Is this true? Paris Lees again

And now having agreed with the Trump, I'm going to wash my teeth and use brain bleach.

Datun
If there's one thing the trans-lobby pushes, it's the suicidal ideation of the group.

I agree with this. You cannot train a person in ballistics, weaponry, bombs and then give them a gun if the suicidal ideation is at best, 40% and worst 60%. As the saying goes unit cohesion. Sometimes, despite the rigorous training involved, suicide homicides happen in combat (sometimes put under friendly fire - controversial I know - but it has been documented). You cannot put a cohort of people in this situation because, simply put, it's the economy stupid. Consider the compensation costs.

Also consider Germanwings and the co pilot who committed suicide

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525

The compensation payout that the company pays out to relatives will be substantial.

That article is terrible. Paris wants to talk about suicide rates, but then.....Doesn't....

italic fail

...And Genital surgery is not requirement however if this has taken place then the applicant must provide details.

On the GRC point

The GRP is part of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). The panel comprises judicially trained legal and medical members and is supported by an administrative team. The applicant is not required to appear in person and the panel sit in private to consider the documentary evidence.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/598269/tribunal-grc-statistics-q3-2016-17-guide.pdf

As I said on another thread about this article, I've had to show my GP (and plenty of other medical professionals) my "private parts" on numerous occasions. It's not humiliating, it's healthcare.

PoochSmooch

I thought that too re the military. From what I can tell they don't struggle with their masculinity, as such. They're made up largely of autogynephiles.

That idiot who filmed himself pretending to sob outside the casino because they wouldn't let him use the ladies. He has other videos of himself dancing in a bikini, but in the pre-transition ones he's wielding a gun, talking about bitcoin and banging on about his 10 years in the military.

And Zoey Tur who threatened Ben Shapiro with going home in an ambulance, because he had the nerve to call him Sir.

Those are the most worrying. The huge sense of entitlement, military background and sexual motivation.

Dear God, I can't believe we're on the brink of giving civil rights to these people to allow them access.

Thinking about the trump ban, I wonder if this has got the traction it has because of the marked prevalance of a military background for late transitioning males? From my unscientific POV, when I read about stories from late transitioning males, the two occupations that are way, way over-represented are military and tech. I assume that for people who are struggling with their sense of masculinity, it makes sense to over compensate your fear of not being "manly" enough and go for the most masculine career you can think of. I wonder if that's a factor here?

You can't really define active service these days. It could be a combat role doing peace enforcement or being a clarinet player mentoring the military band of Nigeria and dozens of other things in between.

All service personnel are supposed to be fully deployable, it's complex but in a nutshell, if you have suicidal ideation you won't be deployable as you won't be allowed to access a weapon therefore can't do your mandatory pre deployment and annual training. So bad argument. Very bad argument.

Still not the correct link, I don't think.

Oops, wrong link, sorry folks - www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08ylrm4

If anyone wants to listen to that US chap, will take you to the IPlayer of the show, they start talking to him around 1:52 in, the transgender question comes up around 1:56. He is Dr Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to the President.

"A US chap* on the Today Programme was questioned (with a very long and inclusive question) about 'Trump's ban' and got a clear 'unit cohesion' answer, that the military were not there to reflect the make up of society, and that for a group with a 40% suicide rate it was a kindness not to put people in that situation."

That's not a bad way to put it.

Having said that, I've been seeing transmen coming out saying it's not fair.

If you had to pick a set of characteristics from either group, I would pick those displayed by transmen as being more conducive.

I suppose that's a product of feeling that masculinity, as a trait is more useful than merely being male, if you are fighting.

wigglybeezer

Well precisely. Personnel should be fit for all the roles required.

This is the problem with affording civil rights to gender identity as a group.

In real life, statistically, trans people as a cohort, have other mental health issues.

It would have to involve psychoanalysis of an already 'at risk' group, to determine how mentally healthy they are.

If there's one thing the trans-lobby pushes, it's the suicidal ideation of the group. The depression and anxiety. Problems with hormones. The surgery and ongoing problems that it generates.

It's a little rich to then turn round and claim that none of those things matter when they have already decided that those things matter so much they should be afforded their own set of of civil rights.

Having depression, anxiety about your sense of self and thoughts of suicide, can be accommodated in all sorts of jobs, but fighting on the front line, isn't one of them.

There are lots of support roles that are never expected to go on active service though, surely?

The trouble with having people in the armed forces who are only able to perform non combat roles is that it means that those who are capable have to go on active service more often to compensate, which is obviously unfair on them and their families.
I have a child who had been through the application process, you fail the medical for so many commonplace things and anxiety and depression are a huge no no, you can fail for having mild excema for goodness sake the list is extensive.

Yes, the suicide thing will not work in this context. `Let us serve our country or we'll kill ourselves' is the least reassuring message they could give.

The thing is that Trump's phrasing was that transgender people cannot serve in any capacity at all. So presumably all support and non-combat roles are banned too? Does it mean that all currently serving transgender people are going to be sacked? That is discriminatory, no doubt about it. If someone presents as the opposite sex, but is mentally healthy, not taking any long term medication that could affect their work, nor has any ongoing physical issues (just like other personnel), then why can't they do a support/non-combat role? The only issue I can see is if they are in barracks and need to use shared facilities. But that is something that must currently be being dealt with.

A US chap* on the Today Programme was questioned (with a very long and inclusive question) about 'Trump's ban' and got a clear 'unit cohesion' answer, that the military were not there to reflect the make up of society, and that for a group with a 40% suicide rate it was a kindness not to put people in that situation.

*it was a bit early in the day for me to notice who it was..........

PL might also like to look at the article you posted on your other thread, Datun about consent for pelvic exams under aneasthetic (here for other posters' ease) and consider where her outrage towards medics and bodily dignity might best be directetd

Being forced to expose yourself to a doctor - or a woman being forced to do so - is a common kink fantasy for men (not necessarily MTT) who get off on humiliation.

Perhaps PL could just stop for one iota of a second and think about what this stuff means for women.

She can't have it both ways. She bangs on and on about her sexual, gangbanging experiences and how empowering they all are and how fucking someone while they're crying is just the dogs bollocks.

All good and soooo sex pozzie.

And then baulks at some (invented) medical examination.

the inclusion of the suicide stuff is because jsut the other day PL said that she wouldn't talk about trans issues except this one. Obviously she has shifted her rules slightly so that she will only talk about trans issues if she can also talk about suicide stats.

I was pondering the Pool article last night, and came to a similar conclusion as other pp about the "exposing herself to the doctor" comment. Welcome to our world, Paris's friend... From the historic "virginity tests" carried out as part of visa applications, to regular smears, to "internals" as part of regular healthchecks, to pregnancy and child birth, our genitals are frequently seen by doctors and people in positions of authority. Did PL not realise this?

Perhaps she might also think about the experience of her friend, and consider what consent her friend was able to give to the examination and how her friend would feel if she had consented to examination by a doctor of one sex and was then confronted with a doctor of another sex pulling on the latex gloves. Perhaps PL could just stop for one iota of a second and think about what this stuff means for women.