This illogical bullshit is being forced on us deliberately. It is evil, they want us confused and distraught and afraid. I don’t know if we can turn around from where we are now.
Excellent analysis. The idea of allowing seriously mentally ill people who are massively disconnected from reality was never a good one.
"Diversity" is just a woke sounding excuse for allowing these men to act out their fantasies while crossdressed and able to exhibit this fetish to others in public. Similar things happening in Canada are making our military look like idiots too.
Just a side note, it's a good idea to remember than many men have already confessed that just hearing others using female pronouns for them is enough to give them wood. So I'd stick to calling them men, and 'he' if you don't want to pander to them at all, that is.
If you're interested in learning about the money side (huge bank being made on this), check out https://linktr.ee/the11thhourblog by Jennifer Bilek, a feminist who's been reporting on this for the past 5-6 years with almost no funding. I'm sure you already know that no MSM want to touch this.
Thank you for the kind feedback and the resource. As for the pronouns, I have seen a lot of people disappointed with my use of feminine pronouns here. At the end of the day this is a persuasive essay challenging the assumption that transgender service members and gender affirming care improve readiness. Nobody who thinks male pronouns are more appropriate here has that assumption. Hopefully they can get past it enough to use some of the arguments to make similar challenges. I know this wasn't really your contention, I'm more responding to feedback I've received elsewhere levying similar concerns. The thing about arousal make sense. I do figure that a significant percentage of MTF trans individuals are driven more by autogynephilia than gender dysphoria, but I can't make the assumption that this is universal without evidence that won't ever truly be available.
I think using the correct pronouns—those which correspond to the sex of whomever you’re referring to—is important for reaching the persuadable people in the middle.
I think those people are so checked-out from this issue, that using the wrong pronouns to refer to your subject causes confusion and weakens your argument. The run-of-the-mill casual reader who is only skimming an article about, say, “Lia” Thomas swimming against girls see the female pronouns and thinks, “What’s the problem? She’s swimming against other women.” I know this is the case because my normie, Democrat parents, who are no dummies, have both done exactly that.
The trans activists push hard to get us to use the wrong pronouns because they understand that it muddies the debate. They understand that a small minority can control the conversation by simply keeping the disengaged majority so confused that they just throw their hands up and say, “Fuck it! I’m not touching that one.”
With your parents it is probably the magic of motivated reasoning. Like you said, they're not stupid, and they'll use whatever excuse to disregard anything inconvenient, no matter what pronouns I use. I have gotten this feedback a lot, but that is because the people who are providing that feedback don't need arguments related to performance regarding trans in the military. To them it is obvious that they shouldn't be in the military, largely for fundamentally religious reasons. These people *can't* use preferred pronouns when they don't correspond to biological sex because it is essentially against their religious beliefs. Anyway, the man reason I wanted to respond was to let you know there is a big group that is probably the most important to arm with these arguments and that is people who care about performance and doing the right thing in the military, but don't have such religious objections. These individuals all use preferred pronouns once the gender is changed over in the system of record because that is policy. People in the military are very good at following policy, even when it doesn't make sense. In fact, sometimes I think people get a perverse satisfaction from it, like the more it doesn't make sense, the more relief they feel that there is policy outlining what they're supposed to do. I digress. These people will follow policy, but they aren't required to take arguments at face value. They can believe whatever they want, and believing things that don't align with policy and adhering to policy anyway is also something service members get very comfortable with. All that to say, there is a particular type of person with a particular background that this article is for. It is for people who look at the claims of people like Bree and think "that doesn't make sense" and shrug their shoulders. Now these people have solid arguments affirming their sense that such claims don't make sense. They might also feel more confident challenging assumptions that diversity is always good for readiness.
Even with all that, maybe you're right, but as soon as you decide you're not going to use preferred pronouns you need to have a strong justification, and making that justification takes time. This article was already kind of long. I could've used rank and name, but another reason I'm using preferred pronouns is because I want to signal that I have no problem with trans people. I want them to live their best life, and empathize with wanting people to see you how you see yourself. A lot of people are delusional about a lot of things from my perspective. I make it a point of not being confrontationally unless I feel it is absolutely necessary. You see it as necessary here, I don't.
I hope my feedback didn't come across as a critique of your article. I certainly didn't intend it that way. I trust that you know the audience you are targeting better than myself, and I commend you for undertaking the effort to write such a thorough piece. I'm merely offering my perspective on the role language plays in this issue, since we are on the same side of the issue but have different estimations of the importance of language.
I'm not religious in the slightest. My position on pronouns, and other uses of language, are purely pragmatic. My justification for not using incorrect pronouns is simple: Inaccurate and imprecise language usage obscures the conversation, which leads to confusion, which leads to bad decision making.
Of course there is some element of motivated reasoning to my parents's error, in the way that all of us are always tempted to use motivated reasoning. No one is purely rational. But I don't think that is the primary reason they're confused. (I know it isn't because I talk to them, and others, about this issue a lot.) I think the confusion around this issue stems from language. I think that language shapes our understanding of an issue, and I think the other side of this issue understands that fact and uses it to their advantage.
