All Comments

  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 7 years, 11 months ago
    "Five transgender service members serving on active duty sued President Donald Trump on Wednesday over his directive to ban them from the U.S. military. ... The unnamed service members, who are referred to as “Jane Doe,” are serving in the Air Force, Army and the Coast Guard. Some have served as long as two decades, including tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. ... Trump’s directive was criticized by 56 retired U.S. generals and admirals last week, who argued that the ban “would cause significant disruptions, deprive the military of mission-critical talent, and compromise the integrity of transgender troops.”
    http://taskandpurpose.com/active-duty...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This isn't a matter of "expression", but of presence of a gene in the first place. It isn't something one can invent or alter by force of will. No one can pretend to express a non-existent gene or completely override an existing one.

    If you want to go along with people who want to pretend to live in their dream world, that's your choice. To me, they need serious psychological counseling and a re-examination of their premises to help them deal with reality.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Amputees, nearsighted people, and the hearing impaired do not require prescribed life supporting medication on a continuing basis. It's the idea that a military member may be in a situation where the medication is unavailable, and the effect that lack of support may have on them that restricts people like diabetics from serving. People who develop these kind of conditions after enlistment are supported, but usually restricted in the kind of career they can have. You can have surgery to correct your eyesight, but can't become eligible for pilot training afterward. Gender reassignment surgery is extremely expensive (about twenty times the cost of vision correcting surgery), so part of the reason for the transgender restriction is to keep costs under control. If a condition is considered to have been due to the environment the individual experienced while in service, surgery is authorized. I had cataract surgery in my 30s, and the diagnosis was the condition was brought on by my continued exposure to high power electrical equipment. I don't think the gender confused could make the claim the service caused their condition.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 7 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Of course you will have to go along with all the other aspects of their society as well..such as infanticide etc.

    This country is not Sparta.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 7 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The 300 Spartans would disagree with you. Homosexuals are not crazy. Homosexuality builds unit cohesion. (Maybe)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 7 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If you said that women do serve honorably and in combat, then I missed that. I did read this from you: "I know the cross-dressing women 'think' they fit-in. Newsflash, they don't. The strap-on thing across the chest is always a give-away, they have an "over male-up" appearance with the butch haircut, the jacket kind of hanging open, half the time cuffs at the jean ankles. It's guy-dress like your mom dressed you. Ultimately, I always look at the shoe-size if in-doubt, they can't hide that."

    It is pretty clear to me from that that you think that women who serve are butch lesbians trying to be men. And they may be, but that does not mean that they cannot serve honorably no matter what their MOIS. My command unit is small, but I know one woman like that, buzz cut and all. She's a good soldier and I would serve with her any time. I accept her as she is because her work speaks for her.

    Your experience with the National Guard must have been before GWAT: the Global War Against Terrorism 2001-Present.
    http://www.military.com/daily-news/20...
    http://taskandpurpose.com/citizen-sol...
    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003...
    Do your own googling to find National Guard in active combat.

    One of my National Guard officers who did two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan speaks up for the State Defense Forces (Texas State Guard). "Were you ever deployed?" (yes) "Do you remember how the Big Green treated you?" (yeah) "That's how you are disrespecting the State Guard." In fact, in my office of eight only the two of us in the TXSG are not combat veterans. All of the NG are.

    The Public Health Service carry naval officer ranks.
    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration carry naval officer and enlisted ranks.
    They just do not carry weapons.
    They are nonetheless military organizations of the federal government.

    You are on-target with the fact that only 3% (maximum) of the US population ever served in the military. That is the core of my post here in the Gulch, asking, "Do You Know Your Military?"
    https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 7 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In my old dino world view, a boy who thinks he is a girl and a girl who thinks she is a boy both have a mental problem.
    Just like A is A, B is B and G is G.
    0 is also 0 but I didn't do that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 7 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your information sounds more accurate than mine...Yes...the homosexual are crazy too!. Doesn't mean we cant have sympathy for them and value them as fellow human beings....but it also doesn't mean we have to let them be boy scout leaders or cause chaos in the armed forces. The mentally deficient need to understand their limits and stop requiring the rest of us to bow down before them. We have rights too and their right to flail around and feel important end at my wallet.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 7 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I apologize for not being clear. I have said here often that sex is genetic and gender is social. This time, my statement was meant to address the fact that both gender and sex exist along at least one spectrum (maybe more). See my comments to Walter above. Chromosomes carry genes, but genes are expressed or not. Epigenetics indicates that there is more to genetics than counting chromosomes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 7 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree that changing one's sex or gender is a complicated topic. It is about more than military service. This discussion, however, was launched on that narrower problem.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 7 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    People have all kinds of personal habits that are hard to live with. Learning to live with other people is part of being in close quarters. I did basic training sleeping next to a guy who farted all night. I did not see him again until we had advanced non-com together. "Can I bunk here?" What am I going to say? "Sure..." What are buddies for?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 7 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ayn Rand found homosexuality to be disgusting. One of her proteges said that homosexuality is immoral because homosexuals are "faking reality" acting in roles contrary to their natures. That said, homosexual Objectivists are pretty easy to find. http://rebirthofreason.com/Store/Ayn_...

