Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby Elvish Pillager » Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:46 pm UTC

Well, I happen to think that the military is a terrible institution and nobody should be allowed in it, trans or otherwise. :P But if you're going to recruit cis people, there's no reason not to recruit trans people. You might as well say "Why should blond-haired people be allowed in the military?" - the exclusion is just a ridiculous notion from the outset, and the burden is on the people supporting the exclusion to demonstrate that there's any justification for it.
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

pilotofdoom
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:08 am UTC

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby pilotofdoom » Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:49 pm UTC

Elvish Pillager wrote: ....

Except the US military doesn't recruit all cis people. And I think that blondes are a bit more common, and do not issues with integrating into the military due to conforming to our social norms.

EDIT: Missed the last part of your post- The US military already states why transgendered can't serve- its a personality disorder as per previous citation from TheGrammerBolshivik.
Last edited by pilotofdoom on Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:53 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby Elvish Pillager » Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:52 pm UTC

Yeah, but they're naturally more susceptible to sunburn, which could become an issue in some real-life combat situations.

EDIT in reply to your edit which you made after I posted this post: Yeah, and "disorder" is just a label. I could just as easily say that blond-haired people have a hair pigmentation disorder.
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

pilotofdoom
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:08 am UTC

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby pilotofdoom » Sat Jul 23, 2011 3:09 pm UTC

Elvish Pillager wrote:Yeah, but they're naturally more susceptible to sunburn, which could become an issue in some real-life combat situations.

EDIT in reply to your edit which you made after I posted this post: Yeah, and "disorder" is just a label. I could just as easily say that blond-haired people have a hair pigmentation disorder.


Yep- waited for your edit- its all good now.

You could say that, but what are your qualifications to say that? Would your medical experience be significant enough for the military to trust? Based on that experience and knowledge, then should we believe you then that those with hair pigmentation disorder should not be allowed in for medical reasons? I'm not medically qualified to say that, I know that much. And I'd doubt you'd find a medical perfessional in their right mind that would also agree with you.

"just a label" as is everything else that we've put words to. "Banana" is what we call a certain fruit, that's "just a label". Labels describe everything in the world. Unless you care to explain that is "just a label" for something else, and explain what that something else is.

So you also believe that in a real-life combat situation, that a significant concern is whether a person will get a sunburn? I hope to hell that soldiers never have to serve under a commander that was worried about sunburn in a real-life combat situation. Now, prior to an engagement, sure, but that's the same as wearing fresh socks and drinking enough water.

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby Elvish Pillager » Sat Jul 23, 2011 3:25 pm UTC

Psychologists used to call homosexuality a disorder, too, and now they don't. Homosexuality didn't change; opinions did. What that tells me is that the label "disorder" is not being assigned based on truly professional judgments of actual reality. Hence "just a label". If I thought the label represented something real, I wouldn't say "just a label".

The sunburn example is just me ridiculing the notion that the accommodations needed for transgender people are significant enough to worry about. Perhaps a better analogy would be to black people, gay people, or female people, against all of whom was raised the same objection of having "issues with integrating into the ... social norms".
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

User avatar
Box Boy
WINNING
Posts: 1356
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby Box Boy » Sat Jul 23, 2011 3:26 pm UTC

pilotofdoom wrote:
Box Boy wrote:Shitstorm of bigots coming in at:

Think about what you just wrote. Sounds like you're intolerent of those that have the opposing viewpoint. Unless I'm reading that wrong.

........I don't really see what your point is, here.
Intolerance of other's intolerance does not a bigot make.
Signatures are for chumps.

User avatar
felltir
has a sniper scope and a trigger finger.
Posts: 2493
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:01 pm UTC
Location: Back in't home town. Never at home.
Contact:

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby felltir » Sat Jul 23, 2011 3:30 pm UTC

Box Boy wrote:
pilotofdoom wrote:
Box Boy wrote:Shitstorm of bigots coming in at:

Think about what you just wrote. Sounds like you're intolerent of those that have the opposing viewpoint. Unless I'm reading that wrong.

........I don't really see what your point is, here.
Intolerance of other's intolerance does not a bigot make.

You would say that.

Bigot.
Spoiler:
RoadieRich wrote:He's a super flexible furry martial artist from London. She is a Rabbit breeding mad scientist from Michigan. They fight crime!
The Great Hippo wrote:I THINK THE SOLAR SYSTEM MIGHT BE AN ATOM OF OXYGEN.


Blog

he/him/his

User avatar
dedalus
Posts: 1169
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:16 pm UTC
Location: Dark Side of the Moon.

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby dedalus » Sat Jul 23, 2011 3:32 pm UTC

I love how you're appealing to the authority of the US military to know what they're doing in discriminating against transsexuals in the thread about how they finally stopped discriminating against homosexuals after however many years.

