FTM Transgendered Men and the Draft

Should transmen register for the draft?

Yes	42.4%	[ 14 ]
No	33.3%	[ 11 ]
I don't know	24.2%	[ 8 ]
Total Votes:			[ 33 ]

[Liberals are retarded]

The Willow Of Darkness

Liberals are retarded

The Willow Of Darkness

Liberals are retarded

Ianuarius

>"liberals are retarded"
>accuse people who don't agree with you of automatically being liberals

Sounds pretty open minded to me!

Given that liberals in this forum are the majority and conservatives are definitely the minority I'd say that it would be statistically valid to assume that provided someone extremely disagrees with me, they are certainly a liberal. Pew Research Society also discovered that over the internet liberals are much more like to respond to things they disagree with much more rashly than conservatives would, so it would also be statistically valid to assume that (much like chieftain twilight did) that if someone blocks me, expresses vulgarity at the slightest expression of dissidence, and accuses me of being "close minded" as a pejorative statement, they too are a liberal. A close minded, dogmatic, intolerant liberal.

This is not actually a bad thing; people should not be tolerant of ignorance and falsehoods.

You're certainly no exception to this stereotype I can see.

Did you read my point? There shouldn't be exceptions.

Some should argue their position much better, as something like "Your close-minded" is neither a factual identification of an position of ignorance (e.g. the falling to recognise the difference between the physiology of sex and discourse of sex) nor a clear identification of ethical error (e.g. you are immoral for imposting unjustified discrimination on people), but their motivation is in the right place.

Yeah I honestly say you're pretty much blowing hot air.

1. I explained why there should be exceptions to a draft (women) if we are to have one but I personally think we shouldn't.

2. Me being "close minded" wasn't actually a part of the thread subject. I responded to it anyways. As for someone being able to argue their position better, sure, but I doubt you will be able to do that and I'll just repeat myself.

3.

Quote:

phys·i·ol·o·gy noun ˌfi-zē-ˈä-lə-jē
: a science that deals with the ways that living things function

: the ways that living things or any of their parts function

No, I'd say I was using "physiology" correctly every time I typed it in this thread.

4. I already stated why this discrimination existed and why it should exist. Discrimination is often seen as a bad thing, but in this case discrimination means efficiency, rather than taking away the rights of another. Fighting in battle is a privilege, not a right.

5. Their motivation "lying in the right place" is a result of emotion, not logic; if it was a result of logic they would likely be looking after what is the most efficient trade-off rather than the most heartfelt one.

Seriously, don't even bother replying.

[Liberals are retarded]

Yobyaxes N

Ianuarius

I hope you saw that Chieftain got utterly pwned in this topic.

You mean in like every other topic he/she decides to start an argument in?

[GSK Lives]

Valtiel the Watcher

I also don't understand why people here ate trying to argue that making it mandatory for men to sacrifice their lives in the event of wartime implies that women are the less valuable sex.

Because it says that we are too weak physically, mentally, and morally to do such an important job.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

Liberals are retarded

Yeah I honestly say you're pretty much blowing hot air.

1. I explained why there should be exceptions to a draft (women) if we are to have one but I personally think we shouldn't.

2. Me being "close minded" wasn't actually a part of the thread subject. I responded to it anyways. As for someone being able to argue their position better, sure, but I doubt you will be able to do that and I'll just repeat myself.

1. For sure you did. The question here is: what relevance do your objections that have? Those opposing you are arguing, for various reasons, those facts you've identified don't matter. It is your ethics which have been rejected here.

2. I know that. I was using "close minded" as an example of a terrible argument given to support the liberal (or any) position. A person's mind being closed is, quite frankly, ******** irrelevant. Everyone who disagrees with someone has their mind closed to an opposing position. It like saying: "Hey, you disagree with me. Stop it." The statement identifies nothing about the world or how we ought to behave.

Liberals are retarded

No, I'd say I was using "physiology" correctly every time I typed it in this thread.

I never said you weren't using it correctly.

