Politics - your views

[Hunchman801]

You are aware one of the most common racist comments is "you are black, your country is shit and you do not belong here."
Making this tweet indeed racist. And also not really arguably but directly xenophobic at the VERY least. Given she got the position fair and square.

This "common comment" is based on the targeted person's race, while Trump's remark was based on their country of origin. Imputing a racial motive to it is just a mere assumption.

heavy targeted attempts of exclusion in immigration processes even though individuals vary. He is arbitrary harsh as they are from different cultures. Not American in spirit. Some hate I see but he extends it to a xenophobic level. Though iirc he kinda gave up on both of these. As you note for example, wall didn't happen.

The policies in question targeted countries, not races, and they were based, among other factors, on the stability, crime rates and terrorist activity of those countries.

his tax returns got shared alongside how he evaded them. Using debt substraction. Which was then found out how much debt he is in. We talk about many millions in business overall over long periods of times. Legal Eagle has a more in depth video about the taxes and the info they gave.
As stated, it's known how the FBI operates so if you go by their Standard Trump is a security risk.

Forbes reported that overall, Trump's assets still outvalue his debts.

families above all? right? And Trump isn't doing what he must. Imo. Biden promised to help here at least.

Justice above all. If anyone with kids was given a free pass to commit all the horrible crimes they want, that most likely wouldn't result in a better society.

Taxes should be more put onto the rich because legitimately, debt is an insane problem there.

I'm no expert in the US tax system but isn't the marginal tax rate 37% for income tax already? And I don't think this includes state income tax, which can be as high as 13.3%. This sounds very high to me already, though like I said some details might elude me.

I just noticed I missed one topic completely. The Supreme Court case.
Well let's summaries why this was so huge and why Trump is bad here.
In America there are limited groups which are protected everywhere. If you were in a same sex relationship employees were legally ok to fire you for being in such a relationship. These cases existed and many times people tried to sue. I guess one of those cases finally got to supreme court.
Now you surely know how big of a deal a supreme court decision is. It's essentially THE call. While supreme court doesn't make law, their decision power is essentially that of a lawmaker.
In the court case they ruled that discrimination on the bases of relationship/sexual orientation is covered under the section protecting "sex" (male female).
Before this decision however, Trump urged them to not say these relationships are protected.
What is weird is how Trump pretended to care for this group by campaigning to end conversion therapy globally way before all of this happened.
I mean given he did essentially nothing here, I would say this was also just a stunt claim. In truth he would discriminate it seems.
Maybe this is clear now?

So, in the end, are cases of termination of employment based on the sexual orientation of the employee legal or not? If they are, then what does it matter which section covers them?

Short hand, Statistics have origins, we have centuries of biased systems against blacks. Might cause bias.

Let alone the "blacks on blacks" crime rate thing. All hella complicated.

Bias might explain slight differences, not a factor of six. This is just a smoke screen that aims to divert from the real debate.

All links should be seen as encouragement to look into it more rather than a clear cut prove as these topics are not child play

Unfortunately, the videos alone are well over an hour watch time, and given how much content there is in them and the articles, addressing every point in there would probably take me an entire day, so I'll have to stick to the messages here, which is already time-consuming enough.

Obviously there should be restrictions of some kind, but can't you use the same argument to deport homeless people?

The last bit about having nothing to bring to the table was just an additional comment. I also find it baffling that some people believe they're entitled to moving wherever they want regardless of what they have to offer. It's up to to the people to decide who joins the country they have built, and nobody else.

I just stated SRS is typically not considered cosmetic, because no, it isn't like arbitrarily changing your appearance, it's more comparable to having a deformity fixed that stops you from being able to function properly, or even have sex. The issue is most people don't understand what transgender people actually feel or go through - at all - so they hugely, hugely underplay the psychological aspects of it, and those are not up for debate - not to mention the physical hormone imbalance present in many trans people which affects the way their brain and its own sexuality develop.

The same could be argued for any physical characteristic that someone aims to alter through cosmetic surgery. I have no doubt that gender dysphoria can be a terrible thing to endure, but I don't see why people can't be equally affected by some physical traits they're hung up about.

Also, gotta love this Polish song you posted.

