You can be pretty sure you are dealing with exactly the sort of person this policy is aimed at.

I should take some responsibility, I was fairly certain this was the case to begin with.

Yes, that would be because gender dysphoria is a mental illness, @Penny, and in the context of what we are speaking to? Is classified by regulations as one, even if the newest documentation standards have changed. Now I am not going to delve into the depths of why it was changed or the controversy surrounding it, how they changed it to a "nicer" name as "Gender Identity Disorder" among other changes, see the various forms of autism and its relatives being rolled into a spectrum disorder for other controversial examples, but that is very fact of matter, that too not requiring too much digging to find it continually classified as a disorder and form of dysphoria. If memory serves, even the ICD-10 still denotes it as a mental illness, and that was touted to have changed. Again, this is utterly ignoring the supposed 36 months of stability by the memorandum's proposal, which is pretty gracious considering not everyone even gets that much.

As an addition, I did indeed go dig up a sample of the ICD-10-CM:

Clinical Information
A disorder characterized by a strong and persistent cross-gender identification (such as stating a desire to be the other sex or frequently passing as the other sex) coupled with persistent discomfort with his or her sex (manifested in adults, for example, as a preoccupation with altering primary and secondary sex characteristics through hormonal manipulation or surgery).

Clinical Information
Severe gender dysphoria, coupled with a persistent desire for the physical characteristics and social roles that connote the opposite biological sex. (apa, dsm-iv, 1994)

The urge to belong to the opposite sex that may include surgical procedures to modify the sex organs in order to appear as the opposite sex.

Clinical Information
A disorder characterized by recurrent sexual urges, fantasies, or behaviors in a heterosexual male involving cross-dressing.

Disorder characterized by recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing in a heterosexual male. The fantasies, urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other areas of functioning. (from apa, dsm-iv, 1994)

Severe gender dysphoria, coupled with a persistent desire for the physical characteristics and social roles that connote the opposite biological sex. (apa, dsm-iv, 1994)

The act of dressing like and adopting the behavior of the opposite sex, often for sexual gratification.

The urge to belong to the opposite sex that may include surgical procedures to modify the sex organs in order to appear as the opposite sex.

Clinical Information
A disorder characterized by a strong and persistent cross-gender identification (such as stating a desire to be the other sex or frequently passing as the other sex) coupled with persistent discomfort with his or her sex (manifested in adults, for example, as a preoccupation with altering primary and secondary sex characteristics through hormonal manipulation or surgery).

As another note do try harder to insinuate I am somehow "transphobic" or discriminatory against transgender people because I find the notion they deserve any sort of special privileges or exceptions to be utter nonsense. Thus far I think you are ringing a little hollow there with those efforts, but let me be absolutely sure no one falls for them and state outright my personal opinion again. I personally do not care who or what a person is or believes themselves to be, in fact they should strive to do their best in that provided they are not harming anyone, but the rest of the world isn't obligated to play along or care. Why do I back the Department of Defense's findings and the employment of policy based on it? Because I can find no good reason or benefit this offers to the military and can find more pros in place of cons.

At the end of the day the military has the right to reject potentially problematic individuals found through their screening processes, even if that isn't a "nice" thing to say or politically correct.

@Penny Being 99.99 percent sure of something without evidence, sounds like a delusion. :)

I did manage to get past the first paragraph of tortured prose.

Are you critiquing a book? Or the idea that's transgenders have a statistical likelihood to be mentally unstable and therefore unfit to serve by our standards. When people with ADHD, something far more harmless and manageable, won't get hired in the military now. ^-^

The pun wasn't intended?! Why do you have to break my heart?

Oh, come now. Don't start getting all pugnacious with me.

what specific rights transgender persons are so denied and how they so much deserve more than the rest of us.

@Penny DK?

I don't believe anyone has claimed trans people are asking for more rights than a cisgendered citizen.

DK?

