Once again Trump makes the right decision. Transgender cannot serve in military

[Mikeoxenormous]

So you support a guy that thinks he is a dog? Should he have the right to join the army as a dog?

Thank you once again for your brilliant and cogent remarks. You add so much to the level and quality of discourse on a difficult and complicated subject . You are truly a treasure to the USMB!!

Yes or no question, can a human being become a dog.

Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example:
Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C
In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true.
Logical Fallacies
If A= a Woman and
B = transmale and
C= a dog
Then neither A equals C and you argument fails

You said one could mentally be a different sex, even though scientifically he cannot.
So why can't a man become a dog?
Simple question, yes or no. My argument is valid.

OK I'll play your silly word game for just a little while longer. This is just several more logical fallacies

First of all I never said "one could mentally be a different sex, even though scientifically he cannot." I'm not even sure what "scientifically" is supposed to mean. If by that you mean biologically, I defiantly did not say it. What you have done here is to create a straw-man logical fallacy. You're assigning an argument to me that I did not make so that you can shoot it down. Not working pal.

In addition, I have previously documented right here the fact that there is a growing body of evidence that shows that there are underlying biological/ hormonal/ neurological and genetic factors that influence gender identity.

Obviously you didn't bother to read it but here it is again The Transgender Brain
It should also be noted that many people are not clearly 100% one gender or the other which may or may not be obvious. They are known as intersexuals and that may well be related to transsexuality

Intersex: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

The second logical fallacy stems from that fact that you're suggesting that I am being inconsistent in saying that a man can become a woman but not a dog. In effect calling me a hypocrite. This is what you're doing :

tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

Lastly, this Dog thing is a red herring type of fallacy intended to distract from and derail the topic while avoiding any meaningful discussion.

If you think that you can become a dog, get your DNA tested and see how much dog you have in you. Then take some dog hormones, eat dog food, let your hair grow and try walking on all fours. This whole thing is just too fucking stupid. Get a life. For that matter get a brain

If you think that you can become a dog, get your DNA tested and see how much dog you have in you.

You do realize that if you have XY chromosomes, if you change your appearance to that of a woman, you still have the XY chromosomes, and are still a man? Just look like a girlie girl.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Thank you once again for your brilliant and cogent remarks. You add so much to the level and quality of discourse on a difficult and complicated subject . You are truly a treasure to the USMB!!

Yes or no question, can a human being become a dog.

Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example:
Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C
In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true.
Logical Fallacies
If A= a Woman and
B = transmale and
C= a dog
Then neither A equals C and you argument fails

You said one could mentally be a different sex, even though scientifically he cannot.
So why can't a man become a dog?
Simple question, yes or no. My argument is valid.

OK I'll play your silly word game for just a little while longer. This is just several more logical fallacies

First of all I never said "one could mentally be a different sex, even though scientifically he cannot." I'm not even sure what "scientifically" is supposed to mean. If by that you mean biologically, I defiantly did not say it. What you have done here is to create a straw-man logical fallacy. You're assigning an argument to me that I did not make so that you can shoot it down. Not working pal.

In addition, I have previously documented right here the fact that there is a growing body of evidence that shows that there are underlying biological/ hormonal/ neurological and genetic factors that influence gender identity.

Obviously you didn't bother to read it but here it is again The Transgender Brain
It should also be noted that many people are not clearly 100% one gender or the other which may or may not be obvious. They are known as intersexuals and that may well be related to transsexuality

Intersex: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

The second logical fallacy stems from that fact that you're suggesting that I am being inconsistent in saying that a man can become a woman but not a dog. In effect calling me a hypocrite. This is what you're doing :

tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

Lastly, this Dog thing is a red herring type of fallacy intended to distract from and derail the topic while avoiding any meaningful discussion.

If you think that you can become a dog, get your DNA tested and see how much dog you have in you. Then take some dog hormones, eat dog food, let your hair grow and try walking on all fours. This whole thing is just too fucking stupid. Get a life. For that matter get a brain

If you think that you can become a dog, get your DNA tested and see how much dog you have in you.

