|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Aug 1, 2017 23:23:24 GMT
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aKZj8zySpAOkay, for the usual clowns, no, the video isn't an argument, watch or don't watch. Now, in the above video, Theryn outlines her reasons for supporting the trans ban. I can't really argue with her. She makes sense. However I want to disagree. The ban challenges a couple of things I believe are vital to Western Civilisation. Equality of opportunity and legal equality. So can I accept her reasoning and still disagree without being a hypocrite? At what point should principles be compromised in the face of pragmatism?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 1, 2017 23:55:15 GMT
So can I accept her reasoning and still disagree without being a hypocrite? At what point should principles be compromised in the face of pragmatism? She may well have a point. Perhaps there are downsides to letting trans people in the military. But are those downsides greater than the downsides of the blows to equality of opportunity and legal equality? |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Aug 2, 2017 1:17:26 GMT
So can I accept her reasoning and still disagree without being a hypocrite? At what point should principles be compromised in the face of pragmatism? She may well have a point. Perhaps there are downsides to letting trans people in the military. But are those downsides greater than the downsides of the blows to equality of opportunity and legal equality? Why would that matter? You either let quadriplegic infants into the millitary on principle, or you ban whatever you want on pragmatism. What you don't do is carve out a special exemption for anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Aug 2, 2017 1:25:13 GMT
So can I accept her reasoning and still disagree without being a hypocrite? At what point should principles be compromised in the face of pragmatism? She may well have a point. Perhaps there are downsides to letting trans people in the military. But are those downsides greater than the downsides of the blows to equality of opportunity and legal equality? I don't know. Thats the problem. See, whatever anyone might think of me, I always reject feelings based arguments. Whatever point I am making, I always back it with statistics. I might not be right. I might have misinterpreted the stats or used an incorrect source, but I always try to back any claim with fact. The thing is here, she is kinda doing that and I'm kinda doing the opposite. It feels wrong to ban trans people, yet what she is saying is most likely correct. That makes me a hypocrite. However, can I reasonably support a thing I find morally and ethically wrong, even if the reasons for it are logically sound? I'm not trying to get all philosophical here, I'm not trying to frame this as a "if we ban men from public spaces rape will go down thus we should ban men" type argument, because the figure re the trans community and say, mental illness are orders of magnitude higher than men who are rapists. I dunno, is being morally consistent but hypocritical and logically inconsistent better than being morally inconsistent, logically consistent and pragmatic? |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 2, 2017 1:26:26 GMT
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aKZj8zySpAOkay, for the usual clowns, no, the video isn't an argument, watch or don't watch. Now, in the above video, Theryn outlines her reasons for supporting the trans ban. I can't really argue with her. She makes sense. However I want to disagree. The ban challenges a couple of things I believe are vital to Western Civilisation. Equality of opportunity and legal equality. So can I accept her reasoning and still disagree without being a hypocrite? At what point should principles be compromised in the face of pragmatism? I don't know. Some people say Trump is not the "sharpest knife in the drawer." He got a lot of money at some point and is president now. That could indicate he has something going for him somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Aug 2, 2017 1:28:18 GMT
She may well have a point. Perhaps there are downsides to letting trans people in the military. But are those downsides greater than the downsides of the blows to equality of opportunity and legal equality? Why would that matter? You either let quadriplegic infants into the millitary on principle, or you ban whatever you want on pragmatism. What you don't do is carve out a special exemption for anyone. That isn't what they are doing. They are basically saying that the rate of mental illness associated with the trans community are so high as to make the entire community a liability. In fairness that is kinda true if you look at things like suicide rates. Also that the potential medical costs of trans community are an unacceptable expense. Its not making exceptions, its making sure they don't have to give special treatment. |
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Aug 2, 2017 4:12:36 GMT
