• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The 2018 Trump Presidency thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
The reason the transgender military ban existed in the first place was because of a loophole in which taxpayers were funding sex change operations. Whether or not the White House officially acknowledges pride month is a non issue for me. I mean seriously: who cares? This is like Trump having to deal with bullshit reporters asking inane questions all the time. It's all bullshit, IMO.

You provided a lot more dot points, to flesh out one or two (other) actual things.

Let me ask you this: do you think people like Jordan Peterson should lose their job for refusing to use the correct pronouns?

...

There are reasons for policies, which you may not agree with, but I don't believe anything he has done is discriminatory... which was the statement you're referring to... You've changed the question to is he a friend of the trans community and my answer to that is probably not I guess. But I don't see him as an enemy either, so I wouldn't say he's doing the opposite of what he said. But is he a hypocrite for making false promises on the campaign trail? Sure. Name a president that isn't.
 
|~~ANT~~| said:
...but I don't believe anything he has done is discriminatory...
Click to expand...
with respect, i think you have your head in the sand.

on the issue of pronouns, i honestly don't know whether somebody should lose their job for using an incorrect pronoun. maybe.

i'm a guy and if there's an asshole bully at my work who chooses to refer to me as "she" to belittle me and just to be a dick, i'd expect my employer to have my back and require that they refer to me correctly. if your name was "james" but you preferred to be called "jimmy" (for who knows what reason) and asked people to respect that, i'd be a dick if i insisted on ignoring your preference and calling you "james" because that's your name. i'd respect it out of simple courtesy but, i guess, some people just want their desire to be a dick protected :)

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
with respect, i think you have your head in the sand.

on the issue of pronouns, i honestly don't know whether somebody should lose their job for using an incorrect pronoun. maybe.

i'm a guy and if there's an asshole bully at my work who chooses to refer to me as "she" to belittle me and just to be a dick, i'd expect my employer to have my back and require that they refer to me correctly. if your name was "james" but you preferred to be called "jimmy" (for who knows what reason) and asked people to respect that, i'd be a dick if i insisted on ignoring your preference and calling you "james" because that's your name. i'd respect it out of simple courtesy but, i guess, some people just want their desire to be a dick protected :)

alasdair
Click to expand...
Good point Ali.
 
The reason I mentioned pronouns is because the Jordan Peterson situation is the reason for a number of your dot points. You're phrasing them in a way that they suit your perspective. Trump isn't taking away rights from trans people for no reason. If you look into what you wrote, on a case to case basis, you will discover the reasons for policies. The reason for the transgender military policy, as I said, is because of a taxpayer loophole. The reason the Trump administration is "restricting the rights of transgender people" is so the rights of other people - and the first amendment - can be sustained.

If someone wants to call you James and you prefer "Jimmy", I don't see the problem with that. People should be allowed to say what they want, within reason... Similarly I assume that you're not trans. So your example of someone calling you a different gender doesn't make much sense.

New pronouns are being invented all the time. I was hanging out with a bunch of trans people and we went around the group and introduced ourselves and stated our pronouns. Some people said they prefer she / her. Some people said they prefer he / him. Some people said ze / zir. Some people preferred combinations like she / they, he / they, ze / they, ze / her, etc... By the time we had finished going around the group, there was almost every combination possible... Obviously this made the discussion difficult. It's hard enough to remember everyone's name let alone remembering the correct pair of pronouns for each person.

The pronoun thing is so meaningless. I don't think it should be the government's position to dictate a new set of rules for the English language. The vast majority of people I've spoken to think it is getting out of hand. If it was just he / him and she / her, I don't think people would have a problem with it. But when you throw in ze, zir and they it actually becomes seriously complicated. The government deciding people like Jordan Peterson shouldn't have to jump through all these silly hoops is not discrimination... nor is hiring people that you think will be discriminating. If they do discriminate that's another issue... or if the Trump administration makes a decision that is solely designed to put them down or take away their rights, sure that's discrimination.

Perhaps I've missed something. Maybe I do have my head in the sand. Let's find out. I'm happy to break down any of the dot points you mentioned and discuss if they are discriminatory. Let me know which one you think is discriminatory and I will have a look into it.
 
Yes, there is. We're talking about transgender policies under the Trump administration.

We're actually finally discussing policy in this thread.

JessFR said:
Regarding gender definition discussion, as pointed out, it's off topic and unrelated to Trumps presidency except where in regards to his policies for transgender people. I've moved the discussion specific to gender identification here.
Click to expand...
 
|~~ANT~~| said:
Trump isn't taking away rights from trans people for no reason. If you look into what you wrote, on a case to case basis, you will discover the reasons for policies. The reason for the transgender military policy, as I said, is because of a taxpayer loophole. The reason the Trump administration is "restricting the rights of transgender people" is so the rights of other people - and the first amendment - can be sustained.
Click to expand...
it's hard to read your responses as anything other than trump apology...

in october last year, the trump administration rescinded a memo from the obama administration that "interpreted the Civil Rights Act to protect transgender workers, potentially opening people up to discrimination in the workplace due to their gender identity".

in short, the law bans sex discrimination in the workplace and civil rights proponents argued that transgender people are included (because discrimination based on gender identity is based on expectations about sex i.e. a person designated male at birth should identify as a man). the memo confirmed such.

the trump adminstration just reversed the memo which basically sends the opposite message - discrimination of transgender workers is not protected under the civil rights act.

you claim he's done nothing discriminatory. this move explicitly allows discrimination and i'm interested to hear which policy i don't understand/know about is the reason for this decision to go backwards and allowing discrimination?

alasdair
 
The laws to protect transgender people, do they extend to include transgender people into the military despite the individual's oen suitability in the important physical and medical fitness requirenents that apply to everybody who enlists or is it a loophole to have physically or mentally unfit people enlist based on their gender?


There is common sense in play surely.


As put out there, therebis a spectrum involved in what the individuals needs and capabilities are which is then becoming redefined as binary of "transgender or not".

The military have a responsibility to have any enlisted pass their requirements to do a job and if soneone is transgender or not everyone needs to meet requirements and also be within a reasonable budget for healthcare then what exactly is the problem?


Tath has been in the army so he could help explain how rigorous the requirements are, I am just posting what I gather from other threads on this .


This is old news and quite frankly blown out of proportion.


Ali you seem like an apologist for Trump haters, a standard retort of accusations of apologism attacks the poster and not the topic.

Its as tiresome as your take on "snowflake."


Just another trend word, silly, theres no apology on behalf of anyone, just a pov that is not in agreement with yours.



Im not attacking you specifically, just being honest.
 
swilow said:
Is there a reason why you're posting this stuff here and not the gender thread?
Click to expand...

Theres more than him doing this and Trump posts invaded that thread, its obviouslt a tussle between Ali snd Ant, hard to respond to where its suitable, but whatever thread is used Ali and Ant are having a rather cute and good spirited exchange so its hard to not join in.

<3
 
@alasdairm: you seem like someone who is making sense and who is trying to keep a level head and not let hate win out when it comes to such a sensitive topic.

agreeing to disagree... respect!


@ANT: your one to talk. try keeping it on topic please. you can't force someone to talk.

instead of bating people how about you share why you think the memo was rescinded that way we can all share in on the fun.
 
|~~ANT~~| said:
You started a discussion with me and then bailed out like everybody else here when you hit a wall. :\
Click to expand...

its clear from comments like this that you're more interested in "winning" than discussion. you must be pretty new to this kind of trolling, your ability to hide that you're acting in bad faith is weak.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top