[ScalieDan]

This "common comment" is based on the targeted person's race, while Trump's remark was based on their country of origin. Imputing a racial motive to it is just a mere assumption.

how come a country was assumed that was bad and broken and how come a lot saw it as racist and the definition is prejudice on the bases of racial factors such as skin colour.
Assuming your home country is shit without knowing it, by guessing being black means you aren't born American, is a racist remark. If you want to call it xenophobic, I think it lessens what it actually was.

The policies in question targeted countries, not races, and they were based, among other factors, on the stability, crime rates and terrorist activity of those countries.

xenophobia isn't race but nationality and ethnicity (well this can go into racism but yeah).
The judgment of such groups in a general sense is why so many have issues here.

Forbes reported that overall, Trump's assets still outvalue his debts.

I don't think I ever talked about net worth and net worth doesn't undo the insane amount of debt. Which simply is a risk factor and isn't new as a risk factor. If he gets rid of assestd for prices, yeah he can undo this risk. Doesn't make it untrue that he has them...

Justice above all. If anyone with kids was given a free pass to commit all the horrible crimes they want, that most likely wouldn't result in a better society."

Idk when you have to split family to follow Justice. That's why I said it.

I'm no expert in the US tax system but isn't the marginal tax rate 37% for income tax already? And I don't think this includes state income tax, which can be as high as 13.3%. This sounds very high to me already, though like I said some details might elude me.

I'm no expert on it so if you think I'm wrong here, I would be more than willing to say I am as that is easily one of my weakest areas. x3

So, in the end, are cases of termination of employment based on the sexual orientation of the employee legal or not? If they are, then what does it matter which section covers them?

Well it's important to understand US job system.
A lot of states do kot require to tell why you are fired so those states won't be fixed by supreme court. However, there are states which demand a reason for firing and so a lot more people that aren't straight have it saver now as they cannot be fired for having a same sex partner for example.

There is also mare about equality act etc.
And it kinda matters that *federal law* protects them as all states have to obey them. States also had own protection laws and honestly, all you need to know is that supreme court made it way better for people not straight and this decision also impacts future as demanding reason for ban might spread more.

In the states that don't demand it, they need to hide the reason it was based on sexual orientation. Even those states a person might sue if evidence is clear it wasn't a baseless firing but against federal law.

Bias might explain slight differences, not a factor of six. This is just a smoke screen that aims to divert from the real debate.

As said, short hand. I would encourage looking into development of biased sentencing, biased criminak reports. The video I gave just starts to mention issues. This is a lecture topic and completely breaks the scope of this forum discussion.

Unfortunately, the videos alone are well over an hour watch time, and given how much content there is in them and the articles, addressing every point in there would probably take me an entire day, so I'll have to stick to the messages here, which is already time-consuming enough.

yeah xD

The last bit about having nothing to bring to the table was just an additional comment. I also find it baffling that some people believe they're entitled to moving wherever they want regardless of what they have to offer. It's up to to the people to decide who joins the country they have built, and nobody else.

I don't find it nice how some do it anyways. I don't want to go into my views on migration policies too much. I mean, you are in France, I'm in Germany. This topic is annoying I think you agree, heh.

The same could be argued for any physical characteristic that someone aims to alter through cosmetic surgery. I have no doubt that gender dysphoria can be a terrible thing to endure, but I don't see why people can't be equally affected by some physical traits they're hung up about.

this seems to be still about trans. They have to pass tests. You can't just join with nothing... I read some objections of which you replied here. I'm also well aware effects. I think these arguments fail because they are tested. Yes many will be rejected due to instability. But some pass... some show the solid mind and less need foe medicine.

I feel like this has gone for a bit. I think main 3 points that really have a nor worthy disagreement is "was that comment racist or xenophobic" which... I mean >_> both are bad. If you wish to call it xenophobic, alrighty.

Taxes, I'm not in the ability to say more honestly so...

and debt. If he pays off all debts which are dangerous, all good. He hasn't yet.

Also I think it's not tgat easy to calculate Trump's networth as Legal Eagle pointed out he doesn't own all trump cooperation has.

If you're implying cosmetic surgeries should not be covered, SRS is not typically considered cosmetic.

The biggest issue with covering sexual reassignments is their costs, and this same money gambled over them could be used to contribute to way more important projects such as scientific researches. Don't get me wrong though, I realize these things have a lot of importance for the people who feel concerned, but in the end isn't trying to change your appearance more or less completely optional? That would be the same thing as covering surgeries people do because they want to look younger or because they don't like their physical appearance, and these things should never become a priority as they have no positive impact on the progress of a society's development.

