TRUMP reminds me of All Might from Hero Academia. Any other Trump fans?

If you can get Mangabird to say that my background doesn't delegitimize my argument, then I can at the very least commit to a discussion, and if you can get her to give her reasoning behind why she decided my background should be questioned without that reason being whether or not my argument was legitimate, then I can concede that it's a misunderstanding. Can we agree to the terms?

lmao I didn't expect this response, we're happy with that, I applaud you for bridging the gap in the face of me calling you a "cunt" lol see I told you you're a cool guy.

@Shinu I didn't mean my comment came across that way - it wasn't my intention to imply that your background delegitimises your argument at all. I believe the line you had a problem with was: Unless you know firsthand I don't think you're really qualified to comment about what a trans person goes through, or their state of mind. What I meant by that was unless you know firsthand (i.e. are trans, have a trans relative, have a medical background specialising in psychology or transgender related stuff) what you add to the conversation is unlikely to be an honest representation of what a trans person goes through. As an example I added various videos of successful, and completely normal trans officers going about their business as soliders, as well as supporting articles about things such as the reason for high suicide rates and the myth that trans is linked to hormone imbalances, as well as a list of side effects of hormone treatment (where there is no mention of emotional side effects), It was meant as a discussion point not a dismal or attack on you or your background personally, it was was supposed to be phrased as a broad statement. Considering my relationship with Sherflow, I'm sure you can understand why I take it personally when people suggest transgenderism is a mental illness, and that they should be kept out of certain jobs because they are 'mentally unstable'. Thank you for being understanding.

HELL NO, who the hell would ever make that connection! Screw whoever started this thread >:O Hope your internet goes out until My Hero Academia officially ends. Step on legos and sit on thumbtacks. Trying to ruin All Might for me. https://media.giphy.com/media/vk7VesvyZEwuI/giphy.gif

To get it out of the way, the last point I want to address on this is calling it "unlikely to be an honest representation". I think what you're trying to say here is you're worried I may not be educated enough on the matter, which is a completely valid feeling to have. I'm concerned with giving it the label of "honesty", which moves to define it as faulty on its own. If what I think you were trying to say is an accurate representation, then I'll give you a half apology for a half misunderstanding, because the word choice here is still problematic, but the meaning behind it was not ill intentioned. I read all the articles and watched the videos you posted, and I think there's a specific point, among perhaps some others, that you wanted to address. That point being that a major cause of the high suicide rates are due to stress caused by society. However none of the sources you listed object to the idea that the hormone treatment or mental state itself contributes to the high rates, and only that acceptance in society plays a factor. As far as stress caused by a lack of acceptance is concerned, I do believe that it shouldn't be a boundary, the issue to address would lie elsewhere. What's considered normal by society shouldn't determine what is acceptable by law. As far as other matters are concerned, I suppose I should just ask a few questions. A lot of talk here is about after or before "transition". So my question is, does hormone treatment persist "after transition"? Would it be required to ensure any kind of stability? Another issue with this is more of an American issue, with our very big focus on free speech. I can only speak for myself, but when I say "male" or "female", I am referring to genetics. It seems to me that when an advocate for transgenderism is referring to "male" or "female", they are referring to gender roles. In addition to that, I do not believe in gender roles. I feel that a large portion of our community feels the way I do, and would feel oppressed if they were to be forced to disregard this. And so the issue here comes to whether or not other soldiers be forced to speak "sir" or "ma'am" on the basis of something they don't believe in, which is inevitably due to cause conflict. As other countries do not have free speech, this is not necessarily a right they are afforded anyways, and is likely considered less of a loss of rights to the individual. Captain Hannah is a nice success story, and as all stories go, they are not necessarily indicative to the norm. Especially so given that this story describes a transition period that started while Hannah was already in the military, and not before or after. The most that can clearly defined by this is that the military can be a positive environment for transgender individuals. Other topics of concern deal with who pays for the transition. It's a tax payer problem if the military funds it, but if it's individually funded then it's just fine. Additionally, any hormone treatment, whether it's before or after, if it's funded by the military, is also a concern. The topic would naturally move onto that there are military doctors who already treat soldiers with their unique cases. When it gets to this point however, we're confronted with something else. It may come off as unpleasant to you, but many are going to see it as a disorder, including myself. Not that I can't be convinced that it's anything but a disorder, but when your own sources give it the term "gender dysphoria", and state how it can be "treated", it's very hard to see that it can be anything but a mental disorder, especially when other sources state that people who "feel" they are another gender don't have any hormonal imbalances to speak of. It might come off as threatening to have someone say "you're broken" or "you're not like a normal person", however if it comforts you at all, what comes after that for me is "and that's okay". What constitutes a mental disorder grows increasingly over the years, and I'm of the particular belief that disorders aren't necessarily things that should be controlled, and can even be a trigger for growth as a society. Please understand, transgenderism only affects less than a percent of the US, and of that group of people they are also divided on many of the issues. You may argue that there are many who have simply not confessed to how they feel, and I would argue that politics have brainwashed more people into injecting themselves into that group that they otherwise would not have related to. Of course when I say that I don't mean to say that someone can't naturally come to such a conclusion, just that I feel there are plenty who don't. Either way, it's still a small portion of the country. The point of that isn't to say what you can and can't do, but to illustrate the next point. If we do decide that the military should pay for it, then for what reason should the military decide to pay for a transition, and not to pay for psychiatric treatment for a disorder? If the end result is the person being comfortable with who they are, then it seems sensible for the military to take the quicker and cheaper route, that doesn't impact the rest of the military due a small fraction of less than 1% that do join the military. It would also answer well to 99% of the tax payers. And if the individual pays for it, against he question of aftercare comes in. As would the military not need to pay for it if a soldier requires physical or mental treatment for stability? If a transgender soldier is on the field and they require special physical treatment, would that not be yet another expense, and could it even be guaranteed? Everyone is different, but part of the military is conformity. At what point do we decide the rest of the military should conform to the individual, and the individual not to the rest of the military? Any and all other sorts of personalities are not given the leeway, so why is this the exception?