</feedingthetroll>
doogly wrote:Oh yea, obviously they wouldn't know Griffiths from Sakurai if I were throwing them at them.

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby Shivahn » Sat Jul 23, 2011 3:37 pm UTC

Elvish Pillager wrote:The sunburn example is just me ridiculing the notion that the accommodations needed for transgender people are significant enough to worry about. Perhaps a better analogy would be to black people, gay people, or female people, against all of whom was raised the same objection of having "issues with integrating into the ... social norms".

I dunno man, someone sunburned is likely to become dehydrated or distracted or something. You might be on to something with banning blonde people.

We should also stop letting people serve with short hair unless they always wear a hat. Perhaps a sombrero, or some other hat that would also prevent facial sunburns.

User avatar
Box Boy
WINNING
Posts: 1356
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby Box Boy » Sat Jul 23, 2011 4:18 pm UTC

Felltir wrote:You would say that.

Bigot.

Shutup, you, you, YOU GAZELLE.
Signatures are for chumps.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Sat Jul 23, 2011 4:37 pm UTC

LtNOWIS wrote:It's not just about minimum ability to do the job. Physical fitness also points to self-discipline and motivation. A male who can't do the minimum number of push-ups would have no physical problem in various administrative roles, but the fact that he's unwilling to put in the effort to meet a fairly easy standard shows a lack of character and warrior ethos. Females tend to have less upper body strength than males, so the "barely passing" standard for men signifies a pretty excellent effort by a female, in terms of push-ups. For sit-ups, that's not the case, so the scale is the same for both genders, at least in the army.

And I'm pretty sure a big part of the rationale for excluding trans people from the military is the perception that it would be a huge legal, regulatory, and logistical mess to change the status quo.

Putting in the effort to improve your manly physique: good
Putting in the effort to respect trans people: unreasonable
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

pilotofdoom
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:08 am UTC

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby pilotofdoom » Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:06 pm UTC

Elvish Pillager wrote:Psychologists used to call homosexuality a disorder, too, and now they don't. Homosexuality didn't change; opinions did. What that tells me is that the label "disorder" is not being assigned based on truly professional judgments of actual reality. Hence "just a label". If I thought the label represented something real, I wouldn't say "just a label".

Perhaps it isn't a disorder, but as of right now, the US military sees it as such. Unfortunately I can't say because Psychologists got one thing wrong, they got another thing wrong as well automatically. Although it is a good reason to not put your full trust in their judgment. There are additional hurdles to jump over before transgendered are allowed though, its just that this medical reason is the first hurdle to jump.

Elvish Pillager wrote:The sunburn example is just me ridiculing the notion that the accommodations needed for transgender people are significant enough to worry about. Perhaps a better analogy would be to black people, gay people, or female people, against all of whom was raised the same objection of having "issues with integrating into the ... social norms".


I agree that accommodations are not significant enough to worry about. I don't have a problem, nor see a huge problem, for certain transgendered to serve in the US military, especially after seeing how the DoD handled the transition away from DADT. There are rules and regulations that will need to be altered, just like the DoD excluded gay marriages from getting the same privileges as traditional marriages once they allowed gays to serve openly.** (see bottom of post)


dedalus wrote:love how you're appealing to the authority of the US military to know what they're doing in discriminating against transsexuals in the thread about how they finally stopped discriminating against homosexuals after however many years.

</feedingthetroll>


Perhaps if you read my arguments, I've never said (until this post) I agreed or disagreed with what the US military does with regards to allowing transgendered to serve. I have argued against the reasons given by others in response to my question, which is so far the following:

1. recruit cis people
2. no reason not to recruit trans people
3. blondes are allowed (after discussion: it’s just ridiculous to exclude transgendered as it blondes)
4. Transgendered are just misunderstood medically (as in, the current professional medical opinion is wrong, no reason given why its wrong)
5. Hinted by you dedalus, equating homosexuality to transsexuality

Of which, so far #4 is the most compelling, and has the most promise. The others are less compelling.
#5 I would think most people would regard them as different issue altogether, one dealing with self-identification, and the other about sexual desire. They also face different struggles in the US military. Homosexuals have been allowed to serve since 1993, transsexuals have never been allowed.
#3 doesn't hold merit, it’s like arguing that I can own Anti-Tank rockets because we are allowed to own shotguns and build model rockets. The connection is too far apart. Now if it had been since the US military allow gays, they should also allow transgendered- the difference there is much closer and holds more merit.
#2 There are reasons to not allow transgendered, you would need to ask someone to provide those reasons if you do not know yourself- much like I asked for why transgendered should serve.
#1 That is simply false- the US military has many regulations on who they can accept. (ie can't be stupid, fat, too skinny, too weak, too sick, flatfooted, etc)

By bringing forth useful arguments, while you might not convince the other person to change, you can certainly strengthen your own postition.