    This issue did not arise until long after her death in 1982.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 7 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is not true, Dr Z, that the military bans medically dependent people.**Prosthetics Keep Amputee Soldiers on Active Duty."
    https://www.army.mil/article/182626/i...

    In my task force we have people with eye glasses and hearing aids. We have people who "denied their genetically determined eyesight" and got the military to pay for expensive surgery to correct their vision.

    You are a pretty smart guy, Doctor. Sleep on this problem...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 7 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    ... and another thing... if those savants said that egoism is a disorder, would you quote them? What we have here is another example of why evidence is never enough. Basically, your mind is made up and you find the authorities to support your claim. (Research Paper #205: Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus by Dan M. Kahan, Hank Jenkins-Smith and Donald Braman." Review here: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20... )

    To me, this comes down to individuals. You have to take each person as you find them. Judge each person according to the content of their character.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 7 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are kind of highlighting your ignorance on the topic. National Guards are managed by the individual states, and report to the governor in the state. The US Government has nothing to do with it other than will fund the cost if they nationalize the unit and deploy them with Active Duty. Speaking from experience, we had zero interest in National Guard help when I was active... but that was a long time ago. Yes, they showed up, we had them watch training modules or something. They usually did state-side services to replace the Active Duty and Reservists deployed to theatre.

    The Uniformed Public Health Service does not report to the Pentagon or the DoD... it's under the US Surgeon General, it reports to Health & Human Services.

    NOAA? Yeah, not military. It reports to the US Department of Commerce.

    I very clearly stated that women do serve honorably and in combat, the issue is whether or not the DoD has the time to deal with psychological issues like gender dysphoria, anorexia, or bulimia, and the answer is a universal "no". Only 3% serve, many, many are disqualified or don't desire to. Being confused about the biology of ones' body is but one of many reasons, in addition to "flat feet" or prior back injuries.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 7 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thank you for the citation to authority and those facts are certainly to be considered by anyone thinking of changing their sex or gender.

    This is all very complicated and deserves investigation based on reality and guided by reason.

    I have said here several times that sex is genetic and gender is social. Even so, sex exists on a spectrum. It is not binary XY XX. We know XYY and XXY. And we also know that while chromosomes carry genes, genes may be expressed or not. The analogy I have is to the public library. The building contains the books. The political institution control the building and its uses and functions, but the content of the books, etc., is a totally different context. So, too, with genes and chromosomes.

    Epigenetics suggests much that mere chromosome-counting cannot address.

    The problem with binary thinking is that it can lead to false stereotypes, such as that a real man must have a hairy chest and that a real woman must have a soprano voice.

    No one is attempting to "condition children into ... a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation." Some people are just born that way, in the middle this way or that. In fact, as with height, weight, eye color, and much else, I think that we all exhibit points along spectrums in whatever parameter or dimension you can measure.

    And that assumes that measurement is really possible.

    Everything you said about sex, also applies to race. Should we let white children grow up acting like negroes? Do you naturally recoil in disgust when you see a colored child acting white? Gender is the new race.

    A hundred years ago, all of biological science (it seemed) was 100% certain that races exist, that they have different potentials, different attributes, etc. That you could measure on a scale how Caucasian the Alpine person was versus the Nordic or Celtic?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 7 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually, you are wrong about a couple of facts. First of all, while obesity is a problem, the military does take "chubbies" as you call them. You get weighed and measured and if you can be expected to benefit from basic training, in you go. Also, "military service" is not just combat. The State Defense Forces accept people past the ages of the combat forces. Here in Texas you can serve until you are 70. In Vermont, it is 80. Similarly, our age-based physical requirements are very real, but not at Ranger or SEAL level, nor do they need to be. By comparison, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is a military organization of the federal government. They just do not carry weapons. The Public Health Service is another non-combat military organization of the federal government.

