Transgender Policy

[Майор Хаткевич]

Though I know the activists want to frame it this way, I reject the idea that the issue being discussed here, which involves individual choices and behaviors, is on par with the struggles of women and minorities in history.

You are welcome to have your views, but it doesn't change the facts or the science that disagrees with them.

[Storm Chaser]

Sorry, but at this point in time there is no conclusive fact or science with definite answers on anything.

[dwb]

Though I know the activists want to frame it this way, I reject the idea that the issue being discussed here, which involves individual choices and behaviors, is on par with the struggles of women and minorities in history.

Sorry, but at this point in time there is no conclusive fact or science with definite answers on anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

There absolutely is a body of science on the nature of sexual orientation. To frame it as merely an "individual choice", like whether you prefer Coke or Pepsi, is intellectually dishonest.

[vorteks]

Though I know the activists want to frame it this way, I reject the idea that the issue being discussed here, which involves individual choices and behaviors, is on par with the struggles of women and minorities in history.

Sorry, but at this point in time there is no conclusive fact or science with definite answers on anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

There absolutely is a body of science on the nature of sexual orientation. To frame it as merely an "individual choice", like whether you prefer Coke or Pepsi, is intellectually dishonest.

And I think comparing it to the struggles of African Americans and women is intellectually dishonest. At best.

[dwb]

Well, we weren't talking about the sum of all human history. We're talking about CAP.

Your "individual choice" remark told me everything I need to know. You and I won't reach consensus on any facet of this debate.

[Storm Chaser]

Though I know the activists want to frame it this way, I reject the idea that the issue being discussed here, which involves individual choices and behaviors, is on par with the struggles of women and minorities in history.

Sorry, but at this point in time there is no conclusive fact or science with definite answers on anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

There absolutely is a body of science on the nature of sexual orientation. To frame it as merely an "individual choice", like whether you prefer Coke or Pepsi, is intellectually dishonest.

Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source. The fact remains that, while there are many studies, there is still much disagreement on the matter. And for the record, I'm not promoting or advocating for one view over another. I'm saying it's not CAP's place or role to do so.

[vorteks]

Well, we weren't talking about the sum of all human history. We're talking about CAP.

Your "individual choice" remark told me everything I need to know. You and I won't reach consensus on any facet of this debate.

Wise of you to realize that.

[dwb]

Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source.

I almost put a disclaimer in my last post, because I knew you would say this.

Scroll down to the "References" section. What's that? Oh, a gigantic list of research papers, many from peer-reviewed journals.

I wasn't quoting Wikipedia to be authoritative, but to show the existence of the research.

The fact remains that, while there are many studies, there is still much disagreement on the matter.

This is called manufacturing doubt. It's how the tobacco companies denied the link between smoking and cancer.

I get that there are social/political/religious disagreements. No argument there. And in the political system those arguments can and should be had.

But to assert that there isn't a scientific consensus view is just wrong. http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.pdf

[vorteks]

Asserting "scientific consensus" is itself a political tactic meant to stifle debate.  Also, I didn't see any "science" about the topic of this thread in any of your cites.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Asserting "scientific consensus" is itself a political tactic meant to stifle debate.  Also, I didn't see any "science" about the topic of this thread in any of your cites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#References


You can stick your head in the sand, put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and make noise, but it doesn't change anything.

[RogueLeader]

My take on it is, is that no matter what, at the end of the day, we need to protect and serve all of our members as best we can.  Unfortunately, we can not accommodate everyone.  If we "have" to make an accommodation for one person to make sure that he/she does feels "comfortable/safe/non-threatend", but it makes five others feel the opposite, how does that make sense?

For example, if Cadet A is biologically male, but identifies as female, and MUST (won't use a separate facility) use the female berthing/showering areas in order to feel positive/inclusive/safe, but that makes Cadets B, D N, and X feel threatened/unsafe/etc, should we be required to tell those Cadets to suck it up?  I don't think that's right either.

Should we make accommodations to the best of our ability, of course.  Should we be proactive in dealing with this, you gosh darn right.  Should we trash on persons feelings over someone else's, not a chance.  Should we prioritize the importance of one persons feelings over another groups, not necessarily. 

My personal feelings are what they are, and I can disagree with where things are headed.  That doesn't mean that I can't- and more importantly won't support all members of CAP, regardless of identity, orientation, gender, ethnicity, or religion.  Because I have and I will.

[vorteks]

Asserting "scientific consensus" is itself a political tactic meant to stifle debate.  Also, I didn't see any "science" about the topic of this thread in any of your cites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#References


You can stick your head in the sand, put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and make noise, but it doesn't change anything.

You do realize "sexual orientation" is not the topic of this thread.....

[RogueLeader]

Asserting "scientific consensus" is itself a political tactic meant to stifle debate.  Also, I didn't see any "science" about the topic of this thread in any of your cites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#References


You can stick your head in the sand, put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and make noise, but it doesn't change anything.

Really, I know several homosexual people, of both genders.  Two of them, one male and one female, that were both totally straight, until they got burned by the opposite gender, then turned gay.  I also know others that are bi-sexual and changed from one type of relationships for the other.  And still I know of several others that always knew themselves as homosexual.  I also know a man, who feels that he is a Lesbian trapped in a mans body.  Can Science explain that?  I can't.

