Printer-friendly version
Author:
Blog About:
With the current administration’s aggressive anti-trans activities is it time for BC to reconsider its ban on political discussion?
https://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/20170825_tra...
BC is a monarchy and I don’t question Erin’s judgement. I’m merely asking for Erin to reflect on what is happening and decide if the egregious actions of our president don’t require extraordinary action by every US citizen who perceives a problem, including lifting the ban on political discussion on BC.
For example, Trump did not list a single reason for his ban in his memo, rather positioning it as correcting an Obama error. As such his action is based solely on "opinion" without a shred of evidence to back up his assertions.
Jill
Comments
I do allow political discussion
But vitriol and trolling will get deleted and incivility will get demoted off the front page as always. The outright ban ended about three years ago, but I still try not to encourage such discussions because the focus here is on stories.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Breakfast in America
I keep reading about polls that show our president's approval rating has been plummeting to record lows. And yet my Supertramp cover band has never been more popular since we all started wearing Trump masks at our gigs and changed our name to SuperTrump.
~Am I political yet? Laika
"Government will only recognize 2 genders, male + female,
as assigned at birth-" (In his own words:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1lugbpMKDU
SuperTramp
There I was minding my own business earlier today and listening to some 'tunes' which ironically included the whole of 'Breakfast in America'. Then I thought of SuperTrump but decided that was giving credit where it isn't warranted.
Lovely.
Samantha
Ha
He probably would think you are fans, supporting him.
Dawn
Not being a Political Giant...
He made a statement that T folk have been a nightmare for the Military and I do not believe that is true. I would not expect anyone on this site to be in favor of his ban.
My own opinion is that coming out and getting surgery as a T person makes for a very hard life, though I would do nothing active to stop them. Before Trump, I think things were getting easier for us. It is interesting that we are getting support from people, many of whom, are in my opinion part of the general public.
In the distant future this manifestation of gender dissatisfaction may well have morphed into something entirely different.
The ban on trans people in
The ban on trans people in the US military was done at the request of military leaders.
There is already significant analysis being done on whether women should be allowed in frontline service, considering the fact that there is massive amounts of evidence showing it would be a bad idea (and we have nations like Israel that allowed women into frontline service and later removed them due to a long laundry list of issues, the most egregious being that mixed sex units rapidly lost cohesion and combat effectiveness until they became compelte combat ineffective).
Now, a trans woman is going to have the same issues in front line service as a woman is, only amplified due to the various side effects of hormone therapy. A trans man is not going to be much better either as the issues that effect a woman would also effect a trans man due to biology.
Thirdly, there is the fact that hormone therapy and trans-related treatments, from my albeit limited knowledge of the way the US military works, seems to have been going through the DoD, which means the DoD was having to pay more for a trans soldier who has a high likelihood of not being as capable or combat effective as a standard recruit/soldier. Aka, the DoD doesnt believe it is economical or a good return on their investment.
There is also the argument about POWs. Consider the types of enemies western armies are expected to face at the moment: religious extremists of the Islamist type.
Now, consider what groups like Al Queda and ISIS would do to a female soldier if they managed to capture one, remember that women are seen as being less than men but still human. Now consider what would happen to a trans soldier if captured by the same people, whilst baring in mind that transsexuals to these people are seen as sub-human abominations. It doesnt paint a very pretty picture.
Is it fair to ban transsexuals from the military. No, it isnt.
However fairness does not seem to factor in to the decisions of the military leaders of the US, and for good reason. When it comes to military matters, I would say feelings and fairness take a back seat. Which I think may be an unpopular opinion around here.
Your statement "The ban on
Your statement "The ban on trans people in the US military was done at the request of military leaders." is only partly true. Yes, some military leaders asked for this and others did not and oppose it. Sort of kicks a hole in that argument since it becomes a matter of who do you listen to.
"More than 50 retired generals and admirals from every branch of the U.S. military penned a letter Tuesday condemning President Trump's upcoming ban of transgender troops." -- Time magazine
Many other military services around the world are moving in the direction of allowing transgender people to serve. And some are not. It is instructive to observe which countries fall into which groups.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
I Wonder
After I read your response I took several minutes to allow my blood pressure to drop, and then I wondered if I couldn't come up with a much similar response for almost any minority serving in the military.
