Trump: Transgenders no longer welcome in the military

I was talking about the guy who recommended the site. And he's 6 years younger. Try to keep up.

 

Similar writing styles? Maybe you should go back and review. Your detective skills are vastly inadequate.

 

You said the poor kid would be affected by the trolls on this site. How would that happen to someone who's not on here?

And even then, why would you call a 26 year old a kid? Strange.

 

Yes, very similar.

 

If getting a letter for residency apps and being that "poor little kid" in response to being called out for **** posting are in any way shape or form related, maybe both of you guys should do some self reflection. What you're failing to recognize here is context so I'll explain because it is a bit unfair to be called out and not know why. This subforum (the Debate & discussion) is a uniquely unregulated portion of this forum, in contrast to the rest of it which Clutch has kept clean for a while. It has seen terrible terrible trolls over the last couple of years. The few members that care to develop some sort of dialogue are tired of the trolling (which usually consists of baiting/posting nonsensical memes etc) when they put a great deal of effort into having a discussion. I believe that it was on the brink of being closed a couple of times, but the mods kept it open so all the garbage would just stay here. I see where you're coming from, I would be confused as well. It's also extremely unusual for someone to make their way down here so quickly, in the past it has almost always been someone that was banned previously that came back to troll 10/10 times. So the odds really weren't on your side---explaining the harsh response you got

I.R is a pretty cool field, probably one of the ones I have the most respect for. At our institution those guys are always quick to respond, get biopsies from anywhere with little difficulty and embolize crazy bleeds in the middle of the night. The only people not too fond of them are my vascular buddies, and that's because of the "turf" issue. I get that you're just screwing around, but you can't fault anybody for not believing you---what you said is pretty childish and something I don't think you really believe. Lastly, a lot of other physicians on here, but no point in bringing it up , it's irrelevant to the discussion and turns it into a dick measuring contest.

Have fun on the site and with your time off, but I'd seriously advice against posting in this area. It's a terrible place where people fling poo (in the description of it), hurl insults, and accept only that which confirms their already existing beliefs. Definitely not for anybody that will get offended. Best of luck

 

Fair. I guess I'll try to tone in down and get in line. People obviously got really upset with my dangerous opinions. I also think people are extremely naive to assume that everyone who joins the site is completely ignorant to how it works. When I go buy a car I don't just waltz over to the dealership with a pile of cash and pick the first one I see. I do my research, take some test drives, look at different brands and models, and then make a decision.

It's pretty obvious I've been a "guest" on this site for some time, usually to get Rockets info and whatnot. But I know what the hangout is. Viewing threads is not restricted to members.

Anyway... I've probably spent enough time in this thread. I've said what I think. Sincere apologies if I really upset so many people that genuinely. I was having a bit of fun, but apparently that's an unforgivable sin here. Got it.

@dandorotik I realize it was late last night so I'll give you a pass. Obviously the "poor kid" I was referring to is already on this website.... why else would he recommend it? I hope that finally clears things up for you because I'm not going to explain again.

 

Iirc, a couple of years ago fchowd proved he was a marine in an open carry thread or something.

Anyways, I believe him and could care less what the newest troll account thinks.

 

I do find it interesting that this isn't much of a debate when it comes to those who are actually serving or who actually served. That's not to say you won't find the occasional vet or active military member that is upset about this policy (you can find literally any kind of opinion among vets and active duty if you look hard enough), but the overwhelming majority of vets and active duty support the policy.....and understand the reason for it. For the most part, it's those that didn't serve, that never had any intention of serving that are truly outraged by this and I think that speaks volumes.

It's the exact opposite of the tattoo crackdown a few years back where vets and active duty were upset about all the people getting pushed out and those who didn't serve, that never had any intention of serving didn't care for the most part even if they knew about......and not that many of them even knew about it because those kinds of people don't care about the military unless they can use something going on to further a political narrative.

 

Ah Mr. Non combat MOS discussing 'defense readiness'.

Yes, majoirty of active duty enlisted are against this but then again majoirty of active duty enlisted are barely adults who barely passed high school and really have no expert opinion on the matter as they have no ****ing clue the cost of transgenders in the military. You actually think this kids analyze this? Majority of them just never respected transexuals to begin with. It has nothing to do with combat 'readiniess'. We already have 4 years worth of case study of transgender service members. No one who is for the ban has acknowledged this because they will have to admit that it hardly cost the military anything.

