Interesting contrast rule

Isn’t it cuz they aren’t “mentally fit”?
Which still isnt a good excuse to be a bigot, you can be non trans and less mentally fit than a trans person yet allowed in the military. I hate this country sometimes
- If you're "mentally fit" then the military will fix that.

Excellent point

if ex military trans want to kick off the revolution, they will have earned my respect.
- Respect shouldn't have to be earned, it should be the default to respect everyone. It is reasonable for trust or admiration to be earned, but not respect.
  
  There are two distinct kinds of respect: for the human being (respect the human rights) and for the person (respect what that person does).
  
  Thank you, I agree completly with you.
  
  Respect can be revoked though.
  
  Respect shouldn’t have to be earned
  speak for yourself.

It seems that their imagined enemy is both too strong and too weak... Jeez, where have I heard that before?

TBF, Pete Hegseth also doesn't want cis-women in the military.
- Imagine being at war for literally over 90% of your societies existence and you don't want half your population to have the ability to become combatants.
  F tier warrior race
  
  Got to use some populatuon to replenish the ranks.
  
  There's some --some---reason to not want women in front-line infantry positions. The combat load that infantry has to carry around works out to be over 100#, and it's a struggle to get cis-men fit and strong enough to carry that, and still ruck 20+ miles at a time without collapsing. Most women are unlikely to be able to achieve that, particularly when they may weigh only 25# more than the load that they have to carry. But, IMO, as long as they can meet fitness standards, let 'em serve in the infantry if that's what their ASVAB scores allow and it's the MOS they want.
  Give that the new rifle--XM7, I think?--weighs more than the M5, and the ammunition is heavier, that load is gonna get heavier, and people that are more in-tune with the military than I am tend to believe that we need to get the combat load lighter, by a lot.
  Honestly, most of it really comes down to Pete Hegseth being sexist.

Proving that it's all just about hate. We're strong though, we've been through so much, though not many of us made it. But we can keep going and we will win. Never forget. 💙🩷🤍🩷💙

Fascism always has enemies that are simultaneously so weak that they will be easily defeated by fascist superiority ... while also being terribly oppressive that it will take a great battle to overthrow the powerful enemies of fascism
- Umberto Eco - Ur-Fascism
- I've heard something similar for conspiracy theories also.
  NASA is at the same time an agency with enough advanced technology and resources that they were able to fool the entire world for a several-day-long broadcast of a fake moon landing, while also being too feeble and pathetic to have actually gone to the moon.
  
  Then they snuck all the stuff they said they had on the moon to the moon before the other nations got there to look.
- Well put. Also works with the classic trope of lazy but simultaneously job stealing immigrants
  
  If you want to keep the fiction up, you need to keep imagining additional things: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RequiredSecondaryPowers.
- "The enemy is massing their military near our border, which is a threat to us! We can defeat their military easily of course, they are disorganised and weak. But their movements are hostile and threatening to us! So we must preemptively attack them! Not because we need the element of surprise, but because we want to demonstrate our superior military tactics! This will be a quick 3-day special military operation. Because they are weak and we are strong but they are an existential threat to us."

Fascism requires a group of others to persecute. Ideally, that group would be very small (as a percentage of the overall population) and already somewhat marginalized/"different".
So here we are.

Bigots are too weak to participate in society. They should be banned.
- That's a pretty bigoted stance though. Same mindset that's led to the US prison system re: criminals, which is exactly what banning people from society is in function. I'm more on the structural rehabilitative side when it comes to addressing harmful anti-social behaviour.
- Being bigoted is literally a skill issue. People with less money, status, or loved ones are more likely to hold bigoted views. Even in competitive online games higher ranks is less bigots

All three of those dudes are trying to hide their boners.
- +1 for allyship
  -1 for boner jokes over the age of 12
  
  Yeah, what a wanker.

I agree with the sentiment being discussed here, but the argument being peddled isn't that they are too strong for sports, it's that they are too strong for womens sports, like women are so weak and their sports are a joke. The current right wing arseholes in the US are also claiming that women shouldn't be in the military. This nonsense is layers of bigotry deep.
- You aren't really refuting the conundrum presented by the woman. She is pointing out the same thing you are, but I feel like you're not getting the point.
  Trans women are too strong to be in women's sports, implying they are stronger than cis women. Yet simultaneously being told they are too weak to be in the army, something that they aren't even saying of cis women, implying that trans women are weaker than cis women.
  The woman in the interview is correctly pointing out the hypocrisy here to highlight that it's not logical, it's just bigotry.
  
  I feel like their hypocrisy and transphobia can be pointed out even simpler by:
  "No!! You can't be in women's sports, because you are a man!!"
  and
  "No!! You can't be in the military, because you're not... a... man...?"
  