Not all trans transition during army time Just saying.... the ban shouldn't be because some do.

Also, there are videos on the "crime rates" in USA that people should watch before saying things like the unproportional amount of crimes done by blacks. Because if you look into it, which I did for a good chunk of hours, the view shifts drastically...

Indeed... I mean, BLM obviously formed for a reason.

Lower class rural American towns find exceptionally bored police forces. Racial profiling up the wazoo, they get them to turn on each other, I mean -- it's hardly anecdotal when you can look up literally hundreds of instances of exploitation at the hands of officers with video evidence on YouTube/LiveLeak. Not just like 5 or 10, but hundreds throughout the country, and those just the ones people had a camera out for. Like two more viddied George Floyds have happened since George Floyd.

They're honestly some of the most terrifying things I've ever seen - they've left me with nightmares.

Most black american families have roots in slavery just 150 years ago, and they've only had equal education or opportunity or financial rights for 50 years. A lot of young black people in the country today still have parents who didn't go to school.

We don't really have blacks in Canada but we've had some parallels with the native community - my aunt is native and she can't read or write and doesn't know what multiplication is. How is she supposed to even speak to a police officer about anything properly? They could just get her to admit to anything they want, arrest her and be done with their quota for the day. This almost happened to her a few years back when she was volunteering to help pick up syringes off the street for community service, because she's an angel, and they tried to accuse her of using them, and family had to step in to defend her.

Are some Europeans people under the assumption black americans are just a bunch of savages?

Very much appreciate the effeort in writing more about racial discrepancy in USA and historical effects. P.S. names typically associated with Blacks get more likely rejected than White names all things equal. or it has a negative impact to have "Black" names. Don't ask me how a name cam have race, that's just human psychology here

Honestly I just wanted to say that both candidates are not good and even the people ai know personally that support Biden over Trump do not expect great things.

This ended with examinen each point I made about why they are bad.

I think Trump's reaction on his almost certain loss should show that he is very delusional. Tweeting he won and most legal votes. Heck a recournt in I think Wisconsin? Or Michigan lost him 400 votes. Not Biden... Trump lost votes.
in Arizona these mail in ballots favour Trump at the moment. No one seems to call fraud on house and Senate standings...

this was the topic. right?

Also, I can't really respond to multiple in one comment due to Mobile phone layout. So if those responses are merge worthy... alright.

Edit: lmao this video just came out.
I think this is a video more in spirit of the topic. So feel free to discuss this video here

[PluMGMK]

Thanks for posting that, I love this guy's videos. Funny how he's now sponsored by a company with the same name as our virtual currency!

[Adsolution]

The same could be argued for any physical characteristic that someone aims to alter through cosmetic surgery. I have no doubt that gender dysphoria can be a terrible thing to endure, but I don't see why people can't be equally affected by some physical traits they're hung up about.

I agree completely regarding breast augmentation or facial feminisation surgery, which are both standard procedures many trans people go through as well of course.

SRS on the other hand I can't define as cosmetic, since while it affects your appearance, that's only auxiliary. Of course the plastic surgeon is going to do their best to make the results look nice, but the primary purpose of SRS is to allow the person to have sex normally, because the alternative is, for instance, living as a girl with a penis, and one that doesn't even work properly (without enough testosterone, it shrinks and doesn't function correctly). Women generally want something put in them, and guys generally want something to put in someone (that doesn't have a dick).

The 3 solutions:

- "Dropping the whole charade" is effectively forcing yourself through personal conversion therapy, which seems incredibly destructive if the only thing from stopping you from being happy is one little surgery.
- Not covering SRS, confining your romantic opportunities to the niche community of people that like people with non-matching organs, ones which only really exist in progressive areas, unless you're able to gather the kind of money a lot of people don't have.
- Covering SRS, allowing you to live completely normally, barring having children.


On that note, I place breast reduction for female-to-male patients on the non-cosmetic list as well. Do you think someone should have to endure walking around with a beard and double-D's?

[Steo]

Do you think someone should have to endure walking around with a beard and double-D's?

This part actually makes me laugh.

[Сым]

Besides, surgeries are so expensive because they're difficult and complicated and one tiny mistake could screw up their patient's life, not because they consume resources (beyond anesthesia or transplants/bone implants), so why not go ask surgeons to donate what they make instead?

