insemination, some guy made the Red Sea split so people could walk across it, some guy built an ark and managed to fill it with two of every form of life on the planet including things he didn't know existed, that we have to do what some invisible force tells us to or we'll be tortured for eternity by some other invisible force that has horns, a pitchfork, and a pointed tail, that some guy commanded an army of zombies, and a mystical being said abracadabra and created the multi-billion year old universe in 6 days 6,000 years ago?
You'll have to forgive me for believing science over a book of religious fairy tales.
Uh huh. I've already posted two links addressing that. But they were links to scientific stuff, so I'm sure you won't have the time to read them.
I didn't realize there were people still stuck in the early 1900s. You must think this internet thing we are conversing on is magic.
That's why I asked rather than asserted that is what you were saying...to be clear.
I'll again ask though....should the rare nature of a scenario be a factor in deciding how much people should care or view the injustice they believe is being done in your opinion? If that is your opinion, I'm good with it. Not that you would give a flip with what I'm good or not good with.
I will confess that I was getting a Scott Adams "Wizard Trump" vibe from your post re: manipulation so I went and watched his commentary video where he talked about the transsexual ban. He basically said that people would be talking about the trans issue whether or not his tweet was meant as a distraction. Said he didn't know whether this was more word wizard work (paraphrase). He did talk about the fact that Trump tried to make it a financial issue rather than an ethics one in his tweets. I think he tried to made it about both and people here have addressed both reasonably and rationally. I even agreed with Adams's underlying stated personal opinion on the issue. He said that he generally had a willingness for higher costs associated with full access to the military, but that it does reach a point that the financial costs could outweigh his preference for openness to all to serve.
Anyway....It was not my intent to attack, mischaracterize, or strawman you. I value and seriously consider your input on this board and I hope you know that.
'saul good, man! And yes, your opinion does matter to me. As do a few others here who I won't mention. The rest of you dorks, not so much. But I digress...
should the rare nature of a scenario be a factor in deciding how much people should care or view the injustice they believe is being done in your opinion?
Yes, and no. Like the chances of being a victim of a terrorist attack, the chances of being a transgender person who wants a career in the military appear to be mind-numbingly low for the amount of conversation it's getting right now.
The difference of course is that one thing is a clear affront against humanity and the victims are dead. In the other, like it or not there is a degree of social engineering going on that may or may not have the optimum efficiency of the greatest military in world history in mind, and any victims of this latest decree via tweet are not dead - they just have to find a different job.
So, if .03% of Americans identify as trans - and we intend to be intellectually honest, we should ask a few questions. First, what % of adults seek employment via the US military? A quick google search suggests .4%. So If 3 people out of 1000 are trans, and we don't include any other cultural biases or contexts that would make it more or less likely for a trans person to join the military, it would take 250 trans people to find one who wanted to join the military.
Military enlistment age is 17-35. So there is an 18 year window available for trans people who would not be disqualified by any other means such as the one which DQ'ed me (asthma), diabetes, failing PT minimums and on and on. I think there's even a minimum IQ requirement, so there are a lot of things that would whittle down overall population numbers which we can only guess about - but let's start with the overall US population and disregard all those things for a minute.
The US population is 323 million. So, going back to our numbers (3 in 1000, and 1 in 250) to find our trans warrior, it would take (gimme a second.... I was told there wouldn't be math)....
population: 323mm
3 in 1000 are trans
It takes 250 trans to find 1 military.
it takes 83,330 Americans to fine one military trans.
3816 trans in a pop of 323 million of which, maybe 25% are 17-35 = 954.
So, less than 1,000 who might be active military if these numbers are right.
And if that "1" just represents someone who wants to join the military rather than someone who is active military, the numbers drop even more precipitously, as the military only accepts 20% of applicants according to the Washington Times. That would drop it to 191 people.
The other question I would want answered is probably going to piss someone off, but can we tell the diff between people who are legit victims of gender dysmorphia and those who actually ARE mentally ill and need treatment to help accept their own bodies and genders? Does that '3 in 1000' include both types of "trans" people, or does it filter out those who are transitionally trans and likely to be cured or kill themselves after mutilating their own bodies? What are the real numbers of people who need civil rights protection (gender dysmorphia) vs those who need psychological help? Anyone really know? It's not an either or thing.
Regardless....
As regards whether this is a legit multipage discussion, sure it is. But more and more I am getting tired of discussing what culture and media TELL us is important - when they are often distractions. I'm pretty sure Trump stirred this shit up to create a tar baby for the progressives who can't resist taking the bait. I tend to give Scott Adams a lot of credibility on this stuff. The timing of this after the DNC tried to rebrand itself as Trump Lite with the whole 'better deal' thing makes this seem pretty likely that we are dancing to Trump's tune by talking about this page after page. Which, I admit also is kind of funny. But I don't think this is important compared to other more important things going on.
