Trump: No Transgenders In The Military!

[Bill the Cat]

What you said about the APA and trasngenderism, namely that I have often heard you argue about the APA and homosexuality.

But it's off topic from what I cited here. It's ok to admit you made an error in responding to the wrong thing.

It's a clinical term.

The APA considers neither homosexuality nor transgenderism to be a mental disorder.

I didn't mention homosexuality, so your red herring is inconsequential. That the APA DID consider it a mental disorder, but changed it in the last DSM for basically no other reason than it may hurt the trans person's feelings to be called "disordered" is, again, why the soft sciences are frequently not real science.

[Psychic Missile]

Standards were changed near the end of the last president. I see though that you still haven't addressed what I brought up. When do you plan on addressing these issues?

I don't think I've missed anything you've brought up. If something's on your mind I ask you to bring it up specifically.

Which one of us is in the military?

You're currently a member of the military? What specific problems have you had with transpeople?

It was brought up because you didn't think about the argument at all and just used a talking point. Yeah the total amount does matter because ED treatments have been around since when? The 90s as as recall likewise how long did the military pay for transsexual re assignments? You can't draw comparisons in cost when the data is so incomplete. You can't compare things the military started to pay for less than a year ago to things they started paying for 20+ years ago.

I'm bringing it up because you and Trump are complaining about an expense that takes up an insignificant amount of the military's budget.

And everything I said remains unaddressed so you can keep playing your silly part in 'the resistance'. Are you going to address the fact that transsexuals have higher cases of serious psychological issues and sending them into the most stressed job in the US is just asking for trouble? Of course not because they are only useful to score cheap points and nothing more. It's not that hard, people with increased risk of depression, suicidal thoughts, and increased risk for suicide doesn't belong in a stressful career field. What can't you grasp about this?

What can't you grasp about the fact that negative generalizations about a group of people because of something they were born with is bigotry? A lot of conservatives think/thought that black people are/were more prone to violent crime. Their justification for excluding black people is no different from your justification for excluding transpeople. What is so wrong about judging people as individuals? Would you prefer I base my interactions with you on generalizations rather than your opinion and character?

They are often separated and kept from duty until their issues are dealt with. You are aware of that fact, right or would you prefer they stick around and get worse and worse? Psychology illness is grounds for separation. Please stop talking about things you nothing about because I know a few people separated because of psychological instability.

So what's wrong with treating soldiers with PTSD the same as we treat soldiers with gender dysphoria?

[Tassman]

I didn't mention homosexuality, so your red herring is inconsequential. That the APA DID consider it a mental disorder, but changed it in the last DSM for basically no other reason than it may hurt the trans person's feelings to be called "disordered" is, again, why the soft sciences are frequently not real science.

Neither homosexuality nor transgenderism are considered mental disorders by the APA. It is not for a bigoted layman like you to question the motivations of a professional body in arriving at its classifications, especially in such a sneering tone.

[Bill the Cat]

Neither homosexuality nor transgenderism are considered mental disorders by the APA. It is not for a bigoted layman like you to question the motivations of a professional body in arriving at its classifications, especially in such a sneering tone.

They ADMITTED they changed the classification for non-clinical reasons. It's all about making them comfortable, not any concern for medical accuracy. It was solely "the concern and clinical care that transgender individuals may need to achieve comfort with their gender identity, their body and gender role."

[Tassman]

They ADMITTED they changed the classification for non-clinical reasons. It's all about making them comfortable, not any concern for medical accuracy. It was solely "the concern and clinical care that transgender individuals may need to achieve comfort with their gender identity, their body and gender role."

There were no clinical reasons for retaining the classification.

[Jedidiah]

There were no clinical reasons for retaining the classification.

Rather there were no politically correct reasons for retaining the classification. Did you miss "They ADMITTED they changed the classification for non-clinical reasons."

[Charles]

Rather there were no politically correct reasons for retaining the classification. Did you miss "They ADMITTED they changed the classification for non-clinical reasons."

Which does not imply that there were any clinical reasons for retaining it.

[Tassman]

Rather there were no politically correct reasons for retaining the classification.

