My question here is that Trumps statement specifically says that the US government will not accept or allow transgender people to serve in the military in any capacity. Lets break down what a transgendered person could be defined to be!
1) A person who wishes to be referred to and treated as a different gender than their biological sex, without making any changes to their own physical appearance
2) A person who wishes to be referred to and treated as a different gender than their biological sex, and has undertaken surgery or other therapies to modify their own physical appearance
(These first two are the ones trump thinks he's talking about, which is bad enough)
3) A person who has a common genetic abnormality which places them in a non binary biological sex, such as XXY or YY. These people may or may not be aware of their own status. Only a genetic exam would uncover their transgendered status.
4) A person who has a physical abnormality in their genital development which caused them to be assigned to a different sex than their biological sex at birth. This person may or may not be aware of their own status. Only a detailed physical exam would uncover their transgendered status.
He didn't say that transgendered people couldn't serve openly, or that transgendered peoples decisions as their gender identity would be ignored. He said that they had to be purged entirely from the ranks at EVERY level. From janitor to general.
So my question is, when do the genetic exams and detailed examinations of genitalia for ALL troops begin?
Someone is transgender if they identify with something other than the sex they were assigned at birth. This is not necessarily true in either of your last two examples (they just illustrate how the assignment can be arbitrary and "biological sex" doesn't really mean much of anything).
Also please don't say "transgendered".
Switch: SW-2431-2728-9604 || 3DS: 0817-4948-1650
0
Options
scherbchenAsgard (it is dead)Registered Userregular
neither me nor anybody I know is affected by this EO by twitter. I don't even live in the US.
My question here is that Trumps statement specifically says that the US government will not accept or allow transgender people to serve in the military in any capacity. Lets break down what a transgendered person could be defined to be!
1) A person who wishes to be referred to and treated as a different gender than their biological sex, without making any changes to their own physical appearance
2) A person who wishes to be referred to and treated as a different gender than their biological sex, and has undertaken surgery or other therapies to modify their own physical appearance
(These first two are the ones trump thinks he's talking about, which is bad enough)
3) A person who has a common genetic abnormality which places them in a non binary biological sex, such as XXY or YY. These people may or may not be aware of their own status. Only a genetic exam would uncover their transgendered status.
4) A person who has a physical abnormality in their genital development which caused them to be assigned to a different sex than their biological sex at birth. This person may or may not be aware of their own status. Only a detailed physical exam would uncover their transgendered status.
He didn't say that transgendered people couldn't serve openly, or that transgendered peoples decisions as their gender identity would be ignored. He said that they had to be purged entirely from the ranks at EVERY level. From janitor to general.
So my question is, when do the genetic exams and detailed examinations of genitalia for ALL troops begin?
Someone is transgender if they identify with something other than the sex they were assigned at birth. This is not necessarily true in either of your last two examples (they just illustrate how the assignment can be arbitrary and "biological sex" doesn't really mean much of anything).
Also please don't say "transgendered".
I think the last two examples are normally referred to as "intersex." I doubt Trump has even thought about intersex people for one second in his life.
Transgender specific healthcare would cost 1/10th of what the military currently spends on Viagra.
You know, let's say transgender people actually are gaming the system for free reassignment surgery. Just hypothetically. They trade several years of their life, quite possibly all of it, and contend with employment and other prospects we give our veterans these days, not to mention possibly facing that with major disabilities both physical and mental. I think we can call this a trade in the government's favor.
Hevach on
+37
Options
Erin The RedThe Name's Erin! Woman, Podcaster, Dungeon Master, IT nerd, Parent, Trans. AMABaton Rouge, LARegistered Userregular
Hey at least with my coworkers' reactions to that Trump declaration I can know ahead of time who to write off as a loss before it comes time to come out at work.
Transgender specific healthcare would cost 1/10th of what the military currently spends on Viagra.
You know, let's say transgender people actually are gaming the system for free reassignment surgery. Just hypothetically. They trade several years of their life, quite possibly all of it, and contend with employment and other prospects we give our veterans these days. I think we can call this a trade in the government's favor.
these degenerate communist liberals, exchanging their labor for services
how dare they
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
My question here is that Trumps statement specifically says that the US government will not accept or allow transgender people to serve in the military in any capacity. Lets break down what a transgendered person could be defined to be!