Case in point: "trans people"
Really think about that linguistic construct for a second. What does it mean to be a "trans person"?
Trans is short for transition, which is a verb. A verb is an action, it is something you do. Person is a noun that refers to an individual human being. So a "trans person" is someone who is performing the action of transitioning.
What does transition mean?
It is a euphemism for the act(ion) of using pills and injections and surgery to appear as the opposite sex.
So a "trans person" is an individual human being who is engaged in the act of using pills and injections and surgery to appear as the opposite sex.
Okay. But that doesn't answer the question: Why?
We are told it is because there is a mental disorder called sex-dysphoria, which makes a person feel weird in their own body, and often correlated with other mental health disorders like depression, anxiety, and suicidality.
Okay. But why address a mental health disorder with the action of transition--remember, pills and injections and surgery to appear as the opposite sex--instead of any of the other less risky actions we could take to address such a disorder, such as talk-therapy, pharmacological drugs, cautious waiting, etc...?
That's the real question we're debating here: Why address problem A with action B instead of actions C or D or E or F...?
But we lose sight of the real question, because we adopt these linguistic constructs that have been created and given to us by our adversaries. (Weird tactic.) We use the term "trans person" which obscures the fact that transition is an action one chooses from an array of possible actions to address an underlying issue. It is not an innate part of a person's identity that must be respected. People are not their actions, and transition is not the only action an individual can choose to address his or her sex-dysphoria.
To claim that a person can *be* trans is like claiming that a person can *be* Ozempic. Ozempic is a drug that can be used to treat obesity. You would never be tempted to call someone who has chosen to use Ozempic to address his or her obesity, rather than much safer courses of action like diet and exercise, an "Ozempic person", much less use special pronouns to address him or her.
When we talk about the issue of obesity, and what to do about it, you understand that a person is choosing specific course of action because we use language that reflects the reality of the situation. Yet when it comes to a person choosing to address sex-dysphoria with "transition", you lose sight of what is actually going on, and the real question before us, because you have willingly adopted the term "trans person" and followed it to the exact conclusion it was designed to nudge you towards.
"I want to signal that I have no problem with trans people."
In other words, you want to signal your respect for their humanity. You want to respect their intrinsic, unchangeable personhood. However, as I hope I've made clear, we aren't debating anyone's humanity. We aren't debating some intrinsic and unchangeable quality of a person. That's not what this debate is about. That is what the people who invented the term "trans person" want everyone to think the debate is about because that framing of the issue gives them the upper hand.
What we are actually debating is this optional *action* called transition that is being put forward as the solution for an issue called sex-dysphoria. We are trying to determine if that is the best course of action to address that specific issue. But it's easy to lose sight of that fact, to take your eye off the ball, when you adopt and perpetuate your opponent's frame using their language.
It didn't come across as critique. It came across as feedback which was insightful and appreciated. When I speak of empathizing with trans people I'm not really thinking of an abstract concept, but about people I know who are mixed up in all this. I don't think transitioning is the most effective way to address sex dysphoria. Not by a long shot. Or even an effective way of dealing with it at all potentially. I value the precision of language and understand there is bad faith abuse of imprecise language in this context, but also all of this kind of bolshevism we're up against. This might sound really condescending but I kind of feel like not using preferred pronouns is kind of like telling a kid Santa doesn't exist. It just seems kind of cold blooded. I can be that way, but it would probably make it impossible to get anything done in this bureaucracy.
Good, I'm glad to hear that! You are, of course, free to fight battles within your social sphere however you see fit. I'm just glad you're fighting at all. That's more than most people do.
I have also made concessions to maintain empathy for the individuals who are caught up in the gender cult, like avoiding pronouns altogether and using first names. Although, I do think someday soon we will have to come together as a community that is united in our fight against gender-activism and adopt some message discipline. I really do think abstract concepts, like words, shape the way casual observers--a.k.a the voters we need to take power and enforce our agenda--think about the issue.
Not to keep picking on my parents, but I was having a friendly debate about this issue with my dad, and he responded to something I said with, "Because they need to be who they are!" (The "they" being sex-dysphoric people who have chosen to fix their sex-dysphoria with transition.)
I couldn't have asked for a more perfect example of my thesis that the words we use shape the way we think about issues. His statement was cliche but also indicative of the way a lot of normies understand this issue. Through repetition of bad-faith language they have been convinced that "trans" is something you are, not something you are doing. That's why the national conversation is framed as a debate about "the rights of trans people" instead of the merits of treating mental illness with double-mastectomies. The premise that transition is an immutable identity category, like race or sex or sexuality, rather than a course of action one has chosen to address an underlying issue is smuggled into the discourse through the language we use.
I think we absolutely need to overcome that framing if we want to have any hope of winning the gender debate once and for all. And the longer we keep reinforcing that frame by using the words that imply it, the more difficult we make it for ourselves. So we definitely need to figure out how to thread the needle on speaking the truth without coming across as aggressors, and we need to figure it out fast.
