6 ms·

Playing the victim is also another page right out of the Nazi playbook, thanks for bringing that one up too!

by skulk 2y ago

zmgsabst 2y ago
Yes — the people the US Supreme Court ruled were illegally discriminated against are just “playing victim”.
- fzeroracer 2y ago
  I'm curious, what would you call banning transgender individuals from the military then?
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - n4r9 2y ago
      > There’s lots of disqualifying psychiatric and personality conditions Looking at your link, I can see how the conditions specified there would make someone less effective as a soldier. I can't say the same for gender dysphoria.
      - ocuild 2y ago
        [flagged]
        n4r9 2y ago
        Back in the 60s homosexuals were insisting that their sexuality was legitimate and demanding that everyone else accommodate this belief. Many at the time viewed it as a false belief contrary to biological law. That was wrong then, and this is wrong now.
        ocuild 2y ago
        [flagged]
        exe34 2y ago
        I've met plenty of trans men and women that I wouldn't have known they were trans if they didn't tell me. What kind of effort are you thinking about in this case? What about the women who are really butch? Or the effeminate men? Would you want them excluded too, or would a genital inspection be considered sufficient to qualify them?
        ocuild 2y ago
        The broadest one is that new definitions of woman and man have been imposed which not just accommodate people who sometimes manage to successfully masquerade as the opposite sex (like some of the people you've met) but the ones who do not do so at all. According to these new definitions, merely stating that you're a woman or man (or somehow, neither) is enough to make it real. This has been used to rewrite law and policy so that any man who claims he's a woman can, with impunity, impose himself upon spaces that were only ever intended for women and girls. That's a huge change and has significant impact on the female half of the population, wouldn't you agree?
        n4r9 2y ago
        > any man who claims he's a woman can, with impunity, impose himself upon spaces that were only ever intended for women and girls The military policy (that I assume you're defending) is to ban anyone with a "history of gender dysphoria". Your points would have a little more weight if the situation was like in 2018 when individuals could serve under the condition of being stable for 18 months in their identified or assigned gender. But not much more weight, since that is still a lot weaker than what you describe.
    - fzeroracer 2y ago
      I think you're avoiding the point. These are individuals that have otherwise already passed military training and fitness tests to determine whether or not they are able to participate and function as soldiers. They are actively a part of our military and being thrown out.
      - zmgsabst 2y ago
        I can’t find anything to support that. The order as quoted refers to new joins: > “Effective immediately, all new accessions for individuals with a history of gender dysphoria are paused,” Hegseth said in a memo dated Feb. 7 and filed on Monday with the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. Which is consistent with Trump’s order from his first term that allowed transgender troops already serving to remain. The only quote on current troops I found was: > Hegseth said individuals with gender dysphoria already in the military would be “treated with dignity and respect,” and the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness would provide additional details on what this would mean. Do you have a source for that claim?
        fzeroracer 2y ago
        Yes. That was part of one of the recent executive orders he signed [1] which was dictating not only that care for transgender individuals in the military should cease but also that expressing a different gender identity was not compatible with being in the military. It's not even particularly vague about it. The military issued guidance against the executive order to not take adverse action, essentially only adopting the bathroom bill portion of it [2]. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prioritizing-military-excellence-and-readiness/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prio... [2] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.276845/gov.uscourts.dcd.276845.37.1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.276...

Playing the victim is also another page right out of the Nazi playbook, thanks for bringing that one up too!

by skulk 2y ago

Playing the victim is also another page right out of the Nazi playbook, thanks for bringing that one up too!

zmgsabst 2y ago

Yes — the people the US Supreme Court ruled were illegally discriminated against are just “playing victim”.

fzeroracer 2y ago
I'm curious, what would you call banning transgender individuals from the military then?
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - n4r9 2y ago
    > There’s lots of disqualifying psychiatric and personality conditions Looking at your link, I can see how the conditions specified there would make someone less effective as a soldier. I can't say the same for gender dysphoria.
    - ocuild 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - n4r9 2y ago
        Back in the 60s homosexuals were insisting that their sexuality was legitimate and demanding that everyone else accommodate this belief. Many at the time viewed it as a false belief contrary to biological law. That was wrong then, and this is wrong now.
        ocuild 2y ago
        [flagged]
        exe34 2y ago
        I've met plenty of trans men and women that I wouldn't have known they were trans if they didn't tell me. What kind of effort are you thinking about in this case? What about the women who are really butch? Or the effeminate men? Would you want them excluded too, or would a genital inspection be considered sufficient to qualify them?
        ocuild 2y ago
        The broadest one is that new definitions of woman and man have been imposed which not just accommodate people who sometimes manage to successfully masquerade as the opposite sex (like some of the people you've met) but the ones who do not do so at all. According to these new definitions, merely stating that you're a woman or man (or somehow, neither) is enough to make it real. This has been used to rewrite law and policy so that any man who claims he's a woman can, with impunity, impose himself upon spaces that were only ever intended for women and girls. That's a huge change and has significant impact on the female half of the population, wouldn't you agree?
        n4r9 2y ago
        > any man who claims he's a woman can, with impunity, impose himself upon spaces that were only ever intended for women and girls The military policy (that I assume you're defending) is to ban anyone with a "history of gender dysphoria". Your points would have a little more weight if the situation was like in 2018 when individuals could serve under the condition of being stable for 18 months in their identified or assigned gender. But not much more weight, since that is still a lot weaker than what you describe.
  - fzeroracer 2y ago
    I think you're avoiding the point. These are individuals that have otherwise already passed military training and fitness tests to determine whether or not they are able to participate and function as soldiers. They are actively a part of our military and being thrown out.
    - zmgsabst 2y ago
      I can’t find anything to support that. The order as quoted refers to new joins: > “Effective immediately, all new accessions for individuals with a history of gender dysphoria are paused,” Hegseth said in a memo dated Feb. 7 and filed on Monday with the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. Which is consistent with Trump’s order from his first term that allowed transgender troops already serving to remain. The only quote on current troops I found was: > Hegseth said individuals with gender dysphoria already in the military would be “treated with dignity and respect,” and the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness would provide additional details on what this would mean. Do you have a source for that claim?
      - fzeroracer 2y ago
        Yes. That was part of one of the recent executive orders he signed [1] which was dictating not only that care for transgender individuals in the military should cease but also that expressing a different gender identity was not compatible with being in the military. It's not even particularly vague about it. The military issued guidance against the executive order to not take adverse action, essentially only adopting the bathroom bill portion of it [2]. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prioritizing-military-excellence-and-readiness/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prio... [2] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.276845/gov.uscourts.dcd.276845.37.1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.276...