1) A person who wishes to be referred to and treated as a different gender than their biological sex, without making any changes to their own physical appearance
2) A person who wishes to be referred to and treated as a different gender than their biological sex, and has undertaken surgery or other therapies to modify their own physical appearance
(These first two are the ones trump thinks he's talking about, which is bad enough)
3) A person who has a common genetic abnormality which places them in a non binary biological sex, such as XXY or YY. These people may or may not be aware of their own status. Only a genetic exam would uncover their transgendered status.
4) A person who has a physical abnormality in their genital development which caused them to be assigned to a different sex than their biological sex at birth. This person may or may not be aware of their own status. Only a detailed physical exam would uncover their transgendered status.
He didn't say that transgendered people couldn't serve openly, or that transgendered peoples decisions as their gender identity would be ignored. He said that they had to be purged entirely from the ranks at EVERY level. From janitor to general.
So my question is, when do the genetic exams and detailed examinations of genitalia for ALL troops begin?
Someone is transgender if they identify with something other than the sex they were assigned at birth. This is not necessarily true in either of your last two examples (they just illustrate how the assignment can be arbitrary and "biological sex" doesn't really mean much of anything).
Also please don't say "transgendered".
Please don't exclude the most common group of people suffering from Gender Identity issues from the conversation. Maybe in our left wing bubble there is a big difference between intersex and transgender, but when Donald Trump says 'All transgender people must be immediately fired' I can assure you he is also including people who do not have a binary biological gender, and those who were effectively given gender assignment surgery at birth. Regardless of whether or not they are aware of it. Because this objection is based on the fact that all people who do not have, or identify with, a binary biological gender are evil.
My question here is that Trumps statement specifically says that the US government will not accept or allow transgender people to serve in the military in any capacity. Lets break down what a transgendered person could be defined to be!
1) A person who wishes to be referred to and treated as a different gender than their biological sex, without making any changes to their own physical appearance
2) A person who wishes to be referred to and treated as a different gender than their biological sex, and has undertaken surgery or other therapies to modify their own physical appearance
(These first two are the ones trump thinks he's talking about, which is bad enough)
3) A person who has a common genetic abnormality which places them in a non binary biological sex, such as XXY or YY. These people may or may not be aware of their own status. Only a genetic exam would uncover their transgendered status.
4) A person who has a physical abnormality in their genital development which caused them to be assigned to a different sex than their biological sex at birth. This person may or may not be aware of their own status. Only a detailed physical exam would uncover their transgendered status.
He didn't say that transgendered people couldn't serve openly, or that transgendered peoples decisions as their gender identity would be ignored. He said that they had to be purged entirely from the ranks at EVERY level. From janitor to general.
So my question is, when do the genetic exams and detailed examinations of genitalia for ALL troops begin?
Someone is transgender if they identify with something other than the sex they were assigned at birth. This is not necessarily true in either of your last two examples (they just illustrate how the assignment can be arbitrary and "biological sex" doesn't really mean much of anything).
Also please don't say "transgendered".
Please don't exclude the most common group of people suffering from Gender Identity issues from the conversation. Maybe in our left wing bubble there is a big difference between intersex and transgender, but when Donald Trump says 'All transgender people must be immediately fired' I can assure you he is also including people who do not have a binary biological gender, and those who were effectively given gender assignment surgery at birth. Regardless of whether or not they are aware of it. Because this objection is based on the fact that all people who do not have, or identify with, a binary biological gender are evil.
I am well aware of the serious issues facing intersex people and I'm not trying to exclude anyone; I'm simply asking you to be respectful and use the correct terminology even if the people doing the oppressing at the moment aren't going to.
Transgender specific healthcare would cost 1/10th of what the military currently spends on Viagra.
