Politics - Episode 9: The Lurking Fear

[smjjames]

 @ anyone who is Polish or can confirm this

 

The article I posted about the veto says the Polish ruling believes the following....is this objective of "impossibilism " valid 

 

The attempt by Poland's Law and Justice party to take control of the judicial system should be seen as part of a wider campaign to dismantle democratic checks and balances on the government’s actions, from its takeover of state media to its capture of the country’s constitutional tribunal.

 

Jarosław Kaczyński, PiS’s leader, has developed a theory known in Poland as ‘impossibilism’, the idea that no serious reform of Polish society and institutions is possible due to these checks and balances, and what he describes as the vested interests of liberal elites and foreigners intent on exploiting the country.

 

Sounds exactly like what they're trying to do, remove all checks and balances to power.

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

would you tell same for example about astronaut?

 

I am not sure I understand the question. All I care about for both soldiers, astronauts, etc. is whether they are physically fit and able to do the job.

 

 

nice dodge, mental health is irelevant? When I stretch it - i have same problem with new ''Alien' movies. I just can't stand that fact that you would pick so volatile and ''disturbed'' people on mission costing bazilions of cash. If it would be on you wouldn't you pick people 'suited' for that job? I think military is very similiar in that regard...

 

 

I wasn't trying to dodge, I really didn't understand your question. So your feeling is that transgender people are not mentally equipped to handle military service, I take it? That seems like a pretty serious accusation, and also a slippery slope.

 

Are women unfit for duty? Hormones and all that. 

 

There already is a mental health requirement for enlistees in the military. The only thing that should matter is if the person can pass that, regardless of anything else. Lets be honest, the military is going to attract some head cases. Their gender identity is pretty low on my list of worries as to who we give access to heavy weaponry.

 

What I am trying to say is that you probably want to minimalize risks and costs associated with it. And yes, I do think that transgender people are not the most mentally stable persons. I think its quite common knowledge that they have to take quite a lot of drugs and go to psychologists.

[Azdeus]

What I am trying to say is that you probably want to minimalize risks and costs associated with it. And yes, I do think that transgender people are not the most mentally stable persons. I think its quite common knowledge that they have to take quite a lot of drugs and go to psychologists.

The only "drugs" that is prescribed for transgender people are hormones, and specialized psychologists evaluate if they really are transgender or if it's something else that is going on and follows the transperson through their transition, that's it.

Some people might have other problems aswell, but that's not exclusively tied to them being trans.

 

You should read up more on that "common knowledge" mate :/

Edited July 27, 2017 by Azdeus

[Chilloutman]

edit: ninjed

Edited July 27, 2017 by Chilloutman

[Rosbjerg]

Feeling out of place has always been dangerous for your mental wellbeing. Being poor, a part of minorites and even worse, something not socially accepted, tend to rake up the suicide numbers.

 

And that has always been used by the empowered to justify discrimination. From forced sterilisation of homosexuals ("they are sick! Look at those suicide numbers!") to even criminalizing poverty.

 

A dandy world view..

[Azdeus]

 

 

What I am trying to say is that you probably want to minimalize risks and costs associated with it. And yes, I do think that transgender people are not the most mentally stable persons. I think its quite common knowledge that they have to take quite a lot of drugs and go to psychologists.

The only "drugs" that is prescribed for transgender people are hormones, and specialized psychologists evaluate if they really are transgender or if it's something else that is going on and follows the transperson through their transition, that's it.

Some people might have other problems aswell, but that's not exclusively tied to them being trans.

 

You should read up more on that "common knowledge" mate :/

 

 

40% suicide rate. Doesn't sound to mentally stable to me. Acting like everything is fine and dandy with transgender people is doing a disservice to them.

