Trump administration launches global effort to end criminalization of homosexuality

[Shad]

So just a lot of ad hoc speculation. Understood.

Wrong. Again the 2013 Marine report covers the sliding the standards and the related performance issues. You can also look at the directive regarding the lift of and re-implementation of the TG ban regarding what I have said.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Trump had to be friendly towards the Clintons, because Hillary was his Senator in New York where he did lots of business.

And Epstein? And the photos of Trump with the Clintons before she was a senator? Maybe Elton had to be friendly to Trump because he was paying for the gig? Your pro-Trump cherry picking is pretty blatant.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Wrong. Again the 2013 Marine report covers the sliding the standards and the related performance issues. You can also look at the directive regarding the lift of and re-implementation of the TG ban regarding what I have said.

Asked and answered, but whatever. I'm not wasting my time if you're not interested in considering information that contradicts your a priori assumptions. If you ever get past it, get someone to message me and I'll happily reengage with you. For now, strike 3.

 

[Shad]

Asked and answered, but whatever. I'm not wasting my time if you're not interested in considering information that contradicts your a priori assumptions. If you ever get past it, get someone to message me and I'll happily reengage with you. For now, strike 3.

What information is that exactly? You have not countered any military performance evaluation. You have not countered anything regarding combat readiness, combat effectiveness, different standards, exemptions, etc, etc. You offered nothing to counter my post. Try again.

 

[Salvador]

And Epstein? And the photos of Trump with the Clintons before she was a senator? Maybe Elton had to be friendly to Trump because he was paying for the gig? Your pro-Trump cherry picking is pretty blatant.

A powerful executive leader like Donald J. Trump gets around, so you'd expect him to be in lots of photos. He attended Elton John's gay wedding, so this proves he gives his blessings to any gay couple who are happily joined together.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

A powerful executive leader like Donald J. Trump gets around, so you'd expect him to be in lots of photos. He attended Elton John's gay wedding, so this proves he gives his blessings to any gay couple who are happily joined together.

Can't tell if this is Poe's or what.

 

[Shad]

Can't tell if this is Poe's or what.

He is confusing celebrity status with caring about X. Some events due to this status become so large that people of note but with no relation with an individual are present. Similar to political events such as post-nomination party races with attendants being present that were ripping each other to pieces before the vote. For example Trump and Cruz.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

No. You merely assumed you could find X without demonstrating you found X.

Nope, I wagered that I could find such 'studies' talking about the effectiveness of units with out gays in them, alluding to that even if I could find such 'studies' it wouldn't matter, because bans on gays in the military is unconstitutional discrimination.

More so you have provided zero evidence that the evaluation by the Marines showing a statistical drop in effectiveness is due to "discomfort" rather than basic biological difference between men and women. FYI the injury rate for women was 6x higher. That was due to discomfort too right?

Yet curiously not present in the combat reports of other nations. No doubt American women are just especially frail and there's totally not selective biases in an in-house study in an administration with clear biases against women and trans. Because the 'study' is not up for peer review and is considered "not releasable under the Freedom of Information Act" we can't actually review the methodology.

Ergo nothing to do with the military.

Requirements for military policy means 'something to do with the military.'

All TG have it by definition.

No they don't. Gender dysphoria =/= body dysphoria =/= body dysmorphia

All people with body dysphoria are disqualified anyways.

No they aren't. Body dysphoria =/= body dysmorphia

You stated an opinion and I disagreed.

Wasn't an opinion.

 

[Salvador]

Can't tell if this is Poe's or what.

Me stating facts, hardly means I'm perpetuating Poe's....

 

[Shad]

Nope, I wagered that I could find such 'studies' talking about the effectiveness of units with out gays in them, alluding to that even if I could find such 'studies' it wouldn't matter, because bans on gays in the military is unconstitutional discrimination.

K. Speculating is still speculating so you have nothing.

Yet curiously not present in the combat reports of other nations.

Other nations such as?