You know, let's say transgender people actually are gaming the system for free reassignment surgery. Just hypothetically. They trade several years of their life, quite possibly all of it, and contend with employment and other prospects we give our veterans these days. I think we can call this a trade in the government's favor.
these degenerate communist liberals, exchanging their labor for services
how dare they
It shows where benefits for our soldiers and veterans really stand if, with as bad a deal as they so often get as it is, Republicans seriously want to exclude people because they might, hypothetically, be getting a tiny bit better deal.
My question here is that Trumps statement specifically says that the US government will not accept or allow transgender people to serve in the military in any capacity. Lets break down what a transgendered person could be defined to be!
1) A person who wishes to be referred to and treated as a different gender than their biological sex, without making any changes to their own physical appearance
2) A person who wishes to be referred to and treated as a different gender than their biological sex, and has undertaken surgery or other therapies to modify their own physical appearance
(These first two are the ones trump thinks he's talking about, which is bad enough)
3) A person who has a common genetic abnormality which places them in a non binary biological sex, such as XXY or YY. These people may or may not be aware of their own status. Only a genetic exam would uncover their transgendered status.
4) A person who has a physical abnormality in their genital development which caused them to be assigned to a different sex than their biological sex at birth. This person may or may not be aware of their own status. Only a detailed physical exam would uncover their transgendered status.
He didn't say that transgendered people couldn't serve openly, or that transgendered peoples decisions as their gender identity would be ignored. He said that they had to be purged entirely from the ranks at EVERY level. From janitor to general.
So my question is, when do the genetic exams and detailed examinations of genitalia for ALL troops begin?
Someone is transgender if they identify with something other than the sex they were assigned at birth. This is not necessarily true in either of your last two examples (they just illustrate how the assignment can be arbitrary and "biological sex" doesn't really mean much of anything).
Also please don't say "transgendered".
Please don't exclude the most common group of people suffering from Gender Identity issues from the conversation. Maybe in our left wing bubble there is a big difference between intersex and transgender, but when Donald Trump says 'All transgender people must be immediately fired' I can assure you he is also including people who do not have a binary biological gender, and those who were effectively given gender assignment surgery at birth. Regardless of whether or not they are aware of it. Because this objection is based on the fact that all people who do not have, or identify with, a binary biological gender are evil.
I am well aware of the serious issues facing intersex people and I'm not trying to exclude anyone; I'm simply asking you to be respectful and use the correct terminology even if the people doing the oppressing at the moment aren't going to.
For those of us who live in rural areas where gay people are considered exotic, but genuinely don't want to offend people by using the wrong term, what's the correct term?
Transgender specific healthcare would cost 1/10th of what the military currently spends on Viagra.
You know, let's say transgender people actually are gaming the system for free reassignment surgery. Just hypothetically. They trade several years of their life, quite possibly all of it, and contend with employment and other prospects we give our veterans these days. I think we can call this a trade in the government's favor.
these degenerate communist liberals, exchanging their labor for services
how dare they
It shows where benefits for our soldiers and veterans really stand if Republicans seriously want to exclude people because they might, hypothetically, be getting a tiny bit better deal
Also runs into reality problems, what with the military spending much more on boner bills and bands than trans treatment.
Transgender specific healthcare would cost 1/10th of what the military currently spends on Viagra.
You know, let's say transgender people actually are gaming the system for free reassignment surgery. Just hypothetically. They trade several years of their life, quite possibly all of it, and contend with employment and other prospects we give our veterans these days, not to mention possibly facing that with major disabilities both physical and mental. I think we can call this a trade in the government's favor.
Pretty much, yeah.
And heck, on the financial side alone wouldn't paying for reassignment surgery for the entire Marine Corps still basically be a rounding error in the overall military budget?
It doesn't count as "gaming the system" any more than it would be to get your college paid for.
Healthcare is an incentive to join the military (which is it's own conversation now that I type that out but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯), and if people join the military, do what they gotta do, and then get whatever surgery they need done, good for them.
My question here is that Trumps statement specifically says that the US government will not accept or allow transgender people to serve in the military in any capacity. Lets break down what a transgendered person could be defined to be!