There is definitely a long list of psychopathology that is service disqualifying. I don't know the extent of the screening process. What I do know is that almost any history of psychiatric medication, including say, adderall for ADD disqualifies people, and this is referenced know through electronic health records strongly discriminating against people who grew up in the US, especially those with parents who served as they were on Tricare and this is more likely to have been capture in the military electronic health record. I don't know if gender dysphoria is disqualifying for those being screened prior to enlistment or commissioning, for all I know, it might be. After all, many conditions don't result in separation if diagnosed once you're already in. I'd need to ask around to figure out the particulars here, maybe talk to someone assigned to MEPS.
I worked for an Army ROTC unit for years as a civilian and walked away in disgust at it all. Oddly enough, I worked for a LTC who had served 31 years by the time he came to the unit. This guy and his wife literally transitioned their adopted 16 year old daughter into a man. Their reasoning for it was not clear except that their daughter felt like a boy for some reason, so they took it upon themselves to dope her up on hormones and the whole nine. What makes it strange is that this guy actually went around bragging about it to people and would correct anyone who referred to her as his daughter. It was no longer his daughter, but his son. Mind you, this is a guy who clearly was massively overweight and, I believe, was forging his PT tests and was on some kind of weird profile where he couldn't ever deploy, but somehow was still in the military. Truly pathetic leader on every level.
Prior to my leaving the job, there was a steady increase in the number of ROTC students who were utilizing pronouns, but were not even trans. Guys and girls, both. The last crop of students were not impressive at all. One of our highest rated male students was actually found out to be posting ads with his girlfriend looking for guys to gang bang her with very explicit instructions on how he wanted it to go down. He was a pronoun user and quite weird. One of the top female students was your typical feminist chip-on-the-shoulder type. She was a pronoun user. Funny enough, she was at camp at Ft. Knox and ended up having heat exhaustion and had to have the thermometer treatment up her butt and she was medivac flighted. She still passed somehow. She is going to be someones nightmare though....she already accused two guys of "creepy behavior" who were just being typical idiots. She has a knack for telling on people for any reason. Oddly enough, this same girl was on tinder advertising herself in her underwear as looking for jamaican/haitian men (shes white). Same girl told my friend that she only F's with hood n%$#@#@.These are the people who are going to be leading troops here in the future!
With that being said, the ultimate eye-opening event was the COVID-19 reaction from the military. Everyone I worked with except myself willingly injected themselves with the poison heart attack shot. I saw just how intelligent and courageous everyone was, which was not at all. I had grown men tell me that they had to take it or else they couldn't see their families, which of course is nonsense. It was truly pathetic seeing all these supposedly brave people bend the knee and enable medical tyranny. I have no confidence in the US military after it and I learned that even at basic training, the recruits are force vaccinated with all kinds of stuff. I even looked into the anthrax vaccine connection to Gulf War Syndrome and they basically injured and killed tons of their own people during that round of vaccines. Female service members were having children with no arms/no legs after the anthrax vaccine. Unfortunately, service members are little more than vaccine pin cushions and pharma experiments gone wrong.
I have stories for days on what I saw there, but I make it a point to tell anyone considering the military , especially the US Army to stay far away and go do anything else with their lives. I have zero confidence in the US military.
Thanks for sharing. I do have concerns about what kind of values the people commissioning have. I don't know that I could make it through the undergrad environment these days. Seems like a massive humiliation ritual for people like me. The excuses over the covid shots were definitely disheartening, and it was very difficult to go through on active duty. Had you heard of the declaration of military accountability?
No, I have not heard of it. To be honest, I don't care what happens to the military or members of it anymore. They don't protect me or the country. They fight for spreading homosexuality, feminism, transgenderism, poison vaccines, Israeli interests, defense contracts, etc.They are warriors for ZOG in my opinion and I will be treating them as such moving forward.
If there is hope of anything changing for the better it lies in accountability, and there are mechanisms to achieve it. The declaration is only a page, do me a favor and check it out at militaryaccountability.com.
We aren’t actually, we’re just caught in Oaths given to the wrong people- who have legitimate Constitutional authority- because the very country you say we don’t protect elected these unworthy evil scum, because the voters want free stuff, and need scumbags to get the free stuff.
Let’s turn it around; you elected them, have you no responsibility?
Of course not! Responsibility is for others…
Let’s extend- suppose we toss the agenda and “free the country”? We must free ourselves first. Then act in a way that doesn’t allow any option but total victory. Are we then to give you back the vote?
Why?
How?
You’d do it again, but first you’d destroy us as a threat and rival.
So we can’t keep our Oath without negating the Oath, or at least your vote.
As for treating us as enemies… or however GBP you were going to “treat us accordingly from now on” …
… very well, These terms are acceptable. As it happens, necessary.
I heard the only way to win a war against Yemen and Iran would be to send in a pre- invasion force of Trans and DEI officers? Something about Iranians and Yemenis then thinking America is not so evil.