I said you were falling to distinguish between a person body (physiology) and the discourse used to describe sex (how people are categorised and judged with respect to an understanding of sex).

Liberals are retarded

4. I already stated why this discrimination existed and why it should exist. Discrimination is often seen as a bad thing, but in this case discrimination means efficiency, rather than taking away the rights of another. Fighting in battle is a privilege, not a right.

That is not correct. In this case, it is a form of efficiency gained at the expense of the ability of some people (women) to fill a particular position (conscripts) in society. You are denying the women have the right to be conscripted, irrespective of the policy's efficiency.

Liberals are retarded

5. Their motivation "lying in the right place" is a result of emotion, not logic; if it was a result of logic they would likely be looking after what is the most efficient trade-off rather than the most heartfelt one.

But that isn't true either. They are driven to oppose your arguments by the logic of opposing a forms of discrimination the disagree with.

To take the most "efficient" approach only makes sense when the concern is to minimise particular costs (e.g. feminine hygiene) or avoid certain forms of work (e.g. sorting out what randomly selected women met a supposed strength and finiteness standard). If the position is, instead, it is worthwhile to absorb these costs, as it is important that women be conscripted, logic says the opposite.

[Liberals are retarded]

The Willow Of Darkness

Liberals are retarded

Yeah I honestly say you're pretty much blowing hot air.

1. I explained why there should be exceptions to a draft (women) if we are to have one but I personally think we shouldn't.

2. Me being "close minded" wasn't actually a part of the thread subject. I responded to it anyways. As for someone being able to argue their position better, sure, but I doubt you will be able to do that and I'll just repeat myself.

1. For sure you did. The question here is: what relevance do your objections that have? Those opposing you are arguing, for various reasons, those facts you've identified don't matter. It is your ethics which have been rejected here.

2. I know that. I was using "close minded" as an example of a terrible argument given to support the liberal (or any) position. A person's mind being closed is, quite frankly, ******** irrelevant. Everyone who disagrees with someone has their mind closed to an opposing position. It like saying: "Hey, you disagree with me. Stop it." The statement identifies nothing about the world or how we ought to behave.

Liberals are retarded

No, I'd say I was using "physiology" correctly every time I typed it in this thread.

I never said you weren't using it correctly.

I said you were falling to distinguish between a person body (physiology) and the discourse used to describe sex (how people are categorised and judged with respect to an understanding of sex).

Liberals are retarded

4. I already stated why this discrimination existed and why it should exist. Discrimination is often seen as a bad thing, but in this case discrimination means efficiency, rather than taking away the rights of another. Fighting in battle is a privilege, not a right.

That is not correct. In this case, it is a form of efficiency gained at the expense of the ability of some people (women) to fill a particular position (conscripts) in society. You are denying the women have the right to be conscripted, irrespective of the policy's efficiency.

Liberals are retarded

5. Their motivation "lying in the right place" is a result of emotion, not logic; if it was a result of logic they would likely be looking after what is the most efficient trade-off rather than the most heartfelt one.

But that isn't true either. They are driven to oppose your arguments by the logic of opposing a forms of discrimination the disagree with.

To take the most "efficient" approach only makes sense when the concern is to minimise particular costs (e.g. feminine hygiene) or avoid certain forms of work (e.g. sorting out what randomly selected women met a supposed strength and finiteness standard). If the position is, instead, it is worthwhile to absorb these costs, as it is important that women be conscripted, logic says the opposite.

Lol what? Being conscripted is a right? No it isn't, please tell me when it's ever been the right to even join the military. Pro tip, it never was.

Example, if you ever did drugs, have a health condition, fail the drug test at MEPS, score too low on the ASVAB test, are a felony, or have ever been to rehab, you may not be able to join the military. If your vision is too poor, you may not fly, and you may not go to combat even with glasses. It's obviously clear you have zero idea what you're talking about, so we're done here.

By the way I skimmed the rest of your post, however I'm not going to bother repeating myself.