1) A person who wishes to be referred to and treated as a different gender than their biological sex, without making any changes to their own physical appearance
2) A person who wishes to be referred to and treated as a different gender than their biological sex, and has undertaken surgery or other therapies to modify their own physical appearance
(These first two are the ones trump thinks he's talking about, which is bad enough)
3) A person who has a common genetic abnormality which places them in a non binary biological sex, such as XXY or YY. These people may or may not be aware of their own status. Only a genetic exam would uncover their transgendered status.
4) A person who has a physical abnormality in their genital development which caused them to be assigned to a different sex than their biological sex at birth. This person may or may not be aware of their own status. Only a detailed physical exam would uncover their transgendered status.
He didn't say that transgendered people couldn't serve openly, or that transgendered peoples decisions as their gender identity would be ignored. He said that they had to be purged entirely from the ranks at EVERY level. From janitor to general.
So my question is, when do the genetic exams and detailed examinations of genitalia for ALL troops begin?
Someone is transgender if they identify with something other than the sex they were assigned at birth. This is not necessarily true in either of your last two examples (they just illustrate how the assignment can be arbitrary and "biological sex" doesn't really mean much of anything).
Also please don't say "transgendered".
Please don't exclude the most common group of people suffering from Gender Identity issues from the conversation. Maybe in our left wing bubble there is a big difference between intersex and transgender, but when Donald Trump says 'All transgender people must be immediately fired' I can assure you he is also including people who do not have a binary biological gender, and those who were effectively given gender assignment surgery at birth. Regardless of whether or not they are aware of it. Because this objection is based on the fact that all people who do not have, or identify with, a binary biological gender are evil.
I am well aware of the serious issues facing intersex people and I'm not trying to exclude anyone; I'm simply asking you to be respectful and use the correct terminology even if the people doing the oppressing at the moment aren't going to.
For those of us who live in rural areas where gay people are considered exotic, but genuinely don't want to offend people by using the wrong term, what's the correct term?
Someone whose gender identity does not match the sex they were assigned at birth is transgender (or "trans" for short). This can include people with nonbinary gender identities. It does not matter what medical treatments someone has had or intends to have; not everyone chooses to get surgery and you don't need to in order to "count".
Someone who is born with an ambiguous genital configuration is intersex. In a very high percentage of cases, doctors coerce parents to pick a sex to assign the baby or assign it themselves (most places won't let you put anything on a birth certificate other than M or F) and usually also push for "corrective" gentital reconstruction surgery to match whatever was assigned. Which is very often harmful for the recipient down the line in a lot of ways. Even if the parents have the good sense to want to leave the kid alone so they can decide what they want for themselves when they're older, it's excruciatingly difficult to get the medical establishment to go along with it. If an intersex person ends up not identifying with the assigned sex then they're also trans; it's not mutually exclusive. (EDIT: Although I guess even an intersex person who DOES identify with their assigned sex probably deals with a bunch of bullshit that cis people usually don't, so I guess maybe you wouldn't necessarily call them cis? I dunno; I might have been a little hasty about this. It all comes down to how the individual in question feels about it, in the end.)
People with XXY-style genetic abnormalities might also fall under the intersex umbrella? I'm not actually sure about the terminology. Most of the time the abnormality goes undiscovered and their life experiences are indistinguishable from cis people without those genetic conditions. But if it does come up (medical testing for female athletes being the most common case, I think), they can face discrimination as a result. Athletic standards are a shitshow for a lot of reasons, really, but I don't want to have that whole conversation.
Referring to "biological sex" at all in these matters is usually frowned upon, because A) the intersex cases demonstrate that it's kind of arbitrary anyway, and it encourages the false attitude that e.g. a trans woman is "really a man" or "a man who wants to be a woman" instead of just a subcategory of "woman". "Sex assigned at birth" is preferred (AMAB and AFAB stand for "Assigned [Male/Female] At Birth", by the way).
Terms to avoid include, but are not limited to:
transexual (although older generations of trans people still use it for themselves sometimes), transgendered, transwomen (without a space; yes this is a Thing, take my word for it please), pre-op/post-op, and especially "tranny". Also trans women are not drag queens or transvestites. (Well, a given drag queen might theoretically be closeted trans woman who is using drag as an outlet, but that's not the norm.)