I'm sorry to make light of the situation (I take it very seriously) but every time I see a picture of "Bree" I keep hearing a quote from "The Princess Bride" in my head: "What is that thing?" I'm former US military and we would not have tolerated wasting time, and potentially costing lives in combat, by the existence of a "man" like "Bree." But as Grant has carefully detailed here, the mayor of Crazytown has infected the military and we have to deal with him...
In addition to the US Army, the Israeli Army has its share of trans soldiers. I spoke to several young IDF men in Haifa last year, who are directly under the FTM Lt. They were all for the trans person leading them into battle. But made certain I understood the FTM would be far out in front of the rest of the squad. They called her a little butch dyke wanna be man.
Her/his presence in the IDF certainly inspires real men to NOT join in the military.
Thanks for sharing, very interesting anecdote. People tend to overestimate the extent to which line combat soldiers are capable of holding the luxury beliefs so prevalent in the upper echelons and political classes.
If you are going down that rabbit hole of the gender madness sometimes it is inevitable becoming cynical at times. I am a pacifist and reading it I imagine soldiers on estrogen which make them less aggressive stalking along on high heels trying to kill other people because they are from a different country. They wouldn't be good at that. And that wouldn't be bad.
Ah... well don't forget the FTMs get put on testosterone... Also, can't help but be curious, are you an absolute pacifist, as in you condemn even the defensive use of force?
Still, F to M are not as aggressive. Don' t they usually call it defense even if it is the contrary? And what about provoking an aggression? Maybe my viewpoint is more understandable knowing that I am a German living in Germany. So far the world wars have been started from these folks. Right now about 80.000 soldiers from the NATO moving with all their deadly gear towards the Russian border. This " mission" is called defender. Hopefully the Russians don't react the way Americans probably would.
Trans men aren't as aggressive as biological men? I suppose that is possible, but I wouldn't take a bet on it either way.
I agree that the world is full of lies and unsound justifications for the use of force. I also believe violence and aggression will always be a part of the human condition, and at some point defense against this violence and aggression is morally required. Liberalism tends to dress up this violence to obfuscate its role and impact, and people forget too easily that Mao was dead right when he said political power comes out of the barrel of a gun (even in a liberal democracy). I consider the use of force legitimate insofar as it is used to defend and deter coercion, but exactly what constitutes aggression and coercion gets very complex. Like you say, the mission is called defender, but would that mission be ongoing had USG not instigated the Maidan Revolution? As a German, what is your proposed solution? From my outsiders perspective AFD seems like it should be attractive to you, but of course any political solution implicitly involves violence or the threat thereof.
I am not so sure about the impact on the people' s brains taking all these chemical hormones in the long run either. My son started 3 years ago and his personality has changed so much that he is absolute unrecognizable. For the worst of course.
Maybe humans tend to be aggressive at the core which I question. First of all it' s mainly men that commit violent crimes. An other aspect is that there are more murders when people have easy access to weapons as can be proved in the US.
The public is not likely to be informed what is really going on behind the scenes. If somebody finds out and publishes it. Well, look what happent to Julian Assange... And there is a powerful industrie. Every industrie wants its stuff sold. I know, it's naive but I think we have to get rid of the whole lot and find another way dealing with things and tackle all the other urgent problems we are facing. Me and the AfD. Well, you probably heard about their plans to deport millions of people. ( in Germany we well know this synonym ) I certainly would be forced to step in one of the first trains.
I'm am sorry to hear that your son is going through that. I think Julian Assange did a great job of articulating the true motivation behind these conflicts. I suppose you are in a difficult position politically. The only party that can meaningfully resist the policies you oppose would exclude you from the body politic. On one hand you have economic self-interest and on the other an ideological commitment to peace. Perhaps there are alternatives I'm not aware of, but populism in general seems to be the only political strategy viable to oppose the rules based international order that takes these forever conflicts and the wealth and power they generate for public-private partnerships for granted. If there is a way to thread the needle I hope you find it.
Thank you for your kind words and thoughts on my problematic situation. As always in one's live it is important to find a few like minded people. I am involved in a small local group trying to raise awareness about the dangers of the Afd gaining power. Also I am singing within a choir in a professional classical orchestra blocking military bases e.g. which is a fantastic way of protesting actually. Gardening is good for one's soul. I hope you are able to enjoy spring.
"18-20 year old female service members are currently being coerced into showering with intact biological males"
Personal take: there is only one intelligent road starting fro there: leaving the army. It's not depending on you but something outside, you have no real grip at all. You'd do what's around your own grasp.
Guess which religion/race has led the LGBTQ+ agenda? Same one that created Communism, Feminism, dominates media, and owns our money supply. Also happen to be the most expelled in Human History. Admiral Levine is a solid clue...
This illogical bullshit is being forced on us deliberately. It is evil, they want us confused and distraught and afraid. I don’t know if we can turn around from where we are now.
Excellent analysis. The idea of allowing seriously mentally ill people who are massively disconnected from reality was never a good one.
