Former Stake President Excommunicated for being a woman.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Since it's relevant and WD is discussing the military aspect as a point of discussion I'm just going to share my post from the Paradise Forum:

How DO transgender members of the armed forces effect "readiness or lethality"?

Where is Cam when you need his input and expertise?

Hrm. The only thing that stands out to me as a man who affected the Army's readiness to its own detriment for 20 years is the potential medical expenses and time issues for medical recovery for transition treatment. You also get into a grey area during the transition process where you would have to figure out when to apply gender standards to the transitioning Soldier. Other than that you just have the typical who can ____/shower/shave where and who would feel like Water Dog and PP and how to mitigate that.

Back in the 90's the Gay thing was a huge deal for the military and people griped about it a lot. Now? Meh. Bigotry is pretty much not tolerated openly, and if you're going to be racist, sexist, homophobic you better do that ____ on the down low because it's 100% a career ending offense.

For as much as White people have loved to complain, historically, that Blacks, then women, then non-citizens, then Gays, and now Trans would affect our readiness it's amazing to me just how lethal and professional the active military is these days. This is literally a military that could wipe countries off the face of the earth if America had the political will to do so. So, as far as I know, our readiness will not and cannot be affected by transgendered types serving.

- Doc

Again. I was just an Enlisted guy who served time at the Company and BN/SQN level. I'm certainly not a policymaker, but did have opportunities to serve in multiple theaters under very different commands, some Joint, and I'm confident our readiness can't be degraded significantly by having trans people serve, other than the couple of things I mentioned above.

*edited for grammar because I'm distracted right now

- Doc

[_Jersey Girl]

Reposting this plug for the Paradise thread.

FYI: There's a thread regarding the newly tweeted policy announcement regarding trans military members taking place down in Paradise.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=46651

[_Xenophon]

WD, I had a pretty length post prepared and I have somehow managed to vaporize it into the void of the interwebs so I will try to at least recapture the spirit of what I wanted to say.

As Lemmie has now noted, our disagreement with one another on whether Beck counts as evidence for a transgendered person serving well is tied to your fundamental misunderstanding of what transgendered people go through (when we were taking about assumptions it was in regard to her, by the way). Beck has admitted that she never felt like she got to share her true self while serving. To say it isn't the same because she wasn't currently going through reassignment surgery or hormones seems disingenuous to me, as the hormones and surgery are a small part of the process.

I also find your arguments on "this isn't the place for social experiments", "group dynamic" and "culture" to be specious at best. As these arguments didn't turn out to be true for any other group previously denied the ability to serve (major shout-out to Cams post).

As an aside, it is intriguing to me that you often dismiss others opinions on military/intelligence topics because they aren't in the community (proving they lack the context, of course), while simultaneously ignoring the expert opinions of the medical professionals that help and work with those dealing with gender dysphoria or transitioning in general on a daily basis.

I doubt we will ever see eye to eye on this one, so I am more than happy to give you the last word on this and move on.

[_Kishkumen]

Calling me dumb? I wouldn't say that's how I originally interpreted it, but it is starting to have that vibe. :) I would say that I am no more insecure about my intellect than you seemingly are about your earning power. ;P I definitely should and would like to read some more Plato, as my formal philosophical education is admittedly weak. You've got me there. That being said, however, the shallow characterization of me casually worshipping at the font of Ayn Rand is quite off the mark. Despite your boasts about complexity, that's a pretty simple and unsophisticated stereotype.

This is a game that could go on forever, and while educational and entertaining, I have no doubt you'd be the victor. So allow me to be the one who blinks. Personally I'd rather strengthen our common ground. I'm not sure who started all this, but I am definitely a party to it, so I'll accept that responsibility either way. See if we can get this back on track.

Yes, well, I have no idea whether you casually worship at the font of Ayn Rand or not, and I was not name calling. I chose that as a recognizable example of the kind of person who would do well to be reminded of the history of Western utopias, which, by the way, would include Ayn Rand's vision. In doing so I was suggesting that it is somewhat inaccurate to characterize liberals as being uniquely utopians, when different brands of conservative are driven by the same cultural concerns and are drawing on the same historical tradition. They just construct different utopias.

[_Lemmie]

Since it's relevant and WD is discussing the military aspect as a point of discussion I'm just going to share my post from the Paradise Forum:

How DO transgender members of the armed forces effect "readiness or lethality"?

Where is Cam when you need his input and expertise?

Hrm. The only thing that stands out to me as a man who affected the Army's readiness to its own detriment for 20 years is the potential medical expenses and time issues for medical recovery for transition treatment. You also get into a grey area during the transition process where you would have to figure out when to apply gender standards to the transitioning Soldier. Other than that you just have the typical who can ____/shower/shave where and who would feel like Water Dog and PP and how to mitigate that.

Back in the 90's the Gay thing was a huge deal for the military and people griped about it a lot. Now? Meh. Bigotry is pretty much not tolerated openly, and if you're going to be racist, sexist, homophobic you better do that ____ on the down low because it's 100% a career ending offense.

For as much as White people have loved to complain, historically, that Blacks, then women, then non-citizens, then Gays, and now Trans would affect our readiness it's amazing to me just how lethal and professional the active military is these days. This is literally a military that could wipe countries off the face of the earth if America had the political will to do so. So, as far as I know, our readiness will not and cannot be affected by transgendered types serving.