The thing that makes me really sad is that even after this bullshit announcement, and considering the fact that Trump and his administration will come for the trans men and women who are currently serving, those brave men and women will still serve dutifully, with honor and integrity. They will uphold their oath and serve their country, a country whose President has clearly stated that they aren't deserving of respect, a country where a sizable portion of the population consider them less than human. And they will continue to serve until they're finally dragged into some bullshit court martial, where they'll be demeaned and disgraced for having the audacity to want to serve their country while being open and honest about who they are as people. They are deserving of the utmost respect and compassion, not the spit in the face they're receiving now.
It just breaks my heart that the trans community still has to put up with this shit. I know it doesn't amount to much, but I'm so very sorry that this is happening.
I really wish headlines would focus on the fact that this means discharging thousands of people, like, today rather than just a bar to theoretical enlistees. He just fired a whole bunch of people who were expecting that paycheck for the rest of their contract. Plus all the other various benefits.
If this goes ala DADT they would receive Other Than Honorable (mentally unfit) correct?
So I cannot speak for the DoD. Lots of damn disclaimers.
But I can say my office does usually hear about changes like this as it affects things I work on.
Nothing out of the Office of the Secretary today.
So this was really a kind of edict via tweet not something from DoD.
This is why the DoD is punting all the questions down field. They weren't actually consulted or informed on this and have no idea how it's actually going to be implemented, who is affected and how, or when it goes into effect.
I really wish headlines would focus on the fact that this means discharging thousands of people, like, today rather than just a bar to theoretical enlistees. He just fired a whole bunch of people who were expecting that paycheck for the rest of their contract. Plus all the other various benefits.
If this goes ala DADT they would receive Other Than Honorable (mentally unfit) correct?
No one knows because there is no policy and no guidance on this. Just three tweets.
ACLU will immediately be filing suit on behalf of anyone asked or told they could no longer serve because they are trans.
I really wish headlines would focus on the fact that this means discharging thousands of people, like, today rather than just a bar to theoretical enlistees. He just fired a whole bunch of people who were expecting that paycheck for the rest of their contract. Plus all the other various benefits.
If this goes ala DADT they would receive Other Than Honorable (mentally unfit) correct?
No one knows because there is no policy and no guidance on this. Just three tweets.
ACLU will immediately be filing suit on behalf of anyone asked or told they could no longer serve because they are trans.
Until further notice, we should operate as if the President of the United States was just engaging in "locker room talk."
My question here is that Trumps statement specifically says that the US government will not accept or allow transgender people to serve in the military in any capacity. Lets break down what a transgendered person could be defined to be!
1) A person who wishes to be referred to and treated as a different gender than their biological sex, without making any changes to their own physical appearance
2) A person who wishes to be referred to and treated as a different gender than their biological sex, and has undertaken surgery or other therapies to modify their own physical appearance
(These first two are the ones trump thinks he's talking about, which is bad enough)
3) A person who has a common genetic abnormality which places them in a non binary biological sex, such as XXY or YY. These people may or may not be aware of their own status. Only a genetic exam would uncover their transgendered status.
4) A person who has a physical abnormality in their genital development which caused them to be assigned to a different sex than their biological sex at birth. This person may or may not be aware of their own status. Only a detailed physical exam would uncover their transgendered status.
He didn't say that transgendered people couldn't serve openly, or that transgendered peoples decisions as their gender identity would be ignored. He said that they had to be purged entirely from the ranks at EVERY level. From janitor to general.
So my question is, when do the genetic exams and detailed examinations of genitalia for ALL troops begin?
Someone is transgender if they identify with something other than the sex they were assigned at birth. This is not necessarily true in either of your last two examples (they just illustrate how the assignment can be arbitrary and "biological sex" doesn't really mean much of anything).
Also please don't say "transgendered".
Please don't exclude the most common group of people suffering from Gender Identity issues from the conversation. Maybe in our left wing bubble there is a big difference between intersex and transgender, but when Donald Trump says 'All transgender people must be immediately fired' I can assure you he is also including people who do not have a binary biological gender, and those who were effectively given gender assignment surgery at birth. Regardless of whether or not they are aware of it. Because this objection is based on the fact that all people who do not have, or identify with, a binary biological gender are evil.
