Exactly, @citizenschallengev3. The dotard was dysfunctional and created dysfunction in our government, nation, and citizens. He loves chaos and causing harm. This is a mental illness, but he doesn’t want help for a mental illness, preferring to commit crimes. Manson didn’t kill anyone himself. He had others do it for him, even encouraged it. He was also a sociopath who never received treatment, but stayed locked up for the rest of his life, once he was charged, tried, and convicted. Manson never again got to run amok in the streets, stirring up violence of his own making, ever again. The same should go for the dotard, because he’s basically of the same mentality. Biden is nowhere near that and he’s not encouraging violence and destruction, not even with passing laws concerning discrimination against a person or a group of people, based on gender, sexual orientation, etc. Transgender people are not doing anything to harm others by their gender transformations (those who know, please fill in proper word(s), because I can’t think of what word(s) I want here) or wanting to join the military as who/what they are, using the restroom etc. Trans women go to the women’s room, mind their business (just as every other woman does), wash their hands (hopefully), and get out just like any other woman. The only difference is, like women who have gone through menopause, they don’t need to find a tampon or sanitary napkin. lol There’s no problem unless some stupid person makes it a problem. Then that’s on the stupid person. For example, there are stupid men who attempt to dress as a woman, go into the women’s room, and stir up trouble, accusing trans women of such things, even though they are the ones doing the act, not the trans women. These [cis] men who do such stupid things are the ones who need to be ostracized, as the dotard should be for his crimes, because they are causing harm to other people with their actions. Of course, there is the other stupid issue where a trans man uses the men’s room and stupid cis men stir up trouble too. Again, that is on the stupid men who cause problems and hopefully charged with the crime they committed.
In my opinion having trans people in the military places an additional liability upon the military, others serving with trans people and the taxpayer. The military is authorized to deny you the opportunity to serve if you have issues which they deem will adversely impact your ability to perform. Performance as part of an organization includes not just physical ability but also social interactions. In any number of ways one’s psychological and emotional profile may be more of a determinant of capacity to participate successfully in an organization than physical factors. I disagree with Biden’s decision.Correct. Trans individuals should not be in the military because of the chronic mental illness that stems from the condition.
Looks like they figured it out while you keep your head in the sandhttps://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1091417/ioc-guidelines-transgender-tokyo-2020
According to your link they hoped they had figured it out in 2015 but didn’t.
The IOC Executive Board received a report today on the consultation process regarding athletes’ inclusion on the basis of sex characteristics and gender identity.The consultation is aimed at developing a framework and guidelines for athletes and International Federations, which would be based upon data research and the latest information in the scientific and human rights sectors.
A consensus statement published in 2015 approved the eligibility of those who transition from male to female in the female category under a series of conditions.
“Overall, the discussions so far have confirmed considerable tension between the notions of fairness and inclusion, and the desire and need to protect the women’s category,” the IOC Executive Board said.
“Opinions are very diverse and difficult to reconcile, and perceptions differ strongly.
“The new IOC guidelines will have to balance all of these.
“A change of the existing guidelines - the 2015 Consensus Statement - at this stage would mean a change of rules during an ongoing competition with the qualification for the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games already underway.
“Such a change, therefore, would be neither ethically nor legally admissible.
“Furthermore, it was always clear that the IOC could not change its existing guidelines while the consultation is ongoing.”
Independent experts from areas of performance, science, medicine, risk, law and socio-ethics, were invited to share their expertise, opinions and research at a two-day workshop in London, with representatives from organisations such as International Gay Rugby, the Rugby Football Union and Fair Play for Women also in attendance.
Attendees agreed on the main issues surrounding the physiological basis of performance differences between men and women, as well as confirming that further consultation and research was required, particularly in the areas of specific injury risk, ethical considerations and performance.
World Rugby also committed to explore further research to inform future guideline revision.
The IOC has expressed their support for IFs to tailor rules for their individual sports.
“This is an incredibly difficult field and it deals with individuals, we cannot have a hard and fast or one size fits all,” said Mark Adams, IOC spokesperson.
“We looked at our consensus statement, which seems the best route to take.
“Would be wrong at this stage it impose an overall rule on federations.
“It is not even just the sport, it is by discipline, where there are differences in performance for transgender and intersex athletes.
“We think the best way forward is to allow each federation to tailor its rules to individual sports and disciplines and try to offer fairest way possible that we can.
“There is no hiding from it, there is a real tension between fairness, inclusivity and protecting women’s sport.”
Another complication is the trans people who enter sports are not doing it because they want to play, but because they want public recognition of their identity.
And you know this how?Few, if any were interested in sports before they came out. If they were they would have just played on teams of the sex they look like because that is were the true challenge is.
That’s kind of what I said. Compared to the overall population yes, they are rare, but of the few that exist are almost all discriminated against. Sure, social media has helped raise awareness, so what? If you want people from the general population to stop killing people like yourself, you have to reach out to all of them, you aren’t going to identify the killers until they already have you in a choke hold.Trans have never been hunted down and killed in significant numbers. (Significant to their own small percentage of the population). Neither have gays for that matter.
In fact, there are many categories :more and more people are not happy with the limits fixed traditionally to men and women by our societies. Women wants to be allowed to do what men do and be treated as human beings, men want to be able to wear skirts and act without conforming themselves to the cannons of virility. Wearing skirts is a form. In fact they dont want to conform to gender roles
gender fluids are people who don’t identify strictly to one sex and can change from day to day.
transgenders are people who think at different degrees that they belong to the other sex. Some will go for just some changes, others will go for full change.
I don’t know so many people but i have personally met 3 of them, one in my family. I feel that there are many more than one believes but that they were afraid to show themselves in the past.
I think that stuff is over-exaggerated. Gender norms have been loosened since the sexual revolution but things haven’t changed much at all. The reason for that is our norms mainly stem from biology.
All the attempts to make boys more like girls and girls more like boys have failed. However, there is a lot more mental illness among younger people today, and sexual disorders and identity confusion are often a symptom of that.
Stumbled on this and thought it’s worth bringing to this thread. It appears young people are becoming less tolerant of LGBTQ people.
Young people are growing less tolerant of LGBTQ individuals, a jarring turn for a generation traditionally considered embracing and open, a survey released Monday shows.The number of Americans 18 to 34 who are comfortable interacting with LGBTQ people slipped from 53% in 2017 to 45% in 2018 – the only age group to show a decline, according to the annual Accelerating Acceptance report. And that is down from 63% in 2016.
Driving the dilution of acceptance are young women whose overall comfort levels plunged from 64% in 2017 to 52% in 2018, says the survey conducted by The Harris Poll on behalf of LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD.
“We count on the narrative that young people are more progressive and tolerant,” John Gerzema, CEO of The Harris Poll, told USA TODAY. “These numbers are very alarming and signal a looming social crisis in discrimination.”
Oddly enough, tolerance among older Americans has not declined.
The negative shift for the young is surprising, said Sarah Kate Ellis, GLAAD president and CEO. When GLAAD delved into the numbers, the group found that the younger generation was coming in contact with more LBGTQ people, particularly individuals who are non-binary and don’t identify simply as lesbian or gay.Sounds plausible. Younger people simply know more LGBTQ individuals and find out that they aren't as likable as pop culture portrays them. I didn't really dislike gays or trans until I had to interact with several of them.
“This newness they are experiencing could be leading to this erosion. It’s a newness that takes time for people to understand. Our job is to educate about non-conformity,” she said.Too bad we don't need to accept non-conformity.
... all human beings who deserve health care based on their needs?The only thing you or I or anyone else "deserves" is what you have earned. The basic difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals embrace the idea that "I am my brother's keeper." And of course the liberals want to force conservatives, who do not accept that idea, to pay for it.
Why is it that you think it is OK to force me to support your charities, such as socialized medicine, but it is not OK for me to force you to support my charities?
Back to the trans issue. I have learned over a long lifetime that what we see on the outside is a pretty good indication of what is on the inside. People with hot pink or lime green hair, people with various metal items stuck into various parts of the body, people who wear clothing that is obviously intended to attract attention and shock, and those whose behavior is more than three standard deviations from the mean are almost always as, or more, screwed up on the inside than they appear to be on the outside.
Military service can be stressful enough without any additional distraction from weirdness in your ranks. People with guns often respond to stress in unpredictable and violent ways. The rank and file in the services are not trained to be polite and politically correct. They are not encouraged to ask permission or say “excuse me” before killing someone on the other side. Having trans people in the military is dangerous for everyone.
The only thing you or I or anyone else “deserves” is what you have earned. --BobReagan, President Ronald Reagan, came up with the EIC, the Earned Income Credit. It's in the books we used to get with doing our taxes. If, you live alone, or a household where you are providing work for that household, and you are making very little money, it recognizes that you "earned" something. It's not just a refund, it adds on to your return.
The problem with “you earned it” is people who never did any labor in their life, people who had Trust funds as kids and had the best education in the country paid for, create the laws and set the norms for how much you paid and taxed. How in the hell did Jeff Bezos earn hundreds of billions last year? He did not work any harder in 2020 than he did in 2019.
I have learned over a long lifetime that what we see on the outside is a pretty good indication of what is on the inside. -- bobYes bob we know. You lived in opposite world. Where sayings like "don't judge a book by it's cover" are meaningless.
Too bad we don’t need to accept non-conformity. -- oneguynot accepting conformity is what got us to the moon. What is your picture of a balanced, healthy world? Or, is that not what you want? Do you think we should just fight it out until we destroy ourselves and/or the planet? Exactly who's rules should I be conforming to? I believe in rules, obviously, but look at what I accept as "conformity":
We welcome reasoned discussion, debate and disagreement, so long as it is in an objective spirit of inquiry and does not become disruptive as described below in the sections on problem threads, posts and members.“Trolling” is not allowed. This includes posting derogatory or inflammatory messages with the intent to bait an overheated response, as well as behavior that in the Moderators’ judgement is gratuitously argumentative, combative, or inflammatory with the apparent intent to prolong debate for its own sake rather than promote, defend, or critique a particular idea or point of view.