"Diversity" is just a woke sounding excuse for allowing these men to act out their fantasies while crossdressed and able to exhibit this fetish to others in public. Similar things happening in Canada are making our military look like idiots too.
Just a side note, it's a good idea to remember than many men have already confessed that just hearing others using female pronouns for them is enough to give them wood. So I'd stick to calling them men, and 'he' if you don't want to pander to them at all, that is.
If you're interested in learning about the money side (huge bank being made on this), check out https://linktr.ee/the11thhourblog by Jennifer Bilek, a feminist who's been reporting on this for the past 5-6 years with almost no funding. I'm sure you already know that no MSM want to touch this.
Thank you for the kind feedback and the resource. As for the pronouns, I have seen a lot of people disappointed with my use of feminine pronouns here. At the end of the day this is a persuasive essay challenging the assumption that transgender service members and gender affirming care improve readiness. Nobody who thinks male pronouns are more appropriate here has that assumption. Hopefully they can get past it enough to use some of the arguments to make similar challenges. I know this wasn't really your contention, I'm more responding to feedback I've received elsewhere levying similar concerns. The thing about arousal make sense. I do figure that a significant percentage of MTF trans individuals are driven more by autogynephilia than gender dysphoria, but I can't make the assumption that this is universal without evidence that won't ever truly be available.
I think using the correct pronouns—those which correspond to the sex of whomever you’re referring to—is important for reaching the persuadable people in the middle.
I think those people are so checked-out from this issue, that using the wrong pronouns to refer to your subject causes confusion and weakens your argument. The run-of-the-mill casual reader who is only skimming an article about, say, “Lia” Thomas swimming against girls see the female pronouns and thinks, “What’s the problem? She’s swimming against other women.” I know this is the case because my normie, Democrat parents, who are no dummies, have both done exactly that.
The trans activists push hard to get us to use the wrong pronouns because they understand that it muddies the debate. They understand that a small minority can control the conversation by simply keeping the disengaged majority so confused that they just throw their hands up and say, “Fuck it! I’m not touching that one.”
With your parents it is probably the magic of motivated reasoning. Like you said, they're not stupid, and they'll use whatever excuse to disregard anything inconvenient, no matter what pronouns I use. I have gotten this feedback a lot, but that is because the people who are providing that feedback don't need arguments related to performance regarding trans in the military. To them it is obvious that they shouldn't be in the military, largely for fundamentally religious reasons. These people *can't* use preferred pronouns when they don't correspond to biological sex because it is essentially against their religious beliefs. Anyway, the man reason I wanted to respond was to let you know there is a big group that is probably the most important to arm with these arguments and that is people who care about performance and doing the right thing in the military, but don't have such religious objections. These individuals all use preferred pronouns once the gender is changed over in the system of record because that is policy. People in the military are very good at following policy, even when it doesn't make sense. In fact, sometimes I think people get a perverse satisfaction from it, like the more it doesn't make sense, the more relief they feel that there is policy outlining what they're supposed to do. I digress. These people will follow policy, but they aren't required to take arguments at face value. They can believe whatever they want, and believing things that don't align with policy and adhering to policy anyway is also something service members get very comfortable with. All that to say, there is a particular type of person with a particular background that this article is for. It is for people who look at the claims of people like Bree and think "that doesn't make sense" and shrug their shoulders. Now these people have solid arguments affirming their sense that such claims don't make sense. They might also feel more confident challenging assumptions that diversity is always good for readiness.
Even with all that, maybe you're right, but as soon as you decide you're not going to use preferred pronouns you need to have a strong justification, and making that justification takes time. This article was already kind of long. I could've used rank and name, but another reason I'm using preferred pronouns is because I want to signal that I have no problem with trans people. I want them to live their best life, and empathize with wanting people to see you how you see yourself. A lot of people are delusional about a lot of things from my perspective. I make it a point of not being confrontationally unless I feel it is absolutely necessary. You see it as necessary here, I don't.
I hope my feedback didn't come across as a critique of your article. I certainly didn't intend it that way. I trust that you know the audience you are targeting better than myself, and I commend you for undertaking the effort to write such a thorough piece. I'm merely offering my perspective on the role language plays in this issue, since we are on the same side of the issue but have different estimations of the importance of language.
I'm not religious in the slightest. My position on pronouns, and other uses of language, are purely pragmatic. My justification for not using incorrect pronouns is simple: Inaccurate and imprecise language usage obscures the conversation, which leads to confusion, which leads to bad decision making.
Of course there is some element of motivated reasoning to my parents's error, in the way that all of us are always tempted to use motivated reasoning. No one is purely rational. But I don't think that is the primary reason they're confused. (I know it isn't because I talk to them, and others, about this issue a lot.) I think the confusion around this issue stems from language. I think that language shapes our understanding of an issue, and I think the other side of this issue understands that fact and uses it to their advantage.
Case in point: "trans people"
Really think about that linguistic construct for a second. What does it mean to be a "trans person"?