[Yobyaxes N]

Liberals are retarded

Yobyaxes N

Ianuarius

I hope you saw that Chieftain got utterly pwned in this topic.

You mean in like every other topic he/she decides to start an argument in?

Yep.

[Liberals are retarded]

GSK Lives

Valtiel the Watcher

I also don't understand why people here ate trying to argue that making it mandatory for men to sacrifice their lives in the event of wartime implies that women are the less valuable sex.

Because it says that we are too weak physically, mentally, and morally to do such an important job.

fixed that or you, and that sucks, you're a window I can look through and see insecurity on the other side.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

Liberals are retarded

Lol what? Being conscripted is a right? No it isn't, please tell me when it's ever been the right to even join the military. Pro tip, it never was.

Example, if you ever did drugs, have a health condition, fail the drug test at MEPS, score too low on the ASVAB test, are a felony, or have ever been to rehab, you may not be able to join the military. If your vision is too poor, you may not fly, and you may not go to combat even with glasses. It's obviously clear you have zero idea what you're talking about, so we're done here.

By the way I skimmed the rest of your post, however I'm not going to bother repeating myself.

It doesn't have to have been. The question here is not whether people have automatically been accepted into the military (that doesn't even happen when there is a draft ) at all.

It is a matter of whether conscription to automatically exclude one group or another, a question of who is denied a position in society. Your stance denies women that position (to be conscripted), regardless of its efficiencies. It rejects that women have a "right (i.e. should be allowed)" to be subject to conscription.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are telling falsehoods about the discrimination you advocate. Instead of being truthful, admitting that you are denying women the possibility of being subject to conscription, you lie about your position: you try to claim your position isn't denying women the given place (conscript) in society.

[Liberals are retarded]

The Willow Of Darkness

Liberals are retarded

Lol what? Being conscripted is a right? No it isn't, please tell me when it's ever been the right to even join the military. Pro tip, it never was.

Example, if you ever did drugs, have a health condition, fail the drug test at MEPS, score too low on the ASVAB test, are a felony, or have ever been to rehab, you may not be able to join the military. If your vision is too poor, you may not fly, and you may not go to combat even with glasses. It's obviously clear you have zero idea what you're talking about, so we're done here.

By the way I skimmed the rest of your post, however I'm not going to bother repeating myself.

It doesn't have to have been. The question here is not whether people have automatically been accepted into the military (that doesn't even happen when there is a draft ) at all.

It is a matter of whether conscription to automatically exclude one group or another, a question of who is denied a position in society. Your stance denies women that position (to be conscripted), regardless of its efficiencies. It rejects that women have a "right (i.e. should be allowed)" to be subject to conscription.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are telling falsehoods about the discrimination you advocate. Instead of being truthful, admitting that you are denying women the possibility of being subject to conscription, you lie about your position: you try to claim your position isn't denying women the given place (conscript) in society.

No, I'm saying conscription isn't a right. It's a legal obligation, not a right. and yes, I already said women shouldn't be allowed to draft earlier. You're just trying to make me seem disingenuous. Which is pretty disingenuous of you I might add.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

Liberals are retarded

The Willow Of Darkness

Liberals are retarded

Lol what? Being conscripted is a right? No it isn't, please tell me when it's ever been the right to even join the military. Pro tip, it never was.

Example, if you ever did drugs, have a health condition, fail the drug test at MEPS, score too low on the ASVAB test, are a felony, or have ever been to rehab, you may not be able to join the military. If your vision is too poor, you may not fly, and you may not go to combat even with glasses. It's obviously clear you have zero idea what you're talking about, so we're done here.

By the way I skimmed the rest of your post, however I'm not going to bother repeating myself.

It doesn't have to have been. The question here is not whether people have automatically been accepted into the military (that doesn't even happen when there is a draft ) at all.