You do realize that if you have XY chromosomes, if you change your appearance to that of a women, you still have the XY chromosomes, and are still a man? Just look like a girlie girl.

Or worse, a very ugly woman.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Thank you once again for your brilliant and cogent remarks. You add so much to the level and quality of discourse on a difficult and complicated subject . You are truly a treasure to the USMB!!

Yes or no question, can a human being become a dog.

Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example:
Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C
In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true.
Logical Fallacies
If A= a Woman and
B = transmale and
C= a dog
Then neither A equals C and you argument fails

You said one could mentally be a different sex, even though scientifically he cannot.
So why can't a man become a dog?
Simple question, yes or no. My argument is valid.

OK I'll play your silly word game for just a little while longer. This is just several more logical fallacies

First of all I never said "one could mentally be a different sex, even though scientifically he cannot." I'm not even sure what "scientifically" is supposed to mean. If by that you mean biologically, I defiantly did not say it. What you have done here is to create a straw-man logical fallacy. You're assigning an argument to me that I did not make so that you can shoot it down. Not working pal.

In addition, I have previously documented right here the fact that there is a growing body of evidence that shows that there are underlying biological/ hormonal/ neurological and genetic factors that influence gender identity.

Obviously you didn't bother to read it but here it is again The Transgender Brain
It should also be noted that many people are not clearly 100% one gender or the other which may or may not be obvious. They are known as intersexuals and that may well be related to transsexuality

Intersex: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

The second logical fallacy stems from that fact that you're suggesting that I am being inconsistent in saying that a man can become a woman but not a dog. In effect calling me a hypocrite. This is what you're doing :

tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

Lastly, this Dog thing is a red herring type of fallacy intended to distract from and derail the topic while avoiding any meaningful discussion.

If you think that you can become a dog, get your DNA tested and see how much dog you have in you. Then take some dog hormones, eat dog food, let your hair grow and try walking on all fours. This whole thing is just too fucking stupid. Get a life. For that matter get a brain

If you think that you can become a dog, get your DNA tested and see how much dog you have in you.

You do realize that if you have XY chromosomes, if you change your appearance to that of a woman, you still have the XY chromosomes, and are still a man? Just look like a girlie girl.

You do realize that not everyone is clearly male or female, and that medial gender reassignment is not about chromosomes. Educate yourself if you dare:

Intersex: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

Protocols for Hormonal Reassignment of Gender - Trans Health

 

[Doc1]

Yes or no question, can a human being become a dog.

Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example:
Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C
In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true.
Logical Fallacies
If A= a Woman and
B = transmale and
C= a dog
Then neither A equals C and you argument fails

You said one could mentally be a different sex, even though scientifically he cannot.
So why can't a man become a dog?
Simple question, yes or no. My argument is valid.

OK I'll play your silly word game for just a little while longer. This is just several more logical fallacies

First of all I never said "one could mentally be a different sex, even though scientifically he cannot." I'm not even sure what "scientifically" is supposed to mean. If by that you mean biologically, I defiantly did not say it. What you have done here is to create a straw-man logical fallacy. You're assigning an argument to me that I did not make so that you can shoot it down. Not working pal.

In addition, I have previously documented right here the fact that there is a growing body of evidence that shows that there are underlying biological/ hormonal/ neurological and genetic factors that influence gender identity.

Obviously you didn't bother to read it but here it is again The Transgender Brain
It should also be noted that many people are not clearly 100% one gender or the other which may or may not be obvious. They are known as intersexuals and that may well be related to transsexuality

Intersex: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

The second logical fallacy stems from that fact that you're suggesting that I am being inconsistent in saying that a man can become a woman but not a dog. In effect calling me a hypocrite. This is what you're doing :

tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

Lastly, this Dog thing is a red herring type of fallacy intended to distract from and derail the topic while avoiding any meaningful discussion.