In this case hard work would be a solution, and offering people what they want freely isn't.

No one would do this just for cosmetic reasons, or would take pills to alter their hormone balance if it didn't cause significant physiological relief.

Is that why some people want to go back and claim the surgeries ruined their lives?

That argument: "the money should go to scientific research instead" is such an oddly specific one I only see thrown around the trashiest, lowest-functioning anti-SJW incel boards and servers out there.

It sounds like you have bias towards others' gender identities. I only suggested something which could be convenient for everyone including transgenders, and you can't please everyone without making difficult trade-offs.

[Xenon]

To be honest with you, I don't really have an issue with taxes funding GRS, as it's clearly a benefit that cannot knowingly be exploited by the individual. Like Hunch, I feel incredibly sorry for people gender dysphoria, but whether or not surgery would actually help them to function in society - in some cases it does and in others not, I think - providing that option for them seems like the right and decent thing to do. Free cosmetic surgery is kind of a false equivalent because, if offered for free, it would attract scroungers and ne'er do wells, myself included, who don't have deep dissatisfactions with their natural physical characreristics, but looking to take advantage of a free facelift.

My attitude here doesn't extend to all aspects of NHS provision though. I'm quite against spending hundreds of £ a week funding things like gastric bands. If people have agency to improve their lives themselves then I'm against public provision. In my opinion, that doesn't extend to gender reassignment.

Women generally want something put in them, and guys generally want something to put in someone (that doesn't have a dick).

A good point worth making.

[Adsolution]

Besides, surgeries are so expensive because they're difficult and complicated and one tiny mistake could screw up their patient's life, not because they consume resources (beyond anesthesia or transplants/bone implants), so why not go ask surgeons to donate what they make instead?

In this case hard work would be a solution, and offering people what they want freely isn't.

What fantasy world do you live in, man? You think you're just "better/smarter" at living than all those impoverished fools? Do you understand how class systems and social disparity work? You just gave the most corporate statement ever with only an element truth to it, shattered by genuine lived experience for most people.

Say you have a normal blue collar physical labour job (the easiest work to get that pays well) and you got a back injury - you can't pay for health insurance, so your ambulance bill is already insurmountable, and now you can't work for 4 months and get laid off. You find an opening at a Subway after a couple more months, and you're finally back to starting to pay off thousands of dollars of medical and residential debt at $12 an hour, 15 hours a week, and it's just never going to happen without a miracle. And that's very minor debt. Now you have to save up ten times that amount to have any kind of surgery.

My mother's run a construction company of 200 employees or so for the last 17 years, so I can give you endless accounts of heartbreaking financial stories from hardworking people, even though we do our best to support our workers (we handed out the Christmas bonuses already this year).

I've already mentioned that SRS is not officially considered cosmetic, so unless you still disagree on that note (you haven't said so), I'm assuming you've accepted that when you say what you're saying.

No one would do this just for cosmetic reasons, or would take pills to alter their hormone balance if it didn't cause significant physiological relief.

Is that why some people want to go back and claim the surgeries ruined their lives?

No, that would be because psychology is complicated. Are you that retarded?

It sounds like you have bias towards others' gender identities. I only suggested something which could be convenient for everyone including transgenders, and you can't please everyone without making difficult trade-offs.

How is what you suggested convenient for anyone, most of all transgenders? Because you're "saving everyone including them the hardship"? People like you making ridiculous arguments for no reason on topics you have no respect for are the only reason this hardship exists.

[Сым]

Say you have a normal blue collar physical labour job (the easiest work to get that pays well) and you got a back injury - you can't pay for health insurance, so your ambulance bill is already insurmountable, and now you can't work for 4 months and get laid off.

How do workplace accidents relate to sexual reassignments?

In this case help would be well deserved is the difference.

No, that would be because psychology is complicated. Are you that retarded?

Going by your logic the only motive whoever transitions for is gender dysphoria.

How is what you suggested convenient for anyone, most of all transgenders? Because you're "saving everyone including them the hardship"? People like you making ridiculous arguments for no reason on topics you have no respect for are the only reason this hardship exists.

Maybe less convenient for transgenders, but in the end everyone could benefit from it. Reducing their comfort in the interest of everyone else sounds pretty inclusive to me.

