snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Social Studies

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 20 March 2019, 05:56 PM
1958Fury's Avatar
1958Fury 1958Fury is offline
 
Join Date: 05 October 2005
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 4,666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChasFink View Post
Yes, it was a different time. I was expecting more since I was very sympathetic to the gay rights movement at the time:
I was still an egg at the time, and didn't know much about gender issues, but on some level I found the Star Trek episode relatable. I'd never heard the word "transgender", and thought "sex changes" were something only gay people did for some reason. If I'd had any idea you could be straight and still feel like the wrong sex, I might have figured out I was trans earlier. Anyway, my point is that I wouldn't have noticed that the episode handled the subject badly, but it did help me sympathize with people who look at gender differently. Especially after seeing the conservative reaction to it. I mean, it was such a tame episode, I couldn't believe people were getting up in arms over it. It was clear which side was the one based on hatred.

Regarding Ellen, yeah, she overdid it. She had a message she wanted to get out there, and while it was a good message, it made the show less funny. And a sitcom needs to be funny. I was just as evangelical when I first came out, and my constant blogs annoyed my friends, so I can relate to that phase.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 20 March 2019, 07:20 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is offline
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 15,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
I'm trying to think of a sitcom with unmarried people where issues about sex or dating were not one of the most common plots.
I haven't seen Ellen since it was originally on TV, but prior to her coming out IIRC wasn't it a running theme that Ellen wasn't dating anyone, that she was in her 30s and "still" single, with her mom constantly trying to set her up with men who she wasn't interested in? Which in hindsight makes perfect sense for a woman who was a lesbian but in the closet, although I have no idea if that was how it was intended.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 21 March 2019, 06:41 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
Where you and I disagree is that you were saying that currently serving transgender troops would have to serve under their assigned gender, not their preferred gender.
No, not quite what I"m saying. I think we disagree on the meaning of "in their preferred gender". (Not saying it's intended to be misleading but I do think it's intended to appear non-discriminatory despite the restrictions.)

The document says "all persons" must obey the rules of their "biological sex". The exception for serving "in their preferred gender" does not necessarily mean, for example a man can wear a man's uniform if he is not "biologically male" - as in the 2018 rules, which, again, these rules do not supersede except for that one point of those who have been diagnosed being able to continue serving "in their gender" and promising not to keep anyone out solely based on the "diagnosis". Instead, as those documents say and the 2018 rules say, anyone may be either kept out or discharged based on their inability or unwillingness to follow the regulations for their "biological sex".
Quote:
Every linked document, including the Military Times article you linked to says that they can continue serving under their preferred gender.
Yes. And every document including the one you linked to also says anyone can be discharged for refusing to follow the rules of their "biological sex". So except for those who have undergone a physical transformation that would satisfy that rather restrictive definition, the point is moot. They may be allowed to check a box saying male but have to otherwise follow the rules for woman. That's why some people might consider it no better than an outright ban. (But, again, how it will be implemented remains to be seen.)
Quote:
The argument you got wrong was where you claimed that I said this was a win. What I said was that it wasn't as bad as it could have been.
OK, well, I have to disagree about that. I don't see how it's better. It's not for me to say but I understand the argument that it isn't.
Sure, I guess any policy at all "could be worse" but...

About the numbers, I don't understand why you keep including people who haven't been diagnosed by a military doctor when the document you linked to (and the other sources) only allows those who have been diagnosed. It simply doesn't include even one in ten of the 14 thousand.

tldr; Those thousand who have been diagnosed may continue serving "in the gender of their preference" but under the 2018 rules, which, like these new rules, stipulate that they (and everyone else) must follow all regulations for their biological sex.

Last edited by ganzfeld; 21 March 2019 at 06:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Pentagon's plan to put robot Marines in space A Turtle Named Mack Techno-Babble 13 23 July 2014 10:10 PM
Pentagon Lifting Ban on Women in Combat lord_feldon War, What Is It Good For? 8 24 January 2013 02:31 PM
9/11: Pentagon aircraft hijack impossible snopes Spook Central 15 14 October 2010 03:28 PM
Mornings at the Pentagon snopes Inboxer Rebellion 6 12 February 2010 01:29 PM
The Pentagon's purple water fountain snopes Military 3 07 February 2009 11:02 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.