 

 

I'm pretty certain that having people harass you, glare at you for looking 'manish' and similar things have nothing to do with it. The massive amounts of hate some of them has to take from society would affect anyone.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Azdeus

[Chilloutman]

I don't disagree with that statement, but I doubt it will change based on being allowed to be part of military. It would need bigger cultural change which can't be forced on people. It have to be natural process

Edited July 27, 2017 by Chilloutman

[Raithe]

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

 

What I am trying to say is that you probably want to minimalize risks and costs associated with it. And yes, I do think that transgender people are not the most mentally stable persons. I think its quite common knowledge that they have to take quite a lot of drugs and go to psychologists.

The only "drugs" that is prescribed for transgender people are hormones, and specialized psychologists evaluate if they really are transgender or if it's something else that is going on and follows the transperson through their transition, that's it.

Some people might have other problems aswell, but that's not exclusively tied to them being trans.

 

You should read up more on that "common knowledge" mate :/

40% suicide rate. Doesn't sound to mentally stable to me. Acting like everything is fine and dandy with transgender people is doing a disservice to them.

I'm pretty certain that having people harass you, glare at you for looking 'manish' and similar things have nothing to do with it. The massive amounts of hate some of them has to take from society would affect anyone.

A second ago you were adamant that they are all ok.

You make yourself look untrustworthy and by that you undermine the case you are advocating for.

I don't think transgenders would appreciate having you advocating for them like that.

He said two different things; one of them that he identified outside(!) influence as a major problem.

[Rosbjerg]

I don't disagree with that statement, but I doubt it will change based on being allowed to be part of military. It would need bigger cultural change which can't be forced on people. It have to be natural process

History disagrees with that statement, it has to be forced - often with violent systemic backlash from those who wish to maintain their status.

 

Then the next generation doesn't understand what all the fuss was about - but one thing is sure- discrimination of X is in no way similar to the discrimination of Y.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

No transgender people in the military, not sure they were so much of a distraction to affect the combat performance.

 

I think t was more of a cost savings move since gender reassignment surgery was becoming a covered benefit. As much as I abhor discrimination of any stripe the military is a different animal than the rest of society and the rules that apply are different. But I suspect the pols will make much more of this than the story deserves. I believe I read there were less than 10 "transgendered" service members in all four branches.

 

 

This study from 2014 estimated over 15k, but can't say how accurate it is.

 

"Our estimates suggest that approximately 15,500 transgender individuals are serving on active duty or in  the Guard or Reserve forces. We also estimate that there are an estimated 134,300 transgender individuals who are veterans or are retired from Guard or Reserve service."

 

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Transgender-Military-Service-May-2014.pdf

 

Another utterly unnecessary and  deplorable  decision  by Trump so he is seen as " the greatest president the USA  " has ever seen

 

He cant pass tax reformation,  build the wall or repeal Healthcare so lets attack the LGBT  community ...the favorite target of bigots and people who are insecure and critical of people different to them

 

And its not enough that someone can fight and die in hellholes like Syria and Iraq as they are patriot ...no now there sexual orientation is suddenly an issue. Its pathetic but at least his supporters now at 38% will continue to say how great he is 

[Hurlshort]

 

40% suicide rate. Doesn't sound to mentally stable to me. Acting like everything is fine and dandy with transgender people is doing a disservice to them.

 

 

 http://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/2016/07/07/new-va-study-finds-20-veterans-commit-suicide-each-day/

 

Acting like everything is fine and dandy with military veterans is doing a disservice to them.

[Guard Dog]

OK, before I get into this let me get one thing out of the way. You all know me and know my social views. So you all can guess my opinion of folks who deal with gender dysphoria by cross dressing, hormone or surgical solutions, etc. If it works for you, do it. And no one should hold it against you. A man is not less of a a human being because he feels more comfortable living as a woman. He is not less deserving of our respect or our protection from discrimination. The same is true of any societal subset, social, religious or otherwise. All any of us wants is to enjoy the time we have on this earth as best as we are able. 

 

Since I cannot walk a mile in trans person's shoes (probably literally as well as figuratively) I am taking no position on whether the decision to bar them from military service was correct. i just don't know enough to answer. It's discriminatory no doubt. But is it necessary?

