If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

If liberals hate the military and foreign wars so much (supposedly), why would they support transpersons joining? Shouldn't they be happy transwomen are protected from the Selective Service?

Please never repeat this. I fear what people might think about your intellect.

 

[CiG]

Ditto for your racism definition. Embarrassing stuff.

 

[Dak]

Please never repeat this. I fear what people might think about your intellect.

I guesd you've never read any piece stating one or more things CIG listed.

 

[Einherjar86]

Ditto for your racism definition. Embarrassing stuff.

Actually, there's a large consensus on that definition among experts and scholars who study the history of race relations. But they're all crazy leftist academics, so why believe them, right?

I guesd you've never read any piece stating one or more things CIG listed.

The military is a tool of the patriarchal, white supremacist, sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic imperialist American government - and I demand that trans people be allowed to join that.

I have read pieces that iterate these points, and while there are discrete examples in which I think that one or more of these criticisms could be applied, I don't think you can make the kind of sweeping generalization that CIG (and some leftists) make regarding the military.

Like gun ownership, there are things about the military that plenty of liberals would like to see changed, I'm sure--but also like gun ownership, they're not trying to dismantle it completely. Plenty of liberals own guns, and plenty of liberals join the military. It makes no sense to argue for a complete disassembling of the military, just as it makes no sense to argue for complete restrictions on gun ownership. But the majority of liberals argue for neither of those things.

You're both making assumptions that don't stack up.

 

[Dak]

There's a meme series about the disappearance of the anti-war/anti-mil (not a 100% overlap) left during Obama's presidency (despite rampant use of drone strikes). I expect that were his social policies reversed (gays/women/trans related), these would return. So it turns out it's not about war and killing in foreign lands, it's really about converting to evangelical liberalism. "Has the military come to my 'jesus'?" Banning transpersons is like burning a holy relic.

pretty much why the ban makes no sense.

if trump/supporters hate transpeople, why not let them die in the army? why give them a free ticket to safety and send everyone else off to fight

The military is safer than many career fields, combat arms excluded (a small portion of total jobs).

 

[Einherjar86]

There's a meme series about the disappearance of the anti-war/anti-mil (not a 100% overlap) left during Obama's presidency (despite rampant use of drone strikes). I expect that were his social policies reversed (gays/women/trans related), these would return. So it turns out it's not about war and killing in foreign lands, it's really about converting to evangelical liberalism. "Has the military come to my 'jesus'?" Banning transpersons is like burning a holy relic.

The anti-war left disappeared during the '90s, as Clintonian democracy took hold (which is rampant with its own problems concerning military occupation). Obama continued many of those policies, no doubt. His social policies didn't ingratiate people to the military, as that had already happened. At this point it's simply about granting certain people the same degree of agency as everyone else, provided they can handle the physical toll.

The argument is that transgender soldiers are a financial burden, but the military isn't exactly a guru when it comes to allocating funds. If cost isn't the reason, then it would appear that ideology is; but the military is an exercise in the stripping away of ideology, an institution that doesn't give a shit if you're straight, gay, man, woman, black, white, etc. Most individuals at the ground level identify as neither democrat nor republican, although most officers lean right. It's likely that the disappearance of the anti-war left has to do with this (i.e. many officers joined in the '70s or '80s, when the democratic party was seen as largely anti-war; most younger recruits are joining post-9/11, in the wake of Clintonian democracy). Trump's pandering to his non-military ideological base with this ban, by which I mean he's appealing mainly to upper-class people whose children aren't going to be joining the military.

Are there some in the military who likely support the ban? Sure, but they aren't the target audience here.

 

[Dak]

The anti-war left disappeared during the '90s, as Clintonian democracy took hold (which is rampant with its own problems concerning military occupation). Obama continued many of those policies, no doubt. His social policies didn't ingratiate people to the military, as that had already happened. At this point it's simply about granting certain people the same degree of agency as everyone else, provided they can handle the physical toll.

Maybe it wasn't at the same level as the 60s-70s, but the Vietnamesque nature of Iraq and Afghanistan had started to bring it out again - only to be abruptly shutdown in November of 2008.

There's definitely varying levels of physical demand for specific jobs within each military branch. There's also a psychological demand that varies. I'm sure that there are transpersons that can handle both with zero issues in the right situations. But we're not even talking about a policy like "don't ask don't tell". We're talking about policy which requires the military to fund their change. We're also talking about a population (trans) with a high rate of depression and suicide, entering an career arena with high rates of suicide and depression along with a stigma against mental health care generally speaking (also probable bias to some degree against transpersons). It's a match made in hell for that population (generally speaking). From a budget perspective, it's more waste onto the admittedly wasteful Pentagon budget. From a mental health perspective, I wouldn't be encouraging them to join the military.