I am well aware of the serious issues facing intersex people and I'm not trying to exclude anyone; I'm simply asking you to be respectful and use the correct terminology even if the people doing the oppressing at the moment aren't going to.
For those of us who live in rural areas where gay people are considered exotic, but genuinely don't want to offend people by using the wrong term, what's the correct term?
Someone whose gender identity does not match the sex they were assigned at birth is transgender (or "trans" for short). This can include people with nonbinary gender identities. It does not matter what medical treatments someone has had or intends to have; not everyone chooses to get surgery and you don't need to in order to "count".
Someone who is born with an ambiguous genital configuration is intersex. In a very high percentage of cases, doctors coerce parents to pick a sex to assign the baby or assign it themselves (most places won't let you put anything on a birth certificate other than M or F) and usually also push for "corrective" gentital reconstruction surgery to match whatever was assigned. Which is very often harmful for the recipient down the line in a lot of ways. Even if the parents have the good sense to want to leave the kid alone so they can decide what they want for themselves when they're older, it's excruciatingly difficult to get the medical establishment to go along with it. If an intersex person ends up not identifying with the assigned sex then they're also trans; it's not mutually exclusive. (EDIT: Although I guess even an intersex person who DOES identify with their assigned sex probably deals with a bunch of bullshit that cis people usually don't, so I guess maybe you wouldn't necessarily call them cis? I dunno; I might have been a little hasty about this. It all comes down to how the individual in question feels about it, in the end.)
People with XXY-style genetic abnormalities might also fall under the intersex umbrella? I'm not actually sure about the terminology. Most of the time the abnormality goes undiscovered and their life experiences are indistinguishable from cis people without those genetic conditions. But if it does come up (medical testing for female athletes being the most common case, I think), they can face discrimination as a result. Athletic standards are a shitshow for a lot of reasons, really, but I don't want to have that whole conversation.
Referring to "biological sex" at all in these matters is usually frowned upon, because A) the intersex cases demonstrate that it's kind of arbitrary anyway, and it encourages the false attitude that e.g. a trans woman is "really a man" or "a man who wants to be a woman" instead of just a subcategory of "woman". "Sex assigned at birth" is preferred (AMAB and AFAB stand for "Assigned [Male/Female] At Birth", by the way).
Terms to avoid include, but are not limited to:
transexual (although older generations of trans people still use it for themselves sometimes), transgendered, transwomen (without a space; yes this is a Thing, take my word for it please), pre-op/post-op, and especially "tranny". Also trans women are not drag queens or transvestites. (Well, a given drag queen might theoretically be closeted trans woman who is using drag as an outlet, but that's not the norm.)
Awesome, thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed reply!
Sorry, I know we're supposed to avoid 'hot take' responses, but it is just so very fucking petty that they keep going over stupid shit that was solved months or years ago and reopening discussions and battles that didn't fucking need re-addressing in the first place.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Sorry, I know we're supposed to avoid 'hot take' responses, but it is just so very fucking petty that they keep going over stupid shit that was solved months or years ago and reopening discussions and battles that didn't fucking need re-addressing in the first place.
Is like Trump has a list with "Things that Obama did" on his desk and is just crossing stuff on it. Then again, "the military wanted places to cut budget that aren't the F-22 and Trump just took care of it" seems like an even dumber reason.
+5
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Thanks for pointing that out. I usually shorten it to "trans," but I would have assumed that "transgendered" was correct just based on grammar, so TIL
Based on grammar, calling someone "transgendered" is like calling a tall person "talled".
This plainly isn't true. 'Gendered' is valid, morphologically and is something that is often used - for example 'gendered language', 'gendered insults' etc.
I believe the objection is a conceptual one - that is to say one's gender is what someone is not something that happens to them which the '-ed’ suffix could indicate. It isn't a good argument, but it is the one which prevails.
Sorry, I know we're supposed to avoid 'hot take' responses, but it is just so very fucking petty that they keep going over stupid shit that was solved months or years ago and reopening discussions and battles that didn't fucking need re-addressing in the first place.