 

There is something you all need to understand about the military service. Not just  the US, any military service. It is not a social club. It is not a university, or fraternity, or corporation, or job. The rules of normal society, for good or ill, do not apply to military service. It is an institution dedicated to a purpose. It must be able to achieve that purpose with maximum efficiency and effectiveness. The stakes are literally life and death.

 

I served from 1989-1994. When I served gays were forbidden to serve. Was that discriminatory? You bet. Was it wrong morally? Yes. But it was necessary then. An openly gay Marine in 1989 would not have been OK. Not only would he have been in danger from his fellow Marines his very presence would have been detrimental to morale and unit cohesion. That says something ugly about us as a people but that is how the world was then. It was not socially acceptable to be openly gay in 1989. There is no martial reason why a gay Marine cannot serve and do so with distinction. I am 100% certain many have and no one ever knew. But that is just how things were and forcing a change then, even if it was morally right, would have damaged military readiness and capability. That is a fact. Fast forward 10 years, attitudes have changed and no one gives a damn about it. Gays can serve openly and no one cares. The same thing happened in the '30s and '40s when it came to integrating black servicemen. From the days black soldiers were first allowed to join (1862 iirc) the served in segregated units. There was no reason for that beyond military expediency. But that is a thing. I've written here many time the military is a meritocracy. And to a large extent it is. But not always. There are injustices great and petty visited on servicemen by the military every day in the name of "the requirements of the service" as we called it. Things that would not happen in any other environment can happen there. And there is often nothing you can do but suck it up. I believe Manifested and ShadySands will back me up on that.

 

I do not doubt trans servicemen can do the job. And I don't think social attitudes are the problem today like they might have been in the past. For whatever reason the Joint Chiefs are telling the President "this is a problem". And that means the President has to solve it or knowingly accept a reduction in military readiness. Even if the solution is not morally correct. Like I said, the rules of normal society cannot always apply to the military. 

[Tale]

The suicide rate is generally understood to correlate with lack of social support in their case. When the people around them, including family, friends, neighbors, are hostile and discriminatory, that's where a great deal of it originates.

 

Now, progressives are not exactly a a shining beacon of acceptance for transgender issues, regrettably, but they certainly don't have as far to go as conservatives.

[Malcador]

OK, before I get into this let me get one thing out of the way. You all know me and know my social views. So you all can guess my opinion of folks who deal with gender dysphoria by cross dressing, hormone or surgical solutions, etc. If it works for you, do it. And no one should hold it against you. A man is not less of a a human being because he feels more comfortable living as a woman. He is not less deserving of our respect or our protection from discrimination. The same is true of any societal subset, social, religious or otherwise. All any of us wants is to enjoy the time we have on this earth as best as we are able.

 

Since I cannot walk a mile in trans person's shoes (probably literally as well as figuratively) I am taking no position on whether the decision to bar them from military service was correct. i just don't know enough to answer. It's discriminatory no doubt. But is it necessary?

 

There is something you all need to understand about the military service. Not just the US, any military service. It is not a social club. It is not a university, or fraternity, or corporation, or job. The rules of normal society, for good or ill, do not apply to military service. It is an institution dedicated to a purpose. It must be able to achieve that purpose with maximum efficiency and effectiveness. The stakes are literally life and death.