Trans is short for transition, which is a verb. A verb is an action, it is something you do. Person is a noun that refers to an individual human being. So a "trans person" is someone who is performing the action of transitioning.
What does transition mean?
It is a euphemism for the act(ion) of using pills and injections and surgery to appear as the opposite sex.
So a "trans person" is an individual human being who is engaged in the act of using pills and injections and surgery to appear as the opposite sex.
Okay. But that doesn't answer the question: Why?
We are told it is because there is a mental disorder called sex-dysphoria, which makes a person feel weird in their own body, and often correlated with other mental health disorders like depression, anxiety, and suicidality.
Okay. But why address a mental health disorder with the action of transition--remember, pills and injections and surgery to appear as the opposite sex--instead of any of the other less risky actions we could take to address such a disorder, such as talk-therapy, pharmacological drugs, cautious waiting, etc...?
That's the real question we're debating here: Why address problem A with action B instead of actions C or D or E or F...?
But we lose sight of the real question, because we adopt these linguistic constructs that have been created and given to us by our adversaries. (Weird tactic.) We use the term "trans person" which obscures the fact that transition is an action one chooses from an array of possible actions to address an underlying issue. It is not an innate part of a person's identity that must be respected. People are not their actions, and transition is not the only action an individual can choose to address his or her sex-dysphoria.
To claim that a person can *be* trans is like claiming that a person can *be* Ozempic. Ozempic is a drug that can be used to treat obesity. You would never be tempted to call someone who has chosen to use Ozempic to address his or her obesity, rather than much safer courses of action like diet and exercise, an "Ozempic person", much less use special pronouns to address him or her.
When we talk about the issue of obesity, and what to do about it, you understand that a person is choosing specific course of action because we use language that reflects the reality of the situation. Yet when it comes to a person choosing to address sex-dysphoria with "transition", you lose sight of what is actually going on, and the real question before us, because you have willingly adopted the term "trans person" and followed it to the exact conclusion it was designed to nudge you towards.
"I want to signal that I have no problem with trans people."
In other words, you want to signal your respect for their humanity. You want to respect their intrinsic, unchangeable personhood. However, as I hope I've made clear, we aren't debating anyone's humanity. We aren't debating some intrinsic and unchangeable quality of a person. That's not what this debate is about. That is what the people who invented the term "trans person" want everyone to think the debate is about because that framing of the issue gives them the upper hand.
What we are actually debating is this optional *action* called transition that is being put forward as the solution for an issue called sex-dysphoria. We are trying to determine if that is the best course of action to address that specific issue. But it's easy to lose sight of that fact, to take your eye off the ball, when you adopt and perpetuate your opponent's frame using their language.
It didn't come across as critique. It came across as feedback which was insightful and appreciated. When I speak of empathizing with trans people I'm not really thinking of an abstract concept, but about people I know who are mixed up in all this. I don't think transitioning is the most effective way to address sex dysphoria. Not by a long shot. Or even an effective way of dealing with it at all potentially. I value the precision of language and understand there is bad faith abuse of imprecise language in this context, but also all of this kind of bolshevism we're up against. This might sound really condescending but I kind of feel like not using preferred pronouns is kind of like telling a kid Santa doesn't exist. It just seems kind of cold blooded. I can be that way, but it would probably make it impossible to get anything done in this bureaucracy.
Good, I'm glad to hear that! You are, of course, free to fight battles within your social sphere however you see fit. I'm just glad you're fighting at all. That's more than most people do.
I have also made concessions to maintain empathy for the individuals who are caught up in the gender cult, like avoiding pronouns altogether and using first names. Although, I do think someday soon we will have to come together as a community that is united in our fight against gender-activism and adopt some message discipline. I really do think abstract concepts, like words, shape the way casual observers--a.k.a the voters we need to take power and enforce our agenda--think about the issue.
Not to keep picking on my parents, but I was having a friendly debate about this issue with my dad, and he responded to something I said with, "Because they need to be who they are!" (The "they" being sex-dysphoric people who have chosen to fix their sex-dysphoria with transition.)
I couldn't have asked for a more perfect example of my thesis that the words we use shape the way we think about issues. His statement was cliche but also indicative of the way a lot of normies understand this issue. Through repetition of bad-faith language they have been convinced that "trans" is something you are, not something you are doing. That's why the national conversation is framed as a debate about "the rights of trans people" instead of the merits of treating mental illness with double-mastectomies. The premise that transition is an immutable identity category, like race or sex or sexuality, rather than a course of action one has chosen to address an underlying issue is smuggled into the discourse through the language we use.
I think we absolutely need to overcome that framing if we want to have any hope of winning the gender debate once and for all. And the longer we keep reinforcing that frame by using the words that imply it, the more difficult we make it for ourselves. So we definitely need to figure out how to thread the needle on speaking the truth without coming across as aggressors, and we need to figure it out fast.
does the military still screen for psychopathy, schizophrenia, autism?