    Your rant against anyone who wants to serve in a "very testosterone heavy culture" ignores the fact that women do serve, serve in combat, and serve with distinction. Your sleight against them weakens whatever point of fact it was that you thought you had in support of your assertions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by $ MikeMarotta 7 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The stigma of "mental illness" is rooted in ignorance. It is like saying that people who have had a broken leg are not fit for the military. Someone's broken leg might render them so, but you cannot make a valid blanket statement like that. Your easy assertion is a glittering generality. It is also bait. Is someone supposed to say that the mentally ill are perfect for military service? Do you still beat your wife?

    The salient point is that people who change their sexual identity or their gender are not (necessarily) mentally ill, any more than are other people. The situations are not related.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 7 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The only "handbook of the American Psychological Association" that I know of is the APA Style Guide which is a standard for writing papers for peer-reviewed scientific journals.

    You probably mean the DSM: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. (The other is the ICD the International Classification of Diseases maintained by the World Health Organization.) Those both also classified homosexuality as a disease or disorder.
    See https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...
    "Meanwhile, the World Health Organization (WHO) only removed homosexuality from its ICD classification with the publication of ICD-10 in 1992, although ICD-10 still carries the construct of "ego-dystonic sexual orientation"."

    You have to take that all with a grain of salt, you know. The WHO is a UN agency.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "I get the idea some of you might not have read the whole article,"
    I went back in read it because the first time I skimmed the end, thinking it was just expounding on motivation #1. I now see the article is more about the phenomenon of gender identity than President Trump's motivations. It's patently obvious to me he wasn't going through the federal budget looking for a place to save a few million dollars or for practices that affect readiness. It's his usual political attention-seeking stunt.

    You point out that the second half of the article is about gender identity itself. I struggle to understand it. It seems to me we've swung back toward accepting gender roles. It seems like my parents' generation told us there were no such things as toys, activities, or jobs just for boys or girls. Now it seems like we've gone back to gender roles, and if your interests are things associated with the opposite sex, you're trans-gender, instead of just a boy who happens to be into dolls and dancing or whatever. People with gender identity issues should be free to explore it. My kids know people who are trans-gender. I don't fully get it. Sometimes people who are 20 even make me uncomfortable because I cannot tell if they identify as male or female. I think some people fee this discomfort much stronger and are inclined to get fired up about this issue. To me, it's more of a reminder that I'm over 40.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "It was worth it to them to get a superior achiever. "
    [Sarcasm]Maybe the president is looking into the issue of cleft plate surgery. After that he will examining of keeping service members who develop high blood pressure before age 30.[/Sarcasm]
    I think there's nothing real about this. We're trying to have a normal, intelligent discussion about something that is not real. I don't think there was ever a real problem. I don't the president is taking action to change anything.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 11 months ago
    The article offers three interpretations. Interpretation #2, IMHO, is correct.
    1. It's a response to an actual issue in the military or difficulty having open discussion about gender. - I am almost sure it solves no military issues, does not foster open discourse about gender, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with real issues.

    2. Kicking over a hornets' nest to get attention and possibly distract attention from something else. - I think it's the kicking over a hornets' nest for its own sake, not to distract from something else. You suggest it's to distract from the Russia investigation. My gut feeling is President Trump didn't do anything wrong with regard to Russia, and the investigation will find no wrongdoing, except maybe technicalities. "Russia" is like "Benghazi" was for Republicans. Democrats just say the name as if it were an epithet and naming a location somehow condemns the president. "Can you believe how crooked President Trump is? I mean, Russia!!" I suspect President Trump is innocent and could just let his critics carry on, which would show they don't have any actual policy ideas. He kicks over hornets nests because stirring up trouble to get attention is main skill in life. He's thinking up something right now that you and I can't think of that will get people all fired up. We could try to come up with something attention-seeking to do, but he's a master and will find something with a higher outrage-to-importance ratio than anything anyone else can.

    3. Opposition to post-modernism - I think President Trump is the ugly end-result of post-modernism. I don't think he opposes it. I think he's an exemplar.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 7 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I see what you mean.

    "When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”

    Adolf Hitler
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 7 years, 11 months ago
    transgendered individuals have the same rights as any individual...no more...no less...should be treated no differently...it is your life to do with as you choose as long as you do not violate the rights of other individuals...
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo