Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Friday January 13 2017, @09:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-the-experts-say dept.

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956

The Pentagon could be poised for a rapid about-face under the Trump administration, with the Obama administration's push for social reform surrendering to what could be an old-school emphasis on combat readiness and the spirit of the United States military, experts told FoxNews.com.

Under President Obama, the military sought to integrate transgender persons into the ranks, allow women into special operations forces and purge the nomenclature of gender-specific words, adopting what some critics say was a "politically correct" liberal agenda. That's a contrast to the traditional U.S. military approach.

In addition, some Navy ships have been named for civil rights activists. And while the Obama administration has taken an inclusive approach on some issues, it has also worked to minimize expressions of Christianity in the ranks. For example, several officers have been disciplined for displaying Bibles or gospel verses in their quarters.

Veterans and military experts told FoxNews.com that, while some of Obama's civil rights advancements may be locked in, neither Trump nor his choice for secretary of defense, Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis, are likely to make social experimentation a priority.

Source: Fox News


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by BK on Friday January 13 2017, @11:03PM

    by BK (4868) on Friday January 13 2017, @11:03PM (#453553)

    Do you ever wonder whether a male or female dog or cat you see might be transgendered? How about a chicken? I certainly don't. But it occurs to me that if the standard of making this determination is not by looking at the animal, but by comparing brain scans of representative animals to our test animal, that something has gone horribly wrong. Do you know what a chicken sexer [wikipedia.org] is? Have they been doing it wrong all along?

    Gender is really important to both domestic and to wild animals. It defines their place in the natural order. It affects how they will grow and what they can do. It defines how they are treated by humans if domesticated.

    In recent years there has been an attempt to redefine gender... for humans... into a thing not of physical morphology but of 'identity'. There has been an effort to place identity above morphology. That's interesting but it has confused the issues. Identity is really important and needs its own words and identifications separate and distinct from the words we use to describe the physical features of animals. Anything else invites confusion and even a degree of hostility.

    Circling back to your point, the issue is not about whether gender or sex is a social construct... it's not. It's morphological and it is not strictly binary. (though there are social constructs that are built up around the morphology) But identity is something else. If identity is a thing of the mind then there could well be illnesses associated with it.

    The problem for those with the identity condition we currently mislabel (confusingly) as 'trans-gendered' is that their 'identity' - the way they see themselves - is different from the morphological facts.

    Let me give an example of a morphology / identity mismatch:

    I think I should have wings. When I think about myself, I always envision wings. I don't mean stereotypical angel wings... it's hard to describe. But I know that I should be able to fly. I'm not a bird... I don't think my arms should be wings. But I should just be a normal human with wings that can fly. Like normal. I realize that I don't have wings and resent it - maybe it's a birth defect? Hell, I feel the wings right now. If you scan my brain the bits associated with wings are probably off the charts. I should tell everyone!

    (no Red Bull jokes kids)

    So... Am I a deformed but otherwise normal winged human? Am I confused. If I demand that you make space in the elevator for my wings am I rude? Deranged? If I demand that human society attach wings to me am I being reasonable? Should society pay for this or should I? Should society treat me the way (I envision) normal winged humans are treated? Should this change if I manage to have my wings attached?

    --
    ...but you HAVE heard of me.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Troll=1, Insightful=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2, Touché) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday January 14 2017, @01:05AM

    by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Saturday January 14 2017, @01:05AM (#453651) Journal

    I didn't realize we were talking about gelflings [wikia.com] or animals.

    But it occurs to me that if the standard of making this determination is not by looking at the animal, but by comparing brain scans of representative animals to our test animal, that something has gone horribly wrong.

    How does that follow? I'm going to conjecture that it's almost certain that we can find similar differences in the brains of other mammals that have the same correlations to mental sex. Why would something have gone horribly wrong for us to be giving brain scans to animals? I'll conjecture that we don't do it for the same reason we don't give human infants brain scans to determine brain sex at birth. There's very little utility to doing so.

    For an animal, it's uncertain what would be gain by determining that the subject as a brain sex that opposite of their reproductive sex. However, let's suppose we did make such a determination. What would the animal's keepers change? I'm going to place farm animals aside. If a pet's owner is the crazy kind of pet owner that dresses their pet up, does the animal really care whether it's wearing clothing indicative of the common manner of dressing for a human of one gender or the other? Plus, if a pet is really that adamant about not wearing certain clothes but likes wearing other clothes, I'm not certain that most pet owners would make it a big moral issue about how the pet “should” be dressed, mostly because it's just not normal for animals to be in clothing!

    Forgive me for being small minded, but I think we can assume that human and gelfling social habits are vastly more complicated than just about any animal out there, including gorillas.

    (I'm going to recombine some parts of your post here.)

    In recent years there has been an attempt to redefine gender... for humans... into a thing not of physical morphology but of 'identity'…. The problem for those with the identity condition we currently mislabel (confusingly) as 'trans-gendered' is that their 'identity' - the way they see themselves - is different from the morphological facts.

    Do you regularly go around performing the Crocodile Dundee maneuver? How are you sure what another person's reproductive gender is? Are the morphological facts you're talking about reproductive sex, genetic sex, assigned sex at birth, or something else?

    The Apache attack copter go-to example (remembering to be sensitive of our very own Mighty Apache Attack Copter) leads us here:

    So... Am I a deformed but otherwise normal winged human?

    You're probably a female gelfling.

    Am I confused[?]

    No, you sound pretty adamant about being a female gelfling. That doesn't strike me as being confused at all.

    If I demand that you make space in the elevator for my wings am I rude? Deranged?

