Trump announces transgender people cannot serve in US military
Scroll to see replies
I will never be able to un-remember that.
Original post by Golden State
I absolutely agree. Science should never be politicised.
Gender dysphoria is a sensitive subject, and everyone has different views.
Gender dysphoria is a sensitive subject, and everyone has different views.
Yes, but when numerous research papers from the US and Europe suggest that around ~90% of their transgender samples have other mental health issues (other than gender dysphoria) such as depression, anxiety, stress, and so on.. and around 30% are committing suicide because of these untreated mental illnesses, I'd argue there is only one logical view.
The researchers in the field therefore suggest transitioning someone to the opposite gender is clearly not helping a significant chunk of people as practitioners are viewing the surgery as a "curative" process while not actually tackling the underlying mental health issues associated with it.
Further, when the American Psychological Association (APA) and World Health Organisation start talking about gender dysphoria as a mental disorder and it becomes included in DSM-5 and ICD-10 (the current manuals for mental illness that all health professionals use) then I would argue only one view prevails (or seems to be the only logical one imo), we need to start implementing actual treatment plans to help these people with their mental health issues rather than just viewing transitioning as the treatment, as it clearly isn't for a significant amount of people.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19105079
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21364939
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=176330
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23398495
Anyway, back on topic. As long as transgender individuals who want to serve pass all the necessary mental health checks, they should be allowed to serve, obviously.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by 999tigger
What about ethnic minorities are you against those as well?
Again you show your ignorance.
They arent given the roles on the basis of being transgender, they have to complete and show competency for the job just like everyone else.
Again you show your ignorance.
They arent given the roles on the basis of being transgender, they have to complete and show competency for the job just like everyone else.
They are given the roles to promote equality and diversity, you heard the effete Admiral. Not because they were the best in free and fair competition.
Anybody who has ever encountered the products of affirmative action in a public organisation knows this to be true. People promoted into roles for which they are ill suited, to fill some quota that celebrates "diversity."
Original post by Cubone-r
No problem! It's quite a startling read. Someone who has dedicated their whole life to the study of gender dyshoria gets treated so badly just because the research suggests a certain result. Science should never be politicised.
The issue in your example is around how treatment of childhood body dysmorphia should be handled, not on whether or not adult BD is considered a mental illness. From what I can tell Zuecker has never made that claim and certainly was not fired for it.
Original post by Cubone-r
Yes, but when numerous research papers from the US and Europe suggest that around ~90% of their transgender samples have other mental health issues (other than gender dysphoria) such as depression, anxiety, stress, and so on.. and around 30% are committing suicide because of these untreated mental illnesses, I'd argue there is only one logical view.
The researchers in the field therefore suggest transitioning someone to the opposite gender is clearly not helping a significant chunk of people as practitioners are viewing the surgery as a "curative" process while not actually tackling the underlying mental health issues associated with it.
Further, when the American Psychological Association (APA) and World Health Organisation start talking about gender disphoria as a mental disorder and it becomes included in DSM-5 and ICD-10 (the current manuals for mental illness that all health professionals use) then I would argue only one view prevails (or seems to be the only logical one imo), we need to start helping and implementing actual treatment plans to help these people with their mental health issues rather than just viewing transitioning as the treatment, as it clearly isn't for a significant amount of people.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19105079
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21364939
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=176330
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23398495
Anyway, back on topic. As long as transgender individuals who want to serve pass all the necessary mental health checks, they should be allowed to serve, obviously.
The researchers in the field therefore suggest transitioning someone to the opposite gender is clearly not helping a significant chunk of people as practitioners are viewing the surgery as a "curative" process while not actually tackling the underlying mental health issues associated with it.
Further, when the American Psychological Association (APA) and World Health Organisation start talking about gender disphoria as a mental disorder and it becomes included in DSM-5 and ICD-10 (the current manuals for mental illness that all health professionals use) then I would argue only one view prevails (or seems to be the only logical one imo), we need to start helping and implementing actual treatment plans to help these people with their mental health issues rather than just viewing transitioning as the treatment, as it clearly isn't for a significant amount of people.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19105079
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21364939
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=176330
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23398495
Anyway, back on topic. As long as transgender individuals who want to serve pass all the necessary mental health checks, they should be allowed to serve, obviously.
Thanks for sharing those research papers. I will definitely read them. I agree that as long as individuals have passed mental health checks, they should be allowed to serve.
There was heavy pressure from the LGBT lobby to have him fired for his research on gender dysphoria and the unfounded allegations that he was insulting patients.
Zucker has published many papers that clearly state gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. It is in DSM-5 and ICD-10 (for both children and adults). It is hardly a controversial claim.