If you think that you can become a dog, get your DNA tested and see how much dog you have in you. Then take some dog hormones, eat dog food, let your hair grow and try walking on all fours. This whole thing is just too fucking stupid. Get a life. For that matter get a brain

If you think that you can become a dog, get your DNA tested and see how much dog you have in you.

You do realize that if you have XY chromosomes, if you change your appearance to that of a women, you still have the XY chromosomes, and are still a man? Just look like a girlie girl.

Or worse, a very ugly woman.

Is she wearing Barak's strap on?

 

[francoHFW]

Wow, this repeated argument again. How do you explain homosexuals? Transgendered people are those born with a brain that does not align with their body. Why are you too stupid to get that?

You think that nature is perfect? Some people, most;y Trumpettes, are born stupid & easily duped.

You believe everything you are told by your leaders. A man cannot be a woman.

Transgender airman: ‘I would like to see them try to kick me out of my military’

I'll bet on him below. Oops her.

18 months in the life of Kristin Beck, the former Navy SEAL who came out as transgender https://t.co/wJq690eQ8n

One ugly bitch .

Another intellectual powerhouse weighs in. Thank you so much for you contribution to the high level of discourse that makes the USMB the great place that it is.

Very much like national discourse under Trump and the deplorables...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Military is NOT a circus for "progressive" thought.

Trump: U.S. military won’t allow transgender people ‘to serve in any capacity’

Oh, good, right wingers bullying people again.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is interesting!! The religious right caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Is there something about transgender in the bible? Why can't they just but out??!!

Tony Perkins: FRC Worked With White House To Stop Transgender ‘Cultural Grenade’ | Right Wing Watch

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins appeared on “Breitbart News Daily” yesterday to boast of the his group’s far-reaching influence in the Trump administration, arguing that Trump’s recent announcement that he would ban transgender people from serving in the military was in part the result of FRC’s collaboration with the White House.

Research your own fucking family

Perkins also described how his organization successfully “worked with the president and the White House to get the executive order out back in May” that undermined the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits nonprofits such as churches from making public political endorsements. He added that FRC is now working with the administration on the “second phase” of that plan, which will involve the Department of Justice developing guidelines for federal agencies to address the “loss of religious freedom” that has resulted from “this sexual anarchy.”

More meddling!

FRC’s senior fellow for policy studies, Peter Sprigg, told Newsweek recently that the group has “big communications channels with the Trump administration” and that Perkins “has met and knows Donald Trump as well.”

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And this. Now we know why:

At least one person in the Trump administration has already admitted a political motivation, saying the policy change will create an opportunity for social conservative groups to attack Democrats. “How will the blue collar voters in [Rust Belt states] respond when senators up for re-election in 2018 like Debbie Stabenow are forced to make their opposition to this a key plank of their campaigns?” an administration official told reporter Jonathan Swan.

If that’s the case, it’s because the Religious Right has worked diligently to demonize transgender people, even as it has lost battles on issues like marriage equality. Trump’s Transgender Military Ban Another Check On The Religious Right’s Policy Wish List | Right Wing Watch

 

[bripat9643]

Thank you once again for your brilliant and cogent remarks. You add so much to the level and quality of discourse on a difficult and complicated subject . You are truly a treasure to the USMB!!

Yes or no question, can a human being become a dog.

Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example:
Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C
In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true.
Logical Fallacies
If A= a Woman and
B = transmale and
C= a dog
Then neither A equals C and you argument fails

You said one could mentally be a different sex, even though scientifically he cannot.
So why can't a man become a dog?
Simple question, yes or no. My argument is valid.

OK I'll play your silly word game for just a little while longer. This is just several more logical fallacies

First of all I never said "one could mentally be a different sex, even though scientifically he cannot." I'm not even sure what "scientifically" is supposed to mean. If by that you mean biologically, I defiantly did not say it. What you have done here is to create a straw-man logical fallacy. You're assigning an argument to me that I did not make so that you can shoot it down. Not working pal.