Trump's pandering to his non-military ideological base with this ban, by which I mean he's appealing mainly to upper-class people whose children aren't going to be joining the military.

Are there some in the military who likely support the ban? Sure, but they aren't the target audience here.

Well I agree it's pandering to his base. I don't know about the "upper class" with no one joining the military part. Excluding California, the top states sending persons into the military are red, and while that includes many low-middle class persons (the poor often won't make it in for any number of medical or legal reasons) like myself, the officer corps and AF/Navy heavily pull from the middle and upper middle.

 

[CiG]

You're both making assumptions that don't stack up.

Because hyperbole isn't a thing. Actually, I wasn't even mocking liberals with my comment, I am a liberal generally speaking. I was mocking progressives of the social justice warrior bent and the more radical end of anti-western leftism.

Though, I think you're wrong about liberals (or leftists) and the second amendment. If it were put to a raw vote, I think gun ownership would be restricted into non-existence by the left in America. It's really only a majority of the right, a minority of the left and the sheer forceful advocacy of the NRA that is protecting the second amendment, besides the glorification of the constitution of course.

Though that too seems to be waning.

But they're all crazy leftist academics, so why believe them, right?

No not crazy, just more likely of a certain ideological persuasion. By their definition a white person could go to Japan and call people gooks and not be racist. Ridiculous.

Also, what does belief have to do with this?

 

[Einherjar86]

Maybe it wasn't at the same level as the 60s-70s, but the Vietnamesque nature of Iraq and Afghanistan had started to bring it out again - only to be abruptly shutdown in November of 2008.

Yes, it definitely returned during Bush's tenure, but I wouldn't say that Obama made the military attractive for the anti-war elders through his open-door policies.

I won't deny there were double standards (i.e. "there's a democrat in the White House, so let's not criticize his military policies"), but I don't think allowing transgender people into the military suddenly made foreign occupation an acceptable action.

There's definitely varying levels of physical demand for specific jobs within each military branch. There's also a psychological demand that varies. I'm sure that there are transpersons that can handle both with zero issues in the right situations. But we're not even talking about a policy like "don't ask don't tell". We're talking about policy which requires the military to fund their change. We're also talking about a population (trans) with a high rate of depression and suicide, entering an career arena with high rates of suicide and depression along with a stigma against mental health care generally speaking (also probable bias to some degree against transpersons). It's a match made in hell for that population (generally speaking). From a budget perspective, it's more waste onto the admittedly wasteful Pentagon budget. From a mental health perspective, I wouldn't be encouraging them to join the military.

And enacting this ban seems like the worst way to go about correcting any potentially damaging consequences. First of all, it only bans people from joining, it doesn't do anything about the transgender people already serving, meaning that the number of transgender people in the military can't grow. This inflames the bias already surrounding transgender people that you suggest is probably present, and it prevents that bias from waning through increased interaction. If there's any social institution in which differences like this could be overcome, it's the military--"who fucking cares if the person next to you is transgender, when it comes down to it s/he might save your life."

The ban will only reinforce already existing biases and will prevent the formation of transgender in-groups through which transgender individuals might actually provide some kind of psychological support for one another.

Well I agree it's pandering to his base. I don't know about the "upper class" with no one joining the military part. Excluding California, the top states sending persons into the military are red, and while that includes many low-middle class persons (the poor often won't make it in for any number of medical or legal reasons) like myself, the officer corps and AF/Navy heavily pull from the middle and upper middle.

I think it's true that fewer upper class people join the military than lower class. When upper class people do enter the military, I doubt they're serving in the thick of things, where issues such as distraction and group cohesion really matter.

 

[Einherjar86]

Because hyperbole isn't a thing.

It needs to be called out when it supports an asinine point like the one Dak suggested.

No not crazy, just more likely of a certain ideological persuasion. By their definition a white person could go to Japan and call people gooks and not be racist. Ridiculous.

A person can go to Japan and make anti-Japanese remarks, just like a person can go to Chicago's south side and shout racial epithets in the middle of the street (good luck with that). I would call that person bigoted, prejudiced, stupid obviously, and I would call those actions racist.

What that means is that there is a history and culture informing those remarks. They're not reducible to a person's beliefs or individual values--they extend to a larger social environment, and they have to be defined in relation to that environment. There is no such thing as an inherently or innately racist person because racism relies upon centuries (if not millennia) of racial discourse, documentation, science, and politics.