If you take your argument to the extreme the only people who should be serving are white males with perfect genes. . .sort of a super Aryan race, but you couldn't have possibly meant that.
By the way . . . if when it comes to "in military matters feelings and fairness take a back seat", we will have lost the war before a single shot has been fired.
Jill
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
I'm Aways Amazed
You would think that people who have suffered personal abuse would trend toward liberal leanings. And you would possibly be wrong.
Quite a number of years ago I wrote a liberal-leaning story that I posted both here and on FM. It was called Amy's Sanctity and was cautionary tale. https://bigclosetr.us/topshelf/fiction/3374/amy039s-sanctity
That story received some very nasty comments on FM and some tepid adverse comments here.
My guess is that our ranks are tilted more toward the conservative side. . .at least those who are writers and those who comment.
And . . . that a good thing for those of us who like to think that being TG doesn't make us all that different.
Jill
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
If the Shoe Fits
My latest story, https://bigclosetr.us/topshelf/fiction/69929/what-about-bob
and the story by Sarah Goodwoman that inspired it;
https://bigclosetr.us/topshelf/fiction/69906/what-about-chil...
are both being trolled at Fictionmania by an apparent apologist for anti-trans bathroom bills.
What the hell kind of transgender person wants those?
The question inspired an idea for a story that I may post there.
(and here too because y'all treat me so good and feed me kudos)
The plot is simple and fairly unexciting. It's about a guy who's reading t.g. fiction, at my thinly veiled fictional TG-fiction site HyperGraphia, and as he reads a series chapter he's totally into it imagining himself as the pretty sissy Cinderella in the story, and then he reads a fetish story called I TURN INTO MY GRANDMA'S ASS AND GET A DILDO UP ME, and really gets into that one too... and then he realizes the polls are about to close and he rushes out to vote for a bill that would be the most draconian anti-trans bill in history; altering his state's constitution to define male and female and not recognize transgender or transsexual people at any level. Because his transgender feelings are so compartmentalized and not part of his outward life that he doesn't consider himself transgender, not really, not like "those" people, and because he's essentially an asshole he can do this. It makes sense to him. You mention "people who have suffered personal abuse" and that's exactly what my story's t.g. fiction fan isn't... The girl he likes to imagine himself as not really a part of his core identity, only a part of his very closeted sexuality.
And then he goes home and discovers to his delight that the conclusion of the Cinderella sissy story that's his personal favorite has been posted. And he fades out into dreams of being a sissy for his dominant Prince Charming happily ever after. I'm thinking of calling this broadside against anti-trans transpeople IF THE SHOE FITS...
~hugs, Veronica
"Government will only recognize 2 genders, male + female,
as assigned at birth-" (In his own words:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1lugbpMKDU
Abuse of Transgender folk.
My own slightly conservative leanings about the issue come from the pain of the cruel abuse that I and many others have needed to ride out over the years. If everyone was even neutral, my present life would be much more adorable. People should not have to endure such rejection, so my lack of support for the T agenda should be seen as trying to caution the unwary.
Unfortunately, feelings dont
Unfortunately, feelings dont matter in the military, only results.
The fact of the matter is, men are physically more capable than women which is why men make better soldiers. Men have superior strength, speed, agility, durability, endurance, stamina etc. They have a more squared off skeleton which allows higher loads to be carried, a sturdier muscle and tendon structure and overall a far more duarble body.
Studies have been done on female military members. Many, in fact, all over the world from the US, to the UK to Israel.
What these studies found was that there were many, many issues with female soldiers. One of the most glaring was that, depending on the injury, women were between 3-6 times more likely than a man to suffer injury, mainly based on the spine, hips and knees. This was put down the the lower capabilites and stress tolerances of the female body, as well as the fact that a womans muscle and skeleton structure isnt adapted to sturdiness, weight bearing or endurence. I would really recommend you look up the relevant studies for more info on this. The studies also cover social issues with female recruits such as the fact that when female soldiers are given notice that they will be deploying, the number of pregnancies in serving female soldiers skyrockets.