In addition, I have previously documented right here the fact that there is a growing body of evidence that shows that there are underlying biological/ hormonal/ neurological and genetic factors that influence gender identity.

Obviously you didn't bother to read it but here it is again The Transgender Brain
It should also be noted that many people are not clearly 100% one gender or the other which may or may not be obvious. They are known as intersexuals and that may well be related to transsexuality

Intersex: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

The second logical fallacy stems from that fact that you're suggesting that I am being inconsistent in saying that a man can become a woman but not a dog. In effect calling me a hypocrite. This is what you're doing :

tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

Lastly, this Dog thing is a red herring type of fallacy intended to distract from and derail the topic while avoiding any meaningful discussion.

If you think that you can become a dog, get your DNA tested and see how much dog you have in you. Then take some dog hormones, eat dog food, let your hair grow and try walking on all fours. This whole thing is just too fucking stupid. Get a life. For that matter get a brain

If you think that you can become a dog, get your DNA tested and see how much dog you have in you.

You do realize that if you have XY chromosomes, if you change your appearance to that of a woman, you still have the XY chromosomes, and are still a man? Just look like a girlie girl.

You still have the XY chromosome even if you chop your dick off. You also still have a prostrate gland.

 

[bripat9643]

Military is NOT a circus for "progressive" thought.

Trump: U.S. military won’t allow transgender people ‘to serve in any capacity’

Oh, good, right wingers bullying people again.

No, that's just good policy for the military. Trump can't help it if that's going to cause butthurt for a lot snowflakes. Everything reasonable and sensible causes them butthurt.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes or no question, can a human being become a dog.

Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example:
Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C
In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true.
Logical Fallacies
If A= a Woman and
B = transmale and
C= a dog
Then neither A equals C and you argument fails

You said one could mentally be a different sex, even though scientifically he cannot.
So why can't a man become a dog?
Simple question, yes or no. My argument is valid.

OK I'll play your silly word game for just a little while longer. This is just several more logical fallacies

First of all I never said "one could mentally be a different sex, even though scientifically he cannot." I'm not even sure what "scientifically" is supposed to mean. If by that you mean biologically, I defiantly did not say it. What you have done here is to create a straw-man logical fallacy. You're assigning an argument to me that I did not make so that you can shoot it down. Not working pal.

In addition, I have previously documented right here the fact that there is a growing body of evidence that shows that there are underlying biological/ hormonal/ neurological and genetic factors that influence gender identity.

Obviously you didn't bother to read it but here it is again The Transgender Brain
It should also be noted that many people are not clearly 100% one gender or the other which may or may not be obvious. They are known as intersexuals and that may well be related to transsexuality

Intersex: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

The second logical fallacy stems from that fact that you're suggesting that I am being inconsistent in saying that a man can become a woman but not a dog. In effect calling me a hypocrite. This is what you're doing :

tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

Lastly, this Dog thing is a red herring type of fallacy intended to distract from and derail the topic while avoiding any meaningful discussion.

If you think that you can become a dog, get your DNA tested and see how much dog you have in you. Then take some dog hormones, eat dog food, let your hair grow and try walking on all fours. This whole thing is just too fucking stupid. Get a life. For that matter get a brain

If you think that you can become a dog, get your DNA tested and see how much dog you have in you.

You do realize that if you have XY chromosomes, if you change your appearance to that of a woman, you still have the XY chromosomes, and are still a man? Just look like a girlie girl.

You do realize that not everyone is clearly male or female, and that medial gender reassignment is not about chromosomes. Educate yourself if you dare:

Intersex: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

Protocols for Hormonal Reassignment of Gender - Trans Health

You just said gender reassignment isn't about changing your gender.

Do you snowflakes understand why everyone thinks you're nuts?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes or no question, can a human being become a dog.

Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example:
Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C
In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true.
Logical Fallacies
If A= a Woman and
B = transmale and
C= a dog
Then neither A equals C and you argument fails

You said one could mentally be a different sex, even though scientifically he cannot.
So why can't a man become a dog?
Simple question, yes or no. My argument is valid.