It is you who say it ;)

I don't believe anyone has claimed trans people are asking for more rights than a cisgendered citizen.

I guess if you want to stretch and allow bathrooms to be strictly non-binary. If you claim to be "gender fluid", you now have more legal rights/access than your average citizen. And if you want to push someone with a mental health issue in the front lines of acceptance, label those that disagree with it as hateful, when military is strict to all health problems. It's kind of doing so, for a political agenda...

I guess if you want to stretch and allow bathrooms to be strictly non-binary. If you claim to be "gender fluid", you now have more legal rights/access than your average citizen. And if you want to push someone with a mental health issue in the front lines of acceptance, label those that disagree with it as hateful, when military is strict to all health problems. It's kind of doing so, for a political agenda...

I think the context is: If someone has gender dysphoria, they should be allowed to use the restroom they identify with.

I can see some potential problems if someone claims to be gender fluid, but that's just assuming the person is dishonest. And since there is no data that supports there have been any real issues in states that have allowed such things, then I'd say it's a nonissue.

Here's the thing. You either need to

• Stick to the narrative that transgendered people are mentally ill, which means they should be allowed special privileges.
• Or they are not mentally ill, which means all genders are fluid and validated.

<Snipped quote by SleepingSilence>
I think the context is: If someone has gender dysphoria, they should be allowed to use the restroom they identify with.

I can see some potential problems if someone claims to be gender fluid, but that's just assuming the person is dishonest. And since there is no data that supports there have been any real issues in states that have allowed such things, then I'd say it's a nonissue.

Just to point out really quick, I'm not one of those people that think, if you let transgenders use whatever bathroom they want legally based on just taking them at their word. That somehow, the transgenders will suddenly commit an endless spree of unspeakable actions with their actual disorder as a cover.

I'm someone who thinks, that perverted criminals, if given the option to get off scott-free with getting into their preferred bathroom of arousal. If all they need to do, to immediately not be punished, is to claim "i'm different I swear." Then just maybe out laws shouldn't be implemented so vaguely.

And what I just described, certainly isn't a non-issue.

But seriously, on the transgender military thing. No one currently in the military should be effected, and I don't think the law would have done so either. Not sure if the new one proposed is any different or even tangible. But ignoring the fact the military is strict and should be when accepting, is disingenuous. Which certainly feels like how that conversation was going.

The point, actually points, I am nodding to @SleepingSilence is in part addressing. In essence it is a matter of people getting added or preferential treatment at the cost of others because they are somehow "marginalized" or subject to a phobia fixture to their title or status. I gave ample argument how this advocacy makes zero sense in context, see the seemingly offensive practice of noting gender dysphoria is a mental illness and how I compared other disqualifying mental illnesses to it. It is very much a trendy, politically correct thing to do all while willingly ignoring all the others because they don't feel good in concept, @POOHEAD189.

I still would love to see someone attempt to argue those, that I admit. After all there is truly no realistic rebuttal to the fact they are, in essence, not all different for why they are disqualifying factors or how people treat some mental illnesses favorably over others because it just seems easier, rather is more politically convenient. Looking back, this all started in conversation that this move is somehow "trash" despite the recommendation being that the Department of Defense is willing to review potential candidates who meet their criteria, but reserve their right to decline them, as they do with others who might be promising avenues.

As an edit in address to the following quote;

Stick to the narrative that transgendered people are mentally ill, which means they should be allowed special privileges.

Or they are not mentally ill, which means all genders are fluid and validated.

They deserve no such special treatment or privileges - see people with chronic depression or suicidal behavior. What they need is medical treatment or resolution of some sort for themselves, not special treatment at the expense of everyone else. The military is one of the places this belongs not at all, especially for those crying "but muh unit coheziun" crowd against this decision. One of the very last things the military needs is more special needs trainees or service members - it really does make achieving the mission more difficult.