I watched the first minute and after hearing her annoying sing-song voice I stopped. I didn't listen to her reasons (excuses actually) about why trans people should be expelled ( disqualified, to use her kinder, gentler wording). They're just variants of the same rightwing shit that's been around for decades. In the 1970s it was deemed necessary to disqualify gay teachers from schools; they'd molest kids otherwise. School integration was bad since Colored boys were likely to rape White girls. Soldiers had to be segregated by race; otherwise they'd be killing each other. We couldn't have Queers in the military since they'd rape people in showers. Gay marriage would inevitably lead to national collapse, maybe the end of human civilization. Those were the rightwing arguments then and they're the same as now. Trump supporters are overwhelmingly bigots and fools who enjoy persecuting others. Very few wear KKK/Nazi regalia but that's immaterial. The purpose of the military is not only to defend the nation. Those who serve get preference for civilian government jobs and for private company jobs. They get to strut around and say how brave they were back when. They don't like competition. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 2, 2017 10:08:24 GMT
See, whatever anyone might think of me, I always reject feelings based arguments. Whatever point I am making, I always back it with statistics. I might not be right. I might have misinterpreted the stats or used an incorrect source, but I always try to back any claim with fact. It's impossible to remove emotion completely from any ethical claim. Suppose the statistics show X is more likely than Y, it still takes our feelings on the matter to say why we want to avoid X in the first place. Even aside from that, I think her arguments are weak. She is correct that trans people often have mental illnesses but there's a few mitigating factors here: 1. Before transition, transpeople get rigorous psychiatric assessment. Therefore any mental issues are identified. This is not the case for non-trans people. So transpeople are more likely to be diagnosed with a mental illness than non-trans people who can hide it (or even be unaware of it) more easily 2. There is speculation that many of the mental issues are the effect of not being able to transition. Forcing trans people who want to serve to hide that they're trans probably isn't going to help matters 3. Also many of the mental issues can be blamed on non-acceptance of trans people, a policy that specifically targets them isn't going to help with that 4. Regarding the additional expense of trans personnel, how much is that really going to affect things? There aren't that many trans people and probably very few of those are attracted to the military. And if the US government can afford buying missiles they will never use they can probably pay for the healthcare of a handful of trans personnel. In fact they could do with upping the healthcare budget for all personnel 5. There seems to be little data to say trans people commit any violent crimes etc despite their mental issues - in fact their conduct might be better than say that of cismen soldiers 6. Let's say that the worrying thing is depression in military personnel and the argument is transpeople are more likely to be depressed. Well then what should be excluded from the military is any who are suffering from depression. This would mean excluding cis recruits with depression and allowing trans recruits without depression. In fact, the preponderance of PTSD in military personnel makes me think screening for depression should be a must anyway. Again they can pay for this by buying fewer missiles they'll never use and it seems like something that would be good for all, rather than just trans people. |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Aug 2, 2017 10:36:43 GMT
Why would that matter? You either let quadriplegic infants into the millitary on principle, or you ban whatever you want on pragmatism. What you don't do is carve out a special exemption for anyone. That isn't what they are doing. They are basically saying that the rate of mental illness associated with the trans community are so high as to make the entire community a liability. In fairness that is kinda true if you look at things like suicide rates. Also that the potential medical costs of trans community are an unacceptable expense. Its not making exceptions, its making sure they don't have to give special treatment. Transgenderism itself is the mental illness. This MUST be so, otherwise transgenderism is cosmetic and couldn't be covered by insurance. They want to play it both ways. What's amusing is that the people who want transgenders in the millitary, supposedly on principle, are the first people to dispose of principle elsewhere. The collectivists, utilitarians, greater good type people, who would gladly death panel you in the name of financial expediency. They don't really want transgenders in the military on principle, which is evident by the fact that they don't also campaign to let diabetics into the military. They want transgenders in the military on political grounds. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 2, 2017 11:00:25 GMT
Transgenderism itself is the mental illness. This MUST be so, otherwise transgenderism is cosmetic and couldn't be covered by insurance. They want to play it both ways. Nice try - gender dysphoria is the condition and it is considered cured upon transition. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 2, 2017 11:52:02 GMT