For example, those that support transgendered in the US military have yet to give ways how to accomplish that. The most I've seen is let the military figure it out- which it’s also likely that same person would like to see a lower defense budget. The two don't go together, and it just indicates a poor argument when someone contradicts themselves. And for those that support defense spending, then letting the military figure it out is to entrust them with their judgment. If you disagree with the military on how transgendered could serve, well, we are back at the beginning of the loop.

I also haven't seen people suggest that certain groups of transgendered should be allowed (groups as seen in wikipedia). Some of those groups could be allowed without too much issue, some others have significant problems, in my opinion. Perhaps this is why the US military disallows transvestites and transsexuals vice using the word transgendered.

--------
** A reason might have been to avoid marriage fraud like the link at bottom of page ([url] is off for me). When you give new recruits, which include high-school dropouts, an easy way to live outside of the barracks, and make more money, they might jump on it. Whether this is true or not, I do not know but I suspect that it might be.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-02/us/c ... n?_s=PM:US

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby Vaniver » Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:15 pm UTC

Elvish Pillager wrote:EDIT in reply to your edit which you made after I posted this post: Yeah, and "disorder" is just a label. I could just as easily say that blond-haired people have a hair pigmentation disorder.
Blondes, however, are not at increased risk of suicide, don't expect the military's healthcare to pay for their SRS, and so on.

There are legitimate logistical challenges to including gays, lesbians, and bisexuals in the military. There is sufficient political will to overcome those challenges. The challenges are larger for Ts and the political will to overcome those challenges are smaller. The current policy seems like an appropriate one for now.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

LtNOWIS
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:21 pm UTC
Location: Fairfax County

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby LtNOWIS » Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:21 pm UTC

Jahoclave wrote:Yeah, affordability, I don't think throwing money at the military has ever been a problem. Apparently congressional Republicans hate our troops so much that they won't even allow them to have the needed regulations to allow them to serve. I can't believe they hate our troops that much.

I doubt a majority of Congressional Democrats would agree with trans people serving in the armed forces either. It isn't even close to being on the table politically.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby netcrusher88 » Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:10 pm UTC

pilotofdoom wrote:just like the DoD excluded gay marriages from getting the same privileges as traditional marriages once they allowed gays to serve openly.

That is a function of DOMA and has nothing to do with the DoD. In fact military facilities in states where same-sex marriage is legal will be available to gay couples and military chaplains will be allowed to perform them, again where allowed by law. If the RFMA passes, DoD recognition of those marriages will be equal and automatic.

Oh, and: fraud is irrelevant. Barring DOMA (which will be struck down or repealed Real Soon Now), a marriage is a marriage regardless of the people involved.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby Jahoclave » Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:39 pm UTC

LtNOWIS wrote:
Jahoclave wrote:Yeah, affordability, I don't think throwing money at the military has ever been a problem. Apparently congressional Republicans hate our troops so much that they won't even allow them to have the needed regulations to allow them to serve. I can't believe they hate our troops that much.

I doubt a majority of Congressional Democrats would agree with trans people serving in the armed forces either. It isn't even close to being on the table politically.

Yeah, but without Republican pressure to be moderates by simply not being crazy, I doubt they've give much of a shit about it either.


My real point was that you were making it a funding issue and the chickenhawks on the right love throwing money at the military.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby podbaydoor » Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:42 pm UTC

Jahoclave, the error you're making is that you're assuming they're throwing the money at the military. They're not. It's going to the military-industrial complex and their cronies in it.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby Jahoclave » Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:52 pm UTC

podbaydoor wrote:Jahoclave, the error you're making is that you're assuming they're throwing the money at the military. They're not. It's going to the military-industrial complex and their cronies in it.

True, but I don't want to hurt their feelings by calling them by the proper description of socialists.

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby IcedT » Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:29 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:There are legitimate logistical challenges to including gays, lesbians, and bisexuals in the military. There is sufficient political will to overcome those challenges. The challenges are larger for Ts and the political will to overcome those challenges are smaller. The current policy seems like an appropriate one for now.

^This.

Also, people should keep in mind that the military tends to be conservative (not as in Republican, just resistant to social and cultural change generally) because the stakes are literally the lives of millions of human beings. The effectiveness of any military is based on clear rules, guidelines, and expectations, and once those are established they are, and should be, resistant to introducing uncertainty into that structure. It's not necessarily bigotry for the military to not want to get involved in social questions that haven't been fully resolved even in civilian life.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby Jahoclave » Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:05 pm UTC

IcedT wrote:
Vaniver wrote:There are legitimate logistical challenges to including gays, lesbians, and bisexuals in the military. There is sufficient political will to overcome those challenges. The challenges are larger for Ts and the political will to overcome those challenges are smaller. The current policy seems like an appropriate one for now.

^This.