There is definitely a long list of psychopathology that is service disqualifying. I don't know the extent of the screening process. What I do know is that almost any history of psychiatric medication, including say, adderall for ADD disqualifies people, and this is referenced know through electronic health records strongly discriminating against people who grew up in the US, especially those with parents who served as they were on Tricare and this is more likely to have been capture in the military electronic health record. I don't know if gender dysphoria is disqualifying for those being screened prior to enlistment or commissioning, for all I know, it might be. After all, many conditions don't result in separation if diagnosed once you're already in. I'd need to ask around to figure out the particulars here, maybe talk to someone assigned to MEPS.
I worked for an Army ROTC unit for years as a civilian and walked away in disgust at it all. Oddly enough, I worked for a LTC who had served 31 years by the time he came to the unit. This guy and his wife literally transitioned their adopted 16 year old daughter into a man. Their reasoning for it was not clear except that their daughter felt like a boy for some reason, so they took it upon themselves to dope her up on hormones and the whole nine. What makes it strange is that this guy actually went around bragging about it to people and would correct anyone who referred to her as his daughter. It was no longer his daughter, but his son. Mind you, this is a guy who clearly was massively overweight and, I believe, was forging his PT tests and was on some kind of weird profile where he couldn't ever deploy, but somehow was still in the military. Truly pathetic leader on every level.
Prior to my leaving the job, there was a steady increase in the number of ROTC students who were utilizing pronouns, but were not even trans. Guys and girls, both. The last crop of students were not impressive at all. One of our highest rated male students was actually found out to be posting ads with his girlfriend looking for guys to gang bang her with very explicit instructions on how he wanted it to go down. He was a pronoun user and quite weird. One of the top female students was your typical feminist chip-on-the-shoulder type. She was a pronoun user. Funny enough, she was at camp at Ft. Knox and ended up having heat exhaustion and had to have the thermometer treatment up her butt and she was medivac flighted. She still passed somehow. She is going to be someones nightmare though....she already accused two guys of "creepy behavior" who were just being typical idiots. She has a knack for telling on people for any reason. Oddly enough, this same girl was on tinder advertising herself in her underwear as looking for jamaican/haitian men (shes white). Same girl told my friend that she only F's with hood n%$#@#@.These are the people who are going to be leading troops here in the future!
With that being said, the ultimate eye-opening event was the COVID-19 reaction from the military. Everyone I worked with except myself willingly injected themselves with the poison heart attack shot. I saw just how intelligent and courageous everyone was, which was not at all. I had grown men tell me that they had to take it or else they couldn't see their families, which of course is nonsense. It was truly pathetic seeing all these supposedly brave people bend the knee and enable medical tyranny. I have no confidence in the US military after it and I learned that even at basic training, the recruits are force vaccinated with all kinds of stuff. I even looked into the anthrax vaccine connection to Gulf War Syndrome and they basically injured and killed tons of their own people during that round of vaccines. Female service members were having children with no arms/no legs after the anthrax vaccine. Unfortunately, service members are little more than vaccine pin cushions and pharma experiments gone wrong.
I have stories for days on what I saw there, but I make it a point to tell anyone considering the military , especially the US Army to stay far away and go do anything else with their lives. I have zero confidence in the US military.
Thanks for sharing. I do have concerns about what kind of values the people commissioning have. I don't know that I could make it through the undergrad environment these days. Seems like a massive humiliation ritual for people like me. The excuses over the covid shots were definitely disheartening, and it was very difficult to go through on active duty. Had you heard of the declaration of military accountability?
No, I have not heard of it. To be honest, I don't care what happens to the military or members of it anymore. They don't protect me or the country. They fight for spreading homosexuality, feminism, transgenderism, poison vaccines, Israeli interests, defense contracts, etc.They are warriors for ZOG in my opinion and I will be treating them as such moving forward.
If there is hope of anything changing for the better it lies in accountability, and there are mechanisms to achieve it. The declaration is only a page, do me a favor and check it out at militaryaccountability.com.
We aren’t actually, we’re just caught in Oaths given to the wrong people- who have legitimate Constitutional authority- because the very country you say we don’t protect elected these unworthy evil scum, because the voters want free stuff, and need scumbags to get the free stuff.
Let’s turn it around; you elected them, have you no responsibility?
Of course not! Responsibility is for others…
Let’s extend- suppose we toss the agenda and “free the country”? We must free ourselves first. Then act in a way that doesn’t allow any option but total victory. Are we then to give you back the vote?
Why?
How?
You’d do it again, but first you’d destroy us as a threat and rival.
So we can’t keep our Oath without negating the Oath, or at least your vote.
As for treating us as enemies… or however GBP you were going to “treat us accordingly from now on” …
… very well, These terms are acceptable. As it happens, necessary.
Perhaps we’ll meet in person, accordingly…
It’s a massive humiliation ritual.
It’s power, it’s breaking the young.
I heard the only way to win a war against Yemen and Iran would be to send in a pre- invasion force of Trans and DEI officers? Something about Iranians and Yemenis then thinking America is not so evil.