[THRAWN]

I love this topic. People who have no expertise other than what they read on the internet all become experts when it comes up.

I ask again, since this topic has been discussed here for a decade, why has national been unable or unwilling to develop and field a policy to address it? Simple, really. Anybody?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Asserting "scientific consensus" is itself a political tactic meant to stifle debate.  Also, I didn't see any "science" about the topic of this thread in any of your cites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#References


You can stick your head in the sand, put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and make noise, but it doesn't change anything.

You do realize "sexual orientation" is not the topic of this thread.....

Do you?

Though I know the activists want to frame it this way, I reject the idea that the issue being discussed here, which involves individual choices and behaviors, is on par with the struggles of women and minorities in history.[/quote]

[Майор Хаткевич]

I love this topic. People who have no expertise other than what they read on the internet all become experts when it comes up.

I ask again, since this topic has been discussed here for a decade, why has national been unable or unwilling to develop and field a policy to address it? Simple, really. Anybody?

People who have no expertise at all, not even any layman understanding or research spew their thoughts on the matter here quite blatantly all the time.

[Spaceman3750]

My take on it is, is that no matter what, at the end of the day, we need to protect and serve all of our members as best we can.  Unfortunately, we can not accommodate everyone.  If we "have" to make an accommodation for one person to make sure that he/she does feels "comfortable/safe/non-threatend", but it makes five others feel the opposite, how does that make sense?

For example, if Cadet A is biologically male, but identifies as female, and MUST (won't use a separate facility) use the female berthing/showering areas in order to feel positive/inclusive/safe, but that makes Cadets B, D N, and X feel threatened/unsafe/etc, should we be required to tell those Cadets to suck it up?  I don't think that's right either.

Should we make accommodations to the best of our ability, of course.  Should we be proactive in dealing with this, you gosh darn right.  Should we trash on persons feelings over someone else's, not a chance.  Should we prioritize the importance of one persons feelings over another groups, not necessarily. 

My personal feelings are what they are, and I can disagree with where things are headed.  That doesn't mean that I can't- and more importantly won't support all members of CAP, regardless of identity, orientation, gender, ethnicity, or religion.  Because I have and I will.

I made that argument as well and was told that it wasn't about people's feelings, it was about equality.

[Майор Хаткевич]

My take on it is, is that no matter what, at the end of the day, we need to protect and serve all of our members as best we can.  Unfortunately, we can not accommodate everyone.  If we "have" to make an accommodation for one person to make sure that he/she does feels "comfortable/safe/non-threatend", but it makes five others feel the opposite, how does that make sense?

For example, if Cadet A is biologically male, but identifies as female, and MUST (won't use a separate facility) use the female berthing/showering areas in order to feel positive/inclusive/safe, but that makes Cadets B, D N, and X feel threatened/unsafe/etc, should we be required to tell those Cadets to suck it up?  I don't think that's right either.

Should we make accommodations to the best of our ability, of course.  Should we be proactive in dealing with this, you gosh darn right.  Should we trash on persons feelings over someone else's, not a chance.  Should we prioritize the importance of one persons feelings over another groups, not necessarily. 

My personal feelings are what they are, and I can disagree with where things are headed.  That doesn't mean that I can't- and more importantly won't support all members of CAP, regardless of identity, orientation, gender, ethnicity, or religion.  Because I have and I will.

I made that argument as well and was told that it wasn't about people's feelings, it was about equality.

Feelings are tricky. There are people who feel blacks and whites shouldn't be together. Others think Mexicans or Muslims shouldn't be judges. Your (and my) rights end at the point where they infringe on the rights of others.

[RogueLeader]

I love this topic. People who have no expertise other than what they read on the internet all become experts when it comes up.

I ask again, since this topic has been discussed here for a decade, why has national been unable or unwilling to develop and field a policy to address it? Simple, really. Anybody?

I'm certainly no expert, I just know me and my beliefs, and I report what I've experienced.

The policy is out there, you may not like the policy or how it was/was not communicated, but it is there.  Not to mention the the climate it is changing- so to speak- in this area, so the policy needs to change and adapt.  If you are that concerned with the policy/ or the lack there of in your mind, what have YOU done to correct that?  Take into consideration all the viewpoints that must be addressed in said policy, as well as all the federal, state and local laws.  I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I love this topic. People who have no expertise other than what they read on the internet all become experts when it comes up.

I ask again, since this topic has been discussed here for a decade, why has national been unable or unwilling to develop and field a policy to address it? Simple, really. Anybody?

I'm certainly no expert, I just know me and my beliefs, and I report what I've experienced.

The policy is out there, you may not like the policy or how it was/was not communicated, but it is there.  Not to mention the the climate it is changing- so to speak- in this area, so the policy needs to change and adapt.  If you are that concerned with the policy/ or the lack there of in your mind, what have YOU done to correct that?  Take into consideration all the viewpoints that must be addressed in said policy, as well as all the federal, state and local laws.  I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath.

We can all agree that no one here is an expert (given a lack of anyone declaring so). There's a middle ground somewhere, but it's certainly not the status quo. Never has been.