- Doc

Again. I was just an Enlisted guy who served time at the Company and BN/SQN level. I'm certainly not a policymaker, but did have opportunities to serve in multiple theaters under very different commands, some Joint, and I'm confident our readiness can't be degraded significantly by having trans people serve, other than the couple of things I mentioned above.

*edited for grammar because I'm distracted right now

- Doc

Hi Doc, like Jersey, I was hoping we'd hear from you on this thread also!

That's a pretty level-headed take on it, thanks, especially the historical comparison to similar issues. I just find it interesting that for practical purposes, one aspect of incorporating transgender issues will be deciding how to "mitigate the bigotry."

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Again. I was just an Enlisted guy who served time at the Company and BN/SQN level. I'm certainly not a policymaker, but did have opportunities to serve in multiple theaters under very different commands, some Joint, and I'm confident our readiness can't be degraded significantly by having trans people serve, other than the couple of things I mentioned above.

Not to disparage your service in any way. I know of a few SOF vets that have come out in defense of guys like Beck as well. I respect everybody's opinion and agree to disagree. The simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of veterans, particularly from SOF, are in strong disagreement. Take a stroll over to the many forums dedicated to SOF vets and witness the conversations taking place.

Yeah, I just got done reading the r/Army thread. It's a pretty good take on the average Joe's feelings on the matter:

https://www.reddit.com/r/army/comments/ ... accept_or/

Here is /r/military's take on it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Military/comme ... ple_in_us/

And you're right. The majority of SOF guys would be like, "WTF, dude?"

- Doc

[_DoubtingThomas]

I see a lot of negative opinions, but nothing that convinces me these people are disreputable or provably wrong. Are they lying to people?

1. Why do you keep ignoring the Oxford definition of Gender? By definition the Biology is irrelevant.

2. The ACP (American College of Pediatricians) is not a legitimate medical organization, its name is designed to be mistaken for the American Academy of Pediatrics.

3. The American Academy of Pediatrics is a national organization with some 60,000 members. The American College of Pediatricians only has about 200 members, there are more Mormon scholars Testify than that s***!
https://www.fairmormon.org/testimonies/scholars

Seriously, when are you going to cut the horse s***?

[_Jersey Girl]

I think I already know the answer, but I don't suppose there is any love for the ACP?

3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).5 The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.2,4,5

http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speak ... s-children

I see a lot of negative opinions, but nothing that convinces me these people are disreputable or provably wrong. Are they lying to people?

You take one small comment regarding a psychiatric disorder and that's where you stop?

No, they are not lying to people. Gender Dysphoria is currently a psychiatric diagnosis, not unlike how homosexuality was once a psychiatric diagnosis.

That said, if you'd bother yourself to research treatment options for gender dysphoria, you will see that treatment involves helping the lifestyle/presentation/integration in society or the physical body itself to match the gender identity and NOT adapting the mind to match the physical body.

In simple minded male terms...

Gender Identity is in your head.
Sex is in your pants.

The goal of the treatment in the therapeutic setting is to match the sex (and it's expressions e.g. social, physical) in your pants to the gender identity in your head.

That is to say, treatment doesn't seek to change the gender identity, it seeks to support a person so that they can adapt to the gender identity.

It is just as I said from the beginning and EA has also said, while you continue to grasp anything that looks like a straw in order to avoid the obvious. I'm sure you think you're "on to something" by posting the diagnosis, but lacking information or even a shred of desire to seek out the information about treatment, you're not on to anything at all.

Pro Tip: Learn to research beyond what you believe is convenient to supporting your currently held position. That's how we grow in knowledge and understanding, and gain the insight needed to refine our thinking and positions that inform our interactions.

Or just continue to keep your head firmly implanted in the sand or whatever other location in which it might be embedded.

[_Maksutov]

I think I already know the answer, but I don't suppose there is any love for the ACP?

3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).5 The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.2,4,5

http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speak ... s-children

I see a lot of negative opinions, but nothing that convinces me these people are disreputable or provably wrong. Are they lying to people?

I don't think so. The science and profession of psychology has evolved over these issues over the last few generations. I can understand your skepticism to a point, especially where it seems like we have no boundaries left on defining gender and other matters. But we can't go backwards on this. I think both sides in the debate need to chill and grow some humility before making any more major moves in the government, if not the culture.

[_Lemmie]

The American College of Pediatricians Is an Anti-LGBT Group
--A small but clever anti-LGBT group created a legit-sounding name.
Posted May 08, 2017

The ACP is a small group of physicians that left the AAP after the AAP released a 2002 policy statement explaining that gay parents pose no risk to adopted children.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has repeatedly labeled the ACP as an anti-LGBT hate group that promotes false claims and misleading scientific reports.

...When asked about the ACP, Dr. Scott Leibowitz, medical director of the THRIVE program at Nationwide Children's Hospital and chair of the sexual orientation and gender identity issues committee for the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, did not parse his words, "It can hardly be a credible medical organization when it consistently chooses to ignore science and the growing evidence base that clearly demonstrates the benefits of affirmative care with LGBT youth across all ages."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/po ... lgbt-group