Free inquiry is only possible if we maintain civility.
This community exists, first and foremost, to foster inquiry. Inquiry does not flourish in an atmosphere of heated rhetoric, mutual vilification or recrimination.
The only thing you or I or anyone else “deserves” is what you have earned.
Healthcare is a human right, but I see you would prefer the system of “if you can’t afford it, then drop dead”.
not accepting conformity is what got us to the moon. What is your picture of a balanced, healthy world? Or, is that not what you want? Do you think we should just fight it out until we destroy ourselves and/or the planet? Exactly who’s rules should I be conforming to? I believe in rules, obviously, but look at what I accept as “conformity”I don't think the space program had anything to do with liberal permissiveness and love of novelty. As for which rules we should conform to, nature's rules are best.
Any sort of sexual deviancy/mental illness should not be celebrated.
Back to the trans issue. I have learned over a long lifetime that what we see on the outside is a pretty good indication of what is on the inside. People with hot pink or lime green hair, people with various metal items stuck into various parts of the body, people who wear clothing that is obviously intended to attract attention and shock, and those whose behavior is more than three standard deviations from the mean are almost always as, or more, screwed up on the inside than they appear to be on the outside.Very true. Self mutilation and reveling in ugliness are always symptoms of mental illness. The only people who support that behavior are mentally ill themselves.
Military service can be stressful enough without any additional distraction from weirdness in your ranks. People with guns often respond to stress in unpredictable and violent ways. The rank and file in the services are not trained to be polite and politically correct. They are not encouraged to ask permission or say “excuse me” before killing someone on the other side. Having trans people in the military is dangerous for everyone.Service members are not any more likely to kill trans people than anybody else, but transgenders are already at a high risk of killing themselves and the challenges everyone faces in the military can easily add fuel to the fire. No need to go down that road.
don’t think the space program had anything to do with liberal permissiveness and love of novelty. -- oneguyThere were a couple steps in between. First, Galileo published his data on how there were other planets and challenged the conformity to the idea that we were the center of the universe. Later, Voltaire challenged the conformity of the priests who rounded people and burned them at the stake because there had been an earthquake. yadda-yadda-yadda, we're on the moon.
What you call “love of novelty”, Jonathan Haidt calls being lower on the scale with the value of “purity”. Haidt also goes into the reasons why purity can be good for the group in some cases and how a lack of it can be bad in some case, and the opposite in other cases. But I’ve tried to present this before and it doesn’t seem to land anywhere near a part of your brain that can consider it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory#/media/File:Haidt-political_morality.png
but transgenders are already at a high risk of killing themselves and the challenges everyone faces in the military can easily add fuel to the fire -- oneguyWow, that is amazingly messed up. Have you considered that the reason transgender people are more likely to commit suicide is BECAUSE they are discriminated against? So, the way to reduce that would be to accept that the binary system we have is cultural? That is, accept the science? No, I guess you haven't.
Biology plays a role, yes. For instance, only women can breast feed babies.
It is true that average women are not as strong as average men. When you must wear 40 kilos of armors and weapons, and walk for kilometers with them, men are more adapted. When you push buttons or fire from a static position, women are as able as men.
Beyond that, technology and society are determining. For instance when my daughter was born, she was bottle feed and every night, mother and me alternated to clean and feed her until she was able to sleep for a whole night.
Gender roles are not determined by biology, they are determined by the history of society. I gave the example of the skirt, worn in south-east Asia by millions of men, of any religion.
Up to the end of the 18th century, men were wearing loose clothes, heeled shoes and make up, Louis XIV included.
Often what is seen as natural law comes from historical circumstances. The French nobility invented the salique law, forbidding a woman to take the throne or to transmit it, because they wanted to put aside a contender, the king of England. Biology has nothing to do with this decision, even if it was invoked.
The problem with “you earned it” is people ...Does Bezos, Gates, Buffet or a hundred other millionaires deserve what they have? Maybe, maybe not. I think it depends on how much of what they have is a result of them actually doing something with what life gave them. Life is not fair. We are not all equal. Is a person who increases a few million he inherited to a few billion any more obligated to the rest of us for anything than a person who increases his twenty dollar inheritance to a hundred thousand? Where is it written that those with much have a mandate to provide for those who have less? Surely you will not accept that the Bible presents truth.
... sayings like “don’t judge a book by it’s cover” are meaningless.Yes, that one is pretty much meaningless. especially where the individual has gone to extremes to appear extreme. Or, would you say you would expect to be able to sit down and have a good discussion of social philosophy with a guy carrying both a gun and a Confederate flag? I think not. I think his MAGA baseball cap would be too much for you to overcome.
Healthcare is a human rightWrong. Every freedom you have is because the rest of us let you have it. You have no more of a right to socialized medicine than I have to a pickup truck.