[Steo]

When it comes to cosmetic surgery though, the only reason I could class such surgeries as non-cosmetic is if something serious came up. For example, if a man unluckily develops testicular cancer, they will need to have their testicles removed; in this case, it's clearly not cosmetic, and the procedure is actually necessary. I do understand that others may "want" to have a procedure such as SRS, but if they were to continue as they are, they still have functional sexual organs as is, and it's technically not "necessary". Someone who is terminally ill for example is going to die, and money towards cancer research would be "necessary" in such a case, though in cases like this, people who "want" these procedures are basically spending a fortune on themselves. That being said, if it's their money, then it's fine, but when people are giving others money as if this is a "charity", this is where it becomes an issue, as it clearly isn't a charity.

This is my two cents on the matter at least.

[Adsolution]

In this case help would be well deserved is the difference.

Where's the threshold then? This is a massive chunk of the population.

Going by your logic the only motive whoever transitions for is gender dysphoria.

The only motive for transitioning is gender dysphoria? Of course, or were you sassing that the only motive for transition is to get gender dysphoria?

You've got to be trolling... I know what statistic you're probably getting this from, which implies suicide rates are higher post-transition. This study is the second thing you find around trashy anti-SJW incel boards, completely misrepresented by the people quoting it. Sigh...

The study only takes down the suicide of people recorded to be transgender. This automatically excludes everyone who hasn't come out yet and those who've already committed suicide, numbers which completely morph the result. Additionally, most people transition while young, leaving far more time (the rest of your life) to happen across a moment that makes you commit suicide. The actual [attempted] suicide rates for trans people are closer to 44% pre-transition, and 25% post.

Maybe less convenient for transgenders, but in the end everyone could benefit from it. Reducing their comfort in the interest of everyone else sounds pretty inclusive to me.

Do you really believe soldiers who happen to be trans are just going to whine all the time and burst into tears in the middle of combat? Or do you think everyone in the military is so weirded out by them it isn't workable, and it's not just some of the more immature recruits? I'm honestly lost as to what the actual concern people have is.

And isn't this the exact same argument people used against gay and female recruits before they were each let in respectively...?

When it comes to cosmetic surgery though, the only reason I could class such surgeries as non-cosmetic is if something serious came up. For example, if a man unluckily develops testicular cancer, they will need to have their testicles removed; in this case, it's clearly not cosmetic, and the procedure is actually necessary. I do understand that others may "want" to have a procedure such as SRS, but if they were to continue as they are, they still have functional sexual organs as is, and it's technically not "necessary".

Is it only "necessary" if the person's going to die from it, or can it be sufficiently debilitating? If you woke up one day as the opposite sex but you're still the exact same you, would you now feel justified in having it covered to get your old genitals back, or would you be okay with that, just living life like that now suddenly? Does that sound like a cosmetic issue, or one that functionally screws with your life in a very big way?

Someone who is terminally ill for example is going to die, and money towards cancer research would be "necessary" in such a case

Or we can look at it like this: putting $30,000 towards cancer research is highly unlikely to save a life at the moment, or do much in the scope of things. It's a combined effort with long-term effects. That 30k could also immediately go towards making one person's life

You can see anything as a want if you want if it it's not life or death. You could be born without one hand, look at everyone else with both and say "hey, I wish I could do what literally everyone else can". Or you could be born with the wrong organs if you're female mentally, and look at your friends and go "hey, I wish I could do what literally all other women can do".

That being said, if it's their money, then it's fine, but when people are giving others money as if this is a "charity", this is where it becomes an issue, as it clearly isn't a charity.

Tax isn't a charity though, it's an obligation.

[Steo]

Is it only "necessary" if the person's going to die from it, or can it be sufficiently debilitating? If you woke up one day as the opposite sex but you're still the exact same you, would you now feel justified in having it covered to get your old genitals back, or would you be okay with that, just living life like that now suddenly? Does that sound like a cosmetic issue, or one that functionally screws with your life in a very big way?

I think I see what you're trying to say, but realistically this is never going to happen. If a person is born a certain way, they'll have lived the majority of their life that way, and have never known what it felt like to be the opposite gender in the first place.

Or we can look at it like this: putting $30,000 towards cancer research is highly unlikely to save a life at the moment, or do much in the scope of things. It's a combined effort with long-term effects. That 30k could also go towards someone who'll have a good chance of killing themselves if they aren't able to have the surgery.