  I mean I feel like it’s pretty easy to follow what they’re saying. There is a gradient between the 2 points. It’s not an on/off switch, it’s not binary. It’s why fascist logic is bullshit to begin with.
- I don't think anyone is saying women's sports are a joke or that they are weak. There are undeniable differences in some sports between the top performers that correlate with gender. Hence for fair competition the genders of many sports are kept separate.
  
  If someone is saying trans people are too strong for womens sport but too weak for the military then their opinions on women are pretty clear.
- *transpeople shouldn't be in the military.
  Most people who require medication aren't allowed in the military. It makes logistics so much harder. This goes for those with severe allergies, diabetes, or any number of issues. There's a reason why MREs are super shelf stable, why most small arms use the same 5.56 round, why everything uses diesel, etc, etc. It's all to make logistics easier and better.
  Hormones fall under the same category. What happens when a transman stops taking testosterone? What happens when a transwoman stops taking estrogen? The first thing a good enemy will do is cut off the logistics chain, and that would cripple anyone who needs meds.
  
  Most people who require medication aren’t allowed in the military.
  [CITATION NEEDED]
  
  Trans people stop taking hormones all of the time. There was recently a recall of testosterone gel due to contamination - there are definitely guys going without at this current moment.
  It’s not like you have to keep taking hormones to keep being trans. If you are a trans guy and go off for a while, your periods might come back, which sucks. Over long periods of time, you’d have your fat and muscle redistribute.
  It’s not like missing a shot or a pill kills you. I feel like garbage if I’m off, but I still function.
  
  Lol, I'm currently active duty and prescribed four different daily medications for long term issues. None of this is disqualifying or prevents me from deploying. This is a complete non-issue outside of a FOB
  
  You could maybe make an argument that people on medication shouldn't be sent behind enemy lines. But you realize that's a tiny fraction of servicemembers, right? Most servicemembers are stationed within the country, and many more are stationed at bases in allied nations, where supply chain isn't at risk.
  And... if there is a supply chain issue, they've got bigger problems, like food?
  
  Most people who require medication aren’t allowed in the military
  Source. That’s absolute horseshit. A source is a valid requirement here. It 100% depends on what’s needed.
  
  What happens? One thing that DOESN'T happen is that they would be unable to fight. Transmen might slowly lose some musculature, but they'd still perform about the same in combat, certainly for awhile. Transwomen might actually bulk up. And all of them would have an extra level of rage at the enemy to tap into. Your whole point is bogus.

She's the only one in that group I wouldn't want to get into fight with.
- Dude those three guys will fuck you up. They are well trained in the army, you can say that much for sure.

- No, no, I'm not going to be strict with definitions when they are not. This is what they said. They don't care about "women's sports". they care about transwomen in sports. I will be as specific as they are, they don't deserve to have their points clarified for them.
  "Low Bar" fuck off. Transpeople are being attacked for existing. The bar is in hell. Being a devil's advocate is just that, advocating for the devil.
- are women not allowed to join the military?
  
  They are kicking transwomen out of the military.

Transwomen, or men, appear to be strong when they compete against females.
In the military, they're non deployable if they have to take their hormones. Depending on the regulations, it's been awhile since I was in. Especially if they're unable to conform to military life , because the military definitely shouldn't conform to them, especially if it's about life and death in the field. ..
If people can't join because they're mentally unstable, then why should someone with gender dysphoria be able to enlist? Would it be a distraction to the unit? I know for a fact the infantry wouldn't be a good fit for them, and they shouldn't force combat arms to accept them, given their responsibilities.
You may say, "fuck their responsibilities", but those are the civilians who don't have the intestinal fortitude to enlist, or the soldiers who don't deploy to combat situations.
- I think people underestimate the frontline deployability piece regarding hormones. Prolonged loss of access to hormone therapy is rough on the person, just as losing access to any medication like ADHD medication or asthma medication would be if you're cut off from supply while fighting in the bushes.
  That being said, not everyone in the military needs the same requirement. For example classes are assistive technology that a lot of people in the military use and fighter pilots have more stringent uncorrected vision requirements compared to infantry. Depending on your role, post-enlistment medication requirements do not automatically get you kicked out, though your role may have to change. In an advanced military, there are lots of non-frontline roles to fill, especially now that non-frontline drone warfare is becoming more and more prevalent. Some militaries around the world are starting to accept certain medicated conditions including mild mental health conditions. When you're understaffed, you can't afford to turn away otherwise able and willing recruits.
  Militaries absolutely have to conform to the people who serve in them. User-centered design started in the military, equipment has to fit and be usable by the humans that operate them--a single standard vest size does not properly fit most people, hence adjustments. Militaries had to conform to humans when they realized humans get PTSD. Militaries had to adapt to mitigate racism as mixed-race units were ultimately the better option--no shit there was pushback on the grounds of distraction and unitncohesion. Tampons were needed when women joined. You trade-off logistical and social complexity for a bigger force and create opportunities to tap into the best of those new populations you include in your military. The US Marines have it right. Improvise, adapt, overcome, then adapt gain.
  The question about trans people being mentally unwell is just misinformed. Trans people go on hormone therapy so they aren't dysphoric. They're not mentally unstable.