There is no reference to being "politically correct" in the APA website on transgenderism, this is your typically paranoid interpretation based upon your own bigotry rather than clinical fact..

Did you miss "They ADMITTED they changed the classification for non-clinical reasons."

Again, "ADMITTED" was BtC's loaded word. It does not appear in the APA website on the topic.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't think I've missed anything you've brought up. If something's on your mind I ask you to bring it up specifically.

You must not pay much attention because you keep handwaving away things like increased likelihood of serious mental health issues or ability to treat their condition out on the field.

You're currently a member of the military? What specific problems have you had with transpeople?

Yes and I already listed out the issues. Problems personally, none, issues that come up with their condition in a military environment, plenty. The military isn't for everyone. Such as those with increased mental health issues or those with conditions that require more than average medical treatment. I would rather avoid having to pick up a mother, from the airport, so she can go and get the body of her son or daughter. Would you like to do that instead?

I'm bringing it up because you and Trump are complaining about an expense that takes up an insignificant amount of the military's budget.

As of now, no it doesn't, but ED treatments didn't used to take up that much either. You do understand the point, right? Could someone in 1995 have predicted that treating old men with ED would cost as it does today? You can't accurately judge the cost of something 20 years later based on current trends.

What can't you grasp about the fact that negative generalizations about a group of people because of something they were born with is bigotry?

For starters there's zero evidence to support the 'born that way' assertion about any sort of view of human sexuality. Second reality doesn't change because your feelings are hurt. The reality is that transsexual people are more prone to depression, suicide, and other mental health issues vs the general population. Finally, you have proved my point for me because if you can't stand people thinking things or saying 'hurtful' things about you how would you survive a high stressed career field where mistakes can kill your friends? If you can't stand people questioning your life decisions than the military isn't for you.

A lot of conservatives think/thought that black people are/were more prone to violent crime. Their justification for excluding black people is no different from your justification for excluding transpeople. What is so wrong about judging people as individuals? Would you prefer I base my interactions with you on generalizations rather than your opinion and character?

I like how the mind of a far liberal always jumps straight to racism, but I care about what reality says and not feelings. Do the stats show that those men who grow up in fatherless homes have an increased risk for crime or not completing high school? I like how you blame consertives for racism and flat ignore that others have argued for decades that the problems plaguing the black community are problems like increased fatherless homes that often lead to a lifetime of trouble. Now let's get on track here? Are transsexuals at an increased risk of mental health issues? Yes or no? Care to answer the question or do you want to keep calling people racist and proving my points for me?

So what's wrong with treating soldiers with PTSD the same as we treat soldiers with gender dysphoria?

Beyond one being caused by military service and the other isn't?

[Bill the Cat]

Again, "ADMITTED" was BtC's loaded word. It does not appear in the APA website on the topic.

Crybaby much?

[Bill the Cat]

There were no clinical reasons for retaining the classification.

Sure there were. They stated that the classification was removed because of the comfort level of the trans person. That is in no way a clinical reason to remove the designation.

[Charles]

Crybaby much?

Wow. Is that the best reply you can give?

[Bill the Cat]

Wow. Is that the best reply you can give?

That's all it required. Of COURSE I loaded my statement with that term. It's what they did, yet they treated that statement as a commonplace clinical method. Choosing to no longer call something a clinical diagnosis to facilitate the comfort of the one who has it is a tacit admission of non-scientific bias.

[Charles]

That's all it required. Of COURSE I loaded my statement with that term. It's what they did, yet they treated that statement as a commonplace clinical method. Choosing to no longer call something a clinical diagnosis to facilitate the comfort of the one who has it is a tacit admission of non-scientific bias.

Ok, so he was actually right that you loaded the statement.

And what supports the statement in the last sentence? Right now it is just a statement.

[Bill the Cat]

Ok, so he was actually right that you loaded the statement.

It was a summary of how I saw their statement on why they changed the DSM 5.

And what supports the statement in the last sentence? Right now it is just a statement.

That they changed the diagnosis to facilitate the comfort of the afflicted? Their own words. That removing the pathology designation strictly for the patient's comfort is non-scientific? Does that really need supporting evidence? Does that not speak for itself?