But acceptance in society is a huge factor, especially in today's society where bullying and such don't just stay in the work place or the occasional encounter in the streets. Isn't it also true that teen suicides are much higher in this generation due to the introduction of cyber bullying? I was never really bullied, but whatever happened just stayed in school. These days it's a constant bombardment for a lot of people, and so suicide rates have increased. I firmly believe that the high suicide rates are primarily related to society, discrimination etc than any hormonal imbalance. (That's my view though) I also believe the hormone issues are different on an individual basis - I saw a few comments by FtM trans people who said their emotional stability had vastly improved with the introduction of testosterone. The reason for this is the fact that their periods and PMS stopped, and for some women this is a huge issue - the emotional upset can be extreme for some, some have physical issues which make them bleed too much or curl up in agony for the duration (it's different for every woman though - for example I get occasional pains, and can be a little more short tempered and bitey, but overall I don't change) I haven't really looked into it, but I don't think Hannah is a unique case in the UK. Her case is just a normal case. It helps that her place of work was very accepting and smoothed the transition. I actually use transition in two ways - one is the lifestyle changes, which take place before and during the hormone treatment, and the other is just for the hormone treatment (though there is also the physical operation if they choose to go that route). When I talk about the treatment being complete I mean once their hormones have been completely replaced and are at a steady level (of course they still need to take hormones to maintain that, but it's not really any different to popping a vitamin pill, or someone who needs heart medication every morning - and missing one or two won't make an immediate difference I don't think, since the process is such a slow one, but Sherflow will likely have more to say on the medical side than me, so wait for Sherflow's comments too.) On another note, different people require different levels of treatment. Some are happy with being androgynous (literally masking their gender by being in the middle), some only need to dress and act the part, some only require hormone treatment, and some feel the need to go all the way and have surgery, so in some cases there would be no extra cost to the military at all. The majority of your worry seems to be the financial costs, which isn't something I know about, and indeed isn't relevant to the UK since it would be done via the NHS at no extra cost to the military; however isn't it the cast that insurance/health care comes from your employers in the USA? When you're employed they need to provide an insurance plan if there are more than 50 people in the business? So no matter where they worked their care would need to be paid for, would it not? Allowing work places to discriminate against people due to costs is exactly the thing that creates divides in society and leads to inequality issues. If the army is allowed to discriminate against transgender people due to the cost of their treatment, then what's to stop every other work place doing the same? It's on the same level as discriminating against people with on-going conditions and physical disabilities, and is really quite dangerous, isn't it? You're also denying the military the skills and experience of these people. What would you say if, for example, the best sniper in the US army came out as transgender? Or a top strategist? Someone whose skills are top-notch and really quite invaluable to the organisation as a whole. Would you still say that they should be kicked out, and their skills go to waste? It's my understanding that there isn't really on-going physical treatment after everything is complete (again, Sherflow is more qualified than me on this point) but I really don't see it an an issue. It's like an injured soldier going to physical therapy, or someone who has recovered from PTSD having a more regular check-up with the on-site psychiatrist. The visits aren't necessarily long, or even required. As you saw, the UK military has transgender liaison officers for support, and that just goes alongside their regular duties. I also point out what Hannah said about being able to get the gender issues out of the way so that they can get on with their jobs as soldiers. They're still soldiers, they just need to get their gender identity sorted out. I also imagine these are arguments that cropped up when women were allowed to join up as regular soldiers, and as I stated earlier PMS can be a bitch for some women, so you're more comfortable with handing them a gun than a trans person who may suffer no emotional side effects at all? As for free speech, you are free to speak, but not to discriminate is the general rule everywhere, is it not? Yes, by all means talk badly about transgender people with your friends (though some of them may well object to it), and go online and state your opinions, but when it comes to deliberately going to a trans person and calling them 'he' when they look and act like a 'she' is a form of discrimination. If it's an accidental slip then that's fine, but doing it on purpose to the actual person is a form of discrimination. It's the same as being racist. It doesn't impact on free speech, because it's your right to hold those opinions, but it is not your right to attack another person with your views. (Please note I'm using 'you' and 'your' in general, I'm not referring to you directly, it would just be long winded if I had to write 'if one person' 'another person' 'that person' all the time) As I said, this is my take on it, I'm sure Sherflow will get more into the nitty-gritty of it later.