 

OK. Still.... a bit fishy. Usually, we don't refer to 26 year old adults as kids. And you both do have similar writing styles. Good day.

 

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2...ver-here-s-how-the-military-rates-his-legacy/

41% of service members said that Obama's policy changes relating to permitting transgender service hurt military readiness. 12% said it helped, and I guess the rest didn't have a strong opinion either way. Is it from these numbers that you are inferring that an "overwhelming majority of vets and active duty" support Trump's ban? Or something else?

 

It's based on the vets and active duty that I know....which is a ton. Not all that scientific, but given the numbers, it's still valid. I think the poll you posted is probably pretty accurate in that I'd imagine about 88% of active duty would either support the policy change to ban transsexuals or be neutral on the issue with only maybe 12% being upset about it.

 

So your assumption is that the 37% who didn't vote that it would hurt or help military readiness would nevertheless support banning them outright? Do you have any reason to think that, besides your personal experience?

Sorry: I misread your post. I guess I would just say that I don't think those numbers suggest an overwhelming majority would support the policy. If I had to guess, I would peg it at a 50/50 split, with a significant number being largely neutral on it.

 

Vet and active duty you know doesn't mean much. You are openly a bigot, and are likely surrounded by people similar to yourself, so it's not exactly a useful sample. People who don't demean or hate transgender people simply aren't going to be friends with you.

But regardless of that, military members were previously opposed to black members, female members, and gay members too over the years. They are, and always have been, on the wrong side of history when it comes to social issues - largely because of the military culture and lack of diversity that was fostered, rather than anything inherent to them. But each of those changes has resulted in a stronger military over the long run, and the country is better off for it. Trump's ban is potentially unenforceable based on case law, and so far the military has completely ignored it for good reason.

 

Recent Reuters/Ipsos poll shows 27% of Americans think transgender people shouldn't be allowed to serve, including 49% of Republicans and 8% of Democrats. 19% of Republicans are neutral and 9% of Democrats are neutral.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-transgender-poll-idUSKBN1AD2BL?il=0

 

It's also worth reiterating that all of our Western allies allow transgender people to serve in their militaries. A fairly comprehensive RAND study (which anyone can read online) of their experiences showed no significant negative impact on military readiness. Somehow, I don't think Donald Trump read it (100+ pages, not enough pictures).

 

There's a difference between believing that it would actively hurt military readiness and thinking that it's not something the military should have to deal with. I think the numbers are probably about 40 something percent think that transsexuals would actively hurt combat readiness, probably another 30% that just think that it's not something the military should have to deal with so they'd side with the ban, maybe 10% who are transgender activists who oppose it, and the rest who simply don't care one way or the other.

While this is based on my personal experience, it's of note that my personal experience is pretty vast in this instance. I would argue that I'd get a better read on how the active duty and vet communities feel about an issue than a raw poll given that I hear unfiltered opinions that might not be admitted to when asked by a pollster.

Are you still going on with this r****ded nonsense of ignorantly calling people bigots? You do know that it makes you look like a joke every time you do that right? Are you just a knuckle dragger that doesn't realize how stupid you are making yourself look? Is that going to be your excuse?

So you are comparing those with mental illness to those who are black, female, or gay? That's pretty bigoted of you.

 

If you believe that this would hurt military readiness, then you don't know how the military works.

As for service members agreeing with this. No real shock. The military, especially the enlisted corps, tends to lean right.

 

Banning trannies doesn't hurt military readiness at all, if anything it gets rid of a lot of headache caused by a very small number of members and allows them to focus on things that matter.

As to the military leaning right, you can find all political ideologies represented....that said there's not a lot of love for the government by those that are constantly getting f*cked by it so that leads to the majority leaning right. Don't get me wrong, you'll still find commies if you go looking for them though.

 

There hasn't been a headache within the military. The military isn't a democracy. The freedom to express dissenting views in the civilian world isn't found within the military. It is NOT a democracy. Military hierarchy more closely resembles a dictatorship. If you are in the armed forces and are told to serve with someone whose religion or life style choices you may not agree with you have two options: a) shut up and fall in line b) get the hell out.

The military has leaned right as long as I've been around it. Regardless of the incumbent administration. I've been around it almost 30 years.