More important things:
1. The abject failure of the GOP congress to push through the GOP president's agenda items. Yes he bears some, maybe a lot of blame, but it's patently obvious the establishment GOP is roadblocking agenda items that aren't neocon approved. That's some bullshit and these bitch ass republicans need to be held to account.
2. The Debbie Schultz IT guy. That looks like a huge story that could derail everything we've been told for nearly a year.
3. Were DTjr and son in law set up? It sure smells like it. Is Mueller investigating any angle besides the media narrative? Would really like to know. I want to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, but not much out of DC is remotely honorable and I don't see why this guy should be considered so.
4. North Korea will have a reliable ICBM in early 2018. That seems bad. 22 million people in Seoul SK, a hundred miles from the DMZ. This could be saber rattling, but it seems like a legit hair trigger apocalyptic situation brewing.
I realize not everything has to be important or affect a lot of people to be worth unpacking and discussing, so this is just like, you know, my opinion man.
Well if they have to keep taking the treatments is that not like diabetes in a way? Just trying to better understand your position
I just thought I had seen that 40% number. I did not mean to imply that was a fact.
Nope. Not russled. Not married to a tranny either. I can put a picture of my wife as my avatar if you'd like. I'm not an activist of any sort. I'm just a firm believer in equal and respectful treatment of everyone who hasn't declared themselves to be human scum by their actions such as rapists, murderers, child molesters, terrorists, etc.
I'm enjoying abusing the guy who's gone from "science," to it's his belief, back to "science," and now "history" to defend his view. I'm a science guy myself. I honestly don't give a shit what his beliefs are. Pick a position and stick with it. If it's going to be "science," then be prepared to be questioned on it. You can only ride one water slide at a time. You look damn dumb trying to go down 4 at once.
Still looking. Can't find any science that supports your stance. Help me out.
No, not like diabetes at all. If you stop taking insulin or oral glycemic agents, your blood sugar will rise and if left untreated, you'll develop diabetic ketoacidosis which will be fatal without administration of insulin. A transgender who stops taking hormones might have unpleasant side effects similar to menopause, but it isn't something that is ever life threatening.
The reality of diabetics is that their health depends on predictable calorie intake to coincide with their medication and predictable energy use. That isn't achievable in the military, even in basic training.
I'm not holding you to the 40%. Different numbers from different sources. The rate of suicide is definitely much higher though. That's not arguable. What the cause of that higher rate is though.
Next you are going to try to convince us that the sun is not really Apollo driving his golden chariot across the sky and that lighting bolts are not hurled to the ground by Zeus.
Oh no way. I'm a firm believer in Zeus. He tried to kill this lady. He's yet to stand trial for his crime.
As long as there are no abhorrent sinners there too.
Oh no way. I'm a firm believer in Zeus. He tried to kill this lady. He's yet to stand trial for his crime.
She probably deserved it. Must have given some dude a blow job or sinned in some other way.
I'm going to be completely inappropriate in this post. Ban me, delete it, do whatever, but I just cannot waste this opportunity.
That lady appears to be short some teeth. I'm not sure why men by the millions don't line up at her door for blowjobs. You wouldn't put your penis in a vagina with teeth, would you?
Why did you choose Christianity for your references of fairy tales? Why not another religion? Do Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists get a pass?...don't forget the Jews!
I would imagine it might be because the person he was quoting and to whom he was responding is a professed Christian and his stated positions in this thread are based at least in part on his Christian principles.
Maybe....
Probably....
Almost surely.
Last edited:
Nope, but I'm pretty sure there aren't any Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists posting in this thread. There might be some Jews. We'll need to check with NZ Poke.
^^^^^This 100%^^^^^
FYI, a good portion of Medic's post referred to items from the first 5 books of the bible (otherwise known as The Torah), so the Jews likely understood his references. In addition, the overwhelming majority of non-Christians, who grew up in this country, are likely aware of the portion of the Bible that discusses the birth of Jesus, and the story of his resurrection.
Read my previous link. Lots of information out there on the motivation for the change. I honestly don't know if they were right or wrong. I just like debating even if I have little time.
Perhaps the thinking before was BS. Perhaps today it is.
From a theological perspective, I have no problem with the suggestion that some are born with a predisposition towards homosexuality or transexuality. I believe the Bible teaches that we are all born in sin. For a practicing Christian it is wrong to act on sinful predisposition we were born with. Lying, stealing, murder, adultery, homosexuality.
Our nation is going to do whatever we are going to do. Transgenders are going to serve again in the military in the very near future.
And that fact, though surprising to some who have been adults for 20 plus years, is not a shock at all to me. We live in a post Christian America. In fact, according to George Barna, even most church attendees do not possess a biblical world view (and that has been the case for at least 15 years in America).