OK I'll play your silly word game for just a little while longer. This is just several more logical fallacies

First of all I never said "one could mentally be a different sex, even though scientifically he cannot." I'm not even sure what "scientifically" is supposed to mean. If by that you mean biologically, I defiantly did not say it. What you have done here is to create a straw-man logical fallacy. You're assigning an argument to me that I did not make so that you can shoot it down. Not working pal.

In addition, I have previously documented right here the fact that there is a growing body of evidence that shows that there are underlying biological/ hormonal/ neurological and genetic factors that influence gender identity.

Obviously you didn't bother to read it but here it is again The Transgender Brain
It should also be noted that many people are not clearly 100% one gender or the other which may or may not be obvious. They are known as intersexuals and that may well be related to transsexuality

Intersex: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

The second logical fallacy stems from that fact that you're suggesting that I am being inconsistent in saying that a man can become a woman but not a dog. In effect calling me a hypocrite. This is what you're doing :

tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

Lastly, this Dog thing is a red herring type of fallacy intended to distract from and derail the topic while avoiding any meaningful discussion.

If you think that you can become a dog, get your DNA tested and see how much dog you have in you. Then take some dog hormones, eat dog food, let your hair grow and try walking on all fours. This whole thing is just too fucking stupid. Get a life. For that matter get a brain

If you think that you can become a dog, get your DNA tested and see how much dog you have in you.

You do realize that if you have XY chromosomes, if you change your appearance to that of a woman, you still have the XY chromosomes, and are still a man? Just look like a girlie girl.

You still have the XY chromosome even if you chop your dick off. You also still have a prostrate gland.

You really are that obtuse! Holy shit!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You believe everything you are told by your leaders. A man cannot be a woman.

Transgender airman: ‘I would like to see them try to kick me out of my military’

I'll bet on him below. Oops her.

18 months in the life of Kristin Beck, the former Navy SEAL who came out as transgender https://t.co/wJq690eQ8n

One ugly bitch .

Another intellectual powerhouse weighs in. Thank you so much for you contribution to the high level of discourse that makes the USMB the great place that it is.

So you support a guy that thinks he is a dog? Should he have the right to join the army as a dog?

When it comes to liberalism, you can be anybody you want if they are in charge.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Military is NOT a circus for "progressive" thought.

Trump: U.S. military won’t allow transgender people ‘to serve in any capacity’

Once again Trump proves that he is a two faced liar, scoundrel and completely off the rails. He promised that he would advance LGBT causes as president during the campaign. He now claims that he " consulted the generals on this, but those generals at the Pentagon approved the service of transgender people only one year ago.

Donald Trump Says Transgender People No Longer Allowed To Serve In Military | HuffPost

The move, which ironically comes in the middle of the White House’s American Heroes Week, was wholly unexpected. It’s not clear why Trump decided to announce such a significant policy change via Twitter or when it would take effect. His timing in relation to other political events is also odd: He shared the news in the midst of Senate Republicans’ high-stakes fight to repeal Obamacare this week.

Trump claims he made the move after consulting with military experts, despite the Pentagon lifting the ban on transgender service members in 2016 after an exhaustive review of its military readiness policies.

The generals lifted the ban on transgender service members when obama told them to and they didn't want to end up like General McChrystal. Of course the generals didn't believe that transgendered service members were of a benefit to the military. It's ridiculous to even suggest such a thing. They were told to conduct a study and told what they result of the study should be. It does't mean these military experts really believed that transgendered military was any benefit to the military or the nation.

Another one spouting off with assertions while thinking that you can do so without providing some documentation and be taken seriously.

How can there be documentation of something that would warrant you getting the suggestion to retire?

Only an idiot would document that, which is why it will probably come out now that Obama did exactly that!

Then how the hell do you know it's true??!! Thank you for admitting that you just made it up.

I think you are an idiot because you simply don't get the fact that I never said it was true. It s conjecture on my part, but you cannot seem to understand plain English. Why is that?