Jeff Sessions wants to repeal the last 160 years.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
If a girl doesn't feel comfortable sharing a bathroom with a penis it's hard to feel good about just saying "you're wrong to feel that way."
I mean you don't have to feel good about saying it, but that doesn't really have much to do with whether or not they're right or wrong.
Liken this to the desegregation argument. A lot of white people felt really uncomfortable about having to share a bathroom with non-white people. And they were wrong to feel that way!
This isn't any different. The discomfort comes from bigotry and/or ignorance, and it doesn't deserve being catered to at all.
The analogy even goes so far as to work with the non binary nature of the issue.
So white people pee over here, and black people pee over there, right? What about someone with a white parent and a black parent? Are we going with the one drop rule? What if you're black but have really light skin? Or vice versa? The issue quickly becomes nonsensical when you think about it too hard, which is how you can conveniently separate those who are honestly confused about the central issue from those who are just determined to provide cover for their bigotry. The honest folks want to understand. The bigots want to bigot.
Penis vs vagina is also not a binary state, even though it feels like it should be. Some people are born with both. Or neither. Or in-between states. It's a small number, but we're already talking about a tiny population, so we need to consider the border cases.
For any given person, you need to ask: where are they going to go? It has to be one or the other. If they're one of the non clear cut cases, there's not really a better solution than, "Well, wherever they feel most comfortable." And if that answer is good enough for them, why not the rest?
Because seriously, if you spend more than zero seconds in the restroom worrying that the guy in the next stall might have a secret vagina, you have some issues that segregated restrooms ain't gonna solve.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+25
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
Posts
Also please don't say "transgendered".
yet this makes me livid.
what hath you wrought EC?
I think the last two examples are normally referred to as "intersex." I doubt Trump has even thought about intersex people for one second in his life.
You know, let's say transgender people actually are gaming the system for free reassignment surgery. Just hypothetically. They trade several years of their life, quite possibly all of it, and contend with employment and other prospects we give our veterans these days, not to mention possibly facing that with major disabilities both physical and mental. I think we can call this a trade in the government's favor.
these degenerate communist liberals, exchanging their labor for services
how dare they
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Please don't exclude the most common group of people suffering from Gender Identity issues from the conversation. Maybe in our left wing bubble there is a big difference between intersex and transgender, but when Donald Trump says 'All transgender people must be immediately fired' I can assure you he is also including people who do not have a binary biological gender, and those who were effectively given gender assignment surgery at birth. Regardless of whether or not they are aware of it. Because this objection is based on the fact that all people who do not have, or identify with, a binary biological gender are evil.
It shows where benefits for our soldiers and veterans really stand if, with as bad a deal as they so often get as it is, Republicans seriously want to exclude people because they might, hypothetically, be getting a tiny bit better deal.
For those of us who live in rural areas where gay people are considered exotic, but genuinely don't want to offend people by using the wrong term, what's the correct term?
Also runs into reality problems, what with the military spending much more on boner bills and bands than trans treatment.
when he's really down and out Trump does something he considers an easy win with the real rubes.
It takes a real slimeball/bottom feeding scum to do this to them.
Pretty much, yeah.
And heck, on the financial side alone wouldn't paying for reassignment surgery for the entire Marine Corps still basically be a rounding error in the overall military budget?
Healthcare is an incentive to join the military (which is it's own conversation now that I type that out but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯), and if people join the military, do what they gotta do, and then get whatever surgery they need done, good for them.
Thanks for pointing that out. I usually shorten it to "trans," but I would have assumed that "transgendered" was correct just based on grammar, so TIL
Someone who is born with an ambiguous genital configuration is intersex. In a very high percentage of cases, doctors coerce parents to pick a sex to assign the baby or assign it themselves (most places won't let you put anything on a birth certificate other than M or F) and usually also push for "corrective" gentital reconstruction surgery to match whatever was assigned. Which is very often harmful for the recipient down the line in a lot of ways. Even if the parents have the good sense to want to leave the kid alone so they can decide what they want for themselves when they're older, it's excruciatingly difficult to get the medical establishment to go along with it. If an intersex person ends up not identifying with the assigned sex then they're also trans; it's not mutually exclusive. (EDIT: Although I guess even an intersex person who DOES identify with their assigned sex probably deals with a bunch of bullshit that cis people usually don't, so I guess maybe you wouldn't necessarily call them cis? I dunno; I might have been a little hasty about this. It all comes down to how the individual in question feels about it, in the end.)