The second is more or less just outlandish on its own in the context of psychology and psychiatry. When you represent roughly .6% of the adult population of the country and are not following the standards of being neuronormative, to borrow a loanword but related to one of my earlier examples, that is not normal. That is not how the system operates, especially not the military, and demanding the military play nice just so people feel included is stupid and how you end up with more bodies, be them at home or away.

@The Harbinger of Ferocity Because the current conversation you were having was going nowhere. By no fault of your own. Just for curiosity sake. (Forgive me if this has already been addressed, I haven't read everything.)

Do you feel ones actively already in the military and serving without problems now. Could/Should be punished by removal from their service. Based on the potential of being incapable? If such a bill was proposed.

Or do you feel like the acceptance process has already been conducted once, ergo anything (if it was) threatening active members. Something like, Don't Ask, Don't Tell. (Which started under the Clinton administration.) Wouldn't be acceptable, or the desired outcome, right?

<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>

Just to point out really quick, I'm not one of those people that think, if you let transgenders use whatever bathroom they want legally based on just taking them at their word. That somehow, the transgenders will suddenly commit an endless spree of unspeakable actions with their actual disorder as a cover.

I'm someone who thinks, that perverted criminals, if given the option to get off scott-free with getting into their preferred bathroom of arousal. If all they need to do, to immediately not be punished, is to claim "i'm different I swear." Then just maybe out laws shouldn't be implemented so vaguely.

And what I just described, certainly isn't a non-issue.

But seriously, on the transgender military thing. No one currently in the military should be effected, and I don't think the law would have done so either. Not sure if the new one proposed is any different or even tangible. But ignoring the fact the military is strict and should be when accepting, is disingenuous. Which certainly feels like how that conversation was going.

My answer to that as a history buff is...there's only one way to find out. I'm certain nothing will happen that creates permanent harm to anyone. And if it does, then the law will switch. Societies always attempt to evolve to meet new needs. I know that seems like a lax stance when you are concerned about dangerous criminals, but then something something gun rights.

The point, actually points, I am nodding to @SleepingSilence is in part addressing. In essence it is a matter of people getting added or preferential treatment at the cost of others because they are somehow "marginalized" or subject to a phobia fixture to their title or status. I gave ample argument how this advocacy makes zero sense in context, see the seemingly offensive practice of noting gender dysphoria is a mental illness and how I compared other disqualifying mental illnesses to it. It is very much a trendy, politically correct thing to do all while willingly ignoring all the others because they don't feel good in concept, @POOHEAD189.

I still would love to see someone attempt to argue those, that I admit. After all there is truly no realistic rebuttal to the fact they are, in essence, not all different for why they are disqualifying factors or how people treat some mental illnesses favorably over others because it just seems easier, rather is more politically convenient. Looking back, this all started in conversation that this move is somehow "trash" despite the recommendation being that the Department of Defense is willing to review potential candidates who meet their criteria, but reserve their right to decline them, as they do with others who might be promising avenues.

As an edit in address to the following quote;

<Snipped quote>
They deserve no such special treatment or privileges - see people with chronic depression or suicidal behavior. What they need is medical treatment or resolution of some sort for themselves, not special treatment at the expense of everyone else. The military is one of the last places this belongs, especially for those crying "but muh unit coheziun" crowd against this decision. The last thing the military needs is more special needs trainees or service members - it really does make achieving the mission more difficult.

The second is more or less just outlandish on its own in the context of psychology and psychiatry. When you represent roughly .6% of the adult population of the country and are not neuronormative, to borrow a loanword but related to one of my earlier examples, that is not normal. That is not how the system operates, especially not the military, and demanding the military play nice just so people feel included is stupid and how you end up with more bodies, be them at home or away.