I spent a good bit of my life in the military and politics abound, especially with senior officers. If they vocally disagree with the CIC, they suddenly get the urge to retire rather than be placed in command of a sheep farm on an island in the South Atlantic.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Are gays protected? Yes Are trannies? No
You better get the law changed before taking it to the SC

You sure about that?

Yes. Care to show me where trannies are federally protected?

The CSRA prohibits any employee who has authority to take certain personnel actions from discriminating for or against employees or applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability.Nov 21, 2009
I don't see that "sex" is any more indicative of "gay" than "transgender."

Do you know what CSRA stands for?

Hint: It does NOT apply to the military.

We now have to up your percentage of errors again!

SHADDUP Admiral. Harley already told me.

Simple solution: do not quote things you do not understand.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Once again Trump proves that he is a two faced liar, scoundrel and completely off the rails. He promised that he would advance LGBT causes as president during the campaign. He now claims that he " consulted the generals on this, but those generals at the Pentagon approved the service of transgender people only one year ago.

Donald Trump Says Transgender People No Longer Allowed To Serve In Military | HuffPost

The generals lifted the ban on transgender service members when obama told them to and they didn't want to end up like General McChrystal. Of course the generals didn't believe that transgendered service members were of a benefit to the military. It's ridiculous to even suggest such a thing. They were told to conduct a study and told what they result of the study should be. It does't mean these military experts really believed that transgendered military was any benefit to the military or the nation.

Another one spouting off with assertions while thinking that you can do so without providing some documentation and be taken seriously.

How can there be documentation of something that would warrant you getting the suggestion to retire?

Only an idiot would document that, which is why it will probably come out now that Obama did exactly that!

Then how the hell do you know it's true??!! Thank you for admitting that you just made it up.

I think you are an idiot because you simply don't get the fact that I never said it was true. It s conjecture on my part, but you cannot seem to understand plain English. Why is that?

I spent a good bit of my life in the military and politics abound, especially with senior officers. If they vocally disagree with the CIC, they suddenly get the urge to retire rather than be placed in command of a sheep farm on an island in the South Atlantic.

Horseshit! You stated, as a matter of fact, that the generals lifted the ban because Obama told then to and that the out come of the study was decided beforehand. Now you are going to lie about it??

 

[Markle]

Most of the time transgender soldiers aren't allowed to deploy to combat anyway...no loss...since they don't fight.

How do you figure there is no loss? If they opt for the sex change, they're unable to work for well over a year while undergoing the process. They're being paid that whole time. Plus when they go back to work the taxpayer is forced to pay for their hormones and health care for the rest of their lives when they did nothing for the military.

The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. It is NOT to be a route to a free sex change. Good grief!

 

[BlueGin]

Most of the time transgender soldiers aren't allowed to deploy to combat anyway...no loss...since they don't fight.

How do you figure there is no loss? If they opt for the sex change, they're unable to work for well over a year while undergoing the process. They're being paid that whole time. Plus when they go back to work the taxpayer is forced to pay for their hormones and health care for the rest of their lives when they did nothing for the military.

The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. It is NOT to be a route to a free sex change. Good grief!

Point being they don't fight. They have no need to be in the military at all.

 

[Markle]

I'd say loosing thousands of much needed soldiers makes us less lethal. You gonna take their place?

Soldiers with mental disorders are not needed much less "much needed" soldiers. We have an all voluntary military and we are not short of soldiers who actually join to fight and not as a social experiment.

I'm far too old to take their place. I did my part in the mid to late '60's. Airborne. You?

 

[Markle]

I hope they are all conservatives we can put on the frontlines

Of course, most will be Republicans, Independents, Conservatives, and Democrats. Progressives won't be there. They believe we should totally disarm, destroy all our nukes and expect the rest of the world to follow. The UN Security Council will all get naked in the middle of that room, have little tom-toms and sing Kumbaya! What could go wrong?