    You're being unreasonable. You seem to be a pre-flight-op female gelfling. I'll offer my sympathies and encouragement as you save up for surgery to buy your wings, but until you have wings, nobody's going to afford you all of the space required by woman displaying her full wingspan. I'm pretty sure that's considered immodest at any rate, so even though most gelfling women have fully functional wings, it may in fact be extremely rude to open one's full wingspan in public, especially a confined space like an elevator. (I don't know, maybe those damned kids go around with their wings on full display in their crop tops these days. Disgraceful! They also need to get off my lawn!)

    If I demand that human society attach wings to me am I being reasonable? Should society pay for this or should I?

    Ok, so we've established that you're a female gelfling. You tell me. Is it normal in Thra for medicaid to pay for female gelflings who weren't born with functional wings to obtain a similar surgery in order to become flight-capable? If that's the case, then sure, you're being reasonable. However, if gelfling medicaid is like human medicaid, it probably won't cover an operation like that. You'll have to live with an unfortunate birth defect that leaves you flightless just like any other female gelfling not born capable of flight.

    Should society treat me the way (I envision) normal winged humans are treated?

    I don't see why not. In the words of Mr. Trump, “There have been so few problems.” How are flightless female gelflings treated?

    If we're coming back around to the flight aspect, perhaps you've found some allies with female gelflings who, because of a variety of birth defects, were born without the ability to fly. Personally I think that acrobatic ballet is overrated. Plus, I would think that many gelfling women who don't have that perfect, stereotypical, petite frame but are otherwise capable of flight aren't very represented in acrobatic ballet. Perhaps it would help to popularize competitive hang gliding?

    Should this change if I manage to have my wings attached?

    Not being an expert on gelflings (as a xenosociologist, I'm more familiar with the lizard people), I'm sorry I'm not sure how to answer that.

    Gelflings are an interesting study in gender, I'll admit. I think I have problems not having a female reproductive system! I would absolutely be beside myself if I were a gelfling! If I could conjecture, being born flightless must be crushing for any gelfling with a female brain sex. I can't imagine the pain that must cause.

    Did you want to talk about humans or should we continue talking about gelflings?

    Or did I completely miss a point that was obvious to you because you believe you can instantly and completely accurately determine somebody's “real gender” by sight alone?

    • (Score: 2) by BK on Saturday January 14 2017, @08:36PM

      by BK (4868) on Saturday January 14 2017, @08:36PM (#453908)

      the Crocodile Dundee maneuver

      Forgot about that... lol.

      Do you regularly go around performing the Crocodile Dundee maneuver?

      Safe to say, no. Should that be an acceptable social custom?

      Are the morphological facts you're talking about reproductive sex, genetic sex, assigned sex at birth, or something else?

      In the context of your question, "reproductive sex" is the most correct answer. I would never use those descriptors in reference to a living thing in any other way.

      How are you sure what another person's reproductive gender is?

      I can usually tell once I can see the distinguishing visually apparent features. Again this can be non-binary so a tiny fraction of cases will be indeterminate (in fact, indications could be "both", "neither", or "something else"...) even after close inspection. Some humans have themselves surgically altered to confuse any observers.

      You're probably a female gelfling.

      How insensitive -- and clearly you weren't listening. I'm a regular winged human. At least get the species right.

      --
      ...but you HAVE heard of me.
      • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday January 15 2017, @02:37AM

        by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Sunday January 15 2017, @02:37AM (#453986) Journal

        Safe to say, no.

        Why? Afraid your ability to spot somebody's “real” gender isn't as good as you hope it is?

        Some humans have themselves surgically altered to confuse any observers.

        Are you prepared for the possibility that no surgery is required for a really good woman suit?

        I'm a regular winged human.

        Good luck then. I assume you also believe that human women are imaginary creatures as well!

        • (Score: 2) by BK on Sunday January 15 2017, @04:50AM

          by BK (4868) on Sunday January 15 2017, @04:50AM (#454007)

          Why?

          It just never seemed like the right thing to do.

          Are you prepared for the possibility

          If you read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote, you'll find that I am prepared and am not especially bothered by this.

          I assume you also believe

          One of the hardest parts about talking about serious things when there is also serious disagreement is maintaining a degree of respect, or at least the appearance. If you want to know what I believe ask me. You may not like the answer but I will share. Comments like your last, and even the ones before, where you call names and attempt to pin me with ideas that are not mine (but might be yours?) do nothing to further the conversation or enlighten a reader.

          If you don't want to take part in discussion of serious things... then don't.

          --
          ...but you HAVE heard of me.
    • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Saturday January 14 2017, @08:49PM

      by cubancigar11 (330) on Saturday January 14 2017, @08:49PM (#453912) Homepage Journal

      Here is some science: Sexuality and Gender [thenewatlantis.com]

      Page 8, Executive Summary:

      The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed prop-
      erty of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that
      a person might be “a man trapped in a woman’s body” or “a
      woman trapped in a man’s body” — is not supported by scientific
      evidence.

      Page 114, Conclusion:

      Some of the most widely held views about sexual orientation, such as the “born that way” hypothesis, simply are not supported by science.

      Page 115:

      In reviewing the scientific literature, we find that almost nothing is
      well understood when we seek biological explanations for what causes
      some individuals to state that their gender does not match their biological
      sex.
      ....
      Yet despite the scientific uncertainty, drastic interventions are pre-
      scribed and delivered to patients identifying, or identified, as transgender.
      This is especially troubling when the patients receiving these interven-
      tions are children.

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday January 16 2017, @07:55PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday January 16 2017, @07:55PM (#454483) Journal

      I really appreciate that you know what a gelfling is.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.