But how do they know that having such a surgery will even make them feel better? Some people might just still be as depressed as they already were if they felt this way in the first place. Also, maybe donating towards cancer research might not save a life instantly, but the money could save a person's life one day, and it's clear that having such an illness leaves a person in a very bad state too.

You can see anything as a want if you want if it it's not life or death. You could be born without one hand, look at everyone else with both and say "hey, I wish I could do what literally everyone else can". Or you could be born with the wrong organs if you're female mentally, and look at your friends and go "hey, I wish I could do what literally all other women can do".

Like my first statement though, you were like that for the majority of your life, so you're going to be used to it. Sure, you might feel inferior to others, but the same could be said with having something like bad hand-eye coordination and wanting to be good at a sport; you're going to feel inferior to others who have good hand-eye coordination.

Tax isn't a charity though, it's an obligation.

I was referring to how a crazy amount of money is donated towards the cause basically, including by the likes of Discord.

[Adsolution]

I think I see what you're trying to say, but realistically this is never going to happen. If a person is born a certain way, they'll have lived the majority of their life that way, and have never known what it felt like to be the opposite gender in the first place.

But how do they know that having such a surgery will even make them feel better? Some people might just still be as depressed as they already were if they felt this way in the first place.

Why all this speculation? You act like no post-op trans person has ever written a feedback report. Ask the vast majority of post-op trans people if it was pretty much how they dreamed and are satisfied now, and you'll get a resounding yes.

And no, you can't get used to it just like that. Say a boy was born without a dick for some reason, or had it blown off when he was 10 before he was even interested in sex - he's not going to suddenly magically enjoy sucking it and taking it in the ass when he hits puberty if he's straight.

You know how there are things in our brain that make us go in natural sex positions?

Sure, you might feel inferior to others, but the same could be said with having something like bad hand-eye coordination and wanting to be good at a sport; you're going to feel inferior to others who have good hand-eye coordination.

So you're against covering the costs to get this person a hand? Why? That sounds like a surprising amount of apathy coming from someone who knows all the wonderful things you can do with two hands versus one, society kind of being designed around it and all.

I think those two feelings of inferiority are on wildly different levels, and playing a sport is a passion. It would be so sad for a one-handed person to be at the point where they'd consider having two hands their passion in life. The passion to just be at least minimally functional like everyone else.

[ScalieDan]

I see a growing discussion about trans while I just brought it up to show failure of trump administration. Well I think I shouldn't just let this slight.

1st: I saw a mention of how they lived most of their life in their gender/sex and so don't know about other.
A flaw here is that we may assume that they understand what they are born into. It's hard to know how it feels like to be a man if all your life you felt like a woman.
As for sex, yes that's necessarily true that before transitioning they experienced the sex they are like others. Which might let you indicate that they can decide pretty well if they can stand this body.

2nd: Hard work is an illusion in grant view. The fact the users in this forum can write has a lot of luck factors involved. The fact many here may have knowledge about the topic is even more based on luck. You can influence chance positively and that to a good amount (well...) but in every great life there is a great deal of luck. Be happy if you get a chance for something that you wanted and take it.

3rd: I saw a mention of exclusively gender dysphoria being causation. Well, as far as I know there are similar classifications which lead to the same. But origin might be slightly different.

Anyhow, there are "deceiving" similarities to other issues. Body dysmorphic disorder (dysmorphopho) is such one. Gender stereotypes are sometimes causes too. These and more get mixed up with gender dysphoria at times. However, detransition rate is incredibly low. like, I think 0.1%? 1%?

4th to detransition rate and "does it work"?. Yes it does work and has helped many. However, we need to remind ourselves that a proper process can take a year or even years before it happens. Several times have I been told by people who have transitioned how rough the path was and long. Sometimes too long. We always wish to never make mistakes with diagnosis. But we are humans so we will...

5th a small note on general preference of genders of man and woman. I have seen a good chunk of straights trying out "the bottom role" with their wife. And I did ask woman in a site exactly about that question, it's more than just inserting in, a good chunk of reports said so at least . Generally might be true regardless, but I feel like these nuances are worth mentioning.