I'm sorry to make light of the situation (I take it very seriously) but every time I see a picture of "Bree" I keep hearing a quote from "The Princess Bride" in my head: "What is that thing?" I'm former US military and we would not have tolerated wasting time, and potentially costing lives in combat, by the existence of a "man" like "Bree." But as Grant has carefully detailed here, the mayor of Crazytown has infected the military and we have to deal with him...
In addition to the US Army, the Israeli Army has its share of trans soldiers. I spoke to several young IDF men in Haifa last year, who are directly under the FTM Lt. They were all for the trans person leading them into battle. But made certain I understood the FTM would be far out in front of the rest of the squad. They called her a little butch dyke wanna be man.
Her/his presence in the IDF certainly inspires real men to NOT join in the military.
Thanks for sharing, very interesting anecdote. People tend to overestimate the extent to which line combat soldiers are capable of holding the luxury beliefs so prevalent in the upper echelons and political classes.
Subscribed. This is vital information you are getting out into public view.
If you are going down that rabbit hole of the gender madness sometimes it is inevitable becoming cynical at times. I am a pacifist and reading it I imagine soldiers on estrogen which make them less aggressive stalking along on high heels trying to kill other people because they are from a different country. They wouldn't be good at that. And that wouldn't be bad.
Ah... well don't forget the FTMs get put on testosterone... Also, can't help but be curious, are you an absolute pacifist, as in you condemn even the defensive use of force?
Still, F to M are not as aggressive. Don' t they usually call it defense even if it is the contrary? And what about provoking an aggression? Maybe my viewpoint is more understandable knowing that I am a German living in Germany. So far the world wars have been started from these folks. Right now about 80.000 soldiers from the NATO moving with all their deadly gear towards the Russian border. This " mission" is called defender. Hopefully the Russians don't react the way Americans probably would.
Trans men aren't as aggressive as biological men? I suppose that is possible, but I wouldn't take a bet on it either way.
I agree that the world is full of lies and unsound justifications for the use of force. I also believe violence and aggression will always be a part of the human condition, and at some point defense against this violence and aggression is morally required. Liberalism tends to dress up this violence to obfuscate its role and impact, and people forget too easily that Mao was dead right when he said political power comes out of the barrel of a gun (even in a liberal democracy). I consider the use of force legitimate insofar as it is used to defend and deter coercion, but exactly what constitutes aggression and coercion gets very complex. Like you say, the mission is called defender, but would that mission be ongoing had USG not instigated the Maidan Revolution? As a German, what is your proposed solution? From my outsiders perspective AFD seems like it should be attractive to you, but of course any political solution implicitly involves violence or the threat thereof.
I am not so sure about the impact on the people' s brains taking all these chemical hormones in the long run either. My son started 3 years ago and his personality has changed so much that he is absolute unrecognizable. For the worst of course.
Maybe humans tend to be aggressive at the core which I question. First of all it' s mainly men that commit violent crimes. An other aspect is that there are more murders when people have easy access to weapons as can be proved in the US.
The public is not likely to be informed what is really going on behind the scenes. If somebody finds out and publishes it. Well, look what happent to Julian Assange... And there is a powerful industrie. Every industrie wants its stuff sold. I know, it's naive but I think we have to get rid of the whole lot and find another way dealing with things and tackle all the other urgent problems we are facing. Me and the AfD. Well, you probably heard about their plans to deport millions of people. ( in Germany we well know this synonym ) I certainly would be forced to step in one of the first trains.
I'm am sorry to hear that your son is going through that. I think Julian Assange did a great job of articulating the true motivation behind these conflicts. I suppose you are in a difficult position politically. The only party that can meaningfully resist the policies you oppose would exclude you from the body politic. On one hand you have economic self-interest and on the other an ideological commitment to peace. Perhaps there are alternatives I'm not aware of, but populism in general seems to be the only political strategy viable to oppose the rules based international order that takes these forever conflicts and the wealth and power they generate for public-private partnerships for granted. If there is a way to thread the needle I hope you find it.
Thank you for your kind words and thoughts on my problematic situation. As always in one's live it is important to find a few like minded people. I am involved in a small local group trying to raise awareness about the dangers of the Afd gaining power. Also I am singing within a choir in a professional classical orchestra blocking military bases e.g. which is a fantastic way of protesting actually. Gardening is good for one's soul. I hope you are able to enjoy spring.
Let the perverts die for DEI
"18-20 year old female service members are currently being coerced into showering with intact biological males"
Personal take: there is only one intelligent road starting fro there: leaving the army. It's not depending on you but something outside, you have no real grip at all. You'd do what's around your own grasp.
Excellent piece. I loved your interview on Heterodorx.
Their personal ideology is themselves.
This about sums it up.
https://substack.com/@anticommunista/note/c-51537654
Guess which religion/race has led the LGBTQ+ agenda? Same one that created Communism, Feminism, dominates media, and owns our money supply. Also happen to be the most expelled in Human History. Admiral Levine is a solid clue...