While the numbers you present certainly seem lopsided in your favor, if we're looking at this purely from an outside view, if it was only 0.6% of the population supporting the right of trans people to use whatever bathroom they wish or supporting them going into the military, there would not be such an outcry for it. I'm certain that most, if not many many people, whether you believe they are ignorant or misinformed or not, want trans people to have such rights/privileges. I do believe that people who are offended by such legislation are a minority.

They deserve no such special treatment or privileges - see people with chronic depression or suicidal behavior. What they need is medical treatment or resolution of some sort for themselves, not special treatment at the expense of everyone else. The military is one of the places this belongs not at all, especially for those crying "but muh unit coheziun" crowd against this decision. One of the very last things the military needs is more special needs trainees or service members - it really does make achieving the mission more difficult.

The second is more or less just outlandish on its own in the context of psychology and psychiatry. When you represent roughly .6% of the adult population of the country and are not following the standards of being neuronormative, to borrow a loanword but related to one of my earlier examples, that is not normal. That is not how the system operates, especially not the military, and demanding the military play nice just so people feel included is stupid and how you end up with more bodies, be them at home or away.

Do you have any proof that transgendered people make the military lesser quality.

Do you know of any treatment/medication a transgendered person can get to help them feel at home enough in their own body to have no problems as long as they take it? Do you know what it is like to walk into a room designated for a person you feel with all your being you should be, but physically aren't? Depression can be used as an analogy to gender dysphoria for a few things, but this is not one of them. Gender is far more prevalent in society and cultural outlook than whether you are depressed or not.

• Stick to the narrative that transgendered people are mentally ill, which means they should be allowed special privileges.
• Or they are not mentally ill, which means all genders are fluid and validated.

Okay there's a lot of holes in that one.

First, you already contradicted yourself on that matter. Assuming there's no real science, thus no real problem, behind "gender fluid" stuff. But the very same thing can be said for the entire gender spectrum.

"Special Privileges" are not given to all mental disorders. (Hell, even ones we do aren't often followed. I digress.) Nor does it grant front row to military and jobs that require the most fit and best among us to perform their duties.

We also don't try to make it -not- a mental disorder. We don't usually tell people that their delusions are real, or that the walls are really talking to them. Yes, it's not PC. But it is factual. Unlike the movement pretending depression doesn't even exist. Or people not knowing their head from their ass when it comes to the autistic spectrum. In these cases, we're trying to make it "self-identity" and all positive. Mixing it into homosexual lifestyles. But gays don't have a disturbingly high suicide rate. You don't have to give puberty blockers to three year old's, or lose custody of your children.

dailysignal.com/2018/02/19/parents-ju…

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4743036/…

Do what you want as an adult. I'm not judging you personally. But as a statistic. These numbers and the narrative being pushed and what's unfolding right now in our current culture. Instead of even trying to be honest. Is just disgusting...

There's only one way to find out.

- Said by most Darwin Award winners. <.<'

I know that seems like a lax stance when you are concerned about dangerous criminals, but then something something gun rights.

Something something 2nd amendment and federal background checks already exist for all states. Trump is banning bump stocks because he knows a lot. something sarcasm something.

@SleepingSilence

I am of the belief the current proposal in the memorandum for the President of the United States is the best course of action. In my personal opinion however, I believe any who have been extensively vetted through behavioral health and psychological evaluation should retain their position and authority. They should not be punished or removed from service in a discriminatory manner, but if found mentally unfit for service should be separated from service with a medical discharge and if need be, compensated for appropriately through the Veteran's Affairs, especially to ensure they are offered resolution to their condition, if they so choose.

I do not have an issue with them serving, but they need to be as atypical to their statistics as possible, namely in the realm of suicide and depression. Speaking from experience, deaths of this nature have catastrophic consequences to a mission and operational ends. Mitigating that as much as possible is mandatory and essential, something that has already been in the system through various other means. I myself do not believe denying most transgendered persons service in the military is any more discriminatory than denying people with issues of substance abuse or domestic violence. Some people choose these things for themselves, very few, most do not. The issue is, is that those who do not make these choices cannot just suddenly revoke it or their affects; the concept behind this is very non-discriminatory, in fact.