- Your argument works if they do not allow any women into the military, which I believe is not the case.
- https://www.gendergp.com/new-report-confirms-trans-athletes-do-not-have-biomedical-advantage-in-elite-sport/
  https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked
  https://newsroom.uw.edu/blog/expert-science-wont-resolve-debates-about-trans-athletes
  Here are a few sources talking about why that is not really grounded in science, it's a nuanced issue and depending on the sport and the level of hormone therapy a trans person has gone through because that can determine things that you wouldn't expect like muscle mass and even bone density/length. On top of that some cis women have naturally more testosterone than average, and we're seeing some biological women's eligibility in sports be questioned because of this trans panic. The answer is: it's just not that simple. Hormones and chromosomes aren't constant across biological males and females and they aren't they aren't a good basis for allowing/preventing certain people to play certain sports.

This is a stupid argument. Trans women are not too strong for sport, but too strong for women's sport.
- What's the point of segregating sports by gender?
  If it's a matter of performance then they can break sports into performance classes, no gender segregation needed.
  If it's a matter of fairness and making space for women in sports, then trans women deserve not to have to play with the boys just like any other woman.
  
  I don't actually know the real effect of stuff like testosterone in high level sports, but if it's significant, one could argue there should be two or maybe more categories for different amounts, and a category with no limits. Kinda like weight classes in fighting sports but with hormones.
  
  What’s the point of degregating sports by gender?
  Because men outclass women in almost any physical ability, be it strength, speed or endurance. Just look at world records.
  If it’s a matter of performance then they can break sports into performance classes
  Ah yes, let's make sport less accessible by introducing arbitrary limitations. Do we have basketball up to 1.60m height, then up to 1.70m height, then up to 1.80m height and so on? And do we introduce different tiers within those tiers by only having people up to 1.70m and 60kg, then 1.70 and 70kg ...
  You CANT split sport into "performance classes", at least not in a way where it would help - men would on average still be in the higher "performance class" and nothing would change.
  If it’s a matter of fairness and making space for women in sports, then trans women deserve not to have to play with the boys just like any other woman.
  I know you probably don't want to hear that, but biologically, trans women aren't women. They are still physically superior to cis women. That's why we prefix them with "trans". Even after extensive hormone therapy, trans women still have some advantages over cis women.
  Nobody has a problem with trans women in non-physical sports. Nobody would bat an eye if there was a trans women in chess. Nobody would care if there was a trans woman in e-sports (we actually had one years ago in league if I remember correctly). But we can't just abandon fairness for cis women in sport because we want to appease a small number of trans women, and on a physical level (especially before hormone therapy), they still do have an advantage.
- The difference is smaller than you might think
  Effect of gender affirming hormones on athletic performance in transwomen and transmen: implications for sporting organisations and legislators
  Abstract Objective: To examine the effect of gender affirming hormones on athletic performance among transwomen and transmen.
  Methods: We reviewed fitness test results and medical records of 29 transmen and 46 transwomen who started gender affirming hormones while in the United States Air Force. We compared pre- and post-hormone fitness test results of the transwomen and transmen with the average performance of all women and men under the age of 30 in the Air Force between 2004 and 2014. We also measured the rate of hormone associated changes in body composition and athletic performance.
  Results: Participants were 26.2 years old (SD 5.5). Prior to gender affirming hormones, transwomen performed 31% more push-ups and 15% more sit-ups in 1 min and ran 1.5 miles 21% faster than their female counterparts. After 2 years of taking feminising hormones, the push-up and sit-up differences disappeared but transwomen were still 12% faster. Prior to gender affirming hormones, transmen performed 43% fewer push-ups and ran 1.5 miles 15% slower than their male counterparts. After 1 year of taking masculinising hormones, there was no longer a difference in push-ups or run times, and the number of sit-ups performed in 1 min by transmen exceeded the average performance of their male counterparts.
  Summary: The 15-31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women's events.
  
  but transwomen were still 12% faster.
  That's a massive difference in even amateur sports let alone elite level. That contradicts your point rather than support it.
  
  What? We can use science and data to look at the impacts empirically instead of throwing baseless speculations around???
  Who knew?
  
  Yes, that's why I said that many sports have introduced a hormone therapy "minimum", so to speak. Which is fine I guess, depending on the sport. This has to be individually tested.
  But allowing trans women into sport without any extensive hormone therapy is straightup unfair.