People with XXY-style genetic abnormalities might also fall under the intersex umbrella? I'm not actually sure about the terminology. Most of the time the abnormality goes undiscovered and their life experiences are indistinguishable from cis people without those genetic conditions. But if it does come up (medical testing for female athletes being the most common case, I think), they can face discrimination as a result. Athletic standards are a shitshow for a lot of reasons, really, but I don't want to have that whole conversation.
Referring to "biological sex" at all in these matters is usually frowned upon, because A) the intersex cases demonstrate that it's kind of arbitrary anyway, and
Terms to avoid include, but are not limited to:
It just breaks my heart that the trans community still has to put up with this shit. I know it doesn't amount to much, but I'm so very sorry that this is happening.
But I can say my office does usually hear about changes like this as it affects things I work on.
Nothing out of the Office of the Secretary today.
So this was really a kind of edict via tweet not something from DoD.
If this goes ala DADT they would receive Other Than Honorable (mentally unfit) correct?
This is why the DoD is punting all the questions down field. They weren't actually consulted or informed on this and have no idea how it's actually going to be implemented, who is affected and how, or when it goes into effect.
No one knows because there is no policy and no guidance on this. Just three tweets.
ACLU will immediately be filing suit on behalf of anyone asked or told they could no longer serve because they are trans.
Until further notice, we should operate as if the President of the United States was just engaging in "locker room talk."
Well, there are usually procedures that one follows to issue orders but, heh, Trump isn't big on procedure.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Based on grammar, calling someone "transgendered" is like calling a tall person "talled".
Awesome, thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed reply!
Fucking despicable
Josh Rogin writes for the Washington Post
Yes. I'll update the title and OP when I get back later.
And referring to them as "homosexuals" again.
Sorry, I know we're supposed to avoid 'hot take' responses, but it is just so very fucking petty that they keep going over stupid shit that was solved months or years ago and reopening discussions and battles that didn't fucking need re-addressing in the first place.
Is like Trump has a list with "Things that Obama did" on his desk and is just crossing stuff on it. Then again, "the military wanted places to cut budget that aren't the F-22 and Trump just took care of it" seems like an even dumber reason.
This plainly isn't true. 'Gendered' is valid, morphologically and is something that is often used - for example 'gendered language', 'gendered insults' etc.
I believe the objection is a conceptual one - that is to say one's gender is what someone is not something that happens to them which the '-ed’ suffix could indicate. It isn't a good argument, but it is the one which prevails.
Jeff Sessions wants to repeal the last 160 years.
The analogy even goes so far as to work with the non binary nature of the issue.
So white people pee over here, and black people pee over there, right? What about someone with a white parent and a black parent? Are we going with the one drop rule? What if you're black but have really light skin? Or vice versa? The issue quickly becomes nonsensical when you think about it too hard, which is how you can conveniently separate those who are honestly confused about the central issue from those who are just determined to provide cover for their bigotry. The honest folks want to understand. The bigots want to bigot.
Penis vs vagina is also not a binary state, even though it feels like it should be. Some people are born with both. Or neither. Or in-between states. It's a small number, but we're already talking about a tiny population, so we need to consider the border cases.
For any given person, you need to ask: where are they going to go? It has to be one or the other. If they're one of the non clear cut cases, there's not really a better solution than, "Well, wherever they feel most comfortable." And if that answer is good enough for them, why not the rest?
Because seriously, if you spend more than zero seconds in the restroom worrying that the guy in the next stall might have a secret vagina, you have some issues that segregated restrooms ain't gonna solve.
Well we do have "gendered" language, so it's a bit different from "talled" and more understandable. But it's still incorrect.