Needless to say, there are a variety of reasons women are less suited to military matters - at least on the frontline - than men.
Now, how does this relate to trans people?
Well, lets start by looking at the known side effects of male to female hormone therapy, mainly physical impacts of said therapy.
It causes a loss on muscle mass and capability as well as changes in distribution, it can cause osteoperosis, it causes changes in the hips and pelvis which can lead to hip/pelvic issues, can cause migrains, cadiovascular issues, gastro-intestinal/metabolic issues and even increase the chance of various cancers (although this last one is not all that pertinant to the argument).
Do you see why the above could, maybe, cause problems for a soldier out in the field?
>If you take your argument to the extreme the only people who should be serving are white males with perfect genes
The only people who should be serving in the field should be those physically capable for dealing with the rigours of combat.
>By the way . . . if when it comes to "in military matters feelings and fairness take a back seat", we will have lost the war before a single shot has been fired.
War isnt fair, and in war feelings dont matter. I'm sorry you dont like this fact, but thats the way it is.
No one is going to stop a war just because it could be unfair. In war, no one is going to care that they are possibly hurting someones feelings.
cherry picking
The problem with presenting the argument from this point, kahnage... is that it ignores the fact that MOST military service men and women are not front line infantry. They're in tanks, armored vehicles, choppers and planes, on ships. They're operating machines, computers, electronics. Most of our military forces need to be physically fit for the purposes of the potential of working long hours under highly stressful situations... not because they might have to march 25 miles overnight with an assault rifle and a pack.
Nothing you argue is insurmountable. Most of it is 'worst case' scenario stuff that is just as likely to happen to a white cis boy straight out of high school from Indiana as it is to happen to a 22 year old post-op woman from New York.
and your whole "war isn't fair, no snowflakes in my wars" baloney is just that. Baloney. You know the sort of armies that don't have "feelings"? The sort that cause atrocities because they don't have lines that they won't cross.
...nations like Israel...
When I was in Israel in 1965, we were told that the reason they took women out of combat units was because Arab soldiers, who were usually very willing to surrender to Israeli troops, would resist surrendering to a woman because of their misogyny. So, it was a matter of encouraging enemy surrender, and not because the women were less as soldiers. I wonder how accurate and unbiased your sources are.
>I wonder how accurate and
>I wonder how accurate and unbiased your sources are.
Considering I have read the official reports from the period on female participation in the military of Israel and the reasons they pulled women from combat, I would say very unbias.
the problem with political discussion
is the same as religious discussion. It isn't possible to allow BOTH SIDES of the argument to be heard without rants, finger pointing, name calling, and other demeaning and inflammatory comments.
Then of course it isn't fair to allow one side to be heard without giving equal standing to the opposing view. And let's face it, the media is out to get ratings anyway they can, sensationalizing stories and telling half truths is their policy. How many here can say they thoroughly researched a new story before they allowed their emotions to form an opinion?
The state of Illinois is a prime example of "moronic" politics. more than 90% of all the policies and tax dollars go to funding programs and creating laws and more taxes solely for the benefit of people that live in Chicago. Both businesses and people are fed up and have been leaving the state like rats feeling a sinking ship. As the amount of taxes decrease, instead of cutting expenses the morons in Springfield raise taxes further placing a larger burden on those that have not left, making more flee the state.
Now talk to someone that lives in Chicago that receives those benefits and I am sure you would get a completely different story. Problem is the media will only cover the poor people in Chicago who due to the lower tax revenue will get a reduced amount of food stamps, they never go into why this has become a problem or what really caused it.
Oh and the bottom line is this is not a political discussion forum. Its a forum for fictional stories that most of the time have a TG element.
We the willing, led by the unsure. Have been doing so much with so little for so long,
We are now qualified to do anything with nothing.
sounds like this is centered around
The upcoming ban on TG's in the military?
First off let me point out that I grew up in Key West Florida. A city that is so laid back that it makes San Francisco look conservative.