If two people of different skin color were to meet each in a vacuum and react violently toward one another, it would make absolutely no sense to call either one of them racist.

Also, what does belief have to do with this?

Fair point.

 

[CiG]

Fair enough, we really aren't going to agree on this one. I think academics have a habit of tinkering with words in order that they will fit their theories and one day maybe when I am 92 years old and your version of racism is globally accepted as the dominant definition, I will buy you a beer and cede to your position.

 

[Einherjar86]

Hell, buy me a beer now and I'll forget about the definition.

For an hour or so, at least.

 

[rms]

it would appear that ideology is; but the military is an exercise in the stripping away of ideology, an institution that doesn't give a shit if you're straight, gay, man, woman, black, white, etc.

or just...research is required? Which is what the DoD/Mattis have said. Shit, Olympics just finished their trans policy a year or so ago and MMA I think just did as well. And that is just for fair athletics, not stressful situations.

 

[Dak]

And enacting this ban seems like the worst way to go about correcting any potentially damaging consequences. First of all, it only bans people from joining, it doesn't do anything about the transgender people already serving, meaning that the number of transgender people in the military can't grow. This inflames the bias already surrounding transgender people that you suggest is probably present, and it prevents that bias from waning through increased interaction. If there's any social institution in which differences like this could be overcome, it's the military--"who fucking cares if the person next to you is transgender, when it comes down to it s/he might save your life."

The ban will only reinforce already existing biases and will prevent the formation of transgender in-groups through which transgender individuals might actually provide some kind of psychological support for one another.

An open policy won't overcome it with differential treatment, which is what providing the extra care and allowances provides (which is, in my mind, the concrete sticking point rather than unit cohesion - how does one even measure "unit cohesion"?). If a person is trans pre-transition and demands no special accommodations, I can - as I said before - see that working, but that's not what the open serving policy was limited to.

The reason that there's still bias internally against female service-members is because the differential fitness and medical standards, and non-deployability due to pregnancy and other higher rates of medical non-availability. These get overlooked on the policy side because keeping women out is losing half of your potential recruitment pool. Transpersons are such a small pool that the military isn't losing much in not accepting them, while the potential cost for such a small pool entering is enormous relative to the population. The oft-cited RAND study said that <500 transpersons requesting surgery and/or hormones could cost more than 8 million dollars per year(I estimate that transition number to be too low if the open policy were enacted, and I expect the cost per person to be at that high end or much higher once all "externals" are factored in). The Pentagon already wastes too much money on expensive projects with little to no benefit other than to the wallets of contractors, no need to add transition surgeries and maintenance to the list. If it's actually about funding transitions, the Pentagon could just straight fund it without adding them into the services.

I think it's true that fewer upper class people join the military than lower class. When upper class people do enter the military, I doubt they're serving in the thick of things, where issues such as distraction and group cohesion really matter.

Well this is highly probable.

 

[Serjeant Grumbles]

Actually, there's a large consensus on that definition among experts and scholars who study the history of race relations. But they're all crazy leftist academics, so why believe them, right?

Plenty of people on the left are critical of that definition, but they're all manarchist brogressives, right?

One can avoid confusion by simply using the term "institutional racism", so people who insist that racism only means "prejudice+power" can rightly be suspected of ulterior motives.

 

[CiG]

Exactly. I don't see why racism has to mean institutional racism or systemic racism. Nobody would deny that those definitions are real forms of racism, but very little would agree that those should be the only definition of racism.

 

[CiG]

Canadian military responding to Trump's trans ban: "Diversity is our strength."

"Oh really? Overwhelming absolute dominance in war is ours."

I love Justicar.

 

[Dak]

FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE

 

[CiG]

Ladies and gentlemen, elite trans only hit squads. Send them in to trigger Islamists into suicide bombing themselves.

 

[Einherjar86]

One can avoid confusion by simply using the term "institutional racism", so people who insist that racism only means "prejudice+power" can rightly be suspected of ulterior motives.

Exactly. I don't see why racism has to mean institutional racism or systemic racism. Nobody would deny that those definitions are real forms of racism, but very little would agree that those should be the only definition of racism.

All racism is institutional (or cultural, or systemic, etc.). That's what you find when you dig into how racism functions, even when we're looking at examples of racism between individuals. Institutional racism is just redundant. There may have been a time, or some remote past/location where racism touched some primordial disagreement between persons. But this element of racism no longer exists, and it's pointless to identify this as the kind of racism that operates primarily between individuals.

This doesn't mean that individuals can't be accused of acting racist, of course.