No doubt American women are just especially frail and there's totally not selective biases in an in-house study in an administration with clear biases against women and trans. Because the 'study' is not up for peer review and is considered "not releasable under the Freedom of Information Act" we can't actually review the methodology.

No it is biological fact. Male are physically strong on average.

Yes why would the military want to classify part of their training, evaluation and readiness stats......... I wonder why...... Hmmmmmm...

Requirements for military policy means 'something to do with the military.'

No I was talking about the SCOTUS ruling. It was not about the military reports but that the law was unconstitutional. The military can simply return to the previous basic standards and let women bomb out at previous numbers.

No they don't. Gender dysphoria =/= body dysphoria =/= body dysmorphia

I disagree as I do not treat gender as unrelated to sex.

No they aren't. Body dysphoria =/= body dysmorphia

See above

Wasn't an opinion.

Yes it was as the military does not do individual evaluation for disqualifying conditions already present.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

K. Speculating is still speculating so you have nothing.

Wasn't a speculating question. Sorry you didn't get that.

Other nations such as?

You can start with Australia. I think you were already given a post about it.

No it is biological fact. Male are physically strong on average.

It's also a biological fact that women are better marksmen on average than men. But I digress, PFT, not what dangles between one's legs, should decide.

Yes why would the military want to classify part of their training, evaluation and readiness stats......... I wonder why...... Hmmmmmm...

And why would the rest of the scientific body of researchers not give credence to studies offering no transparency or peer review to independent sources? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

No I was talking about the SCOTUS ruling. It was not about the military reports but that the law was unconstitutional. The military can simply return to the previous basic standards and let women bomb out at previous numbers.

Sounds good to me. I mean, it doesn't. I certainly wouldn't sign up for the military while our ***-pimple-in-chief is in office, so we can fight for his fear of brown men. But if anyone, and I do mean anyone, who can pass the PFA wants to, more power to them.

I disagree as I do not treat gender as unrelated to sex.

Well not keeping up with anything like actual medical and psychological research before making unqualified comments about them is your problem due to irrational pre-conceptions is your problem, not mine.

Yes it was as the military does not do individual evaluation for disqualifying conditions already present.

They actually do in many cases, because most conditions have ranges which fall outside of disqualifying and are thus reviewed on case by case basis. But that's neither here nor there, since it wasn't what I was talking about.

And I tire of this format and this back and forth. Later.

 

[Shad]

Wasn't a speculating question. Sorry you didn't get that.

You are still speculating as you are not demonstrating anything.

You can start with Australia. I think you were already given a post about it.

I will check the posts again.

It's also a biological fact that women are better marksmen on average than men. But I digress, PFT, not what dangles between one's legs, should decide.

Not according to the Marines.

And why would the rest of the scientific body of researchers not give credence to studies offering no transparency or peer review to independent sources? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

I will go with "not telling giving your enemies free access to military data and readiness reports" over your paranoia.

Sounds good to me. I mean, it doesn't. I certainly wouldn't sign up for the military while our ***-pimple-in-chief is in office, so we can fight for his fear of brown men. But if anyone, and I do mean anyone, who can pass the PFA wants to, more power to them.

I wouldn't want to serve in general due to decades of blunders by US foreign policy.

Passing is only a start.

Well not keeping up with anything like actual medical and psychological research before making unqualified comments about them is your problem due to irrational pre-conceptions is your problem, not mine.

A soft-science that think biological sex has nothing to do with gender is babble no matter how many experts agree.

They actually do in many cases, because most conditions have ranges which fall outside of disqualifying and are thus reviewed on case by case basis. But that's neither here nor there, since it wasn't what I was talking about.

Except you are as TG is a disqualifying position and you want an individual exemption for it.

And I tire of this format and this back and forth. Later.

Later.

 

[Revoltingest]

We absolutely do not.

Where do you get "we" from that?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Where do you get "we" from that?

Society. I misread your post with 'you' as 'we'.

 

[Revoltingest]

Society. I misread your post with 'you' as 'we'.

OK.