6th: A very horrible statement was that "cancer treatment is necessary while gender reassignment isn't" (paraphrased) . Do not say it's not necessary meanwhile one of the highest suicide rate sLITERALLY is amongst trans. If you, as a cis straight man, at best white on top of it, think that the suffering of gender dysphoria is 'not serious enough', I HIGHLY suggest you to not talk about the topic till you actually talk to trans people. Not just one but a lot, chat with them. One I talked to really considered killing themselves because transitioning was denied till "it was proven". Even though they did a lot and to test it they had to wear "typically clothes of other gender" while not having transitioned. Horror experience from their report.
I repeat, if you think ignoring trans is worth it cause it's not lethal, bet ya it's more lethal than a lot of other self hating conditions. No one here would want body dysmorphic disorder to be untreated. no body wants schizophrenia to be untreated, no one wants insanity to be untreated. Personality disorder, etc.

If you ACTUALLY appeal to "most urgent" look at climate, world hunger, world pollution. Because those actually kill rapid fire or threaten human extinction depending on severity.

7th transition surgery is NOT cosmetic. It's literally a medical emergency treatment for a mismatch of physical and mental happenstance. Cosmetic is beauty and sometimes related to psychological stress reduction. (tattoos on whole body because skim disease, so it makes them handle the disease better).

8th: As for female to male: the resulting 'organ' isn't as build as someone who has it born without dysfunctions. Medical field isn't far enough here yet and someone who transitioned from female to male wants a non trans men partner because of these slight differences (and cause he can't hold mental pressure of himself and a trans partner).
Yet, this still helped them a lot to feel comfortable in their new, proper skin. I do hope medical field improves as to ensure the best results.
P.S. there seem to be 2 main ways to transition from female to male regarding genitals. one hormon based other surgery. A topic on its own

9th army/military: For the final time, you have to pass tests. Mental instable people are not for the battle field. You get hardened there. I don't know why this is an argument that just gets dropped. You can't argue "but some are unstable" yes, they don't pass it. Not all trans transition after they joined btw.

10th: given I also work with disabled people, you are never greatfull about things which we really should. 2 harms, 2 hands, 10 fingers, 10 toes, 2 feet, 2 legs, a neck, 2 eyes, a nose and list can go on.
There are 2 ways to see this (commonly these 2, of course more exist)
1: let them die, natutal selection
2: take care of them and support them and see where they fit in this world

of course I will be biased for nr. 2 but I hope most here see 2 as far better.

All of this can apply to trans as well, do not just say "well rip, we don't care and don't want to help you" say "I'm lucky, I should be greatfull and show you why life is worth living by helping you to find your reason and motivation."

(yes it's idealistic and you can bring many borderline cases or exceptions but it's a general message. Don't come with a hateful trans who murdered your family. I don't expect you to be nice in this case...).

11th I saw a direct insult, please no insults. Especially on this topic education is rare to come by.

12th: a lot of countries have universal healthcare or to call it more like how it is, social security/benefit.
You live in a society, if you feel horrible we take care of you to a good degree, but do put in money so you can benefit from this luxury. Just in case you feel bad.
If you don't want this, putting in money that MAYBE helps trans, sometimes cancer patients etc., well ok. Expect no healthcare for yourself then. I hardly feel sympathy for wanting to not help 1 specific group but if you are in same position, would be greatfull for support.

This is all I want to say on this topic. I didn't quote as then I can't read all posts or my phone screws up layout.

Now, has anyone seen John Olver's 27min video on US election? Comedy heaven and slight image warning

[Сым]

Where's the threshold then?

I am turning this question back to you.

This is a massive chunk of the population.

How do workplace accidents relate to sexual reassignments?

Not to mention transgenders are supposedly a part of this massive chunk of the population when they have a job.

The study only takes down the suicide of people recorded to be transgender. This automatically excludes everyone who hasn't come out yet and those who've already committed suicide, numbers which completely morph the result. Additionally, most people transition while young, leaving far more time (the rest of your life) to happen across a moment that makes you commit suicide. The actual [attempted] suicide rates for trans people are closer to 44% pre-transition, and 25% post.

Of these, 25% were so happy with transition they probably wanted to go back, and faced atrocious psychological consequences the surgeries caused. In the end they still killed themselves. Don't you think their motives for transition could have been different than gender dysphoria in this case?

And isn't this the exact same argument people used against gay and female recruits before they were each let in respectively...?

I wasn't on the military topic anymore, and what I meant is scientific researches could benefit everyone including transgenders. There surely is transgenders who have cancer if I were to take Steo's example, but scientific researches are a broad topic, and aren't exclusive to cancer either.

When it comes to military other soldiers may be bothered by the presence of transgenders alone.