Serving in the armed forces is an honor one is selected for and like many things in the military, not freely handed out.

@POOHEAD189

The marginal numbers are not those supporting the transgender persons, rather the approximately transgender population itself. Even if the half of the United States population agreed and supported them, the other half would be deeply unsettled by examples as the bathroom issue. I have addressed this prior, but if someone has not completed their transition and reassignment therapy, they have no place, in my belief, to be in a restroom of their gender. For the military? This has been noted before by people more skilled than I on the details, but the issue ranges from clinical calculations for dosages, to combat life saving techniques, to minor things like dress and appearance, customs and courtesies, fitness standards among others.

I am certainly not advocating against them, they deserve to be recognized like any other person does, but I am deeply against allowing a minority of persons to hold the rest hostage and them claim moral high ground to besiege everyone else from with their supporters. No less as someone who does represent a very small number of persons in the population, it hits particularly hard to see others be so disrespectful in doing so. I disagree with affording anyone special privileges in general, be it tampering with college entrance exam scores to hiring quotas.

Do you have any proof that transgendered people make the military lesser quality.

The people themselves are not the issue so much as the impact on the role they have. Say I as a supervisor have five troops under me and I realistically need seven to do my mission per the regulation. We have an operational waiver saying we can operate with five to conduct our daily mission. One of my troops is transgendered and has a mandatory appointment weekly for a therapist, consultation, and ultimately a series of reassignment surgeries. Private Snuffy, my transgender troop, is a good soldier and does her job. I ensure she's recognized as female and treat her like a female, ensuring her peers do so as well. I have no issue with her or what she's doing.

What I have an issue with is Private Snuffy making me call in people who work other shifts to fill her slot when she's gone, because I have an instruction, regulation, or order to follow through with. I am already understaffed and am barely able to meet my mandated requirement. If I cannot find a replacement, say someone is on leave, is ill, or just worked - preventing them from working extended duty for certain occupations or mission roles - what do I do now? What do I do as a supervisor when the therapist makes recommendations I have to defer to and contact my command? What do I do when my command finds out I ended up with four people when I need five? What happens if that ends up in the documentation for an inspector?

This hypothetical sounds really silly, but this is a down to earth real problem that I can assure you is quite real. The people themselves are not bad people by and large, but the impact they have on the total force can well be. I don't need to repeat it again, but the military does not need more suicides, especially active, reserve, or guard ones, let alone veterans.

Speaking about the medication, depending upon your code, classification, career field, specialty, assignment, whatever, you can disqualify yourself from that role based on what medications or treatment you are receiving. Imagine for a moment you have, again, a role that needs to be filled now someone cannot fill it because medically they are being disqualified despite being in the regular military. Now you need to reassign them and do force management, which can take months.

Yes, I am well aware of what it is like to walk into a room designated for a person you feel with all your being should be, but physically aren't. Yes, I am very well of that and very, very familiar not just to personal challenges of that or similar issues, but contending with those who do, to include subordinates and peers who were or are homosexuals or transgender. Again, some of my friends are very gone.

@The Harbinger of Ferocity I distinctly remember you saying that you don't engage with Andreyich because nothing you say could convince him otherwise of his positions. You then went on to say the same about Penny and that you were long done with arguing with her. But here we are again?

Very selective indeed.

Also, I wasn't going to post this, since it's off topic. But...yeah.

Almost as if I react to conversation and posts like a natural person, @Dynamo Frokane. Do you honestly, credibly, for even a moment believe I persuaded myself I could change @Penny's mind and that it wasn't more a display for everyone else and an advocacy for policy or the shooting down of pretty blatant smearing? Very selective indeed. I do actually choose my battles and like I told you before prior, I am not your mercenary to be recruited to fight your battles. Whatever I pursue is in my own interest.