 

I served from 1989-1994. When I served gays were forbidden to serve. Was that discriminatory? You bet. Was it wrong morally? Yes. But it was necessary then. An openly gay Marine in 1989 would not have been OK. Not only would he have been in danger from his fellow Marines his very presence would have been detrimental to morale and unit cohesion. That says something ugly about us as a people but that is how the world was then. It was not socially acceptable to be openly gay in 1989. There is no martial reason why a gay Marine cannot serve and do so with distinction. I am 100% certain many have and no one ever knew. But that is just how things were and forcing a change then, even if it was morally right, would have damaged military readiness and capability. That is a fact. Fast forward 10 years, attitudes have changed and no one gives a damn about it. Gays can serve openly and no one cares. The same thing happened in the '30s and '40s when it came to integrating black servicemen. From the days black soldiers were first allowed to join (1862 iirc) the served in segregated units. There was no reason for that beyond military expediency. But that is a thing. I've written here many time the military is a meritocracy. And to a large extent it is. But not always. There are injustices great and petty visited on servicemen by the military every day in the name of "the requirements of the service" as we called it. Things that would not happen in any other environment can happen there. And there is often nothing you can do but suck it up. I believe Manifested and ShadySands will back me up on that.

 

I do not doubt trans servicemen can do the job. And I don't think social attitudes are the problem today like they might have been in the past. For whatever reason the Joint Chiefs are telling the President "this is a problem". And that means the President has to solve it or knowingly accept a reduction in military readiness. Even if the solution is not morally correct. Like I said, the rules of normal society cannot always apply to the military.

Are the JCS actually saying this is a problem, though ?

[Guard Dog]

Presumably. Other than officers attached to the NSA or other agencies the JCS is the only military members the President typically interacts with as far as advice and policy goes. This was his statement according to USA Today:

 

“After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military,”

 

“Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you.”

[BruceVC]

OK, before I get into this let me get one thing out of the way. You all know me and know my social views. So you all can guess my opinion of folks who deal with gender dysphoria by cross dressing, hormone or surgical solutions, etc. If it works for you, do it. And no one should hold it against you. A man is not less of a a human being because he feels more comfortable living as a woman. He is not less deserving of our respect or our protection from discrimination. The same is true of any societal subset, social, religious or otherwise. All any of us wants is to enjoy the time we have on this earth as best as we are able. 

 

Since I cannot walk a mile in trans person's shoes (probably literally as well as figuratively) I am taking no position on whether the decision to bar them from military service was correct. i just don't know enough to answer. It's discriminatory no doubt. But is it necessary?

 

There is something you all need to understand about the military service. Not just  the US, any military service. It is not a social club. It is not a university, or fraternity, or corporation, or job. The rules of normal society, for good or ill, do not apply to military service. It is an institution dedicated to a purpose. It must be able to achieve that purpose with maximum efficiency and effectiveness. The stakes are literally life and death.

 

I served from 1989-1994. When I served gays were forbidden to serve. Was that discriminatory? You bet. Was it wrong morally? Yes. But it was necessary then. An openly gay Marine in 1989 would not have been OK. Not only would he have been in danger from his fellow Marines his very presence would have been detrimental to morale and unit cohesion. That says something ugly about us as a people but that is how the world was then. It was not socially acceptable to be openly gay in 1989. There is no martial reason why a gay Marine cannot serve and do so with distinction. I am 100% certain many have and no one ever knew. But that is just how things were and forcing a change then, even if it was morally right, would have damaged military readiness and capability. That is a fact. Fast forward 10 years, attitudes have changed and no one gives a damn about it. Gays can serve openly and no one cares. The same thing happened in the '30s and '40s when it came to integrating black servicemen. From the days black soldiers were first allowed to join (1862 iirc) the served in segregated units. There was no reason for that beyond military expediency. But that is a thing. I've written here many time the military is a meritocracy. And to a large extent it is. But not always. There are injustices great and petty visited on servicemen by the military every day in the name of "the requirements of the service" as we called it. Things that would not happen in any other environment can happen there. And there is often nothing you can do but suck it up. I believe Manifested and ShadySands will back me up on that.

 

I do not doubt trans servicemen can do the job. And I don't think social attitudes are the problem today like they might have been in the past. For whatever reason the Joint Chiefs are telling the President "this is a problem". And that means the President has to solve it or knowingly accept a reduction in military readiness. Even if the solution is not morally correct. Like I said, the rules of normal society cannot always apply to the military. 