So we are where we are, for better or worse, and as always are the sum of our collective moral compass.
You're not abusing anyone.
There was a change from 1974 on from the APA regarding their position on homosexuality. There was a powerful pro-gay political lobbying group that pressured them to change their position. It's clear there were several in the organization already sympathetically inclined to accommodate such a change. The change occurred and now is not a point of contention except among outliers.
According to the APA in 2017, homosexuality is not a mental illness.
I am admittedly an outlier that is in agreement with Freudian analysis of the condition.
Last edited:
Here's the thing. I don't believe in god. I'm not religious. I don't identify as any sect of non-believer, such as atheism. I'm just a guy with my own individual beliefs.
I've read quite a bit of the bible as cultural enrichment. I'm not offended by the bible, public prayer, prayer in school, religious symbols, "In God We Trust," or anything else. During moments of prayer I take a moment of silence, such as when grace is said or sporting events. My youngest daughter who shares the same beliefs as my wife and I is a gymnast at a Christian centered gym. They pray there before and after every practice which is every day except Sunday. She has no issues with that. My oldest daughter used to attend church regularly. My wife or I took her nearly every Sunday and sometimes on Wednesday for years because she wanted to go to church. She has a job now and doesn't go as often.
I simply respect the beliefs of others provided they aren't criminal. I do find that some people who identify as Christian aren't as open to respect of each individual. That's fine by me. I'm not here for their acceptance nor do I require it and I'm not interested in forcing my beliefs on anybody else.
Doing my job for 22 years has taught me something I find very valuable for how I live life. Regardless of skin color, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, education, wealth, etc, we're all human. There is no escaping death and ultimately we all become nothing but a memory. I want to be remembered as someone who refused to judge people undeserving of my judgement, the person that put his own life on the line to save the life of someone else if needed. However, if you molest kids, rape people, murder people, etc, I'd kill you myself if it was legal.
Then you actually know nothing of Freud's thoughts on homosexuality. Let me help you.
"Sigmund Freud's basic theory of human sexuality was different from that of Ellis. He believed all human beings were innately bisexual, and that they become heterosexual or homosexual as a result of their experiences with parents and others (Freud, 1905). Nevertheless, Freud agreed with Ellis that a homosexual orientation should not be viewed as a form of pathology. In a now-famous letter to an American mother in 1935, Freud wrote:
"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too....
"If [your son] is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency whether he remains a homosexual or gets changed...." (reprinted in Jones, 1957, pp. 208-209, from the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1951, 107, 786)."
Sounds like you are admitting that what your are espousing as "fact' is actually your opinion, and is based on faith rather than science.
Yet, you posted this early in the thread (among other things)...
Normalizing transgenderism is bad science ... and yes, dumb.
I'm fine with you having strong Christian religious beliefs. But, don't try to support them with "science" if the actual scientific proof doesn't exist. Admit that you are sharing opinion and belief.
I'm not disagreeing with you about the impetus behind removing homosexuality from the official list of mental illnesses. I'm just pointing out that maybe it should have never been there in the first place (since there is no science to support that stance). Just like schizophrenia is now considered to be a mental illness when it was once thought to be due to the individual being possessed by an evil demon (or something along those lines).
What I read was wrong. I gladly concede this point.
Because there is zero scientific evidence to support classifying it as a mental illness, not because of some political movement as you suggest. Sound medicine is based on sound science. If there is zero evidence to support something, such as giving 5% dextrose in water as the only treatment for coronary artery thrombosis, then medicine evolves and stops doing what isn't supported by evidence.
This is absolutely something I can respect. I wish you had posted this in the beginning. As I've stated, I'm not one to judge the beliefs of others. But if you claim science as the basis of your belief, I will challenge you. It's just how I'm wired.
This thread is a perfect illustration why Trump did what he did.
The whole Obamacare repeal/replace efforts have been a joke and huge egg on the face of Trump and the GOP.
Democrats have been trying to reposition themselves as more centrist. Most Americans at the moment find practicing transsexuals as weird or repulsive. That Democrats have been pushed back into a radical position of attacking Trump and Mattis on this move which marginalized them in the eyes of a good number of people.
I don't think that this trick will work in 10 years.
The whole Obamacare repeal/replace efforts have been a joke and huge egg on the face of Trump and the GOP.
Democrats have been trying to reposition themselves as more centrist. Most Americans at the moment find practicing transsexuals as weird or repulsive. That Democrats have been pushed back into a radical position of attacking Trump and Mattis on this move which marginalized them in the eyes of a good number of people.
I don't think that this trick will work in 10 years.
Last edited:
Aren't you the person who refers to the Jayhawks as the Gayhawks? I'm assuming it wasn't meant as a slur?
I'm 99.9% sure you have me confused with someone else. But, even if I did post that, at some point in the past, what does that have to do with my post about the New and Old testament?