Also, people should keep in mind that the military tends to be conservative (not as in Republican, just resistant to social and cultural change generally) because the stakes are literally the lives of millions of human beings. The effectiveness of any military is based on clear rules, guidelines, and expectations, and once those are established they are, and should be, resistant to introducing uncertainty into that structure. It's not necessarily bigotry for the military to not want to get involved in social questions that haven't been fully resolved even in civilian life.

Yeah, just like when integrating blacks completely destroyed army effectiveness. You know, cause they did that, well before civilian life resolved it.

casoid
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:36 am UTC
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby casoid » Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:26 pm UTC

I just don't understand the opposition to homosexuals serving in the US armed forces. It's been perfectly legal in the UK for years now (hence the phrase "It's all fine since '99") and there are none of the incredible problems that so many Republicans seem to be forecasting. I've spent the last 4 years of my life in the Navy, and I've come across quite a few homosexuals, both male and female. They live in the same confined conditions as the rest of us (I'm a submariner, so 'front line' cramped conditions are my thing), and guess what? Nobody gets assaulted, nobody suddenly refuses to work, and everyone's fine. In fact, in my experience, individuals prone to discrimination and homophobia tend to get stamped all over by the lads standing up for their mates before command has to intervene.

I can't fathom why so many people seem to think that allowing gays to declare themselves is the death knell for a military. I know the US is vastly more religious than the UK, but they've already been there for years for fuck sake, albeit incognito. If anything, making it legal removes a bit of tension, as people no longer have to tiptoe around the issue.

Also: we've got a couple of trasngendered people too. The sky has so far failed to fall, but I'll keep you updated.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby netcrusher88 » Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:38 pm UTC

That's largely "social conservatives" projecting their hate into everyone else.

Thus: "I would desert rather than serve beside a gay man" becomes "so would all soldiers"

And Jahoclave has the right of it - racial integration had greater outright opposition among the ranks than there is even a passing concern of problems among the ranks regarding the repeal of DADT, and it wasn't a major problem. So don't make shit up about logistical problems that don't exist. Cowardly conservatives hide behind rhetoric like that ("no, of course I don't support segregation, but think of the violence caused by bigots [like myself]!") the way the Ronpaul hides behind an exceptionally wrong interpretation of the Constitution to justify opposing antidiscrimination laws.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby IcedT » Sun Jul 24, 2011 1:31 am UTC

Jahoclave wrote:Yeah, just like when integrating blacks completely destroyed army effectiveness. You know, cause they did that, well before civilian life resolved it.
My point is that doing "the right thing" can have an adverse effect on an army where a large portion of it supports doing "the wrong thing." I'm pro-LBGT rights and I'm sure transgender people will be more represented in the armed forces soon, I was just trying to shed light on how sometimes ethics can be at odds with esprit de corps. But I guess you could act like I'm some kind of bigot, if that's more fun for you.

(Also- blacks were first allowed in segregated units, and were integrated years later because generals saw firsthand that they were totally capable and segregation was wasteful and irrelevant. I doubt there's even enough transgender applicants for that to be a feasible route for them.)

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby Jahoclave » Sun Jul 24, 2011 1:52 am UTC

IcedT wrote:
Jahoclave wrote:Yeah, just like when integrating blacks completely destroyed army effectiveness. You know, cause they did that, well before civilian life resolved it.
My point is that doing "the right thing" can have an adverse effect on an army where a large portion of it supports doing "the wrong thing." I'm pro-LBGT rights and I'm sure transgender people will be more represented in the armed forces soon, I was just trying to shed light on how sometimes ethics can be at odds with esprit de corps. But I guess you could act like I'm some kind of bigot, if that's more fun for you.

(Also- blacks were first allowed in segregated units, and were integrated years later because generals saw firsthand that they were totally capable and segregation was wasteful and irrelevant. I doubt there's even enough transgender applicants for that to be a feasible route for them.)

My point is that your argument is not a very good one for not allowing people to serve. Oh no, bigots in the military, tough on them, they can get the fuck over it or get the fuck out. People shouldn't have to prove themselves above and beyond what is expected above everybody else just to be allowed to serve. Nobody questions the capability of hetero-sex males to serve...

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby podbaydoor » Sun Jul 24, 2011 2:26 am UTC

He wasn't arguing for why trans folks shouldn't be allowed to serve. As he explained. But sure, sarcastic destruction of your Rhetorical Enemies can take the place of actual discussion, no problem.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
Vash
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:14 pm UTC
Location: The planet Gunsmoke

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby Vash » Sun Jul 24, 2011 3:20 am UTC

LtNOWIS wrote:I doubt a majority of Congressional Democrats would agree with trans people serving in the armed forces either. It isn't even close to being on the table politically.


