I’m not hear to address the OPs needs. This is a debate?
The president is commander-in-chief. He IS the military.
I wouldn’t pursue keeping a certain group out because I wouldn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, but I can’t deny that keeping people out and hobbling the military would benefit mankind.
The fact that you personally feel that anti-military sentiment is more important than antidiscrimination principles is not a valid justification for the armed forces themselves to adopt discriminatory policies. They don’t have the excuse of being rabid anti-militarists who don’t care what the military does as long as it ends up smaller.
Didn’t say it was a valid justification for them. I said that the policy would benefit mankind.
OK, so you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this discussion. Good to know.
You’re right. Better to reflexively signal virtue like many others.
Then, as Telemark noted, your opinion on this subject isn’t really relevant to a debate on the topic of the validity of particular justifications for the military’s adopting a discriminatory policy.
However, if it was important to you to inform the people engaged in such a debate that you don’t like the military, you can now rest secure in the knowledge that you have successfully accomplished that.
The OP was looking for help countering an argument. Another relevant post may counter that counter, so the OP is prepared or simply because it’s a debate forum. What you wrote seems like an admission of threadshitting to me, but I’m not a mod. But since you have no intention of addressing the topic at hand, I’ll stop engaging with you.
A clue as to whether this is a debate could take the form of forum placement. In any event, this thread is about arguments regarding transgendered folks in the military. The ‘let’s go with no military’ approach is offtopic. Let’s not derail further exploring this path in this thread.
[/moderating]
So far-
I’ve posted (thanks again!) what I feel are several strong points. My friend has yet to respond. I don’t know if he’s genuinely busy, if he’s marshalling resources and allies of his own, or if he’s walked away from the debate.
Yes, clearly it is off topic if someone does not take a token view from either side, but a nuanced one. Since when have these debates been limited to two narrow views set out by an OP? Truly bizarre.
I have clearly stated that it would be positive for humankind if transgendered folks were not allowed in the military, but that I would not be up in arms either way about the policies on the table. I have backed this statement up with my reasoning.
How some could fail to see how it is relevant to the topic is beyond me.
If you believe that what you have provided seriously supports your odd beliefs, you are mistaken.
Your friend isn’t looking for reasons that can be debated-he is looking for excuses to support a position that he doesn’t intend on changing, and people that will take his position.
You may be right. But it’s possible that somebody else reading the debate will be convinced. Additionally, I feel it’s my duty to sit at this keyboard and combat evil, prejudice, and ignorance.
There is always that.
I seriously doubt your friend would change their mind about trans people because your arguments are good. It’s not like debating cars. It’s way too personal.
I’m a total pacifist but saying they’re not allowed to serve for bullshit non-reasons is the same thing as saying they’re not allowed to earn their nation’s respect. Because serving in the military is one of THE ways persecuted groups have managed to do that. I’m sure you’ve heard examples a million times: “look at these black vets who risked everything protecting a country that won’t protect their basic freedoms”.
I don’t know Doc’s friend, but given that my mother, who’s about as rational as a rutabaga, has been known to change stance given reasons that she was capable to understand and a point of view she could identify with, Doc’s friend might be amenable as well.
Really obligatory XKCD: xkcd: Duty Calls
If you want some numbers, hormones are fairly cheap. I pay about $60 for a three-month supply, and I pay out-of-pocket.
I have convinced a coworker to reverse their opinion about same sex marriage laws.
To be fair, I don’t think they were homophobic, per se, but just figured that election results should be the end of it. I argued that constitutional protections against the tyranny of the majority were a good idea in general and applicable to this case, and he was persuaded.
I have the Dope to thank for having a concise, cogent augment at hand.
The OP may have seen my (wrong) argument against trans people in the Military. If not, this is an argument that might work for a Marine, if it worked for this Sailor. About 15 years ago I was stationed with a guy who was a model sailor. He was really going places. Then, he was diagnosed with adult onset Type I diabetes. His pancreas had just stopped producing insulin. In civilian life, this condition is easy to live with, you just have to be diligent. However, he was medically separated from the Navy because he was no longer world-wide deployable. There were places he could be sent where it would by impossible to guarantee an unbroken supply of insulin. I equated that with a trans person’s dependence on hormones. I was quickly told that in the case of trans people, the lack of hormones was not as health threatening as I thought, and that a lack of hormones for a couple months would not have any long term health impacts on the service member. Others in this thread can speak on it better than me, but knowing that changed my mind on the subject.