Zucker has published many papers that clearly state gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. It is in DSM-5 and ICD-10 (for both children and adults). It is hardly a controversial claim.
(edited 6 years ago)
Nothing turns on a liberal more than destroying everything the conservative right stands for, so try to ban transsexuals from the miltiary and suddenly that's the next big civil rights issue, whereas if a left wing government had done this it wouldn't be a problem.
[video="youtube;bC6lY-5Hi9g"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC6lY-5Hi9g[/video]
[video="youtube;bC6lY-5Hi9g"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC6lY-5Hi9g[/video]
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Cubone-r
There was heavy pressure from the LGBT lobby to have him fired for his research on gender dysphoria and the unfounded allegations that he was insulting patients.
Zucker has published many papers that clearly state gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. It is in DSM-5 and ICD-10 (for both children and adults). It is hardly a controversial claim.
Zucker has published many papers that clearly state gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. It is in DSM-5 and ICD-10 (for both children and adults). It is hardly a controversial claim.
I agree that he was targeted for an area of his research combined with the false allegations described in the link you've posted. My point was that he wasn't fired for describing GD as a mental illness- as you said, it's not a particularly controversial claim on this field of science and the volume of work he is cited on is a testament to that, but rather for his clinic's approach to treating the condition in children.
I stand corrected if that is not the case. However, from my experience a lot of individuals from the LGBT community would have trouble with the notion that transgenderism is a mental disorder and I feel their views on that would have gone some way to contributing toward the pressure they put on him.
Original post by nulli tertius
This doesn't work in the echo chamber of modern social media.
True enough, but nor does censorship. All it does is reinforce such chambers, just look at for example the state of universities in the current time
Original post by astutehirstute
And yes, I am against "equality" for women and LGB in the forces too. Our armed forces exist to protect us, not promote "equality."
If women or gay people are equally good at fighting for us in the roles given to them, and they are prepared to serve, good on them. But I don't think people less effective should be given those roles on grounds of "social justice."
And neither would you if we were ever attacked.
And yes, I am against "equality" for women and LGB in the forces too. Our armed forces exist to protect us, not promote "equality."
If women or gay people are equally good at fighting for us in the roles given to them, and they are prepared to serve, good on them. But I don't think people less effective should be given those roles on grounds of "social justice."
And neither would you if we were ever attacked.
Article/ interview with trans members of military :
Transgender airman: ‘I would like to see them try to kick me out of my military’
Attachment not found
“I have never described myself as trans; I’m a mother----ing Marine,” < one of my fav quotes from this article!
I don't think these trans people would say they're less 'effective'
I'm quite glad we aren't following him. But this will definitely make his LGBT voters turn their backs, great job.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/27/trump-transgender-military-ban-no-modification-241029?lo=ap_a1
It would appear that the ban won't go ahead until the Secretary of Defence has been informed directly. Which just goes to show the chaos that is the Trump administration when he doesn't even inform the Secretary of Defence (and thus, officially inform the Military) about such proposed changes
It would appear that the ban won't go ahead until the Secretary of Defence has been informed directly. Which just goes to show the chaos that is the Trump administration when he doesn't even inform the Secretary of Defence (and thus, officially inform the Military) about such proposed changes
What a hypocritical ****
Original post by MrDystopia
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/27/trump-transgender-military-ban-no-modification-241029?lo=ap_a1
It would appear that the ban won't go ahead until the Secretary of Defence has been informed directly. Which just goes to show the chaos that is the Trump administration when he doesn't even inform the Secretary of Defence (and thus, officially inform the Military) about such proposed changes
It would appear that the ban won't go ahead until the Secretary of Defence has been informed directly. Which just goes to show the chaos that is the Trump administration when he doesn't even inform the Secretary of Defence (and thus, officially inform the Military) about such proposed changes
He also claimed that he came to this decision after "consultation with my generals and military experts", he must have skipped over the two highest ranking generals he had and homed in on the boot lickers.
Original post by MrDystopia
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/27/trump-transgender-military-ban-no-modification-241029?lo=ap_a1
It would appear that the ban won't go ahead until the Secretary of Defence has been informed directly. Which just goes to show the chaos that is the Trump administration when he doesn't even inform the Secretary of Defence (and thus, officially inform the Military) about such proposed changes
It would appear that the ban won't go ahead until the Secretary of Defence has been informed directly. Which just goes to show the chaos that is the Trump administration when he doesn't even inform the Secretary of Defence (and thus, officially inform the Military) about such proposed changes
Does he imagine that if he tweets something the rest of the country will just scramble to meet whatever decision he's just made? What an utter pillock.