[ScalieDan]

"When it comes to military other soldiers may be bothered by the presence of transgenders alone."

They ma be bothered by your hair, eye colour, skin, sexuality, gender, political Orientation, age, IQ, etc.
The fact this argument is only said here is to sneak in a false dichotomy of "there is only one thing that is an unnecessary brothering"
No, the only right thing is to tell them to deal with the fact that people they don't like exist.

"Of these, 25% were so happy with transition they probably wanted to go back, and faced atrocious psychological consequences the surgeries caused. In the end they still killed themselves."

Transitioning doesn't protect you from harassment. There is a difference in reported improvement of own image and improvement of environment.
In fact, onces you transition it is shown openly. No more closet.

Can this trans discussion please stop as I feel like no one here, including myself, would have enough knowledge to answer all the things everyone wants to know.

Edit: This sounds rather dumb, making a big clarification statement and then asking to move on. Feel free to ask why I made those statements. We should attempt to close it, is what I wanted to say

[Сым]

No, the only right thing is to tell them to deal with the fact that people they don't like exist.

Of course they exist, but don't you want to ensure the proper functioning of the military system?

Transitioning doesn't protect you from harassment.

I never made that claim. Transgenders who are unhappy with the surgeries exist, and even if they weren't harassed there still is higher chance they kill themselves if they feel like sexual reassignment ruined their lives.

[Steo]

Why all this speculation?

Basically because we drifted, while my main point is that I personally would prioritise other things like terminal illness over this operation.

So you're against covering the costs to get this person a hand? Why? That sounds like a surprising amount of apathy coming from someone who knows all the wonderful things you can do with two hands versus one, society kind of being designed around it and all.

I think those two feelings of inferiority are on wildly different levels, and playing a sport is a passion. It would be so sad for a one-handed person to be at the point where they'd consider having two hands their passion in life. The passion to just be at least minimally functional like everyone else.

That's not what I said, I just meant if someone always had one, then they'd have adapted to it, and some even manage in life if they have to lose one. Take the drummer from Def Leppard Rick Allen for example, he was in a car accident and it severed his left arm. He had an operation to have it reattached, but then he got an infection and had to have it amputated in the end. He didn't let it ruin his career though, he stuck with the band and managed to keep playing the drums with one arm.

[ScalieDan]

Why all this speculation?

Basically because we drifted, while my main point is that I personally would prioritise other things like terminal illness over this operation.

So you're against covering the costs to get this person a hand? Why? That sounds like a surprising amount of apathy coming from someone who knows all the wonderful things you can do with two hands versus one, society kind of being designed around it and all.

I think those two feelings of inferiority are on wildly different levels, and playing a sport is a passion. It would be so sad for a one-handed person to be at the point where they'd consider having two hands their passion in life. The passion to just be at least minimally functional like everyone else.

That's not what I said, I just meant if someone always had one, then they'd have adapted to it, and some even manage in life if they have to lose one. Take the drummer from Def Leppard Rick Allen for example, he was in a car accident and it severed his left arm. He had an operation to have it reattached, but then he got an infection and had to have it amputated in the end. He didn't let it ruin his career though, he stuck with the band and managed to keep playing the drums with one arm.

Don't use disability analogy of something where a body part is missing as a direct analogy to a whole identity mismatch. It's insanely disrespectful and as for your priorities, every body has personal preference. The disrespectful part was saying like one was necessary while the other isn't.
Necessary for survival would be the correct modifier which you missed. But crucially, mental issues drive you to death.
sure trans has a less dooming death rate. But necessary on this topic is a case by case base. Necessary to function properly/find happiness. With this modifier the issue looks different. both are necessary.

P.S. this topic started from trans in army. Where trans offer service and on battlefield even their lifes. Not sure why we should compare science research with care for the humans that defend other humans.

This comparison seems flawed in nature.

[Steo]

I mean, it wasn't me who brought up people with missing limbs in the first place, so I'm not the one making comparisons other than speculating on things others have said.

As for necessities, it's necessary to be free of serious illnesses in order to survive, but a person who is suicidal on the other hand is different, since they're physically healthy but simply don't want to live. In that kind of way, a physically healthy person wants to give up their life, while a seriously ill person wants to live on, but they don't have the option. This is why I'm saying I prioritise terminal illness, because those people actually do want to survive. Don't take that up as me not caring about mental illnesses though, it's just a priority, and that's my opinion.