As far as internet and suicide rates, my argument would be that although you're seeing it being given some of the blame, but I would argue that it's a cause of an overall drop in suicides. If you look at the research, they've in general been increasing across all age groups, which doesn't particularly stand out as cyber bullying. A lot of the suicides are attributed to drug overdoses, which may or may not be intentional, and then there is economic factors among other things. I would be interested in studies that show the affects of missing a dose or a series of doses and how that affects a particular individual. Discrimination is allowed under free speech within the US. There are laws surrounding businesses and government entities, but many of them are highly disputed. Regardless, something like denying someone confined to a wheelchair a position on the battlefield would be discrimination, but is considered positive discrimination. Typically consumer protection laws tend to kick in only if a large portion of an industry refuses a customer to the point where that particular customer could not get any reliable service. In the event where a smaller business denies service, it tends to be seen as not breaking the law, as the customer could go to any other establishment. On the individual level, racism is allowed, sexism is allowed, anything offensive allowed. These are all protected under free speech. The point where it's not protected is when you cross the line between your opinion and harassment. If you specifically target an individual or group with your speech, then it doesn't matter what it is you're saying, you're guilty of harassment. Again, on the business level it's a little different, but many of the current rules are also debated quite a bit, and could very well free up or possibly get stricter although not necessarily on a permanent basis. I would argue that it's dangerous not to discriminate when selecting those to join the military. You're giving them guns, and you're giving them responsibility for others lives, and for many you're telling them to kill. Women amount to half the world, which is a natural improvement to military force. In the old ages, and even currently in some countries, children can be soldiers too, but we do discriminate against children here don't we? It could very well be there is supreme talent among the trans community, but they still amount to less than a percent. Even if the military should lose these valuable people, they can cover the gaps left behind. It also seems that they could provide mental health care, but not in terms of transitioning. Injured soldiers are also often kicked out of the military. It depends on their injury. Of course you could say the same on the other end, it would depend on the level of their stability, but it's much harder to measure mental health than it is to treat a wound. The same could be said of all people, of course, but I also feel that professionals in the field should be able to deny an individual they feel is unsafe, without the pressure to conform to accepting a particular kind of individual.

Wow, positive discrimination has a different meaning over here. Over here, positive discrimination means that companies are encouraged not to hire the best person for the job, but to make up their equality numbers - so given the choice between an able bodied white person or a minority they would be encouraged to choose the minority. I don't know the numbers, but companies are expected to have a certain level of diversity. Well, I don't know about hormones - that's something I'd let Sherflow tackle, but I CAN tell you that if a girl misses one or two pills it makes no difference (I used to take the pill) My emotional state didn't change, and I didn't get pregnant - good times for all. (It's very easy to wake up and forget to take your pill) I can sort of see where you're coming from with the internet being a positive environment for some. There are a lot more sites offering support, and it's easy to find a group of people who share your views, hobbies etc, and if there is discrimination/bullying publicly there will often be people who will step in and object to it. Sure the military could cover the gaps left behind, the same as they would if they were KIA, but it would cost a lot of money to train up the next person, and they might not be as good at the job, which would be a negative blow. We discriminate against children for good reason though - they haven't emotionally developed, and around 10-11 puberty is thrown into the mix, which will throw their emotions off kilter somewhat (something a lot of trans people have already been through and fully understand before their transitions). Are injured soldiers kicked out as in fired? Or are they retired with honours? Do some of those injured soldiers also remain in non-combat positions? Not all sections of the military will ever use firearms, right? To discriminate as far as health and able-bodiedness goes perhaps, but if a trans person passes all of the regular physical and mental tests that anyone else goes through (which I guess is how they're recruited now) then they've proven they're of sound body and mind, and therefore able to serve. What about those trans people who have fully transitioned, and have been transitioned for years with no history of mental issues whatsoever?