Are we going too far?

[PlatinumGuy]

They didn't have to hide that they were in the military. They needed to hide certain behaviors.

That’s called not serving openly, which is what I said.

[aygart]

That’s called not serving openly, which is what I said.

I was somewhat picking on your wording, but making a point. They absolutely can serve openly. They cannot serve while openly exhibiting some behaviors. There is no inherent privilege of exhibiting any behavior at all in the military. There are many behaviors one may need to hide while in the military.

[JlmBoi]

Would you consider serving in the military openly a 'special privilege'?

Specifically regarding Trans and Questioning and all the other ones relating to gender dysphoria I don't think it's discriminatory that they can't serve. Just like diagnosed bi-polar or the like can't. It's not in anyone's good. I understand why people argue that varied sexual orientation is a normal thing. Normalizing gender dysphoria is beyond me.

[PlatinumGuy]

Specifically regarding Trans and Questioning and all the other ones relating to gender dysphoria I don't think it's discriminatory that they can't serve. Just like diagnosed bi-polar or the like can't. It's not in anyone's good. I understand why people argue that varied sexual orientation is a normal thing. Normalizing gender dysphoria is beyond me.

Regardless of whether it’s fair or not, you can’t call being treated equally a ‘special privilege’

I was somewhat picking on your wording, but making a point. They absolutely can serve openly. They cannot serve while openly exhibiting some behaviors. There is no inherent privilege of exhibiting any behavior at all in the military. There are many behaviors one may need to hide while in the military.

So let’s phrase it differently. For LGBTs in the military to be able to have a public love life is equality, not ‘special privilege’.

The vast majority of LGBT rights aren’t giving them anything special

[AsherO]

The vast majority of LGBT rights aren’t giving them anything special

It grants them rights for a certain class of “self-expression” where they aren’t subject to standard military discipline. If a superior comments on anything they can cry discrimination.

[PlatinumGuy]

It grants them rights for a certain class of “self-expression” where they aren’t subject to standard military discipline. If a superior comments on anything they can cry discrimination.

Example?

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/jeremyswallace/status/1380205223646535680

Small government and liberty

[JlmBoi]

Regardless of whether it’s fair or not, you can’t call being treated equally a ‘special privilege’
So let’s phrase it differently. For LGBTs in the military to be able to have a public love life is equality, not ‘special privilege’.

The vast majority of LGBT rights aren’t giving them anything special

If a person is mentally ill (again, I'm referring to gender dysphoria not anything else) then it is definitely a 'special privilege' to be treated equally. The sad thing is that these people have been given (blame wheo you want) so much misplaced validation, validating their issue instead of them as people, that they expect equality. Noone with that level of mental illness would expect that.

[Randomex]

They didn't have to hide that they were in the military. They needed to hide certain behaviors.

The law was not that such-and-such behavior is forbidden, but that such individuals are forbidden to serve.

If a person is mentally ill (again, I'm referring to gender dysphoria not anything else) then it is
definitely a 'special privilege' to be treated equally. [...] No one with that level of mental illness [...]

Excluding people on the basis of mental illness should be according to how it affects their ability to execute their tasks.

[yuneeq]

The law was not that such-and-such behavior is forbidden, but that such individuals are forbidden to serve.

Excluding people on the basis of mental illness should be according to how it affects their ability to execute their tasks.

Or perhaps it’s not a great idea to give assault rifles and authority to the mentally ill. If they wanna scrub toilets in the military that’s fine with me.

[Randomex]

Excluding people on the basis of mental illness should be according to how it affects their ability to execute their tasks.

Or perhaps it’s not a great idea to give assault rifles and authority to the mentally ill. If they wanna scrub toilets in the military that’s fine with me.

Try reading it again, I guess?

[yuneeq]

Or perhaps it’s not a great idea to give assault rifles and authority to the mentally ill. If they wanna scrub toilets in the military that’s fine with me.


Try reading it again, I guess?

I did and it doesn’t help your cause. Someone with mental illness might be able to execute their task but they might execute others while they’re at it. Being capable doesn’t mean they don’t carry extra risk.

[Randomex]

"Mental illness" does not have one-size-fits-all implications for duty fitness.

[yuneeq]

"Mental illness" does not have one-size-fits-all implications for duty fitness.

We’re not talking about OCD or ADHD, we’re talking about gender dysphoria. I confidently believe that delusional people with extremely high rates of suicide should stay far away from the military. But you do you.

[JlmBoi]

"Mental illness" does not have one-size-fits-all implications for duty fitness.

I actually agree with the principle, although I don't think it's on the military to try define these things. I  think you would agree that it's something that will vary alot case by case. I don't think it's the army's job to spend resources on developing and implementing metrics for that. Also, it's kind of impossible to do that kind of thing in today's climate.

[aygart]

The law was not that such-and-such behavior is forbidden, but that such individuals are forbidden to serve.

If they behave that way openly.

[Randomex]

"The act prohibited any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing their sexual orientation or from speaking about
any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces.
The act specified that service members who disclose that they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct should
be separated (discharged)..." (Emphasis added)

Or in other words, you're not really allowed to be here, but if we can claim we don't know, we won't kick you out.

[aygart]

"The act prohibited any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing their sexual orientation or from speaking about
any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces.
The act specified that service members who disclose that they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct should
be separated (discharged)..." (Emphasis added)

Or in other words, you're not really allowed to be here, but if we can claim we don't know, we won't kick you out.

Disclosing is a behavior. It means that I don't care what you do behind closed doors is irrelevant to me, but once people know about it that it causes problems. That may or may not be real problem, but makes sense in theory.

[Randomex]

"Disclosing is a behavior" is not an argument I feel a need to respond to.

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/drvolts/status/1379153379583094786

https://twitter.com/edokeefe/status/1381363517425606658
https://twitter.com/edokeefe/status/1381366912865726467