It is a matter of whether conscription to automatically exclude one group or another, a question of who is denied a position in society. Your stance denies women that position (to be conscripted), regardless of its efficiencies. It rejects that women have a "right (i.e. should be allowed)" to be subject to conscription.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are telling falsehoods about the discrimination you advocate. Instead of being truthful, admitting that you are denying women the possibility of being subject to conscription, you lie about your position: you try to claim your position isn't denying women the given place (conscript) in society.

No, I'm saying conscription isn't a right. It's a legal obligation, not a right. and yes, I already said women shouldn't be allowed to draft earlier. You're just trying to make me seem disingenuous.

No, I'm not. You are being disingenuous.

The discussion is about what place people ought to fulfil in society. Those opposing you hold women ought to be drafted. This isn't about legal obligations at all. It is about the ethics which ground the legal framework we enact. The ethical position that instructs what restrictions we write into law.

When you object that women shouldn't drafted, you are denying women ought to be drafted. You are claiming women ought not fulfil that role, so we most be motivated to write laws which prevent it from ever occurring.

You pretend you are not doing this, as if your position and its concern for certain efficiencies is not responsible for denying women a place in society. This is not true. You are not just being "efficient." In your concern for those efficiencies, you are denying women can ever fill the role of a conscript. Your position is denying women any possibility of being conscripts. You are attempting to hide this. You are trying to pass off that women are not actually losing the ability to fill a certain role under your position.

[GSK Lives]

Liberals are retarded

GSK Lives

Valtiel the Watcher

I also don't understand why people here ate trying to argue that making it mandatory for men to sacrifice their lives in the event of wartime implies that women are the less valuable sex.

Because it says that we are too weak physically, mentally, and morally to do such an important job.

fixed that or you, and that sucks, you're a window I can look through and see insecurity on the other side.

And be glad that's all you see in this house of horrors....

[Mister Okami]

Okay first off, are we seriously arguing with him?

Second, unless you're legally male (as in you've gone through the paperwork saying you're male) no, you wouldn't be required to sign up.

I actually didn't think the draft still worked like that though

[Chieftain Twilight]

disney butts

you can but since you are biologically female and it says on your birth certificate 'female', they'll likely disregard it. If you were post-op and had documentation saying you are now physically a male, they'd likely take it into consideration.

But a draft nowadays is incredibly unlikely considering the military is turning away people because they have too many soldiers.

you know, until some space is freed up by the death of soldiers. cause, ya know, that happens in war.

[Chieftain Twilight]

Shark Bacon

Technically, no, because you're DNA is female.

But personally, I think everyone should have to sign up at 18. If we want equality, we've got to take the good and the bad.

how about, instead of everyone signs up for draft, nobody does? still equal, and much freer.

[Chieftain Twilight]

The Willow Of Darkness

Liberals are retarded

Ianuarius

Liberals are retarded

Ianuarius

Liberals are retarded

Not my fault you arent educated about your own body

I'm perfectly educated. You are closed-minded.

Im far more open minded than you in the sense Ive been constantly challenging my beliefs and accepting alternate opinions and criticisms for years, in which I likely doubt youve even begun to do. That being said, you can't even take an opinion based on the educated presumption that only biological men and women can join the military (to my knowledge), coming from someone who's signed up for the draft and was at one point in time trying to sign up to join.

>"liberals are retarded"
>accuse people who don't agree with you of automatically being liberals

Sounds pretty open minded to me!

Given that liberals in this forum are the majority and conservatives are definitely the minority I'd say that it would be statistically valid to assume that provided someone extremely disagrees with me, they are certainly a liberal. Pew Research Society also discovered that over the internet liberals are much more like to respond to things they disagree with much more rashly than conservatives would, so it would also be statistically valid to assume that (much like chieftain twilight did) that if someone blocks me, expresses vulgarity at the slightest expression of dissidence, and accuses me of being "close minded" as a pejorative statement, they too are a liberal. A close minded, dogmatic, intolerant liberal.

This is not actually a bad thing; people should not be tolerant of ignorance and falsehoods.

not gonna call out his false dichotomy? there are more to the world than conservatives and liberals.