Predisent Donald J. Skroob: Episode X: Purple Raining to Impeachment

[kuronosan]

Yes. So open-minded. Genius of our time.

[guartz]

I know you dont agree with the trans ban opinion, but that's not the point here. I'm asking for someone to make sense of it, no one can without being a bigot, and therefore it's a shit opinion. Do you disagree with that phrasing?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Well, how about:

1) Will trans people be housed with biological equivalent or their reassigned gender counter-parts? How do you accommodate, if say biological females don't want to share bathrooms with biological males?
2) Will physical fitness standards apply to biological sex or reassigned sex? Is that even fair?
3) Combat Readiness, military recruits young people because they are healthy and not dependent on drugs.
4) Military service isn't a right, people born with low IQ are excluded from service.
5) Why burden the military with all these administrative encumbrances to accommodate a small fraction of a population.

[kuronosan]

You can't even answer a question without feeling attacked when you aren't even being attacked. And I'm not even a difficult person to convince of your position.

You just don't seem to have one.

[Salodin]

I make one statement that suddenly becomes me supporting x y z, or that because I can't support the thing I wasn't supporting I need to provide examples on how someone could support it and why and this and that and seriously what the fuck.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Bruh this is the problem here

You're so fucking scared that when we say "you", you think we mean gadritan, when really all we mean is "people who believe this". No one is saying you're a bigot who wants a trans ban lmao

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[kuronosan]

Well, how about:

1) Will trans people be housed with biological equivalent or their reassigned gender counter-parts? How do you accommodate, if say biological females don't want to share bathrooms with biological males?
2) Will physical fitness standards apply to biological sex or reassigned sex? Is that even fair?
3) Combat Readiness, military recruits young people because they are healthy and not dependent on drugs.
4) Military service isn't a right, people born with low IQ are excluded from service.
5) Why burden the military with all these administrative encumbrances to accommodate a small fraction of a population.

These are all GREAT questions to discuss. If only it was actually discussed.

Because none of these were actually issues.

[Salodin]

I shouldnt have to write "obligatory not you, specifically", but here we are

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[guartz]

These are all GREAT questions to discuss. If only it was actually discussed.

Because none of these were actually issues.

Yea, would be great to discuss them without being called bigot

[kuronosan]

Yea, would be great to discuss them without being called bigot

So, if it came out that nobody in the military had a problem you would be fine with it?

Because the number one reason I hear justifying the ban is "free surgeries", which is stupid.

I mean, these are all logistical hurdles that could be easily overcome by discussing it without having to "ban" people. These weren't issues before during the Obama administration. Why are they issues now?

And gay marriage, for that matter, is another cornerstone of conservative thought. What problems are there with that?

I'm willing to accept that there exist legitimate reasons for some of these policies but there hasn't been any presented evidence that demonstrates a need.

[Salodin]

Well, how about:

1) Will trans people be housed with biological equivalent or their reassigned gender counter-parts? How do you accommodate, if say biological females don't want to share bathrooms with biological males?
2) Will physical fitness standards apply to biological sex or reassigned sex? Is that even fair?
3) Combat Readiness, military recruits young people because they are healthy and not dependent on drugs.
4) Military service isn't a right, people born with low IQ are excluded from service.
5) Why burden the military with all these administrative encumbrances to accommodate a small fraction of a population.

1. Bans all trans cause you're too simple to think of a bathroom solution? Unisex bathroom? Individual bathrooms? Stop staring at other people in the bathroom guartz

2. This is irrelevant to trans people? A woman isnt joining the SEALs with lower PT scores. No one is lowering the athleticism needed in order to keep trans people in the military.

3. Are you saying all trans people are drug addicts? That trans people can never be competent soldiers? Bigoted, if true

4. Are you saying all trans people have, on average, a lower IQ than non trans?

5. The military wasnt inconvenienced. Everything was fine after we stopped dont ask dont tell. Everything was fine when trans people were openly serving. Everything was fine...until Trump tweeted that trans people shouldnt be serving.