I had no idea that there is so much more bigotry on the basis of gender identity than there is based on sexual orientation. I guess now I know.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby Jahoclave » Sun Jul 24, 2011 5:06 am UTC

podbaydoor wrote:He wasn't arguing for why trans folks shouldn't be allowed to serve. As he explained. But sure, sarcastic destruction of your Rhetorical Enemies can take the place of actual discussion, no problem.

So then he was arguing for what now? Because at the end of the day his argument boils down to: reasons why trans people aren't allowed to serve. I'm sorry that I don't share his vision that our military should be allowed to be bigots because it's full of bigots and not allowing them to be bigots will magically make our army less effective. The point he's still making is because the military is full of bigots it would hurt them to not be bigots. So, either our army is incapable of acting like professionals, in which case I'd really question it's effectiveness to start with, or trans people are being held to a standard that others are not by his assertion that even blacks had to prove their ability to serve before integration. So, effectively, a double standard for minority groups.

But sure, you can accuse me of completely making up his argument, but you'd be wrong.

User avatar
Aaeriele
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby Aaeriele » Sun Jul 24, 2011 5:37 am UTC

Vellyr wrote:I think the biggest reason Ts are left out is precisely because they haven't gained mainstream acceptance yet. I would say at this point people are comfortable enough with LGBs that, excluding some bigots, they can integrate smoothly into most any workplace (disclaimer: I am not gay, but I think this is a pretty fair statement for my generation, which comprises the majority of the military).

Ts on the other hand make a lot more people uncomfortable, including me. One reason is because they are so few in number, and are little-understood. Another reason is that their fight for rights hasn't been in the public light as long as the GLBs' has. The last reason is because of the physical aspect that isn't present with GLBs. Until Ts become more socially accepted, attempting to integrate them into the military would likely cause more problems from a human relations standpoint than it would be worth. The military is primarily for protecting our country, not making human rights statements, as cold as that may sound.


So basically, trans people won't be accepted until they're accepted?

Minorities shouldn't be protected until they have amassed majority approval?
Vaniver wrote:Harvard is a hedge fund that runs the most prestigious dating agency in the world, and incidentally employs famous scientists to do research.

afuzzyduck wrote:ITS MEANT TO BE FLUTTERSHY BUT I JUST SEE AAERIELE! CURSE YOU FORA!

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby IcedT » Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:05 am UTC

Jahoclave wrote:So then he was arguing for what now? Because at the end of the day his argument boils down to: reasons why trans people aren't allowed to serve. I'm sorry that I don't share his vision that our military should be allowed to be bigots because it's full of bigots and not allowing them to be bigots will magically make our army less effective. The point he's still making is because the military is full of bigots it would hurt them to not be bigots. So, either our army is incapable of acting like professionals, in which case I'd really question it's effectiveness to start with, or trans people are being held to a standard that others are not by his assertion that even blacks had to prove their ability to serve before integration. So, effectively, a double standard for minority groups.

My argument boils down to, the military is an organization for defense. They have little interest in social issues. Ergo, they tend to stick to old norms until they're revealed to be hampering effectiveness (which does involve political considerations in addition to ones of combat performance). Racial segregation was ended because it was completely pointless, it excluded a large source of able recruits, and even if segregation persisted in the South racial equality was a recognized stance of the federal government. Homosexuals were recently admitted in large part because it's become clearer that gays are a pretty significant slice of the population, and because the policy of kicking out fully-trained, capable gay servicemen was both a waste of expertise and politically damaging. The situation of transgendered people, by comparison, probably isn't even on their radar.

There's also this:
GhostWolfe wrote:There is a unit (admin, not combative) near when I live that has a FtM member. He is pre-op, but living as a man. Just one of the problems faced by his commanding officer is bathroom facilities: he doesn't want to use the mens facilities, but cannot use the females bathrooms.

Obviously it's not impossible for trans people to serve, but we're a long way from integration.

I think the message isn't so much that military policy towards trans is discriminatory but that it's nonexistent, meaning it's unclear how to accommodate them. Eventually, the military will have to come together to produce a clear set of rules and guidelines for how transgendered people fit into the establishment, but there's no reason why I would think that this is any kind of priority for them.

So I don't see any reason why transgendered people shouldn't be allowed to serve, I just think that adjusting policy to fully accommodate them is, understandably, way low on the military's list of priorities.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:18 am UTC

In news unrelated to the conversation at hand; I think its great Obama did one of the few positive things I genuinely expected him to accomplish.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby podbaydoor » Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:39 am UTC

Jahoclave wrote:
podbaydoor wrote:He wasn't arguing for why trans folks shouldn't be allowed to serve. As he explained. But sure, sarcastic destruction of your Rhetorical Enemies can take the place of actual discussion, no problem.