Transgenderism itself is the mental illness. This MUST be so, otherwise transgenderism is cosmetic and couldn't be covered by insurance. They want to play it both ways. Nice try - gender dysphoria is the condition and it is considered cured upon transition. It's obviously not the best cure. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Aug 2, 2017 12:01:03 GMT
Transgenderism itself is the mental illness. This MUST be so, otherwise transgenderism is cosmetic and couldn't be covered by insurance. They want to play it both ways. Nice try - gender dysphoria is the condition and it is considered cured upon transition. I don't believe the suicide rates are significantly lower in people that have transitioned. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 2, 2017 12:01:06 GMT
Nice try - gender dysphoria is the condition and it is considered cured upon transition. It's obviously not the best cure. The medical consensus is therapy to convince people to accept their assigned gender is often ineffective. It's also not cheap. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 2, 2017 12:03:43 GMT
Nice try - gender dysphoria is the condition and it is considered cured upon transition. I don't believe the suicide rates are significantly lower in people that have transitioned. That's not the argument. He was saying transgenderism is a mental disorder and that's why it gets healthcare funding. But that's not true - gender dysphoria is the condition, not transgenderism. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 2, 2017 12:13:42 GMT
It's obviously not the best cure. The medical consensus is therapy to convince people to accept their assigned gender is often ineffective. It's also not cheap. ... medical consensus ... assigned (??) gender ... I always get so flustered when people throw that science-y stuff at me. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 2, 2017 12:29:17 GMT
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aKZj8zySpAOkay, for the usual clowns, no, the video isn't an argument, watch or don't watch. Now, in the above video, Theryn outlines her reasons for supporting the trans ban. I can't really argue with her. She makes sense. However I want to disagree. The ban challenges a couple of things I believe are vital to Western Civilisation. Equality of opportunity and legal equality. So can I accept her reasoning and still disagree without being a hypocrite? At what point should principles be compromised in the face of pragmatism? Holy crap, these people are all so needlessly wordy . . . with all of the references to other videos as prerequisites, I don't have an hour to spend listening to people blah blah blah on and on without saying anything significantly different. Can you summarize her reason for supporting the ban briefly, so I can read it in a couple minutes? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 2, 2017 12:34:03 GMT
Why would that matter? You either let quadriplegic infants into the millitary on principle, or you ban whatever you want on pragmatism. What you don't do is carve out a special exemption for anyone. That isn't what they are doing. They are basically saying that the rate of mental illness associated with the trans community are so high as to make the entire community a liability. In fairness that is kinda true if you look at things like suicide rates. Also that the potential medical costs of trans community are an unacceptable expense. Its not making exceptions, its making sure they don't have to give special treatment. If that's what it amounted to, I'm glad I didn't listen to it. The answers are simple: * Better screen people for things like depression, anxiety disorders etc. The military has a problem with inadequate screening regardless of the trans issue. The screening is what needs to be fixed. * It's ridiculous that the military would have paid for something like sex reassignment surgery or hormone therapy etc. in the first place, and it's ridiculous that the military is paying for Viagra and so on, too. As long as we have the economic system that we do, the military's medical responsibility to its soldiers should be very basic and not pay for anything that's not keeping you alive and healthy enough to fulfill your duties in the military. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 2, 2017 13:34:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 2, 2017 21:25:37 GMT
See, whatever anyone might think of me, I always reject feelings based arguments. Whatever point I am making, I always back it with statistics. I might not be right. I might have misinterpreted the stats or used an incorrect source, but I always try to back any claim with fact. You got the bolded part right. Now all you need to learn is to accept it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Aug 2, 2017 22:27:33 GMT
Nice try - gender dysphoria is the condition and it is considered cured upon transition. I don't believe the suicide rates are significantly lower in people that have transitioned. Just based on how suicide rates in LGBT teens reduced after same sex marriage was legalized, I'd hazard societal acceptance has a good deal to do with the "mental health" of trans folks. I think the ban might be a Catch-22. Maintaining the problem that is the reason for its existence. |
|