So I can say without a doubt that I have never had a problem with Gays, crossdressers, TG's etc. as I grew up with that being the norm.
As far as women and TG's in the military. I am against it because the military lowered their physical standard tests to let them in. Now if the standards were reset back to original and the person in question can pass that test, then by all means let them in. Resetting the standards so they can go in only weakens our troops which gets them killed.
I also believe that all should stay in the same barrack, all use the same shower and bathroom facilities and all dress and undress in the open like the men already do in the military. This is because the combat troops MUST feel closer than family, to survive and operate together efficiently. Any segregation for any reason is detrimental to the until becoming that close.
Of course none of that will ever happen, we are too politically correct anymore to have anything that atrocious to take place.
We the willing, led by the unsure. Have been doing so much with so little for so long,
We are now qualified to do anything with nothing.
Ban misses the point
I think a lot of the discussion misses the point. The ban doesn't end service by transgender service men or women. It simply puts it back in the closet, as it was before Obama's orders that ended "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I certainly didn't tell anyone I was TG while I served. Would I have been glad to start my transition then? Sure. It's certainly not happening any time soon with the way insurance treats it or the way non-profit theatre pays... but I'm sure I wasn't the only one who served 'outside the official rules'. And that irony makes me laugh a whole lot when I see various 'conservatives' posting about how having TG's serving side by side with their 'men' would never work.
The only 'real' question is whether our TG brothers and sisters who are in service have the freedom to seek treatment (or at least counseling) on their choices and future while they serve. Should this be covered by military medical? Hell yes it should. As should any other part of a transition up to and including surgeries and so forth. Should there be limitations in place to ensure such things don't impact operational readiness. Absolutely. But the cost as a factor? That's nonsense. The added medical costs could get included in the research and development budget and get completely lost for a generation or five...
To be honest... I'm not out 'officially' ... not at work or with family for certain. This actually has made me think, quite seriously, over the past couple weeks... about coming out so I can clearly post supporting the community and offer explanations and perspective to those I know who on a more or less daily basis are showing how badly they misunderstand what TG means.
I haven't read the memo that our Cheeto in Chief, or one of...
the White House staffers penned, so I can't speak to the actual language in it.
What the *cough* news media *cough, cough* has reported that there would be a ban on recruitment. Not a real problem.
Then comes the 6 month review and recommendations on transgendered people currently serving. This puts it squarely in the military's court as to what to do. SecDef Mattis has come out earlier, in a very clear and distinct voice that his mission is to field the smartest and most lethal military that he can and that it is not his concern as to what consenting adults do in their personal relationships off duty. At the time of this, he was speaking to same sex relationships/gays in the military. I don't think that he's going to suddenly go alt-right-wing nutcase and recommend that transgendered people in the service be immediately terminated with extreme prejudice.
There may be some restrictions on treatments, meds, non-essential surgery, etc. but nothing sinister.
But that's my only my opinion.
Does it deserve a response from the American people as a whole. Yes.
Memo Was Attached
The memo was attached to the original blog. What you've stated is NOT my interpretation.
Jill
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
I find it odd
That Trump kept on and on in the memo that his biggest concern was about sex reassignment being done on the DOD's dime. Fuck. Did he ever even READ the Obama administration policy? I did. I'm desperate enough to find a way to actually medically transition that I actually gave thought to using the military to do so. Alas, to my disappointment, the policy was clear that only already active military were permitted to transition with the aid of the military resources, and they were even to be taken off active duty during that time, while recruitment would be limited to people not openly trans or trans people who have already had reassignment. I find it extremely difficult to believe that already serving trans people were rushing to get their surgery in such numbers as to actually be a drain on the military.
Of course, since I've already transitioned socially, I'd not be permitted to sign up even under the previous administrations long argued about and long delayed changes. Which Trump just reverted claiming that all the shit that delayed it never happened. There's a line in the memo that he'd be willing to enact reform if the top brass directly under him gave him something he found "convincing". I can't imagine what he'd find convincing short of some divine being telling his ass off.
Abigail Drew.