So then he was arguing for what now? Because at the end of the day his argument boils down to: reasons why trans people aren't allowed to serve. I'm sorry that I don't share his vision that our military should be allowed to be bigots because it's full of bigots and not allowing them to be bigots will magically make our army less effective. The point he's still making is because the military is full of bigots it would hurt them to not be bigots. So, either our army is incapable of acting like professionals, in which case I'd really question it's effectiveness to start with, or trans people are being held to a standard that others are not by his assertion that even blacks had to prove their ability to serve before integration. So, effectively, a double standard for minority groups.

But sure, you can accuse me of completely making up his argument, but you'd be wrong.

Oh man, I got you to actually engage with his argument! Mission accomplished. Now try to continue to engage with his actual response - which is not in fact reasons why trans people aren't allowed to serve, but reasons why the military is being slow as fuck about it. I think we're all yelling really loudly right now why trans people should be able to serve right the hell now because Harry Potter waved a magic wand and made it so, but IcedT is rightfully pointing out that this magic wand doesn't exist. That is not the same as saying that he wishes there isn't one. We all already agree on that. The discussion would be more productive if we discussed things like how to change the culture of the military so we don't have shit like the Marines with 40% disapproval of repealing DADT - yeah, in the interests of moral rights, DADT should be vanished right now, and trans people should be admitted now, but it would also make it a lot easier if we could alter the culture around it in the first place so we don't even have to ride roughshod over a disapproval rating.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

pilotofdoom
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:08 am UTC

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby pilotofdoom » Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:03 am UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:
pilotofdoom wrote:just like the DoD excluded gay marriages from getting the same privileges as traditional marriages once they allowed gays to serve openly.

That is a function of DOMA and has nothing to do with the DoD. In fact military facilities in states where same-sex marriage is legal will be available to gay couples and military chaplains will be allowed to perform them, again where allowed by law. If the RFMA passes, DoD recognition of those marriages will be equal and automatic.

Oh, and: fraud is irrelevant. Barring DOMA (which will be struck down or repealed Real Soon Now), a marriage is a marriage regardless of the people involved.


Yes it does have to do with the DoD. House adds amendment to defense spending bill which would stop military chaplains from performing same-sex marriages. Navy chaplains were authorized to perform the marriage, but then reveresed due to DOMA.

Fraud is relevent, did you not see the article that I added? While the marriage may be legally binding and there is nothing for the DoD to do about that (besides force you to give alimony for when the divorce occurs), but DoD can charge those in the service for marrying for financial gain. Just like DoD can charge its members with adultery. Thus if two "gay" men get married to reap the benefits, if they have any relationship outside of that "marriage" then they can be charged with adultery. There is an additional legal code called the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that all US military must abide by.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:29 am UTC

podbaydoor wrote:Oh man, I got you to actually engage with his argument! Mission accomplished. Now try to continue to engage with his actual response - which is not in fact reasons why trans people aren't allowed to serve, but reasons why the military is being slow as fuck about it. I think we're all yelling really loudly right now why trans people should be able to serve right the hell now because Harry Potter waved a magic wand and made it so, but IcedT is rightfully pointing out that this magic wand doesn't exist. That is not the same as saying that he wishes there isn't one. We all already agree on that. The discussion would be more productive if we discussed things like how to change the culture of the military so we don't have shit like the Marines with 40% disapproval of repealing DADT - yeah, in the interests of moral rights, DADT should be vanished right now, and trans people should be admitted now, but it would also make it a lot easier if we could alter the culture around it in the first place so we don't even have to ride roughshod over a disapproval rating.
Waiting patiently is a much more attractive option when your rights aren't the ones being fought for.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

pilotofdoom
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:08 am UTC

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby pilotofdoom » Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:39 am UTC

podbaydoor wrote: The discussion would be more productive if we discussed things like how to change the culture of the military so we don't have shit like the Marines with 40% disapproval of repealing DADT


There is a very simple way, give an order from the commander in chief. Guess which US military service was the first one ready to accept the repeal? The US Marine Corps, despite the huge opposition to it. Why? Easy; they were ordered to. The US Marine Corps is a professional organization where good order and disipline is critical to the way they operate. In the US military, the sailors/airmen/soldiers/marines have very specific opinions, but guess what? Their opinions count for nothing if ordered to do so (assuming the order is legal). Their opinion, their freedom of speech is actually denied because they are in the service. It's somewhat ironic that those people that fight for our freedoms are denied the very thing, in interest of good order and disipline which is needed for national defense.

I'd also be willing to bet that a decent part of that 40% was also due to the lack of knowledge of how the change was going to affect them. Just because 40% were opposed to repeal of DADT does not mean that 40% are against gays. *editted* I was against the repeal until I knew the legal, administrative, etc. ramifications to it. Once I knew that the impact of the repeal DADT was going to be minimal, I changed my opinion on the matter. I don't approve change unless I know the ramifications of that change.