This is a very good post and again demonstrates your empathy around subjects that most people don't care to understand or would rather just insult 

 

You are very consistent and to be honest you don't understand transgender and you never will but that's normal for most people 

 

All my gay friends are men or lesbian women, none of them particularly like or associate with transgender, they don't understand some of the  transgender views.  I have spoken at various gay clubs on principle to transgender people but apart from a courteous 

hello we didnt chat long 

 

Anyway thanks for the military explanation, why would a gay man be threatened in the army in your era, what I mean is  he would be physically the same as you and others ?

[Malcador]

Depends that's not bull**** though. Vagueness like that is like his FOAF-esque comments about Paris

 

Saw reports the Pentagon is a bit surprised by this, so who knows

[Guard Dog]

Depends that's not bull**** though. Vagueness like that is like his FOAF-esque comments about Paris

 

Saw reports the Pentagon is a bit surprised by this, so who knows

Well, if this is all his own idea then he kicked a hornets nest for no good reason. That would be weapons grade stupid IMO. I certainly would not have put it past him.

 

@Bruce: When you get right down to it, the only difference between a gay person and a straight one is whose company they prefer in the sack. That is it, there is nothing else to it. Put 10 Marines in uniform in a room and ask someone to find the gay one and they could not do it. There is no martial reason why gay servicemen could not serve openly from the get-go. It was entirely social. The same with blacks before the services integrated. There was no reason to segregate other than to not create a disruption. But this is a concern a military commander must take into account. Like I said, it says something ugly about us as a people that a gay marine would have been mistreated or ostracized in 1989 much the same as it does when black (dark green) marines were in the '40's and 50's. But it's how things were. We look back on it now and wonder what the big deal was, but it's not the purpose of the military to "change the world" or anything like that. It has to live in the time it's in.

[Elerond]

Chairman of Joint Chiefs tells U-S military "no modifications" to current transgender policy until implementation guidance given.

 

 

Source: https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/890589409329983489

Edited July 27, 2017 by Elerond

[HoonDing]

Why is a draft-dodger allowed to make any decisions regarding the army?

[redneckdevil]

Why is a draft-dodger allowed to make any decisions regarding the army?

To be fair, Trump has the same right as Hillary then which means they are able to because they are in that position. At the very least something we can be grateful with is that it has to go thru Mattis to be approved. I whole heartedly believe that Mattis knows better than anyone in Washington what's best for our military and defense for our country.

[Gfted1]

Hmm, who was the last president that didnt dodge the draft, Kennedy? Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump....all have shady dealings getting out of Korea / Vietnam.

[Malcador]

Obama was born in 61.

[Guard Dog]

Let's see,

• Hoover was a Quaker and never served in the military for religious reasons
• FDR missed WWI was was SecNav before becoming President. No draft in his day.
• Truman served in the Army and National Guard as an artilleryman in WWI
• Eisenhower was a career military man and the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe in WW2
• Kennedy was a naval officer and PT boat commander in WW2
• Johnson was too young for WWI and too old for WW2 so he never served but there was no draft.
• Nixon was a Navy officer and served in the Pacific in WW2
• Ford was also a Naval Officer and served in the Pacific in WW2.
• Carter was a Navy man and Submariner. He served in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets in the '50's
• Reagan was an enlisted man in the Army when WW2 started. He was later commissioned and served in the Army Air Corps.
• George HW Bush was a Navy fighter pilot during WW2.
• Bill Clinton was given draft deferments for college. When his number was coming up he used influence from Democrat Senator William Fullbright to get an ROTC appointment he never reported to. He didn't actually "dodge" the draft. But he came real close to doing it.
• George W Bush used family influence to get in the Air National Guard.
• Barack Obama missed all the wars. The draft was over. He never served in the military.
• Donald Trump got four deferments for college and failed the draft physical during Vietnam.  

So no presidents ever actually dodged the draft... but the military service bar sure has sunk.