Original post by JVoorhees
if a left wing government had done this it wouldn't be a problem.
Left wing or moderate governments don't ban this sort of thing which is why it isn't an issue. The thing I find interesting is that there wasn't a right wing backlash when it was allowed.
I find it so sad that so many people are fearful of people who are a bit different. Danger in this world ain't coming from the lgbt community.
Me thinks trump forgot something...
Spoiler
The irony is that chump, as I refer to him since he has earned such a name, NEVER served in the U.S. military. Now, my dad did his twenty years and retired, so I grew up in a military family. Then I was in the Army reserves. But chump, his grandfather, who was an immigrant, never served, chump's father, Fred, never served, chump got 5 medical deferrals and used all his wealth to avoid serving, and none of chump's children, including of course, chump,jr., have served. Yet, he wants to tell those who are different than what he wants, who are volunteers-this is a volunteer force of men and woman, of straight, gay, lesbian, trans-sexual and transgender persons who are voluntarily serving as their civic duty-you want to chase those who have more heart and courage and grit than you (chump) your ancestry (chump's ancestry) or your children (chump's children) have never shown?
Hypocrisy, but this is nothing new from resident chump, and I am rather enjoying the slow burn against his administration, of facts coming out on a daily basis, as a prelude to the big reveals dropping, in due time. We a person engages in cronyism, well, you only end up setting up your own family members for a big fall right along with you, in an investigation that leading experts say dwarfs, already, the height of The Watergate Investigations.
Hypocrisy, but this is nothing new from resident chump, and I am rather enjoying the slow burn against his administration, of facts coming out on a daily basis, as a prelude to the big reveals dropping, in due time. We a person engages in cronyism, well, you only end up setting up your own family members for a big fall right along with you, in an investigation that leading experts say dwarfs, already, the height of The Watergate Investigations.
Original post by chelseadagg3r
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40729996
Please take the time to check out the community guidelines. Rule breaking posts will be dealt with as appropriate
Please take the time to check out the community guidelines. Rule breaking posts will be dealt with as appropriate
Let's get this back to basics instead of all the trite Trump bashing and emoting about the tiny number of transgender individuals within the US and U.K. Militaries.
There is no civil right to serve in either country's armed forces. And all attempts to create one must be resolutely resisted.
The prerequisite for admission is, and must always be, how efficient, how effective the recruit will be, and how they will affect the wider organisation. The old and the young are not enlisted in national defence, and neither are those with physical disabilities.
I am not saying that transgender people are disabled, but I am saying there are potential costs and disruptive complexities which make their membership less efficient and less effective for the body as a whole.
Where do you guys go after this? What new insanity? Will the next campaign be for blind supersonic fighter pilots? On the grounds that the fact that they can't enlist is discriminatory? Blindest?
Give us all a break. Time to draw a line in the sand. Enough already.
Thank God that Trump at least is facing you all down. Calling out all your absurd, narcissistic, PC identity politics. Your utter bullish it. Good for him.
There is no civil right to serve in either country's armed forces. And all attempts to create one must be resolutely resisted.
The prerequisite for admission is, and must always be, how efficient, how effective the recruit will be, and how they will affect the wider organisation. The old and the young are not enlisted in national defence, and neither are those with physical disabilities.
I am not saying that transgender people are disabled, but I am saying there are potential costs and disruptive complexities which make their membership less efficient and less effective for the body as a whole.
Where do you guys go after this? What new insanity? Will the next campaign be for blind supersonic fighter pilots? On the grounds that the fact that they can't enlist is discriminatory? Blindest?
Give us all a break. Time to draw a line in the sand. Enough already.
Thank God that Trump at least is facing you all down. Calling out all your absurd, narcissistic, PC identity politics. Your utter bullish it. Good for him.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Who do you think is the best military commander ever?
- who is donald trump
- [Official] 2024 US elections megathread
- RAF & RN - Considering a change of career in my forties...
- Should I join as regular officer before apply GEM or go straight to medicine ?
- What do you think will happen to Donald the dump Trump?
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- Things that worry me a little
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Trump ineligible to run for president in Colorado and Maine in 2024 Election
- GCSE ENGLISH LANGUAGE Paper 1 Question 5
- Top Army Chief Warns of Britons Facing Draft in Potential UK-Russia Conflict
- Hey can someone mark this AQA English Literature Essay -
- How can I cope with my BF (25) joining the British Army?
- Confused about my gender identity
- OASC - June
- Can some one mark my English literature essay
- Is the UK's future in peril?
- Should you be able to call yourself a Barrister?
- Korean military service and Uni
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