To change the culture of the military you need to change the culture of those entering it. As pointed out, the miliatary tends to get the conservative people vice liberals simply because of what they do. It takes years for change to happen as those that are just entering won't be in power positions for 30+ years. And to show this- there is now a huge push from the top of the US Navy to advance minorities, because those that grew up in the 60's are now in power. They remember the civil rights movement and are now applying it in force. Some argue that they are racially discriminating because they are specifically advancing minorities over more qualified whites (see Cdr Salamander, his blog touches on the matter).

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Waiting patiently is a much more attractive option when your rights aren't the ones being fought for.

In this case, whuch right is that? The right to serve in the US military? I would argue against that.

-------------------------------------

To actually give input on the matter, here is my opinion on what would need to occur for transgendered to be considered for enlistment or commission into the US military:

1. The US military would have to ignore questioning the mental state of someone that looks down, sees male genitalia, and calls themselves a women, and vice versa.

2. If accepted, those born with male genitalia would serve as men and would obey all male-specific rules and regulations, including what they are allowed to wear in public.

3. If accepted, those born with female genitalia would serve as women and would obey all female-specifc rules and regulations, including what they are allowed to wear in public.

So really, both 2 and 3 are just a continuation of what already occurs.

4. If someone has received surgery to change their natural born sex, they are not permitted to enter without a medical waiver, due to possible medical consequences of said operation. Both medical disqualifications and medical waivers are nothing new to the US military. I will also say that the chance of a medical waiver would be zero in my opinion, but my opinion is not one of a medical nature.

5. If someone is born in between sexes somehow, unless it is a minor fix done while an infant, the same as #4 would also apply. They would be medically disqualified unless they were able to obtain a medical waiver.

How long would it take for all of this occur? I'd say the timeline would be at least a year for all the changes, based on how long it took for the repeal of DADT to occur.

Do I agree with these measures? Not right now. That is mostly because I still question the validity of my first requirement. And I also have an issue with #4.
EDIT: It might actually be easier, although longer timewise, to convince the US military that men and women should be able to live together first, ie don't have gender segregated barracks/showers/bathrooms/training, (a la Starship Troopers and Battlestar Galactica style), after that is accomplished then allow open transgendered to serve, as the gender difference would be kinda moot at that point. To have that done would require a rework of our entire society and culture, as the US has always been gender segregated.

Box Boy wrote:
pilotofdoom wrote:
Box Boy wrote:Shitstorm of bigots coming in at:

Think about what you just wrote. Sounds like you're intolerent of those that have the opposing viewpoint. Unless I'm reading that wrong.

........I don't really see what your point is, here.
Intolerance of other's intolerance does not a bigot make.


(Intolerant of those with opposing viewpoint) does not equal (intolerance of intolerance), why did you make that connection? The two are different.

Your wording made it seem as if you were assuming that those with opposing viewpoints were bigots, which is an issue. As in, not all those who were against the repeal of DADT were also against homosexuals.

Please don't triple-post. There is more than enough capacity to put this all in one post and you can address your points accordingly. -Hawk
EDIT: Added another part.
Last edited by pilotofdoom on Sun Jul 24, 2011 4:34 pm UTC, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby netcrusher88 » Sun Jul 24, 2011 2:57 pm UTC

pilotofdoom wrote:Yes it does have to do with the DoD. House adds amendment to defense spending bill which would stop military chaplains from performing same-sex marriages. Navy chaplains were authorized to perform the marriage, but then reveresed due to DOMA.

The restriction on chaplains passed by the House is an astounding violation of the 1st Amendment and will never pass the Senate. I hadn't heard about the Navy reversing their decision but they're probably correct in their interpretation of DOMA. But again, neither have anything to do with (let me clarify) choices made by or desired by the DoD. Both are primarily due to Republicans discarding the Constitution in favor of codifying bigotry.

Fraud is relevent, did you not see the article that I added? While the marriage may be legally binding and there is nothing for the DoD to do about that (besides force you to give alimony for when the divorce occurs), but DoD can charge those in the service for marrying for financial gain. Just like DoD can charge its members with adultery. Thus if two "gay" men get married to reap the benefits, if they have any relationship outside of that "marriage" then they can be charged with adultery. There is an additional legal code called the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that all US military must abide by.

You need to explain how you think this is relevant to the military specifically refusing to recognize same-sex marriages. Because it isn't.

Also: "transgender" is an adjective not a noun, enforcing sex assigned at birth is already how the US military works and is tantamount to denying trans people the right to serve, you're making some highly derisive and quite wrong statements about trans people so I suggest at the very least you read this (and note gender dysphoria will no longer by identified as a disorder in the next version of the DSM),and I'm sure the "transgendered movement" (don't say that, it comes off the same way as "special rights" which is, on further thought, probably exactly how you meant it) appreciates your "concessions" you conceited faux-magnanimous douchetruck.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

pilotofdoom
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:08 am UTC

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby pilotofdoom » Sun Jul 24, 2011 3:40 pm UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:The restriction on chaplains passed by the House is an astounding violation of the 1st Amendment and will never pass the Senate.