See? These excuses are pretty lame, in regards to a trans ban. There is no reason except for bigoted ones.

Now, if you want to say trans people should serve, but shouldnt be given special access to surgeries like reassignment surgery, that's a different question and not the situation we have, now is it

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[guartz]

1) So, if it came out that nobody in the military had a problem you would be fine with it?

1.5) Because the number one reason I hear justifying the ban is "free surgeries", which is stupid.

2) I mean, these are all logistical hurdles that could be easily overcome by discussing it without having to "ban" people. These weren't issues before during the Obama administration. Why are they issues now?

3) And gay marriage, for that matter, is another cornerstone of conservative thought. What problems are there with that?

I'm willing to accept that there exist legitimate reasons for some of these policies but there hasn't been any presented evidence that demonstrates a need.

1) sure, why not.

1.5) a lot of people join for free college, Im sure people would join for free surgeries/drugs too, is that the point your making? I dont think I understand.

2) Im sure all the logistical hurdles could be overcome yes, but trans people are fraction of US population, sub enlisting age, sub physical/mental fitness, sub willingness to enlist - aside from making a political/moral postures does it serve to make the military better? I don't think so practically, it will add burden ,figuratively speaking, to accommodate like 5 people.

3) The legal benefits of marriage are legit and it's unfair to exclude people from that, personally I think the whole thing could have been side-stepped by just renaming legal marriage to something like idk, legal bonding or whatever the fuck, because that's what religious people (its not just christians) objected too, seeing as marriage is seen as a religious ceremony. edit: As in, seperate the religious portion of marriage and legal portion of it. I know it's nuances but fuck if religious people aren't sticklers.

[guartz]

4. Are you saying all trans people have, on average, a lower IQ than non trans?

Just you. lmao, gottem

[kuronosan]

Those are all fair points, but there wasn't really evidence that the military was worse off. There weren't any calls to remove transgender service members.

Is it really better to ban all "5" of them instead of just not caring that they serve?

[guartz]

Those are all fair points, but there wasn't really evidence that the military was worse off. There weren't any calls to remove transgender service members.

Is it really better to ban all "5" of them instead of just not caring that they serve?

I don't think I meant to imply "worse off" and surely you can agree the transgender people who will enlist won't just wanna be handled like their biological counter-parts, so my point was the administrative additions that will represent won't make sense for the additional pool of recruits, because it's so small. It's a practical objection. I honestly believe if trans was a much larger community the military would bend over backwards to accommodate them, since they are always volunteer starved.

[kuronosan]

Hm. I can't say that I agree with setting an unnecessary ban without precedence.

[guartz]

Hm. I can't say that I agree with setting an unnecessary ban without precedence.

Well good news is that America is pretty socially liberal and becomes more so as time goes by.

[kuronosan]

I don't think I agree with that. What I do agree with is that woke culture is largely out of hand and far too many people are concerned with talking about change and not voting for it.

I actually do think as well that the GOP largely has been consolidating power for itself and Democrats are smug fools who are out of touch with their base.

I'm liberal by definition but if you ask some of my liberal friends how I identify they'll call me a centrist because I don't participate in witch hunts.

I just think there's a little more to what's going on with conservatives and the current GOP and how conservatives can support a President who set the bar this low is beyond baffling to me.

[guartz]

If you are saying that there is a push to the right, no I don't see it. Trump would have been considered centrist if he ran 10 years ago. There is too much left though, I mean, Obama is being called Republican now? Seriously. Too much left, too quick. no bueno.

[Salodin]

No one on BG has called Brobama a republican lol

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Xno Kappa]

No one on BG has called Brobama a republican lol

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Saved.

[Gredival]

1) Will trans people be housed with biological equivalent or their reassigned gender counter-parts? How do you accommodate, if say biological females don't want to share bathrooms with biological males?

The same thing as when the military integrated blacks when whites didn't want to serve with them. Tell the people complaining too bad, so sad.