this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
466 points (98.7% liked)

News

23655 readers
2541 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

He knows the trans boys and girls are too precious to be put in harms way /s

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Cool unsourced/debunked fabrication from a literal tabloid, took me all of two minutes to find this, after looking for an actual source, when the OP-linked article didn't have one:

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-reported-transgender-military-plan-called-out-charity-1991052

Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug. For shame.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh well newsweek says that the biggest pack of liars the world has ever seen says they won't do it. Nothing to worry about folks!

Trump's transition team denied that any decisions on the issue had been made. Spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told Newsweek that the unnamed sources "are speculating and have no idea what they are actually talking about."

"No decisions on this issue have been made. No policy should ever be deemed official unless it comes directly from President Trump or his authorized spokespeople," she said.

Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug. For shame.

Is it confirmation bias when I know Trump and his team are gigantic liars so I'm not quite going to rule out this very-on-brand policy that they are pre-denying until he's in office and it doesn't happen?

MTG believes they are going to do it according to the same article, but I acknowledge she's got the brainpower of a squirrel, so I'm not putting much stock in that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Is it confirmation bias when I know Trump and his team are gigantic liars so I

believe every negative thing you hear about him/them without the slightest bit of scrutiny/skepticism?

Yes.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Dunno man, pattern seeking is the one thing we're really good at. All aspects of it are on brand - including the likelihood that saying today that there are no plans to do so is absolutely unrelated to whether there are plans to do so.

I find the claim he will do this to be absolutely no less credible than the claim he won't.

But, it doesn't matter what I believe or what they say right now, he's not in office. If he thinks it makes him more powerful to do so, he'll do it when he gets in, regardless of what they are saying now and regardless of whether they are lying currently. I have no doubt of that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's not pattern recognition when the event within the 'recognized pattern' is made up, lmao.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago

The pattern is that it fits in perfectly with Trumps overall positioning and past policies, and lying about it fits past behavior also.

This argument matters not at all though, as I said before. I can't even run back here to claim victory if he does it (not that I would anyhow) because:

If he thinks it makes him more powerful to do so, he’ll do it when he gets in, regardless of what they are saying now and regardless of whether they are lying currently. I have no doubt of that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Well I hope you're right. After reading your comment I went to check sources for this story on Ground News. The original source sense to be a paywalled article in The Times which I can't read. There are many other sources but they're not what you'd call top tier, and they may all be feeding off each other (see screenshot below). So yes, there seems to be hope that this is false.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 month ago

How many times in our history are Americans going to get duped into hating people they never even interact with and know nothing about?

None of these people know trans people. These morons have just been conditioned to hate them regardless of not even knowing them. It's pathetic. They've never been hurt, or even inconvenienced by a trans person. Bigot fucks.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Oh no please don't send highly trained members of our military home where they can protect and train their fellow Americans!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm under the impression it would devastate the livelihood of those people.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Unfortunately this is probably true, I'm sure they will find a way to take away their veteran's benefits as well. :(

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago

Looks like well-regulated militias are back on the menu

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Are there actually 15K trans soldiers in the army, or is this just another number that he pulled out of his ass?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Transgender people are significantly more likely to serve in the US military than the general US population.[178][179] According to 2014 estimates from the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Public Policy, despite the ban on military service, about 21.4% of the total transgender population in the US is estimated to have served in the military. In May 2014, an estimated 15,500 transgender individuals served on active duty or in the Guard or Reserve forces.[22] Wikipedia

So it’s a real number he just thinks military=army like the fake loser he is.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Apparently I vastly underestimated how many people are in the US military in general.

Transgender people are significantly more likely to serve in the US military than the general US population

That also surprises me.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

What's even crazier is that, in the modern US military, less than 1% of the population serves in the military.

There are also more NYPD cops than there are active duty Coast Guard personnel.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Don't folks get gender affirming / plastic surgery for free or something? I think I heard it was covered because it lets military surgeons get practice for when they go work for private sector after their bit

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

The military and the VA offer gender affirming care, and what they offer varies.

For instance (I'm going off memory for active duty, I got out in 2017), if you're active duty, I believe they'll pay for everything so long as you lay out in your Transition Plan everything you want covered and your commanding officer approves it. You need "approval" to ensure that your absence during medical recovery won't hinder mission readiness, so basically, if you're about to be deployed in a month for 6 months, and you're supposed to have gender affirming surgery tomorrow with a multi-month recovery, your surgery will likely be postponed.

The VA, which is for veterans, covers a majority of gender affirming care, but they aren't legally allowed to cover everything. GRS/SRS is the big on, the military will cover that I believe, but the VA cannot and will not.

With Trump coming in, I have a feeling this is all going to go away, and they're going to use a similar approach as the Federal Minimum Drinking Age Act to basically make LGBTQ+ healthcare illegal via withholding federal funding from those states who try to continue after a federal ban. "The states can choose their ~~drinking age~~ gender affirming care, but those who don't follow the federal guidelines will lose access to XYZ federal funding."

load more comments
view more: next ›