I can see that point, saying how denying chaplains from performing marriages would be "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" by the federal government. Then again, it could be counter-argued that the govt isn't stopping you from getting a marriage, just not a marriage from them. However, as you said, they'd still fall under state laws. As well as their own religious beliefs.

netcrusher88 wrote:You need to explain how you think this is relevant to the military specifically refusing to recognize same-sex marriages. Because it isn't.

I'm trying to point out that by giving the same benefits to same-sex marriage, there is an increased chance of fraud, that is how it is relevant. And even if they did, they would then need to increase their budget to give the same benefits to same-sex marriages, something that is not easily done overnight.

netcrusher88 wrote:Also: "transgender" is an adjective not a noun

Dictionary says its both

netcrusher88 wrote: you're making some highly derisive and quite wrong statements about trans people so I suggest at the very least you read this

Link Given Above wrote:Transgender is an umbrella term used to describe people whose gender identity (sense of themselves as male or female) or gender expression differs from that usually associated with their birth sex

So when I said when those with male genitalia say that they are, nix that, feel like a women, that is different than above? I'll admit that I'm not polictically correct with how I put it, but that is how I read that definition.

netcrusher88 wrote:, enforcing sex assigned at birth is already how the US military works and is tantamount to denying trans people the right to serve,

Would you prefer those that enter the military to pick whatever they want? Do you have a better way of determining what sex someone is?

netcrusher88 wrote: (and note gender dysphoria will no longer by identified as a disorder in the next version of the DSM),

Until then though, its still classified as a disorder.

netcrusher88 wrote:and I'm sure the "transgendered movement" (don't say that, it comes off the same way as "special rights" which is, on further thought, probably exactly how you meant it)

And yet you don't merely provide me with a better way to say it. Care to enlighten me, rather than launching into the below?
netcrusher88 wrote: you conceited faux-magnanimous douchetruck.

Good day to you as well.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby netcrusher88 » Sun Jul 24, 2011 3:54 pm UTC

pilotofdoom wrote:
netcrusher88 wrote: you conceited faux-magnanimous douchetruck.

Good day to you as well.

That was for "alright I guess I can make a concession so we can pretend not to discriminate."
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Vellyr
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:57 pm UTC

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby Vellyr » Sun Jul 24, 2011 4:04 pm UTC

So basically, trans people won't be accepted until they're accepted?

Minorities shouldn't be protected until they have amassed majority approval?


Nope, maybe I was unclear. I'm saying that the military is an organization for defending our country, not a vehicle for promoting minority rights. I think that by all means transgendered people should have all the rights that cisgendered people do, but the military isn't ready for them yet. It would be detrimental to shoehorn them in right now just because it's "the right thing to do".

podbaydoor put it very well

I think we're all yelling really loudly right now why trans people should be able to serve right the hell now because Harry Potter waved a magic wand and made it so, but IcedT is rightfully pointing out that this magic wand doesn't exist. That is not the same as saying that he wishes there isn't one. We all already agree on that. The discussion would be more productive if we discussed things like how to change the culture of the military so we don't have shit like the Marines with 40% disapproval of repealing DADT - yeah, in the interests of moral rights, DADT should be vanished right now, and trans people should be admitted now, but it would also make it a lot easier if we could alter the culture around it in the first place so we don't even have to ride roughshod over a disapproval rating.

pilotofdoom
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:08 am UTC

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby pilotofdoom » Sun Jul 24, 2011 4:16 pm UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:
pilotofdoom wrote:
netcrusher88 wrote: you conceited faux-magnanimous douchetruck.

Good day to you as well.

That was for "alright I guess I can make a concession so we can pretend not to discriminate."


And because it was misinterpretted I removed it. The point I was trying to make was that there are medical conditions in the US military that cannot be waivered. As such, dispite my lack of any formal medical education, I would assumed that a sex-change surgury would be a non-waiverable condition. But because I'm not medically qualified to determine that, I decided to put in in a category that would allow the transsexual applicant to recieve a waiver.


EDIT: added words to expain myself better
EDIT2: Completely misread something, editting for more truth

LtNOWIS
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:21 pm UTC
Location: Fairfax County

Re: Obama has repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Postby LtNOWIS » Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:46 pm UTC

Jahoclave wrote:My real point was that you were making it a funding issue and the chickenhawks on the right love throwing money at the military.

I'm not making anything an issue, because what we talk about here is not connected to the larger debate among policymakers. I'm just predicting what the pundit class will argue when this actually comes up for debate in those circles.

But the idea that the military has unlimited money is no longer accurate. They've been cutting stuff for a couple of years now, and they're running out of low-hanging fruit like Joint Forces Command, the new presidential helicopter, and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CorruptUser and 15 guests